The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-10-30
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (9,985 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council reconvened on October 30, 2025, at 2:01 p.m., with roll call and decorum rules read before proceeding to the sole agenda item, carried over from the prior meeting: a resolution to initiate two disparity studies on city contracting and workforce participation. Discussion covered a previously adopted amendment and a new amendment addressing workforce demographic data, wage and compensation information, and analysis of exemption programs affecting contractor diversity. Councilors raised questions about whether the language applied equally to all contractors or specifically to minority- and women-owned businesses, and about potential cost impacts, with figures for cost stated inconsistently during discussion. Administration staff, including the Chief Procurement Officer, addressed implementation, scope, and existing reporting mechanisms through the Fair Contracting Forum. Public testimony was taken from labor and contractor representatives, who discussed workforce diversity, wage data, and process concerns. A further amendment relocating certain reporting language into a separate resolved clause was proposed and treated as friendly. Votes occurred on both the amendment and the underlying resolution as amended; outcomes are recorded in the vote ledger. The meeting adjourned after this single item was addressed.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 Good afternoon. I am calling to order a or calling back to order. I guess we recessed yesterday. This session of the Portland city council. We have people online. It is 2:01 p.m. On October 30th. It is so good to see you all back here. It's like we were here just an hour ago. Rebecca, can you please call the roll?
1 Good afternoon.
2 Clerk here.
3 Green. Zimmerman. Avalos.
4 Dunphy here.
5 Smith. Here. Canal.
6 Councilor Kanal, are you here?
7 Here he is. Here.
8 Thank you. Ryan. Koyama Lane. Councilor. Koyama Lane is online. Can you hear us for roll call? Morillo. Here. Novick.
Procedural episode · turns 9–17
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
9 Here.
10 Pirtle-guiney here. Does that give us seven without councilor? Koyama Lane?
11 I'm here.
12 Thank you. Councilor.
13 Okay. And linly, could you please read the rules of decorum?
14 I will. Welcome to Portland city council to testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at wwe Portland. Agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony today should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent and virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls their name. Thank you.
15 Thank you very much. Colleagues. We have one item before us today. This item was carried over from our meeting last week. Rebecca, could you please read the agenda item? I believe it's agenda item 11 carrying over from yesterday.
16 It is agenda item 11. Initiate two disparity studies on city contracting and workforce participation.
17 Thank you. And colleagues. When we last were debating this item, we had adopted an amendment. I do not believe any further amendments were open at the time. So we are in debate on the underlying resolution. And what I'd like to do is ask councilor Smith, who brought it forward, to just give us a brief overview of what we have before us today.
18 Thank you, madam president. I want to go over the disparity study and the reason why I believe the city of Portland should be paying for disparity study, because I believe that local governments support this disparity. Studies in contracting to identify and to understand potential inequities within their procurement processes. By doing so, we can develop targeted strategies and policies to address these disparities and ensuring that minority and women owned businesses are given fair access to government contracts. Having this commitment helps to promote economic justice, foster a more competitive marketplace, and strengthen community economic development. Additionally, disparity studies provide legal and statistical support for implementing diversity initiatives, helping the government meet the federal, state, and local diversity and inclusion requirements. Overall, studying these studies underscores the government's dedication to creating an equitable and inclusive environment to all vendors, not just some. And so that's kind of finer point on why we're doing this. Madam president, I think that we are an economic driver at the city of Portland, and we spend billions of dollars in contracting, and we need to make sure that all of our vendors and contractors have a have a fair shot at getting some of these resources.
19 Thank you, councilor. I appreciate you bringing us all back up to speed there. Councilor Ryan, we are in debate on the underlying resolution. We don't have anybody in the queue right now. But I noticed that there's an amendment that you filed. Should I pause so you can get settled and get yourself in the queue, or should we keep going?
20 Thank you, council president. I was figuring out what you were doing about time you got to the meeting. Councilor Ryan, we'd like you to please put this amendment out. I'm going to have will come up just in case. I spilled a lot of water on this one.
21 Councilor Ryan, is the amendment that's posted as councilor Ryan one from today.
22 It's number six, right? You want me to read it? I'm just offering what I hope will be a friendly amendment. And we have been in communication, as you know, with your office. And we've been in communication with some other people that are in the chambers today. And I tend to be that legislator that probably doesn't give everybody what they want. But I think it's a really good incremental step that we're taking today to see the big picture of workforce demographics and how we can have better information at our ready so that we can really sink into what we really all want to do, which is to provide equitable advancement for our workforce. And I know that councilor Smith and I have been in this dialog for almost 20 years. So I want to make sure that this gets friendly with you. So I'll go ahead and read what we put forward in. Will, if I screw up, will you will you jump in? Thank you. So it's under number six. Is that correct? Yeah. So under the now therefore be it resolved that the city council request number six that the city staff, with guidance and recommendations of the fair contracting form f, which is compromised of labor, contractor and community members, will provide in a separate presentation to council or a relevant committee the following items. Project specific wage and compensation data, methods of data collection, as well as an analysis of the effectiveness of exemption programs intended to increase workforce contractor diversity.
23 And councilor. Can I jump in and.
24 Did I read the right one? Will yeah.
25 For the record, I work for councilor Ryan. That is the main thing that are some there's one line in line, item five and five, and there's some clerical corrections elsewhere.
26 I want to just jump in to note for the public watching that this is the amendment that's posted. It's posted as Ryan one. It's posted as of today on the website. So if folks in the room or online are watching, that's the amendment you should be looking for.
27 And we did make some edits to number five that was just mentioned. Do those need to be read into the record? Have you have.
28 That they're posted.
29 Already posted. And I want to thank other councilors up here, especially councilor Morillo, for the dialog that our two offices have been having. And so that's the amendment.
30 I have a question. Sure.
31 Councilor Morillo, we don't have a second yet, so this is technically not on the table. So do we have a second? I'll second it.
32 Second, second.
33 Okay.
34 Councilor Clark, that come from oh.
35 We have a few colleagues online right now. So we are now in discussion to the amendment. And I want to just pause and say to linly, I know that we don't need to open up public testimony if we amend something in a small way. I'm looking to you to know if we need to open up public testimony with this amendment, or if this amendment is fine with the testimony that we have previously taken on this item.
36 So I apologize. I was not at the previous hearing. I don't know the scope of that testimony. And so typically I'll just give you our general response, which is if an amendment is responsive to the discussion that has been previously had and the testimony that was previously had, we don't ask for further testimony. If it is something that is completely out of scope of what was discussed before it, it may be a good idea. Now, again, oftentimes we're talking about the type of hearing where there's like due process concerns in a quasi judicial setting. That would be imperative that we allow testimony. It's not necessarily the case that it's necessary, but it's a matter of culture and practice.
37 I believe that this amendment is directly responsive to what we heard previously. Councilor Ryan, was that your intent here? And we can take this conversation up after we get the questions. Also, I just wanted to note that question before we got too far in. But councilor Morillo, why don't you go ahead? Well, I.
38 Was this was a good conversation, but I don't know if I understood the outcome. So are we allowing testimony on an amendment today?
39 That's really.
40 Sounds. It sounds like we can, but we don't have to based on the scope.
41 Okay. I'm my I usually I'm used to us having testimony on an amendment in general, but.
42 Councilor Smith.
43 I think we should be allowed to have other people come and speak to this because this is dramatically different from what we talked about.
44 Okay. Hearing the request from these two councilors, then, rebecca, can you open up public testimony? And we're going to take the conversation from councilors who are here to give the public a couple of minutes to sign up if they'd like to speak to this amendment. Councilor Morillo, go right ahead.
45 Did you stay up in case I can't answer the question as well?
46 Yeah, I think I have some questions that would be helpful if they were addressed in the testimony. I so I think what I learned in the coming days after these amendments were brought forward was that first this was heard in committee three times. Is that correct? And these amendments were not brought forward during committee, and then they were brought forward to full council. And I think I generally agree with the underlying principle, after having sat with it, about making sure that we're also taking a look at whether or not employees, not just contractors at the top, are actually getting the benefits of disparity studies and evaluations, a question that I think I need answered with this new amendment is around how this impacts organizations of color, women led businesses specifically, or does this apply to all businesses? Because if not, it seems like this is adding an additional requirement for women owned businesses and businesses of color that is not applied to other businesses.
47 That's a great question. I thought it was all. Am I missing something? And on the amendment part, I just want to speak to that for a minute. Like, why does this suddenly come now? I think in this form of government, when you're not on a committee and you don't realize it was read three times and you just don't know about it until it lands with full council, I think we're going to have moments like this. I think that's just natural.
48 Yeah. I think if we can get confirmation that this applies equally, I think I would feel a little bit differently about it. But I would like to, you know, hear the testimony and hear what folks have to say about that.
49 It's work for us to be comprehensive for all contractors, not just those that are identified under cobid, that they're minority or women owned. And I, I was under the assumption that it was for all.
50 What is your language?
51 Say the language is posted online. Let's make sure that you have it in front of you, counselor. If you don't have it there, we can ask councilor Ryan's team to get you a copy of it. I think to the question of whether the way this is currently written, it would apply to all contractors or just to those who are covered under the disparity study. I want to both see if our lawyers have an opinion on that, and look to the administration to see how they would implement it. I think those are important pieces there. So I would ask linly, city administrator jordan and I know we have our our procurement director. Is that the right title director of procurement in the room? If the three of you can read the language, think about that and get an answer back to us before a vote. I would appreciate that. Councilor Morillo did you have anything further?
52 Yeah, I think those are the questions that I'm wrestling with with this amendment as written. And I'm sorry, because there was very little time between the days and when we heard this, to really go back and forth with everybody involved about it. But that's a question I have. And I also want to clarify if this changes the scope and timeline of the of the policy overall. Yeah, those are the final questions I have. If anyone I know a lot of folks came and brought the amendment, so if they want to speak to that when they testify.
53 As you know, we're working with your office and this has been fast. And somehow it was on our lap and we were doing the best we could. I would say that it the scope doesn't change. I mean, affirmative to your question or no to your question. Your question again was yes or no.
54 Now there's two questions. There's one. Does this apply to all businesses equally or are we adding a specific requirement to businesses of color and women led businesses?
55 That one I said no, I assumed it was for all.
56 Right because but if it's asking specifically about the exemptions for businesses of color and for women owned businesses, then that means that you are adding an additional thing to look for in the hiring. That we wouldn't do other businesses is how I'm reading it, but I'm not a lawyer. So one of our lawyers.
57 My intention with this was to get the full scan of workforce for all of our contractors.
58 So we're going to get an opinion on both the legal and the interpretation on that. In the meantime, I think your second question about whether this would change the scope in a way that changed the cost and timing councilor is best answered by our chief procurement officer. I got the title right this time, mr. Donaldson, and I'm wondering if that's a question that you can answer.
59 I hope that one's no, but.
60 Good afternoon, council president. Councilors. My name is sylvester johnson. I'm the chief procurement officer for the city as it relates to the the analyzes of wage and compensation that would bring the cost back to well over $1 million. The process in which we recommend that's been recommended by council officers is to use the existing methods in order to be able to give you the information you need to make the decisions possible and create clarity, but also allow for maximum participation for all those who are impacted.
61 So does that answer your question?
62 So it's an additional cost of $1 million. It would apply to all businesses equally.
63 If you if you are to utilize the process in which that's been contracted, the scope will change. That change will incur additional costs and expand. The compensation wasn't originally and it never it's not really customary to include that in a disparity study. Disparity study focuses primarily on disparities in the workforce for people of color and gender. This will the adding the actual compensation portion will be an exorbitant cost. However, we have existing methods in order to be able to help guide that process through internally through our wage systems. That's being updated, as well as the fair contracting form in which staff has been assigned to, which is actually being stood up and revised a little bit.
64 That was very helpful, I appreciate that. Thank you.
65 You're very welcome.
66 I want to clarify, are you speaking to the language in number six here that you think this language would add $1 million? Or are you speaking to the discussion that.
67 We general. Yeah, in general, adding the additional cost of compensation elements to the actual contract will will adversely impact the cost?
68 I think the question at hand is this language which does not add to the disparity study, but asks staff for a separate presentation to council and whether that would add a cost.
69 Is that correct?
Procedural episode · turns 70–78
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
70 That would be councilor.
71 I mean, it's that but overall, because I'm trying to figure out. I think in having further discussions, it seems if I can speak plainly, and I would like the testimony to address this if folks are interested, that this. May be better suited to fit in a separate policy. If it derails this one too much, or it adds too much additional cost when it's already been worked out. And I don't know if councilor Smith is interested as labor and workforce committee to like committing on working on something like that with me. That goes over some of the amendments that were brought forward in a separate policy, a little bit concerned about how this is written as of right now, and the potential impacts of it. Yeah. So I'm just trying to work through this in real time.
72 If if this can be put in a separate report, separate from the disparity study. Yes. And I'm going to be working on a wage theft. Resolution next month. And maybe we can put this as a part of the wage theft resolution.
73 If that was something that you're interested in, just based on what we've heard from you and the impact that it would have on this policy, I would be happy to work with you on that more in depth and bringing in the amendments and changes that were proposed by labor leaders just a few days ago. If that's something you'd want to work on.
74 Councilor Morillo, I just want to address what the council president says. As a point of order, you were very clear about what you said, but it doesn't direct it to a separate report in this in this form, the way the language is, there's nothing in here that says it's going to be separate. It's including a disparity study. But if it is included and we have to include all the other wage information, it's going to cost us another million dollars. I, I think we need to be very clear about what we're doing. And, and I'd also like to hear from contractors about this. I see morris roaming in the, in the audience. And you're a labor contractor. Correct.
75 We will get we will get public testimony in just a few minutes. We will we will public testimony.
76 Language out. And what it's saying, what it's directing us to do. You said it directs us to a separate report, but it doesn't say that in here.
77 The language councilor That I am reading on the second and third line says, will provide in a separate presentation to council or a relevant committee the following items.
78 In a separate presentation. But it doesn't say that it's a separate report. It says it's a part of the disparity study and that's what's causing the issue.
79 We need to get a clear answer on how this will be implemented, so that we can understand that. Councilor Morillo. If you're done with questions, I want to go to councilor. Novick councilor Novick.
80 Thank you, madam president. I had a couple of questions. One question and one question slash comment. It says the separate presentation will include project specific wage and compensation data. And I was just wondering what universe of projects was that meant to address all projects of all kinds or a subset for analysis purposes?
81 Councilor can you speak to your intent?
82 The big picture intent here is that we have often only looked at disparity studies by looking at the general contractors identification, where I'm getting at trying to dig deeper into workforce in our contracting. And so getting that clarity on the data, demographic data on our workforce is imperative if we're going to actually make any headway in how we use our leverage of making contract decisions and trying to do something to build generational wealth for our workers of color in the city of Portland.
83 I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I was focusing on is the words project specific you're.
84 Trying to define? Is it for what type of project?
85 Yeah. Is it for all projects? Is it for some sample of projects?
Procedural episode · turns 86–94
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
86 I understood this legislation to be all workforce projects.
87 Okay.
88 Projects. Is that correct? Councilor yeah. And are you in the same labor committee? Yeah. No. Oh you're not. Okay.
89 And then I just wanted to sort of add my question slash comment on the analysis, the effectiveness of exemption programs intended to increase workforce and contractor diversity. I've heard in the past 24 months about concern about exemption programs, period. And I'd be interested in studying the value of those exemption programs across the board. But I in a sort of a way of sharing councilor Morillo concern, I'd be a little worried about only examining the exemption programs that are intended to increase workforce diversity. If there's other exemption programs, too. So I think that I don't think that this would apply to minority contractors, but it would apply only to exemption programs that are addressed to workforce diversity. So I'd be I mean, to be honest, I can't remember what some of the other exemptions are, but I'd be interested in pursuing an analysis of the exemptions, but maybe maybe a broader one.
90 Point of order.
91 Thank you.
92 Councilor. Counselor Smith. Yes, you're in the queue next. So.
93 Okay.
94 So okay. Director, could you tell me how many exempted programs are there?
95 There's only in in the sense of contracts. There's there's only really one that's related to these contracts, the items that are going to be studied in the actual diversity study, if there's possibly an availability for that, and of those and of those in the past two fiscal years, it's less than five exemptions that have been applied.
96 So is this something a report we can have done separately with our in-house people that would basically satisfy the what what councilor Ryan is trying to solve for.
97 That is correct. It would be. And also that that process will be ran through, of course, through the fair contracting form as a report to the council, as directed by the actual code.
98 Okay, if they're going to do in recommendation with the fair contracting forum, if we had the the city administrator give us a report that would give us those exempted programs and give give us the data that he's looking for so that we don't, you know, so that we don't confuse this disparity study for race and gender, that we have a separate entity that that the city administrator could do.
99 That's that is possible. It can it will run along the same lines as the chief procurement officer report.
100 Okay.
101 Be no different with.
102 Would that satisfy you, councilor Ryan?
103 I don't know. I think I'll listen to the testimony. I'm trying to understand what just happened.
104 So the what's being asked here is readily available through the fair contracting form, but it also can be as a regular occurring process, ongoing process through the chief procurement officer report as a subset. That's true. It can be done that way as well. This is operationalizing. But what's being said here is being very explicit as to what we already can do. Because councilor Zero cost.
105 Okay. So councilor Novick was concerned about the impact of the exempted program. So I wanted to get to how many do we have? Is that something that's doable and possible okay.
106 For you to pass three in the past the past two fiscal years, it's been three.
107 And we could actually get that report quicker than we can get the disparity study back.
108 Be done in a less than a day, if not less than an hour.
109 Oh.
110 That was councilor Novak's concern, not mine.
111 Yeah.
112 So, Novick anything further before we move to public testimony?
113 No.
114 Okay. I'd like to move us to public testimony. I think there is further conversation that needs to be had. And I still think we are maybe hearing some contradicting answers from the administration on whether the what the impact of the plain language on the page would be that I want us to get back to either what the legal interpretation or implementation would be. We'll get back to those questions. Let's take public testimony and then councilors will have more discussion.
115 Based on what just took place. I just want to say that this amendment is aimed at making the study more inclusive. And I think that when we had our conversation yesterday, thank you for meeting with us in our office, lester. It was a good dialog. And you got that. That was my only intent.
116 Let me clarify something.
117 And if we already have the support, this won't add any barriers to the study. Based on what I just heard.
118 Councilor I see haley beyonce on behalf of the service area coming up also. So maybe after our chief procurement officer answers, we can fill in any details. There.
119 You are correct, councilor Ryan, that this this report is regularly available, although there's also some clarity and misunderstanding about what it is and how it's being applied. I think that's where the misunderstanding is. You're correct. The focus that that focus that the conversation we had was also about capacity, workforce capacity, which I totally agree. But this is in regards to the actual exemptions. There is a misunderstanding about how it works and and it's regularly applied use. It is not something that's used further regularly, and it's a process in order to be able to apply that exemption and to be formal, to be to be quite formal about it. The fair contract form is required by code to report these types of elements to you annually, as well as if you would like to have it more frequently. It can be included in the chief procurement officer's report as well. That is a that is an actual administrative function that is not a legislative function. You will direct us, however you would like to have that that information provided to you and I will follow suit.
120 I thought that.
121 Was.
122 Important to have that dialog. Before we listen to testimony.
123 Is there anything you'd like to add before we go to public testimony?
124 If folks feel like they're clear, then I'm okay to stand down for now and I can always pop in if that's helpful. Are there lingering questions?
125 I think we're all right for now. Rebecca, could you please call up our first panel of public testimony?
126 We have three people signed up lauren bowling, randall friesen and lori wimmer.
127 Mr. Bowling, go right ahead.
128 Members of council. For the record, my name is lauren bowling, and I'm here on behalf of the ironworkers local 29. I think to echo what councilor Ryan has noted, this is simply looking to improve the data that is coming back from the study. Notably, I think under five is to ensure that this data is made public so folks can have a look again once that disparity study is done and conducted. I think as well, we just want to take the time to thank you all as well for working with us on this. I think as well. On point six to councilor Morillo question, this is aimed to be supplemental to what the study is, and as mr. Donaldson had noted, this should not cost money as the staff can do it internally. And it sounds like quite quickly, we'd really like to make sure that for the folks who are being exempted in very few cases, are they actually uplifting the workforce? Like they say, data should be used to address this and ensure that our policies are creating the outcomes that we want as a city. And I think as well, transparency and the ability for the public to look and address this is really important, especially as we go into a tough budget year for the city. Disparity studies are incredibly important, and we need to make sure that the data and outcomes from that are used to implement policy that will impact our workforce and our contractor base effectively. For us, as labor workforce is incredibly important. And I want to make the point that if we want to have a more diverse contractor pool, we have to have competent and qualified workers of color and women who can then step into that role and specifically, again, for the cobid certification in Oregon, you must have demonstrated work experience or the relevant license to actually get that certification. So again, that is why we care so much about the workforce component, and that is simply to allow us to continue to build up our diverse contractor pool. Thank you.
129 Thank you. Go right ahead.
130 Yes. Lori wimmer representing the northwest Oregon labor council. I too, would like to thank you all for your patience with us as we've come forward with our ideas. And we were sorry that we didn't know about it to do that in committee, which would be our normal process. And I will echo a lot of what my colleague just said, and also really particularly thank counselor Ryan and counselor Smith for hearing us out. As I said before to you, we're concerned that in a very unaffordable city that our workers can afford to live here, and that means having access not just to a job, but a good job. And that's why it was so important to us that earnings be a part of this study. And I will confess that I'm a little bit, a little bit confused because it's either easy to access and you can get this every year or it costs $1 million, but it can't be both. And then the final thing I would put on the record is, you know, maybe it's my 30 years of lobbying and the state capital, but we never put a particular vendor in our legislation at the state level. And I find it very uncomfortable to have this sole source, no bid single vendor listed in the resolution. I'd be much more comfortable with some sort of open process that enables us to look for affordability, particularly if the things we're asking do have a higher price tag. I know that our nonprofit university of Oregon labor education research center, so they could do the same study for between 150,000 and 100,000, which is far less than a drop of 400% over the bid. You're currently prepared to pay a private out-of-state vendor. And I would just ask that we reconsider that for the sake of fiscal responsibility, particularly with the shortfall you're currently facing. Thank you.
131 Go right ahead.
132 Thank you. Hi there. I'm randall friesen with the columbia pacific building trades council. And I'm also going to echo a lot of what we just heard. One of the things I would touch on is that without an RFP process, it's really difficult to say what would and wouldn't cost. If you if you go beyond that without having any kind of an estimate done, then how do we really know if it's going to be free and house? And how do we know it's going to be $1 million? Or how do we even know if it's going to be a hundred thousand if you don't have some kind of a process for that? But we did do our due diligence and reached out to them, and they did confirm that it would be quite a bit less than what we're hearing this would be. The other point I'd add to is we are here in support of the disparity study again, and we do want to make sure that this is to make sure that it's a fair and equitable competitive field for everybody in the city of Portland. It doesn't. We're not trying to slide one thing or the other, right? We want to make sure that the policies that we are doing are effective, and they are having the outcomes that we the good work that we are doing. So it needs to. The biggest thing is that it reinforces that these policies that the the city has been doing are effective. So there is no there's no disagreement with that. I think it's very important. And this disparity study can do that. It just needs to be done correctly. And to make sure that if we're having exceptions, maybe it's for maybe it's five. Put it in the study. Let's see exactly how many exceptions we are doing and is it effective. So I'll give back my time. Thank you very much and I appreciate your support and awesome awesome job. Thank you very much for listening to us and and working with us on these amendments.
133 Thank you all very much. We appreciate your testimony and you being here today.
134 Madam president.
135 Councilor Smith, you are in the queue.
136 Thank you. So before they leave, so a couple of things. I participated with the semiconductor legislation that was passed in the the long session about a year or so ago, and they identified they totally identified programs that should be funded in that semiconductor program. It was a it was a small chips bill compared to the big chips bill. My old boss, senator wyden, did the big chips bill, and the state decided that they wanted to add additional resources to it. So in order to have pipeline, because the original the big chips bill said, you have to work with underrepresented and underserved. Community based organizations. And so when they created the the state chips bill, they had not identified underrepresented, underserved organizations. So they did identify people in the bill to be funded, and they did get funded. And so we often do that on the state level. We identify folks for particular programs. And so that's not necessarily totally so, but I know what you're saying in terms of sole source. So that is the ultimate sole source if you get written in on the state level. So we have done it and we do it routinely. We do it routinely in the end of the christmas tree bill. So we we do that. And so that's not like it's uncommon. But what is very uncommon is and I just want to make sure that councilor Ryan for what he's trying to solve for I think he's trying to solve for workforce pay. And if he's trying to say that he believes that some of our, you know, exempted businesses are not giving a certain amount of pay if if you all believe that we have boli, boli will look into pay. They have to do davis-bacon wages on our programs and those programs that don't, and they're not adhering to it. They can you can file something against them. So I'm trying to figure out what you're, you're trying to do and how you're trying to solve for it. But that's not what we're actually I mean, I could go for this, this amendment, this friendly amendment, but it's not solving for what he really wants to solve for. And what I heard lauren say, that he can he only wants to work with qualified workers. Does that mean that those qualified workers have to be labor supported qualified workers? I mean, I don't understand what what what the. With the with the phrase qualified workers. That's why I want to I want to make sure that morris gets an opportunity to talk because he's a minority business who is labor. And to give me some, some level setting on if this is necessary.
137 Councilor we we had we had the opportunity to for folks to sign up to public testimony. And I'm not going to force anybody who's not a.
138 Council president. Pardon me, morris did sign up for testimony. Okay. We have one more person signed up. It's morris ramming.
139 Great. Can we respond to that or. Should I? I mean.
140 Why don't we have a quick response? Colleagues, I'm going to note that this is turning into a bit of a a committee feel and not a council feel. And I want to make sure that we get back to making some final decisions here so that we can take council action. But yes, please respond briefly and then we'll move forward.
141 Councilor Smith, this is to address workforce diversity. It is not simply on wages. Wages is a subset of data that we can get through procurement. You're really conflating what qualified worker is. And I did not say anything around union or nonunion. A qualified worker just means someone who has experience in that field. That could be a nonunion electrician, that could be a nonunion plumber who has a license. It means someone who has done the work and has a license. It is not specific to labor or to union or to nonunion. It is simply someone who has done the work and then can contract and succeed. That is the point. We want to ensure that workers of color, women have the ability to get into that experience and then build up capital. To actually become a minority contractor, we need to have folks who have the opportunity to build up new businesses, and that's why the workforce diversity component, that's what I think. Councilor ryan's intent is.
142 Excellent. Excellent.
143 Okay. Thank you all. Let's bring up our final testifier.
144 Thanks, maurice ramey.
145 It's good to see you. Thank you for being here.
146 Nice. Nice seeing you guys as well. Thank you for having me. My name is maurice. I'm the president of o'neill construction group. I'm a union contractor. I've been a union contractor since we conceived the company 20 plus years ago. And so I think this is a really important conversation, and hopefully I could shed some light on my experiences and what I feel like potential solutions going forward are. You know, as I mentioned to many of you in the room, construction was my pathway out of poverty from a poor family. I was able to electrical apprenticeship program and then start a company, mostly expanded into o'neill construction group. Howard jacobs masonry, o'neill electric and my side gig with o'neill walsh community builders, which has been very informative and helpful for our company. With that said, you know, as we look at the disparity study historically, I sat on many disparity studies with the city, the state, the port. It has had a heavy focus on the contracting and making sure contracting equity occurs. And that is very critical, especially in this time when there's less and less opportunities for contractors that look like myself. Also on the workforce, I feel like, you know, if we're looking at expanding onto the workforce and making sure all contractors have a diverse workforce, then I think that is hugely vital to make sure that we have the workers on the job site reflect that in which is our city, our state. You know, what I would say is as far as wage information, prevailing wage in boli, prevailing wage or davis-bacon prevailing wage, those documents usually are received through a foia request. You can look at all throughout the whole city process if we are concerned, if our concern is that minorities or women are getting paid less, then we should we should look at having procurement come up here and go through that. Those data points to verify whether or not, because when we fill out the forms that we have to fill out as contractors, we list the wages that we're paying people. So you could you could go through those forms and those data to see if we are paying the prevailing wage or the required wage for that. And that's for both union and nonunion. And so I do think that including workforce in this is a good it's definitely something that would help people that look like us be able to participate. Also recognizing that time is of the essence, we are losing time as we watch women and minority contractors have less and less opportunities due to the state of our nation. Unfortunately, I will stop there and look for questions. Thank you.
147 Thank you very much. We appreciate hearing from you. Okay, colleagues, I believe that closes public testimony.
148 That concludes testimony.
149 Okay. Councilor Morillo, did you have something additional?
150 Yeah. I think everybody up here is confused, including myself. And I say that because I am being asked to make a decision right now, and I don't feel clear on this at all. So I feel like we heard contradicting things. I don't think I got a clear answer on if this applies to all businesses, or just the ones that are exempt because they're minorities. So I want clarity on that. And I guess to be honest, I feel like if we're not tracking it this well and this was brought last minute, I would prefer to work on a separate policy with councilor Smith through labor and workforce, so that we can take our we can do our due diligence and make sure everyone's on the same page. Because I don't feel like we got clear answers and not because of you, but because we're confused and because of the amendments. Just want to be clear about that.
151 Thank you. Counselor. Anything further? Counselor? Anything further?
152 I mean, I just want an affirmative does is this going to be applied to all businesses that the city contracts with, or just the ones for exemptions?
153 I've heard, yes.
154 Mr. Donaldson, can you answer that?
155 Council president? Counselor, it's for all. In order for us to do any study, we would need to take all, all elements in order to be able to identify any disparities.
156 Okay. And so the $1 million that was given to us as an answer for how much this would cost, is it specifically because the resolution points out the study led by keen independent research? If we did an RFP, would that lower the cost?
157 Just to clarify, keen was a prevailing contractor for one of our peer agencies, and we are allowed to, by law, piggyback on that contract. So it was actually a competitive process. Okay. And the estimated cost to include those additional elements that are discussed as in terms of actual pay equities that would could markedly increase the price considerably because it's outside of the current scope. That was quoted by keen. In order for us to be able to proceed ahead with the actual market disparity.
158 Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.
159 Thank you.
160 Colleagues. I'm not sure if that cleared up everybody's confusion and if it did, maybe we don't need this, but I was planning to propose an amendment to the amendment. If it's not needed, then nobody will second it and we will move on and that will be great. But if it's helpful, maybe we can take a second for it. I would propose that we move the language that's added to number six. Everything else in the amendment would stay as is, but specifically the language in number six would be removed from a number six of the first resolved clause. We would add an additional, be it further resolved clause at the end, which would say be it further resolved, that the city administrator bring a separate report with guidance and recommendations of the fair contracting forum, which is comprised of labor, contractor and community members, to counsel or a relevant committee with the following items and then would continue with the same language that is currently in number six of the first resolved, and that that might help clear up that this is a separate report. It is not part of the disparity study and therefore should not add costs. And we did just hear that working through the fair contracting forum would mean that we are working with data for all contractors, not just a subset of contractors.
161 Second.
162 Can you email that so we can read through it?
163 Yes. Let me send it to the clerk and then I will email it to everybody. It does not change the substantive language. The only changes are to say instead of a separate presentation, a separate report, and it would say that at the top, you know what? In order for me to continue running the meeting while we do this, I'm going to ask my staff who I'm also messaging this to right now. Devin, if you could send that to all councilors and chiefs, I see a nod from the back of the room. That would be a new be it further resolved, it would be the final, be it further resolved so that it is physically separate from the resolved about the disparity study. Councilor Ryan, are you in the queue to discuss the amendment to the amendment?
164 I am.
165 Now I am.
166 Now okay. Go right ahead and we will.
167 Add it up to say, I'm glad we got clarity that this means all, and I'm glad that we got clarity that this just means we're looking at the entire workforce. And so your rearrangement of the deck chairs, that allows us to keep those same intentions is friendly. And I will go with the flow here.
168 Is it friendly enough that we don't.
169 Need to take my language? So I'm cool with that, obviously. And you're moving it to a different place so we can all come together.
170 Do we need to take a vote or are you okay moving forward without a vote? Which do you prefer? This is.
171 Your time is of essence.
172 Great. So we're going to take that as a friendly amendment then I believe who? Councilor clerk seconded your amendment. Councilor. Clerk, are you okay with this being friendly?
173 Yes.
174 Okay. Councilor Zimmerman. Zimmerman, you're in the queue. Did you have something to add?
175 I get this, I appreciate the people have worked on it. I think that being able to understand if exemptions are working for the workers within those programs makes a lot of sense to me. You know, I said this when I voted for the social housing resolution in the housing committee, which is I don't want to be afraid of information. And I think that this is helping me get information. So that makes sense to me. I appreciated the comments from from those who participated that this idea that how do you get to the point of having owners requires that you have workers who are in a successful firm, so to speak, and that they're getting those benefits of it? So that for me, from the logic track that is tracking here. And. Just from a. If if you apply for and you get an exemption from the city of Portland for something, regardless of the thing, it does make sense to me that there would be a step in proving that the exemption is working for intended outcomes there. So I too, like a few people, feel like there's some cross-talking happening that I'm not fully tracking. But on the nose here, most all of this seems to be complementary to what I think is the the overall intent of the diversity disparity study. So I'm glad that you open it up to public comment to I think that was helpful to hear just the different perspectives there. I, I will also say I'm not exactly sure where we went from $0 to $1 million in the same answer from the same office. That is concerning and is not clear where that came from, but I plan to be supportive, of course, of the disparity study. So thanks.
176 Thank you, councilor, councilor Smith.
177 Thank you, madam president. I think that that when the scope of work changes, councilor Zimmerman, the price changes. And it was a specific question asked about exemptions, but it didn't detail the entire specific wage and compensation data that was required in the original amendment that councilor Ryan did. And that's why it was different. I want to thank everybody for for kind of walking through this because this stuff is hard work. I thought I saw heidi here because we never did get a legal opinion, because I want to make sure that what we're doing is not stepping over the executive order. And the executive order is the one that the mayor did on diversity.
178 For the record, I am not heidi brown. My name is hailey beyonce with the city operations service area senior project manager. Heidi did have to step out, but she did not flag any concerns about complications between those two pieces. We did offer up some language that is in your email councilor With her review. That would just help us make sure that we are able to follow through as drafted, but it's more clarifying language. I would say that if we can't get it in there today, it doesn't dramatically change the end result, but we want it to be crystal clear about expectations and focuses within the study. But no, she did not flag any complications between the eo and what this item would.
179 Okay, thank you. Because I didn't want the mayor to come back and say what you did. It has now caused me an additional problem. Thank you. Well, I will be amenable to this change, madam president, thank you for putting this in a separate category.
180 Any other comments to the now amended amendment? Okay. Seeing none. Rebecca, could you please call the roll on the amendment, which is the changes that were offered by councilor Ryan with number six now moved to a final, be it therefore resolved and the language of separate presentation moved to the top of that resolved to say a separate what word did I use? Report.
181 Clerk.
182 Hi.
183 Zimmerman.
184 I Dunphy. I.
185 Smith I.
186 Canal I.
187 Ryan I.
188 Koyama Lane I.
189 Morillo appreciate all of the back and forth that helped clarify this.
190 I Novick. I pirtle-guiney. I with the amendment is approved with ten votes and two absent.
191 Thank you rebecca. Colleagues, we are back to discussion of the underlying. What is this before us a resolution, the underlying resolution now amended by Green one last week and Ryan one today. Councilor Smith, are you in the queue to discuss the resolution?
192 Yes. I just wanted to tell my colleagues, in addition to this new amendment, that this work is very important. It it really solves for some of the many things that we that we need here at the city by promoting fair competition, ensuring equal opportunity, complying with legal requirements, reducing discrimination and bias, improving economic development, enhancing transparency and accountability, identifying and addressing disparities. By supporting these two disparities studies, the city of Portland can accurately aim to create a more inclusive, transparent and equitable contracting environment that benefits the entire community. And I wish you all could support me in this disparity study and vote yes for it. Thank you.
193 Thank you. Councilor. And the attorneys just pointed out that I misspoke. Last week we adopted a Smith amendment, not a Green amendment. There were Green additions to it. Councilor Kanal go right ahead.
194 Thank you, madam president. I wanted to first thank councilor Smith was going to call you chair for the labor workforce development. Smith for for the work that you've done in getting this to be here. I'm very proud to to co-sponsor this alongside you and the entire committee, which I don't know, has been mentioned enough that all five of us were behind this. I will keep the the the detail out because I think most of it was covered either between councilor Smith a moment ago or the testifiers. And I wanted to thank all four testifiers. But to say, simply put, we cannot fix what we don't measure. This is the very first step at doing a much larger program of work to ensure that we are being equitable in what we do as a city, and I'm very excited to be a part of not only this step, but all the rest of it, to ensure that every business here in the city of Portland will get a fair shot, regardless of the nationality, skin color, or gender. Anything related to the ownership of the firms. So with that, I will be voting I in a moment. Thank you.
195 Thank you councilor, colleagues, I'm not going to say a lot right now. I testified to this in committee and expressed many of the reasons I'm supportive there. It's actually the first thing I've testified on in somebody else's committee. I think it is that important. But I did want to take a moment just to thank our staff who found this opportunity for us. One of the first things that I said to the mayor when he brought forward the executive order, that, of course, led to the need for this disparity study, was that I could only be supportive of what he was doing. If we very quickly moved to get the disparity studies, we need to continue the programs that provide opportunities for everybody in our community. We knew that would be expensive, and I am grateful that our staff found an opportunity for us to partner with other local governments in the region to help us keep costs down at a time when our budget is very tight, while also doing this very important work that will ensure that we are providing opportunities to everybody in our community in the way that we spend our dollars at the city. So I am appreciative for the work in finding this opportunity. Councilor zimmermann.
196 Thank you. Similarly, councilor Smith, thanks for leading on this because I think we all remember when we were informed that we were likely going to have to, you know, watch or support the mayor in that executive order, given the things that are happening at the federal level. And it's hard as a community to be to be told that the practice that we have set our values at in terms of uplifting parts of our community who have long been ignored by our own systems, was challengeable, and that we couldn't lead that way if we wanted to still be in business with with the federal government, unless we were able to take steps to start shoring that up. And I think that your leadership on this and not letting us just go by the wayside on those values, but find the route forward, has been steadfast. It's been important. I think it's how portlanders understand that it's not just the initial headline about an eo. It is then about the extra work that goes into it. And we were able to to get this forward because of your your eyes on the ball, so to speak. So thank you. Thanks to the entire workforce committee who who stayed on it and helped us get through. What is a challenging time and how do we put Portland values forward when they're being challenged from dc with the largest microphones on planet earth? So I think that's important, and I think this will help us remain city hall that portlanders can be proud of. Thanks.
197 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Ryan.
198 Thank you, council president. First, I want to start off by thanking you, councilor Smith and your team. You're out there for listening and considering these amendments in this for this needed resolution. I do think we made it more inclusive at this moment in time. I also want to recognize the hard work of our chief procurement officer. Thank you, sylvester and the procurement team, to initiate these studies, find community partners and to find savings. This amend the amendment made, and this resolution is simply allowing our city administration to accomplish our equity and workforce goals, and hopefully not be hindered by financing. I fully support these disparity studies that are moving forward, and I'm thankful for our professional staff who will also research and bring back data on compensation so we can continue to offer family wage jobs in Portland and build the generational wealth that we failed to accomplish in Portland until now. So this is a step forward, and I'm really proud to be on this council to pass this. Thank you.
199 Thank you. Councilor councilor Morillo.
200 I will keep it short because everyone's already said everything I wanted to say. But yeah, thank you to the labor and workforce committee for bringing this forward. And especially you, councilor Smith, for leading the charge on this. I think it's really important at this time. I'm also really grateful to the community members who came and testified, and for councilor Ryan for coordinating some of those changes, and that we were able to have a robust discussion, informed by staff expertise and everything to come to a conclusion together. So really grateful for everyone taking their part here, and I look forward to passing this. Thank you.
201 Councilor Novick.
202 I also wanted to thank councilor Smith for her leadership. I also wanted to express sympathy with councilor Ryan's comment that he didn't know what was going on in the labor and workforce committee and didn't know that had been heard three times. So that's why he's bringing these amendments now. And I think I've often been in the same situation. And I think that all of us individually, or maybe we can figure out some way, as a group should figure out a way that we know more about what's going on in the committees that aren't ours, so that we if we have amendment thoughts, we add them easily. I don't have a solution to this. I just wanted to share my, you know, empathy with the issue.
203 Thank you. Councilor. Colleagues. Seeing no one else in the queue other than those, myself included, who forgot to take ourselves out of the queue. I believe we can move to a vote on the underlying resolution. Rebecca, can you please call the roll?
204 Clerk a grateful I Zimmerman?
205 Aye.
206 Dunphy I.
207 Smith.
208 I.
209 Parnell I.
210 Ryan I.
211 Morillo I.
212 Novick I.
213 Pirtle-guiney.
214 Oh did we skip councilor.
215 Apologies Koyama Lane I.
216 Pirtle-guiney with gratitude to councilor Smith I.
217 And with ten I vote yea the resolution is adopted as amended.
218 Thank you very much, colleagues. This is the only item on our agenda today. So I am going to close our council meeting. Thank you very much.
219 You gave us.