Contractors bidding to build Spokane’s roads, sewage facilities and other public infrastructure projects of at least $5 million will soon have to show that a quarter of the project’s labor will come from underrepresented or impoverished communities living in the city, as well as provide health care and other benefits.

The Spokane City Council on Tuesday voted 4-3 in favor of the restrictions on contractors for big city projects. Council members Betsy Wilkerson, Jonathan Bingle and Michael Cathcart were in opposition.

Workers hired by contractors who count toward the 25% requirement will either have to be a graduate from a state-certified preapprenticeship program; a veteran, person of color, woman, those convicted of a crime, formerly homeless or a tribal member; or living in an area of the city with higher rates of poverty and lower rates of higher education and employment.

And while workers on the projects do not themselves need to be unionized, the city will partner with the Northeast Washington/North Idaho Building & Construction Trades Council to draft the workforce agreements mandating these requirements for applicable city projects.

Advocates argue the new law will strengthen labor protections and keep more taxpayer dollars in Spokane by ensuring more construction is done by local workers.

They said that the $5 million threshold would limit possible negative impacts by only applying to the city’s largest construction projects.

Opponents believe the law will unfairly discriminate against nonunion contractors, creating less competition for city contracts and driving up costs, and argue the ordinance is only the beginning of a push to steadily lower the $5 million threshold. The ordinance explicitly states city officials will reconsider the law in 2028 and potentially raise or lower the threshold, and expanding the affected projects already has one advocate on council.

“These are projects $5 million and greater,” Councilwoman Kitty Klitzke said in council chambers Monday. “Is that enough – that’s a pretty high threshold, that’s very few projects? No. But this is a great way to work it out on the few projects that we have over $5 million to make sure we can properly implement and that it benefits the community.”

“And then yes, I’m definitely interested in lowering the threshold in the future,” she added.Someone in the audience loudly interjected: “There you go!” Klitzke smiled.

“That’s right, yes,” she responded. “I’m not talking about $100,000 projects, but $2 million? Maybe.”

The public’s testimony largely spun out into an at-times heated argument between union laborers and non-union business owners about unfair business practices, free and fair competition, and outright accusations of criminal wage theft on specific public projects and misinformation.

Contractors and business owners Monday, including Councilman Jonathan Bingle, who owns a trivia business, frequently claimed to pay their employees higher than average and bristled at claims that employers were short-shifting their workers. Bingle and Cathcart also dismissed claims that such practices disproportionally affected minorities.

“I think it’s pretty rude to paint with the broad brush and say that you’re all thieves, and the racist comment was kind of weird too,” Bingle said, seemingly referencing multiple comments from union workers suggesting the proposal would open more opportunities for minorities.

A 2021 study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy estimated that wage theft impacted at least 14.2% of construction workers. A 2022 study prepared for the King County Office of Equity and Social Justice indicated wage theft disproportionally affects women, immigrants and people of color.

Cathcart and Bingle also argued that the ordinance is hypocritical, arguing many of the labor benefits required were not currently provided to city employees.

“We have a lot of rules for thee but not for me in this ordinance, in that we are not providing that same benefit to our workers,” Bingle quipped.

“And to those who say we should, I would say, if we’re going to require it of others, we absolutely should – and what I would say as a fiduciary responsibility of the city, we cannot afford to do those things.”

Meanwhile, Councilman Paul Dillon, who sponsored the ordinance, dismissed arguments from contractors that the new law would sharply increase costs or make public projects significantly less competitive.

“I’ve seen a lot of the same folks tonight who turned out for (the city’s) ‘Safe and Sick Leave’ 10 years ago, and you saw a lot of the same arguments about how this is going to be the end of a lot of business as we know it in Spokane,’ ” Dillon said.

“And, of course, we now have one of the strongest policies in the nation and it’s become widely mainstream … and it’s led to people wanting to come work here in Spokane.”

The available research on these types of workforce agreements appears to be limited, contradictory and potentially colored by alleged biases: some small academic studies suggest little to no impact on competitiveness from a similar model of workforce agreements, such as a 2017 study from the University of California Berkely Labor Center, which has been criticized as biased in favor of unions. Meanwhile, some think tank reports find significant reduction in bids and subsequently higher construction costs, such as a 2019 study from the Washington Policy Center, an organization frequently criticized as anti-union.

The ordinance requires City Hall to make an annual report on the outcomes of the new workforce requirements which is required to be available on a public dashboard.

Emry Dinman can be reached at (509) 459-5472 or by email at emryd@ spokesman.com.

“ I’ve seen a lot of the same folks tonight who turned out for (the city’s) ‘Safe and Sick Leave’ 10 years ago. ... We now have one of the strongest policies in the nation. ...”

Spokane City Councilman Paul Dillon