Board of Supervisors

Meeting Summary

Present: 4-Nelson, Labadino, Williams, 3-Hartmann

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

Staff proposed a five-year agreement for projects over $10 million that allows non-union contractors to use a limited number of core employees before requiring union dispatch.
Public comment was divided, with union representatives supporting local hiring benefits and non-union contractors raising concerns about competition, costs, and worker displacement.
Supervisors debated the impact on local hire rates and competition, with some citing high existing local hire percentages and others emphasizing the negotiated balance and infrastructure funding potential.
The Board approved Staff Recommendations A through D, adopting the resolution and project template.

Failed 2–2 · in favor: Williams, Hartmann

The Board convened to discuss the public employee appointment for the Director of Public Health under Government Code section 54957.
No reportable action was taken during this session.

The Board convened in closed session to discuss the public employee appointment for the Director of Public Health, as permitted under Government Code section 54957. No reportable action was taken during this session.

Staff presented a proposal for a countywide Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) resolution and project template. The presentation outlined the legislative history, noting that the Board had previously directed staff to negotiate a CWA using the City of Santa Barbara’s agreement as a base, with specific enhancements to maximize bidders and local labor participation. Key negotiated terms included:
Scope: Applies to projects exceeding $10 million.
Core Workforce: Non-union contractors may bring a limited number of their own employees (starting at three, increasing on a one-to-one ratio up to nine, after which union dispatch is required).
Exclusions: Off-site fabrication, professional services hired directly by the County, disaster response, and emergency work are exempt.
Benefits: Non-union contractors are not required to pay union dues. Employees may choose union benefits, non-union benefits, or cash in lieu of benefits.
Rebid Provision: Departments have the discretion to rebid a project without the CWA if bids exceed the engineer’s estimate.
Term and Administration: The agreement has a five-year term, with an effective date of April 1, 2023. Staff will hire a new Community Workforce Coordinator position to administer the agreement and report annually on its effectiveness.

Twelve members of the public provided comment. Speakers representing union organizations (including the Southwest Mountain States Council of Carpenters and the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council) expressed support for the agreement, citing benefits for local hiring, apprenticeship opportunities, and dispute resolution. Speakers representing non-union contractors and industry associations (including Cushman Contracting, Cal Portland Construction, and Associated Builders and Contractors) expressed opposition or requested modifications. Concerns raised included limitations on the number of non-union employees allowed on projects, potential displacement of local non-union workers by out-of-area union labor, reduced competition, and increased costs. Some speakers suggested raising the project threshold to $20 million, allowing more non-union core workers, or implementing a pilot program.

Supervisors discussed the implications of the agreement, focusing on local hire rates, competition, and cost.
One Supervisor noted that local hire rates on recent projects had already reached 78% and expressed optimism that the CWA would maintain or improve these rates. They cited academic studies suggesting PLAs/CWAs do not necessarily increase costs or reduce bid counts.
Another Supervisor expressed concern that the agreement might limit competition and increase prices, noting that 80% of local contractors are non-union. They stated they could not support the measure at that time due to insufficient time to review the details and concerns about the strength of the rebid provision.
A third Supervisor stated they could not support the measure, arguing that the current system was functioning well, local hire rates were already high, and limiting competition would likely increase costs. They emphasized the value of both union and non-union contractors to the community.
The Chair and another Supervisor supported the agreement, highlighting the extensive negotiation process, the concessions made by both sides (particularly regarding union dues and benefits), and the potential for the CWA to serve as a tool for securing infrastructure funding. They noted that the agreement had been under consideration since 2014 and that the current draft represented a balanced compromise.

A motion was made to approve Staff Recommendations A through D. The motion was seconded.