Supervisors discuss pending law that would curb employer training repayment and consider county options

The chairman of the Columbia County Board of Supervisors and county staff discussed a pending state bill now before the governor that, if signed, would prohibit employers from requiring workers to remain with the employer as a condition of receiving employer-funded training or from enforcing repayment clauses tied to that training.

County officials said the change could affect recruitment and retention programs that reimburse training or equipment costs. County staff and supervisors described possible local alternatives — including 0% interest loans or other repayment models — while stressing they must conform to the state law if it is enacted.

The discussion began when a county official described the legislation as being "before the governor for her to sign," and said the proposal would mean "you can no longer, as an employer, are allowed to do that" — a reference to holding employees to a required service period after funding training. The board discussed specifics raised by staff and supervisors: whether reimbursements or conditional assistance would still be allowed, how to structure repayments without violating law, and whether the county could require recruiters or new hires to pay for some equipment upfront.

Staff said a commonly cited example involved county-funded training that costs roughly $12,000 for two people — about $6,000 per person — and asked whether recruiters or employers could shift some equipment costs to recruits rather than paying all costs up front. One supervisor noted union and practical barriers: "You could say, you paid for it, and if you're here for 3 years, we'll pay you back," but staff cautioned many recruits lack funds up front and that collective bargaining agreements may limit what the county can require.

Board members compared the proposed rule to existing state programs with residency or service conditions. A staff member noted the state sometimes ties benefits to a period of residency — for example, the Excelsior scholarship can have a multi‑year residency requirement — but emphasized that the pending bill would remove the ability for employers to impose stay-or-repay requirements tied to employer-funded training.

No formal action was taken on county policy during the meeting. Supervisors directed staff to review existing county practices and return with options that would comply with state law if the governor signs the bill.

Clarifying details disclosed in the meeting: the training example discussed involved two trainees (about $12,000 total, or about $6,000 per person); staff and supervisors raised 0% interest loans and housing-style deferred repayment programs as possible models; and union contract language and statutory limits were cited as constraints on what the county could require.

Looking ahead, the board said staff will analyze current recruitment and training reimbursement policies and present legal and administrative options consistent with the pending state law.