San Jose council opposes AB 339 after debate over 60‑day notice for contracting out city work

SAN JOSE — The San Jose City Council voted 6‑5 on Aug. 12 to oppose Assembly Bill 339, a state measure that would require a minimum 60 days' written notice to recognized employee organizations before issuing solicitations or renewing contracts that overlap with job classifications represented by those organizations.

Sarah Sarate, director of the Office of Administration Policy and Intergovernmental Relations, told the council staff recommended opposition, saying the bill "would make what is already considered a lengthy process even more bureaucratic by delaying procurement processes even further," expose the city to higher workloads, and add potential delays to services and projects.

The measure drew sharply divided testimony from labor and city representatives. Krista Dela Torre, representing IFPTE Local 21, and John Tucker of AFSCME Local 101 urged the council to remain neutral, saying the bill would give unions a chance to explore alternatives before work is contracted out. "Contracting out is often sold as a cost saving measure, but the reality is that it frequently costs taxpayers more while delivering less," Dela Torre said. Jack McGovern of the South Bay Labor Council also urged neutrality and said the bill had been amended to exempt most public works.

Council debate centered on balancing worker protections against operational flexibility. Vice Mayor Foley argued the bill would add at least 60 days to already lengthy procurement cycles and moved to adopt the staff recommendation to oppose. Councilmember Ortiz said the bill simply provides advance notice and keeps options open for workers and urged a neutral position. Councilmember Cohen proposed a middle ground — "oppose unless amended" — suggesting targeted exemptions for cybersecurity and renewals of existing contracts and clearer definitions in the bill. Councilmember Candelas urged staff to work with the author's office on amendments.

City staff described how the current meet‑and‑confer framework is already governed by the MMBA and Public Employment Relations Board precedent but said the bill's explicit 60‑day requirement and its draft solicitation content requirement would create an additional, additive delay on top of existing procurement timelines. Procurement staff said complex solicitations can already take many months — in some cases up to 18 months — and the proposed notice requirement would add at least 60 days in most cases.

After failed attempts to substitute a neutral position, the council adopted the opposition motion. The motion passed with six votes in favor; the five dissenting votes were Councilmembers Kamay, Cohen, Ortiz, Candelas and Campos.

Discussion/next steps: Councilmembers who supported amendments said they want the city's intergovernmental relations team to seek targeted clarifications from the bill author, including clearer emergency and exigent‑circumstance language and carve‑outs for cybersecurity and renewals, but the official council position recorded on Aug. 12 is opposition.

The council's action will be transmitted to the city's legislative contacts and partners, including the League of California Cities, which had circulated a letter of opposition expressing concerns about costs and delays.

— Ending: The State Senate Appropriations Committee was scheduled to consider AB 339 on Aug. 18. The city will continue outreach through its intergovernmental relations channels while the bill proceeds in Sacramento.