Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Business topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County advances SBE policy debate after hours of public comment over thresholds and enforcement
Summary
After extensive public comment and commissioner debate, staff will return next month with refinements to a proposed Small Business Enterprise policy that sets gross‑receipts limits and participation goals; commissioners asked for higher thresholds, clearer local‑headquarter rules and stronger compliance measures.
Orange County commissioners heard more than an hour of public comment and an extended presentation on Friday as staff sought final direction on a proposed Small Business Enterprise (SBE) policy intended to replace the county's suspended minority‑business program.
Business Development Manager Sheena Ferguson presented the policy and procedures manual the administration recommends, including certification rules, three‑year gross‑receipt calculations and proposed size caps: $13.1 million for construction firms, $7.0 million for professional services, $7.0 million for goods and $5.7 million for services. The manual would set an aspirational SBE participation goal of 15 percent and make direct awards to certified SBEs for procurements up to $190,000.
Ferguson said the draft followed a year of outreach — 21 webinars, two town halls in English and Spanish and contact with trade and chamber organizations — and that the county had identified some 430 previously certified minority‑owned firms who could be eligible under the new program.
“The proposal is a starting point,” Ferguson told the board, noting staff will monitor results and update the manual as the program matures.
Small‑business representatives and several commissioners urged changes. Tony Shahnami, an engineer and former certified MBE, asked the board to align definitions and revenue thresholds with federal guidance and to require that a firm’s headquarters be in the county. “Orange County deserves to set the bar high and compatible with federal guidelines,” he said.
Other commenters, including contractors and chambers, said the recommended gross‑receipts thresholds were too low given current costs for labor and materials and warned the policy could exclude local firms as they scale. Several speakers urged an independent compliance or ombudsman function to ensure prime contractors actually subcontract to SBEs and to enforce commitments through contract remedies.
Commissioners pressed staff on the balance between accessibility for small firms and preventing larger non‑local firms from qualifying simply by opening a satellite office. Commissioner Uribe asked for a “headquartered locally” definition or a metric that tracks how much of a contractor’s spending stays in the local economy. Commissioner Wilson asked staff to seek a higher professional‑services threshold and stronger oversight; Commissioner Simrad recommended a formal review schedule so thresholds can be adjusted if market conditions change.
The board directed staff to return within about 30 days with additional research and tightened language — especially about headquarters/branch‑office criteria, compliance and clarifications that would ease conversion for previously certified firms. No final SBE ordinance or policy was adopted Friday.
Next steps: staff will refine the proposed manual, prepare a public notification and certification timetable, and return to the board with suggested wording for headquarters rules and compliance provisions.
The SBE presentation and the public comments are part of the county’s attempt to relaunch a small‑business participation program after federal executive orders forced suspension of prior disparity‑based certification practices earlier in the year.Facts confirmed in this article come from staff’s presentation (Business Development Manager Sheena Ferguson) and on‑the‑record public comments and commissioner remarks during the 12/26/2025 Board of County Commissioners meeting.
