Anne Arundel Council defeats project‑labor‑agreement bill after long debate
Loading...
Summary
After hours of testimony by union representatives, contractors and procurement officials, the council voted 5‑2 to defeat Bill 125, a measure to codify project labor agreement (PLA) rules and a $35 million threshold. Supporters asked for stronger local labor protections; opponents warned PLAs would raise costs and reduce competition.
The Anne Arundel County Council voted down Bill 125 on Feb. 2, 2026, after an extended public hearing that drew union leaders, contractors, industry associations and procurement staff.
The bill, sponsored by Councilman Smith, would have added PLA language to the county code, set a $35,000,000 threshold for mandatory PLAs on certain capital projects and included provisions on exemptions and implementation. Smith said the measure was a policy statement to recognize labor's role and to create a framework for the county to use PLAs when appropriate.
“Placing this language in the code tells a story about what we value,” Smith said in opening remarks, framing PLAs as a tool to support local workforce and improve project outcomes.
Supporters, including trade‑union representatives, told the council PLAs can prevent wage theft, provide training and increase safety. “PLAs are a tool that establish wages, work rules, employment conditions, and dispute resolution procedures while also reducing the risk of delay,” Concepcion Morales of the Eastern Atlantic State Regional Council of Carpenters said.
Opponents — including the Associated Builders and Contractors, independent merit‑shop contractors and some trade groups — argued PLAs would reduce bidding competition and raise project costs. “When fewer firms compete, costs go up,” Mike Zicata, CEO of the Maryland Transportation Builders Materials Association, said.
Administration officials said they supported studying and using best practices and were willing to participate in a work group, but voiced concern about immediate codification without a clear implementation plan. Central services officer Susan Harreld recommended a study or work group to develop operational guidance before a mandatory policy was locked into the code.
Council members debated numerous amendments about exemptions, effective dates and whether the county should require or merely permit PLAs. Several amendments proposing mandatory language, delayed effective dates, or added cost‑benefit analysis failed or were withdrawn. The final roll call recorded two yes votes and five no votes, defeating the bill.
Outcome and next steps: Bill 125 was defeated (2‑5). Council members who opposed the measure said they favored a work group and further study before codifying PLA policy; proponents said they will continue pressing for stronger local labor protections.
Votes and formal actions: The council recorded multiple amendment votes during debate and defeated the final version of Bill 125 (as amended) by a 2‑5 roll call. A companion resolution to form an ad hoc study committee also failed on a 3‑4 vote.
What’s next: Administration officials and some council members recommended convening a work group to study PLA use, implementation needs and potential fiscal impacts before further legislation is pursued.
