Solvang leaders and a union bargaining team traded wage proposals this week—the first exchange since city workers went on strike three weeks ago—but the two sides didn’t reach an agreement.
“It’s a bit disappointing,” Mayor David Brown told reporters Friday afternoon, during a press conference inside the Solvang Visitors Center on Copenhagen Drive.
Two blocks away, the employees huddled and strategized next steps.
“We’ve made it clear what the bargaining unit is willing to go back for,” Jeff Lee, a Teamsters Local 986 representative, said. “The city has failed to provide it.”
On Wednesday, according to the city, the union proposed a three-year contract with annual cost-of-living increases of 6% each year. City leaders balked, they said, noting it would be more costly than a previous union offer of 4% followed by two 6% increases.
On Thursday, the city came to the table offering 6% to be followed by 5% then 4%, which the union rejected. Previously, the city had offered 6% followed by 4% and 4%.
“I was hopeful that it would finally resolve the situation, but it obviously has not,” City Manager Randy Murphy told reporters. “We remain at the table, waiting for them to return.”
Added Olivia Uribe-Mutal, assistant to the city administrator: “They’ve moved the goalposts on us. Our door is open, and we want our people back.”
The city went as far as it reasonably could, officials added in a Friday press release, calling their offer “the most the City Council was able to authorize.”
However, the Teamsters’ Lee criticized the city’s position. Without council authorization to bargain further, it’s meaningless for officials to say they’re willing to meet, he said.
“At this point,” he said, “I think it’s more about playing games than anything.”
Thirty workers, roughly 75% of the Solvang municipal staff, walked off the job on Sept. 15.
As the business day drew toward a close Friday, no more negotiations were planned.
Asked how much more money the union’s latest offer would cost the city, Uribe-Mutal would not provide a dollar figure, citing the ongoing negotiations. Officials did say total compensation costs including hourly wages, medical insurance and other benefits factored into their decision-making.
Asked about the cost of consulting with outside labor lawyers and hiring contractors during the labor dispute—and how that might compare to the bump the union seeks—Uribe said officials will at some point make a full accounting to the public.
“We’re keeping track,” she said. “When the dust settles on this, it will be reported out.”
Lee, the Teamsters representative, said it appeared the city was willing to spend any amount of taxpayer money to not pay its workers.
“It’s really really getting to the point of fiscal irresponsibility,” he said.
At its core, the dispute boils down to disagreement over raises. Stung, they say, that senior City Hall leaders have received 20% to 40% increases over the past two budget cycles, the workers in June declared a negotiations impasse.
On Friday, City Manager Murphy disputed the characterization of those increases as raises.
Instead, he described them as necessary compensation reclassifications in the wake of a study commissioned by the city. In June 2025, the City Council adopted the salary changes recommended in an analysis by RGS Advisors, a Carmel Valley firm.
“It’s never been about the money,” Murphy said Friday. “The objection is not, ‘What can we afford and what can we not afford right now?’ This about what the study said.”
While senior management positions required increases to bring salaries in line with the market, rank and file positions did and do not, according to the city.
On Friday, officials described their latest offer as generous.
“No other public agencies in Santa Barbara County have offered their workers cost-of-living increases of this magnitude,” according to the city’s press release. “The city’s proposal represents the largest percentage increase the City Council has authorized in nearly 30 years of negotiations with the Teamsters.”
