Lowell Council agrees to draft local residency requirement for public construction, seek Attorney General review

The Lowell City Council voted Wednesday to direct the city solicitor to draft an ordinance that would create a 25% Lowell-resident employment preference on public construction projects and to seek an opinion from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office on the draft. The motion to draft the ordinance was moved by Councilor Robinson and seconded by Councilor Dakota; councilors voted to approve the motion.

The proposal, which Councilor Robinson introduced after public testimony, would require that up to 25% of total work hours on qualifying public-funded construction projects go to Lowell residents. Supporters said the measure aims to keep wages and jobs in the city and to build a local pipeline for apprentices and journey-level tradespeople. “We need to infuse our city with the opportunity to earn income and keep it in our community,” Councilor Robinson said during debate.

Speakers from the public and labor testified in favor of a residency preference. One longtime organizer who said he helped draft similar language in other towns described the measure as a way to “get dibs” for local workers without excluding nonresidents: “If I ask for 25% of the job to be residents, and you're leaving 75% to be open shop, that's not discriminating,” he told the council. Ironworkers and union representatives also told the council their families’ quality of life depends on access to local jobs.

City Solicitor's office cautioned that prior court decisions have found residency requirements unconstitutional in some circumstances and said the Attorney General’s review of bylaw amendments is primarily procedural. The solicitor noted an earlier local experience: a previous Lowell construction residency bylaw enacted decades ago was later found unconstitutional in Superior Court. He said the AG’s office performs an administrative review under Chapter 40, Section 32 to confirm procedure and posting, not to make a final constitutional determination. “The attorney general doesn’t have the authority to overreach the courts,” he said.

Councilors who supported drafting the ordinance said many other Massachusetts municipalities have similar language and that the city should attempt to craft a provision that could withstand legal challenge or at least be tested. Several councilors proposed alternatives — such as setting residency goals rather than strict requirements or incorporating residency preferences into scoring for city-contracted projects — as ways to reduce legal risk while advancing local hiring objectives.

The council made two related determinations in the meeting: to have the solicitor draft ordinance language (Councilor Robinson’s motion) and to send the draft to the Attorney General’s office for review. Councilors discussed whether to ask the AG first or to draft language and then seek the AG’s opinion; the body approved drafting the ordinance and then forwarding it to the AG for review. Council members emphasized that any eventual ordinance would include waiver language to avoid holding up projects if the local workforce cannot meet the threshold.

The council directed the city solicitor to prepare draft language modeled on residency preference ordinances used in other communities and to return to the council with the draft and the AG opinion. No ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the council’s action was to initiate drafting and to request an opinion from the Attorney General’s office.

Supporters said the ordinance is intended to apply to public-funded projects and projects receiving public incentives (TIFs/TIF agreements were specifically mentioned by a councilor as a category to include). Opponents or cautioning voices — primarily the solicitor’s office — warned of existing case law and the limits of the AG’s review. Several councilors said they preferred a targeted approach that preserves project timelines by allowing waivers where the Lowell resident workforce cannot meet a strict percentage.

The council voted in favor of drafting the ordinance and forwarding it for review. The solicitor’s office will prepare draft language and return to the council with recommendations and the Attorney General’s informal comments.