Luzerne County council opens further review after lengthy public debate over proposed responsible-contractor ordinance

Luzerne County Council heard extended public comment and councilmember questions about a proposed responsible-contractor ordinance (RCO) during the council work session, with organized labor and contractors presenting sharply different views.

Supporters framed the ordinance as a public-safety and workforce-development measure that would prioritize trained local workers on county projects. Opponents said the draft language risks excluding small or nonunion contractors and asked council to clarify key definitions before moving forward.

The draft ordinance would require participating firms to employ graduates of a state- or federally-registered apprenticeship program or an “equivalent” training pathway for certain craft classifications, and raises the procurement threshold for covered projects from $100,000 to $250,000 in several sections of the draft. The ordinance also includes provisions for safety training standards and other procurement requirements.

“Responsible contract ordinance protects taxpayers by preventing contractors who cut corners and hire untrained workers to cut costs from winning projects,” said Larry Diminsky, a member of Laborers Local 130, who described apprenticeship programs as “the best possible learning and safety models.”

Several union-affiliated speakers described apprenticeship training as a route to steady, local careers. “These are people that want to train the next generation of workers,” said Casey McGovern, a welding instructor and member of Sheet Metal Workers Local 44. Travis Buchanan, a Local 44 member who described himself as a recent apprentice, said the ordinance would help “push apprenticeship programs in our schools” and keep work local.

The Associated Builders and Contractors’ Keystone chapter warned the ordinance, as written, could leave project types uncovered by registered apprenticeship programs. “When it comes to apprenticeship…there is no demolition apprenticeship in Pennsylvania,” Jim Wilshire, representing ABC Keystone, told council and urged the county to consider other indicators of contractor safety and competence such as insurance experience-modification rates, bonding and debarment records.

Warren Faust, who identified himself as representing regional building trades, told council that responsible-contracting laws have survived legal challenges elsewhere and supplied data showing registered apprenticeship programs across Pennsylvania. “Responsible contracting ordinances are legal,” he said, and cited county and federal litigation in support.

Opponents framed the ordinance as exclusionary. “This is about excluding good contractors…because they don't have an apprenticeship,” said Greg Griffin, a resident who said he completed a five-year electrical apprenticeship; he characterized the measure as politically motivated and likely to disadvantage small private contractors.

Council members asked for clearer definitions before a formal introduction. Councilmember McDermott highlighted one outstanding issue: the draft’s use of the word “equivalent” for non-registered training and asked whether the ordinance should require explicit state or federal registration or list objective equivalency criteria. She also flagged the three-of-five-years participation standard and asked how current local contractors would be treated.

Chair members agreed the draft requires additional work. The council directed that the ordinance be referred to the Legislative Committee for more detailed review of definitions, thresholds and potential county-preference language. No vote on the ordinance was taken.

The discussion underscored competing priorities: protecting taxpayer-funded work from contractors alleged to use low-skilled labor while ensuring smaller local companies are not inadvertently excluded. The Legislative Committee will return a revised draft or recommendations to the full council in a future meeting.