Heated public comment and split council questions as Luzerne County debates responsible-contractor ordinance

Luzerne County Council opened wide-ranging discussion Feb. 11 on a proposed Responsible Contractor Ordinance that would require contractors on covered county projects to participate in formal apprenticeship programs and meet other workforce and safety standards.

Why it matters: supporters say the ordinance would protect workers, ensure tradespeople are trained and reduce misclassification and unsafe work. Opponents — including many local contractors who addressed council in public comment — warned the ordinance would exclude long-standing nonunion contractors from bidding on county projects, reduce competition, raise taxpayer costs and invite litigation.

What was said

Proponents: multiple speakers representing trade apprenticeship programs and unions urged council to adopt language that would require valid licenses, payroll compliance and certified apprenticeship participation for contractors on prevailing-wage county projects. “Apprenticeship programs are dotted throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania,” said one apprenticeship representative, and the measure would ensure projects use trained craft workers, reduce change orders and protect taxpayers.

Opponents: business owners and local contractors said the proposed requirement for Class A apprenticeship participation would bar many merit-shop and nonunion firms — including long-established local companies — from bidding. “Decreased bidding competition is going to lead to increased prices, which means that the taxpayer, your constituents are going to pay more,” said Rob Gollis, general counsel for Hayden Power Group. Multiple contractors said smaller firms could be “crippled” by the requirement and cited other counties’ experiences where similar ordinances led to fewer bidders.

Council discussion and legal concerns

Council members asked the county solicitor to review several specific items in the draft ordinance. Points raised included:

- A clause in the ordinance’s draft that said its provisions would “take precedence” over any county contract or existing law; council members and legal staff noted that county ordinances cannot supersede state procurement law or applicable federal statutes and suggested that language was legally problematic. - The monetary threshold for coverage. An earlier draft used a $250,000 threshold; the version circulated to council used $100,000. Several members questioned whether $100,000 is too low and would sweep in many modest projects. - Implementation mechanics: who would be the gatekeeper for certifications, how the county would verify ongoing compliance, and how the county would treat experienced workers who do not have a formal apprenticeship certificate but whose training is documented by other means. - Potential for reduced competition and increased litigation if bidders are disqualified after award or excluded without clear notice.

Public input and next steps

Dozens of contractors, trade union representatives and residents spoke during the public-comment period. Several requested tours of local apprenticeship facilities; others asked council to pause the ordinance and engage further with local industry groups. Council members asked administration staff to provide spreadsheets of recent change orders and final contract totals so members could study whether change orders are correlated with contractor certifications.

No vote was taken. Councilmembers said they supported continued work on the draft, with legal review and additional outreach to contractors, apprenticeship sponsors, county division heads and local workforce training partners. The office of law was asked to provide a legal review focused on state procurement code and potential exposure to litigation.

Ending

Council left the ordinance in discussion at the Feb. 11 work session and asked staff for more documentation and legal analysis before any vote is scheduled.