Luzerne County Council adopts responsible-contractor ordinance with amendments after hours of public comment

Luzerne County Council on Wednesday adopted a responsible-contractor ordinance (RCO) that sets new qualifications for firms bidding on county-funded construction projects, following more than two hours of public comment and debate.

The council approved two amendments before passing the ordinance. One amendment says that if no bids for a project come from contractors who meet the ordinance’s qualification criteria, “the requirements of this ordinance shall be considered null and void for that specific project” and the county may select the lowest qualified bidder under its standard purchasing rules. The council also raised the project-size threshold that triggers the ordinance from $250,000 to $500,000.

Council members discussed the ordinance at length, and both supporters and opponents of the measure spoke during a packed public hearing. Supporters — mainly construction-trade union representatives and apprentices — argued the ordinance would improve safety, ensure trained workers and protect taxpayer dollars. Opponents — including representatives of merit-shop contractors and the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) of Eastern Pennsylvania — said the rule would exclude many local firms and raise costs.

“By passing this RCO, you’re allowing you’re not allowing a lot of those people an opportunity to work on Luzerne County projects,” said Derek Sabatini, a Luzerne County resident and owner of a plumbing and HVAC contracting company, urging council members to vote against the measure. Sabatini said his firm employs about 30 people, many hired locally, and warned that limiting competition would raise project prices.

Apprentices and union officials urged adoption. Michael Gavin, a first-year apprentice, said: “I’ve probably not only learned a little bit more than I had in residential, but I’ve also learned it in a safer manner.” Warren Faust, president of the Northeast Pennsylvania Building and Construction Trade Council, told the council there are “496 registered construction apprenticeship programs in PA, 140 union, 356 nonunion,” and said the ordinance is legal and modeled on policies litigated and upheld in other counties.

Marissa Bankert, president and CEO of ABC of Eastern Pennsylvania, urged the council to reject the ordinance or delay it for further consultation, saying ABC — which represents the majority of area contractors — was not included in drafting the measure. “We believe that this policy excludes nearly 90% of the available construction contractors through the requirement designed to favor unionized contractors,” she said.

An opponent, Rob Gallis, general counsel for Hayden Power Group, criticized the ordinance’s apprenticeship requirement and said it would “restrain contractors,” limit competition and raise costs. James Solano, president of a local general contractor, also warned that the ordinance as drafted was “too exclusionary” and “too vague.”

Council debate focused on balancing workforce training and public procurement needs. Council member Robert [first name not specified in transcript] proposed the amendment that allows a project to proceed under standard purchasing rules if no covered contractors bid; another amendment moved by a council member raised the monetary threshold that triggers the ordinance to $500,000. Both amendments were adopted by roll call before the ordinance itself was adopted by the council (final tally reported by roll call: ordinance adopted; tally noted in the record).

Council member Patrick Thornton, a vocal critic during the hearing, warned of legal risk and long-term cost impacts. “A vote for this RCO tonight is definitely a vote to raise taxes on the people of Luzerne County down the road,” Thornton said.

The council did not adopt a proposal to delay or remand the ordinance back to committee. Several council members said they were open to revisiting the ordinance after implementation if problems arise.

The ordinance will apply to county-funded construction projects meeting the monetary threshold and containing the defined contractor qualifications in the adopted text. Council staff said details about implementation, contractor responsibility certificates and administrative enforcement procedures will be handled by county staff and the office of law.

Public-record materials submitted to council included a letter of support from a Northampton County official and a 22-page study referenced by proponents addressing whether RCOs increase bidding costs. Opponents provided written lists of suggested revisions and asked for more stakeholder engagement before adoption.

The council’s action closes the hearing phase; the adopted ordinance (with the two amendments described above) will be added to the county code and staff will publish the procedures for contractor certification and the public posting provisions required by the ordinance.