Why an ordinance aimed at promoting worker safety is stirring controversy in Centre County
A change to the way bids are accepted for capital construction projects could be coming to the Centre County government, but the proposal is causing controversy and a rift between the county board of commissioners.
A proposed ordinance would require the county to accept the lowest responsible bidder in any capital construction project over $250,000, with stronger guidance on what “responsible” means. It was discussed Tuesday in front of a packed room during an at-times contentious work session of the board.
Commissioners Mark Higgins, Amber Concepcion and Steve Dershem heard from more than 20 people about a proposed Responsible Contractor Ordinance. County code requires the board to award public works contracts to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. But because there is limited guidance on what “responsible” means, the county is looking at creating its own Responsible Contractor Ordinance with those guidelines and requirements.
The proposed ordinance would, among many things, require the county to use contractors with at least 70% of the craft labor workforce employed on the project be either a journeyperson, which is a worker who has completed an apprenticeship training program, or registered apprentices enrolled in such programs.
More than an hour into the meeting, tensions among the board flared when Higgins said they want to support workforce development in the county and that the ordinance would accomplish that.
“We really do want to support workforce development here in the county and obviously being in a registered apprentice program would allow someone to say look, ‘I graduated from this program, whether it was from an ABC or a union. This is completely portable. And I can work at any employer in Pennsylvania, and they know I have a certificate and paperwork for this,’” Higgins said. “Obviously, we do have people who have 30 years experience, they really know what they’re doing, but they’re going to have to reprove themselves every time they move to a new employer, to an extent.”
But Dershem said the ordinance benefits companies that are unionized and have apprenticeship programs. Raising his voice, Dershem responded and questioned if the ordinance was politically motivated, even suggesting that Higgins could have a potential conflict of interest due to political donations he may have received.
“You’re the guy who goes out and talks to small (businesses) and tries to encourage development. And you’re telling small businesses and a lot of contractors out there that they’re not good enough to work on county projects, but their tax dollars are good enough to pay for it. Everything you’re saying is just counterintuitive,” Dershem said.
He continued to call the proposed ordinance “union driven.”
“And I’m going to tell you, when I look at your campaign finance report next week, how many union dollars are going to be part of your campaign contribution either now, in the future, because I’ve already looked at the past one, that’s full of them,” he told Higgins. “And you know what? That, it’s almost a conflict of interest. And I’ll say that out loud. And I really find that almost incomprehensible we’re having this conversation two weeks before an election cycle begins.”
What does the proposed ordinance say?
The county has two versions of the RCO and at times during the meeting, it was unclear which version the board was referring to or looking to move forward with.
One version of the ordinance — what Higgins called a “compromise” — states in lieu of the participation of an apprenticeship program, the county will accept a “successful resume of projects, documentation of the firm’s internal training program, roster of the trained (personnel) in its employ and submission of its safety program and Experience Modification Rate.” Many in the room expressed they would not be supportive of the ordinance version that doesn’t allow this.
John Franek, county administrator, said in an email the board is still considering both versions.
“County Staff were asked to research and provide feedback on some of the very good questions and perspectives that were shared at (Tuesday’s) meeting,” Franek said.
The ordinance was crafted by taking similar ordinances enacted throughout Pennsylvania.
In addition to the 70% of the workforce requirement, highlights of the ordinance include:
The firm will pay all craft employees on the project, at a minimum, the applicable wage and fringe benefit rates, as established for the classification in which the worker is employed, in accordance with the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act. These wages would apply to employees performing any custom fabrication work for the project, including off-site fabrication.
Within 14 days of receiving a “Intent to Award Contract” notice, the prospective firm needs to submit a subcontractor list that provides the name of address of the subcontractors and the scope of work assigned to each.
Many people spoke in support of the ordinance, including Tyler Hawkman, a State College resident.
“I cannot express how important this would be to the lives and workforce of this area. I am a member of the Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 5 PA and I cannot stress how important these programs of apprenticeship training and safety training have impacted my career as a BAC member,” Hawkman said.
Others said they supported some of the ordinance, but had questions and concerns about certain sections.
Dave Sload, president and CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors Keystone chapter, said ABC will always promote, support and provide registered apprenticeship and safety training. But he had concerns about the 70% threshold requirement being too high. He said statistics show in Pennsylvania, 28,800 journeymen have been added to the workforce over the last decade.
“When you look at the numbers, the math just doesn’t support a 70% threshold,” Sload said.
Others, like Mike Hawbaker, of Glenn O. Hawbaker, questioned the definition of the off-site fabrication.
“...It gets very, very daunting because we’ve never seen a provision like this in a state contract, in a DGS contract, about where potentially prevailing wage would pertain to off-site fabrication and not specifically something that’s done on the job site,” Hawbaker said.
Worries of increased taxes and limiting competition were also voiced. Higgins said if enacted, it would not cause a tax increase.
Why is Centre County considering an RCO?
The RCO has been in the works for a few months. In an email, Franek said the goals of the ordinance include:
Informing the county of any potential bidder non-performance issues
Encouraging/promoting worker safety and safety training
Ensuring quality county projects through recognized training/apprenticeship programs
Promoting workforce development and employment of workers within Centre County and Pennsylvania
Continue providing opportunities for smaller contractors to compete for work on county projects costing under $250,000
Creating potential cost-savings to the county and county taxpayers
Dershem said companies that aren’t unionized or have apprenticeship programs will have to figure out how to fit their program into the ordinance. While there are “bad actors,” he said there are also good actors that should qualify but probably won’t.
“I have to look out for everybody, union, non-union, it doesn’t matter. I’m looking at how the taxpayers of Centre County are being treated by this and I think this is certainly pointed in a direction that doesn’t lend itself to equitable treatment and fair competition.”
In past years, the county government has not had many capital projects, although a $30 million project to reuse the former Centre Crest building as offices for the county government is planned for next year. And the board is looking to ramp up its capital project planning in the coming years.
At the end of the meeting, Higgins said they need “a pinch more work on this” and suggested the board have an informational session on the revisions and concerns that were mentioned during the meeting.
