Subcommittee holds bill that would require state residents to perform 35% of apprenticeship hours on large public projects

Delegate Ken Kerr, chair of the government operations and health facilities subcommittee, said the panel met March 28 to consider House Bill 957, which would establish state residency requirements for apprentices and certain employees on state public-work contracts.

"As introduced, the bill establishes state residency requirements for apprentices and employees on state contracts," Lindsey Rowe, committee counsel, told the panel as she summarized sponsor-circulated amendments tightening the measure. The amendments limit the proposal to "covered large projects" — public works subject to the prevailing wage law and valued at $5,000,000 or more — located only in Anne Arundel, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George's counties.

The reprint circulated by counsel would require contractors on those covered large projects to ensure that 35 percent of apprenticeship hours are performed by state residents. The amendments also authorize a contractor that exceeds the residency-hour requirement to apply excess hours to another covered contract within two years, allow contributions in lieu of meeting apprenticeship hours to the State Apprenticeship and Training Fund (or to a registered apprenticeship program), decrease the financial penalty for noncompliance, and change debarment exposure from two violations in 10 years to five violations in 10 years with a potential debarment period not exceeding five years.

Terron from Chairman Wilson's office told the subcommittee that staff had sought and received agreement from procurement, the Maryland Department of Transportation and the Maryland Department of Labor on the amended language. "We spoke with procurement as well as MDOT as well as MDOL, and we got their good graces on the bill, as amended," Terron said.

Several members sought clarifications. Delegate Chisholm asked why the policy was limited to the listed counties. Chair Kerr and counsel said the geographic restriction reflected negotiated objections from agency stakeholders and builders' groups, who argued that applying the requirement in smaller or rural counties could make it impracticable for some projects to find local contractors and could sharply increase costs.

Some delegates pressed to add additional counties — or to change the population threshold by which counties were chosen — so that sponsor or constituent counties would be included. Members also asked staff for technical fixes to remove references to journey-worker hours that were struck in the amendments and to clarify the mechanics of applying excess apprenticeship hours to future contracts.

Rather than take a vote, the subcommittee agreed to hold the bill to give parties (including MAKO and the Association of Builders & Contractors) time to review the revised reprint and the technical changes counsel described. Chair Kerr said the committee would reconvene as needed and asked members to monitor email and phone for possible follow-up on Monday.

The subcommittee did not adopt any final policy changes during the meeting; staff will circulate corrected language and counsel asked members to provide feedback before the next session.