Bill Making Schools Significantly More Expensive to Build and Renovate Likely to Return

October 10, 2026

State of Delaware, House Republican Caucus

ZOMBIES IN THE HALL

A CONTINUING FEATURE ON BILLS THAT DIED

IN THE 153RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY...BUT MAY RISE AGAIN.

Bill Making Schools Significantly More Expensive to Build and Renovate Likely to Return

On the last night of this year's legislative session, Delawareans were close to getting saddled with significantly higher costs for school construction, renovations, and repairs.

Senate Bill 272 would have required "project labor agreements" (PLAs), a type of collective bargaining agreement, for any school construction or renovation project exceeding $5 million.

The bill was approved by the Senate in May in a party-line vote with every Democratic senator supporting it.

State Rep. Edward S. Osienski (D-Newark), the prime House sponsor of the bill and a member of the House leadership, said in a House Labor Committee hearing in June that “PLA projects give a level of stability and structure that is difficult to replicate in an all non-union workplace” and claimed that the proposal would not result in higher costs for taxpayers.

However, that contention was challenged by multiple people who testified at the hearing, including Brian Maxwell, the Director of the Delaware Office of Management and Budget. He said the state has not approved any new state-funded school construction projects in nearly three years because of a lack of available resources and that SB 272 would exacerbate the situation. “Mandating a PLA introduces additional preconditions that may discourage otherwise qualified contractors and subcontractors from participating,” he said.

Mr. Maxwell also indicated that adding requirements to the state procurement process would significantly increase project costs. “Based on the research that I’ve seen, economic analyses have found the cost per square foot for school construction projects is approximately 30% higher for PLA projects.”

A 2020 study by the Beacon Hill Institute, a free-market economic think tank based in Massachusetts, examined public school construction projects in Connecticut and found that mandating PLAs increased costs by nearly 20%.

The bill’s sponsors maintain that since Delaware requires “prevailing wage,” a minimum wage scale based on occupation that is applied to all state-funded projects, there should not be any meaningful difference in labor costs between unionized and non-union contractors.

However, other witnesses before the House Labor Committee, which was chaired by Rep. Osienski, noted that unionized contractors in Delaware account for only about 10% of all construction companies.

Sussex Technical School District Superintendent Dr. Kevin Carson, who is currently involved in the state’s most expensive school construction project, told the committee that the PLA bill would significantly reduce the pool of available contractors, not only limiting competition but potentially forcing school districts to seek out-of-state companies—all factors that could drive labor costs higher than Delaware’s prevailing wage rates.

Carmen Robledo, a Latina contractor based in Sussex County, said PLAs will exclude many non-union Delaware workers and create more barriers for small businesses.

The Associated Builders and Contractors of Delaware, minority business groups, and the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce also opposed the measure, arguing it discriminated against the state’s non-union contractors, would raise project costs, and shift construction jobs to out-of-state union contractors.

A fiscal note on the bill prepared by the Office of the Controller General concluded the cost of implementing the legislation was “indeterminable,” citing numerous unknown factors that could not be established well enough to provide a projection. That finding allowed the measure to bypass the House Appropriations Committee, which usually evaluates any bill expected to cost taxpayers more than $100,000 to implement.

The Labor Committee released the PLA bill on June 10 on the strength of Democratic votes, so on the last night of the legislative session three weeks later, it sat on the House Ready List, eligible for a House vote and one step short of being sent to the governor.

Despite expectations, the bill never reached the floor for a vote.

One factor may have been the looming general election and the tumultuous property reassessment process in New Castle County, which significantly hiked taxes for many homeowners. Most House Democrats represent New Castle County districts, and a bill that would likely raise property taxes further may have been hard to explain to already aggravated constituents.

Union members, many of whom were at Legislative Hall on the last night of the session to make a final push to get the PLA bill passed, were disappointed with how events played out.

The financial secretary of Local 542 of the International Union of Operating Engineers was so unhappy the bill didn't clear the House that he reportedly wrote a letter to House Democratic leadership asking for a refund of a $5,000 contribution. House Democrats publicly denied ever having received any such contribution.

Versions of this bill have been introduced in previous legislative sessions, but this is the closest the proposal has come to winning legislative approval. The prime sponsors of SB 272 included members of the House and Senate Democratic leadership. Another 12 Democratic state lawmakers also signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors.

Because 2027 is a non-election year and the PLA bill drew strong support from majority Democrats this session, its sponsors will likely reintroduce it and pursue it aggressively in the upcoming 154th General Assembly.