[0:00] >> good afternoon, everyone

[0:01] times 12, 0, 1, call us notice

[0:04] being the order is going to

[0:05] kind of divert into

[0:06] introductions and restart

[0:12] last out with smart local 4.35

[0:14] sheet metal workers and also

[0:15] the president of north florida,

[0:17] building construction trades

[0:18] council

[0:19] jay palooza city council

[0:21] district 7.

[0:23] >> shannen, michaela sauce,

[0:24] office of general counsel.

[0:27] >> excellent. So obviously we

[0:29] told other council members this

[0:32] one by we had a pretty good

[0:33] coalition. Last time we were

[0:34] here, I thought, right? We had

[0:36] we had a good bipartisan group.

[0:39] a committee meeting just ended

[0:41] not too long ago and we have

[0:42] another committee meeting at

[0:43] one. So a few folks may trickle

[0:45] in, but I really wanted to kind

[0:47] of get just

[0:49] back to basics on what we we

[0:52] initially had a bill that I

[0:53] thought was a pretty good spot.

[0:54] but then we had illegal a look

[0:57] at the finals for stuff over

[0:58] there.

[1:00] >> we have a we had some some

[1:01] legal issues because of a

[1:04] >> a court case rate and could

[1:06] be my kind of diving in the

[1:08] midst of ghost.

[1:13] >> thank you, chair for

[1:14] donnelly.

[1:16] >> the it's the florida

[1:18] statutes. It's section 2.55,

[1:21] 9, 9, 2, public works projects,

[1:25] including as

[1:28] ended

[1:30] in 2025.

[1:33] >> the court case was out of

[1:35] saint pete and it went to the

[1:38] district court

[1:40] and the appellate court ended.

[1:43] what was most notable there is

[1:45] that the state of florida filed

[1:47] an amicus brief, a kiss and a

[1:49] kiss. You can go either way but

[1:50] amicus brief, which is

[1:54] for briefs. It's actually quite

[1:56] brief. It's only a few pages

[1:58] because it is pretty darn clear

[2:00] that florida statues to 55,

[2:02] 0, 9, 9, 2, prohibits the

[2:05] mandating of

[2:09] having

[2:10] apprenticeships in the case was

[2:12] about apprenticeships and and

[2:14] another form of staffing.

[2:19] any any effort for the

[2:22] jacksonville for the city of

[2:23] jacksonville to mandate

[2:25] apprentice ships with in public

[2:27] works comments will violate

[2:31] 2.55. 0, 9, 9, 2, and there's

[2:33] already

[2:34] case on it and I'm mika spree

[2:36] floating.

[2:38] if you want information on the

[2:40] saint pete case, I can give you

[2:43] those specifics or just send it

[2:44] to you.

[2:45] but ultimately the when it came

[2:48] back down from the the dca,

[2:52] the local court struck the

[2:55] provisions at the saint pete

[2:56] ordinance as null and void

[2:58] unconstitutional.

[3:02] so

[3:03] >> man, it's cannot mandate

[3:04] something. I think we kind of

[3:06] knew, okay. We're trying to

[3:08] model something here. That's

[3:09] less about a mandate. More

[3:10] about

[3:13] maybe a goal.

[3:14] so

[3:16] mike had a bill that was passed

[3:19] a year or so ago.

[3:20] is that bill? And that and that

[3:22] bill is for you.

[3:26] >> it's for partnerships.

[3:29] turner was right. It provides

[3:31] it provides a procurement code

[3:33] update

[3:34] that says if you're going to do

[3:35] procurement

[3:37] right for certain public works

[3:38] projects that it encourages.

[3:41] >> local a local business right

[3:43] within the 5 county area.

[3:46] how has that affected by by

[3:48] this last bill? We know.

[3:51] >> I am here to speak on a par

[3:52] to ships. I

[3:55] without further review look at

[3:58] any other provisions, but I'm

[4:00] here to speak on

[4:01] apprenticeships and thus ap

[4:03] cases on a print editions.

[4:05] so I guess my you want them in

[4:07] court.

[4:08] >> yeah, we're well aware of

[4:10] that. The state is not gonna

[4:12] let you put any kind of

[4:12] requirements on anything and

[4:14] we're well aware of that case

[4:16] there.

[4:17] this whole process. We knew

[4:18] that and our is our stance is

[4:21] if we can get aspirational

[4:23] goals,

[4:24] you there's city has goals.

[4:26] when it comes to jace abs and

[4:28] stuff like that. I don't know

[4:30] where this requirement came is

[4:31] never been about requirements

[4:33] about, you know, a goal.

[4:35] so the city is going to fund

[4:36] the project. I think the city

[4:38] has every right to ask for

[4:40] goals within a project.

[4:45] >> I guess for the purposes of

[4:47] the reason light and brought

[4:48] them like a thing like a bills

[4:50] that I would the what if we

[4:51] added to that procurement code.

[4:53] >> to have aspiration goals for

[4:57] partnerships.

[4:59] >> do we think that that could

[4:59] be that they can thread the

[5:01] needle?

[5:03] >> if an aspirational goal then

[5:05] affects the bid process,

[5:07] you run afoul of to 55. 0,

[5:11] 9, 9, to 2.

[5:13] >> the

[5:14] 4 actually to see

[5:17] you cannot

[5:19] prohibit a contract or

[5:20] subcontract subcontractor

[5:22] material supply. Rick center of

[5:25] submitting a bid on the public

[5:27] works project. So if you affect

[5:29] the bid based on an

[5:31] aspirational goal, that's

[5:32] that's a mandate.

[5:34] so

[5:35] you can do incentives, you can

[5:37] do goals, but it cannot affect

[5:40] the ranking or the submission

[5:43] of the bid in the rfp process.

[5:45] >> 2 candy bowls. So you see

[5:47] said we could do incentives.

[5:48] you can do goals, but I just

[5:50] can't. So how does one have a

[5:51] goal that doesn't affect the

[5:53] bid process?

[5:56] >> is the hard part

[5:59] because you can have goals but

[6:02] how do you enforce your goals?

[6:03] how are you incentivizing your

[6:04] goals? If if enforcing your

[6:07] goal affects the bid process,

[6:10] that's a mandate. That's not a

[6:12] goal.

[6:17] >> during the peak herrmann

[6:19] process or when they're looking

[6:20] at the businesses of their

[6:21] scoring of how they score each

[6:24] individual contract is not know

[6:25] is not always low bid.

[6:28] could that be part of the whole

[6:30] process to you know, whether

[6:32] some gets 2 points or

[6:34] something? I know what the

[6:35] jaguar, you know, when they did

[6:36] their of maybe they did on a

[6:38] point system. If the if the

[6:39] contractor had apprentices,

[6:40] they they scored so many points

[6:42] that they're a local

[6:43] contractor. They scored so many

[6:45] points. So I'm just wondering

[6:46] how that could fit into this.

[6:50] >> I'm happy to look at

[6:52] whatever language you want to

[6:53] propose, but kind of off the

[6:54] cuff. I I would have to

[6:56] actually see the language

[7:01] this statute hard.

[7:06] >> somewhat. I mean, could we

[7:08] even just

[7:12] we can't even like mandate that

[7:14] somebody tells us

[7:18] intend to hire

[7:19] apprenticeships? You know,

[7:21] I mean, like I mean, I'm trying

[7:22] to see like on that matrix

[7:23] second, they say, like, you

[7:24] know, would

[7:26] not that it would change the

[7:27] scoring. But even if give,

[7:28] it gives us data to know

[7:30] how many projects are are being

[7:33] done by folks that are have

[7:34] apprenticeships.

[7:38] >> is that something that we

[7:39] cannot just like?

[7:41] do you intend to use one

[7:43] and have it not be a part of

[7:44] the scoring?

[7:46] >> I would have to and would

[7:48] like to consult with the

[7:49] chairman and government

[7:50] operations because that's a

[7:51] whole different body of law.

[7:54] what where here about today is

[7:57] whether or not you can mandate

[7:58] apprentices within public works

[8:01] contracts in percent a chapter

[8:03] to 55. You know.

[8:06] >> the other party is okay.

[8:07] so let's say there's

[8:08] incentives.

[8:09] what look at that incentive

[8:11] look like like if you are a

[8:14] share, a business that does

[8:15] higher.

[8:19] have you seen this in other

[8:20] counties and or municipalities,

[8:22] you know, 10% or 20% of our of

[8:25] our workforce going to be

[8:26] apprentices. So you get an

[8:27] extra?

[8:30] >> I understand it is when they

[8:32] come to the table and ask for

[8:34] incentives and that would give

[8:35] the city a chance to okay we

[8:38] can do the incentives, but we'd

[8:40] like to see this bill.

[8:42] it is. I don't know if that's

[8:43] the correct terminology every.

[8:46] but when we talk about

[8:48] incentives, the city council

[8:50] just passed the stan for

[8:51] service act. How is that being

[8:53] a, you know,

[8:55] how could that play into this?

[8:56] if we just look stan for

[8:57] service but stand for

[8:58] apprenticeship? I don't.

[8:59] I'm just I don't know the

[9:01] difference. 22.

[9:02] >> my understanding that that

[9:03] wasn't it's an incentive.

[9:06] and how does that incentive

[9:07] work? I'm sorry.

[9:09] >> I'm sorry. I I I don't I did

[9:10] not write the bill. I'm not

[9:12] here on the bill. I was here to

[9:14] answer this one question.

[9:15] happy to go look it up and pull

[9:16] it and read it. But I did look

[9:18] it up about a month ago and it

[9:20] was an incentive.

[9:23] >> so, yeah, I mean to that.

[9:24] and if we model

[9:29] folks coming in for an actual

[9:31] city incentives, what you're

[9:32] saying is they go through an

[9:33] economic development now,

[9:39] then we just write, I don't

[9:41] know if we pass. I think that's

[9:43] every independent or every

[9:44] individual.

[9:49] he's a legislation that comes

[9:50] before us that we do try to

[9:51] negotiate that order. We like

[9:53] try to pass a resolution to

[9:56] tell the administration

[10:00] or any any

[10:03] anyone coming to get an

[10:04] economic incentive that

[10:08] I think there's 2 things.

[10:09] I think one city funded

[10:11] projects, something.

[10:12] >> give a procurement and see

[10:14] how other either putting their

[10:16] jace it goes in there. If

[10:18] that's something that we could

[10:20] taylor it off of or if in if an

[10:22] individual comes for an

[10:23] incentive, then that would be

[10:26] an individual project

[10:27] agreement. I would think.

[10:32] >> I'm wondering if the jason

[10:33] process is available to us

[10:35] right now. I think based on

[10:36] this what this ruling does

[10:39] court ruling, I think that

[10:40] might be something that we're

[10:42] concerned about.

[10:43] >> with a court ruling is again

[10:45] requirements. We've always

[10:46] known we will not get

[10:48] requirements. The state will

[10:49] not those new requirements.

[10:51] they believe in small

[10:52] government. Do you want to do

[10:53] something less than 9? You're

[10:55] preaching to the choir.

[10:57] you know?

[11:03] >> the idea of doing each

[11:04] independent

[11:05] incentive.

[11:07] >> right for once and some

[11:09] color and was almost double in

[11:10] the lower house, right?

[11:12] I think each one coming before

[11:13] us. We can maybe add that into

[11:15] the legislation. I'm actually

[11:17] carry

[11:18] its an agreement between us and

[11:21] amazon

[11:22] and not so much a mandate by.

[11:28] so at the end of the question,

[11:29] yeah, okay.

[11:31] you cannot put it in code that

[11:33] it is a mandate. Sure.

[11:35] >> your individual in your

[11:37] individual negotiations are

[11:39] separate and apart from that.

[11:40] but you cannot put it in the

[11:42] code.

[11:42] >> that all, you know,

[11:45] >> builders of which its must

[11:47] have 10% apprentice in order

[11:50] for your bid to be

[11:53] considered.

[11:57] >> so can we

[12:03] I mean, I could the could

[12:04] ability past to kind of

[12:06] the resin. That's one thing.

[12:08] a resolution saying it's the

[12:10] it's the intent of the city

[12:12] council or the intent of the

[12:13] city of jacksonville, that

[12:14] future incentives

[12:17] should have some kind of

[12:20] aspirational goal for princes

[12:22] moving forward.

[12:32] just as a statement that city

[12:34] council,

[12:37] I would really have to look at

[12:38] that.

[12:41] I mean, at the very least,

[12:42] it's a resolution kind of

[12:43] declaring like

[12:45] from now on any major

[12:46] incentives, it comes to need to

[12:47] consider princes

[12:50] precious

[12:52] as for the stan for service

[12:54] act. And I just saw I'm going

[12:57] to put her on the spot on the

[12:58] record here. Just some mist

[12:59] norris won.

[13:02] is there a city familiar with

[13:03] the standard service act and

[13:04] what the provisions were in

[13:05] that in terms of what we give

[13:07] to a business that is

[13:10] hiring more veterans are I

[13:12] think it was military spouses

[13:13] as well.

[13:21] could the green.

[13:23] >> runners to the mayor's

[13:24] office hoping the same

[13:26] preference for economic

[13:27] development that we have to

[13:28] defer downtown. But again,

[13:30] I think it was very much

[13:31] aspirational. We cannot mandate

[13:33] and we can track it.

[13:35] >> but was that wasn't

[13:37] ordinance. Covid wasn't a

[13:38] resolution.

[13:43] >> understood.

[13:45] and it speaks of incentives,

[13:48] section one and the incentives

[13:50] and programs authorized here by

[13:55] meaning if a company comes to

[13:57] aspirin centers,

[13:58] not that we could

[14:00] because I would love nothing

[14:02] more than if we could have a

[14:03] fund that would properly

[14:04] incentivize folks who go

[14:06] through the process. I just

[14:08] don't know if with the city

[14:10] council for that, nor do I

[14:11] mean, it's why was hoping I

[14:12] would have other folks here

[14:13] because even some of the u haul

[14:15] the credit where credit's due.

[14:16] so my colleagues think

[14:18] differently than I do and they

[14:19] have another

[14:20] other source of funding for

[14:22] something like this. But like I

[14:24] personally would have no issue

[14:26] if we went through the did,

[14:28] you know, big pick aaron system

[14:29] for procurement general.

[14:31] and we said

[14:33] after a bit is awarded, you

[14:35] know, hey, you're gonna build

[14:36] this thing. Are you going to do

[14:37] here? You can build a fire

[14:38] station if you hire 10%.

[14:40] you know, we'll give you this

[14:41] incentive that the city would

[14:43] actually give some sort of

[14:44] incentive and I don't know,

[14:49] but another revenue stream

[14:50] without a come from going into

[14:51] stores.

[14:52] >> it might even have to be a

[14:53] revenue stream. We are crafting

[14:54] an rfp. You're setting forth.

[14:56] the requirements are what you

[14:57] can score applicants. So one of

[14:58] the requirements to favor

[15:00] people certainly ripple

[15:01] forever. You can get more

[15:03] points and their for their work

[15:04] at the business.

[15:06] so that incentive is that you

[15:07] in the rfp.

[15:10] >> that's what I think we would

[15:11] love to have. I don't think

[15:12] we're allowed to do that.

[15:13] I'm saying now the after year

[15:14] awarded that we would say

[15:17] if you demonstrate that you

[15:18] hire 20%, I would have to

[15:20] defer.

[15:21] >> to chief procurement,

[15:23] dustin freeman, who I think

[15:24] would be a good resource on

[15:25] this. We have in the past

[15:26] issued rfp 3 gave preference to

[15:27] those that had office locations

[15:29] in both

[15:30] tallahassee and jacksonville.

[15:31] so there are

[15:33] in the current process, their

[15:34] first inspections that are

[15:35] required. But I think there's

[15:38] the flexibility on what can go

[15:39] in those sections. So you can

[15:41] ask for because you're the one

[15:42] who wants a requirement.

[15:44] >> I I think some of those

[15:46] things that we had done in the

[15:47] past or are questionable right

[15:49] now, there's legal standing to

[15:50] allow for that.

[15:52] I think that's the concern.

[15:53] I mean, if we could, we could

[15:55] just do that and we can

[15:55] actually put them to code.

[15:57] I would do that right now.

[15:58] I want to make sure that we're

[15:59] not gonna get you talked with

[16:01] chief freeman on this. We have

[16:02] actually we had a conversation

[16:03] with 2 months ago.

[16:06] >> that's and that's what

[16:07] that's what I was going on.

[16:08] there is scoring process that

[16:10] we thought that could be an

[16:12] avenue

[16:14] agree. I think that. But I

[16:16] think that's what

[16:18] I think. Ideally, that is what

[16:19] we want.

[16:20] I think with our attorneys

[16:22] telling us is that

[16:26] it might be on lines

[16:31] that is going to come down to

[16:34] policy wording. Your

[16:36] going to recommend

[16:38] whether or not that can be

[16:40] woven in or not.

[16:43] >> incentives are not tied to

[16:44] our fees, so are tied to the

[16:47] bed. So it's there's a lot more

[16:50] to it that the answer to the

[16:52] question of can you

[16:55] can you legislate mandate

[16:58] apprenticeships as a percentage

[17:00] of public works contracts in

[17:01] the city of jacksonville

[17:03] and comply with florida

[17:05] statutes chapter 2.55.

[17:09] >> again, providing awaiting of

[17:10] scoring as a type of mandate is

[17:13] what you're basically saying.

[17:16] >> as I sit here, that would be

[17:17] my opinion. But I'd want to dig

[17:19] a little deeper because it's

[17:20] kind of outside what

[17:22] those words are on here.

[17:24] but there's some pretty close

[17:25] ports.

[17:27] >> I mean, if that's if we feel

[17:29] confident that I'm not

[17:30] confident if we feel is that we

[17:31] have enough wiggle room,

[17:32] I'm perfectly happy find that

[17:34] bill. And I think that it would

[17:35] be supported by her colleagues.

[17:37] I think the mike a bill kind of

[17:38] speaks to that

[17:39] on local preference. I think

[17:43] customer allen's bill kind of

[17:44] speaks to that.

[17:47] I would have no problem

[17:49] moving that. I just understand

[17:52] what you see may have from it

[17:55] from a policy perspective.

[17:57] I would. And I think that that

[17:58] would be fun. And I'd be happy

[18:01] to

[18:02] talk to our litigators to see

[18:04] if they're confident.

[18:07] >> I'm not familiar with all

[18:08] the types of different grants

[18:09] the city does, but I know,

[18:11] you know, always hear

[18:12] completion grants, rembrandt's

[18:14] everything. But if there was a

[18:16] way when you talk about

[18:17] finances or whatever, if it's

[18:18] that the money's there, if

[18:20] there was a way to move some of

[18:21] that money to the front end of

[18:23] it because there's never

[18:24] nothing there for the

[18:25] construction of it. It's always

[18:26] there when it comes when

[18:27] they're complete or to bring in

[18:28] jobs, too. The jacksonville,

[18:31] there's some grants there,

[18:32] but there's never nothing on

[18:33] the front end for the

[18:34] construction side of it.

[18:35] so with that, some of that

[18:36] movie are some some of that

[18:38] money could be moved to the

[18:39] front end of it through one of

[18:41] the grant processes that might

[18:43] be a an id or way. Also,

[18:46] somebody could ask for a

[18:48] different kind of incentive.

[18:50] >> so are you suggesting then

[18:51] sort of just being a completion

[18:52] grant? Let's say it's a

[18:54] 7 million are completing grant

[18:55] that we open it up to them,

[18:57] getting a million of it up

[18:58] front. If they commit to a

[19:00] certain number. If they hit

[19:01] that goal, that would be ideal.

[19:05] there's a fascinating might be.

[19:07] but my face policy question and

[19:11] I don't know what the appetite

[19:12] would be for some like that.

[19:13] and the reason why we love

[19:14] completion grants is obviously

[19:16] you do the work. I think we've

[19:17] been burned in the past on

[19:19] upfront cash before I was a

[19:22] city council member

[19:23] and the 2, thousands and and

[19:25] stuff like that. Do you want to

[19:27] weigh in on that?

[19:29] I do not

[19:33] got your good lawyer.

[19:38] >> that's an interest. And I

[19:39] like that really is something I

[19:40] need to get the temperature my

[19:41] my colleagues to see. I see the

[19:43] value of that. That's an

[19:45] interesting one. You're not

[19:46] asking for more which I'm

[19:47] trying to. If it's there,

[19:49] it just depends when they get

[19:51] it.

[19:53] I would also assume that

[19:59] that still doesn't change code.

[20:01] it's just sort of an internal

[20:02] policy decision.

[20:06] I promise I'm not sick that I

[20:08] think that would be just the

[20:10] administration slash economic

[20:13] developments last downtown

[20:14] investment authority. We need

[20:15] to have internal policy where,

[20:17] you know, whatever whatever

[20:18] incentive deals we do, this is

[20:20] an option that is available to

[20:22] the developer. Again, not a

[20:23] mandate

[20:25] second. Yeah, or requirements

[20:28] are requirement

[20:30] if they commit that. That is

[20:32] because by all those get voted

[20:34] on by city council. So any

[20:36] anything that's completion

[20:37] grand, including many of our

[20:38] red grants as well.

[20:40] but that really is just sort of

[20:41] an internal policy coming.

[20:47] so

[20:49] >> in reflecting some on your

[20:52] suggestion for a resolution

[20:54] that it would be the city of

[20:55] jacksonville policy. I still

[20:57] think you're going to be

[20:58] running afoul when the tech not

[21:00] mandating not incentivizing but

[21:02] mandating

[21:04] you're still there run afoul of

[21:06] chapter 2.55. For statutes

[21:09] because the statute on its face

[21:11] does not read. I mean, this

[21:12] policy may not pass an

[21:13] ordinance. A municipality may

[21:15] not pass a law. It reads that a

[21:18] municipality may not take the

[21:20] following act shin's. So if you

[21:22] do that by internal regulation

[21:24] or by our code, it comes to the

[21:26] same offense. It is an internal

[21:29] regulation that this is we do

[21:31] mandate this, but we're just

[21:32] not putting it in the code.

[21:34] you're still looking at a

[21:35] violation of florida statutes

[21:37] that is super right to be

[21:38] litigated because that amicus

[21:40] brief can file anywhere.

[21:43] >> all that to say, though,

[21:44] I think what I'm what I'm

[21:45] requesting, is that still not a

[21:47] mandate so much as it is.

[21:49] you get

[21:50] a different type of incentive.

[21:51] if you do this, do we deem that

[21:53] has a mandate or do we think

[21:54] that that is

[21:56] still kind of what we already

[21:58] do in many cases?

[22:00] >> the incentive is an

[22:01] incentive. You're you're this

[22:03] is the contract. This is what

[22:05] you have to do to qualify for

[22:06] the contract. Those in the

[22:07] mandates

[22:08] once you qualify for that

[22:09] contract and you're not being

[22:11] your bid is not being affected

[22:13] by, hey, if you,

[22:16] you know, contractor agreed to

[22:19] do this, we will do this extra

[22:21] money. You that's different.

[22:24] you can't I

[22:26] it's going to come down to the

[22:27] nouns and verbs

[22:29] and it whether you do it is

[22:30] internal policy or an external.

[22:33] what I mean by external as part

[22:35] of code

[22:37] you,

[22:38] the city of jacksonville may

[22:39] not

[22:41] for the event.

[22:42] >> require control. The term is

[22:45] require that a contractor or

[22:46] subcontractor, eccentric

[22:48] cetera, quote, control

[22:49] staffing. That's the apprentice

[22:51] part now is exactly what was at

[22:54] issue in st. Petersburg.

[22:56] and it was it was considered

[22:58] no at initiation to those code

[23:01] provisions are off the books

[23:04] so controlling of staffing,

[23:07] terrible turn, control limit or

[23:10] expand staffing. It is to be

[23:14] through to 55. 0, 9, 9, 2,

[23:17] 2, b, 3,

[23:21] she's.

[23:24] >> I think, again, if it's if

[23:26] it's an incentive that somebody

[23:27] is asking for, I think the city

[23:28] has every right to ask for

[23:31] things at that point.

[23:32] >> so so on on comfortable

[23:34] doing that, however, I do

[23:36] based on the based on the word

[23:38] of control,

[23:40] I can see them saying they come

[23:41] here, do you even by virtue of

[23:43] this incentive, you're still

[23:45] probably still providing some

[23:46] kind of controlling mechanism.

[23:47] >> if if they're coming to the

[23:49] state through into the city,

[23:50] just like the jaguars, the

[23:52] jaguars, you know, they they

[23:53] had agreed to the terms.

[23:55] I don't. No, you're not

[23:56] control. And at that point,

[23:57] they are agree.

[23:59] that's why I think that it's

[24:01] it's doable. I just wonder if

[24:03] I can pass a

[24:05] ordinance code or for just get

[24:06] internal policy

[24:10] changes within the city.

[24:12] I'm out of with with al

[24:14] peterson returns.

[24:15] >> it was tough.

[24:20] >> when mr found is referencing

[24:22] is

[24:24] outside projects. The florida

[24:25] statutes refer to public works

[24:27] projects. So I do think what he

[24:29] is suggesting is possible

[24:32] because that's exactly what we

[24:33] do with the stan for service

[24:34] act is when someone is coming

[24:36] to the city to develop

[24:37] something on their property and

[24:39] seek an incentive for it,

[24:40] then we can put stipulations on

[24:43] it.

[24:44] that forced to choose deal with

[24:45] city projects on city-owned

[24:47] property.

[24:51] >> I'd like to hear from the

[24:53] care it just to see how it

[24:55] could play into that. You know,

[24:56] whether to scoring process or

[24:58] whatever. I think that would be

[24:59] all city funded projects.

[25:01] I think there's a way there to

[25:03] assist. You can't mandate that

[25:04] you can't do anything like

[25:05] that.

[25:07] >> if we feel comfortable that

[25:08] there could be some kind of

[25:09] scoring change like we like we

[25:10] have under the game, what bill

[25:13] that we passed like a bill,

[25:18] then I I don't see why we can

[25:21] try that route is just

[25:23] and I don't want to run afoul

[25:24] of our general counsel's office

[25:25] and on the gators, I'm

[25:28] perfectly fine. Moving forward

[25:29] on something involving senate

[25:30] language. It could even

[25:31] potentially based based on the

[25:33] fact we basically did that with

[25:36] the stan for service act.

[25:38] I'm comfortable kind of moving

[25:39] in that direction.

[25:41] >> the

[25:45] it's interesting

[25:47] the idea of maybe giving more

[25:48] for anderson, like that is very

[25:49] interesting.

[25:52] I'm going to do it. Want to put

[25:53] it on paper.

[25:56] >> yeah, I think either.

[25:57] I think we've got 2 things that

[25:58] we have city funded projects

[26:00] and we have a sentence, I

[26:01] think, for city funded

[26:02] projects, volunteer to have a

[26:04] meeting with the chairman to

[26:06] see what can be done in the

[26:08] senate. I think I think the

[26:10] city has

[26:11] as some leeway either way.

[26:14] well, even when you and I spoke

[26:15] with procurement, I think it

[26:17] was still under the guise of.

[26:19] >> yes, sure, we can do x,

[26:21] y and z still on. I don't know

[26:22] if they had full legal. Do you

[26:25] see?

[26:26] >> one thing also to the you

[26:28] have to look at when he goes

[26:29] out for bid, who's been I mean

[26:30] that you might not even get

[26:32] contractors have an

[26:33] apprenticeship to bid just like

[26:34] on jason's, you might not have

[26:35] jason's the bit. I think that

[26:37] everybody should have the

[26:38] opportunity to bit. And then

[26:40] it's up to the individual

[26:41] contractors are going to turn

[26:42] not. But if they do have a

[26:43] registered apprenticeship,

[26:45] I think that should be

[26:46] recognized, you know, for

[26:47] whether that be some kind of

[26:48] point system or our you do

[26:49] other other programs.

[26:54] >> do we have any public

[26:55] comment? Speaker cards, right?

[26:57] non great.

[27:01] I'm happy to move forward on

[27:02] the inside of stuff

[27:04] and get more clarity on on

[27:06] procurement. But I

[27:08] the chairman side, I'm on very

[27:10] concerned if we

[27:12] I think it should be a part of

[27:13] the scoring, but I just want

[27:14] make sure that we're not

[27:17] mr. Gill says a very good

[27:18] attorney

[27:19] and I also think working with

[27:22] john sawyer

[27:23] would be a good idea

[27:25] as all of our incentive deals,

[27:26] all our incentive contracts.

[27:28] and I've already had some

[27:29] preliminary conversations with

[27:30] him, but

[27:33] current release of a pathway

[27:35] forward.

[27:39] you know, if you've got

[27:42] really shows other council

[27:43] members, you know, kind of talk

[27:44] to him about some of what was

[27:45] discussed or today it's a

[27:46] notice beating, even talk about

[27:47] some of the issues. I'm

[27:49] assuming a story will be

[27:50] written up

[27:51] that I think is means

[27:53] adjourned. Thank you

Notice Meeting CM Peluso RE Apprenticeships

Agenda

Transcript