[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