Good afternoon, everyone. Time's 1201. Call this notice being in order. We're just going to kind of dive right in, do introductions. Lance, please start. Lance Fout with Smart Local 435, Sheep Metal Workers, and also the president of the North Florida Building Construction Trades Council. Jimmy Peluso, City Council, District 7. Shannon McGillis, Office of General Counsel. Excellent. So, obviously, we told other council members, please swing by. We had a pretty good coalition last time we were here, I thought, right? We had a good bipartisan group. Committee meeting just ended not too long ago, and then we have another committee meeting at 1, so a few folks may trickle in. But I really wanted to kind of get just back to basics on what we – we initially had a bill that I thought was in a pretty good spot, but then we had a legal – oh, look at that. You've got all sorts of stuff over there. We had some legal issues because of a court case, right? And do you mind kind of diving into that, Ms. McGillis? Thank you, Chair. Predominantly, it's the Florida Statutes. It's Section 255-0992, Public Works Projects, including as amended in 2025. The court case was out of St. Pete, and it went to the district court and the appellate court. And what was most notable there is that the state of Florida filed an amicus brief. Amicus, amicus, you can go either way. But amicus brief, which is – for briefs, it's actually quite brief. It's only a few pages because it is pretty darn clear that Florida Statutes 255-0992 prohibits the mandating of having apprenticeships, and the case was about apprenticeships and another form of staffing. But any effort for the city of Jacksonville to mandate apprenticeships within Public Works comments will violate 255-0992, and there's already a case on it, an amicus brief floating. If you want information on the St. Pete case, I can give you those specifics or just send it to you. But ultimately, when it came back down from the DCA, the local court struck the provisions of the St. Pete ordinance as null and void, unconstitutional. So mandates. You cannot mandate something. I think we kind of knew, okay, we're trying to model something here that's less about a mandate and more about maybe a goal. So Mike Gay had a bill that was passed about a year or so ago. It is that bill – and that bill is for – it's for apprenticeships, right? It provides a procurement code update that says if you're going to do procurement, right, for certain Public Works projects, that it encourages local – a local business, right, within the five-county area, how is that affected by this last bill? Do we know? I am here to speak on apprenticeships. I cannot, without further review, look at any other provisions, but I'm here to speak on apprenticeships, and the St. Pete case is on apprenticeships. So I guess my – oh, did you want to jump in? Go for it. Yeah, we're well aware of that. The state is not going to let you put any kind of requirements on anything, and we're well aware of that case there. Through this whole process, we knew that, and our stance is if we can get aspirational goals. The city has goals when it comes to JSEBs and stuff like that. I don't know where this requirement came. It's never been about a requirement. It's about a goal. So if the city is going to fund a project, I think the city has every right to ask for goals within a project. And how, I guess for the purposes of – the reason why I even brought up the Mike Gay thing, the Mike Gay bill, is that I would – what if we added to that procurement code to have aspirational goals for apprenticeships? Do we think that that could be – that that could thread the needle? If an aspirational goal then affects the bid process, you run a file of 255-0992-2B4 – actually, 2C. You cannot prohibit a contractor, subcontractor, contractor, material supplier, et cetera, from submitting a bid on the public works project. So if you affect the bid based on an aspirational goal, that's a mandate. So you can do incentives, you can do goals, but it cannot affect the ranking or the submission of the bid in the RFP process. So you can do goals. Sorry, so you said you can do incentives, you can do goals, but it just can't. So, like, how does one have a goal that doesn't affect the bid process? That is the hard part because you can have goals, but how do you enforce your goals? How are you incentivizing your goals? If enforcing your goal affects the bid process, that's a mandate. That's not a goal. Do you have something? During the procurement process or when they're looking at the bids, isn't there a scoring – how they score each individual contractor? I know it's not always low bid. Couldn't that be part of the goal process to, you know, whether somebody gets two points or something? I know at the Jaguar, you know, when they did their – they did it on a point system. If the contractor had apprentices, they scored so many points. If they were a local contractor, they scored so many points. So I'm just wondering how – if that could fit into this. I'm happy to look at whatever language you want to propose, but kind of off the cuff, I would have to actually see the language. This statute's hard. It's hard. So I'm – I mean, could we even just – we can't even, like, mandate that somebody tells us if they intend to hire apprenticeships. You know what I mean? Like, I mean, I'm even trying to see, like, on that matrix, yeah, can they say, like, you know, would – not that it would change the scoring, but even if it gives us data to know how many projects are being done by folks that have apprenticeships. Is that something that we can add? Just, like, do you intend to use one and have it not be a part of the scoring? I would have to and would like to consult with procurement and government operations because that's a whole different body of law. What we're here about today is whether or not you can mandate apprentices within public works contracts in pursuant to Chapter 255. No. The other party is, okay, so let's say there is incentives. What could that incentive look like? Like, if you are a – if you're a business that does hire, have you seen this in other counties and or municipalities? Hey, you know, 10% or 20% of our workforce is going to be apprentices, so you get an extra. My understanding is when they come to the table and ask for incentives, that would give the city a chance to, okay, we can do incentives, but we'd like to see this goal. I don't know if that's the correct terminology. But when we talk about incentives, the city council just passed the Stand for Service Act. How was that being – how can that play into this if we just took Stand for Service and put Stand for Apprenticeship? I don't know the difference between the two. My understanding of that bill is an incentive. And how does that incentive work? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't – I did not write that bill. I'm not here on that bill. I was here to answer this one question. I'm happy to go look it up and pull it and read it, but I did look it up about a month ago, and it was an incentive. So, yeah, I mean, to that end, if we model folks coming in for an actual city incentive is what you're saying, so they go through an economic development, you know, then do we just – I mean, I don't know if we pass a – I think that's every independent or every individual piece of legislation that comes before us that we do try to negotiate that. Or do we, like, try to pass a resolution to tell the administration or anyone coming to get an economic incentive that – I think there's two things. I think, one, city-funded projects. I think get with procurement and see how they're either putting their JSEB goals in there, if that's something that we could tailor it off of, or if an individual comes for an incentive, then that would be an individual project agreement, I would think. I'm wondering if the JSEB process is available to us right now, I think based on this ruling, this court ruling. Like, I think that might be something that we're concerned about. Well, the court ruling is, again, requirements. We've always known we will not get requirements. The state will not let us do requirements. They believe in small government until you want to do something. Listen, man, you're preaching to the choir here. You know, the idea of doing each independent incentive, right, for, you know, let's say Amazon wants to build another warehouse, right? I think each one coming before us, we can maybe add that into the legislation. Actually, can we? If it's an agreement between us and Amazon and not so much a mandate by? Is that the end of the question? Yeah. Okay. You cannot put it in code that it is a mandate. Sure. Your individual negotiations are separate and apart from that, but you cannot put it in the code that all, you know, builders of widgets must have 10% apprentice in order for your bid to be considered. So could we, I mean, like, could a bill be passed to kind of, that's why I'm saying a resolution, saying it's the intent of the city council or the intent of the city of Jacksonville that future incentives should have some kind of aspirational goal for apprentices moving forward? Just as a statement that city council, it's, I would really have to look at that. I mean, at the very least, that's a resolution kind of declaring, like, from now on, any major incentives that comes through needs to consider apprentices, apprenticeships. As for the Stand for Service Act, and I just saw, and I'm going to put her on the record here, I just saw Ms. Norris walk in. Ms. Norris, are you familiar with the Stand for Service Act and what the provisions were in that in terms of what we give to a business that is hiring more veterans or I think it was military spouses as well? You click the green. For the mayor's office, it follows, I think, the same preference for economic development that we also do for downtown. But again, I think it was very much aspirational because we cannot mandate it and we cannot track it. But was that a, was that ordinance code or was it a resolution? I can speak to that. Right. Understood. Yeah. And it speaks of incentives. Section 1A, the incentives and programs authorized hereby. Meaning if a company comes to ask for an incentive. Not that we, because I would love nothing more than if we could have a fund that would properly incentivize folks who go through the procurement process. I just don't know if we have the city council for that. Nor do I, I mean, that's why I was hoping I would have other folks here. Because even some of, you know, I'll give credit, more credits due. Some of my colleagues think differently than I do and may have another, either source of funding for something like this. But, like, I personally would have no issue if we went through the bid, you know, bid procurement system or procurement in general. And we said, after a bid is awarded, you know, hey, you're going to build this thing or you're going to do, you know, you're going to build a fire station. If you hire 10%, you know, we'll give you this incentive. Like the city would actually give some sort of incentive. And I don't know, I don't know the revenue stream where that would come from. Go ahead, Ms. Norris. It would have to be a revenue stream. When you're crafting an RFP, you're setting forth the requirements by which you're going to score applicants. And so if one of your requirements is to favor people using a certain labor pool or whatever, you can give them more points, and therefore they are awarded the business. So that is the incentive is that you win the RFP. That's what I think we would love to have. I don't think we're allowed to do that. I'm saying now it would be after you're awarded that we would say, hey, if you demonstrate that you've hired 10%, 20%, you can. I would have to defer to Chief of Procurement, Dustin Freeman, who I think would be a good resource on this. But we have in the past issued RFPs where we gave preference to those who had office locations in both Tallahassee and Jacksonville. So there are, in the procurement process, there are some sections that are required by code. But I think there is some flexibility on what can go in those sections and what you can ask for, because you are the one who holds the requirement. I think some of those things that we have done in the past are questionable right now. There's legal standing to allow for that. I think that's the concern. I mean, if we could just do that and we could actually put that into code, I would do that right now. I just want to make sure that we're not going to get. Have you talked with Chief Freeman on this? We have. Actually, we had a conversation with him two months ago about some of the things we want to do. That's what I was talking about. There is a scoring process that we thought that could be an avenue. Agreed. I mean, I think, but I think that's what, I think ideally that is what we want. I think what our attorney is telling us is that it might be unwise. I think that it's going to come down to what policy wording you're going to recommend, whether or not that can be woven in or not. Incentives are not tied to RFPs or tied to the bids. So there's a lot more to it, but the answer to the question of can you legislate, mandate apprenticeships as a percentage of public works contracts in the city of Jacksonville and comply with Florida statutes, Chapter 255? No. But, again, providing a weighting of scoring is a type of mandate, is what you're basically saying. As I sit here, that would be my opinion, but I'd want to dig a little deeper because that's kind of outside what those words aren't on here, but there's some pretty close words. I mean, if that's, if we feel confident with that, I am not confident. If we feel as though we have enough wiggle room, I'm perfectly happy filing that bill, and I think that it would be supported by our colleagues. I think the Mike Gay bill kind of speaks to that on local preference. I think Council Member Howland's bill kind of speaks to that. I would have no problem moving that. I just understand OGC may have a problem with it. From a policy perspective, I wouldn't, I think that that would be fine, and I'd be happy to talk to our litigators to see if they're confident. I'm not familiar with all the types of different grants the city does, but I know, you know, I always hear completion grants, rev grants, everything. But if there was a way, when you talk about finances or whatever, if the money's there, if there was a way to move some of that money to the front end of it, because there's never nothing there for the construction of it. It's always there when they're complete or if they're bringing jobs to Jacksonville, there's some grants there, but there's never nothing on the front end for the construction side of it. So if some of that money could be moved to the front end of it through one of the grant processes, that might be an idea or a way also where somebody could ask for a different kind of incentive. So are you suggesting that instead of it just being a completion grant, let's say it's a $7 million completion grant, that we open it up to them getting a million of it up front if they commit to a certain number? If they hit that goal, that would be ideal. That is a fascinating policy question. I don't know what the appetite would be for something like that. The reason why we love completion grants is obviously you do the work. I think we've been burned in the past on up front cash before I was a city council member in the 2000s and stuff like that. Do you want to weigh in on that? I do not. Perfect. God, you're a good lawyer. That's an interesting – I mean, like, that really is something I need to get the temperature of my colleagues to see. I see the value of that. That's an interesting one. You're not asking for more. I don't know what you're talking about. Correct. Yeah. I mean, if it's there, it just depends on when they get it. I would also assume that that still doesn't change code. It's just sort of an internal policy decision. Sorry. I promise I'm not sick. I think that would be just the administration slash economic development slash downtown investment authority. We need to have an internal policy where, you know, whatever incentive deals we do, this is an option that is available to the developer. Again, not a mandate. Say again? Yeah. Or a requirement. It's not a requirement. If they commit to that. That is – because, by the way, all those get voted on by city council. So anything that's a completion grant, including many of our REV grants as well. But that really is just sort of an internal policy thing, right? Or – go ahead. So in reflecting some on your suggestion for a resolution that it would be the city of Jacksonville policy, I still think you're going to be running afoul when we're talking about mandating, not incentivizing, but mandating. You're still going to run afoul of Chapter 2, 55, Florida Statutes, because the statute on its face does not read a municipality may not pass an ordinance, a municipality may not pass a law. It reads that a municipality may not take the following actions. So if you do that by internal regulation or by outward code, it comes to the same effect. If it is an internal regulation that this is – we do mandate this, but we're just not putting it in the code, you're still looking at a violation of Florida Statutes that is super ripe to be litigated because that amicus brief can file anywhere. All that to say, though, I think what I'm requesting is that it's still not a mandate so much as it is you get a different type of incentive if you do this. Do we deem that as a mandate, or do we think that that is still kind of what we already do in many cases? An incentive is an incentive. This is the contract. This is what you have to do to qualify for the contract. Those are the mandates. Once you qualify for that contract and you're not being – your bid is not being affected by, oh, hey, if you, you know, contractor A, agree to do this, we will throw this extra money at you, that's different. You can't – it's going to come down to the nouns and verbs, and whether you do it as an internal policy or an external – what I mean by external is printed code. The city of Jacksonville may not prevent, require, control – the term is require that a contractor, subcontractor, et cetera, et cetera, quote, control staffing. That's the apprentice part, and that was exactly what was at issue in St. Petersburg, and it was considered null at the initiation. So, those code provisions are off the books. So, controlling of staffing, that is a terrible term. Control, limit, or expand staffing. It is 2B, 255-0992-2B3. I think, again, if it's an incentive and somebody's asking for it, I think the city has every right to ask for things at that point. So, I'm comfortable doing that. However, I do – based on the word of control, I can see them saying, like, oh, even by virtue of this incentive, you're still providing some kind of controlling mechanism. If they're coming to the state, coming to the city, just like the Jaguars did, the Jaguars, you know, they had to agree to the terms. I don't – you're not controlling them at that point. They are agreeing. That's why I think that it's doable. I just wonder if I can pass a ordinance code or if we just get internal policy changes within the city. I mean, I – oh, we have Phil Peterson raising his hand. What Mr. Fout is referencing is a outside project. The Forte Statutes refer to public works projects. So, I do think what he is suggesting is possible because that's exactly what we did with the Stand for Service Act is when someone's coming to the city to develop something on their property and seek an incentive for it, then we can put stipulations on it. The Forte Statutes deal with city projects on city-owned property. Yep. I'd like to hear from procurement just to see how it could play into that, you know, whether the scoring process or whatever. I think that would be on city-funded projects. I think there's a way there, too. It's just you can't mandate it. You can't do anything like that. If we feel comfortable that there could be some kind of scoring change, like we have under the gay bill that we passed, my gay bill, then I don't see why we couldn't try that route. It's just I don't want to run afoul of our general counsel's office and our litigators. I'm perfectly fine moving forward on something involving incentive language. I could even potentially, based on the fact that we basically did that with the Stand for Service Act, I'm comfortable kind of moving in that direction. It's interesting. The idea of maybe giving more up front or something like that is very interesting. I'm willing to do it. I'm willing to put it on paper. What do you think? Yeah, I think either. I think we've got two things here. We have city-funded projects and we have incentives. I think for city-funded projects, we only need to have a meeting with procurement to see what can and can't be done. And on the incentives, I think the city has some leeway either way. Well, even when you and I spoke with procurement, I think it was still under the guise of, yeah, sure, we can do X, Y, and Z. I still don't know if they had full legal OGC. Well, I think also, too, you have to look at when it goes out for bid, who's bidding it? I mean, you might not even get contractors that have an apprenticeship to bid it. Just like on JSEBs, you might not have JSEBs to bid it. I think, but everybody should have the opportunity to bid it. And then it's up to that individual contractor if they're going to bid it or not. But if they do have a registered apprenticeship, I think that should be recognized, you know, for whether that be some kind of point system or however you do other programs. I'll do that. Do we have any public comment? Speak your cards? All right, none. Great. I'm happy to move forward on the incentive stuff and get more clarity on procurement. But the procurement side, I'm very concerned if we – I think it should be a part of the scoring. But I just want to make sure that we're not – Ms. McGillis is a very good attorney. I also think working with John Sawyer would be a good idea. He has all of our incentive deals, all of our incentive contracts. And I've already had some preliminary conversations with him, but that's where we are. All right. We at least have a pathway forward. You know, if you've got relationships with other council members, you know, kind of talk to them about some of what was discussed here today. It's a notice meeting. You can talk about some of the issues. I'm assuming a story will be written up. Other than that, I think this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.