St. Pete bows out of worker mandate legal battle

In July, several local union representatives pleaded with city council members to appeal a court ruling that nullified St. Petersburg’s apprenticeship and disadvantaged worker ordinances. That door slammed shut Wednesday.

The city had 30 days to appeal the July 8 judgment. While city council members solemnly discussed the fallout and next steps at a committee meeting Thursday, the plaintiff, the Florida Gulf Coast Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors (ABC), celebrated.

The ordinances, enacted in August 2019, require contractors completing city projects to employ apprentices and disadvantaged workers and pay them a “responsible” wage. A circuit court judge found the initiatives unlawful due to state preemption and unconstitutional.

“This just sucks,” said Councilmember Copley Gerdes. “I tell people all the time, nine out of 10 days, this job is awesome. This is the 10^th day.”

City officials and community leaders worked for nearly a decade to codify the ordinances. The goal was to ensure novices and marginalized trade workers participated in major municipal construction projects.

Disadvantaged workers can include those with criminal records, veterans, the homeless, residents of the South St. Petersburg Community Redevelopment Area, those without a GED or High School diploma and someone who received public assistance in the year preceding employment.

For example, the city’s preliminary agreements with the Tampa Bay Rays and Hines required apprentices and disadvantaged workers to complete 15% of all construction hours associated with the Historic Gas Plant project. The development team subsequently agreed to maintain that commitment voluntarily.

The ABC sued the city soon after officials established the hard-fought ordinances. The group touted a “major court victory over St. Petersburg’s building rules” Thursday.

“The court recognized that these rules were unfair and detrimental to the construction industry,” CEO Steve Cona III said in a prepared statement. “This is also a significant win for taxpayers, as increased competition will lead to better pricing and more opportunities for small businesses.”

The announcement also noted “severe financial penalties for non-compliance.” Cona first mentioned “unrealistic expectations” when asked to elaborate. He added that penalties included withholding retainage milestone payments, unspecified monetary fines and “even barring contractors from bidding on future projects.”

The legal battle spanned nearly five years and included a win for the city. However, that occurred before amendments to House Bill 705 became law July 1.

Local governments can no longer require contractors to hire employees from a “designated, restricted or single source.” The city’s legal team believes the appellate judge’s July 8 ruling is ironclad.

Ken MacCollum, an attorney for the city, said officials could appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. He also noted that they are now on the hook for legal fees in the “mid-six figures” and that a loss in Tallahassee could cost St. Petersburg over $1 million.

The judgment and preemption negated the city’s ordinance requiring contractors to pay a “responsible wage” equal to or above the average local hourly rate for that job. Jeanine Williams, chief assistant attorney, said a similar “living wage” mandate remains unaffected.

However, she said additional state legislation would preempt that measure in 2026. “There’s no good news today,” said Councilmember Brandi Gabbard.

“I’m very upset with Tallahassee,” Gabbard added. “Their continued lack of supporting everyday people who back their backs to build our communities is disgusting and has put us in this place.”

While Gabbard said she understood the administration’s constraints, she “might have been a little more bold” in fighting the ruling. “We’re not happy about this either,” said Assistant City Administrator Tom Greene.

There was a tinge of optimism at the meeting. Williams said the city’s program that requires developers receiving public assistance to provide community benefits is safe due to its voluntary nature.

Greene said the mayoral administration hopes public-private partnerships will encourage developers to meet the city’s apprentice and disadvantaged worker goals. Council Chair Deborah Figgs-Sanders said she did not expect to file an appeal after the July meeting.

Figgs-Sanders also noted that she and her colleagues already received an explanation and their limited options. She called it flattering that state organizations would single the city out for “thinking outside of the box.”

“If we have to start over, we will start over,” Figgs-Sanders continued. “Because we are St. Pete – and we look out for our own.”

The city’s legal team will explore integrating ordinance aspects within community benefits agreements. The Public Services and Infrastructure Committee agreed to discuss additional avenues to support local workers at a future meeting.