two is binds grants loans and other funds made available to our buyer through the state or the political subdivisions the essence the common thread of all of this is that when a public body transfers decision the purpose of the act is meaning the prevailing wage is to ensure labors on public projects are paid the prevailing wage not to interfere in the private companies we've pointed out fully in a lot of detail why not something you see you do so if you think of a large construction project let's say you know the building and everything and over here is the utility but truck was saying but because it was exclusively just for this part of it then it doesn't have any v not just focusing on the utility and the logic of the trial court's decision which i believe is cry for in their public purpose because consider the fall what if the only public funds for this project had been c court to consider because i think there's an overarching inquiry that has to be made in this case and that is is who took responsibility is to determine the appropriate wage but it's the determination of the initial determination responsibility of the contractor in this case curiously the face for the iowa project example is i would document says paragraph for that same page it provides that as per the conditions of this credit at least twenty percent of the eight units too will initially be occupied by low moderate income household this bread represents less than twenty percent of the total project cost so obviously the word project here means the entire project and so the project is exempt from davis  somehow metamorphose the entire construction project to date spake back indeed i heard the notion about public policy being discussed here the fact of the matter is that  notion of the miss a governmental unit being paid to do the infrastructure work it best would turn the entire construction project into a games big most traded and would be delighted because the usual scenario here is that the payment the wages that are being paid on a construction site are less than they just take it when there's no public monies being used and then when they misspell it comes in does the infrastructure work well it's been argued doesn't convert the construction project to a davis bacon it's an example force account in this instance however we have a higher level of state funding as well as the c d b cheaper and that state funding was  evidence that's in the record so the question is if you're going to say that your defense is david isn't it curious that you didn't pay that i says miss you that this is a situation where he dispute problem that we have in this case is that as the court can well see during in the s l project it was a tender certain amount or what's called the tender of the amounts to do on that  instead of delay yes and i guess my clear is is that a crap employee should not have to wait six to seven years to get their hourly wage they should not have to go through the crack to litigation it's the responsibility of the contractor to make good determination and what we have here is we actually have this letter from this vote and you can see the reaction of the principal officer of i submit that that's inappropriate that's not what the contractor's responsibility is for and i think that is it this for the court's ruling with regard to the  nelson tell us what you think is reasonable out of those fees on the s l o project and the court did it pared it down pared by attorney feet down because i'm probably more meticulous and tell us about substance than like my billing statements appropriate on the s l f and i don't understand that from the standpoint of the tender that they made why do you would waste my time asking for an item say so my bill if their position was going to be that  no attorney's fees were appropriate it just seemed like it was a reversal and i don't know why that water faucet took place quite frankly but in any event already been offset so why is that an issue before this court except for the notion of the attorney's fees which is then before the trial court the response has been determined and discretionary determination ma how much to be paid so i'm not sure why that issue has to be before this court but i do think that and if the court looks at the notion of yes our project to win that video notion i also notice in the in did david spade wages they were the one and so what happened is that they got together with the project manager and negotiated the contract in a none obviously competitive  prologue to the bidding process that's why the home phones were withdraw from the city because they were notified by yours truly that i thought that was anti pettit and i thought that was it appropriate for a seal competitive bidding and lo and behold after so time and forceful discussion city said we're not going to give these federal funds because it was i don't think the court had a sense that the court could track or could readily see that that was an acknowledgement that this wasn't going anywhere for them and they made that unconditional payment because they knew they were going to prevail and now they when they didn't prevail the coming to this court despite the fact that they're not asking for that money back i don't quite understand that but i'm asking this court to reaffirm the decision we're panels couple that number so we have a awful lot of briefs to to get in the first two sentences of your what was the fun he said welcome tax credit so he said but the specifics on what reverend moss was characterizing in a gentle fashion he said this is a simile what it is and i know it because i looked at the application and then i had