IMPORTANT ISSUE: Bill - 2012-198 (CIP) original version and substitutes

[Patricia M. McBride]

This bill is a huge concern for residents of Duval County and the taxpayers as the original bill if passed with only 10 votes needed, would have given our city council the ability to just pass any spending bill when they chose to do so without meeting the current legal obligation of waiting until the budget or having the new spending included in the budget they operate under.  This is huge as things like doggie parks would just get rubber stamped without a care or concern about whether they had been budgeted and allow for even more fiscal insanity than we currently suffer.  Amendments have been proposed, and certainly no spending bill should be passed unless it is crucial or would be "detrimental" to the operation of the city. 

Please read the bill and take an opportunity to let your council members know how you feel about this bill.  A phone call, hand delivered typed letter, or personal meeting are the best methods, but if you aren't able to do either, please send an Email and put something in the title line that lets council know your feelings on this in the event they don't bother reading your Email (and no I am not being facitious).

You can find the bill and the summary here:  http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2012-0198

 

Members of CTDC, have provided the following discussion for your consideration in relation to this bill which still does show pending both rules and finance (but it is pretty clear some are chomping at the bit to pass this and approve a dog park):

Gulliford put in an amendment to change the requirement for a "finding" for  "detrimental" to amend the CIP mid year that was just awful because it said council wanted "long standing practices" so in other words business as usual. He said he just wanted to bring it to discussion and let it go where it may.

Lumb had other ideas and presented a real nice amendment that works out ok for all. Every entity and body in the city has to abide by this law. No body gets to amend the CIP whenever they want to any more!

We won one!

 

Doubt 198 will be on Council agenda tomorrow (4/24). Two Committees deferred the bill.

Monday- the bill was deferred in Rules as the language of the Lumb substitute had not been presented in writing at the Rules Committee. All Rules had was the original Gulliford bill and the suggest language by the TRUE Commission. Nothing was voted on so the bill is still in Committee.  The Rules Committee requested that the original bill and the most current substitute to proposed Ordinance 2012-198 (CIP) be distributed at the meeting .

Tuesday- as is usual practice the Finance deferred till it sees what the Rules Committee will do with it.

I doubt if Council President will allow Committee work to be done at the Council meeting as this is certainly not an emergency.

Although the current substitute strikes "finding" do you find the language of the current Lumb substitute acceptable?

I just received the substitute the Rules committee wants to present for 198. Does this mean your sub is out of the discussion? They are deleting the need for a "finding".  Will it be if they dont get to amend the CIP and spend the money right away it will be detrimental?

 

The Rules sub is closely related to the sub but I cant help but feel the people will be cheated without the need for a finding.  I am too suspicious of ulterior motives and feel the good ole boy club will be just as prominent as ever.

When the word finding was struck language was added is underlined. The bill will not have to state the reasons it will be detrimental if they wait till next budget cycle. In addition language is added to say it will 2/3 vote of members present. (2/3 present worries me - I would prefer 2/3 of Council. But even 2/3 of present would require a minimum of 10 votes. If there are more than 15 present present it will take more than 10 votes.  They also change Council Rules and add this CIP change to Council Rules that was not there before. Thats the way I read it. I did not copy and paste that part here. It is included in the sub after the first change that deals with the Code.  

 

(a)     by City Council specifically identifying the reasons that deferral of such amendment until the immediately following annual budget review will be detrimental to the best interest of the community. Enactment of an ordinance approving a proposed CIP mid-year amendment shall require approval by a two-thirds majority of the Council Members present.

 

They also change Council Rules and add this CIP change to Council Rules that was not there before.  I did not copy and paste that part here, but it is included in the sub after the first change that deals with the Code.  

Suggestion was made to add a definition to the Bill for the meaning of detrimental meaning risk to life, limb or property as it does under nuisance in Code

Nuisance means any one or combination of the following:

(b)

Any attractive nuisance which may prove detrimental to health or safety;

(c)

Physical conditions dangerous to human life or property, or detrimental to health, or detrimental to property values, or which tend to degrade the appearance of a neighborhood.

 

If no definition of what detrimental means is added, and no definition currently exists in code for detrimental, it will be left to interpretation and we all know how that goes.  In theory anything could be adjudged detrimental to the community such as a dog park or even a regional transportation center.  With a definition, the word means nothing or everything depending on who want a bill passed.

 

 

[Patricia M. McBride]

You are very welcome JL.  Hope some folks will get on top of this, and thank you for indicating you will.  It is quite distressing to find our city council trying to undo what a previous council did to stop the very thing this council wants to do (and is willing to undo to checks put in place................)

[JL Gawlik]

Will do what we can. Please keep us posted on this, it is very disturbing what they try to sneak thru. Personally i am not impressed by the new Mayor and he is very Progressive Marxist in my view in all that he says and does. They have clearly destroyed the old Democratic party. 

Thank you so much,Patricia for all that you do and for staying on top of this.