LIVEBLOG: Consolidation Review Task Force Meeting October 10, 2013

[TheCat]

Good morning. I'm at the meeting, though barely caffeinated and with the sudden realization that I drove away from the drive-thru at the bank without my withdrawal. It should be okay. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the tube but at least I got my receipt.

Lori is going over the minutes from last week. There are people in the gallery, maybe 2 dozen. The director of RAP is in the house.

[TheCat]

Minutes from last week:



TASK FORCE ON CONSOLIDATION MINUTES

October 3, 2013
9:00 a.m.

City Council Chamber
1st floor, City Hall
117 West Duval Street

Attendance:  Council Members Lori Boyer (Chair), Chuck Arnold, Cynthia Austin, Shannon Blankinship, Elaine Brown, Betty Burney, Leon Carrero, Lad Daniels, Ben Davis, Wyman Duggan, Georgette Dumont, Kay Ehas, Tony Hill, Betty Holzendorf, Jordan Logue, Bill Mason, Sam Mousa, Michael Munz, Jim Rinaman, Steve Rohan, Dwain Senterfitt, Opio Sokoni, Kerri Stewart, Paul Tutwiler; Kelli Wells; Giselle Carson (alt.)

Also: Jeff Clements – Council Research Division; Damian Cook – Task Force staff; Steve Cassada – Council Staff Services; Dana Farris – Legislative Services Division;

Chairwoman Boyer called the meeting to order at 9:03 and members introduced themselves for the record. 

Ms. Boyer announced that next week's meeting will hopefully cover issues related to the Beaches, Baldwin and neighborhoods.  She invited task force members to suggest speakers who might bring an interesting perspective on the issues.  If sufficient speakers on that topic can't be arranged, then the agenda will likely feature speakers where were invited but unable to attend prior meetings (former Mayor Tommy Hazouri, Clerk of the Courts Ronnie Fussell, the Library Board chairwoman).  Ms. Boyer noted that the time for the Task Force to take to the road for town hall meetings is approaching.  She is looking at the possibilities for meeting on Monday or Thursday evenings at several of the FSCJ campuses around the city, and hopes that groups of 5 or 6 members (not the entire body) can be present at each to hear from the public and report back to the full group.  She asked the members to contact Damian Cook and provide their availability for Monday and Thursday evenings in October so a schedule can be developed. Finally, Ms. Boyer announced that there is a public comment link on the Task Force's web site and she will be ensuring that comment cards are available to the public at City Hall and other public buildings for the public to have many opportunities to comment.

Ms. Boyer reviewed the meeting highlights from the September 19 and September 26 meetings: central service costs, Council Presidents used to meet monthly with independent authority board chairs and CEOs; retention of year-end budget savings by departments; Constitutional officers all use some City central services but not all, preferring to keep specialized functions in-house (law enforcement applications, voting applications, etc.); City allocation for community health purposes comes in several forms – Health Department, indigent care contract with UF Health Jacksonville, other health-related grants and allocations; central service providers understand that their billing charges are not well understood or popular, and all are working on revising their charging methodology and service model; due to lack of time, did not get a chance to explore the relationship between the Employee Services Department and the labor unions – how they work together, how job specifications are developed, etc.

Betty Holzendorf wants to explore if the City is losing benefits it could be eligible for because of our unique status as both a city and county; does our status as both make us ineligible for some grant programs?  Can the City Council declare Jacksonville to be one or the other as necessary to apply for particular kinds of grants?  Jim Rinaman said the City can be whichever one it wants to be as circumstances demand. Giselle Carson stated that our consolidated status is helpful in hosting big events like the Super Bowl and potential college football national championship game; promoters only have to deal with one entity.  Kay Ehas noted that the central service departments work for the Mayor and his priorities will always take precedence over the priorities of the Constitutional officers and others.  Opio Sokoni asked that the Task Force delve into the issue of minority contracting.

Office of General Counsel – historical perspective
Jim Rinaman gave a historical overview of the development of the modern General Counsel's office, beginning with the pre-consolidation city and county attorneys.  15 boards and bodies of the city and county government hired independent counsel and lawsuits between the bodies were both common and expensive. A unified general counsel for everyone was a fundamental concept of consolidation.  The
General Counsel would assign an attorney to each client, if there was a conflict those attorneys would brief and argue the issue to the General Counsel, and a binding legal opinion would be issued that had the effect of a court ruling to decide the issue within the consolidated government.  Judge Bill Durden, the first General Counsel, issued several hundred binding legal opinions in the first two years of consolidation to answer the many questions raised by the combination of the two governments.  Legal costs were reduced dramatically from the pre-consolidation era while the workload increased.  The General Counsel is the attorney for everyone in the city government and must strive to maintain total objectivity among all the clients, who deserve equal representation. General Counsel Dawson McQuaig was indicted for malfeasance in office and Judge James Harrison was brought in to clean up the situation and restore confidence in the office. Mr. Rinaman said that the General Counsel's job is not to tell a client they can't do something, but to offer avenues to legally achieve what they want to accomplish and then let the policymakers decide what they're willing to pursue.  The General Counsel must resist all pressures to bend or reinterpret the law to achieve a client's desired end.

Office of General Counsel panel discussion
Former General Counsels Harry Shorstein, Chuck Arnold and Fred Franklin

Harry Shorstein stated that the Offshore Power Systems deal showed the power and importance of an independent General Counsel to protecting the overall interests of the City and all of its citizens.  The job is bigger than just being the City's lawyer.  When he was General Counsel he used very few outside attorneys despite having a relatively small staff of attorneys. The General Counsel is both chief attorney and chief judge for adjudicating internal City issues.  He believes the availability of a large City pension if a General Counsel serves a number of years in the job provides an incentive to strongly consider the interests of the Mayor who has the power to remove a General Counsel from office.

Fred Franklin said that the conduct of the particular General Counsel has a great deal to with the overall perception of the office.  He sees nothing wrong with the powers of the office or the current selection process; any problems that have arisen have been particular to personalities.  Judge Durden naturally had to issue many more binding legal opinions than any other General Counsel because he had so many important questions to answer and precedents to determine.  Since those questions have been mostly settled, there is naturally less need for such opinions today.  He believes the General Counsel should be very judicious about injecting him/herself into decisions unnecessarily and reserve the power of the binding legal opinion for only the weightiest matters. Mr. Franklin said that he made very little use of outside counsel, preferring to build up the capabilities of the office to do work in-house.  He agrees with the Charter's characterization of the General Counsel as the third branch of government to act as the ultimate judicial arbiter of all disputes in an unbiased manner.

Chuck Arnold recalled that the Charter used to have a provision requiring the General Counsel to certify that the OGC could not provide a service in-house before hiring outside counsel.  That provision is no longer there, but might need to be reinstated.  He has seen the size of the General Counsel's office decline in recent years and the use of outside counsel increase.  He agrees with the other speakers that the General Counsel represents the entire corporate entity of the City all its citizens, not the mayor who makes the appointment.  He noted that many of the City's general counsels have served only 2 or 3 years – that was the norm until relatively recently.  Perhaps a term limit on general counsels is something to be considered.  He noted that the OGC is currently budgeting over $1 million for pension costs for its employees, and he does not think that the General Counsel should get a City pension. A strong general counsel can be a help to a mayor by making tough decisions and taking the heat for saying no to something that an elected mayor may have a hard time opposing.

Mr. Franklin noted that a general counsel can only be removed by action of the mayor with the concurrence of the City Counsel, and that provides protection for the general counsel to make rulings that might displease a mayor but would be in the best interests of the City as a whole.  He believes the general counsel has great independence and should always exercise it in a fair and unbiased manner.  Mr. Shorstein pointed out what he felt like were very bad OGC decisions – the Auchter Company contract for the new county courthouse and the Trail Ridge Landfill no-bid contract extension; these were legally irresponsible and should have been identified as such at the time.

In response to a question from Cynthia Austin about pensions, Mr. Arnold clarified that his comments about not qualifying for a pension applied only to the general counsel, not to the staff attorneys and support staff.  Ms. Austin asked if the current General Counsel would be appearing.  Lad Daniels expressed concern about the potential for over-involvement of general counsels in policy and political issues that exceed purely legal questions. All of the panelists said that it's a difficult problem to address and is very personal to the particular general counsel and the mayor involved. The general counsel has to keep the legal/political distinction clearly in mind and separate the two.  Wyman Duggan noted a continuing theme throughout the work of the Task Force, that there is a big difference between structural problems and personality problems, and changes in structure should not be made purely to deal with person-specific issues. In response to a question from Mr. Duggan about whether the Charter should be amended to provide the City Council with the power to remove the general counsel, Mr. Arnold and Mr. Franklin were open to exploring the issue but recommended caution in making the change because of the possibility that council members might not be entirely clear on the structure and roles of the various officers and how the government is supposed to operate. 

Kay Ehas was very pleased to hear the panelists say that the general public is the OGC's clients because she believes that that has not always been the case for some general counsels.  Sam Mousa reiterated the continuing theme of the distinction between structure and people and the importance of not confusing the two. Mr. Mousa always opposed general counsels sitting in the mayor's office for staff meetings to help set policy; that's an inappropriate role for an unbiased general counsel.  He does not believe that the OGC currently has an attitude of helping a client to get where they want to be; the tendency today is to say "no, you can't do that" and leave it at that.  Chuck Arnold and Fred Franklin echoed Mr. Mousa's comments about general counsels attending mayoral staff meetings – they never did that.  The general counsel should not be involved in policy decisions but should only offer legal advice as needed.  Mr. Rinaman suggested the Task Force consider a proposal to ban the process.

Mr. Rinaman is also very concerned that pension liability costs are being charged to departments as an internal service charge. He also advocated for keeping almost all legal work in-house, hiring staff attorneys if there's a continuing need for it and keeping the use of outside counsel to an absolute minimum.  He is becoming more persuaded that a term limit on the general counsel may be a good idea and would provide that person with the ability to take strong, principled stands on important issues without consideration of the effects on their pension or tenure.  In response to a statement by Steve Rohan that the current selection process is basically a sham and cannot not work as written, Harry Shorstein agreed that the current process is not set up to produce the best candidates, who won't subject themselves to public scrutiny and the potential of not being selected under the current process. Mr. Franklin stated that the current selection process has never, to his knowledge, generated any discussion in the Rules Committee or City Council, so the process should not be abandoned if it isn't being fully utilized first.  Mr. Shorstein commended the City's Council Auditors as being a vital asset to the City government. Ms. Boyer pointed out that the City currently has outside counsel for bond issues, which formerly was done in-house. Mr. Franklin recounted his experience with ruling that the mayor does not have the power to veto a quasi-judicial zoning matter and a request by the City Council for the general counsel to file for a declaratory judgment.  He made the final decision on the matter, but only when asked a direct question to solve the matter. He didn't want to overstep his bounds by jumping into the issue unbidden.  Cynthia Austin favors the term limit for general counsel service rather than trying to otherwise change the structure.  She also wants the group to investigate the concept of legislative counsel. Steve Rohan stated that during his 30-plus years with the OGC, the use of outside counsel was relatively small and was always strongly debated in-house.

Former City Council members' panel discussion
Bill Gulliford, Jack Webb, Warren Jones, Suzanne Jenkins, Eric Smith

Eric Smith feels that the independent authorities have become more "silo-like" than they used to be, and that they are almost all employing some form of "shadow counsel", having an attorney on staff who is not the authority's official attorney, but reviews legal issues before the official OGC attorney does so.  He advocated for a return to the practice he started of convening monthly meetings of the CEOs of the independent authorities with the Council President so that ideas can be shared and relationships can be developed.  He agrees with the sentiments expressed earlier about the distinction between the structure, which is good, and the people, which may very from time to time. Jacksonville has an enviable system of government, especially when compared with South Florida.

Suzanne Jenkins chaired the Government Operations, Oversight and Human Services (GOOHS) Committee during her council tenure and questioned all of the City departments about how they could provide better public service.  They found the consolidation is working very well in some areas, and not very well in others.  She also lamented the breakdown of communication and the fractures between the mayor, the council and the authorities that seems to have developed over the years. She recommended that the Task Force dig out those reports from 2006 to see what lessons can be gleaned from them.

Warren Jones pointed out that he and Eric Smith have served over 20 years on the council, so have seen lots of history.  He noted that the City still gives the Port Authority the same $800,000 per year that was giving at the time of consolidation, which was the equivalent of 1 mill then but is far from it now.  Without adequate funding, the port can't compete with ports in other states.  On the subject of central services, he believes that a restoration of the services that have spun off over the years would help save the City money by reducing the costs of duplication, but it's hard to say no to a constitutional officer who comes to ask for an opt-out by claiming that they don't get a good quality or timeliness of service.  Mr. Jones noted that the promise of consolidation, particularly in the African-American community, has not been met with regard to installation of public utilities in under-served communities.  Utilities are installed today by private developers and deeded to the JEA for maintenance, but there is little or no new development in the old core city communities to provide for private installation of utilities, and no plan for the City or JEA to do it.

Jack Webb expressed great concern with the general movement of population across the county line into St. Johns and Clay counties for a variety of reasons, including the perceived quality of public education and Jacksonville's seemingly limited ability to get major initiatives done because of the diversity of opinions, lack of consensus on priorities, limited resources, and conflicting agendas in different parts of town.  Outside of the Better Jacksonville Plan and the Super Bowl, the City seems to be incapable of coalescing around a common vision. He doesn't have the answers, but feels like something needs to be done to stop the flight of population and resources to neighboring counties.  Public political battles between the mayor and council don't help with the perception of unity and common vision toward a goal.

[TheCat]

Minutes continued:

Bill Gulliford suggested challenging common perceptions and received wisdom – look at the council/ manager form of government; look at eliminating the at-large city council districts; look at Beaches and Baldwin issues and the Interlocal Agreements; look at central services, particularly the aspects of private competition and the need for competitive pressures to produce efficiency; look at procurement bid review by City Council; look at the General Counsel's office and the Council's inability to initiate removal action, because otherwise there will always be the fact or the perception of the general counsel's loyalty to the mayor, not the rest of the city. Mr. Gulliford challenged the City's recent concentration on cutting taxes rather than investing in the sufficiency of public services.  He believes that the practice of borrowing through the Banking Fund rather than budgeting on a pay-as-you-go basis hides the true cost of providing fundamental services.

Ms. Boyer read a portion of an e-mail from former City Council member Alberta Hipps, who could not be present at the meeting, regarding the failure of the consolidated government to provide promised public services to rural parts of the county and the possibility that the City may have been better off retaining the water and sewer system than turning it over to the JEA.  Sam Mousa stated that only an infusion of public capital is going to solve the infrastructure problems in neighborhoods where there is no new development taking place.

Betty Burney agreed with Mr. Smith that the City and the authorities need to be constantly meeting and sharing vision for the community as a whole to progress.  She questioned who was the "ombudsman" who was supposed to responsible for seeing to it that the promises of consolidation were fulfilled in all parts of the community?  Mr. Smith responded that the City didn't over-promise, it under-delivered.  There have been sporadic efforts from time to time, but efforts like the Mayor's Intensive Care Neighborhoods program come and go from mayor to mayor.  Suzanne Jenkins said that lack of utilities hurts neighborhood development and City revenues, so some parts of town will continue to suffer.  She believes the City Council is hampered by the Government in the Sunshine Law which prevents council members from talking among themselves outside of meetings and developing personal relationships that help build understanding and help move issues along.

Warren Jones lamented that the old core city that was the heart of the city and carried the financial load for decades has been decimated since consolidation as interest and money has moved to the suburbs.  There will be no simple solution because a tremendous investment will be needed to install expensive infrastructure and there is no ready source of funding.  Jack Webb agreed that a fundamental problem is that the City lacks a dedicated funding source for addressing its infrastructure problems and there is no long-term community vision or political will, in large part because of term limits.  He agrees that the Sunshine Law and the grand jury investigation the mid-2000s brought about a level of "paranoia" among council members who felt like they couldn't talk to each other at all to avoid even the perception of a violation, so no camaraderie developed within the next council.  Bill Gulliford pointed out the inherent problems with getting public utilities into un-served neighborhoods - can those residents afford to pay the tap-in fees and then the monthly service charges thereafter?  Is there enough political will to impose those costs on neighborhoods when some residents may not want it? Jacksonville is one of the least-taxed cities in the nation, and we're getting what we pay for.

Mr. Gulliford pointed out that by giving the water and sewer systems to the JEA the City has given away its authority over the issue to a non-elected body.  Eric Smith noted that Florida has experienced a huge growth in the number of special purpose districts to provide services, perhaps in part because of the lack of will at a citywide or countywide level to do the job that needs to be done.  The same public will problem might apply in Jacksonville as well.  Mr. Webb stated that the current ad valorem tax system is completely dysfunctional because of the constraints imposed by the legislature in recent years, and nothing is going to change as long as the genera public is completely tax-averse and untrusting of its political representatives.

Lad Daniels asked if the size of council, term limits and the Sunshine Law are impediments to getting things done.  Warren Jones feels that the Sunshine Law is too strict and has hurt the City in economic development matters, and that councils prior to term limits turned over on a regular basis without it.  He also noted that since term limits there has never been a black Council President.  Mr. Gulliford pointed out the possibility that term limits may cause 14 of the 19 council members to turn over after the next election, and that would leave the council with very little institutional knowledge and experience.  He also believes the Sunshine Law is having a negative effect on getting good nominees for appointment to key positions and is an overly intrusive imposition on appointed advisory boards and commissions.  Suzanne Jenkins suggested that consideration be given to whether 19 council members is still sufficient given the city's population growth.  It's a daunting task for a part-time council member to represent 45,000 or 50,000 citizens, so maybe more are needed, or the at-large seats need to be converted to districts.  She believes term limits hurts the City in terms of lack of continuity of leadership and vision.  Every 4 or 8 years everything is disrupted and starts over from scratch.  Jack Webb agreed with the lack of continuity problem.  He also agreed that the Sunshine Law is a definite impediment to hiring the best people, in both the City and the independent authorities.  Eric Smith doesn't think that term limits have had the effect they were intended to have, empowering lobbyists and career employees at the expense of elected officials.  Term limits in Jacksonville have had the effect of sending council members to constitutional offices or the state legislature, and then back to council again. He also stated that the aviation authority years ago used to make a financial contribution to the city but no longer does; don't rely on the JAA's statement that they can't make a contribution due to FAA regulations without checking that factually.

Jim Rinaman echoed the importance of the Council Auditor as a vital cog in city government both for institutional knowledge and for independence. He agreed that City Council initiating removal of the General Counsel by a 2/3 vote could be acceptable, and lamented the perception that the general counsel is not the independent office it once was and is now part of the mayor's team. He urged the task force to not consider the failure of the promises of consolidation to be fulfilled in the northwest part of the city as a black/white issue – it's a have/have not issue that applies all over the city, not just in the old core city. 

Ms. Boyer invited Eric Smith to return next week for the discussion of neighborhood issues.  Ms. Boyer pointed out that the City has, in fact, made some investments in infrastructure in older areas, but only where economic development projects were in the offing (i.e. Riverside Avenue in Brooklyn).

The next meeting will on Thursday, at 9:00 a.m. and the subject will be Beaches, Baldwin and neighborhood issues.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:46.


Jeff Clements, Council Research Division (904) 630-1404

Posted 10.3.13
3:00 p.m.

[TheCat]

Stan Totman, Mayor of Baldwin, is at the podium. He's here to discuss his city's perspective on consolidation.

[TheCat]

Stan Totman:

-We're one square mile.
-It didn't impact us as a town.
-We receive the same things we would have received if we were working with a county.
-I'm a big fan of consolidation. There is no reason to duplicate services

**Stan, humble character. I'm just the mayor with an opinion. Some of those opinions come from my father when he was mayor and we were talking around the dinner table. What's Stan like? Think King of the Hill. **

- We're so small. We pay for our own garbage and such.
- School system is a benefit.
- Growth coming closer to our town.

Loris asks what are the services we provide?

Stan:

- We provide water and sewer for our area. That's how we make our money. We wouldn't survive without that. We don't receive anything back from Jacksonville.
- We control our own zoning and permitting.
- We do all of the roads, drainage that the state that doesn't provide for.
- We've pretty much paved all of our roads
- I don't see any downsides to consolidation but again it's the same relationship we would have had with a county.
- Jacksonville's been real good to us.

**At the beginning of Stan's talk he says "well, I never received any questions. We were left just like always." Said with a chuckle. So, he's going through the questions for the first time at the podium.**

[TheCat]

Stan Totman:

- We have our own legal.
- We're lucky to get some of Jacksonville's used equipment.
- We benefit from central services every day. Animal control. Spraying. We get services from Jacksonville that we don't see everyday.
- We do a great service by providing Jacksonville water and sewer in that area.
- We have a tremendous relationship with JSO, JFRD.
- Parks department runs the pool at the high school. The pool is one example (cutting back hours) was done for political reason and not necessarily about cutting expenses.

**Thinks the parks department has missed out on making a lot of money by cutting expanses that led to a greater loss of revenue (in terms of events that could be staged at Cecil Commerce and Equestrian Center).

* They got rid of their police department 18 years ago. JSO handles it now. They don't get anything back from citations or tickets.

[TheCat]

* They pay a millage rate of 3.15
* Arnold is hinting that maybe their rates are too low
* Stan's says well the beaches pay little less than us.

[TheCat]

City Manager for Neptune Beach is now at the podium:

- Has a 40 year history with consolidation.
- Our problems were solved for political reasons and haven't actually solved anything.
- Our major problem is the lack of communication between the beaches and Jacksonville
- Term limits are a problem in a sense because new people have to learn the process all over again. So, the beaches process suffers in the process.
- City Managers came around n the "late 1900s" and are usually required to have some sense of expertise. With Jacksonville's mayor that is not really a requirmenet.
- We provide all of our own services.
- The other problem we have is the tax differential. We pay a much higher percentage than other city/county relationships in Florida.
- We still wonder sometimes what we are getting.
- We have had examples when we call on Jacksonville for help we are told that they don't provide those services that they are required to provide ( ex. animal control).
- We have a good relationship with JSO.

[TheCat]

Jim Harboe, City Manager of of Neptune Beach

* Has reiterated multiple times that the loss of corporate knowledge from the turn over of appointees is the hardest part of consolidation. That they have to educate them on policy that they should have good hold on.

Harriet Pruette, Mayor of Neptune Beach

- Downside is communication. The change over is the worst part of consolidation.
- We tend to see a negative attitude about the beaches. Jacksonville is our government and you represent us too.
- Brings up how Animal Control does not fulfill their obligation to the beaches.
- We contacted the mayor and he did not respond.
- We're not notified when agreements impact the beaches.
- Jacksonville advertises their city and the beaches and so many Jacksonville residents use the beaches and it costs us a lot of money to maintain the high level of traffic.
- Most difficult relationship with the Mayor's office. Payton was involved and worked with us. This administration (Brown's office) has given us lip service.
- We didn't even receive a phone call when a certain bill incread their fees by 200k+ to Jacksonville.
- It would help us if we received a little money for trash control or animal control.
- We pay our taxes.

** She begins reading an article about how the beaches pay over 28 million and will not receive that much back in services.**

- I'd like to see it broken down to see how much we are actually receiving from the city. I don't think we are. We're glad to see so many Jacksonville residents coming to the beaches but it would be nice to get our fair share back.

[TheCat]

Jim Hanson, City Manager from Atlantic Beach

- Has been a city manager business for over 30 years.
- the question of "who paid for what?" is not an unusual question.
- the inter-local agreements are a separate question than consolidation.

**whoa, slow down Jim. This guy is a fast talker. **

[TheCat]

Jim Hanson, City Manager from Atlantic Beach:


- Jax has a lot of hard working professional people.
- Rapid turn-over of top staff. That has created some problems. There are many top people that are placed in these top positions. Each new mayor has brought in their own people. And, most recently, the appointees don't have the training or knowledge to be in the position they are filling. For Jacksonville this has been very costly.
- There are too few people. Jacksonville has been penny wise and pound foolish.
- Animal control has been a bit of a thorne in our side. Animal control was totally unaware of the inter-local agreement we have about animal control.
- A lot of the staff don't understand county level services because Jacksonville is a consolidated government. I find that I have had to explain our relationship over and over again. This is knowledge they should know to be in that position.
-

[TheCat]

Jim Hanson, City Manager from Atlantic Beach:


- An IBM study mentions that cost of services are not related to the size of the city or to whether it is unionized or not.
- The report found that cities with city manager forms of government are 10% more efficient than strong mayor forms of government.
- There needs to be a long term focus in the budget.
- If your budget is based on being elected.
- They did really well with Peyton and with Delaney. That has really gone down hill since...(doesn't say Mayor Brown but says Mayor Brown).

Rinaman suggests consolidating the beaches into one entity.

Hanson:
- We don't have a problem with our cities operating efficiently.

[TheCat]

George Forbes, City Manager of Jacksonville Beach (city manager for 19 years).

- Where would we be without consolidation? I think consolidation has given Jacksonville a very real sense of purpose.
- There is built in conflict to any system of government. As a whole consolidation has worked out very well.
- That doesn't mean there aren't problems.

**George Forbes. Animated. Fun to listen to. Charismatic. **

- The original charter says that you can't pass laws that impact Beaches zoning but Jacksonville still tries.
- We did some research and found out that all of our rights were taken out of the charter as it is illegal.
- It was straightened out when we threatened a lawsuit.
- We could have more advanced notice for laws that impact notice. That would be nice to have that in Charters.
- There is no way we would ever want to be a part of the county.
- That all I have to say.

Mousa: compliments all of the city managers.

Rinaman focused on merging the beaches.

Forbes: yeah...no. Let's focus on the county's services to the beachers.

[TheCat]

We are about to hear from a panel of representatives from Jacksonville's neighborhoods.

[TheCat]

Christina Parish: Springfield


Christina Parish, Springfield: Argues that consolidation may have


Carmen Godwin, Riverside & Avondale: I don't know that we have seen a positive impact on our area from consolidation. I'm a little jealous of the beaches with their level of autonomy.


Alton Yates,  North/West Neighborhoods: I'm a bit confused when it comes to consolidation(every word matter with Alton. Slow. Methodical. Deliberate.). Jacksonville is a much better city as a result of consolidation. Now, Jacksonville made a lot of promises that simply could not be kept. Drainage was such an issue in the inner city and those have been fixed. Now, that those problems were fixed in the inner city they were transferred to areas right outside of the inner city. So, where I live receives all of the water that used to be in the inner city is now flooding like you have never seen in the area (outside of the inner city).

Laura Thompson, Downtown: There just aren't any positive impacts of consolidation. We just aren't seeing the services that you expect to have.

Steve Matchett, Arlington: We had positive consequences in the first ten-twenty years. Issues were fixed coming out of the 70s and 80s. In the recent decades services have fallen.

Emily Lisska, Mandarin: Our population is a little larger than the other areas sitting here. I would say that delivery of services have improved over the years.