(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/foxandhenhouse.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/foxandhenhouse.jpg.html)
Kimberly Scott, former chief of Municipal Code Compliance has been appointed as interim division chief for the newly created Regulatory Compliance Division. A division which includes the Environmental Quality Department. The EQD, ironically, is currently investigating Ms Scott's department -- there is an active enforcement case (AD-11-22).
Those employees of the city whose job it is to investigate (among other things) asbestos violations, now have to answer to Ms. Scott.
Not a pleasant position to be in for either the employees or the city.
Apparently the violations mentioned above are not the first time that Ms. Scott's department has been in trouble with the Environmental Quality Department. Jax Unicorn's digging brought this previous asbestos problem to light.
Back in 2010, the then Director of the Division, slapped MCCD's wrist for not following the federal regulations regarding asbestos demolitions. At this time, the EQD basically said that code enforcement has learned its lesson and promises to do a better job.
A year later, they are cited again.
See the email below.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/enforcementdiscrestionletterMCCDasbestosissue.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/enforcementdiscrestionletterMCCDasbestosissue.jpg.html)
It is after this that they violated EPA guidelines once again forcing the city to take action on itself and exposing the citizens of this city to dangerous conditions.
Quote from: stephendare on March 18, 2014, 03:05:25 PM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on March 15, 2014, 09:13:21 AM
An additional public records request has turned up the following email from Dana Brown in the City's Environmental Quality Division apparently accusing Kim Scott and the Municipal Code Compliance Division of fudging EQD stamps. How much more of this will be uncovered as we continue to dig???
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/EQDTellingKimtheyarefudgingstamps.jpg)
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=21072.0
We have always heard that Ms Scott runs her department with an iron fist. So, it is hard not to believe that she knew exactly what her employees were doing (Youtube of a breaking and entering), that she willingly did not follow the requirements for using federal funds (requiring the payback of we believe a potential $500K from NSP1 & 3 alone), knew that her sub-contractors were not following procedures for asbestos (the violations mentioned above) and just had her people close out a public records request that ended up with the city paying lawyer fees.
Now the Mayor wants to promote her. Is it time we started asking who the Mayor really works for? It does not appear to be us tax payers.
This is very disappointing and I agree, Strider, a complete let down by the Mayor. Misuse of federal money and the Mayor promotes her?? He is again showing really poor leadership
2014-0215 RESO Conf Appt of Kimberly Scott as Director of Regulatory Compliance Dept. (McCain) (Req of Mayor) 3/25/2014 Introduced
Quote
Code chief criticized for demolitions in Springfield up for promotion
By Steve Patterson Thu, Mar 20, 2014 @ 1:22 pm
A veteran manager who has been praised and criticized as Jacksonville's code-enforcement chief is being picked to run the city's newly named Regulatory Compliance Department.
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-03-20/story/code-chief-criticized-demolitions-springfield-promotion
Another point to think about is her qualifications. I do not believe her resume meets the qualifications of the job as presented in the new ordinance that reorganized the departments.
Also of interest, while the article stated that Ms Scott was "deeply versed in the city ordinances" it has been my personal experience that she is not, often arguing with both the Office of General Council and the various other departments, something often seen in her emails. In fact, the entire Asbestos issue is because Ms. Scott refused to follow the ordinance as instructed. Maybe that means she is well versed in what they say but feels she is above following them? Not someone who should be running a department in my opinion.
It is the City of Jacksonville's way to tell honest investors who try to move this city forward to stay out of cow-town and look for a honest city to spend their money. This never ending cycle of corruption, inbreeding and incompetence has to stop if Jacksonville wants to be taken serious.
It's corrupt, totally agree. Scott doctored public documents and misused funds that the city will have to pay back. Doesn't matter whether you sing praises about preservation or champion for an old homes' demise, everyone's tax dollars are doing double and triple time here.
What's the reward for f-ing with people, properties, and funds? Promote and allow the scandal to ensue.
Not that is does any good in backass Jax, but we need to demand the council peeps shoot this down and demand Scott be removed.
Quote from: sheclown on March 20, 2014, 08:32:54 AM
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/foxandhenhouse.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/foxandhenhouse.jpg.html)
Kimberly Scott, former chief of Municipal Code Compliance has been appointed as interim division chief for the newly created Regulatory Compliance Division. A division which includes the Environmental Quality Department. The EQD, ironically, is currently investigating Ms Scott's department -- there is an active enforcement case (AD-11-22).
Those employees of the city whose job it is to investigate (among other things) asbestos violations, now have to answer to Ms. Scott.
Not a pleasant position to be in for either the employees or the city.
Apparently the violations mentioned above are not the first time that Ms. Scott's department has been in trouble with the Environmental Quality Department. Jax Unicorn's digging brought this previous asbestos problem to light.
Back in 2010, the then Director of the Division, slapped MCCD's wrist for not following the federal regulations regarding asbestos demolitions. At this time, the EQD basically said that code enforcement has learned its lesson and promises to do a better job.
A year later, they are cited again.
See the email below.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/enforcementdiscrestionletterMCCDasbestosissue.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/enforcementdiscrestionletterMCCDasbestosissue.jpg.html)
It is after this that they violated EPA guidelines once again forcing the city to take action on itself and exposing the citizens of this city to dangerous conditions.
Environmental Ethics- Vince Seibold
This is the section of the new ordinance that sets the new department they wish to make Ms Scott Director of. Note the requirements of the job.
QuoteSection 25. Amending Part 1 (General), Chapter 35 (Neighborhoods Department), Ordinance Code, to rename Neighborhoods Department to Regulatory Compliance Department.
Chapter 35 (Neighborhoods Department), Part 1 (General), Ordinance Code, is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 35. Neighborhoods Department Regulatory Compliance Department
Part 1. General
Section 35.101. Establishment; Director.
(a) There is created an executive department to be known as the Neighborhoods Department Regulatory Compliance Department. The Department shall be responsible for:
(1) Administration, operation and enforcement of environmental, air and water resources management activities of the City;
(2) Administration and operation of Animal Care and Protective Services;
(3) Administration and operation of the Mosquito Control activities of the Consolidated Government;
(4) Administration and operation of municipal code compliance activities;
(5) Administration, operation, and implementation of affordable housing and community development activities; and
(6) Having a liaison relationship with the Jacksonville Public Library.
(b) The Director of Neighborhoods shall be the head of the Department. The Director shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council, and shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. The Director shall have a bachelor's degree or higher in an accredited college or university and at least five years of management experience in environmental regulation, affordable housing or community development, or in government. Experience in governmental environmental regulation is preferred. The Director shall be responsible for the regulation and enforcement of environmental, air and water quality matters, the operation of the Mosquito Control, Environmental Quality, Animal Care and Protective Services, Housing and Community Development, and the Municipal Code Compliance Divisions, and have a liaison relationship with the Jacksonville Public Library.
The only environmental management experience I can find is during Ms Scott's tenure as Chief of MCC and
as she is currently under investigation for the management of the environmental issues, perhaps that experience should not and can not count. In fact, I would think it would and should negate all of the other experience for any city job.
Tuesday the 25th, the ordinance (2014-215) will be introduced to full council.
The following Monday at 9am ( March 31st) it will go before Rules Committee. Listed below are the members of the rules committee, their email and phone numbers.
Warren Jones 630-1395
Doyle Carter 630-1380
Bill Bishop 630-1392
Lori Boyer 630-1382
Richard Clark 630-1386
Denise Lee 630-1385
Don Redman 630-1394
The email cut and paste:
WAJones@coj.net, doylec@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, LBoyer@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, Redman@coj.net
At the end of it all is this:
to run a regulatory compliance division, one ought to have a track record of complying with regulations.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/doof.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/doof.jpg.html)
(http://barefootchristianfaith.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/riker-picard-facepalm.jpg)
Quote from: sheclown on March 20, 2014, 08:32:54 AM..................................................
A year later, they are cited again.
See the email below.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/enforcementdiscrestionletterMCCDasbestosissue.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/enforcementdiscrestionletterMCCDasbestosissue.jpg.html)
It is after this that they violated EPA guidelines once again forcing the city to take action on itself and exposing the citizens of this city to dangerous conditions.
Good thing this wasn't me cause I really can't tell what the infraction was. It only speaks to a misinterpertation of the regulations. From this I cannot tell if the public was in danger. Which may add to the probability of misreads cause it is so "buearucratic mumbo jumbo". Must have been the governments ineffective writing course graduate.
I know, it's kind of funny that letter. Apparently they were given a challenge to take a collection of the longest over-complicated and official-sounding words and had to write a memo using as many of them as possible. Corporate-speak at its finest.
The letter says to code "you screwed up -- we will give you a pass this time but don't let it happen again". Which, of course, they did and did and did again.
The writer of the letter is obviously afraid to be direct and therefore uses standard qualifying verbiage
The infraction is that they did the demolitions without going through proper channels or giving the environmental quality inspectors time to verify that the project as conducted is safe. That is the crux of the 10 day notification process.
well said.
Is Jacksonville the only city in which a city employee can knowingly break the law, expose the City and it's taxpayers to federal lawsuits and the repayment of perhaps millions of dollars of federal grant money, endanger the safety of it's citizens by not following asbestos abatement regulations, and then as a consequence, instead of being shown the door, is promoted to oversee the very department, hers, that was in violation of these laws?
How corrupt do we have to get before everyone is disgusted enough to call a stop to this and raise holy hell?
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 21, 2014, 05:03:06 PM
Is Jacksonville the only city in which a city employee can knowingly break the law, expose the City and it's taxpayers to federal lawsuits and the repayment of perhaps millions of dollars of federal grant money, endanger the safety of it's citizens by not following asbestos abatement regulations, and then as a consequence, instead of being shown the door, is promoted to oversee the very department, hers, that was in violation of these laws?
How corrupt do we have to get before everyone is disgusted enough to call a stop to this and raise holy hell?
+1 Don't hold back.
Quote from: iloveionia on March 20, 2014, 11:01:51 PM
It's corrupt, totally agree. Scott doctored public documents and misused funds that the city will have to pay back. Doesn't matter whether you sing praises about preservation or champion for an old homes' demise, everyone's tax dollars are doing double and triple time here.
What's the reward for f-ing with people, properties, and funds? Promote and allow the scandal to ensue.
Not that is does any good in backass Jax, but we need to demand the council peeps shoot this down and demand Scott be removed.
+1 Let it out.
It is the urban core which is at risk when the city plays fast and loose with the rules.
Asbestos violations, possible loss of federal funding due to mismanagement...who is getting hurt by these political games?
Those in the city who are the most vulnerable.
^^ And the historic urban fabric which has been forever lost.
So here's the deal.
Non-compliance of EPA Regulations (i.e. Asbestos)
- In June 2011 Jacksonville's Environmental Quality Division opened an investigation of Municipal Code Compliance Division's demolition practices. A link to my post and copy of the VIOLATION can be found here: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,20391.msg359132.html#msg359132 (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,20391.msg359132.html#msg359132)
- On June 30, 2011 Director Ebenezer Gujjarlapudi, P.E. issued a memo to Vince Seibold, P.E., Chief of Environmental Quality Division that stated the following:
QuoteThe Environmental and Compliance Department will use enforcement discretion to void any potential penalties and non-compliance actions against the Municipal Code Compliance (MCC) Division's asbestos demolition activities.
Below is the actual Memo - the contents SCREAM that MCCD is GUILTY but for some reason someone in the City decided NOT to impose any fines because MCCD said they had revised thier policies to comply with the EPA directive. (http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/enforcementdiscrestionletterMCCDasbestosissue.jpg) - Based on the above Memo, one can assume that MCCD is now FULLY versed in the requirements of Environmental Quality and there would be no further infractions - no question now....THEY NOW KNOW THE RULES.
- At a MINIMUM, the demolitions 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street (both in Historic Springfield) violated the EPA regulations....AGAIN.
- Let's recap the high-level VIOLATIONS cited against Kimberly Scott back in 2011 that according to the 06/30/11 Memo, MCCD had been rectified by policy revision:
QuoteViolations
• Failure to provide notification of renovation when above threshold quantities of RACM is to be disturbed
• Failure to thoroughly inspect
• Failure to properly dispose of debris
• Failure to adequately wet
• Failure to have at least one on-site representative trained in the provisions of 40 CFR 61 present during the stripping, removal, handling or Disturbance of RACM
While I do not yet know whether the proper 10 Day Notification to EQD was submitted for either property, I can say without a doubt that they violated the FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY WET requirement. - In addition, I have in my possession an email from Kimberly Scott to Dana Brown dated May 2, 2013 where Ms. Scott provided copies of 27 Notices of Demolition or Asbestos Renovation DEP62_257_900(1). Based on my personal review of the forms, the EQD stamps on the forms are FORGED.
- Many forms contain a stamp that is IDENTICAL to other forms in placement as well as date.
- It is clear on other forms the property address has been "whited out" and a new address written in.
Although PSOS knew there were ongoing asbestos violations, looks like EQD is now confirming!
Doesn't appear as though Ms. Scott is abiding by REGULATIONS that we KNOW she is aware of.Non-compliance of Federal Historic Regulations - Section 106 Reviews
- After PSOS continued to push the issue of illegal use of NSP funds to demolish historic homes, Terrance Ashanta-Barker finally admitted MCCD utilized Federal NSP funds to demolsh 129 East 2nd Street and 253 East 2nd Street without submitting the Federally required Section 106 review - a violation of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
QuoteSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP. Revised regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), became effective August 5, 2004.
- Use of Federal funds without following the applicable Federal Regulations means those funds MUST BE RETURNED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
- These two demolitions cost the City of Jacksonville over $30,000.
- A review of the 2011-2012 CAPER report contained the following statement on Page 42:
QuoteFinally, in an effort to effectively address blight and foreclosure, NSP has contracted with Code Enforcement to demolish unsightly structures. For the fiscal year, 23 unsafe and ill-used homes were demolished.
- I asked Elaine Spencer of Housing Services to provide the addresses of the 23 properties.
- Dayatra Coles, Manager of Housing Services provided that list.
- 21 of the 23 properties demolished were over 50 years old and REQUIRED a Section 106 review if Federal funds were used to demolish.
- I forwarded the email containing the list of properties to the State of Florida Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and asked if they had Section 106 reviews on file for the listed properties.
- Timothy Parsons, Compliance Review Supervisor, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer replied:
QuoteKim, Katie Shelfer has determined that we did not receive any Section 106 review documentation for any of these properties.
- The demolition lien amount listed on the Duval County Tax Collector's site as of the date of my research for these 21 properties totals $79,831.38. THESE FUNDS MUST BE RETURNED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
- A previous public records request for a list of properties demolished using NSP1 funds in Zip Code 32206 yielded a total of 69 properties. Of those, 8 addresses could not be located on the Property Appraiser's website (so age could not be verified) and 4 were less than 50 years old at the time of demolition.
- That left 57 properties on the list all over 50 years old. No Section 106 review...for a total of $417,227.41 to be RETURNED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Folks, that comes to $493,539.23! ALMOST HALF A MILLION DOLLARS that the City of Jacksonville will be REQUIRED to return to the Federal Government because Kim Scott could not follow Federal guidelines. And that is not all the properties....
Does this sound like someone who should be RUNNING the Regulatory Compliance Division? ??? Not to me it doesn't.....[/list][/list][/list]
+1 Now throw in the Waterways.
has this all been shared in this detail with all members of city council?
Quote from: edjax on March 22, 2014, 08:08:49 PM
has this all been shared in this detail with all members of city council?
I have personally spoken to City Council numerous time regarding the demolition costs of properties demolished using federal funds without Section 106 reviews, and the fact that those funds must be returned. I have also spoken numerous times about the willful disregard for federal NESHAP guidelines as it relates to demolition and asbestos.
The 2011 memo 'voiding' penalty for MCCD and the falsified documents are recent discoveries.....
I can only do so much in my "three minutes" and attempts to discuss the issue personally outside of council have not been successful.
These issues have been brought up for YEARS with city council.
These issues have been in the press.
These issues have been on Metrojacksonville.
No reason for anyone NOT TO know what is going on. Certainly our elected officials have a duty (especially in a case where added responsibility and accountability is at stake) to take a close look at this situation.
Would a Lead Letter on the Editoral Page work? I mean at this point with the decision close I would think any attempt to get in even more in the public eye would help. The T-U had the article at least noting some controversy about her so perhaps now they would jump on a letter to the editor as one of their Lead Letters. About the only time the Mayor does anything right is when he is shamed into it.
This issue needs to go out of the box. 67 counties in Florida. How many have a REGULATORY COMPLIANCE DIVISION CHIEF? 2014-215 is the legislation. Unable to see pages 2-5.
Now 2014-200 Will have Regulatory Compliance oversight. How much is being carried over?
Quote from: Overstreet on March 21, 2014, 10:02:25 AM
Quote from: sheclown on March 20, 2014, 08:32:54 AM..................................................
A year later, they are cited again.
See the email below.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/enforcementdiscrestionletterMCCDasbestosissue.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/enforcementdiscrestionletterMCCDasbestosissue.jpg.html)
It is after this that they violated EPA guidelines once again forcing the city to take action on itself and exposing the citizens of this city to dangerous conditions.
Good thing this wasn't me cause I really can't tell what the infraction was. It only speaks to a misinterpertation of the regulations. From this I cannot tell if the public was in danger. Which may add to the probability of misreads cause it is so "buearucratic mumbo jumbo". Must have been the governments ineffective writing course graduate.
+1 Shipyards I
Maybe its just me, but I was sort of hard-wired to accept the fact that the government acts in a benevolent way towards the citizens -- sure, I figured that there is a bit of corruption here, a pocket of self-interest there...but all in all, at the end of the day, I just figured that those who run this city love it as much as I do.
But this is what happens to someone as naive as me...
You start digging around, start reading emails, start reading other documents and you think WTF!
Even if you don't care about the demolition of a historic district (or of LaVilla for that matter). Perhaps the urban core is of no great concern to you, surely you must care about the air you breathe, the water you drink.
Having an effective and independent Environmental Quality Division is paramount to your public health. How can this NOT matter to you...to your council rep?
Even if we forgot about the past mistakes and misdeeds....what would our future hold with this type of leadership? And should the EQD be forced to ignore the public safety issues in the future, what will the consequences be? And who will stop the damage?
Sure, I'm mad about the senseless demotions in Springfield -- about the mismanagement of federal funds. But I am totally blown away by a mayor who is so unconcerned about this that he rewards this behavior. And I am frightened that the system is so entrenched in Jacksonville, that no one is willing to ask the tough questions for fear of retribution from the Good Old Boy network.
QuoteGood Old Boy network.
Soon to receive a Good Old Girl to the network!
Quote from: edjax on March 22, 2014, 09:43:50 PM
Would a Lead Letter on the Editoral Page work? I mean at this point with the decision close I would think any attempt to get in even more in the public eye would help. The T-U had the article at least noting some controversy about her so perhaps now they would jump on a letter to the editor as one of their Lead Letters. About the only time the Mayor does anything right is when he is shamed into it.
edjax, at this point whatever we can do to get someone with some power to stop this appointment of Kimberly Scott to Director will help. Heck, I read up on the Vince Seibold case and it appears he was "fired" or his "resignation letter was accepted" because he had concerns over a conflict of interest between moving EQD under the supervision of Public Works. I don't think the department was moved under Public Works, so perhaps even though Mr. Seibold was fired, his concerns were recognized and the move didn't happen. Do we have to have another sacrificial lamb in order to stop THIS move???
The local TV media did a story on the Springfield demolitions before. Any chance they would make a second piece concerning these new developments?
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on March 23, 2014, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: edjax on March 22, 2014, 09:43:50 PM
Would a Lead Letter on the Editoral Page work? I mean at this point with the decision close I would think any attempt to get in even more in the public eye would help. The T-U had the article at least noting some controversy about her so perhaps now they would jump on a letter to the editor as one of their Lead Letters. About the only time the Mayor does anything right is when he is shamed into it.
edjax, at this point whatever we can do to get someone with some power to stop this appointment of Kimberly Scott to Director will help. Heck, I read up on the Vince Seibold case and it appears he was "fired" or his "resignation letter was accepted" because he had concerns over a conflict of interest between moving EQD under the supervision of Public Works. I don't think the department was moved under Public Works, so perhaps even though Mr. Seibold was fired, his concerns were recognized and the move didn't happen. Do we have to have another sacrificial lamb in order to stop THIS move???
I think hit it hard now as I recall during the final budget meeting I watched on TV there were,several council members not too enamored with Ms. Scott, Cresembeini in particular.
Go to the legislation 2014-215. Somebody post it.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on March 23, 2014, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: edjax on March 22, 2014, 09:43:50 PM
Would a Lead Letter on the Editoral Page work? I mean at this point with the decision close I would think any attempt to get in even more in the public eye would help. The T-U had the article at least noting some controversy about her so perhaps now they would jump on a letter to the editor as one of their Lead Letters. About the only time the Mayor does anything right is when he is shamed into it.
edjax, at this point whatever we can do to get someone with some power to stop this appointment of Kimberly Scott to Director will help. Heck, I read up on the Vince Seibold case and it appears he was "fired" or his "resignation letter was accepted" because he had concerns over a conflict of interest between moving EQD under the supervision of Public Works. I don't think the department was moved under Public Works, so perhaps even though Mr. Seibold was fired, his concerns were recognized and the move didn't happen. Do we have to have another sacrificial lamb in order to stop THIS move???
So this is the
second time within a short period of time that a
serious conflict of interest has occurred? First with public works in early 2013 and now with Kim Scott as head of EQD a little over a year later?
I don't understand the dynamics here. Why keep messing with this?
Anyone have any insight?
http://www.youtube.com/v/OprzFKwpeGY?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0
Introduced by the Council President at the request of the Mayor:
RESOLUTION 2014-215
A RESOLUTION Confirming the Mayor's APPOINTMENT Of KIMBERLY SCOTT AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE OF THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Jacksonville:
Section 1. Appointment. The Council hereby confirms the Mayor's appointment of Kimberly Scott as Director of the Department of Regulatory Compliance of the City of Jacksonville. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the curriculum vitae of Kimberly Scott.
Section 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective upon signature by the Mayor or upon becoming effective without the Mayor's signature.
Form Approved:
/s/ James R. McCain, Jr.
Office of General Counsel
Legislation prepared by: James R. McCain, Jr.
C:\Users\Gloria\AppData\Local\Temp\2014-215.doc
And here's a photo of the woman who has cost the City of Jacksonville upwards of $500,000 dollars so far....
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/2014-01KimScottresumephoto.jpg)
QuoteJacksonville environmental chief pushed out
He was dismissed after talking to an advisory board.
Posted: April 11, 2013 - 7:11pm | Updated: April 12, 2013 - 8:07am
Vince Seibold had expressed concerns about the mayor's reorganization of his agency.
By Steve Patterson
The head of Jacksonville's environmental agency has been dismissed after talking to a city advisory board about potential problems with Mayor Alvin Brown's plan to reorganize his agency.
Vince Seibold said before losing his job that members of the Environmental Protection Board asked him about effects of moving the Environmental Quality Division into the Public Works Department.
He restated his loyalty when city personnel managers held a "fact-finding meeting" last week to ask him about "unauthorized communication."
Read: Plan to shift Jacksonville City Hall offices drawing criticisms from environmentalists
"My track record clearly shows that I support [the] mayor's priorities and have excelled at my job," Seibold wrote on a nine-question form that asked his stance on Brown's plan.
Seibold wrote that he supported the plan but there were "operational issues to be addressed."
To see documents from city's investigation of Seibold, click here
His boss, Neighborhoods Director Terrance Ashanta-Barker, issued a memo in January that said moving the division to Public Works would "create an operational conflict of interest" and "subject the city to a backlash from the environmental community."
Ashanta-Barker was also questioned by personnel managers, but the city's labor relations chief, Tracey Watkins, recommended against disciplining him. Ashanta-Barker "was generally unaware of the level of efforts by his staff to secure support against the realignment," Watkins wrote in a memo to Chief Administrative Officer Karen Bowling.
The city dismissed Seibold by using a resignation letter he wrote in 2011, when all city appointees were required to formally resign before Brown was sworn in.
During the meeting with personnel managers, Seibold was asked if he had approached Protection Board members about the reorganization. He answered no but wrote on the form – which was completed during the meeting – that board members asked him about it during public meetings.
During its meeting this week, board members were upset that they had difficulty in getting more information about the change. Having Siebold gone, board members said, would make their job even harder.
"I'm very frustrated," said board member Michelle Tappouni. "I've worked very hard to get answers on this and I've gotten none. And now our chief is gone."
Seibold had been a division chief since 2007, when he was recruited from a management job in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. He had worked there since 1989.
Watkins' memo said Public Works Director Jim Robinson viewed the conflict-of-interest talk as "a 'Vince-led' issue" that "may serve to potentially alert the state."
The memo didn't address whether conflict of interest concerns were valid or could be managed. Brown's office has noted a number of other governments, including the counties of Los Angeles and San Francisco in California and Fairfax County, Va., house environmental programs inside public works agencies.
Times-Union writer Timothy J. Gibbons contributed to this report.
steve.patterson@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4263
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-04-11/story/jacksonville-environmental-chief-pushed-out#ixzz2wsrS876v
check here for more info:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135419031/Vince-Seibold-investigative-documents
These documents are interesting indeed. Would be interested to get a copy of the documents referenced in the fact-finding memo from Tracey D. Watkins, Chief of Employee and Labor Relations with the City of Jacksonville, dated April 3, 2013 outlining a City EQD Fact-finding initiative regarding Vincent Seibold.
See the below from that memo:
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/2013-04-03Fact-finding-JimRobinsonstmts.jpg)
Note the statement by Jim Robinson: "This previous employment, which created relationships that are probably still maintained, may serve to potentially alert the State of possible conflict of interest problems with the realignment."
Thoughts – why would it be a bad thing to alert the State of Florida of potential issues surrounding the actions of city government? This thread is evolving into something more than just a Conflict of Interest in promoting Kim Scott to Director over MCCD and EQD.....
...something here STINKS and it ain't just visual emissions...
In some ways, this could just be a matter of the typical Jacksonville "who's is going to the right church" effect. But in some ways, who knows, I don't think Major Brown is that new to politics. After all, this isn't his first job in the field. In some ways, it almost looks like there are larger forces at play.
I really wonder if this is just setting the stage for anything larger. Any large city project / new corporation or so moving to JAX that would be important to the Mayor that would be easier if "regulation" and "compliance" would only be applied at the Mayor's bidding?
well, there is this plant...Jacksonville Lime and they are going through the environmental permitting process now.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=17680.0
QuoteLime and Limestone
Carmeuse Lime & Stone is one of the largest producers of limestone and lime in the world with more than 90 production facilities located in 13 countries. In North America, the company operates 28 plants in 33 states and provinces in eastern United States and Canada, including the only lime-manufacturing operation in Florida through a joint venture with Keystone Properties, LLC.
Carmeuse and Jacksonville Lime manufacture a complete range of limestone and lime products to meet the needs of a variety of industries. These products include limestone and limestone aggregate, quicklime, hydrated lime, and milk of lime (Aquacal).
To learn more about limestone mining, lime manufacturing, the environmental benefits of lime, and Jacksonville Lime's line of products, click on the links on the left side of the page.
http://www.jacksonvillelime.com/lime-and-limestone/
Quote
August 23, 2013
Florida Governor recognizes Keystone Jacksonville Terminal
055
Florida Gov. Rick Scott recently recognized new developments at Keystone Jacksonville Terminal. In a statement issued on July 6, 2011, Gov. Scott stated:
"I applaud Keystone Industries and the Florida Rock Division of Vulcan Materials for choosing Florida as the best place to expand their operations, creating 200 jobs for the Jacksonville area. These jobs, along with the 28,000 Florida jobs added during the month of May – 2,000 more than all other 49 states combined – are clear signs Florida is on the path to turning our economy around.
"In our current global economy, businesses can choose to expand and grow anywhere in the world. In Florida, our plan to cut taxes and regulation will continue to attract companies, like Keystone Terminal, that want to get the most out of their investments. I am confident the steps we are taking will make Florida the best location in the world for businesses to grow."
Next year, a joint venture between Carmeuse Lime & Stone and Keystone Properties will develop Jacksonville Lime at the terminal.
http://www.jacksonvillelime.com/news/florida-governor-recognizes-keystones/
http://www.jacksonvillelime.com/lime-and-limestone/
[/quote]
Quote from: strider on March 24, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
well, there is this plant...Jacksonville Lime and they are going through the environmental permitting process now.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=17680.0
permitting process:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/ghgpermits/jacksonvillelime_ghg.html
Quote from: strider on March 21, 2014, 07:36:40 AM
This is the section of the new ordinance that sets the new department they wish to make Ms Scott Director of. Note the requirements of the job.
QuoteSection 25. Amending Part 1 (General), Chapter 35 (Neighborhoods Department), Ordinance Code, to rename Neighborhoods Department to Regulatory Compliance Department.
Chapter 35 (Neighborhoods Department), Part 1 (General), Ordinance Code, is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 35. Neighborhoods Department Regulatory Compliance Department
Part 1. General
Section 35.101. Establishment; Director.
(a) There is created an executive department to be known as the Neighborhoods Department Regulatory Compliance Department. The Department shall be responsible for:
(1) Administration, operation and enforcement of environmental, air and water resources management activities of the City;
(2) Administration and operation of Animal Care and Protective Services;
(3) Administration and operation of the Mosquito Control activities of the Consolidated Government;
(4) Administration and operation of municipal code compliance activities;
(5) Administration, operation, and implementation of affordable housing and community development activities; and
(6) Having a liaison relationship with the Jacksonville Public Library.
(b) The Director of Neighborhoods shall be the head of the Department. The Director shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council, and shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. The Director shall have a bachelor's degree or higher in an accredited college or university and at least five years of management experience in environmental regulation, affordable housing or community development, or in government. Experience in governmental environmental regulation is preferred. The Director shall be responsible for the regulation and enforcement of environmental, air and water quality matters, the operation of the Mosquito Control, Environmental Quality, Animal Care and Protective Services, Housing and Community Development, and the Municipal Code Compliance Divisions, and have a liaison relationship with the Jacksonville Public Library.
The only environmental management experience I can find is during Ms Scott's tenure as Chief of MCC and as she is currently under investigation for the management of the environmental issues, perhaps that experience should not and can not count. In fact, I would think it would and should negate all of the other experience for any city job.
Good info. Sorry I missed this. What power in this position.
I like number 1
Administration, Operation and ENFORCEMENT of environmental, air and WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES of the city
Still have an open contest if anyone can take a picture of the Waterways signage that was never before Waterways and I will treat you to Chopstick Charley's and we'll use Uber. It is in our DIA zone.
D- Downtown
I-Is
A-Adjustable
Does this appointment have the endorsements of the Riverkeeper, JU, UNF, Burkholder?
There are FEDERAL oversite projects that are looming for this community. Port dredging. Hogans Creek. Park View land contamination, Claude Nolan, add your own.
Does anyone know firsthand if the HUD OIG was alerted to the activities of Ms. Scott and the COJ, or if it was just the local office who was notified?
We are working with the local office. We did talk to the DC HUD office but with the dept which handles section 106 reviews not the OIG
5 hours out. This will be in Rules this morning at 9am 1st floor in council chambers. Anyone going? 2014-215 is the legislation. Councilman Warren Jones is the Chair. The agenda meeting is at 8:30 4th floor.
A new Authority
Embrace It
Or
It will Embrace Us
yes, PSOS will be there
Two of us did go to the Rules meeting this morning. The council members present were reminded of the issues that have been raised by PSOS and that the purpose of opposing this appointment is to insure that Jacksonville begin making sure that the appointees are properly vetted, are indeed qualified and are competent to do the job. Ms. Scott is not the right person for this job for multiple reasons. We are simply hoping that the city council recognizes that only through better and truly competent appointees in these important positions we can then have hope for a better run Jacksonville.
Quote from: strider on March 31, 2014, 12:59:23 PM
Two of us did go to the Rules meeting this morning. The council members present were reminded of the issues that have been raised by PSOS and that the purpose of opposing this appointment is to insure that Jacksonville begin making sure that the appointees are properly vetted, are indeed qualified and are competent to do the job. Ms. Scott is not the right person for this job for multiple reasons. We are simply hoping that the city council recognizes that only through better and truly competent appointees in these important positions we can then have hope for a better run Jacksonville.
^ I love that guy.
I thought the meeting started at 8:30 and when I arrived the Council chamber was empty. Apparently they discuss the agenda at 8:30 and the actual committee convenes at 9:00. When I arrived in Conference Room A, the meeting had already ended, but I was able to speak to CM Jones. Asked if Kim Scott's appointment would be on today's agenda. It was then that I learned that the committee does not even talk about upcoming items until after the 2nd reading, which is what today was. I asked when the public hearing would be held and was told that there is no public hearing on Resolutions, which is what Kim Scott's appointment is. Only opportunity to speak is during public comments. He also told me that the committee would be voting on this on April 14, 2014.
I attended the committee meeting along with Joe Markusic. Both of us spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting. I pointed out that Kimberly Scott does not meet the qualifications in the reorganization ordinance, and based on that should not be confirmed. I then outlined the numerous violations of varying regulations from the EPA's NESHAP (asbestos) to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966.
- Confirmed EPA NESHAP violations in June, 2011
- Violations discovered and reported by COJ's Environmental Quality Division
- COJ Enforcement discretion used June 30, 2011 to not fine MCCD for EPA violations
- Confirmed REPEAT violations of EPA's NESHAP documented
- Demolition of 129 East 2nd Street, May 2013
- Demolition of 253 East 2nd Street, June, 2013
- Evidence of multiple forged DEP Form 62-257.900(1) documents
- Notice of Demolition or Asbestos Renovation
- Environmental Quality Division investigating forms as of May, 2013
- Multiple violations of NHPA's Section 106 review process (requires Section 106 reviews prior to demolition)
- Documented proof that upwards of $500,000 in NSP funding used to demolish homes will have to be returned to the federal government
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online/2014-council-video-archive.aspx#Rules
Begins at 28:00
Here's a link to the actual video (03/31/14 Rules Committee meeting) instead of the listing of all videos.. :) I begin speaking 25 minutes into the video followed by strider.
http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Rules_3-31-14.wmv (http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Rules_3-31-14.wmv)
Today's proverb -- brought to you by PSOS
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/proverb.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/proverb.jpg.html)
art by Nicole Lopez
Two meetings of note for Monday.
The first is 9am at the Rules Committee, council chambers.
The second is at 5:00 Ed Ball Building, the Environmental Protection Board.
PSOS will be at both meetings. We'd love company -- and we will report back.
front page of the paper today:
Quote
Asbestos case, demolitions stir talk ahead of vote on Jacksonville compliance job
Posted: April 12, 2014 - 10:51pm | Updated: April 12, 2014 - 11:16pm
By Steve Patterson
A Jacksonville agency was cited for having an unqualified contractor demolish an asbestos-tainted Arlington restaurant.
Later, the agency had two houses in Springfield razed, then had to return money for the demolitions to a special federal funding account because reviews the federal government requires were not done.
Now the agency's chief, Kim Scott, awaits a City Council vote on whether she should be promoted to director of the city's Regulatory Compliance Department.
And critics are lining up to second-guess Mayor Alvin Brown's office for the pick.
"At the end of it all is this: to run a regulatory compliance division, one ought to have a track record of complying with regulations," wrote a commenter on the blog site metrojacksonville.com. By Friday, the site had logged 5,355 readings of a thread headlined "Kim Scott: Fox guarding hen house??"
There's a lot that should be talked about, and publicly, a key City Council member said.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-04-12/story/asbestos-case-demolitions-stir-talk-ahead-vote-jacksonville-compliance#ixzz2ynfIwFdg
emphasis mine.
Streaming on coj.net right now.
I am so disappointed in our City's Rules Committee decision to APPROVE Kim Scott's appointment to Director of Regulatory Compliance. They questioned Kim Scott about the demolition of the restaurant in Arlington and whether asbestos guidelines were followed but NOT ONE PERSON asked anything about the mis-use of NSP funds.
Looks like the Fox has just been given carte blanche to guard the hen house....
Who is on the Rules Committee?
No public comments were taken before the vote. I was told by CM Jones that there are no public hearings for appointments. We are going to speak after....
JaxUnicorn, did each of them vote in favor?
There were 7 votes in FAVOR of the appointment.
I did not see the recommendation to ask the Rules Committee to reconsider until just now. Given the fact that CM Denise Lee instructed the Office of General Council to "put this matter to bed" (referring to the use of NSP funds to demolish structures) while I was speaking, perhaps there is a precedent to have the vote reconsidered.
One would think that the issue should have been "put to bed" BEFORE a vote took place. And I was extremely insulted by Ms. Lee's treatment of both strider and myself. We spoke, she responded, and then did not allow either of us to respond to her comments, which is really not. If a CM asks a speaker a question, that in my opinion opens the door for dialogue and therefore the speaker should be allowed to reply/respond. I don't know what the "law" says regarding interaction between citizens and CMs.
Both CM Redman and CM Lee were asking me whether the structures demolished using NSP funds were condemned. I could not answer that, and to be honest, although I've not looked to see if condemnation language is in the regulation, it does not matter. NSP funds are FEDERAL funds and in order to use them, the Federal Government REQUIRES following Federal guidelines. If federal funds are to be used to rehabilitate or demolish, a Section 106 review is REQUIRED to be done on ANY property over 50 years old. Ms. Lee asked if NSP funds could be used to demolish a structure and cut me off when I started to explain. She wanted a yes or no answer. The answer is YES, NSP funds can be used to demolish a structure. But that's not the end of the story....if the structure is over 50 years old, then a Section 106 review is required.
It's all about knowing the regulation. And knowing the regulation is now Ms. Scott's JOB.
This got a fair amount of coverage from the media. The Mayor's political machine was up and running and it did it's job better then we did. Plain and simple. The only real issue that was brought up by PSOS that was addressed in any way was one Asbestos case and she was given an opportunity to address it. Otherwise it was about how wonderful of a person she is and how wonderful of a job she has been doing. Of course, Ms Lee said I was wrong because I should not make this personal though it seemed OK for them to make it personal.
I said for the record that the appointment of Ms Scott may have been smart politics for them, but it was not good governing. That she either willfully ignored the Letters of Understanding she signed or all of it happened without her knowledge and she is incompetent. It is pretty black and white to me. And so is what the Mayor's office and this committee thinks of public input into what they must feel is only their affair. It is very disheartening to think that even ones you feel are the good ones can't be bother to get the facts and must vote politics over common sense.
CM Lee loves to cut off citizens when speaking
How could any of this be personal against Scott, when none of the opponents know her personally, they only know her performance/job record?? What bunch of nonsense!
Get the Feds involved in the misuse of money, get one of the property owners to sue, that's the only way this Council will wake up!
Wait...You spoke AFTER the vote?
Quote
286.0114 Public meetings; reasonable opportunity to be heard; attorney fees.—
(1) For purposes of this section, "board or commission" means a board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of a county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision.
(2) Members of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission. The opportunity to be heard need not occur at the same meeting at which the board or commission takes official action on the proposition if the opportunity occurs at a meeting that is during the decisionmaking process and is within reasonable proximity in time before the meeting at which the board or commission takes the official action. This section does not prohibit a board or commission from maintaining orderly conduct or proper decorum in a public meeting. The opportunity to be heard is subject to rules or policies adopted by the board or commission, as provided in subsection (4).
(3) The requirements in subsection (2) do not apply to:
(a) An official act that must be taken to deal with an emergency situation affecting the public health, welfare, or safety, if compliance with the requirements would cause an unreasonable delay in the ability of the board or commission to act;
(b) An official act involving no more than a ministerial act, including, but not limited to, approval of minutes and ceremonial proclamations;
(c) A meeting that is exempt from s. 286.011; or
(d) A meeting during which the board or commission is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. This paragraph does not affect the right of a person to be heard as otherwise provided by law.
(4) Rules or policies of a board or commission which govern the opportunity to be heard are limited to those that:
(a) Provide guidelines regarding the amount of time an individual has to address the board or commission;
(b) Prescribe procedures for allowing representatives of groups or factions on a proposition to address the board or commission, rather than all members of such groups or factions, at meetings in which a large number of individuals wish to be heard;
(c) Prescribe procedures or forms for an individual to use in order to inform the board or commission of a desire to be heard; to indicate his or her support, opposition, or neutrality on a proposition; and to indicate his or her designation of a representative to speak for him or her or his or her group on a proposition if he or she so chooses; or
(d) Designate a specified period of time for public comment.
(5) If a board or commission adopts rules or policies in compliance with this section and follows such rules or policies when providing an opportunity for members of the public to be heard, the board or commission is deemed to be acting in compliance with this section.
(6) A circuit court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction for the purpose of enforcing this section upon the filing of an application for such injunction by a citizen of this state.
(7)(a) Whenever an action is filed against a board or commission to enforce this section, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees against such board or commission if the court determines that the defendant to such action acted in violation of this section. The court may assess reasonable attorney fees against the individual filing such an action if the court finds that the action was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. This paragraph does not apply to a state attorney or his or her duly authorized assistants or an officer charged with enforcing this section.
(b) Whenever a board or commission appeals a court order that has found the board or commission to have violated this section, and such order is affirmed, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees for the appeal against such board or commission.
(8) An action taken by a board or commission which is found to be in violation of this section is not void as a result of that violation.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2013-227.
I understand that you spoke two weeks ago on this topic, but is that really "reasonable"?
A violation of this state law pays attorney's fees.
Below are questions (I assume from City Council) and answers (again, assume from Kim Scott) that were referred to during the Rules Committee Meeting.
Front page:
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/da4529eb-375a-4799-b55e-28367005e02c.jpg)
Back page:
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/JaxUnicorn/20140414_113046.jpg)
Quote from: sheclown on April 14, 2014, 02:54:13 PM
Wait...You spoke AFTER the vote?
Quote
286.0114 Public meetings; reasonable opportunity to be heard; attorney fees.—
(1) For purposes of this section, "board or commission" means a board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of a county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision.
(2) Members of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission. The opportunity to be heard need not occur at the same meeting at which the board or commission takes official action on the proposition if the opportunity occurs at a meeting that is during the decisionmaking process and is within reasonable proximity in time before the meeting at which the board or commission takes the official action. This section does not prohibit a board or commission from maintaining orderly conduct or proper decorum in a public meeting. The opportunity to be heard is subject to rules or policies adopted by the board or commission, as provided in subsection (4).
(3) The requirements in subsection (2) do not apply to:
(a) An official act that must be taken to deal with an emergency situation affecting the public health, welfare, or safety, if compliance with the requirements would cause an unreasonable delay in the ability of the board or commission to act;
(b) An official act involving no more than a ministerial act, including, but not limited to, approval of minutes and ceremonial proclamations;
(c) A meeting that is exempt from s. 286.011; or
(d) A meeting during which the board or commission is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. This paragraph does not affect the right of a person to be heard as otherwise provided by law.
(4) Rules or policies of a board or commission which govern the opportunity to be heard are limited to those that:
(a) Provide guidelines regarding the amount of time an individual has to address the board or commission;
(b) Prescribe procedures for allowing representatives of groups or factions on a proposition to address the board or commission, rather than all members of such groups or factions, at meetings in which a large number of individuals wish to be heard;
(c) Prescribe procedures or forms for an individual to use in order to inform the board or commission of a desire to be heard; to indicate his or her support, opposition, or neutrality on a proposition; and to indicate his or her designation of a representative to speak for him or her or his or her group on a proposition if he or she so chooses; or
(d) Designate a specified period of time for public comment.
(5) If a board or commission adopts rules or policies in compliance with this section and follows such rules or policies when providing an opportunity for members of the public to be heard, the board or commission is deemed to be acting in compliance with this section.
(6) A circuit court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction for the purpose of enforcing this section upon the filing of an application for such injunction by a citizen of this state.
(7)(a) Whenever an action is filed against a board or commission to enforce this section, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees against such board or commission if the court determines that the defendant to such action acted in violation of this section. The court may assess reasonable attorney fees against the individual filing such an action if the court finds that the action was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. This paragraph does not apply to a state attorney or his or her duly authorized assistants or an officer charged with enforcing this section.
(b) Whenever a board or commission appeals a court order that has found the board or commission to have violated this section, and such order is affirmed, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees for the appeal against such board or commission.
(8) An action taken by a board or commission which is found to be in violation of this section is not void as a result of that violation.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2013-227.
I understand that you spoke two weeks ago on this topic, but is that really "reasonable"?
A violation of this state law pays attorney's fees.
Yes, both strider and I spoke AFTER the vote was held.
In addition, two weeks ago CM Jones told me that public hearings are NOT held on appointments. I have sent two emails to Jason Teal with the Office of General Counsel, one on April 1, 2014 (copied CM Jones) and another on April 8 (copying CM Jones and adding Cindy Laquidara with the Office of General Counsel) and asked for clarification on that issue. To date I have received no response from either Mr. Teal or Ms. Laquidara.
From this morning's Rules Committee meeting minutes:
QuotePublic Comment - John Mancusik and Kim Pryor of Preservation SOS expressed opposition to the appointment of Kim Scott as Director of the Regulatory Compliance Department based on her administration of the Municipal Code Enforcement Division, which they believe has violated federal grant guidelines and other regulations in the process of demolishing structures in the city. Council Member Lee requested the Office of General Counsel and the City administration to prepare written responses to the allegations made by Preservation SOS so that the factuality of the issues can be decided once and for all.
One would think that the "factuality of the issues can be decided once and for all" would have been done BEFORE approving Kim Scott's appointment...we've only been telling them about it for at least 2 years!
What is the Environmental Control agency of FL andthe Feds saying about this situation?
the city is being investigated
http://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online/2014-council-video-archive.aspx
Rules committee 4/14 --
The video of public comments starts at 1:56
Redman: "where any of these houses that got demolished -- were they condemned because they were a hazard to the community? They wouldn't be demolished unless they were a hazard...we have some...they are dangerous and can't be tore down because of the pressure from our organization."
[2:05]
Lee: .... "federal guidelines, state guidelines, city guidelines sometimes differ.... supersede one another....it could be that condemnation ...then NSP funds could be used....I would suggest before accusing an entity -- know what the law actually says....I'm going to ask administration to respond... Ask OGC......If condemnation is there....based on the speakers comments...dollars cannot be used for demolition....I wanna know if NSP dollars can be used for demolitions...If they were used for demolition...were they used within the law.....Can NSP 1 and 2 be used for demolition if condemnation occured prior and its been cited and gone through the process 3.) If existing structure whether it is a home or ....and it is a historical site...is there a requirement that the site be preserved even if it has been condemned....or does the historical designation of the site....If it has been deemed historical...does the condemnation language fit in there that allows for demolition...The reason for that is we need to put this to bed. Many of these complaints are they coming from...absentee landlords...
[2:07]
What is particularly disturbing is when council doesn't even understand the questions....
Oooph Da.
Lori Boyer mentioned open investigations during the rules committee. These differ from the open case that we have found. Anyone have info, or know how to get info on these open investigations against MCCD?
They know about open investigations and they still voted to move her forward??
Apparently so....
As Stephan and a few other have told us, the Mayor's office campaigned heavily for this appointment and they did so partly by making us standing up and speaking nothing but a personal attack against Kimberly Scott by Preservation SOS. When you watch the video, it is evident that the fix was in and everyone made sure they piled on the praise. They did not have to do that, they could have just voted, but kissing up to the politic pressure was what was required of them. Even the questions seemed structured when you view the video and what little I overhead being said to Ms Scott by Ms Boyer prior to the meeting now makes sense. Ms Boyer seemed to be giving Ms Scott prior notice of the questions she would ask but also giving assurance that it was all OK. And, of course, it was.
The only thing Ms Boyer seemed able to get in was that fact of a continuing investigation and that meant little as can be seen by the vote. The entire federal funding thing was completely ignored and even council members who have blasted Ms Scott in the past sung her praises. It was above all else a lesson in Jacksonville politics.
2015 is an election year and while I now know getting good people who care about having a properly run city in office is unlikely, I will commit to working for a couple of good people who have a chance. And hoping that at least change of any kind will be better than what we have now.
Quote from: stephendare on April 15, 2014, 04:52:48 PM
And here is the Daily Record reporting on the subject:
http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=542708
Then came Kim Scott's turn.
The almost 30-year veteran and former head of the Municipal Code Compliance Division is serving as the acting director of the Regulatory Compliance Department, a promotion with responsibilities that include oversight over her former division and several others.
But, concerned residents have accused Scott of improperly managing situations in the compliance role, which led to questions by council members during the half-hour or so interview.
Most of the discussion revolved around a May 2011 partial demolition on University Boulevard and whether proper asbestos procedures — notifications, oversight and disposal among other concerns — were followed.
Scott said the project was declared an emergency on a Friday and that the city's procurement, building inspections and environmental quality areas were notified. Work started on a Saturday and the rush was because it was in close proximity to an elementary school, day care facility and roadway.
Any asbestos-related case requires a supervisor but because of short notice, an environmental quality employee filled in, Scott said. The employee could have stopped the demolition if anything was wrong.
There was also the question about the contractor, who may or may not in 2011 have had the qualifications to handle and dispose of asbestos materials. The contractor does now, but several years ago is in question, which led to council member Bill Bishop asking who oversees such specifications.
Procurement manages the process and works with a requesting agency or department, which provides the needed technical certificates or licenses for a job, said Greg Pease, procurement chief.
Scott called it a collaboration, but never heard from procurement about problems.
"This particular issue seems to be passed back and forth," Bishop said.
He also questioned whether the contractor properly disposed of the materials. The contractor did, according to a city official, by putting it in Trail Ridge Landfill. But whether the materials were put in the right area is undetermined and there was no paper trail, Bishop said.
"If they just stuck this stuff in a landfill, then we have a problem here," he said.
Council member Lori Boyer also questioned Scott about oversight and conflict of interest — the Environmental Protection Board has actions pending against code compliance, which Scott oversaw. Now, Scott would oversee both.
Scott said a state ethics panel could review any ethics issues, but Boyer said she didn't want to be "punting" all environmental quality issues to the state.
okay -- there was trash, but we can't find it.
okay -- couldn't find an inspector, but we had someone there
okay -- the contractor wasn't licensed but it wasn't my fault
okay -- I'll be in charge of the people who are investigating me
-----------
And us, these "concerned citizens", have a personal agenda?
The Rules Committee sold out.
^And that dear friends is the brick wall that local politico's put around their favorite insiders, in this case Kim Scott. Politics in jacksonville for some is only about getting paid and that requires having the right friends in the right departments. Scott knows how to play the victim game and she has those who are willing to play it with her. This is nothing new but speaks volumes to the underlying dysfunction in this city when it comes to building, redevelopment and preservation. The departments are often not well run, skirt protocol and process and when questioned about their actions, bury the truth in a barrage of words and rhetoric. In order to get the attention of city leaders this needs to go to the feds and a full inquiry into how federal funds were handled as well as why after all the problems with ash in many of these communities, everyone seems to think asbestos is not a problem. As far as Kim Scott saying procurement hired the contractor, she left something very important out of that statement to council. As things stands, Scott is the person selecting the contractors and procurement basically rubber stamps her choices as it does with all contracts funneled to procurement by Scott. She has a free hand in all this and we apparently have city leadership that is willing to take her word that everything is peachy keen. It simply is not.
Quote from: avs on April 15, 2014, 09:07:33 AM
They know about open investigations and they still voted to move her forward??
QuoteJacksonville Council panel backs Kim Scott's promotion to compliance director
By Steve Patterson Mon, Apr 14, 2014 @ 2:34 pm | updated Mon, Apr 14, 2014 @ 3:10 pm
The longtime head of Jacksonville's code-enforcement division won a City Council panel's support Monday to become director of the Department of Regulatory Compliance.
Before the unanimous vote, members of the Rules Committee questioned Kimberly Scott for about a half-hour, mostly about an environmental citation the Municipal Code Compliance Division received in 2011 over a city-ordered demolition of an Arlington restaurant with asbestos in it.
"You've got to be either real good or real bad," Councilwoman Denise Lee told Scott during the questioning. "This is the first time I've heard a director quizzed like this."
The full council will consider the appointment when it meets next week.
The restaurant, King Dragon at 1126 University Blvd. N., already had been partly demolished by contractors working for the owner, but they left the job mid-way and the city hired another contractor, Michael Lloyd Hauling, to finish the job.
The city's Environmental Quality Division cited the company, saying no one on the job had certification for asbestos removal that the law required, and cited Code Compliance, where Scott had been chief since 2007, for having hired the company.
Scott told the committee the company was hired through the city's Procurement Division, and that she didn't directly know whether the company was properly certified in 2011. A copy of Lloyd's training certificate is in city records now, but that was issued in 2013.
Councilwoman Lori Boyer said she was concerned about how Scott would handle cases brought in the future by the city's Environmental Protection Board, saying she understood the board to be pursuing new issues involving the Code Compliance.
The compliance director oversees both the code compliance and environmental quality divisions, the latter of which serves as staff to the unpaid Environmental Protection Board.
"I certainly understand your concerns," Scott answered, and said she had been looking into handing off enforcement to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection if a conflict of interest arose.
Other council members lauded Scott, a 29-year city employee who they said had shown conviction by standing up to complaints about building-code citations issued in other parts of town.
"Ninety-nine percent of the time, she'll tell me no if she believes she's right," Councilman Richard Clark told the committee. "I don't know that we can find a better person for this job."
Scott had been faulted earlier by neighborhood activists who had complained about her use of demolition in historic neighborhoods, and some of those told the committee again Monday they thought she was a bad pick for the director's job.
"A leader should lead by example," said Kim Pryor, a member of the historic preservation group Preservation SOS, who said Scott had ducked responsibility for hiring Lloyd's company. "You need to question those other departments."
Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 15, 2014, 06:12:30 PM
^And that dear friends is the brick wall that local politico's put around their favorite insiders, in this case Kim Scott. Politics in jacksonville for some is only about getting paid and that requires having the right friends in the right departments. Scott knows how to play the victim game and she has those who are willing to play it with her. This is nothing new but speaks volumes to the underlying dysfunction in this city when it comes to building, redevelopment and preservation. The departments are often not well run, skirt protocol and process and when questioned about their actions, bury the truth in a barrage of words and rhetoric. In order to get the attention of city leaders this needs to go to the feds and a full inquiry into how federal funds were handled as well as why after all the problems with ash in many of these communities, everyone seems to think asbestos is not a problem. As far as Kim Scott saying procurement hired the contractor, she left something very important out of that statement to council. As things stands, Scott is the person selecting the contractors and procurement basically rubber stamps her choices as it does with all contracts funneled to procurement by Scott. She has a free hand in all this and we apparently have city leadership that is willing to take her word that everything is peachy keen. It simply is not.
Very well explained Diane.
Thanks Gloria. Time to shift gears and work around local government. Talk to the feds and if necessary talk to someone at the SAO about the concerns with regard to potential unfair or illegal influence when it comes to how Scott's contracts are awarded. City council members have dropped the ball on this in a big way and made it into a power struggle between a city department and the people those departments are supposed to serve. We pay the dadgum bills and this type of response to a very real concern should rise above friendships in City Hall.
Very disappointed, especially in Lori Boyer and Mayoral Candidate Bill Bishop. Seems he could have staked out a difference from Mayor Photo-Op by voting "no" on this. Especially as it was obvious she was going to get enough votes ... then, if (when) the fecal matter hits the ventilator, he could be on the side of the angels.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 15, 2014, 08:53:56 PM
Very disappointed, especially in Lori Boyer and Mayoral Candidate Bill Bishop. Seems he could have staked out a difference from Mayor Photo-Op by voting "no" on this. Especially as it was obvious she was going to get enough votes ... then, if (when) the fecal matter hits the ventilator, he could be on the side of the angels.
He has got to show himself as having some respect and concern for the serious issues discussed as opposed to rubber stamping the decision along with the rest of council. Right now, politically he is saying he agrees with Alvin Brown and that overrides the concerns of the community. I like Bill as a person, but do not see him as a guy who will offer a real challenge to Brown next elections cycle.
However, since Bill is courting the Developer Support and Money (hence, the proposal to further weaken the Mobility Fee), perhaps develpers like Kim Scott, so he has to dance to that tune.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 15, 2014, 09:55:45 PM
However, since Bill is courting the Developer Support and Money (hence, the proposal to further weaken the Mobility Fee), perhaps develpers like Kim Scott, so he has to dance to that tune.
Quite possible. I have seen Bill change during his years on council. It seems he has been pulled further and further into the culture of City Hall politics and away from his greatest asset which was independent thought and action. Again we are seeing politics as usual.
Quote from: sheclown on April 15, 2014, 07:44:23 AM
the city is being investigated
That is the spark that needs to immediately happen. I'm planning a RICO paddle. The total absolute crushing of the Public Trust in Jacksonville Florida.
Rules got it wrong. Council can get it right.
Regarding the investigation. "We're slow but we are final"
Quote from: sheclown on April 16, 2014, 05:15:56 AM
Regarding the investigation. "We're slow but we are final"
Way to do it. Slow, steady and final.
We will not give up. We have proof. And I personally will shout it from whatever FEDERAL ROOFTOP I have to in order to get someone to WAKE THE F UP! I don't like politics...I don't like how it seems people fold because their backing will be pulled if they don't vote a certain way, or decide for whatever reason to vote in a way that makes no sense whatsoever.
How can they possibly move this forward when CM Denise Lee instructed OGC to "put this matter to bed" by issuing a statement of the NSP funding? If there is outstanding questions (how long have we been talking about this????) then the appointment should be delayed. Period.
Not a way to run a government...but then I guess this happens at the federal level as well. >:(
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on April 16, 2014, 03:41:48 PM
We will not give up. We have proof. And I personally will shout it from whatever FEDERAL ROOFTOP I have to in order to get someone to WAKE THE F UP! I don't like politics...I don't like how it seems people fold because their backing will be pulled if they don't vote a certain way, or decide for whatever reason to vote in a way that makes no sense whatsoever.
How can they possibly move this forward when CM Denise Lee instructed OGC to "put this matter to bed" by issuing a statement of the NSP funding? If there is outstanding questions (how long have we been talking about this????) then the appointment should be delayed. Period.
Not a way to run a government...but then I guess this happens at the federal level as well. >:(
+1
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on April 16, 2014, 03:41:48 PM
We will not give up. We have proof. And I personally will shout it from whatever FEDERAL ROOFTOP I have to in order to get someone to WAKE THE F UP! I don't like politics...I don't like how it seems people fold because their backing will be pulled if they don't vote a certain way, or decide for whatever reason to vote in a way that makes no sense whatsoever.
How can they possibly move this forward when CM Denise Lee instructed OGC to "put this matter to bed" by issuing a statement of the NSP funding? If there is outstanding questions (how long have we been talking about this????) then the appointment should be delayed. Period.
Not a way to run a government...but then I guess this happens at the federal level as well. >:(
Absolutely do not give up. You have the documents to take this where it needs to go. Just understand that it is going to take much longer than anyone imagines to get the nonsense in Scott's department under control. You are seeing the power of political cronyism at it's worst. You have a great chance of getting this issue dealt with but it may be at the cost of the city losing future Federal Funding. Unfortunately that may be what it will take.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on April 14, 2014, 11:04:31 AM
No public comments were taken before the vote. I was told by CM Jones that there are no public hearings for appointments. We are going to speak after....
JACKSONVILLE ETHICS COMMISSION CLARIFIES RIGHT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT LAW
JACKSONVILLE, Fla., May 12, 2014 – The Jacksonville Ethics Commission received an opinion from the Florida Attorney General that helps to clarify Florida's new law regarding the public's right to comment at government meetings. The Ethics Commission requested this opinion after a local citizen brought concerns to the Commission.
In a request letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Ethics Commission sought to clarify the statute in two ways. First, is the right to be heard effective for every type of meeting of a board or commission, including subcommittees or workshops? Second, is public comment required on each proposition upon which a board or commissions acts, including any amendments taken up to a proposal?
The opinion from the Attorney General's office addresses the first question stating, "It would be advisable to adhere to the mandates of section 286.0114, Florida Statutes, when a board or commission is taking official action on a proposition regardless of the formality of the meeting." Further, while the opinion did not define the types of propositions requiring a right to public comment, the opinion states, "a board or commission should err on the side of allowing the public to do so."
Earlier this year, Jacksonville resident Connie Benham sought assistance from the Ethics Commission concerning Florida's right to comment law, Florida Statutes section 286.0014. She explained her experience in attempting to assert her rights to publicly comment: "The interpretation of the statute was extremely subjective to the point of frustration. It became increasingly hard for my voice to be heard. I knew it just wasn't right yet no one would listen to what I had to say. That is until I brought the problem to the Ethics Office."
The opinion from the Office of the Attorney General is attached as well as the Jacksonville Ethics Commission's request letter for the opinion. For further information, contact Carla Miller, Executive Director of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission at (904) 630-1476, or Joe Jacquot, Vice Chair of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission at (904) 402-0303.
Quote from: sheclown on May 15, 2014, 08:11:08 AM
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on April 14, 2014, 11:04:31 AM
No public comments were taken before the vote. I was told by CM Jones that there are no public hearings for appointments. We are going to speak after....
JACKSONVILLE ETHICS COMMISSION CLARIFIES RIGHT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT LAW
JACKSONVILLE, Fla., May 12, 2014 – The Jacksonville Ethics Commission received an opinion from the Florida Attorney General that helps to clarify Florida's new law regarding the public's right to comment at government meetings. The Ethics Commission requested this opinion after a local citizen brought concerns to the Commission.
In a request letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Ethics Commission sought to clarify the statute in two ways. First, is the right to be heard effective for every type of meeting of a board or commission, including subcommittees or workshops? Second, is public comment required on each proposition upon which a board or commissions acts, including any amendments taken up to a proposal?
The opinion from the Attorney General's office addresses the first question stating, "It would be advisable to adhere to the mandates of section 286.0114, Florida Statutes, when a board or commission is taking official action on a proposition regardless of the formality of the meeting." Further, while the opinion did not define the types of propositions requiring a right to public comment, the opinion states, "a board or commission should err on the side of allowing the public to do so."
Earlier this year, Jacksonville resident Connie Benham sought assistance from the Ethics Commission concerning Florida's right to comment law, Florida Statutes section 286.0014. She explained her experience in attempting to assert her rights to publicly comment: "The interpretation of the statute was extremely subjective to the point of frustration. It became increasingly hard for my voice to be heard. I knew it just wasn't right yet no one would listen to what I had to say. That is until I brought the problem to the Ethics Office."
The opinion from the Office of the Attorney General is attached as well as the Jacksonville Ethics Commission's request letter for the opinion. For further information, contact Carla Miller, Executive Director of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission at (904) 630-1476, or Joe Jacquot, Vice Chair of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission at (904) 402-0303.
Here's the thing, we asked to speak on Ms Scott's appointment and were denied that opportunity. A vote is required to confirm an appointment not just by the Rules Committee but also City Council. Therefore, from the above, Mr Jones broke the law when he denied us the right to speak prior to the vote. It makes it clear that simply allowing us to speak on something already voted on during a public comment period was not enough.
Quote from: sheclown on March 23, 2014, 08:11:11 AM
Maybe its just me, but I was sort of hard-wired to accept the fact that the government acts in a benevolent way towards the citizens -- sure, I figured that there is a bit of corruption here, a pocket of self-interest there...but all in all, at the end of the day, I just figured that those who run this city love it as much as I do.
But this is what happens to someone as naive as me...
You start digging around, start reading emails, start reading other documents and you think WTF!
Even if you don't care about the demolition of a historic district (or of LaVilla for that matter). Perhaps the urban core is of no great concern to you, surely you must care about the air you breathe, the water you drink.
Having an effective and independent Environmental Quality Division is paramount to your public health. How can this NOT matter to you...to your council rep?
Even if we forgot about the past mistakes and misdeeds....what would our future hold with this type of leadership? And should the EQD be forced to ignore the public safety issues in the future, what will the consequences be? And who will stop the damage?
Sure, I'm mad about the senseless demotions in Springfield -- about the mismanagement of federal funds. But I am totally blown away by a mayor who is so unconcerned about this that he rewards this behavior. And I am frightened that the system is so entrenched in Jacksonville, that no one is willing to ask the tough questions for fear of retribution from the Good Old Boy network.
+1
There also does not seem to be any consequences of not following the law. No fines, or lawsuits, etc.
Quote from: strider on March 20, 2014, 04:27:33 PM
2014-0215 RESO Conf Appt of Kimberly Scott as Director of Regulatory Compliance Dept. (McCain) (Req of Mayor) 3/25/2014 Introduced
Four days after the audit was complete, this was introduced.
Clearly the city knew there was an audit going on.
Clearly the city knew what the Feds would find.
QuoteAsbestos case, demolitions stir talk ahead of vote on Jacksonville compliance job
By Steve Patterson Sat, Apr 12, 2014 @ 10:51 pm | updated Sat, Apr 12, 2014 @ 11:16 pm
The city's Code Compliance Division was cited in 2011 for hiring a demolition contractor not qualified to work around asbestos. City of Jacksonville
City of Jacksonville
The city's Code Compliance Division was cited in 2011 for hiring a demolition contractor not qualified to work around asbestos.
A Jacksonville agency was cited for having an unqualified contractor demolish an asbestos-tainted Arlington restaurant.
Later, the agency had two houses in Springfield razed, then had to return money for the demolitions to a special federal funding account because reviews the federal government requires were not done.
Now the agency's chief, Kim Scott, awaits a City Council vote on whether she should be promoted to director of the city's Regulatory Compliance Department.
And critics are lining up to second-guess Mayor Alvin Brown's office for the pick.
"At the end of it all is this: to run a regulatory compliance division, one ought to have a track record of complying with regulations," wrote a commenter on the blog site metrojacksonville.com. By Friday, the site had logged 5,355 readings of a thread headlined "Kim Scott: Fox guarding hen house??"
There's a lot that should be talked about, and publicly, a key City Council member said.
"They need to have a detailed response," said Councilman Warren Jones, chairman of the Rules Committee, which will take up legislation confirming Scott's appointment before a full council vote.
Jones said he told Brown's aides he'd like to hear point-by-point answers to concerns raised by members of the historic preservation group Preservation SOS, who have talked to the full council and to his committee about the appointment.
If those answers aren't ready when Rules members meet Monday, Jones said he may defer action on the bill (2014-215).
The department she would run is a new incarnation of what was once the Neighborhoods Department, with divisions for the environment, animal care, code compliance and mosquito control.
Scott has met with committee members individually, and Jones said he's comfortable with her selection but thinks people deserve a public accounting.
"These allegations have been made," he said Friday. "And if they're not true, which I'm told they're not, someone needs to respond."
One thing council members are already asking about is a citation the city's Environmental Quality Division wrote in 2011 that said the Code Compliance Division hired a demolition contractor who was not qualified to work around asbestos.
That should be simple to sort through, said Councilman Bill Bishop. "It's not that complicated to make sure the contractor has the appropriate asbestos removal certification," Bishop said. "If you can't provide that, then you've got a problem."
The citation was about tearing down a shuttered Chinese restaurant, the King Dragon at 1126 University Blvd. N.
The code division got involved after the building's owner hired contractors who started work on the property, then walked away with old asbestos exposed, according to city records.
A company that had planned to finish the job told the city someone else had torn the building down, which started a chain of interviews that led inspectors to Michael Lloyd Hauling, a demolition company that works often for the city.
Environmental inspectors first said the company had not given the advance notice the law usually requires.
But Scott said the building was taken down on an emergency basis, over a weekend, to keep from exposing children at neighboring Arlington Elementary School and a day care to asbestos dust from the half-wrecked property.
When environmental officials asked, Lloyd's company couldn't prove it had someone on the job with the training needed to work with asbestos, and that made the work illegal, the city's former environmental division chief wrote in 2012 email about the case.
A city agency that hired Lloyd "has the responsibility to ensure all contractors meet required regulations," wrote Vince Seibold, the former environmental chief.
It's not really that simple, said Scott, who did not sign a consent order the environmental agency drafted to settle the citation.
Scott said her old division approves hiring somebody to demolish buildings but depends on the city's Procurement Division to line up bids from qualified companies and make it easier to get the best deal. She said the division, also called MCCD, wasn't going to dispute any company's qualifications for a contract just because another office questioned it.
She said the agency would be careful about second-guessing Procurement's decision on who is qualified to bid.
"If MCCD is going to raise a concern about a contractor, they would need proof to present," she said, noting it was the environmental division that issued the citation. " ... We would put the city at jeopardy if we make an accusation we have no proof about."
Apparently no one has taken that chance.
Procurement Division Chief Greg Pease said Friday he hadn't heard discussion by anyone until last week about whether Michael Lloyd Hauling had credentials for working with asbestos.
There isn't a problem now, anyway.
After being cited in 2011, Lloyd "has now attended the required ... training," Seibold wrote in 2012, and city files contain a certificate showing he completed an annual refresher course as an asbestos contractor/supervisor last year. He's legal to work until the certificate expires in September.
Regardless, there are other things for council members to think about from Scott's appointment.
Jones said Friday he's more interested in talking about how much money the compliance division has to return to an account that held cash from the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
The program helps cities pay for work in struggling neighborhoods, including demolishing decayed buildings.
The city spent about $30,000 demolishing two houses on East Second Street in Springfield's historic district last year but later decided that cost couldn't be covered by the stabilization account because it had not reviewed the demolition's impact on historic preservation, a federal requirement.
The city began a review last year of whether demolition expenses in other areas would have to be reimbursed to the stabilization account, but a city spokeswoman said last month that review was still underway.
Preservation SOS members, meanwhile, noted last month that demolitions at more than 150 addresses seem to be listed in a city breakdown of expenses, from a couple of hundred dollars to more than $60,000, tied to the stabilization fund.
The same way federal community development money comes with rules that aren't clear, Jones said the stabilization account may have limits on its use that are not fully understood — but need to be.
Council members also may not exactly understand what's involved in voting on Scott, a city employee for nearly 30 years who has been a division chief since 2007.
Her fans point to streets they say are better after having someone buckle down on neglected properties, and critics point to buildings they say were torn down unnecessarily.
Bishop said he's trying to weigh some facts in conflicting stories but last week had not decided whose arguments made the most sense.
"I haven't gone through all of it," he said.
Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263
so any answers come out from this?
I believe there is STILL an open EPB investigation on the books. Preservation SOS has NOT been able to find any resolution. If the contractor has obtained the necessary training, does this mean the citation has been closed? Who closed it? Did DEP do the investigation? That was suppose to happen to avoid any conflict of interest? Where is the paperwork?
Has the Environmental Protection Board addressed this outstanding violation?
It should be no surprise to anyone that getting information is very difficult -- even with the sunshine and public records requests -- often the info is incomplete and scattered.
So, in answer to your question -- that information which is REQUIRED to be readily available by HUD through easily accessible means, is being guarded and handed out reluctantly, if at all.
Perhaps now we can move forward with progress instead of destruction. I had an opportunity to speak with Stephanie last night and I like her! She brings a fresh new perspective on how things should work. She has been serving as the Chief of Real Estate Division in the Public Works Department since 04/26/16 (date the resolution was adopted) and is currently waiting for confirmation as the Director of the Neighborhoods Department.
From the Bill:
QuoteMs. Burch received a bachelor's degree in fisheries and wildlife from Michigan State University and a law degree from Florida Coastal School of Law. She has worked as an attorney, since 2005, with various firms, including Burch Law, PLLC in Jacksonville. Ms. Burch has served as the Chief of the Real Estate Division since March 2016.
I, for one, am looking forward to fostering a positive relationship with someone who is open to change and forward thinking. :)