Kim Scott: Fox guarding hen house??

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[sheclown]

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

[sheclown]

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.

[mbwright]

well said.

[Debbie Thompson]

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?

[Noone]

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.

[Noone]

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.

[sheclown]

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.

[IrvAdams]

^^ And the historic urban fabric which has been forever lost.

[JaxUnicorn]

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
• 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:
  

  The 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.
• 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:
  

  Violations
  • 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.
  

  Section 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:

  Finally, 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:

  Kim, 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]

[Noone]

+1 Now throw in the Waterways.

[edjax]

has this all been shared in this detail with all members of city council? 

[JaxUnicorn]

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.....

[JaxUnicorn]

I can only do so much in my "three minutes" and attempts to discuss the issue personally outside of council have not been successful.

[sheclown]

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.