City Council President Scott Wilson said Dec. 6 he “may very well support” a resolution urging the JEA board to end its push toward a possible sale of Jacksonville's city-owned utility.
Wilson said he agrees with District 10 Council member Brenda Priestley Jackson, who introduced the bill Dec. 5, that there have been problems “since the beginning through today” with JEA's process to explore privatizing the public utility.
But Wilson is not sure how quickly Council should move.
After a noticed meeting Dec. 6 at City Hall to discuss the legislation, the Council president said he will decide over the weekend whether to put the bill up for in-and-out approval at the Dec. 10 Council meeting.
“I'm a little bit more concerned about the emergency. I'm not sure if the emergency can pass. So, I just wonder if we don't wait a couple of weeks until January and see if cool heads prevail,” Wilson said.
“We're halfway through this process already, and I don't know if a resolution is going to stop the JEA from moving forward. … Does this resolution change anything? I don't know that it does,” he said.
JEA is negotiating with nine private companies, saying a sale could be the best option to solve projected declining energy sales and revenue. All bids will have to include minimum requirements of a $3 billion cash payment to the city, $400 million in customer rebates and a commitment to keep employees in Downtown Jacksonville.
JEA officials said they also are considering other restructuring options that include issuing an initial public offering, becoming a member-owned cooperative or remaining a public utility.
In her bill, Priestly Jackson accuses JEA of violating the City Charter when it did not provide the Council Auditor details of its strategic planning scenarios until the morning of the JEA board's July 23 meeting.
This included the option approved by the utility's board — an invitation to negotiate the possible sale of JEA.
Priestly Jackson's argument is based on a line in charter section 21.04(p) that outlines JEA's powers, specifically related to procurement and selling services, products or its assets.
“JEA will not enter into any activity pursuant to this section in addition to those activities listed herein without first providing written notice of such activities to the council auditor no less than 30 days before the commencement of such activity,” the Charter states.
Priestly Jackson used her noticed meeting Dec. 6 to make the point. She brought in Council Auditor Kyle Billy, who explained that he received a hand-delivered hard copy of the JEA board's pending action roughly an hour before the 9 a.m. July 23 meeting. The action allows JEA Managing Director and CEO Aaron Zahn to solicit bids for a possible sale.
JEA distributed a similar packet addendum to the public in the meeting room that day, and the packet posted on jea.com was updated after the board approved the invitation to negotiate.
Billy said had he received the notice earlier, he would have immediately sent a memorandum to all Council members about the pending action.
“As the policy-making body, I would have wanted to provide the notice in case they had questions and in case they wanted to contact JEA, JEA's board members or its executive director,” Billy said.
“If we had received that notice, then I may have devoted more of my resources to looking into that from the start.”
The debate Friday was about two interpretations of the Charter language from Priestly Jackson and the city Office of General Counsel.
City General Counsel Jason Gabriel, who spoke at Friday's meeting with city Assistant General Counsel Lawsikia Hodges, said JEA was not required to give a 30-day notice to the Council Auditor because the resolution is not considered an “activity” providing services or products under this Charter section.
Hodges also included this opinion in a memo dated Dec. 5 sent to Council member Michael Boylan, who is chairing the Council's fact-finding hearings into JEA's possible sale.
Another unknown is Mayor Lenny Curry's position. If the bill is approved by Council, he could approve or veto the bill.
He also has the option to let the bill sit on his desk unsigned for a full Council cycle. That will enact the legislation without his pen but not before JEA's Dec. 17 board meeting when the resolution requests the board take action to kill the invitation to negotiate.
City Director of Public Affairs Nikki Kimbleton did not respond immediately to an email Dec. 6 asking if Curry will support or veto the bill.
Priestly Jackson said should the bill pass, she will begin an effort to possibly restructure JEA within the Charter.
“If the will of colleagues to pass this resolution … and the JEA board does not take an action consistent with the will of this Council at that meeting on the (Dec.) 17, I’m going to forthwith begin recommending Charter changes to the JEA. Let me be really clear,” Priestly Jackson said.
“And that will be with or without the mayor signing it because that will be the will of this body,” she said.
Council Vice President Tommy Hazouri and Council members Matt Carlucci, Randy DeFoor and Garrett Dennis also attended the Friday meeting.
DeFoor said she wants to determine JEA's value through the Council's fact-finding workshops instead of the invitation to negotiate. DeFoor believes JEA's process is too tainted to produce a favorable outcome for Jacksonville citizens.
She also has asked the Council Auditor to compile a spreadsheet of how much money the possible sale already has cost JEA and the city in attorney, consulting and other fees.
DeFoor said the Council needs to “find the courage” to end the JEA negotiations.
“It is such a corrupt process. There is no possible way we'll get the right result, and if we don't stop it, we're going to waste a lot of time and a lot of money,” DeFoor said.
“Every piece of information that we're getting from the JEA is coming from people who are incentivized to sell,” she said.