by J. Brooks Terry
Staff Writer
The idea of a litter free Jacksonville may look like a good idea on paper, but some City Council members are afraid that “some vague language” might also wind up costing taxpayers millions of dollars. Legislation proposing an amendment to the City’s charter by establishing “zero-tolerance” for litter was introduced this week. Council members Suzanne Jenkins and Glorious Johnson are co-sponsoring the bill.
If the Council passes it by mid-September, Duval County voters will ultimately decide whether to make it law when it appears on November’s general election ballot.
“I think it’s very important for us to look at this before we decide if its the best course of action,” said Jenkins. “If it is and we move forward, we have to be committed to it.”
Based on the recommendations of a 2002 JCCI study, that commitment may include a weekly, City-funded litter pick-up service and more public trash receptacles.
Council member Sharon Copeland is among those concerned about updating the City’s charter. She said the potential mandate is “unfunded.”
“That’s my issue and I think it’s very, very important for the voters to understand that,” said Copeland. “The way it’s written, it looks very attractive. However, some of the provisions we’re talking about, just like restricting class sizes, don’t have a funding source right now.”
According to the Council auditor, weekly trash pick-ups would cost the City upwards of $15 million annually. That’s about $14 million more than Mayor John Peyton has in his proposed budget.
“Think about it,” said Copeland. “Where is all of that money supposed to come from? You and I both know it would have to be taken from the budgets of many other valuable programs and that’s not right.”
Copeland said the Council may have its chance to “massage the bill” before adding it to the November ballot.
Jenkins said she’s prepared for that, but bristled at the idea that $15 million would be required to fund the no-litter initiative.
“The numbers we’re being shown aren’t real,” she said. “They’re not, and I don’t want people to believe that they are. We’ve only been shown the worst case scenario, what it would cost us to go and up and down every City street every single week.
“I don’t think that’s necessary and nobody is saying we can’t organize a similar service every other week or every month.
“We also know the areas at risk and those are the ones that we should be policing.”
Jenkins said those estimates coupled with a multi-committee referral — at least three committees have been directed to review the bill with a fourth being considered — may be designed to “kill the bill.”
“It’s going to be interesting once we look at this closer,” she said. “There is a lot of good in this bill that will come out and it’s not going to cost us nearly as much as we’re being told right now.”