Mayor Alvin Brown’s reorganization legislation did not emerge unscathed from the first City Council committee that had an opportunity to review it— and it actually did not leave the committee at all.
The Council Rules committee Monday spent the majority of its time discussing and amending the lengthy piece of legislation before approving a substitute measure and deferring action until Jan. 3, the next regularly scheduled committee meeting. The deferral puts Brown’s stated goal of having the measure passed by full Council during its Dec. 13 meeting in jeopardy.
Despite the deferral, Chris Hand, Brown’s chief of staff, said following the meeting that the administration has not accepted the January date and “hasn’t foreclosed any option at this point” in making the Dec. 13 goal.
The reform legislation will also be vetted by the Council’s Finance Committee and Recreation, Community Development and Public Health and Safety Committee today at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., respectively.
A workshop Nov. 23 allowed Council members to ask questions of the administration regarding the legislation, but Monday was the first chance Council members had to potentially alter the legislation.
“OK, Council members, here is the main event,” Rules chairman Bill Bishop said, prefacing the almost two-hour discussion.
The first major change Council members proposed and accepted was to move the City’s Planning and Development Department from the Economic Development Commission, where Brown has proposed it be housed, to the Chief Services Commission.
Under Brown’s plan, the Chief Services Commission would also house public works, recreation and parks, special services, neighborhoods, fire and rescue, employee services and intragovernmental affairs functions.
Council member Clay Yarborough proposed the amendment. He said the public has not contacted him to seek the change and he believed it was fine in its current form.
“There’s not a need to move it under economic development,” Yarborough said.
Council member Lori Boyer said she was not comfortable moving the entire department because it also serves the public in a variety of areas and the Council has to “look out for existing neighborhoods” that could be affected by the department’s shift to economic development.
Council member John Crescimbeni said he had mixed feelings on the switch and wanted to also ensure the department’s independent review of development projects. He ended up voting against the amendment, prefacing the vote by saying he wanted to give the mayor flexibility but would be “the first one to introduce legislation” to move the department out of economic development should there be any signs of abuse of power.
Prior to the vote, Jessica Deal, Brown’s Council liaison, told the committee that the administration was not in agreement with the amendment and there is an understanding that some responsibilities of the department might be better suited in other areas. Those responsibilities could be transferred in the second phase of reorganization.
Bishop said that compared to other parts of Florida, Jacksonville performs “very well” in competitiveness and timeliness of approving incentives and wanted to work with the administration in determining which functions of planning belong in economic development instead of putting the entire department there.
“I’m not a big fan of ‘let’s just try it out and see if it works’,” Bishop said.
The committee approved moving planning into the services commission and not the economic development commission with a 4-2 vote. Council members Bishop, Boyer, Matt Schellenberg and Yarborough were in favor while Council members Crescimbeni and Johnny Gaffney opposed. Council member Ray Holt was excused from the meeting.
The committee also amended the reform plan to eliminate the title “commissioner” that Brown wants to label department heads.
“There’s too many up and down the ladder,” said Schellenberg, who proposed the approved amendment. “Almost any other name will work.”
Hand told the committee the title reflects Brown’s desire to “elevate the stature” of the position, but other Council members called the title confusing.
The committee unanimously approved the change, though no replacement title was stated.
All of the committee’s amendments were rolled into a substitute, which also was approved unanimously.
356-2466