Comment

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 27, 2011 at 9:02pm

You can't tell I am still disappointed they are giving land to an outfit the taxpayer already gives 80% of it's operating costs and it has to run bad routes to get the federal part............figures the feds would want you to do something totally futile before they would give you money.......their style totally!

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 27, 2011 at 9:01pm

CJ, once again I am dazzled.  Something has to work as they don't seem to be paying much attention and think they feel we are just nasty little natts (or however you spell those pesky little bugs that bite the heck out of you).  It's like the city attorney that wrote back to you like....heah that's not how we read that!  They can do that to us all day long.  But it's good!

Comment by CJ on June 27, 2011 at 5:14pm

Im trying another way-Message below just sent to Council. I also forwarded this and my other two to the Local Inspector General and Atty. General. It would be helpful if others did the same. Office of inspector Gen.  oig@coj.net

Dear Honorable Council,

Please stop this Bill 

Sec. 106.331. - Indebtedness in excess of or contrary to
appropriations prohibited.

No officer or employee of the city or of any independent agency
receiving appropriations from the Council shall, on behalf of the city
or independent agency, have any authority to expend or authorize the
expenditure of any money, incur or authorize the incurring of any
liability or enter into or authorize the making of any contract which
by its terms involves the expenditure of money:

(a)
For any purpose for which no appropriation has been made by the
Council.
(b)
In excess of the amount appropriated for each department within each
subfund by the Council for the purpose for which the money was or is
to be expended, liability incurred or contract made and remaining at
the time unencumbered, unexpended and unimpounded.
(c)
Contrary to the terms and purpose of the appropriation from which the
money was or is to be expended, liability satisfied or contract paid.
(d)
When, at the time such expenditure, liability or contract is
authorized, there are no funds in the City Treasury or independent
agency treasury that are available to discharge or pay the same, even
if there is an appropriation which authorizes the expenditure,
liability or contract.
(Ord. 77-691-638, § 2; Ord. 83-591-400, § 1; Ord. 93-1772-1044, § 2)
Note—Former § 126.331.

Sec. 106.332. - Transfers of funds or expense credits prohibited.

No officer or employee of the city or of any independent agency
receiving appropriations from the Council shall have any authority to
make or authorize the making of any transfer of funds or of expense
credits from any account to any other account within the budget of the
city or independent agency, contrary to the terms and purposes of the
appropriation that provided the funds or established the expense
credits, unless the transfer is first authorized by the Council by
general or specific ordinance or is made by the Mayor pursuant to the
authority contained in Section 15.08 of the Charter or in Section
106.304 or the budget ordinance.

Please stop this Bill 

Sec. 106.331. - Indebtedness in excess of or contrary to
appropriations prohibited.

No officer or employee of the city or of any independent agency
receiving appropriations from the Council shall, on behalf of the city
or independent agency, have any authority to expend or authorize the
expenditure of any money, incur or authorize the incurring of any
liability or enter into or authorize the making of any contract which
by its terms involves the expenditure of money:

(a)
For any purpose for which no appropriation has been made by the
Council.
(b)
In excess of the amount appropriated for each department within each
subfund by the Council for the purpose for which the money was or is
to be expended, liability incurred or contract made and remaining at
the time unencumbered, unexpended and unimpounded.
(c)
Contrary to the terms and purpose of the appropriation from which the
money was or is to be expended, liability satisfied or contract paid.
(d)
When, at the time such expenditure, liability or contract is
authorized, there are no funds in the City Treasury or independent
agency treasury that are available to discharge or pay the same, even
if there is an appropriation which authorizes the expenditure,
liability or contract.
(Ord. 77-691-638, § 2; Ord. 83-591-400, § 1; Ord. 93-1772-1044, § 2)
Note—Former § 126.331.

Sec. 106.332. - Transfers of funds or expense credits prohibited.

No officer or employee of the city or of any independent agency
receiving appropriations from the Council shall have any authority to
make or authorize the making of any transfer of funds or of expense
credits from any account to any other account within the budget of the
city or independent agency, contrary to the terms and purposes of the
appropriation that provided the funds or established the expense
credits, unless the transfer is first authorized by the Council by
general or specific ordinance or is made by the Mayor pursuant to the
authority contained in Section 15.08 of the Charter or in Section
106.304 or the budget ordinance.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 27, 2011 at 4:28pm

Turn coats!

Comment by CJ on June 27, 2011 at 4:26pm

Jacksonville.com

 

Jacksonville City Council members willing to give away some land to JTA

Submitted by Larry Hannan on June 27, 2011 - 3:01pmOn the Road 

Jacksonville Council members Bill Bishop and John Crescimbeni are willing to give land to JTA on Tuesday that will allow a Greyhound station to be constructed near the Prime Osborn.

But they aren't willing to give up all the land JTA wants.

During a Monday afternoon meeting with Council President Jack Webb, the two council members said they were willing to allow JTA to take the three parcels of land between Houston and Adams streets, and Stuart and Johnson streets, to construct the Greyhound station.

But the duo said it will oppose any effort to give away the other 11 parcels of land the city wants to give JTA around the Prime Osborn.

JTA plans to build an entire regional transportation facility around the Prime Osborn. The land will help them construct offices for JTA, the Florida Department of Transportation, a Sheriff's substation, Amtrak, retail shops and restaurants and possibly commuter and high speed rail.

Bishop said he supports the Greyhound station, but needs to have a better understanding of JTA's plans for the rest of the regional transportation facility before he approves transferring the other land parcels.

The issue is scheduled to go for a vote at tomorrow's council meeting. The Times-Union is checking with JTA and the office of Mayor John Peyton to see if they are willing to allow the limited land transfer, or if they will push for the entire 14 parcels.

For more information, check out Tuesday's Florida Times-Union.

 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 27, 2011 at 4:26pm

I think we may find some of these bills do not pass.  I certainly hope so as 361 is not in the best interests of the city or the people.  If anyone wishes to speak on it, I would go to the blog on it, and when you finish reading the blog, read the comments.  I am ashamed they would even put 361 up unless they are thinking it will raise taxes on us and they won't be to blame...............but they will if they pass the bill.  JTA is almost totally supported by the taxpayers now through subsidies at all levels, and allowing them to run anything is insane.............heck they can't even run the bus service at a profit.

 

I will still speak on 399 and 400.

Comment by CJ on June 27, 2011 at 3:59pm

Ms. McBride it is confirmed what I sent to council this morning is in General Counsels hands.

JR today was a preemptive strike. This meeting called between webb and Bishop at the last minute to talk over 361 was merely to inform them again that what they are doing is against the law. If they want to feign ignorance then so be it bit along with many others are not and its past time for them to acknowledge it. As I have said before I may not always win but they they sure as hell know Im coming. I will come at them just as fast and hard from different ways as they do. I learned that while in the military. There are laws to fight everything they do because they can not waive them all, the laws just have to be found, even then it depends on how "they "interpret" them.

I know their arrogant self serving happy azzes are scrambling and that is exactly the way I want them.

 

Wait til you see what I have tomorrow!

Comment by JL Gawlik on June 27, 2011 at 3:50pm

Patricia, i found it, it is on tomorrow's agenda, i over looked it. It is there and will be presented again.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 27, 2011 at 3:18pm

And JL, I don't plan on speaking on anything I have already spoken about.  I have said something about a different bill each and every time and as long as you do that, I think you will be ok.  As far as I go, I had a bad opinion on all of them and plenty to say but I really, really didn't like 2011-361 when I checked into it.  I don't like Evergreen and the other related bills either, but they are fighting harder to keep those and move on them.  Connie has done a wonderful job on them, and I have written about them and said my piece on them, so tomorrow, I will do 399 and 400 and lead in with the deficit's at all levels...................heah you gotta set the mood :)..........no point in being positive and upbeat on this the last council meeting for many of them !

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 27, 2011 at 3:13pm

Hopefully, that bill will not reappear as it is a very, very bad bill for our city.  That would be a win for us all as many have worked hard to let the council know it was a bad bill and why it was a bad bill!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 41
• Next ›
• Page