I wanted all of you to see the response, which I understand was a FORM letter, sent to anyone who thought spending $75,000 on a dog park right now, was not a wise thing to do. I have just finished posting the other articles about money we will owe and future plans for the downtown, so I thought everyone might be able to get their arms around what Councilman Lumb was saying in his response, because it is quite telling and basically says he knows best, this was and is a good idea and regardless of what I or anyone else thinks, he will push for it in next years budget and would have voted for it now if only one of the downtown watch dogs had not found a pesky little ordinance they were violating. At any rate, I will post the letter I received in response to my letter to all and below that is the letter I sent. I can truthfully say, I do not agree with Mr. Lumb's stance since he is not there to serve himself and his best wishes and beliefs but to serve those whom he represents.

LUMB LETTER:

Dear Ms. McBride:

The “Dog Park” legislation considered at last night’s City Council was voted down in a 9 to 9 vote (to pass a bill must receive a majority of the votes cast). All Council Members were present except for Kimberly Daniels.

I was one of the 9 Council Members who voted "no" even though I believe that the dog park would be an appropriate enhancement to Ed Austin Park.

Allow me to explain why I voted “no”.

As I said at the noticed meeting I held last week I recognize that Councilman Bishop took great pains in planning this project. His constituents clearly favor the park and their willingness to volunteer their labor in doing the site preparation would have significantly reduced the cost of the project.

However, City Council has a standing rule – 122.605 of the ordinance code – that applies to all changes to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) made to the budget during the current fiscal year. Specifically the language states that “the City Council may amend the Capital Improvement Program Plan…during the then current fiscal year but only upon a finding by City Council that deferral of such amendment until the immediately following annual budget review will be detrimental to the best interest of the community.” (emphasis added)

When confronted with such a requirement I believe it is my duty to respect the ordinance code.

To be clear: City Council could have voted for the "Dog Park" bill and in doing so would have made a de facto declaration that a failure to act would have been detrimental. But that would not have been consistent with the clear intent and the spirit of 122.605(c).

As I said at last night's meeting I intend to look for ways to fund this project in next year’s budget as part of City Council's overall review of the CIP. As a matter of policy, however, I could not support the legislation outside of the annual budget process without a specific finding that Council’s failure to act would have been "detrimental to the best interest of the community."

Best regards,

Robin Lumb, Council Member

Group 5 At Large

MY LETTER:

Ed Austin Dog Park

Cost Estimate for Phase 1 of Dog Park - January 2011

$75,000

*Lump Sum: to include, fencing, 2 water fountains, concrete walkway to ADA access and entry gates

Price includes any permit fees and contingency costs

Jacksonville could face $500 million bill over workers not in city pension plan

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-02-23/story/jacksonville-could-face-500-million-bill-over-workers-not-city-pension#ixzz1nIyxfbLn

Mayor Alvin Brown promises Jacksonville pension reform, but the 'how' remains elusive; 'It's bankruptcy if nothing is done,' warns a lawyer familiar with the fund.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-02-23/story/mayor-alvin-brown-promises-jacksonville-pension-reform-how-remains#ixzz1nJlT8CE7