A.G. Gancarski
After a 14 month process of meetings, the Jacksonville City Council Capital Improvement Plan committee is moving toward its last couple of meetings, with one held on Thursday afternoon, after a hiatus during the budget process.
Some highlights of the five measures considered:
— Stormwater legislation will likely be deferred until April 30, as the Lenny Curry administration is attempting to craft a longer-term solution.
— Proposed Banking Fund legislation, meanwhile, would alter the structure of the fund itself. The administration, in the person of CAO Sam Mousa, advised that it could be tabled until March 31, giving time for new legislation if needed.
Beyond those two deferred measures, measures that were ready to move, in the reckoning of committee chair Lori Boyer, were discussed.
— One such (2015-428) would allow, in the amended version, to change the date of the reconciliation report from March 31 to May 31 of a given year.
Another amendment of the bill would require unappropriated balances to be disclosed, limited to those in excess of $25,000.
This would offer a picture of moneys available to fund a project.
“We all know why this was being recommended. Folks showing up wanting to borrow… when there’s cash laying around. It’s poor budgeting to begin with,” said Mousa, who said the administration “came in and found $58 million laying around.”
“We would support a minimum threshold, and we would only bring up those funds that were unrestricted,” said Mousa, who cited that an Animal Control trust fund could only be used for those projects.
“We’ve just gone through a significant amount of capital improvement projects,” added Mousa, and whatever “small balances” that are “unrestricted” could be consolidated and used for a project like sidewalks, drainage, or fencing for a “20, 25, 30 thousand dollar project.”
“We’re reviewing projects monthly,” Mousa added.
Committee member John Crescimbeni expressed concern over “getting a better handle on whether there was seventeen cents or $17,000 in an account,” which would be precluded by this threshold.
Bill Gulliford countered that he was “concerned over overstepping” the boundary between the legislative and executive processes, while asking for the reports to be “formalized” and presented to the Finance Committee.
“It enhances the importance of those reports if they are formally presented to the Finance Committee,” Gulliford said.
Matt Schellenberg suggested that the number be moved to $50,000, and that threshold was agreed to by a 4 to 2 margin.
A discussion of what to do if the administration didn’t meet its suggested minimum in capital improvement projects occurred, and how to handle a “backlog” in projects.
Mousa pointed out that if “we have not made it, we would explain why we haven’t made” it in a table in the CIP.
Gulliford wanted policy enshrined in statute, as certain people in the past had been oblivious to best practices.
Crescimbeni and Council President Greg Anderson agreed.
“We should be forced to look at this chart once a year, well in advance” of the budget, said Crescimbeni.
Semantics also came to the fore, with whether the word “minimum” or “suggested minimum” would be used.
The fixed value of minimum would allow legislative override if it couldn’t be achieved.
Minimums discussed included a reduction in sidewalk repair budgeting, and an increase in railroad crossings and traffic calming.
— Another measure discussed included requiring a supermajority to delay or delete a project in years 2 through 5 of the 5 year plan.
“Make it meaningful… and make sure people are aware of what is being delayed,” Boyer said, who advised that the sheer number of votes could be “unmanageable” and “cumbersome.”
The jousting for capital improvement projects is a feature of budget deliberations every year, and a frequent gripe of some Council members is that their districts get shorted.
Mousa advised that this was an effort to create a cohesive, not a “helter skelter” CIP program.
“We’re going to do our best to identify” what happens in years going forward, without pushing back without explanation of “why these projects were deleted or pushed back.”
“I don’t want to think of voting on each on that is pushed back,” said Gulliford, who described it as “nightmarish.”
“Our five year plan, when we submit it, is simply a recommendation,” said Mousa, who said Council could “fund it all.”
The more restrictions are on the executive branch, the more “conservative” the recommendation is.
“It’s not gospel,” he said of the CIP Plan, reminding Council they ultimately fund.
“We had an $85 million capital improvement program this year. Next year… we may not have as much,” Mousa said, but the administration will present and ultimately leave it to Council discretion to borrow to fund projects, or whatever resolution is needed.
If a project is to be delayed or deleted, the administration must explicitly justify its action.
