September 08, 2024
Hi Everyone,
I hope you all are doing well. Isn’t it amazing that summer is over, and we are well into September? I’m so looking forward to the cooler weather.
Your turnout at our commission meetings has been amazing, Let’s keep it up! Thank you all for supporting your community. Participation is essential to the health and well-being of our city and you are having an impact.
Who’s Making the Decisions
A quick follow-up to my last newsletter. A good friend of mine called me the other day to tell me that there was a post online responding to my last newsletter click here to view the post. I don’t want to get into a back and forth with anyone and believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would however like to point out a couple of statements in the post that are not quite factual. The first is that “the public is being very mislead by this post.” I find this to be quite ironic. The next is “when a lawsuit is filed against the city, it goes to the city attorney who responds via the judicial system and keeps the city administrator and commission informed of the status of the lawsuit.” This statement is problematic because it assumes that there is some kind of mechanism in place that automatically engages the city attorney. This is simply not the case. The sheriff give notice to the city, usually the Mayor who in an ideal world would notify the city attorney and call a special meeting or wait until the next scheduled meeting to discuss the case. Click here to review the relevant section of FS 286.011, or here to view the entire statute.
As you can see, the State of Florida has anticipated that cities would be confronted with litigation and has provided for it in their public meetings laws. Section (8) outlines the rules that allow for a city commission, city administrator, and city attorney to hold a public meeting in the “shade” to discuss pending litigation. Item (8)(a) says that “the entity’s attorney shall advise the entity at a public meeting that he or she desires advice concerning the litigation.” I believe this to mean that the attorney is looking for guidance from the commission, not the other way around as indicated by the online post. Item (b) goes on to say that the subject matter “shall be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions.” Clearly it is up to the commission to decide how they choose to address a lawsuit, not the city attorney. The Mayor and commissioners are there to represent their constituents. The attorney is supposed to provide the commission with guidance. The decision to pursue or settle a lawsuit is strictly a decision made by the commission. Remember the commission is responsible for controlling the purse strings and for making policy.
The next statement in the online post that misses the mark is “the money that was spent had nothing to do with the developer.” The litigation that the online post seems to reference is one where the citizens of North Gaines Street objected to a zoning change for a number of reasons. One of the more glaring issues was that the developer failed to provide the city with a document (topographical survey) that is required at the time of application. Click here to view a complete transcript of the first reading. Click here to view a complete transcript of the second reading. Click here to view the municipal code that requires the topographical survey to provided with the application. Check out the entire ordinance that pertains to RPUD developments.
So where do I start? I guess a good place would be with a video highlight reel that starts with the developer telling the commission that the required topographical survey costs $25,000 dollars and he didn’t want to spend that kind of money on it. Next you hear the attorney representing the citizens of Gaines Street tell the commission that the survey is required at the time of application. Next you hear city attorney Scott Simpson tell the commission that the attorney representing the citizens is correct. The survey is required at application time. Shortly thereafter you hear Mayor Gibson state that “if you own a piece of property you ought to be able to do with it what you want as long as it meets the rules.” The next thing you hear is Mayor Gibson saying that he believes “we have heard substantial and competent evidence to approve this zoning even without a sealed topo. I believe the court would look at it fairly debatable whether that should stop this.”
So, I guess the statement in the online post that “the money spent had nothing to do with the developer” doesn’t hold water. A citizen of Oak Hill could and should ask his city commission exactly who are they’re representing. The citizens demonstrate concern by organizing, donating money, hiring an attorney, a planner and court reporter and the commission ignores them while the mayor spits in their eye. The attorney representing the citizens explains the standard of review to the commission and warns them that if they ignore the concerns of the citizens they are there to represent, the citizens will seek relief from the court. With all this in mind, one could ask, if “the money spent had nothing to do with the developer” then why is it being spent? Does the city just automatically oppose the people they are there to represent by default? The commission, the PLDRC board and the staff are all there to be sure that an application for zoning and development is complete.
Why would the commission seek to defend against a lawsuit that was filed clearly because they choose (by a vote) to ignore the law and their own constituents? I guess the online poster cares more about the bank account of the developer than that of the city. Why else would it matter to him whether the developer has to spend money to provide a document to the city at the time of application? Who knows? Maybe it’s just sport to him, I mean it’s not their money right? I don’t know. I guess you would have to ask them that question. What I do know is that if the commission had simply listened to the advice of their own attorney and the attorney representing their constituents, the developer would have had to supply the required document and the litigation would not have happened. So, did “the money that was spent have nothing to do with the developer?” I guess that’s up to you to decide – and you get to vote…
What is clear is that the commission is the entity that decides how and when the city wants to respond to litigation not the city attorney. The online poster’s assertion is incorrect. The money that was spent defending against the lawsuit did not benefit the taxpayer in any way and in fact it actually hurt them. And contrary to what the online poster says, the documentation was required at the time the application was made, not “in a later part of the development plan process” as he asserts. And the question still remains, who directed the city attorney to defend against these lawsuits? Talk about frivolous, right? All stuff to think about – remember to vote on November 5th.
Next week is a busy one, we have the regular commission meeting on Monday night at 6:00 PM. On Tuesday there’s a meeting to discuss a solid waste assessment fee, starting at 5:30 PM. Here’s the agenda pack. On Wednesday there is a 4:00 PM workshop to discuss the Historic Preservation Board. Here’s the agenda Pack. That meeting is followed by an ISBA workshop that starts at 5:30PM. Here’s the agenda pack for that one.
—————————————–
Our City Commissioner’s meeting is Monday, September 9, 2024 at city hall. The time is 6:00 PM. Click here for the agenda pack.
Please come and let your voice be heard. Your presence and participation are how we hold our commission to account.
As always, it’s my pleasure to serve you, I appreciate your support. Please let me know what I can do to help. I’m here to represent you…
Thanks again,
Joe Catigano
Oak Hill City Commissioner
Seat 3
