AS IS USUAL THE JASPER NEWS GETS IT WRONG IN ITS HEADLINE.

The rest of the article is true enough. Off of the Jasper News Web Site we read.

WHITE SPRINGS — The White Springs Town Council did not set a date for Dr. Helen Miller’s hearing at the Aug. 8 meeting.

Rather, the town is hiring an attorney to represent the staff. With the council members wanting to hire an attorney for the staff, a date could not be set, but it will likely be sometime at the end of August or beginning of September

“I would still have to look at evidence and consider whether or not my personal feelings were getting in the way of facts,” Councilman Walter Mackenzie said. “I think that the initial action on this was flawed. I think if Mrs. Miller has a good attorney, that he will expose a lot of holes in our argument.”

Miller requested the hearing June 26 after the council voted at its June 13 meeting to declare her seat forfeited. That followed Town Manager Stacy Tebo calling Miller a “rouge councilwoman” at the May 9 meeting for not going through the town manager to purchase supplies and equipment.

There was a discussion about whether it was normal or not for staff to have legal representation. Town attorney Meagan Standard said that her law firm has handled three situations like White Springs’, but they have not seen the staff ask for legal representation.

“We, Fred (Koberlein) and I, will not be able to answer any legal questions you may have during the hearing,” Standard said.

Mackenzie and Miller questioned why they would need one to begin with if the attorney has never seen staff use one. Tebo has said she has seen legal representation used in other instances before.

The reasoning behind using an attorney who is not associated with Koberlein’s firm is to keep the hearing fair. The remaining four Council Members will act as the judge and Mark Herron is representing Miller.

“We will have the town manager find legal representation,” Mayor Rhett Bullard stated. “We will find out what their schedule is like to set the date based on their schedule, our schedule, Mrs. Miller’s schedule, and Mrs. Miller’s attorney’s schedule.”

End of Jasper News article.

Its Headline read “White Springs Town Council seeks attorney for hearing”

Number One is that the Council only agreed to fund an attorney for Tebo. That’s another $7500.00 of taxpayer funds down the tube. Thanks to this author at least they, the Council, is going to hire an attorney in the Sunshine. Without my input the council was just going to “give to Tebo” the $7500 which would have been an ethics violation and may still be depending on whether I chose to file an ethics complaint.
It shows how weak and undisciplined Willie and Tonja are in that they are willing to turn over $7500 to Tebo with out council oversight. Well, we don’t expect Rhett to be anything more than what he is, a moral degenerate alleged Drug user and a close snort of friends with Tebo.   How he finds the time to allegedly be so immoral and do drugs at the same time is beyond me. You should ask Stacy. If Rhett was of the standard persuasion I’d say they were having an affair, Rhett and Tebo. But Rhett is a Bullard, enough said.

Oh well,  no matter what happens with the Hearing when the deck is stacked against Miller, with Rhett, Willie and Tonja operating as one unit. We have the sure to come civil case in Hamilton County.  Mrs. Miller has an ethics attorney to represent her. All of the crap about White Springs, back to Townsend, is sure to come out. If the Council comes out in tact, with or without Miller I’ll be greatly surprised. Willie and Tonja are sure to come under sever scrutiny from Helen’s attorney and the Judge for their lack of conviction voting record.

Needless to say “I CAN’T WAIT” Ya’ll come. It will be most interesting both the hearing and the Court Case. I sure hope I am a witness.

IF YOU TAKE OUT A LOAN TO BUY A CAR…

You are not obligated to continue to make payments after the car loan is paid off.

First off I want to thank Tracy Woodard for telling me to get my G_D DAMN facts right. I have and here they are. This is the summary of Karin’s article immediately following this article. Mine was written after Karin posted hers to the web site, the BLOG.

In 1995 it was discovered that poor management had put us, the town, into a hole regarding TAXES owed to the Federal Government. We all know the story and what it led to, a weak mayor form of government.

So in 1995 we borrowed $100,000.00 from the bank (First Federal) to payoff the town’s indebtedness to the Federal Government. We bought a car, so to speak. At this writing we don’t know how long we financed the car for. That information will come tomorrow. That was Municipal Ordinance 95-03.  It said that the town would charge up to $5.00 for the cost of sewer and water in taxes.  Here is the fine print of that ordinance “PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that after that certain loan in the original amount of $100,000, made by the Town of White Springs from First Federal Savings Bank of Florida, of Lake City Florida is paid in full that such tax shall not exceed the sum of $5.00 per month on each utility service.” In other words the Town would have had to change the “PURPOSE” OF THE PAYMENTS”, to another car or something, to keep the citizens paying for the car, paying off the loan. They did no such thing and the fine print on each succeeding reaffirmed that obligation.

In 1998 we renegotiated to loan for the car to include payments for water sewer, electricity and other utilities including cable and satellite.  This should have paid off the car sooner. Still a maximum of $5.00 per month but on all utilities separately. That raised the payoff of the loan to $25 a month. Now before you go ape shit let me show you the fine print in the contract to “buy the car.” Section 3 of the new payment schedule said “SECTION 3  All terms and conditions of Ordinance Number 95-3 not modified by this  Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.” What that means is the original purpose of the loan, to pay off the car (the $100,000) remained the same, we didn’t take on any more debt, we just increased the rate we were paying the car off with. This was Municipal Ordinance 98-09.

Then again we modified the loan agreement with Municipal Ordinance 99-16. This ordinance raised the maximum amount of payments from $5.00 for all utilities to $7.50 for all utilities or $30.00 per month for users of town utilities.  And again the fine print read ” SECTION 3  All terms and conditions of Ordinance Number 95-3 not modified by this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.” Surely by now the car ($100,000) must have been paid off with all of these increases in payments

And then came the rip off. They moved, in Municipal Ordinance, 2000-08, to raise what we were paying for the Car again from $5.00 or month or$7.50 per utility per month in Ordinances 95-03, 98-09 and 99-16  to an unlimited cap. If you used more than $350.00 in your electric, water, sewer, cable TV and propane costs Municipal Ordinance 2000-08 said it was for 10% of your total bills not with a $30.00 cap. And again the fine print read “SECTION 3  All terms and conditions of Ordinance Number 95-3, 96-9 and 99-16 not modified by this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.”

And it has stayed that way since the car was paid off, the $100,000.00 loan was paid off. Now, to be fair we don’t know when the loan was paid off but it certainly didn’t run for more than 5 years. And remember that all of this money in utility taxes was allowed to do is pay off the car, no other purposes were allowed, Municipal Ordinance 95-03. But lets see. If everybody paid $25.00 per month the loan ($25.00 times 200 users times 12 months) we would have the loan paid off at $60,000.00 per year in 19 months.

Even if we figure a massive interest rate of 100% per year we would have had the car paid off in five years. But we, because of our Council, are still paying a monthly “hit” somewhere between $25 and $75.00 per month. And such a payment is illegal under Municipal Ordinances 95-03, 96-09, 99-16 and Municipal Ordinance 2000-08. AND IT IS ILLEGAL.

Why the citizens continually put up with this theft of money is beyond me. Certainly Willie and Tonja couldn’t figure this stuff out but Rhett surely could have and our Town managers, all four of them, or our CPA’s  two of them, or three town attorneys could have. After all the attorneys put in the FINE PRINT IN THE CONTRACT. Not once or twice but four times. It is truly a theft of the people’s money to pay off a car that no longer has any value. Shame on all of us. But what the Hell, its only the people’s money.

If you and two hundred of your neighbors all bought a new car from the same dealer and he kept charging you payments well past when the loan had been paid off, you’d sue him. Maybe that is what the citizens need to do, a Class Action LAWSUIT AGAINST THE TOWN. Who among your friends and you yourself couldn’t put the money you have been overcharged in your pocket to spend as you see fit. How much money you ask? The average is $7,140.00 per user of the utilities. That’s correct, the town’s tender mercies have cost you seven thousand dollars in the past 17 years. Do you want that money? I certainly do.

The Court Cases which have come up will bankrupt the Town of White Springs

As you are aware, in our Civil Rights Suit, the Town of White Springs was charged an additional premium in excess of  $15,000 for the courts to determine the officials were immune.   The Florida League of Cities’ attorney had a bill of approximately $70,000 in Defense.

Now in 2017, we not only have Dr. Helen Miller’s case in circuit court which will be defended by the Florida League of Cities which may run as high as $70,000 in defense of the Town; another $70,000 plus for Dr. Miller’s attorney for the hearing and preciding in circuit court if the Town loses, which I believe they will, plus at least $1,200 in mediation costs for each party, $25,000 in court costs and another sum of money for punitive damages and libel (Part of Personal Injury) due to the defamation of her good name.  

Then because someone in 2000, an attorney or the council, elected to utilize a 1995  Ordinance which was strictly for the purpose of paying a loan and was not changed to any other purpose, the Town is responsible for the return of all money to the residents who paid utilities for the period from the time the loan had sufficient money to be paid until this date.  The Town has fleeced us and in the calculations made by Joe Griffin, this means the Town may have to return $1.4 million back to those who paid utilities.

The aforementioned would be handled in a class action suit brought by attorneys with the Florida League of Cities defending the Town.  However, as I had previously mentioned the Town has a $300,000 limit which is an aggregate limit per year and defense is INCLUDED in the limit per year/aggregate.   It could be that the Miller case would leave the Florida League of Cities Trust Fund with no money and the Town STILL WOULD BE liable in the case of the class action suit unless the Florida League decides the decisions made to be malicious and fraudulent to the intent of fleecing residents when IT WAS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS. 

And it may be mentioned that Dr. Miller was condemned by the Town Manager and three council members for the Dreamer Award Banquet which has been held annually.  Now Dr. Miller, as I understand from a statement made by Willie Jefferson, spent $800 for the banquet.   She was condemned for not requesting council approval.  But yet, there was no council approval in the Rivers employment complaint against Stacy Tebo so they could spend $20,000 without council approval but Dr. Miller could not spend $800 for something which is done annually.

A further showing of how our town manager and three council members do not have your fiduciary interest is in the fact that they did not feel it necessary to advise the Special Event committee that they intended to spend the Special Events committee’s money in the budget for something they wished.

As an add on, I am attaching the General Liability assessment, I had previously on the blog.  Remember the limit of liability provided includes defense whereas most policies have defense as a separate limit. 

The member agrees to maintain a reasonable loss prevention program in order to provide the maximum in safety and lawful practices as such may relate to potential liability assumed by the trust.  It should also be mentioned that such items as law enforcement liability of $300,000 and $25,000 per officer are sub-limits…meaning once the $300,000 is used up for defense or by paying out the liability limit, there is no coverage.  Your policy will be cancelled and the Town may have difficulty getting further insurance.

You can thank Rhett Bullard, Willie Jefferson, Tonja Brown and Stacy Tebo for placing our Town at risk in the Miller case.  And you may likewise thank Tracy Woodard, Mayor McKire , Walter McKenzie, Shirley Heath and Pam Tomlinson for the class action suit which may be instituted.   They of course can thank the TOWN attorney from 2000 which may have been Todd Kennon under his Legal Professional Liability.

Karin for the blog

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY THROUGH THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITY TRUST

Subrogation:  The member agrees in the event of payment of any loss by the Trust on behalf of the member, the Trust shall be subrogated to the extent of such payment to all the rights of the members. (usual)

  1. For any occurrence resulting in a claim or suit for damages under the Agreement, the Trust in its sole discretion may investigate, settle, coordinate the defense of claims or counts whether suits which may not be expressly covered by this Agreement but which provide strategic benefits through coordinated litigation and/or use any other reasonable means permitted by applicable rules of state law and attorney professional conduct without the prior consent or approval of the member.
  2. The trust shall remain in control of the defense for any occurrence resulting in a claim or suit for damages for which the Trust is obligated to provide a defense or elects to provide a defense to the members, whether covered or not covered by this agreement, notwithstanding any of the following.
  3. There is more than one defendant against whom a claim or suit is brought
  4. There is any real or perceived conflict between or among the trust, any member of any defendant(s) involved in any claim or suit.
  5. The Trust has reserved its right to deny or limit its coverage in any claim or suit.
  6. The Trust or the member initiates any claim or suit against any other Trust member.

In the event any court of competent jurisdiction orders the Trust to provide attorney representation beyond the attorneys the Trust selects and retains, the members shall be entitled to the fees and charges for such attorney representation, only to the extent of usual and customary legal fees and charges paid by the Trust for reasonably similar representation.

 

The Member agrees the coverage of the Trust does not apply to punitive or exemplary damages.

45 day notice of cancellation may be provided at any time if the Trust cancels

The members may, in its discretion and solely at its own expense, retain counsel other than the attorney(s) provided by the Trust to represent the member against any claim, suit, allegations or demands).  The trust has no obligation to cover the cost of such retained counsel or related expense.  The Trust however will remain in control as per the agreement.

If the limit of liability is exhausted and the Trust or its agents, has not notified the member of such exhaustion at least 30 days prior, then the Trust shall continue providing the defense previously undertaken for a reasonable time but not to exceed 30 days following the exhaustion…during which time the member takes control and the member shall reimburse the trust for any related expenses incurred during the transfer.    (DEFENSE APPEARS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY)

2 of 16 Defense Settlement, Paragraph 2 – The Trust’s duty to defend ends when the applicable Limits of Liability have been exhausted.

 

The trust makes or arranges for the payment of claims, claim expenses, medical expenses and all other matters required or necessary insofar as they affect the member’s liability under federal or Florida law.

The member and the Trust agree the Trust will maintain an excess coverage program and reserve evaluation to protect the financial stability of the Trust in an amount and manner determined by a qualified and independent actuary.   The Trust reserves the right to execute necessary contracts, reports, waivers, agreements excess insurance contracts, service contracts and other documents reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose and fulfill the responsibilities of the trust.  (THE TRUST RETAINS EXCESS LIABILITY COVERAGE AND RESERVES – HOWEVER THE MEMBER MUST PROVIDE THEIR OWN EXCESS LIABILITY POLICY)

Members duties after loss: Refrain from any intentional efforts (whether by statements, actions or agreements) that (1) harm, undermine, injure or conflict with the known legal strategy put forth by the trust (2) that are against the members self-interest or the interest of the Trust (3) that are contrary to the members pecuniary or proprietary interest or that of the Trust or (4) that lend to subject the Member or the Trust to liability or expand existing liability.

The Trust will pay all sums which a member becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of

Bodily Injury      Property Damage            Personal Injury                 or Advertising Injury

$300,000 limit applies/aggregate per fund year – defense is included within the limit and not outside the limit.

Sublimits (extensions of coverage):

Herbicide/Pesticide Coverage  part of the $ 300,000 limit as an aggregate per fund year

Law Enforcement Liability Endorsement – COVERAGE IS PROVIDED FOR LOSSES, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, ARISING OUT OF THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO FALSE ARREST, DETENTION, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, EXCESSIVE FORCE AND ASSAULT ANDD BATTERY  part of the $ 300,000 limit as an aggregate per fund year

Extra Contractual Legal Expense Coverage Endorsement – Administrative Proceedings:

Reimburse designated member 50% of the Legal Fees if paid an attorney up to a maximum of $25,000 per coverage year, when such fees are incurred by any of the designated members Public Officers and paid by the designated member in regard to a Covered Action that alleged wrongdoing of the Public Officials  (if acting lawfully in his or her official capacity; BUT excludes fines or penalties; legal fees of the public officer breached a public trust or committed the violations alleged in the covered action)

 

 

Limits of Liability – regardless of the number of (1) members under the agreement  (2) persons or organizations who sustain injury or damage, or (3) claims made or suits brought on account of BI, PD, or PI, the liability of the Trust is limited as follows:

Total Limit applicable to “each person” under all coverage and endorsements for all damages, including but not limited to damage awards for derivative claims, taxable costs, claimant attorney fees and prejudgment or post-judgment interest, sustained by one person or organization, as the result of one occurrence shall NOT EXCEED THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY STATED   ($300,000) in the Declarations and endorsements thereto.

Total Limit applicable to “each occurrence” under all coverage and endorsements for all damages, including but not limited to damage awards for derivative claims, taxable costs, claimant attorney fees and prejudgment or post-judgment interest, sustained by one person or organization, as the result of one occurrence shall NOT EXCEED THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY STATED in the Declarations and endorsements thereto.

Occurrence defined – all damages arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence.   An event or accident including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which result in Bodily Injury, Property Damage, Personal Injury or Advertising Injury and not arising from any form of intentional misconduct.   Note the limit of liability is not separate for each coverage part but the limit applies to all due to the ‘OR”.

 

The trust will defend even if found groundless, false or fraudulent; however the Trust has NO DUTY TO DEFEND a member in any action which on its face alleges facts excluded or not covered by the agreement.

 

If the trust gives written notice of a recommended settlement, the Member has up to 30 days to respond.  If the member does not agree, the Trust’s sole coverage obligations to the member shall then not exceed the LESSOR of  (a) The sum for which the claim or suit could have been settled for  (b) the costs and expenses incurred by the Trust , in relation to the claim or suit through the date on which the member was required to provide its affirmative acceptance of the recommendation for settlement, or (c) If less than the sum of (a) and (b) above the unused portion of the stated limit of liability contained within the declarations, less any self-insured retention or deductible amounts owed by the member.

If the trust gives written notice of a recommended settlement, the Member has up to 30 days to respond.  If the member does not agree, the Trust’s sole coverage obligations to the member shall then not exceed the LESSOR of  (a) The sum for which the claim or suit could have been settled for  (b) the costs and expenses incurred by the Trust , in relation to the claim or suit through the date on which the member was required to provide its affirmative acceptance of the recommendation for settlement, or (c) If less than the sum of (a) and (b) above the unused portion of the stated limit of liability contained within the declarations, less any self-insured retention or deductible amounts owed by the member.

 

 

Personal injury – means injury sustained by any person or organization arising out of one or more of the following offenses committed during the term of the Agreement BUT DOES NOT APPLY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS:   (1) False arrest, detention, imprisonment (2) wrongful entry or inviction…(3) publication or utterance of (a) liable or slander or other defamatory or disparaging material  (4) in violation of an individual’s right of privacy…except publications or utterances in the course related to broadcasting, publishing or telecasting activities conducted on behalf of the member

Exclusions – auto exclusion except parking an auto on the premises; racing speed or demolition exclusion; mobile equipment used in racing, demolition, etc the operation of a trailer used with mobile equipment; amusement devices; water theme parks, watercraft over 35 feet ;law enforcement watercraft over 52 feet; passengers of watercraft, barge lighters,etc; aircraft exclusion except the exclusion doesn’t apply to parked aircraft on a premises; contaminants exclusion; lead exclusion; surface or subsurface degradation and deterioration; war exclusion, other insurance exclusion SS, WC, employers liability, unemployment or disability, contractual liability except incidental contracts; Property damage to property of members; property damage to premises alienated; loss of use of tangible property; products exclusion; completed operations exclusion; any act, error or omission by a member committed while acting outside the scope of his employment; unentitled remuneration; willful violation of any federal, state, or local law, ordinance or regulation committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any member or violation of public trust.

Also excluded operation of the principles of eminent domain, condemnation proceedings, inverse condemnation or takings law EXCEPT inverse condemnation or claims arising from Ch. 95-181 Bert Harris Act Laws of FL.; rendering or failure to render professional services; failure to supply utilities or services of a designated member; failure to supply quality of power, steam, pressure or fuel; violations of ERISA;; inadequacies of water flow, dam, dyke ditches, gates, sewers, water sheds, channels, culverts or drains;  fines, punitive or exemplary damages or any non-compensatory damages or penalties imposed pursuant to any federal or state anti-trust, civil rights, anti-discrimination or racketeer influence and control organization (RICCO) laws; damages because of special acts of the legislature; nuclear energy liability exclusion; to personal injury  publications or utterances claims prior to coverage date; errors and omissions; to any claim, demand or action seeking injunctive, declaratory, writ of mandamus or any other non-monetary relief against a designated member or any of its agents; liquor liability exclusion EXCE[T serving alcoholic beverages without charge at public functions; Sexual action exclusion except for Bodily Injury or Personal Injury coverage;

The Broad Form Property Damage Endorsement Provides:

  • Property Damage to property owned or occupied or leased or rented to a member.
  • Care custody and control of property damaged by a member
  • Damage to property for which work has been performed by the employees of the designated +equipment furnished by the member; and property damage loaned to a member who has physical control.

Further Exclusions – Asbestos exclusion; employee benefit errors and omissions; liability arising out of Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Chapter 447, Florida Statutes; Driver Privacy Protection Act of 1994, National Labor Relations Act; Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act; OSHA.; to any claim for attorneys’ fees or costs for any action not covered by this Agreement; advertising injury out of failure to perform except to the unauthorized appropriation of ideas upon alleged breach of implied contract is covered; infringement of trademark; incorrect description or mistake; to any member in the business of advertising et al; to any injury arising out of any act committed by the member with actual malice; breakdown of computers exclusions; testing exclusion – done by member; Microorganisms, mold, mildew etc.;   Terrorism clause;

 

 

SPECIFIC EXCESS ENDORSEMENT- GENERAL LIABILITY

Does not modify the provisions of the Coverage Agreement.  It does extend the monetary limits of liability as stated in the limits of Liability in the declarations.

$ 300,000            COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT PER OCCURRENCE SOLELY FOR ANY LIABILITY RESULTING FROM ENTRY OF A CLAIM BILL PURSUANT TO SECTON 768.28(5) Florida Statutes or liability imposed pursuant to Federal Law or to any liability resulting from actions taken outside of the State of Florida where it is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that the liability limitations contained in Section 768.26(5), Florida Statutes are inapplicable, if such liability is covered by the Agreements.

The limits provided herein are inclusive of the$200,000 each person and $300,000 each occurrence liability limitations contained in Section 768.28 (5) Florida Statutes, but in no way exceed

$300,000 (combined single limit per occurrence)       

The damages to acts imposed by the legislature exclusion now includes claims bills passed by the legislature pursuant to Section 768.28(5) Florida Statutes, against a member for damages covered under the terms of the agreement.    

(5) The state and its agencies and subdivisions shall be liable for tort claims in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but liability shall not include punitive damages or interest for the period before judgment. Neither the state nor its agencies or subdivisions shall be liable to pay a claim or a judgment by any one person which exceeds the sum of $200,000 or any claim or judgment, or portions thereof, which, when totaled with all other claims or judgments paid by the state or its agencies or subdivisions arising out of the same incident or occurrence, exceeds the sum of $300,000. However, a judgment or judgments may be claimed and rendered in excess of these amounts and may be settled and paid pursuant to this act up to $200,000 or $300,000, as the case may be; and that portion of the judgment that exceeds these amounts may be reported to the Legislature, but may be paid in part or in whole only by further act of the Legislature. Notwithstanding the limited waiver of sovereign immunity provided herein, the state or an agency or subdivision thereof may agree, within the limits of insurance coverage provided, to settle a claim made or a judgment rendered against it without further action by the Legislature, but the state or agency or subdivision thereof shall not be deemed to have waived any defense of sovereign immunity or to have increased the limits of its liability as a result of its obtaining insurance coverage for tortious acts in excess of the $200,000 or $300,000 waiver provided above. The limitations of liability set forth in this subsection shall apply to the state and its agencies and subdivisions whether or not the state or its agencies or subdivisions possessed sovereign immunity before July 1, 1974.

No Matter what Woodard said, the 2000 ordinance is not legal by reason that the original 95-3 had a purpose which was not changed after the loan should have been paid

Joe ordered the appropriate ordinances which miraculously were available at Town Hall for pickup today.   The ordinances in conjunction with 95-3 previously provided on the blog are as follows:

 

ORDINANCE 98-9 REITERATES 95-3 STATING THERE WILL BE A 10% CHARGE ON SEWER AND WATER TO A MAXIMUM OF $5.00.   All other conditions of 95-3 apply

ORDINANCE  98-9

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-3, TO PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM TAX TO BE LEVIED ON THE PURCHASE OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES BY THE CITIZENS OF THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS, FLORIDA, PROVING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

 

WHEREAS , the Town of White Springs, Florida adopted Ordinance Number 95-3 on October 10, 1995 which imposed a ten percent (10%) tax on each and every purchase of electricity, metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum gas, or manufactured gas), water, sewer and telephone service in said Town of White Springs, Florida, ; and

WHEREAS, the Town of White Springs Florida has determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the Town of White Springs, Florida to modify Ordinance Number 95-3 consistent with this Ordinance

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS FLORIDA:

SECTION 1 That Ordinance Number 95-3 be and in the same is hereby amended to modify the tax of ten percent (10%) regarding the purchase of water and sewer services in the Town of White Springs, Florida.

SECTION 2  The tax on the purchase of water and sewer services in the Town of White Springs, Florida shall be levied at the rate of ten percent (10%) of the payments received by sellers of water and sewer services from the purchaser for the purchase of water and sewer services, provided; however, that such tax on the purchase of water and sewer services shall not exceed the sum of $5.00 per month on each service.

SECTION 3  All terms and conditions of Ordinance Number 95-3 not modified by this  Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

 

SECTION 4  All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

 

SECTION 5.  In the event any section, paragraph, sentence or clause or portion of this ordinance shall for any reason be held unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective, the same shall not repeal, nullify or in any wise affect any other section, paragraph, sentence or portion of this ordinance.   The Town Council of said Town hereby declares that it would have enacted such separate section, paragraph, sentence, clause and portion of this ordinance irrespective of any other section, paragraph, sentence, clause and portion of this ordinance.

SECTION 6  This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage.

 

PASSED upon first reading this 20th day of August 1996

PASSED AND ADOPTED upon SECOND and FINAL READING this 17th day of September 1996.

 

ATTEST:

Shirley Heath, Town Clerk                                          Joseph McKire, Mayor

  

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-3, TO PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM TAX TO BE LEVIED ON THE THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY METERED OR BOTTLED GAS (natural, liquefied petroleum gas, or manufactured gas)  WATER, SEWER AND TELEPHONE SERVICE, BY THE CITIZENS OF THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS and CHANGES THE MAXIMUM FROM $5.00 TO $7.50

 

ORDINANCE 99-16

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-3 AND ORDINANCE 96-9 WHICH AMENDED ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-3, TO PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM TAX TO BE LEVIED ON THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY, METERED OR BOTTLED GAS (natural, liquefied petroleum gas, or manufactured gas)  WATER, SEWER AND TELEPHONE SERVICE, BY THE CITIZENS OF THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The aforementioned wording now is amended to “UTILITIES”.

               WHEREAS, The Town of White Springs, Florida adopted Ordinance Number 95-3 on October 10, 1995, which imposed a ten percent (10%) tax on each and every purchase of electricity, metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum gas, or manufactured gas), water sewer and telephone service (herein   collectively “Utilities”)  in said Town of White Springs, Florida; and

               WHEREAS, the Town of White Springs, Florida adopted Ordinance Number 96-9 which amended Ordinance Number 95-3; and

WHEREAS, the Town of White Springs, Florida has determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the Town of White Springs, Florida to modify Ordinance 96-9 consistent with this Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS FLORIDA:

SECTION 1 That Ordinance Number 96-9 be and in the same is hereby amended to modify the tax of ten percent (10%) regarding the purchase of Utilities in the Town of White Springs, Florida.

SECTION 2  The tax on the purchase of Utilities in the Town of White Springs, Florida shall be levied at the rate of ten percent (10%) of the payments received by sellers of Utilities from the purchaser for the purchase of Utilities, provided however, that such tax on the purchase of Utilities shall not exceed the sum of $7.50 per month on each service of utility purchased (Previously on 95-3, the maximum charge was $5.00 per month)

SECTION 3  All terms and conditions of Ordinance Number 95-3 not modified by this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4  All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5  In the event any section, paragraph, sentence or clause or portion of this ordinance shall for any reason be held unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective, the same shall not repeal, nullify or in any wise affect any other section, paragraph, sentence or portion of this ordinance.  The Town Council of said Town hereby declares that it would have enacted each separate section, paragraph, sentence, clause and portion of this ordinance irrespective of any other section, paragraph, sentence, clause and portion of this ordinance.

SECTION 6  This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage.

PASSED upon first reading this 9th day of September 1999.

PASSED AND ADOPTED upon SECOND and FINAL READING this 19th day of October 1999.

 

ATTEST:                                                            TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS

Shirley Heath, Town Clerk                           Joseph McKire, Mayor

 

 

 

THIS ORDINANCE ELIMINATES THE MAXIMUM CHARGES PREVIOUSLY $7.50 SO THAT ONE PAYS 10% OF THE PAYMENT WITH NO MAXIMUM APPLYING.

ORDINANCE  00-08

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-3, ORDINANCE 96-9 AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 99-16 WHICH ALL AMENDED ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-3, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF MAXIMUM TAX ( All utilities were changed from a maximum of $5.00 to $7.50)TO BE LEVIED ON THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY, METERED OR BOTTLED GAS (NATURAL, LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS, OR MANUFACTURED GAS), WATER, SEWER AND TELEPHONE SERVICE, BY THE CITIZENS OF THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, The Town of White Springs Florida adopted Ordinance Number 95-3 on October 10, 1995, which imposed a ten percent (1-%) tax on each and every purchase of electricity, metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum gas, or manufactured gas), water, sewer and telephone service (herein collectively “Utilities” in said Town of White Springs Florida and

WHEREAS, the Town of White Springs Florida adopted Ordinance Number 96-9 which amended Ordinance Number 995-3 and

WHEREAS, The Town of White Springs, Florida has determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the Town of White Springs Florida to modify Ordinance Number 99-16 consistent with this Ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS, FLORIDA:

SECTION 1  That Ordinance Number 99-16 be and the same is hereby amended to eliminate the maximum charge of $7.50 per month on each service of Utility purchased in the Town of White Springs, Florida.

SECTION 2  The tax on the purchases of Utiolities in the Town of White  Springs Florida shall be levied at the rate of ten percent (10%) of the payments received by the sellers of utilities from the purchaser for the purchase of Utilities and there shall be no limit on the amount of said tax.

SECTION 3  All terms and conditions of Ordinance Number 95-3, 96-9 and 99-16 not modified by this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4  All Ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5  In the event any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or portion of this ordinance shall for any reason be held unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective, the same shall not repeal, nullify or in any wise affect any other section, paragraph sentence or portion of this ordinance.  The Town Council of said Town hereby declares that it would have been enacted each separate,section, paragraph, sentence clause and portion of this ordinance.

SECTION 6  This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage.

PASSED upon first reading this 15th day of August 2000

PASSED AND ADOPTED upon SECOND and FINAL READING, this 19th day of September, 2000.

 

 

ATTEST:                                                            TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS, FLORIDA

Shirley Heath, Town Clerk                           Joseph McKire, Mayor

 

 

SUMMATION OF WHY THE CITIZENS ARE STILL BEING FLEECED:

Ordinance 95-03 stipulates the following for which has never been revised or modified by any other endorsement  (Highlighted in Red and underscored)

Section 1.            That there is hereby levied and imposed by the Town of White Springs, Florida, on each and every purchase in said Town of White Springs, of electricity, metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum gas, or manufactured gas), water, sewer and telephone service, except as herein provided, a tax of ten percent of the payments received by the sellers of such utility service from the purchaser for the purchase of such utility service

PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that after that certain loan in the original amount of $100,000, made by the Town of White Springs from First Federal Savings Bank of Florida, of Lake City Florida is paid in full that such tax shall not exceed the sum of $5.00 per month on each utility service

 

The reason for the aforementioned ordinances in whole was to continuing charging ten percent (10%) without a maximum payable by the residents.  But the maximums which applied, were only to be charged if the loan was paid off.

The Town however per the underscored provision has a fiduciary responsibility to have the 10% tax removed and only pay a maximum (which has been illuminated and changed to 10%)  ONCE THE LOAN TO FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK HAS BEEN PAID.   Since the purpose of 95-3 was to pay off the loan of $100,000, any moneys which were collected, should have been earmarked for the loan and thereafter, if the Town wished the 10% to still be charged there would have to be reference to the aforementioned terms relating to the loan and the continuance of the 10%.

Don’t even say this has been in the interest of the people.  There should be no further 10% because in accordance with Joe’s previous comments and calculations, this loan should have been easily paid.  Yet I believe the Town elected to ignore the aforementioned so they could fleece the residents of White Springs at a huge amount of money in a bad decade.

Now the citizens pay sewer rates which are 250% of any other town, our Taxes go up each year and the Town has illegally charged the 10% on all utilities because the Town should have received sufficient money to have easily paid off the $100,000 loan   You all certainly do not know what to address in contracts.  You continually refer to 95-3’s conditions and since those conditions have not changed, you had no right to charge 10% if the loan could have been paid easily at that time  If an ordinance such as these are in place for a purpose like a loan, it was up to Pam Tomlinson to earmark the money but we the citizens and residents have not seen anything in the budget relating to the loan or the money received that should have paid off the loan at least by 2000.  And with all the money generated, if you did not pay said loan and stop the taxing without a new ordinance, you are corrupt and the taking of such taxes are illegal.

 

Karin for the blog

How did Tracy Woodard Know?

As an addendum to my article on Tracy Woodard’s Ordinance 00-08, I guess we are both confused as to how she knew the number of the ordinance immediately.

First of all it is not in the “Code of Ordinances”

Secondly, the minutes of the meetings on the White  Springs Florida site only go up to 2012.

Thirdly, Bill Lawrence was correct.  The ordinances are a clusterfu.k.   Obviously when we asked for our previous complaints, they were attached to meeting minutes.  Therefore, I would believe that either Shirley Heath the Town Clerk or Pam Tomlinson, the Finance Manager attached Ordinance 00-8 to the meeting minutes instead of making an additional copy and placing it with all other ordinances.  That is what Bill was finding and obviously,  no one has really determined if there are other ordinances, like 00-8 which should have been in the “Code of Ordinances”.

Unfortunately all of the minutes of the meetings where Joe was chastised by the council from the very beginning went to our attorney so therefore we must wait until Pam Tomlinson actually finds the Ordinance 00-8.

As you will recall, I recapped many of the meeting minutes relating to how the council treated Joe, but I cannot guarantee that 00-8 was ever attached to the minutes provided our attorney or perhaps I would have pulled it.

 

When pulling up my 2000 Meeting Minute information they pertained mainly to Joe Griffin’s Grievances and this is all I had:

Town of White Springs Town Council Meeting, Tuesday, August 15, 2000

Todd Kennon, esq. – Consider Reply to Attorney Pat Wiggins Reference Mediation by Joe Griffin.  Kennon stated Mr. Griffin has accepted our offer to enter into mediation and he will contact Mr. Wiggins by phone to start this process coordinating with the Attorney General’s Office.   Mr. Griffin spoke up stating he would be slowing the process down dependent of Mr. Dezendorf’s current case against the town.

 

Town of White Springs Town Council Meeting, Tuesday, February 20, 2001

  1. Consider Citizen Complaints:

Complaints 01-13, 01-14, 01-15, 01-16, 01-17

Motion made by Walter McKenzie and seconded by Ralph Hardwick to accept response and actions on complaints and approve that these have been handled correctly and disposed of at this time.

Joe Griffin stated these complaints were not investigated in the sunshine according to Fl.Statutes 286.011 and the town is open for litigation.   Robert Dezendorf stated he had not been interviewed on his complaints.

Mr. Kennon stated the disposition of the complaints are being handled tonight in the sunshine.

01-13 read by Joseph McKire; 01-14 read by Walter McKenzie; 01-15 read by Ralph Hardwick; 01-16 read by Ralph Hardwick; 01-17 read by Joseph McKire.  McKire stated in “my opinion, I don’t feel Mr. Dunn willingly, willfully and knowingly failed to comply with the request.

Joe Griffin and Robert Dezendorf restated their objection 5/0

01-06, 01-07, 01-11, 01-12 Citizens Complaints:  Motion made by Ralph Hardwick and seconded by Walter McKenzie to assign Tracy Woodard citizen complaints 01-6 and 01-7.  Walter McKenzie 01-12 and Dean Dietrich 01-11.  5/0

Town of White Springs Town Council Special Meeting, Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mckire stated the special meeting was to elect one member of the council to answer a citizen complaint.

Nomination made by Ralph Hardwick and seconded by Walter McKenzie to elect Joseph McKire as the representing member of the council to investigate the citizen complaint against the town manager.

Motion made by Walter McKenzie and seconded by Ralph Hardwick to close the nominations. 4/0.

EMPLOYEE CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM   Wednesday February 7, 2001

Citizen alleges that ONE Michael Harris did fail to respond to the notice of zoning violations on the property known as 8301-000 in that he failed to respond to the notice within the proper time and he has yet to get building permits for the burned out structure on said property.  Citizen further alleges that the Acting LDRA Robert Clayton Townsend has willfully and knowingly allowed Mr. Harris to break said provisions of Municipal Ordinance and is actively involved in the conspiracy to not enforce the Town Zoning Codes.  Now that Mr. Harris has received said notice the loophole your attorney used last time is no longer valid.  Expect proper legal action on this matter if said house is not removed, destroyed or repaired within 120 days from the date of citation.

 

CITIZEN/EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT ACTION BROUGHT UNDER TOWN CHARTER SECTION 2.03 Thursday January 25, 2001

Citizen alleges that Town Interim Manager Robert Clayton “Bobby” Townsend did knowingly and willfully usurp the powers of the town council in that he responded to this citizen’s citizen complaints, lawfully filed under municipal ordinance 99-20, against the town attorney, one Todd Kennon, illegally, Mr. Kennon is not subject to town manager approval or disapproval.  The town attorney serves the council as the town attorney has repeatedly said in sworn testimony.  Mr. Dunn was fired for usurping the council’s authority and this citizen demands no less of Mr. Townsend.  Further this citizen demands that each and every citizen complaint filed on Mr. Kennon be reinvestigated by the property authority, i.e. the council, in accordance with FS 286.011.  Citizen further demands immediate removal for cause of Mr. Townsend under the precedent set by the council with Mr. Dunn.  The property authorities, i.e. the circuit courts and the appellant courts wait.

 

CITIZEN/EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT ACTION BROUGHT UNDER TOWN CHARTER SECTION 2.03 Thursday January 25, 2001

Citizen alleges that Town interim manager Robert Clayton “Bobby” Townsend has willfully and knowingly violated FS 119 in that he has failed to turn over 50 public documents lawfully requested under Florida statute 119.  Some of these lawful requests are now over a year old and yet no turn over of documents has occurred.  This citizen has provided the town with the dates of the letters of the requests.  The town has each of the requests because they have been turned over to Mr. Dezendorf by prior action.  Citizen demands immediate removal of Mr. Townsend for violations knowing and willful violations of FS 119 and has brought the town to risk of financial ruin.

As you can see, I only had information on Joe Griffin for 2000.  However I did find in the subsequent meetings where Woody Woodard called Joe Griffin a “Domestic Terrorist”

Joe and I realized our life has been so much calmer since we have been rid of the Camel Club sending us constant e-mails and making criticisms on the blog after we started the blog to fight against the Camel Club and the officials involved in 2012.

To the Council Members who can’t forget that Joe did  or said in provocation, he did what he could to fight your corruption and the nasty comments that came from the Camel Club members and officials who would not follow the law.  It is too bad.  You obviously do not know what a great and knowledgeable person my husband is.  So there you are.  Blame us for everything that is a mess in White Springs when the Town itself is corrupt and disorganized and some of the individuals elected in office don’t know their head from a hole in the ground..

 

Karin for the blog

 

 

WS Codes are a mess and our Clerk can’t find the right codes but Woodard curses Joe as if he had been on the council all these years. What a Joke!

Joe felt there was another ordinance to 95-3 relating to  the  10% utility tax imposed by the Town of White  Springs; but when he made his inquiry to Pam Tomlinson our Finance Manager and Town Clerk, this was her response:  Again our inefficient clerk wished to give us Ordinance 95-3 which is the same ordinance we had.  Joe explained to Pam there may be another ordinance put in place by Tracy Woodard and her council, but she again referred to 95-3.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Pam @ White Springs Town Hall <cityhall@windstream.net>
Date: Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: 119 on town ordinance which put in place the 10% utility tax.
To: Joe Griffin <godforjoe@gmail.com>
Cc: Stacy Tebo <manager@whitespringsfl.us>
Copy of Ordinance ready for pick up. Cost is $75
Pam Tomlinson
Finance Director/Town Clerk
Town of White Springs
PO Drawer D
White Springs, FL  32096
386.397.2310
www.whitesprings.org
White Springs is an equal opportunity provider & employer
                           
Please note:
Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communication, including e-mail addresses, to or from the Town regarding Town business are public records available to the public and Media upon request. Your e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
From: Joe Griffin [mailto:godforjoe@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2017 9:52 PM
To: Pam Tomlinson <cityhall@windstream.net>
Subject: 119 on town ordinance which put in place the 10% utility tax.
No hurry. By Friday will do.

Joe still was determined to find out from Tracy Woodard, who was on the council at that time,  so he phoned her and left a message.   The phone rang shortly thereafter, with both Joe and I answering since we were in separate rooms.   Tracy Woodard did not even say hello but rather “Why don’t you get your G_d Damned facts right?”     She then gave him the ordinance number of 00-08 which we could not find on the Town Website so we have no idea what that ordinance states.

In any event we will try to secure the ordinance from Town Hall; Yet I still believe the Town has fleeced us by reason that during the time Woodard was on the council, our town was having money problems so if they left this amount on forever, this is a slap in the face including digging into the pocket book to everyone, because there is no line item in the budget relating to the amounts of money we receive from each utility.

It is obvious that the officials may complain about Joe investigating ordinances and other criteria, and getting frustrated at not receiving the correct item,  but the manner in which these officials treat us by cursing and using God’s name in vain, it is a shame indeed.  That has been a provocation from early on and if anyone thinks we will not fight back for what is our right you are definitely wrong.

At one time Bill Lawrence stated to us that the ordinances were in disarray and that he could not determine which ordinance which actually pertained and which ordinance applied to the Griffins and which ordinance applied to the rest of the town.  Thereafter I made a cartoon of Bill’s dilemma and which we also framed it and gave it to him before he left as a memory of the disheveled White Springs.

Stacy Tebo and our attorneys and the select committees which include the Woodards have been working on the codes  and LDR’s for years and nothing apparently has been accomplished after all the  money which apparently has been spent in vain.

Karin for the blog

P.S.  Joe also checked the Code of Ordinances for White Springs which is a listing of all in place city ordinances as of 2014, and 00-8 was not listed in the code.   This is White Springs for you and it shows how corrupt and disorganized the Town really is.

Who is the Professional? Rivers or Tebo?

I have read Anita Rivers’ complaint against Stacy Tebo and it is written like a lawsuit; very concise, very professional, and pertaining only to damage done by Stacy Tebo and her inability to have Pam Tomlinson stop her harassment of Rivers.

Now look at the disorganized mess Stacy Tebo wrote in her complaint to the EEOC.  Non professional, disorganize, not really about what was done to her but complaints other people had and how terrible some of the management was including her Town Manager.  It was difficult for for the City of DeBary’s attorney to make sense of because of its disorganized state but he did a tremendous job.

Karin for the blog

 

http://www.whitespringsnews.com/page/2/?s=Stacy+Tebo+EEOc

STACY’S 19 PAGE AFFIDAVIT (SOME NAMES OMITTED)

AUGUST 10, 2015 AFFIDAVIT BY STACY TEBO

As the HR department for 9 years, I was aware of the need to conduct a city-wide salary survey.  When Mr. Parrott was first hired in 2010, I informed him that it had been 5 years since the City had performed a survey and it was sorely needed; I noted that the survey of 2005 did not include the new positions that had been added, and it was important to bring the City up to date.  At that time, he didn’t feel he had the political support to do the survey.  It was a subject I brought up with him numerous times over the years.  The reason for the survey of 2014 was not solely due to the maintenance workers’ pay as noted by the City……  There was a need to survey all city positions, as it had been 9 years since the previous survey……Read more by clicking search above

THE CITY OF DEBARY’S RESPONSE TO STACY TEBO’S SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF HER CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

THE CITY OF DEBARY’S RESPONSE TO STACY TEBO’S SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF HER CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

The City of Debary, by its undersigned attorney, hereby responds to the Claimant’s Supplemental Affidavit and Exhibits filed with regard to the above referenced Charge.   As will be discussed below, the Supplemental Affidavit and exhibits provide no support to the Claimant’s contention that she was discriminated against based upon her sex or was discriminatorily discharged.  In fact, the Affidavit and evidence establish beyond a doubt that the termination of Ms. Tebo was well justified.  (Read more on site)

 

Have the citizens continually been screwed by the Town of WS for 22 YEARS?

Joe’s Thoughts: Either the town clerks are and were incompetent, which we know to be the case, or the town has fleeced us for 22 years out of our sewer/water taxes, our electrical use taxes and our propane use taxes. First Federal can’t, by regulation, provide any information on the loan. Anyway, it is just typical of the town. The town clerk, by ordinance, for the last 17 years, is responsible. That is Shirley and Pam who screwed the citizens out of One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars. My, weren’t they good. Read the story.

THIS ORDINANCE WAS EXECUTED OCTOBER 31, 1995 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING OFF A FIRST FEDERAL LOAN WHICH WAS SECURED DUE TO OUR OWING THE GOVERNMENT $100,000.

IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDINANCE RECEIVED FROM THE TOWN FROM MY REQUEST THAT THE 10% LEVY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONTINUALLY CHARGED THE CITIZENS UNLESS THERE IS A NEWER VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE WHICH THE TOWN DID NOT PROVIDE ME BY WHICH IT IS RECALLED TRACY WOODARD IMPLEMENTED.

 

ORDINANCE 95-3

AN ORDINANCE LEVYING AND IMPOSING A TAX ON EACH AND EVERY PURCHASE IN THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS, FLORIDA, OF ELECTRICITY, METERED OR BOTTLED GAS (NATURAL LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS OR MANUFACTURED GAS], WATER, SEWER AND TELEPHONE SERVICES EXCEPT AS HEREIN PROVIDED; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF SUCH TAX; AND ITS PAYMENT TO THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS; PRESCRIBING THE DUTIES OF THE CITY CLERK OF SAID TOWN AS TO WATER SOLD BY SAID TOWN; REQUIRING THE KEEPING OF BOOKS SHOWING ALL SUCH SALES AND ALLOWING ACCESS THERETO BY AUTHORIZED AGENTS OF THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS; PROVIDING FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF THE REVENUES TO BE DERIVED FRO SUCH TAX AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF THIS ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-2

BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WHITE SPRINGS, FLORIDA

 

Section 1.            That there is hereby levied and imposed by the Town of White Springs, Florida, on each and every purchase in said Town of White Springs, of electricity, metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum gas, or manufactured gas), water, sewer and telephone service, except as herein provided, a tax of ten percent of the payments received by the sellers of such utility service from the purchaser for the purchase of such utility service

PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that after that certain loan in the original amount of $100,000, made by the Town of White Springs from First Federal Savings Bank of Florida, of Lake City Florida is paid in full that such tax shall not exceed the sum of $5.00 per month on each utility service

Section 2.            That the tax hereby levied on sales of telephone service shall comply to all charges made for local telephone service except local messages which are paid for by inserting coins in coin-operated telephones; the total amount of the guaranteed charges on each bill rendered for semi-public coin box telephone service shall be subject to such tax.

Section 3             That the tax hereby levied and imposed shall in every case be paid by the purchaser for the use of the Town of White Springs to the seller of electricity, metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum gas or manufactured gas), water, sewer and telephone service except as hereinabove provided, at the time of paying the charge therefore to the seller thereof, but not less often than monthly.

Section 4.            That it shall be the duty of every seller of electricity, metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum gas or manufactured gas) water, sewer and telephone service to collect from the purchaser for the use and benefit of said Town, the tax hereby levied at the time of collecting the selling price charged for such service and to report and pay over or before the 10th day of each calendar month to the Town of White Springs all such taxes collected during the preceding month.

Section 5.            That it shall be unlawful for any seller to collect the price of any sale of electricity, metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum, or manufactured gas), water, sewer or telephone service without, at the same time, collecting the tax hereby levied in response to such sale or sales unless, such seller shall elect to assume and pay such tax without collecting the same from the purchaser.  Any seller failing to collect such tax at the time of collecting the price of any sale, where the seller has not elected to assume and pay such tax, shall be liable to the Town of White Springs for the amount of such tax in like manner as if the same had been actually paid to the seller and the Attorney of said Town shall cause to be brought all suits and actions and to take all proceedings in the name of said Town as may be necessary for the recovery of such tax; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the seller shall not be liable for the payment of such tax upon uncollected bills.   If any purchaser shall fail, neglect or refuse to pay unto the seller, the seller’s said charges and the tax hereby imposed on account of the sale for which such charge is made, the seller shall have and he is hereby vested with the right, power, and authority to immediately discontinue service to such purchaser until the tax and the seller’s bill shall have been paid in full.

Section 6.            That each and every seller of electricity metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum gas or manufactured gas), water, sewer and telephone service shall keep complete records showing all sales in said Town of such commodities or service, which records shall show the price charged upon such sale, the date thereof and the date of payment therefore, and said records shall be kept open for inspection by the duly authorized agents of said Town during business hours on all business days and duly authorized agents of Town shall have the right, power and the authority to examine such records and make transcripts thereof during such time as they may desire.

Section 7.            That in all cases where the seller of electricity, metered or bottled gas (natural, liquefied petroleum gas, or manufactured gas, water, sewer and telephone service collects the price thereof at monthly periods of the tax hereby imposed may be computed on the aggregate amount of sales during such period, provided, that the amount of the tax to be collected shall be to the nearest whole cent to the amount computed.

Section 8.            That in rendering bills for water and sewer service, the City Clerk shall add thereto the tax hereby levied and imposed for such water and sewer service and upon failure of any persons owing for such services to pay the same within 15 days after rendition of the bill therefore said service shall be discontinued.   After the said 15 days there will be imposed a late fee in an amount set by the Town Council by resolution from time to time  If said services shall be discontinued, service may only be restored by employees of the Town between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. during regular business hours of Town Hall which shall not include weekends and holidays.  There shall be charged a reconnect fee for restoring such service in the amount passed and approved by resolution of the Town Council from time to time.

 

Section 9.            That all revenues received, collected and derived from the tax imposed by this ordinance shall be deposited in a Municipal Fund of said Town and said moneys shall be expended upon the direction of the Town Council and Mayor.

Section 10.          That any persons, firms or corporations violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall upon conviction be punishable by fine, not exceeding $500.00 or by imprisonment not exceeding ninety days.

Section 11:          That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, be and the same are hereby repealed.

Section 12           That in the event any section, paragraph, sentence or clause or portion of this ordinance shall for any reason be held unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective, the same shall not repeal, nullify or in any wise affect any other section, paragraph, sentence or portion of this ordinance.  The Town Council of said Town hereby declares that it would have enacted each separate section, paragraph, sentence, clause and portion of this ordinance, irrespective any other section, paragraph, sentence clause and portion of this ordinance.

Section 13           That upon its passage this ordinance shall become effective and be applicable to all bills rendered on and after the 31st of October 1995 for said utility services.

Section 14           This ordinance amends and supercedes entirely Ordinance 95-2.

The above and foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Town Council of White Springs Florida at a regular meeting On October 10, 1995.

Signed by:

Jim Smith                                                          Attest:  Jackie ………

Chairman, Town Council                        Town Clerk

 

Approved:

Cecil Westbrook

Mayor

 

Date of first public hearing:          September 21, 1995

Date of Second Public Hearing     October 10, 1995

Joe’s Final Comment:  What this means for the average person is measured in Dollars and cents. Let’s assume for a second that it took the town five years to pay off this loan. It wasn’t that long but I’m trying to be fair. That means that 17 years (22 minus five years) that we have paid an average of $40.00 or more per month when the ordinance says $55.00 per month. I say $40.00 because you and I were charged taxes (10%) on our water bill, our sewer bill our propane bill and out electric bill. I would bet you paid more than $40.00 but I’m trying to be conservative.

$40.00 minus $5.00, which is what the ordinance allows is $35.00 per month for 17 years times 12 months or 204 months. At $35.00 per month that equates to $7,140 per user for the 17 year period. The ton screwed you out of at least $7,000 for the last 17 years.

For those of you who support the Town no matter what, t this in your bank account or wallet or purse. And whose fault is it, why it is Shirley and Pam’s fault, that’s who. Do you love them $7,000 dollars worth?

Just so I’ve got the math right I figured the total a second way. Assuming that we have 200 users that pay taxes on the sewer and water bills, the electrical bills and the propane bills that’s $700,000 per 100 payers or twice that for 200 payers and we get the One Million Four hundred Thousand dollars owed to the citizens from overcharging by the town. That, according to Stacy Tebo who has had almost two years to solve this problem, is Stealing. I say it is Fraud.

I fear the Town will be responsible for Stacy Tebo’s actions even though McKenzie placed a good fight

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

The Latin term respondeat superior, which translates as “let the master answer,” refers to a legal doctrine in which an employer may be held responsible for the actions of his employees, when the actions are performed “in the course of employment.” In order for respondeat superior to apply, there must be a clear employee-employer relationship established, as the principle does not apply to actions by an independent contractor. 

 

Remember these words when it comes to Helen Baca Miller versus Stacy Tebo and the Town of White Springs.

Rhett Bullard, esquire, decided to allow Stacy Tebo to take the reins in ousting Helen Miller from her position on the Council.   However, instead of making all decisions with the council and allowing Miller to respond, he instead had the Town Manager send the complaint to the Jasper News/Suwannee Democrat.

His sidekick, Councilman Jefferson gave a sad, sad story of how he did not expect to have the Dreamer award banquet of which this year, former Mayor McKire was the recipient.  I of course went out of turn and stated “You do the Dreamer Banquet every year!” This was in response to Walter McKenzie stating that we had a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens and these lawsuits after what was paid and still coming some $20,000 will be paid in the Rivers’ case.  

 

McKenzie also suggested dismissal of this entire thing to which I replied “but there needs to be an apology in the newspaper”.  Somewhere at one of these points I was told one more outburst and I would be removed.

Tom Moore suggested arbitration and Councilman/former Vice Mayor Walter McKenzie suggested Mediation.   Dr. Helen Miller agreed to mediation to save the town money. At one time McKenzie was a mediator at $25.00 an hour.  In our case versus the Town, the Mediator cost each of us $200 an hour and the Town and we each paid $1,200.  It could have cost more because of the hours used up except that the Mediator and our attorney were actually friends.

Nevertheless since the council voted to have a hearing, that is what the Council must adhere to.  Walter McKenzie was concerned with cost, especially with the $15,000 already billed in the Rivers’ case. After Bullard started talking in a duck language and waiving his hands relative to an attorney would not know what the cost would be dependent upon time, it was decided that the Town would offer up to $7,500  for Stacy’s defense attorney. Frederick Koberlein will be representing the Town.

 

This is the problem.  Remember those words, respondeat superior.   Because of the law the Town, the Council as a whole are responsible for Stacy Tebo’s deeds in spite of the fact that they would wish to be separated.   Unfortunately Tebo is part of the Town and there were no objections to her thoughts and actions against Dr. Miller, except by McKenzie and including submitting the charges against Dr. Miller in the Jasper News/Suwannee Democrat by Bullard, Brown and Jefferson. Even though Councilman McKenzie did not agree and he placed an admirable fight, unfortunately he may be stuck with the pack on this serious dilemma….only because the three children, Bullard, Brown and Jefferson cannot see the forest beyond the trees and what they may be doing to our Town and the Citizens.  

Let’s look further into the law:

Determining When an Employer-Employee Relationship Exists

The doctrine of respondeat superior allows the law to hold an employer responsible for the acts of an employee. Therefore, determining when such a relationship exists, and therefore which party may be held liable, is of vital importance. Generally speaking, three facts must be taken into consideration.

  1. Was the act carried out while the employee was on the clock?

  2. Was the act carried out as part the employee’s job duties, or the agent’s responsibilities?

  3. Was the act of the same nature as the employee’s job responsibilities?

  4. Was the employee motivated to commit the act for the purpose of benefitting the employer?

Employer Liability in Intentional Acts

Although it is relatively easy to determine employer liability for an employee’s actions during the course of employment, the issue of intentional acts, which may be criminal in nature, is less clear. Many employers believe that any criminal acts committed by an employee, whether he is on or off the clock, are the sole responsibility of that employee. This issue is not black-and-white, however, but depends on the specific circumstances of the case.

While the issue of whether the employee’s acts were negligent or intentional is considered first, the courts commonly consider whether justice is served by holding the employer liable. The decision on whether the employer can be held liable for an employee’s intentional act depends on whether that act was committed within the scope and course of his employment, or at the direction of the employer.

It appears that Stacy Tebo may have been acting at the direction of three out of five council members of the Town and the Town may be liable.

 

There is another law which stands and used many times in the Insurance Industry for staff which would pertain:

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Vicarious liability, sometimes referred to as “imputed liability,” is a legal concept that assigns liability to an individual (Rhett Bullard) who did not actually cause the harm, but who has a specific superior legal relationship to the person who did cause the harm (Stacy Tebo). Vicarious liability most commonly comes into play when an employee has acted in a negligent manner for which the employer will be held responsible. 

 

The problem remains with Frederick Koberlein’s contract with the Town of White Springs.  Koberlein is contracted to protect the Council Members and not the Town Manager.   For the hearing it will be required that Stacy Tebo secure her own attorney.

If this matter goes to circuit court, there is coverage under the General Liability portion of the policy with the Florida League of Cities which covers not only the officials, but all employees.  That portion of the policy which covers the case is that of Personal Injury (slander, libel and defamation of character).

 

If this goes to Circuit Court which I believe it will, the costs for the Florida League as well as Dr. Miller’s attorney may be in the $70,000 each range.  Prior to going to court there will be depositions taken, and a possible mediation required where a settlement will have to be met including Dr. Miller’s attorney fees as well as the cost of depositions. Furthermore if the actions toward Dr. Miller were considered malicious with intent, the Town may receive defense but will not receive costs for punitive damages, or personal injury.

Dr. Helen Miller can prove that she would have been willing to seek mediation; however, the Town, mainly Mayor Bullard jumped the gun and was determined to oust Miller and not allow her to have a say in spite of her being on vacation.

There will be no case of immunity which caused our case to end before suing for personal injury.  In Dr. Miller’s case, the council are equals and thus no immunity is applicable.

Yes Mayor Bullard, you really weren’t thinking when you allowed Tebo to do these atrocities toward Miller.

Lots of luck to Tebo and her friends but I know the law is on Miller’s side and I am so pleased that she secured an ethics attorney.

 

Karin for the blog

Why selection of an Attorney by Stacy Tebo and others is contrary to the Sunshine Law

OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE MANUAL

Selection and screening committees

The Sunshine Law applies to advisory committees created by an agency to assist in the selection process. In Wood v. Marston, 442 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1983), a committee created to screen applications and make recommendations for the position of a law school dean was held to be subject to s. 286.011, F.S. By screening applicants and deciding which applicants to reject from further consideration, the committee performed a policy-based, decision-making function delegated to it by the president of the university. See also Krause v. Reno, 366 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (Sunshine Law governs advisory group created by city manager to assist in screening applications and to recommend several applicants for the position of chief of police), and AGO 77-43 (Sunshine Law applies to committee selected by a county bar association on behalf of the school board to screen applicants and make recommendations for the position of school board attorney). Cf. Dore v. Sliger, No. 90-1850 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. July 11, 1990) (faculty of university law school prohibited from conducting secret ballots on personnel hiring matters).

JOE GRIFFIN – EDITOR