The salary for chief stadium negotiator Mike Weinstein came under threat at a City Council budget session Friday.

The motion by District 13 Councilman Rory Diamond to cut the $292,006 salary from Mayor Donna Deegan’s proposed budget stemmed from what Diamond and others contend was a lack of communication about the position’s role. 

Weinstein, for the past year, has been leading negotiations for the city with the Jaguars to remodel EverBank Stadium and rewrite the city’s lease with the team. 

Diamond said he had asked the mayor’s office about what Weinstein’s tasks were now that the majority of the stadium deal was set.

“I got some nebulous answers,” Diamond said. “I said, ‘Well, get back to me with, like — specifically — what do we need him for for another year at almost $300,000.’ And I got no response.”

Article continues below

More from Jax Today

Jacksonville pushes for zero traffic deaths by 2035

Recount confirms winner in Fernandina commission race

Tropical Storm Sara unlikely to threaten Florida

Jacksonville Today thanks our sponsors. Become one.

He said the stadium is going to take five years to build. 

“Are we going to be paying $300,000 for the next five years for this position?” Diamond asked. “I’ve got, like, multiple problems with a number of people in this budget who are making $200,000 $250,000, $300,000. It’s just, like, ridiculous the amount of money for high-end salaries. And then I’m going to be back here begging for $14 an hour for animal control officers.”

He said he felt it was a fair question to ask and is irritated that he didn’t get what he considered an adequate answer.

At the meeting, in response to Diamond’s proposal, Darnell Smith, the mayor’s chief of staff, went through an overview of tasks Weinstein had on his plate.

Smith said Weinstein is needed as the “go-to” person during all phases of pre-construction through post-construction and is expected to help as the city’s representative for an entertainment district, which was pulled from the stadium deal but could be resurrected later.

“It’s critical that he remain a part of this work,” Smith said. “I promise you, you remove that gentleman from this payroll, it will take years. It will set us back. It will not allow us to be able to do the work that we need to do, even with the stadium. If you do that, it makes no sense.”

Finance Committee Chair Ron Salem said he’s known Weinstein for 30 years and is convinced of how valuable he is. Salem said he was sure dollars could be shifted to keep him at City Hall.

But he said that he, too, had inquired about Weinstein’s job description about two to three weeks earlier.

He said his inquiry to Finance Director Anna Broche gave him no clarity, despite the fact that he said Weinstein’s salary — classified as “Administrative Aide – MA-4” — fell under the Finance Department’s budget.

Salem was clearly steamed that he received only a rundown of the goals for Weinstein’s position at the budget meeting Friday.

“We asked, ‘Can someone tell us what he does?’” Salem said. He said administrative staff nodded that he would be provided the information, but it never came.

“To me, that’s disrespectful to the council and shows a lack of respect for us when we ask a question such as that, that’s my point,” said Salem, who voted for the Diamond’s suggested change in the budget.

In a show-of-hands vote, council members Ju’Coby Pittman, Nick Howland, Raul Arias and Will Lahnen shot down the change. Diamond, Salem and Councilman Terrence Freeman voted in favor. 

Legally, according to the Office of the General Counsel, the City Council could not specifically target Weinstein’s job anyway — but they could have removed the funding for it from the budget and forced the administration to find funding elsewhere to keep Weinstein on.

Freeman, though he voted to remove the salary, bemoaned the mention of Weinstein. 

“I wish we would have never placed a name on it,” Freeman said. “We are talking about a budget here. We’re talking about dollars. Unfortunately, in this space, these dollars are attached to people, but in these tough times, we have to separate ourselves from that.”

Lahnen said this was not the year to cut Weinstein’s salary, adding he had “significant” concerns this year about potentially losing projects that Weinstein is working on. But he said he felt it was a fair question for next year’s budget season.

“We do have to start thinking about a transition plan,” he said. Lahnen added that this was just a discussion about a “small position.”

“Next year’s projected deficit is 268 times what his salary is,” Lahnen said. “So, I hope Mr. Weinstein is helping us to focus on how we’re narrowing next year’s gap.”