A Jacksonville City Council special committee met Oct. 8 to continue drafting an ordinance that would establish governance for Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) funds directed to the city’s East Side and to hear public comment about who should administer the program.

The committee discussed two competing models: the “cultural council” approach, in which the city would contract with an independent 501(c)(3) (the draft refers to HERO Inc.), and a city‑embedded model similar to the city’s opioid‑abatement grants process. Council Member Arias convened the session and said the meeting’s purpose was to refine the draft ordinance and to discuss nonprofit creation, temporary board membership and the relationship between the city and any outside entity.

Why it matters: The CBA funding is intended to direct millions to East Side programs and projects. Committee members and public commenters emphasized that governance decisions will shape whether dollars prioritize legacy East Side residents and reduce displacement risk. Council members repeatedly urged a path that both protects community control and allows money to flow quickly to projects.

Public commenters and neighborhood leaders pushed for an independent nonprofit to receive and steward CBA dollars. Leslie Scott Jean Barr, an East Side resident and attorney, said the goal must be “to empower the Eastside, empower the eastsiders, and to make sure that this community is stabilized and flourishes for the future.” Suzanne Pickett, president and CEO of Historic Eastside Community Development Corporation, described long‑running local organizing and urged protection of the neighborhood’s history and culture.

Proponents of an independent entity noted the historical distrust of city structures among some East Side residents. Daniel Nunn, who said he represents a Together Eastside Coalition unincorporated association, described work since 2023 to prepare bylaws and articles for a nonprofit tied to the draft ordinance and said the group has waited for council decisions to move forward.

Others — including council members who have experience running city grant models — argued a city‑based board could start distributing funds faster and with lower initial administrative cost. Madeline Drew, manager of opioid abatement for the city, described the opioid grants committee model: two city staff administratively manage grants while a city‑appointed community committee scores and awards funding. Council Member Paluso said, “We have $4,000,000 literally right now on hold for you guys,” and urged a model that would get money into the community quickly.

Substantive points of debate

- Governance structure: The draft ordinance follows a cultural‑council template that anticipated an outside 501(c)(3) (draft name referenced in the document: HERO Inc.). Supporters said that model offers long‑term independence and the ability to accept donations and Jaguars’ contributions directly. Opponents said creating a new 501(c)(3) before the board is functioning risks delay and fragmentation.

- Membership and appointments: The draft envisions a nine‑member board (discussed during the meeting as five neighborhood members plus four seats allocated to the Jaguars, city council and the mayor), but speakers urged clarity on how board seats are chosen and how neighborhood representation is ensured.

- Administrative cap and staffing: Committee staff noted the cultural council model historically allows up to about 13.5% of funds for administration; the draft referencing HERO Inc. proposed a 10% cap. The opioid model as described uses two city staff as administrators and relies on community appointees to score awards.

- Eligibility and grant rules: Public commenters raised specific problems in the draft ordinance language. Kim Prior flagged multiple draft sections (the transcript cites Section 118.902, 118.904, 118.905, 118.906 and 118.907) that reference governance, committee selection and eligibility rules. She and others criticized eligibility thresholds in the draft that would require applicant organizations to have been incorporated for three years and to derive 76% of operating revenue from other sources — provisions commenters said would exclude new or small East Side businesses.

- Conflict and representation: Several speakers said multiple groups were using similar names (Together Eastside Coalition, Together Eastside Coalition, Inc.) and disputed who speaks for the neighborhood. Latavia Harris said the community now has its own attorney and that proposed bylaws should be reviewed by the community’s counsel. James Machette and others criticized LIFTJAX, saying past promises had not produced expected results and that LIFTJAX should not speak for the entire East Side.

Committee direction and next steps

Committee staff said they will prepare two draft ordinance versions for the next meeting — one following the cultural council/501(c)(3) model and one following a city‑embedded grants board (the “opioid” model). Council Member Arias set the next meeting for Oct. 22 at 10 a.m. and said the committee would take a vote on direction when drafts are available. Attorney Stifopoulos (committee counsel) will meet individually with members to seek consensus language; she requested about a week to prepare the alternate draft and the chair suggested drafts could be distributed by Friday, Oct. 17.

What was not decided

No formal action or council vote was taken at the Oct. 8 meeting. The committee did not adopt final language, select a named nonprofit, or appoint a board. Multiple public commenters asked for more time and a clear schedule for review; the chair said public comment on the next ordinance hearing will be limited because the committee intends to take action.

Ending note: Committee members and neighborhood leaders agreed on the objective — directing CBA dollars to stabilize and benefit long‑term East Side residents — but differed on the fastest and most trustworthy administrative path. The committee will reconvene with two ordinance drafts and limited public comment to seek a decision.