Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duval councilors debate whether to direct lobbyists after packet of housing and growth bills draws concern
Summary
Committee members reviewed a long list of state bills that could affect growth, ADUs and land-use rules; councilors debated whether to direct the city's lobbyists to pursue amendments and voted against adding a last-minute agenda item to do so.
Council members spent a substantial portion of the Committee of the Whole workshop reviewing state legislation that they said could change how Duval plans for growth and implements housing policy.
Councilors and staff reviewed a packet of bills and draft summaries prepared by the city’s legislative consultant. The items discussed included proposals to require city housing elements to be submitted to the Department of Commerce for approval or review, bills to expand lot-splitting and to loosen setback and gross-floor restrictions for certain housing types (bills referenced by staff included e2shb1096, 2shb1183 and essb5611 in the workshop packet), and proposals that would require initially commercial-zoned property to allow multifamily residential uses.
City Administrator Cynthia warned the committee that the council’s advocacy should be coordinated with administration to avoid conflicts with an adopted legislative agenda, and city staff recommended asking the city lobbyists to brief council on what bills were likely to advance and which were realistic priorities for Duval’s limited lobbying budget.
Council members expressed differing strategies: some urged immediate direction to lobbyists to push for Duval-specific amendments to protect the city’s small and noncontiguous character; others argued that many bills would not advance before legislative cutoffs and that the city should wait to see whether a bill clears committee before expending lobbyist time and funds.
Council debated a procedural motion to add a specific agenda item instructing the city’s lobbyist to act on five named bills. The motion failed in a recorded roll-call: Council member Suthal — No; Council member McHenry — No; Council member Nacklin — Yes; Council member Schaeffer — Yes; Council member Coopell — No; Council member Mercer — No. The motion did not carry and the item was not added to the council agenda that evening.
Staff told council they had invited the lobbyist to brief the council at an upcoming meeting, and several members asked staff to prepare suggested language or positions so council could act before legislative deadlines if there is a clear opportunity. Staff also outlined legislative deadlines: an early-April committee cutoff, a fiscal committee cutoff on April 9 and subsequent rapid floor timelines, and advised prioritizing bills that could realistically be influenced.
No final policy change was adopted at the workshop; staff will coordinate with the lobbyist and report back on which bills are viable priorities, per council direction to keep procurement of advocacy within the city’s legislative agenda framework.
