Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the No Wake Shad Creek topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission directs drafting of resolution seeking no-wake zone at Shad Creek; final action deferred
Summary
Councilmember Mike Gay pushed the commission to ask the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to implement no-wake restrictions at Shad Creek; legal counsel recommended drafting options for formal consideration and the commission agreed to return the item for a future vote.
Councilmember Mike Gay urged the Jacksonville Waterways Commission on Sept. 10 to press the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to implement no-wake restrictions at Shad Creek after construction raised navigation speeds and increased erosion and property damage.
Gay described an apparent omission by the Florida Department of Transportation, saying the agency “did not do the waterway analysis of what the impact would be when they raised a bridge,” and argued that faster and larger vessels are now reaching residential areas. He said the commission should “strongly request FWC to implement the no wake zones” to reduce impacts on homeowners.
Shannon McGillis, office of general counsel, advised the commission there are two procedural options: return with a written resolution at the next waterways meeting, or take a conceptual vote directing staff to draft a resolution for FWC that would request an impact study and ask FWC to follow published operational orders. McGillis said the draft could present finite choices for the commission at the next meeting.
During discussion, Captain Suber estimated the affected distance variously (one speaker said “a thousand feet,” another described roughly 300 feet from the bridge), and members noted uncertainties about who would install or fund measures and whether FWC or the city would implement them. Gay said the initial ask would be for FWC to install the zone because the issue originated from state actions.
The commission did not adopt a final ordinance or resolution at the Sept. 10 meeting. Instead, members agreed to have staff prepare a written draft with alternatives and research (legislative services and subject-matter experts) and return the item for formal approval at a subsequent meeting. Commissioners on the record emphasized avoiding unfunded mandates and confirming permitting and cost responsibilities before final action.
Proven next steps are for staff to draft wording and for the chair to sign any final resolution if approved by the commission; the transcript does not record a roll-call vote or ordinance number.
