Committee advances draft ordinance to set up East Side grants program after debate over governance and spending rules

The special committee reviewing implementation of the East Side supplemental community benefits agreement (CBA) discussed a draft ordinance and general terms for a new East Side Community Grants Program and reached consensus to pursue a 501(c)(3) administrative model while returning to finalize details at a follow‑up meeting.

The committee chair opened the session by noting the budget allocation and the program’s purpose: “we have $4,000,000 allocated towards the CBA for the East Side. So now it's time for us to actually put those dollars to work in the East Side,” the chair said.

The draft ordinance, prepared for the committee by legislative staff, proposes placing the program in Chapter 118 of the city code and designates a nonprofit, described in the draft as HERO Inc., to administer an East Side grants program modeled on the city’s Cultural Council. “This is based on the Cultural Council model,” said Mr. Pavliss, a legislative staff member, as he walked the committee through the draft. The draft notes HERO Inc. would operate under a board of directors and a grants process that includes an advisory grants committee in the Cultural Council model, but the committee debated whether to retain that separate grants committee.

Why it matters

The proposal would create a sustained local funding stream tied to the CBA’s East Side strategic focus and use city budget appropriations to support projects and services in five neighborhoods the CBA map defines. The program’s rules will determine which organizations or projects get multi‑year support for affordable housing, workforce housing, economic development and mitigation of homelessness on the East Side.

Key elements in the draft and committee debate

- Administrator and legal placement: The draft places the program in Chapter 118 (city grants) and names HERO Inc. as the administrative agent. Mr. Pavliss explained the draft would “establish[] the creation and the purpose of the East Side community grants program” and attach the CBA map as a figure.

- Funding and budget process: The ordinance follows the Cultural Council model by requiring an annual lump‑sum appropriation in the city budget; HERO Inc. would submit a letter of intent for the requested allocation that would be considered by the mayor’s budget review process and then by the city council.

- Board composition and appointments: The draft sets a nine‑member voting board: two appointees by the council president (confirmed by council), one by the mayor (confirmed by council) and one current employee of the Jacksonville Jaguars (not subject to council confirmation in the draft). The remaining five seats are intended to represent the five neighborhoods in the East Side map, and the draft says “in no event shall more than 2 of the neighborhood appointees reside in or have a substantial economic business interest in a single neighborhood,” Mr. Pavliss said.

- Grants committee vs. board authority: The draft originally mirrored the Cultural Council with a separate East Side grants committee to review applications and recommend awards to the HERO Inc. board. Several council members questioned that duplication and argued the nine‑member board could perform review and allocation functions directly. Council member Joe Carlucci (District 5) said, “That's why we're setting up a board. And that's why those folks should know what to do.” The committee reached a working consensus to remove the separate grants committee and give primacy to the HERO Inc. board while staff will return with a revised draft.

- Eligibility and reporting requirements: The draft sets eligibility rules that mirror the Cultural Council model: applicants must operate in Duval County, have been incorporated for at least three years with three years of filed tax returns, be current on prior city grant reporting, and demonstrate community representation and management capacity. The draft requires recipients that receive capital funding of $25,000 or more to enter a restrictive covenant to preserve the funded facility for a public purpose for at least 10 years and directs recipients to keep program funds in a separate account for auditability.

- Match, revenue threshold and administrative set‑aside: The draft includes a proposed 1:1 cash match requirement (one dollar of match for each dollar granted) and a Cultural Council–style metric that at least 76% of an awardee’s operating revenue must come from sources other than the East Side grants program or other city programs. The draft also allows HERO Inc. to retain an administrative set‑aside (the draft referenced up to 10% as an example; the Cultural Council’s current rate was cited as 13.5%). Council members debated removing the match requirement and limiting administrative overhead to a fixed dollar or a lower percent.

- Use restrictions and public process: The draft ties allowable grant uses to the CBA categories (affordable housing, workforce housing, economic development and mitigation of homelessness on the East Side) and requires public notice and an application cycle (publish notice at least one month before appropriation requests, provide forms and a public hearing). The draft states that entities receiving East Side grants would be ineligible to receive duplicative city program funding unless the council waives that restriction.

Open issues and points of contention

Council members pressed several policy questions: whether capital projects should be eligible (some members argued capital investment is essential for lasting neighborhood change, others said appropriations should prioritize services), whether the board should be able to hire paid staff paid from the CBA allocation to manage grants, whether to require geographic residency for appointees or only priority representation, and whether a separate grants committee adds value. Council member Ron Salem said he “would almost prefer a paid staff member that is solely responsible for administering all these grants,” citing accountability and federal‑funding precedents.

Community feedback

Public commenters argued for stronger community leadership in governance and clearer, timely public distribution of revised drafts. Several community speakers said they had organized neighborhood groups and are prepared to serve on a nonprofit board or provide project proposals. Together Eastside representatives said their group had membership and bylaws ready and asked that the community have a lead role in selection and oversight. Businesses and Main Street representatives urged flexibility to support capital development that can produce long‑term neighborhood impact.

Next steps

Committee staff agreed to meet individually with committee members to refine terms and return with a revised ordinance. The committee announced a follow‑up public meeting to continue the work and scheduled the next meeting for October 8 at 1:00 p.m. (the chair indicated the committee intends to start that meeting with public comment), and the committee asked legislative services to circulate a revised draft ahead of that session.

Ending

Committee members said they wanted a clear, community‑led but fiscally accountable program that can spend the city’s $4 million allocation in ways that align with the CBA. The conversation left several substantive choices open — the draft administrator model (HERO Inc.), how much board authority to vest versus city oversight, capital eligibility, and specific limits on administrative costs — and the committee will reconvene to finalize those points.