Council workshop reviews East Side grants ordinance; inspector general urges stronger city oversight

Jacksonville — City staff and council members at a council workshop reviewed draft legislation that would create an East Side Community Grants Program to distribute funds set aside in a supplemental Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) with the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Mary Stifopoulos of the Office of General Counsel outlined the draft ordinance, which would add a new Part 9 to Chapter 118 and establish the Historic East Side CBA Organization, Inc., as the independent 501(c)(3) entity that would administer competitive grants for four categories: affordable housing, workforce housing, economic development and mitigation of homelessness. "This whole part 9 establishes the East Side community grants program," Stifopoulos said, explaining the program framework and application process.

The draft specifies board composition and limits: a nine‑member board (four appointees by the council president, four by the mayor, all confirmed by council, plus one member selected by the Jaguars), staggered terms, a two‑consecutive‑term limit and an effort to ensure geographic representation across five designated East Side neighborhoods. Stifopoulos said the board's grant allocation decisions "are final and are not subject to further review by the city." She also described administrative rules including public notices, at least two mandatory application workshops (one after 5 p.m.), Sunshine Law compliance and the requirement that at least five board members score qualified applications.

Inspector General Matt Lasalle told the workshop he was "compelled" to raise concerns after reviewing the draft. "The city has a horrendous track record of giving money to outside organizations and letting go of the oversight responsibilities," Lasalle said, warning the draft's external model could recreate past problems of fraud, waste and abuse when third parties administered large programs. He recommended embedding a first line of oversight — such as grants and contract compliance — rather than relying solely on the inspector general as the last line of defense.

Council members spent much of the meeting weighing tradeoffs between an external, independent administering organization (which council members said could raise private funds and provide perceived independence) and an internal model patterned on the city's opioid‑grant program (which places administration and monitoring in city structures and can add compliance staff). Meeting chair said he asked staff to prepare a substitute ordinance that would reinstate an opioid‑type internal model for the council to consider. "These are city dollars. It's $40,000,000 and over 7 years," the chair stated when discussing the scale of city funding.

Key contested elements included oversight and monitoring, administrative costs, grant cycle frequency and how to serve smaller applicants. The draft would initially allocate $400,000 from the lump sum appropriation to the 501(c)(3) to cover administration (with a 3% annual escalator) and caps capital projects at 60% of the annual award. Grants for operations or programs were capped at $250,000 under the proposed rules; organizations must have been active and in good standing for at least two years and have two years of filed tax returns to be eligible for city funds. Stifopoulos said capital awards at or above $25,000 would require restrictive covenants to preserve the public purpose of assets.

Several council members, including those representing East Side neighborhoods, emphasized the community preference expressed during outreach for an independent body and the risk that city processes could favor larger organizations. "Independence seemed like something that I've heard a lot of members of the community say that they want," one council member said. Staff replied that, under the independent model, the 501(c)(3) could still independently raise private funds, which would not be subject to the ordinance's guardrails.

Committee members also sought clarity on grant cycles and micro‑grants. Stifopoulos said city‑funded distributions would operate on an annual grant cycle, though an independent group could seek privately raised dollars for additional disbursements. Council members requested that the substitute explore ways to enable smaller, more frequent awards (a "micro‑grant" category) while preserving oversight and standard procurement safeguards.

Risk management concerns were raised late in the meeting: Lasalle and other members asked whether recipients serving vulnerable populations would be required to demonstrate insurance, proper training and state clearances. Stifopoulos responded that any contractual path could require minimum insurance and indemnification consistent with risk management standards and that specific provisions could vary by the pathway chosen.

Next steps: the chair said staff will prepare a substitute ordinance reflecting the internal oversight option and that amendments to add inspector general or grants‑compliance language could be included either in the substitute or later in committee. The legislation will go to neighborhood meetings and return to council committees for further consideration; no formal vote was taken at the workshop.