Finance committee adopts opioid-model East Side grant program after debate over home repairs and blight

Jacksonville’s Finance Committee on Feb. 3 voted to adopt a finance substitute that implements an 'opioid model' for distributing East Side Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) funds, shifting oversight to the city’s grants and contract compliance division and clarifying initial terms for grant administration.

The substitute, rolled together with auditor-recommended amendments, passed on a recorded ballot, 5 yays to 1 nay. The measure sets program goals for board member qualifications (economic development, workforce/affordable housing, workforce housing or mitigation of homelessness as desirable experience), revises applicant eligibility (organizations must exist two years for the initial cycle, three years thereafter), and clarifies how administrative costs and grant timing are handled.

Philip Peterson of council staff explained the substitute and the auditor changes, saying the amendments: confirm initial committee terms; make city administrative costs part of annual budget allocations rather than a fixed line item; allow, under certain circumstances, unallocated funding within categories to move to other categories during the award cycle (a model staff compared to existing public service grant practice); combine the originally approved 25/26 fiscal-year funding with 26/27 to align timing; require capital grants to be paid at completion; and add past performance as a scoring subcomponent. Staff set an initial grant-scoring target of Nov. 1, 2026.

Public commenters urged the committee to adopt city oversight and local representation. Latavia Harris said the opioid model ‘‘brings transparency, accountability and responsibility’’ and urged East Side residents be prioritized for committee seats. Kim Prior, speaking separately, cited an inspector general concern that the prior cultural-council model was vulnerable to ‘‘fraud, waste and abuse’’ and called for the city to retain oversight.

The committee’s debate focused on two related disputes: (1) whether unused funds in a category should be allowed to move to another category within the same award cycle (staff noted this is how the PSG model operates to fully deploy appropriations) or should instead carry over into the same category the next fiscal year; and (2) whether the definition of the categorical allocation labeled ‘‘economic development’’ should be broadened to explicitly include blight removal and home-repair programs.

Councilmember Paluso introduced an amendment to define economic development to include blight removal and home repair, saying residents and seniors on the East Side had expected such programs and that these investments would help keep people in their homes and limit displacement. Councilmember Arias and others urged caution, saying existing programs (ERP, CDBG and other federal or local efforts) and the PSG model already address some needs and that redefining the term could risk the contract with the Jaguars. Mary Stapopoulos, the city’s office of general counsel, warned that expanding the definition beyond the supplemental CBA’s language could expose the city to legal challenge unless the written agreement with the Jaguars were formally amended.

After extended discussion and requests for clarity, Councilmember Pittman—who had seconded the Paluso amendment—withdrew it so the proposer could secure written confirmation from the Jaguars. The chair said staff would accept a written assurance from the Jaguars before reintroducing any amendment on the council floor.

Councilmember Paluso and others highlighted funding details discussed in committee: staff noted an overall $40 million commitment over seven years for East Side investments (an average of roughly $6 million per year), a $4,000,000 allocation that may be combined across fiscal years for planning purposes, and administrative cost expectations. Several councilmembers emphasized they want the funds to be spent quickly to address urgent needs; others urged a careful approach to preserve the city’s legal position under the CBA.

The chair closed debate and the committee approved bill 20260036 as substituted (which implements the opioid-model distribution and the auditor clarifications) 5–1. The measure will next appear on the council agenda. Several committee members said they will seek a written amendment or clarification from the Jaguars if council wishes to expand the program’s definitions to explicitly add blight removal or home repair.