Boca Raton council adopts resolution reaffirming March 10 binding referendum and introduces ordinance clarifying legal effect

The Boca Raton City Council on Jan. 27 adopted Resolution 6-20-26 by a 5-0 vote, directing the city clerk not to process signature pages for a separate petition effort and reaffirming that a binding citywide referendum on the proposed downtown campus public–private partnership is scheduled for March 10, 2026. The council also introduced Ordinance 57-72, which city lawyers said simply makes explicit the legal consequences of a negative referendum vote.

City Attorney Taylor told the council and the public that ‘‘nothing about this project happens unless the voters approve it.’’ He said the March 10 ballot will contain ‘‘one question, one vote, and one answer,’’ and that the resolution and proposed ordinance are intended ‘‘to just remove any possible ambiguity whatsoever.’’ Taylor added, ‘‘If the voters say no, there's no deal.’’

The measures respond to a petition filed by opponents seeking to overturn Ordinance 57-69. Proponents of the petition say the separate petition is intended to preserve or protect a public vote; opponents said it would create confusion. Joe Machus, speaking for Save Boca, said the petition effort would ‘‘subvert democracy’’ and risk taking away ‘‘the sole mechanism that you have been afforded to vote on this project.’’ He told the council that thousands had previously signed in support of putting public land to a vote.

Several petition organizers and critics made more pointed allegations about contract language. John Perlman said a recent change to the contract ‘‘would have still been binding’’ if a referendum did not occur. Mayor Singer and City Attorney Taylor rejected that characterization. Singer told Perlman his statements were ‘‘completely incorrect’’ and repeatedly emphasized that the council had conditioned the agreements on voter approval. Taylor reiterated that although signatures have been gathered, ‘‘there are no legal effect[s] unless and until there is an affirmative vote of the majority of the voters.’’

Some speakers asked practical questions about outside spending and next steps if the referendum fails. Richard Warner asked who was spending ‘‘millions’’ to promote a yes vote and what would happen if voters rejected the project. Mayor Singer said that, should voters reject the proposal, the council would evaluate options including leaving the site unused, upgrading existing city buildings, or exploring other proposals from different bidders.

After public comment the council moved and seconded adoption of Resolution 6-20-26. Council members spoke in favor on the record, with one member calling the petition effort ‘‘political theater’’ and another saying the referendum was secured months earlier and that the additional petition would be ‘‘redundant and confusing.’’ The clerk then called the roll; the council recorded five yes votes and the motion carried.

Ordinance 57-72 was read by title and introduced; council members described it as a ‘‘belt and suspenders’’ clarification that would make explicit the conditional repeal of Ordinance 57-69 if the referendum returns a negative result. No final council vote on the ordinance occurred at the special meeting. Mayor Singer adjourned the meeting at 9:36 a.m.; ballots for the March 10 referendum are being printed and mailed to vote-by-mail voters, city officials said.