Boca Raton council adopts lobbyist-disclosure rule for development applications

The Boca Raton City Council on May 26 adopted Ordinance 57-85, a city-level disclosure requirement that asks applicants for development approvals to certify who may speak or represent them and to disclose whether those representatives are registered lobbyists.

Deputy Mayor Grau, who introduced the ordinance, told the council it is “straightforward, [a] good governance measure” designed to preserve public trust by making clear who is being paid, retained, or authorized to communicate with the council, the CRA, city boards or staff throughout the review process. Development Services Director Brandon Shadd summarized the proposal, saying the “applicant will be required to keep that updated throughout the process” and that representatives speaking at hearings must verbally identify who they represent and whether they are a lobbyist.

The ordinance applies specifically to development approval applications; Shadd said the change would be part of the completeness review for development applications and that staff would confirm disclosures are up to date before public hearings. City Attorney Koehler clarified the measure does not aim to sweep in ordinary citizens or neighbors and that the key test is whether someone is compensated or retained as a representative under the Palm Beach County lobbying registration code.

Public commenters supported the ordinance. Resident Joe Graubart said the measure is “well needed and certainly very refreshing” and described it as a step toward rebuilding public confidence after perceptions of backroom influence. Another resident, Jonathan Anjian, asked practical questions about where the line is drawn — for example, whether a landscape architect or other technical consultant on an application would require lobbyist registration — and urged clearer definitions in implementation.

Council member Pearlman pressed staff on past instances where developers, lobbyists, and staff met during zoning work (referred to in the meeting as CIMDs) and asked whether developers could draft laws that later affect their projects. Shadd said the proposed city requirement was not in effect at the time of earlier applications and that he could not say definitively how a prospective ordinance would have affected a prior application; Koehler pointed to public records as the place to review how past policy decisions were reached.

The council voted by roll call: Thompson, Grau, Drucker, Perlman and Sippel all voted yes; the motion passed 5-0.

What’s next: The ordinance requires applicants to submit and update a certification during the development review process and for representatives to identify themselves at hearings. Staff and the city attorney indicated implementation details and exemptions will follow existing Palm Beach County lobbying rules and that technical consultants speaking in their own capacity are not intended to be captured by the rule.

The council also heard public comments and follow-up questions about definitions and enforcement procedures; staff said more specifics about implementation will be addressed administratively as the ordinance is put into practice.