Expecting at least two long and contentious debates during the Jacksonville City Council’s June 10 meeting, Jacksonville City Council President Randy White set the start time an hour early.
His calculation was based on experience.
Council committee meetings generated hours of discussions on agenda items that included competing ordinances for the city to acquire the Interline Brands Inc. building for the University of Florida’s LaVilla graduate campus.
White and others anticipated that the “sale versus swap” legislation, which was up for final action, would take a lengthy amount of time to resolve. A Committee of the Whole meeting June 2 yielded 96 minutes of discussion, with little apparent movement toward consensus.
Along with a proposal to restrict city services from being provided to undocumented immigrants, White envisioned the meeting potentially lasting until midnight, when Council rules would require either a vote to extend it or an adjournment until 9 a.m. the next day.
At 4:23 p.m., discussion began on the ordinance for the swap.
At 4:52 p.m., the issue was resolved with a 17-1 Council vote for an amended version of the exchange.
What had been anticipated as a tense ordeal instead became a collegial 29-minute bit of governing, with members commending each other afterward for forging compromises.
The unexpected outcome looked easy, but it involved days of behind-the-scenes work on a compromise deal that came together only an hour or two before the meeting’s early start.
Here is what happened.
Divided camps
For months, Council had disagreed on whether to back member Ron Salem’s proposal to purchase the Interline Brands building outright (Ordinance 2025-0339) or obtain it through an exchange of a Riverfront Plaza development pad and an option on an adjacent lot (Ordinance 2025-0319).
The property was a critical element in UF’s plans, which included spending $7 million to retrofit the building for instructional use and launch classes in it in the fall of 2025. The property is owned by the Gateway Jax development partnership, which supported the swap and had committed to building a mixed-use tower project on the Northbank site.
Proponents of the swap said it would put the riverfront property into the hands of a developer with proven capabilities, speed the construction of a city park at the plaza and spur revitalization of the city’s historic core via a tower and public spaces that would draw visitors and residents alike.
Salem and supporters of his ordinance argued that the swap would commit the city to a development they didn’t see as financially viable without being heavily subsidized with taxpayer-funded incentives. They contended the city’s outlay for the outright sale, for which Gateway set the price at $6.95 million, would be replenished with a portion of city utility JEA’s upcoming annual payment to the city.
Those were just the main arguments. Questions and criticisms came from both sides on numerous aspects of the proposals.
“My gut feeling was the Council was fairly evenly split” coming out of the June 2 committee meeting, Salem said. “I thought maybe we were at 10-9, 11-8.”
The clock was ticking. The university said it needed a Council vote by the end of June for the city to convey the Interline Brands building and four other LaVilla properties, along with a finalized agreement for the city to provide $100 million in committed funding for the venture.
Hanging in the balance was a campus that would establish a pipeline of talent to the Jacksonville workforce, potentially steer millions of dollars in research projects to Jacksonville, spur revitalization in LaVilla and, according to UF, generate hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and economic benefits in Northeast Florida.
A time of reflection
Salem said the June 2 committee meeting left him concerned about how the final debate might affect UF’s plans.
He said UF officials wanted badly to launch the project with Council unified in support of it, as opposed to a contentious battle and a close vote.
In addition, he said, the sale-versus-swap argument had diverted attention from the main issue, which was landing the UF campus.
“You almost had the tail wagging the dog,” he said. “I did not want this issue to interfere with UF and the campus.”
After what he called “a great deal of thought,” Salem approached Council staff and Gateway representatives to craft a set of amendments designed to address concerns over the incentives and other issues.
Among them, Council approval would be required for any incentives for the project, even incentives that would normally need approval only from the DIA board. The amendments would also create a clean slate on the incentive issue by removing all references to incentive amounts listed in the ordinance, including a proposed $20 million cap.
Salem said that after days of conversations with Gateway Jax, the developer agreed to his amendments around 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. the day of the meeting.
In return for Council support for his revisions, Salem pledged to withdraw his sale ordinance. He followed through on the commitment, and Council withdrew the ordinance late June 10 on an 18-0 vote.
In an interview after the meeting, Salem said he believed the sale was still the better option but compromised so as not to potentially jeopardize the UF project.
“I didn’t want this issue to interfere with that,” he said.
In the days before the meeting, the JAX Chamber had publicly voiced support for the swap. Chamber President and CEO Daniel Davis urged members at the June 6 Downtown Council meeting to contact Council members and express support for the exchange.
Salem said he was aware of the Chamber’s lobbying effort but didn’t feel pressured by it.
“Most people who know me and have watched me know that I want what’s best for our city,” he said. “That was my motivation. I didn’t want a decision this important to be close and contentious.”
Other amendments
Council members Will Lahnen and Joe Carlucci offered amendments of their own, with most of Lahnen’s mirroring revisions recommended by Council auditors. Those included clawback provisions for any incentives and a requirement for Gateway Jax to submit a performance bond or guarantee in order to receive public funding.
In addition, an amendment that originated with Lahnen provided for the city to buy back the Riverfront Plaza property for $6.25 million from Gateway Jax if the developer failed to come to an agreement with the city to build the tower.
He said that provision would give the city the opportunity to reclaim the valuable riverfront property but would not obligate it to provide incentives for it.
“There’s an option to do nothing,” he said. “In other words, Gateway can either come to us and get an incentive package approved, or we can vote it down and they can come back later, or we can repurchase it. But they can also sit there and pay property taxes on it for an indefinite amount of time if they don’t have an approved incentive package.”
Gateway Jax had offered the buyback provision all along as part of the swap deal.
Carlucci’s amendments called for the DIA to conduct a third-party review of all financing and underwriting on the plaza development in addition to its own staff analysis. Carlucci’s revisions also required any incentives for the Gateway development to come from the Downtown Northbank Community Redevelopment Agency Fund, which is supplied through tax revenue generated within Downtown, as opposed to the city’s general fund, which provides for services citywide.
“We want to make a deal work on that lot,” Carlucci said. “We want development Downtown. We just want to make sure it’s done in the right way. This protects the general fund, and it takes a second look at Gateway’s pro forma to make sure that we’re not going to get halfway through their project and then have them ask for another $20 million.
“That has happened on projects. And at that point, you kind of have no option. You have to do it, especially on your riverfront parcels. So that’s all we’re trying to do, is make sure we get it right the first time and have a realistic budget.”
Similarly to Salem, Carlucci said he worked with the developer and DIA for days on his amendments and learned the day of the Council meeting that Gateway and the DIA would support them.
After approving the Salem, Carlucci and Lahnen amendments, Council voted 17-1 on the swap legislation, with member Rory Diamond voting no and Ju’Coby Pittman not present.
Council member Chris Miller, who was among those who switched from supporting the sale, praised everyone involved in forming the compromises. He said he had spoken with several real estate capital professionals about both options and had come into the meeting strongly against the exchange.
“Until I heard these three amendments, I would have been a no vote on the swap,” he said.
“Thank you to all those who understood there was some concern out there. And I thank you for listening to all the input that was presented, and then responding with these amendments.”