When the JAX Chamber announced its opposition to Florida Amendment 3 on October 7, it added another influential business organization to the campaign against the proposed property-tax changes. The Jacksonville Civic Council had already taken the same position on September 21. Both organizations warned about the financial consequences for local government and supported a broader review of Florida's tax structure in 2027.

But who actually speaks for these organizations? Who develops their policy positions, and how do the people making those decisions connect to Jacksonville's developers, attorneys, lobbyists, political leaders and other civic organizations?

The answers begin with a small group of influential people whose professional and organizational relationships reach across Jacksonville's business and government networks.

Why Is the JAX Chamber Opposing Amendment 3?

The JAX Chamber argues that Amendment 3 would provide property-tax relief to qualifying homeowners while leaving renters and businesses without equivalent direct benefits. Its statement warns that local governments could respond to lost revenue by reducing services, increasing fees or shifting more of the tax burden toward other property owners.

The Chamber estimates that approximately 40% of Duval County residents rent their homes. It argues that the proposed amendment fails to address affordability for those households and could create additional financial pressure on businesses.

Rather than supporting the November ballot measure, the Chamber wants Florida's Taxation and Budget Reform Commission to examine the state's tax structure in 2027.

That is the Chamber's official position. The more revealing question is who developed it.

Who Decided the JAX Chamber's Position on Amendment 3?

The Chamber assigned its review to a Property Tax Subcommittee that met several times before recommending opposition. Attorney Cyndy Trimmer chaired the committee.

The Chamber announced the result but did not publicly identify the complete committee membership, disclose the committee's vote or explain how its broader membership participated in the decision. Those details matter because the Chamber presents its position as the voice of Jacksonville's business community.

A committee of selected participants may have substantial expertise, but its recommendation is not necessarily a membership-wide consensus. Who sat at the table, who selected them and who approved the recommendation are central questions for this investigation.

Cyndy Trimmer: The Attorney at the Center of Two Major Jacksonville Debates

Cyndy Trimmer is a partner at Driver, McAfee, Hawthorne & Diebenow, a Jacksonville law firm active in land-use, zoning and development matters. She chaired the Chamber committee that recommended opposing Amendment 3.

Trimmer also represents Gateway Jax, the Downtown developer seeking nearly $50 million in public incentives for its proposed Publix-anchored Pearl Square project. That agreement includes a $28.25 million cash completion grant and a $21.412 million REV grant.

These two roles place Trimmer at the intersection of Jacksonville's property-tax debate and its development-incentive system. In one role, she helps guide a major business organization's position on future public revenue. In another, she represents a developer negotiating substantial public financial assistance.

That overlap makes Trimmer's participation in the Chamber's decision-making process a central subject of public interest.

Trimmer's Professional Network Extends Into City Government

Trimmer's work regularly brings her into Jacksonville's development approval system. Planning Commission records identify her as an attorney or representative for private applicants seeking zoning and land-use approvals. Jacksonville's lobbying registry also identifies her among registered lobbyists.

Her disclosed professional relationships include public agencies and private development interests. Those records provide a starting point for tracing the organizations and companies whose interests she represents before local government.

The next question is whether those professional relationships intersected with the Chamber's Amendment 3 deliberations. The Chamber should identify its committee members, disclose the recommendation process and explain how participants handled overlapping professional interests.

Daniel Davis: From Republican Mayoral Candidate to Chamber CEO

JAX Chamber president and CEO Daniel Davis brings his own political history to the organization. Davis was the Republican candidate for Jacksonville mayor in 2023, losing to Democrat Donna Deegan.

Today, Davis leads one of Northeast Florida's most prominent business organizations. Through the Chamber and JAXUSA Partnership, his organization participates in economic-development recruitment, workforce initiatives, infrastructure advocacy and public-policy discussions affecting businesses throughout the region.

Davis's political background is relevant because the Chamber's policy positions can influence debates involving elected officials from both parties. His leadership also connects the Chamber's economic-development agenda with Jacksonville's broader political and business establishment.

The Chamber attributes its Amendment 3 recommendation to the Property Tax Subcommittee. Davis should explain how that recommendation became the organization's official position and what role the Chamber board played in approving it.

The Jacksonville Civic Council Opposed Amendment 3 Before the Chamber

On September 21, the Jacksonville Civic Council announced its opposition to Amendment 3. Its statement warned that reducing local government revenue could jeopardize public safety, infrastructure, parks, libraries, drainage and other municipal services.

The Civic Council also recommended that Florida address property-tax reform through the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission in 2027. Two weeks later, the JAX Chamber adopted the same broad position.

The organizations emphasized different aspects of the debate. The Civic Council focused on government services and financial stability, while the Chamber emphasized the potential burden on renters and businesses.

Both reached the same conclusion: Reject Amendment 3 and pursue a broader tax-policy review.

Dennis Whittle and Gary Chartrand: Leadership Behind the Civic Council

Dennis Whittle serves as president and CEO of the Jacksonville Civic Council, while retired Acosta executive Gary Chartrand chairs its board. The organization brings together prominent business and institutional leaders who participate in Jacksonville's civic-policy debates.

Whittle publicly raised concerns about Amendment 3 during the September 15 Oxford Economics presentation at City Hall. Six days later, the Civic Council formally announced its opposition.

That sequence places Whittle among the earliest prominent local business voices opposing the amendment. It also shows how the Civic Council moved from discussing Jacksonville's economic-development ambitions to taking a position on the tax revenues supporting local government.

The Council's leadership should explain who developed its position, how members participated and whether its policy committee reviewed the amendment before the announcement.

Bryan Moll: A Downtown Developer Inside the Civic Council Network

Gateway Jax CEO Bryan Moll belongs to the Jacksonville Civic Council. His company is developing Pearl Square and pursuing substantial City incentives for multiple Downtown projects.

Gateway's proposed Publix project became a focal point of City Council's October budget discussions. Council members delayed consideration of the nearly $50 million incentive package until after the Amendment 3 election, connecting the development-financing debate directly to the proposed property-tax changes.

Moll's Civic Council membership places a major incentive recipient within the organization opposing the amendment. The Council also has a documented history of advocating for Downtown redevelopment and participating in the creation of the Downtown Investment Authority.

The question is whether the Civic Council's development priorities entered its Amendment 3 deliberations—and, if so, how.

David Garfunkel: Connecting the Civic Council and Chamber's Public Messaging

David Garfunkel, the Civic Council's chief program officer, previously led LIFT JAX, an organization focused on neighborhood revitalization and economic mobility. His career connects the Civic Council to Jacksonville's broader nonprofit and public-private development networks.

On October 22, Garfunkel is scheduled to join Cyndy Trimmer at a JAX Chamber NextUp JAX discussion of Amendment 3. The Chamber describes the event as an educational, nonpartisan examination of the ballot measure.

The pairing brings representatives of two organizations opposing Amendment 3 before the same audience. It also creates a public opportunity to compare their arguments, examine their shared policy priorities and ask how each organization reached its position.

The event offers an additional reporting opportunity: Will attendees hear competing interpretations of Amendment 3, or primarily the concerns advanced by the organizations opposing it?

Two Organizations, One Position: How Does Jacksonville's Business Network Shape Public Policy?

The Chamber and Civic Council operate as separate organizations, but they participate in overlapping business and civic-policy networks. Their members and leaders work with developers, financial institutions, economic-development agencies, government boards and nonprofit organizations.

Those relationships create channels for sharing information, identifying priorities and building support for policy positions. A business leader who serves on multiple boards can carry the same concerns into several organizations. Attorneys, lobbyists and policy executives can also introduce similar arguments into separate decision-making processes.

This is how interconnected civic networks can amplify a position. An argument developed within one group can gain broader visibility when several organizations adopt and promote it.

The investigation now needs to establish how much of the Chamber's and Civic Council's Amendment 3 positions emerged independently and how much involved shared participants, research or discussions.

Do the Chamber and Civic Council Represent Independent Business Voices?

When two prominent organizations announce the same position, their statements can create the impression of broad business-community agreement. But the number of organizations endorsing a policy does not necessarily equal the number of independent perspectives behind it.

The Chamber's Property Tax Subcommittee developed its recommendation through a process whose full membership and deliberations remain undisclosed. The Civic Council announced its position without publicly detailing its internal approval process.

Publishing those records would help residents understand the breadth of support within each organization. It would also show whether overlapping members participated in both decisions.

The issue is not whether organizations have the right to advocate. It is whether Jacksonville residents can see who makes the decisions behind the institutional endorsements.

Florida's Chamber Network Is Also Mobilizing Against Amendment 3

The JAX Chamber's position follows opposition from other chambers of commerce across Florida. Business organizations in several metropolitan areas have raised concerns about local government revenue, service reductions and the potential redistribution of tax burdens.

The statewide Vote No on 3 campaign has promoted those endorsements as evidence of business opposition. The growing list gives the campaign an institutional network capable of reaching employers, elected officials and voters across multiple regions.

That creates another question: How much of the opposition reflects independent local assessments, and how much comes from coordinated statewide business advocacy?

Campaign-finance disclosures, organizational statements and communications among participating groups can help establish the answer.

Amendment 3 Supporters Challenge Jacksonville's Spending Priorities

Supporters of Amendment 3 argue that homeowners need relief from rising property taxes and housing costs. Governor Ron DeSantis has criticized the growth of local government spending and argued that local officials should reduce expenditures rather than preserve every dollar of existing revenue.

Florida Realtors supports the amendment, presenting it as a measure to improve housing affordability. Supporters contend that governments should reconsider spending priorities instead of assuming that current revenue levels must continue.

That argument directly challenges the Chamber and Civic Council's approach. The business organizations emphasize potential consequences for government services and tax burdens, while supporters emphasize relief for homeowners and fiscal restraint.

Jacksonville's development-incentive commitments make the disagreement more consequential. If property-tax revenue falls, which spending priorities should City leaders protect—and which should they reconsider?

Jacksonville's Development Incentives Put the Business Opposition in a Different Light

As examined in Part VII, Jacksonville's Council Auditor has identified approximately $130.55 million in cash incentives awarded or pending since 2024. The City's outstanding, unbudgeted completion-grant obligations could reach approximately $96.6 million if Council approves Gateway's proposed Publix-related grant.

Those commitments place economic development directly inside the City's broader budget debate. Jacksonville must finance public services while also honoring development agreements when projects satisfy their contractual conditions.

The Chamber and Civic Council support economic growth and development investment. Both now oppose a property-tax measure that could reduce the revenue available for future government spending.

Those positions deserve to be examined together. What priority do these organizations place on development incentives compared with tax relief, infrastructure, public safety and other municipal obligations?

Who Actually Speaks for Jacksonville's Business Community?

The JAX Chamber and Civic Council influence Jacksonville's public-policy debates because they represent established business and civic institutions. Their statements attract attention from elected officials, government agencies and the news media.

But their institutional authority raises an accountability question. Does an official position reflect broad member participation, a board vote, a specialized committee recommendation or the judgment of a small group of organizational leaders?

The Chamber has identified Trimmer as chair of its Property Tax Subcommittee. The Civic Council has identified its leadership and published its position. Neither organization's public statement provides a complete account of who participated in developing its recommendation.

Those missing details matter because the individuals behind an organizational position can be as important as the position itself.

The Influence Network: Following the People Behind the Public Statements

The JAX Chamber and Jacksonville Civic Council have become prominent voices against Amendment 3. Their statements present substantive arguments about affordability, local government revenue and the future of public services.

The people behind those statements also occupy positions throughout Jacksonville's business and development networks. Cyndy Trimmer chairs the Chamber's property-tax review while representing Gateway Jax in major incentive negotiations. Daniel Davis leads the Chamber after running for mayor as a Republican. Dennis Whittle leads the Civic Council, whose membership includes prominent developers such as Bryan Moll. David Garfunkel connects the Civic Council's policy work with broader civic-development networks and an upcoming Chamber discussion.

Those relationships establish a network worth investigating. They also identify specific questions that the organizations can answer through committee records, board decisions and direct explanations of their policy-development processes.

The larger question reaches beyond Amendment 3: When Jacksonville hears the same message from several influential business organizations, is it hearing independent institutional judgments—or the amplified priorities of an interconnected group of civic and business leaders?

Jacksonville residents deserve to know who speaks for these organizations, who participates in their decisions and how their relationships shape the city's public-policy agenda.

The Influence Network Series