The City Council votes this Tuesday on a package of ordinances that will reshape the density, character, and financial future of Boca Raton’s downtown for decades to come. It’s not the first time (City Council Goes Rogue). These are not routine housekeeping measures — and they deserve far more public conversation than they have received. Here we are, at the very last Council meeting before arguably the most consequential election and referendums in Boca Raton history. Sweeping, complex and finally, detailed changes, are presented— the kind that will shape this city for decades — are about to be voted on with no meaningful opportunity for dialog or public input. A rewrite of 4035. No workshops. No charrettes. No town meetings. Just a vote. This was not an accident. The City Council orchestrated this timeline many months ago, and the result is the absolute minimum public engagement the process allows. There is much at stake and residents were not invited into this conversation — they were managed around it. That should bother every person who lives in this city. It certainly bothers me.
Three Big Ordinances. One Big Decision
Here is what’s going on and what’s at stake:
Ordinance #5771 – The New Rulebook
This ordinance establishes the framework to replace current downtown regulations (Ordinance #4035), which expires in March 2028. It sets new building heights, density limits, and reduced parking requirements for a newly designated “Downtown–Government Center Subdistrict.” Critically, it contains a provision that ties its fate to the March 10th voter referendum. If voters reject the Government Campus referendum, these new rules do not take effect. Tuesday’s vote and the March ballot question are inseparable.
UPDATE FEB 21: However, Ordinance #5771 also rewrites the rules governing the rest of the downtown, a rewrite of 4035. Those rules will remain in place if the ordinance is approved Tuesday night. It deeply disappoints me that the city would attempt to rewrite 4035 without any public discussion.
Ordinance #5775 — Rezoning Public Land for Private Density
This ordinance would reclassify 6.98 acres of publicly owned land — currently zoned Institutional — to Central Business District. An additional 2.84 acres of privately held land would also shift from Commercial to CBD, including the P3 properties and adjacent private parcels. Like #5771, it only takes effect if voters approve the Government Campus referendum. Rezoning public land to CBD is not a small technicality — it directly enables the density increases described next.
Ordinance #5776 — A Massive Density Transfer
This is the most consequential of the three. It makes specific changes to development rights east of 2nd Avenue:
- The above properties east of 2nd Avenue would be rezoned to CBD and folded into the Downtown boundary.
- 322,199 square feet of Office Equivalents (OEs) — the unit used to measure development density — would be transferred from the broader Downtown into the Government Campus, leaving fewer than 80,000 square feet of OEs available for the rest of Downtown.
- All restrictions on transferring OEs between subareas would be eliminated.
- 597,949 square feet of brand-new OEs would be added to the Government Campus — with no traffic concurrency vesting. I haven’t seen a traffic study that justifies this level of density increase.
To Put the Density in Perspective
Combined, these changes would concentrate 920,148 square feet of OEs onto just 9.82 acres of the Government Campus. For context: the original CRA district — spanning 344 acres — holds 8,000,000 square feet of OEs. We are talking about stacking a disproportionate share of downtown’s entire growth potential onto a tiny footprint, with no demonstrated traffic infrastructure to support it.
What’s at Stake: The $100 Million Question Taxpayers Deserve to Ask
In conversations leading up to this campaign, the consistent message from City leadership was that the City would fund city infrastructure and the developer (T/F) would fund theirs. CRA money would not be used to subsidize the developer’s costs.
That is not how this is playing out. The CRA budgeted $20 million last year for campus infrastructure, with an additional $80 million programmed over the next three years — a total public commitment of $100 million upfront. And we’ve all heard credible figures suggesting the real number may be more than double that.
Consider what our infrastructure will be: a police substation that is smaller than what exists today, a token City Hall that is also smaller. Meanwhile, $65 million from the golf course sale is earmarked for Memorial Park. Why is the City bearing these upfront infrastructure costs? That question has not been answered publicly — and it needs to be.
This Decision Deserves a Full Public Discussion
There is so much at stake here. Thoughtful downtown development is a worthy goal. But density increases of this magnitude, transfers that strip the broader Downtown of its development potential, and a $100 million public infrastructure commitment should not be decided without a full and candid community conversation — and yet here we are, days away from the 2026 Municipal Election:
- Four seats up for a vote
- a tax increasing $190 million police station is up for a vote
- A 99 year leasing of public land for private development of a Transit District is up for a vote
Meanwhile, the current City Council is voting on Tuesday February 24th to put into law ordinances that will trigger more than $100,000,000 on a 9.82 acres of transit district infrastructure without any demonstrated traffic infrastructure to support it. It makes permanent the interim building height exceptions to 4035 and stacks a disproportionate share of the downtown growth potential into a tiny footprint. If the council votes yes on this February 24th, the only way to stop all this is to vote no on the government campus ballot question #2.
Image by benzoix on Freepik
This article updated Feb 21 2026 – 4035 will be rewritten with the proposed ordinance 5771 if approved in the Feb 24 council meeting. It was originally stated it would be undone if Ballot Question #2 failed.
