City of Gainesville expresses concern about Alachua County Commission’s planned GCRA discussion
BY JENNIFER CABRERA
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – An agenda item on the October 7 Alachua County Commission meeting about the future of the Gainesville Community Reinvestment Area (GCRA) has led to concern at the City of Gainesville, with the GCRA office sending out an unauthorized email to a large distribution list and an email from the City Manager to City leadership about the issue.
A presentation in the backup of the meeting, which is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on October 7, goes through the history of the GCRA, which began with the formation of the Downtown Redevelopment Agency in 1979. In 2019, a “10-year” GCRA was created as a City of Gainesville department, and the boundaries of the area were expanded in 2022. The presentation states that the formation of the GCRA was “predicated on the promise of ’10 and done'” and that it would involve “transformational projects,” such as the 8th & Waldo site.
However, in May, the City asked the County to extend the GCRA for another 20 years, and the topic was on the agenda of a September 15 joint meeting that was rescheduled to December.
County staff recommends sunsetting the GCRA
The presentation for the October 7 meeting reflects staff concerns with administrative costs and the proposed expansion of the boundary, along with concerns about a pending constitutional amendment on property taxes and a possible economic slowdown.
The presentation ends with a staff recommendation to sunset the GCRA, reinvest the reclaimed revenue in County and City priorities, and consider future projects and partnership on a case-by-case basis.
GCRA newsletter asks supporters to show up at the County meeting
In response, a newsletter was sent to a distribution list from a City of Gainesville GCRA email account, asking supporters to show up at the October 7 meeting. The email said the recommendation, if adopted, “will end the department and halt our work.”
The email said that sunsetting the GCRA would eliminate funding “for programs and initiatives that many of you know and rely on,” including Community Partnership Grants, Downtown Event Grants, Business Improvement Grants, and the Downtown Ambassador Program. The email continues, “Eliminating these programs would strip critical support from businesses, events, and neighborhoods – jeopardizing years of progress… Together, we’ve turned ideas into action: from building streetscapes and opening doors for small businesses, to supporting cultural spaces and revitalizing welcoming public places. The GCRA was built for the community, by the community. Let’s make sure it remains that way.”
City Manager’s statement
Today, City of Gainesville Communications Director Jennifer Smart sent an email to the Gainesville City Commissioners and other leadership, passing on a message from City Manager Cynthia Curry: “in light of ongoing and collaborative conversations” between City and County staff, “we were surprised to see the County’s agenda recommendation to sunset the GCRA.”
The email goes through the history of the discussions since May and then states, “Additionally, it has come to our attention that an email was sent from the GCRA office to a mass distribution list informing them of tomorrow’s BOCC meeting. Please note that this message was distributed without review or authorization from the City Manager’s Office. We will continue to engage with our County counterparts to ensure open communication and alignment of objectives.”
Seems the Gainesville City Commission only gets concerned when someone or something may be limiting the siphoning of funds they’ve become addicted to.
Crocodile tears for crime, high taxes, homelessness, traffic, road efficiency, fiscal incompetence…
The liberal loons voted for it – I didn’t.
I believe the GCRA should be “sunsetted” / ended as soon as possible.
Many projects seem to be a poor use of public money:
Examples:
a) “Streatery” – removing historic bricks and replacing them with modern brick pavers for $4.5 million. A better alternative would be spot maintenance – taking up and relaying the historic bricks in places where there has been subsurface erosion.
b) Efforts to recreate services Google already provides, such as a phone app to tell people about nearby restaurants or events when they are downtown. My phone and Google already provide this function.
c) Proposal to demolish MLK center near Waldo Road and NE 8th Ave. This building is only about 25 years old. It is a waste of taxpayer money to demolish and replace buildings like this.
It’s done all it can do. The planning dept. can review projects case by case without an added dept. overseeing them too. No business investor would rashly invest in a projects that wouldn’t be worthwhile. The GCRA tried that with a few spec sites and they folded. But the overall beautifying of old downtown areas is basically done. Let the individual projects fit themselves into that, with normal regulations.
“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program”.–Milton Friedman
GCC told the county to shove it in regards to their plea to continue the current medical transport service. The county should respond in the same way.
The GCRA cost taxpayers and business owners money in the HOPE that it would revitalize areas (NW 1st Avenue in Midtown is a great example). Most of it is just facade work to make things look pretty. How did the ‘streetery’ work out…restaurants still closed down in the area and it took away parking. Some good occurred as with any program like the Eastside Urgent Care, but then others fall flat like the restaurant on Hawthorne Road that is currently available.
Nonprofits can always apply for other grants out there and not rely on local government subsidies. So that argument is moot. Am totally in favor of sunsetting this.
“Gainesville Community Reinvestment Area (GCRA)”
Also known as the taxpayers ‘black hole’.
I’m curios if the GCRA rallied against paid parking downtown. None of the businesses wanted it. The GCC rammed it down everyone’s throats. All the GCC wants to do is continue their slush funds, regardless of who it affects.
So for over 50 years, the GCC have fed at the trough of a GCRA funded by all the residents of the county, all while the the GCC has thumbed its nose at any semblence of sane fiscal policy. Homelessness runs rampant on every street corner (I seem to remember a funded leftist 10 year plan to end homelessness), violent crime climbs with no decline (unless it isn’t reported), Gainesville is on the hook for an overpriced biomass plant thanks to the feckless leadership of Hanrahan and her self important want to be Queen of the Climate Control hoax. And now the GCC fight over control of GRU because they are too fiscally irresponsible to live within a budget that would actually benefit the residents of Gainesville. Its easy to understand why those on the left are always railing against capitalism, because they feel entitled and expect that money is just simply supposed to be given to them for their causes and agenda.
To be clear, the County was not suggesting sunsetting the GCRA early, but rather to stick to the deal the City presented in 2018. 10 years, $70 million, and the GCRA sunsets. Here is County Manager Leiberman’s response to the City Manager’s letter, and the unauthorized and inaccurate email sent by the “GCRA Team.”
Ahead of tomorrow’s discussion, I want to provide clarity on staff’s role and recommendation regarding the Gainesville Community Reinvestment Area (GCRA) agreement.
Collaboration/Planning: Some recent communications have suggested that there has been “collaborating” or “planning” with the City on an extension of the agreement. This is not accurate. The only meeting I had with City staff on this issue was on June 6, when they shared with me their draft presentation prepared for the June 17 joint meeting. At that meeting, I asked questions and raised concerns, but I made clear that I could not join in a joint recommendation, as our Board had not yet discussed the matter.
Sunset vs. Extension: The current agreement continues in full force until 2029, and staff is not recommending that it end early. Our recommendation is that the agreement not be extended beyond 2029. This would allow both the City and the County to return those general fund dollars to their budgets while continuing to collaborate on projects of mutual benefit on a case-by-case basis, as we have successfully done on many other joint efforts.
County staff’s role in this process has been, and remains, neutral and factual. The recommendation is based on several factors outlined in the presentation, the most important of which is the recognition that there exists financial uncertainty in the coming years. Our presentation tomorrow is intended to outline the agreement, its fiscal and operational impacts, and the City’s proposal as we understand it, so that the Board can have a transparent policy discussion.
While County staff has not recommended the proposed extension, I want to emphasize that your staff strongly values, and remains committed to, collaboration with the City across a wide range of issues that serve our shared community.
So in other words Curry lied. Gasp – say it isn’t so! Move up her exit date already.
It would be wise to let the sun set on the GCRA and return the funds back to their respective governing bodies.
Given the histories of the two parties involved, it appears the County has both the common sense and future in mind to prepare for the unknown. Two things the City has continually demonstrated they possess neither of.
Please let us know how this unauthorized communication happened and how it will be prevented in the future. The passive aggressive actions on both sides need to stop.
I tend towards allowing cra to sunset as planned. The commission needs to make the hard decisions on priorities and projects.
I say let the city eat dirt. When the County mentioned delaying the destruction of the Bolton Center, the city bulldozed it within a few days, they can eat the leftover dirt