Gainesville City Commission agrees to sell stadium land to School Board, prioritizes competition pool and sports fields at 8th & Waldo

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the October 9 General Policy Committee meeting, the Gainesville City Commission agreed to sell the stadium land to the School Board and prioritized building a competition pool, aquatics center, and multi-purpose fields on the 8th & Waldo property.

After approving an 8th & Waldo Corridor Improvement and Economic Development Program, funded by $2 million from the Gainesville Community Reinvestment Area budget to encourage and support revitalization along that corridor, the Commission turned to a detailed discussion of the plans for the 8th & Waldo site.

Proposed site plan

In its presentation, NV5 recommended replacing the MLK Center because the cost would be about the same as a renovation, and the building could be two stories; they also recommended a new Pool Support Facility and looked at a replacement competition pool and a new community pool. NV5 also recommended improving the multi-purpose fields and adding a playground, walking trails, and a dog park, along with additional parking, improved lighting, signage, and improved site access. 

Click here to see the presentation from NV5.

The proposed plan includes more office space at the MLK Center, including the potential for the City Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department to have offices there; it also includes a Senior Center, about the size of the one on NW 34th Street, embedded in the same building, along with new multi-use spaces for events and rentals. The Wellness Center could be doubled from 800 square feet to 1500-1600 square feet, and the competition pool would stil be a 50-meter Olympic-sized pool, with more deck space for storage and spectators and a support building that meets teams’ needs for competitor locker rooms that are separate from spectator restrooms. The Aquatics Center could be used by both the community pool and the competition pool. 

The costs for all of these elements are shown in the table below; the Senior Center has a separate cost in case the City decides to make it a separate building:

First motion

Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut made a motion to “work with the School Board for the land sale of Citizens Field, with the following stipulations: one, that a new stadium be ready for the 2027 school year; two, that we have a deed restriction that the property must remain as a stadium. Staff shall report the status to the City within 60 days in regards to this request.” Commissioner Desmon Duncan-Walker seconded the motion. Chestnut later added a stipulation that the City must be able to use the stadium for five events every year and amended the motion to state that the stadium should be ready for the 2028 fall sports season.

The School Board has proposed a 3,000-seat stadium, so Duncan-Walker asked how many parking spaces would be needed, and the answer was about 1,000; NV5’s scenario proposes about 600 paved spaces, with another 400 in grassy areas. The current property has about 150-200 parking spaces.

Funds for purchasing the land will reduce the funds available to build a stadium

School Board Director of Planning and Construction Suzanne Wynn said the design and construction of the stadium would take about 36 months, so it would only be ready for Fall 2028 if decisions are made “in a very timely manner.” She also said the School Board has about $22-25 million to invest in the stadium, including demolition costs, design fees, their share of the costs of stormwater mitigation and parking, and construction, so any costs for the land would mean there is less money to spend on the construction of the stadium.

Commissioner Casey Willits said he wanted to build both pools and the multi-use fields, but he didn’t think the MLK Center needed a second floor and suggested “tacking on the Senior Center on the north side of the MLK building.”

Chestnut: “I don’t think we need to… do very much of anything to the MLK Center. I think we need to take $9 million and put it in a Senior Citizen Center.”

Chestnut agreed that a second floor isn’t needed: “I don’t think we need to… do very much of anything to the MLK Center. I think we need to take $9 million and put it in a Senior Citizen Center, so that people throughout the city have access to senior citizen services.”

Stadium land: $1 vs. $1 million

Chief Operating Officer Andrew Persons said the City Manager’s staff was looking for direction on how much to ask for the stadium property; he said the School Board wanted to pay one dollar. He said an appraisal valued the property at about $10 million for 6.8 acres, but “most of that was with the actual stadium itself. The underlying land value from that appraisal was about $1.1 million.”

Chestnut said she wanted to get $1 million, but Mayor Harvey Ward said, “Every dollar they spend is a dollar they’re not going to spend on building the stadium.” Commissioner Ed Book said he would be comfortable with asking City staff to negotiate the price: “It’s not a dollar; it’s monies that allow us to pursue the entire project, that we think is fair to both sides.”

School Board will spend $4-5 million in shared costs for site work and parking

Willits said that given the School Board’s agreement to share in the cost of stormwater mitigation and parking, he was fine with one dollar. Persons said he estimated the School Board’s portion of that work would be $4-5 million.

Persons asked Chestnut to amend her motion to add direction that staff should extend the current lease with the School Board for an additional year. Director of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Roxy Gonzalez asked that the long-term agreement specify five events a year instead of five days a year. City Attorney Daniel Nee suggested that the purchase agreement should include deed restrictions or a reverter clause. 

The motion passed unanimously.

Second motion

Chestnut put a second motion on the floor to direct staff to begin work on a standalone Senior Citizen Center to be built in the MLK complex and provide periodic updates to the Commission on the progress of the projects.

Persons said staff would like direction on which additional recreational elements are a priority for the Commission. 

Chestnut said she would like a joint meeting with the County Commission before December to look at “our priorities for the [GCRA] money; maybe we’ll be able to get a Senior Center out of that fund, if we can jointly approach it… I think they’re pretty clear that we’re after the Senior Center, which, I think that they, too, would have interest in.”

Eastman: Building a standalone Senior Center would mean no competition pool or multi-use fields

Commissioner Bryan Eastman said that due to the available funding, a decision to build a standalone Senior Center would mean “we’re not really doing the multi-use fields, we’re not really doing the competition pool” unless the Commission decides to defund other Wild Spaces Public Places projects they’ve already committed to, like Morningside Park and Depot Park. Eastman supported building the competition pool and multi-use fields and having “a place for a [Senior Center] in the future, where we actually have the utilities and everything set up for it,” and then asking the County to partner on it.

Duncan-Walker asked why the Senior Center changed from being part of the MLK Center to a standalone building, and Chestnut said she thought the public would get “better utilization” out of a standalone facility: “You would have a Wellness Center, you would have a kitchen, you would have a multi-function space for recreational activities, but I think you would get better use out of it, and the idea is to be able to make it available to the community” on a rental basis for events. 

Persons said that building a “brand new MLK with a Senior component in that building… blows our budget.” He added that renovating the MLK Center had not been fully explored because that was not the direction of the Commission.

Priority lists

Ward said they needed to develop a list of priorities, and his were in this order:

• Site work
• Multi-purpose fields
• Competition pool
• Senior Center
• Aquatics center
• Community pool
• Courts
• Event center/playground

Commissioner James Ingle said his list was similar, but he didn’t think it would work to have a competition pool without an aquatics center with locker rooms and bathrooms. He said that usable multi-purpose fields could be built as part of the site work, he wanted to build a competition pool and aquatics center, and he said that by the time that is done, the stadium will also likely be complete. He said that at that point, the City could point to what was accomplished and decide whether they want to issue a bond “for a real, big expansion of the MLK Center, inclusive of the Senior Center” or build a scaled-back Senior Center.

Ward: “Here’s why we want to extend [the GCRA], so we can bond this stuff.”

Ward said that if they completed a priority list, they could go to the County and say, “Here’s why we want to extend [the GCRA], so we can bond this stuff.”

Book said his priority is to build things that don’t exist first, so “in regard to the Senior Center, at least we have it. It’s not ideal that we have it on the northwest side of town, and we do need it, but at least it… allows our community to attend.” He agreed with prioritizing the site work and then the competition pool and aquatics center — “that is one piece together” — and from there, decisions will be based on available funds, but he favored a scaled-back version of multi-purpose fields and some parking. 

Chestnut said her first priority is “to bond as much of this as we can, so we’ll have the funds to go forward,” followed by a standalone Senior Center, site work, multi-purpose fields, pools, and the aquatics center.

Willits listed the site work, multi-purpose fields (but maybe not lit at first), and the competition pool and aquatics center. He said the need for a competition pool “pushes the Senior Center down for me, and then the community pool down, as well.” He suggested that the County might want to dedicate the $1.5 million they previously allocated to the Thelma Boltin Center for a Senior Center. He also suggested a “covered breezeway for pickleball” on the north side of MLK, or “it could be covered basketball courts.” He said he wasn’t interested in issuing a large bond, although he would consider a smaller bond; he said, however, that he didn’t want to issue a bond unless it included money for a southwest park.

Chestnut: “I’m not talking about going to the voter” to approve a bond

Ward said a bond would not necessarily have to be a ballot measure; he said that if the County agreed to extend the GCRA, “then that’s bondable.” Chestnut agreed: “That’s where I am; I’m not talking about going to the voter.” [Editor’s note: see the statement from the City Manager near the end of this article for a counter to that.]

Eastman agreed with Ingle’s list. Duncan-Walker prioritized the site work, the competition pool, and the aquatics center, “but then I shift to the need to make sure that our young people have safe places to go for recreation.” She asked which existing facilities are used most by young people, and Gonzalez said the pools and gymnasium are the top choices, followed by the sports fields. Based on that, Duncan-Walker said her next priority would be multi-purpose fields, “and then however we get to the MLK Center and the inclusion of a space for seniors, I’m up for future discussions.”

Priorities fall into Tier 1 and Tier 2

Ward summarized that they had a Tier 1 of site work, a competition pool and aquatics center, and multi-purpose fields. Tier 2, which would require additional funds to be identified, would include, in no particular order, a Senior Center and/or changes to the MLK Center, additional courts, a community pool, and a playground. 

Third motion

Chestnut replaced her second motion with, “1) Direct staff to begin solicitation for architectural and engineering design services for remediation, site work, a new competition pool and aquatics center with a community pool component, multipurpose fields, and site preparations for a future Senior Citizen Center, ensuring the work stays within the currently available funding; 2) Provide periodic updates to the Commission on the progress of the project’s engineering and architect firm to the Commission; 3)
Approve preparation of solicitation for final design, remediation, permitting, and construction services for the site build-out; 4) Return to the Commission with the consultant team selection, scope, and fee to advance the Phase 1 design to support the stadium infrastructure; and 5) Add a discussion of Tiers 1 and 2 and the Senior Citizens Center to the agenda of the joint City Commission and County Commission meeting on December 10.”

The motion passed unanimously.

City Manager Cynthia Curry said that because the GCRA funding comes from General Fund revenue, voter approval may be necessary to issue a bond, “so it may not be as easy as it appears to be.”