Gainesville City Commission discusses options for Citizens Field, ranging from a smaller project to a general obligation bond

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – During the evening session of the July 17 meeting, the Gainesville City Commission approved a budget amendment and held a lengthy discussion on the future of the MLK Recreation Complex and Citizens Field.

Budget amendment

During the evening session, the Commission approved a budget amendment to increase the FY2025 General Fund budget by $722,409 by transferring that amount from the General Fund balance (reserves). The budget amendment also included seven new positions in the City’s new IT department: an assistant director of technology, a technology infrastructure manager, an information security officer, a technology service desk manager, a network administrator, a system administrator, and a security engineer. The City currently pays GRU for those services but has begun transitioning to an in-house IT department. According to City Public Information Officer Rossana Passaniti, those positions will be funded in the current fiscal year by budget savings, and Human Resources is currently evaluating the total compensation for these positions.

Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut made a motion to adopt the budget amendment, and Commissioner Desmon Duncan-Walker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

MLK Recreation Complex and Citizens Field

The next agenda item was an update on the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Recreational Complex and Citizens Field, with a staff recommendation to direct the City Manager to continue discussions with the School Board to resolve open compliance issues at Citizens Field and proceed as appropriate, authorize the City Manager to solicit for Architectural and Engineering design and permitting services for site design Phases 1 through 4 and the MLK and aquatics buildings design development schedule, along with other steps, including authorizing funding to complete Phase 1 construction and providing direction on pursuing other funding sources such as bonds or a HUD loan.

Stadium and School Board partnership

City Manager Cynthia Curry said her staff has worked with the School Board to review any open issues related to the lease agreement for the stadium and football field, and most of the issues have now been addressed. 

School Board’s capital expenditures have exceeded the lease requirements

Chief Operating Officer Andrew Persons said, “By and large, most of the elements of the lease were in compliance, particularly the capital expenditures that the School Board had made from… 1984 to the present day.” In fact, he said, “the total expenditures… in terms of capital improvements far exceeded what the original lease requirements were.” He said a structural engineering report revealed “relatively minor maintenance issues with things like missing caulking or some concrete spalling.” He said a turf evaluation by a consultant from the University of Florida produced a number of recommendations that the School Board is expected to address; there are also some insurance issues that are in the process of being resolved.

School Board declares intent to build 3,000-seat stadium

Alachua County Public Schools Superintendent Kamela Patton said, “It remains our first priority to continue a 40-year partnership in working with the City to acquire [the stadium property]… so that we would invest our capital funds into the field… We know that you would be proud, as will the community, and so will I, of us building a new stadium on that flagship corner… Our intent is to build the 3,000-seat stadium… We would have the stadium be inclusive of that rubberized track, a turf field, concession stands, ticket booth, and locker rooms, restrooms, press box… It would take us approximately nine months to have both the design and permitting occur,… but then, for a new stadium, about a two-year construction.”

Patton said the district’s legal position remains the same: “We do need to have the land conveyed for us to spend capital dollars. We are committed to spending and investing between $20 and $25 million for the Citizens Field and… [to] cost-share the stormwater management and parking.

School Board Member Tina Certain said she didn’t want to speak, but Member Leanetta McNealy said, “Any time I can get a mic, I will… I’m counting on the elected officials sitting here in front of me to find a way to get this proposal done and do it quickly… This must happen.”

Mayor Harvey Ward said, “This is a priority.” He said the City’s plans had left the stadium area as a “kind of grayed-out area, knowing that it is a problem that we all need to solve, and it’s what we do: we solve problems, we find solutions, and I’m confident we’ll be able to find a solution.”

School district funds are not contingent on the sale of the Old Terwilliger property

Patton assured Commissioners that the money from the school district is not contingent on the sale of Terwilliger: “Capital dollars isn’t our problem — General Fund, that’s a different story.” She later added that the district is working on getting the Terwilliger property rezoned to mixed use, which would increase its value.

Commissioner Bryan Eastman said it made sense to him for the School Board to be responsible for building the stadium.

Commissioner Casey Willits said he was “still 100% interested in being able to convey this to the School Board.”

Curry mentioned that the appraisal for the stadium property was in the backup: the appraisal states that the market value of a leased fee interest in the property, as is, would be $10 million. The appraisal document defines a leased fee interest as “A freehold (ownership interest) where the possessory interest has been granted to another party by creation of a contractual landlord-tenant relationship (i.e., a lease).”

Regarding the Terwilliger property, Certain said any funds from that sale will have to be spent on another capital project, and since the stadium was not on the project list put before the voters who approved the sales tax referendum, “by selling Terwilliger, hopefully for a higher amount, we were able to then put that money back into the capital funds,… and that will give us the capacity to then work those projects that are on the list.”

Commissioner James Ingle asked whether $20-25 million is realistic for building a 3,000-seat stadium, and Patton said, “Yes.”

Chestnut asked for the state statute that would require the City to convey the property to the school district, and Patton said she didn’t have it handy, but “I think it’s multiple statutes, or three different statutes, that all tie together regarding educational facilities.”

Ward said, “There’s a lot of detail left to work through, on your side and on our side — a lot — but the fact that we’re headed toward a similar goal here and that we believe that we can get this done gives me a lot of hope for the project moving forward.”

Commissioner Ed Book said he thought there “would have to be figures for what that conveyance would be… I wouldn’t think it would be zero,” but he acknowledged the project would have “a lot of collective benefit for the recreation there.”

Patton said the appraisal stated the values were $1 million for the four-acre property and $9 million for the stadium, “so if you convey it, it’s not worth $10 million because it has to be demolished for the project.”

Book said he understood, but “I just could never see that entire land… could even be given, lock, stock, and barrel at $0, and then we’re all stuck with the rest of the project that we’re still trying to fund.”

Ward said, “Now we’ve got to figure out how to build the pools that your schools need to compete.”

$18.7 million in funds identified for Phase 1

Persons said the projected cost for the site design, 60% of the building designs for the MLK and aquatics building, and Phase 1 of the site work, including $5 million of remediation on the northwestern portion of the site, is $15,825,000. He said $18.7 million in funds have been identified for that work, with about $13.5 million from GCRA funds, a $5 million placeholder in Wild Spaces Public Places funds, and a potential $7.2 million of HUD Section 108 funding.

General obligation bonds would require a vote of residents, would add 0.5-0.8 mills to property taxes

Persons said the City could also raise about $40 million with a special revenue bond using an existing allocation for GCRA, and the Department of Financial Services provides information on options for general obligation bonds for $125 million and $85 million. Person said the bonds would add 0.5 to 0.8 mills to residents’ property tax bills. 

Chestnut proposal: “Not to exceed $45 million”

Chestnut said she wanted the City Manager to work with NV5 (the City’s consultant for the design work) and necessary parties to return to the Commission on or before October 15 (“That’s flexible”), with the following: “to address the MLK Center, Senior Citizens’ Complex, community pool, and soccer fields, all to be included in a proposal not to exceed $45 million; pursue funding sources such as a special revenue bond, general obligation bond, and the HUD Section 108 loan; work with the City Commission to schedule a Commission meeting on or before October 15; to re-prioritize GCRA and WSPP projects; to provide funding for the following projects.”

For the Senior Center, Chestnut said, she wanted a reception and waiting area, a computer and mobile phone classroom, a wellness center, two staff offices, a pool table, bid whist and spades card games, board games, a puzzle area, a reading area, a multi-purpose area that would seat 375 people, a banquet area, a kitchen/stage/class space area for group exercise classes, and a community meeting area.

For the MLK Center, Chestnut wanted to use the current space but “update the reception area and office space, improve the basketball courts, connect the MLK and Senior Center, build a community pool, four soccer fields, a dog park, and parking to accommodate the complex.”

Two pools: a community pool and a competitive pool

Ward asked what she meant by “community pool,” and Chestnut said, “Well, we have the competitive pool; I don’t think we have a community pool.”

Ward said the competitive pool needs “a lot of renovation,” and Chestnut replied, “So we need to do both.” Ward said, “Okay, so you’re talking about two [pools].” He clarified that she wanted to use the existing MLK building, add to it, and set a maximum price on the whole thing.

Chestnut: “We know that $85 million is unreasonable”

Chestnut responded, “Correct. We know that $85 million is unreasonable — to cut it in half, but to be able to move forward and get something done.”

Ward said he hadn’t seen a configuration that would allow four soccer fields, and Chestnut said they could ask for that, but Ward said he had asked for that “about 15 times,” but only two soccer fields would fit.

Curry said the scope of work the Commission had approved in June was for the MLK Center, both a community and competitive pool, and the aquatics building, as well as the site design, stormwater, parking, fields remediation, “the whole nine yards.”

Eastman questions a half-mill tax increase (for a voter-approved bond) “to fund one park”

Eastman said that if they proceed with the full scope of the design, they will need to ask the voters in 2026 to approve a half mill tax increase to fund a general obligation bond, and “if we’re not willing to go out and enthusiastically campaign on behalf of a half mill tax increase after a couple of years, where we’re voting on another tax increase tonight, then I do think we need to talk about the scope that we’re looking at here.” He said he understood that Chestnut was proposing a smaller scope of $45 million instead of $85 million and added that he wasn’t sure he would enthusiastically campaign for a half-mill tax increase to fund one park. He suggested scheduling a General Policy Committee (GPC) meeting to have a longer discussion on the scope of the plans.

First phase will include two soccer fields, dog park, and infrastructure work

Ward clarified that the first phase would be planning for 100% of the infrastructure, and it would include two soccer fields and a dog park, but not the two pools or any other structure, they have the funds for that right now, and it would take 12 to 18 months. 

Chestnut said she understood that the GCRA money would not be available until 2029, and Persons said that was why staff was recommending that the Commission schedule a GPC meeting to review GCRA and WSPP projects to re-prioritize the projects on the lists and make the money available when it’s needed for Citizens Field. 

Willits said he had some ideas for spending GCRA money on “some buildings on Main Street that now someone is going to renovate,… so we’ll see about that.” He was concerned about doing 100% of the infrastructure work in the first phase because then the attitude could be “in for a penny, in for a pound… Citizens [will say], ‘You spent all this money, why aren’t you fulfilling the plan?’ So I really don’t want to do 100% [of the infrastructure] if we… don’t have a commitment to come up with $85 million.”

Willits agreed with Eastman that he didn’t think he could enthusiastically campaign for a half-mill tax increase on the 2026 ballot “when we may be raising their taxes by a little less than half a mill, potentially, this fall.” He liked the idea of scaling back the scope and said he didn’t know “whether NV5… can give us the answer we need,… whether they can dream smaller for us or dream slightly differently, but these things just aren’t matching right now for me.”

NV5’s Master Plan was estimated at $86-87 million

Curry responded, “NV5 did what we asked them to do. They gave us the Master Plan, and it was estimated to be between $86 and $87 million; we’ve had many community meetings, much input coming in, a statement of priorities from the community, in terms of what they wanted to see on the site, and the cost,… with the stadium included, started somewhere over $100 million.”

The cost was estimated at $150 million at a March 2025 meeting.

Curry: “It’s not like we’ve stumbled into this. This is what we asked [NV5] to do.”

Curry added, “I’m not speaking against scoping it down… For us to ask NV5 now to scale it down — I’m sure they could do it for a cost and for a period of time… I don’t know what that answer is going to be… But this is what we asked them to do. I just want to make it clear that it’s not like we’ve stumbled into this. This is what we asked them to do. And so if we’re asking them to do something different, we do need to be very specific about that because we have spent money and we have spent a lot of time in the community [talking about the project].” She warned again that changing the scope of the project would take additional money and additional time.

Willits would prioritize a southwest park over $85 million for Citizens Field: “I can’t start us on the path [where] there’s no exit besides $85 million and most likely a general obligation bond.”

Willits objected that the City Commission had not specifically looked at their priority list of projects for the infrastructure surtax list and put this at the top, “because if we did, my park would be at the top of the list… because that’s the real need.” Willits has been advocating for a new park in southwest Gainesville since he joined the Commission. He said the initial quotes for Citizens Field were much lower, “you know, $60, $65 million, $70 million,… and I can’t start us on the path [where] there’s no exit besides $85 million and most likely a general obligation bond.”

Persons: Chestnut’s list will cost more than $45 million

Persons said Chestnut’s list was “more than $45 million worth of work.” He said they could absolutely go back to NV5 and “scope down the design,” but the Commission would need to specify which components of the site are most important.

Ingle said Chestnut’s list was not significantly smaller than the $85 million plan, and he was told that the difference was one less basketball court. Ingle said it didn’t seem to him like the reduced scope would save $40 million, and “the only way this project is going to happen” is for the citizens to vote for a general obligation bond. He supported proceeding with Phase 1. He also supported renovating the existing MLK building and adding a separate Senior Center, “of a much smaller scope,” next to it.

Ward: “I want us to get it right, and if that requires us to go around the horn for the next three hours and then have 27 more meetings, then that’s what we ought to do.”

Ward said, “It is hard; it’s not supposed to be easy. I mean, we’re doing a lot here, and it ought to require lots of thinking and… lots of different meetings… But I don’t want people asking me, ‘Why’d you screw it up?’ I want us to get it right, and if that requires us to go around the horn for the next three hours and then have 27 more meetings, then that’s what we ought to do.”

Ward asked Chestnut how she came up with $45 million for her plan, and she said it was about $11 million for the senior center building “and that may not be true,” $10 million for the pool, $4.5 million for the multi-purpose fields, $3 million for environmental work, $1.8 million for parking improvements, and other amenities at $1 million. 

Ward pointed out that the City doesn’t have the funds for a $45 million project, either. He added that while infrastructure work may not be exciting to the public, it has to be done before anything can be built on the site, including the football stadium and the new pools.

Leaving the MLK building in place could make a second pool impossible due to site constraints

Person pointed out that NV5’s site design put a lot of things into a tight space, and leaving the MLK building in place could make it impossible to fit a second pool. 

Ward said he thought that the only way to get to a significantly lower cost would be to “give up on some things like the community pool.” He said he would prefer to “give [the community] the opportunity to speak at the ballot box” about whether they want to incur a bond to spend that much money on the park.

Willits confirmed with Persons that some of the parking for the stadium is in Phase 2, which could not proceed unless additional funding is secured. He also confirmed that the City gets $85 million from Wild Spaces Public Places over 10 years. He said he thought the voters envisioned “a little bit for everybody, kind of across the city… so that everyone has access to parks, recreation, and cultural affairs across the entire city… This can suck up any idea of making, in essence, any headway on one of our already-agreed-upon… parks… But obviously one of the solutions is a general obligation bond.”

Ingle: “You’re better off spending the money to do it right.”

Ingle said it made sense to do the site work and parking so the stadium could be built, and he supported building multi-purpose fields and trails. He said he supported scaling it back, but if they have to get voter approval for a general obligation bond, anyway, “you’re better off spending the money to do it right,” even if it costs more. He said that if the voters did not approve the general obligation bond, at least “we’re gonna have a very nice park with very nice trails and a brand new stadium.”

Looking at the NV5 site plan on top of a map of the existing structures, Ward said he wasn’t sure it would be possible to get two multi-purpose fields and all the stormwater infrastructure without moving the MLK building farther south. “Now, that doesn’t mean we can’t ask them to redraw the map again. That costs money every time we do that.”

No public comment

Ward asked whether anyone was signed up for public comment, and the response was that nobody had signed up.

Motion

Eastman made a motion to schedule the discussion at a GPC meeting “to review and reprioritize current GCRA and Wild Spaces Public Places projects, in order to identify funding for 8th & Waldo, then prepare and present options for scaling back the overall project, including various cost alternatives, including Commissioner Chestnut’s Senior Center approach and the phased approach, to inform Commission discussion and prepare for a future solicitation for architecture, engineering, and design services.” There was no immediate second.

Persons said that if the Commission wanted staff to start redesigning the project with NV5, it would be helpful if they could find consensus on what the focus should be: “Tell us, what are the site elements that you want us to design to, within the existing budget that we’re talking about.”

Eastman said he didn’t think the Commission could set those priorities that evening, so he thought a workshop would be a good next step. He proposed putting it on the agenda of the August 14 GPC meeting. Chestnut seconded his motion. 

Willits asked whether they could have the discussion on July 31, a fifth Thursday, along with the budget discussion scheduled for 1:00 p.m.; he suggested discussing Citizens Field in the morning, and Chestnut supported the idea.

Book: Decision about a general obligation bond referendum should be made after the November special election

Book said they should make any decisions about a general obligation bond after November because “the more votes that we start to talk about,… the more confusing it is for the people.”

In response to a comment from Book, Eastman changed the language in his motion about re-prioritizing GCRA and Wild Spaces Public Places projects to “consider re-prioritizing” the projects; he also changed the date to July 31. City Clerk Kristen Bryant said she would look at everyone’s calendars and schedule the 9 a.m. meeting on July 31 if it worked for all the Commissioners. 

Duncan: “I want to make sure that this motion does not impede [progress on the Cultural Arts Center].”

Duncan-Walker asked about the sources of funding for the Cultural Arts Center, which the Commission committed to several years ago: “I want to make sure that this motion does not impede its progress, and I want to make sure that it does not get excluded from the conversations about how GCRA monies could be utilized.” 

Curry: No funding has been set aside for a Cultural Arts Center

Curry said the last time the Cultural Arts Center was discussed, “the conclusion was reached… that we would try to address the needs… programmatically, within the existing structure of our Parks and Recreation programming… We were not directed to move forward, as it relates to GCRA funding. To my knowledge, at this point, there is no funding set aside in any of the years, out to 2029.”

Duncan-Walker responded, “I want that conversation… to absolutely come back around.” She said she didn’t think the City got its money’s worth out of the consultants because they were unable to identify a site for the Center and she “did not see that there was any real attempt on their side to think out of the box… What I want to say to my colleagues is that the commitment that we made to the Cultural Arts Center, as a standalone facility… is still very much alive, not just in my heart, but in the heart of the community members.” She said the Center would address the root causes of gun violence and “really bolster the cultural scene, here in this city.”

Ward said he hoped the new “activity center, for lack of a better term,” at 8th & Waldo would have a stage, and “my hope was that perhaps some of that could be included as part of the Cultural Arts Center.”

Duncan-Walker agreed that there was a “stage in there, but the Cultural Arts Center… was a completely different concept that was put forward, and it was separate from this.” She asked for a “refresher” at the August 14 GPC meeting on the consultant’s recommendations and the previous discussion. 

Willits said he was still “iffy” about the motion to build a separate Senior Center because it would probably eliminate the possibility of two pools; he added that he wanted to build the Cultural Arts Center on the ACE Cash Express site near 8th and Waldo. Chestnut said the owner wanted a “fortune” for that property, and Willits said, “I’m sure he does.” He said he didn’t necessarily support a general obligation bond, but “if you’re going to go all in, then get out of the site what you want, right?”

Commissioners said staff should bring large maps of the current site and the proposed site plan to the next meeting.

Vote

Eastman’s motion passed unanimously.

The July 31 meeting was canceled after Florida DOGE announced they would be visiting City Hall on July 31.