“It’s a very lot of money to a for-profit developer”: Gainesville City Commission awards full ConnectFree funding recommendations to three projects, cuts Royal Park Apartments award in half

BY JENNIFER CABRERA
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – During the morning session of the April 4 Gainesville City Commission meeting, the Commission awarded ConnectFree funds to four developers but voted to cut the recommended award for Royal Park Apartments in half. They also approved a contract for security upgrades to City Hall.
ConnectFree awards for affordable housing developers
The first agenda item of the morning concerned awards of ConnectFree funds to affordable housing projects. The staff recommendation was to allocate $475,246.41 to Royal Park Apartments, $102,061 to Hawthorne Heights, $68,269.36 to East University Avenue Cottages, and $32,000 to Jessie’s Village.
The ConnectFree program is funded by a 25% surcharge on new GRU water and sewer connection fees outside the city limits.
The City Commission revised the ConnectFree resolution last September to clarify that ConnectFree funds can be used to support new affordable housing projects; the funds can reimburse developers for engineering design and construction to extend water/wastewater lines to the property line, meter installation charges, and connection charges. After the resolution was adopted, City staff sent out notices to 77 affordable housing developers. John Wachtel from the Department of Housing and Community Development said that $1.9 million is available under the program.
The four properties
Wachtel said the City received four responses, and staff recommended awards for all four after vetting the requested amounts with engineers at GRU.
Royal Park Apartments requested about $780,000, and staff recommended $475,000; the project will cost about $45 million and will provide 192 units. GRU estimates that the meter connection charges will come to a little over $500,000. The City previously allocated $37,500 to the developer as a local match for a loan from the State.
Hawthorne Heights requested $200,000, and staff recommended $102,000; the project will cost about $25 million and will provide 86 units. The complex will cater to senior citizens. GRU estimates that the meter connection charges will come to $139,561. The City also previously allocated $37,500 to that developer.
East University Avenue Cottages requested $420,000, and staff recommended $68,000; the project will cost about $2.5 million and will provide 18 detached cottages. GRU estimates that the meter connection charges will come to about $68,000.
Jessie’s Village requested $32,000, and staff recommended $32,000; the project will cost about $2.9 million, and 8 out of 22 units will be affordable. The developer used GRU’s online estimator to estimate the meter connection charges at $87,000, and 36.4% of that is $32,000.
Commissioners dubious about the amount recommended for Royal Park Apartments
Commissioners were dubious about the amount recommended for Royal Park Apartments, with Commissioner Casey Willits saying he was “worried… because it’s a very lot of money to a for-profit developer.” He preferred a number closer to $250,000 but acknowledged that the development achieves one of the Commission’s goals of locating more affordable housing on the western side of the city. However, Commissioner Reina Saco said the developers were only asking for about $2,500 per unit, less per unit than the other developers, so she supported staff’s recommendation.
Mayor Harvey Ward reminded the Commission that the money in the fund is “a fixed pot of money” because the GRU Authority decided to stop collecting the fees that fund ConnectFree in the next fiscal year.
Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut said she had “some concerns – there are two projects that are very special here. One is the [Royal Park] project, because that is going to west Gainesville. The second one that is very special to me is the East University Avenue Cottages. This is the first time we’ve had a developer come east with such a project as this, and I want to be sure that they are able to be successful.” She asked whether staff had evaluated the sewer costs for the East University Avenue Cottages project, and Senior Housing Strategist Corey Harris said that information was submitted recently and will be brought to the Commission at a future meeting.
Commissioner Ed Book had “some concern” with the Royal Park project because it’s “retroactive money to something that’s already built, which is something that I don’t think we’ve done.”
Ward favored using the money “this fiscal year… sooner is better, to get people places to live. It doesn’t do us any good to keep part of this pot of money sitting in an account somewhere when people need places to live… So I want to spend it, but I want to spend it to get new beds that we don’t already have.”
Ward: “I have a hard time using this money to backstop something that’s already built.”
Ward added that he really likes the Royal Park project, but “I have a hard time using this money to backstop something that’s already built.” He said he hoped staff would have conversations with the Royal Park developers “about finding other ways to be helpful to you all.” He said he realized the resolution hadn’t been passed when Royal Park was being built, but he also worried that other completed developments might apply for the funds.
Ward compared that concern to the “unfortunate situation” created by a new law that allows “affordable” complexes to get a break on their property taxes “even though they’re not actually affordable housing because they’re housing students.” Speaking to the Royal Park developer, Ward said, “I love what you all are doing. I want you to be whole, but I want us to find a different way to do that… I’m publicly asking staff now to please find some other ways to be helpful.”
Saco: “I think we have something good in front of us. I think we should support it.”
Saco said she was in favor of the staff recommendation because the Royal Park project is “housing that we can help maintain some affordability in a location that we want it to be. And we do not know if a better affordable project of this magnitude will come down the pipeline to give this money to… I don’t want perfect to be the enemy of the good… I think we have something good in front of us. I think we should support it.”
Public comment
During public comment, Ed Jennings warned Commissioners against pitting for-profit against nonprofit developers: “The lion’s share of affordable housing is developed… for profit… Nonprofits don’t deliver… the number of units you need without for-profits doing it… You want to focus on the delivery of the maximum number of units for the income level that you want to approach.”
A representative from the Royal Park Apartments developer said the project is nearly complete, but they’re about $2 million over budget, based on the costs they expected when they started the project, including about $800,000 that was due to a delay in getting permits. He said, “We are not finished… This is not a done deal. It looks pretty, we’ve spent the money, but there’s still additional costs to cover.”
Another representative from the Royal Park Apartments developer said that they have another piece of land adjoining the complex where they hope to build some senior housing, and they’ve had conversations with the City about donating land for a trail from the back of their property. He said, “I think it’s important to recognize that kind of shutting the window on us, given where we are in the process of financing and trying to complete, is the wrong message you want to send to for-profit developers.”
Confusion about the amount of money available
Staff members provided four different numbers for the amount of money available in the ConnectFree fund during the meeting: Wachtel originally said there was $1.9 million before taking out the recommended $670,000; then Harris said there would be $1.9 million left after the projects were approved; then Harris looked at a February memo and said there was $1.126 million in the fund before taking out the recommended projects; then, after public comment, Harris said that he did “a bit more research” and now believed there would be $1.16 million left in the fund if the projects were approved.
Following public comment, Saco said she had “deep reservations… about arbitrary numbers being thrown up here when saying ‘just half’… because we are not the experts; staff are the experts… So doing arbitrary math up here… [does] not land us anywhere good.”
Willits said the recommended $475,000 for Royal Park was not an expert determination but “just what it cost.”
Ward agreed, “Staff recommendation does not mean that they think this is a good number… The staff recommendation is [the maximum the project qualifies for] under the resolution that we approved.”
Motion
Chestnut made a motion to award $475,000 to Royal Park Apartments, $102,061 to Hawthorne Heights, $68,269.36 to East University Avenue Cottages “with the understanding that [they] will be meeting with staff to vet the sewer expenses” and $32,000 to Jessie’s Village. Saco adjusted the wording to “ask staff to come back with vetting on East University Avenue Cottages” and seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bryan Eastman said he wasn’t comfortable with the full $475,000 for Royal Park Apartments and would prefer half that amount.
Ward split the motion and first took a vote on everything except the allocation for Royal Park Apartments. The motion passed 6-0, with Commissioner Desmon Duncan-Walker absent.
The vote to award $475,000 to Royal Park Apartments failed 2-4, with Book, Eastman, Willits, and Ward in dissent and Duncan-Walker absent.
Second motion
Eastman made a motion to award $250,000 to Royal Park Apartments, and Willits seconded the motion.
Saco said, “I can count to four. This passing does not preclude them from reapplying with a continuance of their construction or anything else that might come up?” Ward replied, “Absolutely.”
Chestnut added, “Or not preclude them from working with staff to look at alternative funding mechanisms?” Ward replied, “Correct. In fact, I would encourage staff to work with them for alternative funding mechanisms.”
The motion passed 6-0, with Duncan-Walker absent.
Security upgrades to City Hall
The Commission then took up an item that had been pulled from the Consent Agenda by Willits, a Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement with Oelrich Construction for City Hall security upgrades for $328,909.
Special Adviser to the City Manager Phil Mann said the project had been in the works for about 12-14 months; there will be minor interior renovations to the lobby, door upgrades, security upgrades, lighting upgrades, and fencing upgrades. He said there would be an upgraded security desk with a metal detector that everyone would have to go through, along with upgraded lighting on the north and east sides of City Hall.
Mann said staff will come back on April 18 with a recommendation for City Hall Plaza renovations, and some security improvements will also be included in that. He said the money for the City Hall security improvements had already been budgeted .
Book made a motion to approve the agreement, and Willits seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0, with Duncan-Walker absent.
“They also approved a contract for security upgrades to City Hall.” They want walls, fences or other security measures to protect their boundaries? Bunch of hypocrites.
Kinda like Pelosi’s house in San Francisco. Walls for ne not for thee.
Democrats are🫏💩
If you live in the Royal Park area- move soon! You’ve been warned.
I live in the “Royal Park area” and am on board with your recommendation. I’d love to get out of here before Royal Part Apartments are finished and move to the middle of 100 acres of timberland in Dixie county. I’d rather negotiate politely each day with diamondback rattlers than be subject to the wims of the loonies on the Gainesville City Submission. But unfortunately I’m too old to move to Dixie County, so I’ll probably have to go to the Village.
A flagrant violation of our City Charter occurs when GRU ratepayer money is dissipated in furtherance of political, social or ideological interests. Cunningham and Carter are holding GRU ratepayers’ heads under water while continuing reckless, illegal, and irresponsible wastage of many millions of our dollars. No “Bond Validation” proceeding can rectify the damage being done in what amounts to a legal insurrection. The miscreants must be stopped before it is too late. The overload on County Authority members sure has not lead to any protection for County GRU Ratepayers.
Jim, you go brother‼️ Right on‼️
Maybe, but:
GRU ratepayer money – You mean the money no longer belonging to GRU ratepayers, but to the city utility? I don’t think I have a claim on the money I give Publix for groceries every week once I spend it.
political, social or ideological interests – can you define this phrase? The money in this case isn’t being used for a political convention, dance party, or Marxist training for crossing guards, but bricks and mortar for low cost housing.
But going from the description in this article, it IS a direct tax on non-city residents being spent solely to benefit city residents.
Lower GRU surcharges are one of the carrots the city staff advertises as a lever to try to get people to agree to annexation:
https://www.gainesvillefl.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/sustainable-development/documents/annexation-web.pdf
And with the ability to spend the money only on properties within the city, this slush fund can be used as straight out bribe to get developers building on the edge of the city to agree to annexation.
And……?
The city owns the utility, the county doesn’t, and it’s their money. You should be advocating for the county to get utilities elsewhere as some locations do. Do you imagine you’ll agree with how other utilities set their fees or spend their money or that you will have a say in it?
I have had 3 different utility companies providing electric where I live over time, and now GRU. I’m in the county and didn’t have a say in the finances of any of them.
PS and thanks for that link Steve.
Yes Jizzy you finally get it. I 100% agree with you wanting to give these developers the city money. They deserve it. Thank to you and the city I am going to become a developer and cash in.
Royal Park apts now known as Banyan Hammock Apts. should be reviewed for its compliance with “affordable” standards. The tenants’ cars are really nice. Not sure anyone is checking them to make sure they are poor enough to live there. Also, that complex has ruined the neighborhood that is close to it. So much traffic, speeding, litter, etc. No code enforcement for signs, etc. Not surprised that the City Commission got duped (again!) by a for profit developer. Thanks to them for lowering the property value of the homes in that neighborhood.
That’s your pandering city commission doing what they do!
That’s the City Commission’s version of equity. Bringing down the value of existing homes in other neighborhoods, (not theirs by the way). Kind of mimics another local entity if you think about it.
See my comment below on dat
You may be correct, but I just looked at aerial photos and a map of this development. It’s on a a virtual island surrounded by swamp, water, and commercial development and one road in. There is no “neighborhood that is close to it.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=Banyan+Hammock+Apts&oq=Banyan+Hammock+Apts&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjI3ODIxM2owajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Thanks for the link.
the neighborhoods of 36th street, terrace and drive. The apartment complex has an entrance directly into that neighborhood. See NW 5th Ave and 36th Drive. The other entrance from the complex is onto Newberry road but the light takes so long so they go through the neighborhood. Look it up. 2 roads in. not one. The community was told this would be an emergency only egress. Not so.
The Google maps aerial doesn’t show a road – it was taken while apartment construction was ungoing – though I see where the connection could be made. Do you have a link to a more recent pic? Is that path an actual road? Can neighborhood residents seek to close it down or somehow limit it’s use?
Thanks for the information.
“It’s a very lot of money”
Good grief!
He speaks like Simple Jack and Chestnut rocks Simple Jack’s hairdo. We are doomed!
“They also approved a contract for security upgrades to City Hall.”
Sounds like they might be getting nervous that the ‘pilgrims with a pitchfork’ might want to take their GRU?
Gotta love how that racist rock broke the Mayor’s office window just days before the City approved this security upgrade work.
Ms.🐷’s mask is not for covid or cancer or any physical ailment…it’s for the mental ailment of liberalism.. …it’s the social justice flag.
Can the GNV CC lessen the bums , stimulate local non government employment, fix the
Potholes, mind their own business, & outlaw those battery scooters that are adding to climate change?
walking on sidewalks has a lower carbon footprint.
not likely since they are talking about hiring homeless as downtown ambassadors.
Other thoughts:
“The lion’s share of affordable housing is developed… for profit… Nonprofits don’t deliver…” 🤔 You think?
Yet the City and County still fund nonprofits at an alarming pace at the expense of residents; the homeless aren’t paying taxes but they’re sure leaving a mess.
All the BS about people doing things out of the goodness of their hearts is just that, BS. Even the progressive liberals don’t offer that. If they did, those City Commissioners and Mayor wouldn’t have voted themselves a raise a while back. Sure, they rescinded it, but not before the public outcry.
One can’t help but wonder the “profits” these so called leaders have managed to receive for themselves with the decisions they’ve made for the betterment of the community.
“The ConnectFree program is funded by a 25% surcharge on new GRU water and sewer connection fees outside the city limits.”
Great racket – the people outside city limits can’t vote against the city commissioners who raised their GRU rates.
Hawthorne Heights.
$25 million for 86 units.
That is $291,000 per unit.
Is that really affordable housing today?
Affordable housing means section 8 housing….Free or Government assisted housing. Not housing that’s affordable for you to buy!
Let them all pay for their own hookups , not worry what’s going on in Israel, lower our property taxes, and do something about the vagrants and the crime they are bringing here….
Why exactly do we need low-income housing near Royal Park? Will this improve our schools, traffic, environment, wildlife habitat? Local parks and trails are packed on the weekends already. Wild creatures are retreating into smaller and smaller enclaves. Why can’t we leave some nature for kids to grow up around?
>>Why exactly do we need low-income housing near Royal Park?
Liberalism 101: a society with rich and poor, winners and losers, the opportunity to succeed or fail based on your personal actions, is immoral. The right thing to do is to make everyone equally poor and miserable and ensure that they stay that way forever (except for members of The Party, of course).
A good tactic is to attack middle-class people whose net worth is heavily tied up in the value of the home. You do this by flooding their neighborhoods with crime and making them pay for it with their own rapidly increasing taxes. Artificially introducing low-income housing right next door is a very effective way to destroy the value of their homes.
They can metal detect all they want, but they cannot prevent the lawful carry of firearms on publicly accessible areas of city hall.
“It’s a very lot of money to a for-profit developer”
Heaven forbid they are allowed to make a profit from their work. How else are they going to pay their exorbitant GRU bill?
Why would one ever give corporate welfare to something that is already built? That’s not an ‘incentive’ that’s just welfare.
Never ending development, unfortunately gainesville will be the new orlando in the next 10-15 years, capitalism bad, traditionalism good
A local radio report said the city tax treasury is losing millions per year on students claiming “low income” status, while living in $1000-2000/bedroom rentals in the NEW “luxury student apts”. Apparently their weary parents disown their college students on paper for tax purposes, and their rich kids live in subsidized luxury apts close to campus … True?
🤔🥺
Hop Sing: “It’s a very lot of money, Mr. Cartwright!”
Ben Cartwright: “Yes, Hop Sing, a very lot of money.”