Alachua County directs staff to draft guidelines for $54 million surtax housing program

The Alachua County Board of County Commissioners on May 6 voted to ask staff to return with formal guidelines and analysis for the Alachua County Living Spaces and Thriving Places program, the county's rebranded use of Wild Spaces Public Places surtax dollars for housing.

The vote followed a detailed presentation by county housing staff and data commentary from the Schimberg Center for Housing Studies, discussion of three pending developer applications and public comments from developers and housing advocates. Commissioners said they want criteria that prioritize new workforce rental units, leverage private capital, limit county subsidy per project and speed permitting.

County housing program manager Ralston Riudica (Community Support Services) told commissioners the Living Spaces and Thriving Places program will use Wild Spaces Public Places surtax revenue — about $54,000,000 over 10 years — for gap financing, land acquisition and other tools to “create, preserve, and retain affordable housing and workforce housing.” He said staff sent the program solicitation to more than 100 developers and had received three applications to date, mostly for senior and affordable housing rather than the 30–60% area median income (AMI) “workforce” band commissioners said they wanted to prioritize.

Anne Ray of the Schimberg Center for Housing Studies spelled out local need and AMI definitions and emphasized that many working households fall below 60% AMI. "If you take it up to 120% AMI, a two‑bedroom rent could be $2,800," Ray said, and urged commissioners not to treat 60% AMI as a strict floor because many workers earn less than that.

Commissioners and applicants discussed three proposals that staff summarized for the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. Staff said the proposals include a Banyan Development project on West University Avenue (estimated at roughly $43.7 million for 104 units, or $38.4 million for 88 units, with a $6.55 million county request), a Gainesville Housing Authority/New Star Development Oak Park proposal (about $36 million total cost, request about $3.9 million), and an Oakview Apartments proposal (addresses at 1515 NW 10th Street and 1500 NW 12th Street; estimated cost about $43 million). Staff and commissioners noted the three applications together would total roughly $13 million in county requests, covering about 300 units, or roughly $43,000 per unit by the applicants' math.

Several commissioners said the surtax money should be used where it can leverage the most private financing and produce new units rather than routine rehabilitation of existing affordable properties. "We told the voters we need new units," one commissioner said. Commissioners asked staff to return with a scoring and evaluation framework that would consider subsidy per unit, proximity to employment and transit, share of units serving workforce AMI bands, energy efficiency measures, and a cap on county contribution as a share of total project cost. At the meeting several commissioners proposed limiting county subsidy to about 10% of a project's total cost as a guideline; the board asked staff to research typical developer fees and to study Orange and Pinellas counties' models for trust funds or loan programs.

Developers and local housing actors urged the board to align county funds with existing federal and state financing tools — in particular low‑income housing tax credits and Florida Housing programs — so county dollars increase the total number of units that can be built. Alex Kiss, managing partner at Banyan Development Group, described how county gap financing behind a first mortgage could expand the number of affordable units in tax‑credit deals. "Your funding helps extend the capital stack," Kiss said.

Gainesville Housing Authority representatives said they will share a draft East Gainesville housing concept tied to a Choice Neighborhoods planning grant; Malcolm Kiner (Gainesville Housing Authority) confirmed an open house on May 29 to present that work and said the authority remains an applicant for county funds.

Public commenters, including housing advocates and residents, pressed commissioners for speed and for attention to households at the deepest income levels and families with children. Nancy Hart, a retired physician and organizer of a group called Housing First for Children, told the commission more than 1,000 children known to the school district lack stable housing and urged prioritizing families.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of the meeting agenda: motion and second recorded; voice vote, "Aye," motion carried.

- Direction to staff to draft evaluation criteria/guidelines and return recommendations for the Living Spaces and Thriving Places housing program: motion made and seconded; voice vote, "Aye," motion carried. The board asked staff to return with recommended scoring criteria, financial analyses showing how county contributions would leverage private capital, options for subsidy structures (including loans or revolving funds), guidance on developer‑fee limits, and suggested timelines for review.

What the board asked staff to return with

Commissioners asked staff to prepare a formal proposal within a target timeframe so the board can establish (at minimum) the following: a scoring rubric tied to workforce housing goals (emphasizing 30–60% AMI but allowing 0–120% AMI flexibility per the Schimberg Center data), an approach to limit county subsidy as a percent of project cost (several commissioners suggested a 10% guideline), documentation on developer fees and allowable uses, options for loan or revolving‑fund structures so county capital can be recycled, sample financial projections showing ad valorem revenue impacts, and a streamlined permitting/liaison approach to speed approvals for qualifying projects.

County staff said they will analyze the three current applications against any criteria the board provides and will report back on what can be done with those applications under existing rules and what changes would require a revised solicitation. Staff indicated the packet materials and Schimberg Center data will be used as part of that analysis.

Ending

The board's action does not commit county funds to any specific project; it directs staff to return with recommended policy, criteria and analyses for how county surtax dollars can be targeted to produce and preserve housing that meets local workforce needs. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized speed and leverage: several said they want the county's surtax dollars to unlock significantly more private investment and produce new rental units for lower‑income working households as quickly as practicable.