CRA District Tax Increment Financing Analysis - Delray Beach … · 2019. 4. 1. · Delray Beach...
Transcript of CRA District Tax Increment Financing Analysis - Delray Beach … · 2019. 4. 1. · Delray Beach...
CRA District Tax Increment Financing
Analysis
Prepared By
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
1
REPORT COMMISSION
The Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) commissioned this report to
complete an assessment of the CRA District’s tax base growth since inception and to forecast the
growth from 2016 to the CRA’s sunset date in 2045 in order to assist the CRA with development of
a funding plan for services, programs, and capital improvements. The commission also includes a
comparative analysis of selected Community Redevelopment Agencies in Palm Beach and
Broward counties as well as an economic impact analysis illustrating the contribution to the Delray
Beach economy from investments made by the CRA since inception. The motivation for the report
stems from discussions the CRA has had with the City regarding the amount of property tax money
annually returned to the CRA from the City and its impact on the City’s finances and property tax
rates. Additionally, project prioritization and alignment have been expressed as an additional
concern. Discussions had been underway that attempted to investigate how best to address these
issues. The CRA Board desired to quantify and study the issues commissioned in this report.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
2
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is a legal entity that is created by a municipality or a
county to address slum and blight in a specific area of the community. It is largely funded
through property tax increments (TIF, or Tax Increment Financing) that accrue on the properties in
its defined area. The increment is the change in taxable values in any year, less the taxable value
that existed in the base year of the CRA’s creation. The millage rates adopted each year by the
impacted taxing authorities are applied to the increment in taxable value. Each taxing authority
then returns the amount of the incremental tax revenue for the year to the CRA. The purposes for
which this money can be spent are restricted under the laws of the State of Florida. The Delray
Beach CRA currently receives TIF funds from the City of Delray Beach and Palm Beach County.
The City of Delray Beach City Commission established the Delray Beach Community
Redevelopment Agency on June 18, 1985, with the adoption of Ordinance 46-85.
We have taken the liberty of providing certain background information contained in the CRA’s
most recently adopted Community Redevelopment Plan, adopted by Ordinance 27-14:
“The authority to undertake community redevelopment was undertaken in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment Act of 1969, F.S. 163, Part III. In recognition of the need to prevent
and eliminate slum and blighted conditions within the community, the Community Redevelopment
Act confers upon counties and municipalities the authority and powers to carry out "Community
Redevelopment” as defined in the Statutes:
"Community Redevelopment" or "Redevelopment" means undertakings,
activities, or projects of a county, municipality, or community redevelopment agency
in a community redevelopment area for the elimination and prevention of the
development or spread of slums and blight or for the provision of affordable housing,
whether for rent or for sale, to residents of low or moderate income, including the
elderly, and may include slum clearance and redevelopment in a community
redevelopment area, or rehabilitation or conservation in a community redevelopment
area, or any combination or part thereof, in accordance with a community
redevelopment plan and may include the preparation of such a plan.
The ability of a county or municipality to utilize the authority granted under the Act is predicated
upon the adoption of a "Finding of Necessity" by the governing body. This finding must
demonstrate that:
(1) One or more slum or blighted areas, or one or more areas in which there is a
shortage of housing affordable to residents of low or moderate income,
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
3
including the elderly, exist in the county or municipality; and,
(2) The rehabilitation, conservation, or redevelopment, or a combination thereof,
of such area or areas, including, if appropriate, the development of housing
which residents of low or moderate income, including the elderly, can afford,
is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of
the residents of such county or municipality.
Creation of the Community Redevelopment Agency
Upon a "Finding of Necessity" by the governing body and upon further finding that there is a need
for a Community Redevelopment Agency to function in the county or municipality to carry out
community redevelopment purposes, any county or municipality may create a public body
corporate and politic to be known as a "Community Redevelopment Agency." The Agency shall be
constituted as a public instrumentality, and the exercise by the Agency of the powers conferred by
F.S. Chapter 163, Part III shall be deemed and held to be the performance of an essential public
function.
The City of Delray Beach City Commission established the Delray Beach Community
Redevelopment Agency on June 18, 1985, with the adoption of Ordinance 46-85. The
organizational structure of the agency was also established at that time. It consists of a board of
seven members appointed by the City Commission. The term of office of the board members is
four years. A vacancy occurring during a term is filled for the unexpired term. The provisions of
Ordinance No. 46-85 have been codified in Article 8.1 of the City’s Land Development
Regulations.
Powers of the Community Redevelopment Agency
As authorized by the Community Redevelopment Act, a wide variety of powers are available to the
City of Delray Beach to carry out redevelopment activities. While most of these powers may be
delegated to a Community Redevelopment Agency, others may not. These powers, which continue
to vest in the City Commission, are as follows:
o The power to determine an area to be a slum or blighted area and to designate such
an area as appropriate for community redevelopment;
o The power to grant final approval to community redevelopment plans and
modifications thereof;
o Prior to the approval of the community redevelopment plan or approval of any
modifications of the plan, the power to approve the acquisition, demolition, removal,
or disposal of property and the power to assume the responsibility to bear loss;
o The power to authorize the issuance of revenue bonds.
The powers which the City Commission has chosen to delegate to the Delray Beach Community
Redevelopment Agency under City Ordinance No. 46-85 include the following:
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
4
o The power to acquire property deemed necessary for community redevelopment,
except that the use of eminent domain (for public purpose) shall require specific
approval from the City Commission;
o The power to hold, improve, clear, or prepare any acquired property for
redevelopment;
o The power to dispose of property acquired within the community redevelopment
area for uses in accordance with the plan;
o The power to construct improvements necessary to carry out community
redevelopment objectives;
o The power to carry out programs of repair and rehabilitation;
o The power to plan for and assist in the relocation of persons and businesses
displaced by redevelopment activities;
o The power to receive and utilize tax increment revenues to fund redevelopment
activities.
In 1992, the City Commission adopted City Ordinance No. 17-92 which delegated the following
power to the CRA:
o The powers to appropriate such funds and make such expenditures as are necessary
to carry out the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969.
Other powers authorized by the Act but which the City Commission has elected not to delegate to
the Agency are:
o The power to zone or rezone any part of the city or make exceptions from building
regulations;
o The power to close, vacate, plan, or re-plan streets, roads, sidewalks, ways or other
places and to plan or re-plan any part of the city.”
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
5
The Community Redevelopment Plan
All public redevelopment activities expressly authorized by the Community Redevelopment Act
and funded by tax increment financing must be in accordance with a redevelopment plan which has
been approved by the City Commission. Like the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Community
Redevelopment Plan is an evolving document which must be evaluated and amended on a regular
basis in order to accurately reflect changing conditions and community objectives. All
redevelopment financed by tax increment revenues shall be completed no later than thirty (30)
years following the adoption of this amendment to the plan. The most recent Plan was adopted by
City Ordinance on September 16, 2014.
It is worth noting here that the statutes place great weight on the Community Redevelopment Plan.
The law contemplates a document that is adopted by the elected City Commission and that only
those activities that are authorized by the document can be undertaken. Neither the CRA Board,
the City Commission, nor any of their appointed officers or employees can spend any funding
provided through the tax increment for activities outside those authorized in the adopted plan.
We emphasize this aspect of the law because it is designed to align the goals of the elected body
with its appointed Board. It is expected that plans and needs change over time, but that they
should be contemplated and deliberated through the process of periodically adopting the
redevelopment plan.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
6
PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT ANALYSIS
The CRA provided subarea maps that were used in establishing the areas for tax roll analysis.
Working with the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s Office (PBCPA), we obtained the
tax rolls and maps for the properties entirely within the boundaries of the CRA. For the base
year, the only records still available are microfiche (com fiche or computer output). The
images on the microfiche are the folio/parcel summary information that contained the
following information for each parcel:
1. Folio Number (Parcel Number)
2. Owner(s)
3. Owner Mailing Address
4. Short Legal Description
5. State Land Use Codes
6. Just (Market) Values of Land and of Buildings
7. Exemptions From Taxation
8. Taxable Value
9. Millage Rates Applied
10. Property Size
11. Mortgage Holder Codes
Since the last time the CRA used these records, changes in their use and accessibility have
been made by PBCPA. The office no longer allows anyone to handle the microfiche directly
and the staff that managed the microfiche operation have been eliminated from their budgeted
positions. After a few weeks of working with the PBCPA, they allowed the microfiche to be
couriered to a service provider that converted the images on the microfiche to an electronic
format that we were able to use on our systems. From these converted files, we extracted the
following information:
1. Folio Number (Parcel Control Identifier)
2. Just (Market) Values of Land and of Buildings
3. Exemptions From Taxation
4. Taxable Value
We would note here that the folio number used in the base year is a different format and
codification than the one used currently. The subarea information had to be applied distinctly
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
7
to the base year information and to the computer files provided by the PBCPA (which began
starting with year 2000). We analyzed the data to make sure it was consistent from year-to-
year and found the data to be very reliable.
The PBCPA also provided copies of the tax maps to aid in the identification of parcels in each
subarea. The tax maps provided were hard copy plots. The maps utilized were for the
following areas, denoted by the sections, townships, and ranges within Palm Beach County:
1. 43-46-04
2. 43-46-08
3. 43-46-09
4. 43-46-16
5. 43-46-17
6. 43-46-20
7. 43-46-21
The microfiche cards related to these maps were provided to us in a converted format and were
as follows:
1. 248
2. 250
3. 251
4. 252
5. 253
6. 254
7. 255
8. 256
9. 260
10. 261
11. 262
The maps used for determining the geography of each subarea were provided by the CRA.
The map reproduced on the following page illustrates the subareas studied for this report:
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
8
Map Of The CRA And Its Subareas
Subarea 1=Beach District Subarea 5=N. Federal Highway
Subarea 2=Central Core Subarea 6=Seacrest/Del Ida
Subarea 3=West Atlantic Avenue Subarea 7=Osceola Park Subarea 4=NW Neighborhood Subarea 8=SW Neighborhood
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
9
Historical Market Value Growth
This study focuses on both the growth in market value and the growth in taxable values.
Florida requires that all properties be fairly valued as of January 1st each year, though these
values are not generally formally set until July 1st, and then subject to slight changes afterwards.
Taxable value is the market value less any exemptions that might be applied to a property.
Prior to 1995, Florida allowed for exemptions generally for homestead properties and for
widowers on residential properties. Government and not-for-profit entities generally were
provided full exemptions from taxation. In 1995, voters approved the “Save Our Homes”
amendment that provided for annual caps of 3% on assessments to homesteaded properties.
Then, in 2008, voters also approved the “Portability of Save Our Homes”, which increased the
homestead exemption to $50,000 from $25,000 and allowed homeowners the ability to transfer
all or a portion of their accumulated Save Our Homes exemptions to a new property elsewhere
in Florida. As a consequence of these two changes, the spread between market value and
taxable value can be quite noticeable over time.
In this section, we’ll look at how the market value of the property has grown over the study
period. This is the value the property owner would be expected to receive in an arms-length
transaction. Chart 1 illustrates the growth in market value, which increased by
$2,030,596,320 or 779%.
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
10
Chart 1. Historical Market Value Growth Of Entire CRA Area
This growth rate is notable in many ways. The most noticeable trend shows the effect of the
real estate bubble that burst in 2007-2008. This is a classic bubble illustrated in hindsight.
The graph also allows a visual “connect” from the 2004 period, when values began to deviate
sharply higher to the 2012 year where the correction to prices seems to stabilize. If one looks
at the trend developing up to the bubble that started about 2005 and then ignore for the moment
the bubble that ended about about 2010, it seems apparent that the growth in the market value
is fairly linear. Only now in 2015 do values seem to have returned to their 2007 highs, but
they appear to be where they were headed in 2004. Values in the CRA area have a
compounded annual increase of about 7.3%, which includes all uses of properties in all areas.
However, that growth rate has not been equal across subareas. Chart 2 illustrates the changes
graphically by subarea and Table 1 notes the compounded rates of return for each subarea:
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
11
Chart 2. Historical Market Value Growth Of CRA Subareas
-
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
600,000,000
700,000,000
800,000,000
900,000,000
1,000,000,000
1985 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1-BeachDistrict
2-CentralCore
3-W.AtlanticAve
4-NWNeighborhood
5-N.FederalHwy.
6-Seacrest/DelIda
7-OsceolaPark
8-SWNeighborhood
Chart 2 shows that what is typically thought of as the “Downtown Core” has shown the most
improvement in values. This can be viewed as a type of testament of what can happen when
vision and planning are well executed. Clearly, the CRA over time has done a remarkable job
transforming this area and improving values to property owners. In turn, the CRA has reaped
the benefit from increased revenues. But, as noted, the overall growth rate in the CRA, while
stellar, has seen different outcomes in the different subareas, as noted in Table 1.
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
12
Table 1. Compounded Annual Rates Of Market Value Growth In CRA Subareas
1985-2015
2015 Subarea
Compounded
Return
374,030,529 1 - Beach District 6.96%
865,054,001 2 - Central Core 14.08%
165,010,063 3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 5.81%
91,214,328 4 - NW Neighborhood 4.38%
248,789,682 5 - N. Federal Hwy 7.42%
195,169,632 6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 5.60%
120,191,303 7 - Osceola Park 5.52%
231,850,474 8 - SW Neighborhood 4.40%
2,291,312,027 Total CRA Area 7.30%
The largest percentage change was in subarea 2. Percentage change can be one indicator of
growth, but looking at the subareas in absolute dollar gains in market value we can see the
growth in a different light. Table 2 notes the dollar change over 30 years for the CRA
subareas:
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
13
Table 2. Absolute Dollar Growth of Market Values In CRA Subareas
1985-2015
Subarea
30-year Dollar
Change
Percent
Change
1 - Beach District 324,367,295 653%
2 - Central Core 848,446,673 5109%
3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 134,665,141 444%
4 - NW Neighborhood 65,992,570 262%
5 - N. Federal Hwy 219,716,711 756%
6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 157,062,571 412%
7 - Osceola Park 96,224,555 401%
8 - SW Neighborhood 168,111,811 264%
Total CRA Area 2,014,589,343 728%
Here we note that the largest dollar value change over the 30-year period occurred in subarea 2,
the central core area. The subareas with the least market value increases were subareas 4 and 7,
which are largely residential in nature.
The composition at the last valuation date (January 1, 2015/Tax Roll 2015) shows that in all
subareas, residential uses are the predominant use. Some of the data from the PBCPA’s
office did not include the state land use codes. For Subarea 2, the majority of these properties
were mixed-use office/retail/residential. In the remaining subareas, we reclassified the
properties to their obvious current use. Table 3 notes the values of properties by use in each
subarea. We have omitted values that were in rights-of-way or otherwise undevelopable
parcels that had market values assigned by the PBCPA’s office. Thus, the sum of these uses
in Table 3 will be less than the total market value of each subarea or the CRA as a whole.
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
14
Table 3. 2015 Market Values By Property Use Category And Subarea
Subarea Residential Commercial Industrial
Government/N
FP
Misellaneous
Uses
Not Classified or
Mixed Use
1 - Beach District 213,276,960 109,344,861 - 6,746,993 - -
2 - Central Core 378,510,040 261,991,263 12,740,604 58,240,972 23,089,271 130,481,851
3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 71,638,001 25,820,637 253,752 65,368,359 - -
4 - NW Neighborhood 63,411,203 1,584,361 206,136 25,833,746 - -
5 - N. Federal Hwy 159,257,759 72,503,046 16,140,298 805,779 82,800
6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 152,317,385 15,663,608 1,219,729 25,968,901 - -
7 - Osceola Park 67,739,551 38,817,776 10,779,004 2,141,555 713,417 -
8 - SW Neighborhood 172,578,816 4,775,810 8,369,633 46,124,218 1,893 -
We have adjusted the Subarea 1 Government/NFP category to remove the beach area that the PBCPA includes in the CRA area. We have estimated
the market value of the city-owned parcel located at the corner of Atlantic Avenue and A1A. We have used the actual value of improvements and
valued the land at $175/sf based upon adjoining parcels.
As can be seen, the predominant use in each subarea as judged by market value is a residential
use.
Historical Taxable Value Growth
Market value is interesting to study because it represents the total value of the property to the
owner as of the valuation date. However, the effects of the various property tax exemptions
allowed on property can reduce market value significantly for property tax purposes. Also,
the CRA receives its tax increment revenue on the taxable value and this is what will be
forecast later in the report.
Using the same data and techniques previously described, we calculated the changes in total
taxable value over the study period. As can be seen in Chart 3, the taxable values in the CRA
district, as expected, increased significantly over the study period.
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
15
Chart 3. Historical Taxable Values In CRA District
-
200,000,000
400,000,000
600,000,000
800,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,200,000,000
1,400,000,000
1,600,000,000
1,800,000,000
2,000,000,000
1985 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
The growth rate in taxable values appears similar to that of market value, but, as Chart 4
illustrates, the spread between market values and taxable values jumped between the base year
and 2000 largely because of the Save Our Homes exemption enacted in 1998, and then again in
2006 because of the housing bubble. In 2008 and 2009, the Save Our Homes Portability
exemption came into effect. This would allow Floridians who moved into Delray Beach from
another Florida homestead to bring a portion of their accumulated homestead exemptions with
them. So, to the extent that actually occurred, it would explain part of the widening of the gap
between market and taxable values. Also in 2009, commercial properties would benefit from
a 10% cap on assessment increases, but this would not yet appear to have had a great impact.
The spread between taxable and market values appears to have stabilized, but there is a current
trend for the last three years where the gap is slightly widening. One can clearly see the benefit
to property owners of the exemptions provided for property tax purposes. We have also
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
16
overlaid regression lines for both the market value and taxable value trends. It is interesting
to note the natural trends underlying the data as well as the relative spread between the two
values.
Chart 4. Historical Versus Taxable Values In CRA District
Chart 5 shows the taxable values for each subarea over the 30-year study period.
(continued)
-
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
1985 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Taxable Values Market Values Linear (Taxable Values) Linear (Market Values)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
17
Chart 5. Historical Taxable Value Growth Of CRA Subareas
0
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
600,000,000
700,000,000
800,000,000
1985 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1- BeachDistrict
2- CentralCore
3-W.AtlanticAve.
4- NWNeighborhood
5-N.FederalHwy
6-Seacrest/DelIda
7-OsceolaPark
8-SWNeighborhood
Much like the market values described earlier, the taxable values have also shown notable
increases over the study period. Table 4 shows the compounded increases over the 30-year
study period.
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
18
Table 4. Compounded Annual Rates Of Taxable Value Growth In CRA Subareas
1985-2015
Sumof2015TAXABLE
2015 Subarea
Compounded
Taxable Value
Return
269,428,230.0 1 - Beach District 5.98%
668,281,558.0 2 - Central Core 12.55%
72,578,378.0 3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 4.69%
31,536,479.0 4 - NW Neighborhood 1.89%
193,932,069.0 5 - N. Federal Hwy 5.68%
108,173,722.0 6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 4.22%
94,941,047.0 7 - Osceola Park 4.29%
119,228,901.0 8 - SW Neighborhood 3.09%
1,558,100,384 Total CRA Area 6.35%
Here we note a few things. The taxable values (which is market value less exemptions) are
1.89% and 3.09% in subareas 4 and 8, respectively. We can infer that the various homestead
exemptions, particularly the Save Our Homes amendment, have retarded the growth in taxable
values in those areas. Subarea 8 also includes tax-exempt uses and multi-family
affordable/workforce housing projects that typically yield a lower taxable value growth rate.
We recall from Table 3. 2015 Market Values By Property Use Category that these subareas are
almost entirely residential or governmental/not-for-profit uses. Governmental and not-for-
profit parcels are usually wholly exempt from property taxation. This has ramifications for
the CRA’s TIF. These low growth areas (as it concerns taxable values) are not likely to
provide much in the way of TIF revenue growth. Unlike the areas that have Commercial and
Industrial uses that can grow by as much as 10% per year, these properties will be capped at a
3% maximum per year, and likely less if inflation remains low (the Save Our Homes
amendment limits homestead properties to the lesser of 3% or inflation). Improvements that
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
19
increase the values of homesteaded properties in these subareas won’t necessarily be reflected
in higher taxable values. Market values may improve, increasing the net worth of the
property owner, but taxation will likely lag. The areas that are heavily residential in nature
are not likely to show much in the way of taxable value growth unless they are redeveloped
and new owners are attracted to the subareas. Because of the nature of the residential
properties in those subareas, the CRA will need to rely upon the growth revenues from other
subareas that have had (and are likely to continue to have) the largest growth. Table 5 notes
the absolute change in taxable values over the study period.
Table 5. Absolute Dollar Growth of Taxable Values In CRA Subareas
Subarea
30-year Dollar
Change In
Taxable Value
1 - Beach District 222,261,380
2 - Central Core 649,039,002
3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 54,241,872
4 - NW Neighborhood 13,572,777
5 - N. Federal Hwy 156,999,699
6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 76,894,613
7 - Osceola Park 68,014,078
8 - SW Neighborhood 71,445,896
Total CRA Area 1,312,469,317
We’ll now compare market value to taxable value over time by subarea to further our analyses:
(continued on next page)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
20
Table 6. Differences Between Market And Taxable Value Returns
Subarea
Compounded
Market Value
Return
Compounded
Taxable Value
Return
Taxable Value
As % of
Market Value
1 - Beach District 6.96% 5.98% -14.1%
2 - Central Core 14.08% 12.55% -10.9%
3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 5.81% 4.69% -19.3%
4 - NW Neighborhood 4.38% 1.89% -56.7%
5 - N. Federal Hwy 7.42% 5.68% -23.5%
6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 5.60% 4.22% -24.5%
7 - Osceola Park 5.52% 4.29% -22.3%
8 - SW Neighborhood 4.40% 3.09% -29.6%
Total CRA Area 7.30% 6.35% -13.0%
This illustrates on a micro level how the lack of tax base diversification can create problems
for local governments, particularly those that are largely residential in nature. Of course,
overall, the City has decent tax base diversity and the subareas seem to have been designed to
capture geography with similar demographics or areas of focus. We next compare the
absolute market value to the absolute taxable value over time to see what this means in terms
of actual TIF funding:
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
21
Table 7. Absolute Dollar Differences Between Market and Taxable Values
Subarea
30-year Dollar
Change In
Market Value
30-year Dollar
Change In
Taxable Value Difference
1 - Beach District 324,367,295 222,261,380 102,105,915
2 - Central Core 848,446,673 649,039,002 199,407,671
3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 134,665,141 54,241,872 80,423,269
4 - NW Neighborhood 65,992,570 13,572,777 52,419,793
5 - N. Federal Hwy 219,716,711 156,999,699 62,717,012
6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 157,062,571 76,894,613 80,167,958
7 - Osceola Park 96,224,555 68,014,078 28,210,477
8 - SW Neighborhood 168,111,811 71,445,896 96,665,915
Total CRA Area 2,014,587,327 1,312,469,317 702,118,010
Base Year and Current (2015) Taxable Values and Current TIF Contributions By
Subarea
Table 8 documents the base year, current year (2015 Property Tax Year/2016 Fiscal Year) and
change is taxable values over the base year by subarea. The sum of these differences become
the basis for the annual TIF calculation by the CRA.
Table 8. Base Year and Current Year (2015) Taxable Values By Subarea
Subarea
Base Year
Values 2015 Values Difference
1 - Beach District 47,166,850 269,428,230 222,261,380
2 - Central Core 19,242,556 668,281,558 649,039,002
3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 18,336,506 72,578,378 54,241,872
4 - NW Neighborhood 17,963,702 31,536,479 13,572,777
5 - N. Federal Hwy 36,932,370 193,932,069 156,999,699
6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 31,279,109 108,173,722 76,894,613
7 - Osceola Park 26,926,969 94,941,047 68,014,078
8 - SW Neighborhood 47,783,005 119,228,901 71,445,896
Total CRA Area 245,631,067 1,558,100,384 1,312,469,317
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
22
Using the information developed from Table 8, we can now calculate the actual TIF revenue
provided by the City and County for the FY2016:
Table 9. Current Year TIF By Subarea and Source
SubareaTIF Taxable
ValueCounty TIF City TIF Total TIF
1 - Beach District 222,261,380 1,009,606 1,490,939 2,500,545
2 - Central Core 649,039,002 2,948,211 4,353,783 7,301,994
3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 54,241,872 246,390 363,857 610,247
4 - NW Neighborhood 13,572,777 61,653 91,047 152,700
5 - N. Federal Hwy 156,999,699 713,159 1,053,161 1,766,320
6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 76,894,613 349,288 515,813 865,101
7 - Osceola Park 68,014,078 308,949 456,241 765,190
8 - SW Neighborhood 71,445,896 324,538 479,262 803,800
Totals 1,312,469,317 4,846,033 7,156,399 14,765,897
Note: The total TIF is different from the adopted TIF amount by $8,720 in County TIF funds. For purpose of
this analysis, the amount is considered immaterial and a result of small adjustments in the tax roll file.
We can see how valuable property tax exemptions are to the property owners over time.
Notwithstanding the noticeable spread between taxable and market values, the growth in
taxable values has provided a strong base for the TIF. We’ll next explore how that funding
has developed over time from the different taxing authorities contributing to the TIF.
Cumulative Contributions To Each Subarea By Each Taxing Authority
After creation of the CRA, the City of Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, and the Children’s
Services Council of Palm Beach County (CSC) contributed to the CRA’s TIF. The CSC
contributed up until FY1993 and then ceased contributing. Palm Beach County Healthcare
(PBCH) contributed during FY1990 and FY1991 and then ceased contributions. During the
years CSC and PBCH contributed to the CRA TIF, the amounts were minor compared to the
amounts contributed by the City and the County. For ease of presentation and for those years
they made payments to the TIF, we have allocated the contributions from CSC and PBCH in
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
23
proportion to the County and City amounts. Table 10 details the amounts contributed (as
adjusted) by the City and the County for each Subarea.
Table 10. Contributions By Source To Each Subarea 1985-2015
Subarea Source Amount Percent of Total
Total 27,262,118 17.8%
County 10,563,693 6.9%
City 16,698,425 10.9%
Total 54,033,077 35.3%
County 20,941,770 13.7%
City 33,091,307 21.6%
Total 7,889,384 5.2%
County 3,051,544 2.0%
City 4,837,840 3.2%
Total 4,842,296 3.2%
County 1,871,866 1.2%
City 2,970,430 1.9%
Total 21,831,944 14.3%
County 8,440,970 5.5%
City 13,390,974 8.8%
Total 11,396,000 7.5%
County 4,414,941 2.9%
City 6,981,058 4.6%
Total 11,168,257 7.3%
County 4,319,579 2.8%
City 6,848,678 4.5%
Total 14,511,514 9.5%
County 5,619,804 3.7%
City 8,891,710 5.8%
Total 152,934,590 100.0%
County 59,224,167 38.7%
City 93,710,422 61.3%
6 - Seacrest/Del Ida
7 - Osceola Park
8 - SW Neighborhood
Total
1 - Beach District
2 - Central Core
3 - W. Atlantic Avenue
4 - NW Neighborhood
5 - N. Federal Hwy
Subarea 2 is the largest source of TIF revenue for the CRA. Over half (53.1%) of all TIF
money comes from subareas 1 and 2. Subarea 4 contributes the least to the CRA’s TIF,
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
24
amounting to only 3.2% of the TIF money. Over time, the County has contributed less than
40% of the CRA’s TIF money, with the City contributing slightly more than 60%. This has
been fairly consistent since 1998 and was not significantly different before that time.
Tax Increment Forecast Until Sunset
Having developed out the historical TIF growth over the last thirty years, our next task is to
provide a forecast for the the remaining thirty years. To develop the forecast, we take the
major uses of the parcels as a starting point and use a modified trend analysis approach that
takes into consideration the annual limitations on assessed (and therefore taxable) values and
adjust those trends for known changes in new development or redevelopment and the expected
date that those developments would be added to the tax rolls. Table 11 details the forecasted
tax base growth by subarea for the next 30 years.
Table 11. Tax Base Forecast By Subarea
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Totals
2016 286,554,342 708,850,046 77,780,368 33,569,430 206,711,601 116,516,836 101,088,241 126,184,216 1,657,255,080
2017 304,814,887 869,371,139 83,389,436 42,135,053 237,483,038 125,514,113 107,664,546 133,564,947 1,903,937,160
2018 324,287,267 921,511,825 89,439,637 44,858,092 253,052,754 135,217,382 114,701,791 141,398,564 2,024,467,312
2019 345,054,302 1,079,969,070 130,836,241 47,758,911 344,902,978 145,682,610 122,234,289 149,714,421 2,366,152,821
2020 367,204,619 1,145,193,952 141,369,924 50,849,212 366,849,104 156,970,239 130,299,047 158,543,895 2,517,279,992
2021 382,474,429 1,189,809,618 146,475,567 52,382,096 381,199,528 162,336,797 136,259,377 163,787,858 2,614,725,271
2022 398,458,302 1,236,384,396 151,787,284 53,961,746 396,181,697 167,904,310 142,522,237 169,219,779 2,716,419,750
2023 415,193,026 1,285,014,372 157,314,449 55,589,616 411,826,644 173,681,210 149,104,138 174,847,155 2,822,570,609
2024 432,717,420 1,335,800,758 163,066,905 57,267,209 428,167,060 179,676,329 156,022,528 180,677,820 2,933,396,029
2025 451,072,443 1,388,850,173 169,054,997 58,996,074 445,237,386 185,898,915 163,295,856 186,719,963 3,049,125,806
2026 470,301,319 1,444,274,955 175,289,592 60,777,812 463,073,907 192,358,659 170,943,621 192,982,143 3,170,002,008
2027 490,449,668 1,502,193,478 181,782,116 62,614,073 481,714,864 199,065,710 178,986,441 199,473,310 3,296,279,661
2028 511,565,642 1,562,730,495 188,544,574 64,506,565 501,200,559 206,030,709 187,446,116 206,202,823 3,428,227,484
2029 533,700,074 1,626,017,501 195,589,592 66,457,047 521,573,474 213,264,805 196,345,696 213,180,471 3,566,128,661
2030 556,906,627 1,692,193,112 202,930,446 68,467,338 542,878,392 220,779,689 205,709,556 220,416,497 3,710,281,658
2031 581,241,964 1,761,403,471 210,581,096 70,539,315 565,162,532 228,587,620 215,563,472 227,921,618 3,861,001,089
2032 606,765,915 1,833,802,677 218,556,229 72,674,918 588,475,685 236,701,452 225,934,707 235,707,051 4,018,618,634
2033 633,541,666 1,909,553,233 226,871,294 74,876,149 612,870,358 245,134,673 236,852,091 243,784,540 4,183,484,005
2034 661,635,949 1,988,826,533 235,542,549 77,145,077 638,401,936 253,901,430 248,346,122 252,166,380 4,355,965,976
2035 691,119,249 2,071,803,364 244,587,103 79,483,837 665,128,837 263,016,573 260,449,059 260,865,447 4,536,453,468
2036 722,066,020 2,158,674,442 254,022,962 81,894,637 693,112,695 272,495,683 273,195,024 269,895,231 4,725,356,695
2037 754,554,920 2,249,640,986 263,869,083 84,379,757 722,418,538 282,355,122 286,620,119 279,269,862 4,923,108,386
2038 788,669,049 2,344,915,314 274,145,424 86,941,552 753,114,981 292,612,065 300,762,532 289,004,150 5,130,165,067
2039 824,496,213 2,444,721,483 284,873,002 89,582,457 785,274,440 303,284,551 315,662,670 299,113,614 5,347,008,431
2040 862,129,194 2,549,295,961 296,073,951 92,304,987 818,973,343 314,391,526 331,363,284 309,614,527 5,574,146,773
2041 901,666,040 2,658,888,346 307,771,585 95,111,740 854,292,362 325,952,893 347,909,609 320,523,949 5,812,116,524
2042 943,210,376 2,773,762,116 319,990,463 98,005,403 891,316,662 337,989,565 365,349,512 331,859,771 6,061,483,867
2043 986,871,724 2,894,195,429 332,756,465 100,988,752 930,136,154 350,523,520 383,733,642 343,640,759 6,322,846,445
2044 1,032,765,850 3,020,481,977 346,096,856 104,064,658 970,845,771 363,577,857 403,115,603 355,886,604 6,596,835,178
2045 1,081,015,131 3,152,931,876 360,040,377 107,236,087 1,013,545,763 377,176,861 423,552,121 368,617,965 6,884,116,180
Subarea
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
25
Having forecasted the tax base growth, we then look to see how much TIF revenue will be
generated. As a starting point, we will use the current FY2016 property tax rates levied by
the City and the County. Table 12 illustrates how the TIF revenue would grow if these
property tax rates remain constant at the FY2016 levels and the forecast holds true:
Table 12. TIF Revenue Forecast1
Year Forecasted Tax Base County TIF City TIF Total TIF
2016 1,657,255,080 6,412,196 9,603,342 16,015,538 8.46%
2017 1,903,937,160 7,532,731 11,281,531 18,814,262 17.48%
2018 2,024,467,312 8,080,230 12,101,503 20,181,733 7.27%
2019 2,366,152,821 9,632,311 14,426,005 24,058,316 19.21%
2020 2,517,279,992 10,318,795 15,454,130 25,772,925 7.13%
2021 2,614,725,271 10,761,433 16,117,054 26,878,487 4.29%
2022 2,716,419,750 11,223,372 16,808,887 28,032,259 4.29%
2023 2,822,570,609 11,705,555 17,531,036 29,236,590 4.30%
2024 2,933,396,029 12,208,971 18,284,986 30,493,957 4.30%
2025 3,049,125,806 12,734,665 19,072,301 31,806,965 4.31%
2026 3,170,002,008 13,283,736 19,894,627 33,178,363 4.31%
2027 3,296,279,661 13,857,342 20,753,700 34,611,042 4.32%
2028 3,428,227,484 14,456,706 21,651,347 36,108,052 4.33%
2029 3,566,128,661 15,083,111 22,589,495 37,672,606 4.33%
2030 3,710,281,658 15,737,915 23,570,174 39,308,089 4.34%
2031 3,861,001,089 16,422,547 24,595,525 41,018,072 4.35%
2032 4,018,618,634 17,138,513 25,667,804 42,806,317 4.36%
2033 4,183,484,005 17,887,402 26,789,391 44,676,792 4.37%
2034 4,355,965,976 18,670,888 27,962,793 46,633,681 4.38%
2035 4,536,453,468 19,490,739 29,190,658 48,681,397 4.39%
2036 4,725,356,695 20,348,818 30,475,775 50,824,593 4.40%
2037 4,923,108,386 21,247,090 31,821,089 53,068,179 4.41%
2038 5,130,165,067 22,187,629 33,229,705 55,417,334 4.43%
2039 5,347,008,431 23,172,624 34,704,900 57,877,524 4.44%
2040 5,574,146,773 24,204,383 36,250,132 60,454,515 4.45%
2041 5,812,116,524 25,285,343 37,869,051 63,154,394 4.47%
2042 6,061,483,867 26,418,075 39,565,508 65,983,583 4.48%
2043 6,322,846,445 27,605,295 41,343,570 68,948,865 4.49%
2044 6,596,835,178 28,849,868 43,207,527 72,057,396 4.51%
2045 6,884,116,180 30,154,821 45,161,913 75,316,734 4.52%
Current Tax Rates (FY2016) Change From
Prior Year
1 The forecast takes various property appraiser land use designations and anticipates growth based upon those uses. In
general, residential properties are forecasted between 3.5%-7% between 2017 and 2021, and then 3% thereafter, depending on
the use and the subarea; for commercial and industrial properties, the range is 3%-10%, between 2017 and 2021 and then 6%
thereafter; and for not-for profits by no more than 2.5% between 2017 and 2021, and then 1.5% thereafter. Known projects
have been added to the tax base forecast based upon the expected year they would go on the tax rolls. For Years 2016-2019,
projects underway have been added to the forecast for the year each is expected to be added to the property tax roll.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
26
The TIF revenue forecast in Table 12 presumes that the property tax rates remain static over
time. The City has expressed a desire to lower its millage rate. Over recent years, both the
City’s and the County’s rates have been fairly stable. A change in rates will naturally change
the expected TIF revenues generated by the forecasted tax base for any particular year.
Contributions By The CRA To The City of Delray Beach
Virtually all of the expenditures made by the CRA benefit directly or indirectly the City of
Delray Beach. The CRA, as an agency of the City, is a development tool that has been very
successful. There have been many examples of close coordination between the CRA and the
City. Table 13 details the projects and amounts from either audited or budgeted sources.
(continued)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
27
Table 13. CRA Projects With Or Benefitting the City
Areawide & Neighborhood FY2011-FY2016
West Atlantic Redevelopment 1,869,899
Downtown-Master Plan 7,292,185
SW Neighborhood Plan 3,290,132
N. Federal Highway Redevelopment 44,492
Osceola Neighborhood 2,330,192
Other-Sidewalk (CIP) 529,589
NW/SW Neighborhood Alley (CIP) 300,000
Seacrest /Del Ida Plan 1,449,566
Pompey Park 200,000
Subtotal 17,261,563
Redevelopment Projects
NW/SW-5th Ave Beautification 784,261
Carver Square 135,936
Subtotal 920,197
Community Imp & Economic Dev
Grant Programs 1,373,952
DBMC & Downtown 2,109,587
City Contractual Services & Positions 11,025,381
Pineapple Grove 9,930
Community Resource Enhancement (A-GUIDE) 6,127,657
Green Market 657,677
Economic Development Initiatives 655,590
Digital Divide 130,867
OSS Retail Rent/Buildout 1,119,193
International Tennis Tournament 3,315,400
Warehouse / Arts Incubator 1,300,000
Subtotal 27,825,234
US1 Corridor Improvements Debt Services 849,298
Total 46,856,292
Table 13 summarizes the projects undertaken by the CRA over the last 6 fiscal years. We
further reviewed the audited financial statements from 1986-2014, the unaudited 2015 financial
information, and the budgeted 2016 amounts of the CRA expenditures by project or program.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
28
The expenditures were then categorized, to the extent possible, those expenditures into each
subarea. Table 14 summarizes the expenditures by subarea:
Table 14
Expenditures By Subarea
1986-2016
Subarea 1986-2016
1 - Beach District 1,930,348
2 - Central Core 58,905,698
3 - W. Atlantic Avenue 66,324,807
4 - NW Neighborhood 14,405,965
5 - N. Federal Highway 8,978,525
6 - Seacrest/Del Ida 4,268,179
7 - Osceola Park 4,465,210
8 - SW Neighborhood 27,509,839
Areawide 18,676,219
Total CRA Area 205,464,790
Appendix “A” contains a more detailed breakdown of expenditures in each subarea.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
29
Results of Interviews With Concerned Parties
During the course of our engagement, we interviewed most of the City Commission and CRA
Board, the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, the CRA Executive Director, and Legal
Counsel, including Bond Counsel for the CRA. The discussions were either in person or,
generally, by phone. All discussions were made with the understanding the comments or
sentiments expressed by any individual would not be attributed to them in the final report.
This was done in an attempt to gain candor and genuine sentiment from the parties involved.
There was near unanimity among the City elected officials and the CRA Board members to
have the CRA Board and staff continue to oversee and operate the CRA. There was universal
agreement that regularly scheduled workshops with the City Commission and the CRA Board
be held. Everyone interviewed lamented that though this had been agreed to several months
ago, it had never occurred until recently. We feel, based upon the discussions we had with all
parties, that many of the issues and concerns that the City has with the CRA are the result of
insufficient communications between the City and the CRA. The CRA has been very
successful and has been given great autonomy by the City for almost all of its existence.
The City has recently demonstrated that the CRA’s success has come to some extent at the
expense of the City’s other operational needs. Our forecast anticipates that this will become
more of an issue over time.
All parties would like to capture as much of the County share of TIF funds as can be legally
allowed. It is also the consensus feeling that the best way to do this is for the City and the
CRA to coordinate their activities.
Most City officials expressed concern that the CRA goals were not aligned with the
community’s needs, particularly in the area of basic infrastructure like streets, roads, alleys,
and sidewalks. There is clearly a disconnect, again associated with communications, between
the perception of inactivity and what has been programmed by the CRA to address these
concerns. The CRA has budgeted for the improvement of alleys, streets, sidewalks, and other
basic infrastructure in many of the areas we heard were of concerns by the elected officials.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
30
These are in addition to projects completed within those areas. However, the CRA, in
cooperation with the City, is implementing a more comprehensive infrastructure improvement
program in order to complete basic needs in a timelier manner. People are frustrated with the
speed with which projects progress. The CRA has been making the funding available for
many projects, but the time from budget to project completion is taking too long for projects
undertaken by the City. The overwhelming portion of these projects are funded by the CRA,
but those funds are given to the City to spend on the projects, using the procedures in place at
the City (procurement, project management, project execution). These are in addition to the
projects that the CRA completes. The elected officials consistently relayed that their
constituents continually complain about the lack of activity in their neighborhoods on these
types of projects. The CRA’s budgets have included funding for the necessary design work,
which can include time-consuming tasks such as surveying and soils testing and other items
precedent to actual construction. And, of course, public procurement rules can add several
months from project inception to actual construction. It may be that the current CRA
programming of these elements is not as robust as the Commission would like, but we suspect
that better communications can help give ammunition to the elected officials so that they can
better communicate the timeframe for improvements already underway in a few neighborhoods.
It is also likely that because of the lack of formal communications between the CRA Board and
the City Commission, projects critical to the Commission may not be known to the Board.
It is our impression that the Commission, while appreciative of the efforts of the Board, may
not be fully aware of all the programs the CRA undertakes for the City, especially in the area
of affordable housing.
Many of the Commission members voiced the same concern regarding certain projects
undertaken by the CRA that caused distress for the elected body. There were two recurring
themes in this regard, which were not necessarily unanimous among Commission members.
One was the redevelopment of the Ipic movie theater and its corporate headquarters and the
other was the scale of improvements to the Old School Square facility. In the latter case, it
seemed that the improvement themselves were not necessarily the concern, but the priority of
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
31
these improvements over other projects that Commission members deemed had more
immediate need. Again, this issue becomes one of communication.
There was consensus that both the City and the CRA have a shared vision and that this be
reduced to an action plan of some type that is adopted by both bodies. This, in essence, is the
basis for the Community Redevelopment Plan that is adopted by the City Commission.
Specific infrastructure projects are then included in the City 5-year Capital Improvement
Program.
There were definite legal concerns about reducing the City’s portion of the TIF without
reducing the County’s portion of the TIF. Additionally, there are issues of reducing or
restricting the sources of revenues through elimination of “subareas” or contribution
percentages of either the City or the County. The revenues have been pledged to bondholders
of the CRA and the City is ultimately responsible to these bondholders. Bondholder approval
for these reductions would seem to be required in advance.
It was generally felt that the shared funding of the current programs and services by the CRA
should be continued.
Some of the members of the CRA Board felt that the City did not fully appreciate the level of
support currently provided the City nor the extent to which they felt they had addressed the
City’s concerns in the past. Our impression, again, was that this stemmed from
communication issues.
Most Commission members wanted to know what the “end game” would be. Specifically,
what is it that the CRA area should look like when it’s done 30 years from now and how will
those revenues that accumulate over time be used to achieve those goals and how will the CRA
be wound down. We believe this goes to the heart of the matter. This sentiment seems to be
espousing a need for a long-term plan for the CRA that governs the next 30 years of activity
and how the money will be spent to achieve those goals.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
32
Some Commission members believe that the downtown area has achieved its goals and that the
the CRA should move onto other areas. They were aware that the Board was addressing
some of the other areas, but felt more could be done. Board members were pretty unanimous
in voicing their opinion that they felt they were addressing other areas but that some of their
budget needed to remain in support of the downtown, particularly in the form of police and
beautification efforts.
While all Commission members did not want the Commission to take over the CRA Board’s
functions, they were pretty consistent in their attitude that they would be forced to if the two
entities goals were not aligned.
The City administration was very concerned about the state of their finances and felt that the
TIF funds being returned to the CRA was in effect forcing the City to keep its tax rates too
high, as the majority of growth in property taxes went back to the CRA. They also wanted to
keep as much of the County funding as possible. They believed the CRA’s TIF funding was
adversely affecting their annual budgets, preventing them from being able to address their
needs. They also felt that there were opportunities to coordinate their efforts with the CRA.
It was our impression that they felt it would be to their advantage to directly or indirectly
control the CRA activities so that they would be better coordinated into the City’s operations.
Our impression is that the City does not have a full appreciation of the number of programs and
projects undertaken annually by the CRA, some of which are typically provided directly by a
city in the absence of a CRA.
All of our conversations were civil and without exception we found that all Commission
members and all Board members had a desire to work together and be on the same page.
Here we again emphasize that everyone believed that meeting quarterly or monthly would help
all parties work together and communicate better. Monitoring and adjustments to a strategic
long-term plans could also be undertaken at these meetings.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
33
Recommendations For Guidelines For Annual Funding By The CRA For Direct or
Indirect Contributions To the City
In the course of our analysis, the City’s Chief Financial Officer had produced a 10-year
financial forecast for the City Commission’s consideration during their goal setting session.
The forecast is an illustration of the how the City’s administration believes the 10-year period
will develop if the current financial structure between the City and the CRA remains in place.
The forecasts provided by the CFO include one that holds the millage rate constant and another
that reduces the millage rate. Both forecasts provide for an increase in the assessed value of
properties of 4% annually. Other revenue streams in the City are forecasted using the revenue
history developed in the City since FY2007, including unaudited results from FY2015 and
budgeted amounts for FY2016. We would note here that this period included years from the
Great Recession and are not likely reflective of future growth. The 10-year forecast uses the
average of the annual revenue growth from each year. We believe this forecast understates
several of the revenue streams that accrue to the City annually. Both forecasts also presume
that the City can hold its annual operating expenses to 2.5% annually. We also feel that this
understates the likely expenditure growth the City will experience. Lastly, we would note
that the capital needs for the City are estimated to be $177,752,588 and the CRA’s capital
needs are estimated to be $126,324,204. This is a combined capital effort of $304,076,792
over the 10-year period, and this does not include any capital expenditures within the City’s
utility system.
Comparing The TIF Forecast With The City of Delray Beach 10-year Financial Forecast
The City forecasts also provide for various options to address the shortfalls that occur. Below
we discuss the options:
Option 1: Economic Development. This option uses the same assumptions as in the base
case, but presumes the tax base growth is 5%, not 4%, presumably from an economic
development focus. The City’s long-term tax base growth has been close to 5.5% over the
long-run, but this includes the CRA area, which has grown more than elsewhere in the City.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
34
The CRA revenue growth does not directly benefit the City’s annual budget. This option
reduces the forecasts annual deficits, but not by an appreciable amount.
Option 2: Redeploy CRA Spending. This spreadsheet takes the CRA capital spending
and reducing it starting in FY16 and eliminating it by FY19. The money is not apparently
redistributed to the City’s capital spending. In this scenario, the City’s overall capital
spending deficits are reduced beginning in FY17 and turn to surpluses in FY 21 as compared to
the base case scenario of operating deficits. The annual total deficit (operating + capital)
turns into a surplus in 2021. This scenario has a few problems with it. First, it presumes
that the CRA’s planned capital spending can be reallocated to the full extent to the City’s
capital spending. While there is likely a good deal that could be put towards City needs in the
CRA area, the amount may not be a dollar-for-dollar exchange in the forecast. It also
presumes, much like the city’s capital forecast, that funds are or should be available for the
projects. That may not be the case. However, as an illustration, it does demonstrate that to
the extent the City and CRA can align their projects, the forecasted deficit can be eliminated by
the end of the forecast period.
Option 3: Increase Other Revenue. We believe the City’s other revenue streams are
understated because of the fiscal years used in the forecast. However, this forecast assumes
some revenues other than property tax revenues increase at a faster rate than in the base case.
In this scenario, the operating deficit is eliminated by 2019 instead of 2021 and the operating
surplus grows after that. The capital deficit remains and the overall deficit remains. This
scenario was developed to illustrate the impact that implementing new fees and other revenue
streams would have on the budget, which would serve to help reduce, but not eliminate, the
forecasted deficit.
Option 4: Reduce Grants. This spreadsheet changes the base assumptions by limiting
grants to not-for-profits to 1% of ad valorem revenue. This reduces the forecasted operating
deficit from FY2020 to FY2017, but does nothing to reduce the capital or overall forecasted
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
35
deficits. Ostensibly, this would eliminate the donations by the city to the land trust, historical
society, library, Spady museum, and Old School Square.
Option 5: Increase Productivity. This spreadsheet seeks to illustrate the impact to the
forecast in reducing personnel counts beyond those anticipated in the base forecast.
Manipulating this assumption demonstrates that the operating deficit is eliminated in FY2017
and the operating surplus grows through the forecast period. The capital deficit is not
impacted, though the overall deficit is reduced.
Each of the forecast options seeks to illustrate the impact on the budget forecasts (both
operating and capital) of various changes in the budget fundamentals. The forecasts begin
with the City’s most current adopted budget (which presumes that there are not unique or non-
recurring costs in that budget which would skew any forecast) and uses estimates of annual
increases in revenues and expenses which may or may not be reasonable based upon current
trends in the City. For a basic planning tool, the documents are attempting to illustrate the
budget direction for the next 10 years. The budget direction is significantly impacted by the
City’s 10-year capital needs, which, as previously noted, is $177,752,588 for the City and an
additional $126,324,2042 for the CRA. The capital program seems to us to be fairly
aggressive. Many of the items in the capital programs are for projects that are longer-lived
than 10 years and might better be bonded over the life of the project, which may be up to 30
years.
With these observations and caveats in place, we will now reconcile our TIF forecast with the
City’s 10-year forecast. First, we look at the CRA’s TIF over the City’s 10-year forecast
period and then apply the deficits projected by the City in its Base Case projection. This
analysis presumes that the all of the projected deficit could be reduced by using the TIF funds
for those projects the City is wanting to undertake. While some of these projects will be
within the CRA boundaries and likely eligible for the TIF money, many may not:
2 The 10-year capital needs amounts are calculated as the sum of each of the10-years forecasted by the City’s CFO for both
the CRA and the City.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
36
Table 15. Effect On CRA TIF When Funds Are Used For City Forecasted Deficit
Reductions
Fiscal Year TIFNet City Cash
Flow Forecast
TIF Available
After Reducing
City Deficit
2017 16,015,538 (3,654,720) 12,360,818
2018 18,814,262 (18,441,256) 373,006
2019 20,181,733 (11,393,450) 8,788,283
2020 24,058,316 (14,656,871) 9,401,445
2021 25,772,925 (19,116,141) 6,656,784
2022 26,878,487 (11,029,748) 15,848,740
2023 28,032,259 (10,795,841) 17,236,418
2024 29,236,590 (10,526,574) 18,710,017
2025 30,493,957 (10,220,074) 20,273,883
2026 31,806,965 (9,874,399) 21,932,567
The City Cash Flow Forecast is taken from the City’s10-year financial forecast and represents the City’s estimate of if deficit cash flows for
each year.
The table illustrates that the TIF would eliminate the deficits but it would also likely hamper
CRA operations in FY2018 through FY2021 because of existing CRA obligations. In most of
the other years, the CRA’s operating budget, after funding existing commitments, would be
greatly reduced; however, beginning in FY2022, the absolute cash available from the TIF after
helping to reduce the City’s annual operating deficits, would be larger than that available in the
FY2016 budget. It should be noted that the utilization of TIF funds must be consistent with
the adopted Community Redevelopment Plan as required by Florida Statutes.
It is likely that if the City reduces the amount that it contributes to the CRA’s TIF, then a
proportionate reduction in County contributions would also be required. The ratio of TIF
contributions is currently 40% from the County and 60% from the City. That ratio, predicated
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
37
upon current property tax rates, is assumed in our projections. The following table examines
what would happen if the County contribution were also reduced in proportion to the City’s
contribution:
Table 16. Effect On CRA TIF When Funds Are Used For City Forecasted Deficit
Reductions, With Proportionate Reductions In County TIF Funds
Fiscal Year TIFCity Cash Flow
Forecast
TIF Available
After Reducing
City Deficit
TIF Available If
County Funds
Proportionately
Reduced
2017 16,015,538 (3,654,720) 12,360,818 10,898,930
2018 18,814,262 (18,441,256) 373,006 (7,003,496)
2019 20,181,733 (11,393,450) 8,788,283 4,230,903
2020 24,058,316 (14,656,871) 9,401,445 3,538,697
2021 25,772,925 (19,116,141) 6,656,784 (989,672)
2022 26,878,487 (11,029,748) 15,848,740 11,436,841
2023 28,032,259 (10,795,841) 17,236,418 12,918,081
2024 29,236,590 (10,526,574) 18,710,017 14,499,387
2025 30,493,957 (10,220,074) 20,273,883 16,185,853
2026 31,806,965 (9,874,399) 21,932,567 17,982,807
This table demonstrates that the current CRA budget would not recover until sometime after
FY2024 and that in two years it would be in a deficit position. For fiscal years FY2017 through
FY2024, the funding is reduced to amounts that would not fund existing commitments of the
CRA.
The City desires to slow the growth of its anticipated deficits by reducing funding to the
CRA’s TIF fund. It is likely that if the City reduced its contribution to the TIF, then the
County would also require a proportionate reduction. Our estimate of the loss of those funds
is detailed below:
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
38
Table 17. County TIF Funding Lost If City Reduces Its Contributions To Eliminate
Annual Deficits
TIF Available If
County Funds
Proportionately
Reduced
Fiscal YearCounty TIF
Funding Lost
10,898,930 2017 1,461,888
(1,088,882) 2018 7,376,502
7,326,395 2019 4,557,380
7,939,557 2020 5,862,748
5,194,896 2021 7,646,456
14,386,852 2022 4,411,899
15,774,530 2023 4,318,337
17,248,129 2024 4,210,629
18,811,995 2025 4,088,030
20,470,679 2026 3,949,759
Total 47,883,629
It’s clear that the loss of the funds from the County portion of the TIF is substantial over the
City’s 10-year forecast period. It will be important for the City and CRA to coordinate their
activities to maximize the funding from the County portion of the TIF. To the extent
programs and capital improvements are eligible for TIF funds, a great deal of the City’s
forecasted deficit could be reduced, but care should be taken to stay within the legal confines
under which the CRA operates, per Florida Statute §163, Part III.
While the CRA is a separate legal entity, it is ultimately a tool and under the control of the City
Commission. The planning of the CRA needs to be tightly integrated into the City’s financial
planning and long-term goals of the Commission. This is accomplished primarily through the
adopted Community Redevelopment Plan, as is contemplated and required by state law. The
document is ultimately adopted by the City Commission and becomes the City’s vision and
sets the intermediate goals of the City for the CRA area.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
39
The City’s ongoing budget issues stem in part from the amount of City contributions made into
the CRA TIF. As the success of the CRA’s efforts have increased the tax base within the
CRA boundaries, the TIF funding has increased with it. The City has been unable to lower its
property tax rate because a large portion of its property tax revenues are returned to the CRA.
This is the dynamic that has led to current funding issues between the two entities.
Both the CRA and the City recognize that it is in the City’s interest to maximize the funding
from other taxing authorities that pay into the CRA TIF. It is paramount that both parties
tightly coordinate their planning efforts to achieve this goal. It is also extremely important
that the vision and goals of the City Commission be aligned with the CRA Board so that the
activities of the Board do not conflict with the City’s policies or desires.
Ideally, policy makers should look to the end game of what the CRA area will look like in
2045 and work backwards to implement that vision through the periodic adoption of the
Community Redevelopment Plan.
The expanse of projects undertaken annually by the CRA would require the City Commission
to spend many more hours each month in oversight of the operations that is currently done by
the Board. We believe that given the scale of these operations, the separate appointed
governing Board is the best mechanism to implement and provide primary oversight of the
Community Redevelopment Plan. It is very important for the City Commission to respect the
efforts of the Board and to consider their recommendations and interim decisions that are
offered or executed. It is also very important for the CRA Board to be consistently in lock
step with the policies of the Commission. Ultimately, the City Commission can step in and
act as the governing body of the CRA. It is our impression that this would be an action of last
resort by the Commission and their preference is for the Board to continue to operate
independently, but under the guidance provided by the Commission.
The current appointed Board structure in preferable to the City Commission acting as the
CRA Board and we recommend that it remain in place.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
40
We acknowledge that this report was commissioned by the CRA Board and that this
recommendation may appear to be advocating the Board’s position, but it’s our opinion
unaffected by that commission that the CRA needs an oversight Board that can devote
significant amounts of time and energy to the many programs and services that are undertaken
by the CRA. The amount of programming, projects, and services that are currently provided
through the CRA is extensive and robust. We have attended or viewed a few meetings of the
CRA Board and are impressed with the level of detail that Board members engage in during
the course of their meetings. They ask thoughtful questions and debate issues carefully.
They are not reluctant to question their staff and offer opinions on issues. It is time
consuming work by unpaid appointed individuals who express a genuine interest in their
community. Ultimately, they are responsible to the Commission and need to be responsive to
that body and governed by the Community Redevelopment Plan. It is our opinion that the
City would have difficulty in operating the CRA as if it were just another department within
the City. It is effectively operating as a city within a city, but with good reason and at the
behest of the Commission. The scale of its operation seems to merit the current structure.
The issues of City finances, project and program emphasis, and particular decisions of the
Board can be addressed through routine planned meetings of both bodies and better financial
and redevelopment planning that is expressed in the adoption of the Community
Redevelopment Plan.
Communications between the Board and the Commission is imperative. The lack of
periodic meetings to coordinate the activities and review the current status of the Community
Redevelopment Plan goals has led to misunderstandings and unnecessary surprises. The
City should schedule these meetings with the Board. The meetings should focus on the
current status of Plan implementation and also any changes in direction that may arise.
Current efforts of both the Board and the Commission should be discussed and areas of
concerns should be addressed at the meetings. Action items for reporting at future
meetings should be prepared.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
41
During its first 30 years of activity, the CRA Board was given wide latitude to design the
elements of the Community Redevelopment Plan and has been extremely successful in its
redevelopment efforts over the years. Most recently, however, the City Commission has
expressed its desire to redirect some of the priorities of the Board to projects the Commission
feels have a more immediate need. There apparently exists within the City of Delray Beach
certain neighborhoods and communities that believe the efforts in their areas need to be given
priority. Every Commission member interviewed offered the same commentary. They are
frequently approached by members of the public with the view that they would like to see the
same level of improvements in their neighborhoods that they see in the downtown area.
Interesting, but not surprising given the absence of periodic meetings between the two bodies,
there have been substantial changes to the Plan to provide funding for the neighborhood
projects that are being demanded. Meetings between the two parties would have reinforced
the idea that the Board had been active in addressing the Commission’s desires and that many
projects were underway but may not have progressed to the point where the public would see
any physical activity.
The City staff and the CRA staff should be tightly integrated on a routine basis so that both
parties understand what each is doing and aren’t at cross purposes and are fully effective in
implementing the vision and goals of the Commission as provided for in the Community
Redevelopment Plan.
The City Manager is the City Commission’s chief appointed executive charged with
implementing the Commission’s policies and direction. Likewise, the Executive Director is
the CRA Board’s chief appointed executive charged with implementing the Board’s policies
and direction. Each of these executives will have daily as well as long-term challenges
presented to them. They will often have advance notice of issues that have not yet been
presented to the Commission or the Board. Many times these issues will overlap both entities
and coordination of efforts and responses should be undertaken. Both entities need to
understand what the other is doing. To that end, we believe the CRA Executive Director
should routinely meet with the City Manager and executive staff of the City to discuss issues
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
42
and actions underway within the City. There is a good level of communication currently, but
clearly the CRA was somewhat surprised by issues regarding budgets, financing, and other
issues. It would have been better for the City Commission and the CRA Board to have had
these issues fleshed out and cooperatively addressed at the staff level with solutions presented
to both the Commission and the Board for their approval. Issues such as those that have
recently arisen should also be discussed at the periodic meetings of the Board and the
Commission so that disagreements can be resolved and policy direction can be set.
A long-term financial plan for the City that also incorporates the long-term financial plan of
the CRA should be prepared.
The CRA has been very successful in improving the taxable values within the CRA area. The
property tax revenues that are now derived from the CRA area are substantial and the diversion
of those growth revenues from the City to the specific area of the CRA have had consequences
to the City as a whole and its ability to deliver services and improvements to areas other than
the CRA properties. The CRA financing mechanism also provides for substantial sums from
Palm Beach County, which in effect are de facto grants used for the purposes provided within
the Community Redevelopment Plan. The City is constrained in their operating and capital
budgets by the diversion of these growth monies. It has had the effect of requiring a higher
property tax rate than otherwise might exist and the City contends that it hampers their ability
to provide for necessary maintenance and replacement of aging facilities and equipment.
There are many moving parts between these two budgets, but the overall goal is obviously to
keep as much TIF funding from other taxing authorities as is legally possible, while at the same
time providing as much relief to the City’s finances as can be legally undertaken. The current
redevelopment plan of the CRA was not developed with this dynamic in mind. The staffs of
the City and the CRA will need to work together to devise a long-term plan that coordinates
these efforts. Projects and Programs that can legitimately be undertaken by the CRA and that
provide relief to the City’s operating and capital budgets should be identified and prioritized.
Projects and programs that provide the best possibilities for improvement or maintenance of
the CRA’s property tax values should be given precedence over other projects and programs.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
43
When contemplating whether or not to reduce the TIF funding from the City, the impact of
the potential loss of County TIF funds should also be evaluated. When deciding how to
reduce TIF funding, a percentage reduction of overall funding would be preferable to an
elimination of a subarea or other contraction of the CRA boundaries. Both methods
should only be undertaken only after other options that address the City’s needs for funding
or projects have been exhausted. It should be the method of last resort but it will ultimately
need to be implemented within the long-term financial planning of the City and CRA.
Subareas 1, 2, and, to a lesser extent, 5 are the economic engines of the CRA. Eliminating
one of these subareas would result in a loss of substantial funding that could be used in areas
that need improvement. Execution of this as a means of reducing the City’s contribution to
the CRA is a relatively clumsy and probably irrevocable action. Once removed, it seems
likely that the County would not agree to put it back into the CRA’s boundaries or that they
may no longer meet the conditions for inclusion into a CRA. A more precise tool would be to
effect a percentage reduction of contributions that not only considered the loss of City TIF
funding, but also the loss of County TIF funding. Ideally, if such a reduction were
implemented, it could be adjusted up or down as circumstances evolved and would not
necessarily be permanent at any level of reduction. As Table 12 demonstrates, the anticipated
growth of CRA TIF funding may reach levels where a percentage reduction is likely. The
financial planning recommended above should consider a gradual reduction in TIF funding
over the last few years of the CRA’s existence and should plan for the transition of services
and programs away from the CRA back to the City. This will likely mean that the CRA and
City forego some of the County TIF funding, but the growth of the tax base will make this less
painful.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
44
Comparative Analysis of Select Peer Community Redevelopment Agencies
The Delray Beach CRA has been in existence since 1985 and has made significant and
noticeable improvements within its boundaries. Table 18 illustrates the changes over the last
15 years. The CRA’s market value base has done 88% better than the City as a whole and the
CRA’s contribution to the City’s market value base has grown from 11% to 20%, almost
doubling.
Table 18. Market Value Comparison Between CRA and City
Fiscal YearTotal City Market
Value
Change From
Prior Year
CRA Changes In
Market ValueDifference
CRA Percent Of
City Market Values
1999 3,677,106,381
2000 3,970,026,911 8%
2001 4,232,905,017 7% 11%
2002 4,824,553,609 14% 66% 374% 16%
2003 5,438,135,827 13% 12% -6% 15%
2004 6,266,438,727 15% 23% 52% 16%
2005 7,248,585,022 16% 21% 36% 17%
2006 8,825,215,027 22% 33% 53% 19%
2007 11,937,071,793 35% 38% 8% 19%
2008 11,935,940,389 0% 3% NA 20%
2009 11,224,196,182 -6% -6% 1% 20%
2010 9,280,584,827 -17% -18% -1% 20%
2011 8,119,548,674 -13% -12% 6% 20%
2012 7,942,508,722 -2% -3% -13% 20%
2013 7,998,166,069 1% 0% NA 20%
2014 8,701,989,160 9% 10% 11% 20%
2001-2014 206% 386.9% 88%
It’s interesting to note that in the economic downtown, the values in the CRA declined slightly
more than the City as a whole but recovered better as well. It’s also important to note that it
took 8 years (2006-2014) for market values to return to the point where they stood in 2006.
Community Redevelopment Agencies are common throughout South Florida and they are
generally successful when well-managed. The CRA has chosen a few as a peer group to
compare certain benchmarks. Collecting information from agencies can be challenging as
surveys and questions that sometimes require significant staff time tend to get assigned a low
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
45
priority. We emailed surveys to each peer CRA and followed up with more emails and phone
calls. Mostly, we relied upon published financial statements, budgets, plans, and other
documents in order to collect the base information.
Size of Agency
The Delray Beach CRA is the 2nd
largest CRA studied in terms of acreage:
Pompano Beach, Northwest 3,084
Delray Beach 1,961
Hallandale Beach 1,920
Boynton Beach 1,650
Riviera Beach 1,044
West Palm Beach, City Center 990
Hollywood, Downtown 580
Lake Worth 518
West Palm Beach, Northwood/Pleasant City 459
Boca Raton 344
Fort Lauderdale, Central Beach 344
Hollywood, Beach 239
Pompano Beach East 158
Creation Date
Most of the CRA’s have been existence for nearly 3 decades. Boca Raton has the oldest
CRA:
Boca Raton 1980
Boynton Beach 1982
Pompano Beach East 1984
Pompano Beach, Northwest 1984
Riviera Beach 1984
West Palm Beach, City Center 1984
Delray Beach 1985
Hallandale Beach 1985
Fort Lauderdale, Central Beach 1989
Lake Worth 1989
West Palm Beach, Northwood/Pleasant City 1993
Hollywood, Beach 1997
Hollywood, Downtown 1997
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
46
Sunset Date
The CRA’s compared in this report were created prior to July 1, 2002, with the initial term of
30 years and a maximum length of term of 60 years:
West Palm Beach, City Center 2014
Fort Lauderdale, Central Beach 2020
Hollywood, Beach 2023
Hollywood, Downtown 2023
West Palm Beach, Northwood/Pleasant City 2023
Boca Raton 2025
Hallandale Beach 2026
Lake Worth 2031
Boynton Beach 2044
Pompano Beach, Northwest 20441
Delray Beach 2045
Pompano Beach East 2045
Riviera Beach 2045
1Pompano Beach is currently in litigation with Broward County regarding the extension of the CRA term.
Base Year Taxable Value
The beach-area Hollywood CRA started with the highest taxable value. Delray Beach ranked
6th
:
Hollywood, Beach 545,881,010
Hallandale Beach 377,757,750
Boynton Beach (expanded area in 2001) 309,821,849
Pompano Beach, Northwest 297,388,021
West Palm Beach, City Center 251,511,950
Delray Beach 245,631,067
Pompano Beach East 136,437,980
Lake Worth 136,427,940
Riviera Beach 132,767,499
Fort Lauderdale, Central Beach 118,537,320
Hollywood, Downtown 103,167,427
West Palm Beach, Northwood/Pleasant City 86,933,276
Boca Raton 73,763,740
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
47
Current Year TIF Value
The current year TIF value for Delray Beach is third behind Hollywood Beach CRA and West
Palm Beach City Center CRA:
Hollywood, Beach 2,676,809,490
West Palm Beach, City Center 1,860,942,074
Delray Beach 1,312,469,317
Hallandale Beach 1,186,025,250
Boca Raton 1,046,328,743
Pompano Beach, Northwest 850,703,940
Boynton Beach 797,500,525
Fort Lauderdale, Central Beach 791,672,620
Riviera Beach 699,330,308
Hollywood, Downtown 560,881,500
Pompano Beach East 356,428,920
West Palm Beach, Northwood/Pleasant City 286,768,468
Lake Worth 175,272,497
Governance
Most CRA’s are governed by the City’s elected body:
# Elected #Appointed
Boca Raton 5 0
Boynton Beach1 5
1 0
1
Fort Lauderdale 7 0
Hallandale Beach 5 0
Hollywood 7 0
Lake Worth 0 7
Pompano Beach 6 0
Riviera Beach 5 0
West Palm Beach 6 0
Delray Beach 0 7
1A 7-member advisory board was recently created.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
48
City Requested Funding
Every CRA had requests from their City for funding for maintenance, security, or other
services. Hollywood’s budget includes items apparently related to overpayments made by
other taxing authorities.
Lake Worth $20,000 General city services
Pompano Beach $195,155City Central Services and Allocation of City Departments
Services
Fort Lauderdale $94,497City central services; City Employees assigned to CRA paid
by CRA.
Riviera Beach $123,979Lease payment to city; $6,788,586 in related party
transactions for an event facility
Boynton Beach $300,000 Community policing and maintenance
Boca Raton $2,000,000 Debt service deficiency payments at Mizner Park
Hallandale Beach $2,240,928Code compliance, public works project management,
transit services, human services, planning and zoning, and
Hollywood $2,934,267
Police, general fund administrative payments, transit, and
beach maintenance. Budget also includes $5,000,000 of
current TIF to be repaid back to the City and other taxing
authorities. The City had considered abolishing the Beach
CRA. The CRA rebated funds to the City for FY16 and
also a proportional amount to other contributing agencies.
This assisted the City with their budget.
West Palm Beach $3,576,593 Police, engineering, and general administrative costs
Delray Beach $3,621,367
Street maintenance, city demolition, clean & safe program,
project engineer, Plan Reviewer II, Planning/IT/parking
management, Neighborhood Planner (50%), and Housing
Rehab (50%)
City Requested Funding Policies or Guidelines
None of the CRA’s surveyed had formal policies or guidelines that established the amount of
funding the CRA could contribute towards City services or improvements:
Boca Raton No
Boynton Beach No
Delray Beach No
Fort Lauderdale No
Hallandale Beach No
Hollywood No
Lake Worth No
Pompano Beach No
Riviera Beach No
West Palm Beach No
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
49
Current Budget
The Delray Beach CRA has the 7th highest total budget and 5th highest after deducting
carryforward amounts:
Total Budget TIF
Amounts
Carryforward
Amounts Other
% Budget
From TIF
Lake Worth 2,954,128 1,705,236 1,165,392 83,500 58%
Hollywood, Downtown 8,621,340 5,889,420 2,664,720 67,200 68%
Boynton Beach 10,419,593 9,319,593 0 1,100,000 89%
Pompano Beach 16,991,693 9,077,445 7,600,916 313,332 53%
Fort Lauderdale 17,045,063 9,713,118 1,575,512 5,756,433 57%
Hallandale Beach 17,218,552 8,690,421 4,885,586 3,642,545 50%
Delray Beach 26,026,456 14,757,176 7,557,636 3,711,644 57%
Boca Raton 26,977,200 8,300,000 7,796,200 10,881,000 31%
Riviera Beach 28,175,272 7,122,728 11,758,624 9,293,920 25%
Hollywood, Beach 32,734,291 27,383,861 5,215,430 135,000 84%
West Palm Beach 46,230,891 28,357,087 17,027,606 846,198 61%
1The Boca Raton CRA budget includes transfer payments to or related to the Mizner Park development lease. The operating budget other than those payments
appears to be $4,196,500
(end of section)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
50
Comparison of Selected Municipality Without A CRA
In the original Scope of Services, the CRA had sought only a comparison of its operations to
other Community Redevelopment Agencies to be determined prior to the commencement of
work. During the course of contract execution, we were asked to also compare the CRA to a
comparable municipality that had not established a community redevelopment agency. We
were agreeable to this added work because we believed it would be an interesting component
to the report and would not require much effort. We also did not increase our bid price for
this work
Unfortunately, neither we nor the CRA was able to find a municipality with similar
characteristics (a beach area with a proximity to a downtown core; a large residential
component; and a community established for many decades) that was in a similar market to
Delray Beach. Virtually all of the municipalities in Broward and Palm Beach counties have
CRA’s that have been established for several years. We looked at older municipalities in
Broward that did not have a beach component but perhaps had intracoastal waterways within
their boundaries, but also found that either these communities also had CRA’s or that they had
characteristics that made then incomparable.
We discounted Miami-Dade County because the communities with municipalities with beach
access (Golden Beach, Aventura, Sunny Isles Beach, Bal Harbour, Surfside, and Miami Beach)
were definitely not comparable to Delray Beach.
We did not feel that communities north of Palm Beach county would be comparable to the the
market conditions in Delray Beach, and, in any event, many of them also have well-established
CRA’s.
We then explored the possibility of Lee County, but found that most of the comparable
municipalities there had CRA’s also, with the exception of Bonita Springs. We investigate
the possibility of using Bonita Springs, but ultimately abandoned this effort because the
community was not very comparable in terms of market or geography nor was information
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
51
dating back to 1985 going to be available in any reasonable manner. We would be able to
gather some data back to about 1995.
While we were disappointed in not being able to find a comparable municipality with which
we could be comfortable providing comparative information, we will be glad to return to this
in an amended report should we or the CRA be able to find a good candidate.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
52
Economic Impact From Projects Created In The CRA Boundaries
As new projects are brought into the City’s CRA area, jobs are created both locally and
regionally. Using the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis’s
Regional Input-Output Modeling System II (RIMS II) multipliers for the West Palm Beach-
Boca Raton-Delray Beach Metropolitan Division, we have estimated the economic impact
from the payrolls associated with the use of the properties that were added to the tax base since
1988. In determining the impact, we have relied upon standard ratios of employees per
square foot of structure and State of Florida published average salaries of typical positions for
the use of the property. We have not estimated the total economic impact, or “final demand”
from the new projects because that analysis would require us to know for each project the
annual supplies and services consumed by each business in each project. With that
understanding, the reader should assume that the actual economic impact annually is likely to
be significantly greater than the amounts herein estimated. These forecasts are never held out
to be exact numbers but are used to facilitate an understanding of how new development
impacts local and regional economies. As a further note, we utilized the Palm Beach County
Property Appraiser files and we have only included those structures that have been built since
1988, having used that year as a logical “first year” that a building would have been
constructed after the CRA’s creation. This did not account for any structure which was built
before 1988 but that had been remodeled or repurposed. Since 1988, there has been
6,286,432 square feet of new floor area added to the CRA with a current market value of
$826,783,273. This amount does not include the value of the land. The analysis leads us to
believe that the following jobs and payrolls are currently being impacted within the CRA’s
boundaries. Because the current market values do not reflect the actual construction values in
the year the building was constructed, we have assumed for the sake of this analysis that the
actual construction value was 65% of the current market value, or $537,409,127. Using that
inference, we can estimate the Final Demand solely from the construction of new buildings:
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
53
Table 19. Economic Impact and Jobs Created By Construction, 1988-2016
Initial Impact 537,409,127
Final Demand, output 1,165,640,397
Tota Impact 1,703,049,525
Employment 11,392
Earnings 392,254,922
Total Impact Metropolitan Area
Table 19 estimates the one-time impact from new construction. The ongoing economic
impact is estimated in Table 20, that shows the substantial employment impact created by the
new development:
Table 20. Annual Jobs and Salaries Created
Use Employees Payroll
Initial Impact
Hotel Uses 429 14,147,562
Retail and Restaurant Uses 698 18,949,304
Office Uses 1,320 65,346,296
Warehouse/Industrial Use 114 3,539,208
Total 2,561 101,982,370
Direct Effect
Hotel Uses 540 18,737,031
Retail and Restaurant Uses 849 24,222,895
Office Uses 2,132 84,865,235
Warehouse/Industrial Use 143 4,417,286
Total 3,664 132,242,447
Total Impact
Hotel Uses 969 32,884,593
Retail and Restaurant Uses 1,547 43,172,199
Office Uses 3,452 150,211,531
Warehouse/Industrial Use 257 7,956,494
Total 6,225 234,224,817
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
54
Impact From CRA Investments and Programs
Since 1986, the CRA has spent $213,130,571 on various activities other than general
administrative tasks. These projects and programs included $39,487,778 in debt service
expenditures. Deducting that amount, which represents repayment of amounts spent on those
projects and programs, we are left with an initial investment in the community of $173,642,793.
We have categorized the projects and programs into those input and output categories in the
RIMS II model that best fit their description. Using those inputs and approach, we have
estimated the impact to the community and metropolitan area to be as follows:
Initial Impact Direct Effect Total Impact Jobs Earnings Average Wage
173,642,793 374,270,456 547,913,249 3,660 129,546,896 35,399
These impacts occurred irregularly from 1986-2016 as the money was spent on the projects
and programs, but this analysis illustrates how the CRA’s expenditures affect the local
economy. These amounts are in addition to those created by those private developments in
Table 19.
Impact To Areas Outside The CRA But Still In Delray Beach
The RIMS II model used for the analysis above used data from the West Palm Beach-Boca
Raton-Delray Beach Metropolitan area. There are no input/output models unique to just
Delray Beach, so it is not possible to gauge the impact to areas outside the CRA but still within
the city limits. We did look at property values within the city and have noted that investments
focused on the redevelopment area have improved the values of property within the CRA by
more than twice that which occurred elsewhere in the City of Delray Beach. Table 21
illustrates how the CRA area has seen both market (“Just”) values and taxable values increase
at much greater rates than the City outside the CRA:
(continued on next page)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
55
Table 21. Changes In Just and Taxable Values For Properties Inside and Outside Of
The CRA Area
Change In Just Value,
2000-2015
Change In Taxable Value,
2000-2015
Delray Beach Not In CRA 151% 124%
Delray Beach CRA Area 319% 312%
Percent Difference 211% 251%
The differences noted here are stark and illustrate the degree of success the City has received
because of the CRA efforts. It seems clear that the investments made by the CRA over the
years has generated tremendous returns in increased property values.
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
56
Redevelopment Examples
In addition to the projects listed in Appendix A, scores of new development or
redevelopment of existing sites have occurred as a result of the CRA efforts. In this section,
we will examine a few of those projects that illustrate how effective the CRA has been in
attracting development to the City.
Atlantic Grove
Atlantic Grove is a mixed-use development located on Atlantic Avenue, just west of Swinton
Avenue. It is comprised of condominiums, lofts, townhouses, office, and retail spaces. The
site was previously a deteriorated commercial site with a liquor store. The new project is
worth $9,852,275 in taxable value to the City and is estimated to have produced 169 jobs
during construction and an estimated 66 permanent on-site jobs when fully occupied.
(continued on next page)
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
57
Before Redevelopment:
After Redevelopment:
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
58
Pineapple Grove Village
Pineapple Grove Village is located just north of Atlantic Avenue in Downtown Delray Beach
in the Pineapple Grove Arts District. It contains 2 condo buildings and six townhomes. The
project is estimated to be worth $35,580,011 in taxable value to the City and has brought in
838 metropolitan-wide jobs during construction.
Before Redevelopment:
After Redevelopment:
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
59
City Walk
City Walk at Pineapple Grove is a luxury condo building in the heart of Downtown Delray
Beach. City Walk at Pineapple Grove is a mixed-use residential and retail building with 40
residences from 1,004 to 2,238 air-conditioned square feet. It’s current taxable value to the city
is $15,022,994 and provided 344 metropolitan-wide jobs during construction. It is estimated
to have 51 employees when all commercial space is occupied.
Before Development:
After Development:
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
60
Hyatt Place Delray Beach
Located adjacent to the Pineapple Grove district and one mile from the beach, the Hyatt Place
Delray Beach has 134 rooms and is an upscale select service hotel. Its current taxable value
to the City is $13,729,123 and it is estimated to provide 87 jobs onsite. During construction,
it is estimated that 291 metropolitan-wide jobs were added.
Before Development:
After Development:
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
61
Seagate Hotel and Spa
Located on Atlantic Avenue, the Seagate Hotel and Spa is located within the business district
and beach. It is a full service resort with 154 rooms. Its current taxable value to the City is
$25,545,001 and it is estimated to provide 140 jobs. During construction, it provided 492
metropolitan-wide jobs.
Before Redevelopment:
After Redevelopment:
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
62
APPENDIX A
DETAIL OF CRA PROJECTS BY SUBAREA
1986-2016
Project Subarea 1986-2016
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/ Downtown Master Plan
E Atlantic Ave Media 1 1,130
Trombone Mast Arms 1 247,865
Visitors Center 1 13,000
Downtown shuttle 1 895,350
Banners, signage, lights 1 89,979
CBD Code Revision 1 58,334
Downtown Clean (signs, lights, etc.) 1 32,926
Park Management Pedestrian Crosswalks- Gleason/Venetian 1 160,000
Tree Grate Replacement 1 41,827
Redevelopment Projects/Downtown Core Improvements/Bridge
Tender 1 34,511
Redevelopment Projects/Downtown Core Improvements/Parking 1 147,655
Redevelopment Projects/GAE (Traffic Performance Standards) 1 14,621
Misc. Pre-Development Costs-Other 1 37,848
Community Improvement and Economic Development/ Grant
Programs
Site Dev & Grants 1 57,500
Business Development Program 1 15,400
Paint-up Assistance Grants 1 15,037
CRA Subsidized Loan Program 1 67,365
TOTAL OF SUBAREA 1 1,930,348
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/ Downtown Master Plan
Downtown Master Plan Implementation 2 521,966
Downtown Mixed Use Redevelopment 2 719,592
Tree Grate Replacement 2 41,827
SE/NE 1st Street (One-way pair) 2 1,229,748
SE/NE 5th Avenue (Federal Highway pairs) 2 965,250
Loan to City/Chamber Relocation 2 210,274
Old School Square Facility 2 200,000
Old School Square Maintenance 2 300,000
Downtown Shuttle 2 895,350
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
63
Project Subarea 1986-2016
Parking Management Projects 2 185,000
Historic District 2 80,490
Old Library Site 2 180,421
Alley and Street Improvements 2 188,131
CBD Code Revisions 2 58,333
Project Development/Implementation 2 122,067
Veterans Park 2 100,000
Northeast 3rd Street / Alley Improvements 2 436,420
Downtown Parks - Worthing Park 2 100,000
Site Development & Improvements - East Atlantic, Federal,
Pineapple 2 7,466
Pineapple Grove Parking Lot (313 NE 3rd Ave) 2 144,232
NE 1st Ave Streetscape Improvements 2 596,832
Pineapple Way North Entrance Feature 2 149,000
SE 4th Ave Beautification 2 100,000
Downtown Core Parking Analysis 2 31,900
Arts Incubator Parking Lot (362 NE 3rd Ave) 2 184,816
NE 4th Ave Beautification 2 55,863
Committee meetings/marketing 2 10,345
Redevelopment Projects/Downtown Core Improvements/Main
Street 2 46,912
Community Improvement and Economic Development/
Downtown Marketing and Promotions
Downtown Marketing Cooperative 2 2,795,894
Downtown Joint Venture - Promotions 2 1,140,295
DMC Art and Jazz 2 294,888
DDA cluster study/merchant 2 50,827
Legal fees 2 89,519
Redevelopment Projects/Downtown Anchor - Parking 2 43,917
Redevelopment Projects/Bankers Row 2 113,558
Redevelopment Projects/GAE (Traffic Performance Standards) 2 14,621
Downtown Business Plan 2 20,131
Business Recruiter Chamber 2 87,083
Christmas Tree Maintenance 2 297,190
Banners, signage, lights 2 89,979
Downtown Clean (signs, lights, etc.) 2 32,926
Community Improvement and Economic
Development/Pineapple Grove Administration
Administration 2 54,512
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
64
Project Subarea 1986-2016
Pineapple Grove (Construction) 2 919,931
Organizational Support 2 325,144
Debt Service - Pineapple Grove 2 112,188
Community Improvement and Economic Development/Old
School Square
NE 1st Avenue Acquisition 2 6,242,533
Parking Garage 2 6,500,000
Land Acquisitions 2 1,332,961
Organizational Support 2 1,570,000
Legal and other fees 2 101,505
Redevelopment Projects/Block 76 Parking
Redevelopment Projects/Block 76 Parking 2 3,040,866
Redevelopment Projects/Block 77 redevelopment (Worthing
Place)
Downtown Mixed Use - Block 77 2 161,891
Legal and other fees 2 9,422
Community Improvement and Economic Development/Green
Market
Personnel and staff 2 432,172
Entertainment/vendors 2 123,415
Supplies and materials 2 64,216
Administration and operations 2 82,092
Community Improvement and Economic Development/ Grant
Programs
Property Acquisitions 2 1,103,178
Incentives 2 355,822
Programming/Microlending 2 358,563
Economic Development Marketing 2 58,489
Site Dev & Grants 2 612,700
Business Development Program 2 196,439
Paint-up Assistance Grants 2 74,954
Develop Regions Grant 2 50,000
Historic Façade 2 270,000
Signs, banners and advertising 2 99,853
A-GUIDE Funding 2 3,732,479
Riverwalk 2 2,604
Downtown Core Improvements/ Parking 2 147,655
Downtown Cinema Mixed Use Projects 2 525
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
65
Project Subarea 1986-2016
Economic Development Incentives 2 355,822
Property Acquisitions 2 11,317,970
Old School Square Retail Space Rent 2 605,000
Old School Square Retail Space Build Out 2 469,193
Warehouse/Arts Incubator 2 1,611,344
CRA Subsidized Loan Program 2 345,248
Other Projects 2 574,441
Riverwalk 2 2,604
Redevelopment Projects/Tenneco Redevelopment 2 2,400
Parking and Parking Management 2 489,735
Alley and Street Improvements 2 67,497
Beautification Project 2 1,889,806
Misc. Pre-Development Costs-Other 2 37,848
Legal fees 2 67,618
TOTAL OF SUBAREA 2 58,905,698
Site Development & Improvements - West Atlantic & NW/SW
Neighborhood
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/ West Atlantic Avenue
Redevelopment Land Acquisition 3 24,780,063
Gateway Feature 3 1,670,729
Sidestreet Improvements (SW 2nd Avenue) 3 583,175
West Atlantic Public Plaza (Libby Wesley Plaza) 3 337,943
Fire Headquarters Public Plaza 3 310,921
Redevelopment Projects/GAE (Traffic Performance Standards) 3 14,621
Tree Grate Replacement 3 41,827
Swinton and Atlantic Intersection 3 52,693
West Atlantic Redevelopment Plan Update 3 200,000
West Atlantic Avenue Grants 3 169,693
West Atlantic Beautification Phase III (6th-10th Street) 3 113,184
Economic development - hotel loan 3 1,500,000
Rev JWH Thomas Park SW 9th 3 590,821
Project development and implementation 3 300,792
Library Contribution 3 666,000
Legal fees 3 432,317
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
66
Project Subarea 1986-2016
SW Neighborhood Grant 3 893,851
Beautification - NW 12th Ave 3 1,667,645
Southwest 9th Avenue Parking Lot 3 540,837
SW 10/9 Ave Improvements 3 200,000
Block 8 Alley 3 138,028
NW/SW Neighborhood Alley 3 300,000
NW 12 Ave -Atlantic to MLK 3 1,185,000
Beautification - West Atlantic (Median) 3 34,550
South County Courthouse Expansion 3 1,698,746
Misc. Pre-Development Costs-Other 3 37,848
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/Other
Streets and Alley Improvements 3 812,669
Miscellaneous Infrastructure 3 10,792
Bus Shelter 3 19,721
Misc. Predevelopment Costs 3 1,964
Legal Fees 3 20,779
Redevelopment Projects/Affordable/Workforce Housing
Program
La France Hotel/Apartments 3 2,454,278
SW 9th Avenue Apartments - Renovations 3 1,005,434
Land Acquisitions-CLT 3 594,284
135 NW 5th Avenue 3 299,879
Redevelopment Projects/Redevelopment Sites
Block 60 Parking Lots 3 52,415
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/ Downtown Master Plan
CBD Code Revision 3 58,333
Downtown Shuttle 3 895,350
Banners, signage, lights 3 89,979
Downtown Clean (signs, lights, etc.) 3 32,926
Redevelopment Projects/NW/SW 5th Avenue Beautification Spady/Muse Project 3 583,538
Munnings Cottage Project 3 57,536
Property Acquisitions and Fees 3 3,310,564
NW/SW 5th Avenue Redevelopment 3 874,589
NW 5th Ave Acq/Alley Construction 3 1,350
Muse/Harvel Project 3 4,741
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
67
Project Subarea 1986-2016
Block 20 Alley Improvements 3 75,000
Building Renovations and Improvements 3 953,239
95 SW 5th Avenue Parking Lot 3 83,135
Mount Olive Parking Lot 3 137,626
57 SW 5th Avenue Parking Lot
Management Fees 3 284,955
Harvel Cottage 186 NW 5th Avenue 3 319,938
Beautification and Planning - NW 5th Ave 3 95,612
Project Development 3 1,543,995
Legal Fees 3 32,084
Community Improvement and Economic Development/ Grant
Programs 3 177,816
Site Dev & Grants
Business Development Program 3 46,266
Paint-up Assistance Grants 3 6,000
Develop Regions Grant 3 16,222
Curb Appeal Assistance Grant 3 187,500
A-GUIDE Funding 3 36,551
International Tennis Tournament 3 3,654,609
Redevelopment Projects/Block 60 Historical Homes and Parking 3 4,004,575
Project Development Grant- Saki Room & CRA match 3 1,862,224
Ted Center 3 66,053
Community Improvement and Economic
Development/EPOCH 3
Program Grant
60,000
Architectural fees 3 793,014
Contractual Services 3 16,642
West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition 3 483,006
Administration (insurance, audit, telephone)
Marketing & promotions 3 83,438
Cultural Loop 3 71,971
Community Improvement and Economic Development/Delray
Beach Public Library Administration 3 5,030
Public Library Administration
3 1,156,000
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
68
Project Subarea 1986-2016
West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition
Administration 3 83,438
Marketing & Promotions 3 71,971
Cultural Loop 3 5,030
CRA Subsidized Loan Program 3 269,462
TOTAL OF SUBAREA 3 66,324,807
Redevelopment Projects/West Settlers Historic Grant Program
Upgrade Historic Homes 4 137,095
Neighborhood Improvements 4 11,996
Rehabilitation grants and loans 4 122,780
Legal Fees 4 14,250
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/ Downtown Master Plan Cultural Loop and MLK Jr. Dr. Phase I 4 605,776
MLK Jr. Drive Phase II 4 426,006
Redevelopment Projects/Affordable/Workforce Housing
Program
Franklin House 4 73,147
Eagle Nest 4 112,814
Second Mortgages/Relocations 4 498,269
Affordable Housing 4 2,485,117
Renaissance Program - Property Acquisitions 4 650,400
Renaissance Program - Reimbursable Expenses 4 2,925
Subsidies - Affordable Housing 4 296,234
Land Acquisitions-CLT 4 1,189,567
Construction - single family - CRA 4 16,055
Construction - single family - CLT 4 3,377,296
Consulting Services 4 404,050
Housing Study 4 50,000
Community Land Trust (CLT) 4 2,630,650
Housing Authority 4 201,000
Legal fees 4 194,975
Redevelopment Projects/Redevelopment Sites
Pompey Park Concession Stand 4 200,000
West Settlers Condo Association 4 23,648
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
69
Project Subarea 1986-2016
Community Improvement and Economic Development/ Grant
Programs
Curb Appeal Assistance Grant 4 65,281
Digital Divide 4 65,434
Property Acquisitions 4 551,200
TOTAL OF SUBAREA 4 14,405,965
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/N Federal Highway
Redevelopment
Neighborhood Park ( La Hacienda) 5 178,277
Beautification 5 32,309
Market Analysis 5 4,660
North Federal Highway 5 598,957
Matching Grants - Federal Highway Grant 5 88,434
Note Payable - City 1400 Federal 5 85,000
Federal Highway Plan Update 5 38,500
Legal Fees 5 3,236
Dixie/Federal Connection 5 67,108
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/ Downtown Master Plan SE/NE 5th Avenue (Federal Highway pairs) 5 965,250
Former Chamber Site 5 449,661
Redevelopment Projects/Pre-Development Planning 5 62,189
Community Improvement and Economic Development/ Grant
Programs
Site Dev & Grants 5 53,625
Business Development Program 5 6,000
Paint-up Assistance Grants 5 4,735
Develop Regions Grant 5 50,000
Property Acquisitions 5 355,000
CRA Subsidized Loan Program 5 50,524
Debt Services Former Chamber Site 5 3,614,190
US Highway 1 project 5 2,270,870
TOTAL OF SUBAREA 5 8,978,525
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
70
Project Subarea 1986-2016
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/Seacreast/Del-Ida
Neighborhood Plan
Seacrest Del-Ida Neighborhood Improvements (property &
parking) 6 1,167,948
NE 2nd Avenue/Seacrest Blvd 6 2,669,760
Community Improvement and Economic Development/ Grant
Programs
Site Dev & Grants 6 50,000
Business Development Program 6 29,500
Paint-up Assistance Grants 6 5,130
Property Acquisitions 6 329,000
CRA Subsidized Loan Program 6 16,841
TOTAL OF SUBAREA 6 4,268,179
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/ Osceola Neighborhood
Residential Area Improvements 7 250,000
Other Projects- Osceola Park 7 148,700
Alley 7 439,140
Business Area Revitalization (SE 2nd St/Ave/Alley) 7 1,985,044
SE 4th St Sidewalks 7 219,224
Legal Fee - Osceola Plan 7 5,233
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/ Downtown Master Plan SE/NE 5th Avenue (Federal Highway pairs) 7 965,250
Former Chamber Site 7 449,661
Community Improvement and Economic Development/ Grant
Programs
Paint-up Assistance Grants 7 2,958
TOTAL OF SUBAREA 7 4,465,210
Redevelopment Projects/Carver Square Neighborhood Acquisitions, relocation and planning 8 1,801,903
Remediation and site development - Carver Square 8 587,017
SW 2nd Terrace 8 77,514
Legal fees 8 38,562
Areawide and Neighborhood Plans/Southwest Neighborhood
Plan
Parks (Carver Square, Rosemont, Sunshine) 8 309,064
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
71
Project Subarea 1986-2016
Neighborhood Resource Center 8 488,664
Village Square Grant 8 119,709
Village Square Elderly Loan 8 2,700,000
Project Development/Implementation 8 94,335
SW 12th Auburn Avenue Beautification 8 3,355,332
SW 12th Avenue Duplexes 8 635,650
SW 14th Avenue Beautification 8 735,625
SW 2nd Street Beautification 8 1,175,527
Merritt Park 8 120,000
Block 32 Alley 8 103,250
Block 63 Alley 8 34,637
133 SW 12th Avenue Triplex 8 45,635
SW 12th Avenue Duplex Renovation (127-129 SW 12th Ave) 8 180,000
Legal fees 8 205,820
Redevelopment Projects/Affordable/Workforce Housing
Program Construction - CODA 8 1,541,553
SW 14th Ave(Townhouse Land/Design) 8 1,603,533
Construction - triplex 8 696
Land Acquisitions-CLT 8 2,057,872
Land Acquisitions - CRA 8 2,761,023
Construction - SW 14th Avenue townhouses 8 72,336
Community Improvement and Economic Development/ Grant
Programs
Paint-up Assistance Grants 8 11,054
Curb Appeal Assistance Grant 8 157,011
Digital Divide 8 65,434
A-GUIDE Funding 8 2,301,026
Property Acquisitions 8 4,037,430
CRA Subsidized Loan Program 8 92,627
TOTAL OF SUBAREA 8 27,509,839
Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Financing Analysis
72
Project Subarea 1986-2016
Planning, IT and parking manager Areawide 1,265,500
Clean and Safe Program Areawide 6,207,404
Lobbyist Areawide 1,003,000
Housing Rehab Areawide 179,599
Streetscape Maintenance Areawide 142,961
Project Engineer Areawide 7,369,112
Plan Reviewer II Areawide 671,714
Neighborhood Planner (Resource Center) Areawide 346,497
City Demolition Areawide 50,000
City Contractual Services - Cultural Arts Study Areawide 28,000
Community Improvement and Economic Development/ City
Contractual Services Total Areawide 17,263,787
Redevelopment Projects/Redevelopment Sites
Maintenance Areawide 533,625
Business Relocation Areawide 30,000
Project Development/Implementation Areawide 4,312
Property insurance Areawide 364,051
Property taxes Areawide 296,218
Legal fees Areawide 7,976
Water Areawide 35,926
Utilities Areawide 140,324
Redevelopment Projects/Redevelopment Sites Total Areawide 1,412,432
TOTAL
205,464,790