!

REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS AND FUNDING

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

AN EXAMINATION OF THE HISTORY, PLANNING, BUDGETING, PROJECT AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

BY

Kevin J. Cresswell, Abigail F. Weiss, Max A. Wemyss Revised: April 29, 2016

ContentsPreface and Acknowledgements 3 ......................................................................................................

Executive Summary 4 .........................................................................................................................

Overview and Background 6 ..............................................................................................................

Broward County Community Redevelopment Agencies 7 .............................................................

Location of CRAs in Broward County 8 ........................................................................................

Broward County Central County Community Redevelopment Agency 11 ....................................

The Municipality 11 ...................................................................................................................

Identified Problems and the Decision to Establish a CRA 14 ....................................................

Operation of the CRA 16 ............................................................................................................

Inventory of Policies, Projects and Programs that Focus on Identified Problem 18 ..................

Budget Commitments 22 ............................................................................................................

Redevelopment Capital Program and Broward Redevelopment Program 25 ................................

How much money has Broward County contributed to community redevelopment activities? ...27

How much money is the County committed to invest in planned community redevelopment activities? 36 ...................................................................................................................................

What are the accountability requirements related to community redevelopment expenditures? ..42

What is the County’s role in overseeing community redevelopment activities and projects? 46 ..

What are the county’s options for funding future community redevelopment activities? 50 .........

Endnotes 54 ........................................................................................................................................

Appendix 1.........................................................................................................................................

! 2

Preface and Acknowledgements

For this research we had the support and guidance of our Florida Atlantic University, School of Urban and Regional Planning Professor Frank Schnidman.

We very much appreciate the interviews, insights, and information provided from Ralph Stone, Director for Housing Finance and Community Development Division; Rosemarie Fallon, Broward County Planning and Redevelopment Division; and certainly Glenn Amoruso, Senior Planner, Planning & Redevelopment Division.

Cathy Randazzo, Director for Planning & Redevelopment Division was helpful in assisting with the analysis of the Redevelopment Capital Program.

Anais Anderson, Budget and Management Analyst for the Broward County Office for Management and Budget provided the known and projected deposits for County contributions to the CRA districts.

! 3

Executive Summary

This report outlines the status of the implementation of Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs) in Broward County in conjunction with Chapter 163, Part III of the Florida Statute and evaluates the potential pros and cons of funding future redevelopment projects using tax increment financing (TIF) and the Broward Redevelopment Program (BRP).

Our research found that:

• A plethora of redevelopment projects have been implemented throughout the County since 1979 when the first CRA was established in Hollywood. This report presents information regarding the amount of money spent by the County on CRA activities since then. Redevelopment activities can be classified into five major categories: (1) designs, plans and studies; (2) residential projects; (3) commercial projects; (4) land acquisition; and (5) public improvements. From 1982-2014 the County contributed approximately $308 million in TIF contributions to the CRAs accepting TIF at the County level. In fiscal year 2014, the County TIF contribution to the TIF CRAs was $28.5 million.

• The existing structure giving the County and cities joint responsibility for initiating community redevelopment projects works well and should be preserved. Stakeholders we interviewed believe that the County’s involvement provides necessary checks and balances between municipality and County interests, generally yielding better results.

• When creating CRAs in recent years, the Board of County Commissioners has retained more authority and delegated less of the statutory powers (outlined in F.S. Chapter 163 Part III) to the CRAs’ governing bodies. For the five most recently created CRAs (Coral Springs, Dania Beach, Lauderhill—Central, Lauderhill—State Road 7 Corridor and Oakland Park), which were established since 2001, the Board of County Commissioners retained the authority to review and approve any plan amendments and changes in the CRAs’ geographical boundaries and to restrict TIF. We conclude that limiting the CRA’s authority makes sense because the County should be involved in decisions regarding plan amendments, boundary changes and term extensions, and should have a say in determining whether CRA projects should be funded using TIF or BRP funds.

! 4

• To guide Board decisions on future funding of community redevelopment projects, we surveyed key stakeholders to identify the advantages and disadvantages of three options: (1) Using TIF to fund redevelopment, (2) Using BRP monies to fund redevelopment, and (3) Using CRA sunset funds to fund redevelopment. In this report, we present the major advantages and disadvantages of each of these options.

Generally, we deduce that using TIF is a viable option for implementing longer-term and larger-scale projects but ties up County resources for more than 30 years. BRP funding offers the County increased control over spending, as it fixes costs upfront. Typically, BRP works best for smaller-scale projects and may be insufficient for longer-range and larger-scope redevelopment efforts. Lastly, using sunset funds to finance redevelopment projects would allow for a program like the BRP at a larger scale. These funds could be funneled into a program allowing terminated CRA areas the option to apply for additional funds. Thus, none of the three funding options examined are effective for every type of redevelopment project; however, each has respective characteristics making them feasible for specific types of redevelopment initiatives in Broward County.

! 5

Overview and Background

Prior to the Redevelopment Act of 1969, the Federal Housing Act of 1949 provided funds in an attempt to address the issue of slums and blighted areas. Through the Federal Housing Act, the primary method to confront such matters was the razing of entire neighborhoods to accommodate construction of new highway infrastructure and industrial zones. While the federal government and urban planners may have intended to regenerate these areas with new uses, the effects were not perceived as a long-range enhancement to overall quality of life. Subsequently, the acts of the late 1960s and early 1970s (Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, New Communities Act of 1968, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) provided funding for private entrepreneurs to redevelop communities. Ultimately, this shift allowed cities finally to focus on community redevelopment initiatives, rather than facilitating widespread demolition of substandard housing and economically depressed areas (Lukic, 2006).

Broward County today has two primary funding mechanisms to address urban blight and redevelopment issues: tax increment financing (TIF) that had been available to Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs) established prior to 2001, and the Broward Redevelopment Program (BRP) established in 2013. There are also other secondary options available to fund community redevelopment projects such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs), established through the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.

Community Redevelopment Agencies have received the largest amount of County funds through TIF compared to any other redevelopment effort. The County has voiced concern over the very limited oversight of CRA activities and its use of County capital. This limited County oversight is exacerbated by the fact that multiple CRAs fail to follow the basic financial and activity reporting requirements outlined in F.S. Chapter 163 Part III and the County ordinance allowing for the creation of such special districts. Consequently, action has been taken to strengthen interlocal agreements or move away from TIF entirely and the possible abuses or mismanagement associated with it.

Both the Redevelopment Capital Program (RCP), which was in place prior to the introduction of the BRP, and the Broward Redevelopment Program (BRP) were in response to the identified needs for redevelopment efforts throughout Broward County, not just within the boundaries of an existing CRA. However, these programs have faced much opposition in the way that funds are managed, governed and dispersed as well as in the way these programs may detract from existing CRA efforts. In fact, even though several RCP projects still receive County funds, this program has been shut down entirely. Also, while the initial BRP program completion deadline is set to expire in 2017 for the majority of approved BRP projects, the County has not opened up a second round of BRP funding.

! 6

Broward County Community Redevelopment Agencies A Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is a dependent district established by a municipality or county government for the purpose of carrying out redevelopment activities such as: reducing or eliminating blighting conditions, improving the economic health, safety, and welfare of the community, addressing affordable housing concerns, and encouraging investment from the private and public sectors to the designated area. When creating a CRA, local government must first survey the proposed redevelopment area and prepare a “Finding of Necessity,” which constitutes a serious and growing menace to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of its citizen, as described in Chapter 163 Part III of the Florida Statute. Once the Finding of Necessity has been established and approved by the local governing body, a Community Redevelopment Plan can then be instituted to carry out the redevelopment of the defined area, in accordance with Chapter 163 Part III of the Florida Statute. Compared to the other redevelopment acts of the 1960s and 1970s, the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969 authorized the creation of separate legal entities known as CRAs to combat slum and blighted areas . These dependent special districts are intended to allow 1 2

neighborhoods to focus solely on their needs, without constraints of a city or county’s budget, through specific legal requirements and funding mechanisms established by Chapter 163 Part III of the Florida Statute.

On July 29, 1980, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution declaring the existence of slum and blighted areas within Broward County and that the redevelopment of these areas was necessary to the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residences of Broward County.

Almost three decades later in 1999, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) passed Resolution 1999-1398 to ensure that “community redevelopment districts are created appropriately and that, once created, the goals, objectives and policies of the redevelopment plans are met so as to ensure a positive return on its investment.” (Resolution 1999-1398 can be found in appendix)

! 7

Location of CRAs in Broward County

As of 2016, Broward County has 13 cities containing CRA districts and one covering the unincorporated areas of central Broward County. Four of those cities (Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Lauderhill and Pompano) have more than one CRA district within a single governing agency. Nine agencies currently receive TIF funding from the County, the municipality, and special taxing authorities like the relevant hospital districts and the Children Services Council, albeit with exceptions. Like the image above shows, CRAs in Broward County represent a minuscule amount of land compared to the entire County as a whole.

! 8

Broward County CRAs

Community Redevelopment Agency

Districts

Year CRA was Created

Year CRA is Set to Terminate Receives County TIF

Broward County Central (Unincorporated) 1980 - N

Coral Springs 2001 - N

Dania Beach 2002 - N

Davie 1988 FY28 Y

Deerfield Beach 1999 FY30 Y

Ft. Lauderdale - Central 1989 FY20 Y

Ft. Lauderdale - NW, Progresso, Flagler Heights 1995 FY26 Y

Ft. Lauderdale - Middle River/ South Middle River/ Sunrise Blvd

2010 - N

Hallandale Beach 1996 FY27 Y

Hollywood - Beach District 1997 FY28 Y

Hollywood - Downtown District 1979 FY28 Y

Lauderdale Lakes 2000 FY31 Y

Lauderhill - Central 2004 - N

Lauderhill - State Road 7 Corridor 2004 - N

Margate 1996 FY28 Y

Oakland Park 2002 - N

Plantation 1999 FY31 Y

! 9

Since 2004 only one new CRA has been created in Broward County (Fort Lauderdale - Middle River/South Middle River/ Sunrise Blvd CRA in 2010). There was also one unsuccessful attempt by the City of Wilton Manors to establish a CRA in July of 2005 (Lukic, 2006). No CRA established since 2001 receives County TIF and these newer agencies have relied on funding from other sources including: municipal TIF, taxing authorities, or the establishment of special districts.

All parties associated with the CRA are subject to a code of ethics located in the statute . The 3

CRA shall file on or before March 31st an annual report to the governing authority consisting of its activities for the preceding fiscal year with a complete financial statement . In addition to the 4

annual report, the CRA shall provide for an independent audit of the trust fund each fiscal year and a report for such audit . The reporting stipulations are supposed to serve as a form of “checks 5

and balances” on the CRAs to ensure that monies used to fund redevelopment within these distinct taxing districts are being allocated appropriately to facilitate positive change.

Pompano Beach - Beach District 2001 FY32 Y

Pompano Beach - NW District 1980 FY20 Y

! 10

Broward County Central County Community Redevelopment Agency

The Municipality For the purposes of reviewing this agency, we will consider the unincorporated areas of Broward County to be the municipality of focus. One of the unincorporated areas, known as the Central County Unincorporated Area, is established as the Central County Community Redevelopment Area, which is governed by the Broward County Board of Commissioners.

The annexation of unincorporated areas into existing municipalities and the creation of new municipalities have historically occurred through municipal and state legislative actions. Thirty-one municipalities have been incorporated from these incremental annexations and municipal incorporations. Concerns about piecemeal annexations expressed by the Board of County Commissioners were addressed as policy changes were enacted in 1996, so that only voters within the unincorporated areas would vote on annexation referendum. “Partnership Committees” were formed in 2001 comprised of representatives from the municipality, county, and various organizations situated in the unincorporated area neighborhood. Each of five committees is chaired by one or more County Commissioners.

This de facto municipality has never entered an agreement that specifies the term limits of its existence. The Board of County Commissioners views the CRA Board as City managers for the unincorporated area with the misconstrued powers bestowed by the statutes.

MR. DESJARLAIS: …according to Florida Statute 163, the Board of County Commissioners for the unincorporated area of Broward County would, in fact, be the board of directors for the community redevelopment area. So that's by

law. That's how it is that you're the board of directors.

MAYOR JACOBS: So the county functions as their city.

It seems that the CRA Board doesn’t realize that they haven’t made any term agreements (with themselves, as the BOCC) for the lifespan of the CRA. Is it to serve as a municipality for the part of Broward that is left over after annexation of the others? It appears so. And, this misunderstanding and lack of awareness on the part of the Board has resulted in slow and limited redevelopment taking place within the Central County CRA neighborhoods.

! 11

Location

The Central County Community encompasses approximately 695-acres, generally located north of Broward Boulevard, east of NW 31st Avenue, west of I-95, and south of Oakland Park Boulevard. This area and its environs are commonly referred to as Central Broward County. Below, the map provides a general location map for Central County, its borders and its neighbors.

!

! 12

History

Fort Lauderdale was incorporated as a city in 1911 and annexed the majority of property that comprises the Central County CRA by 1925. During that time period, this area mostly contained farms and pastures in addition to the few resident farmers working the land. The City of Fort Lauderdale eventually de-annexed the westernmost portion of the city (what is today the Central County Unincorporated Area), on the stated purpose “to lessen the taxes paid by the few resident farmers.” Following the conclusion of the Second World War, servicemen began returning to South Florida, and modest tract houses began popping up all throughout the Central County neighborhood. Much of the development in the Central County area dates to the 1950s and 1960s and is outdated by today’s standards. Moreover, the majority of persons who moved into Central County were black and had family nearby in the Sistrunk Boulevard area to the east of the boundary.

On July 29, 1980, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution declaring the existence of slum and blighted areas within Broward County. Furthermore, they determined that the redevelopment of these areas was necessary to the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residences of Broward County. Not long after, in November 1980, the Board of County Commissioners enacted Ordinance No. 80-110 creating the Broward County Community Redevelopment Agency. Subsequently, on May 21, 1981, the Board enacted Ordinance No. 81-35, which amended Ordinance No. 80-110, and the Board declared itself to be the Broward County Community Redevelopment Agency. Shortly thereafter, on June 23, 1981 the Board passed a Resolution, which confirmed that the Central County area was appropriate for community redevelopment projects.

The Broward County Commission on August 12, 1986 adopted Resolution 86-2965 approving the Central County Community Redevelopment Plan. Central County lacked a full complement of urban infrastructure until the 1990s when a major effort was put forth to install sewer, drainage, sidewalks, and park and recreation facilities. Since then, significant cultural amenities have been developed, including the African-American Research Library and Cultural Center in 2002 and the Urban League Community Center in 2012.

On August 23, 2005, the Central County Community Redevelopment Plan was modified to redefine the boundaries of the Central County area and “reflect new programs, policies and strategies for redevelopment and economic redevelopment” for the Central County area. Again on October 23, 2012, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2012-687, which approved a modification of the Central County Community Redevelopment area to reflect a smaller Central County area due to annexation, and provided for implementation of the County’s redevelopment initiatives.

! 13

On September 11, 2012 the Broward County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 2012-512, establishing the Central County Community Advisory Board (CCCAB). CCCAB’s general purpose is to relay to the County Commission the proposals and concerns of the four Central County unincorporated neighborhoods of Boulevard Gardens, Franklin Park, Roosevelt Gardens, and Washington Park. The CCCAB consists of eight members. All eight members are appointed by the County Commission and reside within the four neighborhoods.

Demographics

The demographics of the Central County Community are discussed here as provided by the 2010 United States Census. Comparisons are made to Broward County as a whole on total population, gender, age, and race. Total Population: According to the 2010 Census, the total population of the Central County area is 6,262, representing 0.36% of Broward County’s total population. Gender: The male-female composition reflects a 48.5% - 51.5% split, noting 3,034 males and 3,228 females, as reported in the 2010 Census. Age: According to the 2010 Census, 29.6% of the Central County population is under 18 years of age, 61% is between ages 18 to 64 years old, and 9.4% is 65 years of age or older. The comparative figures for Broward County as a whole are 22.4%, 63.3%, and 14.3%, respectively. Boulevard Gardens neighborhood has the smallest pre-kindergarten age group (under 5 years old) with 5.7%, as well as the largest senior population (age 65 and older) with 15.0%. Franklin Park neighborhood had the youngest overall population, with 35.1% of the population being under 18 years old and 11.2% under 5 years old. Race: According to the 2010 Census, the vast majority of the population in the Central County area is black, accounting for 95.2% of the total population. This is a significant statistical disparity compared to the County as a whole, where the black population is 25.7% of the total population.

Identified Problems and the Decision to Establish a CRA

In order to create a CRA, the city’s governing authority must first adopt a resolution that determines the existence of slum and blight within the proposed special district. Through supporting data and analysis of the specific boundaries the Findings of Necessity are born - identifying one or more marginalized populations indicating the need for a CRA to be reviewed and approved by the County Commission.

! 14

As a component of the 1986 Plan, a Summary of Finding of Necessity for the Study Area was developed. Resolution 81-61 states: “A resolution designating certain areas of Broward County slums and blighted areas as appropriate for community redevelopment projects.” However, this document was not available upon request to the County. In 2005, a boundary change to the Redevelopment Plan required an amended “Findings,” yet the report included only provided details for the findings for the expansion area not included in the original Redevelopment Plan.

a. Creation of the CRA

The Broward County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) acts in an advisory capacity to the County to establish and carry out redevelopment objectives in unincorporated areas of the County. Florida Statute Section 163.356 and County Ordinance No. 80-110 established it. The governing body is the BOCC.

CRA Board: Mayor, Martin David Kiar Vice Mayor, Barbara Sharief Commissioner, Beam Furr Commissioner, Dale V.C. Holness Commissioner, Tim Ryan Commissioner, Chip LaMarca Commissioner, Stacy Ritter Commissioner, Lois Wexler Commissioner, Mark D. Bogen

On September 11, 2012 the Broward County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 2012-512, establishing the Central County Community Advisory Board (CCCAB). Its general purpose is to relay to the County Commission any proposals and concerns expressed by the four Central County unincorporated neighborhoods of Boulevard Gardens, Franklin Park, Roosevelt Gardens, and Washington Park. Eight members are appointed to CCCAB by the County Commission and are required to reside within the four neighborhoods.

The eight members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners consists of two members from each of the four Central County neighborhoods, one of which shall be the president of the recognized neighborhood association, and the other, a resident from the neighborhood wishing to serve on the Board. A majority of the eight appointed members shall constitute a quorum, and voting at any meeting shall be sufficient to enable the taking of any action to the County Commission.

The CCCAB has the following duties and responsibilities: • To act as Liaison between the Commission and residents of the

unincorporated Central County community.

! 15

• To hold meetings to receive comment from residents with regard to matters affecting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the unincorporated Central County community then formulate ideas from the comments received.

• To prepare and submit recommendations for consideration to the Commission regarding the nature and quality of services, projects, and programs for residents of the central County unincorporated community.

• To perform other related activities that may arise from a request by the Commission.

b. Preparation of the Redevelopment Plan and Trust Fund

Central County has had three Redevelopment Plans adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Their inaugural plan was adopted in 1986 with the creation of the CRA. Nearly two decades later in 2005, the plan was revised and adopted reflecting an expansion of the boundaries and update to the priorities and activities. The latest plan adoption occurred in 2012 with yet another boundary change; although, now it was a reduction to represent the annexation of Broward Estates into Lauderhill.

The Broward County Board of Commissioners, as the Governing Body for the CRA, granted the CRA full authority of powers, including the establishment of a trust fund for collection of TIF. Nonetheless, former Commissioner Eggelletion states “it would be a long period of time before we can grow enough money to go in and try to make some of the changes that we're going to make pretty quick” in a 2005 meeting on the modification of the Redevelopment Plan.

In the 2014 Comprehensive Annual Report for Broward County it states, “The CRA did not 6

conduct any financial transactions during any year and has no assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, or fund balance”. So who is paying for redevelopment projects in Central County?

Nearly all of the capital spent on projects in Central County area is identified in the Broward County Capital Budget. The only housing related expenses are the result of a Disaster Relief Initiative from Hurricane Wilma. And none of the redevelopment in Central County has been in conjunction with private investment.

Operation of the CRA

The Broward Central County Community Redevelopment Agency operates with the goal to…

“Promote the development of an attractive, predominantly single-family residential community that has a unique sense of place, and supports a vibrant local business community, and reflect the values and character of residents.”

! 16

As an agency, the CRA has very limited operation. Moreover, the CRA as an agency has never been funded in any way. In fact, even though the redevelopment trust fund was established in 1986 with the formation of the CRA and adoption of the necessary enabling resolution, it has never been funded through grant, TIF or other methods. Essentially all elements of Central County CRA’s Redevelopment Plan have been paid for through Broward County’s Capital Budget.

! 17

Inventory of Policies, Projects and Programs that Focus on Identified Problem

The following policies are intended to guide the actions of the CRA board.

Inventory of Central County Community Redevelopment Plan Policies

Objective 1 Enhance the established predominantly low-density residential character of the Community, and support the introduction of new compatible housing.

Policy 1.1 The Broward County Permitting, Licensing and Consumer Protection Division shall, in coordination with the Central County Community Advisory Board, prepare and enforce a rental property inspection and registration program, which will include thorough rental property inspections to determine and ensure conformity with the zoning code.

Policy 1.2 To ensure compatible existing and future development, the Broward County Permitting, Licensing and Consumer Protection Division shall continue to enforce Part II, Chapter 39 (Zoning), of the County Code of Ordinances, which includes standards for items such as setbacks, driveways, roofing, fences, hedges, parking, adult living facilities, roofing, and prohibitions on home stores and rooming/boarding houses.

Policy 1.3 Broward County shall continue to identify and monitor vacant, low-density residentially zoned properties scattered throughout the Community, and develop a scenario for such properties to be utilized for compatible infill residential development. Public sector options may include: Work to educate community residents on programs to enhance housing and create new programs to promote residential rehabilitation.

Policy 1.4 The Broward County Planning and Environmental Regulation Division shall review previous studies, conduct updated analyses, and issue recommendations regarding potential changes in land use and zoning to allow desired uses at an appropriate density.

Policy 1.5 Broward County shall continue to investigate, identify, and support efforts to include low density, affordable housing within the community and provide low- to moderate- income residents an opportunity to own a home.

Policy 1.6 Efforts to promote affordable/workforce housing within the Community shall include working with nonprofit agencies to develop more housing opportunities where possible. Existing procedures available through the Broward County Housing Finance and Community Development Division may be utilized to address potential needs for relocation assistance.

Objective 2 Increase property values and community aesthetics.

Policy 2.1 Broward County, in coordination with the Central County Community Advisory Board and the Community at large, shall develop proposals to participate in the County’s Unincorporated Area Redevelopment Program focusing on improvements to promote job creation and economic development. Purchase underutilized tax exempt properties in the community and transform these parcels into housing; Rehabilitate existing underperforming housing; and,

Policy 2.2 The Central County Community Advisory Board may coordinate with and provide the Broward County Permitting, Licensing and Consumer Protection (PLCP) Division with a list of addresses of dilapidated or vacant houses for action and follow-up to minimize opportunities for the development of blighting influences. The PLCP Division shall continue to enforce existing community codes regarding property maintenance and junk or Policy abandoned property, as per Part II, Chapter 39, of the County Code of Ordinances.

Policy 2.3 Existing Broward County code enforcement programs will be utilized as an incentive for property owners and other parties to participate in revitalization projects that enhance the quality of life of the residents. The Broward County Permitting, Licensing and Consumer Protection Division will serve as a consolidated referral resource and the local governmental agency responsible for the enforcement of minimum standards for property maintenance and community aesthetics.

! 18

Policy 2.4 The Broward County Permitting, Licensing and Consumer Protection staff shall continue to inform residents, including assisting the elderly, of building and zoning code requirements, including potential violations, and attempt to obtain compliance with these requirements prior to notice of violations being issued by the appropriate enforcement agency.

Policy 2.5 Broward County shall act as a catalyst to actively improve Community property values and aesthetics. The County may utilize a variety of tools and mechanisms such as, but not limited to: • Constructing public infrastructure projects to support site specific redevelopment; • Facilitating and leveraging federal, state and local funding sources, venture capital, and grant sources for eligible projects; and • Play an active role in private/public partnerships to leverage additional private investment.

Policy 2.6 The Broward County Solid Waste and Recycling Services staff shall, in coordination with the Central County Community Advisory Board, continue to work to enhance property values by finding sponsors for the Adopt-a-Street Program and organizing volunteer neighborhood “cleanups.”

Policy 2.7 The Broward County Permitting, Licensing, and Consumer Protection Division will lead an effort to create the Survey Tracking and Referral Team (START) to increase communication among the multiple agencies that provide code enforcement and compliance services.

Policy 2.8 The Central County Community Advisory Board may, in coordination with Broward County staff, recommend the establishment of additional community and building design standards, including modifications and additions to existing buildings.

Objective 3 Improve the health and safety of community residents.

Policy 3.1 The Broward County Pollution Prevention, Remediation and Air Quality Division, and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, shall continue to enforce Part II, Article VII, Chapter 27, of the Broward County Code of Ordinances which addresses maximum allowable sound levels within the Community.

Policy 3.2 Broward County staff shall investigate and develop recommendations for the consideration of the Central County Community Advisory Board regarding the sufficiency and operations of street lighting in the Community.

Policy 3.3 Broward County staff shall, in coordination with the Broward Sheriff’s Office and the Central County Community Advisory Board, assist the community in encouraging, especially children, the proper and safe use of bicycles.

Policy 3.4 Broward County staff shall, in coordination with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and the Central County Community Advisory Board, seek to protect people and property by assisting in setting up and operating successful community-wide crime watch programs, including signage.

Objective 4 Develop active and passive recreational opportunities within the Community to support family activities and enhance quality of life.

Policy 4.1 Broward County staff shall coordinate with the Central County Community Advisory Board to monitor existing parks and recreation lands and facilities within the Community and satisfactorily address any documented activities, which are disruptive to health, safety and welfare.

Policy 4.2 Implement Broward County-budgeted improvements to Community parks, including Lafayette Hart Park, Roosevelt Gardens Park, Franklin Park and Boulevard Gardens Park.

Policy 4.3 Continue to utilize the Dillard Park green space located at the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and NW 27th Avenue for passive open space or other appropriate use as permitted through the Broward County Park Bond Program.

Policy 4.4 The Broward County Planning and Environmental Regulation Division shall work with Broward County Parks and Recreation Division and the South Florida Water Management District to evaluate the appropriateness of additional greenway/blueway connections within the Community.

Objective 5 Enhance the livability of the Community.

Policy 5.1 Broward County staff will review current information regarding the community’s potential vulnerability to sea level rise and develop and, in coordination with the Central County Community Advisory Board, recommend an adaptation strategy to address anticipated sea level rise scenarios.

! 19

Policy 5.2 Broward County staff shall, in coordination with the Central County Community Advisory Board, evaluate the adequacy, condition and safety of existing pedestrian paths, with an emphasis on connectivity to existing and planned transit facilities, and successfully address any documented deficiencies, including opportunities to provide new and safe pedestrian paths.

Policy 5.3 Broward County shall, in coordination with the Central County Community Advisory Board, evaluate and provide recommendations to the County Commission regarding the enhancement of the tree canopy in public areas of the community.

Policy 5.4 Broward County staff shall ensure the timely installation and maintenance of landscape projects within public rights-of-way to enhance the natural environment, and advise the Central County Community Advisory Board of such activity and progress.

Objective 6 Seek opportunities in support of successful commercial and employment based (re)development, which is compatible with the existing and future predominantly lower density residential character of the community.

Policy 6.1 Broward County shall evaluate the purpose and efficacy of the existing Commercial B-4 Overlay District to facilitate the successful redevelopment of properties along commercial corridors.

Policy 6.2 Broward County shall continue to investigate, identify, and support efforts to create compatible commercial and employment-based (re)development with more depth along major thoroughfares in the community.

Policy 6.3 Support mixed-use development proposals (i.e. commercial and employment- based uses with integrated residential use) on lands along major transit thoroughfares, which are compatible with the character of surrounding uses and the overall community.

Policy 6.4 Proposals for the County to acquire lands for the purpose of facilitating business and/or employment-based (re)development within the Community must be supported by a professionally acceptable market study/feasibility analysis, and be consistent with and further approved community (re)development strategies.

Policy 6.5 Broward County may utilize the findings and recommendations of market studies/feasibility analyses referenced in Policy 6.4 and other relevant current data and information, and, in coordination with the Central County Community Advisory Board, to revisit existing business and employment based (re)development strategies/plans for all or portions of the community and propose the adoption of updated (re)development strategies/plans, with a priority to ensure compatibility with the existing and future predominant lower density residential character of the community.

Policy 6.6 Job training programs for Community residents should be a primary focus in order to provide additional employment opportunities as existing employment-based businesses are retained and successful (re)development occurs.

Policy 6.7 Programs offered by the County’s Office of Economic and Small Business Development such as, but not limited to, entrepreneur and business plan training, business incubation, and enterprise zone incentives, should be a primary focus to retain and attract successful employment-based activity within the community.

Objective 7 Provide safe, efficient and accessible transportation infrastructure and services to Community residents and businesses.

Policy 7.1 Broward County staff shall continue to work with the community to reduce and eliminate “cut-through” commercial traffic within the community.

Policy 7.2 Broward County, as part of the redevelopment of the Franklin Park Estates Plat, shall delete the right turn lane on Sunrise Boulevard and the opening of NW 25th Avenue/NW 9th Court at NW 24th Avenue.

Policy 7.3 Broward County shall continue to monitor and improve the quality of and accessibility to transit infrastructure, such as ADA accessibility and bus stop facilities, serving the community.

Objective 8 Promote the Central County Community as a great place to live.

! 20

Overall, these policies are in accordance with the Florida Statute but fail to facilitate the change expressed in the Broward Central County Community Redevelopment Agency’s goal. This area lacks leadership and a top-down approach to redevelopment and community building. Most of the work done by the CRA in the area goes unnoticed, as it is predominantly routine maintenance and upkeep of infrastructure - hardly community progress or the intention of a CRA.

Efforts to keep the neighborhood low-density while preserving its cultural fabric have impeded community advancement and unity. Furthermore, the County basically created an isolated economic hole in Central Broward County, which is being justified as such by a Board not eager to get involved. Why hasn’t the agency captured revenue to work on specific, identified CRA projects rather than working from a countywide budget? As a full authority agency, they could certainly make bolder efforts in redevelopment, affordable housing, and safety (all ongoing, unaddressed concerns in Central County).

At one BOCC meeting (meeting minutes in Appendix), an area resident said the following regarding the CRA Redevelopment plan for her neighborhood:

MS. SUMLIN: …we knew nothing about this plan, and it's been in existence for almost 20 years. Why are we modifying a plan that we never knew anything

about and we've never done anything with? Now all of a sudden when it's time for us to be annexed -- I'm from Washington Park. ….we had questioned about

the CRA some time back, and we were told that it didn't exist. So all of a sudden now it's come into being, and what funds are in the CRA? Where is the

funding from? That's one question. Why is the Board of County Commissioners the agency for the CRA? That's my second question. And the

third question is: Why is it that this revised CRA does not contain tax increment financing?

Policy 8.1 The Central County Community Advisory Board shall develop strategies to encourage broad-based participation from residents and stakeholders, including civic, faith based and business leaders, in identifying and addressing Community issues.

Policy 8.2 The Central County Community Advisory Board, with support from Broward County staff, shall develop and distribute a regular newsletter that discusses and reports on issues facing the Central County Community, as well as publicize future meetings.

Policy 8.3 The Central County Community Advisory Board, with support from Broward County staff, shall produce and distribute a “Central County Community Redevelopment Plan” summary brochure to all residents to improve awareness of the Plan’s goal, objectives and policies.

Policy 8.4 The Community prioritizes educational achievement, and wishes to promote the availability of a full range of educational opportunities for residents, including job and business training, safety awareness, and life enhancement.

! 21

Budget Commitments

Neighborhood Improvement Program Between 1999 and 2005, Broward County allocated more than $25 million for spending on drainage, sidewalks, landscaping, and roadway improvements through the Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP). This money was dispersed on projects benefitting the following neighborhoods situated in the Central County Unincorporated CRA: Boulevard Gardens, Franklin Park, Roosevelt Gardens and Washington Park. In order to see how much NIP money was spent on the projects in each respective neighborhood and what specific improvements measures were undertaken, please refer to the chart on the following page. As you can see, over 80% of the total amount invested was pumped into the Roosevelt Gardens and Washington Park neighborhoods (roughly $10 million each). Concurrently, significantly less was allocated to projects in the Boulevard Gardens and Franklin Park neighborhoods.

Central County Neighborhood Improvement Program (1999-2005)

Neighborhood Improvements Completion Date Cost

Boulevard Gardens

Storm water drainage, roadway, sidewalk and

landscaping, installation of a force main and twin seven-

foot culverts to eliminate the open drainage ditch, green space with jogging path and

landscaping

Jul-04 $1,874,964

Franklin ParkStorm water drainage, roadway, sidewalk and

landscapingDec-01 $3,725,935

Roosevelt GardensStorm water drainage, roadway, sidewalk and

landscapingJun-05 $10,181,916

Washington Park

Upgrades to potable water distribution system, storm water drainage, roadway,

sidewalk and landscaping in swale areas

Dec-02 $9,654,724

Total     $25,437,539

! 22

Capital Projects

Broward Capital Budget delineates the following for the Central County Area investment commitments.

*2013

Broward County Capital Projects - Central County Unincorporated Area

Neighborhood/ Project Budgeted Projects FY13 Projects

Roosevelt Gardens

Park Improvements $96,000 $20,000

Infill Housing $1,750,000  

Washington Park

Lafayette Hart Park Improvements $442,300 $160,000

Infill Housing $1,225,000  

Franklin Park

Park Improvements $72,000  

Redevelopment of Franklin Park Estates Plat $125,000 $664,000

Boulevard Gardens

Park Improvements $333,500  

All Central County Neighborhoods

Streetscape Improvements $910,000  

Transit Infrastructure Improvements $523,000  

Park Maintenance $373,907 $50,000

Fire Station 14 Improvements $130,000 $50,000

Total Central County $5,990,707 $944,000

Not including budgeted amounts for New and Enhance Programs and Services as well as the Redevelopment Program as those identified budgets were for ALL

unincorporated areas

! 23

Broward County Central County Community Redevelopment Agency has never submitted an annual report or an independent annual audit since its inception. Although, the County reports this information through Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) when completed as well as on the Capital Budget Outlay annually when budgeted. The CRA does not submit annual financial reports due to the fact that they do not access or utilize their trust fund.

While this seems adequate, it does not serve the purpose of a community redevelopment agency and misuses the privileges of the Statute to make decisions for an area without adequately representing the people living there.

! 24

Redevelopment Capital Program and Broward Redevelopment Program

While CRAs can be a good instrument for concentrated redevelopment, there are growing concerns regarding the return on investment given the long-term commitment of tax revenues from the County to the CRAs with limited oversight .To provide an alternative for non-TIF CRAs and municipalities that fund community redevelopment activities, Broward County Commissioners adopted the Broward Redevelopment Program (BRP) on April 23, 2013. This program was introduced for areas exhibiting blighted conditions, high unemployment, and declining property values that are not funded by County TIF. (BRP Application, 2013).

Prior to introducing BRP, Broward County had created the Redevelopment Capital Program (RCP) in February 2004. The RCPs purpose was to provide a “reasonable, quantifiable and prudent mechanism for County participation in redevelopment activities within municipalities and the unincorporated area of Broward County.”

The RCP provided funding for specific redevelopment projects pursued by municipalities as well as TIF-less CRAs (consistent with an approved redevelopment plan) through reimbursement loans and grants. Criteria for these loans and grants were oriented towards competitive return on investment, effective and timely redevelopment projects, and an improved quality of life for residents.

The RCP received funding of $35.9 million from FY04-07. Through interlocal agreements, all funds were applied to specific projects within five applicant municipalities. Each recipient of funds had five years to complete their projects. Approximately $14.4 million was not used, as the municipalities/CRAs were unable to complete stated projects and/or attract private redevelopment, and these dollars were later transferred to fund the BRP. Projects completed included property acquisition, roadway improvements, parking garage spaces and other public enhancements. During its operational lifespan, the RCP assisted municipalities and CRAs in attracting more than $100 million of private investment for specific redevelopment projects. Although the RCP program no longer accepts applications or disperses funds for new projects, the County is still engaged in several loan agreements for RCP projects.

In addition to the criteria listed for the RCP, the BRP criteria also acknowledges economic development and job creation as public purposes for funding consideration. The program was funded with $15 million utilizing the unused RCP funds.

However, BRP funds have a limit of funding for projects and can only apply to land acquisitions, public improvements, and build-outs. Also, the BRP program only provides reimbursement grants, no loan agreements.

On November 12, 2013 the Board allocated $10.1 million of the $15 million to seven municipalities for eleven projects constituting the first round of BRP funding. The remaining $4.9 million is being set aside for the second round of BRP allocations.

! 25

Questions and Answers

Regarding Broward County’s redevelopment efforts and plans, we intend to explore and determine answers for the following questions:

I. How much money has Broward County contributed to community redevelopment activities?

II. How much money is the County committed to invest in planned community redevelopment activities?

III. What are the accountability requirements related to community redevelopment expenditures?

IV. What is the County’s role in overseeing community redevelopment activities and projects?

V. What are the county’s options for funding future community redevelopment activities?

! 26

How much money has Broward County contributed to community redevelopment activities?

From 1982-2014 the County has contributed approximately $308 million in TIF contributions to the CRAs that accept TIF from the County. In 2014, the County TIF contribution to the TIF CRAs was roughly $28.5 million. Please note that these numbers are not precise due to the failure of multiple CRAs to submit the necessary financial information to the County as stipulated in F.S. Chapter163.

CRA Project Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2014

CRA funds can be spent to implement the approved community redevelopment plan, including but not limited to : 7

● Administrative and overhead expenses related to implementing the plan; ● Repaying principal and interest on any redemption premium for loans, advances, bonds,

bond anticipation notes and any other form of indebtedness; and ● Expenses related to carrying out various redevelopment projects, including improving

streets and parks, buying and, renovating unsafe or dilapidated structures and constructing affordable housing.

In analyzing current CRA expenses we looked at the actual County TIF contribution to the CRAs and made that a percentage of the actual expenses in 2014. We were also able to acquire their cumulative County TIF contributions from inception through fiscal year 2014. Then we were able to compare the County contribution to the actual expenses and validate that against any fund balances in their Redevelopment Trust Fund. These comparisons and analysis are shown below.

! 27

Summary of Fiscal Year 2014 CRA County TIF

*2013 **2015

The average percentage of County contribution for all CRAs to their actual FY14 expenses is not very alarming at 32%, but the range on the percentages for the districts’ expenditures span from a low of 5% to a high of 182%. That being said, some CRAs spent less in 2014 than what they received from a single revenue source (I.e., Broward County’s TIF contribution). Fort

Summary of Fiscal Year 2014 CRA County TIF

Community Redevelopment Agency Districts

Total FY 2014 County

TIF Contribution

Total FY 2014

Expenditures

County Contribution as Percent of Total

FY 2014 Expenditures

Cumulative County TIF from

Inception Through FY

2014

Davie** $1,335,061** $25,200,000 5% $17,065,469

Deerfield Beach $1,186,456 $1,420,074 84% $11,605,895

Ft. Lauderdale Central $4,140,247 $2,279,938 182% $29,142,467

Ft. Lauderdale Northwest $3,422,389 $2,404,851 142% $29,078,826

Hallandale $3,405,738 $13,560,936 25% $39,745,895

Hollywood $2,300,241 $4,881,769 47% $27,882,390

Hollywood Beach $8,049,895 $24,299,545 33% $78,287,512

Lauderdale Lakes* $416,315 $1,361,723 31% $4,757,007

Margate $1,619,558 $3,620,147 45% $21,625,431

Plantation* $387,936 $262,299 148% $6,133,989

Pompano Beach East $1,018,358 $1,561,014 65% $7,755,654

Pompano Beach NW $2,627,831 $7,543,987 35% $34,909,979

Total $28,574,964

$88,396,283 32% $307,990,514

! 28

Lauderdale Central, Fort Lauderdale Northwest and Plantation CRAs all had fewer expenses during 2014 than the amount of TIF received from the County, albeit they had very different contributions and expenses. Plantation spent $262,299 (the least of any Broward TIF CRA) while Fort Lauderdale Central spent $2,279,938 and Fort Lauderdale Northwest spent $2,404,851. All three received over 140% of the amount they expended in FY2014 from the County TIF payments alone.

Davie and Hollywood Beach District spent the most of the CRAs at about $25 million each. Although Davie’s County contribution is only 5% of its total yearly expenses while Hollywood Beach covers 33% of its expenses using County TIF monies.

These ranges in percentages do not appear to be tied to expenses as we see an equally varying but not correlated range for CRA expenses. It is that the CRAs are using other sources of revenue such as City TIF, special taxing authorities, or previous year’s revenues in order to have a lower percentage come from County TIF. High percentages, especially those higher than 100%, mean that the CRA is profiting off of tax dollars and potentially accruing an increasing balance year after year, which contradicts the practices specified in F.S. Chapter 163 Part III.

Some CRAs have built up substantial fund balances in this method. The combined total for the funds remaining the CRA accounts is $198,307,622. The fund balances of Pompano Beach CRA ($54 million) and the Fort Lauderdale CRA ($60 million) comprise more than half of the total fund balance amounts for all the CRAs. It should be noted that the Ending Fund Balances actually decreased to $210,756,428 from the previous year (FY2013).

Summary of Fiscal Year 2014 CRA Expenditures Who Receive County TIF

Community Redevelopment Agency

DistrictsTotal FY2014 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance

Davie** $25,200,000 $27,500,000

Deerfield Beach $1,420,074 $1,200,000

Ft. Lauderdale Central $2,279,938 $42,189,025

Ft. Lauderdale Northwest $2,404,851 $17,353,256

Hallandale $13,560,936 $6,498,493

Hollywood $4,881,769 $1,550,766

Hollywood Beach $24,299,545 $26,155,198

Lauderdale Lakes* $1,361,723 $3,628,308

Margate $3,620,147 $16,110,936

! 29

*2013 **2015

As mentioned previously, these CRAs comprise a very small percentage of the land area in Broward County. Concurrently, they account for nearly 6% of the total taxable value of the entire county. Yet, year after year, the County cuts checks for very large sums that appear to be mounting the Trust Funds of quasi-private entities that loosely interpret the law; a most blatant example being a lack of fund balances being returned to the taxing authorities, as required by the Statute. 8

Given these extremely large fiscal impacts for such a small geographical area of the County, it is worth fastidiously considering any expansions or extensions of funds versus an alternative use for the same funds, be it redevelopment or economic development.

Plantation* $262,299 $1,314,334

Pompano Beach East $1,561,014 $10,129,115

Pompano Beach NW $7,543,987 $44,678,191

Total $88,396,283 $198,307,622

! 30

RCP Funding and Activities

Prior to the BRP, Broward County used the RCP to help fund redevelopment activities within its boundaries, in Municipalities, unincorporated areas as well as TIFless CRAs. Over the lifetime of the RCP the county provided $21,526,232 to 6 municipalities/ CRA redevelopment areas. Past agenda meetings relevant to RCP funding were used as a source for our analysis of the projects listed below.

The RCP was created in February 2004 prior to the recession beginning in 2007. The terms of the program did not consider the change in the financial market several years later. Consequently, this initial experiment to fund redevelopment in Broward County as an alternative to the traditional CRA funding was a learning process that encountered several unforeseen obstacles.

The RCP was a reimbursement loan program with the possibility of the loan becoming a grant if certain conditions were met. The conditions are spelled out in an ILA between the County and

RCP Project List

Municipality/TIFLESS CRAs Project Type ILA

Expiration

RCP Approved Amount

RCP Funds Distributed

Coral Springs CRA Mixed Use Development 9/2/10 $8,000,000 $2,211,078

Dania Beach CRALand Acquisition &

Public Improvement

2/21/11 $6,345,866 $6,038,899

Lauderhill Central CRAPublic

Improvement & Linear Park

11/14/11 $3,882,520 $654,640

Lauderhill SR 7 Corridor CRA**

Land Acquisition & Public

Improvement3/28/11 $3,000,000 $3,560,713

Oakland Park CRA Public Improvement 6/21/12 $13,021,94

1 $4,947,521

Plantation Midtown Development District

Public Improvement 6/13/11 $5,089,575 $4,113,381

Total    $39,339,9

02 $21,526,2

32

! 31

the applying party or parties through various amendments. The amendments apply to different projects which all have specific conditions for the conversion from loan to grant. All RCP funds have five years of no interest on their loans from the time of their amendment creation until its expiration. If the loans do not turn into grants (fully or partially) the applicant must pay the city back after 15 years.

This program was on a first-come-first-serve basis. To apply for RCP grant funding, the CRA or Municipality had to submit an application that included a description of the proposed activity or project and a market study. As specified in Section 19.21, Broward County Administrative Code, the plan must address specific criteria. 9

The funding from the County was determined by the net present value of the project . Once an 10

application was approved an ILA was created with a five-year agreement. The five-year ILA established that the County would hold a specific amount for the applicant to create amendments for projects to receive funding. After the five-year agreement whatever money was left over from the ILA went back to the County . 11

Only one of the applicants (project titled Lauderhill SR 7 Corridor CR) used all the funds that were established in their ILA. The most success came from loans turned into grants for land acquisitions. All applicants successfully received grants in land acquisitions for their projects.

Land acquisitions were usually to encourage private redevelopment in the area. Each ILA for all projects contained a discussion of future private redevelopment in the area in order to validate funding. All the ILAs were created prior to the recession and growth projections were positive. When the market changed the private redevelopment for the projects halted causing issues with the applicants receiving their funds from the County. One step the County took in order for the applicants to more easily meet the funding requirements was to change the requirement of private redevelopment from a $10 million to $5 million investment. This change allowed both Coral Springs and Oakland Park to request loans that could become grants if certain conditions were met.

While the RCP allowed some redevelopment in Broward, it did not fully meet the expectations of the County. This is most likely due to the downturn in the market and the experimental nature of the program. Despite the program requiring future plans and analysis, few of the applicants identified a specific investor interested in the area at the time of the ILA. Thus, the booming market when the ILA was established was relied on more than committed private redevelopment investment.

The issues of the RCP were reevaluated in the creation of the current County level redevelopment initiative, the Broward Redevelopment Program, allowing a more efficient top down structure with less ambiguity in project criteria and funding sources, allowing for applicants to easily calculate BRP County funding into their projects and allow the County to easily see when and where the county investment is utilized.

! 32

BRP Funding and Activities

On July 10, 2013, seven municipalities or non-county TIF receiving CRAs submitted twelve applications for BRP funding. The evaluation process for the projects began on July 19, 2013 by the Evaluation Committee (EC) and continued through August 2013. Throughout this time period the EC held meetings with each applicant in order for them to have an opportunity to present their project ideas. After this initial evaluation process, on August 16, 2013 the EC met to score the respective applicants and prepare funding recommendations to the Board for approval (See pages 18-21 of the BRP application in the appendix for criteria and scoring). At the conclusion of the meeting, the EC recommended nine of the twelve projects based on the available funding of $7.5 million.

Several months later on November 12, 2013, the Board allocated $10.1 million (a noticeably greater amount than the Evaluations Committee’s recommendation of $7.5 million) of the $15 million RCP funds leftover to seven municipalities for eleven projects. The remaining $4.9 million is currently being set aside for the second round of BRP grants. Depending on other sources of funding the County may acquire, this amount could potentially be more.

In order for the redevelopment projects to be reimbursed, they must negotiate and have an approved ILA with Broward County. The ILA states that the supervising authority (municipality or CRA) shall provide the County with progress reports regarding the project’s status (which cannot exceed three years in length) as well as an annual report. Additionally, in the event of achieving a particular project milestone, as specified in the ILA, the supervising authority will be reimbursed by the County for the amount specified in the agreement for reaching that milestone. A project can have multiple milestones during its three-year existence (I.e., sufficing the job creation stipulation following the project’s completion). When the ILA expires, unused funds from unreached milestones are supposed to be put back into the fund for BRP projects.

In comparison to the RCP, the BRP does not utilize the loan to grant condition. Further, it only releases funds when a milestone is complete to receive reimbursement grants from the County. Also, the BRP program changed the ILA term agreement to 3 years versus the previous RCP term agreement of 5 years. This was based upon review of the RCP program where many of the projects were not completed to the satisfaction of the County’s terms. BRP also created limits on project funding for all applicants and allows for fund distribution to be done on merit system rather than a first-come-first-serve basis.

Overall, the success of the BRP remains unclear since the program was only introduced in 2013, and few projects have attained their respective milestones necessary to receive County reimbursement. However, it is apparent that many of the BRP projects do not suffice the County’s reporting requirements, which are outlined in these respective projects interlocal agreements. As of May 2016, only one of the initial projects has been completed and received payment from Broward County (West Park 56th Street). Many of the other projects have run into

! 33

myriad obstacles - preventing them from achieving specific project milestones and pushing back expected completion dates. Some projects like the Miramar Band Shell/ Amphitheater have been abandoned entirely and are no longer projected to receive BRP funds at all.

Similar to the CRAs receiving County TIF money, oversight of the BRP projects has been somewhat limited since the overseeing CRAs and Municipalities do not completely adhere to the reporting requirements and semi-annual project reports stipulated in the ILAs establishing these projects. With most BRP project ILAs set to expire in 2017, it is unlikely that all projects will be completed as originally scheduled, thus forfeiting some or all of the County funds that were set aside to fuel such endeavors. Moreover, this failure will likely have an impact on the County’s decision to open up the BRP for a second round of project funding using the remaining money set aside and other potential funding sources.

BRP Project List

Applicant & Project Name

Project TypeAverage Score

ILA Enacted

ILA Expiration

Requested Funding

Recommended Funding by

EC

Approved by County

City of West Park Acquisition/ BO (not yet approved)

Land Acquisition & Interior Build

Out

99.4 N/A N/A $750,000 $462,800 -

City of Tamarac Tamarac Village

Public Improvement

93.4 6/20/14 6/20/17 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

Lauderhill CRA Lallos Roti

Interior Build Out

93 12/14/14 3/31/19 $150,000 $128,250 $128,250

Oakland Park CRA Central Market

Interior Build Out

90.6 4/22/14 N/A $150,000 $150,000 -

City of Miramar Amphitheater

Public Improvement

88.6 6/20/14 10/31/17 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

Lauderhill CRA Village Center

Interior Build Out

88.4 12/14/14 3/31/19 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

Ft. Lauderdale CRA (Middle River) NE 13th St

Build Out 87.6 6/20/14 10/31/17 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

City of West Park 56th Avenue

Public Improvement

86.2 1/28/14 1/28/17 $980,806.95 $980,810 $980,807

Dania Beach CRA The Columbus

Public Improvement

85.4 6/20/14 10/31/17 $1,500,000 $1,128,143 $1,128,143

City of Miramar Complete Streets (approved only by County)

Public Improvement

85.2 6/20/14 10/31/17 $1,500,000 - $1,500,000

! 34

Progress

The City of West Park, S.W. 56th Streetscape Improvement Project The City of West Park proposed a Public Improvement project to “address slum and blight within an underserved community of low-to-moderate income residents by improving the current public infrastructure.” It identifies two major objectives: creating a safe/ more viable community, and promoting accessibility through undersized and outdated infrastructure. In addition, the project is supposed to generate an estimated fifty construction jobs and thirteen permanent jobs through implementing the following public improvements:

● Roadway reconstruction with sidewalk that includes ADA accessibility; ● Construction of bike lanes; ● Installation of streetlights; ● Installation of landscaping materials, with irrigation system.

This specific project was to be accomplished with approximately $2 million dollars - roughly $1 million from the County BRP and $1 million from a combination of the City, Community Development Block Grants, and the Department of Transportation Grant.

The West Park NW 56th Ave project application was accepted on August 16, 2013 with a recommendation from the Evaluation Committee to fund $980,807 from the County BRP. Construction was expected to begin on October 1, 2014, and the projected completion date was December 31, 2014. Following the EC’s recommendation, the Board of County Commissioners approved the ILA on January 28, 2014, with County funding not to exceed $980,807. As mentioned above, at this time the project is the only BRP applicant to achieve its project milestones outlined in the ILA and receive reimbursement funds from Broward County.

Before. After.

Photo Source: City of West Park Website (www.cityofwestpark.org)

Oakland Park CRA Prospect/ Andres (approved only by County)

Public Improvement

83 1/28/14 8/31/17 $1,105,000 - $1,100,000

City of West Park Acquisitions SR7 (did not pass criteria)

Land Acquisition

71.4 - - $924,000 - -

Total   

    $11,700,000

$7,500,000

$10,100,000

! 35

How much money is the County committed to invest in planned community redevelopment activities?

This section addresses the current County commitment to redevelopment projects in Community Redevelopment Areas and the Broward Redevelopment Program.

CRA

Broward County is currently committed to spend an estimated additional $487 million to these CRAs through the completion of their existing terms as a result of their agreements. The termination years range from FY20 for the NW Pompano and Ft. Lauderdale Central Beach District through to FY2032 for the Pompano Beach East CRA. All of the CRAs have thirty-year terms with the exception of Downtown Hollywood CRA and the original Davie CRA whose terms were extended by the City of Hollywood and Town of Davie, respectively through approved boundary expansions.

! 36

Source: Broward County Office of Management and Budget

County TIF Contribution

CRAs/ Districts Who Receive County TIF

Year CRA was Created

Year CRA is set to

Terminate

General Life Span

Projected County TIF

Contribution through

Termination

Davie 1988 FY28 40 Years $42,637,189

Deerfield Beach 1999 FY30 30 Years $35,068,087

Ft. Lauderdale - Central Beach 1989 FY20 30 Years $49,154,211

Ft. Lauderdale - NW, Progresso, Flagler Heights

1995 FY26 30 Years $67,893,500

Hallandale Beach 1996 FY27 30 Years $107,903,030

Hollywood - Beach District 1997 FY28 30 Years $71,592,784

Hollywood - Downtown District 1979 FY28 50 Years $241,014,860

Lauderdale Lakes 2000 FY31 30 Years $19,134,811

Margate 1996 FY28 30 Years $55,538,785

Plantation 1999 FY31 30 Years $17,413,591

Pompano Beach - East District 2001 FY32 30 Years $35,217,822

Pompano Beach - NW District

1980 (1989 Expansion) FY20 40 Years $53,338,739

Total       $795,907,409

! 37

*2013 **2015

Cumulative County TIF Contributions

Community Redevelopment

Agencies/ Districts Who Receive County

TIF

Cumulative County TIF from Inception through FY 2014

2014 through Termination

Projected County TIF Contribution

through Termination

Davie** $17,065,469 $25,571,720 $42,637,189

Deerfield Beach $11,605,895 $23,462,192 $35,068,087

Ft. Lauderdale Central $29,142,467 $20,011,744 $49,154,211

Ft. Lauderdale Northwest $29,078,826 $38,814,674 $67,893,500

Hallandale $39,745,895 $68,157,135 $107,903,030

Hollywood $27,882,390 $43,710,394 $71,592,784

Hollywood Beach $78,287,512 $162,727,348 $241,014,860

Lauderdale Lakes* $4,757,007 $14,377,804 $19,134,811

Margate $21,625,431 $33,913,354 $55,538,785

Plantation* $6,133,989 $11,279,602 $17,413,591

Pompano Beach East $7,755,654 $27,462,168 $35,217,822

Pompano Beach NW $34,909,979 $18,428,760 $53,338,739

Total $307,990,514 $487,916,895 $795,907,409

! 38

As CRAs “sunset” more funds will become available for redevelopment purposes, especially through the Broward Redevelopment Program. For example, CRA agreements that include County TIF will begin to expire as soon as 2020, with the last CRA, under current agreements, set to expire in 2032. In order to depict the money that is expended annually by the County, we have used the projections provided by the Office of Management and Budget for full term County Contributions, subtracted the amount known to have been transferred by the County and then divided by the amount of years remaining in the term of the Redevelopment Plan. The Results are shown below.

*2013 **2015

Estimated Annual County TIF Contribution From FY15 Through Termination

CRA Amount ($) Based on FY 2014 Years Left

Davie $3,045,514 FY28 14

Deerfield Beach $2,191,755 FY30 16

Ft. Lauderdale Central $8,192,369 FY20 6

Ft. Lauderdale Northwest $5,657,792 FY26 12

Hallandale $5,242,857 FY27 13

Hollywood $3,122,171 FY28 14

Hollywood Beach $11,623,382 FY28 14

Lauderdale Lakes $1,125,577 FY31 17

Margate $2,422,382 FY28 14

Plantation $1,024,329 FY31 17

Pompano Beach East $1,525,676 FY32 18

Pompano Beach NW $3,071,460 FY20 6

! 39

CRAs rely heavily on tax increment financing from the County and the municipality to fund all of their expenses. Many also receive TIF from the relevant hospital districts and the Children Services Council, albeit with exceptions or varying terms. A recent study by the County Administrator revealed that roughly 92.6 percent of the total revenue of these CRAs comes from tax increment financing. Other sources of CRA revenue include federal grants, interest accrued, collection of rent on CRA owned properties, etc.

Currently, the County is in litigations regarding Florida Statutes Chapter 163, with the City of Pompano Beach and its Northwest CRA concerning an extension to the CRAs lifespan. The County’s formal position is that the CRA will cease in 2019, thereby ending the tax increment funding by the County. The City of Pompano Beach has attempted to extend the term of the CRA to the year 2040 in an attempt to continue realizing these TIF revenues from Broward County.

This disagreement attests to our concern of how the County will support redevelopment efforts Countywide going forward. All other presently functioning CRAs are set to expire between 2020 and 2032 without having requested to extend their term limits. If they all received CRA lifespan extensions, it would be an ongoing monetary burden for the County through the form of TIF payments.

Meanwhile, the success rates of these Community Redevelopment Agencies are questionable. Some have even engaged in conspicuous projects that are clearly inconsistent with the original intentions of F.S. Chapter 163 Part III. Two obvious misuses of CRA funds include: the allocation of $30 million dollars to help fund the Margaritaville Project on Hollywood Beach’s Boardwalk, and spending more than $50 thousand dollars to install a one-of-a-kind “firewater” fountain in downtown Miramar.

Therefore, the argument to increase the life of the Pompano Beach NW CRA is suspect and unjustified. If we compare growth in the tax rolls within CRA boundaries versus the growth experienced by the County as a whole over the same period of time, half of the CRAs have experienced lower tax growth rates than the County, despite significant investments of TIF in those areas.

BRP

Since the funds ($15 million from the RCP account balance) for the BRP have already been set aside, the County has no further commitments to fund current BRP initiatives. It is possible that the County Commission will decide to designate new general fund money to fuel the BRP program down the road. However, in the near future CRAs that accept County TIF will begin to “sunset.” Hence, County money that was previously tied up with TIF for Community Redevelopment Agencies opens up a new source of County funds for redevelopment measures. These funds could be put into the BRP, or something similar to the BRP, starting in FY 20 with a balance of about 8 million. Such an option will be discussed in more detail in Section V.

! 40

Today, there is no commitment of BRP funds beyond existing agreements that partially utilize the $15 million that has been allocated into the BRP. Although, it should be noted that Broward County does intend to accept new project proposals for a second round of BRP funding in the near future.

If the County does choose to accept applications for a second round of BRP funding, they would have the option of allocating more than the original $4.9 leftover in the fund following the initial round of project approvals. This is due to the fact that several of the original eleven BRP projects have been abandoned entirely – freeing up funds that were set aside as grants pending the sufficing of respective BRP project milestones, as indicated in their ILAs.

Moreover, as previously mentioned the ILAs outlining the details of individual projects specify a three-year lifespan, and realizing BRP grants is contingent upon the completion of projects within this timeframe. Almost all of the projects have experienced delays for various reasons (I.e., lawsuit between contractor and property owner), which have significantly impacted their completion schedules. As the three-year deadline approaches, it is likely that several projects (or specific project goals that must be achieved to receive reimbursement) will not be completed within the aforementioned timeframe. Because of this the BRP fund could potentially comprise several million dollars more than the original $4.9 million leftover from the first round of funding.

! 41

What are the accountability requirements related to community redevelopment expenditures?

This section addresses the concern of accountability for projects/ CRAs that receive County funding to fulfill the obligations explicitly listed in their agreements.

CRA

To account for its expenditures, Florida law requires each CRA to submit an annual activity report and conduct an independent financial audit. These items are to be sent to Department of Housing Finance and Community Development by March 31st of each year.

All municipal CRAs provided an annual activity report for FY 2014. When viewing these documents, it was apparent that the CRAs do not fully comprehend what is required of them. Reports ranged from three, vague pages providing an unclear picture of the CRA and its activities, to fifty page, professional-looking, comprehensive examinations of the CRA and its projects since their creation. Furthermore, there is no established reporting template for the CRAs to follow making the report structures hard to follow in some circumstances. Financial data included in the Annual Reports was oftentimes not specific and did not provide a clear idea of where TIF funds were being utilized.

Independent financial audits for FY 2014 were not provided by three CRAs . Moreover, it 12

appears that some CRAs are under the impression that submitting their respective municipality’s CAFR or independent audit suffices this requirement. The Central County CRA has never provided an annual activity report or an independent financial audit at any point of their existence since 1986.

At the end of each fiscal year, any money remaining in the redevelopment trust fund after payment of the current fiscal year expenses is required by the State Statute to either 1) be returned to the County; 2) used to reduce indebtedness to which TIF revenues are pledged; 3) be deposited into an escrow account to reduce TIF indebtedness or 4) applied to a specific redevelopment project that is in an approved CRA plan and that will be completed within three years from the from the date of such appropriations.

According to the County, they have never received any remaining funds at the end of a fiscal year. Other issues the County has is that the remaining funds are not being used on projects that are stated in an approved CRA plan or the projects do not have a three year or less project completion date from the current fiscal year. In FY 2014 there was just under $200 million in remaining funds from the CRAs that receive County TIF.

In order to stress the importance for the CRAs’ fiscal year obligations, Bertha Henry, the County Administrator, sent an email to all CRA Directors in the County on September 8, 2014. The email reminds the CRAs of the two obligations under the Broward County Administrative Code

! 42

(in reference to the 2014 Revoking Resolution in the Appendix) and the Florida Statute requirement for any money that remains in the Trust Fund . 13

The inactions of many of the CRAs to not comply with the independent audit requirement make it very difficult for the County to learn how their TIF dollars and the taxpayer monies are being spent leading to conflict between the CRAs and the County. The email concludes with this statement:

“We write to encourage all the CRAs in Broward County to strictly comply with the applicable statutory requirements for this fiscal year so that the

County and the CRAs can maintain a forward-looking approach and devote our collective resources toward responsibly investing taxpayer monies into

effective redevelopment efforts.”

Chapter 163 Part III of the Florida Statute demands two specific reporting requirements to show accountability for CRA expenditures:

1. The CRA shall file on or before March 31 an annual report to the governing authority of its activities for the preceding fiscal year with a complete financial statement. (FS163.356 (3) (c)).

2. In addition to the annual report the CRA shall provide for an independent audit of the trust fund each fiscal year and a report for such audit (FS163.387 (8)).

BRP

Here are the specified reporting requirements of the Broward Redevelopment Program as provided by the County:

● The municipality or CRA is responsible for following the terms and conditions of the ILA 14

● In addition to the requirements of Ch. 163, in reference to its responsibilities as a CRA, which are due by March 31 of each year, the CRA or municipality shall submit to the County on the anniversary date of the execution of the Interlocal Agreement, a detailed report of the progress made in carrying out the projects approved by the Board of County Commissioners for BRP funding.

● Annual Reports shall include the Project Development Schedule for a property acquisition or public improvement project, or interior build-out and a critical path timeline as to overall redevelopment within the declared redevelopment area . 15

● This report shall contain sufficient information for the County to determine if the projects conform to the Interlocal Agreement. Financial information must be submitted in a provided format.

! 43

The following chart is a record that the County keeps to track all of the projects within a Funding Group (as of yet only one funding group exists), the applicant and type of project they were approved for (P/I=Public Improvement, BO= Build out, or Acquisitions), the effective date for the Interlocal Agreement, which determines the submission dates for the progress reports 6 months later. Similar to the situation regarding a lack of CRA activity oversight by the County, BRP project Annual Reports vary significantly concerning detail. Some provide timely and accurate pictures of the BRP project that adhere to most of the reporting requirements specified in each projects respective ILA. Contrarily, the majority only reports a minimum amount of information that fails to give the County a clear understanding of the projects’ statuses. With several ILA termination dates upcoming in the next year and a half, the County still does not know which projects are likely to be finished on-time and which will not come to fruition within their established timeframes.

! 44

BRP Project Status for Annual Reports

Project Name

Type of Project

ILA Effective

Date

Report Due Dates (Annual/

Progress)

Received Date

(Annual)

ILA Termination

Date

West Park 56th Street

Public Improvemen

t1/29/14 1/29 (A); 7/29

(P) 8/19/14 Project Completed

Oakland Park CRA (Prospect/ Andrews)

Public Improvemen

t1/28/14 1/29 (A); 7/29

(P) 1/27/16 8/31/17

Oakland Park CRA (Central Market)

Build Out 4/22/14 N/A N/A Not Moving Forward

Tamarac 57th Street Utilities

Public Improvemen

t6/10/14 6/10 (A); 12/10

(P) 12/16/15 10/31/17

Miramar Bandshell

Public Improvemen

t6/10/14 6/10 (A); 12/10

(P) 12/10/15 10/31/17

Miramar Complete Streets

Public Improvemen

t6/10/14 6/10 (A); 12/10

(P) 12/10/15 10/31/17

Dania Beach CRA (Public Parking)

Public Improvemen

t6/10/14 6/10 (A); 12/10

(P) 1/13/16 10/31/17

Fort Lauderdale CRA (Complete Streets)

Public Improvemen

t6/10/14 6/10 (A); 12/10

(P) 1/15/16 10/31/17

Lauderhill CRA (Village Center)

Build Out 12/2/14 12/2 (A); 6/2 (P) 1/27/16 3/31/19

Lauderhill CRA (Lallos Roti)

Build Out 12/2/14 12/2 (A); 6/2(P) 1/27/16 3/31/19

! 45

What is the County’s role in overseeing community redevelopment activities and projects?

CRA

The County and municipalities have joint responsibility for implementing community redevelopment strategies. County planning officials maintain a “regional perspective” while municipalities develop and administer specific community redevelopment plans, projects and activities. Florida law authorizes the Board to delegate full statutory authority, or any portion thereof, to each CRA board. In a county with a home rule charter, such as Broward County, the County must delegate any or all powers conferred by Florida law to the municipality or CRA and specifically enumerate such powers it delegates to the CRA in a delegating resolution. Currently, the Board of County Commissioners has established CRAs with four levels of authority:

• Full authority . These CRAs have been designated all the authority granted to CRAs under 16

Florida law, including the authority to amend community redevelopment plans, change geographic boundaries within their jurisdiction, and collect TIF. The earliest created agencies were given full statutory authority; (these privileges have since been revoked on a 2014 Resolution and review by the County Commission is now required)

• Most authority . These CRAs are granted full statutory authority except that it retained the 17

authority to approve any “substantive plan amendments.” According to the resolutions establishing these agencies, these CRA boards have all the authority under Florida law except that they must submit changes to their community redevelopment plan to the County for the Board of County Commissioner’s review and approval.

• Partial authority . For these agencies, the Board of County Commissioners must review and 18

approve plan amendments, extensions to TIF terms, and changes in the geographical boundaries the CRA covers. The Board of County Commissioners delegated these agencies all other authority granted to CRAs under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.

• Limited authority . For the remaining five agencies created in 2001 and beyond, the Board of 19

County Commissioners delegated limited authority and retained the authority to review and approve any plan amendments and changes in the CRA’s geographical boundaries. For these agencies, the Board of County Commissioners also restricted the CRA’s authority to collect County TIF. As of September 2005, except for Pompano Beach—East District, none of these agencies have collected County TIF.

The County’s involvement in establishing CRA is limited to two key activities: reviewing and approving the city’s Finding of Necessity and its community redevelopment plan. Once established, the County is responsible for collecting annual reporting documents and distributing

! 46

TIF payments when applicable. The County must review and approve any plan modifications or boundary changes.

Levels of Authority for Broward County CRAs

AgencyCounty Ordinance or County Resolution

Number

Full Authority

Most Authority

Partial Authority

Limited Authority

Broward County 80-110, 81-35, 2005-425        

Coral Springs 2001-538, 2002-871        

Dania Beach 2002-275, 2004-423        

Davie 88-1105        

Deerfield Beach 99-829, 99-1555        

Ft. Lauderdale

Central Beach: 89-1132        

NW-Progresso- Flagler: 95-1084        

Middle River:        

Hallandale Beach 96-698, 96-1074        

Hollywood 79-327        

Lauderdale Lakes 2000-944, 2000-1618        

Lauderhill Central 2004-595        

Lauderhill SR 7 2004-595        

Margate 96-0597, 97-1355        

Oakland Park 2002-438        

Plantation 99-1005, 2000-910        

Pompano BeachNW District: 80-534        

East District: 2001-758, 2001-1190        

! 47

BRP

County officials have a similar role in reviewing applications for BRP funding. The Evaluation Committee prepares a report for the Board, which presents a recommendation as to whether to approve or reject funding. This analysis to determine the ranking is imperative for achieving the most economically sound disbursement of funds. Criteria of Project Evaluation (Score 0-3)

1. Proximity to Transit and Transit Accommodation (Weight 1) 2. Environmental Sustainability Components (Weight 1) 3. Ability to Timely Complete Project (Weight 2) 4. Contribution from non-County Sources (Weight 2) 5. Increase in Tax Base (Weight 3) 6. Higher Unemployment than Municipality and County and or Lower Property

Value Growth for Redevelopment Area than for Municipality and County. (Weight 3)

7. Removal of Blighting Conditions. (Weight 10) 8. Number of Jobs Created. (Weight 10) 9. Final Score considerations: (No weight up to 2 points for each)

a. Number of Jobs Created for Area Residents a. Number of High-Paying Jobs.

Ten (10) points are automatically given to the applicant if the project is within a municipality that has never received County TIF or if the project is within a redevelopment area that has never received funding through the RCP.

In the event of a tiebreaker the number of jobs is considered under the criteria if these jobs are in the redevelopment area and if they are high paying.

The final score is all the criteria’s point x weight added together

Eligible Applicant: Municipalities, Community Redevelopment Agencies, and Broward County

Projects that are eligible for consideration:

● Property acquisitions for lot assemblage, provided the acquired property is placed on the tax roll within three (3) years from the acquisition, subject to a restrictive covenant;

● Public improvements; and, ● Interior build-out for economic development for a long-term tenant (minimum 5-year

lease) or business/property owner that brings permanent new jobs.

Projects that are ineligible for consideration:

! 48

● A project, which is permitted, underway or completed, is not eligible. A land acquisition project is eligible if a Contract for Purchase has been executed but the closing date is after the date the grant is approved.

● A project, which received funding through the Redevelopment Capital Program (RCP), is not eligible for funding through the Broward Redevelopment Program (BRP).

● A project located in a community redevelopment area that receives County tax increment financing (TIF) is not eligible.

Areas that are eligible for consideration:

● Community Redevelopment Areas, created pursuant to Chapter 163 Part III, Community Redevelopment Act, Florida Statutes, that do not receive TIF; and

● Areas designated by municipal or County resolution or ordinance defining the boundary and declaring that the areas has blighting conditions described in Chapter 163, Part III, F.S.

Match: Non-County match (cash or in-kind) required

Funding Available: Reimbursement grant of up to $1.5 million per application for eligible non overlapping/distinct property acquisition or public improvement projects; or $15 per square foot for eligible interior build-out not to exceed $150,000 or 50% of the interior build-out cost, whichever is less.

Funding Timeframe: Projects must be completed within three (3) years of execution of interlocal agreement between Applicant(s) and the County.

! 49

What are the county’s options for funding future community redevelopment activities?

Advantages and Disadvantages of Options for Future Funding of Community Redevelopment Activities

Option Potential Advantages Potential Disadvantages

Using TIF monies to fund redevelopment

projects

Once established, TIF provides consistent funding source for conducting redevelopment activities

Some cities may not have the capacity to administer TIF

Ability to implement longer-range and larger-scale projects

TIF could freeze so much of tax base to be detrimental to the County

Projects are funded by increases in tax revenues it generates rather than by subsidy from other parts of city of County

TIF ties up County revenue for extended periods of time

Encourages private-sector redevelopment within the special taxing district

TIF captures property value increases not caused by redevelopment

 Smaller cities may not receive enough TIF to conduct meaningful projects

Using BRP monies to fund redevelopment

projects

County has greater control over spending, can mitigate risk because BRP funds are fixed rather than unknown quantity under TIF

Unprecedented track record: the BRP is different than the RCP and has no real model to base itself after

BRP provides quicker cash assistance versus relatively slower build-up for TIF

BRP may not provide enough funds for longer-range and larger-scale redevelopment efforts

BRP provides funds for cities that lack the capacity to administer TIF

Similar to TIF redevelopment, BRP projects/ cities, CRAs do not suffice the annual and semi-annual reporting requirements

In theory, BRP projects are more likely to be completed in a timely manner since funding is contingent upon adherence to initial project schedule

 

Sunset funds provides quicker cash assistance vs. slower build-up for TIF

Unprecedented track record

! 50

Using TIF Monies to Fund Redevelopment Projects

We believe that the County should retain the authority to review and approve plan amendments and CRA boundary changes and to restrict the CRA’s ability to collect TIF because it provides a necessary checks and balances between city and County interests. Agenda minutes from January 14, 2014 also showed the municipalities’ concerns about TIF and the County. Further, these minutes showed the County is consistently trying to weight the issues presented with the future of redevelopment funding.

Item 46 of the minutes discusses the concerns with the County’s document that discusses the future of redevelopment in the County. At the end of the document recommendations are given to the Commission (See page A-7 in the Future of Redevelopment Funding in the appendix).

Overall, these suggestions do not lead to the idea of using County TIF funds for redevelopment once the CRAs terminate. The staff recommends that the Commission not extend the term for any CRA in Broward funded with TIF funding from the County past its present term. Also, it advises them to adopt a resolution, which formally confirms and reiterates the County’s decision to take back the powers that the County previously delegated to each CRA, but without impacting the CRAs’ ability to repay existing debt service obligations.

In order to allow the County to increase transparency when dispersing County TIF funds, the staff recommends that the Commission create a standard format for CRAs to submit Annual Financial Reports at the end of each fiscal year. Additionally, the CRA should submit a financial report comprising detailed information regarding the returning of unused County TIF funds.

Using BRP Monies to Fund Redevelopment Projects

Currently, the BRP has no recurring funds allocated to it from the County. First round BRP projects were initially funded by unused RCP funds (approximately $10.1 million), which were transferred into the BRP account. Therefore, going forward it will be difficult for the County to use the current BRP for future redevelopment projects unless additional sources of capital become available by the County. However, the current BRP program can still be utilized to gain experience from each round of the BRP grant program applications, in order to enhance the BRP grant program process for subsequent rounds of project applicants.

Using Sunset funds for redevelopment projects

Sunset funds could provide funds for cities that lack the capacity to administer TIF after termination of their CRAs

Sunset funds may not provide enough money for longer-range and larger-scale redevelopment

County has greater control over spending, can mitigate risk because Sunset funds are fixed rather than fluctuating quantity under TIF

County does not have complete oversight for redevelopment projects

! 51

Specific facets of the BRP program could be improved in the future, if the County is able to designate larger sums of money to the BRP fund. For example, BRP could allocate larger sums of money to particular redevelopment projects, since oftentimes these projects receive a fraction of the funding that can be realized through TIF. Interlocal Agreement term options could also be expanded or reduced, depending of the nature of the project, to better accommodate each individual redevelopment measure, rather than applying a “one-size fits all approach.” Although, the criteria for BRP projects will have to change to reflect any program alterations, and market studies could be required each year to show the County that the funds are still being applied to potentially successful projects.

Using Sunset Funds to Fund Redevelopment

Sunset Funds

Years County TIF CRAs are Set to Sunset Amount of Funds that Become Available

FY20 8.7

FY21 -

FY22 -

FY23 -

FY24 -

FY25 -

FY26 3.5

FY27 5.5

FY28 19.7

FY29 -

FY30 1.5

FY31 1.5

FY32 1.2

Total 41.6

! 52

Starting in FY20 two CRAs that will receive County TIF will sunset freeing up 8.7 million dollars that could be used for redevelopment funds. The largest amount of funds will become available in FY 2028 with a total of $19.7 million dollars becoming available to the County. If the Commissioners take the recommendation of the staff to not extend any of the terms for the CRAs that receive County TIF by FY 2032 the County can accumulate $41.6 million dollars to use for redevelopment funding in the County.

Generally, we conclude that:

• Using TIF makes sense for implementing longer-term and larger-scale redevelopment projects but ties up County resources for 30 years or longer; however, the County should stress the importance of independent audits being submitted for more transparency of the funds.

• Using BRP funds offers the County greater control over spending because it caps and fixes costs upfront and typically works best for smaller scale projects but may provide insufficient funds for implementing longer-range or larger-scale redevelopment; and

• Using sunset funds for future redevelopment would be a good way to plan for the future since the County knows how much they will be able to receive once all the CRAs sunset.

! 53

Endnotes “Slum area” means an area having physical or economic conditions conducive to disease, infant mortality, juvenile 1

delinquency, poverty, or crime because there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which are impaired by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age, or obsolescence, and exhibiting one or more of the following factors: (a) Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces; (b) High density of population, compared to the population density of adjacent areas within the county or municipality; and overcrowding, as indicated by government-maintained statistics or other studies and the requirements of the Florida Building Code; or (c) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes.

“Blighted area” means an area in which there are a substantial number of deteriorated, or deteriorating structures, 2

in which conditions, as indicated by government-maintained statistics or other studies, are leading to economic distress or endanger life or property, and in which two or more of the following factors are present: (a) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, parking facilities, roadways, bridges, or public transportation facilities; (b) Aggregate assessed values of real property in the area for ad valorem tax purposes have failed to show any appreciable increase over the 5 years prior to the finding of such conditions; (c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; (d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; (e) Deterioration of site or other improvements; (f) Inadequate and outdated building density patterns; (g) Falling lease rates per square foot of office, commercial, or industrial space compared to the remainder of the county or municipality; (h) Tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land; (i) Residential and commercial vacancy rates higher in the area than in the remainder of the county or municipality; (j) Incidence of crime in the area higher than in the remainder of the county or municipality; (k) Fire and emergency medical service calls to the area proportionately higher than in the remainder of the county or municipality; (l) A greater number of violations of the Florida Building Code in the area than the number of violations recorded in the remainder of the county or municipality; (m) Diversity of ownership or defective or unusual conditions of title which prevent the free alienability of land within the deteriorated or hazardous area; or (n) Governmentally owned property with adverse environmental conditions caused by a public or private entity. However, the term “blighted area” also means any area in which at least one of the factors identified in paragraphs (a) through (n) are present and all taxing authorities subject to s. 163.387(2)(a) agree, either by interlocal agreement or agreements with the agency or by resolution, that the area is blighted. Such agreement or resolution shall only determine that the area is blighted. For purposes of qualifying for the tax credits authorized in chapter 220, “blighted area” means an area as defined in this subsection.

FS163.356(3)(c) Creation of community redevelopment agency.— The governing body of the county or 4

municipality shall designate a chair and vice chair from among the commissioners. An agency may employ an executive director, technical experts, and such other agents and employees, permanent and temporary, as it requires, and determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation. For such legal service as it requires, an agency may employ or retain its own counsel and legal staff. An agency authorized to transact business and exercise powers under this part shall file with the governing body, on or before March 31 of each year, a report of its activities for the preceding fiscal year, which report shall include a complete financial statement setting forth its assets, liabilities, income, and operating expenses as of the end of such fiscal year. At the time of filing the report, the agency shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the community a notice to the effect that such report has been filed with the county or municipality and that the report is available for inspection during business hours in the office of the clerk of the city or county commission and in the office of the agency.

! 54

FS163.387(8) Redevelopment trust fund.—Each community redevelopment agency shall provide for an audit of 5

the trust fund each fiscal year and a report of such audit to be prepared by an independent certified public accountant or firm. Such report shall describe the amount and source of deposits into, and the amount and purpose of withdrawals from, the trust fund during such fiscal year and the amount of principal and interest paid during such year on any indebtedness to which increment revenues are pledged and the remaining amount of such indebtedness. The agency shall provide by registered mail a copy of the report to each taxing authority.

The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Broward County, Florida is typically issued each year 6

before the end of March. GASB Statement No. 68 became effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014, requiring state and local governments offering defined benefit pension plans to report a net pension liability and related accounts in their financial statements. Broward County, along with all other Florida Retirement System (FRS) participants, is dependent on FRS to provide this information. Due to the delay of this information from FRS, the release of the audited 2015 CAFR has been delayed. This report should be available by May 2016.

163.387(6) Redevelopment trust fund.— Moneys in the redevelopment trust fund may be expended from time to 7

time for undertakings of a community redevelopment agency as described in the community redevelopment plan for the following purposes, including, but not limited to: (a) Administrative and overhead expenses necessary or incidental to the implementation of a community redevelopment plan adopted by the agency. (b) Expenses of redevelopment planning, surveys, and financial analysis, including the reimbursement of the governing body or the community redevelopment agency for such expenses incurred before the redevelopment plan was approved and adopted. (c) The acquisition of real property in the redevelopment area. (d) The clearance and preparation of any redevelopment area for redevelopment and relocation of site occupants within or outside the community redevelopment area as provided in s. 163.370. (e) The repayment of principal and interest or any redemption premium for loans, advances, bonds, bond anticipation notes, and any other form of indebtedness. (f) All expenses incidental to or connected with the issuance, sale, redemption, retirement, or purchase of bonds, bond anticipation notes, or other form of indebtedness, including funding of any reserve, redemption, or other fund or account provided for in the ordinance or resolution authorizing such bonds, notes, or other form of indebtedness. (g) The development of affordable housing within the community redevelopment area. (h) The development of community policing innovations.

At the end of each fiscal year any money remaining in the redevelopment trust fund after payment of the current 8

fiscal year expenses are required by the State Statute to either 1) be returned to the County ; 2) used to reduce indebtedness to which TIF revenues are pledged ; 3) be deposited into an escrow account to reduce TIF indebtedness or 4) applied to a specific redevelopment project that is in an approved CRA plan and that will be completed within three years from the from the date of such appropriations.

Provide a net increase to the tax base; Further one or more County Challenge goal; Be financially feasible in a 9

market study; Include a financial contribution from non-County sources; and Remove slum and blight conditions

NPV can be described as the “difference amount” between the sums of discounted: cash inflows and cash 10

outflows. It compares the present value of money today to the present value of money in the future, taking inflation and returns into account.

To determine the amount of RCP funding for individual projects, the Department of Urban Planning and 11

Redevelopment has developed a formula that considers various factors, such as the project’s proposed cost, the property’s assessed value and expected appreciation rate, and the appropriate borrowing rate. Based on these terms, the RCP formula is applied to estimate what the County would have contributed in TIF had traditional tax increment financing been used to fund the project. The County pays the net present value of the estimate to the CRA or municipality as its contribution to the project.

Hollywood, Hallandale, and Coral Springs provided Independent Financial Audits to the County.12

! 55

163.387 Redevelopment trust fund.— (7) On the last day of the fiscal year of the community redevelopment 13

agency, any money which remains in the trust fund after the payment of expenses pursuant to subsection (6) for such year shall be: (a) Returned to each taxing authority which paid the increment in the proportion that the amount of the payment of such taxing authority bears to the total amount paid into the trust fund by all taxing authorities for that year; (b) Used to reduce the amount of any indebtedness to which increment revenues are pledged; (c) Deposited into an escrow account for the purpose of later reducing any indebtedness to which increment revenues are pledged; or (d) Appropriated to a specific redevelopment project pursuant to an approved community redevelopment plan which project will be completed within 3 years from the date of such appropriation. (8) Each community redevelopment agency shall provide for an audit of the trust fund each fiscal year and a report of such audit to be prepared by an independent certified public accountant or firm. Such report shall describe the amount and source of deposits into, and the amount and purpose of withdrawals from, the trust fund during such fiscal year and the amount of principal and interest paid during such year on any indebtedness to which increment revenues are pledged and the remaining amount of such indebtedness. The agency shall provide by registered mail a copy of the report to each taxing authority.

The municipality or CRA shall provide to the County advance notice of all public meetings related to projects 14

pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement. The municipality or CRA shall keep the County informed throughout the planning, design and construction of such projects (Planning and Environmental Regulation Division, 2013).

Additionally, the annual report shall include time frames and benchmarks, including, but not limited to, 15

accounting of County funding, enhancements to the tax base, any leverage of private or public funds, costs and revenues, growth in new business, job creation, removal of blighting conditions, reduction in code violations, improvements to infrastructure and ongoing benefits to the broader community.

These are the Hollywood CRA, created in 1979, the Pompano Beach—Northwest District CRA, created in 1980, 16

the Davie CRA, created in 1988, and the Ft Lauderdale—Central Beach District CRA, created in 1989. Because the Broward County CRA has the Board of County Commissioners sitting as its board, it also has full statutory authority granted to CRAs under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.

Ft. Lauderdale—Northwest-Progresso-Flagler Heights District, Hallandale and Margate17

Deerfield Beach, Lauderdale Lakes and Plantation. 18

Coral Springs, Dania Beach, Lauderhill – Central, Lauderhill – State Road 7 Corridor, and Pompano Beach—East 19

District, Ft. Lauderdale Middle River

! 56

AppendixA. Statutes as they relate to CRA B. Resolution 1999-1398, 2014 (revoking) C. Key Events of Broward CRAs D. 2005 Redevelopment Plan E. 2012 Redevelopment Plan F. RCP Application G. BRP Application H. BRP Projects and Ranking I. Performance Review, Status of Implementation of Community

Redevelopment Activities in Broward County J. The Future of Redevelopment Funding, Broward Office of County

Administrator K. Highlights from BOCC meeting minutes

! 1