Loading...
05-13-97 Workshop CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - MAY 13, 1997 - 6:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services to afford an individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127 (voice) or 243-7199 (TDD), 24 hours prior to the event in order for the City to accom- modate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available. AGENDA ! (1) Recommendation from the ~arge Home Task Team. (2) Presentation by Dr. Ronald Schultz: Analysis of the Econom- ic Impact of Beach Renourishment. (3) Feasibility st, udy for the proposed shallow water artificial reef. ~B~/;~vI ~ J~K~/ Criteria for excused absences re BoardJmeeting attendance. (5) Empowering Florida's Local Government for the 21st Century - Your City's Role with the Commission on Local Government II (video presentation) (6) Commission Comments. Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID T. HARDEN CITY M~NAGER PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: LARGE HOME TASK TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS The Large Home Task Team had five - two hour meetings once every two weeks over the course of two and a half months. In that time period, the task team toured the impacted neighborhoods, visited the sites identified in the City Commission support documentation, reviewed current development regulations, and discussed potential revisions and new regulations. The Task Team concluded their deliberations at its April 9, 1997 meeting. The first consideration included a recommendation to adopt a .35 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for residential districts west of A1A and adoption of an FAR of .45 for the beach properties east of A1A. This motion failed on a 5-4 vote. The second consideration recommended adoption of an overlay district for properties east of A1A (exempting the properties from any proposed changes), creation of a .45 FAR for single family districts, and that no changes be made to setback requirements. This motion failed on 5-5 vote. The third and final motion recommended a .40 FAR be adopted for all single family districts, that the maximum height be 35' and be measured to the highest point of the roof verses the mean (except for chimneys and cupolas), that an overlay district be created which would exempt the area on the east side of A1A from 777 N Ocean Avenue to 1171 S. Ocean Avenue, and that no changes be made to setback requirements. This motion passed on a 8-2 vote. The chairmen of the Task Team, Gary Eliopoulos will make a presentation to the City Commission summarizing the deliberations of the Task Team and discuss the range of solutions the team considered. Accept the Task Team's recommendations with or without changes and direct staff to initiate the necessary LDR amendments to accommodate them. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: David Harden, City Manager From: John Walker, Project Coordinalo Date: April 10, 1997 Subject: Analysis of the Economic Impact of Beach Renourishment Attached is the final report of the economic study commissioned by the City in mid-1995. The study analyzes the economic effects of maintaining the beach, as they relate to property values, tourism, and tax revenues. Data was collected over a one-year period from the summer of 1995 through the spring of 1996 to reflect seasonal changes. Other studies, performed routinely as part of the Beach Nourishment Project, analyze economic benefits of the project according to a defined federal formula. These benefits include storm protection and recreational benefits. Taken together, these benefits are expressed in the benefit/cost ratio which justifies federal participation in funding the project. The benefit/cost ration for the Delray Beach project is about 3:1, indicating that for every $1 of public investment, there is a $3 return in economic benefits. We know implicitly that the benefits of the project are understated in the federal methodology, since beach-generated spending and revenue is not fully accounted. Until recently, proof of this implicit knowledge was not necessary. Today, however, with funding at the state and federal levels less secure, a more in-depth analysis of the value of the beach project is warranted. This study goes beyond the federal methodology to address the total economic impacts of the beach, on the City, adjacent municipalities, the county, and the state. These impacts include spending by beach visitors and residents, job creation and tax revenues. The impacts are generated by increased property values and spending. The basis of the discussion is the added value of a maintained beach. That is, a beach that receives periodic renourishment as opposed to an unmaintained ocean shoreline. For example, a property value "premium" is defined that relates to location on the maintained beach. Another previously unexplored factor is the positive impacts of the City's beach project on the adjacent communities of Gulfstream and Highland Beach. These communities receive many of the same erosion protection and recreation benefits as Delray Beach. Tourism spending is adjusted to account for visitors whose destination is determined by the presence of the renourished beach. These adjustments allow the study to isolate the economic impacts of the maintained beach and focus on the specific value of the Beach Nourishment Project. In addition, the study provides profile of beach visitors, including both winter and summer tourists. The profile addresses demographics, income, geographic origin, length of stay and spending habits. The results of the study are a powerful testament to the value of the beach project. Some highlights taken from the study include: Enhanced Property Values and Spendinq The Beach Nourishment Project increased property values in the region. This "premium" accounts for added value resulting from both the storm protection and recreational values. Delray Beach $125.1 million Gulfstream $ 31.2 million Highland Beach $ 58.6 million Palm Beach County $ 13.9 million Total $228.8 million These enhanced values lead to an annual increase of $33.9 million in resident expenditures in the City. The restored and maintained beaches in the City attract $12.4 million annually in non-resident spending in the City. The combined resident and non-resident spending directly increased total sales in the City by $46.3 million annually, creating 1,273 jobs with earnings of $27.4 million. In Palm Beach County as a whole, including Delray Beach, direct annual spending is increased by $80.3 million as a result of the beach maintenance program. In addition, $16.3 million was spent indirectly by businesses and employees in the City on supplies from other parts of the County. The total impact of the beach maintenance program on Palm Beach County is $96.6 million in increased annual sales, and the creation of 2,654 jobs with $57 million in annual earnings. State-wide, the City's beach project increases business by $152.8 million and creates 4,197 jobs. Of this, $56.2 million in annual sales and 1,543 jobs with $33.1 million in earnings are created outside of the City and County. Tourist Spendin,q Out of state visitors spent a total of $23.8 million in 1995-96 because of he City's beach program. These direct expenditures stimulated additional indirect expenditures of $21.6 million. Visitors created 1,247 jobs which created annual earnings of $26.8 million in the state. Of these tourism impacts, about half occurred in Palm Beach County, and half in other parts of the state. Tax Revenues Tourists attracted to the City's beach generate $1.3 million annually in state revenues, most of which is in sales taxes. Increased property values generate increased ad valorem taxes at $4.2 million annually. The largest beneficiary of this increase is the Palm Beach County School District. Tax revenues generated include: Delray Beach $0.8 million Gulfstream 0.1 million Highland Beach 0.2 million Palm Beach County 0.8 million Palm Beach County School District 1.8 million Other County-wide 0.4 million Regional Agencies 0.1 million Employment Opportunities The increased spending by Florida residents and tourists resulting from the Beach Nourishment Project created jobs throughout the economy: State of Florida 2,167 Palm Beach County 2,004 Delray Beach 1,273 Total 5,444 Benefit I Cost Ratio The study did not directly address the benefit/cost ratio of the beach project, but the results lead to a new understanding of the value of the project as a public investment. The cost of maintaining the beach over time is less than $1 million per year. Total expenditures due to the presence of this maintained beach are $245 million annually. This factor alone equates to benefits to the economy of $245 for every dollar of public investment. The 5,444 jobs created by the maintained beach generated $117 million in annual earnings. These employees generate significant federal revenue (on the order of $12 million) in the form of income taxes. Additionally $5.2 million in state and local taxes are generated. The study results have uses that go beyond our initial intent to document the justification for continued state and federal investment in the Beach Nourishment Project. Tourism officials, the business community and City officials can also document the value of the beach as an economic resource. c: Diane Dominguez S:\adv\beach\econl THE BEACH MAINTENANCE PROGRAM OF DELRAY BEACH AN ECONOMIC STUDY 1995-96 Prepared For: The City of Delray Beach, Florida Prepared By: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. and Regional Research Associates, Inc. 2481 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Report Authors: William B. Stronge, Ph.D. Ronald R. Schultz, Ph.D. February 1997 THE DELRAY BEACH MAINTENANCE PROGRAM: AN ECONOMIC STUDY, 1995-96 EXECIJTIVE SUMMARY 1 Beaches and Property Values 2 Spending and Employment Impacts 5 Spending Due to Increased Property Values 6 Non-Resident Spending 7 Contribution of the Restoration to the Local Tax Base 8 Impact of Delray's Beaches on Palm Beach County 8 Impact of Delray's Beaches on Southeast Florida 11 Impact on the State Economy and State Revenues 12 Recreational Use of Delray's Beaches 14 Characteristics of Beach Tourism 16 I. BEACHES, PROPERTY VALUES AND LOCAL TAXES 20 Value of the Barrier Island in Delray Beach 21 Value By Land Use 21 Historical Development 23 Contribution of Beaches to Barrier Island Value 24 Delray's Beaches and Property Values in Gulfstream and Highland Beach 28 Recreational Benefits and Property Values 30 Beaches and Local Property Taxes 34 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. II. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE DELRAY'S BEACHES ON THE CITY AND PALM BEACH COUNTY 36 Economic Impact on Delray Beach 36 Spending Due to Increased Property Values 36 Non-Resident Spending 37 Economic Impact on Palm Beach County 40 Direct Spending 41 Indirect Spending 42 HI. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DELRAY'S BEACHES ON SOUTHEAST 45 FLORIDA AND THE STATE Economic Impact on Southeast Florida 45 Impact on the State Economy 47 Impact on State Revenues 50 IV. RECREATIONAL USE OF DELRAY'S BEACHES 52 Use By Beach Segments 52 Beach Use By Residential Location 53 Beach Visit Characteristics 56 Demographic Characteristics 58 V. RECREATIONAL USE OF DELRAY'S BEACHES 61 Geographic Origin 61 Tourist Characteristics and Expenditures 64 Tourists and Beaches 69 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. THE BEACH MAINTENANCE PROGRAM OF DELRAY BEACH: AN ECONOMIC STUDY, 1995-96 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides estimates of the economic impacts of the beach maintenance program of Delray Beach on the economies of the city, Palm Beach County and the State of Florida. In the early 1970s it was evident to the people of Delray Beach that a program for maintaining the city's beaches was necessary, as the critical erosion of the city's beaches resulted in the collapse of a portion of State Road A1A into the Atlantic Ocean. The City adopted a beach maintenance program and completed the successful restoration of the beach in 1973. Since that time, the beaches have been maintained with renourishments in 1978, 1984 and 1992. Although it is very evident that the restored beaches have provided protection to State Road AIA, public parks and privately owned structures in Delray Beach, they have also contributed to the economy of the city, as well as the county and the state. This report provides estimates of the contribution of Delray's beaches to these economies. Beaches make three types of contribution Economic Impact of th. Delmy Belch R#tond B#ch# 0m the City of Delmy Beach. tii8-# to the local economy: they add value to sm~- properties; they create sales, incomes and jobs as ~0~- a result of increased resident and non-resident m~. spending; and they increase the local and state ~. tax base. This report estimates that the Im;,¢t:fml~V,k4~ Im~t:$~,lk! Im~:C:ltffTu. restoration of Delray's beaches added $125.1 8 u~ million to local property values; that city l COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. economic production is higher by $46.3 million bemuse of the beach restoration, economic production in Palm Beach County is higher by $96.6 million and economic production in the Southeast Florida region is higher by $56.2 million as a result of the restoration. Additionally, the beach restoration has caused the revenues of local governments to be higher by $4.4 million annually. Beaches smd Property Values Conventional studies of the economic benefits of beaches identify certain benefits of beaches and provide estimates of each benefit. These studies focus on the benefits of property protection and recreational beach use~, and procedures for thc measurement of these benefits have been developed over many years. This study approaches the problem of determining the benefits of a beach by means of an analysis of private property values because the direct benefits from beaches will result in increased private property values. For example, if a home on the beach is vulnerable to storm damage, its value will be discounted by the expected property losses that it will incur. If the beach in front of the home is widened, there will be a reduction in the expected property losses and, therefore, a reduction in the discount buyers will demand to compensate for expected storm damage. The protection accorded to public infrastructure by beaches will also show up in increased private property values. Suppose a section of public road used to access a coastal ~This is standard in the economic analysis provided for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. This analysis is used to project benefits from a project not yet constructed. For the Delray study, the benefits need to be determined for a beach system that is already in existence. 2 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. property suffers from periodic storm damage. This will make the coastal property less attractive in the market and result in a discount in its value. If the beach adjacent to the road is widened, the exlent of periodic damage to the road will be reduced and, once again, the discount applied to adjacent private properties will be reduced. Beaches also provide recreational opportunities but these will also show up in increased property values. Golf course communities are a familiar sight in Florida, and nobody doubts that homes which are adjacent to golf courses (other things equal) are more valuable than those which are not beside the golf courses. Similarly, homes that are adjacent to beaches (other things equal) are more valuable than those which are not. Beaches may also enhance private properties in ways that are not allowed for in the conventional analysis. Beaches provide attractive views, opportunities to appreciate nature, and a generally attractive environment for residents and tourists. The value of these benefits will show up in property values. Beaches may even create "disbenefits" which reduce property values. For example, some beaches may increase traffic congestion or attract people who litter or commit crimes. The real estate market will assess the extent to which there are disbenefits and incorporate discounts into property values to allow for these disbenefits. The point is that property values will reflect the direct economic benefits of beaches as well as the disbenefits. The total net benefit of the beaches can be found directly in property values, obviating the need to estimate the size of the itemized benefits and disbenefits themselves. Most of the impact of beaches on property values will be found in their immediate 3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC, neighborhood. For this study, the immediate neighborhood of beaches is defined to encompass that part of Delray within walking distance of the beach, namely, that part of Delray on the barrier island between the South Lake Worth and Boca Raton Inlets. A study of real estate values within walking distance of the beaches compared to corresponding values between Federal Highway and the IntraCoastal Waterway was used as a basis to determine the contribution of the beach restoration to property values. The real estate study and the resulting estimate of the contribution of the beach restoration is provided in the first chapter of this report. An important feature of the Delray Beach Maintenance Program is that it provides benefits to the beaches in the two adjacent cities of Gulfstream to the north, and Highland Beach to the south. The results of the real estate study were also used to determine the benefits to property values in these two cities. Although the bulk of the impact of the beach on property values occurs in the immediate neighborhood (including Gulfstream and Highland Beach), a relatively small impact on property values elsewhere in Palm Beach County will also occur. This is became the beaches provide recreational values to people residing or staying elsewhere in the county, as well as to people residing or staying in the city. The impact of recreational benefits on property values elsewhere in the county is estimated for this report by means of a survey of recreational beach use2. Estimates of the impact of recreational benefits on property values are also provided in the first chapter of the report. 2The methodology used for the survey of recreational beach use follows the conventional studies of the economic benefits of beaches as used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 4 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE A Economic Benefits of The Delray Beach Maintanance Program Impact on Delray Beach 1995-96 Millions of Dollars Benefit Amount Impact on Property Values~: $ 1:25.1 Of Which: Recreational Value $ 15.9 Storm Damage Prevention and Other Benefits and Disbenefits Net $ 109.2 Impact on Delray Economy:: Direct Spending due to Increased Property Values $ 33.9 Direct Spending by Non-Residents of Delray Beach $ 12.4 Total Direct Spending $ 46.3 Jobs Created on Delray Beach 1,273 jobs Impact on City Tax~ Annually:: $ 0.8 ~TABLE 1.11. 2TABLE 2.3. 3TABLE 1.13. The beach maintenance program in Delray enhanced property values in the city by $125.1 million. This amounted to about 3 percent of the total value of property in the city and to 20. 5 percent of the property values on Delray's portion of the barrier island between the South Lake Worth and Boca Raton inlets. Spending and Employment Impacts Beaches make additional contributions to the economy beyond the direct benefits that show up in property values. They contribute to the economy as a result of the spending of residents and tourists occupying beachfront properties and as a result of the spending of other non-residents in connection with the recreational use of the beaches. Spending by either group, 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Implct on Dnlriy Bnlch'l Economy of course, results in increased sales by local businesses and, therefore, the creation of jobs and incomes for city and other Palm Beach County residents. Property Vibes. Non-Resident Vtallora $ Millions S_vending Due to Increased Pro_z~erty_ Values One of the most obvious characteristics of homeowners is that high income homeowners usually live in expensive homes, and low income homeowners usually live in less expensive homes. In the absence of the beaches, beach area residential properties would lose value, and the occupants of the property would gradually be replaced by people of lower incomes. People with lower incomes spend less and so they have a lesser impact on the economy. As a result, the loss of property values that would occur if Delray's beaches were not maintained would be accompanied by a reduction in the mount of spending in the city, as well as elsewhere in the county. Additionally, expenditures by beach users in connection with their beach visits would also be lost. The second chapter of this report contains estimates of the economic impact of the beaches on Delray. This study estimates that the restoration of Delray's beaches resulted in an increase in the amount of $33.9 million annually in expenditures in the city as a result of the increase in property values due to the beach maintenance program. 6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Non-Resident Spending Additionally, if the beaches were not maintained, non-residents who are attracted to the city because ofthe beaches would not make expenditures in the city and this would result in a further negative impact on the city economy. It can be argued that the loss of spending resulting bom not maintaining the beaches in Delray does not necessarily mean that it will all be lost to the city, since users of the maintained beaches might engage in other recreational activities in the city. Similarly, not all beach- generated expenditure will be lost to Palm Beach County, since some users of Delray's beaches can use other beaches in Palm Beach County. Indeed, from a State of Florida perspective, some beach users may use beaches elsewhere in the state. Finally, from a national perspective, expenditures of non-residents of Florida in other states will insure that much of the lost expenditure in Delray Beach will not be lost to the nation as a whole. But even from that perspective there will be some loss, for example, as many of the Canadians may choose alternative locations in the Caribbean for their winter vacations. In this report, adjustments have been made to allow for the incomplete loss of beach area spending in the absence of the Delray Beach Maintenance Program. This study estimates that the restored beaches attract $12.4 million annually in non- resident expenditures to the city. Taking the increased expenditures of residents and non-residents into account, total sales in the city are directly increased by $46.3 million on an annual basis directly as a result of the beach restoration. /ldditionally, 1,273 jobs are created in the city as a result of the maintenance of the beaches. 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Contribution of the Restoration to the Local Tax Base Beaches also make a contribution to the tax bases of various taxing authorities. The protection of property values makes an obvious contribution to the revenues of those taxing authorities that levy ad valorem property taxes. These include municipalities, the school district, special taxing districts and the county government. The population in the beach communities place some demand on the services of their local governments, but this is usually much less than their contribution to tax revenues. This is because ocean fi'ont property is very valuable impact On Local Property Taxaa and does not generate its proportionate share of Incraaaad Tax Racalpta After Beach Restoration school children or its proportionate share of the OtharTaxlflg Districts- demand for other social services. Gulflttlam and Highland Beach - This study est/mates that city property City of Dalray Beach - P.,. ,..ch Co..~- tax collections are increased in De/ray Beach Palm Beach County School District - by $0.8 million annually as a result o/the beach l0 IO.i Il llJ $4.2 Million maintenance program. Impact of the Delray's Beaches on Palm Beach County_ The economic benefits of the Delray beach restoration spread beyond the city itself. Substantial benefits are received by the rest of Palm Beach County, because users of the restored beaches make expenditures elsewhere in the county, and because hotels, shops and other Delray COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE B Economic Benefits of The Restored Deiray Beaches Impact on Palm Beach County 1995-96 and Millions of Dollars Benefit Amount Impact on Property Valuest: Delray Property Values $ 125.1 Gulfstream Property Values $ 31.2 Of Which: Benefits Due to Wider Gulfstream Beaches $ 31.1 Recreational Benefits from Wider Delray Beaches $ 0.1 Highland Beach Property Values $ 58.6 Of Which: Benefits Due to Wider Highland Beach Beaches $ 58.4 Recreational Benefits from Wider Delray Beaches $ 0.2 Other Palm Beach County Property Values $ 13.9 Of Which: Recreational Benefits from Wider Delray Beaches $ 13.9 Total Impact on Property Values $ 228.8 Impact on Palm Beach County Economy:: Direct Spending Due to Higher Property Values $ 62.0 Direct Spending Due to Non-Residents of Palm Beach County $ 18.3 Total Direct Spending in Palm Beach County $ 80.3 Indirect Spending in Palm Beach County $ 16.3 Total Impact on Palm Beach Economy $ 96.6 Jobs Created in Palm Beach County 2,654 jobs Impact on Local Taxes Annually $ 4.5 Property Taxes3 $ 4.2 Of Which: City of Deiray Beach $ 0.8 City of Gulfstream $ 0.1 City of Highland Beach $ 0.2 Palm Beach County $ 0.8 Palm Beach County School District $ 1.8 Other County-wide and Unincorporated $ 0.4 Regional Agencies (outside County) $ 0.1 State Revenue Sharing (e.g gas taxes returned to county)~ $ 0.2 Tourist Development Taxs $ 0.1 ITABLEI.II. 2TABLE2.4. ~TABLEI.12. 4TABLE3.6. 5TABLE3.5. 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. businesses buy supplies from businesses elsewhere in the county and hire workers who live (and spend their wages) elsewhere in the county. Finally, county-wide taxing authorities such as Palm Beach County Government and the Palm Beach County School District collect taxes from the increased property values both in the city and elsewhere in the county. This study estimates that property values in Palm Beach County increased by $228.8 million as a result of the beach maintenance program, with $31.2 million of this increase occurring in Gulfstream, $58.6 million occurring in Highland Beach, and $13.9 million occurring elsewhere in Palm Beach County outside the city limits of Delray Beach.. The increased mainland property values resulted from increased beach recreation opportunities. Increases in the expenditures of residents and non-resident visitors to Palm Beach County occurred as a result of the beach restoration. This study estimates that direct spending in the county increased by $80.3 million as a result of the beach maintenance program. Additionally, $16.3 million was spent by city businesses and their employees on supplies from elsewhere in the county. The total spending impact of the beach Direct end Indirect 8pending Impact Of Delray'e Beaches On Palm Beach County restoration on Palm Beach County includes the impact on the city and the impact on the rest of the county. The total impact on the sales by businesses in Palm Beach County is estimated to be $96.6 million annually. The restoration has resulted in the creation of 2, 654jobs in the county. 10 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. This study estimates that property tax collections are increased in Palm Beach County by $4.2 million annually, as a result of Delray's beaches. The local taxing authority which receives the largest increase in revenues resulting from the beaches is the School District, followed by the County Government and the City. Impact of Delray's Beaches on Southeast Florida As noted previously, the economic impact benefits of the beaches spread beyond the city, not only to the county, but to the general regional economy of which Palm Beach County is a part. In this study the benefits to the local region are estimated at 76.6 percent of the total purchases of supplies purchased by Impact of Delray'a Baachaa on Southeaat Florida Palm Beach County businesses and their Salsa $ Millions Jobs employees resulting from the beach restoration3. The Palm Beach County economy is estimated to account for about 24 percent of the regional economy. Estimates of this expenditure and its economic impact are given in TABLE Ca. 3Palm Beach County accounts for 24.4 percent of the total earned income in the Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties. 4It is possible that some of the indirect impacts of the beach spill over to other regions of the state, but given the size of the Southeast Florida region, the spillovers are probably very small. 11 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE C Economic Impact of Restored Delray Beaches On the Southeast Florida Region Millions of Dollars 199~-96 Benefit Amount Total Impact on Palm Beach County~ $ 96.6 Jobs Created in Palm Beach County 2,654 jobs Indirect Spending Elsewhere in Region2 $ 56.2 Jobs Created 1,543 jobs Total Impact on Southeast Florida $ 152.8 Total Jobs Created in Southeast Florida 4,197 jobs ~Table 2.4. 2Table 3.1. The Delray beaches have a total impact on businesses in Southeast Florida of $152.8 million, creating 4,197jobs. Of this, $56.2 million in sales and 1,543jobs were created elsewhere in Southeast Florida. Impact on the St~tte Economy and State Revenues The Delray beaches benefit the State of Florida by attracting out of state visitors to the state. The spending of these visitors creates sales and jobs in the state. Additionally, these visitors contribute to state tax revenues. Details on thc statewide impact of the Delray beach maintenance program are given in the third chapter of this report and the main results are given in TABLE D. This study estimates that out of state visitors attracted to Delray's beaches spent a total of $23.8 million in the state in 1995-96. Of this, $18.3 was spent in Palm Beach County, andS5.5 12 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE D Economic Benefits of Restored Delray Beaches Impact on State of Florida 1995-96 Millions of dollars Benefit Amount Impact on State Economyt: Direct Spending by Out of State Residents in Palm Beach County $ 18.3 Direct Spending by Out of State Residents in Other Counties 5.5 Total Direct Spending by Out of State Residents in the State $ 23.8 Indirect Spending in Palm Beach $ 4.4 Indirect Spending in Other Counties 17.2 Total Indirect Spending in Florida $ 21.6 Total Impact on Palm Beach Economy $ 22.7 Total Impact on Other Counties 22.7 Total Impact on State Economy $ 45.4 Jobs Created in Palm Beach 623 jobs Jobs Created in Other Counties 624 Total Jobs Created in Florida 1,247 jobs Impact on State Taxes Annually~: $ 1.3 Sales Taxes 1.1 Car Rental Taxes O. 1 Other State Revenues $ 0.1 TABLE 321. 2TABLE 3.6. million was spent elsewhere in the states. These expenditures stimulated indirect expenditures of $21.6 million, of which $4.4 million was expended in Palm Beach and $1 Z 2 million was expended elsewhere in Florida. ,4s a result, the total impact on the state economy of out of state visitors to Delray's ~ The estimates above allow for the fact that not all out of state beach visitors are attracted to the state by the restored beaches. 13 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Impact of Delray's Bsachss on Florida beaches was $45.4 million. Of this 8ales $ Millions Jobs impact, one-half(S22. 7 million) occurred in Palm Beach County, and the other one-half occurred elsewhere in the state. Out of state visitors to Delray's beaches created 1,247jobs in Florida- - 623 in Palm Beach and 624 in other parts of the state. State Government also receives tax revenues resulting from Delray's beaches. Chief among these are sales taxes. Beach visitors pay sales taxes on their purchases of beach equipment, sunsereen, clothing and other items used during their beach visit. Additionally, tourists make expenditures for lodging, dining out at restaurants and for entertainment and recreation. All of these expenditures are subject to sales taxes. There are other revenue sources, however, including car rental surcharges which are affected by the attraction of the restored beaches for tourism. This study estimates the contribution of Delray's beaches to state revenues at $1.3 million annually. Most of this is accounted for by sales taxes ($1. I million). Recreational Use of the Delray's Beaches A major part of The Economic Study of the Beach Maintenance Pro_vxam of I)¢lray Beach, whose findings are contained in this report, consisted of a personal interview survey of 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC, Delr~y Beach Recr,,tional B~,ch VI, Its 1,093 beach users conducted between By G~ographl¢ Origin of ¥l~ltor 1gg5.95 May 1995 and April 1996. Chapter IV of this report presents detailed results from that survey. A number of highlights from Chapter IV are presented in TABLE E. During 1995-96, Delray's beaches were visited a total of 493,006 times. There were almost twice as many visits in the winter season (November through April) as in the summer season (May through October). Almost three-quarters of the visits were made by non-residents of the city. Residents of other parts of Palm Beach County made almost one-fourth of the visits. Delray's beaches are clearly a recreational asset to the entire county. Out of state tourists made more than 40 percent of the visits to Delray's beaches, proving that Delray's beaches are a major tourist asset for the state. The average visitor to the beaches stays 2.8 hours per beach visit and travels in a party of 3.8 persons. Visitors to the beaches valued their beach visit at $4.75 which is more than a dollar an hour. 15 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE E Recreational Use of the Restored Beaches on Delray 1995-96 Annual Visits~ 493,006 Summer Visits (Percent) 37.6 % Winter Visits (Percen0 62.4 % Visits by Delray Residents (Percen02 27.8 % Visits by Other Palm Beach County Residents (percent) 24.3 % Visits by Other Residents of Florida (percent) 6.2 % Visits by Out of State Tourists (percent) 41.8 % Out of State Visits in Summer (Percent) 36.4 % Out of State Visits in the Winter (Percen0 44.9 % Length of Stay at Beach (I-Iours)3 2.8 Hours Number of Persons With You at Beach 3.8 Persons Value of Beach Visit $4.75 tTable 4.1. 2Table 4.2. 3Table 4.6. Characteristics of Beach Tourists The personal interview survey of beach users enabled data to be collected on overnight tourists who used Delray's beaches in 1995-96 and detailed information on beach tourism is Presented in Chapter V of this report. A summary is presented in TABLE F. Tourists staying in Delray Beach visited the beaches a total of 36,226 times during 1995- 96, with 43.8 percent visiting during thc summer and 56.2 percent visiting in the winter season. More than three-fourths of the visits were made by tourists from other states and one in eight were made by international visitors. About 40 percent of the beach tourists were visiting friends or relatives. 16 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. The average size of a tourist party was Delr~y BsBch Ovemlsht Tourlst]l by Oeogriphl& OrtEIn 1SSS-S! under 3 persons, with the tourist party being a little larger in the summer as more families with young children visited the beaches. This is confu'med by the younger median age of adults interviewed in the summer (38 years compared to 43 years in the winter). The average tourist party stayed about one week in the summer season and about ten days in the winter season. As a result, Delray's beaches attracted tourists who spent more than 300,000 person nights in the city, with about one- third of these nights in the summer and two-thirds in the winter season.. Spending Per Tourbt Party by Delrsy's Belch Users Spending by Geogrsphl¢ Origin 1SSS-g8 Spending per party averaged $786.89 in the summer and $1,151.62 in the winter. Much of the difference between these two figures is explained by the longer stay in the winter. A-,.....- os,., n.,,,, o.,., u... .....,,.,o,,., Spending per person-day was $44. I 1 in [] Winter [] Summer the summer and $46.59 in the winter. 17 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE F Characteristics of Beach Tourists Delray Beach 1995-96 Number of Tourist Visits to Delray's Beaches~ 36,226 Summer Visits (Percent) 43.8 % Winter Visits (Percent) 56.2 % Tourists from Elsewhere in Florida (Percent)s 10.3 % Tourists from other States and Territories (Percent) 77.8 % International Tourists (percent) 11.9 % Percent Visiting Friends or Relatives2 38.3 % Average Party Size in Summer (Persons)s 2.9 Persons Average Party Size in Winter (Persons) 2.4 Persons Average Length of Stay in Summer (Nights)s 6.6 Nights Average Length of Stay in Winter (Nights)~ 10.3 Nights Person Nights in City in Summers 105,189 Person Nights Person Nights in the Winters 209,560 Person Nights Spending Per Summer Party~ $ 786.89 Spending Per Winter Partya $ 1,151.62 Spending Per Summer Person-Day3 $ 41.11 Spending Per Winter Person-Day3 $ 46.59 Percent of Tourists Who Would Not Come to Delray in the Absence of the Beaches4 56.8 % ill STABLE 5.1. Summer and Winter combined. 2TABLE 5.3. 3TABLE 5.5. STABLE 5.6. 18 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. ~o~d ~o~ Co~. ~ 0.~.~ ~..h. Th..- W... ~o ~..~..?' Delray B~ch ove~ght I to~s~ were ~ked whe~cr ~ey ~lemeUonll Other 5~tel ·ere were no ~ches. A~ut 56 l=S...h.,. ,. ''O"d. percent of the tourists said they would not come if there were no o 20 40 60 80 100 !~1 wo.,d .o, =o.,. · wo,,,d co.. beaches in the county. 19 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. I. BEACHES, PROPERTY VALUES AND LOCAL TAXES As indicated in the Executive Stunmary to this report, the economic impact of Delray's beach maintenance program will occur in three ways: an impact on property values; an impact on sales and employment in the city, the county and the State; and an impact on the tax bases both of local governments and the State of Florida. Property values will be improved by the beach maintenance program to the extent that the properties receive storm protection or that property owners are saved the cost of alternative property protection measures (such as construction and maintenance of sea walls). Additionally, property values will reflect the storm protection provided to adjacent public infrastructure, since expected damage to a nearby access road will result in discounts being applied to the values of private properties. Finally, property values will be enhanced by the availability of beach recreation and, indeed, the general ambience and environmental beauty of recreational beaches. This chapter of the report estimates the impacts of Delray's beach maintenance program on property values. The beach-front in Delray Beach lies along a three mile stretch of the barrier island between the Boca Raton and South Lake Worth Inlets. The first section of this chapter provides a description of the properties on the barrier island in Delray Beach developed from a detailed analysis of the Property Appraiser's files. This is followed by estimates of the contribution of the beaches to barrier island property values. The engineering analysis! showed that end losses from the Delray Beach nourishments widen the beaches of the adjacent cities of ~Kim E. Beachler, P.E., "The Positive Impacts to Neighboring Beaches from the Delray Beach Nourishment Program", in The State of the Art of Beach Nourishment, Proceedings of the 1993 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, St. Petersburg, Florida, 1993. 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. (3ulfst~cam and Highland Beach. This results in increases in property values in those cities and the third section of this chapter provides estimates of the impact of the De[ray Beach Maintenance Program on property values in the adjacent cities. Estimates of the impact of recreational benefits on local property values are provided in the fourth section, and the chapter concludes with the estimates of the fiscal impact of the De[ray Beach Maintenance Program on the various taxing authorities that collect taxes on properties whose values are increased as a result of the maintained beaches. Value of the Barrier Island in Delray Beach Value by Land Use The beach.front in De[ray Beach lies along a three mile stretch of the barrier island between the Boca Raton and South Lake Worth Inlets. The barrier island Property Valuee: City of Delrey Beach'a Barrier lalend by Type of Lind Use - $ Millions in De[ray is almost completely developed with 79 undeveloped parcels out ora total of 2,950 properties (2.7 percent) (See TABLE 1.1). These undeveloped parcels account for $21.4 million of the total $610.7 million in property values on Delray's portion of the barrier island (3.5 percent). 2! COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 1.1 Land Use on the Barrier Island in Delray Beach 1995 Number of Parcels Property Values Landuse Type Number Percent $ Million Percent [ [ Single Family 552 18.7 $ 206.6 33.8 % Condo/Coop 2,161 73.3 $ 266.6 43.7 Apartments/Complexes 62 2.1 $ 24.3 4.0 Total Residential 2,775 94.1 $ 497.4 81.5 Vacant 79 2.7 $ 21.4 3.5 Commercial 53 1.8 $ 35.9 5.9 Government & Other 43 1.4 $ 56.0 9.1 Total 2,950 100.0 $ 610.7 100.0 % Source: Tabulations of the NAL File obtained fi.om the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. There are 552 single family homes, 2,161 condominium or cooperative apartments, and an estimated 197 rental apartment units2 on Delray's portion of the barrier island. If the average number of persons per housing unit is close to 2.0, the peak seasonal population (excluding hotel tourists) is in the range of 6,000 persons. To this would be added the tourists staying at one of the 7 hotels on the island, and large numbers of day visitors attracted to the island because of the beautiful beaches. Properties on the barrier island were officially valued at about $611 million in 1995, accounting for about 19.3 percent of the total property value in Delray Beach ($3.2 billion). 2 The Property Appraiser's NAL file does not contain the number of units in rental apartment complexes. The total value of rental apartment complexes was divided by the average value of a cooperative apartment to estimate the number of rental units. 22 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. The Delray Beach portion of the barrier island is primarily residential, as are the barrier islands generally in Southeast Florida, with total residential value of $0.5 billion accounting for more than 81 percent of total 1995 value (see TABLE 1.2). Condominium and cooperative housing units and single family units have a relatively balanced split in terms of property values. However, there is a much larger number of condominium units as compared to single family Government values include public beaches and accesses, but they do not include infrastructure such as roads and bridges. Additionally, since they are not taxed, the value of government parcels is not as accurate as the value of private parcels. At the same time, it should be noted that public infrastructure values are incorporated in the value of private parcels, since such parcels will have lesser value in the absence of a paved road or other pubic infrastructure. Historical Development Most of the development of Delray Beach's barrier island occurred between 1965 and 1985, when almost 60 percent of the improved properties were developed, and the approach of build out is evident from the relatively low rate of development in the last ten years. TABLE 1.2 , Historical Development o,f P,r, operty On Delray's Barrier Island Decade Percent of 1995 Value Developed 1925-34 0.2 °A 1935-44 0.7 1945-54 7.7 1955-64 20.6 1965-74 30.0 1975-84 27.8 1985-94 13.4 % 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Contribution of Beaches to Barrier Island Value A significant part of the value of Delray's barrier island is due to the beaches. Although the beaches are the most striking natural feature of the barrier island, the island would not be abandoned if the beaches eroded away. The island would still provide boat access to the ocean and the Intracoastal Waterway, and it would also continue to function as a residential community for workers and retirees living in the city. In order to determine the portion of the value of Delray's barrier island directly attributable to the beaches, a study of real estate values was undertaken. This study compared the values per square foot by type of property for the 2,950 pieces of property on the island with the values per square foot for the 1,424 equivalent properties in the area between Federal Highway (US 1) and the Intracoastal Waterway. Although this area shares access to the Intracoastal Waterway and experienced development at about the same time as the barrier islands, it is more commercial and less residential. Furthermore, this area has relatively more single family homes than condominiums which are so predominant on the island. By controlling for property type, these differences do not affect the analysis. Average values per square foot by type of property is presented for Delray's barrier island and the comparative Fcderal-Intracoastal area in TABLE 1.3. The values are averages over the properties for which square foot of structural area is provided in the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's files. The averages were weighted to reflect differences in the average age of properties in the two areas. 24 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 1.3 Average Value Per Square Foot Delray Beach's Barrier Island and Federal-lntracoastal Area Dollars 1995 Type of Property Barrier Federal- Barrier Island Intracoastal Island Premium Single Family $132.80 $ 97.65 $ 35.15 Apartments $ 81.38 $ 46.32 $ 35.06 Cooperatives and Condominiums $ 84.11 $ 67.54 $ 16.57 Commercial Properties $ 87.30 $ 90.52 $ 0.00 Source: Tabulations of the 1995 NAL File obtained from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. Square footage was available for 539 single family properties, 60 apartment buildings, 2002 condo/coops and 36 commercial buildings on the barrier island and 446 single family properties, 90 apartment buildings, 602 condo/coops and 66 commercial buildings in the comparison area. These numbers excluded a small number of properties improved prior to 1946. Value is "just" value, which is intended to be market value adjusted for selling costs. Single family properties have the highest value per square foot and apartments have the lowest values per square foot on both the barrier island and in the comparison area. The Barrier Island "Premium" is the additional value per square foot for the properties on the island relative to corresponding properties in the comparison area. The highest premium is for single family properties, which is similar to the premium for apartments. The premium for condo/coops is about half this rate. There is no evidence ora premium for commercial buildings on the barrier island. Estimates of the total square footage of improved properties of residential and commercial properties on the barrier island are given in TABLE 1.4. Multiplication of these estimates by the barrier island premiums (TABLE 1.3) produces estimates of the contribution of the beaches to the value of the barrier island properties. Commercial properties had the highest 25 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. square footage (11,681 square fee0 and condominiums and cooperatives had the lowest (1,405 square feet). Assuming that parcels which have no square footage reported have the same average square footage as those parcels for which square footage is reported, total square footage by type of residential and commercial property on the barrier island can be estimated. TABLE 1.4 Average and Total Square Footage and Total Barrier Island Premium Delray Beach's Barrier Island 1995 Type of Property Average Square Number of Total Square Total Barrier Footage Properties Footage Island Premium $ Millions Single Family 2,564.7 552 1,415,703 $ 49.8 Apartments 4,336.8 62 268,885 $ 9.3 Coops. & Condominiums 1,405.1 2,161 3,036,335 $ 50.4 Commercial 11,681.1 38 443,882 $ 0.0 Total NA 2,813 5,164,805 $109.5 Source: Tabulations of the 1995 NAL File obtained from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. Square footage was available for 2,673 parcels on the barrier island (92.3 percent). Average barrier island premiums are from TABLE 1.3. TABLE 1.4 shows that there is an estimated 5.2 million square feet in residential and commercial structures on the barrier island in Delray To..,,qu.~. ,o0,.~.: D.,r., ....h....,,~r,.~.a Beach, with 58.8 percent of this total in cooperatives and condominiums. Residential structures on the barrier islands are worth $109.5 million more than they would be if they were located in the Federal- Intracoastal area. This is the value conferred on those structures by the beach. 26 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 1.5 Impact of Beaches on Property Values Delray Beach's Barrier Island By Type of Property Millions of Dollars and Percent 1995 Type of Properly Beach Impact Total Value Percent Residential $ 109.5 $ 497.4 22.0 % Commercial $ 0.0 $ 35.9 0.0 Total $ 109.5 $ 533.3 20.5 % Source: TABLES 1.2 and 1.4. TABLE 1.5 summarizes the Impact of Beaches on Propsrty Values by Type of Property impact of the beach on the barrier $500.0 $400.0 island property values. Residential $300.0 properties have an impact of 22.0 $2oo.o percent of the total property values of $1 oo.o Delray Beach's barrier island $o.o co...~ a..,d...-, properties as a result of the proximity $ Milliona to the beaches. The lack of an impact I Beach Impact I TotalValue on commercial properties reflects the relatively good location for such properties in the Federal-Intracoastal area where they can service customers from the barrier island to the east and additional customers from the west. It can be concluded that the beaches in Delray Beach contributed an estimated $109.5 million to barrier island property values in 1995-96. 27 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Delray's Beaches and Property. Values in ~Gulfstream and Highland Beach A significant part of the value of Gulfstream and Highland Beach properties is also due to the Delray Beach Maintenance Program. Prior to the commencement of the Delray Beach Maintenance Program, many Gulfstream properties were protected by seawalls and the northern part of Flighland Beach had little beachfront. A study by Delray's coastal engineer indicated that almost all of Gulfstream benefitted from the Delray Beach project, and that northern properties in Highland Beach were similarly benefitted.3 TABLE 1.6 Impact of Delray Beach Maintenance Program on Gulfs~eam Property Values 1995 Type of Property Average Square Number of Total Square Impact on Footage Properties Footage Gulfstream Property Values $ millions Single Family 4159.77 170 707,149 $ 24.8 Apartments N/A Coops. & Condominiums 3523.70 105 369,988 $ 6.1 Commercial N/A Total N/A 275 1,077,137 $ 31.0 Source: Tabulations of the 1995 NAL File obtained from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. Average barrier island premiums from TABLE 1.3. 3Kim E. Beachler, P.E., "The Positive Impacts to Neighboring Beaches from the Delray Beach Nourishment Program", in The State of the Art of Beach Nourishment~ Proceedings of the 1993 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, St. Petersburg, Florida, 1993. 28 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 1.6 shows that there is an estimated 1.1 million square feet in residential and condo/coop structures in Gulfstream. Multiplying the total square feet by the barrier island premium per square foot in TABLE 1.3 yields the impact on Gulfstream property values in the last column of TABLE 1.6. This shows that residential structures in Gulfstream are worth $31.0 million more than they would be if they were located in the FederaMntraeoastal area. This is the value conferred on those structures by the beaches. TABLE 1.7 Impact of Deiray Beach Maintenance Program on Highland Beach Property Values 1995 Type of Property Average Number of Total Square Impact on Square Properties Footage Highland Beach Footage Property Values $ millions Single Family 4114.90 33 135,793 $ 4.8 Apartments 5612.50 2 11,225 $ 0.4 Coops. & Condominiums 1548.80 2,075 3,213,718 $ 53.2 Commercial N/A Total N/A 2,110 3,360,736 $ 58.4 Source: Tabulations of the 1995 NAL File obtained from the Palm Beach coUnty Property Appraiser. Average barrier island premiums from TABLE 1.3. TABLE 1.7 shows that there is an estimated 3.4 million square feet in residential, apartments and condo/coop structures in Highland Beach. Multiplying the total square feet by the barrier island premium per square foot in TABLE 1.3 yields the Highland Beach premium in the last column of TABLE 1.7. This shows that structures in Highland Beach are worth $58.4 million more than they would be if they were located in the Federal-Intracoastal area. This is the value conferred on those structures by the beaches. 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 1.8 Impact of Beaches on Property Values Gulfstream and Highland Beach By Type of Property Millions of Dollars and Percent 1995 Type of Property Beach Impact Total Value Percent Gulfstream $ 31.0 $ 196.3 15.8 % Highland Beach $ 58.4 $ 409.4 14.3 Total $ 89.4 $ 605.7 14.8 % Source: TABLES 1.3, 1.6 and 1.7. TABLE 1.8 smmnarizes the impact of the beaches on Gulfstream and Highland Beach property values. The Delray Beach Maintenance Program increases the value of barrier island properties in Gulfstream by $31 million, or 15.8 percent of their value, and it increases property values in Highland Beach by $58.4 million (14. 3 percenO. l~¢¢reational Benefits and Property_ Values Although the bulk of the impact of beaches on property values occurs on the barrier island, a relatively small impact on mainland impact values will also occur. This is because the beaches provide recreational benefits to people residing or staying in mainland residential properties as well as to those in barrier island properties. The recreational benefits to barrier island properties are already included in the beach impact estimates on property values in TABLE 1.9; separate estimates of the impact on mainland properties are developed in this section of the report. The impact of recreational benefits on mainland properties is estimated from a personal 30 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. interview survey of 1,093 beach users conducted between May 1995 and April 1996. The results are presented in TABLE 1.10. Detailed results of the survey are presented in Chapter IV below. Beach visitors were asked to value their beach experience that day by indicating how many dollars they would be willing to pay for their visit. It was, of course, explained that there is no plan to charge beach fees; rather dollar values need to be placed on the recreational experience of beach visits so that they can be balanced against costs in order to determine whether the costs of various beach improvements can be justified in terms of the benefits received. TABLE 1.9 Recreational Value of Beach Visits Broken Down by Geographic Origin Origin Value Per Total Number Total Visit of Visits Recreational Value Delray Beach $ 4.95 137,235 $ 679,429 Palm Beach County $ 4.17 119,631 $ 498,727 Other Florida $ 5.07 30,409 $ 154,105 OtherU.S. $ 3.76 172,877 $ 649,185 International $ 8.36 32,853 $ 274,662 Total $ 4.75 493,005 $2,341,037 Note: The multiplication of vaiue per visit by number of visits does not give the reported totals because of rounding errors. Recreational Value In $ MIIIIona Of Delray Beech In TABLE 1.9 shows that the average visitor to Delray Beach during 1995-96 ,.~,..., c.,,,, valued the Beach visit at $4.75. Residents from other countries placed the highest value on their beach visits, followed by residents o£other counties in Florida. 31 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Multiplying the average value per visit by the total number of visits gives an estimate of the recreational value of Delray Beach. The recreational value of Delray Beach amounted to $2.3 million in 1995-96. TABLE 1.10 Recreational Benefits and Property Values Millions of Dollars Impact Amount Total Recreational Impact on Property Values $ 29.9 Of Wb. ich: Barrier Island PropertiesI $ 0.3 Other Palm Beach County Properties $ 29.6 ~Based on share of Delray barrier island properties in the total property value of Palm Beach County. The annual recreational value Impect of Oelray Belch Maintenance Pro.ram of $2.3 million (Table 1.9) must be on Property Values In Palm Beach County capitalized in order to estimate its Other Palm Beech impact on property Values.4 The ,~h~e,a results are presented in TABLE l. l 0. GunsL., Recreational benefits resulted in an Oelrey Beech Mainland increase of $0.3 million in barrier Delr~y Beach Birrler IslBnd island properties and $29.6 million in ~ Impact of Beeches on Property Values: S Millions property values elsewhere in Palm Beach CountT. 4 Thc annual recreational value was assumed to yield benefits over a 50 year period and the benefits were discounted to present value using an interest rate of 7.625 percent. 32 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 1.11 Impact of Delray Beach Maintenance Program on Property Values in Palm Beach County 1995 Millions of Dollars Impact Amount II Island Property Values in Delray Beach $109.5 Of Which: Recreational Value $ 0.3 Storm Protection and Other $109.2 Mainland Property Values in Delray Beach $ 15.6 Of Which: Recreational Vaiue~ $ 15.6 Total Impact on Delray Beach $125.1 Island Property Values in Gulfstream $ 31.2 Of Which: Benefits Due to Wider Gulfstream Beaches $ 31.1 Benefits Due to Wider Delray Beaches2 $ 0.1 Other Property Values in Gulfstream $ 0.0 Total Impact on Gulfstream $ 31.2 Property Values in Highland Beach $ 58.6 Of Which: Benefits Due to Wider Highland Beaches $ 58.4 Benefits Due to Wider Delray Beaches3 $ 0.2 Other Palm Beach County Property Values $ 13.9 Of Which: Recreational Value $ 13.9 Total Effect on Property Values $ 228.8 ~Share of Mainland Delray Beach in non-Delray Palm Beach County recreation benefits, based on city share of Palm Beach County beach visits. 2Share of Gulfstream in non-Delray Palm Beach County recreation benefits, based on share of city property value in county property value. 3Share of Highland Beach in non-Delray Palm Beach County recreation benefits, based on share of city property value in county property value. 33 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Beaches And Local Property_ Taxes Finally, an estimate of the importance of the beaches for the property tax revenues of the local governments can be made by assuming that the taxable value for the authorities as a whole distributes, where necessary, between the island and the mainland in the same proportion as do total property values. The results are shown in TABLE 1.12. TABLE 1.12 Impact of Delray Beach Maintenance Program on Taxable Values in Palm Beach County 1995 Millions of Dollars Taxing Authority Property Values Taxable Values City of Delray Beach $125.1 $ 98.8 City of Gulfstream $ 31.1 $ 24.6 City of Highland Beach $ 58.6 $ 46.3 Rest of Palm Beach County $ 13.9 $ 11.0 Total Palm Beach County $ 228.8 $180.7 The millages for 1995-96 were applied to the taxable values reported in TABLE 1.12 in order to generate the estimate of the impact of the Delray Beach Maintenance Program on property taxes in Palm Beach County. TABLE 1.13 shows that the impact of Delray's beaches on Palm Beach County local governments was $4.2 million in 1995. The largest beneficiary of beach generated property tax revenues is the Palm Beach County School District, which collected $1.8 million, followed by the City of Delray Beach and Palm Beach County, each of which collected $0.8 million. 34 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 1.13 Beach Impact on Property Tax Revenues Palm Beach County Local Governments Millions of Dollars 1995 Taxing Authority Amount Paid Deiray Beach $ 0.8 Gnlf~ $ 0.1 Highland Beach $ 0.2 Palm Beach County $ 0.8 Palm Beach School District $ 1.8 Other County-wide and Unincorporated~ $ 0.4 Regional Agencies (outside County)2 $ 0.1 Total $ 4.2 ~Includes Childrens' Services, Health Care and Everglades Conservation districts. Also includes County Fire/Rescue and Library Districts. 2Includes South Florida Water Management District and Florida Inland Navigation District. 35 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. II. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DELRAY'S BEACHES ON THE CITY AND PALM BEACH COUNTY Beaches make additional contributions to the economy beyond the direct benefits that show up in property values. They contribute to the economy as a result of the spending of residents occupying beachfront properties and as a result of the spending of non-residents in connection with the recreational use of the beaches. Spending by either group, of course, results in increased sales by local businesses and, therefore, the creation of jobs and incomes for the City of Delray Beach and other Palm Beach County residents. Economic Impact on Delray Beach Spending Due to Increased ProperS_ Values One of the most obvious characteristics of homeowners is that high income homeowners usually live in expensive homes, and Iow income homeowners usually live in less expensive homes. In the absence of the beaches, beach area residential properties would lose value, and the occupants of the property would gradually be replaced by people of lower incomes. People with Iower incomes spend less and so they have a lesser impact on the economy. As a result, the loss of property values that would occur if Delray's beaches were not maintained would be accompanied by a reduction in the mount of spending in the city, as well as elsewhere in the county. Additionally, expenditures by beach users in connection with their beach visits would also be lost. 36 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 2.1 Spending by Residents and Tourists Occupying Properties on Deiray's Barrier Island 1995-96 Millions of Dollars Increase in Property Values on the Barrier Island $109.52 Resulting Increase in Spending~ $ 29.7 Increase in Property Values Elsewhere in City $ 15.63 Resulting Increase in Spending! $ 4.2 !mpact on the City, , , . .. , $ 33.9 ~Obtained using the ratio of house value to hoUSehold income from the U.S. Census of Housing 1990, and the ratio of Florida disposable income to personal income and U.S. personal consumption expenditure to U.S. personal disposable income both from the U.S. Department of Commeme, Survey of Current Business, and making adjustments for inflation using the U.S. Consumer Price Index and the Florida Price Level Index. 2Table 1.4. 3Table 1.11. This study estimates that the maintenance of Delray's beaches resulted in an increase in the amount of $29. 7 million annually in expenditures of residents and tourists occupying island properties in the city. ~4dditionally, residents and tourists occupying properties elsewhere in Delray Beach increased their expenditures by $4.2 million. The total impact of beaches on the city, as a result of increased property values is $33.9 million. Non-Resident Spending Additionally, as a result of the maintenance program, non-residents who are attracted to the city because of the beaches make expenditures in the city and this results in a further positive impact on the city economy. 37 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. During 1995-96, non-residents visited Delray's beaches a total of 355,770 times. They spent $14.2 million in Delray Beach during their stay (TABLE 2.2). Almost 20 percent of these expenditures were for lodging, with 45.9 Bpendln~ In Delray Beach by Non-Reeldente Who Visited the Reetored Beaches In leg6.ge percent for food and dining, 17.7 percent for shopping and about 11 percent for entertainment. About one-third of the expenditures are made during the summer season (May through October) and two- thirds are made during the winter season (November through April). TABLE 2.2 Spending in Deiray Beach by Non-Residents Who Visited the Restored Beaches 1995-96 Summer Winter Total Percent Lodging $ 846,828 $1,910,948 $ 2,757,776 19.4 Dining 1,889,704 2,977,103 4,866,807 34.2 Food/Groceries 548,523 1,122,813 1,671,336 11.7 Entertainment 458,821 1,124,643 1,583,464 11.1 Shopping 789,885 1,723,164 2,513,049 17.7 Gas/Car 302,000 495,006 797,006 5.6 Other 34,632 7,192 41,824 0.3 Total $ 4,870,392 $ 9,360,867 $14,231,258 100.0 Note: These are mid-point estimates of all non-resident spending by tourists. See discussion of minimum and maximum estimates of spending below. Summer is defined to include the months of May through October; winter includes the months of November through April. The conventional approach to measuring economic impact assumes that the dollars spent 38 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. by non-resident beach users would be "lost to the city" in the absence of the beaches. This would be true if visitors to Delray Beach did not come to Delray if the city's beaches eroded away. But some visitors would still have come in any case, perhaps, for example, because they were visiting friends or relatives in the city. Of course, the friends and relatives, themselves, may have located in Delray Beach because of its beaches. Because of these considerations, it is not a straightforward matter to decide what proportion of the beach related expenditures would be lost to the City of Delray Beach in the absence of the beaches; nor is it straightforward to determine the proportion of non-resident tourist expenditures that would be lost if the beaches eroded away. The approach taken in this study is to determine minimum and maximum estimates. Maximum estimates were determined by assuming that all tourist expenditures of non- resident beach users would be lost, if the city's beaches eroded away. Minimum estimates for non-resident expenditures that would be lost were obtained by considering only those expenditures made by non-residents who said they would not have come to Delray Beach in the absence of the city's beaches. The estimates given in TABLE 2.2 are mid-point averages of the minimum and maximum estimates. This study estimates that the newly restored beaches attract $14.2 million annually in non-resident expenditures to the island 39 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC, Table 2.3 Economic Impact of Deiray's Beaches On the City of Deiray Beach 1995-96 Millions of Dollars Value Amount Direct Spending Due to Increased Property Values~ $ 33.93 Direct Spending by Non-Residents of Delray Beach2 $ 12.4 Total Direct Spending in the City $ 46.3 Jobs Directly Created in the City 1,273 Earnings Created in the City $ 27.4 ~Obtained using the ratio of house value to household income from the U.S. Census of Housing 1990, and the ratio of Florida disposable income to personal income and U.S. personal consumption expenditure to U.S. personal disposable income both from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, and making adjustments for inflation using the U.S. Consumer Price Index and the Florida Price Level Index. 2 The mid-point estimate of total non-resident expenditures was reduced by $1,800,000 to allow for the expenditures made by non-residents staying in barrier island properties which are included in the spending due to increased barrier island property values. ~Table 2.1. Taking the increased expenditures due to property values, and other expenditures of non- residents into account, spending on the island is increased by $46.3 million on an annual basis directly as a result of the beaches. Additionally, 1,273jobs are created in the city with earnings of $27.4 million. Economic Impact on Palm Beach CounW The economic benefits of Delray's beaches spread beyond the city. Substantial benefits are received by the rest of Palm Beach County, because users of the restored beaches make 40 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. expenditures elsewhere in the county, and because hotels, shops and other Delray businesses buy supplies from businesses elsewhere in the county and hire workers who live (and spend their wages) elsewhere in the county. Direct Spending_ TABLE 2.4 shows that De~ray's beaches have a direct impact on the Palm Beach County economy of $80.3 million annually. This is composed of $62. 0 million in spending due to increased property values (primarily due to increased spending by city residents of Delray, Gulfstream and Highland Beach), and $18.3 million spending by out of county visitors to Delray's beaches. The spending due to increased property values consists of the $33.9 million increased spending in Delray Beach (as reported in TABLE 2.3) and $28.1 million (Table 2.4), mainly due to increased spending in Gulfstream and Highland Beach. Spending by out of county visitors not staying within walking distance of the beach restoration is obtained from the beach user survey in the same way as it was obtained for non- residents in TABLE 2.2 above. That is, maximum and minimum estimates were prepared for the spending of out of county visitors and midpoint estimates were calculated as the average of the maximum and minimum estimates. The minimum estimates excluded the spending of out of county main destination visitors who said they would have come to the city even if there were no beaches. Main destination visitors had spent more time in the city than in the county. That is, they were not out of county visitors who were on a day trip to Delray Beach from elsewhere in county. 41 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 2.4 Economic Impact of Delray's Beaches On Palm Beach County 1995-96 Millions of Dollars Impact on Impact Elsewhere Total Impact Delray Beach in the County in the County Direct Spending Due to Higher Property Values~ $ 33.9 $ 28. I $ 62.0 Direct Spending Due to Non-Residents of Count~ $10.8 $ 7.5 $18.3 Total Direct Spending $ 44.7 $ 35.6 $ 80.3 Indirect Impacts $ 0.0 $16.3 $16.3 Total Output Created $ 44.7 $ 51.9 $ 96.6 Total Earnings Created $ 26.4 $ 30.6 $ 57.0 Number of Jobs Created in County 1,230 1,424 2,654 ~Note: midpoint estimates. 2The direct spending impact on Delray Beach reported here is generated by Non-Residents of Palm Beach County and thus is smaller than the direct spending impact on Delray Beach of Non-Residents of Delray Beach as reported in Table 2.3. Indirect Spending Direct spending in Delray Beach by out-of-county beach visitors creates output, earnings and jobs directly in the "front line" sellers (e.g., hotels and restaurants for non-residents, other retail industries for residents). They experience an increase in production (more beds filled, more meals served), as well as an increase in employment (more hotel and restaurant workers) and earnings (more wages and tips) Such spending also has indirect or "ripple" effects as the suppliers of front line sellers also increase output, earnings and employment. Additionally, the workers who receive increased earnings also their incomes and this in turn creates additional production, earnings and employment. 42 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Because of the small size of the City of Delray Beach's economy, all indirect or "ripple" effects are assumed to occur outside the cityL Additionally, only 22.4 percent of the indirect spending is assigned to the county, since Palm Beach County is part of a large regional economy in Southeast Florida2. Economic Impact of the Beechea In Delray Beach on Palm Beach County 1995-96 $ MIIIIona Direct Spending: Higher Property VIILIII Direct Non-Relldent Spending Indirect Irn pactl Total Output Created Earnings Created $0.0 820.0 840.0 $eo.0 seo.o 81o0.° · Economic Impact on Delray Beach [] Total Impact on Palm Beach County Indirect spending in Palm Beach County amounted to $16.3 million in 1995-96, as reported in TABLE 2.4 above. tAlthough there will surely be some indirect effects within the city, some of thc direct spending that is assigned to the city will take place in the county. The assignment of all indirect spending to the county compensates for this over-estimation. 2Palm Beach County accounted for 22.4 percent of private non-farm earned income in the h'i-county Browaxd-Dade-Palm Beach County area in 1993 (Florida Statistical Abstract 1995, pp. 193-194.) The indirect spending figure is from the US Department of Commerce RIMS II Model. Although the RIMS figure is intended to capture statewide impacts, it is assumed in this study that impacts outside the southeast Florida region axe negligible. 43 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. The total economic impact of Delray's beaches on Palm Beach County includes the sum of the direct and indirect and induced effects and this amounted to $96.6 million in 1995-96. The impact on the rest of Palm Beach County ($51.9 million) was actually larger than the impact on the City of Delray Beach ($44. 7 million). The total increase in sales of $96. 6 million created a total of 2, 654jobs and $57 million in earnings. The rest of the county, once again, received more of the new jobs (1,424) than did Delray Beach (1,230), and also more of the earnings created ($30.6 million in the county and $26.4 million in the city). 44 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. IH. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DELRAY'S BEACHES ON SOUTHEAST FLORIDA AND THE STATE As noted previously, the economic impact benefits of Delray's beaches spread beyond the city, not only to Palm Beach County, but to the general regional economy of which Palm Beach County is a part and to the state economy as a whole. The regional economy of Southeast Florida benefits because the bulk of the "ripple" effects of the increased expenditures resulting from the beach restoration "spill over" into the large regional economy of which Palm Beach County is a relatively small part. The state economy benefits, not only from indirect spending ("ripple effect") but because out of state visitors to the restored beaches lxavel elsewhere in the state, making expenditures that create jobs and payrolls~ Economic Impact on Southeast Florida The main source of benefit to the regional economy of Southeast Florida is the spill over of"ripple effects" from Palm Beach. In this study the benefits to the local region are estimated at 75.4 percent of the total purchases of supplies purchased by Palm Beach County businesses and their employees resulting from Delray's beaches2. This reflects the assumption that the Palm Beach County economy is estimated to account for about 9_4.4 percent of the regional economy. ~Out of county visitors to the restored beaches may also make direct expenditures elsewhere in the region, although such spending by main destination visitors to Delray Beach is probably small in magnitude. 2Palm Beach County accounts for 24.4 percent of the total private non-farm earned income in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. 45 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 3.1 Economic Impact of Delray's Beaches On the Southeast Florida Region Millions of Dollars 1995-96 Benefit Amount Total Impact on Palm Beach County $ 96.6 Jobs Created in Palm Beach County 2,654 jobs Earnings Created $ 57.0 Indirect Spending Elsewhere in Region $ 56.2 Jobs Created 1,543 jobs Earnings Created $ 33.1 Total Impact on Southeast Florida $ 152.8 Total Jobs Created in Southeast Florida 4,197 jobs Total Earnings Created $ 90.1 Note: based on midpoint estimates. Estimates of this expenditure and Impact of Dolray'a Beaches on Southeast Florida its economic impact are given in 8&lei S MIIIIonl Jobl TABLE 3.13. In 1995-96 Delray's ,-....~ c.,,~,,,., beaches had a total impact on businesses in Southeast Florida of $152.8 million, creating 4,197jobs. Of this, $56.2 million in sales and 1,543 jobs were created elsewhere in Southeast Florida. 2It is possible that some of the indirect impacts of the beach restoration spilled over to other regions of the state, but given the size of the Southeast Florida region, the spillovers are probably very small. 46 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Impact on the State Economy Delray's beaches benefit the State of Florida by attracting out of state visitors to the state. The spending of these visitors creates sales and jobs not only in Palm Beach County and the Southeast Florida region, but also by making expenditures throughout the state. TABLE 3.2 Out of State Visits to Delray's Beaches 1995-96 Summer 1995 Winter 1996 Year 1995-96 Percent Northeast States 26,624 80,448 107,072 52.0 % Mid West States 7,690 24,686 32,376 15.7 Southern States 16,893 5,837 22,730 11.0 Western States 4,588 6,111 10,699 5.2 Total Other U.S. 55,795 117,082 172,877 84.0 % Canada 4,718 13,776 18,494 9.0 Europe 6,841 5,982 12,823 6.2 Total Internationalt 11,699 21,154 32,853 16.0 % Total Out of State 67,494 138,236 205,730 100.0 % qncludes very small number from countries other than Canada and Europe. A total of 205,730 visits to Delray's beaches were made by out of state residents in 1995- 96. About one third of these visits occurred in the summer and two-thirds occurred in the winter (TABLE 3.3). Over half the visits were made by residents of Northeast States and about one in six were made by international visitors. 47 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 3.3 Economic Impact of Delray's Beaches On the State Economy Millions of Dollars 1995-96 Palm Beach Other Southeast Elsewhere Total Florida County Florida in Florida Direct Expenditures $18.3 $ 1.6 $ 3.9 $ 23.8 Indirect Expenditures $ 4.41 $13.62 $ 3.6 $ 21.6 Total Expenditures $ 22.7 $15.2 $ 7.5 $ 45.4 Jobs Created 623 418 206 1,247 Eamin, gs Created $13.4, $ 9.0 , $ 4.4 $ 26.8 Note: based on midpoint estimates. IConsists of $4.0 million due to direct spending in Palm Beach County and $0.4 due to direct spending in Southeast Florida. 2Consists of $12.5 million due to direct spending in Palm Beach County and $1.1 million due to direct spending in Southeast Florida. Indirect expenditures, jobs created and earnings derived using "multipliers" from the U.S. Department of Commerce RIMS II Model. Estimates of the total impacts of Delray's beaches on the state economy are given in TABLE 3.3. The total impact of the Economic Impact of Dolrey'a Beachac on the State Economy of Florida $ MIIIIonl restoration on thc state economy (state sales, Direct Expenditures or more correctly, production) was $45.4 Indirect Expenditure, million annually. This figure is a mid-point to,-~ estimate so it contains an adjustment for the fact that some of the out of state visitors to Earnings Created Dclray's beaches would not have come to the $0.0 110.0 820.0 8:30.0 840.0 $flO.O ' state if the beaches were not there. 48 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. About one-half of the impact on the state economy occurs bemuse of impacts in Palm Beach County, and two-thirds of the impact outside Palm Beach County occurs in the Southeast Florida region. The big impact on Southeast Florida is due to spill over of the indirect or "ripple" effects from spending in Palm Beach County (almost 80 percent of the total regional impact). Although out of state visitors attracted to Delray's beaches make additional direct expenditures in other parts of Southeast Florida, they actually make more expenditures in East Central Florida (Disney World area) than in the other communities of Southeast Florida (TABLE 3.4). TABLE 3.4 Spending in Florida Outside Palm Beach County By Out of State Visitors to Delray's Beaches 1995-96 Region Millions of Dollars Southeast Florida $ 1.6 Southwest Florida $ 0.2 East Central Florida $ 3.0 West Central Florida $ 0.6 North Florida $ 0.1 Total $ 5.6 Note: based on mid-point estimates. Out of state visitors to Delray's beaches created 1,247 jobs in Florida and $26.8 million in earnings in the state as a result of their spending. One half of these jobs were created in Palm Beach County, one third were created elsewhere in Southeast Florida, and one-sixth (206 jobs) were created elsewhere in the state outside Southeast Florida. 49 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. lmt)act on State Revenues State Government also receives tax revenues resulting fi.om Delra¥'s beaches. Chief among these ~re sales taxes. There are other revenue sources, however, including car rental surcharges which are affected by the a~action of the restored Impact of Delra¥'a Beachee on the Tax Baae of Florida 1995-9B beaches for tourism. TABLE 3.$ shows the On)cedes $2.234,405 impact on components of thc Entertalnment/~hop/Othlr $7,198.311 state tax base due to the out of state tourism resulting fi.om Oaaollne $1,774.857 Delray's beaches. Lodging expenditures are separated from other components so that the impact on (local) tourist development taxes can be estimated. Car rentals are subject to a special tax. Food at the grocery is not subject to sales taxes. The spending by out of state tourists outside Palm Beach County is broken down using State Tourism data by region. 5O COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 3.5 Impact of the Delray's Beaches on Components of the State Tax Base 1995-96 Palm Beach Other Florida Total Florida Count~ Lodging Expenditures $ 3,448,863~ $ 1,762,323 $ 5,211,186 Spending on Groceries $ 2,001,043 $ 233,362 $ 2,234,405 Dining $ 5,568,206 $ 1,276,985 $ 6,845,191 Entertainment/Shopping/Other $ 5,606,896 $ 1,591,415 $ 7,198,311 Gasoline $ 1,518,219 $ 256,438 $ 1,774,657 Car Rentals $ 141,104 $ 474,711 $ 615,815 Note: based on midpoint estimates. ~Tourist Development Tax Collections in Palm Beach County at a rate of 4 % amount to $.138 million. This study estimates the contribution of Delray 's beaches to State revenues at $1.3 million annually. Most of this is accounted for by state sales taxes ($I. 1 million). TABLE 3.6 Impact of Delray's Beaches on State Tax Revenues 1995-96 Type of Tax Millions of Dollars Sales Taxes $ 1.093 Car Rental Taxes 0.070 Other State Revenues 0.138 State Revenue Sharing 0.162 Total Taxes! $ 1.302 ~State revenue sharing of $0.162 million has been excluded from this total. State revenue sharing consists of state collected revenue such as gas taxes which are returned by formula to local governments. 51 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. IV. RECREATIONAL USE OF DELRAY'S BEACHES This chapter of the report provides information on the users of Delray's restored beach during 1995-96. Included are data on beach use by beach segment, the geographic origin of beach users, the purpose of the beach visit and length of stay at the beach, and theft willingness to pay for a beach visit. This information was collected by using a personal interview survey. Between May 1995 and April 1996, a total of 1,093 beach users were interviewed and the information collected is a major part of this study. Use B_v Beach Segments During the year 1995-96, there were a total of 493,006 visits made to Delray Beach beaches (TABLE 4.1). The Visite to the Beaches of Delray Beach two beaches along the beach 1995-96 front road, north and south, of Atlantic Avenue, account ~o~ o~^u.nu~ e~,d. 27.?~. for about seventy-five percent of these beach visits. ~o.,;v. The beaches at Atlantic Dunes and Seagate north to 8e,,g~lte to N. AtJinflc Oune~ 11.4% Atlantic Dunes attracted an addional 20 percent of the beach users. 52 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 4.1 Visits to Delray Beach Beaches 199.5-96 Beach Summer Winter Total Percent North of Atlantic Avenue 56,781 79,962 136,743 27.7 % South of Atlantic to Seagate 96,655 152,046 248,701 50.4 Seagate to N. Atlantic Dunes 6,605 49,710 56,315 11.4 Atlantic Dunes 25,282 25,965 51,247 10.4 Total Visits 185,323 307,683 493,006 100.0 % Note: the Summer season is defined to include the 6 month May-October period and the Winter season is del'reed to include the 6 month November-April period. Beach Use by Residential Location Delray's beaches attract tourists from all over the United States and the world. As shown in TABLE 4.2, the majority of Visita to Delray Beach Beaches Delray beach visits are made By Geographic Origin of Visitor- 1995-95 by non-residents oftbe city (72.2 percent). Delray Beach Delray Re~id~nl~ 27.8% o~.r P,~ s.,~h 24.~, residents accounted for a little more than one in four beach o,.r F~,~- ,.~ visits. There were actually more visits made to Delray's beaches by tourists from the Northeastern U. S. than by Delray Beach residents. 53 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 4.2 Visits to Delray Beach Beaches by Geographic Origin 1995-96 Origin Summer Winter Total Percent Delray Residents 55,356 81,879 137,235 27.8 % Other Palm Beach County 46,960 72,671 119,631 24.3 Other Florida 15,512 14,897 30,409 6.2 Other U.S. 55,795 117,082 172,877 35.1 Out of Country 11,699 21,154 32,853 6.7 Total 185,323 307,683 493,005 100.0 % Note: items may not add to total because of rounding. Almost one in four visits were made by residents of other parts of Palm Beach County. International visitors accounted for about 7 percent of the beach visits. TABLE 4.3 Visits to Delray Beach Beaches by Other Florida Residents by Geographic Origin 1995-96 Origin Summer Winter Total Percent Other Palm Beach County 46,960 72,671 119,631 79.7 % Other Southeast Florida 11,131 12,155 23,286 15.5 Total Southeast Florida 58,091 84,826 142,917 95.3 South West Florida 891 760 1,651 0.1 East Central Florida 1,841 1,273 3,114 2.1 West Central Florida 1,649 709 2,358 1.6 North Florida 0 0 0 0.0 Total 62,472 87,568 150,040 100.0% Note: items may not add to total because of rounding. 54 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 4.3 shows that, most Florida visitors to Delray's beaches, who do not reside in Delray Beach, come fi.om other parts of Palm Beach (79.7 percent). Visits by residents of the southeast Florida region account for about 95 percent of the non-Delray Florida beach visits, although visitors from throughout the state are found on Delray's beaches. TABLE 4.4 Visits to Delray Beach Beaches by Other U.S. Residents by Geographic Origin 199S-96 Origin Summer Winter Total Percent Northeast 26,624 80,448 107,072 61.9 % Midwest 7,690 24,686 32,376 18.7 Other South 16,893 5,837 22,730 13.1 West 4,588 6,111 10,699 6.2 Total 55,795 117,082 172,877 100.0 % Note: items may not add to total because of rounding. Delray Beach also draws VlsIte to DsIr&y Beach Beachee from Other U.S. ResIdente ~gg~.ss visitors to its beaches fi.om a large number of states in the nation (TABLE 4.4). About 62 percent of these visits were made by residents of the U.S. northeastern states. Approximately 19 percent of the out of state beach visits were made by residents of Midwestern states. 55 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. ,.~..,.~o.., v,..o,. ** u,. s...~,.. There were 32,853 visits made by international visitors to Delray's beaches during the summer and winter seasons of 1995-96 (TABLE 4.5). Canada was the largest country of origin. accounting for over 56 percent of total international visits, but 39 percent of the international visits were made by Europeans, especially by British and German tourists. TABLE 4.5 Visits to Deiray Beach Beaches from International Visitors by Geographic Origin 1995-96 Origin Summer Winter Total Percent Canada 4,718 13,776 18,494 56.3 % Europe 6,841 5,982 12,823 39.0 Other 140 1,396 1,536 4.7 Total 11,699 21,154 32,853 100.0 % Note: items may not add to total because of rounding. Beach Visit Characteristics A number of characteristics of the beach visit are summarized in TABLE 4.6. Over 70 percent of beach users came for swimming or sunning. The average beach visitor spent 2.8 hours at the beach with a party size of 3.9. The average willingness to pay for a day visit at the beach was $4.75. The average willingness to pay for their time parking at the beach was $2.89. 56 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 4.6 Characteristics of the Beach Visit 1995-96 Summer Winter Other Summer Winter Year Visit Purpose Percent Percent Characteristics Average Average Average Swimming/Sunning 86.6 % 71.0 % Beach Party Size (persons) 3.6 3.9 3.8 Walking/Shelling 7.1 24.8 Hours on Beach 2.9 2.8 2.8 Fishing 0.2 0.3 Willingness to Pay for the Other 6.1 3.9 Visit $ 4.58 $ 4.85 $ 4.75 Willingness to Pay for Total I00.0 % 100.0 % Parking $ 2.82 $ 2.94 $ 2.89 A comparison of the Delray Beach willingness to pay data and the results of other south Florida studies is given in TABLE 4.7. Delray's average willingness to pay was above the average reported for other maintained (restored) beaches. TABLE 4.7 Average Willingness to Pay for a Beach Visit Selected Florida Beaches Unrestored Beaches Restored/Maintained Beaches Beach Location Date of Study Willingness to Pay Date of Study Willingness to Pay Captiva Island 1987 $1.70 1994 $ 6.01 Marco Island 1988 $ 2.30 Anna Maria 1989 $ 2.81 1995-96 $ 3.96 Indian River Co. 1992 $1.78 Broward County N/A 1995-96 $ 4.04 Delray Beach N/A 1995-96 $ 4.75 Sources: reports from Regional Research Associates. 57 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Average Willlngneaa to Pay for n Beach Visit Users of Dc]ray's beaches in thc Selected Florkla Beache~ winter ~ted thcm above thc avcragc Delray Broward for the beaches that have been Indian surveyed in thc soutbem part of thc Anna Maria state. This diference may reflect Marco I differences in weather conditions as Captive well as differences in the recreational lO.DO S'1 .DO $2.00 13.DO 14.DO IS.DO SS.DO S7.001 I Unrastomd I Ra~torad experience. Demographic Characteristics The wide appeal of Delray's beaches is evident from the data presented in TABLES 4.7- 4.9. The data refer to those interviewed on the beaches, since children were not interviewed. TABLE 4.7 shows the average adult ADa of Delray'a Adult Beach Uaara on Delray's beaches is about 45 years of 1995-96 age. Winter adult beach visitors arc eider than summer beach visitors. Indeed, more than one in five beach adults is over 64 years of age in thc winter season, whereas thc proportion of beach adults in this age group is only l 1.3 percent during thc SUl'nJ~er. 58 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 4.7 Age Of Adult Beach Users 1995-96 Percent .Age Group Summer 1995 Winter 1996 Year 1995-96 Under 25 years 8.1% 8.8 % 8.5 % 25 to 34 years 25.7 18.9 21.3 35 to 54 years 39.5 34.3 36.2 55 to 65 years 15.4 15.7 15.6 65 years plus 11.3 22.3 18.4 Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % Median Age 42.2 years 47.0 years 45.1 years The data on the occupation of beach adults (presented in TABLE 4.8) is consistent with the age data, with 27.6 percent of winter adult beach users being retired, compared to 18.7 percent in the summer. TABLE 4.8 Occupation Of Adult Beach Users 1995-96 Percent Occupation Summer 1995 Winter 1996 Year 1995-96 Student 4.2 % 7.0 % 6.0 % Employed 69.3 55.2 60.3 Retired 18.7 27.6 24.4 Homemaker 5.7 4.3 4.8 Unemployed 0.8 1.6 1.3 Other 1.3 4.3 3.2 Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 59 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 4.9 Income of Adult Beach Users 1995-96 Percent Income Group Summer 1995 Winter 1996 Year 1995-96 Under $25,000 8.5 % 12.6 % 11.1% $25,000 to $34,999 13.0 12.1 12.4 $35,000 to $44,999 16.2 20.2 1 $.8 $45,000 to $64,999 28.3 22.7 24.7 $65,000 to $99,999 19.7 17.7 18.4 $100,000 plus 14.3 14.7 14.6 Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % Median Income $ 52,700 $ 48,500 $ 50,200 TABLE 4.8 shows the household income of Delray's adult beach users. The median household income of adult beach users was $50,200. The median income was a little higher in the summer ($52,700) than in the winter ($48,500). This difference in median incomes may reflect the different age distributions noted above, as well as the larger proportion of winter beach users who are retired. Once again, the income data show the wide appeal of Delray's beaches with significant numbers of beach users coming from households earning less than $25,000 and more than $100,000 and at all income levels in between. 60 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. V. CHARACTERISTICS OF BEACH TOURISTS This chapter provides information on beach users who are tourists, that is, they stayed at least one night in Delray Beach. Included in this chapter is a breakdown of beach tourists by geographic origin, the lodging expenditures by tourists who paid for their lodging, and the characteristics of all overnight tourists. Due to the sharp differences in the tourism markets between the summer and winter seasons, most information is given by season. Geogranhic Orion Tourists travel in "tourist parties" to Delray Beach and other destinations. In 1995-96, a total of 13,797 tourist parties visited Delray's beaches. About 60 percent of these parties came during the winter season, and the remaining 40 percent came in the summer~. The characteristics of these tourist parties are given in TABLE 5.1, depicted by geographic origin. Most of the tourist parties were from out of state, especially in the winter season. There were more international tourist parties that visited the beaches, than tourist parties from elsewhere in Florida in each season. Party size tends to be larger in the summer than in the winter (2.9 persons in the summer compared to 2.4 persons in the winter). Tourist parties from elsewhere in Florida are more likely to come in the summer than in the winter, whereas out of state tourists are more likely to come in the winter. This is a typical feature of South Florida tom'ism. Because tourists from elsewhere SThe winter season consists of the 6-month period, November through April; the summer season consists of the 6-month period, May through October. 61 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 5.1 Delray's Be~ch Tourists by Geographic Origin 1995-96 All Other Other U.S. International Season Characteristic Overnight Florida Tourists Summer 1995 Number of Tourist Parties 5,421 728 3,930 763 Summer 1995 Percent of Tourist Parties ! 00.0 13.4 72.5 14. i Winter ! 996 Number of Tourist Parties 8,376 631 6,598 1,147 Winter 1996 Percent of Tourist Parties ! 00.0 7.5 78.8 13.7 Summer 1995 Party Size (Persons) 2.9 3.4 2.8 3.0 Winter 1996 Party Size (Persons) 2.4 2.0 2.6 1.8 Summer 1995 Number of Tourists 15,881 2,446 11,161 2,274 Summer 1995 Percent of Tourists 100.0 15.4 70.3 14.3 Winter 1996 Number of Tourists 20,345 1,281 17,023 2,042 Winter 1996 Percent of Tourists 100.0 6.3 83.7 ! 0.0 Summer 1995 Average Nights Stayed in City 6.6 4.6 6.7 8.2 Winter 1996 Average Nights Stayed in City 10.3 7.4 10.8 9.0 Summer 1995 Person Nights in City 105,189 11,228 74,780 18,576 Summer 1995 Percent of Person-Nights 100.0 10.7 71.1 17.7 Winter 1996 Person Nights in City 209,560 9,479 183,6847 18,416 Winter 1996 Percent of Person-Nights 100.0 4.5 87.7 8.8 in Florida are most likely to travel by car and can Delray's Bsach Tourist Parties Beach Ussru by Geographic Origin 1~g~-88 take advantage of economies in transportation costs, they tend to have a large party size, particularly in the summer. In the winter many tourists are retired and travel in a party size of tWO. Floridians account for about one in eight 62 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. beach tourists in Delray's Beach Tourist Parties By Geographic Origin 1995-96 Del;ay Beach during the summer, but they account for only one in thirteen during the winter. One of the few generalizations that holds widely in tourism is the tendency of those Summer Winter who travel a longer distance to a tourist destination to stay Delray Beach: Pereon Nights In the City a longer time at thc destination. This Summer Vleltors 1995-96 Winter is mostly true for Delray Beach tour/sm, with Florid/aris having the shortest stay in both seasons (4.6 nights in the summer and 7.4 nights in the winter); international visitors having the longest stay in summer (about $ nights), and visitors from the rest of the U.S. having the longest stay in the winter (about 11 nights). Due to these differences in stay, Flor/dians account for a 63 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. relatively small share of person-nights (10.7 percent in the summer and 4.5 percent in the winter). International visitors account for 17.7 percent of person-nights in the summer and 8.8 percent of person-nights in the winter. Delray's public beach area with a walking "promenade" and restaurants is very appealing to Northern Europeans and can be a major attraction for these tourists in the summer. Tourist Characteristics and Exnenditures Additional characteristics of Delray's beach tourists are given in TABLE 5.2. A relatively high proportion were visiting friends or relatives, especially in the winter season (45.6 percent). Perhaps surprising is the relatively high proportion of international visitors who were TABLE 5.2 Characteristics of Delray's Beach Tourists by Geographic Origin 1995-96 All Tourists Other Florida Other U.S. International Characteristic Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Number of Tourist Parties 5,421 8,376 728 631 3,930 6,598 763 !, ! 47 Percent Visiting Friends Or Relatives 29.0 % 45.6 % 41.8 % 27.2 % 30.6 % 47.3 % 8.5 % 46.4 % Age of Adult Interviewed (Percent): Under 25 years 12.9% 11.4% 12.4% 0.0% 11.3% 13.6% 21.6% 5.0% 25-34 Years Old 26.3 14.8 35.2 0.0 24.9 12.0 24.8 39.2 35-54 Years Old 50. ! 50.7 44.1 68.4 53.7 50. I 37.6 45.0 55454 Years Old 8. I I i.4 0.5 29.7 9. ! 1 I. 1 10.4 2.9 65+ Years Old 2.6 11.7 7.8 1.9 0.9 13.1 5.6 7.9 Median Age in Years 38.3 43.4 35.1 48.6 39.1 43.7 35.9 36.6 Household Income (Percent): Under $25,000 6.2% 16.1% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 15.3% 15.2% 29.2% $25,000-$34,999 8.7 3.2 0.0 ! .9 12.2 2.9 0.0 5.2 $35,000-$44,999 23.6 13.9 62.4 29.7 17.9 12.6 16.1 12.1 $45,000-$64,999 19.3 33.7 20.4 41.1 20.7 30.8 ! 1.9 45.5 $65,000-$99,999 27.1 20.3 17.3 0.0 29.0 25.1 26.7 4.3 Sl00,000+ 15.1 12.9 0.0 27.2 14.7 13.1 30.1 3.8 Median Income in Dollars S55,917 $53,970 $56,157 $52,594 S58,010 $56,468 $75,429 $45,538 Note: zero entries in the age and income distributions are indicative of a small sample size. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. visiting friends or relatives in the winter season (46.4 percent). A relatively high proportion of summer visitors from elsewhere in Florida were visiting friends or relatives (41.8 percen0. The highest proportion of visitors who were visiting friends or relatives were visitors fi.om other states in the winter (47.3 pen:enO. The median age of the adult tourists interviewed on the beaches was 38.3 years in the summer and 43.4 years in the winter. International visitors were relatively young, with a median age of about 36 years both in the winter and in the summer. The median household income of Delray's beach tourists was fairly similar throughout the year ($55,917 in the summer and $53,970 in the winter) The median income of summer international tourists was the highest among the groups surveyed. TABLE 5.3 Delray's Beach Tourism Spending Per Tourist Party By Type of Spending By Geographic Origin 1995-96 All Tourists Other Florida Other U.S. International Type of Spending Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Lodging $ 250.38 $ 287.73 $237.18 $402.50 $ 215.48 $ 202.95 $ 334.84 $ 518.14 Dining $ 245.87 $ 308.36 $136.77 $ 96.85 $ 212.91 $ 317.13 $ 406.03 $ 368.13 Food/Groceries $ 85.63 $ 163.78 $ 44.98 $133.39 $ 91.73 $ 175.67 $ 107.50 $ 144.96 Recreation/Entertainment $ 69.39 $ 175.26 $ 61.18 $ 38.85 $ 60.74 $ 223.88 $ 94.15 $ 103.05 Shopping $ 107.88 $ 174.10 $ 63.11 $ 58.05 $ 61.82 $ 136.38 $ 240.55 $ 316.53 Cat/Gas $ 26.00 $ 42.39 $ 22.23 $ 18.68 $ 21.06 $ 47.08 $ 39.34 $ 39.53 Other $ 1.74 S 0.00 S 0.54 S 0.00 S 0.01 S 0.00 S 6.33 S 0.00 Total $ 786.89 $1,151.62 $ 565.99 $ 748.32 $ 663.75 $1,103.09 $1,228.74 $1,490.34 Number of Patties 5,421 8,376 728 63 ! 3,930 6,598 763 I, 147 65 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Spending Per Tourbt Perry by Delr. y'e Beech Usem T~e avel~g¢ roLl, St p~ Y~sit~g Spending by Geog~phlc Origin ISSS-~I s~er s~on ~d $1,151.61 d~g ~e ~ter s~on ~LE 5.3). Ime~fion~ to~st p~ies had ~e ~est level of ex~ndi~e ~ ~ se~ons ($1,228.74 ~ · e s~er ~d $1,490.34 in ~e ~nter). ~c to~st p~ics ~om elsewhere ~ ~ Winter ~ Summer Florida had ~e lowest level of ex,halites ($565.99 in ~e s~er ~d $748.32 in ~e ~nteO, w~ch w~ about one-h~f of~e level of spending by intemationfl to~s~. To~st pmies ~om o~er p~s of~e U~ted S~tes had a level of expendi~es inte~ediate be~een ~e spending of o~er Florida ~d ~temation~ visitors. Spending per p~ is ~most 50 percem ~gher in ~e ~nter ~ in ~e s~er for ~1 to~st p~ies ~en ~ a ~oup, but t~s reflec~ ~e sh~ incre~e in spending by ~e l~gest goup of toasts (~ose ~om o~er states) in ~e ~nter se~on (rising ~om $663.75 to $1,103.09) A~ut 30 percent of~e ex~ndi~es made by to~st p~ies visiting Delray Beach w~ s~nt on Iodg~g ~d ~so on di~ng out in ~e s~er; a~ut 25 ~ment w~ s~nt on each of~ese items in ~e ~nter. Winter to~s~ s~nd relatively more on recreation. To~st p~ies ~om elsewhere in Flofi~ s~nt relatively more on dining out, w~le out of state to~st p~ies s~nt relatively more on recreation ~d ente~ent. 66 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC, TABLE 5.4 Delrny's Beach Tourism Spending Per Tourist By Type of Spending By Geographic Origin 1995-96 AH Tourists Other Florida Other U.S. International Type of Spending Summer Winlcr Summer Winter Summer Win~r Summer Winter Lodging $ 86.34 $ 119.89 $ 69.76 $201.25 $ 76.96 $ 78.06 $ !11.61 $ 287.86 Dining $ 84.78 $ 128.48 $ 40.23 $ 48.43 $ 76.04 $ 121.97 $ 135.34 $ 204.52 Food/Groceries $ 29.53 $ 68.24 $ 13.23 $ 66.70 $ 32.76 $ 67.57 $ 35.83 $ 80.53 Recreation/Entertainment $ 23.93 $ 73.03 $ 17.99 $ 19.43 $ 21.69 $ 86.11 $ 31.38 $ 57.25 Shopping $ 37.20 $ 72.54 $ 18.56 $ 29.03 $ 22.08 $ 52.45 $ 80.18 $ 175.85 Car/Gas $ 8.97 $ 17.66 $ 6.54 $ 9.34 $ 7.52 $ 18.11 $ 13.11 $ 21.96 Other $ 0.60 $ 0.00 $ 0.16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.11 $ 0.00 Total $271.34 $ 479.84 $166.47 $374.16 $ 237.05 $ 424.27 $ 409.58 $ 827.97 Number of Tourists 15,881 20,345 2,446 i,281 11,161 17,023 2,274 2,042 Because overall tourist party Type of 8pending for All Tourists Oalray'a Belch Tourlats tSgS-tS size is higher in the summer than in the O~ar winter, spending per tourist remains Car/Ga. shoppl., substantially more than 50 percent n.~.at~, higher in the winter than in the summer Fo..~r~.. (TABLE 5.4). For international Dining tourists, their winter per capita rate of Lodging "'" '"" "0" "'" '"# """ '"'# '"0" expenditures is more than twice their · Summar · Winl~r summer rate ($409.58 in the summer 67 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. and $827.97 in the winte0. The primary reason why tourist spending tends to be higher in the winter than in the summer is evident from TABLE 5.5 which shows spending per tourist-day in the summer at $41.11 and at $46.59 in the winter. Winter spending is about 13 percent higher on a per tourist- day basis, compared to well over 50 percent on a per party or per capita basis. Tourists tend to stay longer when visiting in the winter season and this increases their spending. TABLE 5.5 Delray's Beach Tourism Spending Per Tourist-Day By Type of Spending By Geographic Origin 1995-96 Ali Tourists Other Florida Other U.S. International Type of Spending Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Lodging $ 13.08 $ 11.64 $ 15.16 $ 27.20 $ 11.49 $ 7.23 $ 13.61 $ 31.98 Dining $ 12.85 $ 12.47 $ 8.74 $ 6.54 $ II.35 $ 11.29 $ 16.51 $ 22.72 Food/Groceries $ 4.47 $ 6.63 $ 2.88 $ 9.01 $ 4.89 $ 6.26 $ 4.37 $ 8.95 Recreation/Entertainment $ 3.63 $ 7.09 $ 3.91 $ 2.63 $ 3.24 $ 7.97 $ 3.83 $ 6.36 Shopping $ 5.64 $ 7.04 $ 4.04 $ 3.92 $ 3.30 $ 4.86 $ 9.78 $ 1 9.54 Car/Gas $ 1.36 $ i.71 $ 1.42 $ 1.26 $ 1. i 2 $ !.68 $ i.60 $ 2.44 Other $ 0.09 $ 0.00 $ 0.03 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.26 $ 0.00 Total $ 41.il $ 46.59 $ 36.19 $ 50.56 $ 35.38 $ 39.28 $ 49.95 $ 92.00 Number of Tourist-Days 105,189 209,560 11,228 9,479 74,780 183,847 18,576 18,416 The remaining increase in spending between the summer and winter seasons is due mainly to an increase in recreation/entertainment expenditures per person-day. Although it would seem 68 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. obvious that lodging expenditures per tourist-day would increase between the seasons bemuse of higher hotel rates, it should be remembered that the figures are very sensitive to the proportion of tourists who are visiting friends and relatives and have, therefore, no lodging expenditures. Overall, the proportion of tourists visiting friends or relatives is higher in the winter. This explains why lodging expenditures per tourist-day falls in the winter relative to the summer. For tourists from other parts of Florida, however, a lower proportion are visiting friends and relatives in winter, and their lodging expenditures per person-day are higher, as expected. Tourists and Beaches Delray's beach tourists were asked whether they would come to the city if there were no beaches (TABLE 5.6). There was a significant difference between summer and winter tourists, probably reflecting the large proportion of winter tourists who were visiting friends or relatives. TABLE 5.6 Response to Question: "Would You Come to Delray Beach If There Were No Beaches?" Delray's Beach Tourists Percent of Respondents 1995-96 Summer Winter Year Geographic Origin , Would Would Would Would Would Would Come Not Come Not Come Not Come Come Come Elsewhere in Florida 21.8 % 78.2 % 97.3 % 2.7 % 47.7 % 52.3 % Other States 27.4 72.6 65.4 34.6 50.4 49.6 International 27.0 73.0 18.1 81.9 22.8 77.2 Total 26.1% 73.9 % 56.5 % 43.5 % 43.2 % 56.8 % 69 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. About three-quarters of the summer tourists said they would not come to Delray Beach ii' there were no beaches; only 43.5 percent of winter tourists said they would not come to Delray if there were no beaches. However, more than 80 percent of international winter tourists said they would not come to Delray if there were no beaches and this group has the highest rate of spending of all the groups surveyed. For the year, 56.8 percent of Delray's tourists said they would not come to Delray if there were no beaches. Delray's beaches also attract a lot of tourists from other parts of Florida in the summer. Facilities that attract tourists in the summer ("off") season have a very beneficial impact because they generate income for Delray workers at a time when they may be experiencing a sharp decline in their incomes. "Would You Come to Delrey Beech If There Were No Reeponce of Delrey'e Beech Touri~te by Percent Intomotlonel Other Stetee EleowheT~ ~n FIGHd,, 0 20 40 ~0 80 100 [] Would Not Come [] Would Come ?0 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. ?" £-~ .':-£ "- ' "'" '-: ' Wrilcr's Direct l,inc: (~{,I) DELRAY BEACH liNAmerica City M E M ORA N D U M ~ll~llll[ DATE: May5,1997 TO: David T. Har~ity Manager FROM: Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: A~ificial Reef In response to your memo of April 28, 1997, our o~ce researched the possible liability to the City from const~cting this artificial reef. ~e case of Tucker v. Gadsden County, 670 So.2d 1053 (Fla. I st DCA 1996), held that when a governmental entity creates a known dangerous condition, which is not readily ~parent to persons who could be injured by the condition, a duty at the operational-level afi~s. The Florida Supreme Court has held that when a city creates a known dangerous ~ndition and the city has knowledge of the presence of people likely to be injured the city must take steps to avert the danger or properly warn persons who may be injured by that danger. The cou~ ~nher held that the city could not claim immunity in a case where it ~eates the known dangerous condition and any failure on its pa~ to protect the public could not be labeled a judgmental or planning-level decision. In a case involving a city and a beach area the Florida Supreme Court held that the City of Da~ona Beach clearly had a duty to warn sunbathers of the fact that it did not supe~ise the vehicle traffic that it allowed on the beach and, thus, protect the public from the danger of vehicles on the beach. This case arose when a sunbather was ~n over by a vehicle. If the City did install an artificial reef where access to the reef is taken from the City's public ~ch then the City would have a duty to warn people who attempt to snorkel or scuba dive at this site that the City does not provide any lifeguard protection for that area and that diving at the site would be at their own risk. I have attached several cases concerning the possible liability the City could be facing regarding this a~ificial reeE Pi~e call if you have any questions. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: David Harden, City Manager From: John Walker, Project Coordinator.x/ Date: March 17, 1997 Subject: Shallow Water Artificial Reef Attached is the study concerning the feasibility of placing an artificial reef in the nearshore zone. The study identifies an area in which an artificial reef will not create potential permitting problems for the Beach Nourishment Project. This area is a 500' wide strip, lying 1000' - 1500' offshore, in water depths exceeding 25'. The study acknowledges that this location may present other problems related to accessibility and public safety. An exception to the location constraints is detailed, wherein all permitting agencies would need to agree to essentially ignore the existence of the artificial reef in reviewing future beach nourishment work. Innovative design could address the issue of burial by future beach fill projects at inshore locations, but would not address the conflict with the mixing zone area. Cost ranges are provided for two types of artificial reef material (construction debris and limestone boulders). For a one-acre reef, say 200' x 200', the cost, including engineering, would be about: concrete debris $50,000 to $120,000 limestone boulders $565,000 to $1,840,000 3 COASTAL & OCEAN ENGINEERING COASTAL SURVEYS COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. BOCA RATON: 2481 NW. BOCA RATON 80ULEVARO. 80CA RATON. FL 33431 (407) 391-8102 TELEFAX: (40?) 391-9116 JACKSONVILLE: 1542 KINGSLEY AVENUE. SUITE 142E. ORANGE PARK, FL 32073 (904) 264-5039 TELEFAX: (904) 264-5039 TOMS RIVER: 250 WASHINGTON STREET. SUITE B. TOMS RIVER, NJ 08753 (908) 244-3366 TELEFAX: (908) 244-3664 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Mr. John Walker Project Coordinator City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re: Feasibility StUdy for the Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Dear John: The City of Delray Beach is considering the construction of a shallow water artificial reef seaward of the public beach. The intent of the reef is to provide snorkeling opportunities for beach visitors. The feasibility study of the artificial reef was conducted to address the considerations and requirements for artificial reef deployment, particularly evaluating the potential interaction between the artificial reef habitat and construction of future beach renourishment projects. Approximate construction and engineering costs are also included in the study. INTRODUCTION The City of Delray Beach has one of the most successful beach maintenance and preservation programs in the United States. Through beach nourishment and renourishment, the beach has been maintained and enhanced despite its location in a region of chronic beach erosion. The construction of an artificial reef in the nearshore vicinity to the beach renourishment project could restrict the City's ability to construct future beach projects. The establishment of a shallow water artificial reef creates an environmental habitat in the nearshore zone which could be impacted by beach nourishment construction, and, as a result, would be of concern to permit agencies. Presently, with the exception of the "Delray Wreck':, there are no other hardbottom benthic communities within the nearshore region of the beach nourishment project area. BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS The Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, regulatory agencies which issue permits for beach renourishment activities, will consider the effects of construction of a beach nourishment project on an artificial reef. Specific concerns would be related to reduction in water quality during beach nourishment project construction, and possible burial of portions of the artificial reef from sand placed on the beach project. An additional concern which could affect the beach renourishment program would be the potential loss of sand resources for beach nourishment if the artificial reef were constructed over offshore 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Report Page 2 sand deposits. We have examined the issues related to the beach renourishment program and offer our recommendations concerning the location of the proposed artificial reef: 1. Beach Ren0urishment Construction Water Quali .ty Considerations: During beach renourishment construction, the adjacent Atlantic Ocean becomes more turbid due to the placement of sand on the beach. This is due to the suspension of silt and clay in the water which comes from the process of sand placement on the beach by the dredge. This phenomena is unavoidable, as all the available sand sources within a reasonable distance of Delray Beach contain a small percentage of silt and clay in the overall sand composition. During past permitting processes with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), we have been successful in obtaining "mixing zone variances" for the beach renourishment projects. The mixing zone variances allow the temporary reduction of water quality as a result of turbidity generated while constructing the beach renourishment project. Through the issuance of a mixing zone variance, the State recognizes that the beach renourishment project cannot be constructed without temporarily exceeding State water quality standards. For past projects, the Florida DEP has issued a mixing zone variance which allows the City of Delray Beach to exceed the water quality standards in a particular zone (the mixing zone). Mixing zone variances are usually established to avoid the inclusion of sensitive marine habitats within the mixing zone variance limits. The ability of the City to secure a mixing zone variance may be effected if an artificial reef is constructed within the mixing zone. Turbidity from beach renourishment activities, although temporary, could impact benthic marine invertebrates which colonize the artificial reef. Reduction or loss of the mixing zone variance could affect the City's ability to renourish the beach. For example, a smaller mixing zone would result in much greater potential for violation of State water quality standards. This, in mm, would necessitate the cessation of dredging until the water quality returned to State standards. Dredge contractors bidding on the beach renourishment project would take into consideration the construction delays associated with numerous water quality violation problems. This would be reflected in higher bids for the beach renourishment project. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Report Page 3 As a result, it would be prudent to deploy the artificial reef offshore of the seaward limit of the mixing zone variance area, which is 300 meters (approximately 1000 feet) from the shoreline (Figure 1). Therefore, the State would not have to consider the presence of an artificial reef within our requested mixing zone variance and would be able to issue variances for future beach renourishment projects. This, in mm, would lessen the likelihood of project interruptions due to violations of State water quality standards and higher potentially beach renourishment project costs. 2. Beach Renourishment Project Offshore Sand Spreading: The process of constructing a beach renourishment project involves the placement of sand on the beach through a dredging process. In Delray Beach, a sand borrow area (sand source) located within a mile of the coastline is used for renourishment of the beach. Dredges pump sand from the borrow area and place the sand on the beach. The sand which is placed on the beach by the dredging process is not in a natural profile condition. Physical restrictions associated with the dredging process result in placement of sand on the beach in an unstable or non-equilibrium condition. The sand is literally "stacked" on the beach in a construction profile. The design profile is achieved through the process of transition of the beach to an equilibrium condition. Additional sand is placed on the beach with the knowledge that sand will be moved offshore through the action of wind and waves. This process naturally transfers sand to the offshore "toe" of the beach profile, providing support for the upper dry beach. The process of beach fill transition to the equilibrium profile results in the spreading of sand offshore of the beach renourishment project area. The most seaward extent of the sand movement is referred to as the "equilibrium toe of fill." If an artificial reef is sited within the equilibrium toe of fill transition zone, it will be impacted due to burial by sand, primarily in the lower portions of the artificial reef. State and Federal permitting agencies may consider this an environmental impact, which could affect the City's permits and ability to renourish the beach. Generally, the permitting agencies will consider two options if environmental impact is anticipated due to sand coverage of a hardbottom (artificial reef) habitat. First, the project may be modified to reduce the volume of sand placement which would result in the transition of the equilibrium toe sand over the artificial reef. This option could impact the beach nourishment project in two ways. The beach COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. R 17~ · 177 R 178 R 179 ATLANTIC AVENUE R 180 ~8 R 182 LINTON BLVD. R 1500 0 1500 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET R 1 LEGEND : ~ 0 DELRAY WRECK FIGURE '- DELRAY BEACH ARTIFICIAL REEF COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING. IHC., BOCA RAI'ON .SARASOTA'JACKSONVILLE 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Report Page 4 in the vicinity of the artificial reef would not receive the needed amount of sand to meet the design requirements for the beach nourishment project. This could result in loss some of some Federal funding available to Delray Beach for beach renourishment projects. Also, the area receiving less sand would require periodic sand placement on a more aggressive schedule. This would tend to increase the cost of the beach renourishment program, as beach renourishment would be required at shorter intervals. If regulatory agencies do not require project modification to avoid impact from sand movement offshore, they may require the City to mitigate for impacts to the artificial reef. The required mitigation would likely be in the form of additional artificial reef construction. This option would include the additional costs of artificial reef engineering and construction. To avoid permit problems, the artificial reef should be placed outside of the area of influence of the equilibrium toe of fill. Placement outside of the water quality mixing zone for beach renourishment would also address sand spreading concerns. A possible exception to concerns related to sand spreading could be addressed through artificial reef design. If a reef design were developed which elevated the reef above the sand bottom, impacts from sand movements may be minimized. 3. Beach Renourishment Sand Source Considerations: Sand for beach renourishment is a limited resource, and as such, the availability of sand should not be jeopardized. Additionally, sand resources closer to the project site (the beach) are less expensive for beach renourishment purposes than sand which is located a substantial distance from the beach. Delray Beach is fortunate in that a large sand resource exists within a relatively short distance of the beach renourishment project site. As a result, beach renourishment in Delray Beach has typically been less expensive than at other locations throughout Florida. In order to continue to have relatively inexpensive sand available for beach renourishment, the offshore sand source must continue to be available for future beach renourishment projects. Placement of an artificial reef within an area where sand resources are available for beach renourishment would preclude the availability of some of the sand. The artificial reef would become a habitat protected by the State of Florida and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dredging of sand for beach nourishment would not be COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Report Page 5 allowed within the vicinity of the artificial reef. A minimum buffer zone of 300 feet around the artificial reef would likely be maintained to protect the reef from potential dredging impacts. We recommend that the artificial reef be placed in a location which would not interfere with the City's ability to obtain sand for placement during beach renourishment construction. Figure 1 provides the limits of the offshore sand resource area where artificial reef deployment should not occur in order to protect available sand resources for beach renourishment activity. Additionally, the area of deployment of the artificial reef should be limited to avoid blockage of pipeline access corridors from the offshore sand source to the renourishment project beach. We recommend no artificial reef construction in the sand resource area for the beach renourishment program. ARTIFICIAL REEF PLACEMENT ZONE An offshore zone remains available for artificial reef deployment, located between the seaward limit of the water quality mixing zone and landward of the sand resources. It is an area 500 feet wide, extending from 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet from shore (Figure 1), in a water depth exceeding 25 feet. Nevertheless, several problems exist with the use of this area for a nearshore artificial reef, as follows: 1. Accessibility: The present concept of the nearshore artificial reef is that the reef is intended for use by beach divers. As a result, the artificial reef should be located as close to shore as possible. However, the limitations of protecting the water quality mixing zone and equilibrium toe of fill for the beach renourishment require the artificial reef to be located at least 1,000 feet from shore. This distance may be farther than many beach divers are willing to swim to visit an artificial reef site. Access to the reef probably would require the use of SCUBA equipment, and would be restricted for use by more experienced divers. 2. Historic Use Areas: Areas which have been historically used by divers may be superior to the establishment of a new artificial reef site. A threat to the safety of divers swimming from the beach is the presence of boats. Areas which are locally recognized as being active dive sites are somewhat safer because resident boaters anticipate encounters with divers on the surface of the water at those locations. In Delray Beach, two areas would be considered traditional dive sites. First, the COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Report Page 6 natural barrier reef located approximately 4500 feet from shore is used by divers from boats. This area, however, would not qualify as a shallow water dive site and is not accessible from the shoreline. The second area, commonly referred to as the "Delray Wreck," is traditionally and actively used by beach divers. Neither area is located within the proposed artificial reef deployment zone shown in Figure 1. Nevertheless, if the artificial reef were constructed in the suggested area, over time the site would become locally accepted as a dive site. Continual use of the site by divers would eventually lead to the recognition of the area as a diver site, as has occurred at the Delray Wreck site. The addition of marker buoys may also be prudent to mark the site for both boaters, and for divers swimming to the site from the beach. 3. Public Safety: The location of the artificial reef a minimum of 1,000 feet from shore presents a public safety issue. Marine safety personnel would have difficulty observing beach divers at that distance to determine if any divers required assistance. The response time to the site would also be longer than normal. A boat would likely be required to address safety situations at the artificial reef site. "Control" of the site would be an issue. For example, would the site be open to boaters, and if so, how would the City control interactions between boats and beach divers swimming to the site from the beach? Control would also have be to be addressed concerning such issues as spearfishing or other uses which could be hazardous to divers using the reef. Issues of liability will also apply and are beyond the scope of this study. Liability issues apply particularly to any artificial reef location which invites divers from the public beach to swim to the artificial reef. TH2E DELRAY WRECK SITE The Delray Wreck is located approximately 600 to 700 feet from shore off of the south end of the public beach. The Delray Wreck is actually the steamship, Inchulva, which sank on September 11, 1903. Over the years, the Delray Wreck has broken into a number of distinct parts, including the two boilers from the steamship. Although the surface of the wreck has benthic organisms such as soft corals and sponges growing on it, it is primarily considered a historical site. It is located in approximately 22 feet of water and is close enough to shore to be affected by beach renourishment activities. On occasion, the lower portions of the wreck are reported to be covered by sand movement. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Report Page 7 Establishment of the artificial reef at the Delray Wreck site would address two concerns related to the issue of beach diving. It Is accessible from the beach and is a traditional or historic dive site familiar to many resident boaters. The construction of an artificial reef at the Delray Wreck however, could impact the ability of the City to renourish the beach. The artificial reef, unlike the Delray Wreck, would be considered primarily on environmental resource. Permit agencies would be concerned about water quality issues (the mixing zone) and impacts from sand spreading over the site. Beach renourishment permitting concerns could affect the ability of the City to renourish the beach. Consequently, we would not recommend use of the Delray Wreck site for artificial reef construction without protection afforded the City in permitting and in receiving funding for future beach renourishment projects. Protection could include the establishment of agreements between the City, and State and Federal permitting and funding agencies. ARTIFICIAL REEF LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City protect and maintain its ability to renourish and maintain the public beach of Delray Beach. This condition, however, may not necessarily preclude construction of a artificial reef, as follows: 1. Nearshore Artificial Reef Site Recommendation: The primary concern of establishment of a nearshore artificial reef is the potential effect on the ability of the City to continue to renourish and maintain the public beach. Specific concerns relate to permitting and funding of future beach renourishment projects. We do not recommend construction of a nearshore reef within the mixing zone, with the following exception. In order to construct a nearshore artificial reef, the City should secure formal agreements with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, and separately, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The agreements should generally state the following: a) The agreement should state that the State of Florida (and Federal government) recognize and accept that the process of beach renourishment construction and transition to equilibrium may impact the artificial reef. Impacts that may occur include increased water turbidity, sediment around the artificial reef, burial from sand movement, and potential physical damage from construction activity, at minimum. The agreement should also state that the State of Florida (and Federal government) acknowledge and agree that the City of Delray Beach constructed the artificial reef with the understanding that its construction and COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Report Page 8 subsequent biological colonization will in no way effect the City's beach renourishment and preservation program. b) The agreement should state that the construction of a nearshore artificial reef in the vicinity of the beach renourishment project will not be a consideration in any approvals issued by the State of Florida (or Federal government) for all future beach renourishrnent projects. This will'apply, at minimum, to all permits, easements, mixing zones, coastal consistency considerations or any required approval for beach renourishment construction. c) The agreement should state that the construction of a nearshore artificial reef in the vicinity of the beach nourishment project will not, in any way, effect the City's ability to receive State (or Federal) funding of future beach renourishment projects. It will not result in the loss of funding, reduction in funding or reduction in priority ranking of the City's beach renourishment project. d) The conditions of the agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as the permit agency of record, will apply to all other Federal agencies including, but not limited to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries and Environmental Protection Agency. If the City were able to secure agreements with the State of Florida and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it is recommended that the nearshore artificial reef be constructed in vicinity of the Delray Wreck to take advantage of traditional/historic use by beach divers of that site. 2. Offshore Reef Site Recommendation; If agreements cannot be established with the DEP and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it is recommended that the artificial reef be constructed in an area outside of the influence of the beach renourishment project. Two areas can be considered for artificial reef deployment, as follows: a. Artificial Reef Placement Zone: An artificial reef may be constructed in the 500 feet wide zone between the mixing zone and sand resource zone, as shown in Figure 1. The area is located 1000 to 1500 feet from shore, but may not be considered nearshore. This location is as close to shore as possible without directly affecting the permits or funding available for the beach renourishment program. If an artificial reef is constructed in this location, many beach divers may not be able to visit the site. Most of the diving activity at the artificial reef would originate from boats. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Report Page 9 b. Deepwater Site.:. Placement of an artificial reef well offshore, on the seaward side of the natural barrier reef, would also avoid problems with the City's beach renourishment program. The artificial reef would be located in water depths approaching 100 feet. It would be used primarily by divers from boats, and would not be a beach dive. It may also be used by fisherman from boats. ARTIFICIAL REEF CONSTRUCTION COST Reef Construction Costs: Construction costs for artificial reefs are dependent primarily upon the materials used for reef construction, and upon the size of the artificial reef. For example, a relatively inexpensive reef can be constructed from discarded materials such as concrete culvert, pipe or pilings. The costs associated with construction of the artificial reef would be from clean up of the materials and transport to the artificial reef deployment site. The materials would be essentially free of cost. Similar to the example of discarded materials, a vessel can be sunk as an artificial reef. The cost of sinking a vessel often includes an extensive cleanmp and preparation effort to remove polluting chemicals and dangerous parts of the wreck (doors, etc.). The cost of a vessel of can also increase due to the popularity of using a vessel for an artificial reef. When vessels become available for artificial reef use, competing artificial reef programs through the state can drive up the price to purchase the vessel. Conversely, artificial reefs constructed of pre-cast modules, or from fossilifernous limestone boulders obtained from a quarry would cost more because there is a cost associated with the materials. Because of the variability in materials, and reef sizes, costs can vary greatly. Costs also vary based on winter verse summer construction, market conditions (i.e. how busy are marine contractors?), equipment requirements and other less significant variables. Approximate unit costs are as follows: 1) Discarded concrete materials: $25/ton to $70/ton 2) Fossilefernous limestone boulders: $60/ton to $200/ton Assuming the construction of a one acre reef, and 3 to 6 feet of relief, the cost range would be as follows: 1) Discarded Concrete Materials: $37,500 to $105,000 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 4819.00 February 28, 1997 Proposed Shallow Water Artificial Reef Report Page 10 2) Fossilefernous limestone boulders: $550,000 to $1,827,000 Engineering Costs: The engineer will be required to conduct an artificial reef site survey, obtain permits and easements, prepare a design, develop plans and specifications, assist in bidding and contractor selection, and conduct construction inspection. If no field studies or extraordinary evaluations are required, depending upon the selected reef materials reef location and other variables, the engineering fees range from approximately $12,500 to $20,000. SUMMARY The City of Delray Beach should not construct a nearshore artificial reef within 1000 feet of the shoreline unless formal agreements of understanding are executed with the State of Florida and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The agreements should be structured to insure the City's ability to renourish and maintain the beach. The City may also pursue artificial reef construction in the artificial reef placement zone identified in this report (Figure 1) or further offshore, seaward of the natural barrier reef. Location of an artificial reef in either area would minimize effects on the beach nourishment program. Depending upon the size of the artificial reef, material selection and complexity of engineering, the City should budget a minimum of $50,000 for the artificial reef. If you should have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Richard H. Spadoni Vice President d:\wp6 ldocs\palmbch\delray\arltrrpt.038 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # - WORKSHOP MEETING OF MAY 13, 1997 CRITERIA FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES REGARDING BOARD MEETING ATTENDANCE DATE: MAY 8, 1997 At the April 15th regular meeting, Commissioner Ellingsworth asked that the Commission review the City's ordinance with respect to a member's automatic resignation from a board or committee upon three consecutive absences. Attached is background information which was provided to the Commission at the March 14, 1995, workshop meeting. It outlines the problems which had been encountered with the previous ordinance, one of which was the subjectiveness of what constituted an "excused" or "unexcused" absence depending on who was making the decision (usually the respective board's chairperson). The Commission felt it preferable to do away with that procedure and proceed with the revised ordinance wherein a member would automatically be removed upon failure to attend three consecutive regular meetings. However, a reappointment provision was included whereby a removed member could be reappointed at the Commission's discretion if so requested and if it were determined by the Commission that there was a valid reason for the absences. Ordinance No. 19-95 was adopted by the City Commission on April 4, 1995. After the ordinance was adopted, it was distributed by the City Clerk's office to all staff members serving as liaison to the advisory boards and committees with instructions to distribute it to their boards and ensure that their members were aware of its contents. To-date, we have had relatively few problems with adherence to and enforcement of the ordinance. However, if the Commission wants to make further revisions, direction is requested. ref:agmemo3 5. City policy regarding sidewalks and street l~ghtiDg. The City Manager presented a draft policy for sidewalk repair and construction for the Commission's review. He noted that the City is receiving increased requests for sidewalk construction and the idea being proposed is that the City would pay half the cost if the abutting property owner is agreeable to being assesse~ for the other half. During discussion, Mayor Lynch commented that he felt sidewalks should be constructed only when they are meaningful in terms of connecting into existing sidewalks or are installe~ in an entire neighborhood, as opposed to just being put in piecemeal at a property owner's request. The consensus was to notify the various homeowners associations and groups of the proposed policy to guage interest in view of the cost sharting, and then begin to prioritize those areas where the need for sidewalks is greatest. The City Manager then presente~ a draft policy for street light installation. He noted that the City is starting to receive requests for street light improvements which are outside the boundaries of what we have been doing in the past. While nothing has been formally adopted, we have been operating un, er an unofficial set of standards insofar as type of lights, location and brightness, etc. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to have staff obtain additional information concerning the costs involved with the various types of lighting. 6. Review and direction for proposed revisions to Chapter 32 of the City Code regarding attendance policy and removal procedures for advisory boards and committees. In those instances where a member is to be removed for missing three meetings by letter from the City Manager, copy the appointing Commissioner so they will be aware of the situation and have the ability to speak with the member to determine if there is a vali~ reason for the absences and if reappointment is appropriate. Consensus to procee~ to first reading of an ordinance to enact the proposed revisions to Chapter 32. - 5 - 3/14/95 Workshop MEMORANDUM TO: David T. Harden, City Manager ~ FROM: Alison MacGregor Harry, City Clerk SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to Chapter 32 - Removal of Municipal Board/Committee Members DATE: March 9, 1995 ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION: Review of proposed revisions to Chapter 32 of the City Code concerning grounds for and procedure dealing with removal of members from advisory boards, committees and commissions. This item comes about primarily as the result of previous discussions concerning the repeated absence of some members from the meetings of the advisory board or committee to which they were appointed. The code as currently written seems to have conflicting provisions with respect to the three missed meetings and the member is off rule, and it is silent concerning how this provision is to be administered. The existing ordinance also only refers to regular meetings and not workshops or special meetings. A summary of some of the difficulties encountered is provided in the attached memorandum from Anita Barba. The proposed redraft of Chapter 32 is an effort to clarify the provisions of the code pertaining to the overall procedure for removal of a board or committee member. Among other things, it defines the failure to attend three consecutive regular meetings as "abandonment of office", constituting grounds for immediate removal by notice from the City Manager's office and with no further action of the Commission required. It does not get into what is considered an "excused" or "unexcused" absence. If a member misses three consecutive regular meetings, they are off the board. The member may, however, request reappointment which is at the discretion of the City Commission. In addition, for removal on grounds other than abandonment of office, a due process procedure is included. However, instead of a hearing before the Commission being mandatory, the member being removed is notified that he has the right to request a hearing before the Commission is he so desires. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Commission review and consider the proposed ordinance, with direction to either proceed to first reading or provide direction on further changes to an overall policy. AMH/m Attachments /./~/. 3. ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Alison MacGregor Harry, City Clerk FROM: Anita Barba, Executive Assistant ~/h~ SUBJECT: NOTED ABSENCES ON THE OUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT DATE: February 23, 1995 When compiling the quarterly attendance report for the advisory boards and committees, I contact either the chairperson or the recording secretary. Some of the excuses given for absences from board/committee meetings are: Illness Visiting relatives Business obligations Conflicting meeting dates Vacation The above are generally considered "excused" by the chairpersons. However, the reasons given for an absence or absences may not be limited to those listed. In addition, for an absence to be considered "excused", the member usually provides sufficient notice (at least 24 hours) that he or she will not be able to attend a meeting. The procedure we have been following is that the chairperson decides if the absence is excused or unexcused. However, many of the chairpeople are reluctant to state that a member's absence was unexcused. There is no written policy on who makes the determination. In those cases when a member is simply marked "absent", it is usually when there has been no notification to the secretary or chairperson. In other words, a "no show". As you know, the code is not all that clear on this subject. In Section 32.16, "Grounds for Removal", it states that removal shall be authorized for inefficiency, neglect of duty (absence from three consecutive meetings shall be prima facie evidence of neglect of duty). Section 32.19(A) refers to "three consecutive ~ meetings. Section 32.19(B) states that a person may be reappointed to the unexpired term if upon good cause shown to the Commission, that member has demonstrated good cause for such absences. However, there is no definition of what is considered "good cause". Also, there is nothing written as to who will do the notification to the member informing them of the removal from office. I would appreciate some direction. ORDINANCE NO. 19-'95 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 32, "DEPARTMENTS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY REPEALING SUBHEADING "REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERS", SECTIONS 32.~5 THROUGH 32.~9, INCLUSIVE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND ENACTING A NEW SUBHEADING, "REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION MEMBERS", SECTIONS 32.15 THROUGH 32.20, INCLUSIVE, TO CLARIFY PROCEDURES FOR REMOVAL OF MEMBERS FROM ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS; AMENDING SECTION 2.2.1(F), "REMOVAL OF MEMBERS; VACANCIES", OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE THAT REMOVAL OF MEMBERS FROM A BOARD SHALL BE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 32; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City's Code of Ordinances at Chapter 32, Sections 32.16, "Grounds for Removal", Section 32.19, "Forfeiture of Office', and Land Development Regulations Section 2.2.1(F), "Removal of Members, Vacancies", provide for removal of members from advisory boards and commissions; and WHEREAS, as currently drafted, it is unclear whether these provisions conflict with the procedures required in Section 32.17, · Procedure", for removal from office; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach desires to clarify and unify the provisions pertaining to removal of board, committee or commission members, especially that there will be an automatic forfeiture of office for failure to attend three consecutive regular meetings of a board, committee or commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 32, "Departments, Boards and Commissions", Subheading "Removal of Municipal Board or Commission Members", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby repealed in its entirety, and a new Subheading, "Removal of Municipal Board, Committee or Commission Members", is hereby enacted to read as follows: REMOVAL OF ~UNICIPAL BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION MEMBERS Section 32.15 DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: "Member" shall mean any person who is a member of any of the regulatory or advisory boards, committees and commissions of the city, whether they are appointed by the City Commission or elected. "Abandonment of office" includes but is not necessarily limited to failure to attend three (3) consecutive regular meetings of a board, committee or commission. Section 32.16 APPLICATION. (A} A member of any city board, committee or commission appointed by the City Commission to serve on that board, committee or commission for a fixed term may be removed during the term of office in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter. This subchapter shall apply to any board, committee or commission operating under the auspices of the city, whether created by Charter, special act, ordinance or resolution, except as provided in (B) below. (B) (1) The Code Enforcement Board shall be governed by Chapter 162.05(e) of the Florida Statutes which provides that if any member of a Code Enforcement Board fails to attend two of three successive meetings without cause and without prior approval of the chairman, the enforcement board shall declare the member's office vacant, and the City Commission shall promptly fill the vacancy. (2) The Community Redevelopment Agency shall be governed by Florida Statutes Chapter 163.356(4) which provides that the City Commission may remove a community redevelopment agency commissioner for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office only after a hearing and only if the member has been given a copy of the charges at least ten (10) days prior to such hearing and has had an opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel. - 2 - Ord. No. 19-95 (3) The Downtown Development Authority shall be governed by Special Act which is codified as Chapter 71-604, Laws of Florida, as amended. The Special Act provides that the City Commission may remove a member of the authority for good cause upon a vote of four-fifths (4/5) of its entire membership, authorizes removal after notice which specifies the charges, and after a hearing. Good cause in the Special Act is defined as willful neglect of duty, incompetence, or unfitness to perform one's duty or conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude. Members so removed shall be entitled to review by the Circuit Court of the action taken. (4) The Delray Beach Housing Authority shall be governed by Florida Statutes Chapter 421.07 which provides for the removal of commissioners for inefficiency or neglect of duty, or misconduct in office. A commissioner may be removed by the Mayor with concurrence of the governing body, but a commissioner shall be removed only after the commissioner has been given a copy of the charges at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing thereon and after an opportunity to be heard. (C) The provisions of this subchapter shall be cumulative to such other procedures as specified in other applicable provisions of law concerning a specific board, committee or commission. Section 32.17 GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL. In addition to such other grounds for the removal of members of a particular board, committee or commission as may be prescribed by law, any member may be removed by the City Commission for the violation of any provision of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees cited at Chapter 112 (Part III) of the Florida Statutes, conviction in any court for a violation of law involving moral turpitude, inefficiency, neglect of duty, conduct which renders the member ineffective in dealing with those members of the public interested in the work of the member's board, committee or commission, conduct which renders the member unfit to continue in office, malfeasance in the performance of official duties, or for any other Just cause; or abandonment of office. - 3 - Ord. No. 19-95 Sect/on 32.18 PROCEDURE. (A) Except as provided in subsection (C) below, a notice of removal shall be served upon the member sought to be removed upon the direction of a majority of the City Commission. The notice of removal shall be prepared by the City Attorney and signed by least one member of the City Commission, and shall specify the grounds for removal. (B) The notice of removal shall be served by personal delivery or by ordinary first class mail. Service shall be accomplished as soon as is practicable after the City Commission directs service of the notice of removal. The notice shall include a statement that the member has the right to request a hearing before the City Commission, and that the request for a hearing must be received by the City Clerk on or before a date to be specified in the notice, which shall be seven (7) days from the date of service if the notice is personally served, or ten (10) days from the date of mailing if the notice is served by mail. (C) If the ground for removal is abandonment of office, the notice of removal shall automatically be issued by the City Manager or his designee. In such cases, subsection (D) below shall not be applicable, but the person removed may request reappointment at any time. (D) Hearing~ Decision of City Commission. (1) Upon the timely request of the member for a hearing before the City Commission, the Commission shall set a date, time and place for a hearing and direct the City Clerk to give the member notice of the hearing. (2) At the hearing, the member will have an opportunity to respond, to present evidence arguments on all issues involved, and to conduct cross-examination. The member may appear in person at the hearing or be represented by legal counsel or some other representative as the member chooses. (3) The decision of the City Commission may be either to remove, to suspend, to reprimand or to absolve the member. - 4 - Ord. No. 19-95 (E) Effective date of removals. (1) Except as provided in (E)(2) below, the effective date of removal of a member shall be immediately after the expiration of the time in which the member has the right to request a hearing before the City Commission, or any later date which the City Commission may provide, unless the member timely requests a hearing before the City Commission. If the member timely requests a hearing, and if the City Commission dec/des to remove the member upon the conclusion of the hearing, the removal shall take effect immeaiately unless the City Commission specifies a later date. If a member timely requests a hearing but withdraws the request prior to the hearing, the effective date shall be the date on which the request is withdrawn. (2) If the ground for removal is abandonment of office, the removal shall take effect immediately upon issuance of the notice by the City Manager or his designee. Section 32.19 VOTE NECESSARY FOR REMOVAL. Removal of any member of a city board, committee or commission shall require four (4) votes of the City Commission, except in cases of abandonment of office which shall constitute an immediate forfeiture of office. Section 32.20 REAPPOINTMENT. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the City Commission from reappointing the city board, committee or commission member to fill the unexpired portion of the term if, upon good cause shown to the City Commission, that member has requested and demonstrated good cause for such reappointment. ~ That Chapter Two, "Administrative Provisions", Article 2.2, "Establishment of Boards Having Responsibilities For Land Development Regulations", Section 2.2.1, "General Provisions", Subsection 2.2.1(F), "Removal of Members, Vacancies", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: - 5 - Ord. No. 19-95 (F) Removal of Members, Vacancies: (1) Members of a board ~ ~ be removed by the City Commission ~ursuant to the provisions of Chapter 32 of the Code of Ordinances. ~/~/~~ (2) Vacancies which occur because of resignation, removal, or expiration of a term shall be filled with a new appointment or reappointment pursuant to policies of the City Commission and requirements of Subsection (~)(1). ~_~ That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. ~ That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. ~ That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the 4th day of April , 1995. ATTEST: ~ Ci~y C]~erk ' First Reading ~arch 21~ 1995 Second Reading April 4, 1995 : - 6 - Ord. No. ~9-95 FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES INC. Memorandum ' TO: Mayors and Council Chairs ;:":'."i 6' '-' ~'..-t;i FROM: Jim Naugle, Mayor, City of Ft. Lauderdale.~- President, Florida League of Cities (FLC) ~ t DATE: March 21, 1997 RE: Commission on Local Government II-Video The Commission on Local Government II was created during the 1996 Legislative Session for the purpose of recommending appropriate reforms to the organization, structure, powers, creation, duties, financing and service delivery capacity of Florida local governments. In addition, the commission was directed to explore ways to eliminate overlapping jurisdictional responsibility and duplication of costs among governments. Since October 1996 the Commission has been meeting monthly to explore legislative and constitutional reforms. FLC has been intensively involved with this effort by having staff representatives at all Commission meetings, making presentations to Commission members, assisting in logistics and planning for meeting agendas, and providing input to Commission staff with regards to draft policy options prepared for Commission deliberations. While Commission membership is represented well by city and county officials, five members from each respective local government, the present goal is to get input from all elected officials. To that end, Commission Chairman Sam Bell directed his staff to prepare the enclosed 12-minute informational video to be distributed to all city and county commissions. The video is designed to facilitate a workshop setting and stimulate discussion. I strongly urge you and your council to view the video and workshop the seven identified issue areas: Intergovemmental Relations, Internal' Structure, Duties, Powers, Financing, Creation & Dissolution, and Service Delivery Capacity. Specifically, please answer the following questions during discussions: · What are the three greatest challenges facing your city, tom or village?; · What constitutional, legislative or other tools would help meet these challenges, and would give your city, town or village the ability to provide its services and govern more efficiently and effectively?; Continued on back 201West ParkAvenue · P.O. Box 1757 · .Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1757 · (904) 222-9684 · Suncom 278-5331 March 7, 1997 Page two · What recommendations or testimony would you provide to the Commission on Local Government II on each of the seven issues as each specifically relates to your city, town or village? Suggestions and comments should be forwarded to Commission staff at the Florida Institute of Government, 325 John Knox Road, Building 300, Suite 301 EC, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. Comments will be received until September 1, 1997. A calendar of the Commission's meeting dates is included in the video; I hope you will visit with the members and take part in their meetings when it meets in your area. This is a great opportunity for local elected officials to present creative and well thought out solutions to complicated problems. The Commission on Local Government 1I will conclude its work in January 1998 and make its final report to the legislature as well as to th~ Constitution Revision Commission. Please do not miss the chance to contribute to this process, the impact of the final recommendations could have tremendous impact on Florida's local government. Your city's input is critically important! If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Kelvin Robinson or Darcy Foster at the FLC office at 1-(800) 342-8112. Enclosure