Local Government / CRA

How to Expand a Community Redevelopment District in Florida

Pensacola is moving toward the biggest CRA expansion in two decades—and state law sets out a precise, multi-step process before new land can be folded in. Counties do have the power to pump the brakes.

Community Redevelopment Agencies, or CRAs, direct tax increment financing into blighted or economically distressed areas. But expanding one isn’t as simple as drawing a bigger boundary on a map. Florida Statutes Chapter 163 lays out a deliberate process with checkpoints for taxing authorities, the public and county government before boundary lines can be redrawn.

Why this matters: That process is about to play out in Pensacola: Mayor D.C. Reeves is asking the City’s CRA—made up of Pensacola City Council members—to move toward the most significant expansion of its redevelopment boundaries in roughly two decades, with a preliminary analysis projecting more than $57 million in new tax increment financing revenue between 2027 and 2045. The proposal goes before the CRA at its June 15 meeting.

Here’s how an expansion like this works under current state law—and what comes next for Pensacola.

Step One: A Finding of Necessity

Before any boundary expansion can move forward, the proposed area must clear the legal bar for “slum” or “blight” under Chapter 163, Part III. A governing body must document conditions that meet the statutory definition.

Pensacola commissioned Inspire Placemaking Collective to conduct that study, completed in January 2026. The firm examined three potential expansion areas totaling more than 2,700 acres across the Eastside, Westside, and Sanders Beach/Bayou Chico corridors. The findings were substantial:

• Commercial vacancy rates of 50%, 55%, and 42% in the three areas, against a 40% citywide average
• Housing vacancy rates of 13%, 17%, and 21%—compared to 11% citywide
• Tax delinquency rates in Areas 1 and 2 exceeding citywide averages on every measured basis
• Park access in Area 1 of just 3.77 acres per 1,000 residents and Area 2 at only 1.95 acres, against a citywide standard of 6.74 acres
• 911 call rates in Area 3 of 5.59 per resident—more than double the citywide rate of 2.42
• Brownfields, flood risk, and deficient street and pedestrian infrastructure across all three areas

The consultant’s conclusion: all three study areas satisfy Florida’s Alternative One test for CRA designation, meeting both the slum and blight thresholds required by law. Notably, 36% of Area 1, 93% of Area 2, and 100% of Area 3 were included in Pensacola’s original 1980 Inner City Blight Report—but were never formally incorporated into a TIF district that would actually generate reinvestment dollars.

Step Two: Agency Recommendation and Plan Modification

The CRA itself must recommend the modification to its governing body. Under s. 163.361(1), the agency initiates the process. The June 15 meeting is a discussion item, not a final vote—CRA staff is asking board members to weigh in on proposed boundary modifications and preliminary district assignments before the project advances to community outreach.

• Plan consultant Urban Design Associates has been retained on a continuing services basis to incorporate public input into updates to the Eastside and Westside redevelopment plans. The Finding of Necessity itself will also be revised once boundaries are finalized.

Step Three: Notify All Taxing Authorities

Before the governing body votes, every taxing authority whose tax increment dollars would be affected must receive advance notice in writing. For Pensacola’s expansion, that list includes Escambia County, the Escambia Children’s Trust, the Escambia County School District, and others.

The TIF projections—prepared by Inspire Placemaking Collective using a conservative 2.5% annual property value growth rate—show the county bearing the largest share of the new revenue commitment:

Annual TIF revenue is projected to start modestly at roughly $258,000 in fiscal year 2028 and grow to more than $6.1 million by fiscal 2046. The base year taxable value across both expansion areas is pegged at $998.1 million.

The County’s Check

State law gives Escambia County leverage when a municipality tries to expand its CRA boundaries.

Under s. 163.361(3)(b), within 30 days of receiving notice of a proposed boundary expansion, the county can formally object by registered mail—putting on record that it has “competing policy goals and plans” for the public funds it would be required to deposit into the expanded CRA trust fund.

With $34.70 million in projected county tax increment at stake over the life of the expansion, I exact the Escambia County Commission will publicly discuss a response.

If the county sends that notice in time, procedural protections kick in:

• A mandatory joint hearing must be scheduled between the county governing body and the city council, co-chaired by the county commission chair with the county setting the agenda
• The joint hearing must occur within 90 days of the county receiving notice
• The county may propose its own alternative redevelopment plan addressing the same conditions, delivered at least 30 days before the joint hearing
• The city cannot adopt the expanded plan until 30 days after the joint hearing, unless the county fails to show up

Step Four: Public Hearing and Formal Adoption

The formal adoption path requires a resolution from Pensacola City Council acknowledging blight, followed by an ordinance formally expanding the CRA—which also sets the taxable base year and authorizes TIF revenue collection. A public hearing with newspaper notice is required before the governing body votes.

Dispute Resolution as a Safety Valve

Even with mandatory joint hearings, disagreements between the city and county can persist. Chapter 164, the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act, provides a structured pathway to resolve disputes without litigation. Either party may voluntarily invoke this process at any time.

• The process moves through stages: a conflict assessment meeting within 30 days, followed by a joint public meeting if no resolution is reached, and then mediation if the joint meeting fails. Costs are split equally. Under s. 164.1058, a governmental entity that fails to participate in good faith can be required to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.