Developer outlines three payment options for proposed RV resort; committee asks for enforcement and stress-test details

A representative for the applicant (identified in the meeting as Mr. Bove) presented a financial-impact analysis for a proposed 47‑acre rural‑recreation (RV resort) project and proposed three alternative payment structures the town could require if the project is approved.

The developer’s analysis estimated an assessed value for the completed resort of roughly $25 million and projected total ad valorem taxes to Palm Beach County of about $480,000 annually; the town’s share at its 3‑mill portion would be roughly $75,000. The presenter also estimated non‑ad valorem assessments (road and drainage assessments plus a solid‑waste equivalent) of roughly $9,400 annually. Combined ad valorem and non‑ad valorem revenue to the town was presented at about $84,000 annually under the developer’s model.

The applicant presented three options for additional town revenue: 1) a one‑time impact payment of $500,000 at certificate of occupancy plus a recurring $25,000 at year three of stabilized occupancy (presenter’s example: total town receipts roughly $100,000 per year after stabilization); 2) skip the lump sum and instead a recurring payment starting at year three of roughly $125,000 plus the tax receipts (presenter estimated this option totals about $200,000 per year in early steady state); or 3) a revenue‑sharing/profit‑sharing option with more upside tied to project performance over a 10–20 year window.

The applicant also described non‑revenue public benefits the proposal would deliver, including dedication of 8.75 acres for a trail, construction of the project entrance and C Road paving and a fishing/impoundment feature proposed within town right‑of‑way. The presenter said those improvements and the land dedication would have “real value” to the town and could be used toward capital needs or reserves.

Committee members pressed the applicant on enforceability and contingency language. Several members asked how the town would legally secure recurring payments or an impact fee; the presenter said the options are being documented in a contract and coordinated with the town attorney and that a legal mechanism is available to secure the payments. Committee members also asked for evidence of the applicant’s financing and stress‑test assumptions. The applicant said lending would be recourse and that loan LTVs being discussed are in the low‑to‑mid 60s; the applicant said equity and partner arrangements are in place but did not provide lender names or loan documents at the meeting.

Members asked about operating assumptions: the presenter said the resort design capacity is 288 RV sites and an annual average occupancy assumption of about 59%. Other operational details noted at the meeting included on‑site parking and a small expected staff (the presenter estimated roughly 6–8 staff with some staff accommodations possible on site), trash franchise fee revenue to the town (10% of commercial collection fees), and that the project team will provide additional financial detail if requested.

Committee chair Manish said the Finance Advisory Committee will not do a full financial review until the project has cleared initial planning and zoning thresholds. The committee asked the applicant to return with additional documentation that addresses enforcement mechanisms, a stress test of operations and financing, and more detailed estimates of public‑safety and road impacts before the committee forms a recommendation for council.