Tampa CRA adopts housing spending plan and per-unit subsidy matrix to guide affordable housing awards

At its Jan. 1 meeting the Tampa Community Redevelopment Agency board voted to program its previously adopted 30% housing allocation across the city’s CRA districts and to adopt a per‑unit subsidy matrix that sets maximum CRA subsidies by household-size/bedroom count and area median income (AMI) bands.

Housing staff presented the board with a district-by-district breakdown of the 30% housing allocations and recommended program buckets — rehabilitation, down-payment assistance (DPA), infill development, unit creation/conversion, and strategic acquisition — so CRA tax-increment funds could be deployed on predictable priorities across CRAs.

B. Parks, identified at the meeting as the CRA community development coordinator, explained the allocations staff proposed: East Tampa roughly $9,000,000; West Tampa about $6,000,000; Drew Park about $3,200,000; Central Park about $597,000; Ybor City about $4,947,000; Tampa Heights about $224,000; Channelside about $10,000,000; and Downtown about $22,000,000. Parks said the 30% allocations had been carried forward from prior years and staff sought board direction to program those dollars into the five program buckets so applications and award decisions could proceed.

Parks and CRA staff recommended that in market areas with very high land costs (Channelside and Downtown), funds allocated to down-payment assistance and strategic acquisition be moved into unit creation and conversion to make subsidy dollars more effective at producing affordable units in those districts.

The board discussed equity and scale. Board member Clendenin said CRAs are not identical and urged emphasis on rehabilitation, down-payment assistance and infill in lower-cost districts to spread benefits widely. Board member Carlson said he favored demand-side supports such as DPA and noted rollback and rollover balances should be provided to the board for transparency. Board member Miranda asked staff to ensure subsidy decisions consider ongoing housing costs such as insurance and taxes.

The board then considered a staff-proposed subsidy matrix that assigns maximum CRA subsidy amounts per unit by bedroom count and AMI band, modeled on state SHIP guidelines. The matrix sets the highest per-unit maxima for the 30–80% AMI band (the greatest need in the housing needs assessment): up to $350,000 per 4-bedroom unit and lower amounts for smaller units. For workforce bands (120% and 140% AMI), the matrix proposed lower maximums. Staff also recommended a 50-year affordability restriction on units that receive CRA subsidy.

Board members debated a staff suggestion to allow 20% flexibility around matrix maxima for exceptional projects. Several members, including Board member Carlson, argued for a firm cap and for returning to the board to amend numbers rather than using a routine flexibility band. The board removed the 20% flexibility and adopted the matrix as a guideline for application acceptance; staff said the matrix would guide pre-approval and that final project approvals would still come to the board.

The CRA board also approved the staff recommendation to proceed with an East Tampa infill homebuilding RFP for 14 lots (density to allow up to 28 homes) and asked staff to align CRA housing programs — renovation/rehab, DPA and infill — with the city’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) processes to permit stacking resources and consistent program administration. The board requested staff return with a progress update on the housing buckets in July 2025.

Actions recorded at the meeting include formal approval of the district budget allocations and formal adoption of the subsidy matrix as the board's guideline for CRA housing awards. Staff will apply the matrix to incoming developer requests and present applications that fall within the matrix for board consideration; requests that exceed the matrix maxima will be flagged as "no" or "maybe" for separate board review.

Board members asked staff to circulate roll-forwards and prior-year rollover amounts so the public can see cumulative funds available in each district. Parks and the interim CRA director agreed to provide that detail.

The board approved the staff-recommended budgets and the subsidy matrix by recorded motion; the meeting record notes one "no" on the budget allocation vote and unanimous support for the matrix after the 20% flexibility was removed.