Housing authority outlines Dixie Manor repositioning plan; residents seek clearer guarantees on return and relocation

The Boca Raton Housing Authority on Monday told the City Council it plans to reposition the Dixie Manor public-housing site through HUD's Streamline Voluntary Conversion and has assembled financing to begin construction on the north half of the property.

Ashley Whitby, executive director of the Boca Raton Housing Authority, said the conversion moves the site from the public-housing platform to a Housing Choice Voucher platform intended to fund a complete redevelopment that improves unit quality and long-term affordability. "Through repositioning, the Boca Raton Housing Authority stands to give our residents a better quality of life through new units, and we also stand to double the number of affordable housing units on our site," Whitby said.

Why it matters: BRHA officials said the site's buildings lack modern amenities and face deferred capital needs. The authority and its co-developer say repositioning will enable sustainable, code-compliant construction and preserve affordable units in a revitalized community, while providing tenant-protection vouchers to current residents during relocation.

Funding, timing and scale: Michelle Feigenbaum of Atlantic Pacific Companies described the financing package that supports phase 1: roughly $18 million in low-income housing tax credits, about $24 million in tax-exempt bonds and $7 million in subordinate financing from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. She said the team must close financing and begin construction by January 2025.

Resident rights and eligibility: BRHA and developer representatives emphasized that the voluntary conversion yields tenant-protection vouchers for current families but that the "right to return" is a housing-authority commitment rather than a statutory guarantee under this conversion vehicle. Whitby said new tax-credit units will be subject to income limits, so households above 80% of Palm Beach County AMI would not be eligible to return to tax-credit units; she noted one household currently exceeds that threshold. Council members asked for clear written criteria and better resident counseling about income thresholds, criminal-history impacts and how project-based versus tenant-based vouchers will operate.

Resident outreach and relocation plans: Whitby reported extensive outreach: individualized needs assessments for 88 of 94 households, translators for Spanish and Creole at required meetings, and the urban-group relocation consultant helping with Uniform Relocation Act compliance. BRHA said roughly 60% of residents indicated a preference to relocate off-site during construction, about 27% asked to remain on-site during phases where units are left intact, seven were undecided and six pending interviews; BRHA said it can keep up to 47 units on-site during construction for residents who request that.

Historic-preservation review: The property was flagged during environmental review because parts of the Pearl City community are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) staff requested a Section 106 case study; BRHA said it will present options and mitigation measures (for example, preserving significant greenery, museum/exhibit space in a clubhouse and a naming committee) and seek a memorandum of understanding with SHPO.

Public reaction and council concerns: Dozens of residents and stakeholders spoke during public comment. Several speakers urged stronger, clearer guarantees for tenants, independent legal counseling, and more transparent relocation agreements. Angela McDonald, a resident and housing council vice chair, said the relocation "is not just a physical move; this is a mental move" and asked that the authority answer resident-submitted questions in full. John Martin urged preservation of Pearl City history and suggested reserving a unit or space as an interpretive exhibit. Council members repeatedly pressed BRHA to continue and expand outreach and to provide the relocation agreement and selection criteria in writing.

Next steps: APC (the co-developer) said the site-plan, rezoning and comprehensive-plan amendment are moving: Planning & Zoning is expected to review April 4, and, if advanced, the council could consider first reading at the next meeting and a second reading in May. BRHA said it will pursue HUD approval of the Streamline Voluntary Conversion, request tenant-protection vouchers, finalize a relocation agreement, complete the Section 106 case study for SHPO and seek to close financing on the phase-1 package before the January 2025 financing deadline.

What remains unresolved: Council and residents asked for a clearer, public timeline for when residents will receive relocation notices and relocation packages, the specific selection steps for on-site units during phasing, exact appraisal values for the land, and clear written policies on who is eligible to return and under what conditions. BRHA said those details will be documented in the relocation agreement and offered repeated invitations for residents to attend BRHA board meetings and ongoing outreach sessions.

The council did not take formal action at the workshop; BRHA was asked to keep the council and the community informed as the SHPO review proceeds and as financing milestones approach.