Agenda 01/03/2017 W (Strategic Planning) BCC
sgsn0vRK
AGENDA
JANUARY 3, 2011
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
WORKSHOP AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples FL 34112
January 3, 2017
1:00 P.M.
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1- BCC Chair
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 - CRAB Vice-Chair; TDC Chair
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5
1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Strategic Planning 2017 3. Public Comments 4. Growth Management Plan Overview 5. Update on Eastern Collier County Planning Area Restudies 6. Resource Allocation 7. Public Comments 8. Adjourn
Notice: All persons wishing to speak must turn in a speaker slip. Each speaker will receive no more than three (3) minutes.
Collier County Ordinance No. 2003-53 as amended by Ordinance 2004-05 and 2007-24, requires that all lobbyists shall, before
engaging in any lobbying activities (including but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the
Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department.
STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP FY 2017
Freedom Memorial
Pepper Ranch
Can You Dig It
Old Florida Festival
Vanderbilt Beach Library
Vision: To be the best community in America to live, work, and
play.
Mission: To deliver high-quality and best-value public services,
programs, and facilities to meet the needs of our
residents, visitors, and businesses today and tomorrow.
Motto: Exceeding expectations, every day!
Version 2.7 - last updated 12/16/2016
2 | Page
Table of Contents
Board of County Commissioners .......................................................................................................... 3
Senior Management Team.................................................................................................................... 3
Department Heads ................................................................................................................................ 3
Management Offices ............................................................................................................................. 3
Organizational Chart ............................................................................................................................. 4
Previously Adopted Strategic Plan ........................................................................................................ 5
Previously Adopted Strategic Map ........................................................................................................ 6
Proposed Strategic Map ....................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Vision Statement ................................................................................................................................... 8
Mission Statement ................................................................................................................................ 8
Strategic Focus Areas ........................................................................................................................... 8
Strategic Focus Area: Quality of Place ................................................................................................ 9
Strategic Focus Area: Growth Management ...................................................................................... 10
Strategic Focus Area: Community Health, Wellness and Human Services ....................................... 11
Strategic Focus Area: Infrastructure and Capital Asset Management ................................................ 12
Strategic Focus Area: Economic Development .................................................................................. 13
Strategic Focus Area: Governance .................................................................................................... 14
Collier Inc. ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Collier Inc., Philosophy ....................................................................................................................... 16
Core Values/Guiding Principles .......................................................................................................... 20
3 | Page
Strategic Plan
Senior Management Team
Leo Ochs Jr., County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
District 1
Chairman
Commissioner
Penny Taylor
District 4
Board of County Commissioners
Commissioner
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
District 5
Steve Carnell – Public Services Department Head
Len Golden Price – Administrative Services Department Head
David Wilkison – Growth Management Department Head
George Yilmaz – Public Utilities Department Head
Department
Heads
Tim Durham – Executive Manager of Corporate Business Operations
Mark Isackson – Corporate Financial & Management Services Director
Jace Kentner – Economic & Business Development Division Interim Director
Michael Nieman – Corporate Compliance & Internal Review Manager
Mike Sheffield – Communication & Customer Relations Division Manager
Jack Wert – Tourism Division Director
Neil Dorrill – Pelican Bay Services Division Director
Management
Offices
Commissioner
Andy Solis, Esq.
District 2
Commissioner
Burt L. Saunders
District 3
4 | Page
Organizational Chart
5 | Page
Strategic Plan
Previously Adopted Strategic Plan
6 | Page
Previously Adopted Strategic Map
7 | Page
Strategic Plan
Proposed Strategic Map
8 | Page
Introduction
This Strategic Plan is an active document, and serves as a roadmap for the County Manager’s
Agency. The Strategic Plan sets the scope of agency activity, clarifies the long-term direction,
and establishes the values and principles that guide the organization. Collier County’s Strategic
Plan is used to create the budget, develop work programs and capital plans. All of this is directed
by the County’s Vision and Mission Statements, which are provided below.
Vision Statement
To be the best community in America to live, work, and play.
Mission Statement
To deliver high-quality and best-value public services, programs, and facilities to meet the
needs of our residents, visitors, and businesses today and tomorrow.
The Strategic Focus Areas(SFA) are broad, but discreet, categories in which County Staff operates
to accomplish or support the County’s vision and mission. Each SFA is supported by a Strategic
Goal that provides clarity to the corresponding SFA. The Strategic Goal is, in turn supported by
Community Expectations. The Strategic Focus Areas are as follows:
Strategic Focus Areas
• Quality of Place
• Growth Management
• Community Health, Wellness, and Human Services
• Infrastructure and Capital Assets
• Economic Development
• Governance
This document, the Strategic Plan, is used by staff as a guide and is cited in various documents
and executive summaries prepared for the Board of County Commissioners. All efforts of County
Staff should be directly tied into the Strategic Plan.
9 | Page
Strategic Plan
Strategic Focus Area: Quality of Place
Explanation: Collier County will focus on ways to create and maintain
communities that are vibrant, attractive, and safe. This
happens by providing services, facilities, and amenities
that exceed expectations and are the best value. County
efforts should benefit residents, visitors, and businesses,
and develop strong community bonds.
The County must also manage the character of the community by preserving the
area’s history, maintaining high aesthetic standards, and revitalizing
neighborhoods, where needed, while balancing development with the natural
environment. Focus on these aspects will ensure the development of a community
that encourages the best of the new, the natural, and the past. Safety should be
at the forefront of the County’s activities.
Strategic Goal: To preserve and enhance the safety, quality, value, character, and heritage of
our neighborhoods, communities, and region.
Community Expectations:
• Provide high quality, best-value public services, facilities, and amenities
• Preserve and enhance neighborhood character
• Promote safe and secure, diverse, and affordable neighborhoods
10 | Page
Strategic Focus Area: Growth Management
Explanation: Collier County is a rapidly growing area. It is the County’s
responsibility to plan for, manage, and promote the
County’s growth. This focus area not only seeks to manage
the areas growth but also balance the growth to protect
the natural environment that makes the area so unique.
Focus on this area ensures that the County’s growth is managed to prevent
inconsistent, undesirable, and unattractive growth. Planning for the growth of the
community is necessary to maintain and prepare for sustainable and affordable
growth.
Strategic Goal: To responsibly plan and manage community growth, development,
redevelopment, and protect the natural environment
Community Expectations:
• Update and enhance the Growth Management Plan (GMP), Land Development Code
(LDC), and other short and long-term plans as needed to reflect changing conditions in
financial resources, community desires, contemporary data trends and best practices
• Implement the County’s GMP and LDC consistent with community desires through
efficient processes while maintaining a balance between public trust and public service
• Enforce current development standards and maintain relevant plans that reflect the needs
and desires of a growing community.
• Manage development and redevelopment in harmony with efficient mobility, habitat
preservation, water resource management and a sustainable ecology.
• Evaluate, monitor, and plan for the effects of sea level rise.
• Develop integrated and sustainable plans that
manage water resources and solid waste.
• Conserve, preserve, monitor, and manage natural
resources in partnership with external
stakeholders.
11 | Page
Strategic Plan
Strategic Focus Area: Community Health, Wellness
and Human Services
Explanation: Collier County provides public places for passive and active
recreation, which promotes the health and wellbeing of
our residents. Collier County is committed to supporting
the health and wellness of the community by providing the
appropriate services and facilities. Individuals and families
that are less fortunate should have access to health and support. By focusing on
this area, the County will help its residents improve their quality of life.
Strategic Goal: To improve the quality of life and promote personal self-reliance and
independence.
Community Expectations:
• Improve Support access to health care and wellness services
• Address the needs of the community’s senior, disabled, working poor veteran and
indigent populations
• Partner with community organizations that provide human services
• Address the health, recreational educational and nutritional needs of the community’s
youth
12 | Page
Strategic Focus Area: Infrastructure and Capital Asset
Management
Explanation: Collier County plans, builds, and maintains the necessary
infrastructure to meet the needs of the community. This
involves a yearly assessment of the assets through the
Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Examples
include such things as roads and medians, sidewalks,
utility pipes, buildings, and vehicles. The AUIR provides a snapshot of the County’s
assets so that decisions can be made regarding repair and replacement. Focus on
this area ensures that the County’s infrastructure will be prepared to handle future
growth.
Strategic Goal: To responsibly plan, construct and maintain the County’s critical public
infrastructure and capital assets to ensure sustainability for the future.
Community Expectations:
• Optimize the useful life of all capital assets and critical public infrastructure.
• Provide appropriate adequate, timely, best-value cost-effective public facilities and
infrastructure concurrently timed to that meet both current and future demands.
• Mitigate the impacts of potential disasters on critical infrastructure.
13 | Page
Strategic Plan
Strategic Focus Area: Economic Development
Explanation: Collier County provides resources and incentives to
encourage the growth of successful local business, and
the relocation of new businesses to Collier County. The
County seeks to cultivate a business climate that fosters
growth and meaningful employment opportunities.
County staff works with area organizations to enhance relationships that
develop a close-knit and connected community. Visitors are encouraged to visit
the area and partake in the amenities, activities, and luxuries offered by Collier
County.
Strategic Goal: To support a business climate that promotes a sustainable, diversified, and
growing economy.
Community Expectations:
• Develop a well-balanced and diversified local economy
• Support strategic partnerships that Rretain existing businesses and attract desirable new
businesses
• Partner to create jobs at or above the national average wage
• Serve the air transportation needs of county residents, visitors and businesses
• Maximize revitalization and commercial activity by supporting the CRAs, the Promise
Zone, and Airport Authority.
• Promote our community as a year-round destination of choice for leisure, business,
sports, and eco-tourism
• Support local and regional economic
workforce development efforts
14 | Page
Strategic Focus Area: Governance
Explanation: The County’s leadership has a duty to provide effective and
responsible direction the County team. Through
engagement and communication with residents, visitors,
and businesses, the County will be able to address their
needs more effectively. The County must also work with
legislators and key stakeholders to promote decisions and activities that are in the
County’s and the public’s best interest. Using the public funds effectively and
responsibly is an obligation to the taxpayers who entrust the County to provide
best-value services. The County partners with local educational institutions to
enhance and broaden the services delivered.
Strategic Goal: To sustain public trust and confidence in County government through sound
public policy, professional management, and active citizen participation.
Community Expectations:
• Provide effective leadership
• Operate an effective, professional, transparent, and fiscally responsible government
• Develop an engaged and connected citizenry
• Actively engage legislators and key stakeholders to promote the County’s interests
• Develop public policies that are citizen initiated, data driven, and follow best practices
15 | Page
Strategic Plan
Collier Inc.
16 | Page
Collier Inc., Philosophy
The "Collier Inc." brand memorializes Collier County's commitment toward establishing a best
in class organization that embraces the innovative tendencies of the private sector with the
nuances associated with public sector management. Our goal is to provide “best value”
amenities and services at the lowest possible price while improving upon and protecting the
characteristics that have made our community a world-renowned destination. The brand
recognizes the value of leadership, collaboration and our team members.
Public sector management must continue to be innovative and
reinvent itself in order to be successful in this highly competitive
market. Collier County has a tremendous advantage over other
destinations due to its climate, location, amenities, and services
offered. Our natural environment serves as a strategic resource that
must be managed and protected. Our built environment provides
both aesthetic attraction and functional
infrastructure. For all of these reasons,
we continue to be one of the fastest
growing metropolitan communities in
the nation.
“If you are working
on something you
really care about,
you don’t have to
be pushed. The
vision pulls you.”
-Steve Jobs
17 | Page
Strategic Plan
The brand focuses on the following key areas:
• The Team - Build, Grow, Sustain, and Motivate a World Class Team
• Recruitment - finding and attracting the highest caliber of
talent
• Onboarding - inculcating our corporate values to new hires
and taking advantage of their unique skills and experiences
• Talent Development & Training - improving technical skills,
soft skills, and managerial talent
• Succession Planning - preparing for planned retirements and
unexpected departures
• Collaboration & Comradery - encouraging team work and celebrating our successes
• Sustainability - Responsibly Plan, Build, Operate, and Maintain our Infrastructure
and Community While Protecting the Natural Environment
• Land Use - Master planning our communities by balancing
entitlements with fair regulations that support long-term vitality
• Physical Resource Management - Managing buildings, grounds,
equipment, and vehicles in a manner that optimizes the useful
life of the resource
• Integrated Water Resources - conserve potable water,
encouraging reuse water, balance flood control and rehydration,
and minimize harmful ecological impacts
• Transportation Resources - responsibly plan, build, and maintain
roadways, bike/ped facilities, and public transit resources to
achieve mobility without sacrificing quality of place
• Business Practices - ensuring that policies and procedures provide quality, value, and
transparency but avoid inefficient use of resources
• Waste Management - utilize innovative and alternative methods to responsibly manage and
reduce the Counties waste; plan new facilities, and educate the public on the value of recycling
• Natural Resources - support the preservation, conservation, and rehabilitation of the County’s
natural environment through education, regulation, and restoration projects
18 | Page
• Operational Excellence - Leadership Committed to Innovative Solutions using
Performance Metrics, Customer Engagement, and Internal Controls to Pursue
Excellence
• Leadership - Influencing and motivating the team to
enthusiastically support the County’s vision
• Internal Controls - Creating a culture of accountability using
systematic measures of checks and balances, automation, and self-
correcting actions
• Innovation - delivering “best-value”, by encouraging creativity and
challenging the status-quo; utilizing diverse self-managed teams to develop innovative
solutions
• Customer Focus - compassionate Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) focused on
learning from external and internal customers to improve service to the community
• Performance Management - Plan, execute, monitor, and review measurable goals and
objectives
• Quality of Place - Deliver Services and Amenities That Protect, Promote, and
Support Becoming the Best Place in America to Live, Work, and Play
• Asset and Infrastructure Management – execute timely
and cost-effective repairs, preventative maintenance, and
replacements that preserve the integrity and quality of the
community
• Preserve and Enhance Community Identity and Character
- implement and enforce land development regulations
that maintain and enhance the health, safety, and welfare
of our residents, visitors, and businesses
• World Class Facilities - build and operate venues and locations that meet and exceed the
community’s expectations
• Promote Health, Safety, and Wellbeing - provide our residents and visitors access to human
services that facilitate healthy lifestyles and housing assistance
• Destination Promotion - encourage visitation, recreational tourism, eco-tourism, and the
relocation of individuals and businesses
• Economic Vitality and Diversification - promote business friendly conditions that attract,
retain, and grow a diverse economic market
19 | Page
Strategic Plan
• Fiscal Stewardship - Promote Transparent and Responsible Financial Management
Practices and Resource Allocation In Order To Create A Better, Stronger, and
More Prosperous County For Residents, Visitors, and Businesses
• Effective Procurement - deliver “best-value” goods and
services in a timely and transparent manner
• Grant Funding and Compliance - seek alternative funding
sources with comprehensive oversight to maintain compliance
• Debt Management - ensure that the County’s financing needs
and credit payment obligations are met at the lowest possible
cost with a prudent degree of risk.
• Revenue Stability and Diversification - seek opportunities to diversify revenues and balance
land use categories to minimize the impacts of fluctuating land values
• Reserve Management - maintain reserves based upon limits set through best management
practices in order to provide the County with options for responding to unexpected issues and
provide a buffer against shocks and other forms of risk.
• Budget Planning - engage elected leadership, through the County Manager and senior
leadership team in the process of planning and appropriating available resources among
competing operational and capital initiatives in furtherance of the County’s Vision and
strategic goals
• Forecasting and Reporting - use timely revenue and expenditure models for financial decision
making
20 | Page
Core Values/Guiding Principles
Honesty & Integrity: We speak and act truthfully, acknowledging mistakes, keeping
commitments and avoiding silence when it may be misleading. We do the right thing even when
it is unpopular or nobody would know the difference.
Service: We value and embrace the opportunity and responsibility to serve our community. Our
customers come first and we will strive to serve them in a friendly, fair, respectful, and efficient
manner.
Accountability: We are individually and collectively responsible for our behavior and
performance. We conduct business in accordance with the highest professional and ethical
standards.
Quality: We strive for continuous improvement in our products, services, programs, and
facilities. We seek to do the entire job right the first time.
Consistency: We provide reliable, steady, and uniform service, to internal and external
customers.
Respect: We treat others with dignity and courtesy.
Knowledge: We are a learning organization. We encourage and promote continuous personal
and professional development as a means of enhancing our team members’ ability to plan for
the future, make good decisions and solve customer problems.
Stewardship: We recognize that we are spending other people’s hard-earned money. As such,
we carefully manage the resources entrusted to us. We seek to control costs of operations,
improve efficiency and provide the greatest and best value and return on invested funds.
Collaboration: We realize that our success is interdependent on the success of other
organizations, businesses, and institutions of our County, Region, and State. We seek, therefore,
to work cooperatively with these agencies to allocate our collective resources to achieve mutual
goals.
Self- Initiating, Self-Correcting: We are proactive and flexible; quickly adapting to changes in
political, market and financial conditions. We believe that our self-initiating, self-correcting
behavior helps us learn and encourages and enables us to be independent and collaborative
problem solvers.
EXHIBIT 1
2014 10-Year Strategic Plan (reference only)
BCC Strategic Planning Workshop 01.03.2017
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN
(Fiscal Years 2012—2021, with minor changes based on the 02.04.2014 BCC Workshop)
Vision To be the best community in America to live, work, and play.
Mission To deliver high quality, best-value, public services, programs, and facilities to our residents and
visitors.
Guiding Principles (Values) Honesty, Integrity, Service, Accountability, Quality, Respect, Knowledge, Stewardship,
Collaboration, Self-Initiating, Self-Correcting
Motto Exceeding expectations, every day!
Strategic
Focus
Areas:
I. Quality of
Place
II. Growth Management III. Community
Health, Wellness and
Human Services
IV. Infrastructure
and Capital Asset
Management
V. Economic Development VI. Governance
Strategic
Goals
To preserve
and enhance
the safety,
quality, value,
character, and
heritage of our
neighborhoods,
communities
and region.
To responsibly plan and manage community
growth, development, redevelopment, and
protect the natural environment.
To improve the quality
of life and promote
personal self-reliance
and independence.
To responsibly plan,
construct and
maintain the
county’s critical
public
infrastructure and
capital assets to
ensure
sustainability for
the future.
To support a business climate
that promotes a sustainable,
diversified and growing
economy.
To sustain public
trust and confidence
in county
government
through sound
public policy,
professional
management, and
active citizen
participation.
Community
Expectations
A. Provide high
quality, best
value public
facilities,
services and
amenities
B. Preserve and
enhance
neighborhood
character
C. Promote safe
and secure
neighborhoods
A. Update and enhance the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), Land Development
Code (LDC) and other short and long-term
plans as needed to reflect changing conditions
in financial resources, community desires,
contemporary data trends and best practices
B. Implement the county’s GMP and LDC
consistent with community desires through
efficient processes while maintaining a balance
between public trust and public service
C. Manage development and redevelopment in
harmony with efficient mobility, habitat
preservation, water resource management and a
sustainable ecology
A. Improve access to
health care and wellness
services
B. Address the needs of
the community’s senior,
disabled, working poor
and indigent populations
C. Partner with
community organizations
that provide human
services
D. Address the health,
recreational, educational
and nutritional needs of
the community’s youth
A. Optimize the
useful life of all
capital assets and
critical public
infrastructure
B. Provide adequate,
timely, cost-effective
public facilities and
infrastructure
concurrently timed to
meet both current and
future demand
C. Mitigate the
impacts of potential
disasters on critical
infrastructure
A. Develop a well-balanced and
diversified local economy
B. Retain existing businesses and
attract desirable new business
C. Partner to create jobs at or
above the national average wage
D. Serve the air transportation
needs of county residents,
businesses and visitors
E. Promote our community as a
year round destination of choice
F. Support regional economic
development efforts
A. Provide effective
leadership
B. Operate an
effective,
professional, and
fiscally responsible
government
C. Develop an
engaged citizenry
BCC Strategic Plan: Adopted May 9, 2006, effective Fiscal Year 2007 (Oct. 2006); Revised March 6, 2007, effective FY 08; Reviewed March 4, 2008 for FY 09; Revised May 13, 2009 for FY 10;
Major revisions March 11, 2011 for FY 12; Reconfirmed February 7, 2012 for FY 13; Minor changes for FY 15 based on February 4, 2014 BCC Workshop
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES’
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
(Values)
Honesty & Integrity: We speak and act truthfully in accordance with all legal and ethical requirements, acknowledging mistakes, keeping
commitments and avoiding silence when it may be misleading. We do the right thing even when it is unpopular or nobody would know the
difference.
Service: We value and embrace the opportunity and responsibility to serve our community. Our customers come first and we will strive to serve
them in a friendly, fair, respectful and efficient manner.
Accountability: We are individually and collectively responsible for our behavior and performance. We conduct business in accordance with the
highest professional and ethical standards.
Quality: We strive for continuous improvement in our products, services, programs and facilities. We seek to do the entire job right the first time.
Respect: We treat others with dignity and courtesy.
Knowledge: We are a learning organization. We encourage and promote continuous personal and professional development as a means of
enhancing our team members’ ability to plan for the future, make good decisions and solve customer problems.
Stewardship: We recognize that we are spending other people’s hard-earned money. As such, we carefully manage the resources entrusted to us.
We seek to control costs of operations, improve efficiency and provide the greatest and best value and return on invested funds.
Collaboration: We realize that our success is interdependent on the success of other organizations, businesses and institutions of our County,
Region and State. We seek, therefore, to work cooperatively with these agencies to allocate our collective resources to achieve mutual goals.
Self- Initiating, Self-Correcting: We are proactive and flexible; quickly adapting to changes in political, market and financial conditions. We
believe that our self-initiating, self-correcting behavior helps us learn and encourages and enables us to be independent and collaborative problem
solvers.
BCC Strategic Plan: Adopted May 9, 2006, effective Fiscal Year 2007 (Oct. 2006); Revised March 6, 2007, effective FY 08; Reviewed March 4, 2008 for FY 09; Revised May 13, 2009 for FY 10;
Major revisions March 11, 2011 for FY 12; Reconfirmed February 7, 2012 for FY 13; Minor changes for FY 15 based on February 4, 2014 BCC Workshop
EXHIBIT 2
2014 10-Year Strategic Plan with Objectives (reference only)
BCC Strategic Planning Workshop 01.03.2017
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN WITH OBJECTIVES
(Fiscal Years 2012—2021, with minor changes based on the 02.04.14 BCC Workshop)
Vision To be the best community in America to live, work, and play.
Mission To deliver high quality, best-value, public services, programs, and facilities to our residents and visitors.
Guiding Principles (Values) Honesty, Integrity, Service, Accountability, Quality, Respect, Knowledge, Stewardship, Collaboration, Self-Initiating, Self-Correcting
Motto Exceeding expectations, every day!
Strategic
Focus
Areas:
I. Quality of Place II. Growth Management III. Community Health, Wellness and
Human Services
IV. Infrastructure and Capital
Asset Management
V. Economic Development VI. Governance
Strategic
Goals
To preserve and enhance the
safety, quality, value, character,
and heritage of our
neighborhoods, communities and
region.
To responsibly plan and
manage community growth,
development, redevelopment,
and protect the natural
environment.
To improve the quality of life and promote
personal self-reliance and independence.
To responsibly plan, construct and
maintain the county’s critical
public infrastructure and capital
assets to ensure sustainability for
the future.
To support a business climate that
promotes a sustainable, diversified
and growing economy.
To sustain public trust and
confidence in county government
through sound public policy,
professional management, and
active citizen participation.
Community
Expectations
Objectives
A. Provide high quality, best value
public facilities, services and
amenities
1. Safe, reliable water and
wastewater services
2. Well maintained, aesthetically
pleasing roadways, streetscapes,
sidewalks, bike paths, medians,
water retention areas and
greenways
3.Timely, safe, economical solid
waste and recycling collection and
disposal, and effective litter control
programs and services
4. Diverse and abundant
recreational, educational and
cultural programs and facilities
5. Reliable, safe, convenient and
affordable public transportation
systems
6. Water and air quality protected
from pollutant sources
7. Adequate public beach and boat
access and related infrastructure
A. Update and enhance the
Growth Management Plan
(GMP), Land Development
Code (LDC) and other short and
long-term plans as needed to
reflect changing conditions in
financial resources, community
desires, contemporary data
trends and best practices
1. Utilize the Evaluation and
Appraisal Report (EAR) and the
annual LDC cycle update
process to maintain current and
relevant GMP and LDC
requirements
2. Participate with the
Metropolitan Planning
Organization to maintain and
enhance the County’s Long
Range Transportation Plan
3. Establish and update
watershed management plans,
surface water master plans, and
master mobility plans in order to
plan for orderly development
A. Improve access to health care and wellness
services
1. Improve disease prevention and intervention
programs and decrease incidence of
communicable disease
2. Improve access to primary and specialty
medical and dental care for working poor and
indigent populations
3. Assist military veterans with benefit claims
and transportation services to medical facilities
4. Promote the community’s active lifestyle
through participation in wellness activities
B. Address the needs of the community’s senior,
disabled, working poor and indigent populations
1. Increase availability of special needs housing,
in-home care, nutritional information,
transportation assistance, medical/prescription
services and disaster preparedness assistance for
medically frail, disabled and elderly populations
2. Increase access to pre-natal and early
childhood medical care for working poor and
indigent populations
3. Update the Transit Development Plan and the
Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan
4. Provide and maintain safe and decent housing
for income-qualified residents
A. Optimize the useful life of all
capital assets and critical public
infrastructure
1. Implement the Collier County
Airports five-year capital
improvement program
2. Assure integrated, well maintained
storm water drainage and flood
protection and control systems
3. Maintain the integrity of county
technology and telecommunications
systems
4. Ensure predictive and preventative
maintenance and replacement
programs to guarantee the
sustainability and reliability of the
public infrastructure, fixed and
operational equipment, and capital
assets
5. Maintain government facilities so
as to ensure the safety and well being
of visitors and employees
6. Preserve disposal airspace at the
Collier County landfill through stat-
of-the-art solid waste and hazardous
waste management
7. Maintain coordinated network of
A. Develop a well-balanced and
diversified local economy
1. Develop a strategic balance of
commercial, industrial, agricultural and
residential land uses that promote
diversified economic development
2. Develop local government tax
revenue policies that promote business
expansion and economic prosperity
B. Retain existing businesses and attract
desirable new business
1. Provide a fair, efficient and
responsive regulatory process
2. Provide and promote the public
infrastructure required to retain and
attract business and industry
3. Promote technology enhancements
for public use, including wireless
network, fiber optics and broadband
4. Provide appropriate economic
incentives for businesses to expand and
relocate in Collier County
5. Ensure reasonable tax rates,
assessments and fees that appropriately
balance public demand and cost
feasibility
A. Provide effective leadership
1. Maintain the vision, mission,
values and strategic goals for the
organization that reflect the needs
and desires of the community
2. Conduct the public’s business in a
transparent manner with the highest
professional and ethical standards
3. Ensure ethical and effectual
stewardship and ensure that
taxpayers and rate payers receive
excellent value for their money
4. Plan effectively for the long-term
sustainability and prosperity of the
county
5. Sustain effective working
relationships with federal, state,
regional and local officials
6. Manage the organization
consistent with the mission, vision,
values and goals established
BCC Strategic Plan: Adopted May 9, 2006, effective Fiscal Year 2007 (Oct. 2006); Revised March 6, 2007, effective FY 08; Reviewed March 4, 2008 for FY 09; Revised May 13, 2009 for FY 10;
Major revisions March 11, 2011 for FY 12; Reconfirmed February 7, 2012 for FY 13; Minor changes for FY 15 based on February 4, 2014 BCC Workshop
I. Quality of Place
B. Preserve and enhance
neighborhood character
1. Ensure land uses are compatible
with area character
2. Modify building design and
architectural standards to promote
redevelopment
3. Maintain “good-neighbor”
relationships for all County
facilities
4. Preservation and conservation of
natural features and natural
resources
5. Historic preservation
6. Identify, protect and preserve
significant archaeological,
historical and cultural resources
C. Promote safe and secure
neighborhoods
1. Provide a seamless, integrated
emergency service and Incident
Management System that
encompasses fire, rescue,
emergency medical services, air
medical services, marine medical
services and emergency
management
2. Timely identification and
abatement of code violations
3. Street lighting, traffic control
devices and pavement markings
designed to enhance community
safety and appearance
4. Re-home stray and abandoned
animals and work toward ending
pet overpopulation
II. Growth Management
B. Implement the county’s GMP
and LDC consistent with
community desires through
efficient processes while
maintaining a balance between
public trust and public service
1. Utilize a series of land use
planning initiatives and
regulations to achieve desired
land development and
preservation patterns
2. Administer the county’s GMP
consistent with state
requirements and Board of
County Commissioners (BCC)
directive
3. Administer the county’s LDC
as adopted and amended by the
BCC
4. Utilize the Annual Update and
Inventory (AUIR) process with
the Capital Improvement
Element (CIE) to establish well-
planned, financially feasible
programs
C. Manage development and
redevelopment in harmony with
efficient mobility, habitat
preservation, water resource
management and a sustainable
ecology
1. Increase the quantity and
quality of roadways,
bike/pedestrian facilities, transit
opportunities, conservation land,
environmental mitigation land
and open space as the county
develops via open and
transparent public processes
2. Enhance and protect the water
quality of our beaches, coastal
areas, bays, rivers, lakes, creeks,
canals and ground water through
infrastructure and development
planning and approvals
3. Protect endangered/protected
animal and plant species
III. Community Health, Wellness and
Human Services
C. Partner with community organizations that
provide human services
1. Formalize community protocol for established
system of integrated, coordinated access to
human services and healthcare for individuals
who are uninsured and are at 200% or below
federal poverty guidelines
2. In collaboration with the Human Services
Department maintain a coordinated, county
agency-wide volunteer program
3. Encourage and participate in development of
funding strategies for non-profit agencies
4. In collaboration with the local Continuum of
Care begin the process of development,
implementation and adoption of county-wide 10-
year plan to end chronic homelessness
5. Support a proactive community health
coalition to address long-range health care issues
D. Address the health, recreational, educational
and nutritional needs of the community’s youth
1. Provide meaningful and varied educational
programs
2. Provide a variety of high-quality recreational
opportunities
IV. Infrastructure and Capital
Asset Management
roads, bridges and traffic
management systems to current
prescribed standards and service
levels
8. Maintain efforts that protect water
resources
B. Provide adequate, timely, cost-
effective public facilities and
infrastructure concurrently timed to
meet both current and future demand
1. Develop and execute the 5-year
Capital Improvement Element (CIE)
of the GMP and maintain level of
service standards established in the
Annual Update and Inventory Report
(AUIR)
2. Maintain the public facilities
concurrency management system
3. Provide adequate, reliable potable
and non-potable water supply to meet
projected demand in concurrence
with the AUIR
4. Implement and maintain long range
operations and capital improvement
master plans with strong strategic
guidance and measured execution
5. Continue to update the impact fee
program in accordance with the
consolidated impact fee ordinance,
and continually evaluate all fee
structures
6. Maintain strong bond ratings in
credit markets to ensure favorable
debt financing when required
C. Mitigate the impacts of potential
disasters on critical infrastructure
1. Create a countywide integrated
critical facility assessment inclusive
of all emergency services facilities’
future needs
2. Continually assess community
disaster preparedness and domestic
security facilities and programs to
ensure situational awareness and
reasonable vulnerabilities are
mitigated
V. Economic Development
6. Possess desirable community
recreational, environmental and cultural
amenities (quality of life)
7. Solicit public/private partnerships
that advance the public’s interest
C. Partner to create jobs at or above the
national average wage
1. Target high wage businesses and
industries for expansion or relocation
2. Partner with the Chamber of
Commerce and education community to
provide skilled training and professional
development programs needed to build
and retain a qualified, local work force
3. Work with community stakeholders
to promote the construction of
affordable and workforce housing
4. Support and develop the Florida
Tradeport as an international airport and
prime industrial location
D. Serve the air transportation needs of
county residents, businesses and visitors
1. Enhance marketing and branding
programs for all three airports
2. Support and promote new
commercial air service to the region
E. Promote our community as a year
round destination of choice
1. Develop marketing and
communication tools to attract quality
visitors
2. Communicate to all customers,
residents and elected officials on our
quality of place
3. Embrace regional and statewide
cooperation of marketing our assets
worldwide
4. Promote green, eco and sustainable
tourism activities
F. Support regional economic
development efforts
VI. Governance
B. Operate an effective,
professional, and fiscally
responsible government
1. Build and maintain a high-
performing, responsive, accountable
County Government workforce
2. Implement the customer service
framework, organizational structure,
business systems, technology, and
performance management standards
required to achieve the desired
policy directive of the BCC
3. Maintain sound fiscal policies and
practices
4. Maintain sound operational
policies and practices
C. Develop an engaged citizenry
1. Increase citizen awareness and
knowledge of county plans,
functions and responsibilities via
various means including the use of
social media
2. Regularly seek public input in
government and important policy
matters including participation on
advisory boards
BCC Strategic Plan: Adopted May 9, 2006, effective Fiscal Year 2007 (Oct. 2006); Revised March 6, 2007, effective FY 08; Reviewed March 4, 2008 for FY 09; Revised May 13, 2009 for FY 10;
Major revisions March 11, 2011 for FY 12; Reconfirmed February 7, 2012 for FY 13; Minor changes for FY 15 based on February 4, 2014 BCC Workshop
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES’
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
(Values)
Honesty & Integrity: We speak and act truthfully in accordance with all legal and ethical requirements, acknowledging mistakes, keeping commitments and avoiding silence when it may
be misleading. We do the right thing even when it is unpopular or nobody would know the difference.
Service: We value and embrace the opportunity and responsibility to serve our community. Our customers come first and we will strive to serve them in a friendly, fair, respectful and
efficient manner.
Accountability: We are individually and collectively responsible for our behavior and performance. We conduct business in accordance with the highest professional and ethical standards.
Quality: We strive for continuous improvement in our products, services, programs and facilities. We seek to do the entire job right the first time.
Respect: We treat others with dignity and courtesy.
Knowledge: We are a learning organization. We encourage and promote continuous personal and professional development as a means of enhancing our team members’ ability to plan for
the future, make good decisions and solve customer problems.
Stewardship: We recognize that we are spending other people’s hard-earned money. As such, we carefully manage the resources entrusted to us. We seek to control costs of operations,
improve efficiency and provide the greatest and best value and return on invested funds.
Collaboration: We realize that our success is interdependent on the success of other organizations, businesses and institutions of our County, Region and State. We seek, therefore, to work
cooperatively with these agencies to allocate our collective resources to achieve mutual goals.
Self- Initiating, Self-Correcting: We are proactive and flexible; quickly adapting to changes in political, market and financial conditions. We believe that our self-initiating, self-correcting
behavior helps us learn and encourages and enables us to be independent and collaborative problem solvers.
BCC Strategic Plan: Adopted May 9, 2006, effective Fiscal Year 2007 (Oct. 2006); Revised March 6, 2007, effective FY 08; Reviewed March 4, 2008 for FY 09; Revised May 13, 2009 for FY 10;
Major revisions March 11, 2011 for FY 12; Reconfirmed February 7, 2012 for FY 13; Minor changes for FY 15 based on February 4, 2014 BCC Workshop
EXHIBIT 3
2014 Strategy Map (reference only)
BCC Strategic Planning Workshop 01.03.2017
Vision: To be the best community in America to live, work, and play
Strategic Focus Areas
Growth
Management
Economic
Development Governance
Infrastructure
and Capital
Asset
Managment
Community
Health,
Wellness
and Human
Services
Quality of
Place
Community Expectations, Outcomes and Strategic Objectives
Board of County Commissioners
Strategy Map
Preserve &
Enhance
Neighborhoods
Promote Safety
& Security
Plan for
Development
Consistent with
Community Desires
Develop a Well-
Balanced and
Diversified Local
Economy
Operate an
Effective,
Professional,
and Fiscally
Responsible
Government
Provide Timely
Public Facilities
and Infrastructure
to Meet Current
and Future
Demand
Develop
Engaged
Citizenry
Improve Access
to Health Care
and Wellness
Services
Promote Economic
Development Retain
& Attract Existing &
New Business
Provide
Effective
Leadership
BCC Endorsed 03 06, 2007; Revised 11 05, 2008, Endorsed 05 13, 2009, Revised per BCC Strategic Plan March 11, 2011, Re-affirmed 02 07, 2012; Minor
revisions per BCC 02.04.2014 Workshop
Provide High
Quality
Services &
Amenities
Manage
Development in
Harmony with
Mobility, Habitat
Preservation, Water
Resources & a
Sustainable
Ecology
Efficiently
Implement Plans,
while Maintaining
Balance between
Public Trust and
Public Service
Address Needs of
Senior, Disabled,
Working Poor &
Indigent Populations
Partner with
Community
Organizations to
Provide Human
Services
Address Health,
Recreational,
Educational and
Nutritional Needs
of Community’s
Youth
Optimize Life of
Capital Assets &
Critical Public
Infrastructure
Mitigate Impacts of
Potential Disasters
on Critical
Infrastructure
Partner to Create
Jobs at or above
National Average
Wage
Serve Air
Transportation
Needs of the County
Promote Destination
of Choice
Mission: To deliver high quality, best-value public services, programs,
and facilities to our residents, businesses and visitors.
Motto: Exceeding Expectations, Every Day!
Guiding Principles: Honesty, Integrity, Service, Accountability, Quality, Respect, Knowledge, Stewardship, Collaboration, Self-Initiating, Self-Correcting
Support Regional
Economic
Development
Overall Purpose of GMP:
Guide and direct development to the
appropriate location,at the appropriate
density and intensity,and provide for
infrastructure and services to
accommodate that development.
How the GMP works
•GMP comprised of Elements –i.e.,
Transportation,Capital Improvements,Future
Land Use,ect.
•Goals are the desired outcome expressed in
each Element
•Objectives,support or further the Goals
•Policies are designed to further or support
the Objectives.
•Goals,Objectives and Policies are designed to
deal with macro issues,the more specific we
are in the details of the policies,the less
flexibility there is in establishing and
modifying the implementation or application
of that policy.
•Think of the GMP as, “What the County wants
to do, not how the County goes about doing
it ”
Role of the GMP LDC relationship
•The GMP objectives and policies expressed in
the Elements are the basis for the
implementing the LDRs which dictate how
development moves forward.
•The GMP provides the framework for not only
how individual land uses are assembled,but
much more far reaching in its influence.The
GMP is the basis for County regulations.–
Rational Nexus must exist between regulation
and GMP
GMP
Provides
Rational Nexus
Administrative
Code
Land
Development
Code
Code of Laws
& Ordinances
1
Planning & Zoning Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager
Through: Leo Ochs, County Manager; David Wilkinson, GMD Department Head; and
Mike Bosi, Zoning Director
Re: Workshop: Update on Eastern Area GMP Restudies
Date: December 20, 2016
Introduction:
This memorandum provides background and references related to the Four Area Restudies now
underway. The Community Planning Section of the Planning and Zoning Division in the Growth
Management Department serves as the project management team for the Restudies.
The January 3, 2017 Board of County Commissioners (Board) Workshop provides a venue to
discuss the purpose, history and status of the four area restudies. These areas include:
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)
The Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP)
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA)
The Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP)
As the RFMUD restudy was the first to commence, the majority of attention is paid to that effort
in this workshop setting, focusing on key issues that need resolution or direction prior to the
public hearing phase. Staff will ask for direction on those key issues at a regularly scheduled Board
Meeting, using this Workshop as a venue to begin discussion.
The GGAMP Restudy has also begun, and outreach efforts will be described. Finally, staff will seek
direction on the future timing of the RLSA and IAMP Restudies.
The presentation outline is as follows:
1.Background on restudies
2.RFMUD status
3.RFMUD future decision points
4.GGAMP update
5.Future restudy sequence
2
Additional comment related to RFMUD:
Access to the RFMUD White Paper is easily accessible on the County’s website for viewing and
downloading:.http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-
division/community-planning-section. As well, hard copies will be made available.
Only a few changes were made following the presentation of the White Paper to the CCPC on
August 18, 2016. Those changes are summarized in the White Paper Change List found at the
website location. In addition, the full list (without narrative) of 41 initial recommendations from
Chapter 4 of the White Paper are located there for easy reference.
The White Paper provides a groundwork of information relating to the RFMUD, the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program and the ideas and perceptions of its stakeholders. It is, by
design, conceptual in nature. Many of the initial recommendations are complex and related to
other program elements. A change in one aspect of the program echoes in other program
elements. In this regard, three keystone issues have been identified, so that other program
elements will align.
Elements A through C below is the focus of staff’s presentation on the RFMUD. It is anticipated
that Board direction on these keystone elements will follow at a regularly scheduled Board
meeting at the appropriate time. Additional data and analysis on these elements will be
forthcoming. Meanwhile, Community Planning staff will be available for discussion and to
provide any additional information to individual Board members at their pleasure.
A. County Ownership of Sending Lands (White Paper, Section 4, Sending D.1,and
Appendix B):
One of the challenges in addressing the shortcomings of the RFMUD has been the lack of interest
by public agencies in assuming ownership or management responsibility for approx. 65% of the
privately-held Sending Lands, even if some level of endowment were provided. The majority of
stakeholders agree that the County should take on this responsibility in the absence of other
public agency interest. Funding for such an endeavor represents a substantial hurdle.
While a combination of funding sources may be required, one of the most powerful ideas involves
the creation of a Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA) that can take donations of parcels in
North Belle Meade over a period of time, and apply a land management plan at the landscape
level. Through a ROMA, the County can mitigate its own projects such as road improvements.
The potential advantages are threefold:
Sending owners would achieve the Conveyance TDR credits through donation to the
County, similar to the donation process to the State in South Belle Meade;
The County to County sale of wetland and panther credits would create the funding to
support long term land management;
3
County projects may save costs in the long run by purchasing credits from a public bank,
even when factoring in start-up and administrative costs.
Staff has initiated a Phase 2 Feasibility Study, to include more site specific analysis, define optimal
project boundaries, conduct pre-application meetings with agencies, and provide data necessary
for a pro forma financial analysis for long term program viability. The major Phase 2 tasks are
expected to be completed in April, 2017.
B. TDR Bank (White Paper, Section 4, Sending C.3, and Appendix C):
A TDR Bank can serve as a secondary means of transfer between the seller and buyer of TDR
credits. The Rural Fringe Coalition, GGEACA, RFMUD landowners and other stakeholders are in
favor of creating a TDR Bank. Additionally, future consideration of a TDR bank was adopted as
part of the RFMUD amendments in 2002, and remains in the current Growth Management Plan.
There are a great many variations in the structure and operation of such banks. Based on the
program contours and history, our consultant recommends a bank funded by dedicated ad
valorem (county-wide) that is bonded to create the largest possible front-end funding. A
referendum would be necessary.
TDR banks signal commitment on behalf of the County to sending owners. Owners can feel more
confident in a decision to enter the program if they know that there is a relatively immediate
avenue to sell credits if a willing buyer cannot be found. Banks also provide assurance to
developers that credits will be available when needed.
This recommendation relates to the anticipated delay between the creation of TDRs through
severance and bonus provisions, and the demand for credits which may stretch out for several
decades. As a bank sells its TDRs to buyers in Receiving Lands, the funds can be used or recycled
to acquire additional TDRs. In time, the bank is repaid as the RFMUD matures; the cost to
taxpayers is both the time value of money and the risk that development in the RFMUD will not
transpire.
Consulting support services has provided an analysis of full funding with numerous assumptions.
Additional analysis will be forthcoming in the next several weeks, allowing for a range of options
for consideration.
C. Receiving Land Density (White Paper, Section 4, Receiving, A.6):
Public feedback has been supportive of density increases that support a form of development
other than solely single family gated communities. Increased density and village structure makes
RFMUD program goals and regional goals attainable. Critical mass provides the backbone for
diversified housing, mobility improvements, economic development and sustainability.
As an initial recommendation, the white paper suggests a village density minimum of four units
per acre and a maximum of seven units per acre. TDR requirements incentivize the higher (seven
4
unit) density. A non-village community would be limited to 300 acres in size. Although these are
initial recommendations, staff is aware that other solutions may also provide the critical mass to
support mobility options, economic growth and sustainable practices. However, a key to any of
these goals is both higher density and a mix of uses, including goods and services, office, light
industrial, institutional, government services and recreation options.
As a keystone issue, staff must understand whether there are any fundamental objections to
higher density in Receiving areas. This will provide a basis for more specific recommendations
related to the credit system, and its implications for sending owners and collateral TDR sources.
Staff Request:
1. RFMUD: Your Community Planning staff seeks Board direction at a future meeting on
these three keystone elements in the RFMUD restudy prior to beginning the public
hearing process for Growth Management Plan Amendments.
2. Future Restudies: Staff seeks direction at the Workshop on the sequence of future
planning areas, Rural Land Stewardship Area and Immokalee Area Master Plan, for
planning and effective communication to the public.
Restudies Update and Report on
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD)
January 3, 2017
https://www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies
Community Planning Section
Planning and Zoning Division
Collier County | Florida
Today’s Discussion
1. Background: 4 Restudies
2. RFMUD Restudy Status
3. RFMUD Future Decision Points
4. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Status
5. Restudy Timeline
1. Background of 4 Restudies
February, 2015: BCC Direction on Restudies
Over 10 years since comprehensive changes
Need to coordinate land uses among all
areas
Limited unentitled land remaining in County
Specific to Rural Fringe
o Re-evaluate flexibility, density and
intensity to accommodate service, retail
and business land uses for Golden Gate
Estates
Background of 4 Restudies
Growth Management Oversight Committee
June, 2015 Ordinance creating Growth
Management Oversight Committee (GMOC)
October, 2015 GMOC appointed
o 7 Members (1 each study area, 3 at large)
o Meet quarterly
o Scope
•Public involvement
•Consistency
•Sustainability
•Economic vitality
Four Restudy Areas
Restudy Objectives
Retain original boundaries and
goals of the Final Order
Improve the TDR credit system
o Balance credits
Consider preservation and
Stewardship
Improve development pattern
o Smart growth and mobility
o Economic development
o Sustainability, consistency
with other areas
2. RFMUD Restudy Status
Rural Fringe Acreage
77,000 total acres
Sending –41,000 acres
o Private Owner
17,000 acres
Receiving –28,000 acres
o Vacant Land
15,000 acres
over 3,000 private parcels
Sending Lands Density
Before Final Order:
1 home per 5 acres, or smaller legal lot
After 2002 Plan Adoption:
1 home per 40 acres; or
1 home per smaller lot in existence before 1999
Credits as Compensation:
Base; Early Entry; Restoration; Conveyance
How the plan is performing
Nine residential projects
being developed
TDR credits used to
increase density to 1 unit per
acre
6,527 acres Sending acres
protected
4,000 credits earned
•2,100 redeemed
•1,900 in circulation
Public Outreach
Citizens, Agencies, Stakeholders
6 public workshops
Meetings and interviews
Website utility
Resources, minutes, surveys
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies
RFMUD White Paper
White Paper-Initial recommendations
o Chapters 1-4; Appendices
Recommendation Groups
o TDR Credit System
o TDR Program Management
o Sending Land Management
o Receiving Land Character and Standards
3. RFMUD Future Decision Points
A. County Ownership of Sending Land?
B. TDR Bank?
C. Receiving Land Density?
RFMUD Future Decision Points
Describe the basic purposes and provisions
today
Staff availability for questions and comments in
coming weeks
Return on Regular Agenda
o Provide additional data
o Obtain direction on Major decision points
o Other recommendations as directed
A. County Ownership of Sending Land ?
Should Collier County own Sending Land if no other public
agency is willing?
Potential County
Owned Sending Land
North Belle Meade NRPA
North Belle Meade West
“Section 11”
County Ownership of Sending Land
If YES:
Incentivizes TDR severance
Provides coordinated
restoration and maintenance,
landscape scale
Larger management areas
are more cost effective
Potential hydrologic
improvements
Opportunity for public/private
partnership
Possible passive recreation
$$$ funding needed for
County ownership*
If YES: Potential Funding
North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank Area
County to County
Wetland and Panther Credits
Phase 1 Feasibility Study “reasonable
likelihood” to:
o Generate funding for restoration and
maintenance
o Provide long term cost savings for
County’s CIPs
o But, anticipate negative cash flow in
early years
Phase 2 Feasibility Study began
December 2016
County Ownership of Sending Land
If YES: Potential funding:
Outside of Mitigation Area
Monetary donations with all conveyances to County
o Similar to South Belle Meade charges
Potential Conservation Collier budgeting
County Ownership of Sending Land
If NO County Ownership:
Sending Owners in those areas ineligible for
conveyance credits
Greater likelihood of higher degradation/infestation
Greater likelihood of owner retention, development
Rehydration less likely under private ownership
But, County avoids potential long term costs
Could realign TDRs to incentivize removal of dwelling
units in lieu of land management
County Ownership of Sending Land
A. County Ownership of Sending Land?
Additional Data and Analysis:
Phase 2 Feasibility: April 2017
Discussion/Direction
B. TDR Bank ?
“County shall consider” (2002 GMP
Amendments)
Broad stakeholder support
“Intermediary”
o Liquidity
o Parallel to open market
o Bank funds recycled
Capitalization required
o General or dedicated tax revenue
o Funds flow back over time
Should the County create and fund a TDR Bank?
TDR Bank
If YES:
Signals commitment of County to Sending
owners, providing timely monetary return
Signals commitment to conservation goals by
encouraging early participation
Provides Receiving owners ready availability of
credits
Funding:
o Large capital sum early years
o Repayment in later years
o Could be part of multi-use Environmental Fund
Multi-purpose Special Fund
(examples)
o TDR Bank
o Conservation Collier
restoration and maintenance
o Watershed enhancement
o Other environmental
purposes
BCC allocates funding annually
TDR Bank allocations can be
reused in related programs
TDR Bank
Concept -County Environmental Fund
TDR Bank
If NO:
Owners wait for private sector purchases:
o Of credits, or
o Of Sending parcels
Time lag issue:
o Owner uncertainty
o Low maintenance of conservation land
o Pressure to develop conservation land
County avoids cost (time value)
B. TDR Bank?
Additional Data and Analysis:
Vet assumptions used
Study alternative capitalization
Discussion/Direction
C. Receiving Land-
Increase Density ?
Context-is the current
program:
complementary to
eastern Collier County
sustainable
supportive of economic
vitality and diversification
Receiving Land
Density
Findings:
The development
option used to date
1 unit per acre
single-family gated
communities
Car dependent
Lacking
interconnection
Findings:
Opportunity Naples reports serious
threat of shortfall in 24-44 year old
workforce. How do we plan for them?
Reports show the employees and
employers, and the current residents,
want mixed-use, walkable
communities.
Receiving Land Density
Land Use and Economic Vitality
Findings:
Higher Density that is well
designed
makes mixed-use more
feasible and creates a better
business environment
supports healthier
communities
makes room for housing
diversity
supports greater mobility
and viable transit
Receiving Land Density
Non-village Clustering from 1
unit/acre to 2
Village density from 2-3
units/acre to 4-7
Parcels >300 acres must use
Village form
Incentives geared toward
financial feasibility
Initial Recommendations
Baseline Scenario
Current allowed densities
Mid-Range Scenario
Increase allowed non-Village density to 2 u/acre
Village areas at minimum 4 units/acre
High-Range Scenario
Increase allowed non-Village density to 2 u/acre
Village areas at maximum 7 units/acre
All scenarios set aside 10 percent of total units for
affordable housing
Receiving Area Development Scenarios
Number of Housing Units at Full Buildout, by Type of
Housing and by Development Scenario
Est. pop.
85,000
Est. pop.
115,000
Est. pop.
196,000
Residual Land Value per Acre as a Percent of Baseline
Scenario Total Residual Land Value per Acre
Estimated TDR Credit Supply and Demand at Buildout of
Receiving Areas, with New Credits
C. Receiving Land Density?
Additional Data and Analysis:
As directed
Discussion/Direction
4. Golden Gate
Area Master Plan
Update
8 Workshops to date
3 study areas
Vision statement
Specific plan concepts
2017:
Continue Workshops
GGC Commercial
White Paper mid-year
Restudy Timeframe Estimates
Initial
Proposed
Resource Allocation Discussion
Summarized List of Initial Recommendations
Board of County Commissioners Workshop
January 3, 2017
SENDING LANDS
A. TDR Credit System
1. Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR.
2. Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits
should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property
attributes.
3. Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to begin or expand a bone fide
agricultural operation. In NRPA locations, only passive agricultural operations, excluding
aquaculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and
Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan .
4. Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming properties based on public policy goals,
and waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4.5 acres in size.
5. Allow landowner’s who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to
participate in any applicable program changes.
6. Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base
severance of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned.
7. Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native
vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements.
B. TDR Credits and Areas Outside of the RFMUD
1. Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe
2. Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill bonus provision.
3. Accommodate implementation measures recommended by the CWIP committee and the
Watershed Management Plan in Golden Gate Estates that are consistent with TDR program
success. Where TDRs are used as an incentive, limit the number of credits for critical
wetland parcels to avoid significant impacts to the TDR credit system.
C. TDR Program Management
1. At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from
potential buyers and sellers.
2. Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product
required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances,
provided by County staff.
3. The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR bank and a dedicated
assessment and bonding for the program, based on an evaluation of costs and benefits.
D. Sending Land Management
1. Complete Phase 2 Feasibility Analysis for a County to County mitigation bank program
(ROMA/ILF), to establish a higher confidence of a successful mitigation program that can
benefit the TRD program, the County environment and capital spending. Explore options
involving Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) parcels to achieve coordinated or
umbrella management options for greater overall land management efficiency.
2. Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been
established to take ownership. Also require donors of Sending Lands to convey a sum of
money along with title to partially fund long term endowment.
3. Study the idea of a County Environmental Fund and consider whether it should be the
subject of a County-wide referendum. Allow various complementary uses of the Fund to
support County environmental initiatives.
4. Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to
provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits.
E. Other Program Suggestions
1. Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser’s Office in support of its
efforts to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax
assessments in Sending Lands.
2. County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for
expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of “active”
and “passive” recreation will require further vetting.
3. Allow large land owners to cluster dwelling units, retaining the one unit per 40 acre
standard, but also allowing 1 additional clustered unit for each additional 40 acres retained.
NEUTRAL LANDS
1. Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by
perpetual easements.
2. Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered development.
RECEIVING LANDS
A. Land Use and Economic Vitality
1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of Villages
as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in locations
with access to major collector or arterial roads.
2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village
Center and the Research and Technology Park.
3. Explore designating Receiving areas as Innovation Zones.
4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village.
5. Consider new measures for mixed-use standards, such as those found in the RLSA
6. Modify residential density standards:
Clustering – remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre (higher
density for affordable/workforce only projects)
Village – increase density to 7 units per acre
Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre
7. Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option.
8. Modify the TDR requirements:
a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit.
b. Change from .5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing.
c. Density over 4 units per acre requires 0 TDRs.
d. No TDRs for industrial/business park uses.
B. Transportation and Mobility
1. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands.
2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support Complete
Streets and low speed.
3. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business
parks.
4. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a
development’s level of interconnectivity such as a “link-node” ratio, and the transit, bicycle
and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding destinations.
C. Development Standards and Processes
1. Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide greater
certainty for developers
2. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays.
3. Require analysis within Village application based on employment needs within the Village,
housing accommodation of such employees within the Village, and travel times for
employees not accommodated within the Village.
4. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed-use.
5. Explore with Collier County Health Department the creation of Health Assessment Index.
6. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land
Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment zones
and mixed-use development, suggest modifications to standards i.e., remove greenbelt.
7. Develop further incentives for innovative features such as solar power, zero net water use,
aquifer storage and recovery systems.
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
White Paper
Prepared by the Growth Management Department,
Planning and Zoning Division, Community Planning Section Staff
BCC Workshop
January 3, 2017
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Table of Contents Page
Section 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………1
Section 2: Background…………………….…………………………………………………………………….………………….……..……..5
Section 3: Planning Process……………………………………………………………………………………….………………………....10
Section 4: Findings and Initial Recommendations…………………………………………………….………………………….. 32
Appendix A: Public Outreach
Appendix B: North Belle Meade Mitigation Feasibility Report
Appendix C: TDR Bank Memo
Appendix D: TDR Supply and Demand
List of Tables
Table 2-1 RFMUD Sending Parcel and Acreage Totals by Area………………………………………………..……………….7
Table 2-2 RFMUD TDR Credits Processed of Pending Process……………………………………………………..…………..8
Table 2-3 Outstanding TDR Credits………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Table 3-1 RFMUD Development Characteristics…………………………………………………………………..………………..23
Table 3-2 Measuring the Mix in the RFMUD Village and RLSA Village…………………………………………………….27
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas……………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Figure 2-1 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Transactions Sending Parcels to Receiving Projects…....8
Figure 3-1 Sending, Neutral and Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results……………..……………..13
Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020………………………………………….…………….17
Figure 3-3 Freight Activity Centers………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
Figure 3-5 Collier Well-Being Index………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….. 24
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Section 1: Introduction
This White Paper provides a conceptual framework to address elements of the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) restudy. The RFMUD restudy is the first of four restudies focused
on eastern Collier County, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on February
10, 2015. Focus areas of all four restudies include complementary land uses, transportation and
mobility, environmental stewardship and economic vitality. As the restudies unfold,
relationships and synergies between the study areas are identified and maximized.
The Community Planning staff in the Zoning Division of the Growth Management Department
provides this document as a first point of direct contact with elected officials to describe the
history and status of the RFMUD (Section 2), the planning process, including outreach and
sources of data and analysis (Section 3), and findings and initial recommendations (Section 4).
This paper is supplemented by appendices of importance at this juncture, final quarter of FY
2016. Appendix A contains summaries of public workshops as well as communications from
stakeholders with their remarks subsequent to our distribution of a first draft of initial
recommendations on July 13, 2016. Appendix B contains a memo from a TDR consultant on the
provision of a County sponsored TDR Bank. Appendix C is the Phase 1 Feasibility Report for a
Mitigation Bank in North Belle Meade.
One reason to bring the RFMUD restudy forward in report form is to lay the groundwork of
information relating to the RFMUD, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and the
ideas and perceptions of its stakeholders. Another important reason is that, given the
complexity of the elements within the RFMUD and TDR program, a conceptual approach should
be a preferred way to begin. Many elements or ideas for change are related to many other
program elements. Often, a change in one aspect of the program echoes in other program
elements. By considering the breadth and scope of potential changes together, a better
understanding of these interrelationships emerges. Put another way, it is helpful in a program
of this complexity to move from more general concepts at first to more specific proposals later.
As understood by staff at the beginning of this restudy in 2015, the original goals of the
program should be maintained, deriving from the Final Order in 1999, through the assessment
period and adoption of elements and regulations from 2002 to 2004. These include:
Protect wetlands, wildlife and habitat from unrestrained growth
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 1 of 62
Protect agricultural land from premature conversion to other uses
Direct growth potential to appropriate locations
Utilize creative land use planning techniques, including new towns, satellite
communities, clustering, mixed use and open space
Along with retention of the original goals and the geographic (Sending/Neutral/Receiving)
designations that were made, restudy goals also include:
Improve the TDR credit system
o Achieve proper balance of credits (optimize supply and demand)
o Incentivize preservation and stewardship
o Ensure reasonable demand for and availability of credits in Receiving areas
Identify agencies or entities for long term ownership and maintenance
Review and improve development uses, regulations and standards, based on:
o Community values
o Sustainability
o Economic development
o Consistency with area needs, other sub-area needs and County policies
Some of the coordination called for in the course of the restudy requires close collaboration
with other County Departments or outside agencies, often at the expense of a strict adoption
or implementation timetable. For example, planning for affordable housing, mobility,
watershed and infrastructure require knowledge and recognition of parallel efforts, each
moving along its own trajectory and timetable. Staff is mindful that interdepartmental and
intergovernmental coordination help yield the optimal result.
The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres; lands designated RFMUD are not contiguous.
One of the interesting observations that emerged early on in the restudy is that there are
significant differences in the character and status of the four main Sending areas and the four
main Receiving areas.
For consistency, we have labeled the RFMUD sub-areas as follows (see Figure 1-1):
Sending:
North
North Belle Meade- NRPA
North Belle Meade-West
South Belle Meade
Receiving:
North
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 2 of 62
West
North Belle Meade
South
Note that the Findings and Initial Recommendations in Section 4 are conceptual and contain
changes that would be suitable for the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the Land
Development Code (LDC) or both. Following feedback and direction from White Paper
presentations, staff, with consultation from the County Attorney’s Office, will sort through the
appropriate regulatory locations for proposed program changes, and return with specific
amendment proposals for the Growth Management Plan first.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 3 of 62
IMMOKALEE RD COLLIER BLVDDAVIS BLVD
RADIO RD
IMMOKALEE RD E
GOLDEN GATE BLVD LIVINGSTON RD WILSON BLVD TAM
I
A
M
I
T
R
L
EI 75CR 858
EVERGLADES BLVD DESOTO BLVD I 75
RANDALL BLVD
R U R A L F R I N G E
R U R A L F R I N G EM I X E D U S E D I S T R I C T
M I X E D U S E D I S T R I C T
Í
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
RECEIVING
SENDING
NEUTRAL
North BelleMeade NRPANorth BelleMeade - West
South Belle Meade
North Sending
North BelleMeade
South
North
West
Figure 1-1 RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 4 of 62
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Section 2: Background
In June 1999, the State of Florida Final Order, Case ACC-99-002, found the County’s Growth
Management Plan lacking in protection for environmentally sensitive areas, failing to
adequately discourage urban sprawl and failing to prevent the premature conversion of
agricultural land. The Final Order required the following modifications to the GMP to address
the issues within three specified areas.
1. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas.
2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect
water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect
listed animal species and their habitats.
3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural
lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing
incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that
utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and
private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based
allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development.
In order to address these concerns, the County created the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. The
Growth Management Plan was amended in 2002 to include the majority of today’s RFMUD
provisions and the basic structure of the TDR program. It was amended soon thereafter, to
include bonus TDR provisions and provisions incorporating an intervener agreement known as
the North Belle Meade Overlay. The implementing Land Development Code (LDC) provisions,
reflecting and implementing all of these GMP amendments were adopted in 2004. Only
miscellaneous amendments have been made since that time.
The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres. It provides a transition between the Urban
and Estates Designated lands, between the Urban and Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA),
and Conservation designated lands farther to the east.
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is separated into three specific areas, Sending Lands,
Neutral Lands, and Receiving Lands. Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree
of environmental value and sensitivity. These sending lands generally include significant
wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. The uses within the Sending Lands are limited
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 5 of 62
to a narrow list of permitted and conditional uses. The current regulations allow for the
maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per 40 acres or, one (1) dwelling unit per lot or
parcel of less than 40 acres, which was recorded on or before June 22, 1999 (and non-
conforming lots <5 acres which existed as of October 15, 1974 or January 5, 1982, depending
upon location).
Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been
identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development
units may be transferred from Sending Lands. These lands have a lesser degree of
environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally
have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations.
Within the Receiving Lands the base residential density allowable is one (1) unit per five (5)
gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum (non-village) density achievable in
Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre, with a minimum
project size of 40 contiguous acres.
The RFMUD also allows Rural Villages in the Receiving areas. Rural Villages must be located
where public infrastructure exists or is planned, including direct access to an arterial or
collector roadway. With the creation a Rural Village, the sense of community and convenience
can be increased, emphasizing mixed use, social and civic interaction and walkability. However,
the current development standards for Rural Villages do not easily accommodate neighboring
communities and Districts.
Neutral Lands have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development. Assessment
data indicated that Neutral Lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation, and thus higher
habitat values, than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but these values do not approach
those of Sending Lands. Therefore, these lands are appropriate for limited development, if
such development is directed away from existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower
maximum gross density is prescribed for Neutral Lands when compared to Receiving Lands: 1
dwelling unit per 5 gross acres (0.2 units per acre).
The TDR program is a major component of the RFMUD, as it allows the transfer of development
units from Sending parcels to Receiving parcels. The Collier program is somewhat unique in its
structure, using a series of TDR credit types that can be sold and used for Receiving
development. From a 5 acre area, an Owner might achieve 4 TDRs: Base credit; Early Entry
credit; Restoration and Maintenance credit; and Conveyance credit.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 6 of 62
As noted in the Table 2.1, the RFMUD Sending land is comprised of thousands of parcels, mostly
5 and 10 acres in size. Sending Land acreage, although 40,973 in total, yields only 16,643
privately held acreage, capable of earning and selling TDR credits.
Table 2.1 RFMUD Sending Parcel and Acreage Totals by Area
Sending Area # of
Parcels
# of Owners Acres
South Belle Meade 353 227 5,905
North Belle Meade -NRPA 760 340 6,451
North Belle Meade-West 373 271 3,074
North 60 45 1,213
Private Owned Total 1,546 883 16,643
Government Owned 606 1 24,330
Private and Government Owned Total 2,152 884 40,973
Source: GIS rev. March 2016
Note: Government owned parcels stated separately; purchase or prior TDR Conveyance
The program set a minimum price point for the Base TDRs at $25,000. The Early Entry
expiration date was extended several times over the years, most recently to 2019. Although the
concept of “conveyance TDRs” was intended to boost the number of TDR credits and transfer
the property ownership into government hands, no governmental agency has been willing to
accept Sending lands in North Belle Meade, or in Section 11 (T 48S; R 26 E) in the North Sending
area.
Despite these issues and the intervening economic downturn, there have been TDR transfers
and redemptions in both the West Receiving area and in the Urban Residential Fringe. To date,
several developments have used the cluster residential development option in the form of
gated communities. In the RFMUD, non-village density is capped at 1 unit per acre and includes
the communities of Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of
the Everglades.
In the Urban Fringe, densities are generally capped at 2.5 units per acre and include entitled
communities such as Naples Reserve, Hacienda Lakes, Lords Way, San Marino, Lido Isles and
Rockledge. These developments have an approved total of 6,786 units; the majority of units are
detached single family.
As shown in Table 2-2, approximately 3,953 TDR credits have been processed. These TDR
credits were generated from approximately 6,532 acres.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 7 of 62
Table 2-2 RFMUD TDR Credits Processed or Pending Process
TDRs
Base Credits Processed 1,326.10
Early Entry Bonus Credits Processed 1,326.10
R&M Bonus TDR Credits Processed 905.32
Conveyance Bonus Credits Processed 395.82
TDRs Pending Process 658.40
Total 4,611.74
As shown in Table 2-3, under the current system, approximately 10,947 TDRs remain to be
processed. These TDR credits are associated with approximately 16,363 acres of Sending Land.
The theoretical credits under the present system both processed and outstanding, total
approximately 15,558. Of this total, approximately 25% have been issued.
Table 2-3 Outstanding TDR Credits
Outstanding TDR Credits
Base TDR Credits 2,403.67
Early Entry Bonus TDR Credits 2,403.67
R&M Bonus TDR Credits 2,804.67
Conveyance Bonus Credits 3,335.02
Total 10,947.03
To date, approximately 2,129 TDRs have been redeemed to support the increased density
found in the Receiving area development projects. These transactions between Sending Lands
and Receiving Lands are shown on Figure 2-1.
Given the activity that has occurred to date, the greatest development potential in Receiving
Lands will be the North, North Belle Meade and South Receiving areas, where the majority of
the changes adopted as part of the RFMUD restudy will occur.
Based on the difficulty for Sending owners to generate the restoration and maintenance credit,
or the conveyance credit, TDR supply under the current system is estimated to be far less than
shown in Table 2-3. Staff’s assessment estimates a more realistic credit supply of approximately
5,500 TDRs. The demand assessment prepared by staff assumes one village each in the North
Receiving area, the North Belle Meade Receiving area, and the South receiving area, along with
about 60 percent of the remaining vacant property using the cluster provisions. This scenario
would require approximately 13,443 TDR credits. This significant difference between the TDR
supply and likely demand demonstrates an imbalance in the program.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 8 of 62
RANDALL BLVD
EVERGLADES BLVD NDESOTO BLVDEVERGLADES BLVD SDESOTO BLVDOIL WELL RDOI
L
WE
L
L
GR
A
D
E
R
DEVERGLADES BLVD NIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RDWILSON BLVD I-75I-75
GOLDEN GATE BLVD
RADIO RDGOLDENGAT E P K W Y COLLIER BLVDIMMOKALEE RD
DAVIS BLVDIMMOKALEE RD E 1ST ST SGREEN BLVD
GOLDEN GATE BLVD
PINE RIDGE RD
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD WILSON BLVD OIL WELL RD
TAM
I
A
M
I
T
R
L
E
TAM
I
A
M
I
T
R
L
E
LEE
COUNTY
§¨¦75
!(951
!(951
£¤41
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) TRANSACTIONSSENDING PARCELS TO RECEIVING PROJECTS
HERITAGE BAY
QUARRY
LAMORADA
TWINEAGLES
HACIENDALAKES
THE LORD'SWAY
NAPLESRESERVE
MOCKING BIRDCROSSING
§¨¦75
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG. AICP
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 29, 2016 Í
£¤41
!(951
GOLF CLUB OFTHE EVERGLADES
TWINEAGLESSOUTH
!(951
RF-Sending RF-Receiving RF-Neutral Govt. Owned Parcels
Quarry
Lamorada
Mockingbird Crossing
RECEIVING PROJECTS
Twin Eagles
Golf Club of the Everglades
Hacienda Lakes
Heritage Bay
Naples Reserve
The Lord's Way
SENDING PARCELS*
The Lords Way
(1,100 ac, 193 credits)
Quarry
(64 ac, 18 credits)
Twin Eagles
(2,542 ac, 1,271 credits)
Mockingbird Crossing
(397 ac, 95 credits)
Lamorada
(538 ac, 213 credits)
Golf Club of the Everglades
(14 ac, 44 credits)
Hacienda Lakes
(252 ac, 113 credits)
Heritage Bay
(84 ac, 33 credits)
Naples Reserve
(204 ac, 40 credits)
* Credits shown are only those redeemed as of Jan. 2016, and do not necessarily represent all credits generated or needed for project buildout.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 9 of 62
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Section 3: The Planning Process
In early 2015, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) directed staff to initiate a restudy of
the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD), along with three other master plans east of
County Road 951: Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP); Rural Land Stewardship Area
(RLSA); and the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP).
To support the RFMUD planning effort, the BCC initiated the public participation process
through the adoption Resolution 2015-111 establishing a 7 member Growth Management
Oversight Committee (GMOC). The functions, powers, and duties of the GMOC are to aid and
assist the public participation phase of the regulatory review. This includes:
1. Assist in determining the most effective venues and dates to hold the public
presentations:
2. Assist in composing the information materials to be presented to the public at
community meeting at various locations throughout the study area.
3. Assist in determining the agendas for public meetings;
4. Assist in providing consistency between the planning efforts.
In reviewing proposals for program change, the GMOC scope will be “high level and non -
granular, emphasizing consistency, sustainability and economic vitality.”
The GMOC set their schedule to meet quarterly throughout the restudies planning timeframe.
They met three times through June, 2016 providing input to staff on community outreach
schedule and presentation materials. With the guidance of the GMOC, this restudy process was
a focused, stakeholder effort. All interested parties were encouraged to participate in public
workshops, on-line surveys and in direct communication with staff.
Public Outreach
To engage landowner participation in the RFMUD restudy, letters were mailed to over 800
RFMUD property owners informing them of the restudy and the public workshop schedule. A
total of six public workshops were held from January, 2016 through May, 2016. A summary of
each meeting is attached as Appendix A, Public Outreach Summary.
The first three public workshops were held during evening hours at the IFAS Center and focused
on the RFMUD Sending Lands. Fifty to sixty people attended each workshop. During the first
workshop there was strong sentiment among Sending Land owners that the program should
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 10 of 62
not have been devised in the way it was; many thought that the RFMUD governing provisions
should be abandoned altogether. Through the public workshop process, some came to
understand that the program was created as a result of litigation and the State’s Final Order;
that the program has been in place for over ten years; that TDR credits have been redeemed
and converted to density; and that the County needs to move forward and not back. The public
workshops for the Sending Lands focused on the important issues to the landowners including
improving the economic viability of the program, promoting smarter development patterns and
protecting natural resources. Staff continuously encouraged owner input on how to improve
the program. Several techniques were used for this outreach: public presentations; comment
cards; breakout group exercises; on-line surveys; telephone calls; and individual meetings. The
public was encouraged to explore resources on the website, including a library of materials and
video-taped meetings.
The first public meeting was introductory in nature. Staff summarized the history and current
status of the RFMUD and the TDR program. Participants were encouraged to express opinions
on the rules adopted over a decade earlier, and staff outlined the anticipated progression of the
study and the public involvement phase going forward. The meeting summary can be found in
Appendix A, Public Workshop #1.
The second public workshop focused on issues related to the Sending Lands in North Belle
Meade. A panel of local experts was seated to discuss possible solutions for the Sending Lands
long-term ownership and maintenance. The full discussion, questions and responses are found
in Appendix A, Public Workshop #2.
The third and final public workshop focusing on Sending Lands topics included two majo r
components. First, staff provided an overview of the economic considerations involved in TDR
transfers; and second, a list of changes suggested by the public was vetted using breakout
group approach. Each group discussed the potential changes, ranked their agreement and
reported back to the entire group. The full discussion, questions and responses are found in
Appendix A, Public Workshop #3.
In summary, through the public workshop process, Sending Land participants agreed upon the
following:
Add TDR credits to all sending lands regardless of location or attributes, such as higher
natural resource values or watershed improvement potential.
Eliminate the $25,000 minimum price for a base TDR credit.
Allow TDR Credits to be used outside of the RFMUD, but agreement to where to use the
credits was not defined.
Reduce or eliminate TDR application fees.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 11 of 62
County staff should offer free workshop assistance to complete TDR application process.
Improve the link between buyers and sellers through an improved listing or a TDR bank.
Create a TDR bank.
Allow TDR credits for agriculture preservation.
Allow additional family home if agricultural land owner has over 20 acres.
Collier County should be managing entity of Sending Lands.
Long term maintenance cost should be paid for by a County mitigation program.
Following the Sending Lands workshops, staff focused on the Neutral and Receiving Lands.
Approximately sixty residents attended the workshops, of which about half had not attended
the Sending Lands workshops. Staff presented the future development potential allowed under
the current program, including vacant land, allowed land uses, density and intensity. Break out
groups were invited to provide feedback on several key questions including: specific issues and
concerns about future development; improvements or changes for the Receiving Lands; what is
liked best about the Receiving Lands; and opinions about the Neutral Lands. All responses to
the questions are included in Appendix A, Public Workshop #4. Members of Collier County’s
consultant team, AECOM, wrapped up this workshop with a primer on different kinds of
development models with a focus on sustainability. This presentation was well received by
participants with many asking for copies of the PowerPoint slides.
The fifth workshop built on the previous workshop discussion of development potential and
patterns. Participants were invited to vision future development through a “framework
mapping” exercise. Two of the RFMUD Receiving areas were used as examples for participants.
The exercise allowed participants to experience how these areas might be planned by
identifying destinations, development areas, street networks and green infrastructure. The
results demonstrated the values expressed in previous workshops: more village mixed-use
development and less single-use gated community development. The mapping exercises are
included in Appendix A, Public Workshop #5.
The final workshop provided a forum for residents and stakeholders to review ideas provided
by the public through previous workshops, surveys, and correspondence, which were
incorporated into the staff’s initial recommendations. Each initial recommendation was
presented and discussed. Participants were then asked to rank each one from strongly disagree
to strongly agree. The survey results are shown in Figure 3-1.
In conclusion, the public workshops were dynamic and well attended. Participants were fully
engaged in identifying issues, concerns and potential solutions. Many of the initial
recommendations included in this white paper stemmed from public input. The survey results
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 12 of 62
Sending and Neutral Lands Recommendations Survey Results
26-May, 2016
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Additional credits should be provided to balance the anticipated
demand from Receiving Areas. Sending Land owners, if they
participate, should benefit from additional credits.
Additional credits should not favor one Sending Land location over
another.
Additional credits should be provided to those who entered the
program early.
TDRs should be awarded also for owners who commit to keeping their
land in agricultural production
Eliminate minimum pricing on Base TDRs.
Improve the Buyer/Seller registries.
Reduce cost and complexity of applications.
Create a County-sponsored TDR bank that can buy credits from
Sending Lands owners
The County should accept land that owners wish to donate, if no
other agency is willing.
The County should finance maintenance of donated Sending Land
through a mitigation bank, if feasible.
If a mitigation bank is not a feasible funding source, require a
donation to the County with the land, equivalent to all or a portion of
any additional TDRs issued.
Allow a second dwelling unit to dedicated farming operations of at
least 20 acres.
Study recreational uses that could be compatible on donated lands
that go beyond "passive recreation."
Eliminate the use of TDRs in urban areas if they come from RFMUD
Sending Lands.
Extend the same advantages to Neutral Land owners who want to
commit to agricultural uses by offering TDRs.
Reward Neutral Land owners with TDRs for preserving habitat or
native vegetation under a conservation easement.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 13 of 62
Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results
26-May, 2016
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Allow business park stand-alone uses to increase employment
opportunities in research technology and other targeted
businesses.
Revise village rules to allow larger commercial and employment
areas.
Increase density allowed in rural villages to 4 units per gross acre
(TDRs required)
Increase density allowd in non-village development to 2 units per
acre (TDRs required) and remove 40-acre minimum size
Analyze arterial roadway capacity issues.
Enhance requirements for greater project connectivity.
Consider roadway design standards that promote low speed and
safety.
Add requirements for transit stops in large developments,
business parks or villages.
Allow TDRs in Receiving Areas for protection of native
vegetation/habitat or agriculture.
Reward projects that advance the greater public interest
(examples: greenway connections, flowway connections).
Incentivize mixed-use developments by studying potential impact
fees for mixed-use.
Use overlays or optional design standards that promote greater
certainty in review process.
Developments complying with zoning overlays should get
approval through simple BCC majority or Hearing Examiner
process.
Hearing Examiner can approve individual deviations.
Hearing Examiner can approve business park proposals.
Modify the TDR requirements to 0.5 credit for multi-family units
and 0 credit for target industry/business park uses
Currently no provisions for stand-alone commercial. Propose
design guidelines (no strip) and use of TDR credits (ex, 1 credit
per 6,000 SF).
Additional incentives for innovative green designs, such as solar
power, zero net water, aquifer storage and recovery sites, etc.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 14 of 62
show, through the public outreach process, that consensus was reached on the initial
recommendations put forward in the final workshop.
In addition to public workshops, public outreach included numerous interviews, meetings and
telephone calls with citizens, agency representatives, stakeholders and media. In fact, prior to
public workshops, at least 15 one on one interviews were conducted to obtain factual
information and initial opinion. Ultimately, staff met 3 times with the Rural Fringe Coalition
(development group), and twice with representatives from Conservancy, Florida Wildlife
Federation, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and Collier Citizens Council. Necessarily,
horizontal communication within the County Managers agency was frequent.
Data Analysis
Staff was directed to address four major topic areas through this planning effort:
1) Environment;
2) Land Use;
3) Transportation and Mobility; and
4) Economic Vitality.
Through the first several months of the planning process, staff gathered and analyzed data
relative to the major topics from several sources with the intent to understand and coordinate
major planning efforts, recent or on-going, in the County including, but not limited to:
Current RFMUD Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code sections
The Master Mobility Plan (2012)
MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (2015)
TDR Activity Log and Comprehensive Planning data (2016)
East of CR 951 Final Report (2008)
Collier Interactive Growth Model (2008)
Picayune Restoration Plan (2008)
Watershed Management Plan (2011)
North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Study (2013)
Utility Master Plans (2008, 2015)
Towards Better Places: Collier County Community Character Plan (2001)
Wellfield Protection Zones; Aquifer Recharge Areas
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce “Opportunity Naples” (2014)
Current national planning studies
During the past decade, many studies and efforts have addressed Collier County’s environment,
transportation, land use, and economic vitality. Many of the recommendations found in
previous studies relate to and can be implemented in the RFMUD. National planning studies,
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 15 of 62
like those conducted in Collier County, continue to focus on implementing planning policy
toward sustainability, smart growth and multi-modal principles.
Environment
The seminal documents relating to environmental issues are the very subject of this restudy:
the Growth Management Plan RFMUD provisions and related LDC provisions. The RFMUD, as
indicated in Section 2, Background, was designed following challenges to the County’s existing
and proposed plans for eastern Collier County, and was necessitated due to State action.
Specifically with respect to Sending Lands downzoning and TDR incentives, environmental goals
were intended to fulfill the directives of the Final Order: “Direct incompatible uses away from
wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the
natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats.”
The core RFMUD provisions, now nearly 15 years old, are a major area of focus in this restudy.
In 2015 and 2016, Collier’s RFMUD regulations were vetted through public meetings with
residents and stakeholders, as described above. Feedback from staff and public resulted in the
need to bring quantitative and technical analysis to bear on environmental issues.
As watershed planning is one of the major components of environmental restoration in Sending
Lands, the County’s Watershed Management Plan (2011) emerges as a key source of data and
analysis for environmental aspects of the RFMUD. In turn, that plan resulted in the
appointment of the Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Plan (GGWIP) Technical Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee and its successor, the current Comprehensive Watershed Management
Plan (CWIP) Technical Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. RFMUD restudy staff has attended and
participated in those committee meetings since September, 2015.
There are many important issues centric to both RFMUD regulations and watershed
improvement programs. For example, the RESTORE grant funding initiative presents a specific
opportunity to balance water surplus and water deficits within the watersheds in RFMUD a nd
Golden Gate Estates planning areas; staff has attended and participated in numerous meetings
with Project Managers, state and federal agency officials and consultants. The RESTORE
initiative informs priorities and coordination of effort within RFMUD Sending areas.
In order to further incentivize TDR program participation and at the same time recommend
sustainable long-term management and protection of environmentally important Sending
Lands, a Phase 1 North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank Feasibility Study was commissioned. If
feasible, adoption of a ROMA or similar program could allow a means for County ownership
with long term funding that could favor transportation budgeting, and incentivize Sending
owner participation.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 16 of 62
Collier County has had success in the past in mitigating its own impacts. The Caracara Prairie
Preserve Conservation Bank (and successor Trust Fund) saved the County $346,100 (26%) in
Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) costs, as compared to a private mitigation bank, in permitting its
Resource Recovery Business Park in 2014. A discussion of the North Belle Meade mitigation
bank concept is included in Section 4 and the Phase 1 Report is attached as Appendix B. Staff
will look to the BCC for direction in carrying this study forward to its next phase.
Related to all aspects of the major topic areas is the ongoing economic modelling that
addresses the balance of credits from Sending Lands to Receiving Lands. Scenario modelling is
applied to assure appropriate credit supply and demand so that additional credits can
incentivize Sending participation and allow adequate credit resourcing for future development.
It is understood by our consultant that additional credits will be recommended, but that the
number of credits and their distribution rely on a myriad of factors, making scenario modelling
an important tool in restudy data and analysis. These scenarios will become a part of the CCPC
and BCC presentations and will ultimately help answer the quantitative question regarding
additional credits within the system.
Finally, additional consultation is underway with respect to TDR banks. TDR bank analysis will
provide the pros and cons of entering into a banking system for the purpose of assuring
confidence and liquidity in the TDR transfer system. The first deliverable is attached as
Appendix C. The concepts are further discussed in this paper in Section 4, (C.3).
Transportation
Every day more than 116,000 auto work trips are completed within Collier County. Many of
these trips are generated in eastern Collier County as residents make the commute to jobs in
the coastal area.
The Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is Collier County’s guiding
transportation document. The purpose of the LRTP is to assist Collier County in cultivating its
transportation vision through the next 20 years. It identifies needed improvements to the
network, and provides a long-term investment framework that addresses current and future
transportation challenges.
LRTP goals are:
Ensure the Security of Transportation System for Users
Protect Environmental Resources
Improve System Continuity and Connectivity
Reduce Roadway Congestion
Promote Freight Movement
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 17 of 62
Increase the Safety of the Transportation System for Users
Promote Multi-modal Solutions
Promote the Integrated Planning of Transportation and Land Use
The LRTP stresses, the key to enhancing mobility for users of the transportation system is to
improve connectivity and continuity through the system, and especially across all modes. The
MPO recognized the importance of prioritizing projects that enhance connectivity by including
system continuity and connectivity as two of the several project selection criteria. Connectivity
and continuity are also important for bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes. Users of the transit
system rely on bicycle, pedestrian or park-and-ride facilities in order to “make the connection.”
Connectivity and system continuity is about advancing an interconnected multi-modal
transportation system. The LRTP committed highway projects for construction by 2020 are
nearly all located in eastern Collier County, and several are within Receiving Lands (Figure 3-2).
Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 18 of 62
Freight Activity Centers (FACs) and Network are also identified in the LRTP. The growing
importance of freight movement has been reflected in the latest federal transportation
authorizing legislation, MAP-21. Recognizing the contribution that the movement of freight
makes to the State’s economy, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) created the
Office of Freight Logistics and Passenger Operations to establish policies and plans investments
that enhance Florida’s economic development efforts. As a result, special attention was given
to freight movement and is reflected in the needs assessment. These FACs contribute to the
economic well-being of Collier County. As shown on Figure 3-3, two Receiving Areas, which
include significant mining and agricultural operations, are designated as secondary freight
activity centers numbers 6 and 8.
Figure 3-3 Freight Activity Centers
The LRTP also identifies future study areas to further define and clarify the scope of
improvements needed in the area. Three study areas were identified, and one serves the
RFMUD. The Green Boulevard Extension/North Belle Meade Study Area extends eastward from
CR-951 to surround the North Belle Meade Area from Golden Gate Estates to I-75 and eastward
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 19 of 62
to Everglades Boulevard. The purpose of the study is to define future collector road network in
this area. A number of corridors that would enhance circulation throughout the area have been
identified, as illustrated on Figure 3-4. The study effort would determine the feasibility and
preferred alignment for the identified corridors or alternatives that may be developed during
the course of the study.
Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas
Additionally, in the North Belle Meade Receiving area, following the recommendations of the
East of 951 Bridge Study, Collier County has programmed several bridges. Two bridges within
the North Belle Meade Receiving Area are identified for construction.
Bicycle, pedestrian and transit needs are identified within the LRTP, however these are specific
to existing network infrastructure. Planning for multi-modal needs within the RFMUD will be
guided by the Receiving Area development standards, along with the Collier County Master
Mobility Plan (MMP).
A major effort in understanding Collier County’s mobility was the Master Mobility Plan (2011).
The MMP considered six planning sub-areas, including the RFMUD. The MMP developed a
long-term vision to aid in planning for the county’s mobility, land use, and infrastructure needs
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 20 of 62
at population buildout. The primary goal of the MMP is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and traffic demands specifically by reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled
while at the same time protecting habitats, environmentally sensitive lands and agriculture.
The Board of County Commissioners on January 24, 2012, reviewed and accepted the MMP
strategies developed in cooperation with the Collier County Planning Commission through an
enhanced public involvement process. Related to the RFMUD, the MMP recommends a new
multi-modal Mobility Analysis, done at the time of development application, to create the
needed linkage between land use and transportation policy.
A Mobility Analysis would expand the current methodology found in a Transportation Impact
Statement (TIS) by addressing not only the automobile, but also including analysis of transit,
bicycle and pedestrian mobility. Components of a Mobility Analysis measure the reduction in
number or length of external automobile trips.
Mobility Analysis Components
Mixed Use Trip Generation Model (or similar technique) to calculate external trips
(internal capture), external walk trips, external transit trips, etc.
For single-use development, a demonstration of what VMT-reduction
strategies/techniques are to be used
An analysis of current and proposed transit access
An analysis of local street connectivity
An analysis of non-motorized travel suitability
Further addressing the need for a multi-modal network, in 2014, the Florida Department of
Transportation adopted a Complete Streets policy. The goal is to implement policy that
promotes safety, quality of life, and economic development. FDOT specifically recognized that
Complete Streets are context-sensitive and requires design that considers local land
development patterns and built form.
The overall intent of a Complete Streets policy is to provide safe access for all road users—
pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and motorists—of all ages and abilities. Although
design features vary based on local context, basic elements should include wide sidewalks, well-
marked or raised crosswalks, traffic calming measures, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian
safety islands. Complete Streets can help reduce costs and improve health by significantly
reducing crash rates, injuries, and fatalities.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 21 of 62
Congested transportation networks are generally caused by low density, single-use
development with sparse connectivity and the majority of users on the network during the
same peak hours. Collier County’s transportation planning efforts and FDOT are in agreement-
to enhance mobility it is critical to plan for a multi-modal system that serves all users of all ages,
is interconnected, and with continuity.
Transportation planning efforts have identified several efforts within the RFMUD including new
corridors, bridges, FAC designations, and areas for further study. This signifies considerable
attention is being given to the transportation network surrounding the RFMUD.
Land Use
Growth is sustainable when it diversifies our economy, provides a more affordable lifestyle
through housing and transportation choices, fosters design that encourages social, civic, and
physical activity, and preserves a thriving natural environment and agriculture lands. The
RFMUD land use policies support guiding sustainable principles, but as identified through the
public outreach process and this restudy, there is room for improvement.
There are three land use designations in the RFMUD; Sending, Receiving, and Neutral. The
overall goal of the program is to protect the natural resources within Sending Lands by directing
future growth to the Receiving Lands. Upon the full realization of the program, the Sending
Lands will remain substantially undeveloped, supporting quality habitat for listed species and
functioning to improve the watershed and quality of surrounding estuaries and bays. Neutral
Lands will remain low density as large estates lots able to support some agriculture uses, open
space and habitat. Receiving Lands, determined to be those most suitable to accommodate
future growth, will be developed.
The current RFMUD development standards, summarized in Table 3-1, allows for three
development options: 1) base rights development; 2) clustering; and 3) mixed-use village.
To date, several developments have occurred in the western Receiving area. Each of these
developments, Golf Club of the Everglades, Mockingbird Crossings, Lamarado, Heritage Bay and
Twin Eagle used the clustering option with 1 unit per acre. These developments are marketed
as “active adult communities” or “private gated communities.” Each development is generally
single-family residential, was planned independently of the other, and has little or no
connection to neighboring development.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 22 of 62
Table 3-1 RFMUD Development Characteristics
Typical
Characteristics
RFMUD Base
Rights
RFMUD
Clustering
RFMUD Village
Size Minimum 5 acres Minimum 40 acres 300-2,500 acres
Residential Gross
Density
1 unit per 5 acres 1 unit per acre Minimum 2 Maximum 3
units per acre
Land Use* Ag
SF and MF
Staff housing
Family Care
Facilities
Farm labor
housing
Sporting and
Recreation
camps
Essential
Services
Golf Courses
Ag
SF and MF
Staff housing
Family Care
Facilities
Farm labor
housing
Sporting and
Recreation
camps
Essential
Services
Golf Courses
Diversity of SF and
MF with a
minimum of 2
neighborhoods
Neighborhood
Center max 10
acres, 8,500 SF
leasable floor
area/ac
Village Center max
10% total village
area, 10,000 SF
leasable floor
area/ac
Research &
Technology park
max 4% total village
acreage
Civic and public
parks min 10%
total village
acreage
Recreation and
Open Space
N/A Min 70% of gross
acres
40% open space
Green belt 300’
average width
Transportation N/A N/A Formal grid design
Pedestrian paths
and bikeways for
access and
connectivity
*Bold denotes required
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 23 of 62
During the public workshops, participants stated they prefer that the RFMUD develop with
more mixed-use development and less gated communities as has been occurring in the RFMUD.
Towards Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida (2001) states,
“creating new neighborhoods with interconnectivity and greater density is the only way to
avoid the worst-case scenario presented by the sprawl approach. New neighborhoods should
be based on a sound pattern of streets and lots. A wider variety of housing choices should be
made available by reintroducing traditional neighborhood concepts as an alternative to balance
the many gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years.”
The body of national research on negative impacts of sprawl continues to grow. Studies have
expanded beyond the interest of transportation and land use professionals to the Community
Health Departments across the nation. A growing body of research indicates mixed-use,
appropriate placement of buildings, easy-to-reach parks, multi-modal transportation have an
extraordinary impact on community health. “One of the strongest health/land use correlations
is between obesity and the automobile: one California study showed each additional hour spent
in a car per day is associated with a 6 percent increase in body weight, whereas every kilometer
(0.6miles) walked each day is associated with a 5 percent decrease, according to a study in
British Columbia.”1
This correlates with the local Blue
Zones well-being assessment of
Collier County where the lowest
well-being indicators were found in
areas east of CR-951 surrounding
the RFMUD including, Golden Gate
Estates, areas of low density and
longer commutes (Figure 3-5).
The Urban Land Institute, (ULI) has
been using health studies to
promote healthy communities
through design. Physical design
affects human behavior at all
scales—buildings, neighborhoods, communities, and regions. The places in which we live, work,
and play can affect both our mental and physical well-being. Our built environment offers both
opportunities for and barriers to improving public health and increasing active living.1
Figure 3-5 Collier Well-Being Index
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 24 of 62
The Florida Department of Health in Collier County is also advocating healthy communities
principles, striving to educate the community on the link between health and the built
environment. They are working to promote community design that will increase active living
and healthy lifestyles by advocating for a network of connected bike and pedestrian pathways,
accessible transit and places where people can age in place.
In ULI’s Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places, they advocate “All comprehensive plans
should incorporate health. It provides the opportunity to make explicit the connection between
development and health, to elevate health among planning considerations, and to lay the
groundwork for a healthy community for generations to come. A tool to use as a guide to
measuring health impacts is the health impact assessment (HIA). An HIA helps evaluate the
potential health effects of a plan, project, or policy before it is built or implemented. HIAs bring
potential public health impacts and considerations to the decision-making process for plans,
projects, and policies that fall outside the traditional public health arenas, such as
transportation and land use. It is a “health lens” that can help increase positive health
outcomes and minimize adverse health outcomes. San Francisco has been an early adopter of
HIAs, using the tool on diverse projects, such as neighborhood plans, affordable housing, and
highway projects. The development community, local government, or both in cooperation can
develop HIAs. This guidance helps communities make informed choices about improving public
health through community design.” Collier County may consider the HIA as an option in
measuring the effectiveness of developments increasing positive health outcomes.
Mixed-use development has dimensions beyond land use. Healthy places are also found to
provide for mix incomes, generations, and housing type. This relates directly to affordable
housing. The RFMUD currently requires approximately 10 percent of residential units in villages
to be affordable. The issue of the need for affordable housing within the RFMUD was clearly
stated in Mr. William Poteet’s letter to staff dated June 6, 2016, “The future Rural Fringe plans
must include specific opportunities for affordable housing for our entire workforce, not just first
time responders or those classified as “work force housing.” Affordable housing must include a
mix of apartments, multi-family and possibly single family opportunities.” While, Collier
County’s current comprehensive affordable housing study may provide greater guidance on
principles to include in the RFMUD, the program can be improved through this process through
greater density and removing the TDR credits currently required for affordable housing.
To meet the public’s ideals of more mixed-use villages, the RFMUD should incentivize mixed-
use development and villages using a variety of tools to entice desired mixes and densities.
Incentives that are currently used include higher density, more intense uses, and bonus TDRs,
however these incentives have not yet produced a village within the RFMUD. Current density
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 25 of 62
for a village is now limited to 3 units per acre. Density is arguably the most powerful tool
controlled by Collier County to create a more sustainable development. Density that is well
designed and assembled makes transit and retail more viable, and supports more services close
to homes. Studies agree, density needed to support viable transit is 7 units per acre.2 Higher
densities also make walkability possible, and great design makes it enjoyable. Density
necessarily requires a high
percentage of multifamily
homes in a neighborhood
thereby providing a greater
range of residential units,
increasing affordable
housing opportunities. For
example, the image from the
Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy, Visualizing Density,
shows a new project in
Huntersville, NC. This new
neighborhood is 6.3 units
per acre and will offer a
robust mix of residential units.
Well-designed density is vital to a strong economic foundation in any neighborhood as it brings
a critical mass of local employees and customers to support a variety of community
needs. Increasing density in the RFMUD was well supported through the public outreach
process. By strategically increasing the number of dwelling units per acre, Collier County will go
a long way toward meeting the sustainable housing and transportation objectives within the
RFMUD.
In addition to higher density, incentives being used in other areas include a mixed-use impact
fee index. The County’s transportation impact fee consultants from Tindall Oliver shared with
staff that this type of impact fee has been found to encourage mixed-use by lowering overall
project impact fees by 10 to 30 percent.
The measure for mixed-use villages is found to be different in Collier County’s eastern lands.
The RFMUD and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) have different standards for
measuring the mix. Table 3-2 shows the RFMUD establishes guidance for maximum village
center and leasable square feet, and a minimum size for civic and public parks. The RLSA
measures the mix of uses with direct correlation of residential unit, such as goods and services
minimum 25 square feet per residential unit. Another difference between the RFMUD and the
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 26 of 62
RLSA is allowed development patterns. The RLSA policies provide only for the village or town
option, with the exception of a small 40 acre hamlet. The RFMUD has no such requirement so
single-use, residential development can consume 40 acres or 4,000 acres. The RFMUD
guidelines for measuring mixed-use and village size could be improved by bringing consistency
between the standards found in these two TDR plans.
Table 3-2: Measuring the Mix in the RFMUD Village and RLSA Village
Typical
Characteristics
RFMUD Village RLSA Village
Size 300-2,500 acres 100-1,000 acres
Density 2-3 UPA 1-4 UPA
Land Use*
Diversity of SF and MF with a
minimum of 2 neighborhoods
Neighborhood Center max 10 acres,
8,500 SF leasable floor area/ac
Village Center max 10% total village
area, 10,000 SF leasable floor
area/ac
Research & Technology park max 4%
total village acreage
Civic and public parks min 10% total
village acreage
Diversity of SF and MF
Goods and Services Minimum 25
SF/DU. Max FAR .5
Civic/Institutional Min 10 SF/DU
Max FAR .6
Group Housing FAR .45
Lodging 26 UPA net
*bold is required
The village option, over the sprawl option, will be far more beneficial to Collier County,
including Golden Gate Estates. Villages will increase tax revenue, support jobs, goods and
services needed in eastern Collier County, and reduce commute times for some now traveling
to the coastal area. Research shows, “mixed-use, walkable downtown developments generate
ten times as much tax revenue per acre, save almost 40 percent on up front infrastructure
costs, and result in about 10 percent lower costs for service delivery than sprawl development.3
Economic Vitality
Achieving prosperity in eastern Collier County challenges consideration for land use and
transportation strategies to balance environmental, social and economic interests. Guidance
for the RFMUD is found in Opportunity Naples (2014), an economic development strategy that
will advance economic opportunity for all residents of Greater Naples. The process for
Opportunity Naples leveraged the thoughts and opinions of Greater Naples residents and
leaders. Public input and stakeholder perspectives, along with a thorough analysis of the Collier
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 27 of 62
County’s competitive position, directly informed the process. Several identified challenges can
be directly related to the RFMUD:
Workforce growth trends;
Site availability; and
Impact fees.
Opportunity Naples found, “growth trends in Collier County’s age dynamics risk the future
sustainability of the local workforce. Collier County’s 25 to 44 year old population is
proportionally smaller than every comparison area except Sarasota County, as is Collier’s
percentage of 0 to 19 year old residents. Without an influx of younger workers migrating to the
County or a spike in birth rates, Greater Naples could face a significant shortfall of replacement
workers for future retirees. Likewise there will be an occupational shortage in Collier County if
qualified workers aged 24 to 44 are not recruited to the area to replace retirees .”
This age group, and most specifically the millennials, is one of the most sought-after market
segments. So how can Collier County’s RFMUD land use policy support the attraction and
retention of this demographic? Study after study shows millennials are increasingly choosing
vibrant, healthy, walkable communities and rejecting the automobile-centric land use patterns
of the generations before them. Further supporting mixed-use and integrating health into
planning and development policy can become an economic development strategy—a tool to
attract a skilled workforce and to build a sustainable economic base. Incentivizing mixed-use,
healthy communities within the RFMUD is critical to attract the workforce needed to diversify
and sustain eastern Collier County’s economy.
A mixed-use, healthy community can provide economic advantage by appealing to millennials
who, as a generation, place more value on active lifestyles. In fact, The Rockefeller Foundation
and Transportation for America commissioned a survey in 2014, through which 80 percent of
millennials reported that they wanted to live in a walkable neighborhoods.4 Similarly, a 2011
AARP survey found that the vast majority of seniors want to live within a half mile of common
daily goods and services such a grocery stores, drug stores and doctor’s offices.5 Developers can
create enduring value by meeting these demands.
Mixed-use places will gain a competitive advantage, using healthy community design as a way
to attract investment in the community, foster growth, and increase revenues. This point of
view is backed up by serious research. Today, prospective office tenants prefer amenity-rich
mixed-use centers (also known as “live-work-play” locations) over single-use office parks by a
margin of 83 to 17 percent, according to a 2014 study by the NAIOP Research Foundation,
which represents the commercial real estate industry in the US. The report's bottom line: "…
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 28 of 62
any company wanting to attract and retain young educated workers who prefer live, work, play
locations needs to locate in a compact, mixed-use, walkable place, either downtown or in the
suburbs."
Countless other studies have explored how physical design and walkability impact the economic
prosperity and growth of a community. For example, in Asheville, NC, it was found that
property taxes for downtown mixed-use development projects yield an 800 percent greater
return on a per-acre basis than large, single use projects near city limits.6 And, In the 30 largest
metro regions in the U.S., office space located within the more walkable urban parts of the
metro commands and average of 74 percent more rent-per square-foot than elsewhere in the
metro.7
Collier County has a limited supply of land available for new development and there is high
competition for residential land uses. The development trend in the RFMUD has been gated
residential communities. In fact, nearly all of the “West” Receiving area has built out in this
pattern, leaving little room for future business uses. This is one of the largest challenges
Opportunity Naples found to Collier County’s economic diversity - “suitable, large-scale, pad-
ready development sites.”
Under the current RFMU policies, businesses would only be allowed within the Village option.
Therefore, at this time, any business willing to locate within the RFMUD would need to find
residential partners to go through a rezoning process to create a Village in order for the
business to locate within the RFMUD. For Collier County’s competitive edge, land use policies
within the RFMUD need to provide greater flexibility for business development. Allowing stand-
alone business parks and light industrial uses that are designated in zoning overlays would
provide more sites readily available for development. This would directly address the business
community’s identified barrier, a lack of certain in the rezone process. At the same time, by
allowing businesses as permitted uses, shorten approval times may be realized. This can be
accomplished through business park zoning overlays or by establishing criteria similar to the
conditional use process where compatibility can be determined by the Hearing Examiner.
The last item, impact fees, is always up for debate in Collier County. There are processes in
place that can provide businesses impact fee credits or waivers and other incentives to address
this issue. At the same time, as discussed under the land use incentives, a new mixed-use
impact fee has the potential to reduce development impact fees within a mixed-use project by
10 to 30 percent. This type of impact fee may provide the reduced fees sought by the business
community.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 29 of 62
To support economic vitality in the RFMUD Collier County needs to leverage the mixed-use,
healthy community advantage to stay competitive and relevant to the new generations needed
for the workforce. This means supporting land use policy that incentivizes mixed-use
development and villages within the RFMUD. “Many businesses are increasingly making their
expansion, relocation, and new business development decisions based on which communities
are most walkable.”8 The villages within the RFMUD should be designed to accommodate the
desires of both businesses and their workforce – a focus on vibrant, mixed-use communities
that support transportation choices and health lifestyles. While villages may take years to come
to fruition in RFMUD, land use policy should also be able to rapidly respond to business
opportunities that are ready to locate in the RFMUD. This is accomplished by allowing business
uses outside of a village in appropriate locations, with approvals as promptly as possible. These
steps will support the economic diversification of eastern Collier County.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 30 of 62
Footnotes
1ULI. 2013. Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places.
http://www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/10-Principles-for-Building-Healthy-Places.pdf
2 Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 2006. “ Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence.”
Opolis: An International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies. Vol. 2, Issue 1, Article 3.
3 Mariel Alfonzo. 2015. “Making the Economic Case for More Walkability.” Urban Land. Urban Land
Institute. http://urbanland.uli.org/sustainability/houston-economic-case-walkability/
4 Global Strategy Group. 2014. Rockefeller Millennials Survey. Transportation for America.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about-us/news-media/access-public-transportation-top/
5 AARP. 2012. 2011 Boomer Housing Survey.
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/il/2012/2011-Boomer-Housing-Survey-
AARP.pdf
6 Badger, Emily. 2010. “The Simple Math that can Save Cities from Bankruptcy.” The Atlantic: City Lab.
http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/
7 Gary Pivo and Jeffrey D. Fisher. 2001. “The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate
Investments”. Real Estate Economics 39.2. 185-219.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpivo/Walkability%20Paper%208_4%20draft.pdf
8 Public Sector Consultants. 2016. Creating 21st Century Communities: Making the economic case for
place. http://smartgrowth.org/creating-21st-century-communities-making-economic-case-place/
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 31 of 62
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Section 4: Findings and Initial Recommendations
1
Last revised: 12/17/16
The findings and initial recommendation below emerged from the public engagement, data and
analysis discussed in Section 3. These are initial recommendations and reflect an approach that
begins with general principles. Once settled in broad concept, more specificity will be brought
forward as the process moves to Growth Management Plan amendments and Land
Development Code amendment processes. The issue topics discussed herein are organized
under the areas of:
SENDING LANDS:
A. TDR Credit System
B. Credits and Areas Outside of the RFMUD
C. TDR Program Management
D. Sending Land Management
E. Other Program Suggestions
NEUTRAL LANDS
RECEIVING LANDS:
A. Land Use and Economic Vitality
B. Transportation and Mobility
C. Development Standards and Process
For ease of use, this Section includes different ink color. The different ink colors reflect:
Issue identification and background
Bold narrative is public input
Staff’s initial recommendations
Impacts to stakeholder interests
For simplicity, throughout this section, owners of parcels within RFMUD Sending Lands will be
denoted as “Sending owners”; owners of parcels within RFMUD Neutral Lands will be denoted
as “Neutral owners”; owners of parcels within RFMUD Receiving Lands will be denoted as
“Receiving owners”.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 32 of 62
SENDING LANDS
A: TDR CREDIT SYSTEM
1. Minimum Sales Price, Buyer and Seller
One of the most frequently heard recommendations related to TDR credits is the elimination of
the minimum $25,000 sales price for Base TDR credits. Since the adoption of the Bonus credit
system in late 2004, there have been two classes of credits in the system: Base TDR credits,
which are subject to the minimum sales price, and Bonus TDR credits, which are not.
The TDR system was designed to be “market driven”; however, minimum pricing requirements
interferes with willing buyer/willing seller free market principles. A true market rate should be
maintained so that credit sale prices reflect actual market conditions. With the possible
exception of a County TDR bank, market price should be left solely to market forces.
The present requirement creates distortion in the market price of bonus credits compared to
base credits, frequently selling for just a fraction of the base price. The Rural Fringe Coalition
reports combining a base TDR with a bonus TDR results in a current market average price of
$13,500 per TDR. A single market price for all credit types requires the elimination of separate
treatment for base credits compared to bonus credits.
A corollary of a unified TDR value is the elimination of any use restriction (based on TDR credit
type) as presently interpreted in village development. (See staff recommendations:
Receiving/Village).
Staff initial recommendation:
Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR.
All groups generally support this provision: the Coalition, Sending owners, interested citizen
groups and environmental advocates have supported this elimination. In the opinion of staff,
no interest group would be adversely affected by this change.
2. Additional Credits to Sending Owners
An analysis of likely credit availability and likely (long term) credit demand reveals an imbalance
between supply and demand. Under its “likely case” scenario, County staff estimated that
demand would ultimately be more than double the supply under the current program
structure. Further economic analysis provides scenario planning to address proper balance and
suggest additional credits for Sending owners. Alternatives may need to be considered because
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 33 of 62
changes in Receiving Lands rules will also affect the balance. Use of credits for incentivized
development and increase in allowed density in Receiving Lands must be factored into the
equation.
For purposes of this White Paper, recommended minimum and maximum densities in Receiving
Lands provide the analytical framework for scenario testing, provided in Appendix D: “TDR
Economic Analysis”. The County’s consultants illustrate the provision of four (4) additional TDR
credits to Sending owners, along with collateral bonuses and credits, as a test of market
penetration under increased density and credit recommendations. As further guidance refines
density and additional credit goals, economic scenario testing will be adjusted and refined. At
present time, the illustration provided in Appendix D should be reviewed as an example and as
a platform for further discussion.
It was suggested by some individuals that credit balance could be achieved by allowing the
same credits (existing credit structure) to count more favorably in the hands of Receiving
owners for development purposes. It is true that a mathematical application could result in the
same economic balance by using this approach. On the other hand, by using a combination of
approaches, a more tailored result is possible. Thus, additional TDRs can be used both as
compensation to Sending owners and as incentives to Receiving owners.
With respect to the application of additional credits for the benefit of Sending Land owners, a
number of recommendations have been made by stakeholders, including prioritization (more
bonus credits) for: NRPA lands; parcels that are 10 or 20 acres or greater; lands that require
higher level of restoration; lands that remain in private ownership with agreements with
Forestry Service for controlled burns; lands that remain in private ownership with
agreements for flow ways across property; lands that retain agriculture activity; lands that
are donated to accommodate flow ways; lands that are donated where habitat value is
highest; or, all sending lands regardless of attributes. Many of these recommendations were
made in the Rural Fringe Coalition’s “White Paper” (January, 2015); many were echoed in
correspondence, surveys and public meetings.
Meeting participants were more favorable to the “all Sending Lands equally” approach than to
all others listed above. Staff is highly supportive of this approach due to simplicity and equity in
application. Staff also anticipates that this general preference may yield to some limited
exceptions, such as a scenario in which no governmental or other entity can be established to
own and maintain environmentally sensitive properties (see D.2, below).
Additional TDR credits to add liquidity to the supply/demand balance is a central and
fundamental change to the existing TDR program. By providing more potential credits to
Sending owners, they will derive more compensation through the program than presently
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 34 of 62
possible. At the same time, the additional liquidity will place downward pressure on TDR price,
thus making credits slightly less expensive for development.
As described in Appendix D, the ultimate recommended number of additional bonus credits will
depend on adopted TDR incentives in the Receiving Lands, the minimum and maximum
densities applicable to Receiving villages and non-village development, and additional or
contingent incentives applied to specific areas within Sending Lands. A final true-up of the
credit system, and therefore additional credit needs in Sending Lands, must necessarily await
consideration of density availability in Receiving Lands. A “what if” scenario tool has been
completed by a consulting economist, and will help inform the discussion.
Staff is confident that overall credit demand from Sending Lands will not diminish due to
adopted changes following the restudy. Therefore, staff is confident that at least two (2)
additional TDR credits per 5 acres should be anticipated for Sending program activity; and that
more may be possible, depending on support for recommended changes in the Receiving
Lands.
Staff initial recommendation:
Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits
should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property
attributes.
The addition of 2 or possibly more credits available for Sending owner TDR participation will
result in more affordable credits for development and a greater overall return to Sending
owners. This was a fundamental tenant suggested by the Rural Fringe Coalition and well
received by Sending owners in meetings and by survey. To the extent that a greater financial
return incentivizes Sending owners to enter the program, conservation groups have been
enthusiastic. All groups benefit from this proposed change.
Sending owners had many different points of view on distribution of additional credits; the
notion that all sending area owners would be subject to the same TDR availabilities was favored
by five out of six groups in the Public Workshop break-out table exercise. Because of the nature
of the various options, it is clear that “equity” is favo red over parochial interests of owners.
Thus, all Sending owners would benefit equally.
3. Agricultural Uses
Under current rules, parcels located in Sending Lands are eligible for TDR severance credits.
However, TDR severance is abated for 25 years “from any parcel, or portion thereof…cleared
for agricultural purposes after June 19, 2002”.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 35 of 62
The Final Order, dated June 22, 1999, directed the County to conduct assessments that
included, at a minimum, provisions to “protect prime agricultural areas” and to “prev ent the
premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses” (p.11). In addition, uses remaining in
NRPA areas were limited to single family dwellings per parcel and agricultural uses (p. 14).
There is no specific directive in the Final Order to encourage new agricultural uses other than
the protection of “prime agricultural land” in general. The extent to which this language applies
to RFMUD Sending Lands could be debated. On the other hand, nothing in the Final order
would prohibit the County from removing disincentives, or in incentivizing appropriate
agricultural activity.
The RFMUD rules adopted in 2003 and 2004 discourage agriculture on Sending Lands by
eliminating the possibility of creating TDR credits for any land put in agricultural use after 2002.
The rationale for this provision may have been based on the concept that agricultural
operations were more widespread and established in the RLSA; by comparison, a relatively
small amount of agricultural activity was found in RFMUD Sending areas. However, there may
be agricultural activities that are consistent and compatible with environmental goals. For
example, land managers in the area have maintained that passive agriculture, specifically
grazing, is a cost-effective way to reduce invasive plants.
The suitability of the environment for agricultural activity beyond grazing is limited. It is
possible that an owner will find that a non-NRPA property is suitable for growing certain crops
or landscape materials given the specific location. Further reduction of density in western North
Belle Meade may be a desirable trade-off for the allowance of more active agricultural uses in
that location. However, an administrative or conditional use review may be appropriate to
avoid conflicts with large scale land management practices such as prescribed burns or with
water management initiatives.
When asked about views concerning agricultural incentives, five of six groups at break-out table
exercises (Public Workshop #2) concluded that TDR credits should be provided to incentivize
agricultural activity in Sending Lands. Our first on-line survey indicated that a majority of
respondents had plans to continue or commence agriculture on their properties. 76% of
persons attending the final Public Workshop #6 agreed that TDRs should be awarded for
owners who keep property in agricultural production.
Staff initial recommendation:
Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to begin or expand a bone fide
agricultural operation. In NRPA locations, only passive agricultural operations, excluding
aquaculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and
Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 36 of 62
Incentivized agricultural use of Sending Land provides a viable alternative to owners who wish
to retain a beneficial interest in their properties. If compatible with environmental interests,
including water quality, there do not appear to be negative consequences for any stakeholder
interest group, so long as a review process is established to assure compatibility.
4. Parcels smaller than 5 acres
RFMUD properties smaller than 5 acres are eligible for the TDR program today if legally non-
conforming (LNC). That is, a property less than 5 acres created before October 14, 1974, the
establishment of the Agricultural Zoning District, Coastal Area, enjoys development rights and,
as provided in the GMP, TDR incentives. For example, a full base TDR is available regardless of
the size of the LNC lot. Conversely, illegal non-conforming lots enjoy no development rights and
no TDR availability.
In response to an individual petition in 2008, the Comprehensive Planning Department
researched the extent of illegal lots and brought various options to the BCC for consideration. It
found 189 non-conforming lots in Sending areas, of which 126 were deemed LNC; 51 were
found to be illegal non-conforming and 12 inconclusive, due to lack of available data from
Property Appraiser’s Office.
An integral part of the analysis concerning non-conforming parcels relates strictly to parcel size.
Parcels slightly less than 5 acres can be determined to be legal lots, regardless of date of
creation, if the owner can prove that a portion is attributed to ROW taking at some point in
time. Of the 51 illegal non-conforming lots and the 12 inconclusive determinations, 24 exceed
4.5 acres in size.
Illegal non-conforming parcels enjoy no development rights and this principle should continue.
However, a cornerstone RFMUD program goal is the accumulation of parcels and ultimate
ownership in a governmental (or other qualified) agency for long term environmental, unified
stewardship. Proportional TDR availability would foster that result and provide a reasonable
exit strategy for owners of such parcels. Documents associated with this transaction would
clearly reflect the lack of current development rights and the public purpose for creating the
TDR availability. For example, an owner of a 2 acre illegal non-conforming parcel would be
eligible for 40% of the TDR credits otherwise available to a 5 acre parcel. When drafting the
GMP amendment, a requirement of conveyance would be applied in order to achieve any TDR
value from legal non-conforming lots.
Further, any property in excess of 4.5 acres should be deemed to be a 5 acre parcel for
purposes of this program. Again, actual development rights to be exercised outside of the TDR
program would require an LNC determination, as is presently the case. However, as an
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 37 of 62
incentive to enter the program by eliminating a sometimes onerous or inconclusive
determination, such parcel would be granted 1 full credit for each base and bonus TDR.
Staff initial recommendation:
Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming properties based on public policy goals, and
waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4.5 acres in size.
This change benefits owners who do not have access or means to achieve proof of LNC status
where the property is greater than 4.5 acres in size. It also benefits owners of non-conforming
properties created after 1974, by allowing them an exit strategy. There are no known
stakeholders who are adversely affected.
5. Retroactivity of Suggested Program Changes
As discussed under A-2, Additional Credits to Sending Owners, 2 or more additional TDRs may
be provided to further incentivize participation and balance supply with anticipated demand.
Approximately one quarter of all Sending acreage has previously entered the program at the
Base and Early Entry levels. Of the 6,532 acres where base rights have been severed, 1,979
acres (30%) have been conveyed to a governmental agency.
Land owners who have previously entered into a Limitation of Development Rights agreement
should be allowed to apply for any additional TDR credits made available as a result of program
changes. This would provide an equitable solution to owners who entered the program earlier
in time and have not transferred ownership.
The supply side of the TDR credit system will be impacted to a significant degree. (Under
Scenario 1, Appendix D, 1,863 additional credits would be created retroactively; the actual
number will depend on the number of additional bonus credits approved). This additional
supply is added to the dynamic analysis at a macro level.
Staff initial recommendations:
Allow landowner’s who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in
any applicable program changes.
The proposition benefits owners who faithfully earned Base TDR credits prior to the current
restudy and economic analysis of overall credit needs. One possible inequity could be
perceived by prior Sending owners who transferred properties to a governmental agency or
third party in the past; they no longer have a nexus to the land. No other stakeholder group
would be adversely affected.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 38 of 62
6. Early Entry TDR Credits
Early Entry TDR credits were adopted as part of the 2004 RFMUD Amendments providing bonus
credits to help balance the system. At the time, the Early Entry Bonus was seen as a means to
jump-start the program: Sending owners who severed TDRs in the early years would be
rewarded for their trust in the program and belief in the likelihood of a successful negotiation
and sale.
The Early Entry Bonus TDR, when first enacted, was set to expire in three years (2007). It has
since been extended several times and is now set for expiration in 2019, 15 years after the start
of the program.
The time period associated with early participation expired a number of times. Incentives for
participation should be monetary, and can fairly reflect the fact that the reference to “early”
has become de facto permanent.
Staff initial recommendation:
Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base severance
of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned as discussed in A.2, above.
No stakeholders will be adversely impacted; this change provides more clarity to the program.
The BCC would abandon one potential program “tool”- the potential of non-extension of the
Early Entry Bonus credit that exists today.
7. TDR Credits from Receiving Land
Within the Receiving Land there are opportunities to further the goals of environmental
protection and agriculture preservation. In fact, some of the most valuable agriculture land in
Collier County is located in the RFMUD Receiving Land. Collier County has had success in
preserving agriculture lands through a system of TDR-like incentives in the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area. Additionally, there are some limited natural resources found in Receiving
areas that are valuable for preservation. Recognizing this, and the need for greater incentives in
the RFMUD, stakeholders support the ideas to allow Receiving Lands to generate TDR credits
for the purpose of retaining agricultural uses/rights and/or where greater environmental
protection is demonstrated.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 39 of 62
Staff initial recommendation:
Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native
vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements, secured by appropriate
easements in favor of Collier County.
Preserving agriculture in Collier County will benefit the overall agriculture economy, and the
stakeholders involved in agricultural operations. Preserved areas will not be available for future
development.
B: TDR CREDITS AND AREAS OUTSIDE THE RFMUD
1. Urban Residential Fringe and the One Mile Rule
Development within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF), mile-wide buffer between the urban
area and the RFMUD, has a base density for development of 1.5 units per acre. Given its
location, the GMP describes its purpose: “to provide transitional densities between the Urban
Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area” to the east. Additional density can be added
through the purchase of TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the URF. Up to 1
unit per acre can be added in this way, although specific properties were granted slightly higher
allocations through private plan amendment petitions. Also as a result of private plan
amendment petitions, the requirement of obtaining TDRs from Sending Lands within one mile ,
in order to increase density, was modified for the Naples Reserve PUD and the San Marino PUD.
Private GMP Amendments have established the precedent to derive TDRs from the Sending
Lands beyond 1 mile, reflecting Board direction. The vast majority of URF acreage is now
entitled for Planned Unit Developments. Of the total 5,500 acres, only 371 acres remain in
agricultural zoning.
Regardless of policy considerations for or against this geographical allowance, a change to the
Urban Residential Fringe rules to reflect this Board direction would provide consistency for the
remaining areas that have not been entitled and may wish to increase density through the TDR
mechanism.
Staff initial recommendation:
Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 40 of 62
This change favors the majority of Sending owners whose holdings are outside the one mile
band, although the additional demand is very small. It negatively impacts Sending owners
whose holdings are within the one mile band, and may have purchased such property in
expectation of higher return for sale of those TDRs. Again, looking forward, this potential
demand is very small.
2. The Urban Residential Infill Bonus Provision
The Residential Infill Bonus (Density Rating System, Future Land Use Element) encourages infil l
within urban areas, outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area. Parcels less than 20 acres are
eligible, under certain conditions, for 3 additional dwelling units. The first of these must be
derived from the purchase of a TDR from the RFMUD.
This density bonus provision is intended to incentivize compatible in-fill development in the
Urban Mixed Use District, but has been seldom used. Removal of the TDR component would
eliminate a barrier to what is intended as an incentive to foster in-fill development; likewise, it
would eliminate a minor demand uncertainty in calculating the supply/demand ratio in the
RFMUD.
Staff initial recommendation:
Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill bonus provision.
The community at large would benefit from urban infill development at appropriate locations;
no other stakeholders are significantly affected.
3. Golden Gate Estates TDRs for Environmental Protection
Unlike allowable uses of TDRs outside of the RFMUD, no locations outside of the RFMUD
currently provide additional sources of TDRs for use within RFMUD. The Comprehensive
Watershed Improvement Plan (CWIP) Ad Hoc Advisory Committee (CWIP Committee) is
currently studying the technical implications of various goals and strategies associated with
wetland areas in Northern Golden Gate Estates. The Watershed Management Plan (2011)
identifies an area within Golden Gate Estates as North Golden Gate Estates Flowway
Restoration Area. This area, as well other low-lying areas in Golden Gate Estates could be
considered as additional Sending locations related to the RFMUD TDR program. In-holdings
within Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head (managed by Conservation Collier) or other
important areas could also be considered.
The Ordinance creating the Growth Management Oversight Committee included within the
Committee’s scope an evaluation of consistency among restudies. Watershed issues are one of
the topic areas where consistency and coordination have been frequently mentioned.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 41 of 62
Historically, the Rookery Bay watershed started in the North Golden Gate Estates area,
sheetflowed through North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade, then outflowed into the
Rookery Bay estuaries.
The historic Rookery Bay watershed has been heavily influenced by the Golden Gate canal, and
various stormwater projects have been identified by the Watershed Management Plan,
accepted by the BCC in 2011, to address the problem. Diversion or attenuation of stormwater
before it reaches the Golden Gate canal is one of those projects, and continues to be the
subject of discussion at the CWIP Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.
Any extension of TDR Sending credits to an area outside of the RFMUD must be cautiously
considered. Additional Sending areas should be limited in acreage and prioritized for wetland or
flowway preservation, as determined by the BCC. Staff recommends coordination and
accommodation of this concept through various incentives and programs, including the TDR
program, only for select and high value (wetland/flowway) parcels. By allowing a number of
parcels to receive TDR credit allowance under the program, watershed goals can be more easily
met.
One important consideration is the volume of donations made possible through the TDR
program within Golden Gate Estates. The RFMUD and its TDR program has been a relatively
“closed” program, particularly from the Sending or supply side. It is important to consider the
effect on value if additional supply is added. Staff believes, for example, that a progra m limited
to 400 acres in total, derived from property owners of the most valuable parcels (from a water
attenuation perspective) would be appropriate. It would equate to a roughly 2-3% impact in
total supply (depending on program details), and could be considered a de minimis impact to
TDR price, according to the economic consultant for this restudy.
It is important to note that this concept will be vetted in the context of the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan Restudy as well. The TDR concept is related to, and will be affected by, a parallel
initiative that would provide incentives for combining smaller lots into larger lots in North
Golden Gate Estates- an initiative that will reduce some of the floodplain impacts of smaller lots
and aid in aquifer recharge.
Staff initial recommendation:
Accommodate implementation measures recommended by the CWIP committee and the
Watershed Management Plan that are consistent with TDR program success. Where TDRs are
used as an incentive, limit the number of credits for critical wetland parcels to avoid significant
impacts to the TDR credit system.
C: TDR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 42 of 62
1. General Administration
Under the current program, the Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division administers
the TDR program. Administration includes the intake of applications and related requirements
for severance of development rights (Base and Early Entry TDRs), Restoration and Maintenance
TDRs, Conveyance TDRs, transfers of credits, redemptions of credits and lost certificates.
Administration reflects the private sector basis of the program- willing sellers and willing buyers
who plan and arrange their purchase and sale transactions. At the same time, it is designed to
protect system integrity and accuracy through a carefully maintained Activity Log, tracking each
parcel and related credits through time, including final use during the platting process when
redemption of identified credits are recorded.
In addition to these functions, the Division maintains both a Buyers List and a Sellers list, to
facilitate identification for interested parties. While some new listings have occurred recently,
the County understands that these lists have not worked well in the past.
The Buyer and Seller lists have provided names, phone numbers and numbers of credits sought
or available for sale. However, the listings typically lack an offering price by either buyer or
seller. In addition, these lists have been difficult for some parties to easily locate on the
County’s website. There is room for improvement based on the needs of the parties.
Staff initial recommendation:
At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential
buyers and sellers.
County staff would not incur additional expense in improving communications for the benefit of
all parties. No stakeholders are negatively affected.
2. Cost Components for Sending Owners
Cost components for Sending owners include application fees as well as other out of pocket
costs associated with obtaining Base and Bonus TDRs.
Application fees for Base TDR severance with early Entry Bonus: $250 plus $25 per TDR
issued
Application fee for Restoration and Maintenance TDR: $250
Application fee for Transfer of TDRs: $250
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 43 of 62
Application fee for redemption of TDRs: $250
Restoration and Maintenance TDR: Private Land Management Plan (LMP) requires
surety bond
Professional work product:
o Legal sketch and description (Base TDR)
o Title search for CEs or other land use restrictions (Base TDRs)
o Preparation of LMP, qualified biologist (Private R&M plan)
o Title work, preparation of deed, doc stamps (Conveyance TDRs)
o Title insurance (Conveyance TDRs)
o Negotiation with Governmental agency (Conveyance TDRs)
o Potential brokerage fees for sale of the TDRs
o “The County recommends that you consult with an attorney” (Base TDR
application form)
Application fees fall disproportionately on small Sending owners. An owner of a 5 acre tract
would pay $775 in application fees for 5 acres, in order to obtain all 4 TDRs. This fee is in
addition to professional fees associated with the work.
To obtain Base and Early Entry TDRs, a title search is required, along with sketch and
description. Legal advice is recommended in the process. More substantial work is involved in a
private Land Management Plan for the Restoration and Maintenance TDR. Professional real
estate services are typically required for the conveyance TDR, since the receiving entity will
require a standard title search and documentary stamps will be required.
There are limited possibilities for additional County staff assistance with some processes, in the
future. For example, staff could supply a legal sketch and description through its GIS Section or
other appropriate Division. A standard or model Land Management Plan could be developed by
the Environmental Planning Section to reduce professional fees.
Collier County devised a sophisticated and important program to protect environmentally
sensitive lands in the RFMUD Sending areas, allowing Sending owners to “choose” to
participate, but providing TDRs as an incentive and as just compensation for the change in FLUE
designation and zoning. Costs and complexity to Sending owners cannot be eliminated;
however, where possible, these should be reduced. The recommendation regarding a TDR
Bank, below, would take this concept further.
Staff initial recommendation:
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 44 of 62
Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required
for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by
County staff.
The reduction or elimination of application fees would result in an impact to taxpayers, since
the administration would not have an enterprise fund component. Likewise, additional work
assignments for County staff would be borne by County taxpayers. Sending owners would
benefit from these changes by reducing cost and complexity in the process of obtaining TDR
credits. All stakeholders would benefit from increased participation by Sending owners.
3. TDR Bank
The recommendation for a TDR Bank may be the single-most powerful recommendation made
by staff. As many important community members have expressed the concern that “the TDR
system is broken,” a bank would provide confidence in the system on many levels. It would
demonstrate that the County is committed to the program and its success. It would provide
assurance to small Sending owners that TDR severance will result in a monetary return within a
reasonable timeframe, thus spurring program participation. It would provide assurance to the
development community that TDRs will be available when needed, so that locating, structuring
and executing numerous small transactions can be avoided.
The current GMP provisions covering the TDR process state ”…the County shall consider the
feasibility of establishing a ‘TDR Bank’, to be administered by the County or some other not-for-
profit governmental or quasi-governmental public agency established for this purpose” (FLUE,
Designation Description Section: B.1 (D)(2)). In its White Paper dated January, 2015, the Rural
Fringe Coalition included the recommendation to consider a TDR bank to help foster the
program. Its rationale included the high cost to developers to aggregate smaller parcels to
derive TDRs or to purchase from many uncertain sellers. Likewise, the Golden Gate Estates
Area Civic Association recommends its use to facilitate the process.
A TDR bank is an intermediary between seller and buyer, which can be designed in many
different ways. Either a division within the County Manager’s agency or a non-profit
organization can serve in this role. It typically requires a substantial fund to allow purchase of
land or purchase of credits from Sending owners. The fund becomes replenished through the
sale of credits to Receiving entities, which must possess the necessary credits in order to obtain
a development order (plat or SDP).
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 45 of 62
The creation of the initial fund may come from dedicated tax revenue, general revenue, sale of
credits derived from County-owned property, TDRs provided to the County through the
program, or other means.
In the TDR Bank Capitalization report (Pruetz and Gunnells: “Placeworks”; Appendix C; dated
December, 2016), Rick Pruetz, FAICP, a nationally recognized TDR program expert, outlines the
many possible ways to create a TDR bank in Collier County. This report is included as Appendix
C. It covers the advantages and disadvantages of using a bank in the context of the RFMUD
program, noting that its chief importance lies in the fact that the County wishes to promote
significant Sending land severance in the short term while expecting demand over a lengthy
period of time. This “time lag” points to the importance of a bank in achieving environmental
success and Sending owner fairness; at the same time, it requires a significant holding period
before the County could sell its inventory, costing taxpayer dollars.
Pricing of Banked TDRs would support a separate market-driven (direct Sending/Receiving)
exchange and price point. The bank would not purchase TDRs for more than the market rate,
and should consider a higher resale rate so as not to frustrate non-bank sales.
For reasons stated in this analysis, Mr. Pruetz favors a capitalization approach using bonded
dedicated millage to create an account of sufficient size to purchase TDRs, holding them until
demanded. Once a point of equilibrium is reached, the fund becomes self-sustaining- TDRs sold
to the development community provide funds to purchase more. Ultimately, fund principal is
recovered in the bank and can be used to support other environmental initiatives or returned
to taxpayers through reduced millage. The Placeworks Capitalization report illustrates the
funding required over an initial 5 year period when the Bank would be actively buying a
substantial number of credits, and a 30 year period during which the credits would be sold and
the bank funding returned.
Other funding means are available, and could be supported without the use of public dollars for
capitalization; however, none of these options addresses the “time lag” i ssues. These options
include the use of County owned land to derive initial TDRs for the bank or the issuance of TDRs
to the County as a component of the severance process (see related, D.2).
Community support for a bank is vital. A fund created for its purpose may serve related
purposes, such as funding restoration and management of lands that are not within a state
acquisition or potential ROMA mitigation area, Conservation Collier restoration and
maintenance funding or capital and O&M related to important hydrological projects. The
community would need to recognize and appreciate the value of the conservation involved, its
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 46 of 62
County-wide ecological impact, opportunities for recreation and the value of publicly-owned
preserves as a legacy for grandchildren.
Staff initial recommendation:
The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR bank and a dedicated
assessment and/or bonding for the program, based on an evaluation of costs and benefits.
As an indication of stakeholder impact, there was broad support for the TDR bank concept
among Sending owners and the development community. Sending owners would enjoy a
significant incentive to participate in the TDR program, knowing that compensation for severed
credits may be more readily obtained. A bank would shift some of the administrative burden to
the County, and administration cost must be considered in addition to capitalization costs.
Taxpayers would bear the burden of the time value of the funds along with additional
administrative costs. Residents and visitors would benefit from an asset that might otherwise
be diminished without intermediary funding, and from the County-wide hydrological benefits
that can be achieved.
D. SENDING LAND MANAGEMENT:
Land management strategies for environmentally sensitive areas, including preserves and open
spaces, can take several different forms. One point of agreement among environmentalists,
land managers and planners is that management does not happen by itself. As discussed by a
panel of experts at Public Workshop #2, the prospect of a “do nothing” scenario following
Restriction of Development Rights agreement and the issuance of TDRs, would result in much
more extensive infestation of exotic plants and a compromise of viable habitat for important
species. Ultimately, the cost to restore lands unattended for a long period of time can
increase significantly. Private Land Management Plans are possible, but very difficult because
of small and fragmented ownership patterns that do not support a coordinated effort.
At the present time, the 4th TDR (bonus credit), “donation to a public agency”, cannot be
obtained in several locations, including North Belle Meade and Section 11 (T48S/R26E). For
those locations, there are no public agencies that have stated an intention to accept donations.
Staff had previously made inquiry to the Division of State Lands, FDEP, to determine whether
the State could take title to, and responsibility for, donated parcels in North Belle Meade. The
agency described the fact that this area was outside of its acquisition authority under the
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 47 of 62
Florida Forever (Picayune Strand) acquisition program, even if the parcels were donated .
Similarly, SFWMD was contacted regarding both North Belle Meade and Section 11 properties,
but declined any involvement beyond an advisory role.
In contrast, the South Belle Meade area is situated within the Picayune Stand State Forest
acquisition area, where donated lands can be held by The Internal Improvement Trust Fund
(TIITF) and managed by Florida Forestry Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission. Here, Sending owners obtain the Restoration and Maintenance bonus credit along
with the Conveyance bonus credit by donating the parcel(s) to the state along with a modest
fee for restoration and perpetual maintenance. This serves the interests of the State because it
is much easier to restore and manage large contiguous land areas than individual parcels.
The fragmented pattern of ownership in North Belle Meade and Section 11 is similar to the
pattern in South Belle Meade, prior to State acquisition. Again, the most effective means of
long term management would be under a unified plan administered by a single agency (or
coordinated agencies) for each geographic area. It is not practical or effective to encourage
numerous small owners to create or implement plans to maintain or even restore 5, 10 and 20
acre tracts individually, particularly because plans may not be implemented in the same
timeframe as neighboring properties. Eradicating and managing nuisance and exotic vegetation
requires large scale coordination and timing.
For this reason, coupling the Restoration and Maintenance TDR with the Conveyance TDR
results in a more effective framework and a simplification for Sending owners. As presently
structured in South Belle Meade, two TDRs can be provided for these dual purposes, simply by
conveying the property along with an appropriate endowment sum.
Finally, rehydration of parts of North Belle Meade has been on the list of priorities listed in the
Watershed Management Plan (2011). The potential projects in North Belle Meade for wetland
restoration or rehydration should be coordinated with restudy recommendations.
Accommodation of such activity would be clearly demonstrated by maximizing the transfers of
private parcels into public or quasi-public ownership, thus minimizing the potential for conflict
with an otherwise successful watershed program in the future.
Options to address this problem, by order of priority; also consider the combination of two or
more options in concert:
1. Option One- North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank:
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 48 of 62
During Public Workshop #2, a panel of subject matter experts was convened to discuss North
Belle Meade land management in particular, given the lack of interest from State agencies and
given the fragmented ownership pattern. The panelists indicated a preference for coordinated
ownership and management by a single entity, and agreed that Collier County should take
direct responsibility, if no other state or federal agency would accept ownership or
management responsibility. Public-private partnerships were also discussed. It was noted that
County ownership would provide some County benefits, such as potential recreational
opportunities.
More specifically, panelists discussed the advantage of creating a mitigation bank option in
order to finance the restoration and long term maintenance. The same concept had been
suggested previously by an informal scoping meeting with agency peers.
In April, 2016, staff launched an initial feasibility study to determine the viability of creating a
mitigation bank of any kind. The idea of using mitigation funds from the County ’s own
transportation or other capital projects was part of the conceptual framework. If the County
could act as project manager for a mitigation bank while saving money over an extended time
period, this option would be feasible and program design could be recommended. The
advantage of such a program would be threefold: (1) aid Sending owners in their efforts to
obtain all available TDRs, including Conveyance, thus furthering program participation; (2)
provide a cost-effective means to County ownership and long-term maintenance of parcels; (3)
provide a more cost-effective and coordinated long term approach for mitigation of County
projects that impact wetlands or habitat.
The initial “Phase 1” Feasibility Study for the creation of a mitigation area is att ached as
Appendix B. Conceptually, the bank would complement existing mitigation activities in this area
under private ownership. The plan would be adopted by agreement of both state (FDEP) and
federal (ACOE) permitting agencies, encompassing the necessary requirements of each. At this
time there is a reasonable expectation of approval and financial viability of a Regional Offsite
Mitigation Area/In-Lieu Fee program (“ROMA”) in North Belle Meade.
Funding to provide restoration, maintenance and management of the ROMA area would come
from required mitigation of County-owned infrastructure projects. Notably, the 2040 LRTP cost-
feasible plan estimates approximately $11 million and $7 million for wetland mitigation and
panther compensation units respectively, associated with construction of new or expanded
roadways. The ROMA plan would allow for a competitive use of these mitigation dollars, in turn
fostering the preservation and maintenance of parcels within the North Belle Meade Area.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 49 of 62
The Phase 1 study of the North Belle Meade area for potential use as wetland mitigation or
habitat compensation indicates the area will not likely yield sufficient cost-effective wetland
credits or habitat compensation to be competitive on an open market (sales to private
interests). However, it concludes that a ROMA “is potentially feasible and cost-effective, based
on broad characterizations of North Belle Meade and a range of reasonable assumptions.”
Background data, for example, was derived from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS).
In short, the Phase 1 Feasibility report concludes that: “A Collier County single -user ROMA/ILF
project within North Belle Meade appears to be a cost-feasible generator of wetland mitigation
credits and panther habitat compensation if the ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly
located to assure long-term support for the Florida panther.”
Based on the reasonable expectation of approval and financial viability in Phase 1, a Phase 2
Feasibility Study has commenced to study the ROMA concept in finer grain. Field work will
more closely correlate the levels of exotic infestation to site specific areas in North Belle
Meade. A mitigation analysis tool, developed for this project, will provide more detailed
analysis of the credit generation potential (revenue) and mitigation costs. Additional meetings
with all permitting and review agencies will be completed, including USACOE, USFWS, FDEP,
and FFWCC. Timelines will be associated with cost and revenue streams, allowing for pro-forma
financial analysis of the ROMA and comparison to private mitigation bank costs for County
capital projects.
In light of the fact that there are a significant number of private permittee responsible
mitigation (PRM) parcels in the North Belle Meade area, coordination of activities in a broad
geographic area may be an important consideration for permitting agencies as well as the
County. To this end, consideration of a public private partnership (PPP), trust agreement or
third party monitoring might be considered for umbrella cooperation. Staff has identified only
one experienced Land Trust operating in Collier County: Southwest Florida Land Preservation
Trust. This entity has been contacted and began initial discussions with staff; it is not clear at
this time whether this Land Trust will wish to play a role in a potential ROMA/umbrella
agreement.
While the Phase 2 Feasibility Study will provide the County greater assurance of program
success, it will not guarantee approval from the permitting agencies. The timeframe for
permitting a program of this kind may be up to two (2) years in duration. Because of this factor,
a GMPA recommendation would state the options listed here in priority order rather than
mandatory implementation.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 50 of 62
Staff initial recommendation:
Complete Phase 2 Feasibility Analysis for a County to County mitigation bank program
(ROMA/ILF) to establish a higher confidence of a successful mitigation program that can benefit
the TDR program, the environment and Collier County capital spending.. Explore options
involving Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) parcels to achieve coordinated or umbrella
management options for greater overall land management efficiency.
County government would assume responsibilities inherent in a ROMA agreement, although
the operation and administrative functions could be assigned under contract. County taxpayers
could anticipate some cost savings in the use of a ROMA over more conventional mitigation
banking approaches. Taxpayers would also be gaining an asset: ownership of large land areas,
ecologically stable, that could be used for passive recreational purposes. Residents and visitors
would gain from improved hydrological functionality, providing watershed gains and balances
between sheds and in associated groundwater and aquifers. Sending owners in that area would
be on equal footing with counterparts in South Belle Meade so as to enjoy the better
availability of the Restoration/Maintenance and Conveyance TDR credits. The environmental
community would gain assurance that this valuable resource is managed and protected, both
for watershed and for important plant and animal species. Receiving owners would know that
the number of TDRs necessary for future projects can be made more readily available, both
through the additional credits and through increased Sending owner participation. To the
extent that grant funding becomes available for structural rehydration projects in North Belle
Meade, additional wetland credits could be realized, resulting in further taxpayer benefits.
2. Option 2- Additional TDR for funding in North Belle Meade and Section 11:
It is possible to design an additional TDR only for those properties intended for County
ownership. This “County TDR” could supplement other funding. It could be used for “seed
money” for purposes of the ROMA engagement, or could form a po rtion of the funds necessary
to create an endowment for County owned and managed areas without a ROMA. Additional
contributions should be required, similar to the program in South Belle Meade.
For example, if the program changes include two additional TDRs for each 5 acres of Sending
Lands, an additional TDR could be assigned where other (non-County) governmental agencies
will not take ownership. Instead, the County would assume ownership of the last TDR or
equivalent, as part of the conveyance application to the County. Proceeds from the additional
TDR would go to the County to partially fund the restoration and long term maintenance of the
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 51 of 62
property, to provide seed money for a ROMA/ILF bank and/or to provide seed money for a TDR
bank.
Along with the value of the last TDR, the County could assess a fee for donation roughly
equivalent to that amount required, on average, in South Belle Meade by the Florida Forestry
Service. In this way, there would be rough parity between owners in North Belle Meade, South
Belle Mead and Section 11.
Staff initial recommendation:
Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been established
to take ownership. Also require donors of Sending lands to the County to convey a sum of
money or other consideration to partially fund a long term endowment.
This concept would be an exception to issuing additional TDRs to all Sending lands regardless of
location. However, the end goal would be to put equal numbers of TDRs in Sending owners’
pockets at the same expense. When considering the opportunity provided to South Belle
Meade Sending owners by State acquisition, this provision would be in line with equitable
treatment or rough equivalence. Sending Owners would benefit from knowing that the
conveyance TDR is available to them, along with any other bonus TDRs. Receiving owners
would benefit from the availability of TDRs in general, based on added market liquidity.
Financial return to participating Sending owners would be equivalent regardless of location.
3. Option 3- Green Utility Fee/ County Environmental Separate Fund
An idea presented by a panelist at Public Workshop #2 was a “Green Utility Fee.” This could be
a fee determined on the basis of land use and applied Countywide. No doubt, it could be
designed in many different ways. One purpose, like the two Options listed above, would be to
provide a fund from which properties donated to the County could be restored and
maintained.
If initiated by referendum, dedicated millage could fund several environmentally based and
related needs from a special fund, allowing the BCC to make annual budget determinations
according to annual priorities. For example, the dedicated millage could serve a stormwater
utility in its efforts to restore or improve watershed projects in different locations within the
County’s sub-basins, could be used to fund perpetual maintenance of Conservation Collier
holdings, and could be used for TDR bank capitalization. As noted in the TDR bank discussion
(Appendix C), the bank will ultimately realize a return of initial capital, which could then be
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 52 of 62
allocated by the BCC for perpetual maintenance of County holdings such as Conservation Collier
Lands or Sending Lands, to additional hydrologic projects, or to other environmental initiatives.
Staff initial recommendation:
Study the idea of a Collier Environmental Fund and consider whether it should be the subject of
a County-wide referendum. Allow various complementary uses of the dedicated fund to
support County environmental initiatives.
Given its close association with hydrology issues, the concept might also be part of the
Stormwater Utility Fee currently under study; revenue could apply to green infrastructure that
benefits water quantity, quality, recharge or flood control. Additionally, the green utility fee
might encompass a dedicated millage for both County-wide “green” initiatives and the TDR
bank capitalization discussed at Sending (C.3).
4. Option 4- Model Land Management Plan and Private Ownership
There are circumstances where a private Land Management Plan would be optimal. Some
owners do not wish to give up ownership of their land, although they wish to engage in the
TDR process up to that point. For example, land holdings are planned as natural amenities of
nearby development areas in the western part of South Belle Meade, adjacent to the Urban
Residential Fringe. Another example is land maintained for a hunting lodge, where TDRs have
been severed from all but 5 acres to make it possible, but no conveyance TDRs are issued.
Although applicants for Restoration and Maintenance TDR credits would be required to submit
or commission an environmental consultant, the basics of the Land Management Plan and
required elements would be in place, eliminating uncertainty and reducing costs to the
applicant.
Staff initial recommendation:
Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to
provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits.
Private owners would save time, cost and uncertainty in instances where they wish to maintain
ownership in their Sending land and also participate in the TDR process.
E. OTHER PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 53 of 62
1. Adjust property appraisal for tax benefit on TDR severed lands.
Staff reviewed the taxable values associated with Sending Lands where TDRs have been
severed. It was found that the land use code assigned to these lands, and the associated value,
varies greatly. Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office, a Constitutional branch of County
Government, agrees in principle to review market value appraisals where base TDRs are
severed. Given the limitation of development rights on such privately maintained land, its lower
market value may result in lower tax assessments.
Staff has discussed this issue with the Property Appraisers Offices and stands ready to assist
with any data needed by that agency.
Staff initial recommendation:
Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser’s Office in support of its efforts
to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in
Sending Lands.
Improved assessment outcomes are favorable to Sending owners who have severed
development rights but have not transferred ownership. No parties are adversely affected.
2. Allow County-owned (post-conveyance) Sending land to be used for recreational uses.
Currently, approved Land Management Plans include only passive recreational uses, consistent
with the permitted uses after severance in Sending Lands. The GMP could conceivably contain
conditional uses that expand the range of recreational uses, where the County takes ownership,
such as North Belle Meade.
In general, permitted uses limit recreation to “passive parks and passive recreation uses”. By
definition, passive recreation is “characterized by natural resource emphasis and non -
motorized activities”. There may be appropriate instances where motorized uses are consistent
with environmental preservation. For example, the County may wish to create a modest eco-
tourism site for residents and visitors, allowing some off-road transport to and from different
locations, or accommodating persons with disabilities to visit some locations.
Staff initial recommendation:
County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for
expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of “active” and
“passive” recreation will require further vetting.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 54 of 62
County residents may enjoy greater use of and access to natural areas. No known negative
impacts on stakeholder groups.
3. Allow clustering of density on large tracts of land
Where parcels or assemblages allow for more than one dwelling unit under base density (1 unit
per 40 acres), owners may wish to cluster the units in closer proximity to each other, to
infrastructure, etc. Currently, there is no opportunity to create a better development plan than
1 unit per 40 (separate) acres.
Allow large land owners to cluster dwelling units, retaining the 1 unit per 40 acre standard, but
also allowing 1 additional clustered unit for each additional 40 acres retained.
Where development rights are retained on large parcels, owners would enjoy better design
alternatives. No stakeholders would be adversely affected.
NEUTRAL LANDS:
1. Allow for some participation in the TDR program as allowed in Sending area.
Neutral Lands typically enjoy the same uses and restrictions under the RFMUD as were enjoyed
under the base agricultural zoning prior to TDR program and RFMUD adoption. However, unlike
Sending owners, Neutral owners have no ability to generate and sell TDR credits.
Parcels in the Neutral lands can be subdivided into 5 acre parcels, allowing for greater
residential density than would be allowed in the Sending Lands. Other non-residential uses are
allowed, including agriculture and conservation.
Permanent agricultural use or permanent conservation easements are appropriate in Neutral
Lands where the quality of the conserved use is demonstrated. In fact, these additional
reservations should be encouraged.
County staff could make administrative review and approval of applications based on
environmental criteria in the Land Development Code. Conservation areas would remain in
private ownership and would require conservation easements. Likewise, agricultural uses can
be encouraged on Neutral Lands by generating TDRs for permanent agricultural easements, as
was suggested for Sending areas.
Staff initial recommendation:
Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by
perpetual easements.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 55 of 62
Neutral owners of larger parcels would be provided with a viable choice in preservation of land
instead of 5 acre development. The total additional TDRs generated from this change would be
very small in comparison to all likely Sending TDRs, and so would not impact Sending owner
expectations to any significant degree.
2. Minimum Project Size
One additional right provided to Neutral owners within the RFMUD is the ability to “cluster”
development. For example, a 40 acre parcel could be subdivided into eight 5 acre parcels; or,
using the clustering rules, could place 8 dwelling units on the parcel in closer proximity to one
another, fostering the possibility of greater efficiency in infrastructure, among other
advantages.
Like the recommended change within Receiving Lands, advantages to clustered development
would appear to apply to parcels smaller than 40 acres. Efficiency in shared resources as well as
social advantages are possible. No increase in overall density would result.
Staff initial recommendation:
Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered development.
This recommendation would benefit Neutral owners of properties 10 acres or greater by
providing alternative design possibilities. No other stakeholder group is affected.
RECEIVING LANDS
A: LAND USE AND ECONOMIC VITALITY
Growth presents a tremendous opportunity for progress. It also presents many challenges.
What, where and how we build have major impacts to our community and resident’s quality of
life. The Receiving lands within the RFMUD total 28,054 acres, of which, 14,531 acres remain
vacant and undeveloped. This is where growth will occur in the RFMUD.
Currently, the RFMUD provides for an increase in development rights with the use of TDRs
within Receiving lands. Density can be increased using two forms of development, 1) cluster
residential, and 2) villages. To date, the only development pattern occurring in the Fringe is
cluster residential development in the form of gated communities such as Naples Reserve,
Hacienda Lakes, Lords Way, San Marino, Lido Isles, Rockledge (in Urban Fringe at 2.5 units per
acre), Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of the Everglades
(in RFMUD at 1 unit per acre). These developments have an approved total of 6,786 units, the
majority single family. While these communities are attractive, this single-dimensional
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 56 of 62
development pattern furthers Collier County’s challenges of diversifying the economy,
providing affordable housing and financing an overburdened roadway network.
During the public workshops participants were clear; the preference for new development in
the limited available land in the Receiving area is something different than gated
communities. Participants were more favorable towards standalone business/commercial, and
mixed-use development. They want to see employment, goods and services, and a mix of
housing types in the Receiving areas.
One of the most common suggestions for program improvement was to allow employment and
goods and services outside of the Village concept. Currently, commercial uses in Receiving lands
are limited to locations within approved Villages with a maximum of 10% of the total village
area and 10,000 SF leasable floor area per acre. Consensus was found in the need to change the
requirements to promote commercial uses within the Receiving lands, not only to support the
residents within the Receiving lands, but also for the surrounding area. It was suggested that
Rural villages envisioned within receiving areas don’t provide sufficient commercial capacity,
and the design criteria for commercial locations within the villages isolate them from major
transportation corridors making them infeasible. There should be greater incentives for
employment, industrial uses, agriculture research, and technology development.
While consensus demonstrated the RFMUD should better support commercial uses, it was also
suggested by one commenter that the RFMUD plan is not compatible with the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan; it eliminates functionality because it creates lost commercial opportunities
for the Estates in the RFMUD Plan. The members of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association expressed their thoughts by letter dated April 19, 2016 saying, it is imperative that
changes in land use in the RFMUD which borders the Estates be permitted to provide services
and employment to compliment the build out of the Estates. The RFMUD can also provide
opportunities for employment, economic development, and needed recreational activities to
Collier County as a whole.
In addition to the suggested changes to commercial uses, many participants expressed desired
adjustments to residential uses. The RFMUD clustering provisions currently requires minimum
of 40 acres to allow a density increase from 1 unit per 5 acres, to 1 unit per acre. It was
suggested to increase base rights for properties less than 40 acres, or to all together eliminate
the 40 acre minimum. Some participants thought base rights should increase to 1 unit per 2.5
acres for 5 acre tracts, others thought is should go up to 2 units per acre.
Changes in Village density were also suggested and highly supported by the data and analysis
referenced in Section 3 of this white paper. “Smart growth” principles support sustainable
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 57 of 62
development patterns that are multi-dimensional, provide for a demographic mix, and support
transportation choices; density should be an optimum of 7 units per acre. Increasing the density
in the RFMUD will allow greater diversity in residential product, greater efficiency in providing
infrastructure and services and lower development costs.
Participants were supportive of increased density, and they were passionate about the need to
address affordable housing saying, it needs to be a much higher priority in the discussion [of
the RFMUD). The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District plan must have a dynamic affordable
housing component built into the plan to avoid both the affordable housing and future
workforce crisis. Without it our community will suffer. Currently, the RFMUD addresses
affordable housing only in the village concept; “A minimum of 0.2 units per acre in a village
shall be affordable housing, which at least 0.1 units per acres shall be workforce housing.”
These units are required to use 0.5 TDR credits. Affordable and workforce housing is an on-
going challenge for Collier County. Collier County has just initiated the first comprehensive
housing plan to address the needs for affordable housing. This plan is reported to be completed
by September, 2017. Community Planning staff will closely follow this planning effort and bring
forward recommendations implementable through the Comprehensive Plan.
Robert Hickey, Senior Research Associate at the Center for Housing Policy, suggested a few
methods currently being utilized to work towards broadening housing affordability during a
workshop sponsored by United Way. One of the suggested methods can be implemented in the
RFMUD and that is “allowing mixed housing such as apartments/condos, manufactured homes,
cottage housing and micro homes. This widens the diversity in housing markets, allowing
residents to have more affordable alternative options when looking for housing.” Participants in
the RFMUD restudy have supported the idea of a mix of housing with particular focus on
reducing the required size of units. With the positive national trend in “tiny” or micro homes,
the RFMUD can support affordable housing by promoting the acceptance of the size limitations
of 600 sq ft. found in the residential zoning districts. Additional recommendations addressing
affordable housing may be incorporated into the RFMUD amendments as influenced by the
comprehensive affordable housing plan.
Staff initial recommendations
1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of
Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in
locations with access to major collector or arterial roads.
2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the
Village Center and the Research and Technology Park.
3. Explore designating Receiving areas as Innovation Zones.
4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 58 of 62
5. Consider new measures for mixed-use standards, such those found in RLSA
6. Modify residential density standards:
Clustering – remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre; (higher
density for affordable/workforce only projects)
Village – increase density to 7 units per acre
Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre
7. Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option.
8. Modify the TDR requirements:
a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit.
b. Change from .5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing
c. Density over 4 units per acre requires 0 TDRs.
d. No TDRs for industrial/business park uses.
“Opportunity Naples” is a report that heightens the awareness for the need to div ersify the
economy, particularly in eastern Collier County. The report found that Collier County needs
more suitable, large-scale, pad-ready development sites. Collier County as a whole will benefit
from recommended changes allowing business uses in the RFMUD.
Increasing density, improving mixed-use requirements and adjusting the TDR credits will
promote a diverse and more affordable community, expand mobility choices and engage a
healthy and active lifestyle – the development trends sought after by employers, employees
and baby boomers.
B: TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY
The RFMUD is served by a congested arterial network with limited funding for improvements.
While development will help pay for impacts to the network, promoting a mix of land uses that
shorten trips into the urban area, and is served by transit, will help offset the ever increasing
roadway needs.
A majority of public comments on transportation emphasized the need to increase roadway
network connectivity surrounding the Receiving areas, at the same time keep speed low (< 36
mph). Low speed along with additional wildlife crossings is essential for wildlife preservation.
Connectivity is important not only within the Receiving lands, but also connecting surrounding
areas to destinations within the Receiving areas such as future employment, goods and
services. Other transportation comments support including transportation alternatives such as
bus transit.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 59 of 62
There is considerable attention given to transportation planning in eastern Collier County. The
transportation study surrounding North Belle Meade will further inform the transportation
network needed to support the RFMUD. Further consideration and implementation of the
techniques identified in the Master Mobility Study will advance Collier County’s goals to achieve
a multi-modal community.
Staff initial recommendations
1. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands.
2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support
Complete Streets and low speed.
3. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business
parks.
4. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a
development’s level of interconnectivity such as a “link-node” ratio, and the transit,
bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding
destinations.
The community as a whole will benefit from a multi-modal system that provides for all users,
reduces trip lengths and supports greater efficiency in our transportation network.
Stakeholders with development interests in the RFMUD should participate in the development
of any new methodology created for a Mobility Analysis.
C: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROCESS
During the public workshops participants were clear; within the Receiving lands they want to
create more than houses, a defined place, a live, work, play approach to promote thoughtful
community design. Some were so specific to say limit gated communities. The finding of this
report and the community input supports greater incentives for village development to
promote mixed-use in the RFMUD.
To incentivize mixed-use development and business park uses, the development community
shared ideas that are process related. Overall, the idea is to find ways to reduce the risk
associated with mixed-use development while also providing greater flexibility. Suggestions
included, maximize opportunities to develop in Receiving lands through the mostly
administrative SDP or Planning processes (subject to compliance with adopted design and
development standards). Establish maximum flexibility and administrative or hearing
examiner approval process for LDC deviations, and modify the process to follow the SRA
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 60 of 62
designation process where an application for a Receiving Area Village is approved by simple
majority vote by BCC. Other participants support the idea to ensure that the current public
hearing process for approval of new development within the RFMUD is retained .
Specific design standards should be kept to a minimum and should be placed in the LDC, only
as guidelines or in some cases as baseline standards. Wherever possible, provide for
incentives rather than regulations to achieve design objectives. Create opportunities for
additional flexibility in designing mixed-use projects within receiving lands.
Recognizing the distinct differences and potential for each of the Receiving Areas, participants
support the idea to establish separate overlays for each of the four distinct Rural Fringe
development areas, similar to the North Belle Meade Overlay which has its own set of
development standards. This could be accomplished through Land Development Code
amendments. At a minimum, specific design standards found in the Growth Management Plan
should be moved to the implementing LDC, and the LDC standards should be carefully reviewed
and amended to support the design concepts identified herein.
Developers and industry leaders report that a hurdle to more intense, mixed-use development
design is the added cost of impact fees. As stated in Section 3 of this white paper, other
communities’ successful implementation of a mixed-use impact fee has shown a ten to thirty
percent reduction in impact fees. This reduction could be another strategy to incentivize the
type of development desired in eastern Collier County.
Staff initial recommendations
1. Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide
greater certainty for developers
2. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays.
3. Require a housing analysis with a Village application that demonstrates a percentage of
employees within the village will have housing accommodations within the village.
4. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed-use.
5. Explore with Collier County Health Department the creation of Health Assessment
Index.
6. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land
Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment
zones and mixed-use development, suggest modifications to standards e.g., remove
greenbelt requirement.
7. Develop further incentives for innovative features such as solar power, zero net water
use, aquifer storage and recovery systems.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 61 of 62
The adoption of zoning overlays could allow both the developer and the public greater certainty
in the development standards for Receiving Areas. Modifying some approval processes could
allow complying projects to proceed with minimal delay. The intent of the modifications is to
diversify the mix of uses including residential product, provide greater certainty, and to support
economic development in eastern Collier County.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 62 of 62
Appendix A
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
Public Outreach
January – May, 2016
Appendix A Page 1 of 91
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
Public Workshop #1
Introduction to Sending Land
January 6, 2016
Introduction:
With the purpose to inform the public and become more informed by the public, Collier
Community Planning staff, along with consulting partner AECOM, began a series of six public
workshops, the first three centered primarily on the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD).
This series preceded the workshops intended to discuss Receiving and Neutral Land uses,
densities, development standards and the like.
Letters were mailed to over 800 individual land owners informing them of the Restudy and
upcoming meetings. Many owners live in other cities and states. Therefore, program specifics
and opinions for this target segment were shared by telephone and email.
Appendix A Page 2 of 91
Our first outreach meeting drew over 65 attendees. These included individuals and families
who have unimproved property in Sending areas, families who currently live or conduct
agriculture operations on Sending land, and other stakeholders such as environmental
interests, developers and consultants. The agenda included on overview of the RFMUD, TDR
concepts and basics, history of the program and current issues as identified by staff. The public
was invited to identify additional issues, either through the meeting format, through a
dedicated e-mail address, or via website survey.
Overall, there was strong sentiment from Sending land owners that the program should not
have been devised in the way it was, and many thought that the RFMUD governing provisions
should be abandoned altogether. Some came to understand that the program was created as a
result of litigation and the State’s Final Order, and given that compact, the County needed to
move forward and not back.
At the same time, most were grateful for a thorough discussion of how the program works
today, so that they could add suggestions for improvement during the Restudy. Some initial
concerns expressed by smaller land owners were the lack of a viable marketplace to sell TDR
credits and the uncertainty of sale or sale price.
Appendix A Page 3 of 91
Meeting Summary:
1. Welcome and Meeting Objectives
Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant for the County addressed the attendees noting the Board of
County Commissioners has directed Staff to develop changes to the Growth Management Plan
including the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). The purpose of the meeting is to obtain
public input on the areas designated as Sending Lands under the Program.
2. Overview and History of the Rural Fringe (RFMUD) TDR Program
Mr. Van Lengen presented a Power Point “Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – Introduction for
Sending Land Owners” and provided an overview and history of the Program noting:
The RFMUD was developed as a result of a 1999 Final Order stemming from litigation
(by the Collier County Audubon Society, Inc. and the Florida Wildlife Federation) that
addressed County land use planning issues including establishing the RFMUD.
The goals of the Order were for the County to adequately preserve wetlands, protect
critical species and wildlife habitat from unrestrained growth by directing it to
appropriate locations within the County.
One avenue implemented within the RFMUD District was a Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) program which identifies sending and receiving lands administered through
a program of density credits.
The restudy of the area will focus on the Program’s goal of establishing smarter
development patterns, economic viability for those affected and optimal protection of
sensitive areas and species.
3. Introduction to Sending Land Issues
Mr. Van Lengen noted the sending program encompasses the “North and South Belle Meade”
areas of the County, in addition to other smaller sending areas farther north.
The density credits available for transfer include base credits (1 credit for a 5 acre parcel or 8
for a 40 acre parcel), an early entry bonus, credit for restoration/maintenance and conveyance
to a governmental entity (each on the basis of 1 per 5 acres). The differences in program
specifics between North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade were covered in some detail. It
was also noted that watershed planning and transportation planning both need to be
considered in arriving at program changes.
4. Current Status of the Program
Mr. Van Lengen reported:
The Board of County Commissioners established an Oversight Committee to review
specific areas of the Growth Management Plan including the RFMUD.
Appendix A Page 4 of 91
The Committee will be meeting on a quarterly basis.
Staff will be holding a series of public meetings to garner input on the issues so
deficiencies in the Program may be addressed to ensure it functions as originally
intended.
The endeavor is anticipated to last approximately 2 years, with a status report delivered
to the BCC by the end of 2016, prior to the formal public hearing process.
A website has been developed by the County to facilitate the endeavor which will
provide information on the Committee, ongoing activities, questionnaires for the public
and contact information for Staff.
Owners are encouraged to provide input in any format they desire including writing
letters and/or emails, calling Staff directly, participating in questionnaires and public
meetings, etc.
5. Importance of TDR Program to Owners
The restudy of the area will focus on important issues to the landowners including improving
the economic viability of the program, ensuring smarter development patterns and protecting
sensitive areas and species. Compensation to owners who elect to participate must be
addressed. It is important to keep in mind that the TDR program is optional; staff if available to
help explain the program so that individual owners can best satisfy their own interests. Aas a
restudy, staff is interested in owner input on how to improve the program.
During presentation and Question/Answer period, the following items were raised:
There may be increases to the density allowed in the Receiving Lands, however that
concept requires additional stakeholder input.
Along with base and early entry density credits, the Program allows credits for
restoration of sending lands with the owner developing and implementing a restoration
plan, participating in mitigation through a State or Federal Government program, or
linking to an existing approved restoration plan.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and other agencies participated
in the original development of the Program and will be providing input on any proposed
revisions to the Program. They also currently participate in the permit process.
Once an owner’s density credits in the Sending Areas are transferred to a party, the
sending land owner is free and clear of their use, with the receiving party bearing all
responsibilities for use (or non-use) of the credits. Credits can be held for an indefinite
period of time.
One option under consideration is developing a land bank for the credits to facilitate the
owner’s ability to transfer sending land credits to an outside party.
Appendix A Page 5 of 91
The boundaries originally approved for the areas in question will remain unchanged;
however the County is seeking to improve the Program with the assistance of the
landowners affected by the land use requirements.
Consideration will be given to expanding the allowed uses in the receiving areas and
increasing the number of credits made available from sending areas to help balance the
program, given that there is likely a larger demand for credits than those available under
the Program.
The County will be examining the land values and economic parameters of the Program
with the recognition the current system does not reflect market values or a balance
between supply and demand. Economists at AECOM will be assisting in this part of the
endeavor.
Another aspect the County will be reviewing is the “exchange process” as they recognize
under the current format it is a cumbersome endeavor for those involved in the
Program.
The program will accommodate the principles adopted by the BCC in the Watershed
master Plan. Interested citizens are reminded that they may wish to attend or monitor
the Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Program (CWIP) ad hoc committee
meetings to learn more.
Commissioner Nance addressed the attendees noting he has owned property in the Program
area since the 1980’s and was not in favor of the settlement given the means the landowners
rights were compromised. He is advocating the restudy and recognizes the Program is not
functioning as intended.
Commissioner Nance noted the Program was State Mandated and the County recognizes, at
this point it is not feasible to propose eliminating the Program or changing the boundaries
established. The goal is to increase equity in the Program and allow the owners with sending
lands to obtain fair values for their properties.
6. Interactive Discussion/Activity and Questions
Mr. Ault encouraged attendees to provide written comments on the cards provided at the
meeting or communicate with Staff through any other means they feel comfortable.
A questionnaire has been developed and available on the website which aid Staff in addressing
concerns identified by interested parties. He requested the owners participate in this endeavor.
It can be found at the interactive content button, via website:
https://www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies.
Appendix A Page 6 of 91
7. Wrap-up and Next Steps
Mr. Van Lengen noted the next public meeting is scheduled for January 27, 2016 at 6:30pm.
The agenda will center on North Belle Meade and the need for long term ownership and
maintenance for properties that use the TDR program.
STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Tim Nance
Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager (Staff Liaison)
Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning
Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning
Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant
Appendix A Page 7 of 91
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy
Public Workshop #2
Focus on North Belle Meade Sending Land
January 27, 2016
Introduction:
This public workshop focused on the topic of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Master Plan
(Plan) North Belle Meade Sending area, the associated issues, and generating ideas for
potential solutions. Despite a heavy rain event through the afternoon and evening, over 50
people attended.
Staff presented a brief overview of the Plan and highlighted the issues unique to the North Belle
Meade Sending area (see panel questions, below), with explanations of each issue. The
presentation also featured a summary of the public comments provided at the first workshop,
and the comments provided from the on-line Sending area survey.
Following the staff presentation, a panel was seated to discuss possible solutions to the North
Belle Mead issues. The panelists were Bob Mulhere – Planning Director for Hole Montes, Nancy
Payton – SW Florida Representative for Florida Wildlife Association, and Tim Durham – Senior
Ecologist for Passarella & Associates. Five questions were asked for each panelist’s response.
Panel Summary:
Five questions posed to panelists and their responses.
In Sending areas (where development rights have been removed), what should the fulfillment
of conservation goals as conceived in the Plan look like, say, in 20 years?
Appendix A Page 8 of 91
Panelist 1. Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) will be under Collier ownership through
conveyance/willing sellers and managed by Conservation Collier. NRPA will be rehydrated via
Golden Gate Canal diversion, no reservoir. Wildlife crossings or land bridge to connect NRPA
and Picayune Strand Forest. Currently listed species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker will
be thriving. Collier County will be implementing a North Belle Meade Habitat Conservation Plan
for public infrastructure (roads). NRPA becomes destination for passive nature-based recreation
Panelist 2. There is a single management entity for Sending Lands, maybe best option
Conservation Collier. There is hydrologic sheet flow. Public access for passive recreation. There
is significant land connectivity.
Panelist 3. Lands are available to public for active recreation such as horseback riding, camping,
fishing, and biking. Landowners in Sending area received fair deal and were made whole.
If the current pattern of fragmented ownership and maintenance continues, what issues would
persist?
Panelist 1. With lack of connectivity the same issues today will continue with hydrology and
listed species. Exotics will continue to be a problem. If lands are fragments the Plan hasn’t been
successfully completed with fair compensation to land owners.
Panelist 2. The issues continue with hydrology, economics of land management, and exotics.
Panelist 3. Plan goals will not be met – Final Order settlement in question. Inability to manage –
remove exotics, restore habitat, enforcement. Natural resource values and wildlife use will
diminish
What alternatives can you suggest to achieve the vision you first described? (e.g., ownership
alternatives; management alternatives?)
Panelist 1. Make sure adequate compensation is provided. Simplify the Plan; err on making the
landowners whole.
Panelist 2. Collier County must step forward to accept the Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) conveyance lands. Accept land and bank TDR restoration/endowment money until
management can be “conservation of scale;” in the interim, possibly a land trust. Swap program
between NRPA and isolated western sending lands. North Belle Meade Habitat Conservation
Plan - county mitigates infrastructure impacts in North Belle Meade to help secure large blocks
of conservation land.
Panelist 3. Increase the TDRs that Sending can generate. There are issues with the cost of
restoration and what a landowner gets in return. The process for TDRs must be simple.
Appendix A Page 9 of 91
Consider allowing the use of TDRs to mitigate for urban area infill native vegetation
requirements. Make it easier for landowners to sell credits.
What funding mechanisms can you envision that might be feasible to allow consolidation of
responsibility for restoration and maintenance? (e.g., more TDR credits, grants, mitigation
banking, etc.)
Panelist 1. Mitigation bank, or ROMA, may be relevant, but can have challenges. Need to put
together the numbers for maintenance cost so it can be better understood what is feasible.
Panelist 2. Revive Conservation Collier. Maybe a “green utility fee.” Use mitigation for wetland
and wildlife. Partner with downstream communities and agencies that benefit from North Belle
Meade rehydration. Panther Refuge is interested in expansion. There are other plans and
programs that could coordinate to get results.
Panelist 3. Use TDRs in urban area for native vegetation mitigation.
Do you have a preferred alternative for ownership and long term maintenance, among the
ideas that have been suggested?
Panelist 1. Ownership Collier County, and long term maintenance Conservation Collier.
Panelist 2. Collier County is best alternative.
Panelist 3. Preference is Collier County, would like to see State park with active recreation.
Following the panel discussion, the audience provided their comments.
Public Discussion
Consider increasing TDR demand by decreasing the Receiving area minimum of 40 acres.
Make Receiving areas more attractive to worldwide developers, like Celebration, FL.
Concerns that the program is the big guy vs. little guy, and animals vs. people.
Concerns that eminent domain is coming.
Assessed value of land is more than the value of a TDR. No incentive to create TDR.
To increase land connectivity and management efficiency, consider working with landowners
that have established mitigation lands to convey them to Collier County, with their funds for
maintenance.
Big developers have their own Sending lands and credits so don’t need to buy others.
A non-regulatory R&M should be considered as part of the feasibility for mitigation- i.e. non-
mitigation might be simpler and less costly overall.
STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Tim Nance
Appendix A Page 10 of 91
Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager (Staff Liaison)
Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning
Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning
Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant
Panel Biographies
Tim Durham – Senior Ecologist for Passarella & Associates
Tim Durham has over 30 years experience as the lead environmental consultant for a variety of
projects in Florida and the southeast U.S. He has extensive experience preparing local, state
and federal permitting documents, providing listed species evaluations, and designing and
permitting wetland mitigation and habitat conservation banking. Tim has a Bachelor of Science
degree in civil engineering for the University of Florida and is a member of the Association of
Environmental Professionals and Society of Wetland Scientists.
Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation
Nancy Payton joined the Florida Wildlife Federation (Federation) in 1994, the same year the
Federation opened its Southwest Florida Office in Naples. The Federation was founded in 1936
and is the state affiliate of National Wildlife Federation. As the Southwest Florida Field
Representative, she coordinates the Federation’s Western Everglades rural lands and wildlife
protection campaigns. These campaigns include growth management, native wildlife
protection, land conservation, and habitat preservation.
Bob Mulhere - Director of Planning for Hole Montes, Inc.
Bob has more than 27 years of professional planning experience. Prior to employment at Hole
Montes, Mr. Mulhere operated his own consulting firm. Between 1989 and 2001, Bob was
employed by Collier County Government and was the Director of Planning from 1996 through
2001. Mr. Mulhere holds a B.A. in Political Science from St. Michael’s College and a master's
degree in Public Administration from Florida Gulf Coast University. In 2010 Bob was named a
“Fellow” of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP).
Appendix A Page 11 of 91
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy
Public Workshop #3
Sending Land: Economics and Ideas for Change
February 16, 2016
Introduction:
The third of three initial public workshops, all focused on Sending issues, included two major
components. First, staff provided an overview of the economic considerations involved in TDR
transfers from a Sending Land owner’s point of view. Second, a list of changes suggested by the
public was vetted using a table-top group approach; results were shared with all attendees.
Again, over 50 people attended; most had attended at least one previous meeting; for eight
individuals it was first exposure to the Sending Land meeting series.
Meeting Summary:
After a refresher on some basic TDR rules as they exist, staff presented a number of facts and
observations concerning the economics of transfer. First, the likely supply and demand under
current regulations and under potential changed regulations was examined. Next, data derived
from arm’s length TDR credit sales (past three years) were compared with land sales over the
same period of time, noting significant differences depending on location. The public noted
that, depending on the geographic area of a Sending parcel, motivation to enter the program
could be significantly different. Finally, staff introduced the concept of a TDR bank: types of
Appendix A Page 12 of 91
banks created in various TDR programs nationally, and the pros and cons of doing so.
Suggestions, questions and answers followed.
Mr. Van Lengen presented a Power Point “Sending Economics and Ideas for Change” noting:
The RFMUD was developed as a result of a 1999 Final Order stemming from
litigation (by the Collier County Audubon Society, Inc. and the Florida Wildlife
Federation) that addressed County land use planning issues including
establishing the RFMUD.
The goals of the Order were for the County to adequately preserve wetlands,
protect critical species and wildlife habitat from unrestrained growth by directing
it to appropriate locations within the County.
One avenue implemented within the RFMUD District was a Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program which identifies sending and receiving lands
administered through a program of density credits.
The credits for a parcel 5 acres in size are 1 base credit, 1 early entry credit, 1
Restoration and Maintenance credit, 1 conveyance credit, total potential = 4
credits.
The credits for a parcel 40 acres in size are 8 base credits, 8 early entry credits, 8
Restoration and Maintenance credits, 8 conveyance credits, total potential = 32
credits.
The restudy of the area will focus on the Program’s goal of establishing smarter
development patterns, economic viability for those affected and protection of
sensitive areas and species.
If you own a parcel platted prior to 1999 in the sending areas you may either
hold the parcel, enter the TDR program, build a home, sell the parcel to someone
else to build a home or use it agricultural purposes.
An owner is not required to participate in the TDR Program. There are many
legitimate reasons not to participate.
Those in the program may sell their credits to willing buyers for a pre-established
rate of $25,000 per base credit; a typical arm’s length sale bundles a bonus credit
at $3,000 for a total of $28,000.
Additional credits are available for restoration, maintenance and conveyance.
Arm’s length transaction analysis (staff) shows that the true value of TDRs
between willing sellers and willing buyers is approximately $13,500 per credit;
the Coalition estimated an approximate value at $14,000.
1. Economics:
Your rights; supply and demand; recent data; banking concepts
Mr. Van Lengen reported a study has completed in the Belle Meade area identifying the
following fair market land values:
Appendix A Page 13 of 91
South - $6,000 per acre
North East - $3,500 per acre
North West - $12,500 per acre
He outlined the following examples to determine the funds a sending land owner may derive
from the sale of their land or entering the Program. The analysis is based on a 5 acre parcel. It
was emphasized that these values represent median sale prices within the past 3 years; they do
not predict the value of any individual parcel, as parcel values within these sub-areas vary
considerably based on a great number of factors.
South
Fair market value - $6,000 per acre x 5 acres = $30,000 market value
TDR Program - $27,000 per acre (base/early entry credit) + $27,000 restoration
maintenance (- $10,000 restoration and maintenance costs) = $44,000 net proceeds.
Economically viable/advantageous to participate in the TDR Program.
North East
Fair market value - $3,500 per acre x 5 acres = $17,500 market value.
TDR Program - $27,000 per acre (base/early entry credit) + $27,000 restoration
maintenance (-$30,000) for restoration and maintenance costs) = $24,000 net proceeds.
Not economically feasible to participate in restoration maintenance aspect of the
Program.
North West
Fair market value - $12,500 per acre x 5 acres = $62,500 market value.
TDR Program - $27,000 per acre (base/early entry credit) + $27,000 restoration
maintenance (-$30,000 restoration and maintenance costs) = $24,000 net proceeds.
Not economically feasible to participate in Program.
Appendix A Page 14 of 91
Mr. Van Lengen noted the following:
The means currently available for transfer is through a “Commodity Exchange.”
The Exchange consists of Certificates issued by the County which may be held by
the owner indefinitely and redeemed at platting.
The County does provide technical assistance to the owners.
One concept under consideration is a TDR bank where the banking entity would
buy and sell the credits.
The bank would have the same attributes as the Commodity Exchange and
would directly or indirectly set prices for credits.
It could be operated by the County or an outside agency.
The advantages would include ready buyer for the sending lands owner and
stabilize the market prices.
The disadvantages include the upfront costs to develop and ongoing
operating costs, economic risk to banking entity.
Property taxes are required by the landowner until the credits are conveyed.
Currently there is a registry list of sellers however the concept is not performing
well.
Credits can be resold with no limit on the number of transfers.
Under public comments the following was noted:
Concern the developer is being asked to protect lands under the concept and the
current cost of a unit is not worth paying for given the return on investment.
Concern there is not a large enough quantity of receiving area for use of the
credits – Staff believes there is large future demand. Timing may be an issue.
Concern on maintaining restored lands until conveyance - Staff reported the goal
is to make the program more appealing by aligning the supply and demand for
the credits.
Following the economics portion, attendees participated in a review and ranking exercise,
looking at several suggestions made by various stakeholders.
Break Out Group Findings
A: Credit Systems
1. (RANK) If additional TDR credits can be generated to enhance the returns of Sending Land
Owners and make more credits available to buyers, rank the following in order of
preference (1-6) as a basis for awarding more credits:
a. Land where habitat value is highest
Appendix A Page 15 of 91
b. Land that can accommodate a flow way
c. Land that retains agricultural uses for a period of time
d. Land that requires a higher level of restoration
e. Land located in the NRPA overlay (excludes North Belle Meade- West)
f. All Sending Land regardless of location or attributes
Five groups found F to be the most important o It incorporates all enhancements
There was no general consensus amongst groups regarding second and third credit
priorities.
One group thought location/access/value of land should be an option
2. Should the $25,000 minimum price for a Base TDR Credit be eliminated? Why/Why not?
Yes because the price is average
No it limits sales, remove the set price
Yes because it is a minimum starting point for negotiation. However it should be per
acre not per 5 acres.
No
Yes because it creates a free market. Assessment should be in sync with TDR value.
Value needs a starting point.
No it’s arbitrary.
Yes/No tie
3. Should credits be used outside of the Receiving Areas for any purpose? Where? Why?
No
Yes but only in urban areas
Yes to anywhere in Collier County deemed suitable for development. This will allow for
an increase in TDR value.
Yes for existing urban areas. Credits should also be able to come from other areas.
Yes dependent on population growth. Perhaps Collier Blvd.
Yes at the Golden Gate Golf Course.
Appendix A Page 16 of 91
B: Program Management
1. (Y/N) Should application fees be reduced?
Yes
Defer cost until TDR is sold
Fees should be eliminated
Yes Eliminate fees
Yes, cheaper is easier
The TDR bank should be responsible
2. (Y/N) Should the County offer free workshop assistance to owners to complete the
severance process?
Yes
Yes it is beneficial to everyone
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes. Need to know the process/rights/values/benefits/risks. Also would like to be
informed of the allowances prior to the TDR program as well as the intention of the
program.
3. What should be done to link Sellers with Buyers of TDRs?
List is sufficient
List of buyers
Create a bank
Committee with decision makers
County acts as the facilitator
Improve the information website
Create a bank
Establish a County bank
There is an obligation by Collier County
Perhaps a website with multiple listings
Let buyers find sellers
County advisors should know who to call/contact
County facilitation through education and public outreach
Appendix A Page 17 of 91
4. Should a TDR “Bank” be established? Who/what agency?
Yes by a third party to ensure easy purchase of large quantities of TDR credits.
Yes by Collier County
Yes if the TDR bank is free and acts solely as a meditation/facilitation process. Collier
County should be involved but there should also be a third party option.
Perhaps a not for profit bank
Yes because sender should not have the burden of cost
It would be easier if a TDR “Bank” were established
Developer
County
Who benefits? Profit/Non-Profit
C: Sending Land Management
1. Where owners decide to use land for agriculture (with agricultural easement):
a. (Y/N) Should the owner earn TDR credits? • Yes
No it seems to be a conflict of program
Yes because land is not being used for development
Yes under the condition that land has already been cleared or has no current habitat
value.
Yes
Yes although depends on the location and type of agriculture
b. (Y/N) If contiguous land exceeds 20+ acres, should owner also qualify for one additional
family home? • No, then seems no longer agriculture
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes but should be on 5 acres instead of 20
2. Should Sending Land in TDR program be owned and maintained by numerous private
owners, or by very few larger managing entities? (participating land owners)
• The County should be NBM receivers
Program should be flexible enough to accommodate both
Yes
Coalition? Who maintains? To what extent of maintenance?
Numerous smaller entities
Appendix A Page 18 of 91
3. If larger managing entities, do you prefer the County, a State agency or a private agency
coordinate management?
• Collier County
Property owner should be responsible for management
Collier County
One entity
4. (RANK) Should long term maintenance costs be paid for by:
a. Donated land through a required contribution (from sale of credits)
b. A County mitigation program (fees that come from road building, for example)
c. A “green utility fee” paid by all County land owners (real estate tax)
All six groups identified B as the desired designee
Additional comments received during break out session:
Additional use in Sending Lands, Full restudy of program
MSTU
Property owners on 5 acres with existing homestead structure should be entitled to
some sort of TDR credit for promoting native habitat on those parcels- even if they
continue to occupy homestead
Appendix A Page 19 of 91
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
Public Workshop #4
Receiving and Neutral Lands: Future Development Potential
March 31, 2016
Introduction:
Following three public workshops with the focus of the Sending Areas and the Transfer of Development
Rights Credits within the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, the objective of the forth workshop was to
engage the public in a discussion of the Receiving and Neutral Areas and the development potential within
these lands. Approximately 60 residents attended the workshop; about half had not attended any of the
previous RFMUD workshops.
To open the meeting, staff presented an overview of the RFMUD plan and process including how
development rights are transferred from Sending land to Receiving land. Information was then provided
about the development potential of the Neutral and Receiving Areas including how much vacant land was
in the different areas, and the allowed land uses, density and intensity. The participants were asked to
discuss the information and provide feedback on several questions about the development potential.
Appendix A Page 20 of 91
Meeting Summary:
Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Planning Manager, addressed the attendees, noting the Board of County
Commissioners has directed Staff to develop changes to the Growth Management Plan including the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). The purpose of the meeting, the first of at least two Receiving focused
meetings, is to look at the current rules and regulations of areas where TDR credits can be sent. Particular
emphasis is on design and functionality of these areas in the context of the greater geographic area,
including neutral and sending areas, as well as Golden Gate Estates and the Rural Lands Stewardship
Areas.
Mr. Van Lengen reviewed the scope of all four upcoming restudies, the process diagram indicating steps
necessary to complete Comprehensive Plan changes, the role of the Growth Management Oversight
Committee, historic goals of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, the outcomes of the first three meetings
in 2016 involving Sending Land Issues and a timeline indicating a goal for September submission of
conceptual changes to the Board of County Commissioners in advance of the formal Hearing process
during 2017.
Anita Jenkins, Collier County Principle Planner, presented a Power Point on Future Development Potential
in Neutral and Receiving areas under current rules:
A review of the TDR exchange program
Density allowed before and after the program was first adopted over 10 years ago, when
only agricultural zoning was in place.
40 acres in Receiving areas are required prior to any increase in density via TDRs.
Uses allowed within the new designation of neutral, receiving and Village were illustrated-
some uses are voluntary; some encouraged, some required.
Open space and transportation components of development were discussed.
An illustration of nine developments that have redeemed TDRs for increased density was
presented.
Acreage and number of parcels for un-entitled land was presented to provide a sense of
scale and potential for future development scenarios in Receiving areas.
Similar background was provided to show the quantities of Neutral Land in the program.
Following Ms. Jenkins presentation, general remarks were made by attendees and scribed as follows:
Open space integration
How to regulate policy
Is there enough land to make a village? 100-200 Acres more ideal?
Village Regulation: Economic vitality
Opportunity to do something different
Private development dedication
Demographic and economic inclusion
Job creation
Appendix A Page 21 of 91
Village Acreage: 200acres
Mix-use development
Proximity to urban area
Greg Ault, Collier County consultant with AECOM, introduced a visioning session intended to engage
workshop participants in discussing potential development and it’s form and function . Participants were
invited to discuss four questions with small groups, approximately 6 to 12 persons each. The majority of
participants were land owners within the RFMUD Receiving areas.
Break out questions with reports from the six groups resulted in the tabulation of responses below:
1. What are the specific issues and/or concerns about the future growth and development of
the Receiving Lands Area?
Not liking it at all
Feel that support services and goods are close enough
Economics job creators outside of the Village to include scarce parcels
Availability of the TDRs and difficulty of acquiring-TDR Bank
Not much receiving land
Are we at capacity now? Ten years to build out?
70% of land dedication to open space seems excessive
Travel commute times are increasing
Additional wildlife crossings are needed
Fear the minimum of 40 acres will increase to 60 acres
o Prefer that the acreage minimum decrease instead of increase
Density increase
TDR limits development
No workforce or low-income housing available
No balance/variety in community design
The existing program caters to large developments, not to owners with small amounts
of acreage
This program is not meeting the base unit development for Collier County
There is currently no benefit for properties in the base rights category of 1-5 acres
Process for public input: essential services such as utilities, fire, schools, shopping
Roadway capacity: concerns (increase network “connectivity”)
Utility access
Quality of Life amenities
More than houses
Transition Areas
Increased population
Compatible uses
6L’s area potentially appropriate location for mixed use, business parks, non -residential
Appendix A Page 22 of 91
TDR required purchase makes process non-voluntary
Pricing mechanism: more expensive as time goes on
Not enough credits or sending areas to purchase
Retain agricultural uses/rights
Property appraiser impacts
Do developers want to buy in the RFMUD
2. What are the improvements/changes you would like to see happen in the Receiving Lands
study area?
Limit gated communities
TDR bank
Village regulation re-examined for economic viability
More density in concentrated area
Incentives with receiving area development for enviro protection
New definition of open space for public benefit
Develop some commercial uses in the east
Villages would be good but are there 300 acre parcels
Need more density per parcel
Villages should be 100 acres or 200 acres
20 acre parcels for clustering
Mixed-use, balance development
Live, work, play approach
Private development dedications: parks, streets, etc
Lack of starter homes, would like workforce housing
Smart growth- bike/pedestrian community, interconnectivity
Research/tech development, i.e. ag
Standalone commercial development
A defined place or urban core
Amenities: placement/ integrated
Walking;/biking safety
Demographic mix
Senses/experiences
Sense of arrival connectivity
Re-evaluate size of villages using economic modeling/evaluation to determine
appropriate village size
Smaller landowners need to be able to participate in the process, it is currently not
happening as well as it should
More flexibility within the same public hearing process
Look at “visioning” for larger receiving areas and plan at the la rger scale
Are cost credits appropriate/viable to utilization in receiving lands? If the credits don’t
work, we want to be able to get the development we want and need in receiving
Appendix A Page 23 of 91
Reducing minimum acreage size to increase density. i.e. 1 unit per 2.5 acres for 5 acre
tracts
Transportation alternatives such as bus/transit
More thoughtful community design
TDR bank
Allow some sending/receiving flexibility to allow worthwhile regional goals
Bridge access- North Belle Meade (NBM)
3. What do you like best about the Receiving Lands area?
Existing natural conditions
Low density
Close community
Concept of TDRs and trade off of open space versus development
Chance to do something different than current urban style of development
Do we increase size limits of village or multiple villages
Define types of development allowed in each village
Has the ability to be developed reasonably
Nothing
Lower lands have a subtropical climate which provides a better quality of life
Accessibility on the south end to Miami/Naples (mixed opinion)
Flexibility: land acreage
Concentration of development
Reducing sprawl
Buffer area
Keep development (new) to receiving
Most appropriate area for development
Opportunity because of proximity to coastal urban area
Transportation corridor in place
4. Do your same opinions about the Receiving Lands apply to the Neutral Lands?
Allow for incentives to develop
Re-evaluate neutral lands on a periodic basis
No- neutral and receiving lands must stay separate
Yes, in reference to “nothing” comment received for question three
No response for question four, no knowledge of neutral lands
No, concentrate development to receiving
Concerned how much sprawl may impact development
Neutral lands were designed to be a rural area/lifestyle
Leave neutral as is and allow for discussion later
Andrew Sheppard, Collier County consultant with AECOM, wrapped up the workshop with a primer on
different kinds of development models that are possible in the sub-urban environment. He discussed the
Appendix A Page 24 of 91
economic, environmental and social elements that must be balanced to create sustainable communities.
Development must provide a return on investment, but also can allow some job creation through a mix of
uses. Environmental factors must balance the natural would and basic resources with human needs of the
inhabitants. Social factors start first with health and safety, but include associations through families,
churches, businesses and organizations. He defined neighborhoods as a ¼ mile or five minute walk from a
center point, noting that Villages can accommodate a number of neighborhoods within. Typically a central
space with a unique feature(s) provide identity, structure and meaning. He also highlighted the advantages
of a road network, rather than a single main corridor, for preserving walkable and enjoyable places that
are more efficient for transportation. Compared to conventional models of development, these newer
models provide more open space, social interaction, and health benefits. The attendees were asked to
consider how they would like to live in a community, rather than simply asking what it would look like.
At the end of the workshop Mr. Van Lengen noted the next public meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2016
at 6:30pm at the same location. A follow up for participation will be provided, so that viewpoints on the
most important elements for community design can be provided by participants.
Wrap-up and Next Steps
Ms. Jenkins noted the next public meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2016 at 6:30pm. The agenda will
center on Receiving lands potential development and form
STAFF PRESENT:
Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager (Staff Liaison)
Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning
Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning
Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant
Appendix A Page 25 of 91
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
Public Workshop #5
Receiving Lands Potential Development and Form
April 26, 2016
Introduction:
The purpose of this workshop was to engage the participants in visioning the future growth potential of
the Receiving Areas. Participants gathered around six tables to work on illustrating a development pattern
in one of two Receiving Areas, the northern area, or the North Belle Meade area.
Meeting Summary: Community Planning staff together with the County’s consultant , AECOM, provided a
second meeting for residents and interested stakeholders to review and explore considerations specifically
related to the neutral and receiving land uses in the RFMUD. A review of concepts related to currently
allowed land uses was followed by a description of “smart growth” principles, leading to a visioning
exercise by attendees. Approximately 65 interested persons attended.
Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Section, opened the meeting. She greeted the
attendees, previewed the agenda, and reviewed the concepts and feedback from the prior meeting.
Appendix A Page 26 of 91
Specifically, she covered citizen and stakeholder feedback on several high level questions that had been
presented. At the last meeting, attendees provided their perceptions related to:
Concerns about future growth in the area
Improvements to the Receiving Land area rules
What they like best about Receiving Lands areas
Neutral Land issues and improvements
Andrew Sheppard, AECOM, reviewed economic, environmental and social components of sustainable
communities, comparing those values with the allowed uses under today’s Receiving and Neutral
regulations. He continued his observations with a focus on “smart” village attributes - 5 minute walk from
clustered development area center to neighborhood center, diversity of housing styles and types, cluster
of neighborhoods to create a village, and attributes of a village center. Aesthetics, function and mobility
were key factors.
Mr. Sheppard introduced the featured “table exercise” for attendees, called framework mapping. The
purpose was to experience how a development might plan a large area by identifying destinations,
development areas, street networks and green/environmental areas. The task involved group cooperation
in identifying edges, landmarks, nodes, centers and connections, both green and roadway.
Two of the RFMUD Receiving areas were used as examples- the Northern receiving area and the North
Belle Meade receiving area. It was explained that this was hypothetical in the sense that presenters do not
have information supporting actual Village boundaries due to multiple ownerships and assemblage
considerations. Results of the group exercise are attached.
Appendix A Page 27 of 91
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
Public Workshop #6
Initial Recommendations and Feedback
May 26, 2016
Meeting Summary: Community Planning staff together with the County’s consultant, AECOM, provided a
meeting for residents and interested stakeholders to review ideas provided by the public through previous
workshops, surveys, correspondence, interviews and telephone calls and to provide a list of initial staff
recommendations. Approximately 39 interested persons attended.
Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager reviewed the growth management study, amendment
process and timetable. He provided an overview of the research, data and analysis still ongoing: economic
analysis (scenario planning) and mitigation bank feasibility analysis for North Belle Meade. Initial
recommendations were explained and grouped under the following headings:
TDR credit ideas affecting Sending owners
TDR program management
Sending Land management
Miscellaneous ideas
The community asked and discussed whether increasing the value of credits in the hands of developers
would be an alternative to increasing the number of credits issued to Sending owners. Comments were
also made in support of agricultural preservation and to express the ongoing concern in the development
community that the incremental cost represented by TDRs makes it difficult for adequate return on
investment. The point was also made that TDRs should be considered for Northern GG Estates where
watershed coordination can be effected.
Appendix A Page 28 of 91
Individual surveys were distributed to and completed by the public, covering each of 15 program topics
related to the Sending and neutral lands. A numerical representation of the results, ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree, is shown below.
Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Section, reviewed the concepts previously discussed
in the Receiving Land meetings, and provided explanations for the series of initial recommendations made
by staff. These were included under the following categories:
Land use, density/intensity and economic vitality
Transportation and infrastructure
Environment
Development standards and process
Discussion ensued regarding the process of allowing deviations to a zoning overlay, allowable locations for
schools, Property Appraiser’s Office valuations, the appropriate number of TDRs granted for excess native
vegetation or habitat preserve on Receiving land, water and sewer availability, the relationship of
Affordable Housing to affordable living concepts, and the need for the County to own the economic
analytical tool under development.
Again, individual surveys were distributed to and completed by the public, covering each of 18 program
topics related to Receiving lands. A numerical representation of the results, ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree, is shown below.
Workshop Survey Results:
Survey questions asked respondents to rank each initial recommendation as strongly agree, agree, neutral,
disagree and strongly disagree. The percentages indicated below provide a percentage of agreement
(agree or strongly disagree) to those who responded, without regard to “neutral” responses.
Sending and Neutral Issues
Additional credits should be provided to balance the anticipated demand from Receiving Areas. Sending
Land owners, if they participate, should benefit from additional credits.
Agree: 69%
Additional credits should not favor one Sending Land location over another.
Agree 70%
Additional credits should be provided to those who entered the program early.
Agree: 72%
Appendix A Page 29 of 91
TDRs should be awarded also for owners who commit to keeping their land in agricultural production
Agree: 76%
Eliminate minimum pricing on Base TDRs.
Agree: 75%
Improve the Buyer/Seller registries.
Agree: 81%
Reduce cost and complexity of applications.
Agree: 87%
Create a County-sponsored TDR bank that can buy credits from Sending Lands owners
Agree: 82%
The County should accept land that owners wish to donate, if no other agency is willing.
Agree: 63%
The County should finance maintenance of donated Sending Land through a mitigation bank, if feasible.
Agree: 75%
If a mitigation bank is not a feasible funding source, require a donation to the County with the land,
equivalent to all or a portion of any additional TDRs issued.
Agree: 65%
Allow a second dwelling unit to dedicated farming operations of at least 20 acres.
Agree: 79%
Study recreational uses that could be compatible on donated lands that go beyond "passive recreation."
Agree: 63%
Eliminate the use of TDRs in urban areas if they come from RFMUD Sending Lands.
Agree: 60%
Extend the same advantages to Neutral Land owners who want to commit to agricultural uses by offering
TDRs.
Agree: 76%
Appendix A Page 30 of 91
Receiving Issues
Allow business park stand-alone uses to increase employment opportunities in research technology and
other targeted businesses.
Agree: 78%
Revise village rules to allow larger commercial and employment areas.
Agree: 76%
Increase density allowed in rural villages to 4 units per gross acre (TDRs required)
Agree: 81%
Increase density allowed in non-village development to 2 units per acre (TDRs required) and remove 40-
acre minimum size
Agree: 78%
Analyze arterial roadway capacity issues.
Agree: 77%
Enhance requirements for greater project connectivity.
Agree: 78%
Consider roadway design standards that promote low speed and safety.
Agree: 75%
Add requirements for transit stops in large developments, business parks or villages.
Agree: 75%
Allow TDRs in Receiving Areas for protection of native vegetation/habitat or agriculture.
Agree: 71%
Reward projects that advance the greater public interest (examples: greenway connections, flowway
connections).
Agree: 72%
Incentivize mixed-use developments by studying potential impact fees for mixed-use.
Agree: 70%
Use overlays or optional design standards that promote greater certainty in review process.
Agree: 81%
Appendix A Page 31 of 91
Developments complying with zoning overlays should get approval through simple BCC majority or Hearing
Examiner process.
Agree: 80%
Hearing Examiner can approve individual deviations.
Agree: 60%
Hearing Examiner can approve business park proposals.
Agree: 62%
Modify the TDR requirements to 0.5 credit for multi-family units and 0 credit for target industry/business
park uses
Agree: 75%
Allow stand-alone commercial. Propose design guidelines (no strip) and use of TDR credits (ex, 1 credit per
6,000 SF).
Agree: 62%
Additional incentives for innovative green designs, such as solar power, zero net water, aquifer storage
and recovery sites, etc.
Agree: 80%
Appendix A Page 32 of 91
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
Public Comments on
First Draft of Initial Recommendations
Distributed July 13, 2016
Appendix A Page 33 of 91
1
JenkinsAnita
From:JenkinsAnita
Sent:Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:06 AM
To:VanLengenKris; RuralFringeRestudy
Subject:FW: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations
From: Barry Wood [mailto:b1wood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 8:58 PM
To: JenkinsAnita
Cc: Barry Wood; Pete Wood
Subject: RE: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations
Dear Anita,
Thank you for allowing me to respond to the draft findings and recommendations of the Rural Fringe Mixed-
Use District White Paper.
My son and I own a parcel in the receiving area described in your White Paper, Collier Parcel #00755800005.
Unfortunately, we were unable to appear at your public meetings and provide input because we presently
live outside of Florida.
My comments are primarily directed to the top of page 24 of your draft.
Specifically at the very top of that page, there is a discussion on allowing "mixed housing, manufactured
homes, cottage homes and micro homes." Immediately following this discussion is the Staff
Recommendations highlighted in red lettering. However, Staff makes no recommendation or other comment
regarding whether to allow these alternative forms of housing.
My family and I would like to place a residence on our 2 1/2 acre parcel (which was established as a lot in
1961, or well before the October 1974 date). We intend to begin this process as early as next year. However,
we do not want or need a large, expensive "footprint" dwelling. We would be well satisfied with
manufactured housing or possibly micro housing. We would be most satisfied with the least intrusive, least
environmentally impactful method of all; namely allow placement of a small pad upon which to place an RV
for 5 or 6 months of the year and we take the RV with us when we leave each year. I respectfully urge the
Policy Makers of Collier County to please not keep regulations in place which force us and others to build
large, expensive, excessive energy consuming structures.
I therefore respectfully ask that your staff consider my input and include a recommendation which supports
the placement of alternative forms of low cost affordable housing in the lands designated as receiving. I also
urge the Policy Makers to consider allowing removable housing.
Secondly, your draft just briefly mentions solar. I would respectfully ask you to consider a robust proposal
which incentives the use of modern solar technology.
Please contact me with any questions or if you would like more information.
Appendix A Page 34 of 91
2
Sincerely,
Barry Wood
From: AnitaJenkins@colliergov.net
To: RuralFringeRestudy@colliergov.net
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:09:23 -0400
Subject: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations
To all interested:
Thank you for your continued participation in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District restudy. Attached hereto is a
memo outlining the draft findings and recommendations of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper.
We value your input and welcome your suggestions. This is an open, on-going collaborative effort. Final copies
of the White Paper will be distributed prior to our first public hearing.
We anticipate a presentation to the Collier County Planning Commission August 18, 2016, and the Board of
County Commissioners September 27, 2016.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Anita Jenkins, AICP
Community Planning Section
Collier County Growth Management Department
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
(239) 252-8288
www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Appendix A Page 35 of 91
1
JenkinsAnita
From:JenkinsAnita
Sent:Monday, July 25, 2016 7:48 AM
To:VanLengenKris; RuralFringeRestudy
Subject:FW: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations
From: Ron Inge [mailto:ron@ingeandassociates.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 10:23 AM
To: JenkinsAnita
Subject: RE: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations
Thank you for the report summary, it is an excellent summary.
I have the following comments:
1. Item 7-the language should be clear that it is not just agriculture preservation that is being encouraged, but also
habitat protection.
2. Item 7-consider the addition of the ability to generate more than 2 TDR per 5 acres if the habitat preserved
becomes part of a system or if there is a mechanism in place to encourage its maintenance.
Thank you, Kris and staff for all the work on this.
Ronald E. Inge
5571 Halifax Ave.
Fort Myers, FL 33912
Phone 239-454-4999
Fax 239-454-2773
email: ron@ingeandassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of
the person(s) named above to whom this message was sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: JenkinsAnita [mailto:AnitaJenkins@colliergov.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 1:31 PM
To: RuralFringeRestudy <RuralFringeRestudy@colliergov.net>
Subject: FW: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations
This is being resent to ensure everyone interested receives a copy.
From: JenkinsAnita
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:09 PM
To: RuralFringeRestudy
Subject: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations
Appendix A Page 36 of 91
1
JenkinsAnita
From:Dennis P. Vasey [00215@embarqmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, July 19, 2016 5:35 PM
To:VanLengenKris
Cc:Mark Siverling - NRCS, Naples, FL
Subject:Long-term Stewardship Calculator
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Kris,
Collier Soil and Water Conservation District has about 25 parcels. Among the issues we grappled with were the long-
term financial assurances required to perform initial treatment and then following a Best Management Practice without
removing mitigation credits. The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) Long-term Stewardship Calculator was very helpful
getting to real costs to accept a land donation.
Costs associated with long-term stewardship are inherently difficult to predict and often underestimated. To help
tackle this problem, TNC convened national experts to develop a calculator to estimate stewardship costs and to
determine the amount that should be set aside to provide a secure source of future funding.
Without sour grapes, when we respond to an offer, and there have been several, we always hear: "We're giving you the
land! What do you mean we need to pay for accepting it?" When a businessman/woman offers you anything, they have
already decided that it costs an arm and a leg to maintain property that doesn't generate revenue for their investors. In
perpetuity is a long time and the taxpayer shouldn't have to bear that burden unless there is a cost-benefit and real
return on the investment. Conservation and preservation land is a cost leader and it will run you out of money in a
hurry. If the parcels can't be used to mitigate public buildings or civil works projects they're worthless.
TNC has developed several products, including a spreadsheet for calculating stewardship costs, an accompanying
handbook and quick reference guide, and a web-based portal for these resources. This accessible tool helps consolidate
and highlight common expenses to improve the ease and accuracy of calculating costs.
The calculator was designed to be used for both conservation easements and fee land, and is particularly valuable for
use in calculating long-term management costs for mitigation projects to ensure that the full cost of all the mitigation
requirements is appropriately covered by permittee.
It’s available at no cost through www.nature.org/stewardshipcalculator.
If the county is really serious about land ownership it should pursue a land trust that can function as a non profit and
accept large and small donations.
Duke
Appendix A Page 37 of 91
Appendix A Page 38 of 91
Appendix A Page 39 of 91
Appendix A Page 40 of 91
Appendix A Page 41 of 91
Appendix A Page 42 of 91
Appendix A Page 43 of 91
Appendix A Page 44 of 91
Appendix A Page 45 of 91
Appendix A Page 46 of 91
Appendix A Page 47 of 91
Appendix A Page 48 of 91
Appendix A Page 49 of 91
Appendix A Page 50 of 91
Appendix A Page 51 of 91
Appendix A Page 52 of 91
Appendix A Page 53 of 91
Appendix A Page 54 of 91
Appendix A Page 55 of 91
Appendix A Page 56 of 91
Appendix A Page 57 of 91
Appendix A Page 58 of 91
Appendix A Page 59 of 91
August 2,2016
Kris Van Lengen
Planning Manager, Growth Management Plan Restudy
Collier County Growth Management Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Comments on Stafls RFMUD Draft Recommendations
Dear Mr. Van Lengen:
SENDING LANDS
A. TDR Credit System
l. Additional Credits to Sending Owners
Here and throughout the paper, there are many recommendations for
increasing TDR credits. How do you know that there is a need for so many
additional credits to incentivize owners to participate in the program? There
isn't an analysis of what the result will be from increasing credits to all
sending lands.
How do you prevent excess credits from being awarded, so that supply and
demand is balanced? Also, what happens to excess credits? once rights are
given in terms of TDR credits, landowners will demand a retum. Ifihey
can't sell or trade credits-who is on the hook?
There needs to be more analysis and justification for awarding all the
additional credits discussed here and throughout the paper.
Thank you for your outreach to the public on this important endeavor to
study and recommend changes to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District.
Please consider the comments below on some of the Collier County
Planning Division (CCPD) draft recommendations, as you finalize the white
paper.
Appendix A Page 60 of 91
The CCPD staffrecommends that TDR credits be made available to Sending
owners who wish to begin, expand or increase intensity of a bona fide
agricultural operation. The County should not adopt this recommendation.
In Agricultural use areas, wetlands are often destroyed. Agricultural lands
are not conservation lands. In the RLSA, developers are claiming that areas
where there are Ag uses such as row crops are disturbed land, of less value
to wildlife. Therefore developers claim that there should be no problem
developing such land because of their lower ecological value. To grant
credits for beginning, expanding or intensifuing agriculture uses is to start a
downward path beginning by reducing the ecological value of the Sending
lands.
5 Retroactivitv of Sussested Pro gram Chanees
iving Lands
ccPD staff recommends allowing landowners who have generated TDRs
but not yet conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program
changes.
The CCPD has not articulated what additional benefits are anticipated from
retroactive credits. As discussed above, there needs to be an analysis or
explanation on the effect ofgranting so many additional credits'
7
2
TDR Credits from Rece
3. Agriculture Use
The RFMUD rules currently eliminate TDR credits for any land put in
agricultural use after 2002. The purpose was to disincentivize clearing of
these environmentally sensitive lands. These rules and policy should remain
in place. The Sending lands are so designated because their ecological value
for such things as water quality, protecting water flow-way, and preserving
wildlife and wildlife habitat. A goal of the TDR program as established was
to protect and restore the ecological integrity ofthe Sending lands.
Expanding agriculture uses to begin or expand row crops, orto intensif!
agriculture use are incompatible uses for the environmental goals for these
lands. Intensif,ing agricultural uses could adversely affect Picayune Strand
State Forest downstream of the RFMUD area.
Appendix A Page 61 of 91
CCPD staff recommends allowing the generation of 2 TDR credits per 5
acres from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native
vegetation and habitat protection.
It is not clear why this change is needed. There should be an articulation of
what "agriculture preservation" and "habitat protection" entails. What
would the criteria be for each ofthese concepts?
D. Sending Lands Management
There isn't sufficient information for me to understand fully how the
different options put forth will work. The idea of a green utility fee appears
to be worth considering.
E. Other Program Recommendations
CCPD staff recommends that County-owned land in North Belle Meade
should qualiff for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with
environmental goals. Please reject this idea, other than perhaps to consider
expanding passive recreational opportunities where appropriate.
Sending lands are environmentally sensitive lands, important for water
quality, water flow-way, preservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Passive recreational uses are currently allowed where appropriate; these uses
can be compatible with the environmental goals. I urge you to reject
expansion ofthe range of allowed recreational uses, especially reject any
motorized activities. Once you open the door to motorized use, the county
may want to allow a golf course, or may be pressured into allowing ORV
use-a use clearly incompatible with wildlife and water resources.
Allowing expansion of recreational uses could have a negative impact to the
ecological integrity of these lands and especially make the land unsuitable
for the wildlife it is meant to sustain.
RECEIVING LANDS
B. Transportation and Public Infrastructure
Density Standards and Proc ess
3. Allow County-owned Sending land to be use for recreational uses.
aJ Appendix A Page 62 of 91
CCPD staff recommends considering adoption of zoning overlays so as to
give developers more certainty and to allow a simple BCC maj ority to
approve a project when complying with the overlay. The only benefit
appears to be to allow development to proceed faster. The County should
not adopt this approach.
Given the rapid development of Collier County at this time, there is a lot of
public concern now by many residents about growth occurring too rapidly
and degradation ofthe quality oflife. Forthis reason, the County should
continue the practice of requiring a supermajority vote for a rezone, just as is
required for every other rezone project in the County.
U
\f".d,,*q
4
)
)
Appendix A Page 63 of 91
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Kris Van Lengen, JD, AICP
Community Planning Manager
Zoning Division, Collier County
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
VIA EMAIL AND USPS
Re: Possible Growth Management Plan amendments related to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
Dear Kris,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me recently regarding possible amendments to the Collier
County Growth Management Plan related to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District future land use
designation (RFMUD). As you know, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. (1000 Friends) is a statewide not-for-
profit membership organization which provides public advocacy related to planning and growth
management issues in Florida. 1000 Friends most recently commented on Collier County’s RFMUD
review in correspondence drafted jointly with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and sent to the
county in July 2015.
This letter updates those comments with additional observations based our recent review of the Collier
County Growth Management Department (Department) memorandum on the RFMUD review dated July
12, 2016. In this letter, 1000 Friends addresses four subjects in the order you discuss them in your
memorandum. They are: increasing the number of credits available from Sending Lands; changes to the
management of the transfer of development rights (TDR) program; the character of development in
Receiving Lands; and changes to the required procedure for developing Receiving Lands.
We greatly appreciate you taking time to review our comments. Collier County’s work to improve the
quality of development while providing for the conservation of natural and agricultural lands is of value
to Florida.
Increasing the number of credits available from Sending Lands
1000 Friends suggests that Collier County carefully study the market for credits before increasing the
number of credits available from Sending Lands. Also, 1000 Friends suggests that the county not consider
increasing the possible supply of credits from Sending Lands in isolation from considering the
development potential of Receiving Lands. The number of credits which Sending Lands may sever should
relate to the character of development on Receiving Lands. In setting an amount of credits which Sending
Lands may sever, the county should first consider the desired character of development on Receiving
lands and should then make the appropriate number of credits available.
building better communities ● saving special places
Officers: Timothy Jackson, Chair • Victoria Tschinkel, Vice Chair • F. Gregory Barnhart, Secretary • Terry Turner, Treasurer
Board of Directors: Courtney Cunningham, Lee Constantine, Jim Nicholas, Susan Trevarthen, Mark Watts
Emeritus: Nathaniel P. Reed, Chairman Emeritus, Lester Abberger, Robert Davis, Roy Rogers, Earl Starnes
President: Ryan Smart
Post Office Box 5948 • Tallahassee, FL 32314-5948 • PHONE 850.222.6277 • FAX 850.222.1117
www.1000friendsofflorida.org • friends@1000fof.org
Appendix A Page 64 of 91
Paragraph 1.C)2. of the Growth Management Plan’s description of the RFMUD (RFMUD description)
provides that Sending Lands have transferable development credits at the rate of one credit per five acres.
Additionally, legal nonconforming lots which are smaller than five acres may sever one credit each. When
transferred to the owner of Receiving Lands, one credit allows the development of one residential unit.
The Department has suggested increasing the number of credits available in the TDR program in several
ways. Two program changes, in particular, would dramatically increase the possible supply of credits.
One, the Department has suggested providing two additional credits for every five acres of Sending Land.
Two, the Department has suggested making this increase in severable credits retroactive so that owners of
Sending Lands which have already severed credits could sever additional credits created by a change in
the rules.
The Department’s rationale for increasing the number of credits includes the beliefs that increasing the
number of credits achievable under the rules will lead to greater compensation for owners of Sending
Lands and that the current supply of credits is less than that demanded by applicants to develop Receiving
Lands. Whether increasing the possible number of credits would lead to either of these outcomes cannot
be known without substantial economic analysis. The county should develop economic data on the
demand for credits and on how the supply of credits would grow under proposed rule changes before
developing proposals to change the number of credits available from Sending Lands.
More significantly, these two considerations—compensation for owners of Sending Lands and the number
of credits demanded by applicants to develop Receiving Lands—are best addressed by having a well-
functioning market for credits, not by fine tuning the number of credits available to Sending Lands.
1000 Friends suggests that Collier County’s principal concern in setting the possible number of severable
credits from Sending Lands should be its policy decision regarding the number of development units
appropriate for Receiving Lands. If the supply of credits too greatly exceeds the demand for credits, the
county will not accomplish its goal of conserving nature and agricultural lands.
Changes to the management of the TDR program
1000 Friends of Florida supports all proposals to increase the efficiency of the transfer of development
rights program. The Department has proposed simplifying access to the records that identify the owners
of credits, has proposed reducing the fees the county charges owners of Sending Lands for severing
credits, and has proposed creating a TDR bank. Each of these changes could reduce the cost and difficulty
of TDR transactions. Reducing transaction costs is a key way to help the market for credits function well.
The county should continue to explore these opportunities.
Character of development in Receiving Lands
1000 Friends supports consideration of changes to the RFMUD description that lead to creation of high
quality developed places. The Department memorandum on the RFMUD review encapsulates the need for
balance when approving new development. It states, “Growth presents a tremendous opportunity for
progress. It also presents many challenges.” Rules that require walkable, mixed-use developments lead to
growth that reduces reliance on cars for all transportation needs, improves public health by making
walking a reasonable transportation option and contains a variety of development products as the market
demands.
Increasing residential densities
The current maximum density of development on Receiving Lands—without taking advantage of
clustering provisions—is a very low one unit per acre. 1000 Friends supports changes to the RFMUD
description that allow greater residential densities on Receiving Lands. However, these changes should be
balanced with the credit allocations for Sending Lands so that demand for credits promotes conservation
of natural and agricultural lands. Put another way, increased allowed density on Receiving Lands should
2 Appendix A Page 65 of 91
not be balanced with increased credits made available to Sending Lands so that changes to the RFMUD
description lead to much higher densities in the RFMUD overall.
Allowing non-residential development outside of Rural Villages
The Department suggests allowing employment uses outside of Rural Villages. While some non-
residential uses may be appropriate on Receiving Lands outside of Rural Villages, too liberal of
accommodations for these uses would undermine the Rural Village concept. That tool is aimed at creating
developments that internally capture traffic trips, accommodate multiple transportation modes and
otherwise are high quality, mixed-use developments. Examples of provisions accomplishing this intent
include:
•Rural Villages must provide a “formal street layout, using primarily a grid design and incorporating
village greens, squares and civic uses as focal points.” RFMUD description at paragraph at 3.G)1.
•“a greenbelt averaging 300 feet in width but not less than 200 feet in width, shall be required at the
perimeter of the Rural Village” RFMUD description at paragraph at 3.E)1.
•10% of the area of a Rural Village must be civic uses and public parks. RFMUD description at
paragraph at 3.D)1.f.
The Department memorandum on the RFMUD review identifies problems with the Rural Village tool
including that it isolates non-residential uses away from major transportation corridors and allow too little
non-residential use. 1000 Friends urges the county to address these problems while keeping intact the
beneficial standards provided by the Rural Village concept. For example, allowing arterial roadways to
bisect Rural Villages where those roadways have a design which is sensitive to a walkable, mixed use
context would provide greater transportation access to commercial uses while respecting the design of
Rural Villages.
Community design
1000 Friends supports county efforts to develop better community design standards for Rural Villages.
Although not recommended by the Department, the Department memorandum on the RFMUD review
notes that some community members suggest prohibiting gated developments. 1000 Friends would
support such a change.
The Department does recommend developing a standard for measuring the interconnectivity of street
networks. While the “link to node” ration is a standard for measuring connectivity, 1000 Friends suggests
the county look instead to regulating block size. Professional guidance recommends that regulatory tool
as a way to regulate connectivity. Measuring block size is a more straightforward approach to determining
connectedness than is the “link to node” ratio.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines recommends that
“block lengths should generally not exceed 660 ft. and the perimeter around a block should not exceed
2,000 ft.” At 31. The New Urbanism Best Practices Guide recommends a typical block perimeter of 1,200
feet with occasional blocks as large as 1,600 feet in perimeter. Fourth Ed., at 151.
1000 Friends suggests that Collier County measure block perimeter in urbanized portions of the county
with a well-functioning street network—such as in central Naples—and adopt a block size standard based
on what already works well in nearby communities.
Changes to the required procedure for developing Receiving Lands
A special act of the Florida Legislature relating to Collier County, ch. 2001-344, Laws of Florida, imposes
a super-majority requirement to approve land use decisions in the county. The act states, “[n]o change in
the zoning ordinance shall become effective except by an affirmative vote of four fifths (4/5’s) of the full
3 Appendix A Page 66 of 91
membership of the governing body.” The Department suggests adopting zoning overlays so that the
County may approve development proposals in the RFMUD without subjecting each application to the
super-majority requirement.
1000 Friends strongly supports citizen’s rights to a supermajority vote on major planning decisions. That
protection is one of five protections promoted through the Citizens Planning Bill of Rights that 1000
Friends promotes. 1000 Friends strongly urges the county to not lessen the amount of review given
development decisions in the RFMUD.
Again, 1000 Friends greatly appreciates your attention to these comments. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (352) 377-3141 or thawkins@1000fof.org.
Sincerely,
Thomas Hawkins
Policy and Planning Director
Cc: The Honorable Donna Fiala, District 1
The Honorable Georgia A. Hiller, Esq., District 2
The Honorable Tom Henning, District 3
The Honorable Penny Taylor, District 4
The Honorable Tim Nance, District 5
4 Appendix A Page 67 of 91
The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 990596, Naples, FL 34116-6002
www.estates-civic.org
19 April 2016
Mr. Kris Van Lengen
Community Planning Manager
Zoning Division, Collier County Government
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
RE: GGEACA's Recommendations for the 2016 Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Update
(RFMUD)
Mr. Van Lengen:
Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association (GGEACA) believes the proximity of the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) areas north of I-75 will have considerable impact on Golden Gate
Estates. The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association is weighing in on the opportunities and
concerns many of our members have expressed related to the current restudy underway.
Golden Gate Estates (Estates) remains a platted legacy subdivision which failed to set aside
sufficient area for the provision of employment and services to its residents. As a consequence the
residents of Golden Gate Estates have been required to commute exceptionally long distances for
employment and other necessities. The result has been considerable strain on the Collier Counties
fragile existing transportation infrastructure. The 2040 LRTP calls for approximately one billion
dollars of transportation improvements, most of it in the Golden Gate Estates Area.
The lots in the Estates were originally conceived to be 5 acre ranchettes, over the last 50 years many
of these thousands of individually owned lots have been subdivided into parcels as small as 1 ¼
acres. The zoning in Golden Gate Estates provides primarily for residential use with essential
government services and limited commercial in several Neighborhood Centers. In recent years two
GMP amendments have provided 40 acre commercial centers which lie fallow and undeveloped.
The residents of Golden Gate Estates have traditionally rejected proposed redevelopments and
increased commercial activity, preferring instead to retain the rural residential character of the
Estates.
Given these facts, it is imperative that changes in land use in the RFMUD which borders the Estates
be permitted to provide services and employment to compliment the build out of the Estates. The
RFMUD can also provide opportunities for employment, economic development, and needed
recreational activities to Collier County as a whole.
Appendix A Page 68 of 91
Mr. Kris Van Lengen
GGEACA 2016 RFMUD Recommendations
19 April 2016
Page 2
Changes in RFMUD areas north of I-75 will have influence on the Golden Gate Estates economic
and functional components, and vice versa.
Current development guidelines in the RFMUD provide for only limited commercial to serve Rural
Villages, this is inappropriate and harmful to landowners, the adjoining Estates Community, and
Collier County as a whole. GGEACA recommends the following changes in the RFMUD guidelines.
A. Transportation Infrastructure - Roads
1.) Prioritization of the Wilson Boulevard Extension south to White Lake Boulevard to link Golden Gate Estates to the
North Belle Meade Receiving lands and provide a needed road corridor to the south and west.
2.) Extend White Lake Boulevard east to the proposed new I-75 Interchange east of Everglades Blvd.
3.) Complete the Green Boulevard Extension Study to identify an East-West corridor linking North Belle Meade
Receiving lands to CR 951 and points west.
B. Water Resources Management
1.) Rehydration and Dispersed Water Storage in North Belle Meade Sending lands to retain / detain storm water and
promote groundwater recharge.
2.) Consideration of ASR Wells in Receiving lands, especially Sec15 T49S R27E to retain/detain water from the Golden
Gate Main Canal.
3.) Development of the C-1 Connector Canal and weirs to divert storm water east from the Golden Gate Main Canal.
C. Services and Economic Development
1.) Add Uses in RFMUD Receiving lands to support Economic Development as recommended and detailed in the
Opportunity Naples Study and the recommendations by the Anderson Economic Group.
2.) Add Commercial and Industrial uses in RFMUD Receiving lands to provide needed goods, services, and jobs in
Golden Gate Estates and adjacent areas.
3.) Add Affordable Housing uses in RFMUD Receiving lands. Consider increased density incentives for this area.
4.) Add Medical uses and Assisted Living facilities to RFMUD Receiving lands.
5.) Add Institutional and Utility uses in RFMUD Receiving lands.
6.) Add Parks and Sports Complex uses to RFMUD Receiving lands to support Sports Tourism.
7.) Develop appropriate buffers for all Receiving land uses and adjacent Estates, Residential, and Conservation
properties.
D. Environmental Elements / Management
1.) Develop policies that discourage the migration of climax predators from RFMUD Sending lands into the residential
interface in Golden Gate Estates other and adjacent areas.
2.) Consider the establishment of a TDR Bank to facilitate the transfer process.
Appendix A Page 69 of 91
Mr. Kris Van Lengen
GGEACA 2016 RFMUD Recommendations
19 April 2016
Page 3
The recommended changes permitting non residential land uses in the RFMUD must be applied so
as to preserve the rural residential character of Golden Gate Estates To that end, it will be essential
to establish appropriate buffers and transitional uses, together with appropriate controls over the
location of utility service lines and transportation corridors. To achieve these goals the following
recommendations are submitted.
1. Projects directly abutting residential property shall provide, at a minimum, a one-hundred
(100) foot wide buffer in which no parking or water management uses are permitted.
Twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape
buffer type C as outlined in the LDC. A minimum of fifty (75) feet of the buffer width shall
consist of retained or created native vegetation and must be consistent with appropriate
subsections of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The 100 foot buffer shall
not be part of a setback, but will be a separately platted tract. Setbacks shall be a minimum
of 50% of the height of any structure other than single family.
2. A solid masonry or concrete wall 8’ high and on a 3’ berm at the development (RFMUD)
side of the 100’ buffer shall be required. The buffer area shall be supplemented where
needed to assure an 80% opacity is reached within one year.
3. All lighting shall be consistent with the Dark Skies initiative. Parking lot lighting shall be
restricted to bollards except as may be required to comply with lighting standards in the Land
Development Code (Ordinance #04-41, as amended) and other governing regulations.
4. Rural roadways as typically used within the Golden Gate Estates neighborhoods shall not be
used for access or utility conveyance to any new development. Appropriate truck route
management tools need to be employed to limit Community impact.
We look forward to participating in the upcoming public meetings on the RFMUD and discussions
regarding the many issues which will be explored in those meetings.
Thank you for your efforts in reviewing the development plans for the areas under study.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Ramsey
President
Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association
Appendix A Page 70 of 91
Appendix A Page 71 of 91
1
JenkinsAnita
From:Nancy Payton [nancypayton@fwfonline.org]
Sent:Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:21 PM
To:VanLengenKris; JenkinsAnita
Subject:Thoughts/Comments on RFMUD Recommendations
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Kris and Anita,
Here are thoughts and comments on the recommendations presented at the May 26 RFMUD
workshop. I added a few of my own, too. Nancy
Sending
1. Support exploring additional credits from sending lands
2. Strongly support exploring ag credits from sending lands
3. Strongly support eliminating base price
4. Support exploring a TDR Bank
5. Strongly support County accepting NBM parcels and State of Florida accepting SBM
parcels, not sure about sending lands elsewhere…
6. Support reducing cost and time to process
7. Strongly support exploring concept of mitigation bank and maintenance fund
8. Support exploring adjusting appraisals on sending land with base (and bonus?) TDR
severed – how much lower? what is the fate of land? Unclear what the advantage to
nature will be
9. Support allowing a second dwelling unit for family members on ag preserved sending
lands depending on the minimum parcel size and where on the parcel
10. Strongly support dark skies on severed TDR lands
11. Opposed - Red Flag for broader recreational uses on TDR severed sending lands –
concerned about uses not compatible with the conservation goals of the TDR program –
NO to ATV, BMX or other motorized vehicles, model airplanes, model boats, pickle ball
courts, tennis courts, soccer fields, ball parks, polo fields, skateboard venues, mudding
trucks, for example…
12. Support no TDR use outside the RFMUD and the Urban Fringe east of 951
13. Strongly support TDRs sent only to receiving lands with central water and sewer
Neutral
1. Support exploring ag preserve credits and second family home
2. Support exploring TDRs for high? environmental value
3. FYI – Section 24 is the result of a legal settlement
4. Strongly support dark skies on severed TDR land
Receiving
Appendix A Page 72 of 91
2
1. Opposed to ag and native habitat/vegetation credits in receiving – based on urban
experiences preserves are poorly maintained; prefer to explore additional credits for
public greenspace, greenways/blueways, and natural open space (not golf courses) and
dark skies
2. Support lifting clustering minimum if results in greenspace (not golf courses or similar
active recreation)
3. Strongly support requiring central water/sewer, interconnectivity
4. Support exploring solar, zero net water use, ASR
Appendix A Page 73 of 91
,dvPOTEET PROPERTIES, INC.LoopNet
Local Knowledge - Global Service
P.O. Box 10667, Naples, FL 34101-0667 (239) 403-3840 Fax (239) 403-3841
3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 199, Naples, FL 34105
email: Pote etD Derties@smail.com
www. Pot e et p r o p e rti es. c o m
J une 6, 2016
Anita Jenkins, ACIP
Principal Planner
Collier County Growth Management
2800 Horseshoe Drive North
Naples, FL 34104
RE: Rural Fringe lr4ixed-Use District (RFMUD) restudy
Deal Ms. Jenkins
After attending the final community meeting on the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District restudy meeling il
became very clear the issue ofaffordable housing was low on the priority list for Collier County's future
lands. Granted. when county staff was asked about the affordable housing issue. Staff stated they planned
to illcorporate the overall Affordable Housing policy, which our Con.rmission is currently addressing.
However. my gut feeling is that this will not result in any significant resolution ofthe housing crisis
occurring today and the aflbrdable housing crisis \\'ill continue until our local government decides to
seriouslv addresses the issue. So far I have only seen lip sen,ice liont the counly. not action.
I anr very concenred that the issue o1'affordable housing \r,as not pu1 as a high prioritl, use lirr the future
areas. Our county commission has demonstrated it has no desire to address the issue within the urban
core. They repeatedly deny requests for affordable housing projects. I am not saying their decisions were
in error. jusl they demonslrate they do not want projecls u,ithin the urban core. So where to can we look
lor a solution. The Rural Fringe is our only option.
In two ofthe recenl community lrleetings I attended, less than 5 minutes ofthe five hours of meeting time
\\.as given to the subject of affordable housing. I find this troublesome. It needs 1o be a rnuch higher
priority in the discussion.
The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use Districts will be the only other opportunity lbr our community to get it right
Currently the proposed plan that the County is advocating is simply moving our currenl housing lormula
done in westem Collier to the East. While this has been a very positive plan for creating the great
St^JF Lia
Appendix A Page 74 of 91
cor runily \ve live in, it totally ignores those who cannol afford the affluent housing mix offered today.
We need our labor force and therelbre need to provide housing options for lhenr. The idea that Lehigh
Acres can bc our bedroom communitl'to suppll'labor is a shon lived concepl. As I-ee County further
der eJops. plentr ol' job opponunilies \\ ill be created \\'ilhin slron distance ol l.chigl.r eliminatins thetl
Ireed itr tlrirc -1(t plus r.niles ttr Crrllier lirl uork. The Rur:rl Fringe \4ired-[ sc [)istrict plan rnusl hare a
dylamic allbrdable housing conlponenl built into the plan to avoid both the allbrdable housing and luture
workforce crisis. Without it our conunuuitv n,ill suffer.
As a Realtor@ and advocate 1br all types of housing and real estate opportunities I ask you to include a
section in tlrc plan that u,ill provide aflirrdable housing projects a higher priorit,"- on what is to be
de\eioped in the future. We cannot use toda\,'s lirmula lbr grou.th managemenl to cure ihis crisis. There
are too luan) reasons u,hy it u,on't happen. The future Rural Fringe plans ntusl include specific
opportunities lbr affordable housing lbr our entire u,orkforce. not just firsl linre responders or those
classified as "work force housing". Affordable housing musl include a mix of apartments, multi-family,
and possibly single family opportunities. We need to create an environment where these projects can be
profitable. This will never happen unless you plan lor it. The Rural Fringe is Collier's last opportuniry
to get it righl. It starts with the plan so the rest may occur in lhe future.
Sinc
William H. Poteet, Jr., C
REALTOR@
S. GRI. AHWD. CAM
CC: Nick Casalanguida
Appendix A Page 75 of 91
Page 1 of 9
December 12, 2016
Kris Van Lengen, AICP & Anita Jenkins, AICP
Collier County Growth Management Division
2800 Horseshoe Drive North
Naples, FL
RE: Rural Fringe Mixed Use Re-Study
Receiving Areas Recommendations
Dear Mr. Van Lengen & Ms. Jenkins:
In follow up to our meeting on November 3rd, the enclosed information has been compiled on
behalf of Neal Communities in regards to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Re-Study
White Paper (“White Paper”), and more specifically, Staff’s recommendations regarding
increased densities within designated Receiving Areas.
As detailed in the White Paper and 2014 “Opportunity Naples Strategy”, Collier County has a
limited supply of land available for new development, and there is high competition for
residential land uses. There is also is a growing demand for diverse housing stock to facilitate
market-driven workforce housing, as a supplement to the County’s existing programs relating
to affordable housing.
The following analysis outlines opportunities for the Staff to integrate slightly higher densities
into the proposed amendments for the RFMUD, in appropriate areas that allow for a logical
extension of development patterns; are well-serviced by public infrastructure; and meet
additional design criteria.
The proposal will directly support the County’s stated goal for a more diverse housing stock in
the RFMUD to support the growing eastern Collier County workforce, while upholding the
intent of the RFMUD to conserve critical natural resources and native habitat; provide for
sustainable land use patterns based upon the existing public investment in infrastructure;
protect working agricultural lands; and implement innovative planning techniques to achieve
livable, walkable, and well-integrated communities.
A. RFMUD Receiving Lands Overview
Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been
identified as being most appropriate for development, and to which residential development
units may be transferred from Sending Lands. These lands have a lesser degree of
environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally
have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations.
Appendix A Page 76 of 91
Page 2 of 9
The allowable base density in Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) acres (1 DU/5 AC).
There are currently two (2) options for development within the Receiving Lands that allow for
densities higher than 1 DU/5 AC as follows:
Village Framework
The Village development option allows for densities of up to three (3) dwelling units per
acre (3 DU/AC). The minimum project size is 300 acres, and development must be
located where public infrastructure exists or is planned, including direct access to an
arterial or collector roadway. Villages are also required to provide a diversity of housing
types, civic space, and non-residential uses in the form of Neighborhood Centers. Since
adoption of the RFMUD provisions in 2004, no development has occurred under the
Village development option.
Clustered Development Framework
The Clustered development option allows for densities of one (1) dwelling unit per acre
(1 DU/AC), with a minimum project size of 40 contiguous acres. Bonus densities of 10%
can be achieved through additional preservation and environmental enhancements.
There are several communities in the West Receiving Area that have been developed,
or are in the process of being developed, under the Clustered development option,
including: Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of the
Everglades (GreyHawk).
It is important to note that both of these options require extensive use of TDRs to realize the
maximum allowable densities, which achieves the RFMUD’s intent for the perpetual
conservation of Sending Lands, but adds as substantial cost to the development of these
properties. The current price for one (1) TDR is approximately $13,500, as outlined in the White
Paper. While the TDR framework is integral to the RFMUD program as it provides a mechanism
for the perpetual preservation of environmentally-sensitive Sending Areas, this added
development cost directly affects the financial feasibility of development as demonstrated in
the TDR program economic analysis prepared by the County’s consultant. The following
proposal seeks to off-set those development costs through modified densities in certain areas,
while upholding the importance of the TDR program.
B. West Receiving Lands
The Receiving Lands are divided into four sub-areas: North, West, North Belle Meade, and
South. The context and characteristics of each of these Receiving Areas are unique. The focus
of this analysis is the West Receiving Area, which is generally located to the east of Collier
Boulevard, north and south of Immokalee Road, and west of Wilson Boulevard. See Exhibit A –
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Areas Map.
The West Receiving lands are distinguishable from the other three Receiving Land sub-areas due
to a variety of factors. First is the extent of build-out. As shown on Staff’s Receiving Area Exhibit
dated September 2015 (Exhibit “B” attached), the West Area is strikingly different from the
North, North Belle Meade, and South Receiving Areas due to the level of build-out. This exhibit
clearly demonstrates the limited inventory of vacant parcels within the West Receiving Area,
Appendix A Page 77 of 91
Page 3 of 9
as well as the fragmented nature of remaining vacant parcels. These existing conditions make
it virtually impossible to develop a Village within the West Area, thereby limiting the maximum
development potential of remaining parcels to 1 DU/AC.
Secondly, the West Receiving Area is well-served by existing public infrastructure and urban
services. As inventoried on Exhibit “C”, the Property is within 2 miles of elementary and middle
schools, parks, libraries, Collier Area Transit Route 27, and two (2) fire stations. According to the
County’s adopted Existing and Future Water and Wastewater Service Areas Maps, the majority of
the West Receiving Area is within both service areas for the provision of potable water and
sanitary sewer services. This Receiving Area is bisected by Immokalee Road, a six-lane arterial
roadway. The southern boundary of the Receiving Area is Vanderbilt Beach Road, a two-lane
arterial roadway that is anticipated for improvement to a six-lane facility by 2020. The western
boundary is Collier Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway. This arterial roadway network that
frames the West Receiving Area is further demonstration of the public investment in urban levels
of infrastructure in this area.
Lastly, the West Receiving Area does not contain the same level of environmental sensitivity, and
is less proximate/integrated with publicly-owned preserve lands. As evidence on the Collier
County “Green Map”, attached as Exhibit “D”, all other Receiving Areas abut large tracts of
conservations land on one or more boundaries. Conversely, the West Receiving Area does not
directly abut any State, Federal or County Conservation lands, and is predominantly classified
as Planned Unit Development (PUD), Plats/Subdivisions, or Other Developed Areas.
In sum, the West Receiving Area is the most suitable of the Receiving Areas for development
based upon the level of build-out, environmental context, and available public infrastructure
and services. Conversely, this Receiving Area is the most limited in terms of allowable
development by the RFMUD framework due to the extent of build-out and fragmented
ownership of the remaining vacant parcels, which precludes development of a Village at the
higher end of the density range.
C. Density Analysis
As noted above, there have been several communities to develop at a density of 1 DU/AC
under the Clustered development option. The resulting development program in each of
these projects is virtually identical: gated communities with predominantly single-family
detached housing. Currently, housing prices within these communities range from $425,000 to
$835,000, which is well above the price range for workforce housing, which the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines as “housing that is affordable
to households earning between 80 and 120 percent of Area Median Income”, or $65,700. See
also Table 3 of this report.
Continuing to develop within the Clustered development framework almost certainly ensures that
the West Receiving Area will not achieve any level of affordability or diversity in terms of housing
stock, and will result in an underutilization in the County’s substantial investment in public
infrastructure in this area. This result is recognized in the White Paper as the antithesis of Collier
County’s long-term goals for the RFMUD Receiving Areas framework, and requires a re-examining
of the existing framework.
Appendix A Page 78 of 91
Page 4 of 9
As stated in the White Paper prepared by Collier County, increasing the allowable density within
the Receiving Lands will allow greater diversity in residential products. Specifically, Staff has stated,
“Higher density is essential in this area in order to provide a greater diversity of housing options
and lifestyle choices; decreased spending on infrastructure; increased public transportation
ridership and overall mobility; and the ability to preserve larger tracts of open space by clustering
density.”
As a result of this finding, Staff has recommended an increase in allowable density in the
Clustered development option to two dwelling units per acre (2 DU/AC), and up to seven
dwelling units per acre (7 DU/AC) under the Village development option.
Under the proposed recommendation the West Receiving Area could achieve build-out of its
remaining land area with 2 DU/AC with a 10% bonus, or 2.2 DU/AC, as there is limited potential to
develop a Village.
From a land use standpoint, 2.2 DU/AC is still relatively low suburban density and would result in
predominantly single-family detached development patterns. This analysis proffers an alternative
recommendation to increase the allowable density to three and a half dwelling units per acre
(3.5 DU/AC), solely in the West Receiving Area, and where projects demonstrate compliance with
enhanced design criteria and locational standards via the Planned Unit Development rezoning
process.
By increasing the allowable density to 3.5 DU/AC, developers have a greater ability to provide
residential products that do not exist in this general area. The additional density also allows for the
mitigation of the substantial cost of TDRs. To illustrate these concepts, Waldrop Engineering,
together with Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (“DPFG”), modified the Collier
County TDR Program Economic Model to recognize an Alternate Scenario of 3.5 DU/AC.1
Table 1: West Receiving Area Alternate Bonus Density Scenario
Source: Collier County, Waldrop Engineering, DPFG, 2016
1 The Alternate Scenario added to the Collier County TDR Program Economic Model was configured at
approximately 3.0 units per acre as achieving 3.5 units per acre throughout the entire Receiving Area is not
practical.
Appendix A Page 79 of 91
Page 5 of 9
The TDR Program Economic Model uses the land residual value methodology to compare the
development financial feasibility of the baseline, mid-range, and high-range scenarios for the
four Receiving Areas. As shown in Table 2, there are currently no high-range options for the
West Receiving Area which constrains its development potential and opportunities for housing
affordability. However, the Alternate scenario of 3.5 DU/AC significantly improves the
development potential for the West Receiving Area. Because the favorable higher densities
provided by Village Framework are not possible in the West Receiving Area, the Alternate
scenario helps address those inequities.
Table 2: Residual Land Value by Receiving Area Including Alternate Scenario in the West RA
Source: Collier County, Waldrop Engineering, DPFG, 2016
D. Proposed Policy
The following policy language is offered for Staff’s consideration to address the underutilization of
the West Receiving Lands, which are largely built-out with urban and suburban levels of
development; are in close proximity to goods, services, and employment opportunities; are
serviced by urban levels of public infrastructure, including but not limited to: an arterial roadway
network, potable water, and sanitary sewer services.
Editorial Note: It is understood Staff intends to effectuate text amendments to the following
sections of the Future Land Use Element based upon the White Paper. The anticipated changes
directed by the White Paper are shown in strikethrough/underline format, while Neal
Communities’ proposed changes are shown in strikethrough/double underline format.
“A) Receiving Lands: Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to
which residential development units may be transferred from areas designated as Sending
Lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a lesser degree of
environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and
generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural
operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into Receiving Lands
Appendix A Page 80 of 91
Page 6 of 9
and away from Sending Lands, thereby maximizing native vegetation and habitat
preservation and restoration. Such incentives include, but are not limited to: the TDR
process; clustered development; density bonus incentives; and, provisions for central sewer
and water. Within Receiving Lands, the following standards shall apply, except for those
modifications that are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlay:
1. Maximum Density: The base residential density allowable for designated Receiving
Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum
density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit
per acre (two (2) dwelling units per acre. This maximum density is exclusive of the
Density Blending provisions. Dwelling Units may only be transferred into Receiving Lands
in whole unit increments (fractional transfers are prohibited). Once the maximum
density is achieved through the use of TDR Credits, additional density may be achieved
as follows:
a) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall
be allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding
the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME.
b) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall
be allowed as provided in Policy 6.2.5(6)b of the CCME.
c) A density bonus of one and a half (1.5) additional dwelling units per acre (for
a total density of three and a half (3.5) dwelling units per acre) shall be allowed
via the use of TDRs in the West Receiving Area subject to the Clustering provisions
in subsection 2 below, and where projects demonstrate the following through
the Planned Unit Development rezoning process.
i. Projects are directly accessed by, or adjacent to one or more arterial- or
collector-level roadways;
ii. Projects must connect to Collier County Utilities and demonstrate
adequate capacity to service the proposed densities, and connect to
reclaimed water service, where available;
iii. Obtain written verification as to adequate, existing public services from
the sheriff, EMS, fire district, Collier County School Board.
iii. A minimum of 10% of the required useable open space must be
common open space, exclusive of individual lots.
Iv. The maximum lot size allowable for a single-family dwelling unit is 10,000
square feet.
2. Clustering: Where the transfer of development rights is employed to increase
residential density within Receiving Lands, such residential development shall be
clustered in accordance with the following provisions:
Appendix A Page 81 of 91
Page 7 of 9
a) Consistent with the provisions of the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub-
elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be extended to the project.
Where County sewer or water services may not be available concurrent with
development in Receiving Lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may
be approved.
b) The maximum lot size allowable for a single-family detached dwelling unit is
one acre.
c) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the
greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation
of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural
reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation,
maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors.
3. Minimum Project Size: The minimum project size required in order to receive
transferred dwelling units is 40 contiguous acres.”
E. McCollum Assemblage Test Case
The McCollum Assemblage is a 51+/- acre property and is located north of Vanderbilt
Beach Road, east of Massey Street, and west of Douglas Drive in unincorporated Collier
County, Florida. The property is zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and is designated as with the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) – West Receiving Area. See Exhibit “E attached.
The Property is located in a suburban/transitional area of the County, adjacent to existing
and approved residential development, golf course communities, large-lot estates, and
agricultural uses. It is important to note that the Property immediately abuts the Urban
Mixed Use designated lands in the Urban Residential Subdistrict immediately to the west.
The subject property also has approximately 2,500 linear feet of frontage on Vanderbilt
Beach Road, an arterial roadway that is planned for expansion to six lanes by 2020 per the
County’s adopted Long Range Transportation Plan.
Development of the Property at 2 DU/AC is shown on Exhibit F, and results in 83 single-family
lots, with an average lot size of 7,800 square feet. Based upon the County’s economic
model, this development program would result in an approximately sales price of $452,000.
Development of the Property at 3.5 DU/AC is shown on Exhibit G. This development
program achieves 166 attached “twin villa” units with an average lots size of 4,725 square
feet. Applying the County’s economic model to this scenario, the approximate sales price
is $259,000.
Both development options achieve the 70% required usable open space and will meet the
native preservation requirements, based upon available preliminary data. Both
developments are able to connect to Collier County Utilities with adequate capacity to
service the proposed units, and are not anticipated to impact Level of Service on the
surrounding roadway network. Therefore, both development options effectively meet the
Appendix A Page 82 of 91
Page 8 of 9
stated goal of the RFMUD by protecting natural resources and native habitat, while
supporting a compact and contiguous growth pattern that mitigates urban sprawl.
The key differential between the development options, is the higher density program at 3.5
DU/AC achieves all the stated RFMUD goals, while enabling the developer to offer a
clustered single-family product type that is priced substantially lower than the traditional
single-family homes that dominate the area.
The benefits are two-fold. First, this allowable density would facilitate a more diverse
development pattern in the Receiving Areas, and provide an alternative to the
homogenous pattern of single-family detached communities. Secondly, and perhaps more
importantly to the County, the proposal supports market-driven housing opportunities that
accommodate the growing demand of Collier’s workforce. Table 3 illustrates how the
density bonus of an additional 1.5 units per acre proposed for the West Receiving Area can
enhance the County’s workforce homeownership options.
Table 3: McCollum Assemblage Density Bonus Impact on Homeownership Affordability
Product Type
# of
Units 2.0
DU/AC
# of
Units 3.5
DU/AC
Home
Sales
Price
Price-To-
Income
Ratio
Household
Income
Collier
County
AMI
(1) (2) (2) (1) (3) (4) (5)
Single Family (SF 250) 0 0 595,290 3.25 $183,000 $65,700
Single Family (SF 120) 0 0 545,139 3.25 $168,000 $65,700
Single Family (SF 80) 0 0 480,660 3.25 $148,000 $65,700
Detached Villa (DV 65) 83 0 452,003 3.25 $139,000 $65,700
Detached Villa (DV 50) 0 0 337,374 3.25 $104,000 $65,700
Attached Villa (TV 35) (6) 0 166 258,566 3.25 $80,000 $65,700
(1) TDR Program Economic Model as provided by Collier County.
(2) Calculated by Waldrop Engineering.
(3) Typical Price-To-Income Ratio benchmark in the U.S (Texas A&M Real Estate Center).
(4) Home Sales Price Devided by Price-to-Income Ratio.
(5) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Area Median Income for Collier County.
(6) Product type added to TDR Program Economic Model by Waldrop Engineering and DPFG.
F. Policy Support/GMP Consistency
The proposed policy recommendation is in direct compliance with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, and furthers the stated goals of the
RFMUD as follows:
Policy 5.3: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the
cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas
designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the
Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and,
encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative
approaches to development in the County’s Agricultural/Rural designated area, which
Appendix A Page 83 of 91
Page 9 of 9
will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic
viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost
efficient delivery of public facilities and services.
Policy 5.5: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses
before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for
the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing
lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (formerly known
as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, before servicing new
areas.”
Policy 5.6: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit
Development techniques, mixed-use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite
communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements,
and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and
environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and
subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land
development techniques.
Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable
communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a
range of housing prices and types.”
Thank you for your consideration of the above information. If you have any further questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 405-7777 ext. 207, or
alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com.
Sincerely,
WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A.
Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, LEED AP
Vice President of Planning
Enclosures
cc: Patrick Neal, Neal Communities
Michael Greenberg, Neal Communities
Jason Frost, Neal Communities
Lucy Gallo, DPFG
Appendix A Page 84 of 91
IMMOKALEE RD COLLIER BLVDDAVIS BLVD
RADIO RD
IMMOKALEE RD E
GOLDEN GATE BLVD LIVINGSTON RDWILSON BLVD TAM
I
A
M
I
T
R
L
EI 75CR 858
EVERGLADES BLVD DESOTO BLVD I 75
RANDALL BLVD
R U R A L F R I N G E
R U R A L F R I N G EM I X E D U S E D I S T R I C T
M I X E D U S E D I S T R I C T
Í
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
RECEIVING
SENDING
NEUTRAL
North BelleMeade NRPANorth BelleMeade - West
South Belle Meade
North Sending
North BelleMeade
South
North
West
EXHIBIT A - RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas
Appendix A Page 85 of 91
IMMOKALEE RD
IMMOKALEE RD
EVERGLADES BLVD SEVERGLADES BLVD PINE RIDGE RD
OIL WELL RD
VANDERBILT BEACH RD
RANDALL BLVD OIL
WELL
GRADE
RD
18TH AVE NE
GOLDEN GATE BLVD E DESOTO BLVD N56TH AVE NE
43RD AVE NE
GREEN BLVD
GOLDEN GATE BLVD W CR 84613TH ST SWWHITE BLVD WILSON BLVD N28TH AVE SE
6TH AVE SE
8TH AVE SE
4TH AVE SE
4TH AVE NE
6TH AVE NE
8TH AVE NE
21ST ST SW31ST ST SW2ND AVE SE S 1ST ST17TH ST SW2ND AVE NE
29TH ST SW22ND ST SE27TH ST SW25TH ST SW19TH ST SW23RD ST SW41ST AVE NW
58TH AVE NE
66TH AVE NE
60TH AVE NE
31ST AVE NE
10TH AVE SE
54TH AVE NE
64TH AVE NE
20TH ST SE50TH AVE NE
70TH AVE NE
68TH AVE NE
16TH AVE NE
12TH AVE NE
14TH AVE NE
10TH AVE NE
47TH AVE NE
27TH AVE NE
45TH AVE NE
24TH AVE NE
29TH AVE NE
41ST AVE NE
52ND AVE NE
16TH AVE SW 40TH ST NE62ND AVE NE
35TH AVE NE
20TH AVE NE
37TH AVE NE
22ND AVE NE
39TH AVE NE
38TH AVE SE
40TH AVE SE
30TH AVE SE
36TH AVE SE
26TH AVE SE
24TH AVE SE
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD
20TH AVE SE
34TH AVE SE
18TH AVE SE
32ND AVE SE
12TH AVE SE
14TH AVE SE
16TH AVE SE
22ND AVE SE S 5TH ST8TH ST SE6TH ST SE4TH ST SE18TH ST SE5TH ST SW2ND ST SE16TH ST SE12TH ST SE14TH ST SE10TH ST SE4TH ST NE8TH ST NE6TH ST NE1ST ST SW2ND ST NE1ST ST NW32ND AVE SW 5TH ST NW7TH ST NW3RD ST SW7TH ST SW9TH ST SW3RD ST NW8TH ST NW9TH ST NW6TH ST NW14TH ST NE16TH ST NE10TH ST NE20TH ST NE18TH ST NE12TH ST NE4TH ST NW13TH ST NW22ND ST NE2ND ST NW11TH ST SWDESOTO BLVD S11TH ST NWJUNG BLVD E
MANATEE RD 15TH ST SW15TH ST NW17TH ST NW33RD AVE NW
19TH ST NW21ST ST NW39TH AVE NW
24TH AVE NW
35TH AVE NW
31ST ST NW37TH AVE NW
20TH AVE NW
29TH ST NW7TH AVE SW
1ST AVE SW
18TH AVE NW
25TH ST NW22ND AVE NW
16TH AVE NW
44TH ST SW23RD ST NWS 9TH ST5TH AVE SW
LELY RESORT BLVD14TH AVE NW
27TH ST NW12TH AVE NW
5TH AVE NW
3RD AVE SW
10TH AVE NW
3RD AVE NW
1ST AVE NW
15TH AVE SW
13TH AVE SW
11TH AVE SW
17TH AVE SW
25TH AVE SW
21ST AVE SW
29TH AVE SW
31ST AVE SW
19TH AVE SW
27TH AVE SW
23RD AVE SW
WOLFE RD
SUNSHINE BLVD46TH ST NE44TH ST NE42ND ST NEMULBERRY LNTOWER RD
STOCKADE
R
D
SORRENTO LN50TH TER SWS
U
N
S
E
T
R
DHUNTER BLVDNAPLES HERITAGE DRSILVER LA
K
E
S
B
L
V
D
CAMPANILE CIR
AVIAMA
R
C
I
RDOGLEG DR46TH ST SW25TH AVE NE
UPOLO LN
NAVASSA LNPALM DR
12TH AVE NE
29TH AVE NE
31ST AVE NE
22ND AVE NE
2ND AVE NE
14TH AVE NE
33RD AVE NE
39TH AVE NE
24TH AVE NEDESOTO BLVD N2ND ST NE2ND AVE SE
24TH AVE SE
66TH AVE NE
18TH ST NE11TH ST SW20TH AVE NE
6TH AVE NE
15TH ST SW64TH AVE NE
9TH ST SW41ST AVE NE
DESOTO BLVD S38TH AVE SE
18TH AVE NE
35TH AVE NE
22ND AVE NE8TH ST NE21ST ST SW5TH AVE SW
5TH AVE NW 14TH ST NE4TH ST NE45TH AVE NE
27TH AVE NE
18TH AVE SE19TH ST SW10TH AVE NE
7TH AVE SW
3RD AVE NW
34TH AVE SE
20TH AVE SE
14TH AVE NE
24TH AVE NE
20TH AVE NE
3RD AVE SW
12TH AVE SE12TH ST NE22ND AVE SE
28TH AVE SE40TH ST NE36TH AVE SE20TH ST NE40TH AVE SE
15TH AVE SW 10TH ST NE12TH AVE NE
13TH AVE SW
4TH AVE SE
26TH AVE SE17TH ST SW22ND ST NE32ND AVE SE
11TH AVE SW
16TH AVE SE
4TH AVE NE
30TH AVE SE
14TH AVE SE
16TH AVE NE
37TH AVE NE 16TH ST NE6TH AVE SE
8TH AVE NE
CR 858
10TH AVE NE
10TH AVE SE
22ND AVE NE
8TH AVE SE23RD ST SW45TH AVE NE
1ST AVE NW
10TH AVE NE
24TH AVE NE
Í
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG. AICP
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
LEE
COUNTY
§¨¦75
§¨¦75 §¨¦75
!(951
£¤41
!(951
!(951
£¤41
EXHIBIT B - RECEIVING AREA (SEPTEMBER, 2015)
Receiving Area Total Acres: Approx. 27,246 Acres
# of Total Parcels: 3,675
Receiving Area Vacant Parcels Acres: Approx. 14,937 Acres
# of Vacant Parcels: 666
Legend
Vacant Parcels
(PAO Land Use Code: 0, 10, 40,
47,50-69, 70, 92,95,97 & 99)
Rural Fringe Boundary
Receiving Area
Appendix A Page 86 of 91
MASSEY STEVERGLADES BLVDCR 858LIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE BLVD WGREEN BLVDGOLDEN GATE PKYVANDERBILT BEACH RDPINE RIDGE RD EXTGOODLETTE RD N LIVINGSTON RD STAMIAMI TRL NCOLLIER BLVDIMMOKALEE RDPINE RIDGE RDOLD US 41GOODLETTE RD SSEAGATE DR85%$16(59,&(60$3&2//,(5&2817<)/25,'$0F&ROOXP3DUFHOV010,000 20,000 30,0005,000Feet±%RQLWD*UDQGH'U6XLWH%RQLWD6SULQJV)ORULGD3 ) ZZZZDOGURSHQJLQHHULQJFRP5 Miles4 Miles3 Miles2 Miles1 Mile#*1#*1#*1#*2#*4#*2#*3#*1#*2#*1#*2#*3#*4#*5#*6#*2#*1*UHDWHU1DSOHV6WDWLRQ#*Parks#*10D[$+DVVH-U3DUN*29LQH\DUGV3DUN*15RXWH%XV6WRSSchools%LJ&\SUHVVElementary School2DNULGJH0LGGOHSchool*XOI&RDVW+LJKSchool/DXUHO2DNElementary School9LQH\DUGV Elementary School*ROGHQ7HUUDFH Elementary School#*LegendFire Stations/EMS#*1*UHDWHU1DSOHVStation ##*21RUWK&ROOLHU6WDWLRQ*UHDWHU1DSOHV6WDWLRQ*1/LEUDULHV#*1(VWDWHV/LEUDU\##*2*ROGHQ*DWH3XEOLF/LEUDU\Bus Routes******&ROOLHU&RXQW\6KHUULII&ROOLHU&RXQW\6KHUULII#6KHULII6WDWLRQV#*1§¨§¨EXHIBIT C - URBAN SERVICES & INFRASTRUCTURE Appendix A Page 87 of 91
City Of Marco Island
City Of Naples
City Of EvergladesSR 29INTERSTATE 75
IMMOKALEE RD
OIL WELL RD
COLLIER BLVDTAMIAMI TRL E
CR 846
SR 82
LIVINGSTON RDTAMIAMI TRL NSR 29 NSAN MARCO RDDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE RD NPINE RIDGE RD EVERGLADES BLVD NRADIO RD DESOTO BLVD SLOGAN BLVD NSANTA BARBARA BLVDDESOTO BLVD NVANDERBILT BEACH RD
GOLDEN GATE BLVD EVANDERBILT DRAIRPORT PULLING RD NEVERGLADES BLVD SCORK
S
C
R
E
W
R
D
GOLDEN GATE BLVD W
C
O
P
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
S9TH ST NWILSON BLVD NS 1ST STBALD
EAGLE
DR
N
B
A
R
F
I
E
L
D
D
R N 15TH STOLD US 41S BARFIELD DRS COLLIER BLVD
BONITA BEACH RD
111TH AVE N
AIRPORT PULLING RD SN
E
W
M
A
R
K
E
T
R
D
W
VANDERBILT BEACH RD EXT
º
EXHIBIT D - COLLIER COUNTY EXISTING LAND INVENTORIES
0 4.5 92.25 Miles
GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG. AICP
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
REVISED DATE: AUGUST 25, 2016
Big CypressNational Preserve
Florida PantherNational Wildlife Preserve
Fakahatchee StrandPreserve StateParkPicayune StrandState Forest
Ten ThousandIslands NationalWildlife Refuge
Everglades National Park
Rookery BayNational EstuarineResearch Reserve
CREW
Okaloacoochee SloughState Forest
CollierSeminoleState Park
Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park
Barefoot BeachPreserve
CorkscrewRegionalEcosystemWatershed
RFMUD Sending Lands
SSA 11
SSA 16
SSA 3
SSA 4
SSA 5
SSA 2
SSA 1
SSA 9
SSA 10 SSA 12
SSA 6
SSA 15
SSA 15
Clam Bay NRPA
(Disclaimer: The information provided is to be used for general mapping purposes only.
Ground surveying and records search must be used for absolute boundaries/acreages)
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
£¤41
£¤41
£¤41
£¤41
£¤41
CREW LakeTraffordImpoundment
Lake
Trafford
SSA 7
SSA 13
SSA 14
Corkscrew SwampSanctuary
AVE MARIA SRA
Revised 08-25-16
Stewardship Areas:
500 Foot Restoration Area
Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA)
Water Retention Area (WRA)
Ave Maria SRA
Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA)
RLSA Program Area
Conservation Collier
State, Federal or County Conservation
Conservation Easement
SSA
RFMUD Sending Lands
ACSC
PUD
Plats/Subdivisons
Estates
Other Developed Area
(Non-platted golf courses, FPL,
government, schools, churches, etc.)
RFMUD Boundary
City Limits
Immokalee urban Area
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Appendix A Page 88 of 91
VANDERBILT BEACH ROADCR-951PROPERTY BOUNDARY
B:\Projects\542-01 McCollum Parcels\Drawings-Exhibits\542-01-E06 - Project Aerial\Current Plans\54201E0601.dwg11/1/2016 9:35:42 AMWALDROP
ENGINEERING
PREPARED FOR:
McCOLLUM PARCEL
CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
UPDATED:
FILE NAME:
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636
28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305
BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135
P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899
EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com
PROJECT AERIAL
2016/11/01
54201E0601
0
SCALE IN FEET
200 400 800
EXHIBIT E - AERIAL LOCATION MAP
Appendix A Page 89 of 91
VANDERBILT BEACH RD DOUGLAS STREETCOLLIER COUNTY FUTURE
ROW RESERVATION
NATIVE
PRESERVATION
AREA
MASSEY
ST
ROW
TAKING
LAKE
OWNER
RETAINED
PROPERTY AMENITY
TRACT
NATIVE PRESERVATION AREA
LEGEND
LAKE
OWNER RETAINED PROPERTY
LAKEMASSEY STREETR.O.W. RESERVATION OR TAKING
RR
R
R
RR
R
R
PERIMETER BUFFER
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED
(83 DU)
0
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200WALDROPENGINEERINGCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTSSET NUMBER:
SHEET :
XXX-XX-XX28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com1
B:\Projects\542-01 McCollum Parcels\Drawings-Exhibits\542-01-E07 - CC White Paper Exhibit\Current Plans\54201E0703.dwg12/8/2016 9:33:05 AMMcCOLLUM (≈51 AC)NEAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, LLC.CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636PLAN REVISIONSREV00 <<SUBMITTED / BID SET>> XX/XX/XXEXHIBIT F - SINGLE FAMILY CONCEPT PLAN
Appendix A Page 90 of 91
VANDERBILT BEACH RD DOUGLAS STREETCOLLIER COUNTY FUTURE
ROW RESERVATION
NATIVE
PRESERVATION
AREA
MASSEY
ST
ROW
TAKING
LAKE
OWNER
RETAINED
PROPERTYAMENITY
TRACT
NATIVE PRESERVATION AREA
LEGEND
LAKE
OWNER RETAINED PROPERTY
LAKEMASSEY STREETR.O.W. RESERVATION OR TAKING
RR
R
R
RR
R
R
PERIMETER BUFFER
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED
(166 DU)
0
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200WALDROPENGINEERINGCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTSSET NUMBER:
SHEET :
XXX-XX-XX28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com1
B:\Projects\542-01 McCollum Parcels\Drawings-Exhibits\542-01-E07 - CC White Paper Exhibit\Current Plans\54201E0702.dwg12/8/2016 9:33:27 AMMcCOLLUM (≈51 AC)NEAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, LLC.CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636PLAN REVISIONSREV00 <<SUBMITTED / BID SET>> XX/XX/XXEXHIBIT G - TWIN VILLA/ATTACHED VILLA CONCEPT PLAN
Appendix A Page 91 of 91
Appendix B
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
North Belle Meade Mitigation Feasibility Study
Appendix B Page 1 of 59
Project No. 16CCG2467
NORTH BELLE MEADE
MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
July 2016
Prepared For:
Collier County Zoning Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
(239) 252-7268
Prepared By:
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
(239) 274-0067
Appendix B Page 2 of 59
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An analysis of the potential mitigation values versus costs of utilizing the North Belle Meade for
wetland and species mitigation was performed.
In the absence of sufficiently detailed data regarding site-specific characteristics (hydrologic
conditions, levels and locations of infestations by exotic vegetation, and wetland versus upland
acreages) for most of the 1,133 individual parcels comprising the North Belle Meade, this
analysis was based on generalized land characteristics.
The numerical analysis of the value of potential wetland credits, potential values of uplands for
species mitigation (habitat compensation), and the costs associated with the generation of these
values were calculated for several hypothetical situations with various combinations of the
results presented in graphic form.
Without a significant effort to improve the existing hydrologic conditions for more than small
areas, analysis data indicates that a particular type of wetland mitigation program known as a
single-user Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area (ROMA)/In -Lieu Fee (ILF) provides the most
positive cost-benefit ratio.
Sufficient wetland credit and habitat compensation demand to warrant consideration of the
ROMA/ILF concept is found in Collier County’s 2040 Needs Assessment for future road
projects where the projected money needed for wetland mitigation and panther habitat units for
Cost-Feasible Roads is $11,058,000 and $6,932,000, respectively. The actual cost to Collier
County of the projected transportation-related mitigation/compensation needs could be
significantly lower on a per unit basis by using a ROMA/ILF project to generate all or a portion
of the needed credits and habitat compensation. Additionally, the funds spent internally
purchasing the mitigation/compensation could be used to expand and operate the ROMA/ILF
program.
A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within the North Belle Meade appears to be a
cost-feasible generator of wetland mitigation credits and panther habitat compensation if the
ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly located to assure long-term support for the Florida
panther.
This initial feasibility study concludes that a ROMA/ILF program is potentially feasible and
cost-effective, based on broad characterizations of North Belle Meade and a range of reasonable
assumptions. To further refine the analysis results and increase the level of certainty regarding
the feasibility of portions of North Belle Meade to serve as cost-effective mitigation, further
steps are recommended. A more site-specific mitigation evaluation tool, based on the
methodology used in this analysis, is currently being developed to allow for efficient evaluations
of specific areas within North Belle Meade. This site-specific evaluation tool will allow the input
of data gained from limited site reconnaissance of particular parcels or areas to generate site-
specific data regarding potential mitigation values and associated costs. The results of this type
of analysis, based on more site-specific data, will result in a higher degree of accuracy and allow
Appendix B Page 3 of 59
ii
for a higher degree of certainty regarding the potential for a specific area or areas to serve as
feasible mitigation value generators.
Appendix B Page 4 of 59
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1
2.0 Analysis Purpose/Goal ......................................................................................................1
3.0 Analysis Constraints .........................................................................................................1
4.0 Overview of Wetland Mitigation Programs ......................................................................2
4.1 Permittee Responsible Mitigation .........................................................................3
4.2 Wetland Mitigation Banking.................................................................................3
4.3 Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area .......................................................................4
4.4 In-Lieu Fee ............................................................................................................4
5.0 Habitat Conservation Banks .............................................................................................4
6.0 Regulatory Agencies .........................................................................................................5
6.1 FDEP/SFWMD .....................................................................................................5
6.2 COE.......................................................................................................................5
6.3 USFWS .................................................................................................................5
7.0 Mitigation Programs – Applicability to North Belle Meade ............................................6
7.1 PRM ......................................................................................................................6
7.2 Wetland Mitigation Bank ......................................................................................6
7.3 ROMA/ILF ...........................................................................................................6
7.4 Habitat Conservation Bank ...................................................................................7
8.0 Mitigation Analysis Framework .......................................................................................7
9.0 Mitigation Numerical Analysis and Results ...................................................................10
9.1 Wetland Credit Generation .................................................................................10
9.2 Upland Credit Habitat (Compensation) Generation ...........................................13
Appendix B Page 5 of 59
iv
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
10.0 Mitigation Values............................................................................................................13
11.0 Credit Generation Costs ..................................................................................................14
11.1 Cost Assumptions ...............................................................................................14
11.1.1 Land Costs ..............................................................................................14
11.1.2 Implementation Time Period ..................................................................15
11.1.3 Initial Exotic Treatment Eradication .......................................................15
11.1.4 Treatment Costs ......................................................................................15
11.1.5 Funding of Perpetual Maintenance .........................................................15
11.1.6 Prescribed Burning..................................................................................15
11.1.7 Program Administrative Cost .................................................................16
11.2 Implementation Costs .........................................................................................16
11.3 Total Credit Generation Costs ............................................................................16
12.0 Mitigation Value and Costs Comparisons ......................................................................17
13.0 Discussion of Numerical Analysis Results .....................................................................20
13.1 Areas of Hydrologic Enhancement, Exotic Eradication, and
Land Management ..............................................................................................20
13.2 Areas with Exotic Eradication and Land Management ......................................20
13.3 ROMA/ILF .........................................................................................................21
14.0 ROMA/ILF Program Considerations ..............................................................................22
15.0 Permit Process .................................................................................................................25
16.0 Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................26
17.0 Recommended Next Steps – Assuming ROMA/ILF Option ..........................................26
Appendix B Page 6 of 59
v
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Exotic Infestation Scenarios .........................................................................10
Appendix B Page 7 of 59
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Wetland Credits without Hydrologic Enhancement ....................................... 12
Figure 2. Wetland Credits with Hydrologic Enhancement ............................................ 12
Figure 3. Mitigation Value without Hydrological Enhancement ................................... 13
Figure 4. Mitigation Value with Hydrological Enhancement ........................................ 14
Figure Series 5. Mitigation Value versus Cost.......................................................................... 17
Figure Series 6. Wetland Value Only versus Cost .................................................................... 19
Figure Series 7. (Combined) Mitigation Value versus Cost .................................................... 23
Appendix B Page 8 of 59
vii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
Exhibit 1. UMAM Worksheets .................................................................................... E1-1
Exhibit 2. Mitigation Value Tables ............................................................................. E2-1
Exhibit 3. Implementation Costs ................................................................................. E3-1
Exhibit 4. Credit Generation Cost Tables .................................................................... E4-1
Appendix B Page 9 of 59
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Under Collier County Contract No. 15-6397/Purchase Order No. 4500167795, Passarella &
Associates, Inc. (PAI) has been requested to perform an analysis of the North Belle Meade –
Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) for the potential to generate wetland credits and/or
wildlife habitat compensation units. The project includes the areas designated as the North Belle
Meade West area at approximately 3,100 acres in size and the North Belle Meade NRPA area at
approximately 6,500 acres in size. The overall North Belle Meade is comprised of a variety of
upland and wetland habitat types. While much of the area is relatively undeveloped, areas of
agriculture, pasture, residential, and other land uses exist within the overall North Belle Meade
boundary and in the Belle Meade West area in particular.
Portions of the North Belle Meade are known to be used by red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), and other species under the protection of state
and/or federal laws. The long-term use and value of lands within the North Belle Meade for
listed wildlife species is highly dependent on future development patterns and land conservation
programs.
A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program with areas eligible to send development
rights from and areas eligible to receive additional development rights is currently in place for
significant portions of the North Belle Meade. This TDR program awards sending unit credits for
various limitations on land use with the greatest number of units awarded for removal of all
development rights and habitat restoration with the restored lands placed under some form of
governmental ownership.
2.0 ANALYSIS PURPOSE/GOAL
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the potential values of lands within the North Belle
Meade for wetland mitigation and/or wildlife habitat compensation versus the costs associate
with generating any wetland mitigation or habitat compensation values. The primary goal of this
analysis is to provide useful information to decision-makers regarding the potential options for
long-term management of conveyed or acquired lands within the North Belle Meade.
3.0 ANALYSIS CONSTRAINTS
At a combined size of 9,600± acres with 1,133 distinct parcels, parcel-specific habitat
evaluations within the North Belle Meade are not possible within the scope of this analysis.
The primary available land cover/land use mapping and data sources are the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Of the two
sources, the SFWMD Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS)
mapping provides more accurate and current mapping identifications of existing land uses and
land cover. Both the NWI and the SFWMD mapping rely on photointerpretation of high level
aerial photography. A limitation of this methodology is the limited ability to identify levels of
Appendix B Page 10 of 59
2
infestation by exotic and invasive vegetation species unless the infestation is clearly visible at
vegetation canopy height. Without more specific data regarding the extent, type, and locations
of exotic vegetation infestation levels, this analysis must rely on hypothetical exotic infestation
scenarios as explained in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section.
Another constraint of NWI and FLUCFCS mapping is their limited ability to ascertain the
hydrologic conditions on sites where the presence or absence of hydrology is not easily
discernable from aerial photography. Many areas within North Belle Meade have been subject to
hydrologic impacts, primarily from interruption of surface flows or drainage resulting from the
Golden Gate canal system. The mapping of over-drained areas that register as wetland based on
a mapping of canopy cover types may not accurately capture the fact the area no longer has
sufficient hydrology to qualify as wetland. Because the available land use/land cover mapping
may not accurately identify wetland versus upland areas, a range of possible upland versus
wetland habitat percentages is used in this analysis as more fully explained in the Mitigation
Analysis Framework section.
4.0 OVERVIEW OF WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAMS
The concept of wetland mitigation is derived from existing state and federal regulatory programs
that protect wetlands and replace lost wetland functions through the restoration, enhancement,
and protection of existing wetlands or through the creation of new wetlands. Both the state and
federal programs contain regulatory language regarding each type of mitigation programs.
Wetland mitigation is primarily used to offset the loss of wetland functions resulting from the
direct or indirect impacts of projects on state and/or federal jurisdictional wetlands.
Elements common to current state and federal wetland mitigation programs include:
1) Goal of no net loss of wetland functions
2) Clearly defined ecological goals and mitigation plan
3) Use of an acceptable wetland functional assessment methodology to assess wetland
functions lost by impacts and the replacement wetland functions gained through mitigation
4) The landscape context of any mitigation should be relevant to the wetlands impacted
5) Mitigation must have clearly defined and verifiable success criteria tied to wetland
functionality
6) A conservation easement that limits land uses and activities inconsistent with wetland and
habitat preservation goals
7) Financial assurances are required to assure mitigation plan implementation
8) Financial assurances are required to assure sufficient funding for perpetual mitigation site
management and protection
9) Monitoring and reporting to regulatory agencies
This analysis does not provide a detailed breakdown of each program but rather focuses on the
key components of each program relative to the North Belle Meade (credit generation and
constraining elements of each program).
Appendix B Page 11 of 59
3
4.1 Permittee Responsible Mitigation
The approach of Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) was once the main form of
mitigation, where the applicant proposing a wetland impact would also propose project-
specific mitigation to offset any wetland functional loss. The success of PRM was highly
variable and PRM is now much less common than the use of mitigation banks or other
large scale mitigation programs under both the state and federal wetland regulatory
programs. Some parcels within the North Belle Meade have been used for PRM, but the
PRM concept involves a case-by-case permitting decision and is not applicable to this
analysis.
4.2 Wetland Mitigation Banking
Wetland mitigation banking has gained widespread support throughout the country and is
now the preferred form of mitigation for both the state and federal regulatory programs.
To permit and operate a wetland mitigation bank, the bank site must be clearly defined
under the ownership or control of the project sponsor. Wetland mitigation banks are
typically large enough to benefit the environment on a landscape scale and are run as
businesses with the wetland mitigation credits being the commodity to be sold on the
open market. Following a detailed and thorough permitting process, wetland mitigation
banks implement a mitigation plan and earn credits for various levels of implementation
completion and for verifiable levels of ecological success. Wetland credits can be sold to
offset wetland impacts from projects within a prescribed “service area,” typically a
defined watershed of combination of watershed. Ideally, the wetland functional
assessment methodology used to evaluate project impacts must be the same as the
methodology used to assess the wetland functional gains at the wetland mitigation bank
site.
The State of Florida and the federal government each have their own mitigation banking
requirements and regulations, which are similar in many ways. One primary difference is
the application of the wetland functional assessment methodology, whereby Florida’s
application tends to yield more credits than the federal application. For the purposes of
this analysis, the more conservative number of credits likely to be generated under the
federal mitigation banking program is used for credit generation calculations. Projects
proposing impacts to wetlands in Southwest Florida typically require permit approval
under both the state and federal regulatory programs and, therefore, require wetland
credits acceptable under both the both state and federal regulatory programs.
Local governments or state agencies can establish and operate a wetland mitigation bank.
However, to maintain a level playing field with private commercial mitigation banking
for credit pricing, government mitigation banking is required to use a “full cost
accounting” methodology when calculating the cost of generating credits. Among other
things, full cost accounting requires that the fair market value of land be included as a
credit generation cost. The end concept and relevance of full cost accounting is explained
in more detail later in this document.
Appendix B Page 12 of 59
4
4.3 Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area
Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area (ROMA) is a defined program under the state of
Florida regulatory program for wetlands. The ROMA program is currently available to
local governments and some qualified non-profit organizations. ROMA projects
(typically referred to as “ROMAs”) have been initiated in several locations around
Florida, with varying levels of ecological success. The concept of ROMAs was born out
of the desire to consolidate the efforts and funds expended on minor, smaller, and/or
disjointed mitigation projects into more cohesive and meaningful mitigation efforts with
benefits on a landscape sale. ROMAs have been used to collect funds in a type of early
credit sale basis with the defined goal of using the funds to purchase/acquire land and
implement a mitigation plan. The sale of these early or “prospective” wetland credits has
become an area of regulatory concern because some ROMA projects can take many years
to actually implement any mitigation plan elements that produce actual “lift” to existing
wetland functions. Credits generated by ROMAs may be sold on the open market, subject
to full cost accounting of credit generation costs.
4.4 In-Lieu Fee
The federal In-Lieu Fee (ILF) program is similar to Florida’s ROMA program with many
of the same benefits and constraints. The ILF program allows for early credits, the
collection of fees for land purchases and planned work, and does not always require that
the entire proposed ILF area be under the ownership of the applicant. As in wetland
mitigation banking, a permit separate and distinct from the state’s permit is required
under the federal program.
Both ROMA and ILF project areas can include land not yet under a single ownership or
control. In addition, ROMAs and ILF projects may be composed of multiple, distinct, and
even widely separated parcels, provided the various parcels share an ecological
commonality in a landscape context.
While both ROMA and ILF programs are primarily for wetland mitigation credit
generation, upland areas may be included and their value to listed species can be
accounted for within a ROMA/ILF using the same principles discussed under the Habitat
Conservation Bank section below.
5.0 HABITAT CONSERVATION BANKS
Habitat Conservation Banking involves the long-term management and preservation of existing
wildlife habitats for the benefit of specific protected species. Unlike wetland mitigation, which is
intended to replace wetland losses (no net loss of wetland function as its goal), habitat
conservation is used to protect existing habitat values, where no such protection currently exists
as compensation for direct or indirect habitat impacts elsewhere. The terms “compensation” and
“habitat compensation” are used throughout this analysis to differentiate units and values derived
Appendix B Page 13 of 59
5
from benefits to listed species habitat versus “mitigation” which is used for increases in wetland
function.
Habitat conservation banks typically provide species-specific compensation units that can be
used to offset impacts to other habitat used by a given protected species. Habitat Conservation
Banks can be used for more than one species when the bank site has appropriate habitat types
and when the required land management and habitat goals of the different species are not in
conflict. As with wetland mitigation banking, a habitat conservation bank has a defined service
area, specific ecological goals, and requirements for financial assurances for implementation and
long-term management.
6.0 REGULATORY AGENCIES
For permitting of wetland impacts and associated mitigation requirements in Southwest Florida,
the State’s wetlands protection program is administered by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), the SFWMD, and the federal program by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE). The program for permitting of habitat conservation banks is
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
6.1 FDEP/SFWMD
The FDEP typically permits wetland mitigation banks where a given state water
management district has an operational role, financial interest, or other potential conflict.
The FDEP solicits and considers input from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWCC) regarding wildlife issues. The SFWMD typically permits all other
wetland mitigation banks and also utilizes comments and input from the FWCC. ROMAs
are typically reviewed by the FDEP with FWCC input.
6.2 COE
Federal review of wetland mitigation or ILF applications involves multiple federal
agencies with COE typically taking the role of lead agency. The assigned COE project
manager leads a multi-agency team known as an Interagency Review Team (IRT). For a
proposed wetland mitigation bank or ILF in the North Belle Meade, the primary IRT
participants are most likely to be the COE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the USFWS.
6.3 USFWS
Federal review of habitat compensation banks involves the USFWS with input from the
FWCC.
Appendix B Page 14 of 59
6
7.0 MITIGATION PROGRAMS - APPLICABILITY TO NORTH BELLE MEADE
7.1 PRM
PRM is project and parcel-specific and not currently encourage by regulatory agencies.
As such, a PRM project is not considered in this analysis.
7.2 Wetland Mitigation Bank
The establishment of a wetland mitigation bank within the North Belle Meade is
compared as an alternative within this analysis. Challenges inherent with wetland
mitigation banking include the need for property ownership or control from the onset of
permitting, and a well-defined time schedule for implementation and full success.
7.3 ROMA/ILF
For the purposes of this analysis, ROMA and ILF project requirements are considered
jointly with the most restrictive element of each program dictating for specific
requirements or criteria. A ROMA/ILF project could only be proposed by Collier County
or by a qualified non-profit entity for the North Belle Meade. A ROMA/ILF project
appears to be a closer fit to the current conditions, opportunities, and constraints of using
the North Belle Meade for possible wetland credit and habitat compensation units based
on the following elements common to both programs.
The proposed project area does not need to be in single ownership or control at the time
of project permitting or at the time of initial implementation on areas or phases under
permittee’s ownership or control. Early credit sales can be used to acquire land and/or
fund implementation of mitigation plan/activities.
Required time frames for mitigation implementation and project phases tend to be more
flexible with ROMA/ILF projects than with wetland mitigation banking. Open Market
ROMA/ILF wetland credits generated by a ROMA/ILF project could be permitted as
available to be sold on the open market if the full cost accounting method for credit
generation cost is used as the basis for the pricing of credits (explained in more detail in
Numerical Analysis Section of this report).
Single User ROMA/ILF- An alternative to an open market ROMA/ILF is the single-user
ROMA/ILF project. This approach would identify Collier County as the user of the
wetland mitigation credits and habitat compensation units from a ROMA/ILF sponsored
and supported by Collier County. Under this approach, the hypothetical costs of
generating the credits (the full cost accounting methodology) are not required as a basis
for credit pricing.
This analysis provides the costs to generate credits with and without land costs to
differentiate between an open market ROMA/ILF (or wetland mitigation bank) and the
single-user ROMA/ILF alternative.
Appendix B Page 15 of 59
7
7.4 Habitat Conservation Bank
The use of appropriate lands within the North Belle Meade for habitat compensation, as
either a separate distinct habitat conservation bank or as a component of a ROMA/ILF
project would add a valuable component to a ROMA/ILF project.
The North Belle Meade is home to, or used by, a number of state and federally-listed
wildlife species including the Florida panther, wood stork (Mycteria americana), and red-
cockaded woodpeckers. For the purposes of this analysis, habitat compensation needs and
habitat compensation units for the Florida panther are used to represent the potential
value of uplands. A more detailed breakdown of other species compensation
opportunities is possible but beyond the scope of this analysis. The use of panther as the
driver of habitat compensation needs/values is reasonable given the prevalence of panther
in the North Belle Meade and the prevalence of panther compensation needs throughout
significant portions of Collier County.
The permitting of habitat compensation banks for panthers falls primarily under the
jurisdiction of the USFWS with concurrence from the FWCC. For lands to be acceptable
as compensation they must typically be either reasonably contiguous with a large area of
existing conservation lands or large enough to provide a significant percentage of an
adult panther home range habitat needs; not located where proximate or regional impacts
may occur that would diminish the lands functionality for, or availability, to panther; and
able to be actively managed to enhance and protect habitat values important to panther in
perpetuity.
In the past, the USFWS has expressed reservations regarding the use of smaller and/or
disjointed parcels in the North Belle Meade as for panther compensation. Also, concern
exists over County road alternatives under consideration and the potential long-term land
use patterns. The establishment of wetland mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF project area
could potentially allay USFWS concerns.
8.0 MITIGATION ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
The following analysis is based on evaluating the potential value of wetland mitigation and
upland habitat compensation versus the potential costs to generate those values for a given area.
In this analysis, Wetland Mitigation Value is used as the number of wetland credits generated
times the current market per-credit price. Similarly, Upland Mitigation Value is used in this
analysis as the number of habitat compensation units generated times the current market price
per unit. The concept of Combined Mitigation Value is used to represent the combined values of
wetland credits generated (based on market value) plus the value of panther compensation units
(based on market value). This can be equated as:
Mitigation Value ($) = (# of credits x credit market price) + (# of panther compensation
units x compensation unit market price)
Appendix B Page 16 of 59
8
Wetland credits are primarily awarded for verifiable increases in wetland functionality and the
long-term management and protection of wetlands. The increase in wetland functions is often
referred to as “lift.” The primary drivers for ecological lift of wetlands in the North Belle Meade
are will likely be the removal and ongoing control of exotic and nuisance vegetation plus the
placement of lands into a single, cohesive program for long-term protection and management.
Lands with exotic infestations levels too high to reasonably expect wetland revitalization
following exotic removal will be cleared and subject to a wetland replanting program.
The potential does exist for significant ecological lift if hydrological enhancements can be made
to improve the duration and/or depth of water within the hydroperiod wetlands. Much of the
North Belle Meade has experienced hydroperiod alterations/impacts from past surface flow and
ground flow alterations. Meaningful hydrologic enhancements would involve large scale water
routing alterations that would require significant studies and permitting. This analysis includes
results for wetland benefits both with and without hydrological enhancements, not to show that
hydrological enhancement are probable, but to show the benefits of hydrological enhancements
relative to credit/value generation should they occur as coincidental to any large scale hydrology
improvement projects in the North Belle Meade.
The state’s methodology for assessing wetland functions and wetland functional lift directly
credits uplands for wetland functional lift. The methodology accepted by the COE only does so
indirectly, consequently the federal program typically assigns lower lift scores than the state for a
given area when uplands are present. Because most wetland impacts in Southwest Florida require
mitigation under both the state and federal regulatory programs, only wetland lift generated by
wetland areas (credits acceptable to both the state and the COE) are considered in this analysis.
Upland areas are valued in this analysis based on a key assumption that a given area will be
determined to be acceptable for panther habitat compensation by the USFWS and the FWCC.
Panther habitat compensation units are given as Panther Habitat Units (PHUs) and the number of
PHU a given acre can provide is determined by a USFWS-approved methodology whereby
habitat scores ranging from 1 to 10 are assigned based on habitat types (tied to preference of use
by panther). For a given area, the total PHUs are the sum of each habitat’s score times the
acreage of that habitat type. For the purposes of this analysis, a conservative PHU habitat score
of 7 units per acre is assigned to each upland acre. Wetland acreages also provide PHUs in the
USFWS methodology and wetland mitigation credits often carry a number of PHUs with them.
However, because this analysis is evaluating the potential combined mitigation value of areas,
the market price of wetland credits is assumed to include the imbedded PHU value associated
with wetland credits. In other words, the value of PHUs from wetland areas is treated as covered
in the wetland credit prices.
The numbers of wetlands credits that can be generated in many areas within North Belle Meade,
absent any hydrologic restoration, are primarily driven by the amount of exotic vegetation
present. Currently, available mapping of land cover types in North Belle Meade (National
Wetlands Inventory Mapping and SFWMD FLUCFCS mapping) do not including mapping of
exotics or their levels of infestation. Without mapping of the location, extent, and relative levels
of exotic infestations, an overall analysis of potential credit generation must rely on generalized
characteristics of the area.
Appendix B Page 17 of 59
9
Should a specific portion(s) or area(s) of the North Belle Meade be defined for mitigation use,
site reconnaissance could be performed to estimate exotic levels, and a more detailed site-
specific analysis of credit generation potential and credit generation costs could be performed.
Absent a clearly defined discrete area(s) for evaluation, the following analysis utilizes four
potential scenarios for levels of exotic vegetation typical for the North Belle Meade. Numerical
and graphed results in this analysis are normalized to a hypothetical 100-acre parcel size to
facilitate visualization and understanding.
Fundamentally, the mitigation analysis framework can be given as:
• Determination of potential wetland credits generated by wetlands (without hydrologic
enhancement) on a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation
infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland.
• Determination of potential wetland credits generated by wetlands (with hydrologic
enhancement) on a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation
infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland.
• Determination of potential wetland credit generation costs for a hypothetical 100-acre
parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of
wetland versus upland.
• Determination of potential upland habitat (compensation) value for a hypothetical 100-
acre parcel for varying percentages of wetland versus upland.
• Determination of Combined Mitigation Value as the value of wetland credits plus the
value of upland compensation for a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of
exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland.
• Determination of the costs to generate the above, both with and without land costs.
• Comparison of Cost of Mitigation Generation versus value of:
Wetland Mitigation (without hydrologic enhancement)
Wetland Mitigation (with hydrologic enhancement)
Wetland Mitigation (without hydrologic enhancement) plus Upland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation (with hydrologic enhancement) plus Upland Mitigation
9.0 MITIGATION NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
9.1 Wetland Credit Generation
As indicated in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section, four representative scenarios
for exotic vegetation infestation levels are used to approximate a range of habitat
conditions typical of the North Belle Meade. These same infestation level scenarios are
Appendix B Page 18 of 59
10
used consistently throughout this analysis, including the analysis of costs. The four
scenarios used are presented below in tabular form.
Table 1. Exotic Infestation Scenarios*
Scenario 1 - Generally low levels of exotic vegetation infestation
Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area
Minimal 80
Minor 0-25% (E1) 20
Moderate 25-50% (E2) 0
High 50-75% (E3) 0
Severe 75-100% (E4) 0
Total 100
Scenario 2 - Generally moderate levels of exotic vegetation infestation
Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area
Minimal 30
Minor 0-25% (E1) 30
Moderate 25-50% (E2) 20
High 50-75% (E3) 20
Severe 75-100% 0
Total 100
Scenario 3 - Generally moderate to high levels of exotic vegetation infestation
Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area
Minimal 20
Minor 0-25% (E1) 15
Moderate 25-50% (E2) 20
High 50-75% (E3) 35
Severe 75-100% (E4) 10
Total 100
Scenario 4 - Generally very high levels of exotic vegetation infestation
Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area
Minimal 0
Minor 0-25% (E1) 10
Moderate 25-50% (E2) 15
High 50-75% (E3) 35
Appendix B Page 19 of 59
11
Scenario 4 (Continued)
Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area
Severe 75-100% (E4) 40
Total 100
*Note: Using a weighted average approach for each infestation scenario with E1 acreages
weighted by 1, E2 acreages by 2, E3 acreages by 3, and E4 acreages by 4, and the resultant sum
divided by 10 (1+2+3+4) yields a weighted average of 2, 13, 20, 30, indicating a reasonable
distribution of infestation scenarios
The wetland functional assessment methodology required by the state and primarily used
for permitting through COE is the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology
(UMAM).
For wetland credit calculations for each land cover type and in general terms, UMAM
assigns scores on a per acre basis for existing conditions and for the proposed conditions
should a proposed mitigation plan be implemented and successful. The difference
between scoring of the existing conditions and the scoring of the with-mitigation
conditions is calculated as the ecological lift (also called the “delta”). Factors for “Risk”
(based on the likelihood the proposed wetland mitigation will ultimately succeed) and
“Time Lag” (the anticipated time difference between when a wetland impact occurs and
the associated mitigation reaches a high level of functionality) are selected and used to
modify the lift number to arrive at the per acre credit number for that land cover type. To
get the total wetland credits, each land cover type acreage is multiplied by the per-acre
credit number for that land cover and the results are summed.
For this analysis, where the primary credit generation is exotic eradication, the Risk and
Time Lag factors are assumed to be negligible because the process of exotic eradication
is known to be a successful tool and the ecological benefits begin immediately.
The total number of wetland credits that a given area can generate is a function of the
number of wetland acres within the area. For areas comprised of both uplands and
wetlands, the total wetland credit number must be adjusted down based on the percentage
of the area that is upland.
For this analysis the following hypothetical upland/wetland ratios are used to provide a
range of possible condition as the y-axis on graphs:
• 10 Percent Upland/90 Percent Wetland
• 25 Percent Upland/75 Percent Wetland
• 50 Percent Upland/50 Percent Wetland
• 75 Percent Upland/25 Percent Wetland
• 90 Percent Upland/10 Percent Wetland
Appendix B Page 20 of 59
12
The total number of credits a given area can generate is a function of the UMAM scoring
tables for the four infestation level scenarios based on a hypothetical 100± acre parcel
size is given in Exhibit 1.
The results from the UMAM calculations (Exhibit 1) for the representative
upland/wetland land percentages are presented below (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1 - Wetlands Credits without Hydrologic Enhancement
Figure 2 - Wetlands Credits with Hydrologic Enhancement
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
10 25 50 75 90Wetland Credits Wetland % of 100 Acres
Wetland Credits w/out Hydro
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
10 25 50 75 90Wetland Credits Wetland % of 100 Acres
Wetland Credits w/ Hydro
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Appendix B Page 21 of 59
13
9.2 Upland Credit Habitat (Compensation) Generation
Upland credit generation is calculated as the acreage of uplands times an assumed
average PHU score of 7 per acre.
10.0 MITIGATION VALUES
In order to estimate mitigation values, the following assumptions were used for this analysis:
• Wetland Credit Value (per market) = $75,000.00/credit
• PHU value = $650.00/PHU
• Average PHU Score per acre in North Belle Meade = 7+
• PHU values for wetland credit is already accounted for in wetland credit value
• Combined Mitigation Value Equation:
Combined Mitigation value = Wetland Mitigation Value + Upland Mitigation Value
= (number of wetland credits x credit value) + (number of upland acres x 7 PHU/acre x
value per PHU)
= (number of wetland credits $75,000/credit) + (number of upland acres x $4,500/acre)
Exhibit 2 contains the tabular applications of the Combined Mitigation Value equation with the
assumed values for the infestation scenarios and representative percentages of wetlands versus
uplands for a 100 acre parcel size. Graphing of the resultant data for the mitigation with and
without hydrological enhancement is presented below as Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3 - Mitigation Value without Hydrologic Enhancement
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % of 100 Acres
Mitigation Value w/out Hydro
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Appendix B Page 22 of 59
14
Figure 4 - Mitigation Value with Hydrologic Enhancement
11.0 CREDIT GENERATION COSTS
For the purpose of this analysis and to reduce the number of analytic variables, the costs of
generating wetland credits and PHUs are combined as “Credit Generation Costs.” As such,
except when denoted otherwise, the term “Credit Generation Cost” can be the considered as the
cost to generate a given Mitigation Value.
Under the Full Cost Accounting methodology required for mitigation banks selling credits on the
open market, the following cost elements must be considered:
• Land cost
• Implementation costs which include:
- Initial exotic treatments/eradication
- Five years of ongoing treatment of regrowth
- Replanting
- Funding of perpetual management
- Prescribed burning- where/when appropriate
- Program administration cost
11.1 Cost Assumptions
For the purpose of this analysis, the following cost assumptions are used.
11.1.1 Land Costs
Although per-acre land prices vary within the North Belle Meade, for the
purposes of this analysis, an assumed fair market value of $2,250/acre is used.
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % of 100 Acres
Mitigation Value w/ Hydro
Hydro Scenario 1
Hydro Scenario 2
Hydro Scenario 3
Hydro Scenario 4
Appendix B Page 23 of 59
15
11.1.2 Implementation Time Period
The implementation time for mitigation activities is assumed to be five years
(typical of most mitigation plans). This analysis uses this five year
implementation period to calculate implementation costs for any given phase or
discrete area, after which long-term maintenance and management will be funded
from the perpetual management account.
11.1.3 Initial Exotic Treatment Eradication
For initial exotic treatment, it is assumed that there will be reasonable access to
areas requiring treatment, primary treatment methodology will be treat-in-place
with minimal off-site removal of material, and treatment areas will be 50 acres or
greater.
11.1.4 Treatment Costs
For areas with less than 25 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $500 per acre.
For areas of 25 to 50 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $1,000 per acre.
For areas of 51 to 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $1,500 per acre.
For areas of greater than 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $2,000 per acre.
Ongoing nuisance/exotic treatments (5 Years)
Minimum of 2 treatment events per year will occur for first 5 years.
For areas with less than 25 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $25 per acre/year.
For areas of 25 to 50 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $50 per acre/year.
For areas of 51 to 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $75 per acre/year.
For areas of greater than 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $125 per
acre/year.
Replanting - assume replanting of areas with initial exotic infestation levels at or
greater than 75 percent at $3,500/acre.
11.1.5 Funding of Perpetual Maintenance
Funding of perpetual maintenance will be $1,025 per acre.
11.1.6 Prescribed Burning
$1,500 per 100 acres for initial burn.
$600 per 100 acres for second/follow-up burn.
Program Administration - assume 8 percent of implementation costs per year as is
typically required through permitting process.
Appendix B Page 24 of 59
16
11.1.7 Program Administrative Cost
Typical administrative costs for ROMA or ILF programs run about 8 percent of
implementation costs per year (including land costs) for the implementation
period (five years). The actual program costs will be greatly affected by the actual
implementation costs.
The current environmental conditions in the North Belle Meade vary greatly. Of
the various infestation level scenarios and upland/wetland habitat composition
combinations given above, the conditions and resulting implementation number
for Scenario 3 (moderate to high levels of infestation on Table Q2 (25 percent
uplands and 75 percent wetlands) is chosen as a reasonable expectation of
potential mitigation lands. The combined implementation cost for these
parameters is shown as $244,863 per 100 acres. By rounding this number to
$245,000 and adding in land cost of $225,000 per 100 acres then multiplying the
sum by 0.08 yields the administrative cost as:
($245,000 + $225,000) x 0.08 = $37,600 Administrative Cost per 100
acres
This cost is for an assumed 5-year implementation period. On a per-year
basis, the cost would $37,600/5 = $7,520 per 100 acres
11.2 Implementation Costs
The implementation costs in wetland areas, for the purpose of this analysis, are
considered as the cost of initial treatment of exotic and nuisance vegetation species, five
years of ongoing treatment of exotic/nuisance species, clearing and replanting of areas
where exotic infestation levels meet or exceed 75 percent, prescribed burning, and
funding of the long-term management fund.
The costs for all except the funding element are highly dependent on the levels of exotic
infestation and the relative percentages of upland versus wetlands for a given site or area.
Any upland within a mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF grogram area must also be managed
and maintained. The wetland implementation cost plus upland implementation cost are
combined to give the combined implementation cost for each situation. The wetland
implementation costs, upland implementation costs, and combined implementation costs
for the four infestation scenarios under a range of potential upland/wetland ratio
situations is found as Exhibit 3.
11.3 Total Credit Generation Costs
The Total Credit Generation Costs can be generally described as:
Land cost + Combined Implementation Costs + Administration Costs
Using the combined implementation costs from the tables in Exhibit 3, and adding the
Appendix B Page 25 of 59
17
assumed per 100 acre values for land cost ($225,000) and administration costs ($37,600)
yields the total credit generation costs to compare against Mitigation Values for each
infestation level scenario across a range up upland/wetland land composition ratios. The
data for this numerical operation is provided as Exhibit 4.
12.0 MITIGATION VALUE AND COSTS COMPARISONS
Graphically, the cost results from Exhibit 4 can be added to the results for Mitigation Value for
each scenario as shown below. The label “hydro scenario” denotes the use of the wetland credit
generation scoring used for the “with hydrologic enhancement” condition. The dashed red line
indicates to total credit generation cost minus the assumed land value of $2,250/acre.
Figure Series 5 - Mitigation Value versus Cost
Infestation Scenario 1 - Low Levels of Exotic Infestation
Infestation Scenario 2 - Moderate Levels of Exotic Infestation
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland %
Infestation Scenario 1
Mitigation Value vs Cost
Scenario 1
Hydro Scenario 1
Cost (w/land cost)
Costs (w/o land cost)
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland %
Infestation Scenario 2
Mitigation Value vs Cost
Scenario 2
Hydro Scenario 2
Cost (w/land cost)
Costs (w/o land cost)
Appendix B Page 26 of 59
18
Infestation Scenario 3 - Moderate to High Levels of Exotic Infestation
Infestation Scenario 4 - High Levels of Exotic Infestation
The concept of combined Mitigation Value combines the value of wetland credits with the
upland values for panther (or other species) habitat compensation. Should a proposed mitigation
banking or ROMA/ILF project area not be approved for species compensation or if a sufficient
market does not exist for habitat compensation, then the adjusted actual Mitigation Value would
be the value of the wetland credits alone. Graphing of data for wetland credit values only and
their associated cost yields the following:
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland %
Infestation Scenario 3
Mitigation Value vs Cost
Scenario 3
Hydro Scenario 2
Cost (w/land cost)
Costs (w/o land cost)
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland %
Infestation Scenario 4
Mitigation Value vs Cost
Scenario 4
Hydro Scenario 2
Cost (w/land cost)
Costs (w/o land cost)
Appendix B Page 27 of 59
19
Figure Series 6 - Wetland Value Only versus Cost
Infestation Scenario 1 - Low Levels of Exotic Infestation
Infestation Scenario 2 - Moderate Levels of Exotic Infestation
Infestation Scenario 3 - Moderate to High Levels of Exotic Infestation
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
10 25 50 75 90Credit Value Wetland %
Infestation Scenario 1
Wetland Credit Value vs Cost
Scenario 1- Wetland
value only
Hydro Scenario 1
Cost (w/land cost)
Costs (w/o land cost)
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
10 25 50 75 90Credit Value Wetland %
Infestation Scenario 2
Wetland Credit Value vs Cost
Scenario 2- Wetland
value only
Hydro Scenario 2
Cost (w/land cost)
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
10 25 50 75 90Credit Value Wetland %
Infestation Scenario 3
Wetland Credit Value vs Cost
Scenario 3- Wetland
value only
Hydro Scenario 2
Cost (w/land cost)
Costs (w/o land cost)
Appendix B Page 28 of 59
20
Infestation Scenario 4 - High Levels of Exotic Infestation
13.0 DISCUSSION OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
With a goal of establishing a mitigation program within the North Belle Meade that is cost-
neutral or cost-positive to the Collier County, the following information is reflected in the above
results of the numerical analysis:
13.1 Areas of Hydrologic Enhancement, Exotic Eradication, and Land
Management
For areas where hydrologic enhancement will occur, the potential Mitigation Value is
significantly higher than costs under all infestation scenarios and all upland versus
wetland land composition combinations where at least ten percent of the site is wetland
(Figure Series 5, all infestation scenarios). This is due to the more significant increase in
wetland function than can be achieved by rehydration than by exotic eradication and land
management alone. The projected costs for any hydrologic enhancement are assumed to
be part of other drainage basin restoration initiatives and are, therefore, not reflected in
the cost numbers.
For the purposes of this analysis, and in particular to remain conservative regarding
potential values, the balance of this discussion will focus on analysis data that does not
include results from hydrologic enhancements. The benefits and value of any hydrologic
enhancements, should they occur, would be additive to the Mitigation Values discusses
below.
13.2 Areas with Exotic Eradication and Land Management
For areas that would generate wetland functional increase through exotic vegetation
eradication, replanting in certain high infestation areas, and land management only (no
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
10 25 50 75 90Credit Value Wetland %
Infestation Scenario 4
Wetland Credit Value vs Cost
Scenario 4- Wetland
value only
Hydro Scenario 2
Cost (w/land cost)
Costs (w/o land cost)
Appendix B Page 29 of 59
21
hydrologic restoration), the amount of wetland credit generation and, therefore, the
overall Mitigation Value is significantly less.
For areas of low and moderate infestation levels (Infestation Scenarios 1 and 2 – Figure
Series 5 and 6) the overall mitigation value actually declines with increased percentage of
wetlands on a given area, indicating the area has more value as wildlife compensation
than wetland mitigation. For areas of moderate to high infestation levels (Scenario 3 –
Figure Series 5), the overall Mitigation Value is relatively unchanged as a function of
wetland percentage indicating such areas have about equal wetland Mitigation Value and
upland compensation value.
Only in Scenario 4 of Figure Series 5, where high levels of exotic infestation is
represented, is the value of the land for wetland mitigation higher than it is upland habitat
compensation.
Under the open market concept (Wetland Mitigation Bank) where the full cost accounting
approach is required to set credit prices on an open market, the cost sum that includes
land cost (“Cost (with land cost)” line on Figure Series 5 and 6) would need to be
applied. For minor, moderate, and even moderate to high levels of exotic infestation
(Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 – Figure Series 5 and 6) mitigation lands that contained
approximately 30 percent or more wetlands would have a negative net value (Mitigation
Value minus Cost) when land cost is accounted for.
13.3 ROMA/ILF
Unless hydrologic enhancements can be assured for a sufficiently large given area, the
above results indicate a commercial wetland mitigation bank is not likely to yield a
financially neutral or positive outcome.
Under a single user approach (ROMA/ILF type program) where the land cost does not
always need to be a consideration for credit pricing, the numerical analysis shows that a
net positive number (for Mitigation Value minus cost) is theoretically possible across a
broad range of infestation levels and upland/wetland composition levels. For projects
proposed by Collier County (i.e., Collier County Transportation Department, Collier
County Utilities Department, or Collier County Parks and Recreation Department) that
include wetland impact and/or listed species habitat impacts requiring wetland mitigation
and/or habitat compensation, the use of ROMA/ILF credits generated from a portion or
portions of the North Belle Meade could represent a net cost savings to Collier County.
The County’s current 2040 Long Range Transportation Program needs assessment for
cost-feasible future roadway projects indicates an anticipated need for 180 wetland
mitigation credits and 6,900 units of panther habitat compensation at projected costs of
$11,058,000 and $6,932,000, respectively. Per-unit costs used in the Needs Assessment
were $70,000 for wetland credits and $1,000 for panther compensation (PHUs). The
actual cost to Collier County of the projected mitigation/compensation could be
significantly lower on a per unit basis by using a ROMA/ILF project to generate the
Appendix B Page 30 of 59
22
needed credits and habitat compensation. Additionally, the funds spent purchasing the
mitigation/compensation could be used to expand and operate the ROMA/ILF program.
The concept of establishing and operating a single-user ROMA/ILF project within a
portion or portions of the North Belle Meade does appear to be financially feasible based
on this analysis.
14.0 ROMA/ILF PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
Historically, ROMA and ILF projects have been permitted and operated with highly varying
degrees of success. In a number of cases, monies have been collected under such a program with
long delays, and even failure, in actual implementation of the mitigation plan measures. As a
result, regulatory agencies have legitimate concerns about the mitigation plan implementation
and timely success of proposed ecological benefits. A thorough and accurate tracking and
accounting of dollars coming into and out of any ROMA/ILF will be important for a proposed
ROMA/ILF project.
The concept of a critical mass in terms of land area that can be reasonably - expected to become
part of any proposed ROMA/ILF project will be an important consideration. The necessary
minimum land area is typically decided with the regulatory agencies on a case-by-case basis. For
an area such as North Belle Meade, the FDEP and the COE could conceivable ask for 500± or
even 1,000± acres as a minimum project size.
A significant advantage of the ROMA/ILF program is the total of the proposed project area does
not need to be in the applicant/permittee’s ownership up-front. Ideally, an applicant would own
some of the necessary land area and be able to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the
balance of the necessary land areas to attain the critical mass can/will be attained in some
manner, including the use of collected monies for land purchase.
Within the North Belle Meade are a number of land parcels that have already been used for
wetland mitigation and are, therefore, not available for further credit or upland compensation;
however, the parcels could be counted towards the critical mass consideration. Also, land
management of these parcels could possibly be accomplished by a ROMA/ILF project, under a
separate agreement, with the projected funds typically spent by the entities responsible for each
of the existing mitigation parcels going to the ROMA/ILF (or related entity) in exchange. Within
the NRPA portion of North Belle Meade, lands that have not already been used for some form of
mitigation and are available for full credit potential total over 2,000 acres.
For mitigation banking projects, funding assurance is required for the implementation work
(minus the funding of the perpetual management account) during the first five years of the
project, or a phase/geographic area of the project. Such assurances take the form of performance
bounding or a specialized insurance policy. Alternative assurance options may be available for
county governments implementing a ROMA/ILF.
Appendix B Page 31 of 59
23
Funding of the long-term management fund has been included in the implementation cost
calculations in this analysis in order to conservatively simplify the analysis. Typically, long-term
management accounts may be funded to a large degree from funds received from ongoing credit
sales over time, rather than as an initial expense of mitigation implementation. While project or
project phase implementation is typically a five year period, credit sales may occur over a longer
than five year period. Funding of the long-term management account may be spread out over
more than five years.
The potential ecological benefits of conservation easements are a critical factor an all forms of
wetland mitigation or habitat compensation programs. To the degree conservation easements
can be shown to eliminate the potential for alternate, less environmentally beneficial land uses,
the placement of conservation easements over project lands is valuable. The existence of the
County TDR program and the associated limitation on development potential for lands in the
TDR program will need to be addressed with the FDEP and the COE.
The placement of significant areas of land into a ROMA/ILF program can be reasonably
expected to make such lands acceptable to the USFWS and the FWCC for habitat compensation,
subject to the landscape context of such lands for long-term panther use.
The relative value of upland compensation to the overall (Combined) Mitigation Value is
significant in this analysis. This can be demonstrated by graphing the value of wetlands and
uplands and wetland mitigation only, versus costs for each scenario on a 1,000± acre
hypothetical project size as shown on the Graph Series 7, below.
Figure Series 7 – (Combined) Mitigation Value versus Cost
Scenario 1 – Low Exotic Infestation Levels
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland %
…
Scenario 1- Low Exotic Infestation Levels
Mitigation Value vs Cost
Scenario 1- Wetland and
Upland Value
Costs (w/o land cost)
Scenario 1 -Wetland Value
only
Appendix B Page 32 of 59
24
Scenario 2 – Moderate Exotic Infestation Levels
Scenario 3 – High Exotic Infestation Levels
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland %
For 1,000-Acre ROMA/ILF Area
Scenario 2- Moderate Exotic Infestation Levels
Mitigation Value vs Cost
Scenario 2- Wetland and
Upland Values
Costs (w/o land cost)
Scenario 2- Wetland Value
only
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland %
…
Scenario 3- High Exotic Infestation Levels
Mitigation Value vs Cost
Scenario 3- Wetland and
Upland Values
Costs (w/o land cost)
Scenario 3- Wetland Value
only
Appendix B Page 33 of 59
25
Scenario 4 – High Exotic Infestation Levels
If the use of project uplands for panther habitat compensation is not acceptable to the regulatory
agencies, then this analysis suggests ROMA/ILF will only work for:
• Areas of low exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 70± percent wetlands
• Areas of moderate exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 55 percent wetlands
• Areas of moderate to high exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 45 percent
wetlands
• Areas of high exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 60 percent wetlands
15.0 PERMIT PROCESS
The typical process for the permitting of a wetland mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF project
basically involves the following steps:
1. Site identification and ecological studies
2. Surveying and preliminary mitigation plan design
3. Pre-application meetings with the FDEP and the COE
4. Prospectus development and submittal
5. Site inspections by regulatory agencies
6. State and federal agencies do, or do not, deem the site and proposed project “appropriate”
7. State and federal application submittals
8. State and federal application reviews
9. Legal reviews
10. Permit issuance
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland %
For 1,000-Acre ROMA/ILF Area
Scenario 4- High Exotic Infestation Levels
Mitigation Value vs Cost
Scenario 4- Wetland and
Upland Value
Costs (w/o land cost)
Scenario 4 Wetlands only
Appendix B Page 34 of 59
26
From the time of site identification to permit issuance, the overall process can take two to four
years.
16.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions are based on the assumption hydrological enhancement is not an
available option.
A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within the North Belle Meade appears to be a
cost-feasible generator of wetland mitigation credits and panther habitat compensation if the
ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly located to assure long-term support for the Florida
panther.
A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within the North Belle Meade appears to be a
cost-feasible generator of wetland credits for a site(s) if exotic infestation levels are relatively
high and the percentage of wetlands on the site(s) is high.
To further refine the analysis results and increase the level of certainty regarding the feasibility
of portions of North Belle Meade to serve as cost-effective mitigation, further steps are
recommended. A more site-specific mitigation evaluation tool, based on the methodology used in
this analysis, is currently being developed to allow for efficient evaluations of specific areas
within North Belle Meade. A selection of potential ROMA/ILF areas should be performed. Then
limited site reconnaissance coupled with the use of existing aerials could yield more refined
information regarding levels of exotic infestation and the extent of wetlands for each selected
area. Information gained from such efforts should be input into the new analysis tool to gain
more site-specific results.
This site-specific evaluation will allow the input of data gained from limited site reconnaissance
of particular parcels or areas to generate site-specific data regarding potential mitigation values
and associated costs. The results of this type of analysis, based on more site-specific data, will
result in a higher degree of accuracy and allow for a higher degree of certainty regarding the
potential for a specific area or areas to serve as feasible mitigation value generators.
17.0 RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS - ASSUMING ROMA/ILF OPTION
As indicated previously, this analysis relies on certain assumptions and anticipated regulatory
agency positions regarding certain issues, including the use of North Belle Meade lands for
panther compensation, the impacts of the County’s TDR program on potential credit generation,
scoring of wetland functions, and possible alternatives for financial assurances.
Discussions and/or meetings with the FDEP, the COE, and the USFWS with the overall North
Belle Meade as the initial focus should occur to discuss and resolve issues related to the TDR
program’s potential impact on wetland credit generation and the appropriateness of certain
portions of North Belle Meade for panther compensation in a ROMA/ILF project. A clear
Appendix B Page 35 of 59
27
understanding and agreement on these issues would significantly aid in the selection of
appropriate lands for consideration for placement in a conceptual ROMA/ILF.
Sites identified for potential inclusion in a ROMA/ILF conceptual plan could then be assessed on
a more site-specific basis and the analysis tools developed by this analysis could be used to
evaluate the potential value and costs for each site.
Appendix B Page 36 of 59
EXHIBIT 1
UMAM WORKSHEETS
Appendix B Page 37 of 59
E1-1
w/o with w/o with w/o with
a Wetland - No Exotics 72.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 2.40
b Wetland-E1 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.60
c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00
Subtotal 90.00 3.00
a Wetland - No Exotics 60.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 2.00
b Wetland-E1 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.50
c Wetland-E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00
Subtotal 75.00 2.50
a Wetland - No Exotics 40.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 1.33
b Wetland- E1 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.33
c Wetland-E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
d Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00
Subtotal 50.00 1.67
a Wetland - No Exotics 20.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.67
b Wetland- E1 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.17
c Wetland- E2 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
d Wetland- E3 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
e Wetland- E4 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00
Subtotal 25.00 0.83
a Wetland - No Exotics 8.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.27
b Wetland- E1 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.07
c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00
Subtotal 10.00 0.33
NORTH BELLE MEADEUMAM WORKSHEETS
WETLAND MITIGATION FUNCTIONAL SCORING
July 2016
PhaseUMAM
Acres
FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic
LevelPolygon No.
UMAM WORKSHEET 1 of 2
WETLAND CREDIT GENERATION PER 100 ACRES (WITHOUT HYDROLOGIC LIFT and WITHOUT UPLAND CREDIT GENERATION)
SCENARIO 1 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands
SCENARIO 1 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands
SCENARIO 1 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands
Risk Pres. Fact RFG CreditsHydrologyCommunityLocation
SCENARIO 1 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands
SCENARIO 1 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands
Existing
w/out UMAM
Proposed w/
UMAM Delta T-factor
Appendix B Page 38 of 59
E1-2
w/o with w/o with w/o with
a Wetland - No Exotics 27.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.90
b Wetland-E1 27.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.90
c Wetland- E2 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.20
d Wetland- E3 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.20
e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00
Subtotal 90.00 4.20
a Wetland - No Exotics 22.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.75
b Wetland-E1 22.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.75
c Wetland-E2 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.00
d Wetland- E3 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.00
e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 55 5 6 8 2.300 0.733 -1.567 1.00 1.00 N/A -1.567 0.00
Subtotal 75.00 3.50
a Wetland - No Exotics 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.50
b Wetland- E1 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.50
c Wetland-E2 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.67
d Wetland- E4 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.67
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00
Subtotal 50.00 2.33
a Wetland - No Exotics 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.25
b Wetland- E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.25
c Wetland- E2 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.33
d Wetland- E3 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.33
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00
Subtotal 25.00 1.17
a Wetland - No Exotics 3.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.10
b Wetland- E1 3.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.10
c Wetland- E2 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.13
d Wetland- E3 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.13
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00
Subtotal 6.00 0.47
UMAM Worksheet 1 of 2 (Continued)
Polygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic
Level
UMAM
Acres Phase Existing
w/out UMAM
Proposed w/
UMAM
SCENARIO 2 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands
SCENARIO 2 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands
SCENARIO 2 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands
SCENARIO 2 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands
SCENARIO 2 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands
Location Hydrology Community Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits
Appendix B Page 39 of 59
E1-3
w/o with w/o with w/o with
a Wetland - No Exotics 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.60
b Wetland-E1 13.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.45
c Wetland- E2 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.20
d Wetland- E3 31.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 2.10
e Wetland-E4 9.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.90
Subtotal 90.00 5.25
a Wetland - No Exotics 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.50
b Wetland-E1 11.25 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.38
c Wetland-E2 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.00
d Wetland- E3 26.25 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.75
e Wetland-E4 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.50
Subtotal 75.00 4.13
a Wetland - No Exotics 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.33
b Wetland- E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.25
c Wetland-E2 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.67
d Wetland- E4 17.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.17
e Wetland- E4 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.50
Subtotal 50.00 2.92
a Wetland - No Exotics 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.17
b Wetland- E1 3.75 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.13
c Wetland- E2 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.33
d Wetland- E3 8.75 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.58
e Wetland- E4 2.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.25
Subtotal 25.00 1.46
a Wetland - No Exotics 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.07
b Wetland- E1 1.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.05
c Wetland- E2 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.13
d Wetland- E3 3.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.23
e Wetland- E4 1.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.10
Subtotal 3.50 0.58
UMAM Worksheet 1 of 2 (Continued)
SCENARIO 3 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands
SCENARIO 3 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands
SCENARIO 3 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands
SCENARIO 3 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands
SCENARIO 3 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands
Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic
Level
UMAM
Acres Phase Existing
w/out UMAM
Proposed w/
UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits
Appendix B Page 40 of 59
E1-4
w/o with w/o with w/o with
a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00
b Wetland-E1 9.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.30
c Wetland- E2 13.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.90
d Wetland- E3 31.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 2.10
e Wetland-E4 36.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 3.60
Subtotal 90.00 6.90
a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00
b Wetland-E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.25
c Wetland-E2 11.25 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.75
d Wetland- E3 26.25 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.75
e Wetland-E4 30.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 3.00
Subtotal 75.00 5.75
a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00
b Wetland- E1 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.17
c Wetland-E2 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.50
d Wetland- E4 17.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.17
e Wetland- E4 20.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 2.00
Subtotal 50.00 3.83
a Wetland- No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00
b Wetland- E1 2.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.08
c Wetland- E2 3.75 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.25
d Wetland- E3 8.75 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.58
e Wetland- E4 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 1.00
Subtotal 25.00 1.92
a Wetland- No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00
b Wetland- E1 1.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.03
c Wetland- E2 1.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.10
d Wetland- E3 3.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.23
e Wetland- E4 4.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.40
Subtotal 1.00 0.77
Note: Scenarios 1,2,3, and 4 represent succesive increasing levels of infestation by exotic vegetation
UMAM - Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology
UMAM Worksheet 1 of 2 (Continued)
SCENARIO 4 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands
SCENARIO 4 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands
SCENARIO 4 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands
SCENARIO 4 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands
SCENARIO 4 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands
Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic
Level
UMAM
Acres Phase Existing
w/out UMAM
Proposed w/
UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits
Appendix B Page 41 of 59
E1-5
w/o with w/o with w/o with
a Wetland - No Exotics 72.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 12.00
b Wetland-E1 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.00
c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 90.00 15.00
a Wetland - No Exotics 60.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 10.00
b Wetland-E1 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.50
c Wetland-E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 75.00 12.50
a Wetland - No Exotics 40.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 6.67
b Wetland- E1 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.67
c Wetland-E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
d Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 50.00 8.33
a Wetland - No Exotics 20.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.33
b Wetland- E1 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.83
c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 25.00 4.17
a Wetland - No Exotics 8.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.33
b Wetland- E1 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.33
c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 10.00 1.67
HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands
Location Hydrology Community Existing
w/out UMAM
Proposed w/
UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG CreditsPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic
Level
UMAM
Acres Phase
NORTH BELLE MEADE UMAM WORKSHEET 2 of 2
WETLAND CREDIT GENERATION PER 100 ACRES (WITH HYDROLOGIC LIFT and WITHOUT UPLAND CREDIT GENERATION)
Appendix B Page 42 of 59
E1-6
w/o with w/o with w/o with
a Wetland - No Exotics 27.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 4.50
b Wetland-E1 27.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 4.50
c Wetland- E2 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.60
d Wetland- E3 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.60
e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 90.00 16.20
a Wetland - No Exotics 22.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.75
b Wetland-E1 22.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.75
c Wetland-E2 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.00
d Wetland- E3 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.00
e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 75.00 13.50
a Wetland - No Exotics 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.50
b Wetland- E1 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.50
c Wetland-E2 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.00
d Wetland- E4 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.00
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 50.00 9.00
a Wetland - No Exotics 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.25
b Wetland- E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.25
c Wetland- E2 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.00
d Wetland- E3 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.00
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 25.00 4.50
a Wetland - No Exotics 3.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.50
b Wetland- E1 3.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.50
c Wetland- E2 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.40
d Wetland- E3 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.40
e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00
Subtotal 6.00 1.80
UMAM Worksheet 2 of 2 (Continued)
HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands
Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic
Level
UMAM
Acres Phase Existing
w/out UMAM
Proposed w/
UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits
Appendix B Page 43 of 59
E1-7
w/o with w/o with w/o with
a Wetland - No Exotics 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.00
b Wetland-E1 13.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.25
c Wetland- E2 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.60
d Wetland- E3 31.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 6.30
e Wetland-E4 9.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 2.10
Subtotal 90.00 17.25
a Wetland - No Exotics 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.50
b Wetland-E1 11.25 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.88
c Wetland-E2 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.00
d Wetland- E3 26.25 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 5.25
e Wetland-E4 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 1.75
Subtotal 75.00 14.38
a Wetland - No Exotics 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.67
b Wetland- E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.25
c Wetland-E2 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.00
d Wetland- E4 17.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.50
e Wetland- E4 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 1.17
Subtotal 50.00 9.58
a Wetland - No Exotics 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.83
b Wetland- E1 3.75 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.63
c Wetland- E2 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.00
d Wetland- E3 8.75 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.75
e Wetland- E4 2.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.58
Subtotal 25.00 4.79
a Wetland - No Exotics 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.33
b Wetland- E1 1.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.25
c Wetland- E2 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.40
d Wetland- E3 3.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.70
e Wetland- E4 1.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.23
Subtotal 3.50 1.92
UMAM Worksheet 2 of 2 (Continued)
HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands
Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic
Level
UMAM
Acres Phase Existing
w/out UMAM
Proposed w/
UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits
Appendix B Page 44 of 59
E1-8
w/o with w/o with w/o with
a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.00
b Wetland-E1 9.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.50
c Wetland- E2 13.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.70
d Wetland- E3 31.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 6.30
e Wetland-E4 36.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 8.40
Subtotal 90.00 18.90
a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.00
b Wetland-E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.25
c Wetland-E2 11.25 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.25
d Wetland- E3 26.25 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 5.25
e Wetland-E4 30.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 7.00
Subtotal 75.00 15.75
a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 8 8 8 9 0.800 0.867 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00
b Wetland- E1 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.83
c Wetland-E2 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.50
d Wetland- E4 17.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.50
e Wetland- E4 20.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 4.67
Subtotal 50.00 10.50
a Wetland- No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.00
b Wetland- E1 2.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.42
c Wetland- E2 3.75 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.75
d Wetland- E3 8.75 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.75
e Wetland- E4 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 2.33
Subtotal 25.00 5.25
a Wetland- No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.00
b Wetland- E1 1.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.17
c Wetland- E2 1.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.30
d Wetland- E3 3.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.70
e Wetland- E4 4.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.93
Subtotal 1.00 2.10
Note: Scenarios 1,2,3, and 4 represent succesive increasing levels of infestation by exotic vegetation
*The label "Hydro Scenario" indicates the UMAM scoring includes functional lift for hydrological enhancements
UMAM - Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology
UMAM Worksheet 2 of 2 (Continued)
HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands
HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands
Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic
Level
UMAM
Acres Phase Existing
w/out UMAM
Proposed w/
UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits
Appendix B Page 45 of 59
EXHIBIT 2
MITIGATION VALUE TABLES
Appendix B Page 46 of 59
E2-1
NORTH BELLE MEADE
MITIGATION VALUE TABLES
Mitigation Value Tables without Hydrology Lift
Scenario 1
A B C D E F G H
Percentage
of
Wetlands
(per 100
acres)
Wetland
Credits
Generated
Wetland
Credit
Unit
Value
($/Credit)
Wetland
Credit
Value
Upland
Acres
PHU Value
($/per
Upland
Acre)
Upland
Value ($)
Total
Mitigation
Value
(per 100 acres)
10 0.33 75,000 $23,750 90 4,500 $405,000 $428,750
25 0.83 75,000 $62,250 75 4,500 $337,500 $399,750
50 1.67 75,000 $125,250 50 4,500 $225,000 $350,250
75 2.50 75,000 $187,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $300,000
90 3.00 75,000 $225,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $270,000
Scenario 2
A B C D E F G H
Percentage
of
Wetlands
(per 100
acres)
Wetland
Credits
Generated
Wetland
Credit
Unit
Value
($/Credit)
Wetland
Credit
Value
Upland
Acres
PHU Value
($/per
Upland
Acre)
Upland
Value ($)
Total
Mitigation
Value
(per 100 acres)
10 0.47 75,000 $35,250 90 4,500 $405,000 $440,250
25 1.17 75,000 $87,750 75 4,500 $337,500 $425,250
50 2.33 75,000 $174,750 50 4,500 $225,000 $399,750
75 3.50 75,000 $262,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $375,000
90 4.20 75,000 $315,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $360,000
Scenario 3
A B C D E F G H
Percentage
of
Wetlands
(per 100
acres)
Wetland
Credits
Generated
Wetland
Credit
Unit
Value
($/Credit)
Wetland
Credit
Value
Upland
Acres
PHU Value
($/per
Upland
Acre)
Upland
Value ($)
Total
Mitigation
Value
(per 100 acres)
10 0.58 75,000 $43,500 90 4,500 $405,000 $448,500
25 1.46 75,000 $109,500 75 4,500 $337,500 $447,000
50 2.92 75,000 $219,000 50 4,500 $225,000 $444,000
75 4.38 75,000 $328,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $441,000
90 5.25 75,000 $393,750 10 4,500 $45,000 $438,750
Appendix B Page 47 of 59
E2-2
Scenario 4
A B C D E F G H
Percentage
of
Wetlands
(per 100
acres)
Wetland
Credits
Generated
Wetland
Credit
Unit
Value
($/Credit)
Wetland
Credit
Value
Upland
Acres
PHU Value
($/per
Upland
Acre)
Upland
Value ($)
Total
Mitigation
Value
(per 100 acres)
10 0.77 75,000 $57,750 90 4,500 $405,000 $462,750
25 1.92 75,000 $144,000 75 4,500 $337,500 $481,500
50 3.83 75,000 $287,250 50 4,500 $225,000 $512,250
75 5.75 75,000 $431,250 25 4,500 $112,500 $543,750
90 6.90 75,000 $517,500 10 4,500 $5,000 $562,250
Mitigation Value Tables with Hydrology Lift
Hydro Scenario 1
A B C D E F G H
Percentage
of
Wetlands
(per 100
acres)
Wetland
Credits
Generated
Wetland
Credit
Unit
Value
($/Credit)
Wetland
Credit
Value
Upland
Acres
PHU Value
($/per
Upland
Acre)
Upland
Value ($)
Total
Mitigation
Value
(per 100
acres)
10 1.67 75,000 $125,250 90 4,500 $405,000 $530,250
25 4.17 75,000 $312,750 75 4,500 $337,500 $650,250
50 8.33 75,000 $624,750 50 4,500 $225,000 $849,750
75 12.50 75,000 $937,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,050,000
90 15.00 75,000 $1,125,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,170,000
Hydro Scenario 2
A B C D E F G H
Percentage
of
Wetlands
(per 100
acres)
Wetland
Credits
Generated
Wetland
Credit
Unit
Value
($/Credit)
Wetland
Credit
Value
Upland
Acres
PHU Value
($/per
Upland
Acre)
Upland
Value ($)
Total
Mitigation
Value
(per 100
acres)
10 1.80 75,000 $135,000 90 4,500 $405,000 $540,000
25 4.60 75,000 $345,000 75 4,500 $337,500 $682,500
50 9.00 75,000 $675,000 50 4,500 $225,000 $900,000
75 13.50 75,000 $1,012,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,125,500
90 16.20 75,000 $1,215,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,260,000
Appendix B Page 48 of 59
E2-3
Hydro Scenario 3
A B C D E F G H
Percentage
of
Wetlands
(per 100
acres)
Wetland
Credits
Generated
Wetland
Credit
Unit
Value
($/Credit)
Wetland
Credit
Value
Upland
Acres
PHU Value
($/per
Upland
Acre)
Upland
Value ($)
Total
Mitigation
Value
(per 100
acres)
10 1.92 75,000 $144,000 90 4,500 $405,000 $549,000
25 4.79 75,000 $359,250 75 4,500 $337,500 $696,750
50 9.58 75,000 $718,500 50 4,500 $225,000 $943,500
75 14.38 75,000 $1,078,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,191,000
90 17.25 75,000 $1,293,750 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,338,750
Hydro Scenario 4
A B C D E F G H
Percentage
of
Wetlands
(per 100
acres)
Wetland
Credits
Generated
Wetland
Credit
Unit
Value
($/Credit)
Wetland
Credit
Value
Upland
Acres
PHU Value
($/per
Upland
Acre)
Upland
Value ($)
Total
Mitigation
Value
(per 100
acres)
10 2.10 75,000 $157,500 90 4,500 $405,000 $562,500
25 5.25 75,000 $393,750 75 4,500 $337,500 $731,250
50 10.50 75,000 $787,500 50 4,500 $225,000 $1,012,500
75 15.75 75,000 $1,181,250 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,293,750
90 18.90 75,000 $1,417,500 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,462,500
Appendix B Page 49 of 59
EXHIBIT 3
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Appendix B Page 50 of 59
E3-1
NORTH BELLE MEADE
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Implementation costs for wetland areas can be considered as the cost of the following for a 5-
year period:
Initial treatment/eradication of exotic and nuisance vegetation
Five years of ongoing treatment of exotic and nuisance vegetation
Replanting of areas with 75 percent or greater levels of exotic vegetation
Prescribed burns where and when appropriate
Funding of the long-term management fund
For the purpose of this analysis, the need and/or cost for prescribed burning of wetland areas
during the five year implementation period is assumed to be negligible relative to other costs.
Implementation Cost for Wetland Areas by Infestation levels
For areas with less than 25 percent (E1) exotic/nuisance infestation
Initial treatment $500/acre
Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $25) $125/acre
Replanting N/A
Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre
Total $1,650/acre
For areas with 25 to 50 percent (E2) exotic/nuisance infestation
Initial treatment $1,000/acre
Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $50) $250/acre
Replanting N/A
Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre
Total $2,275/acre
For areas with 51 to 75 percent (E3) exotic/nuisance infestation
Initial treatment $1,500/acre
Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $75) $375/acre
Replanting N/A
Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre
Total $2,900/acre
For areas with greater than 75 percent (E4) exotic/nuisance infestation
Initial treatment $2,000/acre
Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $125) $625/acre
Replanting $3,500/acre
Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre
Total $7,150/acre
Appendix B Page 51 of 59
E3-2
For areas with no exotic or nuisance vegetation present
Initial treatment N/A
Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $125) $60/acre
Replanting N/A
Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre
Total $1,085/acre
The above information is presented in tabular form below.
Table E3-1. General per acre Implementation Costs Summary for Wetland Areas
Infestation Level Implementation Cost Per Acre
None $1,085
Minor (E1) $1,650
Moderate (E2) $2,275
High (E3) $2,900
Extreme (E4) $7,150
The actual implementation costs for any given area will greatly depend on the range of initial
initial habitat values (primarily exotic/nuisance infestation levels).
Use of the four infestation level scenarios described above to calculate the probable
implementation costs for different degrees of exotic infestation yields to results shown in Table
E3-2, below.
Table E3-2. Implementation Costs by Scenarios (Per 100 Wetland Acres)
Scenario 1- Low Infestation Levels
Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100
Acres of Wetlands
Percentage of Land
with Infestation
Level
Implementation Cost
None $108,500 80 $86,800
Minor (E1) $165,000 20 $33,000
Moderate (E2) $227,500 0 0
High (E3) $290,000 0 0
Extreme (E4) $715,000 0 0
Total $119,800
Scenario 2 – Mostly Low to Moderate Levels of Infestation
Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100
Acres of Wetland
Percentage of Land
with Infestation
Level
Implementation Cost
None $108,500 30 $32,550
Minor (E1) $165,000 30 $49,500
Appendix B Page 52 of 59
E3-3
Scenario 2 – Mostly Low to Moderate Levels of Infestation (Continued)
Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100
Acres of Wetland
Percentage of Land
with Infestation
Level
Implementation Cost
Moderate (E2) $227,500 20 $45,500
High (E3) $290,000 20 $58,000
Extreme (E4) $715,000 0 0
Total $185,550
Scenario 3 - Mostly Moderate to High Levels of Infestation
Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100
Acres of Wetland
Percentage of Land
with Infestation
Level
Implementation Cost
None $108,500 20 $21,700
Minor (E1) $165,000 15 $24,750
Moderate (E2) $227,500 20 $45,500
High (E3) $290,000 35 $101,500
Extreme (E4) $715,000 10 $71,500
Total $264,950
Scenario 4 - Mostly High Levels of Infestation
Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100
Acres of Wetland
Percentage of Land
with Infestation
Level
Implementation Cost
None $108,500 0 0
Minor (E1) $165,000 10 $16,500
Moderate (E2) $227,500 15 $34,125
High (E3) $290,000 35 $101,500
Extreme (E4) $715,000 40 $286,000
Total $438,125
Implementation Costs for Upland Areas
Exotic and nuisance vegetation commonly occurs in both wetlands and uplands in Southwest
Florida. The costs presented for the four scenarios above are primarily representative of
treatment costs for wetland systems. Treatment costs for upland areas are typically less because
prescribed burning can be used as an effective management component of any exotic vegetation
eradication program.
Prescribed Burn Costs
The cost to burn land is highly variable depending on the amount of fuel load present, the linear
feet of burn lines that need to be established, the size of the area to be burned, the types of habitat
present, and other factors. For the purposes of this analysis, an assumed cost of $850 per 100
Appendix B Page 53 of 59
E3-4
acres of uplands will be used for the initial burn event and $600 per 100 acres for the follow-up
burn likely to be required during the five year implementation period.
Prescribed burns are also a useful management tool for certain types of wetland habitats. The use
of fire in wetland areas often reduces the need to treat exotic and nuisance species; therefore, for
the purpose of this analysis, the cost of burning wetlands, where appropriate, is assumed as
accounted for in the costs for ongoing treatments of exotic/nuisance vegetation in wetland areas.
The costs for implementation for upland areas can be generally defined as:
Initial Burn Cost + Follow-up Burn Costs + funding perpetual management fund
Using the assumed estimated cost numbers for 100 acres this equation yields:
$1,500 + $600 + ($1,025/acre x 100 acres) x = $104,600 per 100 acres for upland
implementation costs
Combined Wetland and Upland Implementation Costs
For a given 100-acre area, the combined implementation costs can generally be calculated as:
(Percent Upland x $104,600) + (Percent Wetland x Implementation Costs for given levels of
infestation)
The following tables give the combined implementation costs for the four infestation level
scenarios for a 100-acre area with upland/wetland ratios of 10/90, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, and 90/10
to represent a range of upland/wetland land composition types.
Table E3-4. Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 10 Percent Uplands/90
Percent Wetlands
Infestation
Levels
Wetland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland/Wetland Composition
10 Percent Uplands/90 Percent Wetlands
Wetland
Cost Upland Cost
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $107,820 $10,460 $118,280
Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $166,995 $10,460 $177,455
Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $238,455 $10,460 $248,915
Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $394,312 $10,460 $404,772
Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands
Infestation
Levels
Wetland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland/Wetland Composition
25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands
Wetland
Cost Upland Cost
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $89,959 $26,150 $116,109
Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $139,163 $26,150 $165,313
Appendix B Page 54 of 59
E3-5
Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands
(Continued)
Infestation
Levels
Wetland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland/Wetland Composition
25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands
Wetland
Cost Upland Cost
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $198,713 $26,150 $244,863
Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $328,594 $26,150 $357,744
Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 50 Percent Uplands/50 Percent Wetlands
Infestation
Levels
Wetland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland/Wetland Composition
50 Percent Uplands/50 Percent Wetlands
Wetland
Cost Upland Cost
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $59,900 $52,300 $112,200
Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $92,775 $52,300 $145,075
Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $132,475 $52,300 $184,775
Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $219,063 $52,300 $271,363
Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 75 Percent Uplands/25 Percent Wetlands
Infestation
Levels
Wetland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland/Wetland Composition
75 Percent Uplands/25 Percent Wetlands
Wetland
Cost Upland Cost
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $29,950 $78,450 $108,400
Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $46,388 $78,450 $124,838
Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $66,238 $78,450 $144,688
Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $109,532 $78,450 $187,982
Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands
Infestation
Levels
Wetland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland/Wetland Composition
90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands
Wetland
Cost Upland Cost
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $11,980 $94,140 $106,120
Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $18,555 $94,140 $112,695
Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $26,495 $94,140 $120,635
Appendix B Page 55 of 59
E3-6
Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands
(Continued)
Infestation
Levels
Wetland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland
Implementation
Cost per 100
Acres
Upland/Wetland Composition
90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands
Wetland
Cost Upland Cost
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $43,812 $94,140 $137,952
Appendix B Page 56 of 59
EXHIBIT 4
CREDIT GENERATION COST TABLES
Appendix B Page 57 of 59
E4-1
NORTH BELLE MEADE
CREDIT GENERATION COST TABLES
The total cost to generate Mitigation Value is the combined costs of:
Land + Implementation + Program Administration
Land value is assumed at $2,250 per acre = $225,000 per 100 acres
Program administration cost is assumed as $37,600 per 100 acres over a 5 year period
The following table gives the total costs for the four infestation level scenarios for a 100± acre
area with upland/wetland ratios of 10/90, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, and 90/10 to represent a range of
upland/wetland land composition types.
Table E4-1. Total Credit Generation Cost
Infestation
Levels
Upland/Wetland Composition
10 Percent Upland/90 Percent Wetland
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Land Cost Administrative
Cost
Total Credit
Generation Cost
Scenario 1 $118,280 $225,000 $37,600 $380,880
Scenario 2 $177,455 $225,000 $37,600 $440,055
Scenario 3 $248,915 $225,000 $37,600 $511,515
Scenario 4 $404,772 $225,000 $37,600 $667,372
Infestation
Levels
Upland/Wetland Composition
25 Percent Upland/75 Percent Wetland
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Land Cost Administrative
Cost
Total Credit
Generation Cost
Scenario 1 $116,109 $225,000 $37,600 $378,709
Scenario 2 $165,313 $225,000 $37,600 $427,913
Scenario 3 $244,863 $225,000 $37,600 $507,463
Scenario 4 $357,744 $225,000 $37,600 $620,344
Infestation
Levels
Upland/Wetland Composition
50 Percent Upland/50 Percent Wetland
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Land Cost Administrative
Cost
Total Credit
Generation Cost
Scenario 1 $112,200 $225,000 $37,600 $374,800
Scenario 2 $145,075 $225,000 $37,600 $407,675
Scenario 3 $184,775 $225,000 $37,600 $447,375
Scenario 4 $271,363 $225,000 $37,600 $533,963
Appendix B Page 58 of 59
E4-2
Table E4-1. (Continued)
Infestation
Levels
Upland/Wetland Composition
75 Percent Upland/25 Percent Wetland
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Land Cost Administrative
Cost
Total Credit
Generation Cost
Scenario 1 $108,400 $225,000 $37,600 $371,000
Scenario 2 $124,838 $225,000 $37,600 $387,438
Scenario 3 $144,688 $225,000 $37,600 $407,288
Scenario 4 $187,982 $225,000 $37,600 $450,582
Infestation
Levels
Upland/Wetland Composition
90 Percent Upland/10 Percent Wetland
Combined
Implementation
Cost
Land Cost Administrative
Cost
Total Credit
Generation Cost
Scenario 1 $106,120 $225,000 $37,600 $386,720
Scenario 2 $112,695 $225,000 $37,600 $375,295
Scenario 3 $120,635 $225,000 $37,600 $383,235
Scenario 4 $137,952 $225,000 $37,600 $400,552
Appendix B Page 59 of 59
Appendix C
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
TDR Bank Memo
TDR Bank Capitalization
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District TDR Program
December 20, 2016
Prepared for:
Collier County Zoning Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
239-252-2400
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana CA 92707
714-966-9220
placeworks.com
December 20, 2016 Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
RFMUD Restudy ....................................................................................... 1
TDR Program Background ........................................................................ 2
Sending Areas ............................................................................................................. 2
Receiving Areas ........................................................................................................... 2
TDR Program Activity .................................................................................................. 4
Public Sentiment About the TDR Program .............................................. 4
TDR Banks ................................................................................................ 4
Report Organization ................................................................................ 6
2. TDR BANK BENEFITS ........................................................ 7
TDR Bank Benefits ................................................................................... 7
Accelerate Sending-Area TDR Sales ............................................................................ 7
Create a Revolving Fund ............................................................................................. 7
Supplement the Private Market ................................................................................. 7
Stabilize Prices and Foster Certainty ........................................................................... 7
Market and Promote the TDR Program ...................................................................... 8
Demonstrate Commitment ......................................................................................... 8
Challenges to Establishing a TDR Bank .................................................... 8
Competition for Public Funds ..................................................................................... 8
Holding Time ............................................................................................................... 8
Preservation Support .................................................................................................. 9
Adequate Funding ....................................................................................................... 9
Specific RFMUD Benefits ......................................................................... 9
Near-Term Support ..................................................................................................... 9
Ease of Acquisition .................................................................................................... 10
Perpetual Land Maintenance .................................................................................... 10
3. FUNDING OPTIONS .......................................................... 11
Traditional Public Funding ..................................................................... 11
Types of Public Funding ............................................................................................ 11
Page ii Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
Advantages of an Ad Valorem Tax ............................................................................ 12
Disadvantages of an Ad Valorem Tax ....................................................................... 12
TDR Surcharge ....................................................................................... 13
TDRs from County-Owned Property ...................................................... 13
4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ..................................................... 15
Initial Funding Objective ........................................................................ 15
Receiving Area Buildout......................................................................... 15
TDR Bank Cash Flow Table ..................................................................... 18
Cash Inflow ............................................................................................................... 18
Cash Outflow ............................................................................................................ 18
Balance to Purchase Additional TDRs ....................................................................... 20
Final Repayment ....................................................................................................... 20
Millage Rate ........................................................................................... 20
5. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 21
APPENDIX ................................................................................ 23
Appendix C-1: Traditional Public Funding Examples ............................. 23
Partnerships with Preservation Organizations ......................................................... 23
Conservation Bonds .................................................................................................. 23
General Fund ............................................................................................................ 24
Severing TDRs from Government Purchased Property ............................................ 24
Dedicated Ad Valorem Property Tax ........................................................................ 24
Appendix C-2: TDR Bank Staffing ........................................................... 25
Warwick Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania ............................................... 25
New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank ..................................................... 25
King County, Washington TDR Bank ......................................................................... 26
List of Preparers ..................................................................................... 29
December 20, 2016 Page iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sending and Receiving Areas, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, 2016
...................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Completed TDR Credit Transfers, RFMUD, 2016 .................................... 5
Figure 3: Actual and Projected Household Growth, West Receiving Area,
2005 to 2040 .............................................................................................. 16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Projected Number of Household by Receiving Area, 2016 to 2050 ...... 17
Table 2: Illustrative TDR Bank Cash Flow, RFMUD, 2017 to 2050 ....................... 19
Page iv Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
This page intentionally left blank.
December 20, 2016 Page 1
1. Introduction
As part of the restudy of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Transfera-
ble Development Rights (TDR) program, Collier County wants to explore the es-
tablishment of a TDR bank. This report describes TDR banks, the potential role
and benefits of a bank for the RFMUD TDR program, and how a bank could be
funded. The report also provides an economic analysis to determine the amount
of funding that should be considered for the bank and the millage rate that would
be needed if property taxes provide the initial funding. The report is intended to
provide a framework for public discussion about establishing a TDR bank.
RFMUD RESTUDY
The Board of County Commissioners directed the restudy of the RFMUD in Feb-
ruary 2015. In August 2016, the Collier County Growth Management Department
published background information, findings, and recommendations in the Rural
Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy White Paper. In preparation for the White Pa-
per’s distribution to the BCC in December 2016, modifications were made. For
brevity’s sake, this report highlights portions of the White Paper relevant to a TDR
bank. Readers of this report are encouraged to download 1 and read the White
Paper for a complete presentation of the RFMUD Restudy.
The restudy is based on the understanding that Collier County will maintain the
goals of the RFMUD program as established by the 1999 Final Order and subse-
quently refined in elements and regulations adopted from 2002 to 2004. To bet-
ter achieve those goals, the restudy aims to improve the TDR credit system, se-
cure the capability for long-term maintenance of protected sending areas and im-
prove the potential for successful receiving area development. The December
2016 white paper lists 41 initial recommendations including the following:
The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR
bank and dedicated assessment and bonding for the program,
based on an evaluation of costs and benefits. Board direction
will allow a focused analysis including projected costs. (Restudy
White Paper, Chapter 4, Section C(3))
1 http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/community-
planning-section/rural-fringe-mixed-use-district-rfmud-transfer-of-development-rights-
tdr-rest
1. Introduction
Page 2 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
TDR PROGRAM BACKGROUND
The RFMUD TDR program encourages development to occur in areas with less
environmental value (receiving areas) rather than areas with high environmental
value (sending areas). Figure 1 on the opposite page shows the sending and re-
ceiving areas in the RFMUD.
The buying and selling of TDR credits is a private-market transaction that com-
pensates sending area property owners with payments for the TDR credits. It
compensates receiving area property owners by allowing higher-value higher-
density development. The conservation and preservation of high-environmental-
value areas benefits the public. And, the more compact development in the re-
ceiving areas can benefit the public through lower costs for public facilities and
services.
Sending Areas
Under the TDR Program, approximately 41,000 acres of land with high environ-
mental value are identified as sending areas, although only 16,700 acres are pri-
vately owned. Generally, development in these areas is restricted to no more
than one dwelling unit per 40 acres, or smaller lot in existence prior to 1999. In
lieu of developing this land, property owners may sever and sell TDR credits. For
each five acres in a parcel 2, the TDR program allocates the property owner one
base credit and one early entry credit. One additional restoration and mainte-
nance (R&M) credit is available if the property owner restores the land in accord-
ance with program requirements. Finally, one more TDR credit is available if the
property is conveyed to a public agency for long-term conservation and preser-
vation. Thus, a five-acre parcel can have up to four TDR credits.
Receiving Areas
The TDR program identifies approximately 28,000 acres of land with less environ-
mental value as receiving areas, 14,000 acres of which are vacant. Generally, land
in receiving areas is limited to one dwelling unit per five acres. However, property
owners in the receiving area can develop at higher densities by purchasing a TDR
credit for each housing unit over one per five acres, up to a maximum density of
one unit per acre.
2 Partial credits are allocated for the portion of the parcel over five acres. In addition, le-
gally non-conforming parcels less than five acres in size are allocated TDR credits as
though they contained five acres.
December 20, 2016 Page 3
Figure 1: Sending and Receiving Areas, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, 2016
Source: Collier County.
Page 4 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
TDR Program Activity
To date, 4,600 TDR credits covering 6,500 acres have been processed or are pend-
ing process. Of these, 2,100 have been used to increase density in receiving area
development projects. Figure 2 on the opposite page shows where TDR credits
have been transferred from and to. Nationally, Collier County’s RFMUD is consid-
ered a success story. However, since the 2008–09 recession, the pace of TDR
transactions has slowed.
PUBLIC SENTIMENT ABOUT THE TDR
PROGRAM
Six public workshops, 15 interviews and numerous calls, surveys, and meetings
were conducted with citizens, agency representatives, stakeholders and the me-
dia for the RFMUD restudy in 2016. As detailed in the white paper, some stake-
holders are dissatisfied with the pace of transfer activity. Stakeholders also gen-
erally agree that the receiving areas could absorb the supply of TDRs in the send-
ing area. However, the bulk of demand for TDRs will occur in the future, creating
a gap in demand that frustrates those sending area landowners who want to sell
their TDRs sooner rather than later. As discussed in Part 2 of this report, TDR
banks are a potential solution to this concern.
TDR BANKS
TDR banks acquire TDRs from sending-area property owners, hold them until
needed, and sell them to developers to use for receiving site development pro-
jects. When adequately funded, TDR banks can buy TDRs from willing sellers in
the near term and hold them for eventual sale to developers in the future, as TDR
demand increases. One of the conclusions reached in the restudy public work-
shops was to explore establishing a TDR bank.
Most often, the local government establishes and operates the TDR bank, or a
public agency established by the government. However, some TDR banks are
managed by separate organizations, such as non-profit conservancies, using pol-
icies and procedures established by the government in question.
December 20, 2016 Page 5
Figure 2: Completed TDR Credit Transfers, RFMUD, 2016
Source: Collier County.
Page 6 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
REPORT ORGANIZATION
Part 2 of the report describes the benefits of creating a TDR bank, and Part 3
evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of several alternative ways of capi-
talizing a TDR bank. Part 4 provides an economic analysis to determine an appro-
priate amount of initial funding for a TDR bank and the millage rate that would
be needed, if this is the route the county were to use to fund the initial capitali-
zation. Part 5 provides a summary of the report’s recommendations.
December 20, 2016 Page 7
2. TDR Bank Benefits
TDR BANK BENEFITS
Ways in which TDR banks have benefitted other TDR programs illustrate the value
a bank could have for Collier County.
Accelerate Sending-Area TDR Sales
During the RFMUD Restudy meetings, sending area property owners reported
that there were not enough TDR buyers because there were many entitled but
not yet constructed development projects. This is a typical case in which a TDR
bank can provide a valuable service. A bank could buy TDRs from sending area
owners in the short term and sell them when receiving area TDR demand mate-
rializes.
Create a Revolving Fund
TDR banks recoup their original expenditures as they sell TDRs. Banks can then
use the proceeds from those sales for further TDR acquisitions, to achieve other
public goals (such as ongoing operations and maintenance of preserves), and to
repay the initial funding. Effective TDR banks convert what would otherwise be a
one-time public expenditure into a revolving fund for preservation. This can be
an important feature in the context of securing public funding for a TDR bank.
Supplement the Private Market
TDR banks provide receiving area developers with an alternative source of TDRs.
In a private market transaction, the developer must find, contact, and negotiate
with one or, usually, more sending area property owners to purchase TDRs. With
a TDR bank, a developer knows how many TDR credits are available, what the
price will be, and what the process is to obtain the credits.
The existence of a TDR bank does not, in and of itself, guarantee that sufficient
credits will be available when developers need them. An underfunded bank may
face challenges maintaining an adequate supply of TDR credits. The purpose of
this report’s analysis is to determine the amount of funding needed to ensure
that a TDR bank would be sufficiently capitalized.
Stabilize Prices and Foster Certainty
TDR banks help stabilize TDR prices, especially over time as supply and demand
move in and out of balance with economic cycles. A bank provides price certainty
2. TDR Bank Benefits
Page 8 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
for sending area property owners when they consider whether to participate in
the TDR program. A bank also allows developers to analyze the financial feasibility
of a potential development with a degree of certainty that TDR credits will be
available in the future at the assumed price when they have to buy the credits.
Market and Promote the TDR Program
TDR banks often provide program marketing, administration, transaction facilita-
tion and other functions. These efforts produce more successful programs, and
they benefit private market transactions. TDR programs without a bank still per-
form these functions. However, local governments that invest in a TDR bank are
more likely to protect that investment by adequately staffing and funding these
functions.
Demonstrate Commitment
Establishing and funding a TDR bank demonstrates to property owners and de-
velopers the local government’s commitment to TDRs. Furthermore, a bank
funded by a voter-approved tax measure, or professional polling, demonstrates
overall community support for the TDR program and conservation. In turn, this
demonstrated commitment helps motivate sending area property owners to
more seriously investigate and consider participating in the TDR program rather
than waiting on the sidelines.
CHALLENGES TO ESTABLISHING A TDR BANK
Even with the benefits a bank provides for TDR programs, there are challenges to
setting up an effective TDR bank.
Competition for Public Funds
TDR banks can be self-sustaining for as long as there is a supply of TDRs and de-
velopment capacity to use them. Nevertheless, a bank requires some initial fund-
ing from public coffers. Securing public funding presents challenges, especially
considering competition for limited public dollars. The initial public funding that
goes into a TDR bank becomes a revolving fund, continuing to pay for additional
conservation over time, in contrast to many other alternatives which tend to be
one-time uses of money. In addition, if the funding is provided through an in-
creased millage rate, the TDR bank would be drawing from new funds rather than
competing for support from the county’s general fund. Whatever the source, suc-
cessfully obtaining public funds requires a robust public engagement process.
This is even more so if a public vote will be needed.
Holding Time
The length of time the bank may be expected to hold TDRs until there is demand
to sell them can become a concern. This is especially true if a debt obligation is
December 20, 2016 Page 9
used to finance the initial bank capitalization, and TDR sales are needed to repay
the debt. It is less of a concern if an increase in ad valorem property tax directly
funds the initial capitalization or secures the debt obligation that funds the initial
capitalization.
Either way, the holding time should be less of a concern in Collier County because
the TDR program has been effective for many years and has already used 2,100
TDR credits. The economic analysis in this report uses a conservative approach
that assumes a lengthy period before TDR sales occur at a substantial rate. The
county should avoid making overly-optimistic projections about how fast the
bank will recycle the initial funding for additional TDR purchases.
Preservation Support
TDR banks can hold TDRs for a long time with minimal criticism if citizens appre-
ciate the public benefits secured by the banks purchase of TDRs. For example,
TDR banks in King County, Washington and Palm Beach County, Florida purchased
TDRs from land that ultimately became parks, nature preserves and open space.
This consideration may be less important in Collier County because a bank is likely
to experience some sales in the short term. Nevertheless, the public engagement
process should publicize the benefits from bank purchases of TDRs.
Adequate Funding
Establishing a TDR bank with inadequate funding can result in calls for additional
public funding and can also discourage sending area property owners from par-
ticipating in the TDR program. This is especially true when receiving area demand
is slow. Sending area property owners are more likely to be patient if they see
TDR bank sales generating funding for additional TDR purchases. The RFMUD TDR
program’s successful track record should lessen concerns about the length of
time before the bank is able to make new purchases after the initial funding has
been used.
SPECIFIC RFMUD BENEFITS
In addition to the general benefits a bank provides for a TDR program, there are
three specific RFMUD TDR issues that a bank could address.
Near-Term Support
In the public engagement process for the RFMUD restudy, sending area property
owners expressed concern about the slow pace of current and near-term receiv-
ing area demand for TDRs. A well-funded TDR bank could satisfy the current send-
ing area desire to sell TDRs.
Page 10 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
Ease of Acquisition
Receiving area developers have expressed their concern that obtaining TDRs has
become and will continue to become more difficult and discourage their interest
in participating in the TDR program. TDRs have been severed from many of the
larger parcels and the ones that are easiest for severing TDRs. The smaller the
sending area parcels with available TDRs, the more property owners a developer
must negotiate with and the more cumbersome the process. A TDR bank ensures
a ready supply of TDRs when developers need them. And depending on the pro-
cesses the county would establish, a TDR bank could have a fairly simple and ef-
ficient sales procedure.
Perpetual Land Maintenance
Conveying land to the Florida Forestry Service has been an effective way to en-
sure perpetual land maintenance in the South Belle Meade sending area. The
county is examining the possibility of establishing an environmental mitigation
bank, or Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA), in the North Belle Meade send-
ing area. This would provide a cost-effective way for the county to mitigate the
impacts of its transportation and other infrastructure projects and provide a pos-
sible solution to perpetual land management and hydrology capital improve-
ments for properties from which TDRs have been severed in the selected geo-
graphic area.
TDR banks often sell TDRs for a slightly higher price than they pay to purchase
them. A part of this difference in prices can be used to repay the initial funding
for the bank. If the TDR bank is funded with a dedicated millage rate increase, the
amount generated for repayment could also be used for other conservation pur-
poses, including maintenance of properties conveyed to the county after TDR
credits have been severed.
December 20, 2016 Page 11
3. Funding Options
Typically, local governments initially fund TDR banks with public funding, ranging
from general fund to a voter approved tax. The first section below describes the
traditional public funding. The next two sections describe less-traditional but nev-
ertheless possible capitalization options.
TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FUNDING
There are several types of public funding that Collier County could consider if it
decides to establish a TDR bank. This section provides a brief description of these
types of funding and then discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a dedi-
cated ad valorem tax relative to the other types of public funding. The appendix
provides more detailed descriptions of these types of public funding with exam-
ples from other programs.
Types of Public Funding
Partnerships with Preservation Organizations
Local governments can stock TDR banks by partnering with land preservation pro-
grams that traditionally restrict land with generic conservation easements rather
than TDR easements. Although these most often take the form of purchase of
development rights (in which the rights are retired rather than transferred to a
receiving area), some programs have used the funding to create a true TDR pro-
gram.
Conservation Bonds
The voters of local jurisdictions can approve conservation bonds. Rather than use
this money once for traditional acquisition of land or easements, some commu-
nities sever the TDRs from land they preserve and resell them in a TDR bank.
General Fund
Local governments can devote general fund money to capitalizing a TDR bank.
King County, Washington started its TDR bank with a $1.5 million loan. The TDR
program repaid the loan in full, with interest, in 2016. Bank funding may change
each year depending on changing constraints on the general fund.
Severing TDRs from Government Purchased Property
Local governments buying parkland or protecting nature preserves can sever de-
velopment rights and deposit them into the TDR bank.
3. Funding Options
Page 12 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
Dedicated Ad Valorem Property Tax
Local governments can dedicate an increase ad valorem property tax to fund the
initial capitalization of a TDR bank. Depending on the total funding desired and
the amount of tax revenue generated, this tax could be for a limited number of
years, with TDRs purchased in each year directly from the tax revenue generated.
When the revenue generated cannot fund the initial capitalization adequately in
a few years, the tax revenue could be used to secure bond financing, with the
debt repaid by the tax revenue over a longer time period. For a RFMUD TDR bank,
the amount of funding needed, which is determined in the next part of this re-
port, could probably be directly generated over five years, without using bond
financing.
Advantages of an Ad Valorem Tax
Quick Start to TDR Purchases
A dedicated ad valorem tax could generate sufficient revenues to begin making a
significant number of TDR purchase in the near term. A conservation bond could
also begin in the near term, albeit slightly longer to obtain voter approval. The
other types of public funding would take many years to make a significant amount
of TDR purchases.
Ability to Satisfy More Sending Area Property Owners
The RFMUD Restudy White Paper reaffirms the goal of treating all sending area
properties the same. With the other types of funding, which will not be able to
make a significant number of purchases in the near term, the county would have
to prioritize purchases because there would likely be many more interested TDR
sellers than could be accommodated with the limited funds. This would be less of
an issue with an ad valorem tax and with a conservation bond.
Funding for Other Public Purposes
An ad valorem tax and a conservation bond could be structured to generate rev-
enues for other public benefits, most notably the long-term maintenance or hy-
drological enhancement of preserved lands from which TDRs have been severed.
Because they generate much less revenue, the other types of public funding
would not pay for other public benefits.
Disadvantages of an Ad Valorem Tax
The primary disadvantage of a conservation bond is the need to obtain voter ap-
proval. We assume that an ad valorem property tax to directly fund a TDR bank
would not require voter approval. Given the numerous benefits of a TDR bank,
there may be a strong case for voter approval of a conservation bond. However,
the time and cost involved with the referendum process should be considered.
December 20, 2016 Page 13
The county directly appropriating from the general fund to a special fund for a
TDR bank could avoid the cost and time of voter approval.
Given the challenge of obtaining voter approval, a natural inclination would be to
rely on the state and federal government to fund the TDR bank through grants
and loans. Certainly, there is no reason not to use that funding when available.
However, there are no such programs that could fully provide the amount of
funding determined necessary in the next part of this report.
TDR SURCHARGE
At least one TDR program, if not more, requires that developers pay a surcharge
to the jurisdiction for every TDR credit used in a TDR development project. At one
time, the City of Los Angeles required a public benefit payment of $35 per square
foot of transferred floor area. The revenue generated was used for affordable
housing, open space, historic preservation, public transportation, and public and
cultural facilities. Although the amount has changed, it is still a highly effective
means of generating funding for improvements in downtown Los Angeles.
Collier County could use the revenue from a surcharge for multiple community
benefits in the RFMUD, which might involve capitalizing a TDR bank. This ap-
proach has the advantage that it does not rely on public funding. Unless, how-
ever, the county could require payment of the surcharge on entitled but not yet
constructed projects, this alternative would not generate substantial funds for a
TDR bank until the development market in the RFMUD returned in strength, and
by then, the case for establishing a TDR bank would be much weaker.
The bigger disadvantage to this approach is that it does not generate additional
money for conserving sending area properties. A separate report, TDR Analysis
Report, analyzed the financial feasibility of receiving area development and de-
termined the dollar amount that developers could afford to pay to acquire TDRs.
To pay a surcharge, each development project would need to pay less to purchase
TDRs. This reduction could be in the average TDR price or in a change in the trans-
fer ratio so that fewer TDR credits would be required. Either way, a surcharge
would be a zero-sum gain in the amount of funding flowing to sending area prop-
erty owners.
TDRS FROM COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY
As an alternative to funding the initial capitalization of a TDR bank, the county
could sever TDR credits from land the county owns in the sending areas. Those
TDR credits could then be deposited in the bank or sold and the proceeds depos-
ited in a TDR bank.
Page 14 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
Collier County owns about 300 acres of land in RFMUD sending areas. Although
purchased for other reasons, these properties would qualify as sending sites un-
der the TDR program. The county could itself become a seller of TDRs severed
from these properties and use the sale of these TDRs as initial capitalization of a
RFMUD TDR bank.
This approach would not require new county investment. However, it would also
not generate new revenue for purchasing TDR credits until the development mar-
ket in the RFMUD returned in strength, and by then, the case for establishing a
TDR bank would be much weaker. Furthermore, this approach would not gener-
ate an adequate amount of initial funding for a TDR bank. If the 300 acres of
county-owned property received the maximum number of TDR credits, for exam-
ple eight per five acres, it would result in 2,400 credits (or 12 percent of the the-
oretical supply), or $24 million. While this would not be sufficient to fully fund the
TDR bank, it would be a good start to full capitalization. Furthermore, these cred-
its could be severed and transferred to the bank quickly so the bank is able to sell
TDRs while it awaits voter approval for a conservation bond.
December 20, 2016 Page 15
4. Economic Analysis
4. Economic Analysis
This part of the report provides an economic analysis that identifies a target
amount for the initial funding of a TDR bank and projects an annual cash flow for
the bank. The target is based on reasonable assumptions and conservative esti-
mates. However, there is no exactly right number. The target is intended to serve
as a starting point for public discussions, and the result of those discussion may
be a different target that is equally reasonable.
INITIAL FUNDING OBJECTIVE
The objective of the initial funding of a TDR bank is to fund the purchase of one-
half of the likely supply of TDR credits. A separate study, TDR Analysis Report,
determined the likely supply of TDR credits across the four sending areas. The
likely supply is 16,400. Therefore, the objective of the initial funding is to enable
a TDR bank to acquire 8,200 TDR credits.
The TDR Analysis Report recommends a target price of $10,000 per TDR credit. At
that price, the initial funding should be about $82 million. Assuming that the ini-
tial funding is provided by a dedicated ad valorem property tax over five years,
the $82 million in initial funding equates to about $16,420,000 each year for ac-
quiring TDR credits.
RECEIVING AREA BUILDOUT
Because the TDR bank would reinvest the proceeds from the sales of TDR credits,
the bank’s cash flow depends on the rate of development in the receiving areas.
The economic analysis begins by projecting the rate of development.
Because the west receiving area has experienced the most development to date,
its development pattern is used as a model for the other three receiving areas.
Figure 3 shows the number of households in the west receiving area from 2005
to 2015 and Collier County’s current projection for this area through 2040. The
chart shows that this area had relatively rapid growth from 2006 to 2012. From
2012 onward, the growth rate slows, but the area maintains a steady level of
growth.
The analysis assumes that the other three receiving areas will experience the
same amount of household growth over the first six years of substantial develop-
ment, followed by a straight-line trend until they reach their assumed buildout.
Page 16 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
The analysis makes the following assumptions about the other three growth ar-
eas:
+ The North receiving area will begin substantial development starting in
2022 and will fully buildout by 2040.
+ The North Belle Meade receiving area will begin substantial development
in 2027, and it will be 50 percent builtout by 2050.
+ The South Belle Meade receiving area will begin substantial development
in 2035, and it will be 35 percent builtout by 2050.
Based on these assumptions, Table 1 on the following page shows the projected
number of households in each receiving area from 2016 to 2050. The yearly in-
crease in the number of households determines the number of TDR credits
needed. The final column in Table 1 shows the number of TDR credits projected
to be purchased each year.
Figure 3: Actual and Projected Household Growth, West Re-
ceiving Area, 2005 to 2040
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using data from Collier County.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Actual Projected
December 20, 2016 Page 17
Table 1: Projected Number of Household by Receiving Area,
2016 to 2050
West North
North
Belle
Meade
South
Belle
Meade
Annual
TDR
Demand
2016 1,990
2017 2,070 66
2018 2,150 67
2019 2,230 69
2020 2,310 70
2021 2,370 58
2022 2,440 120 152
2023 2,510 120 63
2024 2,580 190 113
2025 2,650 260 114
2026 2,710 380 142
2027 2,770 550 120 275
2028 2,830 770 120 224
2029 2,870 1,640 190 748
2030 2,870 2,500 260 716
2031 2,870 3,370 380 755
2032 2,870 4,240 550 794
2033 2,870 5,100 770 833
2034 2,870 5,970 1,060 883
2035 2,870 6,830 1,350 120 976
2036 2,870 7,700 1,630 120 886
2037 2,870 8,560 1,920 190 935
2038 2,870 9,430 2,210 260 935
2039 2,870 10,300 2,490 380 975
2040 2,870 10,300 2,780 550 351
2041 2,870 10,300 3,070 770 389
2042 2,870 10,300 3,350 1,700 929
2043 2,870 10,300 3,640 2,620 929
2044 2,870 10,300 3,930 3,550 929
2045 2,870 10,300 4,220 4,480 929
2046 2,870 10,300 4,500 5,400 929
2047 2,870 10,300 4,790 6,330 929
2048 2,870 10,300 5,080 7,250 929
2049 2,870 10,300 5,360 8,180 929
2050 2,870 10,300 5,650 9,100 929
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
Page 18 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
TDR BANK CASH FLOW TABLE
The projected cash flow for the TDR bank is based on the following assumptions:
+ The target price for TDRs is $10,000.
+ To balance the cash flow and ensure that the initial funding is repaid, the
bank would purchase TDRs for $9,921 per credit and would sell TDRs for
$10,079 per credit; the difference would create an opportunity for the
private market while offsetting, in part, the county’s administrative cost.
+ The bank would use 51.4 percent of the proceeds from the sales of TDR
credits to purchase new credits in the following year.
+ The bank would use 47.1 percent of the proceeds from the sales of TDR
credits to repay the initial funding.
+ The bank would use 1.5 percent of the proceeds from the sales of TDR
credits to offset, at least partially, administrative costs, up to $100,000 in
a single year (see appendix for a discussion of administrative costs).
+ The bank should repay the initial funding within 30 years.
Table 2 on the following page shows what the cash flow for the TDR bank would
be under these assumptions.
Cash Inflow
The first column shows the cash flowing into the bank from the initial capitaliza-
tion. Based on the assumptions, the amount reflects the initial funding objective
discussed on page 15 ($81.5 million to purchase 8,200 TDR credits at a price of
$9,921 per credit) spread equally over five years. The second column indicates
the cash flowing into the bank from its sales of TDR credits based on the projected
demand (see Table 1 on page 17) and a sales price of $10,079 per credit. The third
column is the total cash inflow each year, the sum of the first two columns.
Cash Outflow
The fourth column is the amount that the bank would generate to help offset the
county’s cost to administer the TDR program and the TDR bank. The amount is
1.5 percent of the proceeds from the bank’s sales of TDRs each year, up to an
assumed maximum of $100,000 per year. The fifth column is the amount that the
bank would provide to repay the initial funding. The county could dedicate this
funding to one or more purposes. The funds could be deposited into the general
fund to reimburse taxpayers. The county could use the funds to preserve and
December 20, 2016 Page 19
Table 2: Illustrative TDR Bank Cash Flow, RFMUD, 2017 to 2050
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Year Initial
Capitalization
Cash
Inflow from
TDR Sales
Gross Cash
Inflow
Cash Outflow to Help Offset
Administration
Cost
Cash Outflow to Repay
Initial
Capitalization
Balance
Available for
TDR Purchase
2017 16,290,000 666,000 16,960,000 (10,000) (314,000) 16,630,000
2018 16,290,000 679,000 16,970,000 (10,200) (320,000) 16,640,000
2019 16,290,000 692,000 16,980,000 (10,400) (326,000) 16,650,000
2020 16,290,000 706,000 17,000,000 (10,600) (332,000) 16,650,000
2021 16,290,000 588,000 16,880,000 (8,800) (277,000) 16,590,000
2022 1,535,000 1,540,000 (23,000) (723,000) 790,000
2023 631,000 630,000 (9,500) (297,000) 320,000
2024 1,143,000 1,140,000 (17,100) (538,000) 590,000
2025 1,154,000 1,150,000 (17,300) (543,000) 590,000
2026 1,432,000 1,430,000 (21,500) (674,000) 740,000
2027 2,774,000 2,770,000 (41,600) (1,306,000) 1,430,000
2028 2,257,000 2,260,000 (33,900) (1,063,000) 1,160,000
2029 7,543,000 7,540,000 (100,000) (3,551,000) 3,890,000
2030 7,214,000 7,210,000 (100,000) (3,396,000) 3,720,000
2031 7,608,000 7,610,000 (100,000) (3,582,000) 3,930,000
2032 8,006,000 8,010,000 (100,000) (3,769,000) 4,140,000
2033 8,395,000 8,400,000 (100,000) (3,953,000) 4,340,000
2034 8,901,000 8,900,000 (100,000) (4,191,000) 4,610,000
2035 9,839,000 9,840,000 (100,000) (4,632,000) 5,110,000
2036 8,925,000 8,930,000 (100,000) (4,202,000) 4,620,000
2037 9,427,000 9,430,000 (100,000) (4,438,000) 4,890,000
2038 9,428,000 9,430,000 (100,000) (4,439,000) 4,890,000
2039 9,823,000 9,820,000 (100,000) (4,625,000) 5,100,000
2040 3,534,000 3,530,000 (53,000) (1,664,000) 1,820,000
2041 3,924,000 3,920,000 (58,900) (1,847,000) 2,020,000
2042 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000
2043 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000
2044 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000
2045 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000
2046 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000
2047 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000
2048 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) 0 9,260,000
2049 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) 0 9,260,000
2050 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) 0 9,260,000
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
Page 20 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
maintain lands from which TDRs have been severed and which have been con-
veyed to the county. The county could use the revenue for an environmental fund
for estuary health, aquifer health, and hydrological capital improvements.
Balance to Purchase Additional TDRs
The final column in Table 2 is the difference between the annual cash inflow and
cash outflow. This is the amount that the bank would have available each year to
reinvest in the purchase of additional TDRs. The initial funding would enable the
bank to purchase 8,200 TDR credits; the amount the bank would reinvest could
enable the purchase of up to 9.000 additional credits by the time the bank repays
the initial funding.
Final Repayment
The data shows that the bank would be able to repay the initial funding by 2047.
Once the bank has repaid the initial capitalization, it could become self-sustain-
ing, each year buying and selling TDRs per market demand. The county could de-
cide instead to phase the bank out after the initial funding has been repaid.
MILLAGE RATE
The cash flow presented Table 2 assumes that the initial capitalization is directly
funded through an increased millage (established through the county budget or
approved by the voters) dedicated to a special fund or a direct appropriation by
the BCC from the general fund. In terms of 2017 taxable value, the $16.3 million
for initial funding in each of the first five years would be equivalent to approxi-
mately 0.21 mills.
December 20, 2016 Page 21
5. Recommendations
5. Recommendations
Based on input from the RFMUD Restudy, there is a desire among sending area
property owners to sever and sell TDR credits. However, there is weak demand
for TDR credits for receiving area development projects, even though the long-
term demand appears to be strong. To bridge the gap between the supply of cred-
its that could be available in the near term and the demand that may not materi-
alize in the near-term, we recommend that Collier County establish a TDR bank
for the RFMUD and that the county provide funding upfront for the initial capital-
ization of the bank.
The most effective way to capitalize a TDR bank would be for the BCC to increase
the millage rate and direct the increased revenue to a special fund for the TDR
bank. If an increase of 0.21 mills is feasible, over five years the county could suf-
ficiently capitalize the TDR bank to acquire one-half of the likely supply of TDR
credits.
If a 0.21 mills tax rate increase is not feasible, the county could ask the voters to
approve a conservation bond, which could be repaid with a lower millage rate
over a period longer than five years. With the time required to schedule and con-
duct an election on the bond and the time to issue bonds, this approach would
extend the timeline for when the county could begin purchasing TDR credits. Nev-
ertheless, this approach would still be an effective means to bridge the gap be-
tween the near-term potential supply of TDRs and the long-term demand.
We also recommend that the county consider how best to use the revenues gen-
erated by the bank’s sales of TDRs. The investment in the bank’s capitalization
could serve double duty. First, the initial funding can be recycled, creating a re-
volving fund for TDRs and a self-sustaining TDR bank for as long as there is supply
and demand for TDR credits. Second, the repayment of the initial funding can, in-
turn, fund other needed and desired public benefits, including conservation and
maintenance of preserved lands and hydrological capital improvements. Reim-
bursing the general fund is also a worthy goal, but because the prepayment may
take 30 years, the annual impact may be less noticeable.
Finally, we recommended the county explore the various assumptions laid out on
pages 16 and 18. These assumptions lead to one illustrative cash flow program,
but there is no single correct program. A different set of assumptions that better
match the Collier County context and values may result in an equally valid level
of capitalization.
Page 22 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization
This page intentionally left blank.
December 20, 2016 Page 23
Appendix
APPENDIX C-1: TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FUNDING
EXAMPLES
Partnerships with Preservation Organizations
Local governments can stock TDR banks by partnering with land preservation pro-
grams that traditionally restrict land with generic conservation easements rather
than TDR easements. Pennsylvania leads the US in the amount of preserved farm-
land largely due to the incentives provided by the state’s purchase of develop-
ment rights program, funded by a voter approved $100-million bond and ciga-
rette taxes. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, with 85,510 acres protected as of
2010, leads the nation in preserved farmland using a combination of grants from
the state and by appropriating almost $1 million of County tax dollars per year for
several years to farmland preservation. In most Lancaster County townships,
state, county and local taxes buy traditional easements and then wait for future
cash infusions. In contrast, Warwick Township partners with Lancaster County
(and/or the Lancaster Farmland Trust) to fund TDR easements and the County
allows Warwick to bank and resell the resulting TDRs with the stipulation that all
TDR sale proceeds be applied to additional land preservation. To date, Warwick’s
TDR program has preserved more than 1,560 acres of farmland, which is over 12
percent of the township’s total land area.
Conservation Bonds
The voters of local jurisdictions can approve conservation bonds. Rather than use
this money once for traditional acquisition of land or easements, some commu-
nities sever the TDRs from land they preserve and resell them in a TDR bank. In
Palm Beach County, Florida, voters approved a $100 million bond that was used
to acquire 35,000 acres of environmentally-sensitive land. The 9,000 TDRs sev-
ered from this land are sold by the Palm Beach County TDR bank at commissioner-
established prices ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 each with sale proceeds ded-
icated to expansion and maintenance of the nature preserve system. At a more
modest level, Burlington County, New Jersey started its bank by the issuance of a
$1.5 million county bond; the TDRs banked by this bond were instrumental to the
success of Chesterfield Township’s award-winning TDR program.
Appendix
Page 24 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalizatio
General Fund
Local governments can devote general fund money to capitalizing a TDR bank.
King County, Washington started its TDR bank by including $1.5 million in its 1999
budget with the stipulation that this start-up capital be repaid when the TDR
Bank’s cash balance exceeded $2 million; in 2016, the TDR Bank exceeded that
balance and the TDR Bank refunded the initial capitalization to King County. Man-
heim Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania stocked its TDR bank by buying
TDRs with general fund money and holding them for resale.
Severing TDRs from Government Purchased
Property
Local governments can dedicate a portion of tax revenues to acquire TDRs in the
course of buying parkland and protecting nature preserves. These TDRs then con-
stitute the inventory of the government’s TDR bank. In King County, Washington,
the revenue dedicated to open space, called Conservation Futures, has been used
to buy TDRs for its TDR bank. In a single transaction, King County used $22 million
of Conservation Futures funding to protect 90,000 acres of forest east of Seattle,
with the resulting 990 TDRs placed in the TDR bank for resale. To date, TDR ac-
quisitions have preserved 141,500 acres in King County.
Dedicated Ad Valorem Property Tax
Collier County could put a referendum before the voters asking for approval of
using a small portion of property tax to fund the acquisition of TDRs from the
RFMUD and possibly other areas in need of preservation in Collier County. If the
county used this tax revenue to finance a bond, a substantial amount of money
could become available in the near-term future to buy and hold TDRs for resale
when the receiving area entitlement is depleted and demand for TDRs increases.
As these banked TDRs are sold, the proceeds could be used again to preserve
additional land (and bank additional TDRs) and/or fund the restoration/mainte-
nance of the preserved land. The ability of TDRs to recycle an initial amount of
public money may make this technique more appealing to voters than typical
open space bond measures. In addition, this new program could set aside suffi-
cient money for an endowment fund to assure restoration and perpetual mainte-
nance of land conveyed to the county by the TDR program if money is needed for
this purpose because the mitigation bank or ROMA has not materialized.
December 20, 2016 Page 25
APPENDIX C-2: TDR BANK STAFFING
This appendix discusses possible staffing needs in the event that Collier County
decides to create a TDR bank. TDR programs and banks vary significantly in scale,
activity and ambition. They also change over time. This memo provides examples
from three programs spanning that range of diversity.
Warwick Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
At the smaller end of the scale, Warwick has preserved 24 farms with 1,560 acres
(about 12 percent of the total land area) with its TDR program since 1991. A War-
wick Township administrative assistant estimates that one percent of her time is
needed to keep records of acquisitions and sales. With the Town Manager, Town
Planner and Town Solicitor similarly devoting one percent of their time TDR bank
transactions require a total of less than 0.1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee.
New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank
At the other end of the spectrum, the New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit
Bank was created by the State of New Jersey to facilitate a TDR program operating
in 53 municipalities within seven counties occupying a land area of one million
acres. The program has preserved almost 52,000 acres as of 2015. New Jersey
funded the bank with a state appropriation of $5 million in 1985. The bank has
purchased 1,581 credits and private parties have purchased 1,896 credits to date.
The bank has sold 775 credits and private parties have sold 1,088 credits to date.
Staffing for the bank has changed significantly over time. In the early 1980s, the
New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank was staffed by one part-time di-
rector and a secretary. By 2005, the year in which credit prices peaked, the New
Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank staff consisted of two full-time admin-
istrators, one full-time outreach person, a part-time data entry clerk, and a
fulltime secretary. At a separate location, the New Jersey Pinelands Commission
in 2005 processed applications using one full time planner, one part-time GIS per-
son, one part-time planner in the Development Review office (to determine allo-
cations, review deeds, process paperwork), two part-time supervisors and a part-
time secretary. Consequently, the total staff for the two offices in 2005 was
roughly eight FTE positions.
Today, the separate office for the Pinelands Development Credit Bank has been
closed and the banking functions have been absorbed by staff at the Pinelands
Commission roughly consisting of one full-time planner, one part-time adminis-
trator, one part time Development Review staffer, one part-time GIS technician,
one part-time director and presumably one half time administrative assistant, or
3.5 FTE personnel. Bear in mind that the Pinelands Development Credit Bank has
not received new capitalization from public sources for over 30 years (although it
Page 26 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalizatio
has gotten public money to buy and retire credits since then). Also, the level of
bank activity is low at this point despite the vast size of the planning area. In an
August 18, 2016 conversation, the Pinelands Commission’ Chief Planner, who
now also wears the hat of Pinelands Development Credit Bank Executive Director,
commented that the person in charge of a TDR bank should ideally work fulltime
exclusively on bank responsibilities. A TDR bank director can rely on expertise in
other offices that are needed to run the bank but that do not require a full-time
person devoted exclusively to the bank (legal, GIS, computing and planning staff
for processing applications). However, she also mentioned that a truly active pro-
gram is labor intensive: recruiting participants and guiding them through the pro-
cess is very time consuming. Some landowners will have little understanding of
easements and title reports much less TDR details. If the Pinelands Development
Credit Bank were to receive a significant shot of new public capitalization, at least
one additional fulltime position would need to be added and possibly some cur-
rently half time positions would become fulltime in order to actively promote,
facilitate and administer the program. She did not offer a number but assuming
that three current part time positions became full time and if one additional full
time position were added, the Pinelands program staff would grow from 3.5 FTE
to six FTE positions.
King County, Washington TDR Bank
From the standpoint of scale, activity and ambition, the TDR bank in King County,
Washington may be the best model for Collier County. This program has pre-
served 145,000 acres to date. The King County TDR Bank works intensively with
Seattle and other incorporated cities within the county to reach inter-jurisdic-
tional transfer agreements which often include incentives and highly innovation
features like revenue sharing between the cities and the county. The King County
program also sometimes offers to pay for amenities in cities that enter into agree-
ments to accept TDRs from land under county jurisdiction and TDRs held by the
King County TDR bank. Negotiating these inter-jurisdictional agreements is labor
intensive and represents a type of work that probably is not on the near-term
horizon in the event that Collier County chooses to start a bank.
King County started its TDR bank in 1999-2000 with a $1.5 million loan from the
county budget. The bank must repay this loan when its cash balance exceeds $2
million. But the bank never reaches this cash balance because it quickly uses all
revenue to buy more TDRs. (Due to an impending large acquisition, the bank cur-
rently must exceed this cash balance per an agreement with Seattle; but this is
acknowledged to be a necessary exception to the original loan agreement).
December 20, 2016 Page 27
The bank is also partly stocked with TDRs purchased with money from the
county’s Conservation Futures Fund, (a portion of property tax dedicated to land
preservation). King County likes to use the TDR bank for acquisitions because the
revenue from TDR sales creates a perpetual revolving fund for preservation. The
King County TDR Bank Manager estimates that TDRs transferred to the bank re-
sulting from Conservation Futures funding has totaled roughly $7.5 million over
the years, an average of $500,000 annually although these acquisitions actually
vary from year to year. Conservation Futures has also paid about $2.5 over the
program’s 15-year history for amenities within incorporated cities that sign
agreements to accept TDRs from the county; this additional $2.5 million in fund-
ing assists the work of the TDR bank although it does not directly add any TDRs
to the bank inventory. The TDR bank is sometimes the holder of a conservation
easement on land preserved by non-TDR means; in some instances, the bank has
severed and banked TDRs from these properties.
The TDR bank office does more than buy and sell TDRs. It:
+ Maintains a registry of would-be buyers and sellers of TDRs to facilitate
private as well as public transactions
+ Maintains records of all transactions
+ Documents current conditions on land offered as sending sites by owners
+ Administers 95% of public and private transactions; sometimes the bank
gets assistance from private brokers but the bank staff is still involved in
every transaction at a minimum to provide information and document
the prices charged for the TDRs
+ For large transactions, the bank works with title and escrow services (a
single King County TDR bank transaction bought 990 TDRs by preserving
90,000 acres east of Seattle for $22 million)
+ Oversees drafting of the conservation easement
+ Creates the TDR certificates (305 certificates to date)
+ Records all easements and certificates with county recorder
+ In other words, administers and/or monitors all aspects of every transac-
tion with the exception of retiring the TDRs upon approval of a receiving
site project wanting bonus development potential.
The TDR Bank Manager is 0.7 FTE on TDR bank work. A position that mostly han-
dles a non-TDR task (impact mitigation) spends 0.2 FTE on TDR bank work and a
Page 28 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalizatio
third position is budgeted to devote 0.4 FTE to TDR bank data management and
stakeholder assistance. This adds up to 1.3 FTE within the TDR bank. This is sup-
plemented by another 1.2 FTE of support services in other offices who handle
tasks like ongoing monitoring of preserved sites, real estate professionals and le-
gal assistance. Consequently, 2.5 FTE accomplish the work of the TDR bank and
the sending site end of all TDR transactions, public and private. As mentioned
above, the only task not included in this total is conducted by the planners in the
development review section who extinguish the TDRs upon approval of receiving
site applications. The TDR Manager said that if the annual funding increased sig-
nificantly, such as a $10 million infusion of capital to buy TDRs, he would ask for
one more position to market the program, prioritize acquisitions and supplement
the one-on-one assistance to stakeholders. Then he would evaluate whether any
additional temporary positions were needed to handle a spike in acquisitions.
December 20, 2016 Page 29
LIST OF PREPARERS
This report was prepared by Steve Gunnells, Chief Economist at PlaceWorks and
Rick Pruetz, FAICP, of Planning and Implementation Strategies.
Steve’s works with communities to bridge the gap between long-range planning,
policies, and economic development; with community organizations and special
districts to fund and implement priority projects; and with developers, to guide
project decision-making and obtain entitlements based on sound economic and
market analysis. Steve previously worked as a community planning and economic
development consultant for communities and developers in Michigan and Ohio.
He has also served as the field director for a consulting team on a World Bank
project in Yemen, an Economic Development Fellow with the International Eco-
nomic Development Council, and a county Planning Director in Virginia.
Rick is the leading national TDR practitioner, having prepared TDR studies and
ordinances for over 30 communities. In addition, Rick lectures and writes exten-
sively on TDRs, including the book Saved by Development: Preserving Environ-
mental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development
Rights in 1997 and coauthoring The TDR Handbook: Designing and Implementing
Transfer of Development Rights Programs in 2012.
Currently, Steve and Rick are collaborating to assist the New Jersey Highlands Re-
gional Council with re-evaluating the Highlands Regional TDR Program, helping
Santa Fe County, NM, to establish a TDR bank for the county’s new TDR program,
recommending revisions to the Irvine, CA, TDR program for the Irvine Business
Complex, and supporting the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to develop and
adopt improvements to its regional TDR program.
Page A-30 Project Name | Report Title
PLACEWORKS: Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles • Inland Empire • San Diego
3 MacArthur Place | Santa Ana CA 92707 | 714.966.9220 | www.placeworks.com
Appendix D
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
TDR Supply and Demand
Recommendations for the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District TDR Program
TDR Supply and Demand
Recommendations for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District TDR Program
December 13, 2016
Prepared for:
Collier County Zoning Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
239-252-2400
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana CA 92707
714-966-9220
placeworks.com
December 13, 2016 Page i
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................... V
Receiving Area Development Scenarios ............................................. v
Housing Type and Density .............................................................. v
Financial Feasibility of Receiving Area Development ........................... v
TDR Credit Demand ..................................................................... vii
Current TDR Supply ..................................................................... vii
Recommended TDR Program Modifications ...................................... ix
Proposed Supply and Demand ........................................................ x
INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
TDR Program Background ............................................................. 1
Purpose and Intent ....................................................................... 1
Time Frame ................................................................................. 2
Report Organization ...................................................................... 2
RECEIVING AREA ANALYSIS ............................................. 3
Financial Feasibility Generally ........................................... 3
Developer View of Financial Feasibility ............................................ 3
Financing and IRR ........................................................................ 3
Residual Land Value ..................................................................... 4
Pro Forma Assumptions .................................................... 4
Construction Loan ......................................................................... 4
Permanent Loan and Sale of Rental Product ..................................... 4
Timeline ...................................................................................... 5
Revenue Assumptions ................................................................... 5
Cost Assumptions ......................................................................... 5
Workforce Housing ....................................................................... 6
Development Types ....................................................................... 6
Development Scenarios ................................................................. 6
Development Potential ...................................................... 7
Baseline Scenario ......................................................................... 7
Mid-Range Scenario ...................................................................... 8
High-Range Scenario .................................................................... 8
TDR Demand ................................................................ 12
SENDING AREA ANALYSIS .............................................. 15
Current TDR Supply ....................................................... 15
Theoretical Supply ...................................................................... 15
Likely Supply Assumptions ........................................................... 16
Table of Contents
Page ii Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
Likely Supply ............................................................................. 17
TDR Program Modifications............................................. 18
Increase the Number of TDR Credit ............................................... 18
Institute Neutral and Receiving Credits .......................................... 18
Golden Gate Estates .................................................................... 18
Credits for Conveyance to County .................................................. 18
Price Change ............................................................................. 19
Proposed TDR Supply .................................................... 19
Final TDR Supply and Demand ....................................... 19
December 13, 2016 Page iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Number of New Residential Dwelling Units at Buildout
by Housing Type and Development Scenario, All Receiving
Areas ................................................................................. vi
Figure 2: Average Residual Land Value by Receiving Area and by
Development Scenario ......................................................... vi
Figure 3: TDR Credit Demand at Buildout, by Receiving Area and
by Development Scenario ................................................... vii
Figure 4: Estimate Theoretical and Likely Supply of TDR Credits
by Sending Area, 2015 ...................................................... viii
Figure 5: Estimated Current Supply and Buildout Demand for TDR
Credits by Development Scenario ......................................... viii
Figure 6: Proposed Supply and Buildout Demand for TDR Credits
by Development Scenario ................................................... 20
List of Tables
Table 1: Construction Cost Assumptions ........................................ 5
Table 2: Acreage by Receiving Area and Development Type ............. 6
Table 3: Development Program by Receiving Area, Baseline
Scenario ............................................................................. 9
Table 4: Development Program by Receiving Area, Mid-Range
Scenario ........................................................................... 10
Table 5: Development Program by Receiving Area, High-Range
Scenario ........................................................................... 11
Table 6: Number of TDR Credits Required by Receiving Area and
by Development Scenario ................................................... 12
Table 7: Cost to Acquire TDR Credits and Resulting Residual Land
Value by Development Scenario........................................... 13
Table 8: Current Theoretical TDR Credit Supply by Sending Area,
2016 ............................................................................... 16
Table 9: Likely Percentage Participation in TDR Program Under
Current Standards, 2016 .................................................... 17
Table 10: Estimate of Current Likely Supply of TDR Credits, 2016
....................................................................................... 17
Table 11: Proposed Theoretical and Likely Supply of TDR Credits
by Sending Area, 2016 ...................................................... 19
Page iv Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
This page intentionally left blank.
December 13, 2016 Page v
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Nationally recognized as a success story, Collier County’s Rural Fringe
Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
Program has slowed since the 2008–09 recession. The TDR program
restudy explores ways to bolster the program, ensure that development
in receiving areas can and does use TDR credits, and facilitate the con-
servation and preservation of sending area lands with high environmen-
tal value. This report seeks to inform these aspects of the restudy. The
report focuses on improving the balance between the supply of and
demand for TDR credits.
Receiving Area Development Scenarios
The report analyzes three potential development scenarios for the re-
ceiving areas. The baseline scenario considers single-family detached
housing that achieves a gross density of one dwelling units per acre and
more intense village development—with a mix of multifamily and other
housing types—at a density of three dwelling units per acre, which is
broadly how the receiving areas have been developed to date. The mid-
range scenario considers single-family detached housing at a gross den-
sity of two units per acre and village development at four units per acre.
The high-range scenario illustrates development at higher densities cap-
italizing on reduced requirements for TDR credits—single-family subdi-
visions at a gross density of two units per acre and villages at seven
units per acre.
These development scenarios do not represent new zoning require-
ments. Rather, they are intended to illustrate the impact of density and
types of development on the long-term demand for TDR credits.
Housing Type and Density
Figure 1 on the following page shows the total number of new housing
units by housing type at buildout for each development scenario. Across
all three scenarios, single-family detached housing would be the most
common housing type. However, by providing for more attached and
multifamily housing and smaller lot subdivisions for detached housing,
the mid-range and high-range scenarios achieve greater overall densi-
ties. The baseline scenario would buildout at a gross density of 2.2
units per acre, the mid-range scenario at 3.5 units per acre, and the
high-range at 5.7 units per acre.
Financial Feasibility of Receiving Area Development
Gross density affects the financial feasibility of development and, thus,
the amount that development projects can afford to pay to purchase
TDR credits. Financial feasibility is often signified by the residual land
value. The residual land value is the amount a developer can afford to
pay to acquire land for a development project, while still earning a
standard return on investment (usually a 15 percent internal rate of
return).
Page vi Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
Figure 2 shows the residual land value for each receiving area under
each development scenario. As the data show, the baseline scenario
generates the lowest residual land value in each receiving area, and the
high-range scenario generates the highest. This is important because
higher residual land values typically indicate greater incentives to the
developer to build these projects and to purchase the necessary TDR
credits. The residual land value is also important in absolute terms,
because a developer cannot undertake a development project if the re-
sidual land value is less than the cost to acquire the land. As discussed
below, achieving a higher residual land value is one reason the report
recommends a change in the price of TDR credits.
Figure 1: Number of New Residential Dwelling Units at Buildout by
Housing Type and Development Scenario, All Receiving Areas
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
0
30,000
60,000
90,000
Baseline Scenario Mid-Range High-Range
Single-Family Detached Condos and Townhouses
Apartments Affordable Housing
Figure 2: Average Residual Land Value by Receiving Area and by
Development Scenario
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
North West Belle Meade South Scenario Total
Baseline Scenario Mid-Range High-Range
December 13, 2016 Page vii
TDR Credit Demand
Figure 3 shows the number of TDR credits needed to buildout each
receiving area under each development scenario. The analysis finds
that the baseline scenario would require 28,200 credits, and the mid-
range scenario would require 37,300. Because the high-range scenario
would provide more units at village densities above four units per acre
and more affordable housing units (credits are not required for units
above four units per acre and for affordable housing units), it would
need 28,800. This is the fewest number of TDR credits per total num-
ber of housing units, which contributes to the higher residual land val-
ues.
Current TDR Supply
The theoretical supply of TDR credits is the total number of TDR credits
to which each receiving area parcel that has not severed credits is en-
titled. Based on data from Collier County, the analysis estimates that
the current theoretical supply is 9,530 TDR credits. Because some
property owners will not want to sell the TDR credits, the analysis cre-
ates a model of the likely supply of credits based on the net value of
credits to sending area property owners and the value per acre at which
unimproved and agricultural land has sold in each sending area over
the past three years. Using this model, the analysis estimates that the
current likely supply is 6,420 credits. Figure 4 shows the current theo-
retical and likely supplies of TDR credits for each sending area.
The estimated supply of credits is significantly lower than the potential
demand for credits at buildout of the receiving areas. Figure 5 shows
this difference.
Figure 3: TDR Credit Demand at Buildout, by Receiving Area and by
Development Scenario
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Baseline Scenario Mid-Range High-Range
South Belle Meade West North
Page viii Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
Figure 4: Estimate Theoretical and Likely Supply of TDR Credits by
Sending Area, 2015
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using data from Collier County.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
South Belle Meade North Belle Meade-
NRPA
North Belle Meade-
West
North
Theoretical Supply Likely Supply
Figure 5: Estimated Current Supply and Buildout Demand for TDR
Credits by Development Scenario
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using data from Collier County.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Baseline Mid Range High Range
Likely Supply Theoretical Supply Potential Demand
December 13, 2016 Page ix
Recommended TDR Program Modifications
Based on the difference between the estimated supply and the potential
demand for TDR credits and based on input received through several
public workshops in the first part of 2016, Collier County is considering
several modifications to the TDR program. This report recommends the
following modifications to reduce the discrepancy between TDR supply
and demand.
1. Allocate Additional TDR Credits
Significantly reducing the difference between the supply of and demand
for TDR credits will require allocating additional TDR credits to sending
area properties. Rather than eliminating the difference, though, the ad-
ditional credits should still maintain less supply than demand in order
to incentivize receiving area property owners and developers to pur-
chase TDR credits sooner rather than later and to maintain some up-
ward price pressure to support the recommended sales price. Based on
the analysis and public input, this report recommends an additional
four TDR credits for properties that have not yet severed any credits and
two additional credits for those parcels that have severed and sold some
credits (the base credit and the early entry credit) but that still retain the
potential R&M credit and the conveyance credit. These additions would
increase the theoretical supply by more than 10,000 credits.
2. Institute Neutral and Receiving Credits
Base on public input, there is a desire to provide program flexibility by
allocating credits that developers could obtain by providing public ben-
efits in neutral and receiving area development projects. If limited to
1,000 additional credits, less than five percent of the total theoretical
supply with all of the recommendations implemented, this should have
a negligible impact on the marketability of sending area credits. Pro-
gram requirements to limit the number of these credits on a single pro-
ject could further minimize the sending area impact.
3. Limit New Golden Gate Estates Credits
The county is considering allocating a limited number of new TDR cred-
its to support conservation of high environmental value lands in Golden
Gate Estates. The report recommends limiting any such additional cred-
its to 200 to 400, which would be less than two percent of the total
theoretical supply, to avoid impacts on the marketability of sending area
TDR credits.
4. Establish Credits for Conveyance to County
Capitalizing on the theoretical supply of TDR credits will require estab-
lishing a county program or a conservation organization to accept con-
veyance of properties after TDRs are severed, if the Florida Forestry Ser-
vice is not an option. The report recommends allocating one additional
TDR credit in the sending areas when the property is conveyed to the
county or another organization. The funds generated by the sale of this
final TDR credit would go to the county or other organization to help
offset the costs of long-term maintenance.
Page x Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
5. Lower Price of TDR Credits
A lower average TDR price would help ensure that the higher density
development patterns that the county desires for the RFMUD are finan-
cially feasible. The market should move to a lower TDR price in re-
sponse to the increase in the supply of TDR credits resulting from the
modifications described above. Based on the analysis in this report, we
recommend that a TDR bank establish a price of $10,000 per TDR
credit if the county moves forward in establishing a TDR bank.
Proposed Supply and Demand
With the recommendations described above, the theoretical supply
would be 20,520 TDR credits, 79 percent of the potential TDR demand
under the high-range scenario. If current RFMUD growth trends con-
tinue, this balance should last for two or more decades of development
before the TDR program will need a new restudy.
December 13, 2016 Page 1
Introduction
Collier County is conducting a restudy of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use
District (RFMUD). In response to the 1999 Final Order, the county
adopted various revisions to the RFMUD from 2002 to 2004. Included
in the revisions was the establishment a Transferable Development
Rights (TDR) Program.
TDR Program Background
Under the TDR Program, approximately 41,000 acres of land with high
environmental value are identified as sending areas. Generally, devel-
opment in these areas is restricted to no more than one dwelling unit
per 40 acres. In lieu of developing this land, property owners may sever
and sell TDR credits. For each five acres in a parcel 1, the TDR program
allocates the property owner one base credit and one early entry credit.
One additional restoration and maintenance (R&M) credit is available if
the property owner restores the land in accordance with program re-
quirements. Finally, one more TDR credit is available if the property is
conveyed to a public agency for long-term conservation and preserva-
tion. Thus, a five-acre parcel can have up to four TDR credits.
The TDR program identifies approximately 28,000 acres of land with
less environmental value as receiving areas, 14,000 acres of which are
1 Partial credits are allocated for the portion of the parcel over five acres. In
addition, legally non-conforming parcels less than five acres in size are allo-
cated TDR credits as though they contained five acres.
vacant. Generally, land in receiving areas is limited to one dwelling unit
per five acres. However, property owners in the receiving area can de-
velop one additional single-family detached housing unit for each TDR
credit they purchase from a sending area or one additional multifamily
dwelling unit for each 0.75 TDR credits purchased.
Collier County’s RFMUD TDR Program is nationally regarded as a TDR
success story. However, since the 2008–09 recession, the use of TDRs
has slowed greatly. The restudy is, in part, a response to the changes
in the real estate development market since the recession.
Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this report is to analyze the current supply and demand
for TDRs in the RFMUD and to evaluate several proposed modifications
to the program in relation to supply and demand. The report is intended
to support public discussion and decision-making for the proposed
modifications. Under a separate study, the county is evaluating the po-
tential to establish a TDR bank. This report is also intended to inform
the TDR bank analysis.
Introduction
Page 2 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
Time Frame
With over 14,000 acres of development potential in the receiving areas,
buildout will most likely be a matter of decades. This report does not
limit itself to immediate market demand and remains cognizant that
there will undoubtedly be significant and possibly unexpected shifts in
residential market preferences over the coming decades.
The Baby Boom generation spans 20 years and only started entering
retirement age in 2010, after the recession. The Millennial generation,
larger than the Baby Boom, is just now entering the household-forming
and family-forming stages of life. Some survey data suggest that these
demographic groups may have different housing and neighborhood
preferences than did previous generations at these stages of life.
Report Organization
The first part of the report analyzes the demand for TDR credits. The
second part analyzes the supply and the relationship of supply to de-
mand.
December 13, 2016 Page 3
Receiving Area Analysis
The receiving area analysis quantifies the number of TDRs needed to
build out each of the receiving areas and, importantly, the total dollar
amount that is financially feasible for new development to pay to ac-
quire TDRs. The three main factors influencing financial feasibility are
the cost of purchasing land, the cost of construction, and the sales price
or rents the developer will earn. A myriad of other factors affect financial
feasibility to a lesser degree.
Financial Feasibility
Generally
Developer View of Financial Feasibility
In a typical development project, the developer seeking entitlement and
permits (i.e., the individual staff sees as the face of the project) provides
a small part of the needed equity investment. A wealthy individual may
provide the majority of equity on smaller projects; on larger projects, the
majority of investment may come from a group of investors, institutional
investors (such as insurance or pension funds), or real estate invest-
ment trusts. Obtaining the equity investment is never automatic. The
developer must convince these potential partners to invest in the pro-
ject.
For a conventional development project, these investors will likely ex-
pect a minimum return on their investment of about a 15 percent IRR
(internal rate of return). For riskier projects, the developer must provide
a higher return. Some characteristics that can necessitate a higher re-
turn include:
+ New product types in a market (such as the first vertical mixed-use
building in an area)
+ Discretionary permitting (which may be perceived as something
that will depend on public mood)
+ Length of the entitlement process (the longer the time frame, the
more chances for market or political conditions to change)
+ Projects in jurisdictions perceived to have an unstable political en-
vironment (different votes on similar projects or active litigious citi-
zen groups)
For the purposes of this report, the analysis assumes that the types of
development analyzed would require a typical 15 percent IRR.
Financing and IRR
The investor’s return is measured against the amount of investment and
the amount of time for the investment and profit to be returned. The
amount of financing in the project does not directly affect the IRR, ex-
cept as it affects the total amount of equity required and the total
amount returned to the investors.
The construction loan may have a rate of about 7 percent, depending
on the loan fees and other terms of the loan. Using financing for more
Receiving Area Analysis
Page 4 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
of the total development costs reduces the total equity required and
improves the IRR the investors will realize.
However, the developer usually cannot get the construction loan with-
out entitlement and control of the land. Every expense before that is
paid with equity investment. Most expenses after that are paid with
borrowed money. For a typical development project, the developer may
be able to finance one-half of the land acquisition cost and use the
equity investment for the other half. For the site work, construction, and
other soft costs after entitlement, about 84 percent of costs are covered
with borrowed money
Residual Land Value
The financial feasibility of a development project is determined through
a pro forma analysis. A pro forma is simply a spreadsheet. Expected
development costs, revenues, and financing assumptions are entered,
and then the spreadsheet determines how much the developer can af-
ford to pay for the land and still achieve a target IRR. This amount is
the residual land value. When the residual land value is greater than
the land costs, the project is financially feasible. When the residual land
value is less than the land costs, the project is not financially feasible,
and the developer could not afford to purchase the land.
The two key determinants of residual land value are the allowable
amount of development and the rents or sales value new development
will generate. Increasing the allowable development densities and in-
tensities has no effect if prevailing rents and sales values cannot cover
the cost of construction. Similarly, high per-square-foot rents and sales
values have no effect if a site cannot be developed with enough floor
space to cover the cost of land acquisition.
Pro Forma Assumptions
Construction Loan
The pro forma model assumes that a construction loan, with a 7.1 per-
cent rate, would cover 50 percent of the land acquisition costs and 84
percent of the construction cost, based on information from real-
tyrates.com.
Permanent Loan and Sale of Rental Product
The pro forma model assumes that the for-rent products would be
leased by the developer for five years and then sold. The pro forma
model assumes that the permanent loan, which pays off the construc-
tion loan and covers the five-year period until the product is sold, would
have a rate of 5.1 percent and a term of 25 years, based on information
from realtyrates.com.
The pro forma model assumes that the revenue from the sale of the
rental product would be the expected net operating income in the first
year after the sale, divided by a capitalization rate of 9.2 percent, less
selling expenses of 6 percent. The net sales proceeds are based on a
15 percent tax on capital gains, 25 percent tax on accumulated depre-
ciation, and payoff of the permanent loan. The debt service coverage
December 13, 2016 Page 5
ratio for the permanent loan is assumed at 1.41, based on information
from realtyrates.com.
Timeline
The pro forma model uses a simplified timeline. It assumes that site
work would begin on the day after closing on the land acquisition. There
would be 3 months of site work followed by 9 months of construction.
After construction, for-sale products would sell in three equal amounts
of the next 3 months, and for-rent products would be fully leased upon
completion.
This schedule would be ambitious even for a small project. In reality,
buildout of each receiving area would likely take at least a decade, if
not several decades. Furthermore, it will likely be several years before
development of a single receiving area begins in earnest. Modeling such
a long, complex development scheme involving many different devel-
opers and projects would require a range of assumptions that would not
be any more realistic than the simplified timeline used in this analysis.
Revenue Assumptions
The pro forma model assumes a vacancy and operations allowance of
10 percent for residential and retail products and 12.5 percent for busi-
ness campus development. Retail lease rate is assumed at $13.50 per
square foot per year based on a survey of asking lease rates. Residential
leasing rates are based on a model of asking lease rates by unit size
and number of bedrooms and assume a 15 percent premium for a new
product. The model assumes a 3 percent per year escalation in rents.
Sales values for residential units are based on an analysis of housing
sales data in zip codes 34120 and 34117.
Cost Assumptions
Table 1 provides the general construction cost assumptions used in the
pro forma. In addition, the model assumes soft costs at 15 percent of
hard costs. It also assumes a 3 percent land acquisition cost for due
diligence. The pro forma model assumes that any demolition costs
Table 1: Construction Cost Assumptions
Site Work
Site prep $2.50 / sq. ft.
Landscaping and open space amen-
ities $2.50 / sq. ft.
Onsite Infrastructure
Water and sewer $225 / linear foot
Well and septic allowance $10,000
Roadways $10 / sq. ft.
Construction
Single-family detached $75 to $90 / sq. ft.
Single-family attached $106 / sq. ft.
Multifamily apartments and condos $110 / sq. ft.
Stand-alone retail/commercial $100 / sq. ft.
Business campus $135 / sq. ft.
Residential-over-retail mixed use $140 / sq. ft.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
Page 6 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
would be negligible. Finally, the model assumes a $10,000 allowance
per unit for development impact fees.
Workforce Housing
The analysis assumes that 10 percent of the housing stock will be built
for and occupied by low- and moderate-income households. These
housing units are a mix of townhouse and apartments. The construction
costs for workforce housing units average about 8 percent lower than
the market rate units. The rents vary on unit size and the expected
household size. On average, though, the workforce housing unit rents
are about 49 percent of the market rate rents.
Development Types
The pro forma model analyzes three development types. Table 2 sum-
marizes the acreage of each development type in each receiving area.
Clustered Single-Family Detached. Clustered single-family detached de-
velopments are a mix of housing and lot sizes. The specific mix depends
on the planned density, which varies with each development scenario.
Village. The village developments provide a mix of smaller-lot single-
family detached housing, townhouses, condos, and apartments. The
specific mix depends on the planned density, which varies with each
development scenario.
Single-Family Large Lot. The model assumes that a small portion of
each receiving area would be developed for large-lot single-family de-
tached housing. These areas would be developed at a density of one
unit per five acres and therefore would not require TDRs.
Table 2: Acreage by Receiving Area and Development Type
Development Type North West Belle Meade South
Clustered 422 324 720
Village 2,570 2,630 6,090
SF Large Lot 160 634 969
Total Area 2,570 583 3,590 7,780
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
Development Scenarios
The pro forma model evaluates three development scenarios:
Baseline Scenario. Under the baseline scenario, clustered develop-
ments would be built out at a density of one unit per acre and villages
would achieve a density of three units per acre.
Mid-Range Scenario. Under the mid-range scenario, clustered develop-
ments would be built out at a density of two units per acre and villages
would achieve a density of four units per acre.
High-Range Scenario. Under the high-range scenario, clustered devel-
opments would be built out at a density of two units per acre and vil-
lages would achieve a density of seven units per acre.
December 13, 2016 Page 7
Development Potential
This section describes the amount of development that could occur un-
der each of the development scenarios. The development program laid
out for each scenario is specifically intended to maximize the develop-
ment potential in order to quantify the potential theoretical demand for
TDRs. In actual practice, the receiving areas may not buildout at the
maximum densities, and not all property owners will necessarily choose
to develop or sell their land for development. Nevertheless, it is im-
portant to estimate the potential theoretical demand for TDRs to provide
an understanding of the balance between TDR supply and demand.
The development potential covers over 14,000 acres across the four
receiving areas. Needless to say, the buildout of these areas would oc-
cur over decades. It is reasonable to expect market demand and hous-
ing preferences to change over this time-frame. Some of the housing
products included in the development potential may satisfy present-day
market demand and other products may rely on future changes in mar-
ket demand.
Finally, these scenarios do not reflect changes to the underlying zoning
requirements in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. These scenarios
are intended to illustrate how possible refinements to the TDR program,
such as reductions in the number of TDRs required for higher-density
villages or reductions in the developer’s cost for TDRs, might result in
different development patterns and residential densities. The incentive
to developers can be seen in the residual land value for each develop-
ment scenario. In addition, the total development investment identified
for each scenario is indicative of the property tax base that would gen-
erate property tax revenues for Collier County.
Baseline Scenario
Table 3 on page 9 summarizes the development potential under the
baseline scenario. The four receiving areas could be developed with
35,700 housing units. Of these, 27,400, or 76.6 percent, would be
single-family detached houses. Of the total number of housing units,
3,400, or about 10 percent, would be affordable workforce housing.
The gross density across the four receiving areas would be 2.5 units
per acre.
The average residual land value across the four receiving areas would
be $71,000 per acre. Among the receiving areas, the average residual
land value would range from a low of $28,700 in the West receiving
area to a high of $86,100 in the North receiving area. However, this
result is not surprising because the West receiving area, with only clus-
tered single-family detached development, would be the least dense,
and the North receiving area, with only village development, would be
the highest density.
The total amount of development investment across the four receiving
areas would be $11.3 billion at full buildout. The investment among
the receiving areas would range from a low of $209 million in the West
receiving area to a high of $6.1 billion in the South receiving area. This
result is also not surprising, because the West receiving area has al-
ready been substantially developed and there is the least amount of
Page 8 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
land area remaining to be developed. Similarly, the South receiving area
is the largest of the four and has more than half of the land area to be
developed across all four areas.
Mid-Range Scenario
Table 4 on page 10 summarizes the development potential under the
mid-range scenario. Under this scenario, the total number of housing
units would increase by 12,800, or 36 percent over the baseline sce-
nario. The number of single-family detached housing units would in-
crease by 1,400, and single-family detached housing would account
for 59 percent of the total housing. The majority of the increase would
come from multifamily housing, with 3,660 more condos and 5,460
more apartments. The gross density across all four receiving areas
would be 3.3 dwelling units per acre.
With the mid-range scenario, the average residual land value across the
four receiving areas increases to $98,300 per acre. The increase in
density—more housing units on the same acreage of land—drives the
increased in residual land value.
Similarly, the increased number of housing units drives the increase in
the total amount of development investment. Under the mid-range sce-
nario, the total development investment would be $13.9 billion at
buildout. This is an increase of $2.6 billion, or 23 percent, over the
baseline scenario.
High-Range Scenario
Table 5 on page 11 summarizes the development potential under the
high-range scenario. The total number of housing units would increase
to 82.400, 70 percent more than in the mid-range scenario and 131
percent over the baseline scenario. The total number of single-family
detached housing units would increase to 38,900, but because there
is substantially more housing among the other types, single-family de-
tached housing would account for only 47 percent of the total housing
stock. There would be 8,150 single-family attached townhouses, 10
percent of the total housing. Multifamily housing—15,010 condos and
20,330 apartments—would account for 43 percent of the total hous-
ing. Across the four receiving areas, the gross density would be 5.7
dwelling units per acre.
With the increase density of development, the average residual land
value under the high-range scenario rises to $150,600 per acre. This
is 53 percent higher than the mid-range scenario and 112 percent
higher than the baseline scenario. The total development investment
would be 19.8 billion, which is 42 percent more than under the mid-
range scenario and 75 percent more than the baseline scenario.
December 13, 2016 Page 9
Table 3: Development Program by Receiving Area, Baseline Scenario
Total North Receiving Area West Receiving Area Belle Meade Receiving
Area South Receiving Area
Number of Housing Units
Single-family detached 27,400 5,830 450 6,400 14,690
Single-family attached 2,880 660 0 670 1,550
Condominiums 1,600 360 0 370 860
Multifamily 3,860 880 0 900 2,090
Total number of housing units 35,700 7,720 450 8,340 19,200
Gross density (du/acre) 2.5 3.0 0.8 2.3 2.5
Number of workforce housing units 3,400 770 0 790 1,830
Share of total number of housing units 10% 10% 0% 9% 10%
Roadways (CL miles) 250 50 6 59 134
Stormwater management / open space (acres) 3,578 605 160 897 1,915
Share of site area 26% 24% 28% 25% 25%
Average residual land value ($/acre) 71,000 86,100 28,700 66,600 71,200
Total development investment ($) 11,334,000,000 2,389,000,000 209,000,000 2,657,000,000 6,079,000,000
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
Page 10 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
Table 4: Development Program by Receiving Area, Mid-Range Scenario
Total North Receiving Area West Receiving Area Belle Meade Receiving
Area South Receiving Area
Number of Housing Units
Single-family detached 28,800 5,820 880 6,730 15,420
Single-family attached 5,060 1,150 0 1,180 2,730
Condominiums 5,260 1,200 0 1,220 2,830
Multifamily 9,320 2,120 0 2,170 5,030
Total number of housing units 48,500 10,300 880 11,300 26,010
Gross density (du/acre) 3.3 4.0 1.5 3.1 3.3
Number of workforce housing units 4,500 1,030 0 1,050 2,420
Share of total number of housing units 9% 10% 0% 9% 9%
Roadways (CL miles) 268 52 9 63 143
Stormwater management / open space (acres) 3,506 601 145 881 1,879
Share of site area 26% 23% 25% 25% 24%
Average residual land value ($/acre) 98,300 116,700 54,500 92,200 98,400
Total development investment ($) 13,931,000,000 2,847,000,000 376,000,000 3,255,000,000 7,453,000,000
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
December 13, 2016 Page 11
Table 5: Development Program by Receiving Area, High-Range Scenario
Total North Receiving Area West Receiving Area Belle Meade Receiving
Area South Receiving Area
Number of Housing Units
Single-family detached 38,900 8,110 880 9,070 20,840
Single-family attached 8,150 1,860 0 1,900 4,400
Condominiums 15,010 3,420 0 3,490 8,100
Multifamily 20,330 4,630 0 4,730 10,970
Total number of housing units 82,400 18,020 880 19,190 44,300
Gross density (du/acre) 5.7 7.0 1.5 5.3 5.7
Number of workforce housing units 7,910 1,800 0 1,840 4,270
Share of total number of housing units 10% 10% 0% 10% 10%
Roadways (CL miles) 310 62 9 73 166
Stormwater management / open space (acres) 3,385 574 145 852 1,813
Share of site area 25% 22% 25% 24% 23%
Average residual land value ($/acre) 150,600 185,300 54,500 140,900 150,800
Total development investment ($) 19,820,000,000 4,192,000,000 376,000,000 4,625,000,000 10,628,000,000
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
Page 12 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
TDR Demand
TDR credits are required for each dwelling unit above a density of one
unit per five acres. One full credit is required for single-family detached
dwelling, and 0.75 TDR credits is required for each single-family at-
tached dwelling and each multifamily unit. The total number of TDR
credits required for a development is reduced by one for each affordable
housing unit and reduced by one for each unit above a density of four
units per acre. Table 6 provides the number of TDR credits required for
each receiving area under each development scenario.
With the least amount of development, the baseline scenario results in
the lowest demand for TDR credits. The high-range scenario has the
largest amount of development. Because many of the additional hous-
ing units are in village developments with seven units per acre, though,
it requires substantially fewer TDR credits than the mid-range scenario
and only slightly more credits than the baseline scenario.
Because the number of TDR credits is based on the amount of devel-
opment in each development scenario, the cost for each TDR credit has
a direct relationship to financial feasibility. One option the county is
considering would seek a lower average price per TDR accompanied by
an increase in the number of credits allocated to sending area property
owners. The next chapter explores the impact of such a change on the
supply of TDR credits. Table 7 shows the potential impact on the re-
ceiving areas.
With a reduction in the average cost to acquire TDR credits from
$13,500 to $10,000, the total amount that would be used to purchase
TDRs would decline by nearly $100 million in the baseline scenario,
$130 million in the mid-range scenario, and slightly more than $100
million in the high-range scenario. With the reduction in cost for TDR
credits, the average residual land value would increase by $6,700 un-
der the baseline scenario, $8,900 for the mid-range scenario, and
$7,000 for the high-range scenario.
With a reduction in the average cost per TDR credit, fewer dollars would
be required for receiving area projects, and the financially feasibility of
development projects would be improved. It is worth stating again that
the development scenarios are not zoning requirements. Rather, they
illustrate different levels of density and development intensity that could
occur in response to the TDR program requirements. Lower residual
land values indicate that developers are less likely to develop projects
Table 6: Number of TDR Credits Required by Receiving Area and by
Development Scenario
Receiving Area Baseline
Scenario
Mid-Range
Scenario
High-Range
Scenario
North 6,150 7,890 5,950
West 340 760 760
Belle Meade 6,550 8,650 6,680
South 15,140 19,990 15,380
Total Demand for TDR
Credits 28,200 37,300 28,800
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
December 13, 2016 Page 13
at the higher density and intensities, and higher residual land values
indicate that developers are more likely. Thus, with lower residual land
values fewer developers may develop projects that require TDRs or may
develop projects that require fewer TDR credits, with the result that less
money gets transferred from receiving areas to sending areas.
Table 7: Cost to Acquire TDR Credits and Resulting Residual Land
Value by Development Scenario Baseline
Scenario
Mid-Range
Scenario
High-Range
Scenario
Total Demand for TDR
Credits 28,200 37,300 28,800
Average Cost per TDR Credit: $10,000
Cost for TDR Acquisition $281,800,000 $372,900,000 $287,700,000
Average Residual Land Value $71,000 $98,400 $150,600
Average Cost per TDR Credit: $13,500
Cost for TDR Acquisition $380,400,000 $503,400,000 $388,300,000
Average Residual Land Value $64,300 $89,400 $143,600
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
Page 14 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
This page intentionally left blank.
December 13, 2016 Page 15
Sending Area Analysis
The sending area analysis estimates the current theoretical supply of
TDRs that have not yet been severed from sending area properties.
Based on the average sales price of TDRs and the average sales price
per acre for unimproved parcels of land in each of the sending areas
over a three-year period, the analysis estimates the percentage of prop-
erty owners who would likely be willing to sell TDR credits.
Theoretical supply and likely supply are distinct but important terms.
The theoretical supply is the number of TDR credits there would be if
every sending area property owner who has not already severed TDR
credits were to sever every possible TDR they could. However, not every
owner will sever credits. The likely supply is the number of credits that
would be available based on a percentage of sending-area property
owners participating in the program under a set of assumptions de-
scribed in this chapter.
As the analysis presented in this chapter shows, the likely supply of
TDR credits in the sending area is substantially below the demand for
TDR credits identified in the previous chapter. The remainder of the
chapter explores various ways to increase the supply of TDR credits.
Current TDR Supply
Theoretical Supply
The theoretical supply is based on the current allocation of TDR credits.
For each five acres and for each legally conforming parcel less than five
acres, there is one base credit and one early-entry credit, plus one po-
tential restoration and maintenance credit and one potential convey-
ance credit. The current theoretical supply is the number of TDR credits
that could exist if each of these credits were applied to every eligible
parcel that has not already severed TDR credits.
Table 8 on the following page provides the current theoretical supply of
TDR credits for each sending area. The data for potential R&M credits
and potential conveyance credits reflect the outstanding credits poten-
tially available to parcels for which the base credit and early entry cred-
its have been severed. Non-participating parcel credits reflect the four
total credits that could be allocated to every other parcel that has not
yet participated in the TDR program.
The current theoretical supply is 9,530 TDR credits. This is substan-
tially less than even the lowest estimated demand, 28,200 under the
baseline scenario.
Sending Area Analysis
Page 16 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
Likely Supply Assumptions
The model for the likely supply of TDRs is based on the net value to a
sending area property owner of selling all available TDR credits versus
the value of selling the property outright.
The model uses sales of unimproved agricultural and vacant land in
each of the sending areas. Using the average sales price per acre and
the standard deviation over the past three years, the analysis creates a
normal distribution curve to model the sales price in each sending area.
For a particular sales value, the model determine what percentage of
properties would sell at or below that priced per acre.
In South Belle Meade, for example, the average sales price is $8,740
per acre and the standard deviation is $5,935. The normal distribution
for these values suggests that two-thirds of property transactions would
sell at or below $11,300 per acre. There were too few sales in the
North sending area, so the model uses the data for North Belle Meade–
NRPA to estimate the sales values for the North area. The average sales
price in the North Belle Meade–NRPA sending area is $3,970 per acre
and is $22,360 in the North Belle Meade–West sending area.
The value of severing and selling TDR credits is based on the following
assumptions:
+ The average sales value per TDR credit is $13,500 with four
credits for an eligible five-acre parcel
Table 8: Current Theoretical TDR Credit Supply by Sending Area,
2016
South Belle Meade
Potential R&M credits 90
Potential conveyance credits 580
Non-participating parcel credits 2,020
Subtotal 2,700
North Belle Meade-NRPA
Potential R&M credits 190
Potential conveyance credits 230
Non-participating parcel credits 3,190
Subtotal 3,610
North Belle Meade-West
Potential R&M credits 3
Potential conveyance credits 3
Non-participating parcel credits 2,540
Subtotal 2,550
North
Potential R&M credits 120
Potential conveyance credits 120
Non-participating parcel credits 440
Subtotal 680
Total 9,530
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using data from Collier County.
December 13, 2016 Page 17
+ The property owner incurs a cost of 3 percent of gross sales
value for legal and other sales costs
+ In the South Belle Meade sending area, property owners incur
a cost of $2,500 per acre for restoration and conveyance to the
Florida Forest Service
+ In other sending areas, property owners incur a cost of $2,000
per acre for up-front restoration cost and $1,050 per acre for
long-term maintenance as part of conveying the property to a
conservation or similar organization
Table 9 provides the average sales value per acre in each sending area,
the net value per acre property would realize from selling TDR credits,
and the likely percentage of property owners that would sever and sell
their TDR credits under the current TDR program standards. The net
TDR sales value per acre in the South Belle Meade sending area is
slightly higher than in the other sending areas because the cost to con-
vey property to the Florida Forest Service is lower than the estimated
cost to convey property to a conservation or similar organization in the
other areas.
Likely Supply
Table 10 combines data from Table 8 and Table 9 to estimate the likely
supply of TDR credits under the current TDR program. Neither the likely
supply, 6,420 TDR credits, nor the theoretical supply, 9,530 credits,
is anywhere close to the estimated potential demand of 28,000 to
37,000 TDR credits. Thus, modifications to the TDR program are war-
ranted if it is to support the planned development of the Rural Fringe
Mixed-Use District.
Table 9: Likely Percentage Participation in TDR Program Under
Current Standards, 2016
Sending Area Average Sales
Value per Acre
Net TDR Sales
Value per Acre
Portion of
Sales at or
Below TDR
Sales Value
South Belle Meade 8,740 7,980 45%
North Belle Meade-NRPA 3,440 7,430 100%
North Belle Meade-West 22,360 7,430 36%
North 3,440 7,430 100%
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using sales data from Collier County.
Table 10: Estimate of Current Likely Supply of TDR Credits, 2016
Sending Area
Current
Theoretical
Supply
Estimated
Percentage
Participation
Current Likely
Supply
South Belle Meade 2,700 45% 1,210
North Belle Meade-NRPA 3,610 100% 3,600
North Belle Meade-West 2,550 36% 930
North 680 100% 680
Total 9,530 67% 6,420
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using sales data from Collier County.
Page 18 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
TDR Program Modifications
Based on the demonstrated differences between the supply and de-
mand for TDR credits and the input received from a series of public
workshops in the first part of 2016, a number of possible modifications
could reduce the discrepancy between the supply and demand.
Increase the Number of TDR Credit
The most direct approach is to simply allocate more TDR credits to
sending area properties. To equalize the theoretical supply and demand
of TDR credits would require adding from 5.85 credits under the base-
line scenario to 8.90 credits under the mid-range scenario for each five-
acre parcel. Even with these additional credits, the likely supply would
still range from 80 to 84 percent of the theoretical supply. There will be
some property owners who prefer to retain ownership and the current
use of their property rather than selling the TDR credits.
The final supply and demand model assumes that four additional TDR
credits will be added to the four existing TDR credits available to each
five-acre parcel. In addition, the model assumes that two credits are
also added to those parcels that have severed and sold some credits
(the base credit and the early entry credit) but that still retain the po-
tential R&M credit and the conveyance credit. In total, the number of
new TDR credits added to the theoretical supply is more than 10,000,
which is more than double the theoretical supply under the current TDR
program.
Institute Neutral and Receiving Credits
The model assumes that 1,000 neutral TDR credits would be made
available. These are credits that developers could obtain by providing
public benefits in neutral and receiving area development projects.
Golden Gate Estates
A fairly insignificant number of TDR credits, 200 to 400, could be made
available to aid in the conservation of sensitive lands in Golden Gate
Estates. This would be one to two percent of the total number of theo-
retical credits, which should minimize any impact to the marketability
of sending area TDR credits.
Credits for Conveyance to County
One of the challenges to the TDR program is finding an agency or con-
servation organization to whom property can be conveyed and who can
maintain property after TDRs are severed. This applies in areas where
the property cannot be conveyed to the Florida Forestry Service.
One solution, which the county is exploring, would allocate one addi-
tional TDR credit in the sending areas. When the other TDRs are sev-
ered and the property is conveyed to the county or another organization,
this additional credit could also be sold. However, the funds generated
by the sale of this final TDR credit would go to the county or other
organization to help offset the costs of long-term maintenance of the
property.
December 13, 2016 Page 19
Price Change
The final possible change explored in the supply and demand model is
a lower price per TDR. Currently, the average price of TDR credits is
$13,500. For a five-acre parcel, the current allocation of four potential
credits could result in a total TDR value of $10,800 per acre, before
accounting for costs for restoration and conveyance. With an increase
to eight TDR credits, the free market would likely respond by lowering
the average price. With eight credits and a reduction in price to
$10,000, the total TDR value increases 48 percent to $16,000 per
acre.
The lower the price would help ensure that the higher density develop-
ment patterns that the county desires for the RFMUD are financially
feasible. If large swaths of the RFMUD are not financially feasible to
develop at these densities, then no development or lower density devel-
opment will occur, resulting in decreases in the demand for TDR cred-
its. The number of credits allocated and the price become immaterial if
developers do not seek to buy TDR credits in the first place. As shown
in Table 7 on page 13, the residual land values resulting from a
$10,000 TDR price should be an effective incentive to induce develop-
ers to construct the higher density types of development.
Proposed TDR Supply
Table 11 shows the theoretical and likely TDR supply by sending area
if the modifications described in the previous section were imple-
mented. The theoretical supply would increase from 9,530 to 20,520,
115 percent more credits. Finally, the likely supply would increase from
6,420 to 16,420, 156 percent more credits.
The overall participation rate would increase from 67 percent to 80
percent. This is important because it means that a larger share of send-
ing area property would be conserved.
Final TDR Supply and Demand
The potential demand for TDRs—28,200 to 37,300, depending on the
development scenario—would still exceed the likely supply of 16,420
and even the theoretical supply of 20,510 credits. Figure 6 shows the
difference between the projected demand and the proposed theoretical
and likely supply of TDR credits. The theoretical supply equals 78.7
percent of the high-range scenario buildout demand.
Table 11: Proposed Theoretical and Likely Supply of TDR Credits by
Sending Area, 2016
Sending Area Theoretical
Supply
Estimated
Percentage
Participation
Likely Supply
South Belle Meade 5,720 76% 4,710
North Belle Meade-NRPA 7,640 100% 7,850
North Belle Meade-West 5,730 41% 2,350
North 1,230 100% 1,350
Golden Gate Estate 200 85% 170
Total 20,520 80% 16,420
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using sales data from Collier County.
Page 20 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand
A goal of the TDR program is to maintain an excess of demand over
supply in order to incentivize receiving area property owners and devel-
opers to purchase TDR credits sooner rather than later. This excess de-
mand should also provide upward pressure to support the sales price
of TDR credits.
Figure 6: Proposed Supply and Buildout Demand for TDR Credits by
Development Scenario
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Baseline Mid Range High Range
Likely Supply Theoretical Supply Potential Demand
December 13, 2016 Page 21
This page intentionally left blank.
Page A-22 Project Name | Report Title
Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles • Inland Empire • San Diego
3 MacArthur Place | Santa Ana CA 92707 | 714.966.9220 | www.placeworks.com