Loading...
Agenda 05/11/2017 W (Master Plan & Rural Fringe)COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners WORKSHOP AGENDA MASTER PLAN UPDATE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT DECISION POINTS Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 May 11, 2017 1:00 PM Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 – BCC Chair Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 – BCC Vice-Chair Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; CRAB Co-Chair 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. WORKSHOP TOPICS 2.1. Introduction and Overview 2.2. Receiving Lands Development Pattern 2.3. Sending Lands: Public Ownership 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. ADJOURN Inquiries concerning changes to the Board’s Agenda should be made to the County Manager’s Office at 252-8383. 05/11/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.1 Item Summary: Introduction and Overview Meeting Date: 05/11/2017 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – County Manager's Office Name: Geoffrey Willig 05/02/2017 11:15 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 05/02/2017 11:15 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Geoffrey Willig County Manager Review Completed 05/05/2017 5:06 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 05/11/2017 1:00 PM 2.1 Packet Pg. 3 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Restudy Direction Board of County Commissioners Workshop May 11, 2017 Zoning Division/Community Planning Section Growth Management Department Collier County | Florida 2.1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 1-3 (3103 : Introduction and Overview) Today’s Discussion RFMUD Decision Points 1.Receiving land future development •Number of villages •Density of villages •Density of cluster development (non-village) 2.Sending land future ownership 3.Questions on “Initial Recommendations” list 2.1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 1-3 (3103 : Introduction and Overview) 2.1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 1-3 (3103 : Introduction and Overview) Planning & Zoning Division RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT (RMUUD) DECISION POINTS WORKSHOP AGENDA Introduction, Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager 1. Receiving Lands Development Pattern, Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner Meeting the County’s Strategic Objectives Additional Analysis Since January Public Comment Board Discussion 2. Sending Lands: Public Ownership, Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager Public Comment Board Discussion 3. Board Discussion/Questions on any other Initial Recommendation Table of Contents, following page 2.1.b Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: BCC May 11 2017 Wksp Agenda (3103 : Introduction and Overview) Planning & Zoning Division Table of Contents TAB 1. Memo – RFMUD Decision Points Workshop 2. Presentation Copy – Growth Development Patterns and Conservation Land Ownership 3. Development Patterns Scenario Testing Data 4. Phase 2 Mitigation Bank Report; Cash Flow Spreadsheet 5. List of Initial Recommendations on Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District 2.1.c Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: BCC workshop binder TOC (3103 : Introduction and Overview) 1 Planning & Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL To: Board of County Commissioners From: Kris Van Lengen, JD, AICP, Community Planning Manager Through: Mike Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director Re: Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy: Decision Points Workshop Date: May 4, 2017 Introduction: The Community Planning Section of the Planning and Zoning Division in the Growth Management Department serves as the project management team for the eastern area Restudies. This memo is accompanied by information supporting the captioned Workshop scheduled for May 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM. On January 3, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) convened a Workshop to discuss the four area restudies, with emphasis on the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). Staff presented the RFMUD White Paper, which describes the public process and rationale for the 41 Initial Recommendations for changes to the Growth Management Plan. The White Paper can be found on the Restudies webpage: http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-s- z/zoning-division/community-planning-section. The initial recommendations can be found in list form at Tab 5. The January 3d Workshop discussion centered on three pivotal decision points put forward as part of the initial recommendations:  Whether to pursue a “TDR Bank” as a catalyst for the TDR program;  Whether to increase village and non-village density in support of public goals in Receiving Lands;  Whether to accept donations of Sending Lands parcels if no other governmental agency is willing to accept them. At that time, the Board directed staff to discontinue any further consideration of a TDR Bank. It also directed staff to provide further data and analysis related to Receiving Lands de velopment patterns and Sending Lands donations so that additional direction could be provided. 2.1.d Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Memo BCC Restudies Workshop 05 11 17 (3103 : Introduction and Overview) 2 Receiving Lands Development Pattern Public feedback has been supportive of mixed-use development with density increases that support a form of development other than solely single family gated co mmunities. Increased density within mixed-use villages makes RFMUD program goals and regional goals more attainable. This type of development pattern provides the backbone for diversified housing, mobility improvements, economic development and sustainability. As an initial recommendation, the white paper suggested a village minimum density of four units per acre and a maximum density of seven units per acre. TDR requirements incentivize the higher (seven unit) density. A non-village community would be limited to less than 300 acres in size, at two units per acre. Although these are initial recommendations, staff is aware that other solutions may also support mobility options, economic growth, housing affordability and sustainable practices. However, a key to any of these goals is both higher density and a mix of uses, includi ng goods and services, office, light industrial, institutional, government services and recreation options. When looking at net new density, we must balance the need for additional infrastructure and associated funding with the more desirable development patterns that higher densities bring. The updated data and analysis provides a series of buildout scenarios to test and envision what can be accomplished with different densities and mix of land use, taking into account complementary uses and populations in adjoining geographic areas. By reviewing and visualizing different residential densities along with non -residential needs, the effects on the surrounding areas, including the urban area, can be better understood. Likewise, the scenarios indicate the respective effects on key public policy goals. While each buildout scenario maximizes the receiving area development potential over the next fifty or more years, it is expected that ultimately there will be a blending of densities and mix of uses. Therefore, each future proposed development should be evaluated and measured to each the County’s objectives. Scenario testing data can be found at Tab 3. Sending Lands: Conservation Collier Ownership One of the challenges in addressing the shortcomings of the RFMUD h as been the lack of interest by public agencies in assuming ownership or management responsibility for approx. 65% of the remaining privately-held Sending Lands. The majority of citizens and stakeholders agree that the Conservation Collier should take on the responsibility for these ecologically important areas in the absence of other public agencies, most particularly in North Belle Meade. Funding for such an endeavor represents one hurdle. As suggested in the White Paper, all or some of the following revenue sources could support the County’s stewardship of North Belle Meade Sending Lands: donation of funds from Sending Owners along with the land donations; an additional TDR credit to the County redeemable at an 2.1.d Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Memo BCC Restudies Workshop 05 11 17 (3103 : Introduction and Overview) 3 appropriate time; the sale of credits from a mitigation bank established by the County for its own use. Since publication of the White Paper, the Board embarked on a program to fund Conservation Collier acquisitions, and these funds could support and stabilize Conservation Collier ownership of RFMUD Sending Lands. At its January 3, 2017 Workshop, the Board directed staff to return with results from the Phase 2 Feasibility Study related to the mitigation bank concept. By better assessing its viability, a more informed decision can be made regarding the overall concept of Sending Lands ownership, both inside and outside a mitigation area. Through a County-owned mitigation bank, the County can mitigate its own capital projects such as road improvements, while serving other environmental goals. The potential advantages are threefold:  The funds necessarily required for County capital projects, such as transportation, could be used to purchase wetland and listed species credits from the bank at a favorable cost;  The County to County sale of wetland and listed species credits would create the funding in support of long term land management for a County asset;  County land ownership will enhance TDR participation because all credits will be available to current Sending Lands owners. Staff has completed a Phase 2 Feasibility Study, to include a more site specific analysis, define optimal project boundaries, conduct pre-application meetings with agencies, and provide data necessary for financial analysis and long term program viability. Through field work, a better understanding of existing conditions emerged. A “focus area” of approximately 2,200 acres was identified based on stated factors. Estimates of costs to administer and complete both listed species and wetland mitigation compare favorabl y to the revenue achieved in the sale of the credits generated. The Phase 2 Feasibility Report is included in Tab 4. List of Initial Recommendations: A total of 41 recommendations were included in the White Paper. These recommendations are provided in list form at Tab 5. The Board may wish to comment on these items. Staff Request: 1. Staff seeks direction for RFMUD Growth Management Plan amendments as to acceptable levels of density in light of various public policy goals. 2. Staff seeks direction on the Board’s willingness to accept ownership of Sending Land parcels from willing donors, and whether staff should pursue a mitigation bank through formal application to the permitting agencies. 3. Staff would like to entertain comments and questions related to any of the items included in the Initial Recommendations list. 2.1.d Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Memo BCC Restudies Workshop 05 11 17 (3103 : Introduction and Overview) 05/11/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.2 Item Summary: Receiving Lands Development Pattern Meeting Date: 05/11/2017 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – County Manager's Office Name: Geoffrey Willig 05/02/2017 11:15 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 05/02/2017 11:15 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Geoffrey Willig County Manager Review Completed 05/05/2017 5:06 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 05/11/2017 1:00 PM 2.2 Packet Pg. 12 1. Receiving Land Development Pattern Given Collier County’s strategic objectives, what development pattern should be encouraged in the RFMUD Receiving Lands? 2.2.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) Receiving Land Development Pattern The current plan provides for three choices: 1.Large lots 2.Cluster development (non-village, gated communities) 3.Mixed-use village 2.2.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) The Strategic Vision: To be the best community in America to live, work and play Public Outreach Complementary Land Uses Housing Affordability Transportation and Mobility Environmental Stewardship Economic Vitality and Diversification Incentive-Based Approach Financially Feasible The land use planning process and considerations2.2.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) Current Receiving Land Development Pattern The Western Receiving Area Heritage Bay Twin Eagles Lamorada Mockingbird Crossing The Golf Club of the Everglades Does it accomplish the objectives? Complementary Land Use Housing Diversity/Affordability Transportation and Mobility Economic Vitality and Diversification 2.2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) Commissioners’ interests Population growth The environment and water resources Integrating the environment into development Transportation impacts of potential development Plan for the future and changing preferences Housing affordability What we heard at the first BCC workshop 2.2.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) What we’ve done since the last workshop Scenario Testing Baseline Scenario Non-village 1 unit/acre Village 3 units/acre Mid-Range Scenario Increase non-village density to 2 u/acre Village areas a minimum 4 units/acre High-Range Scenario Increase non-village density to 2 units/acre Village areas at maximum 7 units/acre All scenarios set aside 10 percent of total units for housing that is affordable 2.2.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) Scenario Testing began with Public Outreach Consider all development options •Large lot •Gated communities •Mixed-use villages Consensus For receiving lands, stakeholders prefer mixed- use village development 2.2.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) Using the CIGM 2.2.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) The Scenario Assumptions Land aggregation: Less than 40 acres = 1 unit per 5 acres 40 acres to 299 acres = cluster development 1-2 units per acre 300 or more acres = mixed-use village development 3-7 units per acre Residential uses: CIGM, 3 units, 4 units and 7 units per acre Non-residential uses: Retail -CIGM/ULI standards Industrial -CIGM fixed Office -CIGM standards Schools -Collier County Public Schools 2.2.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) South Receiving Area Scenarios 2.2.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) South Receiving Area Scenarios CIGM Buildout Total area 8,765 acres Residential units 6,549 Gross density 0.74 Industrial 731,808 SF Retail 248,185 SF Office 272,231 SF 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Affordable Housing Apartments Condos and Townhouses SF Detached 2.2.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) South Receiving Area Scenarios Baseline Total area 8,765 acres Residential units 19,196 Gross density 2.5 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Affordable Housing Apartments Condos and Townhouses SF Detached Estimated Residential Taxable Value $7.1 Billion 2.2.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) South Receiving Area Scenarios Mid-Range Total area 8,765 acres Residential units 26,010 Gross density 3.3 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Affordable Housing Apartments Condos and Townhouses SF Detached Estimated Residential Taxable Value $9.1 Billion 2.2.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) South Receiving Area Scenarios High-Range Total area 8,765 acres Residential units 44,304 Gross density 5.7 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 SF Detached Condos and Townhouses Apartments Affordable Housing Estimated Residential Taxable Value $13.7 Billion 2.2.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) South Receiving Area Scenarios A Comparison at Buildout Does it accomplish the objectives? Complementary Land Use Housing Diversity/Affordability Transportation and Mobility Economic Vitality and Diversification Taxable Value: $7.1 Billion $9.1 Billion $13.7 Billion Internal Capture:24.3%24.1%23.9% External Trips:156,871 212,554 350,542 Population Range: 45,000……………………………………………………………..105,000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Baseline Mid-Range High-Range Affordable Housing Apartments Condos and Townhouses SF detached 2.2.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) Receiving Land Development Patterns Measure each proposed development to the objectives Huntersville, NC 6.3 units/acre Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Land development designed to accomplish the objectives Complementary Land Use Housing Diversity/Affordability Transportation and Mobility Economic Vitality and Diversification 2.2.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) Awarded Best Neighborhood Design in America by the National Association of Home Builders 275 acres 8.3 acre town center with 22 store fronts 650 single family homes 350 multi-family homes Gross density 3.6 Village Minimum Size? Habersham, SC 2.2.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) Receiving Land Future Development RFMUD Decision Points Number of villages –staff recommendation, remove limit of one per receiving area Density of villages –staff recommendation 4-7 units per acre Density of cluster development (non-village) – staff recommendation 2 units per acre 2.2.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 4-21 (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) RFMUD South Receiving Area Scenarios Commerial Neighborhood Center Demand - 13,110 persons per NC - 110,734 SF Schools % of Pop # per school Commercial Community Center Demand - 34,467 persons per CC - 257,668 SF Elementary 5.93%900 Industrial SF based on CIGM buildout model 2010 and remains the same through all scenarios Middle 2.80%1200 Office SF per persons derived from CIGM High 3.83%2000 Receiving Area population adjusted to countywide estimate 2.38 persons per total units Parcels less than 40 acres = 1 unit per 5 acres Parcels 40-299 acres = cluster, non-village development Parcels 300 acres and greater = mixed-use village development CIGM Buildout Scenario South Receiving Area (8,765 ac) + Surrounding Area B.O. Units UPA Population No. of Neighborhood Centers Neighborhood Center SF No of Community Centers Community Center SF Community Center Acres Office SF Industrial SF Schools (E, M, H) Receiving Area 6,549 0.74 15,587 1.2 131,653 0.5 116,532 12 272,231 731,808 1 - E Surrounding Area 4,475 6,874 0.5 58,061 0.2 51,393 5 34,029 32,670 Sum 1.7 189,714 0.7 167,925 17 306,260 764,478 Restudy Baseline Scenario South Receiving Area (8,765 ac) + Surrounding Area B.O. Units UPA Population No. of Neighborhood Centers Neighborhood Center SF No of Community Centers Community Center SF Community Center Acres Office SF Industrial SF Schools (E, M, H) Receiving Area 19,196 2.50 45,686 3.5 385,892 1.3 341,572 34 797,917 731,808 3 - E, 1 - M Surrounding Area 4,475 10,651 0.8 89,960 0.3 79,628 8 34,029 32,670 Sum 4.3 475,852 1.6 421,200 42 831,946 764,478 3/09/2017 2.2.b Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: RFMUD development scenarios for illustration (3104 : Receiving Lands Development RFMUD South Receiving Area Scenarios Restudy Mid-Range Scenario South Receiving Area (8,765 ac) + Surrounding Area B.O. Units UPA Population No. of Neighborhood Centers Neighborhood Center SF No of Community Centers Community Center SF Community Center Acres Office SF Industrial SF Schools (E, M, H) Receiving Area 26,010 3.30 61,904 4.7 522,872 1.8 462,820 46 1,080,843 731,808 4 - E, 1 - M, 1 - H Surrounding Area 4,475 10,651 0.8 89,960 0.3 79,628 8 34,029 32,670 Sum 5.5 612,832 2.1 542,448 54 1,114,872 764,478 Restudy High-Range Scenario South Receiving Area (8,765 ac) + Surrounding Area B.O. Units UPA Population No. of Neighborhood Centers Neighborhood Center SF No of Community Centers Community Center SF Community Center Acres Office SF Industrial SF Schools (E, M, H) Receiving Area 44,304 5.70 105,444 8.0 890,632 3.1 788,342 79 1,841,052 731,808 7 - E, 2 - M, 2 - H Surrounding Area 4,475 10,651 0.8 89,960 0.3 79,628 8 34,029 32,670 Sum 8.9 980,592 3.4 867,970 87 1,875,081 764,478 3/09/2017 2.2.b Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: RFMUD development scenarios for illustration (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Receiving Area Unit Types Baseline Units Product Types Number of Units Units per Bldg. DUs Single Family (SF 250)259 1 DUs Single Family (SF 120)2847 1 DUs Single Family (SF 80)3325 1 DUs Detached Villa (DV 65)2368 1 DUs Detached Villa (DV 50)5893 1 bldgs Coach Home (CH)118 8 bldgs Garden Condo (GN)72 12 bldgs Multifamily (MF 20)72 12 DUs Affordable: Single-Family Detached 0 1 bldgs Affordable: Townhouse 76 8 bldgs Affordable: Multifamily 102 12 Mid-Range Units Product Types Number of Units Units per Bldg. DUs Single Family (SF 250)194 1 DUs Single Family (SF 120)2351 1 DUs Single Family (SF 80)3388 1 DUs Detached Villa (DV 65)3569 1 DUs Detached Villa (DV 50)5920 1 bldgs Coach Home (CH)239 8 bldgs Garden Condo (GN)236 12 bldgs Multifamily (MF 20)285 12 DUs Affordable: Single-Family Detached 0 1 bldgs Affordable: Townhouse 102 8 bldgs Affordable: Multifamily 134 12 High-Range Units Product Types Number of Units Units per Bldg. DUs Single Family (SF 250)195 1 DUs Single Family (SF 120)208 1 DUs Single Family (SF 80)1287 1 DUs Detached Villa (DV 65)3430 1 DUs Detached Villa (DV 50)15716 1 bldgs Coach Home (CH)372 8 bldgs Garden Condo (GN)675 12 bldgs Multifamily (MF 20)677 12 DUs Affordable: Single-Family Detached 0 1 bldgs Affordable: Townhouse 178 8 bldgs Affordable: Multifamily 237 12 2.2.c Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Scenario unit types (3104 : Receiving Lands Development Pattern) 05/11/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.3 Item Summary: Sending Lands: Public Ownership Meeting Date: 05/11/2017 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – County Manager's Office Name: Geoffrey Willig 05/02/2017 11:16 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 05/02/2017 11:16 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Geoffrey Willig County Manager Review Completed 05/05/2017 5:07 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 05/11/2017 1:00 PM 2.3 Packet Pg. 34 2. Conservation Collier Ownership of Sending Land Should Conservation Collier accept ownership of donated Sending Lands if no other public agency is willing? Should the County continue to work toward state and federal mitigation bank applications for portions of the donated land? 2.3.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Sending Land: No Donee Today North Belle Meade NRPA North Belle Meade West “Section 11” 2.3.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Why Public Ownership Matters Final order, 1999 Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat Protect listed animal and plant species Address via community-based “Assessment” RFMUD assessment: •Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program 2.3.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) TDR Structure in Sending Lands Incentivizes removal of development rights and active preservation of the highest value environmental lands, through: Base and early entry credits Restoration and maintenance credits Conveyance credits 2.3.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Example to Consider: South Belle Meade State Acquisition Area R&M and Conveyance via land donation and $ = cost effective management approach 2.3.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Potential Funding for Conservation Collier Ownership Donation funds along with land Additional TDR to County Mitigation bank for some areas Conservation Collier budgeting 2.3.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Phase 2 Mitigation Bank Feasibility Study NBM -NRPA 6,600 Acres NBM -West 3,245 Acres Identify focus area within North Belle Meade Pre-application discussions with agencies Refine cost and revenue projections 2.3.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Study Focus Area Focus area within Eastern North Belle Meade is feasible because: Larger undeveloped areas Higher percentage of wetland areas Potential for future rehydration Nexus of private mitigation parcels (PRMs) High habitat value 6,600 acres 4,400 acres 2,200 acres net of PRM 2.3.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Mitigation Bank Logic Transportation project Mitigation of CIP impacts ($) Private mitigation bank, or County mitigation bank Satisfies habitat and wetland mitigation Supports County asset 2.3.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Mitigation Bank Balance Sheet Per 100 Acres: Projected Mitigation Costs: $ 465,000 ($4,650/acre) Projected Credit Values:$ 484,000 ($4,840/acre) Estimate of seed money to avoid negative cash flow through year 7: $57,000 to $71,000 per 100 acres* *OMB estimate under Report assumptions 2.3.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Dollar Logic Supplementary revenue needed because: •Mitigation bank viable only in a portion of North Belle Meade •Conservation Collier level of service Supplementary revenue sources: •Donation •County TDR •Conservation Collier budgeted funds 2.3.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Technical Requirements Update Conservation Collier Ordinance •Accept donations; no individual parcel evaluation •Adjust land cost/maintenance % accordingly GMP must not require R&M by County, except via Mitigation bank 2.3.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Risks Given Phase 2 Feasibility Study with high probability of program success Federal and State Agencies may decide not to approve Permitting approval will not be known for several years Agencies may limit County’s recreational land use 2.3.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Conservation Collier Ownership of North Belle Meade Sending LandIf YES: TDR severance incentivized Restoration and maintenance coordinated at landscape scale Larger management areas are more cost effective Additional hydrologic improvement potential Opportunity for public/private partnership Passive recreation areas Funding sources required 2.3.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) If YES: Potential funding: Outside of Mitigation Area Monetary donations with all conveyances to County County TDR with all conveyances to County Conservation Collier budgeting Conservation Collier Ownership of North Belle Meade Sending Land 2.3.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 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 Potential “Plan B”: Enhance base credits to incentivize removal of development rights County Ownership of Sending Land 2.3.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Development Areas: NBM-NRPA 2.3.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Conservation Collier Ownership of Sending Land Direction Requested Should Conservation Collier accept ownership of donated Sending Lands if no other public agency is willing? Should the County continue to work toward state and federal mitigation bank applications for focus areas in North Belle Meade? 2.3.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 3. Questions and Comments Initial Recommendations List 2.3.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: PowerPoint Slides 22-40 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Project No. 16CCG2467 May 2017 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 NORTH BELLE MEADE MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE 2 2.3.b Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 2.0 Background .......................................................................................................................1 3.0 Focus Area ........................................................................................................................1 3.1 Large Undeveloped Area ......................................................................................2 3.2 Large Percentage of Wetlands ..............................................................................2 3.3 Potential for Future Hydrologic Enhancement .....................................................2 3.4 Existence of Conservation Lands ..........................................................................2 3.5 Listed Species Prevalence .....................................................................................2 4.0 Field Work and Data Collection .......................................................................................3 5.0 Potential Mitigation Value (without Hydrologic Enhancement) ......................................3 5.1 Wetland Credit Value ...........................................................................................3 5.2 Habitat Compensation Value ................................................................................4 5.3 Potential Mitigation Value ....................................................................................4 6.0 Costs ..................................................................................................................................4 7.0 Value Versus Cost.............................................................................................................5 8.0 Timing of Credit Generation Value Versus Costs (Assuming a Hypothetical 100 Acre Implementation Area) ............................................5 9.0 Permitting/Program Considerations ..................................................................................7 9.1 Federal Permitting .................................................................................................7 9.2 State Permitting .....................................................................................................8 10.0 Dissenting Views ..............................................................................................................8 2.3.b Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) ii Table of Contents (Continued) Page 11.0 Feasibility Discussion .......................................................................................................9 12.0 Summary .........................................................................................................................10 13.0 References .......................................................................................................................11 2.3.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) iii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Cost Schedule..................................................................................................6 2.3.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) iv LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. Study Area Location Map ........................................................................... E1-1 Exhibit 2. Regional Aerial with NRPA Boundary....................................................... E2-1 Exhibit 3. Aerial with NRPA Boundary and Focus Area ............................................ E3-1 Exhibit 4. CCWIP Excerpt .......................................................................................... E4-1 Exhibit 5. Conservation Lands .................................................................................... E5-1 Exhibit 6. UMAM Worksheet ..................................................................................... E6-1 Exhibit 7. Updated Implementation Costs ................................................................... E7-1 Exhibit 8. Potential Project Area ................................................................................. E8-1 2.3.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Under Collier County Contract No. 15-6397/Purchase Order No. 4500174511, Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) has been requested to perform the second phase of 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. This study phase included field work to better define the current site conditions within accessible portions of a defined area of the NRPA. Further, this phase of the project analysis 1) refined the anticipated costs to generate the credits and compensation; 2) estimated the costs timeline; and 3) estimated a potential credit and/or compensation generation timeline. While the initial overall study area was North Belle Meade Sending Lands, at approximately 9,900 acres in size (Exhibit 1), the primary area analyzed in this phase of study is a portion of the 6,650± acre North Belle Meade NRPA area (Exhibit 2). The overall North Belle Meade Sending Lands are comprised of a variety of upland and wetland habitat types. While much of the North Belle Meade area is relatively undeveloped, areas of agriculture, pasture, residential, and other land uses exist and in the Belle Meade West area in particular. In general, the North Belle Meade NRPA contains less development activity and a lesser degree of land alteration. This second phase reports relies and builds upon concepts and formulas developed in the initial phase study with added detail regarding existing site conditions and implementation costs. 2.0 BACKGROUND An initial study of the feasibility of utilizing North Belle Meade Sending Lands to generate wetland mitigation credits and/or habitat compensation values and the potential costs to generate those credits and/or compensation values was completed and submitted to Collier County by Passarella & Associates, Inc. in July 2016 (the “Phase 1 Study”). This initial study was based on a range of hypothetical conditions (primarily percentage of wetlands and levels of exotic coverage) for lands within North Belle Meade. This current study refines the range of potential credit and compensation generation, as well as associated costs, based on more site specific information gathered from field work and the review of available land cover/land use data for specific areas within the NRPA portion of North Belle Meade 3.0 FOCUS AREA The initial overall study area reviewed in the Phase 1 Study included all of North Belle Meade Sending Lands (9,900± acres). For this Phase 2 Study, the North Belle Meade NRPA area (6,650± acres) was chosen for closer examination based on the lesser degree of land development and land alteration relative to the non-NRPA portion of North Belle Meade Sending Lands. For the purposes of this Phase 2 study, a particular area of the North Belle Meade NRPA was identified as having the highest potential for permittable large-scale wetland 2.3.b Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 2 credit and habitat compensation generation. This area, hereafter designated as the study “Focus Area,” is depicted on Exhibit 3 and contains approximately 4,380 acres of relatively undeveloped lands. The Focus Area was selected for more detailed analysis based on the following attributes: 3.1 Large Undeveloped Area Relative to other areas within the North Belle Meade, the selected Focus Area has few structures, is less developed, and contains few public roads. 3.2 Large Percentage of Wetlands Based on existing land use/land cover maps from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), a large percentage of the lands are comprised of wetland land cover types. 3.3 Potential for Future Hydrologic Enhancement The recently adopted Collier County Watershed Improvement Plan (CCWIP) identifies the lands immediately north of the Focus Area as the potential location of a future pumping facility and spreader swale system to redirect a limited amount of flow from the Golden Gate canal system southward in order to contribute to the restoration of historic surface water flows for this portion of the County (see excerpted exhibit from the CCWIP, attached as Exhibit 4) The potential pumping facility and associated spreader swale system is identified in the Watershed Plan for further study and potential future implementation. 3.4 Existence of Conservation Lands A significant number of land parcels are, or are proposed to be, committed for conservation purposes under past or ongoing state and federal permitting actions. Exhibit 5 depicts lands within the NRPA that are committed, or proposed to be committed, as wetland mitigation and/or habitat compensation. These lands, at a total of approximately 2,166 acres could be utilized as the nucleus for a wider ranging mitigation/compensation as envisioned under this study 3.5 Listed Species Prevalence Lands within the Focus Area have been identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) as providing important regional benefits to listed wildlife species including the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). Several of the existing conservation parcels within the Focus Area are currently in protected status in order to serve as habitat compensation of panther habitat impacts elsewhere in the County. 2.3.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 3 4.0 FIELD WORK AND DATA COLLECTION The primary purpose of the performed field work and data collection was to refine estimations of the percentage of lands that are wetlands within the Focus Area and to access the levels of exotic vegetation present. Access to portions of the Focus Area was limited due to the lack of roads and other forms of legal access. Fencing and postings of “No Trespassing” signage limited pedestrian surveys for some areas. In order to supplement data collected from field reconnaissance, existing mapping of land use and land cover (primarily from SFWMD’s Florida Land Use, Land Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (Florida Department of Transportation 1999)) was ground truthed in accessible areas in order to extrapolate reconnaissance finds into inaccessible areas. Similarly, existing and historic aerials were reviewed for accessible areas and used to extrapolate probable land cover and land use specifics for inaccessible areas. Additional data relative to site-specific land cover types, wetlands, and exotic coverage levels was gathered from available public records for existing conservation lands within the Focus Area and compared to the existing generalized FLUCFCS maps to identify appropriate correction factors. Based on the field work and data collection/analysis, the percentage of wetlands comprising the Focus Area is estimated at 75 percent and the current levels of exotic vegetation coverage within wetlands are estimated at: • E0 (0% coverage) – 20% of land area • E1 (0-25% coverage) – 64% of land area • E2 (26-50% coverage) – 8% of land area • E3 (51-75% coverage) – 6% of land area • E4 (76-100% coverage) – 2% of land area This combination of exotic coverage levels most closely resembles Scenario 2 in Table 1 of the Phase 1 Study Report. 5.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION VALUE (WITHOUT HYDROLOGIC ENHANCEMENT) Per the methodology proposed in the Phase 1 Study, the potential mitigation value of a given area is the value of the potential wetland credits to be generated plus the habitat compensation values of non-wetland areas, or: Wetland Credit Value + Habitat Compensation Value = Mitigation value 5.1 Wetland Credit Value On a per 100 acre basis, application of the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) yields a potential wetland credit number of 4.95 credits. Based on the current market price of $75,000 per credit, these 4.95 credits could generate a value of $371,250 2.3.b Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 4 given the exotic coverage levels and percentage of wetlands determined to exist in the Focus Area (provided in Section 4.0, above). The UMAM worksheet used to estimate the potential credit number is attached as Exhibit 6. 5.2 Habitat Compensation Value On a per 100 acre basis and given that the Focus Area is comprised of approximately 25 percent uplands, the potential habitat compensation value calculation for these uplands yields $4,500/acre x 25 acres = $112,500. 5.3 Potential Mitigation Value Combining the above values yields the sum of $483,750 as the potential mitigation value per 100 acres of land within the Focus Area. Mitigation Value = $371,250 +$112,500 = $483,750 6.0 COSTS Project costs can be influenced by the size (acreage) of a given project. Economies of scale can be realized for permitting, project administration, and mitigation plan implementation. For the purposes of this study, costs are given on a per 100 acre basis, assuming a project size of at least 350 acres. The basic costs elements of implementing a mitigation program within a typical area were presented in the Phase 1 Study Report as initial exotic vegetation eradication, ongoing exotic vegetation management, funding of perpetual management, and project administration. For a typical mitigation project, the basic timing of costs can be broken down as: • Field work, design, and permitting – approximately three years • Mitigation Implementation – begins after permitting is complete and may be in phases • Funding of perpetual management account – the timing of this expense can be negotiated during the permitting process but must occur before full credit release occurs • Annual maintenance and monitoring – five years of monitoring post implementation The costs for annual maintenance and monitoring beyond the five year period are assumed to be funded by monies from the perpetual management fund. Using the cost formulas previously developed and updated per unit cost estimates, the estimated implement costs for a representative 100 acres within the Focus Area would be approximately $390,249 with administrative costs at $33,220 and permitting/monitoring costs at $42,000 (Exhibit 7). The sum of these numbers provides the anticipated project cost as $465,469 per 100 acres (exclusive of land acquisition costs). 2.3.b Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 5 7.0 VALUE VERSUS COST This report’s analysis of both cost elements and potential mitigation values relies on a significant number of variables which may be influenced by more detailed site analyses, future market conditions, and changes in permitting criteria over time. Therefore, the results of the potential mitigation values and potential project costs contain a margin of error and can only be better defined through the site-specific analysis and permitting process. Values used in this study are based on past projects, current regulatory agencies’ rules, and best available data regarding land cover. The analysis is in 2017 dollars, and the assumption made that costs and revenues will rise or fall commensurately over time. Using these values, the projected value of a representative acre within the focus area and the associated cost to generate that value can be shown as: $483,750 per 100 acres= $4,837 in Value per acre $465,469 per 100 acres = $4,655 in Cost per acre 8.0 TIMING OF CREDIT GENERATION VALUE VERSUS COSTS (ASSUMING A HYPOTHETICAL 100 ACRE IMPLEMENTATION AREA) The eradication of exotic vegetation and the implementation of a perpetual wetland management plan is the primary form of mitigation activity proposed under this study. This type of mitigation activity is deemed wetland “enhancement” as opposed to “wetland creation” or “wetland restoration.” Wetland enhancement is the term typically used for an activity that enhances the level of wetland function for an existing wetland. Wetland creation is an activity that coverts an existing upland to a fully functioning wetland, and wetland restoration is an activity that takes an area that was once a wetlands but is now has either minimal or no wetland functions and returning it to full wetland function level. Both wetland creation and wetland restoration typically generate more wetland credits per acre but also take a longer period for the mitigation activity to result in measureable success levels and, therefore, longer for the associated wetland credits to become available for use. The wetland mitigation activity contemplated for the study area wetland enhancement generates fewer wetland credits per acre but typically up to 80 percent of those credits generated are available for use to offset wetland impacts within one to two years of mitigation implementation. Potential project milestones, associated project costs, and the potential timeline for a hypothetical 100 acre area (exclusive of administrative costs) can be approximated as shown in Table 1. 2.3.b Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 6 Table 1. Cost Schedule Milestone Events Associated Costs* Approximate Timeline Credits and Habitat Compensation Units Generated and Available** Value of Available Credits and Habitat Compensation*** Mitigation/compensation project start -- 0 months -- -- Field work and design $4,000 Month 0 through Month 3 -- -- Permitting $8,000 Month 4 through Month 36 -- -- Agency approvals/permits issued -- Month 37 -- -- Placement of conservation easement, baseline monitoring report, initial exotic vegetation eradication, time -zero monitoring report $206,000 Month 39 through Month 43 2.47 initial wetland credits; 112 initial habitat compensation units $185,250 initial wetland credit value; $56,250 initial habitat compensation value Establishment of financial assurance for perpetual management $217,250 Month 54 -- -- Annual treatment of exotics and first annual monitoring report $9,047 Month 53 through Month 55 1.47 additional wetland credits; 67 additional habitat compensation units $119,250 wetland credit value; $33,750 additional habitat compensation unit value Annual treatment of exotics and second annual monitoring report $9,047 Month 65 through Month 67 0.25 additional wetland credits; 11.25 additional habitat compensation units $18,750 wetland credit value; $5,625 additional habitat compensation unit value Annual treatment of exotics and third annual monitoring report $9,047 Month 77 through Month 79 0.25 additional wetland credits; 11.25 additional habitat compensation $18,750 wetland credit value; $5,625 additional habitat compensation Annual treatment of exotics and fourth annual monitoring report $9,047 Month 89 through Month 92 0.25 additional wetland credits; 11.25 additional habitat compensation $18,750 wetland credit value; $5,625 additional habitat compensation Annual treatment of exotics and fifth annual monitoring report $9,047 Month 101 through Month 104 0.25 additional wetland credits; 11.25 additional habitat compensation $18,750 wetland credit value; $5,625 additional habitat compensation 2.3.b Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 7 Table 1. (Continued) Milestone Events Associated Costs* Approximate Timeline Credits and Habitat Compensation Units Generated and Available** Value of Available Credits and Habitat Compensation*** Perpetual management paid from perpetual management fund -- Month 104 through Month 464 -- -- *Costs are given on a per 100 acre basis assuming a 350+ acre project size **Assumes a credit release schedule of 50 percent, 30 percent, 5 percent, 5 percent, 5 percent, 5 percent ***Conservatively assumes a consistent market price value of $75,000 per wetland credit 9.0 PERMITTING/PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS The use of lands within the North Belle Meade NRPA to generate wetlands mitigation credits and habitat compensation values to offset permitted wetland impacts would require approval from the federal government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the State of Florida through either the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) or the SFWMD as discussed in the Phase 1 Study Report. The potential “project area” for large-scale mitigation/habitat compensation would be those lands within the Focus Area that are not already committed to mitigation or habitat compensation for other projects, as further discussed under Section 10 Feasibility Discussion, below. 9.1 Federal Permitting As part of this Phase 2 Study, discussions were held with the COE District Headquarters’ office in Jacksonville in March of 2017. Basic exhibits showing the landscape context of the North Belle Meade NRPA, land cover/land use mapping, and the location and extent of existing preserved or conservation lands within the Focus Area were reviewed and discussed. The COE representative indicated the Focus Area had potential to be used as a mitigation area under an In Lieu Fee (ILF) program. For public sector mitigation projects that contemplate large-scale mitigation, ILF programs can allow early credits to be sold and the monies collected used to fund a mitigation program. The lands proposed for mitigation need not all be in ownership by the public entity but the monies from any advance credit sales must be used to purchase designated properties and implement the permitted mitigation works. Potential issues of concern expressed by the COE included subsurface gas and mineral rights needing to be restricted under any acceptable mitigation program and the need to address existing easements which could conflict with the need to ultimately place lands under a restrictive conservation easement. The COE also discussed the fact their regulatory program will only consider credit for proposed wetland mitigation and habitat enhancements that are above and beyond those an applicant is already committed to under another program or regulatory program. If the County acquires land through any deal or program that obligates the County to wetland or habitat improvements and/or long-term management, then the COE will only consider 2.3.b Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 8 credits under any proposed ILF Program (or any other wetland mitigation program) for enhancements or benefits above what the COE considers part of existing obligations on the land. The COE representative did recognize and acknowledge the local and regional positive environmental benefits that could be achieved by enhancing and protecting the Focus Area lands under a mitigation program. General public access to mitigation lands is generally not allowed under the federal mitigation regulations. 9.2 State Permitting Discussions were also held with the FDEP and the SFWMD about the potential of using lands within the Focus Area for mitigation purposes under the State of Florida’s regulatory programs and the appropriate permitting program to use. Both agencies responded positively to the concept of enhancing and protecting Focus Area lands. The SFWMD in particular acknowledged the Focus Area lands as being important in the regional landscape and the longstanding desire by wildlife agencies, regulatory agencies, and Non-Governmental Organizations to see this area protected and managed. In addition to the possibility of creating a Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area (ROMA) (reference Phase 1 Study), the FDEP and the SFWMD brought up the alternative possibility of using the Focus Area to establish an “up front mitigation” program whereby a single credit user (Collier County) could permit upfront mitigation (mitigation work done in advance of a project being done that needed mitigation credits). The primary difference between this upfront mitigation program and a ROMA program would be the need for the permittee (Collier County) to be in legal ownership of any proposed mitigation lands at the time of permitting. Regardless of the state permitting program (ROMA versus upfront permitting) used, the estimates of credit generation values and costs of this Phase 2 Study will still generally apply equally. Resolution of the appropriate state permitting avenue will depend on the circumstances and situation of a specific permit application at the time of application submittal (i.e., are all the subject lands under County ownership and control, will the credit system be based on a single-user basis, etc.). Of the two permit programs, the upfront mitigation program could be considered the more “restrictive” for the this feasibility discussion since it would require the County to have ownership control of relevant lands at the time of permit application rather than a ROMA type program which can accommodate prospective land ownership at the time of permit application. 10.0 DISSENTING VIEWS Within the environmental community, there has been a stated standing concern with the awarding of mitigation credit for wetland projects which proposed only eradication of exotic vegetation as the basis for increasing wetlands functions. The concern is that exotic eradication alone does not provide enough significant increase in wetland function unless the exotic eradication efforts are for significantly infested areas and only then when supplemental planting of wetland vegetation also occurs. In the case of lands within the Focus Area, an argument can be made that for a larger-scale mitigation program, such as contemplated by this study, many of 2.3.b Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 9 the land parcels within the Focus Area may not ever be subject to exotic eradication efforts and, equally significant, to perpetual land management efforts to improve and preserve wetland and habitat functions. 11.0 FEASIBILITY DISCUSSION The Focus Area as defined in this study is approximately 4,380 acres in size and is comprised of lands that have been deemed ecologically important by regulatory and wildlife agencies due to the significant acreage of relatively undeveloped lands, the existence of listed species habitat utilization, and the area’s landscape context. Within the approximately 4,380 acres of the Focus Area, approximately 2,166 acres are currently either existing in, or are proposed to be placed in, conservation status as offsets for wetland and/or listed species impacts elsewhere. The term conservation status, as used herein, indicates lands that are subject to a conservation easement and obligated for preservation under a FDEP or SFWMD permit and/or a COE permit. These existing mitigation and habitat compensation parcels range in size from 600+ acres to scattered smaller parcels as small as 2± acres. Some of these existing parcels are subject to exotic eradication and long-term management requirements while some parcels do not have such requirements clearly stated in their enabling permits. The southern portion of the Focus Area in particular is comprised of numerous smaller and disjointed parcels of mitigation or habitat compensation lands. The balance of the Focus Area is comprised of numerous parcels totaling 2,214± acres. These parcels or a significant number of these parcels could be aggregated to form the basis for a mitigation/habitat compensation project as conceived by this study. This potential “Project Area” at 2,214± acres would benefit from the existence of the 2,166± acres already existing or proposed as mitigation and/or compensation lands both in terms of permittability and ecological benefits. Exhibit 8 indicates the potential project area. The benefits of wetland mitigation and habitat compensation programs are most fully realized with large scale projects rather than smaller disjointed projects. Also, cost effectiveness and efficiency for exotic vegetation eradication programs and long-term land management programs is typically more attainable for single large areas of contiguous lands rather than smaller areas or a collection of smaller disconnected areas. For these reasons, the aggregation of lands not currently in conservation status (and augmented by the existence of those lands already in conservation status) in order to establish a larger scale wetland mitigation/habitat compensation project would have benefits in terms of ecological enhancement/functionality and land management efforts. Also, regulatory agencies have consistently expressed a preference for larger scale mitigation and habitat compensation projects. Those lands already in conservation status would not be available to generate wetland credits or habitat compensation, as those benefits are already accounted for under other permits, but the existence of those parcels serves as a nucleus or precursor to a County mitigation/compensation program in which additional parcels could be acquired, enhanced, and managed to generate definable wetland credit and habitat compensation values as presented above. The combined size of lands acquired under a county program and existing conservation lands could achieve significant ecological benefits base on the net size. Potential also exists for more cost effective exotic eradication and land management efforts if the interests 2.3.b Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 10 and responsibilities of the County program and existing conservation lands are somehow shared or combined. The acquisition of land parcels by the County within the Focus Area would ultimately determine the potential size of any County mitigation/compensation program. Incentive programs and acquisition parameters are beyond the scope of this study. However, based on concerns expressed by the COE, lands acquire by the County and utilized as part of a mitigation program, will only be able to generate wetland credits only to the extent that additional wetland enhancements and management obligations are proposed, above what is already required under any existing program or regulations. If the Transfer of Development Rights program in place at the time of County land acquisition places on or implies an obligation on the County to enhance and/or manage the lands then the potential wetland credit generation and habitat compensation generation numbers presented in this study would be reduced. The Focus Area is also an important area of Collier County in that it has been identified as a potential area of hydrologic restoration to the localized benefit of North Belle Meade and to the generalized benefit to the overall watershed. A significant portion of the area identified as Focus Area under this Phase 2 study is identified in the adopted Collier County Watershed Improvement Plan as the potential flow-way area downstream of a contemplated pump station and spreader swale system. The purpose of the pump station and spreader swale would be to restore a portion of the historic north to south surface water flow that has been altered by past development activities. One of the challenges to ultimately constructing such a system would be the increase of sheet flow of water across the area and the increase in wetland hydrology south of the spreader swales. Such potential changes to wetland hydrology could impact existing landowners and, therefore, would require either landowner permission (flow-way easement) or outright land acquisition by the County or other entity. An assemblage of parcels within the Focus Area as part of any County mitigation program could compliment the goals of the County’s watershed management plan by to route water through this portion of North Belle Meade. Also, the addition of hydrological improvements (such as the installation of the contemplated pump station/flow-way) to lands within the Focus Area could significantly increase the potential wetland credit generation, as was demonstrated in the Phase 1 Study. 12.0 SUMMARY The Phase 1 Study indicated the use of North Belle Meade sending lands was hypothetically feasible based on a range of assumed land types (wetland versus upland percentages) and exotic vegetation coverage levels. This Phase 2 Study indicates the lands identified as potential “Project Lands” on Exhibit 8 could be permittable as a wetland mitigation and habitat compensation project with the costs to generate wetland credit and habitat compensation values being approximately offset by the values generated. Costs associated with land acquisition are not factored into this analysis and the analysis assumes an initial project size of between 350 to 2,100± acres. 2.3.b Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 11 A number of base assumptions were necessary for the analysis including a minimum project size of approximately 350 acres, land management costs will follow current trends, land acquisition will be required, and project administration costs will be consistent with the national average of eight percent of full project costs. Of particular note, the state and federal permitting programs for large-scale mitigation projects require a conservation easement be placed on the project lands with a stated restriction on public access. 13.0 REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. 2.3.b Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) EXHIBIT 1 STUDY AREA LOCATION MAP 2.3.b Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) REV IEW ED B Y DRAWN BY REV ISED DATE DATE DATE Gulf of Mexico (/41 ;3EXIT116 ;3EXIT101 ;3EXIT105 ;3EXIT111 ;3EXIT80 ;3EXIT107 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico SA N M ARCODRCORKSCREWRD ¿À951 ¿À858 ¿À82 ¿À850 ¿À837 ¿À846 ¿À839 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIER L E ELEE ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAM I TAM PA NAPL ES ORLANDO KEY W EST SARA SO TA PENSA COLA FOR T M YERS VE RO BEAC H LAK E P LA CID PA NAM A C IT Y GAINESVILLE TAL LAH AS SEE JACK SONVILLE DAY TONA B EAC H FO RT L AUDERDALE¶ STUDYAREA EXHIBIT 1. STU DY AREA LOCATION MAP D.B. T.D. 4/27/1 7 4/27/1 7NORTH BELLE MEADE SENDING LANDS 2.3.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) EXHIBIT 2 REGIONAL AERIAL WITH NRPA BOUNDARY 2.3.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) RA D IO RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD RATT LES NAKE H A M M O C K PI NE RIDGE RD GREE N BLVD BECK BLVDGOLDENGATEPKWY DAVISBLVDEVERGLADES BLVDGOLDE N GATE BLVD ¿À951 §¨¦75 13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Fort Myers, Florida 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069 DRAWING No. SHEET No. REVIS IONS DRAWN BYDATE DESIGNED BY REVIEWED BY DATE DATE DATE NORTH BELLE MEADE NRPAREGIONAL AERIAL WITH NRPA BOUN DARY D.B.T.D.T.D. 4/27 /17 4/27/17 4/27/17 16CCG2467 NRPA AREABOUNDARY LEGEND        ¶ 0 1 2Miles EXHIBIT 2 2.3.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) EXHIBIT 3 AERIAL WITH NRPA BOUNDARY AND FOCUS AREA 2.3.b Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) EVERGLADES BLVD§¨¦75 13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Fort Myers, Florida 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069 DRAWING No. SHEET No. REVIS IONS DRAWN BYDATE DESIGNED BY REVIEWED BY DATE DATE DATE NORTH BELLE MEADE FOCUS AREAAERIAL WITH NRPA BOUN DARY AND FOCUS AREA D.B.T.D.T.D. 4/25 /17 4/25/17 4/25/17 16CCG2467 EXHIBIT 3 0 0.25 0.5Miles ¶       LEGE ND  NRPA BO UNDARY 2.3.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) EXHIBIT 4 CCWIP EXCERPT 2.3.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 2.3.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) EXHIBIT 5 CONSERVATION LANDS 2.3.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) §¨¦75 13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Fort Myers, Florida 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069 DRA WIN G No. SH EET N o. REVISION S DRA WN BYDATE DESIGNED BY REVIEW ED BY DATE DATE DATE NO R TH BELLE ME ADECONSERVATION LANDS D.B.T.D.T.D. 5/1/17 5/1/17 5/1/17 16C CG2467 EXH IBIT 5 0 0.25 0.5Miles ¶       LEGEND  FOC US A REABOUNDARY 2.3.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) EXHIBIT 6 UMAM WORKSHEET 2.3.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) E6-1 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 9 9 0.733 0.767 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.50 b Wetland-E1 48.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 9 0.700 0.767 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 3.20 c Wetland- E2 6.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 9 0.667 0.767 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.60 d Wetland- E3 4.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 9 0.667 0.767 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.45 e Wetland-E4 1.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 9 0.633 0.767 0.133 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.133 0.20 Subtotal 75.00 4.95 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 72.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 9 9 0.733 0.867 0.133 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.133 9.60 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 12.60 UMAM WORKSHEET 1 of 2 WETLAND CREDIT GENERATION PER 100 ACRES (WITHOUT HYDROLOGIC LIFT and WITHOUT UPLAND CREDIT GENERATION) Risk Pres. Fact RFG CreditsHydrologyCommunityLocationExisting w/out UMAM Proposed w/ UMAM Delta RFG CreditsPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic Level UMAM Acres Phase Proposed w/ UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact T-factor NORTH BELLE MEADE UMAM WORKSHEET 2 of 2 WETLAND CREDIT GENERATION PER 100 ACRES (WITH HYDROLOGIC LIFT and WITHOUT UPLAND CREDIT GENERATION) NORTH BELLE MEADEUMAM WORKSHEETS for FOCUS AREA WETLAND MITIGATION FUNCTIONAL SCORING *The label "Hydro Scenario" indicates the UMAM scoring includes functional lift for hydrological enhancements UMAM - Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology May 2017 PhaseUMAM Acres FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic LevelPolygon No. HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands Location Hydrology Community Existing w/out UMAM 2.3.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) EXHIBIT 7 UPDATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 2.3.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) E7-1 NORTH BELLE MEADE UPDATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Implementation costs for wetland areas can be considered as the cost of the following for the initial five-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 no exotic or nuisance vegetation present: Initial treatment N/A Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $25) $125/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $2,667/acre Total $3,792/acre For areas with less than 25 percent (E1) exotic/nuisance infestation: Initial treatment $500/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $190) $950/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $2667/acre Total $4,117/acre For areas with 25 to 50 percent (E2) exotic/nuisance infestation: Initial treatment $1,000/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $220) $1,100/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $2,667/acre Total $4,767/acre For areas with 51 to 75 percent (E3) exotic/nuisance infestation: Initial treatment $1,500/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $240) $1,200/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $2,667/acre Total $5,367/acre 2.3.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) E7-2 For areas with greater than 75 percent (E4) exotic/nuisance infestation: Initial treatment $2,000/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $240) $1,200/acre Replanting $3,500/acre Funding of perpetual management $2,667/acre Total $9,367/acre The above information is presented in tabular form below. Table 1. General per acre Implementation Costs Summary for Wetland Areas Infestation Level Implementation Cost Per Acre None $3,792 Minor (E1) $4,117 Moderate (E2) $4,767 High (E3) $5,367 Extreme (E4) $9,367 Table 2. Focus Area Wetland Implementation Costs per 100 Acres (75 Percent Wetlands, 25 Percent Upland) Infestation Level Percentage per 100 Acres Acreage of Land with Infestation Level Unit Cost per Acre Implementation Cost None 20 15.0 $3,792 $ 56,880 Minor (E1) 64 48.0 $4,117 $ 197616 Moderate (E2) 8 6.0 $4,767 $ 28,602 High (E3) 6 4.5 $5,367 $ 24,151 Extreme (E4) 6 1.5 $9,367 $ 14,050 Total $321,299 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 2.3.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) E7-3 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 Exotic Vegetation Treatments Costs + Initial Burn Cost + Follow-up Burn Costs + funding perpetual management fund Using the assumed estimated cost numbers for 100 acres this equation yields: $25,000 + $850 + $600 + ($425/acre x 100 acres) x = $68,950 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 total implementation costs for 100 acres of the Focus Area can be calculated as: Wetland Implementation Costs + Upland Implementation Costs Total Implementation Cost: 321,299 + 68,950 = 390,249 $/100 Acres Administrative Costs The project administrative costs are calculated as 8 percent of total implementation cost plus land cost. Assuming a base land cost of $2,500/acre, the administrative cost per 100 acres would be anticipated as: [($2,500/acre x 100 acres) + $390,249] x 0.08 = $33,220/100 acres Permitting and Monitoring Costs Permitting (with mitigation design), and monitoring costs are dependent on the scale of the project but can be roughly estimated as $12,000 per 100 acres and five years of monitoring as $30,000 for a combined cost of $42,000 2.3.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) E7-4 Total Project Cost Exclusive of land acquisition costs, the anticipated cost to permit, implement, manage, and administer the mitigation project would be the combined costs of wetland and upland implementation plus the administrative costs plus permitting and monitoring costs: 390,249 $/100 Acres +$33,220/100 acres + $42,000/100 acres = $465,469/100 acres 2.3.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) EXHIBIT 8 POTENTIAL PROJECT AREA 2.3.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) §¨¦75 13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Fort Myers, Florida 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069 DRAWIN G N o. SHEET N o. REV ISIONS DRAWN BYDATE DESIGNED BY REVIEW ED BY DATE DATE DATE NORTH BE LLE MEA DEPOTENTIAL PROJECT AREA D.B.T.D.T.D. 5/1/17 5/1/17 5/1/17 16CCG2467 EXH IBIT 8 0 0.25 0.5Miles ¶       LEGEND  FOC U S AREABOUNDARY 2.3.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Mitigation Feasibility Study-Phase 2 (May 2017) (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Mitigation Bank Discounted Cash Flow Analysis Updated: 5/1/2017 Based on 350 acre project size.Discount Rate3.0%Cash Flow AnBased on 350 AcresCash YrTimePermiting & Initial CostMaint. CostEstablish EscrowCostsCash FlowCostsDisc. CFSum of Initial Wetland Credit ValueSum of Initial Habitat Comp ValueSourcesCash FlowSourcesDisc. CFNetCash FlowNetDisc. CFCumulative Cash Bal2017 0‐$                  2018 1 (21,636)$              ‐$                 ‐$                    (21,636)$         (21,006)$        ‐$                     ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                  (21,636)$          (21,006)$          (21,636)$    2019 2 (10,182)$              ‐$                 ‐$                    (10,182)$         (9,597)$          ‐$                     ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                  (10,182)$          (9,597)$            (31,818)$    2020 3 (10,182)$              ‐$                 ‐$                    (10,182)$         (9,318)$          ‐$                     ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                  (10,182)$          (9,318)$            (42,000)$    2021 4 (721,000)$           ‐$                 ‐$                    (721,000)$       (640,599)$     648,375$           196,875$        845,250$        750,994$         124,250$         110,395$         82,250$      2022 5‐$                    (31,665)$         (760,375)$           (792,040)$       (683,220)$     417,375$           118,125$        535,500$        461,927$         (256,540)$        (221,293)$        (174,290)$  2023 6‐$                    (31,665)$          ‐$                    (31,665)$         (26,519)$       65,625$             19,688$          85,313$          71,448$           53,648$           44,929$           (120,642)$  2024 7‐$                    (31,665)$          ‐$                    (31,665)$         (25,746)$       65,625$             19,688$          85,313$          69,367$           53,648$           43,621$           (66,994)$    2025 8‐$                    (31,665)$          ‐$                    (31,665)$         (24,996)$       65,625$             19,688$          85,313$          67,346$           53,648$           42,350$           (13,346)$    2026 9‐$                    (31,665)$          ‐$                    (31,665)$         (24,268)$       65,625$             19,688$          85,313$          65,385$           53,648$           41,117$           40,303$      Ttl(763 000)$(158 323)$(760 375)$(1 681 698)$(1 465 270)$1 328 250$393 750$1 722 000$1 486 467$40 303$21 197$40 303$NetProgram Outflows Program InflowsTotals(763,000)$          (158,323)$      (760,375)$           (1,681,698)$   (1,465,270)$  1,328,250$        393,750$        1,722,000$    1,486,467$      40,303$           21,197$           40,303$      Undiscounted Cash FlowNet undiscounted cash flow 40,303$         Discounted Cash Flow21,197$         Internal Rate of Return 8.28%Discounted Cash Flow Model Mitigation Bank 4‐30‐17.xlsx5/1/20172.3.c Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Mitigation Bank Cash Flow 5-1-17 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) $(150,000)$(100,000)$(50,000)$‐$50,000 $100,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Cumulative Cash FlowCumulative Cash Flow$(200,000)Discounted Cash Flow Model Mitigation Bank 4‐30‐17.xlsx5/1/20172.3.c Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Mitigation Bank Cash Flow 5-1-17 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Acres (in hundreds) 1Acres (in hundreds) 1ValuesValuesRow LabelsSum of Design‐Permit, initial monitoring and exotic Sum of MaintenanceSum of Financial Mgt Assurance‐Escrow TotalRow LabelsSum of Initial Wetland Credid ValueSum of Initial Habitat Comp Value Total001 6,182                   6,182              1‐                2 2,909                   2,909              23 2,909                   2,909              34 206,000               206,000         4 185,250          56,250        241,500       5 9,047                     217,250                       226,297         5 119,250          33,750        153,000       6 9,047                     9,047              6 18,750             5,625          24,375         7 9,047                     9,047              7 18,750             5,625          24,375         8 9,047                     9,047              8 18,750             5,625          24,375         9 9,047                     9,047              9 18,750             5,625          24,375         10101111Grand Total 218,000               45,235                   217,250                       480,485         Grand Total 379,500          112,500      492,000       Acres (in hundreds) 3.5Acres (in hundreds) 3.5ValuesValuesSum of Design‐Permit, initial monitoring and Sum of Initial Sum of Initial Yeargexotic eradicationSum of MaintenanceSum of Financial Mgt Assurance‐Escrow TotalYearWetland Credit ValueHabitat Comp Value Total001 21,636                  ‐                          ‐                                21,636           1‐                    ‐                ‐                2 10,182                  ‐                          ‐                                10,182           2‐                    ‐                ‐                3 10,182                  ‐                          ‐                                10,182           3‐                    ‐                ‐                4 721,000                ‐                          ‐                                721,000         4 648,375          196,875      845,250       5‐                       31,665                   760,375                       792,040         5 417,375          118,125      535,500       6‐                       31,665                    ‐                                31,665           6 65,625             19,688        85,313         7‐                       31,665                    ‐                                31,665           7 65,625             19,688        85,313         8‐                       31,665                    ‐                                31,665           8 65,625             19,688        85,313         9‐                       31,665                    ‐                                31,665           9 65,625             19,688        85,313         10‐                        ‐                          ‐                                 ‐                  10‐                    ‐                ‐                11‐                        ‐                          ‐                                 ‐                  11‐                    ‐                ‐                Grand Total 763,000               158,323                 760,375                       1,681,698      480485Grand Total 1,328,250       393,750      1,722,000    Discounted Cash Flow Model Mitigation Bank 4‐30‐17.xlsx5/1/20172.3.c Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Mitigation Bank Cash Flow 5-1-17 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) Summarized List of Initial Recommendations Board of County Commissioners Workshop May 11, 2017 strike/underline revisions from 1/3/17 List 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. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: RFMUD list of recommendations rev 4 2017 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 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 Sending Lands 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. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: RFMUD list of recommendations rev 4 2017 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 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. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: RFMUD list of recommendations rev 4 2017 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership) 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 wi thin 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. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: RFMUD list of recommendations rev 4 2017 (3105 : Sending Lands: Public Ownership)