Loading...
PARAB Minutes 04/18/2018MINUTES OF TFIE MEETING OF TI{E PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD North Collier Regional Park Naples, Florida April 18,2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at2:00 P.M. at North Collier Regional Park, Naples, FL, with the following members present: CFIAIRMAN: Mr. Edward rrskirr Olesky VICE-CI{AIRMAN: Mr. Phil Brougham Ms. Mary Bills, Advisory Board Member Ms. Rebecca Gibson-Laemel, Advisory Board Member Mr. David Saletko, Advisory Board Member Mr. Murdo Smith, Advisory Board Member ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Steve Carnell, Department Head, Public Services Department Mr. Barry Williams, Division Director, Parks and Recreation Miguel Rojas, Jr., Administrative Assistant, Parks and Recreation Mr. Dane Atkinson, Project Manager, Facilities Management Mr. Rick Garby, Parks Superintendant, Parks and Recreation Mr. Cormac Giblin, Manager, Housing and Grant Development Mr. Shane Bailey, Warm Introduction Networking, Inc. Page I I. Call to Order Chairman Oleski called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence observed. III. Approval of the Agenda Mr. Brougham entered a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Ms. Bills seconded the motion. All members were infavor. The motion was caruied. IV. Approval of the Minutes Mr. Saletko entered a motion to approve the March 21, 2018 meeting minutes. The motionwas seconded by Ms. Gibson-Laemel. All members were infavor. The motion was carried. V. Capital Projects Update - Mr. Dane Atkinson Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park - Work on the project continues on schedule, with 60% design anticipated in June 2018. Question (Mr. Smith): Are changes to the park design allowable between now and the completion of 600/o design, specifically with regard to the pool and its functionality for the entire community. Answer: Ways to contain the overall cost of the park are being studied, with changes to the community center for alternative uses initially considered, however the size of the building will remain at approximately 18,600 square feet. Consolidation of two buildings on the great lawn is also being considered. The pool will presently retain the same footprint; however, specific details of the pool design have yet to be determined. Mr. Williams encouraged PARAB input with regard to the detail work of the pool design. Mr. Brougham requested preliminary concept drawings for the community center to be shared with PARAB for input on design as well, prior to 60%o completion. Eagles Lakes Community Pool - An extension was granted to the contractor for completion of the project following work intemrption due to Hurricane Irma, however a target date of May 28,2018 remains the goal of the contractor. A ribbon cutting ceremony will be scheduled when the actual completion date becomes clearer. VI. New Business a. Business Networking Expo Alcohol Permission - Mr. Shane Bailey Mr. Shane Bailey of Warm lntroduction Networking, Inc., a veteran owned and operated business networking organization, addressed PARAB to request approval of an application to sell and/or consume alcohol at an upcoming event scheduled to be held at North Collier Regional Park Q.{CRP) on July 20,2018. This organization holds three networking events monthly; one in Ft. Myers, one in Naples, and one in Marco Island, with one large event annually, which this year is plarured to be held at NCRP. Page2 250 particpants per hour are expected over the course of the six-hour event, which will run from 2:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Notable participants of the event may include Florida State Senator Kathleen Passidomo, schedule permitting, and General Frederick Franks, Jr., a four-star General of the Army, celebrated author, and Naples resident, who has also championed local veteran health initiatives. Private security will be provided for the event and a per-person limit of two alcohol tickets will be enforced. Question (Mr. Smith): Is there a cut-off time after which alcohol will no longer be served at the event? Answer: Alcohol will stopped being served at 8:30 p.m., and the gymnasium will be vacated by 10:00 p.m. Question (Mr. Brougham): How will the proceeds from this event benefit local veterans and/or children' s organizations? Answer: Intrinsic needs have been identified locally with regard to veterans and children. This year's initiative is focused on providing copayment assistance to veteran's seeking medical assessment prior to scheduling treatment through the Veteran's Administration (VA), cutting appointment wait time at the VA by up to 50%. Mr. Smith entered a motion to approve the sale of alcohol at the Warm Introduction Networking,Inc., event to be held at North Collier Regional Park on July 20, 2018 from 2:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m- Mr. Saletko seconded the motion. All were infavor. The motion was canied. Mr. Williams subsequently noted that the local ordinance allows for the sale of alcohol in the Exhibit Hall at NCRP; however, the gymnasium was the requested venue for the event. Clarification was requested of Mr. Bailey as to whether the Exhibit Hall would be suitable for the event. Mr. Bailey was concerned that the Exhibit Hall may not be large enough to accommodate vendor booth space, which last year totaled 55+ vendors, plus the expected25} participants expected per hour. Ms. Gibson-Laemel noted that vendor booths may also be set up in the lobby and hallways as well in order to maximize event space within the Exhibit Hall. Mr. Williams will seek clarification as to the allowability of alcohol sales in the rymnasium, as well as to the availability of the Exhibit Hall for the event on July 20, 2018. Question (Mr. Smith): If the Board should be required to review any issues related to this event, would there be time prior to July 20,2018 for adequate marketing of the event? Answer: As PARAB has voted unanimously to approve the sale of alcohol at this event, Mr. Williams will make appropriate inquiries and update Mr. Bailey as soon as possible as to the venue allowable for use at NCRP; i.e., the gymnasium or the Exhibit Hall. Page 3 Mr. Smith suggested the Collier County Parks and Recreation Practices and Procedures Manual pertaining to alcohol beverage sale and consumption in County Parks and Facilities be amended as follows: Page 4 of 6: Special Section 6: Alcoholic Beverages Sales at Collier County Parks and Recreation Ownded and/or Operated Marinas, sections C and D: Removal of the word ttmarina" staff. Mr. Brougham requested clarification as to the specificity of alcoholic beverages allowable to be sold in County Parks and Recreation Facilities as per page lof 6 of the stated document, which defines "Alcoholic Beverage" as beer, wine, champagne, and vodka as authorized by Resolution. Mr. Williams stated this definition needs to be reviewed and better defined. The definition had been previously amended to include several types of spirits which were to be sold at the annual U.S. Open Pickleball Championship held in Naples, however was not written as all inclusive. Collier County Community Housing Plan - Mr. Cormac Giblin Mr. Williams introduced Mr. Giblin, Manager, Housing and Grant Development, who presented the Collier County Community Housing Plan, which had been presented to the BOCC in October 2017. A brief video was shown which discussed housing affordability concerns in Collier County, as well as the perceived overall benefits to the community with regard to affordable housing options. Mr. Giblin's presentation began with sharing the following statistical facts identified in Collier County: +61.4o ofjobs pay less than $33,250 per year. +57,567 households are cost burdened. +Rental rates were up l5o/o last year and l4%o the year prior. * Prospective employees cannot afford to live in Collier County. +40,000 people commute daily to work in Collier County from outside of the county. +Little to no vacancy in rentals. Commonly asked questions were reviewed, which covered the definition of affordable housing, individuals identified as being in need of such housing, and how much affordable housing is necessary in the county. Affordable housing was defined as not being public housing, slum housing, or a value reducer ofsurrounding properties, but rather safe, decent, and affordable housing, costing less than 30oh of aresident's monthly income. Within this definition are income targets the BOCC has placed emphasis on, ranging from extremely low income families to "gap" incomes. A further breakdown in terms of salaries and occupations was shown, as well as rent versus home ownership affordabilty models based on a 3 person household. The type of housing which needs to be built, how much, and where it should be located within the county was addressed. Page 4 b. The recommendation made by the Housing Plan was for affordable housing to be built\/ county wide. The demand model formula was reviewed, which identifies gross need minus existing inventory, resulting in the number of new affordable units needed yearly, which at this time was identified as 1,665 units per year. This final number is further broken down by income, occupation, rental versus owner occupied, etc. The approach taken was to develop a realistic plan that would maintain a sufficient supply for all income sectors, being flexible and able to respond to changing market conditions. For strategic guidance, in January 2017, the BOCC enlisted the assistance ofthe Urban Land Institute (ULI), an organization which provides leadership in the responsible use of land, and in creating and sustaining thriving communities. The ULI study suggested that affordable housing is an economic issue and not a social issue. The study introduced the concept of"cost burdened," defined as residents who pay greater than 30% oftheir monthly income on housing. Specific job sectors were identified as being cost burdened and included public safety, health care, education, and service workers, as well as entry/middle level professionals, with these job sectors comprising over 50o% of all jobs in the county. The ULI study cautioned that if the affordable housing needs are not addressed, 11,000 additional households will become "severely cost burdened," spending in excess of50% of monthly income on housing. A ULI workshop yielded 35 individual recommendations for the BOCC to consider, which were each assigned under 5 separate categories: +Regulation and Gorvemance \/ +Increase, maintain, or restore supply +Enhance transportation options +Increase wages +Communication and engagement The BOCC forwarded these recommendations to the Housing Stakeholder Committee, whose mission was to provide Collier County residents a diverse range ofaccessible housing options. The committee members represented a cross-section ofinterests, including business, finance, govemment, schools, and healthcare. Ofthe original 35 ULI recommendations, the Board recommended 27 for firther study by the committee. A response model was subsequently created from the data with which they had been given, refining the original recommendations along the same categories. The final plan was met with broad support by various county agencies. One recommendation, which was on the agenda for discussion at the April 18, 2018 PARAB meeting, was for the use of publicly owned land to increase the supply of affordable housing. The Board of County Commissioners took the first step of action on this recommendation on February 27 ,2018 by passing Resolution No. 2018-39: Page 5 "WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners accepted the Community Housing Plan and its recommendation to consider affordable housing needs in future land _ acquisitions and the possibility of co-locating housing that is affordable with future public facilities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COLINTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COLINTY, FLORIDA, to address the growing need for housing that is affordable, that public properties now owned by the County, or to be acquired by the County in the future, be considered for use as affordable housing, or for the co-location of affordable housing and public facilities." As a result of this Resolution, a review of county owned lands was conducted in summer 2017. Sixteen potential sites were reviewed and assessed by certain criteria, including vacancy, restrictions, location, size, zoning, etc., of which 9 properties were chosen for presentation to the BOCC on June 27,2017. The Board selected 6 of the parcels, directing fi.rther research along strict criteria, which ultimately resulted in 2 sites being presented to the BOCC at the December 12,2017 meeting. These two sites included Bembridge PUD and Manatee Park. The BOCC directed Staff to generate a Request for Information $ff on ways to incorporate affordable housing at these two sites, which ultimately generated ten responses of varying levels of detail. Finally, the BOCC directed Staff to complete the implementation of all Housing Plan line items prior to moving forward with either site. Next steps were outlined as follows: +Bring Housing Plan recommendations to the BOCC across the meeting schedule; v approximately 4-5 recommendations to be presented per meeting. *All recommendations presented will be reviewed by the BOCC in summer 2018. +BOCC will re-review the Bembridge PUD and Manatee Park sites, with development of a detailed scope and uses for these sites in fall 2018. +RFP responses reviewed and ranked, with the developer partner selected in winter 2018, if a decision is made to move forward. +Approval process will include rezoning, site development plan, infrastructure construction, and vertical development; a two to three year process in total. Several community input meetings on this issue have been held, with more scheduled through May 2018. The 2008 conceptual site plan for the Manatee Park was shown, which reflects a "passive pffik," with no planned playgrounds or ball fields. There has been no funding identified for this project until2025. Adjacent community concerns initially expressed in response to the concept of affordable housing being constructed within Manatee Park included fears of section 8 housing, increased crime, park decimation, lack of proximity to job centers, and construction of 750-950 units, resulting in a burden on the local school, as well as increased traffic. Page 6 However, examples ofaffordable housing complexes which presently exist in the county were shown to be as indistinguishable from other communities. It was emphasized that time remains for community input into the process moving forward as to different ways to incorporate the BOCC's desire to include affordable housing at the Manatee Park site, as well as future county acquisitions and county building sites. Question (Mr. Smith): Where is the Bembridge site located? Answer: The Bembridge site is located on Santa Barbara Boulevard, between Radio Road and Davis Boulevard. Question (Mr. Smith): How big is that site? Answer: 5. 1 1 acres are available for the purposes of this project. Question (Ms. Gibson-Laemel): Clarification was requested with regard to the site plan for Manatee Park and whether the map shown included existing or planned structures. Answer: The illustration shown is of an existing site plan; in particular, the area in question is currently a parking over grass area. Question (Ms. Gibson-Laemel): Where do you see building units there and how many? Answer: That would be determined by the BOCC in terms of the number of units and how to keep the existing plan while coJocating affordable units there. Question (Ms. Gibson-Laemel): How much space on the site plan would be taken up by the 1600+ units referenced earlier as affordable housing units that are needed in Collier County? Answer: Mr. Williams stated the developer responses to the BOCC directed Request for Information (RII) will allow the respondants to share their vision of how the park may best be developed for the purposes ofthis project. Mr. Giblin also reiterated that the recommendation to coalate affordable housing on county owned property isjust 1 of27 recommendations made by the ULI study and therefore, not intended to solve the entire issue at one site or with one recommendation. Mr. Williams shared that historically there has been limited co-usage of park land with housing, for example, an onsite Sherifls deputy housed at Sugden Park. Question (Mr. Smith): Is there a list of avilable houses for sale on the market now that are listed for under $250K? Answer: Real time availability of market supply was taken into account when calculating affordable housing needs in the county, which is planned to be updated every 6 to 12 months. When the demand summary was created in September 2017, 1323 units were available for sale at $250K or less, with 499 rental units available costing $2000 per month or less. These units were backed out ofthe total demand identified. Page 7 Question (Mr. Smith): Clarification was requested with regard to the category breakdown by housing costs versus monthly income. Answer: In Collier County, affordable housing is defined as housing that does not cost more than 30% of monthly income. In2017, the median income in the county was $68,300 and in 2018 has been identified as $75,000. Within the realm of affordable housing, there are 5 different income categories; extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and gap (represented by the percentage of the median income). Most federal and state assistance programs are directed towards providing assistance to those at the low and less categories (HUD, etc), with some flexibillity to address moderate income families. Due to the high housing costs in Collier County, approximately 12-13 years ago, the BOCC created the "gap" category, which includes families that do not quality for federal and state assistance, however income is insufficient to rent or buy property in Collier County. The State has since also recognized this same need for above moderate income or "gap" households. Income limits are assessed differently based on persons per household, with the Collier County Housing Plan designed using total household income based upon a 3- person household as the model. Question (Mr. Smith): Are there programs still available, such as the SHIP program, which provide financial assistance for housing for lower income families. Answer: The SHIP program is a State program which provides assistance with home ownership. The Collier County Housing Authority also offers a Federal rental assistance program, which is a limited voucher program, awarding 450+ rental assistance vouchers to qualified county residents, which covers the portion of rent which is above the 30o/o income marker. However, an additional recommendation made by the ULI study was for the county to adopt a local firnding source to address incomes not traditionally assisted by Federal programs, so as to offer a local rental assistance program. Question (Mr. Smith): Is there a requirement for developers to include affordable housing in their new housing developments? Answer: There has never been a requirement for affordable housing to be offered within new developments, however there are incentives built into building codes, such as the affordable housing density bonus. An additional study recommendation was to make this option more desireable for developers in order to incorporate affordable housing into their development plans. Question (Mr. Saletko): Are there any laws which stipulate that a specificied number of affordable housing units be built as new developments are constructed? Answer: There is a State requirement which Collier County must meet, but it is not on a developer/development basis. The county could be held accountable if the overall local housing picture became overly imbalanced based upon the income categories previously mentioned. Page 8 Mr. Brougham clarified that an initial response received from a developer following the Request for Information was the source of the information circulating that 700+ housing units may be constructed at Manatee Park, in relation to density bonuses offered up to 12 units per acre. Question (Mr. Brougham): When considering county owned properties as sites for affordable housing, has the "Bayshore Gateway Triangle" parcel of land already been sold? Is the property still county owned? Answer: Per Mr. Carnell, there was discussion regarding a development concept for that area, possibly linking Sugden Park to the development plan; however this idea has abated. Per Mr. Williams, after confirmation by a representative of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA, there are two parcels of property at this location. The "triangle" parcel is under contract and the larger parcel is undergoing the planning process and will be presented to the BOCC for their recommendation. Question (Mr. Smith): Is the scope of development of the Bembridge location the same as is being considered for Manatee Park? Answer: This is unknown; however, the intent of the request for information was to solicit ideas for ways to preserve park uses, as well as to "include" housing within the park site plan and not "designate" the site for housing. Question (Ms. Gibson-Laemel): Please define the term co-locate? Answer: Co-locate means to accommodate both housing uses and park uses at a particular site. Question (Ms. Gibson-Laemel): When county owned lands were reviewed, was Parks land included, exclusive of the Parks Master Plan? For example, "Does the site have signifi cant growth restrictions (environmental, easements, deeds, etc). Answer: When peforming the analysis, Staff did not view the Master Plan objective as a necessarily significant restriction, although it is a consideration. The restrictions are more applicable to potential legal and contractual entitlements, environmental concerns, etc. Ms. Gibson-Laemel stressed greater consideration of the Parks Master Plan when performing the analysis and prior to moving forward with the process. Question (Mr. Smith): If acreage is used for affordable housing at the Manatee Park site, would the Parks Division be compensated with an equal number of acreage elsewhere in the county? Answer: If Parks land is used as a site for the development of affordable housing, the community park acreage would be decreased by same. As developer proposals and partnerships are more seriously considered, the possibility exists for a land "reimbursement" elsewhere, which would therefore, not decrease the total community park acreage. Page 9 VII. Adopt a Park There were no Adopt a Park reviews scheduled to be discussed at this meeting. V[I. Director's Highlights There were no Director's Highlights presented at the meeting. IX. PubliclBoard Comments Public Comments: 1. Mr. John Patterson: Mr. Patterson has been a resident of Fiddler's Creek approximately one year, and whose home is located approximately 300 yards from Manatee Park. Mr. Patterson has attended several of the prior community input meetings on this topic and wondered why the topic of the park being abandoned has yet to be raised as an issue. The property has been zoned as a park for 20+ years; however, the funds for development were diverted to be used at Eagle Lakes Park. Mr. Patterson stressed the balance of housing and park land in a community. Further, there is more affordable housing found in his district than in all of the other Naples districts combined and as thejobs are scattered throughout the county, so should affordable housing be as well. Mr. Patterson stated the result would be a transporation problem, worsened by limited public transporation access. Park access is paramount to a community, so providing park land elsewhere will present a problem for many in the local community. Housing and park access should be balanced throughout the county to the extent possible, and it is a matter of fairness that the local community not be burdened with more than its fair share of the housing solution and less than its fair share of the park. Lastly, any rumors that may be circulating are the result of the community not knowing about the plans for the park. 2. Mr. Rod Greene: Mr. Greene lives in close proximity to Manatee Park and felt that while the ULI Study may have determined Manatee Park to be an excellent place for affordable housing, it is also an excellent place for a park, with many other properties available throughout the county for consideration. Once the park is gone, it is gone forever. A deed restriction should be considered for fear of losing control of the property as the process continues. With the elementary and middle schools, homes, and rental properties, an additional 700+ houses would significantly increase traffic congestion. Mr. Greene expressed concern at the ULI dictating where in the county affordable housing should be built and depriving communities of their park. 3 . Mr. Elliott Miller: Mr. Miller was chosen to represent 17 members of the Fiddlers Creek community. Mr. Miller is Chairman of Fiddler's Creek Community Development, District 2. Mr. Miller stated that neither himself, nor members of the Fidder's Creek community are against affordable housing and likewise are in favor of parks. Mr. Miller stated that any entity seeking to confiscate a park bears a substantial burden of proof and that burden of proof had not been met. Mr. Miller clarified that the park has been on the books for 45 years, since 1973. Funding was diverted from the park l0 years ago and applied towards Eagle Lakes Park. Page l0 4. With regard to the stakeholders committee, in June 2017, following a review of the Manatee Park site, it was felt to be a fair site, with substantial restrictions and only a medium impact on affordable housing. However, by December 2017, the site was deemed an excellent site, with a high impact on affordable housing and had no restrictions, yet with no change in "facts on the ground." (Mr. Miller pointed out that 1/3 of Manatee Park consists of wetlands). Mr. Miller stated that the stakeholders committee consisted of individuals in the business of affordable housing, such as not-for-profit developers, as well as Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Miller stated the real stakeholders are the individuals living on Manatee Road and Roost Road, next to what they thought was a park, yet no one living on Manatee Road or Roost Road were on the stakeholders committee. Mr. Miller remarked upon the significant cars on the road which would occur, as well as overcrowding of the local schools, which are already so crowded, trailers are being used as classrooms. There has been no study of infrastructure, water and sewer, education, traffic, public transit, leaving this to the developer. The developer will be given 60 acres of land, with no impact fees assessed, and tasking the developer to assign an expert to determine whether the project should move forward. Mr. Miller stated it was premature to confiscate the park prior to any of these studies being done. Mr. Miller recommended an alternative to affordable housing which is offered through HUD; the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This program provides grants to local organizations to buy affordable housing. Mr. Miller pointed out that there are over 1300 homes throughout the county for sale for less than $250K that may be purchased for affordable housing. "Has this been tried? Have studies been done on this option? No. Do they want to take peoples' parks away? Yes." Mr. Miller stated this was just not fair. Mr. Bart Joseph Jackson: Mr. Jackson stated he is a resident living nearby to the park and has been following the affordable housing issue for quite some time. Mr. Jackson stated he had compiled a letter to the editor of the Naples Daily News in this regard and read a portion of the draft. "Firemen, nurses, laborers cannot live in Naples because of the lack of affordable housing. Really? Others suggest those in the know are pointing their compass in the wrong direction. Lack of quality education provides another focus of the problem. Families with children, regardless of employment, income or current address find some Naples areas undesireable, regardless of affordability, based on one important reason; schools. Have the experts considered that workers with school children, who have made their own responsible, conscious, intelligent decision to remain outside of Naples because of two primary observations? Observation number one; the housing that is abundant and affordable in East Naples does not fu1fill the families desired features and benefits. Observation number two; North Naples offers desireable family benefits, however the current housing inventory costs outweigh the benefits, even if one could get in at North Naples." Mr. Jackson expressed the reason many families did not want to live in the available affordable housing in East Naples was due to the inferior schools there, as well as not enough desireable features to encourage families to want to live there. The health, welfare and education of children were viewed as paramount, regardless of income, and were felt to be a right to uphold. Mr. Jackson expressed concern that without the park and with local children being taught in trailers, that progress had digressed back to the 1950s. Page 1l Mr. Jackson next made the point that in his opinion, employers in Naples and locally, placed little worth on employees, who were severely disrespected with respect to compensation. A reconstructed compensation model was suggested to allow workers to achieve a reasonable wage, whether through tax, subsidies, or a combination of factors. In summary, Mr. Jackson expressed that the issue is not just about affordable housing, but rather affordable housing that is desireable. 5. Mr. Dave Durrell: Mr. Durrell stated that he owns property across from Manatee Park and has been looking forward to having the park for a long time, an emenity which may have been factored in when people bought property nearby. Mr. Durell expressed alarm that the park may be used for housing and wished for the park to remain as is, as well as concern that the Board resolution referred to any county owned properties and future park sites. There were proposed fields and recreational uses planned for Manatee Park, which was heavily supported by the surrouding neighborhoods, and Mr. Durrell felt that the proposed housing would be very negatively received. Mr. Durrell stated he agreed with the previous speakers and concurred that the park should stay the way it is; once park land is gone, it is gone forever. Mr. Durrell urged the PARAB to enter a recommendation to retain the existing park site as a park, as well as all county parks. Board/Staff Comments: Mr. Giblin addressed several of the concerns that were raised by the public speakers. 1 . Why build housing in that portion of the county when most of the j obs, such as Arthrex, are in the northem part of the county? An analysis revealed that 13,700 jobs are located between the Government Center Complex at U.S. 4llAirport Road and the Manatee site. 65yo of these jobs pay less than $45K per year. 2. Clarification: The ULI did not choose the Manatee Park site. The ULI made a recommendation that the county review all of its lands; to look intemally to land already owned to work towards solving the affordable housing problem. Through that review, this site was decided upon. Focus is not solely on this site or this plan; this is one of 7 recommendations that are being considered simultaneously. 3. How did this property get moved up and down the list, with the "facts on the ground" not changing? This site was ranked higher and lower on the list based on additional research that was done. One reason it was initially ranked lower was due to a perception that the site was significantly impacted by wetlands. Natural resources studies were reviewed, as well as wetlands maps, with a finding that the wetlands impact was not as high as initially thought. Mr. Giblin stated he drove the entire property over the preceding weekend and did not encounter any wetland areas. 4. Regarding concern that there was no room at the schools nearby, the proposal is not written to bring a high number of people to this section of town. The intent of this housing is so that those already living there can move to something safe and affordable. 5. Mr. Giblin stated that co-location may actually bring the development of the park higher in the development plans if there was a developer partner willing to do some of that work for the county. Page 12 Question (Mr. Smith): Clarification was requested regarding available grant funding through the Housing and Grant Development division of the county. Answer: Mr. Giblin stated his office issues several grants; the SHIP program, with approximately $500K slated to be awarded this year, as well as various strategies to assist families to buy or rent homes. Regarding the HOME program, Collier County has reached a threshold where this funding no longer needs to be applied for on an individual basis, now receving approximately $450K in funding from the Federal Govemment yearly. There is an application cycle each year for the distribution of these funds. Specific parameters govern Federal and State funding, with HOME funding geared towards individuals on the very low end of the income spectrum. Mr. Williams offered the historical perspective of Manatee Park in that approximately l0 years ago, Parks Staff identified a need for additional soccer fields in East Naples Community Park, a need which still exists based on local population useage. Public feedback at that time with regard to Manatee Community Park indicated a desire for the park to serve the needs of the local communtiy, with a passive park preferred by the local 55+ age community, rather than an active recreational park. Mr. Brougham reiterated that Manatee Park had been planned with significant feedback and input from surrounding neighborhoods in support ofapassive park concept. Funding strategies through 2009 were diffrcult, with Eagle Lakes Community Park partially completed. A consenus was reached at that time by PARAB, as well as the residents along Manatee Road, that given a choice between funding the development of Manatee Community Park versus Eagle Lakes Community Park, the decision was made for the completion of Eagle Lakes Park. Mr. Brougham stated the development of Manatee Park has remained on the books, waiting for funding to move forward with that project. Mr. Brougham stated county park land is a precious asset, which includes beaches, and draws millions of tourists. Mr. Brougham recognizedthe need for housing, not just in Collier County, but throughout the United States and stated this issue needs to be fully studied and not become hyperfocused on one or two small areas. Mr. Brougham entered a motion that the Parks ond Recreation Advisory Board reject the use of any Collier County park landsfor uses other thanfor parks and recreational use by Collier County citizens. Ms. Gibson-Laemel seconded the motion. Chairman Olesky called for a discussion of the motion prior to final vote. Mr. Williams clarified that the purpose of the presentation was to provide informational material and discussion regarding the potential housing project at Manatee Park. While the motion may move forward, neither approval nor disapproval was being sought for the purposes of this meeting. Question (Mr. Saletko): Has it been clarified yet as to how many acres would be needed or used to build affordable housing at Manatee Park? Page 13 Answer: Mr. Williams stated the BOCC is assessing the potential for county owned properties to be used as sites for the development of affordable housing, with developers being given an invitation to provide concepts for development for both park and housing useage. The project remains a blank slate, with no proposals at the present time under consideration. Mr. Williams commended PARAB on their interest in keeping park lands intact, however stated it may be premature to vote on the stated motion, given there are presently no plans to review or consider prior to the vote. Mr. Williams suggested that the possibility exists for future proposals to be presented to and vetted by PARAB. Mr. Carnell expressed an understanding of PARAB's desire to grow Parks capacity to keep up with the population; however, the county shares the same struggle to meet all members of the community. Strategies for housing have evolved over the years. The Manatee Park land was acquiredin 1973, with no other uses considered for the site at that time. The concept of co-location may not have existed in 1973, but over the years the housing industry and market have changed. The population in Collier County will continue to grow, and planning and management continues to be of key importance. With regard to concerns expressed at developers performing feasability studies and analysis of the project rather than the county, Mr. Carnell stated that the developers possess the best expertise to do so. Further, the two East Naples sites presently under consideration for co-location are not the only properties being considered; for instance, zonrngmodification may be done of private properties to allow for co-location of housing and retail. Mr. Carnell clarified that the Park is not going to be confiscated; a co-location is not a confiscation, and empathized with the residents of Fiddler's Creek and the fear of the unknown. While the concept has been heavily publicized in local media outlets, as well as public meetings, any potential project has a very long way to go. Mr. Carnell encouraged public engagement during the process. Likewise, Mr. Carnell encouraged PARAB to request of the BOCC to remain engaged in the process and to review information as it becomes available, as the final outcome may in fact be favorable for the Parks Division. Chairman Olesky stated it was premature, in his opinion, to actively vote on the issue at this time and provided further history regarding Manatee Park, in that in the past, residents were strongly against an active recreational facility, lights installation, etc. Mr. Olesky expressed an interest in receiving more information on an ongoing basis prior to issuing a final recommendation to the BOCC. Ms. Gibson-Laemel expressed an appreciation for receiving the history of Manatee Park and the additional information which had been provided at the meeting. While co- location sounded like an interesting concept, Ms. Gibson-Laemel was uncertain as to what power was held by PARAB in regard to this issue. Page 14 Mr. Camell clarifred that PARAB members have the ability to express support, disapproval, or recommendations for stipulations or changes, both now and throughout the process. Mr. Camell reiterated that coJocation is merely one of27 concepts under consideration to address the affordable housing dilemma and stated one ofthe reasons county property was suggested for use by the ULI was due to the cost ofland, which is part of the overall affordability issue. Such a partnership between the county and the developer would create a conhactual, legal and binding commitment from the developer to sell properties at a particular price point in the marketplace. Ms. Gibson-Laemel inquired as to whether a stipulation is being considered which would require developers to include senior and affordable housing in their plans for new housing developments. Mr. Camell stated this concept was called inclusionary zoning, which has received some resistance from developers in the past. This concept will be further discussed at the June 2018 BOCC meeting. Mr. Wiliiams summarized by pointing out three options for PARAB to consider at the present time; take a stand, moving forward with the present motion which had been made, request that all information regarding the colocation concept be shared with PARAB as it gets vetted through the process, or lastly, simply regard the meeting as informational and make no decisions at the present time. Mr. Brougham expressed an understanding ofthe advisory capacity ofPARAB to the BOCC and shared a concem at the lack ofability to present a final decision by PARAB to the BOCC for their consideration, or for PARAB to approve or disapprove ofa final decision made with regard to Parks properties. Given sufficient planning and conversations, Mr. Brougham stated the possibility existed for a win-win outcome; however this remains uncertain based on the present lack of information. Further, as the process continues, beginning with developer proposals, and more time and money invested in the process, the more buy-in is realized into the process, becoming one-sided. Mr. Brougham's concem was in the process moving forward, without any commitment from any responsible party in the county that a reasonable compromise will be reached, and that the decision should not be to choose the park or choose the county. In summary, Mr. Brougham expressed a belief in sound planning and community involvement, and encouraged Staff to allow PARAB full participation during this process. Mr. Saletko recognized the need for affordable housing throughout the county and stated that local residents ofany chosen location would likely express the same concems as had already been shared at the meeting. Mr. Saletko reiterated that various options had been discussed with regard to park modification, as well as land reimbursement elsewhere, and was in favor of a recommendation to keep PARAB engaged in the ongoing process as it pertains to park lands. Page 15 x. Mr. Carnell requested the opportunity to formulate a plan of actionable items as to how to update PARAB throughout the process and present this plan at the next meeting. Mr. Brougham withdrew his previous motion to reject the use of any Collier Counly park lands for uses other than for parks and recreational use by Collier Coanty citizens. Ms. Gibson-Laemel withdrew her second of the motion. Mr. Brougham entered a motion that Staff present speciJic steps as to how the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board may be best engaged and updated informationally prior to any next steps being taken with regard to co-location of affordable housing on Park land. Ms. Bills seconded the motion. All were infavor. The motion was curried, Adjournment There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on presented, or as amended as Page 16