AHAC Strategic Plan 02/02/2023 DraftMINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SURTAX SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida, February 2, 2023
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee Surtax Subcommittee, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at
the Collier County Growth Management Department Building, Conference Room
#609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
Chairman: Joe Trachtenberg
Steve Hruby
Mary Waller (via Zoom)
Chris Hall
Paul Shea (also attended)
County Staff Members Also Present:
Cormac Giblin, Interim Director, Economic Development & Housing
Mike Bosi, Director, Planning & Zoning
Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review
Derek Perry, County Attorney’s Office
Chris Montolio, Operations Analyst, Economic Development & Housing
Kelly Green, Accountant, Economic Development & Housing
John McCormick, Principal Engineer, Real Property Management (Zoom)
Jennifer Belpedio, Manager, Real Property Management (Zoom)
Crystal Kinzel, County Clerk & Comptroller
Chris Mason, Director, Community Planning & Resiliency
Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording
from the Collier County Growth Management Department.
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chairman Trachtenberg called the meeting to order at 1 p.m. A quorum of three were present, with
one participating via Zoom; two arrived later.
2. APROVAL OF AGENDA & MINUTES
a. Approval of today’s agenda
Commissioner Hall made a motion to approve the agenda. Second by Ms. Waller. The motion
passed unanimously, 3-0.
3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Background and Eligible uses of the surtax for affordable housing development
b. Draft Policy
Chairman Trachtenberg asked staff members to introduce themselves.
Mr. Giblin said the focus of this subcommittee is to develop policy guidance to be brought to the
Board of County Commissioners for the use of the housing portion of the 1% sales surtax that
was voted into law in 2018 by Collier County residents.
Chairman Trachtenberg said there are a few issues that need to be resolved, as well as
developing the process. There is a lot of latitude in the wording of the referendum as to how
much housing will be workforce housing. It can be no less than 30%. Given the shortage of
affordable housing in Collier County, he’s in favor of increasing that to 100% workforce housing,
with no provision for luxury housing.
Mr. Giblin framed the issue, telling the subcommittee:
The committee’s focus will be on developing parameters for the land, not the deal.
Land will have parameters that need to be met. Sample criteria are in your agenda packet.
The county Real Property Division will then go out to look for land that meets that
criteria.
When the county finds land, it would then be packaged in an RFP-type process. That’s
where specific details about a deal would come in, whether it’s 100% affordable or 80%
affordable, levels of affordability, rental or owner occupied. That’s where the deal
qualifications come into the process.
We’re here to establish guidance to bring to the BCC on the parameters of the land.
Chairman Trachtenberg responded that:
It would be a mistake for AHAC not to at least weigh in at the outset, offer
recommendations and garner support from commissioners on how the land ultimately
will be used.
He appreciates the process Cormac outlined, but Collier County is undergoing an
affordable housing crisis and we have a pool of money available to acquire land.
It’s important from the outset to establish definitions on how this land will be used.
We should recommend that all of it will be used for workforce housing and not so-called
luxury workforce housing.
There are descriptions in the parameters that this is not going to be all 100% and 120%
AMI, so maybe some people who work in the county can afford to share in this housing.
While developing these rules, we should consider whether this is going to be 50% to
100% AMI or 50% to 120% AMI. That’s an important piece of how we’re ultimately
going to spend the taxpayers’ money to buy and use this land.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
The AHAC’s recommendations will be sought when developing future RFPs when land
is available, as was done with the Bembridge property and the golf-course conversion.
AHAC members also have been on the RFP Selection Committee, making final
recommendations.
Staff and the subcommittee agree, but what’s the first step?
AHAC shouldn’t wait until the RFP to have a conversation. These rules should be in the
basic document that defines what projects will qualify to use this land in terms of how
much of it is used for workforce housing and what the AMI criteria will be.
All the money should be used for workforce housing, but it will be difficult to find
developers to build housing below market value, so we can use that for negotiations. We
can tell a developer if they want 100 units, 20 can be luxury, but 80 must be workforce
housing.
This subcommittee should decide on the rules for the land and what land should be
considered.
[Mr. Shea joined the meeting at 1:10 p.m.]
There are different financing techniques. There are tax credits and there are low-interest
loans available to allow developers to build a successful and entirely affordable housing
project. The deal would be structured differently than deals with luxury developers.
The way it’s been done has been token affordable housing.
The fact that Collier County has chosen to approach affordable housing in a different
fashion doesn’t make it right.
[Mr. Hruby joined the meeting at 1:12 p.m.]
We need to look at the percentage of utilization of the land for workforce housing and the
breadth by which it’s allocated under AMIs before we finalize our recommendations.
This isn’t the typical deal we’re doing now with developers.
Mr. Giblin provided staff’s guidance on properties to be acquired for affordable housing:
Once the land is found, it would be packaged into an RFP.
Land will have certain scoring criteria.
The land can’t be in an Emergency Evacuation Zone A and the cost cannot exceed the
appraised value. We won’t consider properties in those categories.
The county uses a weighted criteria. Is it near schools? Is it on a bus route? Is it on an
arterial or collector route? Is it covered with wetlands? Those other types of secondary
criteria can increase points allotted to a property that could elevate it to the top of the list.
We need to decide which ones to go after and acquire first. Once the BCC adopts the
AHAC policy, finds the properties, acquires them and then sends them out through the
RFP process, that’s when the specifics of a deal come into play.
Deal: Is it 100% affordable, 80% affordable, is it gap housing, low-income housing,
rental, owner-occupied? That’s where the RFP process can define specific parameters of
which project and locations make sense.
Through the public process, the ultimate recipient of the project would be selected
through the RFP.
Chairman Trachtenberg told the subcommittee:
This is very unusual money. It’s money that’s been established in a surtax voted on by
county voters in a referendum. Shouldn’t this be looked at differently from how the
county views other money?
It should be more restrictive in terms of the utilization, specifically for workforce
housing.
He agrees it should be near transportation and not on wetlands.
Leaving that decision to other committees would be wrong.
We have an opportunity to influence this, treasure it for workforce housing and do
everything we can to maximize its utilization as workforce housing that people working
in this building can afford, not the luxury workforce housing that most can’t afford.
A discussion ensued with the board and staff and the following points were made:
Mr. Giblin agreed with that viewpoint, noting that the statute allows it to go to any
project up to 120% AMI and only 30% affordable.
Limiting it to workforce housing would be a policy the BCC has to approve.
The statute requires that the money go through the Surtax Committee for a
recommendation. It would go from here to the AHAC to the Surtax Committee for a
recommendation. A representative of AHAC would be there to answer questions. Then it
would go to the BCC for approval.
Residents who approved the referendum would take comfort knowing more money
would go toward affordable workforce housing.
The surtax money can’t be used for infrastructure or building repairs to rental properties,
just land purchases.
The AHAC could use other monies for infrastructure.
This subcommittee needs to focus on Subsection E, affordable housing, not Subsection
A.
The cost of land in Collier County is so high, we won’t be able to do as much as we want.
At what point do we address land leases? The referendum appears to allow that.
The private, non-profit Community Land Trust is a mechanism available to the county if
someone wants to partner with the county to ensure long-term affordability. That’s deal
specific. When those decisions get evaluated on the merits of each deal, the decision
makers can make that choice.
The $20 million should leverage us $150 million in affordable housing. When you
structure a deal, you need to ensure $3 million gets you $30 million in housing, or 100
units at 60% AMI and someone proposes 120 AMI, so that 60% developer gets the deal.
It must all be affordable and under 120% AMI.
Leveraging that when structuring deals is important.
If it’s a mixed income deal, or there’s half market rate, half affordable, how do you parcel
that out? Developers would buy part of it and the county retains part of it.
If it’s a mixed-income deal, how do you parcel out that cost? It has to be 100%
affordable.
We should solicit proposals from the development community.
Government shouldn’t be in the process of buying land. You might buy land and get
stuck with it. Let the development community bring the land and proposal, then the
county buys it.
The criteria voters approved involved the county buying land for a valid-public purpose.
We’re going to make recommendations that we can utilize uplands and that arterials or
collectors and utilities are in place to try to control the expenses, and where we can
maximize the density to do the least amount of that and have the least amount of impact
to pre-existing built conditions.
A developer may be willing to come forward to sign a 90-year lease if the county covers
part of the land costs. That could open up opportunities to bring new developers into the
market.
We could put together a policy that allows the county to become a partner. A developer
could propose the land and deal so the county could evaluate both.
This starts the conversation and the BCC will make the final approval.
Chairman Trachtenberg said it’s reasonable to ask the Clerk’s Office for guidance and asked
Crystal Kinzel to speak.
Mr. French noted that Ms. Kinzel hadn’t seen this yet, but she can tell you if she’s not
comfortable with something she’s hearing.
Ms. Kinzel told the subcommittee:
She just came to the AHAC subcommittee meeting to listen.
The county has been through five housing crises over the 35 years she’s been here. We
haven’t done it well.
You’re offering some creative ideas.
She doesn’t recommend that the county own the property. A public-private partnership is
what other communities are doing. The county often isn’t good at acquiring properties.
Looking at the options without taking it off the tax rolls will help.
Sometimes the county has a lot of land may be non-buildable. That’s how Bembridge
was given away. We bought it for a different purpose that never transpired.
We bought the golf course for $29 million and didn’t have an overall arching plan for that
and it morphed several times.
The AHAC should look at all options because $20 million is a significant amount. There
are many ways you can do this without taking it off tax rolls.
When you refer to AMIs, whether it’s 40% to 140%, you are including or excluding
certain portions of the population.
For much of the time, Collier County has focused on the workforce population that
includes nurses, law enforcement and county employees. If you go too low on the AMIs,
they’re not going to qualify, especially if they’re married. A family of two or four is
probably over $100,000.
Look at the actual people you are trying to house without calling it affordable or
workforce and look at how much money they make. If housing costs $2,200 a month, it’s
about one-third of their income. If you want to stay around 30%, that’s an $79,080
income.
The majority of people in two-income housing for nursing and law enforcement or
teachers who are married to each other are probably going to exceed that $79,000.
Look at how much they make currently and scope it to what the criteria would be that
you need to provide for affordability.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
We need to look at those earning $79,000-$80,000.
One-income families also are important. Teachers often fly in for an interview, get the
job, but can’t take the job due to the housing cost here.
For singles, we need to look at $35,000-$40,000. We need to cover the gamut.
There’s so much passive income in this community that it skews AMI higher. The bus
boy or waiter at a restaurant isn’t coming anywhere near that. Those are the people you’re
trying to include, so we may want to make AMI lower, not higher. Some of the vital
people aren’t in those higher income brackets.
We need to maximize the $20 million because it’s liquid. Purchase the property, use part
of the $20 million as a down payment and finance the rest of the property.
If the county purchased a $1 million property for $250,000 down, the county can do that.
We could use some of that surtax money to put utilities in. Once we’ve used that money,
we can lease that improved property to a developer for workforce housing.
If you lease the property, do you put it back on the tax rolls? Or if the county still owns it
and they lease the property, is the land off the tax rolls, but the improvements are on the
tax rolls?
Can the $20 million be used for downpayments on property? If so, the county would have
to use ad valorem money.
Debt service is on the private side from the cash flow of the project.
Leveraging the land value into the project could be part of the RFP process.
Does the county go out and look for properties and buy them and make them available or
does it say it has $20 million available and ask the developers to bring the properties and
deals?
Our intention is to identify criteria that would say these lands qualify to get the biggest
bang for your buck. We can’t use property with deal killers.
Utilities can come off the list because typically what happens is that they look at the last
mile, so if you’re a mile within utilities, we can identify that criteria. That may be a
decision point for an affordable housing developer to come forward and say that last mile
is not going to kill me. What’s going to kill me is the overall cost of land.
The BCC had a house bill that passed and can use it for workforce housing.
This only addresses the acquisition of land and the criteria.
There isn’t a need to follow one path.
Chairman Trachtenberg asked Ms. Belpedio if they have a list of properties that are ready to be
reviewed that’s connected with this criteria.
Ms. Belpedio said they don’t. Government should never limit its opportunities. We could pursue
properties or allow developers to bring properties forward for consideration. That would
maximize obtaining properties that are consistent with the statute and the surtax spending.
Mr. French said that when Ms. Belpedio puts together an RFP, that’s a guide on how we score
them. This is no different from Conservation Collier. This is just a guide to set policy on how to
get to the money. The BCC will ultimately decide. Right now we can’t get to the dollars.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
It’s better if a developer brings us a proposal because it’s married to a deal and is easier
for the county. Negotiate the leverage. That’s a true public-private partnership.
The AHAC should consider all options.
The board and staff discussed the criteria and deal breakers for selecting properties:
Due to public safety, we shouldn’t consider Hurricane Evacuation Zone A, west and
south of U.S. 41, flood-hazard and high-velocity areas that also have built-in density
restrictions.
Land can’t be purchased for more than it’s appraised for.
It should be served by utilities. There could be leeway, such as the last mile.
Don’t move properties to a kill-list, just decrease their scores and heavily weigh flooding
zones.
Water and sewer availability is a qualifying factor for scoring. The issue is in Golden
Gate Estates, where that might not be available.
A utilities plan is being worked on now for Rural Lands, so they can be considered.
The back page includes a map with land consistent with the density bonus programs.
We’ve seen developers gravitate to wetlands areas because the land is cheap, but they
aren’t the best properties.
If you’re going to redevelop commercial and use the four amendments, the area from
Pine Ridge to Sugden Park would be a great opportunity for affordable housing.
Zoning restrictions narrow the properties available.
What are the parameters of where it’s best located?
The federal, state and local government doesn’t support building in flood areas.
There will probably be a heavier move to push development farther inland to prevent the
type of disasters we saw in the past few months.
We’re going to limit ourselves on density in that area. Costs are going to increase due to
insurance and people will pay, whether they own or rent, for some level of protection.
A weighted score will give the county more flexibility and you could look at it deal by
deal and property by property.
The more discretionary items there are, the longer it will take to score the deal.
Doing environmental studies before buying land is recommended.
If there are 10% wetlands, you get some points. If there are no wetlands, you get
maximum points based on a sliding scale for the wetlands.
Points also are given for transportation, being on a collector or an arterial roadway
because we need good connections and mobility.
If it’s shovel-ready or already zoned, that’s also given consideration during scoring.
Density and maximizing units also would score more points.
If you already have a Phase 2 Environmental, points are given for that.
Consideration is given if it’s within a half-mile of a bus stop, school or in an Activity
Center, or in a more desirable flood zone.
An X Zone should be scored higher than an AH Zone.
How is a deal scored? The deal and the land should go together.
Could we have a preface to say that preference will be given to deals that focus on both
the deal and the land and that it all goes to workforce housing?
The definition says affordable housing is a development with at least 30% affordable
units. That opens the door to a significant number of units not being affordable and that’s
not what was intended.
Voters won’t be happy if they were told this would be for affordable housing and now
two-thirds will be market rate. It’s a bait and switch if 70% goes to market-rate housing.
When we create scoring criteria, if you’re going build less than a certain percentage of
affordable housing, that’s zero points.
Mr. French said the AHAC could look at a transitional model to capture everything from that
60% AMI to 120 AMI. That leaves room for people who fall out of the 120% if one occupant gets
a raise and they’re now at 122%. They no longer qualify, but they really are invested in that
community, so if you could limit the total number of units that would be market rate, it gives the
developer some wiggle room to say they’re not in the business of evicting people, but want to go
to a transitional model to capture someone starting a career to one moving up in his or her career.
Chairman Trachtenberg said he agrees, but the latitude allowing 70% non-affordable is too
large.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
We’re giving away a huge public benefit. We need to maximize that. Giving away land to
a developer for zero cost is a huge infill in his bottom line.
This is our ability to make affordable housing happen.
The AHAC could give luxury housing a negative score to penalize developers.
We need to consider homebuyers and renters. Weigh those differently.
Rental housing is in demand now. We need to let the market determine whether the
demand is rental or home ownership.
$20 million isn’t a large sum and we’ll help more people if it’s rental units.
Ms. Belpedio said if the property is owned by the government, we won’t be selling it for rentals.
Mr. French said you can take it through the density bonus program after scoring it. That’s an
added advantage. That gets a higher score. We’re also being mindful of the already built
environment. We’re looking at Activity Centers and our Future Land-Use Map to see what fits.
Do we buy land or make the deal? Don’t eliminate either.
Mr. Hruby said the AHAC needs to make a similar checklist to score deals.
Mr. French said staff can send them information by email. When you look at the rural lands in
the villages, we’ve pre negotiated a cost, as well as acreage for affordable housing. Let’s say we
don’t get many takers on this, if we have a revenue stream and those villages pop up in the next
three to five years, there will be money available at that point and the county can move forward
and execute the purchase of those lands.
He summarized their discussion so far:
Use scoring criteria.
Rather than eliminating Evacuation Zone A, or not served by utilities, we’ll use scoring
criteria.
We’ll give additional points to those that are well recognize the a zone, unless Chris
Mason tells me differently, as well as the X Zone. We want to benefit those X-Zone
inland and upland properties because we know we’re not going to change any of the other
ones, such as the environmental, as well as Phase 1 and Phase 2, especially if we’ve got a
conversion project where we know the phase two requirements. That will save us on the
cost of remediation and get us through the state permitting process and RFP much faster.
We’ll give a negative score to luxury housing and we’re not going to call it luxury
housing, but market rate housing.
The number could change and go from 60% to 120% affordable.
Promote more transitional style in case employees get raises.
Chairman Trachtenberg said you get higher points for lower AMI and 120 AMI-plus will mean
negative points. We can’t have people kicked out because they get a raise.
Mr. Hruby said those people who get raises could just pay higher rents if their salary increases.
Mr. French said they could look at the state law about 55+ communities. They have to maintain
at least a 20% age restricted. The AHAC could use that same approach for income versus age.
That will allow a developer to be in a position to not have to evict someone, but it gives them a
cap. As units vacate, that promotes that transition because people are going to make more money
over time or by working an extra shift or an extra job.
Chairman Trachtenberg said they’ve tentatively agreed and they can write it up.
Mr. Giblin said they will bring the list to the next AHAC meeting. The goal is to get this to the
full AHAC and the BCC.
Attorney Perry said we have two pieces of policy. We have one for the land acquisition, which
is done and agreed to, but the wild card is the deal aspect of the acquisition. The Surtax
Subcommittee can’t legally opine on the deal part. Their job is laser focused on the surtax
infrastructure money.
[A discussion ensued.]
Chairman Trachtenberg said we’re looking for a recommendation we agree upon and that
AHAC supports, but the BCC has the final word. We’ll do the best we can to tell them what
needs to be done for the benefit of the community.
Mr. French said this gives us something to build on and move forward.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Mr. French reported that:
The AHAC was upset that Julie Chardon was leaving, so we wanted to support you and
hired her.
Ken Kovensky is leaving GMD to work for the County Manager’s Office and all
advisory committees will be supported under his group.
We’ll be coordinating with Mike Bosi and Cormac, who agreed to be the interim
Housing Policy & Economic Development director. We advertised that job, have
candidates and will be doing interviews in the next 30 days to get that position filled
soon.
We appreciate the AHAC’s work and we asked that an AHAC member participate in the
DSAC, which has become the most functional committee in the county over the last 10
to 15 years. They hold me accountable, we are very transparent about what we can and
can’t do, and we hope to streamline procedures. This will help the AHAC understand
our policies and procedures.
Florida is a minimal code state, but the code allows us a level of discretion to be able to
find alternative methods to meet that minimum intent. We will continue to do that.
That’s our guarantee to you.
Chairman Trachtenberg noted that the changes they’ve seen since working with the GMD
group have been dramatic and positive and what we’re capable of accomplishing is significant.
Mr. French commended his colleagues for that. We’re doing our best to eliminate silos here.
Chairman Trachtenberg said it’s giving them a better idea of how they operate.
Commissioner Hall asked if there was a deal list.
Mr. Giblin said there was no list.
Mr. French said that once they get this policy done, they will transfer the policy or ownership
of the program to Real Property staff. You’re authoring the document and hopefully, the BCC
will adopt it.
Mr. Bosi told the AHAC we’re also asking developers to bring land and a deal to us, so we
would have to work through the Procurement Division to get that word out and let the world
know what this is about.
Chairman Trachtenberg agreed they need to understand the marketing aspect.
Mr. French said they discussed marketing at the earlier subcommittee meeting. They’re short-
staffed now, but plan to build a team to handle this.
5. NEXT MEETING DATE
To be determined.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the chairman at 2:30 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE
SURTAX SUBCOMMITTEE
______________________________________
Joe Trachtenberg, Chairman