Loading...
AHAC Surtax Subcommittee Agenda 03/07/2023Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) Surtax Subcommittee Growth Management Division Conference Room 609/610 March 7, 2023 – 1:00 p.m. AGENDA Subcommittee Members: Steve Hruby, AHAC Member Mary Waller, AHAC Member Commissioner Chris Hall, AHAC Member County Staff Members: 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 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. APROVAL OF AGENDA & MINUTES a. Approval of today’s agenda b. Approval of February 2, 2023 Meeting Minutes 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Policy Guidance for Surtax Funds – Sample RFP Review 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 5. NEXT MEETING DATE MINUTES 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 Page 1 of 3 DRAFT RFP AFFORDABLE HOUSING SURTAX FUNDING RFP EVALUATION CRITERIA For the development of a shortlist, this evaluation criterion will be utilized by the COUNTY ’S Selection Committee to score each proposal. Proposers are encouraged to keep their submittals concise and to include a minimum of marketing materials. Proposals must address the following criteria: Evaluation Criteria Maximum Points 1. Cover Letter / Management Summary 2 Points 2. Property and Business Plan 35 Points 3. Financing & Cost of Services to the County 20 Points 4. Experience and Capacity of the Firm 20 Points 5. Specialized Expertise of Team Members 13 Points 6. Certified Minority Business Enterprise 5 Points 7. Local Vendor Preference 5 Points TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 Points Tie Breaker: In the event of a tie at final ranking, award shall be made to t he proposer with the lower volume of work previously awarded. Volume of work shall be calculated based upon total dollars paid to the proposer in the twenty - four (24) months prior to the RFP submittal deadline. Payment information will be retrieved from th e County’s financial system of record. The tie breaking procedure is only applied in the final ranking step of the selection process and is invoked by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners or designee. In the event a tie still exists, selection will be determined based on random selection by the Procurement Services Director before at least three (3) witnesses. Each criterion and methodology for scoring is further described below. ***Proposals must be assembled, at minimum, in the order of the Evaluation Criteria listed or your proposal may be deemed non-responsive*** EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 1: COVER LETTER/MANAGEMENT SUMMARY (2 Total Points) Provide a cover letter, signed by an authorized officer of the firm, indicating the underlying philosophy of the firm in providing the services stated herein. Include the name(s), telephone number(s) and email(s) of th e authorized contact person(s) concerning proposal. Submission of a signed Proposal is Vendor's certification that the Vendor will accept any awards as a result of this ITN. EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 2: PROPERY AND BUSINESS PLAN (35 Total Points) In this tab, include but not limited to: 1. Project Scope The proposal should provide a written description of the project, accompanied by a conceptual site plan showing proposed building(s), parking areas and how the development will interface with the surrounding areas. In addition, proposed unit type (single family, multi-family, rental or for purchase) and dwelling size (1, 2, 3, or more bedrooms) should be provided along with any planned amenities. 2. Community Impact The proposal must describe how the proposed project fits with the adjacent parcels, meets the intent of the Board of County Commissioners expectations, as detailed in this ITN, and would generally benefit the community, surrounding areas and the County as a whole. Include as many conceptual visuals as possible such as site plans, renderings, and elevations, as applicable. In addition, please provide a description of how the proposed project meets the housing affordability needs per the Collier County Community Housing Plan. Page 2 of 3 3. Zoning The proposal must identify if the property’s zoning or a specific rezoning will be required to assist in the development of the proposal. If applicable, identify if the rezoning will require a comprehensive plan amendment or other special zoning relief. Be as specific as possible and provide documentation as needed to substantiate the request. Identify timing of zoning and if property should be zoned prior to project. 4. Timeline The proposal must clearly identify approximate milestones that will be included in the land acquisition and development agreement such as the due diligence period, zoning process, if required, site development, building permits, construction and through to the Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Site Specific Criteria Upon approval of moving forward with this ITN the Board of County Commissioners agreed the following criteria should be mandated in the development of the property. In preparation of this proposal, it is important the following criteria is included for consideration: • Quantify desired density. The BCC is seeking proposals which will provide a moderate to high density of units. • Identify all dwelling types and if more than one type is proposed provide unit type ratios. • Define project set-asides of more than 10% for seniors, veterans, and/or special needs populations. • Define the targeted income mix proposed and how it correlates with the Community Housing Plan. • A requirement that 100% of the units built be affordable. • Serve a full range of income needs. • Target greatest units and income needs (currently rental housing at the lower income levels). • Cost of Property: Must not exceed appraised value. • Disaster Evacuation Zone: Greater Consideration if NOT in Zone A, lesser consideration if in Zon e A. • Utilities: Greater Consideration if utilities available, lesser consideration if not available. • Wetlands: Must be less than 20% wetlands, with greater consideration for lower percentages. • Environmental: Must pass Phase I Standards, with greater consideration if passes Phase II standards as well. • Transportation: Greater Consideration if on an Arterial road, lesser consideration on Collector road. • Shovel Ready: Greater consideration for fully zoned properties. • Density: Greater consideration for higher densities, lesser consideration for lower densities. • Proximity/Locational: Greater consideration closer to schools, Transit Stops, and Activity Centers. • Topography: Greater consideration for flood zones (AH and X). Lower consideration will be given to AE Zone properties (an area inundated by 1% annual chance flooding with velocity hazard (wave action) for which the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) have been determined) and properties in a VE Zone (where wave heights are expected to be 3 feet or more for which the BFE has been determined) will be eliminated from any consideration. 6. Any Additional Information Include other relevant information about the project that has not been addressed in the previous questions that the proposer would like the present to the Board in support of the proposal. The intent of this phase of the screening process is to identify a project that a majority of the Board can support moving forward to a detailed purchase and development agreement. Should your proposal be selected, the purchase and development agreement will incorporate specific milestones in the development process. The Board’s acceptance of a proposal shall not constitute approval of future zoning, if needed for the project to be developed. EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 3: FINANCING & COST OF SERVICES TO THE COUNTY (20 Total Points) In this tab, include but not limited to: 1. Financing The proposal must provide a general financing plan. The proposal must identify if the project will be a straight purchase (if so, what is the purchase price?), a request for the property to be donated, require financing (if so, is the expectation that the County defer the purchase price until the completion of construction and/or contribute to the financing package?), or any other potential financing configuration needed for the project . In addition, the Financing information provided should include at the minimum the following: • Per unit construction costs Page 3 of 3 • Proformas for rental and proposed rates (if applicable) • Per unit market costs and sales price (if applicable) • Detailed soft funding incentives required from the County • Proposed funding sources with contingencies • Address any potential Land Trust contribution (if applicable) • Detailed affordability restrictions The proposer should submit a financing plan that demonstrates the proposer ’s financial ability to successfully purchase and complete the development of the parcel. A limited pro-forma would be acceptable based on the conceptual plan submitted for review. 2. Total Project Value Include an approximate construction value and ending taxable value. Please state if your en tity holds tax exempt status or if the project is eligible for tax exemption. Also, include a detailed description of how the project is committed long term to addressing housing affordability in Collier County. EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 4: EXPERIENCE AND CAPACITY OF THE TEAM (20 Total Points) In this tab, include but not limited to: • Provide information that documents your firm’s qualifications to produce the required deliverables, including abilities, capacity, skill, and financial strength and number of y ears of experience in providing the required services. • Describe the various team members’ successful experience in working with one another on previous projects. The County requires that the vendor submits no fewer than five (5) completed reference forms from clients from the past ten (10) years whose projects are of a similar nature to this solicitation as a part of their proposal. Provide information on the projects completed by the vendor that best represent projects of similar size, scope and complexity of this project using the Reference Form provided. Vendors may include two (2) additional pages for each project to illustrate aspects of the completed project that provides the information to assess the experience of the Proposer on relevant project work. EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 5: SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE OF TEAM MEMBERS (13 Total Points) The proposal must include a description of the firm/team, including locations of offices, the person responsible for contracting services, and the location of the contracting authority. Include a list of the qualified professional team members and qualifications of associates proposed to perform and/or assist with the work to oversee the project. Identify the names and provide resumes of proposed management members that will supervise the project, including an organizational flow chart, if available, showing the working relationship of the management structure. The proposal shall submit a portfolio of projects of similar size and scope completed and or managed by the firm or team. EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 6: CERTIFIED MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (5 Total Points) Submit certification with the Florida Department of Management Service, Office of Supplier Diversity as a Certified Minority Business Enterprise. EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 7: LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE (5 Total Points) Local business is defined as the vendor having a current Business Tax Receipt issued by the Collier or Lee County Tax Collector prior to proposal submission to do business within Collier County, and that identifies the business with a permanent physical business address located within the limits of Collier or Lee County from which the vendor ’s staff operates and performs business in an area zoned for the conduct of such business.