Loading...
AHAC Minutes 06/20/2023June 20, 2023 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 20, 2023 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Development Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Hruby Vice Chairman: Jennifer Faron Arol Buntzman (absent) Thomas Felke Gary Hains Commissioner Chris Hall Todd Lyon Hannah Roberts (excused) Planning Commissioner Paul Shea Andrew Terhune (via Zoom) Mary Waller County Staff Members Present: Amy Patterson, County Manager Jamie French, Department Head, GMCD Cormac Giblin, Planning Manager, Development Review Sarah Harrington, Interim Dir., Housing Policy & Economic Development Mike Bosi, Director, Planning & Zoning Derek Perry, Assistant County Attorney Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review Julie Chardon, Ops Support Specialist II, GMCD Kevin Summers, Mgr., Technical Systems Ops, GMCD (via Zoom) Kristi Sonntag, Director, Community & Human Services Division, PSD June 20, 2023 2 Any persons in need of a verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Department. 1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Hruby called the meeting to order at 9 a.m. [The pledge of allegiance was recited.] 2. ROLL CALL OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF Ms. Harrington called the roll call and said committee member Hannah Roberts sent an e- mail saying she will be absent from today’s meeting. [Mr. Hains joined the meeting at 9:01 a.m.] A quorum of seven was present in the boardroom; an eighth joined via Zoom and a ninth arrived later. 3. APROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES a. Approval of today’s agenda Ms. Harrington said 6.a is the only change on the agenda and is a time-certain item that will be heard at 9:05 a.m. Ms. Waller made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lyon. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. b. Approval of May 15, 2023, AHAC meeting minutes Ms. Waller made a motion to approve the May 15, 2023, meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Faron. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. 4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND PRESENTATION a. Three AHAC Nominees 5. PUBLIC COMMENT Jessica Turner said she works for the Southwest Florida Stable & Attainable Housing Coalition, a new coalition formed with a partnership between Collaboratory and Bright Community Trust. There was a call for information with the Collaboratory about the biggest problems in Southwest Florida and housing is one of the biggest problems, so she’s working with a group of partners in the five-county area – Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Hendry and Glades – to help improve the quality and availability of affordable housing. She wanted to introduce herself and see what’s going on in Collier County. This is a regional problem and we want to work together to solve it. Chairman Hruby thanked her for attending and urged her to continue to attend. June 20, 2023 3 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Policy revisions for use of county-owned property: An update for AHAC (A. Patterson) Ms. Patterson said she’s here to answer questions and discuss the county’s long-standing policy on county property. Ms. Patterson provided an overview: • When property is transferred from one division to another or to an outside entity, the owner/originator of the property is made whole in their costs. • The housing piece is a newer issue, but traditionally, when one of our groups owns property that is needed by another group, the group attempting to acquire it must pay the owner group for the portion of property they want to acquire. • This occurred in the eastern part of the county with Public Utilities and the Parks & Recreation Division with the site of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. There was an extended debate between Parks & Recreation and Public Utilities regarding the property, which Parks & Rec desired, and what had to happen to allow Parks to utilize it. • Another notable property was the Manatee property, which has been debated for many uses over the years, including affordable housing. • The issue is complicated, depending on the funding source used to acquire the property and the enterprise nature of some groups, such as Public Utilities. • For properties owned by General Fund-funded groups, the process is less complex. • Most recently, this occurred with the Golden Gate Golf Course and the intent is that both parks and the General Fund need to be made whole for the property, which will be the future home of affordable housing and senior housing. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • The county may have properties it purchased that are no longer needed for their intended use. Those involve residual land, an asset that’s not being used. • Collier County has a housing crisis and needs to be a partner in supplementing the development of housing. The contribution or sale of a property for affordable housing is an easy way for the county to contribute without impacting the budget and taxes for residents. • There are some surplus parcels, but most have an intended purpose. The county is reluctant to let go of properties. • The Manatee site is owned by Parks & Rec and is slated for a future park in the future. For the county to say a better purpose for at least a portion of the property would be affordable housing brings about an analysis of how that property was acquired and what impact that would have on Parks & Rec, including their future level of service. • If a property was purchased with impact fees, the county has no ability to say it’s for the greater good to give that property to another division, housing, utilities, roads, etc., without a backfill into the impact-fee funds. • Impact-fee funds are a statutory legal requirement and are supported by case law; they’re restricted funds. • If Utilities buys property using impact fees and Parks needs it, a division still has to buy it from the other division to make the impact fees whole. Any of the June 20, 2023 4 properties acquired for growth are required to do that backfill. • Backfill doesn’t have to be through surtax funds; it could be through the General Fund. • A misconception for residents watching the budget workshop last week is that the county is flush with extra money that it can just pull from one place to use for something else. You’re seeing hard-fought battles about priorities and where we put any money that may come in because of an increase in valuation and how that money is divvied up. • How does the county re-establish reserves after the stressors of the hurricane season? These are really tough decisions. • To say we’re going to go tap the General Fund has ramifications that ripple across the county. It’s not that it can’t be done or that the BCC can’t make that decision, but enterprise funds must be made whole. Public Utilities or Community Development really don’t own it, but if they did, these enterprise-funded operations are wholly or mostly fee driven. That’s a requirement and you can’t shift that burden onto fee payers. • Enterprise funded means they’re funded by fees for service. • Public Utilities has two funding sources, user fees and impact fees. It’s not a General Fund-driven organization. It’s wholly driven by the people who benefit from the services they provide. That’s the same for GMD. Large portions of what Community Development does are driven by fee payers who come for services. • When you say we’re going to take something you paid for and give it to somebody else, you’re shifting the burden onto fee payers without the proper benefit being derived. We’ve got to close these loops. • A better term for enterprise funds is restricted-use funds. If Parks has money and Roads doesn’t, as far as impact fees go, Parks can’t loan Roads money, no matter how well they’re doing or if they’re planning to cash and carry a project years down the road and Roads is in real trouble, there’s no ability for these funds to be intermingled, commingled or transferred. There’s no borrowing or loaning. They’re wholly restricted. • Departments under that classification that own land are: Stormwater, Transportation, Parks & Rec, Public Utilities, the School Board, which is a separate entity, and possibly libraries. • All capital facilities are in the position of owning land and buildings. Some own extra land, but it’s for future plans. It’s not extra land. • Every year, the county must go through a process to look at all holdings to determine what’s out there and what could be used for affordable housing or offered to someone that needs land. • A lot of groups are looking for land besides affordable housing. The fire districts, the Sheriff’s Office, EMS, are all looking due to growth impacts. • There’s a possibility the BCC could say $20 million in surtax money could be used to buy new things that we find either through partnership or are identified as opportunity buys. • Anything currently owned by the county, whether it’s through a restricted-use fund, such as the old hotel in Port of the Islands (a different issue), we’re going to dedicate General Fund money to if we’re required to backfill in to make the originator/owner whole, if it’s legally required. June 20, 2023 5 • If it’s just a policy, then that’s a policy the BCC can deal with itself. • There are two paths: One is what we’ve traditionally done and another is subject to a conversation and we can consider changing that. • Does a division have to be made whole dollar-for-dollar? The property owner paid something for the land and to maintain it over the years, so it may not go for the purchase price or what it’s worth now, with interest from financing. The investment must be recouped. But they can’t make money. • If it’s enterprise funds, they need to recoup the investment or the backfill. • The waiver piece is where we close the loop. • Can different entities form a partnership, such as affordable housing and Parks? If there are 100 acres in the Manatee property and 20 would go to housing, with the other 80 for Parks & Rec, only the portion utilized is the portion that would be backfilled back to Parks. It’s similar to how Golden Gate Golf Courses was intended to be divvied up based on its use. The originating purchase of the golf course is not the end result of how that property will be utilized. • The prorated share of the Golden Gate Golf Course that’s dedicated to affordable housing is the portion that will be paid by the surtax, based on acreage. • That was a BCC policy decision made when they were considering the golf course purchase. That doesn’t mean the BCC can’t take a different position, but that’s the BCC’s long-standing position. • If 20 acres of Parks & Rec land were needed to build affordable housing, that’s outside the intended use of the property. It was intended for growth, to build a park, so it creates the same burden. • If there was a lease payment over time, that could be considered, but you need to look at the loan duration, the useful life and recouping the money. The county could discuss that with the County Attorney’s Office. • The county has reviewed various ways to structure fee deals, the length of time, the benefit and ensuring it’s not running afoul of other requirements. There are opportunities for payments over time. • How can the county support the construction and operation of affordable housing? What can be done versus what do we have to legally adhere to? • If we say county land is off the table completely, we’re never going to get anywhere. Can county staff look at this with the AHAC to figure out what can be done differently? • There’s no way around those paid for with a restricted-use funding source. • The best way for the AHAC to evaluate this is to look at which properties were purchased with impact fees, user fees, etc., all of which are more complicated. Those purchased with General Fund money are easier to deal with. Mr. Giblin told the AHAC: • Over the years, we’ve periodically gone through the list of all county-owned land and the AHAC once had a subcommittee that reviewed that list. • The county isn’t in the business of owning extra land. When we ask departments for their surplus land lists, they say we’re not in the business of owning and carrying land that we don’t have a future use for. • The ones on the list that haven’t been developed have reasons for that, such as being full of wetlands, no transportation, utilities and other issues. June 20, 2023 6 • Out of a list of 100, we found two, the 60-acre Manatee Park owned by Parks & Rec and the Bembridge property. • Parks & Rec doesn’t have any immediate use for a park there yet and the BCC declared the Bembridge property on Santa Barbara as surplus. We put it out for bid and we’ve got 82 low-income rental apartments about to be CO’d there this month. That’s a success story on how to use and repurpose county-owned land. • The BCC heard a presentation on reserving 30 acres of that land for the park and 30 acres for housing. The BCC made the decision not to move forward on that land five years ago. The BCC’s feelings may have changed since then. • The state requires us to look at the list of properties once a year and staff can share that list with the AHAC. Chairman Hruby told the AHAC: • He and Mary spoke to Parks & Rec about five years ago about the Manatee property. The implication was that it may not fit the vision they originally bought the land for. • They said then they’d need about 20 acres less for the park than planned. • To develop that land, there are other issues involving transportation, the streets and schools that need to be vetted. That’s why it was put aside for now. • There were other tangential issues that couldn’t be solved by transferring the land. Ms. Patterson told the AHAC: • The character of that community has substantially changed in the last five years, so whether that’s a positive remains to be seen. • The Manatee park is driven by levels of service. The loss of that many acres would hurt more in the future. • The county would have to look at levels of service needed in that area. It’s not that it can’t be done. It can happen. • Bembridge is a great example because it was owned by EMS, which was made whole to make that all work. • The county owns three pieces of property. One is on Port of the Islands. The majority of the cost was purchased from divisions and departments using General Funds. • There’s also the Hussy property and Camp Keys. There are long-term goals for those, but that remains to be seen in the future. They have been suggested for affordable housing. • The Hussey property, which is behind the landfill, is part of a transportation study now, with the Wilson-Bennefield alignment. Once that alignment is determined, then it will be clearer how that property may be developed. • Camp Keys eventually would be a great place to have housing. Putting more housing out east now would cause transportation woes out west, where everybody works. • Both are excellent choices for future housing development and the funding source was the General Fund, so that would be easier to do. Mr. Giblin noted that the BCC was forward thinking in its approval and all these towns and villages in the Rural Lands Area contain a provision that they provide land and make it available for purchase by the county or another nonprofit for future affordable and workforce housing at a rate established about three years ago. They’re years out in the future, but they are reserved and will be available for workforce housing once people move to those areas. June 20, 2023 7 Ms. Patterson told the AHAC: • There are 17 acres off Bayshore, with about nine developable acres. • There are strong feelings in the community about how that would be developed. • There’s potential for housing. It would be an amazing fit for housing, potentially mixed-use, but not many units. Any number helps. • The location and transportation are amazing. • The question is: What is the will of the community? • There have been various proposals about how housing could fit onto that property. • What could be done to help the community feel better about it? Is it mixed-use, low- density? • That was purchased with CRA funds and housing is under the CRA’s purview. • There’s also the Williams property, which the county doesn’t own. It’s on our radar and we’re talking about surtax funds. • There’s a large tract of land in Immokalee off Lake Trafford Road that has a fair amount of developable property now and it is zoned. There’s a potential partnership there among multiple groups to make that acquisition possible. Chairman Hruby thanked her for her time, noting that it cleared up many issues and gives the AHAC direction to pursue. Ms. Patterson said she’d be happy to go through the county’s land holdings with the AHAC. Some smaller holdings may be good for a public-private partnership. If we don’t do something, we’re going to continue to do very little. A discussion ensued about rural lands properties and the following points were made: • Developers must make land available for housing. • They were given a four-year period to identify lands and make them available. • The Town of Big Cypress may be going to the BCC in the fall for approval; they have identified the land on their master plan. • Once they’re identified, the county would have the option to purchase the land or a non-profit housing developer could. • They have a development schedule of their own and are moving quickly. Action Item: Staff was asked to provide the AHAC with a list of properties and to label which lands were purchased with General Fund money versus impact fees and user fees. b. AHAC revised Work Plan overview (S. Harrington) [Ms. Harrington handed out copies of the revised Work Plan] Ms. Harrington told committee members that their feedback is important. Ms. Faron told the AHAC: • She appreciated staff updating the Work Plan. • AHAC members can attend Neighborhood Information Meetings and other meetings to support projects under consideration. • They should wear a tag identifying themselves as AHAC members. • Mr. French introduced her to the CityView system, which tracks progress for every June 20, 2023 8 project and when meetings will occur. • The AHAC can divvy up meetings so someone can be there to listen/support a project. • AHAC members must stay away from each other to adhere to Sunshine laws. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • If a member feels strongly about something being said, he/she can speak up. • It would be good for AHAC members to identify themselves and have one-to-one engagement with others at the meetings. • Incentives and options for developers of affordable housing can be put in one place on the Growth Management website, www.colliercountyhousing.com • The website is a one-stop shop for the public seeking assistance in renting or buying or for developers looking for available grant monies or a list of surplus land. • It’s difficult to track “next steps.” We need to understand what local employers want. • Employers have reached out to the county about affordable-housing issues and retaining employees and want to know how they can help. We can share AHAC information with them, allow them to be present at the next meeting, make a presentation and give them an opportunity to speak publicly. Staff can provide them with a report if they’re unable to attend. • November is the timeframe to have the BCC approve the county report. AHAC needs to start the process in September. • Growth Management Plan amendments are transmitted to the state for concurrence and review and are returned to the county for an adoption hearing. • LDC codes are in the drafting stage and are scheduled to go to the CCPC and BCC later this year. It’s a three-step process. Mr. Bosi reported that: • The county hasn’t received an objection from the state. • But the state is objecting to increasing residential density for affordable housing within the Coastal High-Hazard Area. • We’re developing a strategy to appease that objection and continuing to move forward with GMP Amendments. • We may have to limit the Affordable Housing Density Bonus to the level we currently allow. • He explained to Scott Rogers, the state agent, that we’ve made an evaluation in the past within our Growth Management Plan, our density rating system. • The only way you can increase density in the Coastal High-Hazard Area is through the Affordable-Housing Density Bonus. The state still has an objection. • We cannot go beyond the current 16 units. The 25 units an acre we’re proposing is not supported by the state, so we’re modifying that and bringing those to the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners. They’ll be accompanying the LDC Amendments that will implement the individual plans. • The state has raised objections, saying we cannot adopt these as proposed but if we want to provide mitigation strategies, you could move forward. That means we would go through the Planning Commission and then the BCC in November or December. • We’ll have to wait 30 days to see whether the state wants to formally object to our proposed amendments. We won’t know until after the Board of County Commissioners adopts and then a courtesy copy is sent to the state for evaluation. We’ll have June 20, 2023 9 conversations with the state to make sure they’re on board with how we’re approaching it to cure their objection. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • The Coastal High-Hazard area is generally the areas west and south of U.S. 41. • That area includes the manatee property, which continues to come up for discussion for utilizing surtax dollars. That probably would not be a good fit because it’s in a Coastal High-Hazard area where we could not promote density, especially for affordable housing. • The Live Local Act applies anywhere with commercial or industrial zoning, so someone in the Coastal High-Hazard Area could identify a piece of land and get the maximum density through that process. • The DEO (state Department of Economic Opportunity), which is becoming the DOC (Department of Commerce), is objecting, saying we can’t put additional density within areas prone to storm surge and hurricanes. • A legislator says the state affordable-housing crisis is so great that anywhere you allow industrial mixed-use or commercial development is an appropriate place for affordable housing without requiring a public hearing. • Those are two different bodies, perspectives and outcomes. Mr. Bosi explained transfer of development rights (TDR): • What was adopted was a proposal to allow for 12.2 units per acre. • The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District is the TDR program for the county where we’ve identified environmentally sensitive areas where you send development away from them. • You create TDR as you lift those volume units. You can apply those units to an area that’s deemed less environmentally sensitive, the receiving areas. • They are allowed at one unit per acre utilizing TDR. • If you’re going to develop a village within the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, you get up to three units an acre and you must provide for support of commercial-industrial type uses. • We have gotten to the point toward where low density is one unit per acre and TDR is three units an acre. • We value the need for affordable housing to a point that we’re allowing 12.2 units an acre if you’re going to provide affordable housing. • We’ve had several pre-application meetings and applications submitted within the South Receiving Area, which is about three miles to the east of 951, the US 41 intersection. Several developers and Habitat for Humanity have holdings there. • The problem we’re anticipating with that area, where we also would provide a mix of market-rate housing, is that the capacity of the road system is fast evaporating and the county doesn’t control that road system. It’s a state road. • If we run up against the capacity of concurrency, we may have issues. • Their proposals have been adopted and the next step for us is to take those adopted GMP Amendments and start to craft LDC implementation language. • Even before that in-house project is Greenway Fritchey, a mix of market rate and affordable housing with Habitat as the affordable-housing provider. • They won’t need to have the LDC amendments completely crafted to gain approval, as June 20, 2023 10 long as they’re in line with concepts provided for within the GMP Amendment, which is up to 12.2 units per acre. Mr. Giblin said the county has several strategies to deal with impact fees, rental deferral, owner-occupied deferral, a deferral program for Immokalee only. Developers also have approached the county to say they’re not workable in the current interest-rate and cost of goods environment. They need something better. They’re working with the County Manager’s Office and GMD to see if state law allows us to do something better. Vice Chair Faron asked about the Rural Neighborhoods impact-fee issue. Mr. Giblin said it’s still being discussed. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • We need to pinpoint specific strategies. • A developer in the rural neighborhoods has a cost of construction that he needs to meet, which is made up of cost of land, cost of goods, cost of impact fees and he’s $1 million short of his total. If the county can remove impact fees, he can break even. • It’s not that easy on the county side because impact fees are controlled by state statute. We can’t make them go away, but we can plug the hole with other funding. The developer can apply to Kristi’s group and get other funding to bring an additional $1 million to the property/project to get to where it used to be. Those are the avenues we’re exploring. • We can see what changes have been made to the state statute on impact fees and how they can be adjusted locally. He’s approached Kristi and may have received a loan commitment or a grant to help start filling some of those holes. • Impact fees are the target and they stand out on the developer’s pro forma, but as long as he gets his money from someone he doesn’t care where it comes from. • The AHAC needs to understand the nuances of state impact-fee requirements and where there’s flexibility. Maybe staff can show the AHAC the regulations we can’t go around and where there’s an opportunity to change policy. • The county’s current program on the rental side is a 10-year impact-fee deferral that can be approved administratively. • The county’s current ordinance says that if a developer wants to propose something longer than 10 years, they can go to the Board of County Commissioners and ask for a 20- to 40-year deferral, but the County Attorney cautions the board that once you start pushing that out further and further, it no longer looks like a deferral. In the eyes of the law, it becomes a waiver. The policy decision must be made by the BCC to see how far out they want to go to maintain the impact fee system. Once you start cracking the legality of the system, it starts to fall apart. • In this current economic environment, with high interest rates and a higher cost of goods, the 10-year deferral doesn’t help developers and only made sense in a low- interest environment. Most developers buy a treasury security that will mature to the total in 10 years and when you’re borrowing money to do that, it doesn’t make sense. • The county also has had situations where it’s not the developer who takes the impact fee deferral, it’s a homeowner. In the 2000s, homeowners took a 10- or 15-year impact- fee deferral and now the county is faced with a situation where the deferral timeline is up and we have to knock on a poor person’s door to ask for it. June 20, 2023 11 [Commissioner Hall joined the meeting at 10:03 am.] • If we can’t waive impact fees, that should be off the table. • The AHAC needs guidance on waiving parking requirements under the Live Local Act. • The AHAC also must review and approve the Local Housing Assistance Plan every three years. That involves how we’re going to be using our SHIP money. That comes up in June 2024 and it goes to the BCC and City of Naples. The county will be approaching the AHAC for that in early 2024, after the holidays. • Philadelphia changed its parking requirements and left that up to developers. The results have been beneficial for affordable housing. Old restrictions were not valid for today’s lifestyle and this could be a way to make it more cost efficient. The more parking that’s required, the more costly affordable housing will be. • The county offers administrative parking reductions, a waiver available to developers who want to present alternative proposals. Those are approved or denied by staff. That’s how we currently satisfy the state requirement. • The county offers an alternative parking calculation for affordable housing, but we’ll have to review those again under the Live Local Act. There hasn’t been a parking deal that killed a project. • Austin is satisfying its parking problem by building vertically, with eight stories of living space above seven stories of parking. The county is willing to consider alternatives, especially if a development is near public transit. [Mr. Hains left the meeting at 10:10 a.m.] • With the golf course property, there are shared parking agreements in place. Parking can be shared in mixed-use developments that use parking at different times of the day. • At Heritage Bay, on 951 and Immokalee Road, there’s shared parking. That can be done administratively. The county is open to discussions. Action Item: The AHAC needs to pinpoint strategies involving impact fees and where there is flexibility. Staff was asked to present regulations they can go around and where policy can be changed. Action Item: The AHAC needs guidance on waiving parking requirements under the Live Local Act. Action Item: The AHAC needs to monitor completed affordable housing projects, compliance, publish the compliance reports and provide transparency. c. Progress report on the merger of Housing Education Lending Programs (HELP) and the Collier County Community Land Trust (CCCLT) (S. Hruby) Chairman Hruby reported that: • They’re merging those two entities together and adding another component. HELP will deal with the soft side, the housing users, and the CCCLT is dealing with regional planning and development. June 20, 2023 12 • The new element will be advocacy, education and philanthropy. • This will be a triaging hub for affordable housing. • We’re partnering with the Community Foundation, which is providing funding for pre-development and gap financing for development. • He and Michael Puchalla will present the concept to the Community Foundation’s board of directors this afternoon. There also will be a 2 p.m. housing forum there. • The core board will be introduced today. January 1 is the rollout date. • Bringing in private investment sometimes makes it easier for developers. • The two non-profit entities would be maintained under their nonprofit status for regulatory and funding reasons. 7. STAFF AND COMMITTEE GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS a. Update on any request for funding from the Penny Tax (S. Harrington and C. Giblin) Mr. Giblin reported that: • The BCC passed the policy decision in March on how to use or make surtax funding available for land acquisition. • Since then many developers across the state and county have been asking to access funds and what the process is. • The Live Local Act takes it to a different level and staff have been meeting with developers. • We’ve received one official application that’s being reviewed and vetted by various divisions. • The policy is in place and is working. Chairman Hruby asked about the AHAC’s recommended scoring and evaluation system. Ms. Harrington said the AHAC’s recommended application and evaluation scoring system will be reviewed for approval by the Tax Committee on June 29. Mr. French said staff also has met with members of the Tax Committee, which had some concerns and wanted to ensure it’s not a wash, but what voters intended. b. Update on the Live Local Act as it applies to Collier County (M. Bosi) Mr. Bosi reported that: • The Site Development Plan review process is well established. • To take advantage of the Live Local Act, we’re asking applicants two questions that the state takes out of the county’s hands: What’s the highest density allowed throughout the county and what’s the highest structure within a one-mile radius of the project location? • The statute says you’re entitled to the approved height within one mile. (The approved height, whether it was built that high or not.) • We envision something similar to a Zoning Verification Letter that would specify the parcel, zoning designation (commercial, industrial or mixed-use to qualify) and the highest approved structure within one mile. Research and a description would have to be provided. • A third question is: If you’re within one mile of a public transit stop, you’re entitled to a potential parking reduction. June 20, 2023 13 • We would handle that the same way we handle a parking-reduction request. They must provide documentation on what characteristics support an overall parking reduction. • One of the GMPs we transmitted to the state was the transit-oriented development, which allows a developer to get up to 25 units an acre if the proposed development is on a transit line and you’re within one-quarter mile of a bus stop, or the developer creates a new bus stop. • We envision that when we bring the LDC forward, there’s an understanding that it will help pre-determine parking relief because we want to promote transit, which is the focus of that type of development. • We’re going to treat parking requests like we’d treat any APR (Administrative Parking Reduction). They would have to provide documentation on the characteristics that support reduced traffic. • We will clarify this within the zoning verification letter that the 30-year commitment for 40% of units for at least 120% of AMI or below must be attached to the letter. That commitment will be associated with development approval. • The SDP is reviewed considering the closest similar district. • The highest level of density we have for residential multifamily is RMF-16, 16 units per acre. Those are the standards we will require a project to be evaluated at. They’re entitled to the height and density. • The height comes with a caveat. The RMF-16 zoning district says you have to be set back from your yard at half the height. If you had a 110-foot building within one mile, but you had a parcel of land that was only 100 feet deep, you’re never going to be able to get the full height you’d be entitled to because you have to satisfy the development standards of the RMF-16 zoning district. • That will prevent a shallow piece of property from hosting a structure taller than the width of the individual part. • Parking, landscaping, stormwater and all the other components that would have to be required within an SDP will have to be maintained at that RMF-16 level. • Once the letter is issued, they can submit a Site Development Plan, which would be reviewed as part of an administrative process. • The maximum is 91.77 units per acre. Whether you can realize that is up to the SDP. • If the project is straight residential, we would use the RMF-16. If it’s mixed-use, we would impose requirements under the Land Development Code’s C-1 to C-3 districts. • The memo shows the basic front-yard setback, the front side and rear yard separation minimum. • There are still limitations on what could happen within a parcel, such as some parcels fronting Davis Boulevard. If it’s not a shallow parcel, it’s going to be tough to maximize the full height that you’d be allowed for the height of the Mini Triangle, 160.2 feet, but you must satisfy RMF-16 development standards, so that might not work. • It will promote creativity. Chairman Hruby said there’s a Housing Coalition webinar on density and height and he wasn’t able to attend it. He urged other committee members to watch it when it’s posted online. He can provide the PowerPoint presentation. They’re offering up to $200 for June 20, 2023 14 technical assistance on a first-come, first-serve basis on how to identify commercial properties. Has staff started to look at modifying the mapping system to identify where potential properties are that would be affected by the Live Local Act? Action Item: Mr. Bosi will ask the GMS mapping team to identify eligible Live Local Act properties – commercial, mixed-use and industrial – and bring that map to the AHAC. Those properties would be eligible if they meet the basic criteria. d. Progress on the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Policy (M. Bosi) Mr. Bosi reported that: • The BCC didn’t tell us to develop a policy but asked us to go out and work within Urban Estates lots and bring back community reaction about the potential for unlimited renting of guesthouses. • We have a consultant and are evaluating different online surveys to collect feedback. • We’re trying to identify one that will allow for one-property, one-vote so we can prevent people from gaming the system. • We’re designing a postcard to send to all Urban Estates lots to tell them when the public information meeting will be, what we’re trying to accomplish, that we’re seeking feedback and whether they’d support renting a guesthouse. • The other question will be: If the opportunity is only for an income-restricted tenant, would they be supportive? • The community is going to tell us how they feel about the proposals. • If there’s an opportunity to rent guest houses out unrestricted, there’s a potential to positively affect supply and demand, whether income-restricted or market rate. The more available units will have a price effect on overall supply and demand. • We’re working on questions to quantify and clearly articulate to the BCC what the community’s feelings are. • We anticipate the board will make a decision on whether they want to move forward with a program. • The first public information meeting is planned for the first or second week of September due to many homeowners being away now and schools opening. • We expect a follow-up meeting in October. We’ll collect the data, analyze and categorize it and create an Executive Summary to discuss with administration whether they want to take it to the Planning Commission for an overview. • We’d take it to the BCC during the first quarter of 2024. Commissioner Hall said the AHAC would like to see affordable-housing opportunities. If you ask me as a homeowner, “Would you support unrestricted rents?” my first thought would be Vrbos and I’d say no. Mr. Bosi said he doesn’t disagree. The state endorsed restricting ADUs/guest houses to affordable housing, but it also says we can’t step on the Vrbos’ toes and can’t impose time limits for a 10-year lease. That probably will affect the responses we get. d. Progress on the audit and monitoring protocols for existing affordable-housing committed in various developments (S. Harrington and C. Giblin) Ms. Harrington told the AHAC: • We’re making progress and completing the updates. June 20, 2023 15 • This will be ready for AHAC’s review in July. • This spreadsheet has valuable information for affordable housing, including the percentage of AMIs, total number of units, affordable units and applicable notes. • Many organizations have asked for this information, as well as the AHAC, and asked that it be made publicly available and posted on our website. • We added four more columns to the spreadsheet to include the last date it was monitored, the next due date for monitoring and any deficiencies and anything noticed involving the deficiencies. Mr. Giblin told the AHAC: • He provided the BCC with an update last month and said these developments are monitored as a two-tier system. • The first tier is at GMD, the Commitment Tracking System, where each development commitment is tracked, including setting aside a preserve, adding a landscape buffer, or providing X number of affordable housing units at X income for X years. • Those are part of our annual PUD monitoring program that was run by Laurie Beard and GMD. She gets a yearly report from the developer on their progress on meeting commitments and sends the report to appropriate staff, such as stormwater, environmental or housing, to ask them to confirm what the developer reported. • The second tier is Kristi Sonntag, who has an affordable housing monitoring and grants section. Every year, they conduct onsite visits to confirm that. It’s more in- depth monitoring than what Growth Management does because they have expertise in income qualifications, tax returns, etc. • They report that to Growth Management’s PUD monitoring section. • We realize we must do a better job of communicating and putting this out for everyone to see so there’s no question about what the BCC approved and whether affordable housing units are being rented to low-income clients. • We need to make the process much more transparent. Sarah is working on that and will post it on www.colliercountyhousing.com Chairman Hruby asked Ms. Sonntag about details of how the monitoring is done, what the usual issues are and whether they monitor through random samples. Ms. Sonntag told the AHAC: • She can ask the compliance director to present that process to the AHAC. • Our team is currently monitoring several developments onsite. • We conduct a sample, not all units, but if we find issues, we dig deeper and stay longer. • The number depends on the size of the development. • We issue a report 60 days after monitoring completion. If a developer has issues that must be corrected, we tell them they must do that and then issue a final report. • The final report includes deficiencies we found. • Sarah can include the tool we use and what we look at in the AHAC agenda packet. • We look at their housing, income, policies and a variety of things the BCC asked them to do, including any commitments. June 20, 2023 16 Action Item: The Community & Human Services Division’s compliance director will be asked to present a report to the AHAC detailing how affordable-housing compliance is monitored. Action Item: Ms. Harrington will add the tool used by the Community & Human Services Division for monitoring and compliance to the AHAC agenda packet. 8. NEW BUSINESS a. DSAC/AHAC Ordinance A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • The draft ordinance in the AHAC’s agenda packet says the only change to the DSAC ordinance is that a non-voting member of the AHAC will be added. • The draft ordinance will go before the DSAC and the AHAC. • It’s been supported by both committees. • It must be advertised and go before the BCC twice for approval; it will be presented this summer. b. Recurring AHAC Date and Time – 3rd Tuesday of each month at 9 a.m. Mr. French said the County Manager approved the 9 a.m. time on the third Tuesday of each month. [The AHAC agreed the time works.] Mr. Giblin reported upcoming issues for the AHAC: • The state released its request for applications for state Housing Tax Credits. • The Housing Corporation has made final changes to the application. • The Local Government Area of Opportunity allows each county government or city to choose one development to support with an extra financial incentive. It provides bonus points for application status when the state reviews them for tax credits. • It requires a $460,000 financial commitment from Collier County. • At the time of commitment, that funding source doesn’t need to be specifically identified in the loan/grant or other form. • It’s a certification form signed by the County Manager detailing the development we’re recommending. • The county can support more than one, but you can only provide the Local Government Area extra points to one. • This process started a few years ago with larger counties and has now moved to medium-sized counties. • We were forward-thinking and the BCC approved a resolution authorizing the County Manager to make decisions to commit funds on behalf of the board to get the application to the state quickly due to very tight timelines. • The state releases the request for applications and there are less than 90 days to turn around the certifications, put together deal package and select a candidate. • We’re proposing a more public process, to release a Notice of Available Funding in July. • We’ll bring that to the AHAC in July for review and you can rank the proposals at your August meeting. That recommendation will go to the County Manager and become the county’s Local Government Area of Opportunity project. June 20, 2023 17 Ms. Sonntag told the AHAC: • The commitment amount that’s obligated is about $460,000. • It’s her responsibility to sequester those funds out of the allocation received through the SHIP program, Community Development Block Grant or Home Program. • The county has spending deadlines. If we don’t spend our funds, the federal government will take them back or issue a finding to the county for failure to spend. • When you look at the deals, you must ensure these deals will happen. It’s a lot of money to carry in committed funds that can’t be used elsewhere. • There is still money in the Housing Trust Fund if it continues to be funded through the General Fund cycle. Chairman Hruby said if timing is important, then the Housing Trust Fund would be more appropriate. Mr. French told the DSAC about a Code Enforcement case before the special magistrate: • The Golden Gate Hotel on the golf course issued eviction notices. • The property owner performed a lot of illegal construction and one of the workers who may not have been paid turned him in and it became a fire issue. • In December, he negotiated with the Fire Marshal for Greater Naples to continue occupancy as long as they’re on fire watch and are moving forward with permits. The fire marshal was reluctant due to the life-safety code. • Nothing happened, so it’s now a Code Enforcement case. • We were approached by the hotel owner, who was asking for a large amount of money, well beyond the appraised value and what we believe the value is, so they took it to market. • We think it would have been an opportunity for the BCC to consider, but they were seeking too much money. They were basing their valuation on illegally captured income. • We had a meeting last week with a development group that has some creative ideas. We’ll bring them before the AHAC to see if we can make it work. • They’re not looking at demolishing the building because that won’t work. The developer has done this around the country. They’d renovate the hotel and make it into affordable-housing units, like efficiencies. • The market price is very good, right at or all under 100% of AMI. • Unfortunately, there are zoning restrictions they’re going to struggle with because the entire site was paved, affecting discharge and environmental resources. There was no consideration, so county staff is trying to be creative because we’ve got to bring back that golf course PUD for the veterans nursing home. • That hotel site was never intended to be included, so we’re meeting with them later this week to make a determination because they’ve got the property locked up. • Before they have to put down a large amount of money within the next 120 days, they want to ensure we can make something happen. There’s a very thin margin as to whether we could be successful. That site is a very restricted small site with shared parking. They don’t want to go higher than what’s already there. • They want to revitalize the four-story hotel. The developer has done this nationwide. June 20, 2023 18 A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • It’s 185 units and they’ll add an amenity center, clubhouse and swimming pool. • The renderings are unique. • Most residents have left or are starting to move. • This was an unlawfully converted hotel, so there were no permits involved and the county had no visibility. • Chapter 162 says we don’t have a right to go into a place unless we know it’s a life- safety code issue and then we’d seek a warrant. • The remodeling was going on slowly in rooms, installing kitchens, making upgrades, all without licensed contractors or permits. It’s been going on for some time. • We’ve done everything we can to negotiate. The family doesn’t want to own this hotel. It’s the same family who sold us the golf course. Mr. French also reported on affordable housing in Port of the Islands: • Residents reached out to express concern to Commissioner LoCastro and others to say they don’t want affordable housing there. • It may be in a High Hazard Coastal Area, there are impact-fee credits there and utilities in place. • It’s a 120-minute drive from the intersection of Collier Boulevard and 951, although it’s only about 15 miles. • The commute is a consideration, and the benefit is there won’t be any significant local impact fees because the main access is U.S. 41. • Utilities would be served by the CID. • The Live Local Act could work there, but they’re limited in height because the tallest buildings are only three stories, and it’s a restricted site, 7-8 acres. • They would want a rezone. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • It would be a great site for hospitality workers on Marco Island, Everglades City, East Naples and the City of Naples. • It’s a good location and very nice neighborhood, compared to what it once was. • The county is in conversations with Tarpon Blue, which bought Collier Enterprises’ interests in the Rural Village. • They had a question about the acreage of land set aside for a pre-negotiated rate. People are interested in buying it and keeping the county out. • We have concerns and think there’s an opportunity, so we’re talking with those developers. • The developer is pushing hard to sell the property. It would cost about $2 million. • It’s designated as affordable and is just under 100 acres. • It’s three years out from infrastructure and more for construction. • It would qualify for surtax money, so we’d have to bring this before the BCC. • We’ve got 30 years to close on it. • We’re looking at that Growth Management Plan Amendment. • We recognize that NGOs can take the opportunity to divide this property, but our intent is to get it for the county and ensure it stays in perpetuity as affordable housing for at least 99 years. 10. June 20,2023 . Some Habitat for Humanity models are 30 years and then revert to market rate. We don't know if that would be a good move. o We think it should be a blend of both rental and home ownership. o It's about 88.5 acres and they're entitled at 10 units an acre. o When they're ready to develop, we should have a plan in place. o It would eventually be a BCC decision. Ms. Harrington reported that they have now updated contact information for the new AHAC members. Mr. Giblin provided a status report on affordable housing on the golf course property: o We received an updated timeline from the developer. o We briefed the County Manager's Office on his timeline. o He was supposed to apply for building permits yesterday. o The Site Development Plan needed some corrections; the developer will come in this week to do that. o He has to secure financing and plans to break ground in December. o He's working with the state on the environmental questions. 9, ADJOURN Ms. lValler made d molion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Felke. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. NEXTMEETING DATE 9 a.m. July 18,2023 Conference Room 609/610 Growth Management Community Development Department There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order ofthe chairman at 11:08 a.m. CO AFF0 Y COⅣIMITTEE fitere approved , (check one) as committee/chairman on { , or as amendedpresented 19