BOARD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2007

1:30 PM - 4:00 PM COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBERS

1. MAYOR’S COMMITTEE PRESENTER: Wayne Daltry, Smart Growth TIME REQUIRED: 10 Minutes

2. HORIZON COUNCIL’S “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPING WORKFORCE HOUSING IN LEE COUNTY” PRESENTER: Regina Smith and Glen Salyer Economic Development TIME REQUIRED: 15 Minutes

3. MARINE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENTER: Justin McBride, Natural Resources TIME REQUIRED: 15 Minutes

4. MOBILE IRRIGATION LAB (MIL) TAKEOVER BY LCU PRESENTER: Douglas Meurer, Utilities TIME REQUIRED: 15 Minutes

BOARD COMMENTS/DISCUSSION

ADJOURN

THIS AGENDA AND BACKUP MAY BE OBTAINED FROM www.lee-county.com OR FROM THE PUBLIC RESOURCES OFFICE (239) 332-2737

The Management & Planning Meeting is carried live on the following cable channels: Comcast Cable Channel 11 Time Warner Cable Channel 16

ITEM #1

DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR SIGNATURE

PRESENTED BY:

COUNTY MANAGER MEETING TIME S W N A T U ~ DATE REQUIRED

MANAGEMENT & PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA REQUEST FORM COMMISSION DISTRICT #

Wayne DaltryISG REQUESTED BY: Commissioner Hall Namemepartment

TITLE OF ITEM FOR AGENDA: Mayors’ Committee

1. DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVE OF THE ISSUE

The Mayors’ Committee was an ad hoc arrangement of Commissioner Hall, as Chairman, 2006, with the concurrence of the 5 cities Mayors, that focused on coordination of efforts in regard to the harmful discharges from Lake Okeechobee on our coastal resources. It met usually at SWFRPC after the MPO meeting, and received administrative assistance from the SWFRPC. County participants believe the Committee still has value for the issue, but Commissioner Hall, as designee, would like a review of the mission of the Committee.

2. PROPOSED POLICY, PROCEDURE OR PLAN OF ACTION Provide a focused set of duties and outcomes of the Committee, with the agreement of the Cities.. The attached sheet outlines some suggestions developed by staff and staff of the SWFRPC.

3. OPTIONS (List Advantages/Disadvantages of Each Option Listed) a. Pursue the proposed action plan, and garner individual municipal endorsement. b. Deactivate the Mayors’ Committee. c. Revise the proposed action plan by the discussion of the Board, and subsequent advice of municipalities.

4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS/FUNDING SOURCE

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION A. Pursue the proposed action plan, with c. revisions as determined by Board direction, and by advice of cities. Justification lies in the opportunity to coordinate on a variety of ad hoc issues, according to a prearranged schedule and administrative structure. In the absence of issues, the Committee may go into hiatus until needed..

6. MANDATED? N x BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

S :\DATAMANAGEMENT & PLANNING REQUESTSWayor’s Committee 1-25-07.doc

Mayors Committee suggested tasks and outcomes.

1. There should be an annual meeting between the Board and all the Cities, sitting collegially. (This would be under the umbrella of MPOIRPC staffing) The annual meeting would be to coordinate and inform on each others’ priorities for the year, and to determine an annual goal or target priority for all. Transportation is already addressed through the MPO forum, so some other topic would be best. For this year, the looming Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is the likely priority, since it overlaps with our river and estuary issues.

2. The annual meeting is currently envisioned to be for after the Legislative session’s conclusion.

3. The Mayors’ Meeting, then would be periodic meetings (suggested time interval being every two months) coordinated with the MPO calendar, if appropriate, to be the “off month.” The meetings would be to measure progress on the year goal (s) of the annual collegial meeting, and to address topical items. (again, MPO staffing supplemented as appropriate by County and City staff work).

4. There would be paralleling discussions at the periodic meeting of the City/County Manager, and City/County Attorney meetings.

5. Specific Media notice and public information systems would need to be developed for this Committee through the MPO/RPC, with participation by County and municipal public information officials (PIO).

6. There would need to be a strong effort to inform interest groups and pursue their participation in the Goal for the year, since public private partnerships will often be the key. (Such as for TMDLs). In the past, and perceived for this first year, the South Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection would be invited to be full participants.

7. The Legislation introduced to the Board for the Lake Okeechobee at its meeting of January 30th could be a preliminary item to pursue support for from the municipalities, as an interim briefing and action item before the annual meeting.

S:\DATA\MANAGEMENT & PLANNING REQUESTS\Mayor’s Committee 1-25-07.doc

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPING WORKFORCE HOUSING IN LEE COUNTY

Horizon Council

December 8, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 1. What is workforce housing? 2. Escalating home prices 3. Growing disparity between household incomes and home prices 4. Supply versus demand RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS 1. Explore opportunities to increase building densities

a. Promulgate regulations that allow a variety of methods to increase density in ways that are well suited to particular neighborhoods b. Convene a workshop to build consensus for creative approaches to higher density design c. Undertake a “best practices” pilot project

2. Investigate ways to improve the development process for workforce housing projects a. Review policies and procedures b. Create a workforce housing ombudsman 3. Create broad support for workforce housing measures by educating the community a. Organize a yearly summit b. Construct a “Workforce Housing Toolkit” c. Consider possible Employer Assisted Housing roles CONCLUSION ENDNOTES APPENDICES 1. Horizon Council Workforce Housing Task Force Employer Opinion Surveys 2. Lee County Affordable Housing Construction Need Projected to 2025 3. Affordable Housing Project Pro Forma 4. Manatee County Affordable/Workforce Housing Incentive Handout

1

INTRODUCTION

The dawn of the twenty-first century has spelled dramatic growth for Lee County, both in terms of population and overall prosperity. The number of people calling Lee County home increased 25 percent from 2000 to 2005,1 and employment shot up 29 percent.2 Education levels rose significantly,3 and median household income grew faster than that of Florida and the nation.4 One outgrowth of all this good news, however, is that an increasing number of working families are finding it more difficult to obtain housing they can afford in the area. The strong demographic and economic growth cited above pales in comparison to the explosive growth of Lee County residential real estate prices. Indeed, the median sale price of an existing, single-family home in Lee County climbed 148 percent between 2000 and 2005.5 During that same period, Area Median Income (AMI) rose 18 percent.6 Although housing prices have recently declined from peak levels, the median sales price of an existing home is still more than 130 percent higher than six years ago.7 A lack of workforce housing in our community makes it difficult for local businesses to expand as they struggle to retain current workers, much less fill new positions. This labor crunch also prevents some new businesses from locating here. What is more, long commutes by workers unable to live in close proximity to their places of employment adversely affect employee productivity. In fact, 73 percent of business owners and managers who responded to a Workforce Housing Task Force survey stated that the high cost of housing in Lee County negatively impacts workplace performance.8 The bottom line is that area businesses are less competitive than they should be because of increased labor costs, employee turnover, and lost productivity associated with an affordable housing shortage. In addition, an inadequate supply of workforce housing increases public costs associated with transportation, health care, education and a host of social services. Forced commutes place undue stress on a transportation infrastructure already groaning under the load of increased traffic due to exploding population growth. The high cost of housing as a percentage of working families’ incomes and the associated household instability enhance the need for special school services and drive up expenditures related to mental health care, domestic violence, and child care.9 A 2002 report prepared for the Lee County Affordable Housing Committee concluded that an inadequate supply of housing affordable to households below 80 percent of AMI costs taxpayers over $249 million annually.10 Recognizing that developing strategies for the production of attainable housing is crucial to the region’s continued economic vitality and superb quality of life, the Horizon Council established a Workforce Housing Task Force to study the issue. The Task Force met regularly for eight months to gather and evaluate research, and capped its educational efforts by staging a Workforce Housing Symposium on June 22, 2006. This paper draws on the information presented by state and national experts at the symposium, as well as on Task Force deliberations, to formulate some broad strategies that Lee County policy makers can translate into concrete workforce housing programs. That is, the purpose is not to dictate specific terms of the proposed reforms, but rather to encourage the Board of County Commissioners to direct its professional staff to devise implementation options for the recommendations in this paper. There are at least as many options for addressing the challenge of workforce housing as there are communities that face this issue. It is a multifaceted problem that will require a range of solutions, as opposed to a silver bullet. The good news is that there is still time to heed the advice delivered to symposium attendees by James Carras, President of the Broward County Housing Partnership: Act now, before it is too late.

2

SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 1. What is workforce housing? The economic and social fabric of Southwest Florida depends on a ready supply of moderate income workers who make up the ranks of our emergency responders, health care providers, teachers, retail clerks, administrative personnel, small business owners and other service providers. These “workforce households” are defined by the Urban Land Institute as “households, with at least one full-time worker, whose members earn incomes that are too low for them to afford to pay market prices for homes or apartments in the communities where they work but, by most definitions, too high to enable them to qualify for significant federal housing subsidies.”11 Generally speaking, these households earn less than 140 percent of the AMI, or $78,400 per year for a family of four in Lee County. “Workforce housing” might then be defined as rental or owner-occupied housing stock affordable to those falling within this income range. 12 2. Escalating home prices Figure 1 emphasizes the dramatic acceleration in Lee County residential real estate prices over recent years. According to median home price sales data, Lee County transitioned from being a low-cost housing market to a fairly high-cost market almost overnight. And while median prices have been retreating at the local, state, and national levels as of late, Lee County’s housing prices remain relatively expensive.

Figure 1: Median Sale Price13

Single-Family, Existing Homes

$80,000

$120,000

$160,000

$200,000

$240,000

$280,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Lee CountyFloridaUS

3. Growing disparity between household incomes and home prices University of Florida economist Dr. James Nicholas told symposium participants that the average economically active household in Lee County earns $52,927. Given that federal government guidelines define affordable housing as that which costs no more than 30 percent of a household’s gross monthly income, the typical economically active household should be able to afford a house in the neighborhood of $177,875. According to Dr. Nicholas, this leaves a $111,883 gap between the average price of a Lee County home and the price that an average household can afford.14

3

More alarming is the observation that 71 percent of economically active households in Lee County earn less than the $52,927 average. These 112,796 households earn an average of just $36,368 a year. At this income level, an affordable purchase price is approximately $122,225. 15 Figure 2 demonstrates the disparity between incomes and home prices that have materialized in Lee County over recent years:16

Figure 2: Home Prices vs. Incomes

Lee County’s employment statistics indicate that Lee County’s labor market is dominated by retail and service sector occupations. Figure 3 shows the County’s most prevalent occupations and reveals that many of these jobs have low median wage rates:17

Figure 3: Occupational Wages in Lee County

Occupation Total

Employed Median

Annual Wage Retail Salespersons 10,080 $22,110 Cashiers 6,730 $17,576 Office Clerks 5,100 $21,944 Stock Clerks 3,710 $19,843 Food Preparation and Serving Workers 3,700 $14,477 Landscaping and Groundskeeping 3,680 $19,427 Bookkeeping, Accounting and Auditing Clerks 3,350 $28,579 Registered Nurses 3,290 $53,123 Carpenters 3,240 $30,742 Customer Service Representatives 3,130 $25,813 Construction Laborers 3,060 $22,838

Year Median Price of Existing Housing

Median Price of Housing as % of Median Income Area Median Income

2000 $112,300 237% $47,300

2001 $129,900 265% $49,000

2002 $140,400 269% $52,100

2003 $156,600 303% $51,700

2004 $192,100 355% $54,100

2005 $278,200 514% $54,100

4

4. Supply versus demand The Lee County Department of Community Development has projected the affordable housing construction need (family incomes of 120% of AMI or less) to the year 2025. The department calculates the difference between projected affordable housing demand in 2025, and existing housing supply as of 2002, to be 68,578 dwelling units.18 This would mean building an average of 2,982 affordable housing units each year in order to meet projected demand. Although these statistics paint a gloomy picture, Lee County policy makers can pursue a number of options to remedy the workforce housing deficit. Some of the most viable options include increasing housing density, streamlining regulations and making the development process more transparent, and engaging in education and advocacy efforts.

RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS A combination of economic and regulatory factors is driving outsized increases in home prices. Some of these factors include: land, labor, and material costs; demand for second homes from nonresidents; permitting and impact fees; growth management regulations; and the cost of borrowing money. While local public policy can have only limited impact on second home demand and labor or material costs, it can mitigate the land, fee, and financing cost components. The following recommendations contemplate three broad strategies, each of which includes tactical suggestions that merit further study and consideration. 1. Explore opportunities to increase building densities Increased density is the greatest single strategy for mitigating new home costs. Symposium presenter Russ Weyer of Fishkind & Associates illustrated the potential significance of a modest increase in allowable density for the feasibility of a residential development. Given that a developer must generate a profit, the following figures compare the potential return on investment (ROI) of a hypothetical housing project using a density of 4 dwelling units per acre (Figure 4), and 6 dwelling units per acre (Figure 5) respectively:19

Figure 4: Hypothetical 20 Acre Development at 4 Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre Input Perameters Income StatementNumber of Acres 20 # of Units Revenue $16,400,000Density per Gross Acre 4.00 80 Purchase Price per Acre $110,000 Total Cost of Sales $15,056,000Developer Equity Investment (%) 20.0%Impact Fee per Single Family Home $9,700 Total Operating Costs $1,855,208Impact Fee per Multi Family Home $5,400 Infrastructure Cost per Acre $100,000 Income Before Taxes -$533,208Sales & Marketing Percent of Revenue 1.0%Home Construction Cost per SF $105 Taxes 26,856Average SF Size of Home 1,200Sales Price per Home $205,000 Net Income -$560,064Bank Release Price $62,000 Inflation Factor 3.0% Total Present Value IBT Amount -$532,455Capitalization Rate 15.0% Original Investment $992,000Bank Interest Rate 6.0% Return on Investment (ROI) -153.67%

(Developer needs minimum 20% to attract investors depending on risk)

5

Figure 5: Hypothetical 20 Acre Development at 6 Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre

Input Perameters Income StatementNumber of Acres 20 # of Units Revenue $24,600,000Density per Gross Acre 6.00 120 Purchase Price per Acre $110,000 Total Cost of Sales $20,484,000Developer Equity Investment (%) 20.0%Impact Fee per Single Family Home $9,700 Total Operating Costs $1,937,208Impact Fee per Multi Family Home $5,400 Infrastructure Cost per Acre $100,000 Income Before Taxes $2,156,792Sales & Marketing Percent of Revenue 1.0%Home Construction Cost per SF $105 Taxes 480,078Average SF Size of Home 1,200Sales Price per Home $205,000 Net Income $1,676,714Bank Release Price $41,333 Inflation Factor 3.0% Total Present Value IBT Amount $1,300,465Capitalization Rate 15.0% Original Investment $992,000Bank Interest Rate 6.0% Return on Investment (ROI) +31.10%

(Developer needs minimum 20% to attract investors depending on risk) (See Appendix 3 for more detail regarding these calculations)

Although increased density will impact each potential residential development in a unique way, these calculations show how modest density increases can make workforce housing developments profitable for developers. Placing more dwelling units on a parcel of land diminishes the impact of land prices, perhaps the single most significant cost component of a home today. a. Promulgate regulations that allow a variety of methods to increase density in ways that are well suited to particular neighborhoods The Horizon Council believes those jurisdictions that have most successfully addressed a workforce housing challenge offer bonus densities for projects that include workforce housing units; reduce minimum lot and building sizes; reduce setback requirements in appropriate areas; create workforce housing overlay zones; offer incentives for urban infill construction; increase the permitting of accessory units; use some form of permitting by right; and encourage mixed-use development. b. Convene a workshop to build consensus for creative approaches to higher density design A major political obstacle that often stands in the way of higher density residential development is the NIMBY syndrome, or “Not in my back yard!” Michael Pyatok, noted architect and Director of the Stardust Center for Affordable Housing and Families at Arizona State University, presented a collaborative design process that allows neighborhood residents and future tenants to participate in a hands-on design workshop. The results of the workshop are then incorporated into the project’s overall plan. The end result is that once wary neighbors often welcome the development after having participated in its design, and the approval process is usually shortened as a result of less community opposition.20 The Horizon Council sees a significant opportunity to educate policy makers, citizens, housing and planning professionals, developers and others about the many opportunities cutting edge design can offer communities considering density increases. Staging such a workshop—with Mr. Pyatok or another similarly qualified expert—could help overcome common misunderstandings about density by demonstrating the positive aesthetic and livability qualities of a superbly designed project. In addition, such a workshop would point out the advantages

6

density offers in terms of reducing sprawl, conserving on infrastructure costs, reducing the land cost of each dwelling unit, and presenting opportunities to reduce commuter traffic. c. Undertake a “best practices” pilot project Workforce housing development projects, and even mixed-use developments in general, are often more complicated than traditional construction projects. These complexities often require surmounting atypical regulatory and financing hurdles, as well as overcoming traditional marketplace perceptions that affect consumer and neighborhood acceptance. An innovative higher density, mixed-use development project would demonstrate the feasibility of this concept locally, and could attract more builders eager to undertake such ventures. The County might facilitate construction of a show-case development in any number of ways. County owned lands might be identified for use, or the burgeoning Community Land Trust might be utilized. However such a project moved forward, it should incorporate the following elements at a minimum: i. Use existing transportation and utility infrastructure to the greatest extent possible; ii. Incorporate state-of-the-art, affordable friendly site planning and structural design principles; iii. Facilitate pedestrian traffic and deployment of public transportation options; and iv. Preserve affordability. This pilot project should be the culmination of all the recommendations that appear in this paper. It would take advantage of regulatory revisions making such innovative projects more feasible, use a collaborative design process bringing together all who are affected, come about as the result of a public/private partnership, and serve as a model for what is possible in terms of livable, affordable neighborhoods. 2. Investigate ways to improve the development process for workforce housing projects Because getting a residential project to the proposal stage requires a great deal of time and money, most developers are unable or unwilling to gamble on approval where it is unclear that current regulations will support an affordable product. Even if ultimate approval of the project is more certain, a lengthy permitting process can result in carrying costs that render a low-margin workforce housing development unprofitable. These factors encourage developers to follow the tried and true path of reducing the number of units in a project and increasing sales prices. a. Review policies and practices The Horizon Council recommends that Lee County policy makers search for ways to improve current approval processes and land use regulations. The development process needs to be as quick and transparent as possible, while still adhering to appropriate planning procedures. The County should study ways to build more predictability into the process for developers, expedite reviews, streamline approvals, and resolve conflicting or unclear regulations. b. Create a workforce housing ombudsman Another option worth exploring is establishing a designated workforce housing ombudsman or coordinator. This ombudsman would serve as a single point of contact for developers, guiding projects through the review and permitting process. In addition, the ombudsman could be charged with coordinating inter-department and inter-governmental efforts to facilitate the production of workforce housing. For instance, such a person might synchronize the efforts of the Department of Community Development and the Affordable Housing and Smart Growth Committees with the comprehensive plan amendment cycle.

7

Manatee County has dramatically increased workforce housing development activity by employing a regulatory and financial incentive program that focuses heavily on helping developers negotiate the regulatory process. Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator Suzie Dobbs informed symposium participants that the number of proposed workforce housing units in Manatee increased from zero in 2004, to 589 in just the first half of calendar year 2006 alone.21 Ms. Dobbs cited the “one-stop shop” and “Rapid Response Team” provisions of the program as significant inducements for developers.22 Reducing regulatory complexity and time-to-market appears to be a winning combination in spurring workforce housing production. 3. Create broad support for workforce housing measures by educating the community Local government, private employers, developers, workers, and other community groups must come together to marshal the resources necessary to solve the workforce housing challenge. Just as there is no one solution to the problem, there is no single player that can wave a magic wand and make the issue go away. Local government, however, is more often than not the entity that helps the necessary actors coalesce around the issue. With this in mind, the Horizon Council suggests the County take on new education and advocacy efforts. a. Organize a yearly summit The County could organize and conduct a yearly summit or workshop for the purpose of disseminating information on best practices from other jurisdictions. At the conclusion of the June 22nd Workforce Housing Symposium, 96.8 percent of attendees said the conference offered a “good” or “top” value. Over 97 percent of attendees said they planned to use information offered at the symposium in their work on housing issues.23 An annual workshop targeting workforce housing issues specific to our community would help educate community activists and foster collaboration between the public and private sectors. b. Construct a “Workforce Housing Toolkit” Appropriate staff should create and maintain a consolidated toolkit of useful resources for developers, lenders, and citizens. This comprehensive collection of federal, state, and local program information, education material, and relevant contacts would strive to be the primary resource for workforce housing information in the region. c. Consider possible Employer Assisted Housing roles Beth Marcus, former Director of Workforce Housing for Fannie Mae, shared with symposium attendees the many ways in which Employer Assisted Housing benefits can help organizations achieve their missions. Besides offering a competitive advantage in recruiting employees, EAH programs help reduce employee turnover costs through increased worker retention, foster increased workplace productivity due to shorter commute times and better workforce stability, and garner positive recognition for employers seen to be “doing the right thing.” On the public side, EAH programs also present an opportunity to create an important public/private partnership for addressing workforce housing needs. Some of the many EAH roles local governments have filled in other communities include: 24

i. Team Coordinator – bringing together housing partners and employee groups for creation of EAH programs

ii. Technical Adviser – using expertise to assist employers (or advise nonprofits how to administer EAH benefits to a consortium of employers)

iii. Catalyst – matching employer contributions or providing some other incentive or service to reward or benefit employees of participating employers

iv. Employee Educator – offering home buyer education courses to employees of participating employers on site or in a central location at convenient times

8

v. Administrator – managing employer EAH programs vi. Role Model – offering own employees an EAH benefit

Stepping into any of the roles above would go a long way in educating local employers about the positive benefits EAH programs can bestow on their organizations. Accordingly, the County might: 1) inventory services or resources that could help create a public/private partnership, or give employers an incentive to offer an EAH benefit; 2) identify neighborhood revitalization and public transportation goals that might be linked to an EAH program; and 3) determine whether it makes sense to offer critical County employees (e.g., emergency responders) an EAH benefit.25

CONCLUSION The housing challenge in Lee County is caused by many factors, the most significant of which is the area’s attractiveness as a place to live and work. Local officials have recognized the importance of attainable workforce housing to our economy and way of life. The Horizon Council applauds initiatives underway to expand the use of public housing funds to encompass worker housing and to make it easier for builders to construct mixed-use developments. In addition to these and other efforts, the Council thinks a three-pronged approach focused on reasonable building densities, regulatory streamlining, and education and advocacy will promote the production of actual workforce units in Lee County. Consequently, the Horizon Council calls on the Board of County Commissioners to direct staff to develop implementation plans for the recommended strategies that respect the diversity of Lee County and are appropriate for each of its distinct communities.

ENDNOTES 1 University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Population Studies (2006). 2 Lee County Economic Development Office, Lee County Statistical Digest (2006). (http://www.leecountybusiness.com/EDO/uploads/Lee_County_Statistical_Digest_2006.pdf) 3 Educational Attainment statistics from the 2000 Census and the 2005 American Community Survey show gains in the percentage of residents who have attained high school diplomas, bachelor degrees, and graduate degrees. See, U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder, http://www.census.gov, Social Characteristics. 4 U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder, http://www.census.gov, Economic Characteristics. Median Household Income grew 14.22% in Lee County from 2000 to 2005. During the same time period, Median Household Income rose 10.12% in the U.S. and 9.31% in Florida. 5 The median sales price of an existing, single-family home in Lee County climbed from $112,300 in 2000 to $278,200 in 2005. Florida Association of Realtors, Florida Sales Report (Year End 2000 and 2005). 6 Estimated median income for a family of four in Lee County went from $47,300 in 2000 to $54,100 in 2005. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Area Median Incomes. (http://www.efanniemae.com/sf/refmaterials/hudmedinc/) 7 Florida Association of Realtors, Florida Sales Report (July 2000 and 2006). 8 Lee County Economic Development Office, Horizon Council Workforce Housing Task Force Employer Opinion Survey Analysis (December 2005) (Appendix 1). 9 Deborah Halliday, The Public Costs of Inadequate Affordable Housing in Lee County, Florida, pp. 9-10, 21-25 (September 2002). (http://www.lee-county.com/dcd1/Downloads/Documents/Studies_Reports/NoAffordableHousingCost.pdf) 10 Halliday, at 3. This figure represents so-called “public costs,” and includes lost economic opportunity. 11 Urban Land Institute, Encouraging Workforce Housing in the Chicago Region, Atlanta, and the District of Columbia (2003).

9

12 There is no real agreement as to the definition of the term “workforce housing.” The Urban Land Institute at one time included housing attainable for those households earning between 60 and 120 percent of AMI. A number of high cost areas have extended the definition of “workforce families” to include those families earning up to 150 percent of the AMI. Some experts say “workforce housing” should include all housing affordable to those below 120 percent of AMI. Still others break down “very low-income,” “low-income,” “moderate-income,” “workforce,” and “GAP” housing into discrete groups. HB 1363 [proper citation here] defines the term “affordable workforce housing” variously to mean housing that is affordable to a person who earns less than 120 percent, 140 percent, or 150 percent of the area median income depending upon location within the State of Florida. 13 Florida Association of Realtors, Year End Sales Reports and National Association of Realtors, Metropolitan Area Prices. 14 James C. Nicholas, Ph.D., “The Economics of Workforce Housing in Lee County”, 7, Proceedings of the Horizon Council Workforce Housing Symposium (Fort Myers, FL, 22 June 2006). (http://www.swflworkforcehousing.com/EDO/uploads/Nicholas.pdf) 15 Nicholas, at 9. 16 See supra, nn. 5, 6. 17 Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, Occupational Employment Statistics and Wages, Wage Estimates (2006). (http://www.labormarketinfo.com/library/oes.htm) Calculations using hourly wage, 40 hour work week, and 52 work weeks per year. Does not include “Waiters and Waitresses” with 5,750 employed at a median wage of $14,310/year. 18 Lee County Department of Community Development, Division of Planning, Lee County Affordable Housing Construction Need Projected to 2025 (March 2006) (Appendix 2). 19 Russ Weyer, “Density and Workforce Housing: How High (or Low) Can You Go?,” Proceedings of the Horizon Council Workforce Housing Symposium (Fort Myers, FL, 22 June 2006) (Appendix 3). 20 See generally, www.pyatok.com. 21 Suzie Dobbs, “Manatee County Affordable/Workforce Housing Designation Applications as of June 14, 2006,” Proceedings of the Horizon Council Workforce Housing Symposium (Fort Myers, FL, 22 June 2006). 22 Manatee County, Affordable/Workforce Housing Incentives Handout (October 2005) (Appendix 4). 23 Lee County Economic Development Office, “Final Audience Survey and Polling Results,” 20, Proceedings of the Horizon Council Workforce Housing Symposium (Fort Myers, FL, 22 June 2006). (http://www.swflworkforcehousing.com/EDO/uploads/Audience_Response_Web.pdf) 24 List taken from Beth Marcus, Employer Assisted Housing: A Workforce Housing Tool, 23-4, Proceedings of the Horizon Council Workforce Housing Symposium (Fort Myers, FL, 22 June 2006). (http://www.swflworkforcehousing.com/EDO/uploads/EAH.pdf) 25 Marcus, at 36.

APPENDIX 1

Workforce Housing Employer Opinion Survey

December 2005 (314 completed surveys returned; 24% response rate)

1) In your opinion, does the cost of housing in this area affect your organization’s ability to

recruit employees? 14% of respondents believe housing costs present relatively little or no impediment to recruitment

activities (ranking of 1 or 2). 14% responded at the midpoint, indicating housing costs have a fair impact on their ability to recruit

employees (ranking of 3). 72% of respondents indicated housing costs significantly impact recruitment efforts (ranking of 4 or 5). 2) Your ability to retain employees? 25% of respondents do not think housing costs impact their ability to retain employees (ranking of 1 or

2). 24% responded at the midpoint, indicating a fair impact on employee retention (ranking of 3). 51% indicated that housing costs significantly affect their ability to retain employees (ranking of 4 or

5). 3) Does the cost of housing impact your employees’ productivity (due to increased commuting

times, low morale, etc.)? 27% of respondents indicated little or no effect on employee productivity (ranking of 1 or 2). 26% responded at the midpoint, indicating a fair impact on productivity (ranking of 3). 47% indicated that housing costs significantly impact employee productivity (ranking of 4 or 5). 4) In your opinion, what type of workforce housing is most needed in Lee County? Single-family, occupant owned housing was cited as Lee County’s greatest workforce housing need

42% of the time (36% for rental apartments; 22% for multi-family, occupant owned). 5) Does your organization offer an employee housing benefit plan? About 4% of respondents work for an organization that provides housing benefits. Approximately

seventy-seven percent of those benefit plans are available to both managerial and non-management employees.

6) In your opinion, would Lee County employers benefit from a workshop that described various Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) program options?

26% of respondents believe employers would derive little to no benefit from an EAH workshop. 26% responded at the midpoint. 44% think employers would benefit significantly from such a workshop. 4% of respondents did not answer this question. 7) Please rank the following EAH options in the order they appeal to you (1-8): Down payment assistance was cited among the top three choices by 58% of respondents. Home buyer education was ranked among the top three choices by 43% of survey respondents. Loan guarantees were the third most popular option, with 36% ranking it among the top three. 8) To what extent do you think the business community should become involved in trying to

influence local housing policy? 13% of respondents think the business community should exert little to no influence in local housing

policy issues. 31% responded at the midpoint. 53% indicated a desire that the business community become significantly involved in influencing local

policy. 3% of respondents did not answer this question. 9) Which most closely describes your organization’s industry? 21% of respondents characterized their organization’s industry as Construction. 16% Business & Professional Services 15% Manufacturing 7% Health Services 7% Other 7% Wholesale Trade 6% Retail 5% Finance & Insurance 5% Other Services 5% Real Estate 2% Leisure/Hospitality 10) Approximately how many people does your organization employ? 1-4 = 4% of respondents 5-9 = 17% 10-49 = 36% 50-249 = 32% 250-999 = 7% 1,000+ = 4%

Greater Less Same N/A144 12 96 16

53.7% 4.5% 35.8% 6.0%

Greater Less Same N/A121 16 102 27

45.5% 6.0% 38.3% 10.2%

Greater Less Same N/A69 8 125 64

25.9% 3.0% 47.0% 24.1%

1 2 3 4 5Not at all Significantly

57 89 72 35 1221.5% 33.6% 27.2% 13.2% 4.5%

Yes No23 244

8.6% 91.4%

1 2 3 4 5Not at all Very Interested

97 55 43 41 2836.7% 20.8% 16.3% 15.5% 10.6%

1. Would you say the cost of housing today impacts your ability to recruit new employees more or less than it did one year ago?

2. Would you say the cost of housing today affects your ability to retain employees more or less than it did one year ago?

5. Does your organization offer an employee housing benefit plan? (This could be anything from home buyer education, to reduced mortgage rates, to down payment assistance, etc., etc.)

6. The Horizon Council Workforce Housing Symposium identified Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) programs as one way for private employers to mitigate the effects of increasing home prices. By helping employees buy or rent housing, some companies even enjoy a competitive advantage. Would you be interested in attending a workshop that provides technical assistance to employers who want to offer their workers a housing benefit plan?

3. Does the cost of housing today contribute to decreased productivity more or less than a year ago?

4. Do you think an adjusting real estate market will--by itself--alleviate any workforce housing shortages?

Workforce Housing Employer Opinion Survey ResultsNovember 2006

(Some respondents did not answer all questions)

11/13/2006

1 2 3 4 5No Impact Greatest Impact

34 36 60 61 4614.3% 15.2% 25.3% 25.7% 19.4%

1 2 3 4 512 24 55 114 46

4.8% 9.6% 21.9% 45.4% 18.3%

1 2 3 4 522 23 50 101 49

9.0% 9.4% 20.4% 41.2% 20.0%

1 2 3 4 516 24 69 89 44

6.6% 9.9% 28.5% 36.8% 18.2%

1 2 3 4 542 62 54 56 26

17.5% 25.8% 22.5% 23.3% 10.8%

1 2 3 4 511 24 58 95 52

4.6% 10.0% 24.2% 39.6% 21.7%

1 2 3 4 525 29 61 61 20

12.8% 14.8% 31.1% 31.1% 10.2%

1 2 3 4 538 39 79 50 26

16.4% 16.8% 34.1% 21.6% 11.2%

b) Financial incentives for builders who voluntarily include workforce housing units in developments

c) Expedited project review and permitting for developments including a workforce housing component

7. The following workforce housing strategies have been explored by the Horizon Council. Please tell us what impact you think each would have in alleviating any housing deficiencies in Lee County (skip items for which you have insufficient knowledge, or visit www.SWFLworkforcehousing.com for more information):

a) Increased residential densities, i.e. , more units per lot

e) Mandatory inclusion of workforce housing units in residential developments (Inclusionary Zoning)

f) Increased housing subsidies for builders and/or low to moderate income home buyers

d) Regulations allowing a wide range of building methods, designs, and affordability levels

g) Alternative ownership mechanisms like Community Land Trusts, etc.

h) Education programs to help overcome NIMBY ("Not in my back yard") issues associated with affordable/workforce housing or higher density developments

11/13/2006

Retail Trade 22 7.5%Construction 69 23.5%Manufacturing 44 15.0%Utilities 5 1.7%Leisure/Hospitality 7 2.4%Prof. & Bus. Serv. 47 16.0%Wholesale Trade 18 6.1%Information 5 1.7%Finance & Insurance 16 5.4%Health Services 10 3.4%Other Services 10 3.4%Transportation 6 2.0%Government 4 1.4%Real Estate 14 4.8%Education 1 0.3%Other 16 5.4%

1-4 5-9 10-49 50-249 250-999 1,000+41 33 82 78 23 8

15.5% 12.5% 30.9% 29.4% 8.7% 3.0%

9. Approximately how many people does your organization employ?

8. Which most closely describes your organization's industry?

*Number of respondents who classified organization within multiple industries: 23

11/13/2006

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

Affordable Housing Project Pro Forma

Proceedings of the Horizon Council Workforce Housing Symposium (Fort Myers, 22 June 2006)

Input Perameters Income Statement

Number of Acres 20 # of Units Revenue $16,400,000Density per Gross Acre 4.00 80 Purchase Price per Acre $110,000 Cost of Sales Developer Equity Investment (percent) 20.0% Land Cost 2,200,000Impact Fee per Single Family Home $9,700 Infrastructure Cost 2,000,000Impact Fee per Multi Family Home $5,400 Home Construction Cost 10,080,000Infrastructure Cost per Acre $100,000 Impact Fees 776,000Sales & Marketing Percent of Revenue 1.0% Home Construction Cost per Square Foot $105 Total Cost of Sales $15,056,000Average Square Foot Size of Home 1,200 Sales Price per Home $205,000 Margin $1,344,000Bank Release Price $62,000 Inflation Factor 3.0% Operating Costs Capitalization Rate 15.0% Staffing 900,000Bank Interest Rate 6.0% Interest Expense 559,488

Sales & Marketing 164,000Property Taxes 126,720Insurance 105,000Total Operating Costs $1,855,208

Income Before Taxes -$533,208

Taxes 26,856Net Income -$560,064

Total Present Value IBT Amount -$532,455Original Investment $992,000Return on Investment (ROI) -153.67%

(Developer needs minimum 20% to attract investors depending on risk)

This does not represent the complete pro forma . For more information, contact: Russ Weyer, Fishkind & Associates, (239) 254-8585

Affordable Housing Project Pro Forma

Proceedings of the Horizon Council Workforce Housing Symposium (Fort Myers, 22 June 2006)

Input Perameters Income Statement

Number of Acres 20 # of Units Revenue $24,600,000Density per Gross Acre 6.00 120 Purchase Price per Acre $110,000 Cost of Sales Developer Equity Investment (percent) 20.0% Land Cost 2,200,000Impact Fee per Single Family Home $9,700 Infrastructure Cost 2,000,000Impact Fee per Multi Family Home $5,400 Home Construction Cost 15,120,000Infrastructure Cost per Acre $100,000 Impact Fees 1,164,000Sales & Marketing Percent of Revenue 1.0% Home Construction Cost per Square Foot $105 Total Cost of Sales $20,484,000Average Square Foot Size of Home 1,200 Sales Price per Home $205,000 Margin $4,116,000Bank Release Price $41,333 Inflation Factor 3.0% Operating Costs Capitalization Rate 15.0% Staffing 900,000Bank Interest Rate 6.0% Interest Expense 559,488

Sales & Marketing 246,000Property Taxes 126,720Insurance 105,000Total Operating Costs $1,937,208

Income Before Taxes $2,156,792

Taxes 480,078Net Income $1,676,714

Total Present Value IBT Amount $1,300,465Original Investment $992,000Return on Investment (ROI) 31.10%

(Developer needs minimum 20% to attract investors depending on risk)

This does not represent the complete pro forma . For more information, contact: Russ Weyer, Fishkind & Associates, (239) 254-8585

APPENDIX 4

AFFORDABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING INCENTIVES

offered through the

MANATEE COUNTY

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE

Manatee County Government 1112 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205

October 25, 2005

2

Affordable/Workforce Housing Incentives Offered Through The Manatee County Land Development Code

Purpose and Intent Chapter 13 of the Manatee County Land Development Code is intended to provide for a variety of housing opportunities for present and future residents of Manatee County. Special emphasis shall be given to households with special needs. This Chapter is intended to comply with Florida Statutes Chapters 163 and 420. Chapter 13 specifies incentives which may be available to developers of affordable/workforce housing developments (A/WHD). A copy of the Manatee County Land Development Code, Chapter 13 is attached as an appendix to this brochure.

Affordable Housing Developments are defined as single family, owner occupied or multi-family rental developments in which a minimum of 10% of the total units are affordable to households at or below 120% of the Area Median Income. Of the total designated units, no less than 30% shall be designated for households at 50% AMI, 30% at 80% AMI, with the remainder available for households with 120% AMI. Income limits are updated periodically and are available from the Community Services Department, Housing Section, upon request.

Workforce Housing Developments are defined as single family, owner occupied developments in which a minimum of 10% of the total units are available to households with an income no higher than 20% above the moderate income level for a family of 3 established by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation and no higher than 20% above the moderate income home sales priced established by the Manatee County Local Housing Assistance Plan, both of which may be adjusted from time to time. Income limits and sales prices are updated periodically and are available from the Community Services Department, Housing Section, upon request.

3

Incentives to Encourage the Development of

Affordable/Workforce Housing The incentives listed below are made available by the Board of County Commissioners in order to encourage development of Affordable/Workforce housing in unincorporated Manatee County. Most of these incentives are fully described in the Manatee County Land Development Code, Chapter 13.

♦ Housing Rapid Response Team/ Fast Tracking

♦ Fee Refunds ♦ Impact Fee Program ♦ Sidewalk Location ♦ Housing Trust Fund ♦ Tree Protection Trust Fund ♦ Density Bonuses

♦ Transfer of Development rights ♦ Workforce Housing Incentives

♦ Use of Nonconforming Lots for Infill Development ♦ Reduced Sideyard Setbacks for Nonconforming Lots ♦ Conveyance of County Owned Surplus Properties to Nonprofit Developers

The Manatee County Community Services Department, administers the affordable/workforce certification process, assists developers in obtaining relief of impact and review fees, enforces mechanisms to ensure affordability of assisted units and compliance with all applicable regulations.

Owner-Occupied Housing Builders and developers of Affordable/Workforce homes for sale to income-eligible households may seek expedited review and permit processing; relief from County and School Impact Fees; review and permit fee refunds; and, modification of development standards. Impact fee relief is provided only for the designated “affordable” units in a development. The maximum sales price of the homes are restricted by local policy. Current sales price limits are available from the Community Services Department, Housing Section. Fee relief for owner-occupied housing is available only to the extent that budgeted funds remain available at the time of certification of occupancy (CO). Impact fee relief is also available to a builder building a single stand-alone affordable unit.

4

Rental Housing Development Developers building rental units for income-eligible households may seek expedited review and permit processing; review and permit fee refunds; and other incentives, as applicable, provided through the Manatee County Land Development Code. Applicants must sign a Land Use Restriction Agreement pledging to rent to eligible households at affordable rents for the period required by the funding source or by local policy. To be eligible for fee relief or incentives, the developer must be certified prior to applying for permits. There can be no waiver of this requirement. Within a rental community, affordable units may not be substantively different from market rate units in size, amenities, or condition. Affordable rents are determined annually and are available from the Community Services Department, Housing Section. Residents whose incomes increase above program limits are not required to move. However, the next available unit must be rented to an eligible household. Annual monitoring by the Community Services Department, Housing Section will be conducted annually to ensure compliance with income limits and maximum rental rates.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Builders and developers may submit applications for certification of A/WHDs to the Community Services Department, Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator, at any time. If certified , the developer is issued a preliminary approval letter. This letter serves as documentation that A/WHD certification has been requested. The applicant will then be considered for expedited review and permit processing upon acceptance and execution of a Land Use Restriction Agreement (LURA). If a certified A/WHD is seeking modification of development standards, the developer must provide a concept plan and an explanation of why the requested modifications are needed. The developer may also submit plans and specifications where appropriate. The Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator serves as an ombudsman to shepherd the A/WHD through the review and permitting process and is responsible for coordinating all County review comments, questions, and responses from a predevelopment conference held with a designated Affordable/Workforce Housing Rapid Response Team. The Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator will provide the developer with a single point of contact for all questions concerning the subsequent review process. Certain modifications of development standards are awarded through administrative action. Other modifications require action of the Board of County Commissioners. The Manatee County Planning Department prepares all recommendations to the Board

5

of County Commissioners. Modifications are recommended for approval based on comments and responses from the Affordable/Workforce Housing Rapid Response Team, local housing needs, and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff and the Board reserve the right to review architectural designs and specifications, and, where appropriate, make recommendations that would enhance the development and the neighborhood. Upon approval of an A/WHD, the developer will enter into a Land Use Restriction Agreement (LURA) to insure that all housing is constructed and operated in accordance with the plans reviewed and approved by Manatee County. Applications for impact fee relief must be submitted as soon as possible during the construction phase, in order to provide sufficient staff review time for verification of an income-eligible household purchasing a single family unit at or below the maximum sales price for that household. Payment of the allowable Manatee County portion of impact fees shall be available at the time the certificate of occupancy is issued for the unit. Funds for impact fee relief are limited and available on a first-come, first served basis. A refund of review and permitting fees shall be available upon the initial sale of a single family unit to an eligible household or upon completion and verified “rent up” to eligible households.

SUMMARY The intent of the Affordable/Workforce Housing Program and Chapter 13 of the Manatee County Land Development Code, is to provide private sector builders and developers with regulatory and financial incentives to produce affordable/workforce housing in Manatee County. This section is intended to be a tool to both encourage construction and to engage the creativity of our development community. It is our goal that all your interactions with Manatee County Government be as simple and straightforward as we can make it. We need your feedback on how we are doing and where you see opportunities for improvement. Your comments and suggestions are always welcomed. For further information, contact Suzie Dobbs, Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator, in the Manatee County Community Services Department, at (941) 749-3030 or by e-mail at: suzie.dobbs@co.manatee.fl.us

6

Appendix “A” Manatee County Land Development Code

Chapter 13 Housing Program Section 1301. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for a variety of housing opportunities for present and future residents of Manatee County. Special emphasis shall be given to households with special needs. The Section is intended to comply with Chapter 163 F.S. generally and specifically 163.3177(6)(f) and Chapter 420 F.S. generally and specifically 420.907. F.S. Section 1302. Affordable Housing Incentives 1302.1 To meet the needs of Manatee County residents for Affordable Housing, a variety of incentives are provided. These incentives are listed below, along with the percentage of the units in the entire project which must meet the standards of affordable housing as defined in this Code. 1302.1.1 Housing Rapid Response Team/Fast Tracking. Projects in which 10% or more of the entire project is affordable will receive the assistance of the County’s Housing Rapid Response Team. The team will assist with fast-tracking the project through the necessary permitting procedures. Contact with the Housing Rapid Response Team shall be made through the Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator designated by the County Administrator. Priority for utilization of the Housing Rapid Response Team shall be based on the period of time proposed by the applicant for keeping the project affordable. 1302.1.2 Fee Refund. All projects with affordable housing units shall be eligible for refunds of County review fees (e.g. planning, building, engineering) as permitted by law. For projects where less than 25% of the project is affordable, the fees refunded shall be a pro-rata share of the fees for the entire project. For example, projects with 15% affordable units, will be eligible to request a refund of review fees only on the units designated affordable. Projects which have 25% or greater affordable units will be eligible to request a full refund of County review fees for the entire project. Note, this does not include impact fees, facility investment fees, connection fees or similar fees. 1302.1.2.1 Any applicant seeking a fee refund shall submit an application to the Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator who will assist applicant in working with the proper county department. 1302.1.2.2 The applicant shall enter into a land use and deed restriction agreement with the County. The agreement shall provide the designation level of affordable units required by the development to seek fee refunds according to the terms and conditions of the

7

agreement, as approved by the Board. A land trust may be used as a mechanism to retain units as affordable and/or special needs units. 1302.1.3 County Impact Fee Increment. In an effort to minimize the impact on affordable households of increasing impact fees, the County, pursuant to Resolution R-04-67, has elected to pay the increases in county impact fees which were effective after June 18, 2004. All affordable units are eligible to have the County pay this increment. Contact shall be made through the Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator. 1302.1.4 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Increment. In an effort to minimize the impact on affordable households of increasing impact fees, the County, pursuant to Resolution R-04-67, has elected to pay the increases in educational facility impact fees which were effective after June 18, 2004. All affordable units are eligible to have the County pay this increment. Contact shall be made through the Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator. 1302.1.5 Sidewalk Location. Projects will at least 25% affordable units shall obligated to provide sidewalks within the development and on project perimeters as would otherwise be required by this Code. 1302.1.5.1 Additionally, these projects shall be responsible for identification of sidewalk extensions as required by Section 722.1.4.4. 1302.1.5.2 In instances where sidewalk extensions would otherwise be required by Section 722.1.4.4, the County shall evaluate whether it is appropriate for the County to fund the sidewalk extensions beyond project boundaries. This evaluation shall be made as soon as practicable in the review of the project. The county may enter into a reimbursement agreement to allow the developer to build the sidewalks. 1302.1.5.3 The application shall enter into a land use and deed restriction agreement with the County. The agreement shall provide the designation level of affordable units required by the development to seek sidewalk extensions as would generally be required by Section 722.1.4.4. A land trust may be used as a mechanism to retain units as affordable and/or special needs units. 1302.1.6 Housing Trust Fund. There is hereby created, pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-01, a Housing Trust Fund for the receipt of non-ad valorem revenues for use in the development and rehabilitation of affordable housing. The use of funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund shall be limited to projects where 25% or more of the units meet the definition of Affordable Housing. 1302.1.6.1 The Board of County Commissioners shall establish criteria for the dispersion of such funds. 1302.1.6.2 Any applicant seeking to secure such funds shall submit an application to the Department of Community Services, Housing and Community Development Section

8

1302.1.6.3 Dispersion of funds shall be limited by fund availability and shall be in accordance with the standards and procedures established for the use of such funds. 1302.1.6.4 The applicant shall enter into a land use and deed restriction agreement with the County. The agreement shall provide the designation level required by the development and any other requirements in order to receive Housing Trust Fund monies as approved by the Board. A land trust may be used as a mechanism to retain units as affordable and/or special needs units. 1302.1.7 Tree Protection Trust Fund. Projects with at least 25% affordable units may apply to receive funds from the Tree Protection Trust Fund to meet landscaping requirements of the project. 1302.1.7.1 Any applicant seeking to secure such funding shall apply by submitting a written request to the Transportation Director. 1302.1.7.2 All applications will be reviewed by both the Transportation and Community Services Department. 1302.1.7.3 Allocation of these funds is discretionary and must compete with all other projects, including county landscaping projects and are based on fund availability. 1302.1.7.4 The applicant shall enter into a land use and deed restriction agreement with the County. The agreement shall provide the designated affordable units required to seek reimbursement from the Tree Trust Fund as approved by the Board. A land trust may be used as a mechanism to retain units as affordable and/or special needs units. 1302.1.8 Density Bonus. Projects with at least 25% units designated as affordable are eligible to request a density bonus from the Board of County Commissioners. This density bonus may allow the maximum project density to increase to the maximum density in the next highest category on the Future Land Use Map. For example, a project in a Res-3 area would be eligible to request a density bonus to the sic dwelling units per acre maximum of Res-6. The density bonus shall not exceed the Res-16 category. 1302.1.8.1 Density bonuses may be used only within the development creating the bonus units. 1302.1.8.2 In order to receive a density bonus, rezoning to Planned Development zoning will be required. The Board shall consider the density and intensity of surrounding land uses and compatibility with neighboring uses in determining the maximum density to allow. This density may be below the next highest Future Land Use Designation.

9

In determining the appropriateness of a density bonus, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider all factors associated with the review of a planned development project pursuant to this Code. The Board of County Commissioners shall also consider the impact of the proposed project on the transportation level of service. Priority shall be given to projects with access to transit and neighborhood commercial nodes. 1302.1.8.3 The applicant shall enter into a land use and deed restriction agreement with the County. The agreement shall provide for the number of units which can be built subject to a density bonus and to ensure that the units are retained as affordable units and/or special needs units, for a period of time to be designated by the Board of County Commissioners. A land trust may be used as a mechanism to retain units as affordable and/or special needs. 1302.1.9 Transfer of Development Rights. 1302.1.9.1 The transfer of development rights (which may include approved residential units, zoned units or comprehensive plan potential units) from elsewhere in the unincorporated county to a project with a minimum of 25% affordable units is encouraged. 1302.1.9.2 In order to transfer development rights, a rezoning to Planned Development zoning will be required. The Board shall consider the density and intensity of surrounding land uses and compatibility with neighboring uses in determining the maximum density to allow. This density may be below the next highest Future Land Use Designation. In determining the appropriateness of a density transfer, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider all factors associated with the review of a planned development project pursuant to this Code. The Board of County Commissioners shall also consider the impact of the proposed project on the transportation level of service. 1302.1.9.3 If units are transferred, the maximum project density permissible is the maximum density in the next highest category on the Future Land Use Map. For example, a project in a Res-3 area would be eligible to request a transfer of units to the sic dwelling units per acre maximum of Res-6. 1302.1.9.4 If the transfer of units is granted, the applicant shall enter into a land use and deed restriction agreement with the County. The agreement shall provide for the number of units which can be built subject to the transfer and to ensure that the units are retained as affordable units for a period of time to be designated by the Board of County Commissioners. The agreement shall also ensure development rights are limited on the sending parcel, and identify any legally enforceable mechanisms necessary to ensure such limitations. A land trust may be used as a mechanism to retain units as affordable and/or special needs units.

10

Section 1303 Workforce Housing Incentives 1303.1 To meet the needs of Manatee County residents for Workforce Housing, the following incentive is provided. 1303.1.1 Housing Rapid Response Team/Fast Tracking. Projects in which 10% or more of the entire project is workforce housing will receive the assistance of the County’s Housing Rapid Response Team. The team will assist with fast-tracking the project through the necessary permitting procedures. Contact with the Housing Rapid Response Team shall be made through the Affordable/Workforce Housing Coordinator designated by the County Administrator. 1303.1.1.1 Priority shall be given to projects providing affordable housing; subsequent priority will be based on the period of time proposed by the applicant for keeping the project units at the affordable or workforce level. In circumstances where the period of time is equivalent, the percentage of the project which is affordable or workforce housing shall be used to determine priority. A higher percentage means a higher priority. Section 1304 Affordable Housing Stock Lost to Development. 1304.1 Any development which eliminates affordable housing stock shall either: a. provide replacement stock; b. provide payment to the Housing Trust Fund in an amount established by the Board;

c. provide an innovative replacement contributions meeting the requirements of 1304.2 d. donate land to be used by the County for the development of affordable housing.

1304.2 Innovative Replacement Methods. Other unique or innovative replacement contributions which further the goals of the Manatee County Local Housing Assistance Plan and the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan may be implemented to meet the requirements of Section 1304.1 above. These innovative replacement contributions must be approved by the Board, after recommendation by the Community Services Director. 1304.3 Replacement Exemption. Single family structures which are replaced with another single family structure by the same property owner are exempt from the replacement requirements of this Code. Section 1305 Infill Development. Infill development or redevelopment activities may be approved on existing lots of record meeting the requirements of Section 1107.3.1* Use of Nonconforming Lots for Affordable Housing and Section 702.6.6.1** Side Yard Reductions Utilized for Affordable Housing.

11

Section 1306 County Owned Property. County owned surplus property which is suitable for the development of affordable housing may be dispersed on an as-needed basis pursuant to procedures established by the Board in accordance with Ordinance No. 05-30 and other applicable law. * Section 1107.3.1. Use of Nonconforming Lots for Affordable Housing. Nonconforming lots which were legally created and are in single ownership, sharing continuous street frontage, if taken together would meet the minimum zoning district regulations, do not have to combine lots to meet the zoning district regulations if all of the lots are developed as affordable housing. ** 702.6.6. Side Yard Reductions on Small Individual Lots of Record Within the Urban Core Areas, as Identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, any lot of record, having lot widths of fifty-five (55) feet or less, and which do not share continuous frontage with an adjoining vacant lot in the same ownership on the Effective Date of this Code, (October 15, 1990) shall be permitted to reduce the minimum side yard setback to five (5) feet. After consultation with the Building Director, the Transportation Director may approve encroachments of Cornices and Similar Features in accordance with the provisions of Section 702.7.1 and 702.7.1.1. 702.7.1. Cornices and Similar Features. Cornices, awnings, eaves, gutters, or other similar features shall be at least eight (8) feet above finish grade, and may extend three (3) feet into any required yard or yard setback, but not nearer to any lot line than a distance of five (5) feet, except as provided below in Section 702.7.1.1. Such features listed above may encroach a maximum of eighteen (18) inches into an easement. 702.7.1.1 After consultation with the Building Director, the Transportation Director may approve encroachments of Cornices and Similar Features closer to the property line than five (5) feet, after making a finding that the encroachment will have no negative effect, specifically on the stormwater management plan for the property. In no case may the encroachment be closer than four (4) feet to the property line.

12

AFFORDABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING INCENTIVE MATRIX

October 25, 2005

INCENTIVE

10% AFFORDABLE

25% AFFORDABLE

10% WORKFORCE

Impact Fee Increment

All Affordable Units Eligible

All Affordable Units Eligible NO

School Impact Fee Increment

All Affordable Units Eligible

All Affordable Units Eligible NO

Rapid Response/Fast Track

YES YES YES

Review Fee Refund

YES (Pro-rate to 25%)

YES (All fees) NO

Sidewalk Location Assistance

NO YES NO

Housing Trust Fund

NO YES

(Subject To Fund Availability)

NO

Tree Trust Fund

NO YES

(Subject To Fund Availability)

NO

Density Bonus

NO YES NO

Transfer of Development Rights (Applicability determined on a case-by-case basis at the preapplication meeting)

NO YES NO

ITEM #3

PRESENTED BY: Justin McBride, Natural Resources

REQUESTED BY: BOCC

1 1. DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVE OF THE ISSUE

6.Mandated: Y N

I

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

Provide a summary of existing marine law enforcement in Lee County.

2.

The presentation is designed to answer BOCC questions about the existing level of marine enforcement in Lee County. It will include an overview of what agencies provide enforcement, the level of activity and how activities are coordinated. This is an informational item that does not require any specific action or direction to staff. The presentation will be done via PowerPoint. Printouts of the slides will be distributed prior to the meeting.

PROPOSE POLICY, PROCEDURE OR PLAN OF ACTION

3. OPTIONS (List Advantagesrnisadvantages of Each Option Listed)

NIA

4. FINANCIAL IMPACTSLFUNDING SOURCE

NIA

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNTY MANAGER SIGNATURE

424.07

MEETING DATE

February 5,2007

TIME REOIJIRED

0:15

Prepared for : Lee County Board of County Commissioners

Feb. 5th, 2007

The current state of coordinated Marine Law Enforcement in Lee County.

Presented By:

Sgt. James Erb - Task Force Coordinator Marine Operations Sgt.- Lee County Sheriffs Office

1

Lee County : An Overview 500,000+ residents in Lee County. 53,000+ registered boaters (3th largest in state for rec. boats) 233 square miles of inland waters 490 miles of natural shoreline (900+ including Canals) 50 Miles of beaches, 10 barrier islands, 9 major bridges, 40+ miles of ICWIOWW, 7 navigable riverkreek systems, two boat locks, one boat lift, over 15 public boat ramps, plus marinas, private ramps, etc. Over 1000 pieces of signage/buoys (regulatory, ATON's, etc.- 2nd only to USCG in State of Florida) Overlapping local, State and Federal speed zones

Lee County: Marine Enforcement Challenges

53,000+ registered boaters Year-round boating season International boating population Large transient boating population (moorings) Local, State, Federal speed zones throughout all waterways, overlapping. Multiple special events InternationaVborder concerns (I E: Trafficking- h u manharcot ics)

2

History of Lee County Task Force

In early 2003, the idea of coordinated marine Law Enforcement was suggested in several forms by several entities. Sheriff coordinated a chief's meeting and in June of 2003, the Lee County Marine Law Enforcement Task Force was created. Initial meetings were used to create Mission Statement and goals/objectives.

3

Lee County Marine Law Enforcement Task Force

Mission Statement: “The agencies of the Lee County Marine Law Enforcement Task Force are committed to providing the highest quality of marine law enforcement to protect the users of Lee County’s waterways, safeguard property’ and conserve/protect marine life along with its environment. ”

Lee County Marine Law Enforcement Task Force

GoaldObiectives: Conduct coordinated patrols of Lee County’s waterways Reduce the number of boating accidents and therefore the number of fatalities, injuries, and amount of property damage by enforcing boating safety laws Reduce the number of watercraft related manatee mortalities through coordinated enforcement of manatee regulatory zones Provide coordinated marine related response to search and rescue incidents Reduce marine related theft within Lee County through coordinated enforcement targeting “hot spots” Provide coordinated marine related response during natural disasters Provide coordinated marine related response to domestic security incidents Coordinate to enforce net limitation laws/rules Coordinate for joint marine enforcement training Coordinate for Special Marine Events

4

Participating Agencies

Outreach/Education

9 9 9 9 9 >

Annual boatlfishing shows

5

Joint Operations

>Operation Sea Spray I & II -BUI >Operation Mermaid - Endangered Spec. Poperation Manatee Shield - End. Spec. >Net Ban Operations - Fishing Regs. Poperation Northern Net I & II - Shrimp Boats >Operation Spring Break - Boating Safety >Operation Triple Play - Human Smuggling

Joint Operations

Special Event Coordination - New Year's Fireworks -4th of July Fireworks - Christmas Parades - Boat Races -Air Shows

AreaslSeasonal Changes Manatee Protection

6

Task Force Benefits

Communication Monthly meetings = Intelligence sharing Training opportunities Enhance officer familiarity IE: Nextel Vs. Radio - Ex: Officer overboard

same forum All informed of new ruleshegulations in

All agencies speak with One Voice

Task Force Benefits

Communication The Marine Task Force allows Lee County agencies who enforce different laws and regulations to act and speak with one voice. Participants understand other agency I imitat ions/st rengt hs/ca pa bil it ies All striving for similar goals, even with different agency responsibilities Task force presents a consolidated front to the public in enforcement and non-enforcement arenas. All of these efforts lead to better compliance and more positive contacts.

7

Task Force Benefits Maximization of Resources

Task Force comprises 63 trained full-time marine officers in 8 agencies,l20 total (includin part-time and Marine- trained) for area (excluding USF lv s).

Fiscal Year 2006

> 15,159 - Up 22% from FY 2005

> 1,045 - Up 23% from FY 2005

FFWCC, DEP, or USFWS.

On Water Patrol Hours: LCSO, CCPD, FMPD

Citations Written

* These numbers do not represent hours from USCG,

Maximization of Resources Asset man age men t/de pl o y me n t

8

All agencies of the Lee County Marine Law Enforcement Task Force have been and are committed to providing the highest level of marine enforcement possible to

protect the users of Lee County’s waterways and Lee County’s unique

ma ri ne envi ron men t .

9