The URL can be used to link to this page

Item K06 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: March 21, 200 I Division: BOCC Bulk Item: Yes No XX Department: Comm. Nora Williams AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of a long-term approach to Monroe County Land Use issues ITEM BACKGROUND: There is a long history in the Keys of crisis management as the governing driving force. As the latest Hurricane Evacuation Report could not have made clearer, we need to not be caught at the other end of whatever years of continued construction the proposed improvements can buy us without having planned the path from here to there. Because of that need for a long-range set of goals, our plan for the future must include achievement of such goals as affordable housing, avoidance of build-out (unless we're ready to six-lane from Key West now) as well as a commitment to utilize the combined resources of all the governments in the Keys to achieve those goals. As there is a planned summit on affordable housing tomorrow, it seemed a good time to get your conceptual support for an approach that could work. PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC has consistently and repeatedly agreed that affordable housing is desperately needed. The BOCC has also consistently and repeatedly voiced their opposition to an endless widening of community roadways. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: TOTAL COST: BUDGETED: Yes No XX COST TO COUNTY: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _ n~7JL U)iP/JflhZl ~"(~'" (TYPE NAME HERE) DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENT A TION: Included XX To Follow_ Not Required_ AGENDA ITEM #l:JllD DISPOSITION: Revised 2/27/01 Securing Our Future: - A 20 Year Plan: a proposed approach to achieve affordable housing goals, while shaping the growth of our communities. AFFORDABLE HOUSING How to get what we need AND stay within our ROGO allocation... Unknown System Credits ,.. ..' As soon as the first major wastewater treatment facility is permitted, this problem is over. Moving forward with wastewater treatment is crucial to the production of affordable hOUSing An Overview Affordable Housing The Crucial Connection between Affordable Housing and Land Acquisition Land Acquisition Program What's stopping affordable housing? The cost/availability of unknown system credits Adequate RaGa allocations to allow projects to be cost-effective Cost/availability of land The pain/expense of the Monroe County permitting process ROGO allocations Why 20% of a regional allocation won't work Lowering the RaGa boundaries for affordable housing 30-50% of the permits that are received throughout the County can give us cost- effective affordable housing projects 30-50% of 307 Adding together the permits West (81), Unincorporated MonroejIslajM'thon (204), Key Colony Beach (14), Layton (2), Ocean Reef (6) = 307 30-50% would mean 100 - 154 permits per year devoted to cost-effective affordable housing into perpetuity - that's one or more projects PER YEAR Does this mean an end to small projects? No. While it takes a significant # of RaGa allocations to make any multi-unit project cost-effective, that multi-unit project could be a collection of duplexes, or a series of smaller projects on parcels of land within the same geographic area. What is needed: An Interlocal Agreement that specifies how we will pool our resources and utilize them where the need is The purchase of Land for these projects The streamlining of the permitting process Where do those projects go? ^ If we are to pool our resources and use them where they are needed, then our interlocal agreement must specify not only the percentage of the affordable housing set-aside but the concentration of the projects that result from that set-aside in the areas where the need is greatest... What could it mean? ~ The annual production of affordable housing projects Answering the need that exists today: if we concentrate 3 years of every 5 of the 20 to service Key West's needs, for example, we'd produce as many as 462 units every five years, close to 2000 over the 20 year span of the plan. Cost/availability of land Land Authority purchases it: that keeps the projects cost effective AND guarantees affordability into perpetuity (anything less is just delaying further crisis) t\ We bond now the half of the 4th cent (Key West's part of that funding goes for projects that benefit Key West) 2 Why bond the 4th cent? t":tMiY.Y.WMlO',,!( , 1IiiIi)'iliiilii,",*". Gives us a long-term commitm~~t we can count on Allows us to purchase parcels of land before they become even more expensive Allows us to plan for how those parcels will be used (streamlining the permitting process) Additional Points Starting on page 10, you'll find a host of suggestions for LDR changes, overlay zones, actions that could increase the fund-ability of our projects, and a discussion of steps that can be taken to protect the existing stock of affordable housing AND a consideration of steps that could be taken to make affordable housing a priority for redevelopment 20 years continued... If we are wise enough' to tie any future commercial development to the production housing to meet the additional need it will create, we will have addressed both the need that exists today (estimated at roughly 3500 countywide) and the future needs. Streamlining the permitting process ... By buying the properties well in advance of commencement of projects, we will have time to put those lands through the necessary processes so that we can define the # of units and distribution of those units. That way, the developer who emerges with a project will know precisely what can be built and how. The results of 20 years Under this plan, we could create as many as 3080 units of affordable housing (if we've chosen to adopt the 50% allocation AND if we continue to issue the same # of permits per year) in addition to the 400 units recently granted by the state... The Crucial Connection '" Between Affordable Housing and Land Acquisition .., -' The Crucial Connection " There is no longterm plan for future growth, even for affordable housing, without an accompanying plan for Land Acquisition. Land Acquisition is the only mechanism that ensures the ability to shape our communities and to ensure that the future we reach is one we plan and hope for... The Land Acquisition Program Dealing with the other crucial issues that will continue to haunt us if unaddressed... What's different from our current LA efforts? , 'Y;;L;{;;;f,U",.q~~~"",,{ This program concentrates on IS subdivision lots, not environmentally sensitive lands. Environmentally sensitive lands are already hard to build on. Shaping and limiting growth must be about shaping and preserving neighborhoods The Crucial Connection (cont). Land acquisition deals with the downside of the Affordable Housing plan LA is our resource for shaping future growth in ways that produces still more modest housing ROGO is not a means of controlling growth. It is a means of slowing it down by rendering people trying to build a home insane. The LA Program Can make modest housing more likely Concentrates development where desired Preserves community character Maximizes open space Avoids build-out limits carrying capacity strains Puts development battles to rest Ends the nightmare of the current ROGO point system How do we get it done? Establish priorities (interim policies, CommuniKeys, a GIS approach) Focus the Land Authority Deal with Land Management Issues (establish Land Manager position, grants/non-profits, look for community partners) Fund the effort, and development low- cost options 4 Low Cost Options Adjacent or contiguous land 00ners share cost and take management responsibility Work with Homeowners Associations Allow ROGO points for all IS subdivision lots in areas where we don't want growth Retire rights associated with extra lots Buy properties listed for sale BUY NOW Funding the Big Picture: STATE SOURCES Extend the CARL boundaries Florida Forever A set-aside of funds Funding the Big Picture: Bondable Revenue Source '>>> TOLL ON U.S. One Funding the Big Picture: LOCAL SOURCES Local sources used to bond 20 year plan Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund Balances Additional One Cent Tourist Tax Specific commitment of Ad Valorem Tax $ Donations Impact Fees Documentary Stamp Funding the Big Picture: FEDERAL SOURCES U.S. Fish & Wildlife CARA funds Specific set-aside OTHER LIMITED POSSIBILITIES: Grants Can we afford to lose the property tax? Better question: Can we afford not to? Political rhetoric: 95% public ownership: most of those lands would have untold expenses if developed (mainland) - but should teach us a lesson Look at the budget: how much of it is ad valorem tax based? Other resources are less thinly spread in the big picture if we control development... 5 Conclusions ""~<."lt"!~,_~_,,,c, .~. The biggest danger is that we continue to wait for someone to drop money from the sky - or ROGO allocations as the case may be - rather than commit to solving these problems ourselves within the rules and with respect to the Comprehensive Plan...and, if we can't solve them, we can make measurable and remarkable progress. There are no quick fixes... Pursuing this multi-faceted course of action would, although it requires input and refinement, result in much needed affordable housing while accomplishing our shared goals of community and neighborhood preservation. The Monroe County BOCC needs to lead the way. 6 Securing Our Future: A 20 Year Plan A proposed approach to achieve affordable housing goals, while shaping the growth of our communities Monroe County Commissioner Nora Williams, land Use Liaison 490 63rd St. Ocean # 112, Marathon, FL, 33050 Phone: 305-289-6000. Fax: 305-289-6306, Cell: 305-393-1666, Email: noraw@mail.state.f1.us TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: The Bi.g Picture ,:0 Affordable Housing Cesspool Credits RaGa Allocations Cost and Availability of Land Permitting Process Additional Points The Crucial Connection Land Acquisition Establishing Priorities Focusing the Land Authority Land Management Issues Low Cost Options within the Plan Can We Afford to Lose those Tax Dollars? Funding the Big Picture Conclusions 3 5 5 6 9 10 10 14 15 17 18 19 19 20 21 25 Introduction The Florida Keys have a long history of allowing crisis management to be the driving force behind land use decisions. As the latest Hurricane Evacua- tion Report could not have made clearer, we can no longer afford the costs of our failure to plan for our futures. We've had enough summits on these is- sues to last a lifetime. Now is the time for a plan of action. Our previous short-term approach has also lead us to scream for "quick fixes," like the recent release of some 400 permit allocations for affordable housing. Screaming for some agency outside the Keys to fix our problems for us is a deeply disturbing trend within the County. Indeed, these quick fixes have brought us no closer to long-term solutions. We do not need the state or federal government to "fix" these problems for us. We have the ability to do that, to the extent that it can responsibly be done, within ourselves, with a lit- tle help. We CAN address the problems we face within the confines of our Comprehensive Plan, with only minor changes, if we will do two things: pool our resources and plan. Why discuss affordable housing programs alongside land acquisition? Be- cause neither can succeed without the other, and because both are crucial to securing the future of these islands and the people who live here. Because we haven't had a longterm strategy for our future, we have left both the shaping of our communities' growth and the protection and provision of affordable housing to the mercies of the marketplace created under ROGO. The problem is that tl?-e market has no mercy, no concern for how communi- ties change as a result of where growth occurs, and, under ROGO, a natural propensity to reward the rich, and render everyone else frustrated beyond measure. In the communities throughout the Keys, we've been willing to say that we have made choices. We've decided that we want to protect the place of ser- vice workers, teachers, young families and retirees-anyone who could be washed away by the rising tide of housing costs. We've declared that we Page 3 want to protect these islands from further degradation, and our communities from further losing their quality oflife. But that's only rhetoric if we aren't willing to make the hard choices that can actually help us accomplish those goals. The only hope we have of securing our future is by careful planning, because the only certainty we can rely on in these island communities is that someday we will run out of room. What I'll be describing below is a multi-faceted twenty-year effort to make possible the building of significant affordable housing, while preserving and enhancing the quality of our communities and neighborhoods by a program of land acquisition designed to shape their development in ways that reflect local wishes. If we share the goals of the protection and creation of affordable housing and of shaping our communities to yield a desired future, it is my hope that the fol- lowing proposal can be a starting point for the eventual formation of a twenty- year action plan for Monroe County. ~ ~ Page 4 A. Affordable Housing .,' " Our highest priority in creating affordable housing must be to ensure that it re- mains affordable into perpetuity. It's not as though there will be big plots ofland available in twenty or even fifty years for affordable housing. Our most cost- effective affordable housing projects are multi-unit long-term rentals, but we also must make single family affordable housing more attractive. Single family hous- ing will be dealt with under the land acquisition discussion that follows this one. Redevelopment and the preservation of our existing affordable housing stock is also essential but not within the scope of this document, although it is briefly ad- dressed in the end notes. This section is specifically devoted to multi-unit hous- mg. We need to provide housing that is slightly above affordable housing standards as part of these complexes to increase their viability and to allow for the inclusion of dual-earner couples at the level of workers within the Sheriffs department and our School System. At the same time, we should be fighting to see the definitions of state and federal funding agencies expanded for the high cost of living here in the Keys. This plan addresses four factors that inhibit the ability of Monroe County to produce adequate affordable housing: 1. The cost and availability of unknown sys- tem (cesspool) credits DCA has already stated on paper that they can agree to two actions essential to removing this roadblock to the production of affordable housing. The first of these is that we will have the ability to release cesspool credits the moment a wastewater treatment facility is permitted. This bears repeating: permitting wastewater treatment facilities is crucial to affordable housing. The moment we finally get the first phase of the first large facility permitted, this problem is solved. Key Largo's Waste- water Treatment Facility alone could produce seven thousand unknown system credits. At the current rate of building permits, we'd have enough unknown system Page 5 How many credits get re- leased when a wastewa- ter facility is permitted ? The minimum number that will result from the phase of the facility that is permitted. ? For example, if we permit the first phase of Key Largo's plant, we'll earn half a credit for every septic system to be replaced. Key Largo alone will generate thousands of such credits ? More credits will be added as actual systems are hooked up and the number that are cess- pools (which earn a full credit) are documented. credits to build at the current rate for the entire life of this twenty year plan! Why don't we already ha"ve those credits? Because, due to political discomfort, Mon- roe County hasn't been willing to put the pressure on getting the projects permitted and moving forward. That must change if we are to solve this problem, but the means of solving it are clearly well within our grasp. Until such time as large facilities are permitted, however, the first priority for un- known system credits must be affordable housing. Note that there is one other essential action that must take place before this hindrance can be put behind us: unknown system credits must be transferable across ROGO boundaries. DCA has already committed to this course of action. Unknown system credits must be able to travel where needed for affordable housing projects. 2. The availability of adequate ROGO allocations to allow projects to be cost-effective One of the greatest challenges to producing cost-effective affordable housing is secur- ing adequate ROGO allocations. At this time, about 20% of our permits are set aside for affordable housing. While this may sound low, it has been hard to find projects to fill those twenty percent. Here's the tragic irony: because they often go unclaimed, some have argued that twenty percent is too high a percentage to set aside. But the reason they go unclaimed is because twenty percent is too small a percentage to make projects worth doing. Traditionally, the Keys have been divided into three Rate-of-Growth-Ordinance areas within which credits and permits must stay. While there were other reasons for insti- tuting this practice and, while there are certainly differences between particular areas and islands in the Keys, this distinction has ceased to be useful for the issue of afford- able housing. Credits and permits should go where projects need them, across ROGO boundaries. DCA has already acknowledged this and pledged support. DCA has in fact already done this with regard to transferring unknown system credits, so that a replaced system in one part of the Keys may be used for a new building per- mit in another part of the Keys. The reason why we need this for affordable housing as well is clear: a single ROGO area of the Keys may receive about 100 permits per year, and an affordable housing project, to be profitable for developers, needs a minimum of about eighty units. No one area of the Keys is willing to surrender 80% of its permits in a given year, of course, but 80 permits represents less than a third of the total annual Page 6 307? * 204 for unincorporated Monroe County, Mara- thon & Islamorada * 81 for Key West * Roughly 14 for Key Col- ony Beach * Roughly 2 for Layton permits awarded throughout the Keys. That becomes a very reason- able number, but only achievable if permits can be pooled across current boundaries. (While this document only calls for the lower- ing of ROGO boundaries in the case of affordable housing, we do need to examine whether or not those boundaries are serving us well in other areas too.) Suddenly, with the removal of ROGO boundaries for the pursuit of . affordable housing, a reasonable percentage of our ROGO alloca- tion can result in significant projects every year. Pooling our ROGO allocation af- fordable housing resources will require an agreement with DCA and every municipal government. We would all commit to a signifi- cant percentage of our total yearly ROGO allocation county-wide to go to this effort. Thirty-50% of that allocation will make one or two sizable projects pos- sible every year. * Roughly 6 for Ocean Reef Note that changing our allocation of ROGO units for affordable housing will require an LDR (Land De- velopment Regulation) revision. That's significantly less complex than a Comp Plan revision, a fairly short process that requires review by Monroe County's own Development Review Committee, Planning Commission, the BOCC and about a forty day turn-around at DCA. Here's how it could work. In the interlocal agree- ment between all municipal governments, we set aside a specific percentage of the total permits re- ceived by the County for these multi-unit projects. We should set the same rate throughout the County as a mutual policy decision, but 30-50% would re- sult in between 102 and 154 permits per year, as our yearly total of late has been 307 (see sidebar, this page). We can revisit this percentage every five years to expand or contract it as the success and de- velopment of the process progresses. Page 7 Why can't we concentrate on smaller projects or single family homes? ? They simply aren't cost-effective--we have always had the ROGO units to be able to proceed with those kinds of projects, they just don't work. ? If it's not cost effective, then private developers (who actually tend to com- plete projects more so than govern- ment entities, in my experience) won't build the projects. ? They aren't long-term solutions. Mort- gages for single family homes or loans for private small projects insist on a "lifespan" for affordability, generally twenty or fifty years. This problem won't have disappeared by then. We need affordable housing into perpetuity. ? Smaller projects don't allow for fitting in the wide spectrum of economic income that you need to keep your projects from becoming "ghetto-ized." ? This plan doesn't preclude such projects (see next sidebar), it just concentrates these permits on the type of housing that is most needed, most cost- effective, and a long-term solution. Since we've pooled our resources from every ROGO area of the County, how do we decide where the projects go and when? We should utilize those allocations through- out the County, but the ~ajority of them should be "spent" where the need is greatest: in the Lower Keys and Key West. Projects in the upper Lower Keys will clearly bene- fit Marathon as well. So does this mean an end to small affordable housing projects? ? Not at all. First, the following land acquisi- tion proposal, in conjunction with this plan, should make single family affordable housing less expensive--and provide incentives for it. ? Also, there is no reason that these projects must be large. We can plan to group a se- ries of smaller properties together so that a developer will be bidding to build three separate 20 unit projects, for example, on three separate parcels that are close to one another. The same process can be envi- sioned for four-plexes, even duplexes, even, potentially, single family homes.. ? The trick will be, in pursuing smaller pro- jects, to group enough like properties in close proximity to one another together to keep the project cost-effective for private development. We need to make the determination in our in- terlocal agreement about what areas should re- ceive the greatest number of these projects over the twenty year period. If we regard the twenty years of this plan in four five-year seg- ments, we'll need to cycle where those projects occur. Here is an option for how that might work. In every five year period, 3 years worth of afford- able housing project ROGO allocations could be devoted to Lower Keys projects that serve the need in Key West (projects located Big Pine Key-Key West), 1.5 years for projects that serve the Layton through Marathon area (Layton-Summerland Key), and .5 years for projects that serve the Upper Keys, where the need is historically seen as less (and where our most recent affordable housing project was ap- proved). That particular option would result in, over five years, as many as 462 new affordable housing units to serve Lower Keys' needs, 231 to serve the Middle Keys, and 77 to serve the Upper Keys. Our interlocal agreement must determine which areas receive what concentration of effort, and what physical locations of housing serve which areas. We should also con- sider revisiting this allocation every five years as well, to note our progress and make any needed changes. Note that no one will end up getting fewer affordable housing projects through this process than they would get under the process in place today. In fact, since almost no Page 8 affordable housing is being built today, everyone will wind up with dramatically more. This program would wOJ;:.k to everyone's benefit. It is the only option we have, without cheating or looking for ~ore quick fixes, that will make these projects profitable for private developers. Without the incentive of profit, we will continue to fail to see such projects produced. In essence, we've talked a lot about how important the provision of affordable housing is. It's time to put up or shut up. We need to set aside a larger percentage of our allo- cated permits, commit them for affordable housing and pool them to allow for the pro- duction of medium-sized to large affordable housing complexes each and every year where they are most needed. 3. The cost and availability of land Two things require that the Land Authority purchase the land. and that the ownership of the land itself remain with local government: (I) the best way to ensure that the pro- ject will be affordable into perpetuity is for ownership of the land to remain with local governments, with such constraints placed permanently on the land's use, and (2) to make the projects cost-effective for developers. Land is prohibitively expensive for affordable housing projects in Monroe County. The lands that are suitable for such projects, either on their own, or in conjunction with other parcels, need to be identified now. Some of that work has already been done, but more needs to be-as detailed in the next section. But those lands should be purchased now, as prices will only increase in the future. So how do we buy all that land now? The Board of County Commissioners, with the support of the City of Key West, should bond the necessary revenue from the next twenty years of the half of the fourth cent of the bed tax that currently goes to the Land Authority. Key West's share of those funds should be used for the Lower Keys/ Key West projects that are seen to benefit Key West. With the possible exception of the 12.5% of that half cent that the County has committed to Islamorada, the County should commit funds as necessary for projects in the Upper and Middle Keys. By bonding these funds for this purpose, those lands can be purchased now for the even- tual development of suitable projects. This will also allow for our Growth Management Department to begin the process of preparing the status and zoning of those lands, as necessary to define the kind of pro- \ Page 9 jects that would be easily approved upon that site. This could shave years of time off the eventual permitting process (see next section). ":,"".; 4. The pain and expense of the process of obtaining necessary per- mits for construction The process of getting the necessary permits for construction of these projects must be made as simple and inexpensive as possible. By buying the property well in ad- vance of commencement of a project, we will have time to put those lands through the necessary processes so that we can define the number of units and distribution of those units for a particular parcel, or a particular group of parcels. That way, the developer who walks through our door with a plan that meets those specs can walk through the process without having to proceed through an expensive, time- consuming and disheartening process. It just isn't possible to undertake this with existing staff, because of the amount of time and concentration required and because of the nature of the task. This task is a county-wide function, while our Planning Staff is paid for from unincorporated Monroe tax dollars. We will need to have a new position, funded from county-wide tax dollars (i.e. the general fund) if we are serious about solving this problem. That person will have to identify those properties or groups of properties, and walk them through the processes described above. Those properties will be prioritized for projects. Well before developers are al- lowed to compete for placing a project on a particular site, we should know how that site can and should be developed, in terms of number and distribution of units, as of right. The competition for developers for a particular site should take place well before that particular ROGO allocation becomes available, so that state and federal hoops can be jumped through, and funding committed before the ROGO year begins. At the point the ROGO year begins, the shovels should be ready to go into the ground, project finalized and approved, funding in place. Much of that work will rest on the shoulders of those private developers--one of our surest bets that the work will ac- tually get done. Page 10 Additional points: To make affordable hou~ing projects more attractive and more viable as community efforts (and less likely to"become ghetto-ized), we need to include in these affordable housing projects housing that is slightly above affordable housing standards as part of our multi-unit projects. Dual income government workers, like our Park Rangers, our Sheriffs deputies and our teachers, also need our help and will add social and eco- nomic viability to the communities that will be formed. A mixed-income community is essential for the health and vitality of the communities formed by these affordable housing projects. In order to mix these units in, we might want to establish another "ROGO" allocation" category for housing of government and public service employ- ees, which would require, at a minimum, amending ROGO (Section 9.5-122) and might require an additional Comp Plan amendment. (We should also be fighting to see the definitions of affordable housing expanded for Monroe County, because of our high cost ofliving and real estate.) This process could also be made smoother by developing a new program which cre- ates an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, which meets certain criteria. The policy could be written in such a way that the Growth Management Department would have the authority to award a certain density based on certain factors, which could include: types of existing zoning that could qualify (residential high, medium, mixed use and! or suburban commercial), the allocation of a certain percentage of dwelling units to individuals meeting low, very low or moderate income levels in accordance with HUD guidelines or for Public Service employees, planned hook up to a wastewater treat- ment plant or package plant, etc.). For smaller projects, or projects composed of a series of duplexes on a group of lots, the Commission may wish to consider changing current LDRs to allow attached hous- ing in certain IS subdivisions where appropriate to encourage affordable housing, and where there is community support. We may also need to re-examine appropriate zonings for this type of development. Could Suburban Commercial be an appropriate multi-family zoning? It could-and we SHOULD-but we'd need to change our Code. Additionally, we must fight for the designation of unincorporated Monroe as "ruraL" Our funding opportunities will increase significantly. While we have passed resolu- tions supporting this and asked for the State's support as well, we must actively pursue this goal. So far, we've simply been ignored, but we have a good argument and a great need, so I'd suggest that you send your Land Use Liaison with a representative of DCA to meet with the USDA folk that can render this designation. Page II . We must also not exacerbate the need for affordable housing within the County. Any significant commercial development must be offset by the development of housing to meet the needs that would develop from the addition of that business. We need to re- examine the ability within our "urban cores" to allow affordable housing above com- mercial space. We should also seek the funding assistance of a distinct and separate set-aside from the State's Housing Finance Corp. for reasons of our status as an area of critical state concern and our high cost of living. We must also recognize that the reduction in the number of available market rate ROGO allocations will increase competition for those permits. In order that these do not end up reserved solely for the rich, three things must occur: (1) we must add ROGO points for items that are low- or no- cost and which are more likely to occur with modest housing (among many things, we could add more points than are cur- rently given for housing that is modest/affordable, and we could add new points for NOT having a pool or tennis court, for NOT clearing all the land you can, for using native plantings for all landscaping, points could be issued on a sliding scale based on income, etc.); (2) land acquisition must be carefully monitored and planned to encour- age modest/affordable housing; and (3) the land acquisition program must have as one of its purposes the eventual retirement ofthe existing ROGO system for a fairer, more equitable alternative. The proposal outlined above may not address every financial need that may arise in making these projects attractive and profitable to private developers. Even with the state-funding our recently-approved Key Largo project received, the effort is quite hand-to-mouth. Additional sources of revenue to fund construction shortfalls, may need to be garnered from additional sources. We may need to turn to some of the same sources we turn to in Part C: Land Acquisition. There are also things we could con- sider doing right now that could address that shortfall question. For example, if we were properly zoned, in some of these projects, to allow for mobile homes (built to Florida Building Codes, and designed to withstand 135 mph winds, we might put that issue of needed additional funding to rest. Another concept in achieving affordability is to insist that any new multi-unit projects include a combination of affordable units AND designed "affordable" market rate units. Those market rate units would remain more affordable than normal market rate, simply by placing caps on square footage (for example, 750 square feet per unit). While their rental prices would be greater than our definition of affordability, those Page 12 prices would only become so much higher over time, because of the limited square footage. Another benefit of the mix of affordable and market rate "affordable" will be that that combination will also work to limit the market rate rent. Another possible avenUe for meeting the shortfall is through partnering with existing local businesses or public entities who need the affordable housing. The market, however, will only bear so much of a cost for that partnership on a per unit basis. The proposal outlined above does not deal with the actions that need to be taken to protect our existing stock of affordable housing units. We should, for example, not allow people to greatly expand the square footage of a home they've purchased for demolition. It's simply too easy to buy affordable housing and replace it with hous- ing that is not affordable. Under our present rules, a duplex composed of two 900 square foot efficiency apartments could be purchased, demolished and replaced by two 5,000 square foot mansions. It's inconceivable that we haven't fixed this. The proposal outlined above also does not deal with the actions that need to be taken to encourage affordable housing as a redevelopment goal. In the coming decades, and particularly AFTER the coming decades, redevelopment will be an ever-growing trend. Affordable housing must be an explicit part of our redevelopment plan. We need to find ways to encourage the conversion of existing commercial space to af- fordable housing. "~:;'" L0i Note that, under this plan, we could create as many as 3080 units of affordable hous- ing over the course of the next twenty years (if we've chosen to adopt the 50% allo- cation for such housing AND if we are continuing to issue the same number of per- mits per year as currently as are currently being permitted), in addition to the 400 units recently granted us by the state. If we are wise enough to tie any future com- mercial development, limited though it will be, to the production of any additional affordable housing need that it creates, we will have addressed both the need that ex- ists today (estimated at 3500 countywide) and the need created by any future com- mercial development. Page 13 From Affordable HOJIsing to Land Acquisition: the Crucial Connection What the simple steps I've described show is that we could be building our first pro- jects two years from now, while we're actively making measurable progress on the next nineteen years of effective affordable housing construction. All it takes is an agreement for us to pool our resources and work together to address this tremendous need. And, of course, getting one significantly sized wastewater treatment system per- mitted. And that little issue of bonding the 4th cent and buying the land.... But why is there a Part B to the plan? Why is Land Acquisition crucial to Affordable Housing? In the discussion on Land Acquisition, we won't be discussing the acquisi- tion ofland for affordable housing. That was covered under Part A. And we won't be discussing the acquisition oflarge, environmentally sensitive parcels. We'll be talking about the acquisition of IS subdivision lots, buildable lots, something that has never been a primary focus for anyone in Monroe County. It's long overdue. Land Acquisition is the most useful tool we have to deal with the downsides of Part A ofthe proposal. It is our resource for shaping future growth in a manner than encour- ages still more, but smaller scale, modest and affordable housing. While ROGO has done an adequate job of keeping development out of the most environmentally sensi- tive areas, it has not been able to encourage growth in locations where we want it, while discouraging it in neighborhoods and areas where we don't, in the kinds of ways that would reflect our most basic community goals, including affordable housing. If we are to make any kind of progress in shaping growth in ways that encourage such outcomes as more abundant affordable housing, we must be able to define where growth should and should not be encouraged. Land Acquisition is the YIN to Afford- able Housing's YANG. There is no responsible longterm plan for future growth, even affordable housing, without an accompanying plan for Land Acquisition. Land Acquisition, in partnership with an aggressive plan to orient our development ef- forts toward modest housing, is our strongest tool for making sure that we actually achieve the goals we claim. It is the only mechanism that ensures the ability to shape our communities and to ensure that the future we reach is one we plan and hope for. As a result, the proposal for a new land acquisition program is absolutely pivotal to solving the affordable housing problem in the Keys. It has added benefits, which will be described in detail below, but this one above all others: land acquisition is the key to securing our future. Page 14 B. The Land Acquisition Program ..... " 1. What Such A Program Can Accomplish This twenty-year Land Acquisition Program is designed tO'meet the following goals. A. Make the construction of modest housing on remaining buildable lots more likely By concentrating land acquisition away from areas well suited for modest/ affordable housing, and encouraging growth and development in in-fill subdivi- sions already served by infrastructure, we will have taken great strides to encour- age the development of modest homes. Also, because the land acquisition process will make it possible for us to have a simpler, less expensive process of permit distribution (discussion in H, below), chances of building modest homes will be much improved. B. Concentrate development where it is desired Today, with the exception of areas with severe environmental restrictions, build- ing takes place willy-nilly, in an arbitrary fashion, without regard for community desires, needs, and presence and availability of suitable features. The only way to concentrate development where communities want it is to make sure that develop- ment can't be concentrated elsewhere. And, again, there is only one way to do that fairly: it isn't through slowly torturing those who own land, it is through buy- ing the land at a fair price and, where appropriate, retiring that development right. C. Preserve community and neighborhood character The only way to shape our communities so that the future they get is the future they want is to work with those communities to define where development should and should not occur, to respect those decisions, and to fund the effort to create that future. D. Maximize green and open space Open space can increase the likelihood of water visibility, encourage the growth and preservation of native species of both plants and animals, and add a quality to a neighborhood that is invaluable. Page 15 E. A void build-out Frankly, one of the easie::;t ways to gauge support for land acquisition in the Keys is to ask any group of people you appear before a simple question: How many of you want to see every buildable lot in the Keys built on? No one in the room is likely to lift a hand. It's obvious that we don't want-and can't have---every lot built on. But we haven't been willing to move from general affirmation of that principle to actually putting a plan in place to make sure that it doesn't happen. There are only two way to honorably keep those lots from being built on: acquire them for fair market value or retire their development rights in a manner approved by the owner. Why aren't we concentrating on environmentally sensitive lands? ? Because this program is about shaping the future development of our neighborhoods and communities, about controlling den- sity and build-out. This program is about IS subdivision lots. ? According to our Comp Plan, environ- mentally sensitive lands must be restored to native habitat. That adds significant ex- pense, and would prevent such otherwise desirable outcomes as people using the extra space as part oftheir yards. ? The State is actually doing an excellent job buying environmentally sensitive lands. particularly those that exist as large tracts. That only helps so much with growth and development issues because. under our ROGO, those lands are already incredibly difficult to build on. ? This program does a job that no one else is undertaking-and it isn't an easy job. But it must be done, both to ease the an- ger of our existing population at the ineq- uities of our current system and to make sure that the future we're headed for is the future we want. F. Limit strains on the Florida Keys' car- rying capacity It's impossible to argue that we have the space to keep developing forever. In addi- tion to considerations like "quality of life," we run into issues like "loss of life" as the pace of our development outstrips our ability to safely evacuate our population. Our choices are simple: if growth contin- ues at its current rate, the day will come when even the planned improvements to roadways cannot accommodate the traffic. Ifwe don't want existing businesses and homes tom out to make room for ever- wider pavement, we must make plans now for the indisputable reality of our finite re- sources. If we are to plan responsibly for our future, then there is no question that we must pursue a plan of land acquisition and retirement of development rights. G. Putting battles over development to rest As any of the State and Federal agencies who've had the joy of dealing with build- ing issues on Big Pine Key can tell you, there is only one way you end these bat- Page 16 ties: buy the land at a fair price. If people can't build, if you don't want people to build, then the right thing to do isn't just to make it as close to impossible and as expensive as you can. The right thing to do is pur- chase the land at a fair price. H. Ending the nightmare of the current ROGO point system for the allo- cation of permits ROGO has served us fairly well in slowing down growth, but the down- side of ROGO is enormous. It's been said before that, in its current state, ROGO is a means of controlling growth by making people trying to build a home insane. It has proven to be a mechanism that is largely a tool for the rich, who buy their way to more points in ROGO than the average homeowner could afford. It is also a frustrating and complex system that leaves almost all our constituents feeling that the playing field isn't level, that their rights are not respected, and that they cannot get an answer to a simple question at any cost. There are enormous benefits in removing ourselves from our current ROGO system. Once we've defined the areas where we'll be concentrat- ing our acquisition efforts, as well as the areas where we'll be encourag- ing development, getting permission to build a home on a lot in an area where development is encouraged can become vastly simplified. Distri- bution of available permits could be as straightforward as a simple lot- tery, without the expense or nightmare of the current points process. This program of land acquisition thus changes the nature of ROGO, while preserving its fundamental goal of responsible development. There is only, ultimately, one way to "control" growth- retire building rights, whether through outright purchase or agreements with property owners. 2. Establishing Priorities Where to start? In the time it will take us to specify and commit local funding ef- forts, we should have plenty of time to make a truncated list of high priority ac- quisition areas. That list will evolve and expand over the course of the next three years, as the CommuniKeys program is brought to fruition, We will define areas where building should be taking place as well as areas where Page I 7 we need to take steps to avoid development or build-out. Precisely that kind of informa- tion will be revealed in the course of the CommuniKeys program. Growth Management will work on a series of maps, upon which specific areas will be identified for develop- ment and specific areas will be identified where development will be discouraged and public acquisition will be a maJor tool. These areas would be identified based on native habitat; number, size, and intensity of lots developed; areas targeted for acquisition by communities involved with our own Communi Keys program; etc. This approach should be based on data developed through the GIS and used to develop a program that establishes specific phases or priority levels of acquisition. (ROGO would be revised through Comp Plan amendments as this process evolves to implement this approach.) Interim policies would be developed to set clear and immediate priorities and direct acquisition, including guidelines on fair acquisition price policies. Thus, we already have the mechanism in place to define where acquisition priorities should be. Formulating the comprehensive overall master plan may take as much as the first three years of the acquisition program to complete, although existing priorities and the formulation of interim policies will allow us to begin the land acquisition program immediately. 3. Focusing the Land Authority At the present time, the Land Authority manages to close on about sixty properties per year. That simply won't do to accomplish the kinds of aggressive goals we're talking about here. We must focus the efforts of the Land Authority on this program of land acquisition. With the sole excep- tion of the purchase of properties required for Part A of this proposal, this acquisition program must be the Land Authority's only task. We know that focusing the Land Authority's efforts can bring dramatic results. When we focused their efforts on the Preservation 2000 funds, we saw more money spent in the course of four months than had been spent in the previous three years. It will be hard to say "no" to groups who want our help with an acquisition effort. But we must be clear on our priorities and stick to them. CARL purchases, for example, will need to be left in the hands of the State, which has been very effective in the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. In addition, even if we limit the tasks of the Land Authority as thusly described, there will still be additional staffing needs. Staffing assistance should be sought from the State and Federal agencies which deal in land acquisition, as well as non-profits which specialize in this area. Page 18 4. Land Management Issues ,J Because these are IS subdivision lots, management is a REAL issue. Neighbors will not want the properties ignored and the lots will have to be actively maintained, as least initially. Clearly, several actions will need to be taken to minimize the impacts of these costs on local citizenry. a) Sources of funding for this program should allow, wherever possible, expenditure for management. b) The acquisition program should make a priority areas where legally established homeowners asso- ciations are willing to assume management responsibilities, or where neighboring property owners are willing to accept ownership/land management responsibilities in return for the Land Authority sharing the purchase cost of that property (for which the land owner will return a conservation easement to the County). c) Wherever possible, grants should be sought and non-profit environmental groups used to provide volunteers to return IS subdivision lots to attractive native growth that does not require long term main- tenance. This will both minimize costs and maximize the return of habitat even in the midst of develop- ment. Groups like the Exotics Removal Task Force will be crucial to this effort, as will, I suspect, local homeowners groups. However, note that such restoration is not the first priority of this program and may only be pursued where those grants are pursued and won and where outside entities are willing to take responsibility for implementation. d) The County will need to re-commit to a Land Manager to coordinate these efforts with state, federal, non-profit and community groups and to devise the most cost-effective plans for meet- ing the demands of this labor-intensive effort. The long term benefit is enormous for our com- munities, but it will take a committed effort from the County (requiring a local, centrally situ- ated staff person) to coordinate that effort. 5. Low Cost Options within the Plan Programs to set in place that will minimize costs and maximize progress: a) Set in place county-wide a program that has been successful in the Big Pine Key area but not implemented elsewhere: share costs for land purchase with adjacent or contiguous (even across roadway) neighbors, leaving ownership of the property (and responsibility for the management of the lot) in the hands of the property owner, who returns a conservation ease- ment to the County. Limited conservation easements can be particularly attractive, as they allow accessory uses for the adjacent homeowner. Page I 9 b) Set up a program that allows the County to reach agreements with local homeowners as- sociations that wish to avoid build-out within their subdivision or neighborhood, for man- agement of purchased lots and/or the transfer of ownership of those lots to those homeown- ers associations in return for a conservation easement. c) Currently, only selected environmentally sensitive lots may be donated to the County to earn ROGO points. This program should be expanded to include any IS subdivision lots in areas which Growth Management has defined as acquisition areas. This would re- quire a Comp Plan change. d) The programs which are described above should be pursued immediately. They will need to be refined as we define our areas of concentration, but the sooner they are en- abled, the more lots will be retired. As the costs of land continues to skyrock~t, one of our most effective tools for saving money in this program is establishing those conserva- tion easements and/or purchasing these prop- erties as quickly as we can. e) We should buy any properties that are listed for sale, priced at or below 115% of Monroe County's appraised value for that property. By leaving the closing arrange- ments to the listing realtor, and providing the basic documents that we would require, our associated costs for the purchase may be minimized. f) We should solicit homeowners whose properties includes extra lots in a single estate to retire the building rights associated with Page 20 Can we afford to give up the prop- erty tax we'd lose by retiring build- ing rights and acquiring land? ? A better question might be "Can we afford not to?" ? Every campaign season you hear the rhetoric: "95% of Monroe County's lands are owned by the government, and they pay no property taxes! This is a tremendous burden on our taxpayers!" ? It may seem that if lots are removed from the taxpaying pool, everyone remaining would have to pay more for the services rendered by local government. But it sim- ply isn't true. ? Think about it. The clearest example is this one. That "95%" that gets so much press is mostly on the mainland. It's now parkland that we have no responsibil- ity for. Do you know how much it would cost us to provide services on the mainland? To produce infra- structure for the residents up there? It is a great cost savings for the county that those lands are "off the books." To a lesser extent, the same is true here on the islands as well. ? Take a look at the budget for your municipality or for the County. Look at the small percentage of the total budget that local ad valorem taxes provide. In short, the vast majority of our budget is paid for out of sources OTHER THAN ad valorem property tax. To put it an- other way, the property taxes you pay to the County don't cover your percentage of the budget. And they don't have to. because we have other sources of in- come. ? By the same token, however, if there are fewer lots to be developed, and fewer people to be served, then those alternative sources of income are going to be spread less thinly over the population. So, less develop- ment may mean, in the long run, more resources avail- able for the people who live here now, not less. ? And there is no indication whatsoever that the loss of those property tax dollars will mean an eventual in- crease in the tax burden for our citizenry. It could actu- ally mean less, since empty lots require fewer services than developed ones. those additional lots. It's a win/win for everyone: it takes a buildable lot out of the pool for the county (which would grant a conservation easement on the property) and saves the homeowner property tax (lots tha! can not be built on are clearly going to be taxed for less than those than can). Warranty deeds may be used to treat that collection of lots as a single property with only one dwelling right attached. 6. Funding the Big Picture What's the goal of this plan in terms of land acquisition and how much it is going to cost? No one can tell you for sure, because guessing what price real estate will cost over time, or exactly what the program will look like after the CommuniKeys program and other Growth Management work is completed is a fool's game. The amount we initially concentrate on this effort will be a combination of BOCC political will, and the wishes of the people of Monroe County. However, there are a couple of things we can know with certainty: it won't get cheaper later if we don't start now. And there is absolutely no danger that we would raise more money than we would require over the twenty years. Estimates of associated costs are available, once the Commission has accepted the idea of the program and set some goals that would allow us to further define those costs. Obviously, this program would be designed to focus on only a percentage of that total. If this kind of land acquisition is a priority for us, we need to set aside funding now, aiming for as much as we can generate or get. We've been waiting for years for someone just to give us a source ofrevenue, much like our continual desire for the "quick fixes" for the affordable housing problem. I suspect that no one will "fix" this problem for us, until we make strong local commitments to bear a share of the cost. The County should fund roughly one third of this twenty-year effort from local sources, and bond those coming revenues now so that as much land as possible can be purchased at to- day's prices. Additionally, the long-term commitment of those funds through bonding will encourage state and federal sources to commit to matching funds over time. As with our fed- eral water improvements authorization, outside entities are waiting to see real commitment on our part before handing over the dollars we'll need. Funding Sources for outright or partial purchase and land management a) Local There are essentially two problems with outside sources of funding: (1) almost all must be secured on an annual basis, which makes them impossible to use with certainty as a mecha- Page 21 nism to secure the needed bond; and (2) we really do have to quit waiting for someone to solve these problems for us. While we must have outside sod~ces of funding, our first step must be to secure funding lo- cally. Not only will that approach allow us to get started more quickly with the program, it will increase our ability to garner funding from outside because of that firm expression of our commitment. The County should be seeking to generate $5 million per year for this pursuit. Possible sources of local funding are outlined below: 1) The Infrastructure Sales Tax: In March of 2000, County taxpayers agreed to extend the Monroe County Infrastructure Sales Tax to 2019, specifically for the purposes of expen- diture for wastewater, stormwater, land acquisition and management. The sum of money that will come into the County's coffers as a result will be $8 million or more dollars per year. I would suggest that we commit now, and bond, $2 million per year for this Land Acquisition Program (a maximum of25% of the total funds). In addition, we need to consider our capital projects calendar for the next four years to free up those dollars in the years between now and the extension of the Infrastructure Sales Tax so that the bond can begin immediately. And we must save a few million over the life of the extended in- frastructure sales tax to cover the final two years of the twenty year bond that will occur after the extension is completed. 2) Fund Balances: We have some areas of our budget with excessive fund balances. There are funds which could be put toward the land acquisition and management program. This could have a big impact on the start of our program without additional expenditure from our citizenry. When the Board of County Commissioners determines what appropriate levels of balance should be, we could determine, at the same time, if any excess might be used for this purpose. (3) An additional one cent tourist sales tax: In a survey that resulted from a joint effort of the BOCC and the TOC last year, our residents supported the addition of a one cent increase. A referendum would need to be prepared for the voters to allow this to happen. However, note that this fifth cent would revert to the rules of the third cent, according to Suzanne Hutton of the County Attorney's office, meaning that (a) only a limited amount of the revenue would be usable for this purpose, and the only purpose allowed that would match our need would be "shoreline improvement." We could craft a program for acquisition of waterfront lots to restore or preserve them. (4) A specific line item from ad valorem tax dollars: County taxpayers could also be asked if they would support a specific sum of ad valorem tax dollars to be set-aside for land acqui- sition to avoid build-out and preserve community/neighborhood character. Again, reassur- Page 22 ance would need to be provided that the bulk of the funds would go to actual acquisition, not to management or administrative expenses. Even if there was not a majority of support for this line item, an option cQuld be added to our property tax bills, allowing property owners to CHOOSE to add a '~mall sum to their annual property tax dollars for this pur- pose. (5) Donations for the County's program of Land Acquisition: We could mount a campaign to solicit do- nations from throughout the County, from locals, visitors and seasonal residents. (6) Impact Fees: Impact Fees could be added for particular kinds of development projects that could be used toward this purpose. (7) Documentary Stamp Tax: The exchange of property within the Keys could be researched as an op- portunity for the generation of some funds for land acquisition. County funds should be matched from state and/or federal sources below. b) State (I) Extend the CARL Boundaries: The State can purchase subdivision lots within CARL boundaries. If those boundaries are extended, state dollars can be utilized from this well funded program, although, to get state support for this, an agreement will probably need to be reached concerning management. For areas within refuge boundaries, the federal government may assume those responsibilities. Where CARL areas are not within refuge boundaries, management responsibility might well rest on the County. The State will work with us on this. (2) Florida Forever: The County should try to at least match its local contribution each year from these funds. However, the State needs to add points for areas of critical concern. While there are currently proposed points for such areas, there are also a host of other qualifications that generate the same "bonus" point figure. Critical importance should denote precisely that-that this particular arca is CRITICALL Y important in the division of these funds and the point structure should reflect that. (3) A set-aside: As an Area of Critical State Concern, there should be a specific set-aside of funds for land acquisition here as there was for a small number of years. We should again seek that legislative relief or request some such inclusion through the Governor's budget. c) Federal (1) U.S. Fish & Wildlife: while these funds are largely used for larger, environmentally sensitivc proper- Page 23 ties, they can also be used for IS subdivision lots within refuge boundaries. (2) CARA funds: this past legislative season saw the passage of the CARA bill which should result in mil- lions of dollars for the state of Fforida, some of which could certainly be used in the Florida Keys for land acquisition. (3) Set-aside: Just as the State had a "set-aside" designated for our use for a number of years, the federal government could enact the same kind of set-aside. The carrying capacity may be a useful tool for sparking interest in this set -aside. No matter what we garner from those sources, we will also need an additional significant source of de- pendable revenue. While grants, as listed below, can help, they cannot carry this significant load. It will re- quire an additional source of funding, such as a toll, to create the additional revenue. d) Grants: Grants from foundations and non-profit entities should also be sought, in addition to utilizing their ef- forts on management and staffing issues. Local non-profits should be used as sources to pursue this goal. e) Joint efforts: A Toll on U.S. One. No one has ever come up with a better idea for long-term significant funding for this project than a toll on U.S. One. As a regular source of funding that could be bonded, the toll is hard to beat, although it would have to be carefully crafted to gain community support as well as to ensure that the funds would be properly utilized for the benefit of Monroe County's land acquisition program. This would require a coordinated effort between the state and local gov- ernments and a commitment to a low-cost option for local residents. A toll appears to be a necessity to reach the kind of numbers we need to generate. Note that, where funds are needed to address shortfalls in funding for affordable housing pro- jects, some of these same sources of income may need to be examined. For others of these sources, affordable housing would not be an allowable use of funds. The biggest danger before us on the subject of land acquisition is that we won't move forward now, but will keep waiting for someone to hand us a bunch of money before we'll do anything. We can, right now, start committing local funds, and asking our constituents to prioritize this goal. Doing so will be our most persuasive effort yet to actually win those hoped-for funds to be generated from other sources. Again, the time to act is now, and the most necessary action is one alii Page 24 we can control: the commitment of local funds to a localized course of action. CONCLUSION: ~. ..' Outlined herein are two mutually dependent courses of action, laid out over a twenty year plan. By pursuing these two paths, we can lay to rest endless debate, pointless suffering, and help craft a future that accomplishes our most loudly declared goals. Waiting for someone else to fix the problems, or simply waiting in general, has gotten us precisely where we are now: little if any closer to our genuine goals than we were a decade ago. Ask any group of people anywhere throughout the Keys if there is a need for affordable hous- ing. The vast majority will say "Yes." Ask any group of people anywhere throughout the Keys if they want to see every lot on these islands built on. The vast majority will say "No." These aren't even hard questions. That we will need to pursue a path to avoid build-out and utilize our existing and limited resources to concentrate on affordable housing is a given. It has been for a long time. Having a long term vision that we can commit to, however, has long eluded us. There's a reason for that. The reason isn't that creating a long-term vision is impossible. The reason is that it de- mands some tough political choices that we haven't heretofore been willing to make. The time for commitment and action must be now. The time for answering the tough questions must be now. Pursuing the multi-faceted course of action outlined within this proposal would, I believe, ac- complish things that should have been accomplished long ago, and address some of the most vi- tal questions that currently confront us. Although this proposal requires significant refinement and input, it should ensure, over a twenty year period, that much needed affordable housing is produced that will be a resource into perpetuity for our working, fixed income, and commercial population, while also accomplishing our shared goals of community and neighborhood preser- vation and avoidance of build-out. We can accomplish these goals, but only if we work together and refuse to settle for easy quick-fix answers. There are no quick fixes to the significant prob- lems that face us. What is required is a long-term commitment to a sensible path. END Page 25 Recommended Action for Consideration under a Long Range Planning Strategy for Growth Management 1<~ Obviously, there are huge jobs coming up for us in long-planning for Growth Management. What I'm hoping we do today is agree to CONSIDER the following possible changes and actions$ and return this list (with any removed we don't support) to DCA and Growth Management, requesting that these be put through the rigorous process (Development Review Committee, Planning Commission, DCA Review) that is required for any action. That process will refine and enhance these proposals and will result in their return to us for consideration and vote. Your approval today does not commit you to a YES vote down the line - only to a willingness to CONSIDER these actions in the not- too-distant future. COMP PLAN AND LDR CHANGES: · Lowering of ROGO boundaries for affordable housing and sharing of nutrient credits · Increase percentage of affordable housing set aside to allow for at least eighty units to be set aside per year for affordable housing projects. · Make affordable housing an allowable use on properties zoned suburban commercial. · Add ROGO points for no- or low-cost options with real environmental impacts . Expand donated lots that qualify for ROGO points to include lots in acquisition areas throughout the County. I~O Allow mobile(1omes designed for ~ mph winds on affordable housing properties '(or man.fJ+t'd. Create affordable housing overlay zone * . . · Don't allow modest/affordable housing to be replaced by significantly larger, non- affordable housing, by making "replacement unit" for existing housing comparable in square footage, if original house was below the square footage allowances for affordable housing. · Link any new commercial development to the production of affordable housing, either physical production of that housing or a monetary cost set-aside. · Any new multiple-unit market rate residential developments should include a mix of market-rate and affordable housing and should have caps on square footage to encourage modest housing. . Recommended Action for Consideration under a Long Range Planning Strategy for Growth Management · Create incentives to encourage the redevelopment of existing commercial space to affordable housing.,~i Additional Actions: · Select a series of appropriate properties for affordable housing projects via Growth Management, and group together where possible for cost-efficacy · When those properties are selected for our long-term planning horizon, bond the half cent of the TDC 4th cent in the amount required for the amount of time required to purchase those lands now for the purpose of the provision of affordable housing. · Expand Big Pine Key program county-wide that splits cost of subdivision lots with adjacent or contiguous property-owners (it needs to include "across-the-street" property-owners too if it still doesn't), leaving ownership of the property with the property-owner in exchange for a conservation easement (which may allow limited accessory use) for the County. Win-win-win: retirement of development right, willing seller, happy adjacent property owner, no future management costs for the County, retirement of development right. · Growth Management to give a preliminary list of acquisition areas for the larger acquisition effort - and makes such a list a standard part of every CommuniKeys program (this may already be in place and in progress). · Place on the Land Authority priority list, any lots that come up for sale at appropriate prices that are within those acquisition areas. · At our meetings on capital projects in coming years, determine an amount to be set aside each year from the infrastructure sales tax for land acquisition for preservation. March 16, 200 I 2 Recomlnended Action for Consideration under a Long Range Planning Strategy for Growth Management ~ Obviously, there are huge jobs coming up for us in long-planning for Growth Management. What I'm hoping we do today is agree to CONSIDER the following possible changes and actionii and return this list (with any removed we don't support) to DCA and Growth Management, requesting that these be put through the rigorous process (Development Review Committee, Planning Commission, DCA Review) that is required for any action. That process will refine and enhance these proposals and will result in their return to us for consideration and vote. Your approval today does not commit you to a YES vote down the line - only to a willingness to CONSIDER these actions in the not- too-distant future. COMP PLAN AND LDR CHANGES: · Lowering of ROGO boundaries for affordable housing and sharing of nutrient credits · Increase percentage of affordable housing set aside to allow for at least eighty units to be set aside per year for affordable housing projects. · Make affordable housing an allowable use on properties zoned suburban commercial. · Add ROGO points for no- or low-cost options with real environmental impacts · Expand donated lots that qualify for ROGO points to include lots in acquisition areas throughout the Cou~ty. ~ #\p~,. . · Allow mobil~omes designed for ~mph winds on affordable housing properties ~ · Create affordable housing overlay zone · Don't allow modest/affordable housing to be replaced by significantly larger, non- affordable housing, by making "replacement unit" for existing housing comparable in square footage, if original house was below the square footage allowances for affordable housing. · Link any new commercial development to the production of affordable housing, either physical production of that housing or a monetary cost set-aside. · Any new multiple-unit market rate residential developments should include a mix of market-rate and affordable housing and should have caps on square footage to encourage modest housing. . Recommended Action for Consideration under a Long Range Planning Strategy for Growth Management · Create incentives to encourage the redevelopment of existing commercial space to affordable housing.~; Additional Actions: · Select a series of appropriate properties for affordable housing projects via Growth Management, and group together where possible for cost-efficacy · When those properties are selected for our long-term planning horizon, bond the half cent of the TDC 4th cent in the amount required for the amount oftime required to purchase those lands now for the purpose of the provision of affordable housing. · Expand Big Pine Key program county-wide that splits cost of subdivision lots with adjacent or contiguous property-owners (it needs to include "across-the-street" property-owners too if it still doesn't), leaving ownership of the property with the property-owner in exchange for a conservation easement (which may allow limited accessory use) for the County. Win-win-win: retirement of development right, willing seller, happy adjacent property owner, no future management costs for the County, retirement of development right. · Growth Management to give a preliminary list of acquisition areas for the larger acquisition effort - and makes such a list a standard part of every CommuniKeys program (this may already be in place and in progress). · Place on the Land Authority priority list, any lots that come up for sale at appropriate prices that are within those acquisition areas. · At our meetings on capital projects in coming years, determine an amount to be set aside each year from the infrastructure sales tax for land acquisition for preservation. March 16,2001 2