The URL can be used to link to this page

Item M1M C ounty of f Monroe ELj » °o � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /� r i � �� Mayor George Neugent, District 2 The Florida. Ke Se y I Mayor Pro Tern David Rice, District 4 Danny L. Kolhage, District 1 Heather Carruthers, District 3 Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5 County Commission Meeting November 14, 2017 Agenda Item Number: M.1 Agenda Item Summary #3365 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Mayte Santamaria (305) 289 -2500 11:30AM AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation by RRC Associates summarizing the results of the survey of employers located in Monroe County to document employment patterns and the building floor area used for nonresidential development and a presentation by Clarion Associates providing the findings of the Affordable Workforce Housing Support Study for Nonresidential Development which provides the technical support (data & methodology to determine need) for a workforce /affordable housing mitigation program for nonresidential development to be utilized by the County for the adoption of inclusionary housing requirements to address nonresidential and transient development. ITEM BACKGROUND: On April 13, 2016, the BOCC adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which includes Policy 601.1.13 in the Housing Element which states, "Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations on inclusionary housing and shall evaluate expanding the inclusionary housing requirements to include or address nonresidential and transient development and redevelopment based on specific data and analysis." Additionally, Section 125.01055, F. S., states: "Affordable housing. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a county may adopt and maintain in effect any law, ordinance, rule, or other measure that is adopted for the purpose of increasing the supply of affordable housing using land use mechanisms such as inclusionary housing ordinances." The Monroe County Land Development Code defines Inclusionary Housing as "the resulting affordable and /or employee housing created or preserved with the development and /or redevelopment of a parcel where provisions of approved development agreements or orders implement and promote affordable and /or employee housing goals, objectives and policies contained in the plan by requiring set - asides for affordable and /or employee housing units." Current County regulations provide for an inclusionary housing requirement for residential developments that result in the development or redevelopment of three (3) or more dwelling units or ten or more mobile homes to develop or redevelop at least 30 percent of the units as affordable housing units to implement Goal 601 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and to ensure that the need for affordable housing is not exacerbated by new residential development and redevelopment of existing affordable housing stock. The County does not have an inclusionary housing requirement for the development or redevelopment of nonresidential uses (office, retail, hotels, etc). To develop and adopt inclusionary housing requirements for the nonresidential sector to build workforce housing, appropriate data and analysis is necessary to establish the workforce need generation and a rational nexus of need generation and affordable mitigation needs. In August 2016, the BOCC approved a contract with RRC Associates to (1) conduct a data -based survey of employers located in the unincorporated and incorporated parts of Monroe County to verify the employment patterns and the building floor area used for nonresidential development, and to (2) prepare the prototypical workforce /affordable housing unit(s), including size ranges, building materials and costs of construction, to be utilized by the County for the adoption of inclusionary housing requirements to address nonresidential and transient development. In August 2016, the BOCC approved a contract with Clarion Associates to prepare a Support Study providing the technical support (data & methodology to determine need) for a workforce/ affordable housing mitigation program for nonresidential development and redevelopment, to be utilized by the County for the adoption of inclusionary housing requirements to address nonresidential and transient development. Attached are the completed reports by both firms for review by the public and BOCC. Additionally, a draft presentation from each firm is attached summarizing the results of the reports. These reports and information has been developed to assist and support the County in developing an inclusionary housing requirement for nonresidential and transient development. In January 2015, the AHAC adopted Resolution 03 -2015 recommending that the Board of County Commissioners support the County funding and completing a workforce housing study to support development of inclusionary housing requirements for the hospitality and commercial sector to build workforce housing. In July 2016, the AHAC adopted Resolution 01 -2016 providing 33 recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners to facilitate the provision of workforce housing, including that the BOCC support and fund a nexus study as the first step in the expansion of the current County residential inclusionary housing program to cover transient and commercial development in the County. In 2003, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 030 -2003 to establish inclusionary housing requirements (amending Section 9.5- 266(b)) for projects consisting of three or more market rate units to develop at least 30% of the residential units beyond the firth two units as affordable. In 2006, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 017 -2006 revising the inclusionary housing requirements to include: 1) market rate residential development or redevelopment of three or more dwelling units shall be required to develop or redevelop at least 30% of the residential units as affordable housing, and 2) the removal, replacement or conversion of 10 or more mobile homes shall be required to develop or redevelop at least 30% of the residential units as affordable housing. In 2008, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 011 -2008 revising the inclusionary housing requirements to allow an alternative compliance to the inclusionary housing requirements by allowing the developers to deed restrict existing dwelling units as affordable housing in lieu of constructing new affordable units. This agenda item was originally scheduled for the 9/20/17 BOCC meeting which was cancelled due to Hurricane Irma. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: August 17, 2016 - BOCC approved a contract with RRC Associates to (1) conduct a data -based survey of employers located in the unincorporated and incorporated parts of Monroe County to verify the employment patterns and the building floor area used for nonresidential development, and to (2) prepare the prototypical workforce /affordable housing unit(s), including size ranges, building materials and costs of construction, to be utilized by the County for the adoption of inclusionary housing requirements to address nonresidential and transient development; for a fixed price, not -to- exceed contract of $49,171.00. August 17, 2016 - BOCC approved a contract with Clarion Associates to prepare a Support Study providing the technical support (data & methodology to determine need) for a workforce/ affordable housing mitigation program for nonresidential development and redevelopment (expansions and remodels), to be utilized by the County for the adoption of inclusionary housing requirements to address nonresidential and transient development; for a fixed price, not -to- exceed contract of $49,365.00. CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direction on developing an inclusionary requirement for nonresidential and transient development. DOCUMENTATION: RRC_Monroe Cty Employer Survey Presentation Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey Report Clarion _Monroe County_ AH Support Study_ Presentation Affordable Workforce Housing Support Study for Nonresidential Development FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: Total Cost to County: Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: Grant: County Match: Insurance Required: Additional Details: If yes, amount: REVIEWED BY: Mayte Santamaria Completed Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley 09/05/2017 2:06 PM Steve Williams Completed Jaclyn Carnago Skipped Budget and Finance Skipped Maria Slavik Skipped Emily Schemper Skipped Kathy Peters Completed Board of County Commissioners Completed Board of County Commissioners Pending 09/05/2017 1:48 PM Skipped 09/05/2017 3:32 PM 09/05/2017 2:07 PM 08/31/2017 3:15 PM 08/31/2017 3:15 PM 09/05/2017 3:48 PM 09/05/2017 3:48 PM 09/20/2017 9:00 AM 11/14/2017 9:00 AM 8 / t i� November 2016 Employer Survey Monroe County, FL September 20, 2017 ._ _. O Survey • Understand how the availability of affordable housing is affecting employers & employees. • Measure relationships between employment and building space (employment generation ratios). • Understand employer opinions and activities regarding workforce housing. RR Co S 0 L Q a.d 0 0 S Packet Pg. 1060 Meth • E • Mailback survey with online option • Cover letter, reminder postcard and press release to encourage response • 3000 surveys mailed: 318 undeliverable, 2682 presumed delivered • 389 surveys completed (14.5% response rate) • 95% confidence interval: +/- 4.8 percentage points • Responses representative of all employers re: location & industry sector ASSOCIATES c 0 R aD a� CL R 0 R 0 S Packet Pg. 1061 ff ej a ALYA I &I Fo VNL�_ Key West (zips 33040 & 33041) 40% 44% Marathon (zips 33060 & 33052) 16% 15% Islamorada (zip 33036) 9% 7% Key Colony Beach (zip 33051) 1% 1% Layton (zip 33001) 0% 0% Subtotal - Incorporated Cities 66% 67% Unincorporated - Upper Keys (zips 33037 33070) 19% 24% Unincorporated - Middle Keys 1% 0% Unincorporated - Lower Keys (zips 33042 & 33043) 13% 10% o Subtotal - Unincorporated Monroe County 34% 33% Monroe County Overall 100% 100% ASSOCIATES c 0 R aD a� CL R 0 R 0 S Packet Pg. 1061 MMI Retail Trade 16% Accommodation and Food Services 15% Health Care and Social Assistance 10% Professional and Technical Services Construction Amusement, arts, entertainment, recreation 8% Real estate / property management Finance /banking/insurance 3% Government (excluding public schools) 3% Transportation / warehousing / utilities 2% Wholesale trade 1% Agriculture / mining / oil & gas 1% Percent of QCEW establishments, 2015 Manufacturing 1% Percent of Employer Survey respondents, 2016 Educational services 30 Other mq6 - 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Percent of Employers ASSOCIATES„ c O R C G1 to G1 L Q a-� C R 7 to C O V 7 N R C O 7 c Employer demographics: EmplaYMP bu spa 80% 70% r. o m 60% ■ Employers in cities c ■ Employers in unincorp. Monroe Co. 9 E50� 0 overall -all employers v 40% a° v c 30% ° N ° �k �' Asterisks indicate statistically signif. differences between u cities & uninc. county a 20% 10% 0% d' m v m m +w„ m rn m + r-1 N V O N T C N II V O M O M Q1 O O O n N O Ln C Employees Gross square feet of building floor area ASSOCIATES (seasonal maximum: greater of winter or summer) Packet Pg. 1062 8 / • • genera em p l o y ees per • Employment per 1000 sqft = peak season employees / gross building sqft * 1000 fiedian employees Survey per 1,000 sqft responses TOTAL - ALL SURVEY RESPONDENTS 4.0 306 Physical location of business Within incorporated cities 4.0 Unincorporated Monroe County 3.8 9$ ASSOCIATES„ 70% c * ■Employers in cities 60% Y Employers in unincorp. Monroe Co. 50% 0Overall -all employers 0 E 40% W pp o 30% ^' N N d o N a 20°% m 10% to 0% Share of employees Share of employees Share of employees Share of employees living living within 5.0- 9.9 living within 10.0 - living within 4.9 road miles road miles 19.9 road miles 20 or more road miles of work of work of work of work V ASSOCIATES c 0 c aD a� L Q R a.+ c 0 v R c 0 c Packet Pg. 1063 8 / Percent of Responding Employers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Seasonal employees 11—UN General labor /service 1 Retail /service clerks housing Entry level professionals 13% 1A Office support staff _ 14&j 13% —U Mid - management t4A 12% 1 _ 17% A Upper management 112fiA 16%_J � Other employees ■ 5 - Very difficult 0 4 ® 3 -Moderately difficult u 2 ■ 1 - Not at all difficuk ASSOCIATES„ c O R C G1 to G1 CL C 7 to C O t) 7 to R C O 3 c Packet Pg. 1064 housing affected the work performance of your em 60% m ■ Employers in cities 50% c � ■ Employers in unincorp. Monroe Co. V o ©Overall all employers 0 40'% m m d E * 30% D v N �° C u 20% d � a 10% c, e0 °' Ol �°�•. 0% 0 1 o Displeasure High Tardiness from High Other I don't believe with wage turnover long commutes absentee housing has rates due to rate affected C high housing employee _- costs performance ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 1064 , 51 60% ■ Employers in cities 50% v ■ Employers in unincorp. Monroe Co. m O Overall -all employers q 40% a 3° E 30% c N ZR O u 20% d` 0 10% °0 a ZT N The most critical One of the more A problem, but One of our lesser I don't believe it is problem in the serious problems there are others problems a problem Monroe County which also need area attention ASSOCIATES S O R C (D rn L1 Q C a O V I R C O 7 C Percent of Employers 0°% 10% 20°% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Assist employees with housing search 21% 126% Purchase /own unitsthatyou renttoemployees 11% 1 13% Provide housing to employees as part of compensatlon 10% Provide rent subsidies 7% Down payment assistance M4% ■Currently provide Master lease units that you rent to employees N 3% fa Would consider providing in the future 0 Other assistance = S% None of the above L 34% _ 62% ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 1065 Percent of Responding Employers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Rental housing for year -round employees 18% 19% I IA Entry -level for -sale housing for year -round employees 19% I 21% I hil Move -up for -sale housing for year -round employees 11111111111MIl 18% 32% Rental housing for seasonal employees = 16% 33% Other type(s) of housing MEU 16% I 32% r ■ 5 - High priority 0 4 13 - Moderate priority 1- u 1 -Low priority ASSOCIATES„ +t A . 1 ,■ �� November 2016 Employer Survey Q & A Monroe County, FL September 20, 20 nA S O R C G1 N Q C 7 N C O V 3 N R C O 7 C Packet Pg. 1066 8 / Need for Workforce Housing, 49 40 • In order to assess need for workforce housing, it is first necessary to have a working definition of the prototypical workforce housing unit. • Monroe County has a number of affordable /workforce housing unit — Examined 554 units distributed throughout the unincorporated parts of the Keys as built or under construction at the time we began our study y' R R r ASSOGIti I ES S 0 R c (D a� L Q a.d R a.+ 0 V R 0 V S Packet Pg. 1067 8/ • Based on the 554 existing units, the typical is: — Attached unit — 2 bedrooms — 955 square feet of floor area , 77- 1 R R C T S 0 CL 0 R c 0 S Packet Pg. 1068 Affordable/Workforce Cost • 6 recent or on -going affordable housing projects were surveyed to establish cost parameters. Developments Surveyed 6 Units 350 T otal Square Feet 376,655 T otal Construction Cost $98,513,396 per Foot $262 Land Cost $20,311,196 per Foot $53.93 RRC ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 1068 8/ Aff ordab l e /W or kf orce H ous i ng • IL A PROJECT COSTS PER FOOT RRC ASSOCIATES • • Pr Unit in WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS COST RRC ASSOCIATES Simple Average $321.73 Median $320.45 Weighted Average $315.47 Average, Excluding High and Low Per Square Foot Costs $326.40 Average Square Foot Costs Used $326.40 Size - FT 955 Cost per Foot $326 T otal Cost $311,712 Construction $258,430 Land $53,282 c O R c a> a> CL c c 0 R c 0 c c 0 R c aD a� L a aD L G1 O Q W U a> O L 0 i U c aD E R a Packet Pg. 1069 c O r m r c m m a r c m r c O r ca c O c O M m a m U) m O a E w cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O c O r c d E t v cc r r Q R ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 1070 M.1.b TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................... ..............................1 Methodology ......................................... ..............................1 Selected Key Findings ......................... ..............................2 Monroe County Employment .............. ..............................4 Employment and Employers by Industry ............................. ............................... 4 Seasonality and Growth of Employment ............................. ............................... 5 Results of the 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey ... 7 EmployerLocation .............................................................. ............................... 7 IndustrySector ................................................................... ............................... 8 Employment by Job Status and Distance from Work .......... ............................... 11 Employer Size (number of employees) .............................. ............................... 13 Employer Space Characteristics ......................................... ............................... 15 Job Generation Rates ........................................................ ............................... 18 Employer Perceptions of Housing Issues ............................ ............................... 20 Anticipated Future Changes in Employment ...................... ............................... 22 Employer Actions and Opinions Regarding Workforce Housing Assistance........ 23 Appendix Survey Form and Cover Letter Open -Ended Comments Statistical Tables Packet Pg. 1071 M.1.b INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of the 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey was to understand local employment patterns and how the availability of affordable housing may affect employers, employees and business operations. The survey was also designed to probe the relationships between employment and commercial space (employment generation ratios); these employee generation ratios will be more completely evaluated for affordable housing mitigation purposes in a later phase of work for Monroe County. Additionally, the survey also gathered data on a variety of other topics, including expected future employment plans, expectations regarding employee retirement, employer opinions and activities regarding local workforce housing, and other issues. METHODOLOGY The survey, fielded in November 2016 and administered by RRC Associates, was mailed to a random sample of 3,000 businesses and other employers (e.g. government agencies, nonprofits, etc.) in Monroe County, utilizing a business list provided by a commercial list vendor. Recipients were able to complete and return the survey via mail, or complete it online via a password - protected website (only one response permitted per business). Employers who operated more than one business in Monroe County were asked to respond for the business located at or nearest to the address where they received the survey. The survey was accompanied by a cover letter signed by the Mayor of Monroe County explaining the purpose of the survey and encouraging response. Additionally, Monroe County issued a press release just before the survey was fielded in an effort to build awareness of and participation in the survey. .4 followup reminder postcard was mailed to the sample of businesses to further encourage response. Of the 3,000 surveys mailed, 318 were returned as undeliverable, for a net total of 2,682 surveys presumed delivered. A total of 389 usable responses were received, for a 14.5 percent response rate. The 95 percent confidence interval for a sample of 389 (within a universe of approximately 4600 employers) is +/ -4.8 percentage points (larger for subgroups of respondents and questions with smaller sample sizes).' Included in the appendices to this report are the survey form and cover letter, verbatim responses to the survey's open -ended questions, and statistical tables summarizing the survey results. ' To illustrate the confidence interval, if a given survey result has a value of 50 %, we can be 95 percent confident that the true value (if the opinions of all employers were to be captured) would fall between approximately 45.2% and 54.8 %. RRC Associates 1 Packet Pg. 1072 M.1.b SELECTED KEY FINDINGS Following are selected notable findings from the research: Monroe County lobs context By way of background, in 2015, Monroe County had an annual average of 40,772 jobs covered by unemployment insurance, with the highest share of jobs in the accommodations and food services sector (33.8 percent of jobs) and retail trade sector (15.2 percent). Monroe County's employment exhibits moderate seasonality (driven primarily by tourism sectors), with peak employment occurring in the winter (typically March) and the lowest employment occurring in summer (typically July and September). Employment grew by 17.9 percent from a recessionary low in 2009 to 2015, and has significantly exceeded pre- recession levels. • Selected employer demographics (Employer Survey) • Location Two - thirds of responding employers were located in the incorporated cities of Monroe County, while one -third were located in the unincorporated county. • Industry The industry mix of responding employers resembled the industry mix of employers covered by unemployment insurance generally, with retail trade and accommodations /food services encompassing the largest number of employers in both data sets. The cities had a higher concentration of businesses in the bar /restaurant and hotel /lodging sectors than the unincorporated county, while the unincorporated county had a higher share of businesses in the "other services" sector (personal, day care, auto repair, publishing, etc.). o Number of employees Responding businesses employed an average of 15.7 employees and a median of 6 employees. o Employee lob status In both winter and summer, 95 percent of employees are in year - round positions and 5 percent are in seasonal positions. Additionally, 85 -88 percent of workers are full -time employees and 12 -15 percent are part -time. o Employee commute distances Most employees working at employers located in the incorporated cities have commute distances of less than five miles, while most employees working at businesses located in the unincorporated county have commute distances greater than five miles. o Gross floor area Responding businesses had an average of 3,525 square feet of floor area and a median of 1,386 square feet. Businesses located in the cities had more space on average (average 4,441 sqft) than businesses in the unincorporated county (average 1,866 sqft). • Employment generation rates Employers in Monroe County have a median of 4.0 peak season employees per 1,000 square feet of floor space. Employment generation rates are similar for employers located in the incorporated portions of Monroe County (median 4.0 employees / 1000 sqft) and the unincorporated areas of the county (median 3.8 employees / 1000 sqft). Employment generation rates vary significantly by industry sector and type(s) of space occupied. RRC Associates 2 Packet Pg. 1073 M.1.b Employer perceptions of housing issues Most responding employers say it is "very difficult" for employees in all job categories to find affordable housing — even upper management. Finding affordable housing was perceived as most difficult for seasonal employees (83 percent of employers perceive it as "very difficult" for these employees), followed by general labor /service (71 percent), retail /service clerks (69 percent), entry level professionals (69 percent), office support staff (63 percent), mid - management (62 percent), and upper management (50 percent). The opinions of respondents located in the incorporated and unincorporated parts of the county are similar. • Seriousness of the issue of affordable /employee housing for local residents: Most employers feel that affordable /employee housing is a serious issue, with 29 percent rating it as "the most critical problem in the Monroe County area," and 50 percent rating it as "one of the more serious problems." Smaller shares responded that it is "a problem, but there are others which also need attention (15 percent), "one of our lesser problems" (2 percent), and "I don't believe it is a problem" (4 percent). Level of priority that should be placed on types of housing for employees: On a scale where 1 = "low priority," 3 = "moderate priority," and 5 = "high priority," employers placed the highest priority on rental housing for year -round employees (84 percent responding "5 — high priority" or "4 "). Following in priority were entry -level for -sale housing for year -round employees (67 percent "4" or "5 "), move -up for -sale housing for year -round employees (41 percent), and rental housing for seasonal employees (32 percent). • What types of workforce housing assistance do you currently provide, and which would you consider providing in the future? Thirty -eight percent of employers said that they currently provide workforce housing assistance of some kind, most commonly assisting employees with housing search (21 percent), followed by purchasing /owning units which are rented to employees (11 percent), providing to housing to employees as part of compensation (8 percent), providing rent subsidies (5 percent), down payment assistance (4 percent), master leasing units that are rented to employees (1 percent), and other assistance (6 percent). A somewhat larger 46 percent of employers said they either currently provide workforce housing assistance or would consider providing assistance in the future. The leading type of current or potential assistance are assisting employees with housing search (26 percent), purchasing / owning units that are rented to employees (13 percent), and providing housing as part of compensation (10 percent). RRC Associates 3 Packet Pg. 1074 M.1.b MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT Following is an overview of total jobs and businesses in Monroe County, to help set a background context against which the survey results can be interpreted. Employment and Employers by Industry The most current available Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data can be used as an approximate indicator of the number of businesses and jobs in Monroe County by industry. It should be noted that the QCEW employment series excludes businesses not covered by unemployment insurance and, therefore, generally excludes sole proprietors and selected other types of workers. However, the data is useful for understanding general patterns of employment. In calendar year 2015, there was an annual average of 40,772 QCEW jobs in Monroe County, at 4,417 QCEW employers, as illustrated in Table 1 below. Table 1 Monroe County QCEW jobs, establishments, and average jobs per establishment: by industry, 2015 NAICS Average Monthly Jobs Establishments Average Jobs Per Industry Number Percent Number Percent Sector Establishment 72 Accommodation and Food Services 13,763 33.8% 584 13.2% 23.6 44 -45 Retail Trade 6,179 15.2% 703 15.9% 8.8 92 Public Administration 3,016 7.4% 59 1.3% 51.1 23 Construction 2,584 6.3% 531 12.0% 4.9 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 2,524 6.2% 240 5.4% 10.5 61 Educational Services 1,729 4.2% 49 1.1% 35.3 56 Administrative and Waste Services 1,660 4.1% 260 5.9% 6.4 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,475 3.6% 371 8.4% 4.0 81 Other Services, Except Public Administration 1,372 3.4% 369 8.4% 3.7 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,319 3.2% 146 3.3% 9.0 54 Professional and Technical Services 1,169 2.9% 474 10.7% 2.5 48 -49 Transportation and Warehousing 1,020 2.5% 170 3.8% 6.0 52 Finance and Insurance 712 1.7% 126 2.9% 5.7 42 Wholesale Trade 582 1.4% 111 2.5% 5.2 22 Utilities 572 1.4% 8 0.2% 71.5 51 Information 435 1.1% 54 1.2% 8.1 31 -33 Manufacturing 352 0.9% 81 1.8% 4.3 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 139 0.3% 32 0.7% 4.3 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 138 0.3% 34 0.8% 4.1 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 25 0.1% 5 0.1% 5.0 99 Unclassified 7 0.0% 10 0.2% 0.7 10 ITotal, All Industries 40,772 100.0% 4,417 100.0% 9.2 Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity - Labor Market Information. RRC Associates 4 Packet Pg. 1075 M.1.b On a year -round average basis, the largest percentage of QCEW jobs in Monroe County are in the accommodation and food services sector (33.8 percent of jobs), followed by retail trade (15.2 percent), public administration (7.4 percent), construction (6.3 percent), and health care and social assistance (6.2 percent). These five sectors together comprised 68.8 percent of jobs at Monroe County QCEW employers in 2015. The most QCEW business establishments in Monroe County, by contrast, are in retail trade (15.9 percent), followed by accommodation and food services (13.2 percent), construction (12.0 percent), professional /technical services (10.7 percent), and real estate and rental and leasing (8.4 percent), together comprising 60.3 percent of employers. The average number of employees per establishment is approximately 9.2 for Monroe County employers as a whole. Selected industries have much higher averages, including utilities (average 71.5 jobs per establishment), public administration (51.1), educational services (35.3), and accommodation and food services (23.6). Seasonality and Growth of Employment Monroe County employment exhibits a distinct seasonal pattern, with a notable peak in the winter months (typically highest in March), and a trough in the summer (particularly July and September). As an indicator of these patterns, employment fell by 3.9 percent from March 2015 and July 2015, before rising 7.1 percent between July 2015 and March 2016 (Figure 1). Tourism - influenced sectors such as accommodations and food services and arts /entertainment /recreation are the primary drivers of this seasonal pattern. Monroe County has also experienced substantial growth in employment since its recessionary low in 2009. QCEW jobs fell 6.6 percent ( -2,759 jobs) from 2003 to 2009, but rose by 17.9 percent (6,181 jobs) from 2009 to 2015, significantly exceeding precession levels (Figure 2). RRC Associates 5 Packet Pg. 1076 M.1.b Figure 1 Monroe County QCEW employment by month, January 2014 - June 2016 44,000 43,000 W 39,000 MEMO Or 38,000 y C O 37,000 1 1111 t',' T 36,000 ��_ �N�� ■�_ r 35,000 �+ s 7 > K c c` > " 0 z D y T' > K c c` > ° 0 Z 0 y T > f4 {' a a a 4 a a a a a a I ��-m cn �'" cn m a , C C' N 7 Month (January 2014 -June 20 16) c Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity- Labor Market Information (January 2014- March 2016) and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (April -June 2016). Figure 2 Monroe County QCEW employment, 2002 - 2015 annual averages 42,000 41,000 40,772 r c m 40,000 C 39,000 38,804 CL W 38,000 37,175 37,350 37,389 37,045 37,000 36,520 35,757 35,981 36,040 36,000 35,288 35,226 y 35,000 34,591 34,769 34,000 33,000 a 32,000 NEEMENEEPOPP 31,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity - Labor Market Information. RRC Associates 6 Packet Pg. 1077 C 42,000 C r r r y 41,000 W E C 40,000 a Q W 39,000 MEMO Or 38,000 y C O 37,000 1 1111 t',' T 36,000 ��_ �N�� ■�_ r 35,000 �+ s 7 > K c c` > " 0 z D y T' > K c c` > ° 0 Z 0 y T > f4 {' a a a 4 a a a a a a I ��-m cn �'" cn m a , C C' N 7 Month (January 2014 -June 20 16) c Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity- Labor Market Information (January 2014- March 2016) and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (April -June 2016). Figure 2 Monroe County QCEW employment, 2002 - 2015 annual averages 42,000 41,000 40,772 r c m 40,000 C 39,000 38,804 CL W 38,000 37,175 37,350 37,389 37,045 37,000 36,520 35,757 35,981 36,040 36,000 35,288 35,226 y 35,000 34,591 34,769 34,000 33,000 a 32,000 NEEMENEEPOPP 31,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity - Labor Market Information. RRC Associates 6 Packet Pg. 1077 M.1.b RESULTS OF THE 2016 MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYER SURVEY The remainder of this report discusses the results of the 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey. The report examines both the overall survey results and the results for employers located in incorporated vs. unincorporated portions of Monroe County. Employer Location Two - thirds of responding employers (66 percent) were located in the incorporated cities of Monroe County, including Key West (40 percent), Marathon (16 percent), Islamorada (9 percent), and Key Colony Beach (1 percent). The remaining one -third (34 percent) of employers were located in unincorporated portions of Monroe County, including 19 percent in the Upper Keys, 1 percent in the Middle Keys, and 13 percent in the Lower Keys. Figure 3 Physical location of business Unincorporated Within city limits of Monroe County— Islamorada, 9% Lower Keys, 13% Within city limits of Unincorporated Key Colony Beach, 1% Monroe County — Middle Keys, 1% Unincorporated total Unincorporated 34% Monroe County — Upper Keys, 19% Within city limits of Marathon, 16% Cities total 66% Within city limits of Key West, 40% RRC Associates 7 Packet Pg. 1078 M.1.b Y Industry Sector Survey respondents were distributed across a broad variety of industry sectors, led by retail trade (16 percent of respondents), bar /restaurant (11 percent), health care /social assistance (10 percent), construction (9 percent), and professional /scientific /technical services (9 percent), with a diverse array of other industries represented as well. As shown in Figure 4 to follow, there were some statistically significant differences in the industry mix of respondents from incorporated cities as compared to unincorporated Monroe County. As highlighted by asterisks in the graph, relatively high shares of employers in cities were bars /restaurants (14 percent, vs. 6 percent of respondents in the unincorporated county) and hotel /lodging businesses (7 percent vs. 1 percent). Conversely, employers in the "other services (personal, daycare, auto repair, information /publishing, etc.)" sector comprised a higher share of employers in the unincorporated areas (15 percent) than in the cities (6 percent). The mix of survey respondents by sector generally resembled the mix of all QCEW employers by sector in Monroe County in 2015, as illustrated in Figure 5 to follow. Retail trade, "other" sectors, and accommodations and food services were the top three sectors in each data set. This indicates that the survey response was generally representative of all QCEW employers in the county on the basis of industry sector. Z To the extent that there are differences between the survey response and QCEW employers, they could be due to variations in survey response by sector, and /or other factors such as variability in how survey respondents classified themselves by industry; differences in the types of establishments included in the respective datasets (e.g. self - employed proprietors were included in the survey database but excluded in the QCEW database); and perhaps other factors. RRC Associates a Packet Pg. 1079 0 Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 E Figure 4 Survey response by industry sector: Overall, and by location in Monroe County Percent of Employers 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 16% Retail trade (grocery, sporting goods, etc.) 18% 13% Bar /restaurant 14 %; 690 Health care /social assistance (medical, dental, ambulatory, psychiatric, shelters, etc.) % 11% Construction 8% 9% 13% Professional, scientific, technical services 11% (legal, accounting, architecture, etc.) 690 Other services (personal, daycare, auto repair, ° 9% information /publishing, etc.) REM 15% Real estate / property management / 6% ° 9% Amusement, arts, entertainment, recreation 6% 5% ° Hotel / lodging 1% 7% ?�C Finance /banking /insurance °3% 5% Govemment (excluding public schools) 3% 290 N Overall Marina 2% 2% ■ Within incorporated cities 2% k4 Unincorporated Monroe County Transportation / warehousing / utilities 1% 2% Agriculture /mining/ oil & gas 1% LZM 2% 01% Wholesale trade 0 0% 2% Manufacturing ■ p GGG 1% Educational services (schools, training 1 % programs, etc.) J 1% Other 5% 7% d 7% Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey. Note: Statistically significant differences (at a 95% confidence level) between respondents located in incorporated vs. unincorporated areas of Monroe County are flagged with asterisks. RRC Associates 9 Packet Pg. 1080 0 Figure 5 Survey response by industry, vs. 2015 Monroe County QCEW establishments by industry Percent of Employers 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Retail Trade -- — 16% 16% Accommodation and Food Services 15% 1 3 % Health Care and Social Assistance 10% 5% Construction 9 I 12% - Professional and Technical Services 9% J 11% Amusement, arts, entertainment, recreation 8% 3% Real estate / property management 6% I 8% Finance/banking/insurance 3% E�T 3% Govemment (excluding public schools) 3% 1% ■ Percent of employer survey Transportation /warehousing/ utilities m 2/ 4% respondents, 2016 Agriculture rnining� oil &gas 1% G Percent of QCEW establishments, 1% 2015 Wholesale trade 1% ;ice 3% Manufacturing 1% 2% Educational services (schools, training 0% programs, etc.) 1% Gther 16% t 1 16% Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey; Florida Department of Economic Opportunity — Labor Market Information (QCEW data). RRC Associates 10 Packet Pg. 1081 MMMOM Final Results Employment by Job Status and Distance from Work Employers were asked to report their total number of year -round full -time, year -round part -time, seasonal full -time, and seasonal part -time employees, in both the summer season (June — September) and winter season (November — April). Following is a summary of the major findings. • Full -time / part -time mob status Most employees hired by responding employers are full -time workers (32 or more hours per week), while a minority are part -time (under 32 hours /week). Specifically, 85 percent of total summer employees at responding employers are full -time, as are 88 percent of total winter employees. The remaining 15 — 12 percent of employees in each season respectively are part-time employees. Year -round vs. seasonal mob status At responding employers, fully 95 percent of employees are year -round employees in both summer and winter, while 5 percent of employees are seasonal in each season. Differences in employment status by work location Employees working in Monroe County's cities as a whole are more likely than those working in the unincorporated county to be year - round full -time (85 percent vs. 73 percent, in summer). Conversely, employees working in the unincorporated areas are more likely than those working in the cities to be seasonal full -time (9 percent vs. 1 percent, in summer). Figure 6 Share of employment by job status: Summer (June — September) 100% Ln 90J 82% 85% d y. 80°0 0 7090 UJ 6090 a E 5090 4090 30`%o 20°o a 101 0% Year - round, full -time employees (32+ hours /week) ■ Overall ■ Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County 13% 13% 13% 990 iou L�j 3/ 2/ 1% Year - round, part -time Seasonal, full -time Seasonal, part -time employees employees employees (C32 hours /week) (32+ hours /week) (<32 hours /week) Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey. RRC Associates 11 Packet Pg. 1082 0 Figure 7 Share of employment by job status: Winter (November — April) 100% 9090 85% 88% d 78% W 8090 0 a 70% E ` 6090 d 50% 4090 0 = 3090 a or 20% 10% 13% a 9% 10% 0% • Overall • Within incorporated cities • Unincorporated Monroe County 7% 3% 2% Year - round, full -time Year- round, part -time employees employees (32 +hours/week) (<32hours /week) Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey. Seasonal, full -time employees (32+ hours /week) 2% 2% 2% Seasonal, part-time employees (C32 hours /week) • To the best of your knowledge, where do your employees live, relative to the location of your business? Overall, employers indicated that half (50 percent) of their employees live within 4.9 road miles or less of work, while 19 percent live within 5.0 — 9.9 miles, 14 percent live 10.0 — 19.9 miles, and 17 percent live 20 or more miles from work. In many cases, long commutes can be associated with difficulties of employees in finding affordable housing. Employers located in the incorporated cities collectively indicated that their employees lived closer to work than employers located in the unincorporated county. In particular, employers located within cities drew 60 percent of their workers from less than five miles away, as compared to 28 percent of employers located in unincorporated areas. By contrast, employers located in unincorporated areas were more likely than those in cities to draw their employees from 5 — 9.9 miles away (25 percent vs. 16 percent), 10 — 19.9 miles away (21 percent vs. 11 percent), and 20 or more miles away (26 percent vs. 13 percent). RRC Associates 12 Packet Pg. 1083 M.1.b 70% 60% 50% y 50% 0 60% • Overall • Within incorporated cities ra Unincorporated Monroe County E 40% W 30% 28% a a 20% 10% LLJ 0% i% 16% 21% i 11% 26% i 13% Share of employees living Share of employees living Share of employees living Share of employees living within 4.9 road miles within 5.0 - 9.9 road miles within 10.0 - 19.9 road miles 20 or more road miles of work of work of work of work Employer Size (number of employees) • Number of employees Most responding businesses (63 percent) employed 1— 9 workers during their peak employment season, while progressively smaller shares employed 10 — 24 workers (23 percent), 25 — 49 workers (8 percent), 50 — 99 workers (4 percent), and 100+ workers (2 percent). Employers in the unincorporated areas as a group were more likely than those in the cities to employ 1 -9 workers (71 percent, vs. 59 percent of employers in cities). Altogether, responding businesses employed an average of 15.7 workers in their peak season, and a median of 6 workers. In aggregate terms, responding businesses employed a total of 5,799 workers in their peak season, equivalent to roughly 13.6 percent of peak QCEW employment in Monroe County. 3 Monroe County had 42,656 QCEW jobs in March 2016. Note that employees at survey respondents included both QCEW and non -QCEW employees. RRC Associates 13 Packet Pg. 1084 Figure 9 Share of employers by number of workers employed: Seasonal maximum (winter or summer, whichever is greater) 80 0 /0 71% 70% 63% 9 'I >n 60% a 50% E UJ 40% d y 30 a 20% 10 0 /0 0% 1 -9 M.1.b • Overall • Within incorporated cities M Unincorporated Monroe County 23`x. 25% 20% 8% 9% 6% 4% 5% 3%4 2% 2 % 1% MMENIER- 100+ 10-24 25 -49 50-99 Number of Employees (seasonal maximum) Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey. • How many unfilled lob openings do you have at the present time? Currently, 28 percent of employers have unfilled full -time jobs, and 17 percent have unfilled part -time jobs. Combined, these unfilled positions are equivalent to 6.2 percent of total peak season employment at responding employers. (Stated another way, staffing at responding employers is currently about 6.2 percent short of their full needs.) RRC Associates 14 Packet Pg. 1085 Overall Within incorp. cities Unincorp. Monroe Co. Mean employees 15.7 17.8 11.6 Median employees 6.0 7.0 5.0 8% 9% 6% 4% 5% 3%4 2% 2 % 1% MMENIER- 100+ 10-24 25 -49 50-99 Number of Employees (seasonal maximum) Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey. • How many unfilled lob openings do you have at the present time? Currently, 28 percent of employers have unfilled full -time jobs, and 17 percent have unfilled part -time jobs. Combined, these unfilled positions are equivalent to 6.2 percent of total peak season employment at responding employers. (Stated another way, staffing at responding employers is currently about 6.2 percent short of their full needs.) RRC Associates 14 Packet Pg. 1085 M.1.b Employer Space Characteristics • Single- tenant vs. multi- tenant buildings Equal shares of businesses in both incorporated and unincorporated areas were in single- tenant buildings (50 percent) and multi- tenant buildings (50 percent). 60% 50% m 0 40% a E W 30% �O a 20% a a 10% 0% Figure 10 is your business located in: s0 50`.%x, 50% 50% 50% 50% Overall ■ Within incorporated cities N Unincorporated Monroe County A building occupied exclusively by my business Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey. • Gross square feet of floor area Responding businesses reported occupying an average of 3,525 square feet of floor area and a median of 1,386 square feet. Roughly equal shares of employers occupy less than 1,000 square feet (35 percent), 1,000 — 2,499 square feet (34 percent), and 2,500 or more square feet (31 percent). Employers in incorporated cities occupy more space, on average, than employers located in the unincorporated county (average 4,441 square feet vs. 1,866 square feet). Relatedly, employers in the unincorporated county are comparatively likely to occupy 999 square feet of space or less (43 percent, vs. 31 percent of employers in the cities), while employers in the cities are comparatively likely to occupy 10,000 or more square feet (9 percent vs. 1 percent). It should be noted that businesses occupying space in a multi- tenant building were likely to report leasable space, a "net" figure (generally exclusive of common areas such as hallways, lobbies and bathrooms). Businesses occupying a single- tenant building, by contrast, are likely to have reported "gross" square footage (inclusive of such areas). RRC Associates 1s Packet Pg. 1086 A building shared with other tenants M.1.b Figure 11 Gross square footage of building floor area occupied by your business 50% 45% 43% 40% us y 35% O 30% UJ 25% C 20% a a 15% a 10% 5% 0% 999 sq. ft. or less 34 %34% 1,000 -2,499 sq. ft. • Overall • Within incorporated cities 141 Unincorporated Monroe County Within Unincorp. Overall incorp. cities Monroe Co. Meansqft 3,525 4,441 1,866 Mediansqft 1,3861 1,500 1,000 13 %12% 14% 12% 14% 91° 9% 6% 61 im i 2,500 -4,999 sq. ft. 5,000 -9,999 sq. ft. 10,000+ sq. ft. Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey. Note: The survey asked businesses to exclude space in garages used exclusively for parking, exterior /outdoor spaces, unenclosed spaces, boats, and any other vehicles or vessels. The questionnaire also noted that "If your business is renting space in a multi- tenant building, your gross square footage will likely be equivalent to your leased square feet of interior space." Type(s) of space occupied The largest shares of respondents occupied retail /merchandising space (26 percent) and office space (25 percent). Lesser shares used space best categorized as restaurant /food service /bar (13 percent), home office (11 percent), warehouse (7 percent), and various other types of space (6 percent or less each). On average, respondents reported using an average of 1.24 different types of space, with most employers using just one type of space, and others using a mix of space types. RRC Associates 16 Packet Pg. 1087 0 Figure 12 Which of the following best describes the type(s) of space your business occupies? Percent of Employers 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 26% Retail / merchandising WE 31% 2590 Office - private (excluding medical office) 24% 25% 13 °f Restaurant /food service / bar 17% * 111 7% Home office / business is located in my 7% 11% home 18% 7% Warehouse FW6% 110% Services (bank, hair salon, gas station, 6% automobile care, etc.) 3% 13% Medical (hospital /clinic, nursing home, 60 vet clinic, etc., including medical offices) 5 % ices) 6% Hotel / lodging 2% 8% ■ Overall ■ Within incorporated cities 5° Docking / marine / port facilities 5% N Unincorporated Monroe County 6% Institutional (school /college, church, 4% museum, day care, etc.) 2% 5/ Industrial (incl. light /heavy industrial, 3% ° manufacturing, utilities, etc.) ° 5% 3% Office - government 3% 102 % Recreational (theater, athletic club, 2 % recreation center, etc.) 922% % 6% Other 5% 8% Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey. Multiple responses permitted (thus, sums can exceed 100 %). C O r ca CL r- 0 V T O ca O O v RRC Associates 17 Packet Pg. 1088 M.1.b Job Generation Rates An important objective of the survey research was to document the intensity of employment among different types of industries and building types in Monroe County, by calculating the ratio of employment to floor space. This results in estimates of job generation rates, expressed as the number of total jobs (full- time /part -time and year- round /seasonal combined) per 1,000 square feet of space. The results can be used to help plan for the number of employees that are likely to be generated when new commercial space is built. The following method was used to calculate the number of jobs generated per 1,000 square feet of interior floor space: 1. For each employer, an employment generation rate was calculated as the ratio of total peak season employment (full- and part -time, year -round and seasonal jobs combined) to gross square footage of floor area, multiplied by 1,000. Within a given analysis category (e.g. type of space occupied, industry sector, etc.), survey respondents were arrayed lowest to highest by their employment generation rate. The median employment generation rate —that is, the rate relative to which half of employers were higher and half were lower — has been summarized in Table 2 on the following page. The composite results show that employers in Monroe County have a median of 4.0 peak season employees per 1,000 square feet of floor space. Measured at the median, employers have similar employment generation rates in the incorporated portions of Monroe County (median 4.0 employees / 1000 sqft) and the unincorporated areas of the county (median 3.8 employees / 1000 sqft). The employment generation rates show significant variations by type(s) of space occupied and industry sector. For example, businesses occupying space classified as "restaurant / food service / bar" have significantly higher employment generation rates (median 7.5 employees / 1000 sqft) than businesses occupying retail / merchandising space (median 2.9 employees / 1000 sqft). Additionally, employers classifying themselves as a bar /restaurant business (median 8.8 employees / 1000 sqft) have higher employment generation rates than employers classifying themselves as retail trade businesses (median 2.4 employees / 1000 sqft). It should be noted that sample sizes are small for several types of space and industry sectors, necessitating caution. Additionally, there are many nuances in how employment generation rates can be calculated to best meet planning and regulatory objectives. As such, it is anticipated that the later phases of work may possibly utilize somewhat different categories or approaches in estimating employment generation rates than are described here. RRC Associates 18 Packet Pg. 1089 M.1.b Table 2 Job generation rates (Employees per 1000 square feet of floor space) Median job generation rate (peak season Number employees per 1,000 of survey sqft of floor space) responses TOTAL - ALL SURVEY RESPONDENTS 4.0 306 Location of business Within incorporated cities 4.0 203 Unincorporated Monroe County 3.8 98 Which of the following best describes the type(s) of building space your business occupies? (multiple responses permitted) Home office / business is located in my home 7.0 30 Retail / merchandising 2.9 87 Restaurant / food service / bar 7.5 41 Office - government 11.3 9 Office - private (excluding medical office) 4.3 76 Medical (hospital /clinic, nursing home, vet clinic, etc., including medical offices) 2.7 18 Industrial (incl. light /heavy industrial, manufacturing, utilities, etc.) 5.0 11 Warehouse 4.0 27 Hotel / lodging 0.9 10 Recreational (theater, athletic club, recreation center, etc.) 11.7 5 Services (bank, hair salon, gas station, automobile care, etc.) 3.3 17 Institutional (school /college, church, museum, day care, etc.) 1.4 14 Docking / marine / port facilities 8.8 9 Other 3.9 14 Which of the following best describes your type of business? Agriculture / mining / oil & gas 2.0 1 Construction 8.0 29 Manufacturing 4.1 2 Transportation / warehousing / utilities 14.0 6 Wholesale trade 2.2 3 Bar /restaurant 8.8 34 Retail trade (grocery, sporting goods, etc.) 2.4 58 Educational services (schools, training programs, etc.) 8.0 1 Finance /banking /insurance 3.9 12 Health care /social assist. (medical, dental, ambulatory, psychiatric, shelters, etc.) 3.4 34 Professional, scientific, technical services (legal, accounting, architecture, etc.) 3.7 28 Marina 6.1 4 Amusement, arts, entertainment, recreation 4.7 17 Hotel / lodging 0.8 9 Real estate / property management 3.3 19 Other services (personal, daycare, auto repair, information /publishing, etc.) 2.4 24 Government (excluding public schools) 8.6 8 Other 3.5 17 Source: 2016 Monroe County Employer Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 19 Packet Pg. 1090 M.1.b Employer Perceptions of Housing Issues A portion of the employer survey was dedicated to understanding employer problems and perceptions related to employee housing issues. This section summarizes employer responses to these questions. • How difficult is it for your employees to find affordable housing in Monroe County? On a scale where 1 = "not at all difficult," 3 = "moderately difficult," and 5 = "very difficult," at least half of employers said it was "5 - very difficult" for employees in all job categories to find affordable housing — even upper management — suggesting a very challenging market. Finding affordable housing was perceived as most difficult for seasonal employees (83 percent "very difficult "), followed by general labor /service (71 percent), retail /service clerks (69 percent), entry level professionals (69 percent), office support staff (63 percent), mid - management (62 percent), and upper management (50 percent). The opinions of respondents located in the incorporated and unincorporated parts of the county were statistically similar. Figure 13 How difficult is it for your employees to find affordable housing in Monroe County? Overall results, 2016 100% 1_S% 1 5% 3% 1 3% + 90% 4.6 100 4.4 100 c 80 70% 60% 50% qA a v Q. E W �o C a L a a 40% 1 - Not at all difficult �� 2 300/0 3 - Moderately difficult ® 4 200/0 5 - Very difficult 100/0 Mean difficulty 0% c 0 r m c a� m CL c m 0 c 0 0 r ca c 0 v Seasonal General Retail /service Entry level Office support Mid- Upper Other employees labor /service clerks professionals staff management management employees • How. if at all. has the availabilitv of affordable housine in Monroe Countv affected the work performance of your employees? Most employers (70 percent) believed that housing affected employee performance in some manner. Most commonly cited was displeasure with wage rates due to high housing costs (47 percent), followed by high turnover (38 percent), tardiness from long commutes (17 percent), high absentee rates (8 percent), and other issues (8 percent, e.g. difficulty recruiting /finding workers, difficulty affording workers, scheduling conflicts due to multiple jobholding, etc.). Employers located in the unincorporated county are more likely than those in the cities to cite tardiness from long commutes, consistent with the greater commute distances for employees of these businesses (noted earlier). RRC Associates 20 Packet Pg. 1091 � 0 4% 5% 0 r 4.5 =a 4 c a 3.5 cr 11 4. Ln t 3 V_ 2.5 =a a � 2 r 0 1.5 ,i 1 0 Figure 14 How, if at all, has the availability of affordable housing in Monroe County affected the work performance of your employees? 60% 50% N L a 40% a E Uj 300/0 O C v 20% m a 10 0 /0 0% 38V8% 36% N 24% e ■ Overall ■ Within incorporated cities ■Unincorporated Monroe County 8%8%9% M Displeasure with High turnover Tardiness from High absentee rate wage rates due to high housing costs long commutes 8% 9% 7% WU Other 36% 30% 7 0 I don't believe housing has affected employee performance How many people, in your estimation, were not hired or left your employment in the past 12 months because they lacked affordable housing? Fully 55 percent of employers said there were people they had not hired or who had left their employment in the past 12 months because they lacked housing. At this group of impacted employers, an average of 5.2 employees were not hired or left employment due to housing, which is equivalent to 24 percent of peak season employees at these impacted businesses, and 17 percent of peak season employees at all businesses. • Seriousness of the issue of affordable /employee housing for local residents: Most employers feel that affordable /employee housing is a serious issue, with 29 percent rating it as "the most critical problem in the Monroe County area," and 50 percent rating it as "one of the more serious problems." Smaller shares responded that it is "a problem, but there are others which also need attention (15 percent), "one of our lesser problems" (2 percent), and "I don't believe it is a problem" (4 percent). Respondents located in the unincorporated county were somewhat more likely than those in the cities to describe housing as a lesser problem or not a problem (12 percent vs. 3 percent), albeit still representing a small fraction of opinion. RRC Associates 21 Packet Pg. 1092 0 Figure 15 Do you feel affordable /employee housing for local residents is: 60% 50% N L a 40% a E UJ 30% v r c v 20% `a a 10% 0% ■ Overall ■ within incorporated cities N Unincorporated Monroe County 8% 4% 2� E3 4% 29 mn_� I don't believe it is a One of our lesser problem problems 29 %30% 6% The most critical problem in the Monroe County area 15 % %15% 01 50 % 51% LJ 7% A problem, but there One of the more are others which also serious problems need attention Anticipated Future Changes in Employment Anticipated change in employees during the next five years Over the next five years, a majority of employers expect their employment to remain about the same (55 percent). Of the remainder, more employers plan to increase (26 percent) than reduce (2 percent) their number of employees, while 17 percent don't know. Results for employers in incorporated vs. unincorporated areas were virtually identical. Among employers planning to increase their employment, future employment within five years is projected to increase by an aggregate of 32 percent relative to existing peak- season employment at those respective businesses. Taking into account expected increases and decreases in employment, employment is projected to increase by a net of 7.3 percent across all respondents in the next five years. Anticipated employee retirement in the next five years Forty -four percent of responding employers anticipate having one or more employees retire over the next five years. Employers anticipate that retiring employees will be equivalent in number to about 7 percent of their total peak- season employees. To the extent that retiring employees remain in the county and continue to occupy their existing housing units, the amount of housing available for replacement workers could become correspondingly tighter without a commensurate increase in supply. RRC Associates 22 Packet Pg. 1093 0 Figure 16 During the next five years, do you plan to: 55% 55% 56% Stay about the same 17% 17% 15% Don't know Employer Actions and Opinions Regarding Workforce Housing Assistance What types of workforce housine assistance do you currently provide. and which would you consider providing in the future? Thirty -eight percent of employers said that they currently provide workforce housing assistance of some kind (Figure 17 to follow). The most prevalent type of assistance provided is assisting employees with housing search (21 percent), followed by purchasing /owning units which are rented to employees (11 percent), providing to housing to employees as part of compensation (8 percent), providing rent subsidies (5 percent), down payment assistance (4 percent), master leasing units that are rented to employees (1 percent), and other assistance (6 percent). A somewhat larger 46 percent of employers said they either currently provide workforce housing assistance or would consider providing assistance in the future. The leading type of current or potential assistance are assisting employees with housing search (26 percent), purchasing / owning units that are rented to employees (13 percent), and providing housing as part of compensation (10 percent) (Figure 18). Employers located in incorporated cities were somewhat more likely than those in unincorporated areas to say they would consider providing "other" assistance (11 percent vs. 4 percent respectively). RRC Associates 23 Packet Pg. 1094 60% • Overall 50% w • Within incorporated cities L Q 400/. N Unincorporated Monroe County Q. W 30% 27% 26% 2594 � c r `m 206 CL 10`% 2% 3 % 2% 0% Increase your number of Reduce your number of employees employees 55% 55% 56% Stay about the same 17% 17% 15% Don't know Employer Actions and Opinions Regarding Workforce Housing Assistance What types of workforce housine assistance do you currently provide. and which would you consider providing in the future? Thirty -eight percent of employers said that they currently provide workforce housing assistance of some kind (Figure 17 to follow). The most prevalent type of assistance provided is assisting employees with housing search (21 percent), followed by purchasing /owning units which are rented to employees (11 percent), providing to housing to employees as part of compensation (8 percent), providing rent subsidies (5 percent), down payment assistance (4 percent), master leasing units that are rented to employees (1 percent), and other assistance (6 percent). A somewhat larger 46 percent of employers said they either currently provide workforce housing assistance or would consider providing assistance in the future. The leading type of current or potential assistance are assisting employees with housing search (26 percent), purchasing / owning units that are rented to employees (13 percent), and providing housing as part of compensation (10 percent) (Figure 18). Employers located in incorporated cities were somewhat more likely than those in unincorporated areas to say they would consider providing "other" assistance (11 percent vs. 4 percent respectively). RRC Associates 23 Packet Pg. 1094 0 Figure 17 What type(s) of workforce housing assistance do you currently provide? 80% 7 ©% m 60% T -a 50% E Uj 40% v 30% a 20% 10% 0% ■overall ■ Within incorporated cities r4 Unincorporated Monroe County N N O N N r1 N CD el el eel co cc cc ai Ln Assist Purchase /own Provide employees units that you housing to with housing rentto employees as search employees part of assistance units that you compensation Comments re: other assistance: Increase wages Loans (e.g. first /last /security) Co -sign, gas money, etc. 3: E• CO Ln ff r-1 r-1 1-1 n ca Provide rent Down payment Master Other None of the subsidies assistance units that you assistance above rentto employees Figure 18 What type(s) of workforce housing assistance do you currently provide or would consider providing in the future? 8[7% 70% 60% 50% 0. E Uj 40% 0 = 30% V C 20% 10% 0% ■ Overall ■ Within incorporated cities * Unincorporated Monroe County Comments re: other assistance: Increasewages Loans (e.g. first/last /security) Co -sign, gas money, etc. 3: 0 , rn None of the above e m Lo N N rn N m Ln Assist Purchase /own Provide employees units that you housing to with housing rentto employees as search employees part of assistance units that you compensation RRC Associates 24 Packet Pg. 1095 �. n Tr Ln rn N Provide rent ❑own payment Master Other subsidies assistance units that you assistance rentto employees RRC Associates 24 Packet Pg. 1095 0 Level of priority that should be placed on types of housing for employees: On a scale where 1 = "low priority," 3 = "moderate priority," and 5 = "high priority," employers placed the highest priority on rental housing for year -round employees (84 percent responding "5 — high priority" or "4 "). Following in priority were entry -level for -sale housing for year -round employees (67 percent "4" or "5 "), move -up for -sale housing for year -round employees (41 percent), and rental housing for seasonal employees (32 percent). Figure 19 Please rate the level of priority that should be placed on creating the following types of housing for employees: Overall results 100% 90% y 80% 0 t 70% 60% w 50% 40% d d 30% CL 20% 10% 0% T 4.5 C • L 4 a ' s 15 •o = L Ln 3 a C M 2.5 w •p 2 •� CL 2 0 J 1.5 Rental housing for Entry -level for -sale Move -up for -sale Rental housing for Other type (s) of year -round housingforyear- housing for year- seasonal employees housing employees round employees round employees (for � 1 - Low priority current homeowners F__4 2 needing more space, 3 - Moderate priority e.g. increasing family - 4 size, etc.) � 5 - High priority Mean priority • Additional comments about employees Employers were asked to share any additional comments with regard to employees. These comments are provided in the appendix to this report and provide additional information on some of the issues, problems and perceptions of employers with respect to the availability (or lack thereof) of workforce housing. RRC Associates 25 Packet Pg. 1096 M.1.b APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE, TABLES & COMMENTS c O r m r c a� m a r c m r c O r ca c O c O M m a m U) m O a E w cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O c O r c a> E a Packet Pg. 1097 M.1.b County of Monroe The Florida Keys November 1, 2016 Dear Monroe County Employer: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Heather Carruthers, District 3 Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent, District 2 Danny L. Kolhage, District 1 David Rice, District 4 Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5 Your valuable input is needed. You were randomly selected to receive this survey as an employer in Monroe County. This survey is a vital component of the County's effort to address affordable /workforce housing needs. The information will ultimately be used to maintain our quality of life, strengthen our local businesses and enhance the livability and appeal of our county. While the aggregate survey results will be made public, you may answer anonymously. An independent company is assisting with this research to tabulate, analyze and summarize the information provided. The results will be used to help Elected Officials make informed decisions. Please return your survey in the enclosed postage -paid envelope within 10 days of receipt. If you prefer to take the survey online, you can go to www.MonroeEmployer.com and enter the passcode . If you take the survey online, please recycle this paper copy (only one response per business will be accepted). Your participation in this effort is greatly appreciated. If you have questions regarding the survey, please contact David Becher with RRC Associates (the company assisting us with this survey) at (888) 449 -4772, ext. 2111. If you have questions on how this relates to County planning efforts, please contact Maytd Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources for Monroe County, at (305) 289- 2500. Thank you for your help in this important community effort. Since ayar Heaflier Ca , ptuthers mmissoner,>fonroe County District III Packet Pg. 1098 MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYER SURVEY If you operate more than one business in Monroe County, please respond for the business located at/nearest to the address at which you received this survey. Please describe your type of business: o1) O Agriculture / commercial fishing / forestry / mining 02) O Construction 03) O Manufacturing 04) O Transportation / warehousing / utilities o5) O Wholesale trade 06) O Bar /restaurant 07) O Retail trade (grocery, sporting goods, etc.) 03) O Educational services (schools, training programs, etc.) o9) O Finance /banking /insurance 1o) O Health care /social assistance (medical, dental, ambulatory, psychiatric, shelters, etc.) 11) O Professional, scientific, technical services (legal, accounting, architecture, etc.) 12) O Marina 13) O Amusement, arts, entertainment, recreation (including recreational fishing) 14) O Hotel / lodging 4 How many lodging units do you have? units (If you have suites, please count each bedroom /bathroom combination as 1 unit.) 15) O Real estate / property management 16) O Other services (personal, daycare, auto repair, information/ publishing, etc.) 17) O Government (excluding public schools) 13) O Other: 2. (PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BUSINESSES ONL1) Which of the following services do you provide? u uommerciai property manaaement O Residential property management 4 2a. How many residential units do you manage? _ total units 2b. Of the units you manage, how many are: Short -term rental units Long -term rental units Other units 3. (HOTEL/MOTEL & OTHER LODGING BUSINESSES ONLY) Approximately how much gross square footage (GSF) of floor area does your property(ies) have in the following categories? (ENTER 0IFNONE) GSF of floor area in individual lodging rooms /units GSF of floor area in restaurants GSF of floor area in retail shops GSF of floor area in meeting spaces, spas, lobbies, and other guest service areas of property 4. Physical location of business: O Within city limits of Islamorada O Within city limits of Key Colony Beach O Within city limits of Key West O Within city limits of Layton O Within city limits of Marathon O Unincorporated Monroe County — Upper Keys O Unincorporated Monroe County — Middle Keys O Unincorporated Monroe County — Lower Keys 4. How many employees do you have in summer and in winter (including yourself)? (Include contract labor, if sole proprietor, insert "I) 5. To the best of your knowledge, where do your employees live relative to the location of your business? Please enter the approximate number or percentage (not both) of employees i your peak season that reside in each location. (ENTER 0 I N( # OR % Within 4.9 road miles of business # OR % Within 5.0 -9.9 road miles of businE # OR % Within 10 -19.9 road miles of busine # OR % 20 or more road miles from busine # in total OR 100% 6. How many unfilled job openings do you have at the present time? Full -time Part -time 7. Is your business located in: O A building shared with other tenants O A building occupied exclusively by my business 8. What is the approximate gross square footage of building flo area your business occupies? Please estimate your building space as accurately as possible. Gross square feet of floor area Note: Please exclude garages used exclusively for parking, exterior /outdoor spaces, unenclosed spaces, boats, and any other veh or vessels. If your business is renting space in a multi- tenant building, gross square footage will likely be equivalent to your leased square fee interior space. 9. Which of the following best describes the type(s) of building space your business occupies? (CHECKALL THATAPPLI) o1) O Home office/business is located in my home 02) O Retail /merchandising 03) O Restaurant/food service/bar 04) O Office — government o5) O Office — private (excluding medical office) 06) O Medical (hospital /clinic, nursing home, vet clinic, etc., incl. ME office) 07) O Industrial (incl. lighttheavy industrial, manufacturing, utilities, e 03) O Warehouse o9) O Hotel /lodging 1o) O Recreational (theater, athletic club, recreation center, etc.) 11) O Services (bank, hair salon, gas station, automobile care, etc; 12) O Institutional (school /college, church, museum, day care, etc.) 13) O Docking / marine / port facilities 14) O Other: c 0 m r c a� m CL c c� c 0 0 r ca c 0 0 Packet Pg. 1099 Employees in summer Jun -Se Employees winter (Nov- Year-round, full -time (32+ hrs /wk) Year - round, part -time ( <32 hrs /wk) Seasonal, full -time (32+ hrs /week) Seasonal, part -time ( <32 hrs /wk) TOTAL EMPLOYEES 5. To the best of your knowledge, where do your employees live relative to the location of your business? Please enter the approximate number or percentage (not both) of employees i your peak season that reside in each location. (ENTER 0 I N( # OR % Within 4.9 road miles of business # OR % Within 5.0 -9.9 road miles of businE # OR % Within 10 -19.9 road miles of busine # OR % 20 or more road miles from busine # in total OR 100% 6. How many unfilled job openings do you have at the present time? Full -time Part -time 7. Is your business located in: O A building shared with other tenants O A building occupied exclusively by my business 8. What is the approximate gross square footage of building flo area your business occupies? Please estimate your building space as accurately as possible. Gross square feet of floor area Note: Please exclude garages used exclusively for parking, exterior /outdoor spaces, unenclosed spaces, boats, and any other veh or vessels. If your business is renting space in a multi- tenant building, gross square footage will likely be equivalent to your leased square fee interior space. 9. Which of the following best describes the type(s) of building space your business occupies? (CHECKALL THATAPPLI) o1) O Home office/business is located in my home 02) O Retail /merchandising 03) O Restaurant/food service/bar 04) O Office — government o5) O Office — private (excluding medical office) 06) O Medical (hospital /clinic, nursing home, vet clinic, etc., incl. ME office) 07) O Industrial (incl. lighttheavy industrial, manufacturing, utilities, e 03) O Warehouse o9) O Hotel /lodging 1o) O Recreational (theater, athletic club, recreation center, etc.) 11) O Services (bank, hair salon, gas station, automobile care, etc; 12) O Institutional (school /college, church, museum, day care, etc.) 13) O Docking / marine / port facilities 14) O Other: c 0 m r c a� m CL c c� c 0 0 r ca c 0 0 Packet Pg. 1099 10. During the next five years, do you plan to: O Increase your number of employees: By how many? #. O Reduce your number of employees: By how many? #_ O Stay about the same O Don't know 11. Approximately how many of your employees will be retiring in the next five years? # employees 12. How difficult is it for your employees to find affordable housing in Monroe County? NOT AT ALL MODERATELY VERY NOT DIFFICULT DIFFICULT DIFFICULT APPLICABLE Seasonal employees 1 2 3 4 5 x Retail /service clerks 1 2 3 4 5 x General labor /service 1 2 3 4 5 x Office support staff 1 2 3 4 5 x Entry level professionals 1 2 3 4 5 x Mid - management 1 2 3 4 5 x Upper management 1 2 3 4 5 x Other: 1 2 3 4 5 x 13. How, if at all, has the availability of affordable housing in Monroe County affected the work performance of your employees? (CHECK ALL THAT APPL 1) O High turnover O High absentee rate O Tardiness from long commutes O Displeasure with wage rates due to high housing costs O Other: OR O 1 don't believe housing has affected employee performance 14. How many people, in your estimation, were not hired or left your employment in the past 12 months because they lacked affordable housing? persons 15. Do you feel affordablelemployee housing for local residents is: O One of our lesser problems O A problem, but there are others which also need attention O One of the more serious problems O The most critical problem in the Monroe County area OR O 1 don't believe it is a problem 16. Please indicate the types of workforce housing assistance you provide or would consider providing in the future. PRIORITY (CHECK ALL THAT APPL 1) PI Rental housing for year -round employees 1 2 CURRENTLY WOULD Rental housing for seasonal employees 1 PROVIDE CONSIDER Purchase /own units that you rent to employees O O Master lease units that you rent to employees O O Provide housing to employees as part of O O compensation Down payment assistance O O Provide rent subsidies O O Assist employees with housing search O O Other assistance: O O None of the above O O 17. Please rate the level of priority that should be place creating the following types of housing for employees. LOW MODERATE PRIORITY PRIORITY PI Rental housing for year -round employees 1 2 3 4 Rental housing for seasonal employees 1 2 3 4 Entry-level for -sale housing for year -round employees 1 2 3 4 Move -up for -sale housing for year -round employees (for current homeowners needing more space — e.g. increasing family size, etc.) 1 2 3 4 Other (please describe: 1 2 3 4 18. Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding affordable housing for employees in Monroe County? 19. Name of business (confidential and optional —for tracking survey completions only): That's all! Thank you very much for your time and input Please return the survey to RRC Associates, the company assisting Monroe County, by one of the following methods: • Enclosed postage -paid envelope • FAX. (303) 449 -6587 (please remember to fax both sides) • Email: david(cOrcassociates.com Packet Pg. 1100 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey M.1.b 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates U d O i r- 0 r C d E t V cC r r Q Packet Pg. 1101 Physical location of business Within incorporated Unincorporr OVERALL cities Monroe Coi Agriculture 1 mining 1 oil & gas 1% 0% Construction 9% 8% 1 Manufacturing 1% 0% Transportation 1 warehousing 1 utilities 2% 1% Wholesale trade 1% 0% O Bar /restaurant 11% 14% Retail trade (grocery, sporting goods, etc.) 16% 18% r 1 O N N Educational services (schools, training programs, etc.) 0% Q Which of the following best Finance/banking/insurance 3% 3% C describes type r your of business? Health care /social assistance (medical, dental, ambulatory, psychiatric, shelters, etc.) 10% 10% 1 N Professional, scientific, technical services (legal, accounting, architecture, etc.) 9% 11% p V Marina 2% 2% T Amusement, arts, entertainment, recreation 6% 6% r N Hotel llodging 5% 7% �+ Real estate 1 property management 6% 5% cC C Other services (personal, daycare, auto repair, information /publishing, etc.) 9% 6% 1 7 V Government (excluding public schools) 3% 3% v Other: 7% 5 %' O TOTAL 100% 100% 1 C IX n= 385 248 >, d 1 -25 47% 50% N (If hotel /lodging) How many 26 -50 33% 29% 1 lodging units do you have? O 51 -74 7% 7% 100+ 13 % 14% CL E W TOTAL 100% 100% 1( to Average 61.7 O N T n= 15 14 r 7 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates U d O i r- 0 r C d E t V cC r r Q Packet Pg. 1101 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey Property management businesses only OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County (Property management businesses) Which of the following property management services do you provide? Commercial property management 17% 33% Residential property management 96 % 92% 100% TOTAL 113% 125% 100% n= 23 12 11 (If residential property management) How many total rooms /units do you manage? 1.25 32% 56% 10% 26.50 11% 20% 51.75 16% 22% 10% 76.99 5% 10% 100+ 37% 22% 50% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 130.5 138.3 123.4 n= 19 9 10 Of the residential units you manage, how many are: short - term rental units 0 44% 86% 11% 1.25 13 % 22 %u 26.50 13% 22% 51.75 13 % 22% 76.99 6% 14% 100+ 13 % 22 %u TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 41.8 13.4 63.8 n= 16 7 9 Of the residential units you manage, how many are: long- term rental units 1.25 69% 71% 67% 26.50 6% 11% 51.75 13% 14% 11% 100+ 13% 14% 11% TOTAL 100% 100% 100 % Average 33.9 36.3 32.0 n= 16 7 9 Of the residential units you manage, how many are: other units 0 81% 100% 67% 51.75 6% 11% 76.99 13% 22 %u TOTAL 100% 100 % 100% Average 14.7 .0 26.1 n= 16 7 9 C O r cC r C N d r C cc r C O V T O r ca C O O v C O CL d T d O N d T O CL E W cc O N r c O O U d O i C O C d E t 0 ca r r Q 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates Packet Pg. 1102 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c O r m r c a� v, m r c m r v, c O v r cc c O v c O M d d N d O CL E W cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O r- 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1103 OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Physical location of business: Within city limits of Islamorada 9% 14% Within city limits of Key Colony Beach 1% 1 % Within city limits of Key West 40% 60% Within city limits of Marathon 16% 25% Unincorporated Monroe County — Upper Keys 19% 57% Unincorporated Monroe County — Middle Keys 1% 4% Unincorporated Monroe County — Lower Keys 13% 39% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% n= 375 248 127 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c O r m r c a� v, m r c m r v, c O v r cc c O v c O M d d N d O CL E W cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O r- 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1103 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey How many employees do you have in summer (Jun -Sep), including yourself? OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Year - round, full -time (32+ hrslwk) 0 6% 6% 6% 1 -9 64% 60% 73 % 10 -24 19% 21% 15% 25-49 7% 7% 4% 50 -99 3% 4% 2% 100+ 1% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 11.9 14.3 6.9 n= 365 242 116 Year - round, part-time 0 60% 62% 57% 1 -9 35% 33% 41% 10 -24 3% 4 % 3% 25 -49 1% 1% 50 -99 0% 0% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 1.9 2.2 1.3 n= 365 242 116 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c m r c a� m CL r c m c O r ca c O c O CL d a m U) m 0 a E w cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O c O r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1104 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey How many employees do you have in summer (Jun -Sep), including yourself? OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Seasonal, full -time (32+ hrslwk) 0 95% 95% 95% 1 -9 4% 4% 3% 10 -24 1% 1% 25-49 1% 3% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average .4 .2 .8 n= 365 242 116 Seasonal, part-time 0 95% 95% 97% 1 -9 4% 5% 2% 10 -24 1% 1% 1% 25 -49 0% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average .3 .2 .5 n= 365 242 116 Total employees in summer 1 -9 64% 60% 72% 10 -24 23% 25% 20% 25-49 8% 8% 6% 50 -99 4% 5% 3% 100+ 2% 2% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 14.6 17.1 9.5 Median 6.0 7.0 5.0 n= 369 244 117 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c 0 m r c a� m CL r c m 0 c 0 0 r ca c 0 0 c 0 M m a m 0 U) m 0 a E w to r O N T r C 0 0 U m 0 c 0 c m E t ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1105 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey How many employees do you have in winter (Nov -Apr), including yourself? OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Year - round, full -time (32+ hrslwk) 0 7% 6% 7% 1 -9 63% 60% 71% 10 -24 19% 22% 15% 25 -49 7% 7% 5% 50 -99 3% 4% 1% 100+ 1% 1% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 12.5 14.3 8.8 n= 359 238 114 Year - round, part-time 0 60% 62% 56 % 1 -9 35% 32% 41% 10 -24 3 % 4 % 2 % 25 -49 1% 1% 1% 50 -99 0 % 0% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 1.5 1.5 1.5 n= 359 238 114 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c m r c a� m M r c m c O r ca c O c O M m a m U) m 0 a E w cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O c O r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1106 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey How many employees do you have in winter (Nov -Apr), including yourself? OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Seasonal, full -time (32+ hrslwk) 0 94% 94% 95% 1 -9 4 % 5% 3% 10 -24 1% 1% 1% 25 -49 1% 2% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average .4 .3 .8 n= 359 238 114 Seasonal, part-time 0 93% 92% 95% 1 -9 6% 8% 4% 10 -24 1% 1% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average .2 .3 .2 n= 359 238 114 Total employees in winter 1 -9 64% 60% 70% 10 -24 23% 24% 20% 25 -49 8% 9% 6% 50 -99 4% 4% 3% 100+ 2% 3% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 15.3 17.4 11.3 Median 6.0 7.0 5.0 n= 363 240 115 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c 0 m r c a� m CL r c m 0 c 0 0 r ca c 0 0 c 0 CL m a m 0 U) m 0 a E W to r O N r c 0 0 U (D 0 c 0 r c m E t L) ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1107 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c O r m r c a� v, m a r c m r c O v r cc c O v c O M d d N d O CL E W cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O r- 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1108 OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Maximum total employees during year (greater of summer or winter seasons; FT and PT employees counted equally) 1 -9 63% 59% 71% 10 -24 23% 25% 20% 25 -49 8% 9% 6% 50 -99 4 °1° 5% 3% 100+ 2% 2% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 15.7 17.8 11.6 Median 6.0 7.0 5.0 n= 369 244 117 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c O r m r c a� v, m a r c m r c O v r cc c O v c O M d d N d O CL E W cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O r- 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1108 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c O m r c a� m CL r r- 0 r ca c O c O CL (D a m U) m O CL E W to T " O N T r C 7 O U d O r- 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1109 Physical location of business Within incorporated Unincorporated Place of residence of employees OVERALL cities Monroe County Share of employees living Average 50.5% 59.6% 27.6% n= 342 228 107 within 4.9 road miles of work Share of employees living Average 18.7% 16.2% 25.5% within 5.0 - 9.9 road miles of work n= 342 228 107 Share of employees living Average 13.9% 11.3% 21.0% within 10.0 -19.9 road miles of work n= 342 228 107 Share of employees living 20 Average 17.0% 12.9% 25.9% n= 342 228 107 or more road miles of work 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c O m r c a� m CL r r- 0 r ca c O c O CL (D a m U) m O CL E W to T " O N T r C 7 O U d O r- 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1109 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey unfilled j ob op enings do ou have at How many ! Y the present time? OVERALL Physical location of business within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Unfilled full -time jobs 0 72% 72% 70% 1 12% 12% 13% 2 9% 9% 10% 3 5% 4% 6% 4 1% 1% 1% 6 0 % 0% 8 0% 0% 10+ 1% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average .7 .7 .5 n= 349 225 114 Unfilled part-time jobs 0 ' 83% 81 % 84% 1 11% 12% 10% 2 5% ■ 4 % 5% 3 1% 1% 4 0 % 0% 5 0% 1% 9 1% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average .3 .3 .2 n= 349 225 114 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c 0 m c a� m CL c m c 0 0 r ca c 0 0 c 0 CL m a m 0 U) m 0 a E W to r O N r c 0 0 U m 0 c 0 r c m E ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1110 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey M.1.b 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c 0 r m r c a� v, m CL r r- 0 r v, ca c 0 c O CL d d N d O CL E W cc r O N T r r- 0 O U d O r- 0 r c d E t 0 cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1111 OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Is your business located in: A building shared with other tenants 50% 50% 50% A building occupied exclusively by my business 50% 50% 50% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% n= 363 238 117 What is the approximate gross square footage of floor area your business occupies? 0 -999 sq ft. 35% 31% 43% 1,000.2,499 sq ft. 34% 34% 32% 2,500 -4,999 sq ft. 13% 12% 14% 5,000 -9,999 sq ft. 12% 14% 9% 10,000+ sq ft. 6% 9% 2% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 3525.2 4440.6 1866.1 Median 1386.0 1500.0 1000.0 n= 319 206 107 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c 0 r m r c a� v, m CL r r- 0 r v, ca c 0 c O CL d d N d O CL E W cc r O N T r r- 0 O U d O r- 0 r c d E t 0 cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1111 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey Hotels /lodging: Gross square footage by categor OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Gross square footage of floor area in individual lodging rooms /units 0 -999 sq ft. 44% 38% 100% 2,500 -4,999 sq ft. 22% 25% 5,000 -9,999 sq ft. 11% 13% 10,000+ sq ft. 22% 25% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 5627.2 6330.0 5.0 n= 9 8 1 Gross square footage of floor area in restaurants 0 -999 sq ft. 67% 63% 100% 1,000 -2,499 sq ft. 22% 25% 10,000+ sq ft. 11% 13% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 2611.1 2937.5 .0 n= 9 8 1 Gross square footage of floor area in retail shops 0 -999 sq ft. 78% 75% 100% 1,000 -2,499 sq ft. 22% 25% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 400.0 450.0 .0 n= 9 8 1 Gross square footage of floor area in meeting spaces, spas, lobbies, and other guest service areas of property 0 -999 sq ft. 78% 75% 100% 1,000 -2,499 sq ft. 11% 3% 10,000+ sq ft. 11% 13% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 3666.7 4125.0 .0 n= 9 8 1 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c 0 m r c a� m CL r r- 0 0 r ca c 0 0 c 0 CL m m 0 U) m 0 a E w to 0 N r c 0 0 U (D 0 r- 0 r c a� E t ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1112 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey M.1.b 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates CL E W cc r O N T r C 7 O U a> O c O r c a> E t v ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1113 Physical location of business Within incorporated Unincorpora OVERALL cities Monroe Coi Retail/ merchandising 26% 31% 1 Office - private (excluding medical office) 25% 24% 2 Restaurant 1 food service 1 bar 13% 17% Home office 1 business is located in my home 11% 7% 1 Warehouse 7% 6% 1 — E- 0 Services (bank, hair salon, gas station, automobile care, etc.) 6% 3% 1 c r Which of the following best Other ° 6 /° ° 5 /° N describes the type(s) of building space your business occupies? l di Meca (hospital/clinic, ital /clinic, nursin home, vet clinic, etc., including medical offices ( p g g ) 6 %° ° 5 /° � C Hotel llodging 6% 8% r r Docking 1 marine 1 port facilities 5% 5% y C Institutional (school /college, church, museum, day care, etc.) 4% 5% v Industrial (incl. light /heavy industrial, manufacturing, utilities, etc.) 3% 3% .a O Office - government 3% 3% j Recreational (theater, athletic club, recreation center, etc.) 2% 2% C 124% 124% 12 • TOTAL y O n= 376 240 v C Increase your number of employees 26% 25% 2 During the next five years, do Reduce your number of employees 2% 3% Q you plan to: Stay about the same 55% 55% 5 w Don't know 17% 17% T 1 100% 100% O 10 N TOTAL n= 241 i d T 0 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates CL E W cc r O N T r C 7 O U a> O c O r c a> E t v ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1113 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c r m c a> v, m a r c m r v, c 0 0 r v, cc c 0 0 c 0 M m m 0 N m 0 a E W cc r O N r c 0 0 U m 0 c 0 r c m E t ca r Q Packet Pg. 1114 OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County (If expect to add employees) How many employees do you expect to add over the next five years? 1 21% 20% 21% 2 26% 28% 24% 3 10% 10% 12% 4 4% 5% 3% 5 16% 16% 15% 6 6% 3% 12% 7 2% 3% 8 1% 2% 10+ 14% 13% 15% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 4.5 4.5 4.6 n= 96 61 34 (If expect to reduce employees) By how many employees do you expect to reduce your workforce over the next five years? 1 33% 20% 100% 2 50 % 60% 3 17% 20% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 1.8 2.0 1.0 n= 6 5 1 Approximately how many of your employees will be retiring in the next five years? 0 56% 56% 59% 1 20% 20% 20% 2 15% 16% 14% 3 3% 4% 3% 4 1% 1% 1% 5 2% 3% 2% 6 1% 0% 1% 8 0% 0% 10+ 1% 0% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 1.0 1.0 .9 n= 347 223 116 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c r m c a> v, m a r c m r v, c 0 0 r v, cc c 0 0 c 0 M m m 0 N m 0 a E W cc r O N r c 0 0 U m 0 c 0 r c m E t ca r Q Packet Pg. 1114 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey How difficult is it for your employees in the following groups to find affordable housing in Monroe County? OVERALL Physical location of business incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Seasonal employees 1 =Not at all difficult 5% 3% 7% 2 2% 1% 5% 3= Moderately difficult 3% 3% 2% 4 8% 7% 9% 5 =Very difficult 83% 85% 77% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 4.6 4.7 4.5 n= 132 87 44 Retail /service clerks 1 =Not at all difficult 5% 5% 6% 2 3% 3% 2% 3= Moderately difficult 10% 8% 15% 4 14% 16% 8% 5 =Very difficult 69% 69% 69% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 4.4 4.4 4.3 n= 155 105 48 General labor /service 1 =Not at all difficult 5% 3% 8% 2 3% 2% 5% 3= Moderately difficult 10% 13% 6% 4 11% 13% 8% 5 =Very difficult 71% 69% 73% TOTAL 100% 100% I Average 4.4 4.4 4.3 n= 193 127 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c O r m r c a> d M r c m c O L) cc c O c O M m d N d O CL E w cc 0 N T c O U d O r- 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1115 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey How difficult is it for your employees in the following groups to find affordable housing in Monroe County? OVERALL Physical location of business incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County 1 =Not at all difficult 2 Office support staff 3= Moderately difficult 4 5 =Very difficult 4% 3% 7% 5% 6% 3% 13% 16% 9% 14% 18% 9% 63% 57% 72% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 4.3 4.2 4.4 n= 205 131 69 Entry level professionals 1 =Not at all difficult 1% 1% 2% 2 4% 7% 3= Moderately difficult 13% 11% 19% 4 13 % 13% 13% 5 =Very difficult 69% 69% 67% TOTAL 100 % 100% 100% Average 4.4 4.4 4.4 n= 160 104 54 Mid - management 1 =Not at all difficult 4% 5% 2% 2 6% 7% 6% 3= Moderately difficult 17% 19% 15% 4 12% 8% 19% 5 =Very difficult 62% 62% 59% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 4.2 4.2 4.3 n= 165 107 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c 0 r m r c a> d a r c m c 0 L) N ca c 0 0 c 0 M m d N d 0 a E W cc 0 N T c 0 0 U d 0 c 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1116 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey How difficult is it for your employees in the following groups to find affordable housing in Monroe County? OVERALL Physical location of business incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Upper management 1 =Not at all difficult 11% 13% 9% 2 11% 14% 5% 3= Moderately difficult 16% 15% 20% 4 11% 10% 14 % 5 =Very difficult 50% 48% 52% TOTAL 100% 100% 100 % Average 3.8 3.7 3.9 n= 174 114 56 Other 1 =Not at all difficult 17% 14% 29% 2 3% 5% 3= Moderately difficult 13% 14% 14% 4 13% 18% 5 =Very difficult 53% 50% 57% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 3.8 3.9 3.6 n= 30 22 7 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c O r m r c a> d CL r r- 0 L) cc c O c O CL m m N d O CL E W cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O r- 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1117 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates 7 c 0 r m c a� v, m CL r r- 0 v 0 r v, ca c 0 0 v c 0 M m m 0 N m 0 a E W cc r O N T r c 0 0 U d 0 c 0 r c m E t v m r Q Packet Pg. 1118 OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporal Monroe Coui How, if at all, has the availability of affordable housing in Monroe County affected the work performance of your employees? High turnover 38% 38% 3E High absentee rate 8% 8% 9 Tardiness from long commutes 17% 14% 24 Displeasure with wage rates due to high housing costs 47% 49% 44 Other 8% 9% 7 1 don't believe housing has affected employee performance 30% 27% 3E TOTAL 148% 145% 15E n= 355 232 1 How many people, in your estimation, were not hired or left your employment in the past 12 months because they lacked affordable housing? 0 45% 40% 55 1 10% 10% 9 2 14% 15% 11 3 9% 10 % 7 4 7% 8% 4 5 4% 3% 5 6 3% 4% 1 7 1% 1% 8 1% 0% 1 10+ 8% 9% 7 TOTAL 100% 100% 10C Average 2.8 3.2 n= 347 225 1 Do you feel affordable /employee housing for local residents is: One of our lesser problems 2% 1% 4 A problem, but there are others which also need attention 15% 16% 15 One of the more serious problems 50% 51% 47 The most critical problem in the Monroe County area 29% 30% 2E I don't believe it is a problem 4% 2% 8 TOTAL 100% 100% 10C n= 365 235 1 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates 7 c 0 r m c a� v, m CL r r- 0 v 0 r v, ca c 0 0 v c 0 M m m 0 N m 0 a E W cc r O N T r c 0 0 U d 0 c 0 r c m E t v m r Q Packet Pg. 1118 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates 0 r m c a> d CL r r- 0 CL d d N m 0 CL E W cc r O N r c 0 U m 0 c 0 c m E t m r Q Packet Pg. 1119 OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporate Monroe Couni What type(s) of housing assistance, if any, do you currently provide for your employees? Purchase/own units that you rent to employees 11% 12% 10 0 i Master lease units that you rent to employees 1 % 1% 1 °r Provide housing to employees as part of compensation 8% 8% 8 °r Down payment assistance 4% 4% 4 °r Provide rent subsidies 5% 7% 2 °r Assist employees with housing search 21% 22% 20°i Other assistance 6% 8% 4 °r None of the above 62% 58% 67°i TOTAL 118% 120% 116 0 Y n= 296 188 1C What type(s) of housing assistance, if any, would you consider providing to your employees in the future? Purchase/own units that you rent to employees 4% 3% 5 0 r Master lease units that you rent to employees 2% 2% 4 °r Provide housing to employees as part of compensation 3% 4% 1 °r Down payment assistance 0% 1% Provide rent subsidies 3% 3% 4 °r Assist employees with housing search 7% 9% 4 °r Other assistance 4% 6% 1 °r None of the above 82% 79% 84 0 i TOTAL 105% 106% 104 0 Y n= 206 124 7 What type(s) of housing assistance, if any, do you currently provide or would you consider providing to your employees? Purchase/own units that you rent to employees 13% 14% 14 0 i Master lease units that you rent to employees 3% 2 % 4 °r Provide housing to employees as part of compensation 10% 11% 9 °r Down payment assistance 4% 5% 4 °r Provide rent subsidies 7% 9% 5 0 r Assist employees with housing search 26% 28% 23 0 i Other assistance 8% 11% 4 °r None of the above 54% 49% 60°i TOTAL 126% 128% 123 0 Y n= 298 190 1C 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates 0 r m c a> d CL r r- 0 CL d d N m 0 CL E W cc r O N r c 0 U m 0 c 0 c m E t m r Q Packet Pg. 1119 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey Please rate the level of priority that should be placed on creating the following types of housing for employees OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Rental housing for year- round employees 1 =Low priority 5% 4% 7% 2 2% 3% 1% 3= Moderate priority 9% 8% 11% 4 18% 17 % 21% 5 =High priority 66% 68% 60% TOTAL 100% 100 % 100% Average 4.4 4.4 4.3 n= 347 229 113 Rental housing for seasonal employees 1 =Low priority 21% 21% 21% 2 14% 16% 9% 3= Moderate priority 33% 35% 31% 4 16% 15 % 17% 5 =High priority 16% 13% 22% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 2.9 2.8 3.1 n= 295 197 94 Entry -level for -sale housing for year -round employees 1 =Low priority 8% 6% 11% 2 4% 3% 7% 3= Moderate priority 21% 21% 22% 4 19% 20% 18% 5 =High priority 47% 49% 43% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 3.9 4.0 3.8 n= 314 207 102 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c 0 r m r c a� m CL c m r c 0 0 r ca c 0 0 v c 0 M m m 0 U) m 0 a E w cc r 0 N r c 0 0 U d 0 c 0 r c m E t m r r Q Packet Pg. 1120 Monroe County 2016 Employer Survey Please rate the level of priority that should be placed on creating the following types of housing for employees OVERALL Physical location of business Within incorporated cities Unincorporated Monroe County Move -up for -sale housing for year -round employees (for current homeowners needing more space, e.g. increasing family size, etc.) 1 =Low priority 14% 12% 19% 2 12% 12% 13% 3= Moderate priority 32% 33% 31% 4 18% 20 % 16% 5 =High priority 23% 24% 20% TOTAL 100% 100 % 100% Average 3.2 3.3 3.0 n= 274 181 89 Other type(s) of housing 1 =Low priority 32% 29% 40% 3= Moderate priority 32% 36% 20% 4 16% 14% 20% 5 =High priority 21% 21% 20% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Average 2.9 3.0 2.8 n= 19 14 5 06 Jan 17 Source: RRC Associates c O r m r c a� m CL c m r c O r ca c O c O M m m U) m O CL E w cc r O N T r C 7 O U d O c O r c d E t v cc r r Q Packet Pg. 1121 M.1.b Appendix: Open -Ended Comments MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYER SURVEY 2016 Packet Pg. 1122 M.1.b Table of Contents Please describe your type of business: (other) ................................ ............................... 1 Which of the following best describes the type(s) of building space your business occupies? ( other) ............................................................................. ............................... 1 How difficult is it for your employees to find affordable housing in Monroe County? (other employee type) ..................................................................... ............................... 2 How, if at all, has the availability of affordable housing in Monroe County affected the work performance of your employees? ( other) ............................... ............................... 3 Please indicate the types of workforce housing assistance you provide or would consider providing in the future. (other) ......................................... ............................... 3 Please rate the level of priority that should be placed on creating the following types of housing for employees. (other) ....................................................... ............................... 4 Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding affordable housing for employees in Monroe County? ........................................................ ............................... 5 Packet Pg. 1123 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Please describe your type of business: (other) Type of Business (other) Beauty Salon Boat yard Chamber of Commerce Church Church /religious facility Fabrication of marine products Internet Services Kitchen cabinetry, design and sales Marine mammal research & education facility Media and marketing Museum Museum Museum /Not for profit Non profit animal shelter nonprofit Non - profit Non - profit Non - profit Non - profit affordable housing Not for profit Not - for - Profit Prison Private Golf Course & Clubhouse Process server Recycling Religious Which of the following best describes the type(s) of building space your business occupies? (other) Type of Building Space Occupied (other) Airport Animal housing Boat sales Condo Condominium Greenhouse Historic buildings House type building on commercial property Mobile RRC Associates 1 Packet Pg. 1124 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Type of Building Space Occupied (other) Mobile Mobile Mobile service /cleaning Non - profit Prison Private Golf Course & Clubhouse Professional, legal Property manager \'s housing and meeting area Psychology practice Residential condominium Ship Strip center, 5 tenants, 5 units Visitor Center Workshops with homeless How difficult is it for your employees to find affordable housing in Monroe County? (other employee type) Difficult to Find Housing (other employees) Bartenders Both self - employed Business owners CEO Chef Day care teachers delivery driver Licensed electricians Maintenance Owner Pastor Professionals real estate sales Realtors Sales Agents RRC Associates 2 Packet Pg. 1125 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 How, if at all, has the availability of affordable housing in Monroe County affected the work performance of your employees? (other) Housing Availability Effects on Work Performance (other) Business barely sustains housing Callouts due to working 2 jobs Can't find affordable Can't live close Cannot afford employees Cannot find employees Cranky employees Difficult to attract out of market candidates Difficult to find great affordable help Difficult to recruit people Distracting because of high price Good group of employees now. Used to have high turnover rate due to high housing cots in keys and had to commute from Homestead. High stress, low productivity High turnover of clients! I don't believe we need more subsidized housing. Limited workforce Many don't last long Nearly bankrupts us No employees No one can afford Monroe's'affordable housing' Recruiting workers Tardiness due to holding multiple jobs to pay for housing They struggle Unable to afford to buy Unhappy with high cost of housing unprofessional and low skilled We assist our employees when needed We pay well but housing is an issue Please indicate the types of workforce housing assistance you provide or would consider providing in the future. (other) Housing Assistance Provided or Considered (other) Affordable homeownership Bunk room available while on duty Co -sign equitable salaries Fair salaries RRC Associates 3 Packet Pg. 1126 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Housing Assistance Provided or Considered (other) First last & security loans Gas money Higher wages Higher wages to accommodate higher housing expenses I manage apartments Increase base salary Loans Offer reduced rate, dockage Pay higher than average wages possibility of a loan Possibly purchasing a mobile home at Stadium and only charge the lot rent to the employee. Provide housing Provide median income homes for sale Rehab and ownership Small loans from F /L /S We have given loans in the past We house the homeless We pay living wage- $42.50/hr plus benefits Please rate the level of priority that should be placed on creating the following types of housing for employees. (other) Priority for Employee Housing (other) 1 bedroom 1 bath rentals Homeless shelter I don't know, you figure it out. Parsonage provide to pastor not compensation Possible efficiency units where you could build many in a small footprint. Allow homeowners to rent out accessory units as rental units for a restricted rent amount. We need higher wages- this would do away with the housing problem RRC Associates 4 Packet Pg. 1127 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Do you feel affordable /employee housing for local residents is 1) one of our lesser problems; 2) a problem among others; 3) one of the more serious problems; 4) the most serious problem in Monroe County; or 5) not a problem? Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding affordable housing for employees in Monroe County? Problem of Affordable Housing (1= Lesser problem, 4 =Most Comments critical problem, S=not a problem) 1 Drinking alcohol; drug use; lack of skill and lack of vocation; painkillers prescribed by doctors- these are problems. This affects ALL of the workforce. 1 People accept Key West for other reasons. If you can't afford it 'it is what it is.' 1 Tax incentives or rental or work force housing, don't raise taxes on people renting to longterm 1 The Upper Keys is fine with workers coming in from homestead 2 Enforce laws with regard to illegal rentals 2 I believe many money people would like The Key before the wealthy, no labors or trades people. What they don't seem to realize is the great increase of services (cost). 2 I don't feel it's the most important issue. We live on an island. It's expensive. My main problem with retaining employees is they move away disenchanted with lots of things here. Not just rent. 2 I feel housing should be close to place of employment. It should not be up the keys. 2 Increasing density for affordable workforce housing brings many impacts to neighbors and should be discouraged. No affordable housing should be given fractional ROGO /BPAS as all potentially contribute to emergency evacuation traffic stream. 2 It seems that the current economic environment is driving rent rates very high. This is probably a cyclical issue due to strong local economy and low home ownership. Capitalization rates for investors is creating a situation where too much affordable rentals are being built. During the next downturn in our economy, for profit landlords will do whatever they need in order to generate rents. Having high density projects with subsidized rent will not be a good situation for our community. Please focus efforts on building homes that can be purchased by middle income workers and professionals that make up the fabric and strength of our communities. Then they will be able to stay as long term residents. Thanks! 2 none -our situation is not typical as we have a small professional group 2 Property taxes must decrease before affordable housing can even be seriously addressed 2 Should be more discounted housing for employees. RRC Associates 5 Packet Pg. 1128 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Problem of Affordable Housing (1= Lesser problem, 4 =Most Comments critical problem, S=not a problem) 2 Tax paying dollars should not be used on housing for profit making businesses. It's understandable for government, teacher, fire, police, etc. We should be subsidizing rent for bartenders so that private individuals /businesses can still turn a profit. This survey is for only one part of our business. The biggest struggle of our entire agency is recruiting and maintaining the specialized staff needed for the local services we provide. It's frustrating that we struggle with staffing for a state mandated program, etc. I know of two people who have affordable housing. One moved here to be a hairdresser, which is needed but not essential. The other works part-time as a club DJ, and had a list of arrests. 2 The definition of affordable needs to be modified based on wages available to be earned in the Florida Keys transient workforce. Finding qualified, educated, employees who are willing to work, are honest, not alcoholics or drug addicted is very difficult. If you do find someone who meets employment and background checks, being able to pay them so they can live here becomes the issue. When such a person is found, you do your best to be able to pay them efficiently so they can afford to live here. 2 The employers in this county are for the most part pathetic. You have no job security, they don't pay decent wages, given the cost of living down here, they think that just because you live here ('in paradise') that's their 'license' to pay you welfare type wages . I've lived here since 1969 and it's gotten worse, it's sad. 2 What happens to legitimate concerns re hurricane evacuation? Too many workforce housing units which REALLY are NOT affordable for the average employee!! 3 Affordable housing is a myth. If you want to live here you have to pay the price - there plenty of other places in the US that are more affordable. 3 Affordable housing is a priority but I don't think it should be available in high dollar like Old Town. 3 Affordable housing should not be $2500 a month. That's not affordable. 3 Affordable housing should not be placed in Old Town Key West. The city can get higher taxes for second homes which will not impact our schools and other services. Clean up Stock Island and put affordable housing there. 3 Allow more downtown enclosures; reduce short term rentals that are illegal; need more affordable 'affordable' housing 3 Anyone can see, affordable housing is a huge issue. I am personally on the waiting list, and have not moved 10 positions (out of 191) in 9 months. This indicates the demand is critical! 3 Apartment buildings like the rest of the United States 3 Biggest reason for lack of GOOD potential employees. 0 r as c a� m CL r- 0 0 0 ca c 0 0 c t= 0 CL m s' 0 U m 0 a E w cc r O N T c 0 0 U 0 0 r- 0 r c m E ca r r Q RRC Associates 6 Packet Pg. 1129 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Problem of Affordable Housing (1= Lesser problem, 4 =Most Comments critical problem, S=not a problem) 3 Create educational opportunities to further careers of all working citizens. EMT, teachers, firemen, police- teach them to be frugal. State mandates to be paid for by the state or Feds. 3 Developers of new commercial floor space in Monroe County should also develop workforce housing. The county should require this. 3 Employers need affordable housing too! I wish I could pay my employees more but I can barely afford my own rent and bills. 3 Focus priority on smaller spaces /efficiency apartments for 1 -2 people that they can afford and promote saving money. 3 High business rents make it difficult to pay employees 3 Hopefully firm can help reduce the criminal insurance rates which would correct the housing for owners. Increased enforcement with increased work requirements in public housing. 3 Housing within Monroe Co. has been critical for years, and with larger developers showing interest, becoming more so. It's edging labor out of the area. 3 1 believe that the large employers who have many low wage employees should bear their share of the cost of housing for their employees. They gain the most from tourism and should therefore shoulder more of the burden than the average worker or county taxpayer. Perhaps a special tax on employers with more than X number of lower wage employees that goes straight to an affordable housing fund. 3 1 can tell you this subject is one of the main reasons we can't fully staff our stores and in the number one reason I lose good employees. Employees talk about it everyday. 3 1 give up 3 1 think housing could be more affordable if rental laws were enforced. 3 Ideas for employers: Offer low interest financing $ /or tax incentives for purchasing employee only housing. Property investors aren't going to be interested in renting space for less than their mortgage payments. 3 If apartments were allowed upstairs houses that would be affordable and create low rent. 3 if we don't get some reasonable housing there won't be anyone here to service the tourist. 3 In the past year there are two of us leaving due to cost of living regarding housing. We can no longer afford to live here. One of us after 12 years in the Keys. Friends outside this business (5 -6) have left; some after 25 years of being here. 3 Increase density restrictions and raise building height to promote inexpensive building techniques 3 It is a disparaging situation that I cannot find qualified employees that have housing because the wages do not match the living expenses in this area. I do not know of a solution. I have lost a great employee and a well c 0 r m r c a� m CL c cU c 0 r ca c 0 c t= 0 CL (D m s' 0 U) m 0 a E w to 0 cv r r- 0 0 U a� 0 r- 0 r c a� E U ca r Q RRC Associates 7 Packet Pg. 1130 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Problem of Affordable Housing (1= Lesser problem, 4 =Most Comments critical problem, S=not a problem) qualified employee due to housing problems. Because of a lack of affordable and quality housing, I am forced to hire less than desirable employees. Employees living in substandard housing or in conditions not meant to be lived in is a concern, and I know that this is an overwhelming problem in Monroe County. I do not believe a minimum wage or more government housing is a solution. This appears to be a longstanding problem that has not been solved and I do not see it solved in the near future. Having employees riding a bus for hours each day is not a solution. Passing out cost of living vouchers has the potential to create slum lords and will still contribute to over priced housing. Monroe County and tourist rely upon the services that small business and employees provide. 3 It's a problem- I'm happy to see this outreach to local business owners. It's nearly impossible for me to hire experienced professional talent out of market- but we do make it happen. 3 It's important to have /provide affordable housing available to Monroe County citizens so out of area people don't take the local jobs keep earned $$ in the keys. 3 Many employees living together and /or with others together in order to afford living in Key West 3 Most of our employees are having to work two jobs to make it. We pay well enough that it shouldn't be the case but prices for what's available are crazy. 3 Most our employees are long term - most make over 16- 18 /hr. 3 Much of this does not apply to my mobile service. No employees at this time. 3 My staff has not had high turnover. One left 2 years ago for a better paying job. However, with no C- O -L -A- it is getting very hard to all of us to stay. Prices go up but wages do not. 3 Need good staff that can afford it here. I pay $18 /hr and that is still not enough. 3 no 3 No 3 none 3 Obviously we are limited by space, so housing in other areas of the Keys and a transportation system that is Keys based in addition to the one currently running would work 3 One of our biggest problems is cracking down on the illegal transient rentals. I think quite a bit of headway has been done but more can be done. The fines are often waived for first offenders making it a no risk scenario to rent short term until you get caught the first time. Fines need to be charged on the first offense to help support a strong program to investigate and prosecute transient rental violations. c 0 r as c a� m CL r- 0 0 0 ca c 0 0 c t= 0 CL m m s' 0 U) m 0 a E w cc 0 N T c 0 0 U a� 0 c 0 c a� E ca Q RRC Associates 8 Packet Pg. 1131 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Problem of Affordable Housing (1= Lesser problem, 4 =Most Comments critical problem, S=not a problem) 3 Provide property tax breaks to companies for property purchased for employee housing. 3 QUIT FEEING US TO DEATH! LOWER TAXES! MAKE IT AFFORDABLE TO ENJOY DOWNTOWN WITHOUT HAVING PAY $20 TO $30 TO PARK! SHRINK GOVERNMENT! ALLOW PEOPLE TO ENCLOSE A PORTION OF THEIR STILT HOMES FOR INCOME AND LOWER RENT. PROBLEM SOLVED! 3 Raise minimum wage. Place regulations on predatory builders and landlords. 3 Rate of growth is the cause of all thisM Stop the madness. Give permits and the market will solve the problem. No more government interference!! 3 Regarding affecting work performance: Housing issues do not influence job performance. But when existing lease not renewed, they have not been able to find a comparable replacement and have moved away. Housing as part of compensation is too much like serfdom. 3 Rentals are way too high! 3 Stop deed restrictions on affordable housing above commercial. Provide tax incentives for development of apartments on top of commercial. 3 Subsidized housing- should be short term only, max 3 years, annual re- verification to qualify. Too much fraud. 3 The cost of doing business here is crazy!! 3 The high rent in this community has chased away what would be great potential employees. They cannot afford the rent prices despite the fact I pay way above minimum wage. 3 The overall cost of living here in Monroe County causes companies to loose good employees to areas with better cost of living. Not only is housing cost very high, but it is hard to find. 3 This is an important issue for the whole county. Our business is family run and does not really fit the norm for this survey. 3 Very difficult to find affordable rent /own for year round; difficulty recruiting good people; place a priority for full time workers OVER seasonal renters 3 We are very fortunate to have an established local workforce, who for the most part, have housing. Our problem is with hard to fill positions that we have to recruit from out of town. Finding adequate housing is very difficult for those who are re- locating. 3 We seem to have more median income housing than we need and nothing much for those in a lower income bracket 3 Why doesn't Key West build high density buildings like AIDS Help did at Poinciana? 3 Yes, we need it. We turn people away at our office multiple times per week needing affordable rentals, in the Lower Keys it's a huge issue! Please consider building some or allow it to happen. c 0 r as c a� m CL r- 0 0 r ca c 0 0 c t= 0 CL 0 m s' 0 U) 0 0 a E w cc 0 N r r- 0 0 U m 0 r- 0 c m E 0 ca r r Q RRC Associates 9 Packet Pg. 1132 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Problem of Affordable Housing (1= Lesser problem, 4 =Most Comments critical problem, S=not a problem) 4 1) Need dedicated source of local funding to implement A.H. policies. 2) Lobby State of FL to fund Sadowski Housing Trust Fund 100% every year. 3) Resurrect Housing Finance Authority for Monroe County. 4 Affordable does not mean $2,000. Why does government allowed unmarried couple to live in government subsidy housing when boyfriend makes way over $ for housing? 4 Affordable housing cannot be for people making $20 -$20K a year. Try the lower end, hard working under $20K. Rates currently too high for realistic affordable housing. 4 Build it now!! Before it is too late. It might be too late now!!! Re: Q10- may sell business because of lack of good employees. 4 Definition of 'affordable housing' needs to be more realistic- $1500 for a 1 bedroom? Also needs more pet friendly units. 4 HELP! 4 Housing is nearly affordable to most workers unless it's a crappy ill - maintained house or mobile. Income doesn't allow any single living - must share with others that are non - family. 4 I think there needs to be a funding source: tax increase or toll booth! 4 If there were more long term mobile home parks and small multi -unit rentals this would improve housing. No one wants to live in large apartment communities. Not when they can work and live in Miami for better wages and housing. Quality- nice housing is needed! Large apt communities won't help. no one wants to live there and they have a choice- not working down here. Duplexes or 3 -4 units are what should be built. OR create subsidies that allow mobile /manufactured home purchases where employers can co -sign. Credit isn't something most retail, hotel, and restaurant employees have in the positive. If you build large apt communities and make the paperwork too complicated it WON'T HELP. 4 In general, 8 out of 10 perspective job candidates turn down job offers due to ability to find affordable QUALITY housing. At times, housing (rentals) are not affordable. 4 It is a critical issue. There are rental assistance programs in place in Martha's Vineyard that is successful and in place because they have same issues. 4 It is a Legislative issue - need height and density increases for workforce housing. Government and private partnership. 4 It is easy to say. But affordable is $600 a month. Make dormitory style facility, shared common areas. 4 It is essential that the County (in general) cease growth initiatives until low, very low, and extremely low affordable housing can be caught up with demand. 4 It is illogical and irresponsible for elected officials to enact laws requiring employers to raise minimum wages, without, at the same time, enacting c 0 r as c a� m CL c m c 0 r ca c 0 c t= 0 CL m s' 0 U m 0 CL E W to 0 N r c 0 0 U m 0 c 0 c m E ca r Q RRC Associates 10 Packet Pg. 1133 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Problem of Affordable Housing (1= Lesser problem, 4 =Most Comments critical problem, S=not a problem) laws limiting the ability of landlords to increase commercial and residential rents. 4 It is near to impossible to afford to live here when you own the business not just the employees. Everyone is being priced out. 4 It's a critical issue. 4 It's ridiculous that rich people are buying homes with affordable rental units and turning them into single family dwellings that are used as vacation rentals or that sit empty for all but 2 weeks each year! This is a very serious problem and not fair that people can't find a DECENT place to live for a reasonable amount of money! 4 Let's stop talking about it and do something that is truly affordable. $2300 for 2/1 is 'not affordable' Tarpon Harbour. 4 My wife and I, like most, have to supplement our business income buy working other jobs to cover the cost of living in the Keys. 4 Not applicable to my business 4 Please do something practical for the work force in Monroe county. This is a very old issue that has never really been solved. 4 Please do what you can for locals. We lose too many due to high cost of living. We train them and they all leave because of the current cost and we lose money because of it. 4 Please provide affordable housing for work force 4 Please provide more affordable rental housing for local employees 4 Process in future based on real need. Most occupants of affordable housing misstate income, rent the dwelling, or report exaggerated bills. How does affordable house tenants drive Mercedes and BMW's? 4 Quit giving money away. Provide low interest loans for buyers /employers to buy and provide housing for employees. 4 Renovate the old Harris School, build micro apartments for the Key West single labor force. 4 Rescind the ban on downstairs enclosures 4 Skilled workers are very hard to obtain due to high cost of living. 4 Stop Illegal Short term rentals under 28 days! 4 The cost of rent in Monroe County is ridiculous and it creates a vacuum for young professionals attempting to live, work, and raise a family here. There is no way to save to purchase homes while paying rent. Business owners are struggling to find qualified employees due to the fact that even good salaries are many times no match for the cost of living. This results in high turnover. 4 The county really needs to do something about it. It is an awful mess and they just take money from developers who promise affordable housing but never deliver and the county never punishes them. The county commissioners are getting rich from their pockets being padded by c 0 r ca r c a� m CL r- 0 CL m s' 0 U m 0 a E w to r 0 N r c 0 0 U d 0 c 0 r c m E ca r Q RRC Associates 11 Packet Pg. 1134 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Problem of Affordable Housing (1= Lesser problem, 4 =Most Comments critical problem, S=not a problem) developpers and they flat out do not care about the workers who make this island what it is 4 The vacation rental market is destroying the few affordable units that were in existence. 4 There are no homes to rent for 12 months in Marathon. All houses are being rented by the week to tourists. Workers can't find a house in town. 4 There is NO affordable housing. 4 There just is no such thing in Monroe County anymore. RV lot rates are $1500 or more. We need to allow the use of downstairs enclosures. Ease building permits for employee housing. 4 This is a critical issue and the cost of training new employees is a burden. Level of service suffers and guests do not get value! 4 This is the number one reason for employees leaving. 4 This issue MUST be addressed due to the growth of Monroe County 4 This survey will be just another waste of time unless something is done immediately to create housing. It's an emergency!! 4 We are closing our building here because we can't afford it at the moment. 4 We definitely need places for lower income families 1500 to 2000 a month is not affordable to many making 600 a week 4 We must re -visit our wetlands designations and allow housing to be built in heavily impacted impounded wetland areas 4 We need affordable housing!!! My employee of 7 years just left because of housing and I have not replaced her yet. 4 We need affordable housing. Affordable isn't $2500. 5 Bus employees in from Homestead. Have buses that are punctual and clean; let employers or employees pay for it so the taxpayers isn't burdened. 5 Either employers should pay more to keep local employees (higher wages) or employee can get lower housing in Homestead, 30 minute drive or bus. Free or affordable housing will bring freeloaders to our community causing a rise in crime and threaten safety. We paid enormous prices for our homes (housing) for peace of mind and security. Residents should pay their own way or seek another town. 5 FYI I manage many year round rentals. Large and small. Many sit vacant month after month. I do not believe there is an issue with housing. I've been a landlord for 45 years here in the Upper Keys. 5 Give tax breaks to the owners of the properties if they keep them year - round rentals for workers in the County. 5 Gov't should not be in the landlord business. 5 1 do not believe housing is a problem. Our rental rates are in par with other parts of Florida. I rent in other areas and I pay more in other parts of Florida. c 0 r m r c a� m CL r- 0 0 r ca c 0 0 c t= 0 CL m s' 0 U) 0 0 a E w cc r 0 N r r- 0 0 U a> 0 r- 0 c a� E U ca r Q RRC Associates 12 Packet Pg. 1135 M.1.b Monroe County Employer Survey 2016 Problem of Affordable Housing (1= Lesser problem, 4 =Most critical problem, S=not a Comments problem) 5 There is plenty of affordable housing. People should further their education, move, or get another job if they are struggling. There are opportunities for people to purchase houses too, but it seems as though people want handouts /subsidies which are not fair for people who have worked hard to live in paradise. 5 When trailer parks sold out to developers there went affordable housing Allow more units per property. Major incentives for builders to develop. Control rent on additional affordable units. My business is family only and we all own our homes in the same block of business. Reduce impediments caused by zoning laws, building dept, planning, density limits, height limits, environmental restrictions, etc and problem will solve itself We need housing for people who live here and work. When you build the needed houses that is needed, make sure that the rich people don't buy them and after a few years they jack the rent payment up high as they have done, like at the Truman, housing that was supposed to be for low income. I do not meet your requirements for affordable housing. I do not make enough to apply and I own a business here. I own my home I purchased 27 years ago for less than $70,000. If I came here within the last 10 years, I would never have made it. I only hire sub - contractors who own their own homes. Ours is a satellite law office, therefore, most of the questions do not apply to us. The problem is not with housing, but with low wages! We need a min. wage for Monroe County. Many cities, etc. are smart enough to pass a min. wage law! These large hotels are making tons of money but not passing it on to the workers. They don't even pay them full time so they can afford paying health insurance. It is also the stores. People working 2 and 3 jobs. c 0 r as c a� m CL c m r c 0 r ca c 0 c 0 CL m m s' 0 U m 0 a E W to 0 N T c 0 0 U d 0 c 0 r c d E t v cc r r Q RRC Associates 13 Packet Pg. 1136 M.1.b R-R ASSOCIATES,, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director, Planning and Environmental Resources, Monroe County, FL FROM: RRC Associates (David Becher) and Jim Nicholas DATE: May 30, 2017 RE: Proposed Prototypical Housing Unit for Monroe County Workforce Housing Support Study A. Nature and Size of Prototypical Affordable Workforce Housing Unit in Monroe County One of the most important considerations in determining the need for affordable workforce housing in the County is to define just what is a prototypical affordable workforce housing unit. In other words, what size and type of affordable workforce housing unit will need to be built when need is determined The prototypical workforce housing unit was determined by compiling the data on existing affordable workforce housing units built within the last decade, for which the County had information on size (square feet), the number of bedrooms, and the costs to build the units. These selected units are reasonably dispersed throughout the Keys, and consist of nine different developments of varying size totaling 554 units.' The developments include: • A multi -unit land trust development — Middle Keys; • A multi -unit modular development — Upper Keys; • Meridian West (Harbor Bay Investments) — Lower Keys; • Tradewinds Hammocks Phase 1— Upper Keys; • Blue Water — Upper Keys; • A multi -unit townhome development — Lower Keys; • A multi -unit apartment development built in 2016 — Middle Keys; • A multi -unit senior living apartment development — Upper Keys; and • A multi -unit apartment development under construction in 2017 — Middle and Lower Keys. These affordable workforce housing developments include a varying number of bedrooms that serve families of different sizes. Not surprisingly, the majority of the units (56 %) are two bedrooms. The nine developments are identified In Table 1: Affordable Workforce Housing Developments, Monroe County, along with the number of units they include, the size of the units (in square feet), and the number of bedrooms in each unit. ' There are 824 existing affordable workforce housing units in the County. 4770 BASELINE ROAD, STE 360 • BOULDER, CO 80303 • TEL 303/449 -6558 • FAx 303/449 -6587 • RRCASSOCIATES.COM Packet Pg. 1137 M.1.b Proposed Prototypical Housing Unit for Workforce Housing Support Study May 30, 2017 Development JK TABLE 1: AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, MONROE COUNTY Number of Square Feet per Unit Total Square Feet in 0&. Units 3 BR 2 BR 1 BR Multi -Unit Land Trust Apartments 16 1,109 17,744 Multi -Unit Modular Apartments 72 1,120 80,640 6 750 4,500 2 1,364 2,728 30 1,364 40,920 Meridian West (Harbor Bay Investments) 17 600 10,200 68 817 55,556 17 1,034 17,578 Tradewinds Hammocks Ph 1 11 700 7,700 35 890 31,150 20 1,050 21,000 Blue Water 2 660 1,320 24 801 19,224 10 1,165 (4BR) 11,650 Multi -Unit Townhome Development 40 1,150 46,000 49 1,275 62,475 Multi -Unit Apartment (Built 2016) 16 710 11,360 27 950 25,650 8 1170 9,360 Multi -Unit Senior Living Apartment 28 695 19,460 14 757 10,598 0 0 0 Multi -Unit Apartment (Under Construction 2017) 6 710 4,260 22 950 20,900 14 1170 16,380 TOTALS 554 548,353 SOURCE: Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department, and data from individual builder /developers of affordable housing developments. RRC Associates and Jim Nicholas Packet Pg. 1138 M.1.b Proposed Prototypical Housing Unit for Workforce Housing Support Study May 30, 2017 To determine the average affordable workforce housing unit from this information, the following analysis was conducted. First, the size (in square feet) of the average unit was determined by totaling the area (in square feet) of each of the units identified in Table 1, and dividing the total area of the units by the total number of units — resulting in an average unit size of 990 square feet. Next, the number of bedrooms for the average unit was determined by adding the total number of bedrooms in these units, and dividing the total number of bedrooms by the total number of units — resulting in an average bedroom size of 2.2 bedrooms for the average unit. See Table 2: Affordable Workforce Housing Average Unit Size and Number of Bedrooms, Monroe County. Average Size of Workforce Housing Units Total Square Footage Workforce Housing Units Table 1 548,353 Total Number of Workforce Housing Units Table 1 554 Average Size (in square feet) of Workforce Housing Units 990 Sq.Ft. Average Number of Bedrooms Per Workforce Housing Unit Total Number of Bedrooms Workforce Housing Units Table 1 1204 Total Number of Workforce Housing Units Table 1 554 Average Number of Bedrooms Workforce Housing Unit 2.2 Bedrooms per Unit SOURCE: Table 1: Affordable Workforce Housing Developments. Monroe County Because the prototypical unit should be a complete buildable unit, instead of using the average of 2.2 bedrooms per unit and an average size taken from units with different numbers of bedrooms, we suggest the prototypical unit should be set at 2 bedrooms per unit and calculated specifically from the population of 2 bedroom units identified in Table 1— resulting in a size for the prototypical affordable workforce housing unit of 955 square feet. See Table 3: Size Prototypical Affordable Workforce Housing Unit, Monroe County. RRC Associates and Jim Nicholas Packet Pg. 1139 M.1.b Proposed Prototypical Housing Unit for Workforce Housing Support Study May 30, 2017 TABLE 3: SIZE OF PROTOTYPICAL AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT, MONROE COUNTY Development' Number of 2 Bedroom Size of 2 Bedroom (Square Total Footage 2 Bedroom I EL Multi -Unit Modular Apartments Units Feet) UnitsjIIIIIIIIIIII smaller floorplan 6 750 4,500 larger floorplan 72 1,120 80,640 Meridian West (Harbor Bay Investments) 68 817 55,556 Tradewinds Hammocks (Phase 1) 35 890 31,150 Blue Water 24 801 19,224 Multi -Unit Townhome Development 40 1,150 46,000 Multi -Unit Apartment Built 2016 27 950 25,650 Multi -Unit Senior Living Apartment 14 757 10,598 Multi -Unit Apartment Under Construction 2017 22 950 20,900 TOTAL 308 294,218 Average Size of 2 Bedroom Unit (Square Feet) 955 SOURCE: Table 1: Affordable Workforce Housing Developments. Monroe County In sum, and based on a review of the data on existing affordable workforce housing units built within the last decade, for which the County had information on size (square feet), the number of bedrooms, and the costs to build the units, the prototypical affordable workforce housing unit has 2 bedrooms and is 955 square feet in area. See Table 4: Prototypical Workforce Housing Unit, Monroe County. RRC Associates and Jim Nicholas 4 Packet Pg. 1140 M.1.b Proposed Prototypical Housing Unit for Workforce Housing Support Study May 30, 2017 B. Costs of Workforce Housing The costs of the prototypical unit are based on the square foot costs of building affordable workforce housing. The square foot costs are based on six affordable workforce housing developments for which development costs information was available through a survey of local builders /developers. The total costs of these projects are shown in Table 5: Costs to Construct Affordable Workforce Housing Developments, Monroe County. The total building and land cost of the 350 units where data was available was $118,824,593. The total square footage of the affordable workforce housing units built in these projects was 376,655 square feet. 2 This number addresses and includes land costs for one project where the land was provided by a land trust, but the true costs of a unit will include both building and land costs. RRC Associates and Jim Nicholas Packet Pg. 1141 TABLE 5: COSTS TO CONSTRUCT AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING •• MENTS, MONROE COUNTY Development Location TMmof Corishuctio Number Total Project Units Total Project Building Cost IF Project Cost per Square Feet) Building' Adjusted 2017 Multi -Unit Land Trust Middle Modular 16 17,744 $3,918,936 $4,175,944 $1,039,528 $5,215,473 $293.93 Apartments Keys Attached Built 2007 Multi -Unit Modular Upper Modular 110 128,788 $24,461,352 $25,374,846 $5,000,000 $30,374,846 $235.85 Apartments Keys Attached Built 2010 Multi -Unit Lower Modular Townhome 89 108,475 $31,105,831 $32,231,782 $8,900,000 $41,131,782 $379.18 Built 2015 Keys Attached Multi -Unit Middle Conventional Apartment 51 50,050 $15,265,341 $15,265,341 $2,100,000 $17,365,341 $346.96 Built 2016 Keys Attached Multi -Unit Senior Living Upper Conventional 42 30,058 $7,811,110 $7,811,110 $771,668 $8,582,778 $285.54 Keys Attached Apartment Built 2017 Multi -Unit Middle Apartment and Conventional Under 42 41,540 $13,654,373 $13,654,373 $2,500,000 $16,154,373 $388.89 Lower Attached Construction Keys 2017 TOTALS 35 376,655 $96,216,943 $98,513,396 $20,311,196 $118,824,593 $326.40 SOURCE: Data provided by Monroe County affordable housing developers, December 2016 and March 2017. 2 This number addresses and includes land costs for one project where the land was provided by a land trust, but the true costs of a unit will include both building and land costs. RRC Associates and Jim Nicholas Packet Pg. 1141 M.1.b Proposed Prototypical Housing Unit for Workforce Housing Support Study May 30, 2017 NOTES: 'Building costs include the costs of design, engineering, contingencies, site preparation, utilities, and mark -up. 2 The Multi -Unit Land Trust Apartments Built 2007 was built in conjunction with a land trust and had no land costs. Land costs this project is included even though the land was provided by a land trust, because land costs are costs that should be included in determining the cost to build affordable workforce housing. Land costs for the project was estimated by taking the land costs of the Multi -Unit Townhome Built 2015 and the Multi -Unit Modular Apartments Built 2010 and dividing the land costs by the total square footage of the other two projects to establish an average land costs per square foot. This was then multiplied by the total square footage of the land trust project. 3 These developments were reported with significant communal or office areas. Costs were adjusted to account for the proportion of the project in actual residences. 4 This number addresses and includes land costs for one project where the land was provided by a land trust. See note 2. 5 The cost per foot is the result of eliminating the high and the low costs per foot of floor area. Based on the total costs of building 376,655 square feet of affordable workforce housing at a cost of $118,824,593, the simple average square foot costs of an affordable workforce housing unit is $321.73. Costs range from a low of $235.80 to a high of $388.89. Table 6 shows several different ways to look at costs per foot of floor area. A simple average gives great weight to lower or higher values. A weighted average gives more consideration to larger verses smaller projects. A median is just that, a mid -point between the extremes. The last alternative is to drop the highest and lowest costs and then calculate the average of the remainder. Among the various methods, it is recommended that the last, dropping the highest and the lowest per square foot costs, be used as the typical costs of a workforce housing unit. Note should be taken that costs are all inclusive; the costs include land, site preparation, hard buildings costs, soft costs, utility extensions and connections, and a reasonable return to the builder /developer. • • •• Simple Average $321.73 Median $320.45 Weighted Average $315.47 Average, Excluding High and Low Per Square Foot Costs $326.40 Average Square Foot Costs Used $326.40 Based on a per square foot costs of $326.40, the costs to build a prototypical unit of affordable workforce housing is $311,712. See Table 7: Costs to Build Prototypical Workforce Housing Unit, Monroe County. RRC Associates and Jim Nicholas Packet Pg. 1142 M.1.b Proposed Prototypical Housing Unit for Workforce Housing Support Study May 30, 2017 RRC Associates and Jim Nicholas Packet Pg. 1143 $ M.1.c • Introduction — Overview of Project — The Affordable Housing Problem • Overview of Support Study — Project Goals — Affordable Housing Need: Approach and Results — Affordable Housing Assistance: Approach and Results • Questions and Comments 0 CLARION L Packet Pg. 1144 Year 2008 Household Income 552,443 Threshold Price Sinjoe 5174,635 5141ing Price Family 5490,000 O pp , �_M Intr oduct i on: 2009 o Pro 5165,571 Project Initiation and Scoping Confirm Methodology •Prepare proposed JPrepareSupport Study Work session to Present Support Study • Review methodology used to • Prepare Support Study to 2011 - documents /data establish nexus between determine need for Present Support Study WORK • Meetings with staff new nonresidential affordable workforce to Board of County PRODUCTS • Interviews development and need housing created by Commissioners • Reconnaissance for affordable workforce nonresidential 559,358 $197,762 housing development 2015 s61,020 5203.197 - 54101 090 • Board of County • Kick -off meeting with 562,355 ' Commissioners work MEETINGS Board of County 'All knits" imWdea .1 labekd as Single iarnlly, CoMoonlnlwn, Townhauue, nuplex, Hal { -nuol , Multi - Units, and M.hle Hones session on Support Commissioners °seuRe:Amurican Study r r 'Wa2017 September 2017 3 Year 2008 Household Income 552,443 Threshold Price Sinjoe 5174,635 5141ing Price Family 5490,000 Price All Units �14JIU.VW 2009 549,721 5165,571 5390,000 $335.000 1010 530,619 5168,561 5360,000 $322,000 2011 - 551,5x4 5171,575 5380,500 5320,000 2012 55.3,637 5178.611 i S408,0U0 $340,000 2013 $50,836 $169,291 5424,000 5 55,0fx1 2014 559,358 $197,762 5450,000 5385,000 2015 s61,020 5203.197 - 54101 090 S425,000 2016 562,355 5207,642 5545.000 x485 'All knits" imWdea .1 labekd as Single iarnlly, CoMoonlnlwn, Townhauue, nuplex, Hal { -nuol , Multi - Units, and M.hle Hones °seuRe:Amurican Community Surnry 1 -YUa[ Ettinwtrs: 11.,.. ... for Hour h hh,via American Fact rinde., 7Q13;Mntfak 6istln65ervice. Mpnroe [nunly, ]IKIB -]LH6 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 * Figure and table label numbers match their designation in the Study - FiA4,44 AAAALA A 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Single Family ALL -Affordability Limit CLARION S 0 r c� r c m rn m CL c m r rn C O 0 T 7 N 14 C O _7 V C Packet Pg. 1145 $ M.1.c — Gap between needed housing and what is reasonably affordable is the affordable housing need n V d 1, CLARION 5 • Provide technical support and analysis so County can take action to address the housing affordability _ problem created by nonresidential development 4 • To support goal determine need nonresidential development creates for affordable housing — Evaluate need nonresidential land uses have for workers, and ability of those workers to reasonably afford housing in the County Packet Pg. 1146 Affordable Housing Need: Approach Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 V Step 6 Step q Determine Determine Calculate need Determin Classify ll non- individual amountof � for workforce Determine what affordabl residential employee and building space development household housing units Determine cost worker h provided per into 8 land use yarnings per land employees per categories use category land use (construction category p er l,000 s pare feet off ~ of market development, housing households reasonably afford for can ~ be hous workers and workers at land use) per land use r category housing and worker ca Land Uses • Provide technical support and analysis so County can take action to address the housing affordability _ problem created by nonresidential development 4 • To support goal determine need nonresidential development creates for affordable housing — Evaluate need nonresidential land uses have for workers, and ability of those workers to reasonably afford housing in the County Packet Pg. 1146 Employees per 1,999 SF Construction f fl.038 D D.038 D D.D38 0 Aff ordable D.038 0 0.039 0 0.038 D based Aff ordable • • • Use Governmental Inclustriat Institutional Need Office by Other Retail & Restaurant • Tourist/ Recreation I Hotel/Motel Total 9 9.955 9 9.481 0 0.72D 1 1.495 1 1.249 0 0.791 1 1.145 0 0..551 Households per 1,999 SF Construction D D.029 0 0.029 _ CLARION Employees per 1,999 SF Construction f fl.038 D D.038 D D.D38 0 Aff ordable D.038 0 0.039 0 0.038 D based Post Construction 9 Different 9.443 9 9.682 1 .. 1.292 0 0.753 1 1.197 9 9.513 Total 9 9.955 9 9.481 0 0.72D 1 1.495 1 1.249 0 0.791 1 1.145 0 0..551 Households per 1,999 SF Construction D D.029 0 0.029 _ Employees per 1,999 SF Construction f fl.038 D D.038 D D.D38 0 0.038 D D.038 0 0.039 0 0.038 D D.fl38 Post Construction 9 9.917 9 9.443 9 9.682 1 1.457 1 1.292 0 0.753 1 1.197 9 9.513 Total 9 9.955 9 9.481 0 0.72D 1 1.495 1 1.249 0 0.791 1 1.145 0 0..551 Households per 1,999 SF Construction D D.029 0 0.029 D ifferent Government 1,000 Square Feet 0.427 0.342 0.214 0.128 3,000 Square Feet 1.282 1.926 0.641 0.385 5,000 Square Feet 2.137 1.719 1.969 0.641 19,000 Square Feet 4.275 3.420 2.138 1.283 20,000 Square Feet 8.550 6.640 4.275 2.565 Industrial 1,009 Square Feet 0.226 0.181 0.113 0.068 3,ODO Square Feet 9.677 9.542 9.339 D.2D3 5,000 Square Feet 1.128 0.992 0.564 9.338 10,099 Square Feet 2.256 1.805 1.128 0.677 20,090 Square Feet 4.512 3.610 2.256 1.354 Office Oce 1,000 Square Feet 0.704 0.563 0.352 0.211 3,ODO Square Feet 2.113 1.690 1.057 0.634 5,000 Square Feet 3.522 L618 1.761 1.057 lO,ODO Square Feet 7.043 5.634 3.522 2.113 20,090 Square Feet 14.086 11.269 7 :043 4.226 '�7 CLARION c 0 r c m v, m a a+ C fC r 7 V7 C O t) 7 V7 f4 C O _7 t) C 0 a I 0 a I T r C 7 O U N O i r- 0 I C O f4 U r C N t t) R a Packet Pg. 1147 c 0 r c m v, m a a+ C fC r 7 V7 C O t) 7 V7 f4 C O _7 t) C 0 a I 0 a I T r C 7 O U N O i r- 0 I C O f4 U r C N t t) R a Packet Pg. 1147 Packet Pg. 1148 Affordable • using Results: Needs based on • • • of • using Goa Housing Needs Based Retail &Restaurant on Application of Different 100 Percent 80 Percent Housing Goals 50 Percent 30 Percent 1,000 Square Feet 0.416 4.333 4.208 4.125 3,000 Square Feet 1.247 0.998 0.624 0.374 5,000 Square Feet 2 :079 1.663 1.040 0.624 10,000 Square Feet 4.158 3.326 2.079 1.247 20,000 Square Feet 8.316 6.653 4.158 2.495 Tourist/Recreational 1,000 Square Feet 0.614 0.491 0.307 0.184 3,000 Square Feet 1.542 1.474 0.921 0.553 5,000 Square Feet 3.071 2.457 1.536 0.921 10,000 Square Feet 6.141 4.913 3.071 1.842 20,000 Square Feet 12.283 9.826 6.142 3.685 Hotel /Motel 1,000 Square Feet 0.315 0.252 0.158 0.095 3,000 Square Feet 0.946 4.757 0.473 4.284 5,000 Square Feet L 577 1.262 0.789 0.473 10,0005quareFeet 3.154 2.523 L577 0.946 20,000 Square Feet 6.308 5.046 3.154 CLARION Packet Pg. 1148 1.892 Packet Pg. 1148 $ M.1.c Affordable • by • • • Use I-M Office Table 111-15: Assistance Needed for Workforce Housing Need Created by Non-Residential Development (Per 1,0130 Square Feet) Govern- Institu- Retail & Tourist/ Hotel/ mental Industrial tional Other Household Earnings Construction $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 $53,962 $53,902. $53,902 $53,902 Post Construction $67,246 $61,755 $61,692 $60,304 $46,.832 $44,987 $42,620 $42,020 Weighted Household $66,713 $61,132 $61,279 $66,146 $47,056 $45,417 $42,416 $42,842 Income Affordability Limit $222,154 $203,569 $204,066 $260,266 $156,676 $151,240 $141,245 $142,665 Cost of Affordable $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311.,712 $311,.712 $311,712 Unit Shortfall $89,559 $108,143 $107,652 $111,446 $155,036 $160,472 $170,467 $169,647 Total Housing Need per 1, DOD FT' 0-427 0.226 0.337 0.764 6.644 0.416 6.614 6.295 Shortfall per 1,D00 $38,285 $24,397 $36,284 $78,492 $99,.838 $66,722 $164,691 $49,947 FT CLARION Affordable Housing Assistance: Approach - Prototypical Unit Table D-4: Prototypical Affordable Workforce Housing Unit, Monroe County Numberof Bedrooms Size of s ' S Table a -7: Costs to Build Prototypical Workforce Housing Unit, Monroe County Average Cost per .. .r Size of Unit (in r ' - A I Affordable • by • • • Use I-M Office Table 111-15: Assistance Needed for Workforce Housing Need Created by Non-Residential Development (Per 1,0130 Square Feet) Govern- Institu- Retail & Tourist/ Hotel/ mental Industrial tional Other Household Earnings Construction $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 $53,962 $53,902. $53,902 $53,902 Post Construction $67,246 $61,755 $61,692 $60,304 $46,.832 $44,987 $42,620 $42,020 Weighted Household $66,713 $61,132 $61,279 $66,146 $47,056 $45,417 $42,416 $42,842 Income Affordability Limit $222,154 $203,569 $204,066 $260,266 $156,676 $151,240 $141,245 $142,665 Cost of Affordable $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311.,712 $311,.712 $311,712 Unit Shortfall $89,559 $108,143 $107,652 $111,446 $155,036 $160,472 $170,467 $169,647 Total Housing Need per 1, DOD FT' 0-427 0.226 0.337 0.764 6.644 0.416 6.614 6.295 Shortfall per 1,D00 $38,285 $24,397 $36,284 $78,492 $99,.838 $66,722 $164,691 $49,947 FT CLARION 0 R rn m M r c R _r 7 N c 0 r R c O _7 V C R a I t= 0 CL CL x Q I r C 7 O U N O i C O I C O R U r C N t V R a Packet Pg. 1149 x Q I r C 7 O U N O i C O I C O R U r C N t V R a Packet Pg. 1149 Governmental Aff Assistance Needed per 1,000 T . Aff ordable Different • Ty pes Table using Assistance: Examples f of • Use J _J 111-16. Assistance Needed for Workforce Housing Need Created by Different Amounts of Non-Residendal Development 3,000 $ $38,285 $ $114,954 5,000 $ $38,285 $ $191,424 10,DOD $ $38,285 $ $382,947 20,60D $ $38,285 $ $765,.695 Industrial Square _ ION Governmental Aff Assistance Needed per 1,000 T . 1,000 $ $38,285 $ 38, 285 3,000 $ $38,285 $ $114,954 5,000 $ $38,285 $ $191,424 10,DOD $ $38,285 $ $382,947 20,60D $ $38,285 $ $765,.695 Industrial Square _ Governmental Square Feet A Assistance Needed per 1,000 T Total In Lieu Fee 1,000 $ $38,285 $ 38, 285 3,000 $ $38,285 $ $114,954 5,000 $ $38,285 $ $191,424 10,DOD $ $38,285 $ $382,947 20,60D $ $38,285 $ $765,.695 Industrial Square Office Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Total In Lieu Fee Square Feet 1,000 $78,492 $78,492 3,000 $76,492 $235,475 5,000 $78,492 $392,459 10,D00 $76,492 $784,917 20,000 $78,492 $1,569,635 Retail &Res #aurae# Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Total In Lieu Fee Square Feet 1,QD0 $66,722 $66,722 3,000 $66,722 $200,166 5,000 $66,722 $333,610 10,000 $66,722 $667,220 20,006 $66,722 $1,334,441 Etc. CLAR c 0 r c m rn m s_ Q C fC 7 V7 C O V 7 N f4 C O _7 V C 0 a I 0 a I T r C 7 O U N O C O I C O U r C N t V f4 a Packet Pg. 1150 c 0 r c m rn m s_ Q C fC 7 V7 C O V 7 N f4 C O _7 V C 0 a I 0 a I T r C 7 O U N O C O I C O U r C N t V f4 a Packet Pg. 1150 Packet Pg. 1151 Affordable • Different Type Ta bl of Land Use I I 1 Assistan Needed fo Workforce Housing Need Created e -wh -16: ce r by D ifferent Agf Non-Residential Development Tourist/Recreational Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Total In Lieu Fee Square Feet 1,000 51[J4,691 _ S 1 04,691 3,000 $104,591 $314,074 5,000 $523,456 $104,691 10,000 $104,591 $1,045.912 20,ODD $104,591 $2,093.824 Hotel/Motel Square Feet i'IssIstamce Weeded per 1,0w Total In lBen Fee Square Feet 1, 000 $49,947 $49,947 3,000 $49,947 $149,841 51000 $49,947 $249,739 0D 1010 $49,947 $499,470 20,M0 $49,947 $998,941 CLARION Packet Pg. 1151 Packet Pg. 1151 M.1.d JNKUL LUUI RN c O r R c m m- a c R r c 0 r R c 0 c c m ` E #� a O R r c a� c {�9r z 0 U) o _ . CL CL 7 U) c 0 AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING SUPPORT STUDY FOR NON - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT JUNE 2017 i O 0 R E i O Q r C N E t V PREPARED BY Y a CLARI Packet Pg. 1152 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Development ca B. Growth in Wages ................................................................................ ............................... 11 r c a� C. Supply of Affordable Housing 15 y m III. NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATED BY NON - RESIDENTIAL o z DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... .............................16 0 A. Background ......................................................................................... ............................... 16 B. Demand for Workforce Housing Units ............................................... ............................... 16 1. Need for Affordable Workforce Housing for Construction Employees ......................... .............................16 2. Need for Affordable Workforce Housing for Post - Construction Employees ................ .............................18 3. Summary of Needs for Affordable Workforce Housing Created by Non - Residential Development .........31 4. Assistance to Address Affordable Workforce Housing Need ........................................ .............................34 Appendix A: Calculating the Affordability Threshold ........ ............................... A -1 Appendix B: Economic Growth in Monroe County ( 2007 - 2016) ....................... B -1 Appendix C: Employment By Household and Income By Industry ................... C -1 Appendix D: Workforce Housing Prototype Cost Estimates ............................. D -1 Packet Pg. 1153 c 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS r m OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 C CL A. Introduction r_ 1 m 1. Background .................................................................................................................... ..............................1 2. Purpose of Affordable Workforce Housing Support Study for Non - Residential Development ...................2 0 L) B. Problem Description ............................................................................. ............................... 3 1. Housing Sales Prices and Housing Affordability: Comparison of Median Single Family Sales Prices and HouseholdIncome .................................................................................................................. ..............................3 ca 0 C. Need for Affordable Workforce Housing Created by Non - Residential Development ........ 5 ? c PROBLEM DESCRIPTION .............................................. ............................... 7 A. Housing Sales Prices and Housing Affordability r 7 0 CL 0 1. Comparison of Median Single Family and Condominium Sales Prices and Household Income ...................7 2. Assessing Housing Affordability 9 0 ca B. Growth in Wages ................................................................................ ............................... 11 r c a� C. Supply of Affordable Housing 15 y m III. NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATED BY NON - RESIDENTIAL o z DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... .............................16 0 A. Background ......................................................................................... ............................... 16 B. Demand for Workforce Housing Units ............................................... ............................... 16 1. Need for Affordable Workforce Housing for Construction Employees ......................... .............................16 2. Need for Affordable Workforce Housing for Post - Construction Employees ................ .............................18 3. Summary of Needs for Affordable Workforce Housing Created by Non - Residential Development .........31 4. Assistance to Address Affordable Workforce Housing Need ........................................ .............................34 Appendix A: Calculating the Affordability Threshold ........ ............................... A -1 Appendix B: Economic Growth in Monroe County ( 2007 - 2016) ....................... B -1 Appendix C: Employment By Household and Income By Industry ................... C -1 Appendix D: Workforce Housing Prototype Cost Estimates ............................. D -1 Packet Pg. 1153 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development I. OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION 1. Background There is a workforce housing affordability problem in Monroe County. The reason at the most basic level is that wages have remained static over the past decade, while housing prices have recovered and appear to be increasing annually since the downturn after the Great Recession. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the State of the County yearly report, and the work and findings of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, all recognize the problem. The plan establishes the planning principle (i.e., goal) of ensuring affordable housing is available for the workforce. More specifically: Goal 601 in the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan states: Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to facilitate access by residents to adequate and affordable housing that is safe, decent, and structurally sound, and that meets the needs of the population based on type, tenure characteristics, unit size and individual preference. Policy 601.1.13 states: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations on inclusionary housing and shall evaluate expanding the inclusionary housing requirements to include or address nonresidential and transient development and redevelopment based on specific data and analysis. State of the County 2015/16, a report prepared for the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, emphasizes the housing affordability problem, and identifies some of the reasons for the problem. ....the quadruple impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and environmental features, housing supply limited by the controlled Rate of Growth Ordinance, and a tourism economy with a prevalence of lower paying service - sector employment. State of the County 2015116, at page 14. A study conducted by the United Way of Florida, Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed: Study of Financial Hardship (ALICE November 2014) indicates that nearly half of Monroe County households, including many above the federal poverty line, still struggle to afford basic expenses, including housing. ALICE, at page 173. The County's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, including a Board of County Commissioners approved stakeholder assessment effort conducted by the Consensus Center at Florida State University, in April 2015 concluded housing affordability had become a crisis in the County: This stakeholder assessment report confirms that there is wide agreement that Monroe County is facing a significant and growing workforce housing crisis with shortages for both affordable rental and ownership units. There is also agreement that no single strategy will solve the workforce housing crisis in Monroe County. Instead the challenge ahead is to craft a balanced package of Packet Pg. 1154 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Develor�--, targeted options that have been refined through discussion and debate and that can serve as a consensus framework for addressing and implementing solutions. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners agreed. In November 2015, they adopted Resolution No. 393 -2015, deeming housing affordability not only a problem, but a "crisis." The housing affordability issue is one that encompasses the full Monroe County market, including incorporated and unincorporated areas. People move and hire without necessarily considering municipal lines. The County is both the smallest geographic unit for which relevant economic data is consistently available and the appropriate unit for measuring the housing market. The nature of this Study is that it will provide guidance for County government for the policies it enacts and the actions it chooses to take, particularly where it has more direct land use control in the unincorporated parts of the county, but the analysis diagnosing the issue is countywide unless otherwise indicated. 2. Purpose of Affordable Workforce Housing Support Study for Non RPfzir ntinl F)evelnnment This Affordable Workforce Housing Support Study for Non - Residential Development ( "the Study ") is prepared to provide the technical support and necessary analysis so the County can take action to address the workforce housing affordability problem by implementing the comprehensive plan goal of expanding the inclusionary requirements within the unincorporated county to non - residential development. The Study supports this goal by determining the need non - residential development creates for affordable workforce housing in the County. Such analyses establish the appropriate basis for the County to then ask the non - residential development creating the need to mitigate their impacts on a proportionate and fair basis. Initially, the Study identifies the affordable workforce housing problem in Monroe County. It then provides the technical documentation and analyses needed to establish whether and the extent to which non - residential development creates a need for affordable workforce housing. This is done by evaluating the linkage between (1) employment generated by the construction of non - residential development, and (2) the employment that occurs at non - residential development after the construction is completed (post- construction activities). Because the analysis demonstrates there is a need created by non - residential development for affordable workforce housing, the Study quantifies the need both in terms of affordable workforce housing units (or a fraction thereof) and monetary housing assistance that could address the need for workforce housing. The Study is based on the assumption that an affordable housing unit for households in the local workforce costs no more than 30 percent of annual household income, regardless of whether a home is rented or owner - occupied. This Study focuses on the costs to develop and purchase an owner - occupied housing unit; however, the 30 percent household income affordability threshold is applicable to rental properties as well. The Study includes three parts: This Section 1: Overview and Executive Summary, provides a summary of the Study. It also describes the policy direction in the Monroe County Comprehensive ±t;nn_ ?017 Packet Pg. 1155 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Develor�--,- Plan that directs the County to address the housing affordability problem, and explains how this Study provides the technical support to implement these policies. Section 2: Problem Description, outlines the current workforce housing affordability problem in Monroe County. It shows that while employment in the County has grown over the past decade, wages have remained flat while housing prices have increased since the downturn after the Great Recession, and appear to be increasing on an annual basis. It also demonstrates that housing is not affordable to much of the County's workforce. Section 3: Need for Affordable Workforce Housing Created by Non - Residential Development, assesses the need for affordable housing created by non - residential development (both expansions and new construction). It also outlines the methodology and calculations that determine the need for affordable workforce housing created by non - residential development. Finally, the section quantifies the need both in terms of affordable workforce housing units (or a fraction thereof) that could be built to address the need, and funding shortages (housing assistance) that could be provided to address the need. B. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 1. Housing Sales Prices and Housing Affordability: Comparison of Median Single f^- "ily SCI ^ -nnA Income Like many resort communities, the price of housing in Monroe County over the past nine years has increased since the downturn after the Great Recession, while incomes and wages have remained basically static. The result is a workforce housing affordability problem in the County. Typically, housing affordability is evaluated by comparing the price of housing in a local real estate market to prevailing wage and salary incomes. A national benchmark for evaluating affordability is whether median household incomes are at the level where the household could afford a median priced home. Typically, housing affordability of owner - occupied housing is defined as the owner spending no more than 30 percent of annual household income on annual housing costs. The maximum price of an affordable unit under this definition is calculated as 3.33 times (333 percent) the annual median household income. (See Appendix A: Calculating the Affordability Threshold, for a detailed explanation of this calculation.) As Table 1 -1: Comparison of Median Household Incomes, Median Sales Prices, and Housing Affordability, by House Type, Monroe County (2008- 2016), demonstrates, the gap between median household incomes and median housing costs in the County is not affordable to households earning the area median income. In 2008, the median sales price of all types of housing units ($430,000) was about two and one -half times the price affordable to a median household income ($52,443). There were some fluctuations during and after the Great Recession, but by 2016, the median sales price ($485,000) was again over two and one -half times the price that was affordable to a median household income ($62,355). See also Figure 1 -1: Median Sales Prices and Prices Affordable to Median Family Income, Monroe County (2008- 2016). Packet Pg. 1156 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Developmen- rgur : Med rl a es r ces an r 54M . ° I no To 1711 _ e o edian Income, Monroe County (2008 -2016) $ 600 , 000 $5 00 , 000 $400,000 $3 00 , 000 I $200,000 I $1 00 , 000 $0 14 00• 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Single Family ©ALL Affordability Limit Sources: American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates: Median Income for Households, via American Fact Finder, 2017; Multiple Listing Service, Monroe County, (2008- 2016); Table 1 -1 Packet Pg. 1157 ,. Affordable 00: o of Medll�� ouse .. Income e re ian Sales Singi Fami% I Pr 7Sales Pr units' Housing a rice at Affordable 333 Price ercent Household of Median .. come fi� Sales Price . Housing at 333 Percent of Median Income Single- Family ni Median as Percentage Median Single- Family Sales Price of Income JLunits' 2008 $52,443 $490,000 $430,000 $174,635 2.806 2.462 934.35 819.94 2009 $49,721 $390,000 $335,000 $165,571 2.355 2.023 784.38 673.76 2010 $50,619 $360,000 $322,000 $168,561 2.136 1.910 711.20 636.12 2011 $51,524 $380,500 $320,000 $171,575 2.218 1.865 738.49 621.07 2012 $53,637 $408,000 $340,000 $178,611 2.284 1.904 760.67 633.89 2013 $50,838 $424,000 $355,000 $169,291 2.505 2.097 834.02 698.30 2014 $59,388 $450,000 $385,000 $197,762 2.275 1.947 757.73 648.28 2015 $61,020 $490,000 $425,000 $203,197 2.411 2.092 803.02 696.49 2016 $62,355 $545,000 $485,000 $207,642 2.625 2.336 874.03 777.80 1 "AII Units" includes sales labeled as Single Family, Condominium, Townhouse, Duplex, Half - Duplex, Multi- Units, and Mobile Homes 2 2016 Median Household Income is preliminary. Final datum is not yet available. Sources: American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates: Median Income for Households, via American Fact Finder, 2017; Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for Monroe County, 2008 -2016 rgur : Med rl a es r ces an r 54M . ° I no To 1711 _ e o edian Income, Monroe County (2008 -2016) $ 600 , 000 $5 00 , 000 $400,000 $3 00 , 000 I $200,000 I $1 00 , 000 $0 14 00• 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Single Family ©ALL Affordability Limit Sources: American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates: Median Income for Households, via American Fact Finder, 2017; Multiple Listing Service, Monroe County, (2008- 2016); Table 1 -1 Packet Pg. 1157 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Develor�--, It is clear there is a workforce housing affordability problem in Monroe County, to the point that only a few members of the workforce can reasonably afford market - priced housing. C. NEED FOR A FFORUABLE VVURKFORLE it1UUSiNG LREA i °i D i'Y 11YON- KESH)ENJrJA DEVELOPMENT The need to provide affordable workforce housing is created by development that demands labor (employees). Because non - residential development creates a demand for labor (employees), the need for affordable workforce housing it creates is determined in this Study. Non - residential development includes governmental, industrial, institutional, office, retail & restaurant, tourist /recreation, hotel /motel, and other development. Non- residential development creates a need for labor (the workforce) in two ways: (1) employees who construct the building(s), and (2) employees who work at the building after construction (post construction employees). Construction employees construct the non- residential buildings. All different types of employees work at the buildings after they are complete, depending on the type of business. The analysis shows that wages and salaries earned by a significant portion of Monroe County's workforce that constructs the buildings or works in the businesses and related entities that make up non - residential development are insufficient to allow these employees to obtain market housing at a price they can reasonably afford. After determining the number and type of employees that serve non - residential development (construction and post- construction), and how many of these employees cannot reasonably afford housing in Monroe County, the Study then identifies the quantity of workforce housing need created by non - residential development. Based on this analysis, Table 1 -2: Summary of Affordable Workforce Housing Needs and Assistance Created By Non - Residential Development, outlines the workforce housing need generated by different types of non - residential development, both in terms of the need for workforce housing units (or a fraction thereof), and for monetary workforce housing assistance (in lieu fees). It_inn- ')n17 Packet Pg. 1158 M.1.d County Support Study for Non- Residential Development TABLE 1-2: SUMMARY OF AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING NEEDS AND ASSISTANCE CREATED BY Construction NON-RESIDENTIAL Post-Construction DEVELOPMENT Totals se Ma Workforce Housing Units Needed Per Ile Workforce Housing Units Needed Per 111 Workforce Housing Units Needed Per Ile Workforce Housing Assistance Needed 111 Governmental 0.020 0.408 0.427 $38,285 Industrial 0.020 0.206 0.226 $24,397 Institutional 0.020 0.317 0.337 $36,284 Office 0.020 0.684 0.704 $78,492 Other 5 0.020 0.624 0.644 $99,838 Retail & Restaurant 0.020 0.396 0.416 $66,722 Tourist/ 0.020 0.594 0.614 $204,691 Recreation Hotel /Motel 0.020 0.276 0.295 $49,947 See Table III -1: Non - Residential Construction Employment and Housing Need, Monroe County 2 See Table III -11: Post Construction Employees Need for Housing, by Land Use Category, Per 1,000 Square Feet, Monroe County 3 See Table III -13: Total Housing Needs for Workforce Housing Created by Non - Residential Development (Per1)000SquareFeet) 4 See Table III -15: Assistance Needed for Workforce Housing Need Created by Non - Residential Development (Per1)000SquareFeet) s Other" land commonly included unidentified uses. The source data from the State of Florida provides 99 individual categories of property use. Examples of those not meeting another category and also being placed in "Other" include Military, Forests, parks and recreational areas, Airport, marine or bus terminal, and Gas and utility lines. Because the workforce housing need generated by non - residential development is based on the size and type of the non - residential development, a formula for the appropriate land use will need to be applied to each non - residential development, individually, based on its size (square footage). A table of requirements is found in 111.6.3. Summary of Needs for Affordable Workforce Housing Created by Non - Residential Development. P n 7, , Packet Pg. 1159 M.1.d Monroe County II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Support Study for Non- Residential Development A. HOUSING SALES PRICES AND HOUSING AFFORDABILIT " As stated in Section I. Overview and Executive Summary, housing that is affordable to the workforce is one of the most challenging problems facing Monroe County today. 1. Comparison of Median Single Family and Condominium Sales Prices and Household Income Based on a review of the housing, real estate, and income data for Monroe County it is clear that the price of market rate housing in the County over the past nine years has exceeded what the workforce can reasonably afford — and the problem appears to be getting worse. Incomes and wages have remained basically static. However, housing prices have increased since the Great Recession of 2007 -2009, outstripping the workforce's ability to purchase them. Table II -1: Comparison of Median Household Income and Median Home Sales Prices, Monroe County (2008- 2016), and Figure II -12: Median Household Income and Median Sales Prices, Monroe County (2008- 2016), illustrate this phenomenon between 2008 and 2016. Table 11-1: Comparison .. Household Income and Median ,on .. (2008-2016) Median We 2008 [income $52,443 Median Singl Aj $490,000 Percent of L Mei 934.3 Median All Types $430,000 Percent of Median income A 819.9 2009 $49,721 $390,000 784.4 $335,000 673.8 2010 $50,619 $360,000 711.2 $322,000 636.1 2011 $51,524 $380,500 738.5 $320,000 621.1 2012 $53,637 $408,000 760.7 $340,000 633.9 2013 $50,838 $424,000 834.0 $355,000 698.3 2014 $59,388 $450,000 757.7 $385,000 648.3 2015 $61,020 $490,000 803.0 $425,000 696.5 2016 $62,355 $545,000 874.0 $485,000 777.8 "All Types" includes sales labeled as Single Family, Condominium, Townhouse, Duplex, Half - Duplex, Multi- Units, and Mobile Homes SOURCES: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 1 -Year Estimates: Median Income for Households via American Fact Finder, 2017; Multiple Listing Service, Monroe County, 2008 -2016. Packet Pg. 1160 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Development $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 1711 nil I n F III r 11 111 n 111 11 F11 11 n 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Median Income Single Family ❑ALL Sources: American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates: Median Income for Households, via American Fact Finder, 2017; Multiple Listing Service, Monroe County, 2008 -2016; Table II -1 In 2008, the median sales price of a single family home ($490,000) was nearly ten times the median household income ($52,443) and nearly three times the affordable housing price for a median household income ($174,675). In 2010, the low point for housing prices in the County since the Great Recession, the median sales price for a single family home was $360,000, still twice the affordable housing price for a median household income ($168,561). From that time forward, the median housing prices have increased, and appear to be on an upward trajectory. Wages and income, however, basically remains static, when adjusted for inflation. In 2016, the median sales price for a single - family home was $545,000, over two and one -half times what a median household income could afford ($207,642). See Table II -2: Housing Affordability, Monroe County (2008- 2016). In addition, while non - single family unit prices have generally been lower than the price of single family homes, they have followed a pattern similar to that of single family homes. Since 2008 the median sales price has substantially exceeded the affordability level for the period. By 2016 the median sales price of all units ($485,000) was over twice the price affordable to the median household income ($207,642). See Table II -2: Housing Affordability, Monroe County (2008- 2016). Packet Pg. 1161 M.1.d Monroe Count, Support Study for Non- Residential Development M Table 11-2: Housing q W 1 W Median Affordability, 00: Household Year Affordability Threshold Price Selling Price Price All Units -M6- _law= Cinala rnmilw 2008 $52,443 $174,635 $490,000 $430,000 2009 $49,721 $165,571 $390,000 $335,000 2010 $50,619 $168,561 $360,000 $322,000 2011 $51,524 $171,575 $380,500 $320,000 2012 $53,637 $178,611 $408,000 $340,000 2013 $50,838 $169,291 $424,000 $355,000 2014 $59,388 $197,762 $450,000 $385,000 2015 $61,020 $203,197 $490,000 $425,000 2016 $62,355 $207,642 $545,000 $485,000 "All Units" includes sales labeled as Single Family, Condominium, Townhouse, Duplex, Half - Duplex, Multi - Units, and Mobile Homes Source: American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates: Median Income for Households, via American Fact Finder, 2017;Multiple Listing Service, Monroe County, 2008 -2016 2. Assessing Hms r %_, AffordabMty As summarized in Section I. Overview and Executive Summary, typically, housing affordability is evaluated by comparing the price of housing for a local real estate market to prevailing wages and salaries incomes. A national benchmark for evaluating affordability is whether median household incomes are at the level where the household could afford a median priced home. Typically, housing affordability of owner - occupied housing is defined as the owner spending no more than 30 percent of annual household income on annual housing costs. The maximum price of an affordable unit under this definition is calculated as 3.33 times (333 percent) the annual median household income. For an explanation of how the Affordability Threshold Price is calculated, see Appendix A: Calculating the Affordability Threshold. As Table II -3: Comparison of Median Household Incomes, Median Sales Prices, and Housing Affordability by Home Type, Monroe County (2008 - 2016), demonstrates, the price of housing in Monroe County over the past nine years has exceeded what the workforce can reasonably afford, and the gap appears to be increasing as the real estate market has recovered from the Great Recession, while income and wages have remained static. Packet Pg. 1162 M.1.d nn„nr County Support Study for Non- Residential Developmen omparison of Median Household incomes, Median Sales Prices, and Housing Affordability 00: edian Median Sales Price Affordable Housing price at o of Median Price and . -. Housing Price at 33 as Percentage .'. ou - Inc I ingl� mi l UFa ent of Median Househ Income a a Percent of .- Household .,, Singl�e- Fa ly Hom Median Income Single- Family All it A 2008 $52,443 $490,000 $430,000 $174,635 2.806 2.462 934.35 819.94 2009 $49,721 $390,000 $335,000 $165,571 2.355 2.023 784.38 673.76 2010 $50,619 $360,000 $322,000 $168,561 2.136 1.910 711.20 636.12 2011 $51,524 $380,500 $320,000 $171,575 2.218 1.865 738.49 621.07 2012 $53,637 $408,000 $340,000 $178,611 2.284 1.904 760.67 633.89 2013 $50,838 $424,000 $355,000 $169,291 2.505 2.097 834.02 698.30 2014 $59,388 $450,000 $385,000 $197,762 2.275 1.947 757.73 648.28 2015 $61,020 $490,000 $425,000 $203,197 2.411 2.092 803.02 696.49 2016 $62,355 $545,000 1 $485,000 $207,642 2.625 2.336 874.03 777.80 "All Units" includes sales labeled as Single Family, Condominium, Townhouse, Duplex, Half - Duplex, Multi- Units, and Mobile Homes Sources: American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates: Median Income for Households, via American Fact Finder, 2017; Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for Monroe County, 2008 -2016 Figure II -2 : Comparison of Median Sales Prices and Prices Affordable to Median Income, Monroe County, (2008 — 2016), graphically illustrates the relationship between median sales prices of single family homes and all homes in Monroe County, and the price of a home that is reasonably affordable to a family with a median household income (333 percent of median household income). Packet Pg. 1163 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201=,x. r Family ®ALL Affordability Limit Sources: American Community Survey 1 -Year Estimates: Median Income for Households, via American Fact Finder, 2017; Multiple List Service, Monroe County, (2008- 2016); Table II -1 Contrasting income and housing price data assumes that only those residents of Monroe County are bidding for housing. When those that do not reside in Monroe County are willing to bid higher, the market responds to these bids, resulting in a significant market inconsistency. Based on a review of the data, this is happening in Monroe County; many non - residents bid for and purchase Monroe County housing because of the attractiveness and quality of life of the Florida Keys — and they are willing to pay higher prices than residents can afford. There is also a cap on the total number of new units that can be built. The Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) has been used by Monroe County since 1992 to ensure growth in the county does not exceed the ability of residents to evacuate in the case of a hurricane or other natural disaster, according to the scientific models used when the policy was implemented. A limited number of building permits are issued each year which may further limit the market response to the demand for housing. As is highlighted in the previous section and Section I. Overview and Executive Summary, wages for the Monroe County workforce have remained static, when adjusted for inflation, while housing costs have increased as the real estate market has recovered from the Great Recession. The data show that even with some employment growth, the Monroe County workforce is finding it increasingly difficult to find housing they can reasonably afford in the marketplace. This is due in part because a significant portion of employment growth is in the accommodation and food service, and retail trade sectors, the two highest growth sectors. Growth of these sectors of the economy increases the housing affordability problem because of the low wages earned by their employees. This is outlined below in more detail. Packet Pg. 1164 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Developme, Monroe County's local economy can be organized into the general sectors identified in Table II -4: Employment by Industry, Monroe County (2016). The largest industry is Accommodation and Food Services, making up 33.8 percent of local employment, followed by Retail Trade at 15.2 percent. Both of these components are related to the tourism industry. Also see Figure II -3: Employment by Industry, Monroe County (2016). Employment Ow n' Table 11-4: n. Construction . . Oil 2,584 Em 6.3 Durable Goods Manufacturing 108 0.3 Nondurable Goods Manufacturing 245 0.6 Wholesale Trade 582 1.4 Retail Trade 6,179 15.2 Finance and Insurance 712 1.7 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1 3.6 Educational Services 1,729 4.2 Health Care and Social Assistance 2,524 6.2 Leisure and Hospitality Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,319 3.2 Accommodation and Food Services 13,763 33.8 Public Administration 3,016 7.4 Other 6,536 16.0 Total, All Industries 40,772 100 Note: The most recent data available was appropriate forth is table. Data from part of 2016 was used. Numbers will vary from Table III -4 where a full year of data was appropriate and 2015 was used. Source: FL Dept. of Economic Opportunity, http: / /www.floridamobs.org /labor - market- information/ data - center / statistical - programs /quarterly- census -of- employment- and - wages Ygure Emp oymen by n us", Monroe County (2016) Accomodation & All Others Food Services 34% 34% Education 4% Health Const. Retail Trade 6% 7% 15% Source: FL Dept. of Economic Opportunity, http://www.floridajobs.org /labor - market- information/ data - center / statistical - programs /quarterly- census -of- employment- and - wages, See Table 11 -4 for a further breakdown of the "All Others" category Packet Pg. 1165 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Develor�--, The data show that between 2008 and 2015, while there was some employment growth, wages increased very little in relationship to inflation, in part because the number of employees in the accommodation and food service, and retail trade sectors increased relative to other sectors of the economy. See Table II -5: Growth in Employment and Earnings, Monroe County (2008 -2015) June 2017 P -, 1' Packet Pg. 1166 M.7.d Monroe County Support Study for Non - Residential Development Total, All Industries Table 11-5 : al -"ages $1,347,164,150 Growth by Employment 00: t 36,818 Avg I Wage $36,590 and Earnings, al "-ages $1,552,136,540 Monroe 2015 40,772 County (2008-2015) $38,804 Ltal $234,972,390 Changeln 3,954 Wage $2,215 after -$6 Construction $99,779,086 2,788 $35,789 $104,271,815 2,584 $40,353 $4,492,729 -204 $4,564 $5 Durable Goods Manufacturing $4,875,571 110 $44,323 $15,426,850 NA Nondurable Goods Manufacturing $4,419,931 143 $30,909 $7,954.,066 245 $32.,466 $3.,534,135 102 $1,557 -$6 Wholesale Trade $24,848,930 489 $50,816 $26,513,862 582 $45,556 $1,664,93.2 93 - $5,259 -$43 Retail Trade $151.,107,533 5,349 $28,250 $177.,550,667 6,179 $28,735 $26,443,134 830 $485 -$9 Finance and Insurance $64,757,328 1,243 $52,098 $45,275,280 712 $63,589 - $19,482,048 -531 $11,491 $27 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $45,045.,599 1,189 $37,886 $55,473,805 1,475 $37.,609 $10,427,906 286 -$276 -$17 Educationa l Services $82,079,436 1,955 $41,984 $76,982,596 1,729 $44,524 - $5,096,840 -226 $2,540 -$6 Health Care and Social Assistance $100,071,378 2,410 $41,523 $124,831,788 2,524 $49,458 $24,760,410 114 7,935 $17 Leisure and Hospitality Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $40,765,606 1,475 $27,638 $42,807,699 1,319 $32,455 $2,042,093 -156 $4,817 $9 Accommodation and Food Services $272,253,703 10,058 $27,068 $413,347,072 13,763 $30,033 $141,093,369 3,705 $2,965 $2 Public Administration $156,462,203 2,985 $52,416 $175,466,212 3,016 $58,178 $19,004,009 31 $5,762 $3 Note: The most recent data available was appropriate forthis table. Data from part of 2016 was used. Numbers will vary from Table III -4 where a full year of data was appropriate and 2015 was used. Sources: FL Dept. of Economic Opportunity, http : //www.floridajobs.org /labor- market - information/ data - center/ statistical - programs /quarterly- census -of- employment-and-wages June 2017 c 0 . 7 V C C d E CL 0 m m Packet Pg. 1167 Page 14 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Developme What Table II -5: Growth by Employment and Earnings, Monroe County (2008 -2015) shows is that the two industries that generated the most growth in employment, Accommodation and Food Service, and Retail Trade, had the lowest annual earnings.' See also Appendix B: Economic Growth in Monroe County (2007- 2016). C. SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING` Finally, separating out the number of housing sales annually that are affordable to those with median household incomes further supports the notion there is a lack of affordable workforce housing in Monroe County. Table II -6: Sales of Housing Affordable to the Workforce, Monroe County (2008- 2016), shows that between 2008 and 2016, few sales were affordable to those with a median household income, and in all years the median sale price of housing was between one and one -half and two and one -half times higher than what the workforce could reasonably afford. That figure increased right after the aftermath of the recession occurred —but even then only a small amount of the homes sold (just over 17 percent) were affordable to median income households. As the economy recovered in 2012 and 2013, housing prices began to rise, and the percent of housing available to median income households began to decrease to very low numbers (only 7.36 percent of sales in 2016 were affordable to median income households), again demonstrating the seriousness of the housing affordability problem in the County. Table 11-6: Sales of Housing ... . ... , 00: Median 611 2008 .. Household $52,443 Limit $174,635 elling Price $430,000 246.2 T t, 5.69 2009 $49,721 $165,571 $335,000 202.3 12.92 2010 $50,619 $168,561 $322,000 191.0 12.71 2011 $51,524 $171,575 $320,000 186.5 17.31 2012 $53,637 $178,611 $340,000 190.4 16.91 2013 $50,838 $169,291 $355,000 209.7 12.86 2014 $59,388 $197,762 $385,000 194.7 12.85 2015 $61,020 $203,197 $425,000 209.2 9.70 2016 $62,355 $207,642 $485,000 233.6 7.36 Source: Multiple Listing Service, Monroe County Clearly, housing that is affordable to the workforce is a problem in Monroe County. 1 Accommodation and food services added the most employees (5,322). It is also the second lowest ranking sector in terms of annual earnings, $30,033 a year. The lowest wage industry, retail trade, added 586 jobs at average earnings of $28,735. Packet Pg. 1168 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development III. NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATED BY NON - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A. BACKGROUND The need to provide affordable housing for the workforce is created by development that demands labor (employees). Because non - residential development creates a demand for labor (employees), the need for affordable workforce housing it creates is determined in this Study. As outlined in Part II: Problem Description, non - residential development includes accommodation and food service, retail trade, real estate and rental and leasing, construction, finance and insurance, education, and health care employment among others. Non - residential development creates a need for labor (the workforce) in two ways: • Employees who construct the building(s); and • Employees who work at the building (post construction employees). Construction employees construct the non - residential buildings. Different types of employees (as noted above), work at the buildings after they are completed, depending on the type of business. Because of their wage levels and existing housing prices, the construction, expansion or renovation of non - residential development creates a need for affordable workforce housing. The analysis that demonstrates this need is outlined below. B. DEMAND FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS 1. Need for Affordable Workforce Housing for Construction Employees The construction, expansion, or renovation of buildings requires the employment of contractors and construction workers to do the work. The method used to assess the need for affordable workforce housing created by the construction of non - residential development involves the following. Initially, the amount of construction authorized and built in Monroe County from 2012 -2015 (measured in square feet) was determined from annual property appraiser records. Records show a total of 1,006,217 square feet of non - residential floor area was built during that period of time. Next, the number of construction employees that were required to build this non - residential development was estimated based on construction employment data (ES -202) that show the construction required 1,537 construction employee years to build the 1,006,217 square feet of non - residential development (this is measured in employee years' worth of work, and not the number of individual construction workers involved ).2 This equates to 655 square feet of non - residential development constructed for each construction employee year (1,006,216/1,537 =655). See Table III -1: Non - Residential Construction Employment and Housing Need, Monroe County. Z There is construction activity in reconstructing or redeveloping non - residential development in Monroe County. The redeveloped or reconstructed properties do not appear as new development in Monroe County property records, but require construction employees. Only construction workers employed in the construction of new non - residential buildings were used to calculate the ratio of construction workers to floor area added. P - -, 1 Packet Pg. 1169 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Employment Table 111-1: Non-Residential Construction Non - Residential Floor Area Constructed Between 2012 -15 1,006,217 Employee Years Worked to Construct Non - Residential Floor Area 1,537 Between 2012 -15 Square Feet of Non - Residential Floor Area Constructed per 655 Construction Employee Year of Labor Construction Employees Required to Build 1,000 Square Feet of 1.527 Non - Residential Development Adjusted Construction Employees Required to Build 1,000 Square 0.038 Feet of Non - Residential Development (Over 40 Year Career) Employees per Household 1.332 Construction Employee Housing Needs from Construction of 1,000 0.029 Square Feet of Non - Residential Development (Over 40 year Career and With Other Employees in Household) (By Unit) Percent in Need of Assistance' 69.58 Housing Units Needed per 1,000 SF 0.020 Note 'This number is the percent in need of assistance for a typical household. For the calculation, see Table III -10 in the Post - Construction Employee section. Sources: Monroe County Property Appraiser, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (http: / /www.floridamobs.org /labor- market - information / data - center / statistical - programs /guarterly- census- ofemployment- and- wafes See also Appendix C It is assumed the average construction employee will work many years over their work life (career). For purposes of this Study, it is estimated that a construction employee works 40 years over their career. Therefore, to ensure the employee need for housing created by constructing a certain amount (square feet) of non - residential development is proportionate, it is also necessary to divide the employee years it takes to construct a square foot of non - residential development by 40 (adjusted employee years). Finally, and to account for the fact that many employees in Monroe County reside in a household that also includes other wage earning employees, the adjusted employee years it takes to build a certain amount of non - residential development is also divided by the number of employed persons in an economically active household in Monroe County (1.332 employees per household 3) 4 3 Based on the American Community Survey. See Appendix C: Employment By Household and Income by Industry. 4 Finally, and as discussed in more detailed in Section III- B.2(p.21), based on the real estate sales data reviewed (MLS sales between 2008 - 2016), it is appropriate and reasonable to expect that some market sales each year will be affordable to some construction worker households; in addition to this small percentage (eight percent) of free market housing units that will be available and affordable to employees in median income households, there will also be free market housing units that are affordable to construction employee households whose incomes are substantially above the median (since 50 percent of all construction employee households have incomes higher than the median). In determining the need for affordable workforce housing, this must also be considered. As shown in Table III -9: Percent of Households Above and Below Affordability Level, this phenomena is accounted for and factored into the need determined for each of the land use categories for post construction employee needs for housing. Packet Pg. 1170 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Develor�--, Table III -2: Non - Residential Construction Employment, Monroe County shows the number of construction employee years that would be required to construct various sized non - residential buildings. able III -2: Non - Residential rV ConstructEmployment, Monroe County Construction Adjusted Employee Housing Needs from Feet Constructed Employee Years to Constru Employees to Construct (over Year Career) Construction of Different Amounts Non Residential �� of - Development (B Unit Based on the number of employees in the average construction employee household in the County, Tables III -1 and 2 set out the need for construction employee workforce housing, for non - residential land uses (without factoring in the employees who household incomes are sufficiently high to be able to reasonably afford market units — something that is done in Table III -9). Specifically, Table III -1, shows, for example, that it takes 1.527 construction employee worker years to build 1,000 square feet of non- residential development; and that when factoring in the 40 year career of the employee 0.038 of an employee year is required. Given there is on average 1.332 employees that live in a construction worker household, the construction of 1,000 square feet of office or retail space creates a need for 0.029 of an affordable workforce housing unit. Nlnrnrl fear Aff- wrinhlo Workforrs� Hnusing for Pnz.t_(7n ction Fmne nvpnc; The employment impacts of non - residential development, once the building is constructed, comes from the employees that work at the businesses /land uses that occupy the buildings. In determining the need for affordable workforce housing created by non - residential development, post- construction, the following analysis was conducted: First, all non - residential development was categorized into seven land use categories, as defined by the Florida Department of Revenue codes. Each of the seven land use categories, and the general uses included in the definition of each category are set out below. Packet Pg. 1171 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Developme- Retail & Restaurant uses includes stores, department stores, supermarkets, shopping centers, restaurants, financial institutions, repair service shops, service stations, auto sales and repair, parking lots, and wholesale outlets. Office uses includes professional and non - professional office buildings, professional services buildings, and insurance company offices. Industrial uses include light manufacturing, lumber yards, warehousing and distribution terminals, equipment and materials storage facilities, and other similar uses. Tourist /Recreational uses include theatres, auditoriums, nightclubs, bowling alleys, tourist attractions, camps, race tracks, golf courses, hotels, and motels. While not o land use os such, hotels and motels ore broken out os o sub - category of Tourist /Recreational uses. Institutional uses include churches, private schools, colleges, daycares, privately owned hospitals, homes for the aged, orphanages, clubs, cultural organizations, and similar uses. Governmental uses include military facilities, parks and recreational areas, governmental office buildings, public schools, and other publicly owned facilities. Other uses include utility, gas, and electric uses, mining, and sewage disposal facilities. Second, the employment and average household earnings in the County was assigned to one of the seven land use categories, by first assigning each industrial sector in which employment and household earnings are categorized to one of the seven land use categories. This is done because the employment and wage data is categorized into the following industrial sectors, which need to be better correlated to land use: Natural Resources and Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Trade, Transportation and Utilities; Information (e.g., printing, publishing, TV, etc.); Financial Activities; Professional and Business Services; Education and Health Services; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Services (which includes operation and maintenance employees); and Government. The industrial sectors were assigned to the seven land use categories based on the description of employment activities related to land uses and related principles found in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (published by the US Government Printing Office); the classic Land Use Information Systems (Clawson and Stewart, by Resources for the Future,1965); Planner's Estimating Guide: Projecting Land -Use and Facility Needs (A. C. Nelson, Chicago: Planners Press, 2004); and Standard Land Use Coding Manual, (Urban Renewal Administration and Bureau of Public Roads, Government Printing Office, 1965). The percentage assignment of employment for each industry to the corresponding land use categories is set out in Table III -3: Percentage Assignment of Industries to Land Use Categories, Monroe County. 5 It should be noted that some employees, like construction workers, do not work at specific locations. These employees are assigned to the "No Location" category. Packet Pg. 1172 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Developmen Table Categories, .,. mental trial tional • r Retail Tourist/ Natural Resource & 15.0 10.0 15.0 60.0 Construction' Manufacturing 75.0 15.0 10.0 Wholesale Trade 70.0 10.0 20.0 Retail Trade 90.0 10.0 Finance & Insurance 10.0 30.0 50.0 10.0 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 100.0 Trade, Transport & Utilities 15.0 50.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 Information 35.0 35.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Educational Services 30.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 Prof. & Business Services 15.0 15.0 60.0 5.0 5.0 Health Care & Social 30.0 30.0 25.0 15.0 Assistance Leisure & Hospitality 10.0 20.0 70.0 Other Services 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 60.0 Government 90.0 10.0 Notes: ' For historical data, The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Z Wholesale trade is broken out from the broader category of Trade, Transport & Utilities. See Appendix C: Employment by Household and Income by Industry. 3 Retail Trade is broken out from the broader category of Trade, Transport & Utilities. See Appendix C: Employment by Household and Income by Industry. Third, using the percentage assignments of industry employment to land use categories, the number of employees for each industry was translated into employees for each land use category. See Table III -4: Estimated Industry Employment by Land Use Categories, Monroe County. Average household earnings were then calculated for each land use category by multiplying the number of employees per land use times the 2016 estimated household earnings based upon the industry in which the employee is working and then dividing the product by the number of workers estimated for that land use (See Table III -4). 6 See Appendix C: Employment by Household and Income by Industry. Packet Pg. 1173 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Table 111-4: Estimated Industry Employment •. Governmental 1" Str" Institutional 1 office &er Retail & Tourist/ creational N o- at Loc jo Nat'l Resources & Rest. J& Construction 0 431 0 287 431 0 0 1,725 2874 Manufacturing 0 277 0 55 37 0 0 0 369 Wholesale Trade 0 348 0 50 0 99 0 0 497 Retail Trade 0 0 0 0 0 5,337 593 0 5930 Finance & Insurance 0 72 215 358 0 72 0 0 717 Real Estate and Rental and 0 0 0 1,411 0 0 0 0 1411 Leasing Trade, Transport & Utilities 247 823 0 247 165 165 0 0 1647 Information 0 153 0 153 44 44 0 44 438 Educational Services 535 0 535 535 178 0 0 0 1783 Pro & Bus Services 0 472 472 1,889 0 157 0 157 3147 Health Care and Social 754 0 754 628 0 377 0 0 2513 Assistance Leisure & Hospitality 0 0 0 0 1,600 3,201 11,203 0 16004 Other Services 0 0 145 145 145 0 145 871 1451 Government 2,792 0 0 310 0 0 0 0 3102 TOTAL 4,328 2,576 2,121 6,068 2,600 9,452 11,941 2,797 41883 Note: This tablerecluires a full year of data for appropriate analysis. 2015 data was used. Totals will vary from tables II -4 and II -5 where representative data from a portion of 2016 was used. Source: Standard Industrial Classification Manual bythe U.S. Government Printing Office. Land Use Information Systems by Clawson and Stewart, published by Resources forthe Future in 1964. Planner's Estimating Guide: Projecting Land -Use and Facility by A.C. Nelson. Fourth, the amount of building space (in square feet) provided, on average, for each employee, was determined for each land use category using data obtained from the Monroe County Property Appraiser on the amount of development built (in square feet) within each land use category. The aggregate square feet of space in the County for each land use category was determined, from 2013- 2016. This data was then compared over time to the number of employees in each land use category (See Table III -4: Estimated Industry Employment by Land Use Categories, Monroe County) to determine the amount of floor area (in square feet) on average, provided for each employee by each land use category. This analysis is outlined in Table III -5: Square Feet of Space Provided for Post Construction Employees by Land Use Category, Monroe County (2013- 2016). Packet Pg. 1174 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Developmen`: Space Table 111-5: Square Feet of Post Construction Employees Category, L Monroe County (2013-2016) Square Feet per Employee .. 1.000 Square Feet Industry 11 2013 2016 UsejM[ 2013 AMWO16 j dk Used j i Governmental 1,090 1,024 1,024.000 0.917 0.976 0.917 Industrial 1,049 973 972.714 0.953 1.028 0.953 Institutional 681 630 630.316 1.468 1.587 1.468 Office 323 306 306.325 3.100 3.265 3.100 Other 432 371 370.840 2.315 2.697 2.315 Retail & Restaurant 699 614 613.867 1.431 1.629 1.431 Tourist /Recreational 485 371 370.779 2.062 2.697 2.062 Hotel /Motel* 1,046 1,046.000 0.956 0.956 *Hotel /motel is a subset of Tourist /Recreational but is broken out here due to the importance of those activities. Sources: Monroe County Property Appraiser, Tax Parcels 2012 -16, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, http: / /www.floridamobs.org /labor- market - information /data- center/ statistical- programs /quarterly- census -of- employment- and - wages Table III -3: Percentage Assignment of Industries to Land Use Categories. Fifth, and based on the previous analyses, the demand for workforce housing units created by a specific amount of floor area of non - residential development (1,000 square feet) was determined, by land use category. This was done in the following way. Initially, the number of employees per 1,000 square feet of space was determined, by land use category (see Table III -5: Square Feet of Space Provided Per Post Construction Employee by Land Use Category, Monroe County (2013- 2016), see "Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area" column). Next, and because data indicates each economically active household in the County includes 1.332 employees, on average, the actual number of affordable housing units needed per 1,000 square feet of non- residential development, by land use category, and per square foot, was determined -- by dividing the number of employees by 1.332 ( "Housing Units Needed...." columns in Table III -6). This analysis is outlined in Table III- 6: Post - Construction Employees and Housing Units Needed Per Square Feet of Non - Residential Development, Monroe County. Packet Pg. 1175 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Table 111-6 : •. Employees .. of Non-Residential Development, •. Land Use Employees 1000 Square Feet IlHousehold Employees Per Square .. Governmental 0.917 1.332 0.688 0.000688 Industrial 0.953 1.332 0.715 0.000715 Institutional 1.468 1.332 1.102 0.001102 Office 3.100 1.332 2.327 0.002327 Other 2.315 1.332 1.738 0.001738 Retail & Restaurant 1.431 1.332 1.074 0.001074 Tourist /Recreational 2.062 1 1.332 1 1.548 1 0.001548 Hotel /Motel 0.956 1.332 1 0.718 1 0.000718 Source: Table III -1: Non - Residential Construction Employment and Housing Need, Monroe County; Table III -6: Square Feet of Space for Post Construction Employees by Land Use Category, Monroe County (2013 -2016) While housing generally is not affordable to most post- construction employee households, there are some housing units that have sold at prices that are affordable to median income households, and there are some employees earning more than the average or median income that can afford market housing. An analysis of historic residential sales shows that there have been 1,990 sales at affordable prices over the past nine years (from 2008 - 2016). This equates to an average of 211 housing units sold on an annual basis that are affordable to those with median household incomes. See Table III- 7: Sale of Housing Units at or Below Price Affordable to Median Income Households, Monroe County (2008- 2016). Packet Pg. 1176 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development More specifically, Table III -7 shows the number and percentage of all housing unit sales that are at or below prices that are affordable to those with median household incomes, as well as all sales. Figure III -1: Percent Affordable Residential Sales, Monroe County (2008- 2016), graphically portrays this data. Not surprisingly, the percentage of units sold that are affordable to those with median household incomes was very low at the height of the run -up of housing prices before the Great Recession; trended upward after the Great Recession, but then began to trend downward again as the real estate market recovered. Looking toward the future, the expectation is that the number of free market housing units available at prices that are affordable to median income households will continue to decline both in number and as a percentage of all sales; however, it is unlikely to go to zero since many of the sales are of existing homes, which will continue to be resold in the future. While it is impossible to know what portion of all future housing sales in the County will be at prices that are affordable to median income households, it is appropriate and reasonable to expect that some sales will be affordable, even though that percentage will be relatively minor. Over the nine years of sales data evaluated, right before the Great Recession, six percent of all sales were affordable to those with median household incomes; that figure increased to as high as 17 percent after the recession, but in recent years has decreased down to seven percent. Given this historical data, and the general conditions of the real estate economy in the County, this analysis assumes that eight percent of the future free market housing sales will be affordable to those with median household incomes. Packet Pg. 1177 Table III -7: Sale of Housing Units at or Below Price Affordable to Median Income HousehaMonroe Price Which County (2008 Units Sold -2016) Affordable Year Median Househol at Housing Unit Affordable to ousing Units old That Were Total Housing Units Sold Income Median Income ffordable to edian Income Housing Units SoldjTotal as Percent Households Households J� f k M onroe Source: Multiple Listing Service, . More specifically, Table III -7 shows the number and percentage of all housing unit sales that are at or below prices that are affordable to those with median household incomes, as well as all sales. Figure III -1: Percent Affordable Residential Sales, Monroe County (2008- 2016), graphically portrays this data. Not surprisingly, the percentage of units sold that are affordable to those with median household incomes was very low at the height of the run -up of housing prices before the Great Recession; trended upward after the Great Recession, but then began to trend downward again as the real estate market recovered. Looking toward the future, the expectation is that the number of free market housing units available at prices that are affordable to median income households will continue to decline both in number and as a percentage of all sales; however, it is unlikely to go to zero since many of the sales are of existing homes, which will continue to be resold in the future. While it is impossible to know what portion of all future housing sales in the County will be at prices that are affordable to median income households, it is appropriate and reasonable to expect that some sales will be affordable, even though that percentage will be relatively minor. Over the nine years of sales data evaluated, right before the Great Recession, six percent of all sales were affordable to those with median household incomes; that figure increased to as high as 17 percent after the recession, but in recent years has decreased down to seven percent. Given this historical data, and the general conditions of the real estate economy in the County, this analysis assumes that eight percent of the future free market housing sales will be affordable to those with median household incomes. Packet Pg. 1177 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Development 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 In addition to this small percentage (eight percent) of free market housing units that will be available and affordable to employees in median income households, there will also be free market housing units that are affordable to employee households whose incomes are substantially above the median (since 50 percent of all employee households have incomes higher than the median). In determining the need for affordable workforce housing, this must also be considered. Table III -8: Percent of Households Above and Below Affordability Level, applies national household income distribution patterns to Monroe County. The median national household income was $56,515 in 2016.' The Monroe County median household income was $62,355, so the national distribution pattern was shifted upward to be consistent with the Monroe County median. The 2016 median sales price for all dwellings in Monroe County was $485,000. A household would need an income of $163,664 for it to be reasonably affordable. On the other hand, the selling price of non - single - family homes (duplex, triplex, quadraplex, and mobile homes) was $375,000; it would require a household income of $112,613 to be reasonably affordable. Applying national income distribution norms to the situation in Monroe County indicates that 22.42 percent of the households in Monroe County would have household incomes at or above $112,613. ' Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2016 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2016 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Packet Pg. 1178 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Development Table 111-8: Percent of EL;: Below Post Construction Affordability Median Household Income Households A.. $62,355 Percent Under Median Household Income Afford ,' 7 50.00 Percent Median to Affordable Limit Imm 27.58 Percent Above Affordable Limit Typical Household 22.42 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2016 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. This suggests that 22.42 percent of households should be able to afford market housing in Monroe County. This percentage applies to the typical or median household. It would be expected that some industry groups or land use categories would have a greater ability to afford housing than others. Table III -9: Percent of Post Construction Employee Households Able to Afford Market Housing, by Land Use Category, Monroe County, shows median household income by land use category, and estimates the expected percentage of employee households in the land use category that would have the income to afford the median price residential unit. e 111-9: ®, Employee .. Able to Afford ,' 7 •. Imm Median Households Percent of Able to Typical Household $62,355 Afford Market Housing 22.42 Median Household Income by Land Use Category Governmental $67,246 32.80 Industrial $61,755 30.12 Institutional $61,692 30.09 Office $60,304 29.42 Other $46,832 22.84 Retail & Restaurant $44,987 21.94 Tourist /Recreational $42,020 20.50 Hotel /Motel $42,020 20.50 Employees with above median household incomes should be able to acquire market housing in the proportions shown above. Additionally, and as discussed earlier, housing sales data show that we should also expect that eight percent of market sales of housing units annually will be at or below prices that are affordable to median income households . Adding these two components together results in the estimated portion of employee households that should be able to acquire market housing in Monroe County. Based on this calculation, the percent of employee households needing assistance can be determined. This is summarized in Table III -10: Total Percent of Post Construction Employee Households Needing Assistance, by Land Use Category, Monroe County Packet Pg. 1179 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Developn Table III -10: Total Percent Needing Assistance, Median Household Income IL6 Household Typical of Post Construction by Land Use Percent of Households With Income Levels Able t Afford Marke. Housing Employee Category, Percent of Sal at Pric Affordable Median Incom Households •• Households Monroe County Total ercent of ales That are ffordable Mm Percent of Households in Need of Assistance Median .. Income by Land Use Governmental :• •• �• :• Retail & Restaurant Recreational • • • • •• • • Table III -11: Post Construction Employees Need for Housing, by Land Use Category, Per 1,000 Square Feet, Monroe County, shows the need for affordable workforce housing units (or a portion thereof) created by 1,000 square feet of the different types of non- residential land use categories, for post construction employees. This is calculated by first identifying the amount of post construction employees per 1,000 square feet, for each land use category (Table III -6), and dividing that by the average number of employees in each household (1.332 employees per household). That number is then multiplied by the percent of employees that are estimated to be in need of housing assistance to determine the employees in need of housing assistance. Packet Pg. 1180 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Table 111-12: M W by Land Use Post Construction Employees Need for Housing, N Cate gory , Develop Governmental Square Feet Housing Units Needed Percent Needing Assistance Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.688 59.20 0.408 3,000 2.064 59.20 1.223 5,000 3.440 59.20 2.038 10,000 6.880 59.20 4.075 20,000 13.760 59.20 8.151 Industrial Square Feet Housing Units Needed Percent Needing Assistance Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.332 61.88 0.206 3,000 0.997 61.88 0.617 5,000 1.662 61.88 1.028 10,000 3.324 61.88 2.057 20,000 6.647 61.88 4.113 Packet Pg. 1181 Table III -12: Post Construction Employees Need for Housing, by Land Use Category, For Different Amounts of Non - Residential Development, shows the need for affordable workforce housing units (or a portion thereof) created by different amounts of development for the different types of non - residential land use categories (1,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet, and 20,000 square feet). M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Table 111-12: =D=Td L111!;j!::! 1 11:111!: Post Construction Employees •. . . .. 8AM Institutional Square Feet Housing Units Needed Percent Needing Assistance Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.512 61.91 0.317 3,000 1.537 61.91 0.951 5,000 2.561 61.91 1.586 10,000 5.122 61.91 3.171 20,000 10.244 61.91 6.342 Office Square Feet Housing Units Needed Percent Needing Assistance Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 1.094 62.58 0.684 3,000 3.281 62.58 2.053 5,000 5.468 62.58 3.422 10,000 10.935 62.58 6.844 20,000 21.870 62.58 13.687 Other Square Feet Housing Units Needed Percent Needing Assistance Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.902 69.16 0.624 3,000 2.707 69.16 1.872 5,000 4.512 69.16 3.120 10,000 9.023 69.16 6.240 20,000 18.047 69.16 12.480 Retail & Restaurant Square Feet Housing Units Needed Percent Needing Assistance Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.565 70.06 0.396 3,000 1.695 70.06 1.188 5,000 2.825 70.06 1.979 10,000 5.650 70.06 3.958 20,000 13.769 70.06 9.646 Tourist /Recreational Square Feet Housing Units Needed Percent Needing Assistance Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.831 71.50 0.594 3,000 2.493 71.50 1.783 5,000 4.155 71.50 2.971 10,000 8.310 71.50 5.942 20,000 16.620 71.50 11.884 c 0 r m r c a� m CL r c m r c 0 r ca c 0 c c a� E CL 0 m a� 0 �a r c a� m c 0 z 0 0 r U) 0 CL CL 0 N c 0 0 x (D P ,0 0 a� m 0 Q r c m E t L) ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1182 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Table 111-12: Mh=-fd 11,1111i;ig! 11 ti::, - Post Construction Employees •. . . evelau Hotel /Motel Square Feet Housing Units Needed Percent Needing Assistance Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.385 71.50 0.276 3,000 1.156 71.50 0.827 5,000 1.927 71.50 1.378 10,000 3.853 71.50 2.755 20,000 7.706 71.50 5.510 c 0 r m r c a� m CL r c m r c 0 r ca c 0 c r c a� E CL 0 (D (D 0 ca r c a� m L c 0 z L 0 0 r U) 0 CL CL 0 U) c 0 0 x (D P L 0 L 0 L 0 Q r E V it it Q June 2017 P�7. 'r' Packet Pg. 1183 M.7.d Monroe County Support Study for Non - Residential Development 3. Summary of Needs for Affordable Workforce Housing Created by Non - Residential Development Based on the analysis conducted in this Part III, Table III -13: Total Housing Needs for Workforce Housing Created by Non - Residential Development (By 1,000 Square Feet), summarizes the total need for affordable workforce housing units created by non - residential development, for construction and post- construction employees. Table 111-13: Total Housing Needs for Woyj&rce Housing Created by Non-Residential D- 1.000 Square Feet) Governn1.M6& Institutional Office Other Retail & Tourist/ .; Restaurant Recreational j " A " Employees per 1,000 SF Construction 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 Post Construction 0.917 0.443 0.682 1.457 T.1.495 1.202 0.753 1.107 0.513 Total 0.955 0.481 0.720 1.240 0.791 1.145 0.551 Households per 1,000 SF Construction 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 Post Construction 0.688 0.332 0.512 1.094 0.902 0.565 0.831 0.385 Subtotal 0.717 0.361 0.541 1.122 0.931 0.594 0.860 0.414 Percent in Need of Assistance Construction 69.58 69.58 69.58 69.58 69.58 69.58 69.58 69.58 Post Construction 59.20 61.88 61.91 62.58 69.16 70.06 71.50 71.50 Housing Units Needed Construction 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 Post Construction 0.408 0.206 0.317 0.684 0.624 0.396 0.594 0.276 Total Housing Need per 1,000 SF 0.427 0.226 0.337 0.704 0.644 0.416 0.614 0.295 June 2017 Page 31 c 0 . 7 c c m E CL 0 m m 0 Packet Pg. 1184 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Developm�--t Cate gory , Table 111-14: Total Employees Need for Housing, by Land Use . . .p Governmental Square Feet Housing Units Needed, Construction Housing Units Needed, Post- Construction Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.020 0.408 0.427 3,000 0.060 1.223 1.282 5,000 0.100 2.038 2.137 10,000 0.199 4.075 4.275 20,000 0.399 8.151 8.550 Industrial Square Feet Housing Units Needed, Construction Housing Units Needed, Post- Construction Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.020 0.206 0.226 3,000 0.060 0.617 0.677 5,000 0.100 1.028 1.128 10,000 0.199 2.057 2.256 20,000 0.399 4.113 4.512 Institutional Square Feet Housing Units Needed, Construction Housing Units Needed, Post- Construction Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.020 0.317 0.337 3,000 0.060 0.951 1.011 5,000 0.100 1.586 1.685 10,000 0.199 3.171 3.370 20,000 0.399 6.342 6.741 Office Square Feet Housing Units Needed, Construction Housing Units Needed, Post- Construction Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.020 0.684 0.704 3,000 0.060 2.053 2.113 5,000 0.100 3.422 3.522 10,000 0.199 6.844 7.043 20,000 0.399 13.687 14.086 Other Square Feet Housing Units Needed, Construction Housing Units Needed, Post- Construction Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.020 0.644 0.664 3,000 0.060 1.932 1.992 5,000 0.100 3.220 3.320 10,000 0.199 6.440 6.639 20,000 0.399 12.879 13.278 c 0 r m r c a� m CL r c m r c 0 L) 0 r ca 0 0 c c a� E CL 0 m a� 0 r c a� m c 0 z 0 0 r U) 0 CL CL 0 N c 0 0 x (D L) ,0 0 a� m E 0 Q r c m E t L) ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1185 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Developm�--t Cate gory , Table 111-14: Total Employees Need for Housing, by Land Use . . .p Retail & Restaurant Square Feet Housing Units Needed, Construction Housing Units Needed, Post- Construction Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.020 0.396 0.416 3,000 0.060 1.188 1.247 5,000 0.100 1.979 2.079 10,000 0.199 3.958 4.158 20,000 0.399 7.917 8.316 Tourist /Recreational Square Feet Housing Units Needed, Construction Housing Units Needed, Post- Construction Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.020 0.594 0.614 3,000 0.060 1.783 1.842 5,000 0.100 2.971 3.071 10,000 0.199 5.942 6.141 20,000 0.399 11.884 12.283 Hotel /Motel Square Feet Housing Units Needed, Construction Housing Units Needed, Post- Construction Affordable Workforce Housing Units Needed 1,000 0.020 0.295 0.315 3,000 0.060 0.886 0.946 5,000 0.100 1.477 1.577 10,000 0.199 2.955 3.154 20,000 0.399 5.909 6.308 c 0 r m r c a� m CL r c m r c 0 0 0 r ca 0 0 c c a� E CL 0 m a� 0 r c a� m L c 0 z L 0 0 r N 0 CL CL 0 U) c 0 0 x (D P L 0 L 0 L 0 Q r E 0 it it Q 1 ? ? Packet Pg. 1186 M.1.d county Support Study for Non- Residential Developme,- 4. Assistance to Address Affordable Workforce Housing Need The last step in evaluating the need for affordable workforce housing created by non- residential development, is to determine the amount of assistance needed to make the workforce housing needs created by non - residential development affordable for the employees that construct and serve non - residential development. In determining the assistance needed, it is first necessary to determine the cost of the prototypical housing unit that could reasonably be expected to serve workforce housing needs. This was the subject of the RRC Memorandum provided to Monroe County. The method and basis for determining the type and size of the prototypical housing unit is explained in Appendix D: Workforce Housing Prototype Cost Estimates. It also explains how the costs for construction and land were calculated to arrive at the average cost for the prototypical unit -- $311,712, or $326.40 per square foot. Once the cost for a prototypical workforce housing unit is determined, the next step is to identify the amount of assistance that an employee household requires to be able to reasonably afford a prototypical unit based on their household income. This requires estimating the assistance needed for construction employees and post construction employees. This analyses is summarized in Table III -15: Assistance Needed for Workforce Housing Need Created by Non - Residential Development (Per 1,000 Square Feet). Initially, the median household income is determined for each land use category, using a weighted average of the incomes for the proportionate number of construction employees who would have constructed, and post- construction employees that would work at 1,000 square feet of the land use (for the Governmental Land Use Category -- $67,713). Next, and based on the weighted household income, the maximum amount the household could reasonably afford to spend on housing is determined ($222,154 for Packet Pg. 1187 Household Earnings Construction $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 $53,902 Post Construction $67,246 $61,755 $61,692 $60,304 $46,832 $44,987 $42,020 $42,020 Weighted Household $66,713 $61,132 $61,279 $60,140 $47,050 $45,417 $42,416 $42,842 Income Affordability Limit $222,154 $203,569 $204,060 $200,266 $156,676 $151,240 $141,245 $142,665 Cost of Affordable $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 $311,712 Unit Shortfall $89,558 $108,143 $107,652 $111,446 $155,036 $160,472 $170,467 $169,047 Total Housing Need 0.427 0.226 0.337 0.704 0.644 0.416 0.614 0.295 per 1,000 FT' Shortfall per 1,000 $38,285 $24,397 $36,284 $78,492 $99,838 $66,722 $104,691 $49,947 FT Initially, the median household income is determined for each land use category, using a weighted average of the incomes for the proportionate number of construction employees who would have constructed, and post- construction employees that would work at 1,000 square feet of the land use (for the Governmental Land Use Category -- $67,713). Next, and based on the weighted household income, the maximum amount the household could reasonably afford to spend on housing is determined ($222,154 for Packet Pg. 1187 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Develor�--, the Governmental Land Use Category). Next, the difference between the cost of the prototypical workforce housing unit ($311,712) and the maximum housing cost that the employees can reasonably afford ($222,154 for the Governmental Land Use Category) is determined ($89,558). Finally, and because the housing need created by 1,000 square feet of non - residential development does not equal the need for one housing unit, the amount of housing needed by 1,000 square feet of development is multiplied times the needed assistance to make the costs of the housing unit reasonable (0.427 of a housing unit in the Governmental Land Use category). This results in the assistance or in -lieu fee needed to make the costs of housing unit reasonably affordable ($38,285 in the Governmental land Use category ($89,558 x 0.427 = $38,285) Table III -16: Assistance Needed for Workforce Housing Need Created by Different Amounts of Non - Residential Development, shows the needed assistance (in -lieu fee) for affordable workforce housing units) created by different amounts of development for the different types of non - residential land use categories (1,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet, and 20,000 square feet). - ,� �. R..' , ., .. ,m,- 0 Governmental Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Square Feet Total In Lieu Fee 1,000 $38,285 $38,285 3,000 $38,285 $114,854 5,000 $38,285 $191,424 10,000 $38,285 $382,847 20,000 $38,285 $765,695 Industrial Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Square Feet Total In Lieu Fee 1,000 $24,397 $24,397 3,000 $24,397 $73,190 5,000 $24,397 $121,984 10,000 $24,397 $243,967 20,000 $24,397 $487,935 Institutional Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Square Feet Total In Lieu Fee 1,000 $36,284 $36,284 3,000 $36,284 $108,851 5,000 $36,284 $181,418 10,000 $36,284 $362,837 20,000 $36,284 $725,673 9 Rounding in the reporting accounts for apparent discrepancy in arithmetic. Packet Pg. 1188 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Needed Table 111-16: Assistance . by Different Amounts of&@Wesidential Develop Office Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Square Feet Total In Lieu Fee 1,000 $78,492 $78,492 3,000 $78,492 $235,475 5,000 $78,492 $392,459 10,000 $78,492 $784,917 20,000 $78,492 $1,569,835 Other Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Square Feet Total In Lieu Fee 1,000 $99,838 $99,838 3,000 $99,838 $299,513 5,000 $99,838 $499,188 10,000 $99,838 $998,377 20,000 $99,838 $1,996,753 Retail & Restaurant Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Square Feet Total In Lieu Fee 1,000 $66,722 $66,722 3,000 $66,722 $200,166 5,000 $66,722 $333,610 10,000 $66,722 $667,220 20,000 $66,722 $1,334,441 Tourist /Recreational Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Square Feet Total In Lieu Fee 1,000 $104,691 $104,691 3,000 $104,691 $314,074 5,000 $104,691 $523,456 10,000 $104,691 $1,046,912 20,000 $104,691 $2,093,824 Hotel /Motel Square Feet Assistance Needed per 1,000 Square Feet Total In Lieu Fee 1,000 $49,947 $49,947 3,000 $49,947 $149,841 5,000 $49,947 $249,735 10,000 $49,947 $499,470 20,000 $49,947 $998,941 c 0 r m r c a� m CL r c m r c O 0 r ca c O c c a� E CL 0 m N 0 �a r c a� m c O Z O r N O CL CL 7 N c O x N P 0 0 0 m Q r c m E t 0 m r r Q P , ._', 1 Packet Pg. 1189 Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development c 0 r m r c a� m L CL r c m r c 0 r ca c 0 c r c a� E CL 0 0 0 0 ca r c a� m L c 0 z L 0 0 r U) 0 CL CL 0 U) c 0 0 x 4) P L 0 L 0 L O Q r E V it it Q Packet Pg. 1190 M.1.d "fl-nroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development PPI:Inl IX A: CALC'ULA ING Tye + Rn,AR1' 1TV TL 4 1RESHOLP The Affordability Threshold Price is defined as annual household costs that are not more than 30% of annual household income. Housing costs include mortgage payments, mortgage insurance, property taxes, and property insurance. In determining what price home a household can afford based upon their spending 30% of annual income on housing, one multiplies annual income by 3.33. Table A -1: Price to Income Ratio for Affordability Threshold Price, shows this relationship. The mathematical equation that demonstrates this relationship follows the table. Packet Pg. 1191 . - . 111 ,.. TN!rrp.v MWI I i d -T M .. . $50,000 $166,650 $166,650 $11,182 $2,024 $2,000 $15,205 30% 3.333 $60,000 $199,980 $199,980 $13,418 $2,300 $2,400 $18,118 30% 3.333 $70,000 $233,310 $233,310 $15,655 $2,576 $2,800 $21,030 30% 3.333 $80,000 $266,640 $266,640 $17,891 $2,852 $3,200 $23,943 30% 3.333 $90,000 $299,970 $299,970 $20,127 $3,129 $3,600 $26,856 30% 3.333 $100,000 $333,300 $333,300 $22,364 $3,405 $4,000 $29,768 30% 3.333 $110,000 $366,630 $366,630 $24,600 $3,681 $4,400 $32,681 30% 3.333 $120,000 $399,960 $399,960 $26,837 $3,957 $4,800 $35,593 30% 3.333 $130,000 $433,290 $433,290 $29,073 $4,233 $5,199 $38,506 30% 3.333 $140,000 $466,620 $466,620 $31,309 $4,510 $5,599 $41,418 30% 3.333 $150,000 $499,950 $499,950 $33,546 $4,786 $5,999 $44,331 30% 3.333 $160,000 $533,280 $533,280 $35,782 $5,062 $6,399 $47,244 30% 3.333 $170,000 $566,610 $566,610 $38,019 $5,338 $6,799 $50,156 30% 3.333 $180,000 $599,940 $599,940 $40,255 $5,615 $7,199 $53,069 29% 3.333 $190,000 $633,270 $633,270 $42,491 $5,891 $7,599 $55,981 29% 3.333 $200,000 $666,600 $666,600 $44,728 $6,167 $7,999 $58,894 29% 3.333 $210,000 $699,930 $699,930 $46,964 $6,443 $8,399 $61,806 29% 3.333 $220,000 $733,260 $733,260 $49,200 $6,719 $8,799 $64,719 29% 3.333 $230,000 $766,590 $766,590 $51,437 $6,996 $9,199 $67,632 29% 3.333 $240,000 $799,920 $799,920 $53,673 $7,272 $9,599 $70,544 29% 3.333 $250,000 $833,250 $833,250 $55,910 $7,548 $9,999 $73,457 29% 3.333 $260,000 $866,580 $866,580 $58,146 $7,824 $10,399 $76,369 29% 3.333 $270,000 $899,910 $899,910 $60,382 $8,101 $10,799 $79,282 29% 3.333 $280,000 $933,240 $933,240 $62,619 $8,377 $11,199 $82,194 29% 3.333 $290,000 $966,570 $966,570 $64,855 $8,653 $11,599 $85,107 29% 3.333 $300,000 $999,900 $999,900 $67,092 $8,929 $11,999 $88,020 29% 3.333 $310,000 $1,033,230 $1,033,230 $69,328 $9,205 $12,399 $90,932 29% 3.333 $320,000 $1,066,560 $1,066,560 $71,564 $9,482 $12,799 $93,845 29% 3.333 $330,000 $1,099,890 $1,099,890 $73,801 $9,758 $13,199 $96,757 29% 3.333 $340,000 $1,133,220 $1,133,220 $76,037 $10,034 $13,599 $99,670 29% 3.333 $350,000 $1,166,550 $1,166,550 $78,273 $10,310 $13,999 $102,582 29% 3.333 $360,000 $1,199,880 $1,199,880 $80,510 $10,587 $14,399 $105,495 29% 3.333 Packet Pg. 1191 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development L Table A-1: Price to Income Ratio for Affordability . . Price Percent Price t I Income Pqr 1 clMortgage Pq1. Taxes** . -, Income RatioA $370,000 $1,233,210 $1,233,210 $82,746 $10,863 $14,799 $108,407 29% 3.333 $380,000 $1,266,540 $1,266,540 $84,983 $11,139 $15,198 $111,320 29% 3.333 $390,000 $1,299,870 $1,299,870 $87,219 $11,415 $15,598 $114,233 29% 3.333 $400,000 $1,333,200 $1,333,200 $89,455 $11,691 $15,998 $117,145 29% 3.333 $410,000 $1,366,530 $1,366,530 $91,692 1 $11,968 $16,398 $120,058 29% 3.333 Notes *Includes mortgage insurance * *Based on unincorporated Monroe County property tax rates (ad valorem and non -ad valorem) Assumptions Sources Downpayment of 0% • Mortgage Rates - Bloomberg.com Mortgage Interest Rate of 4.25% • Ad Valorem Tax Rates - Monroe County Mortgage Insurance Rate of 0.75% Property Appraisers, website Tax Rate http:// www .mcpafl.org /pdf /Millage2016.pdf Ad Valorem of 0.98% of 85% of the Sales Value • Non -Ad Valorem Tax Rate - Examination of a Non -Ad Valorem Median of $642.50 sampling of individual residential properties on Insurance Rate of 1.20% (outside of V Zone) Property Appraisers' website The mathematical equations that arrive at this result are as follows: Affordability Threshold Price = Household Income /30% Affordability Threshold Price = Household Income/ 0.30 Affordability Threshold Price = Household Income * (1/0.30) And (1/30) = 3.33 Then Affordability Threshold Price = Household Income * 3.33 Or Affordability Threshold Price = Household Income * 333% c 0 r m r c W m CL c m r c 0 ca ca c 0 c Packet Pg. 1192 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development APPENDIX B: ECONOMIC GROWTH IN MONROE COUNTY (2007 -2016) During the period 2007 -2016, economic growth in the county fluctuated significantly due to the heightened economic boom of the early 2000s and the Great Recession that followed. Correspondingly, the difference between 2007 and 2009 employment and wage statistics shows a decrease in employment due to the recession, while growth occurred during the early and mid - 2010s. The data in Figure B -1: Employment, Monroe County (2007 -2016) show that the growth industry in Monroe County is Accommodations and Food Service, or more generally, a part of tourism - related industries. It grew at an annual rate of 5.3 percent per year, as contrasted with 1.9 percent for total employment and 1.2 percent for retail trade. All other industries grew by only 0.3 percent per year, showing the increasing reliance on tourism. 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 — 10,000 5,000 — R s . . . . . . . 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Employment Accomodation & Food Service Retail Trade 10 "Accommodation & Food Service" and "Retail Trade" industries are described using their formal name given by the North American Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Packet Pg. 1193 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development APPENDIX C: EMPLOYMENT BY HOUSEHOLD AND INCOME BY INDUSTRY Households will have different incomes depending in the employment of the individual and the number of employed persons in a household. Table C -1, Employed Persons per Household, Monroe County, shows the number of employed persons in Monroe County economically active households." These data show that there are 1.332 employed persons in the average economically active household. These data also show that overall household income will be greater than the income earned by the subject of this Study by the amount of the other employed person in the household. .. .- .. Total Households 28,910 Households with Earnings 21,489 Households without Earnings 7,421 Labor Force 41,991 Employed Persons 38,504 Workers per Household 1.452 Employed Workers per Household 1.332 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 -2015; American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates; https://www.factf in der. census .gov /faces /tableservices /jsf/ pages/ productview .xhtmI ?pid= ACS_15_5YR_DP 03 &prodType =table The average wage in 2016 was $39,294. The "other" income for the average economically active household would be $13,040 ($39,294 * .332). Table C -2: Employment and Household Earnings by Industry, Monroe County (2008 -2016) shows individual and housing income by industry for Monroe County in 2016. 11 An economically active household is one with earned income. Packet Pg. 1194 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Table C-2: Employment and Household Earnings by Industry, Monroe County 00: �. Total, All Industries 40,772 $36,590 $39,294 $13,040 $52,334 Construction 2,584 $35,789 $40,862 $13,040 $53,902 Manufacturing 245 $30,909 $32,875 $13,040 $45,915 Wholesale Trade 582 $50,816 $46,131 $13,040 $59,171 Retail Trade 6,179 $28,250 $29,097 $13,040 $42,137 Finance and Insurance 712 $52,098 $64,391 $13,040 $77,431 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,475 $37,886 $38,084 $13,040 $51,124 Educational Services 1,729 $41,984 $45,086 $13,040 $58,126 Health Care and Social Assistance 2,524 $41,523 $50,082 $13,040 $63,122 Leisure and Hospitality Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,319 $27,638 $32,864 $13,040 $45,904 Accommodation and Food Services 13,763 $27,068 $30,412 $13,040 $43,452 Public Administration 1 3,016 1 $52,416 1 $58,912 1 $13,040 1 $71,952 Source: FL Dept. of Economic Opportunity, http: / /www.floridamobs.org /labor- market - information/ data - center / statistical - programs /quarterly- census -of- employment- and -wages *Estimated by increasing 2015 wages by the 2015 -16 change in the Consumer Price Index c 0 r m c a� a� CL c m c 0 ca c 0 c c a� E CL 0 (D (D D �a c a� m c O z 0 r U) O CL CL 7 U) c O x (D P O L O R i O Q r C N E t U cC r r Q Packet Pg. 1195 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Developme,-! APPENDIX D: WORKFORCE HOUSING PROTOTYPE COST ESTIMATES Calculation of a prototypical affordable workforce housing unit was the major subject of the RRC Memorandum within the Support Study process. The memorandum informs this appendix. A. NATURE ANU SIZE OF PRO T OTYPICAL /AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT IN MONROE COUNTY One of the most important considerations in determining the need for affordable workforce housing in the County is to define just what is a prototypical affordable workforce housing unit. In other words, what size and type of affordable workforce housing unit will need to be built when need is determined. The prototypical workforce housing unit was determined by compiling the data on existing affordable workforce housing units built within the last decade, for which the County had information on size (square feet), the number of bedrooms, and the costs to build the units. These selected units are reasonably dispersed throughout the Keys, and consist of nine different developments of varying size totaling 554 units. The developments include: A multi -unit land trust development - Middle Keys; 2. A multi -unit modular development - Upper Keys; 3. Meridian West (Harbor Bay Investments) - Lower Keys; ^ Tradewinds Hammocks Phase 1- Upper Keys; a Blue Water - Upper Keys; 6. A multi -unit townhome development - Lower Keys 7. A multi -unit apartment development built in 2016 - Middle Keys; 8. A multi -unit senior living apartment development - Upper Keys; and 9. A multi -unit apartment development under construction in 2017 - Middle and Lower Keys. These affordable workforce housing developments include a varying number of bedrooms that serve families of different sizes. Not surprisingly, the majority of the units (56 percent) are two bedrooms. The nine developments are identified In Table D -1: Affordable Workforce Housing Developments, Monroe County, along with the number of units they include, the size of the units (in square feet), and the number of bedrooms in each unit. 12 There are 824 existing affordable workforce housing units in the County. P�� -... n Packet Pg. 1196 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Affordable Table D-1: Developments, Development Number of Square Feet per Unit Total Square Feet in Multi -Unit Land Trust Apartments 16 1,109 17,744 Multi -Unit Modular Apartments 72 1,120 80,640 6 750 4,500 2 1,364 2,728 30 1,364 40,920 Meridian West (Harbor Bay Investments) 17 600 10,200 68 817 55,556 17 1,034 17,578 Tradewinds Hammocks (Phase 1) 11 700 7,700 35 890 31,150 20 1,050 21,000 Blue Water 2 660 1,320 24 801 19,224 10 1,165(4BR) 11,650 Multi -Unit Townhome Development 40 1,150 46,000 49 1,275 62,475 Multi -Unit Apartment (Built 2016) 16 710 11,360 27 950 25,650 8 1170 9,360 Multi -Unit Senior Living Apartment 28 695 19,460 14 757 10,598 0 0 0 Multi -Unit Apartment (Under Construction 2017) 6 710 4,260 22 950 20,900 14 1170 16,380 TOTALS 554 548,353 Source: Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department, and data from individual builder /developers of affordable housing developments. P �- . n c 0 r m r c a� m CL r c m r c 0 0 0 r ca c 0 0 c c a� E CL 0 0 0 D �a c a� ;a m c 0 z 0 0 r U) 0 CL CL 0 U) c 0 0 x 0 0 ,0 0 a� m 0 Q c m E 0 m r r Q Packet Pg. 1197 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Development To determine the average affordable workforce housing unit from this information, the following analysis was conducted. First, the size (in square feet) of the average unit was determined by totaling the area (in square feet) of each of the units identified in Table D -1, and dividing the total area of the units by the total number of units — resulting in an average unit size of 990 square feet. Next, the number of bedrooms for the average unit was determined by adding the total number of bedrooms in these units, and dividing the total number of bedrooms by the total number of units — resulting in an average bedroom size of 2.2 bedrooms for the average unit. See Table D -2: Affordable Workforce Housing Average Unit Size and Number of Bedrooms, Monroe County. • M aui L 11 e - • Cra • a 1I I LA • • - • Average Size of Workforce Housing Units Total Square Footage Workforce Housing Units Table 1 548,353 Total Number of Workforce Housing Units Table 1 554 Average Size (in square feet) of Workforce Housing Units 990 Sq.Ft. Average Number of Bedrooms Per Workforce Housing Unit Total Number of Bedrooms Workforce Housing Units Table 1 1204 Total Number of Workforce Housing Units Table 1 554 Average Number of Bedrooms Workforce Housing Unit 2.2 Bedrooms per Unit Source: Table D -1: Affordable Workforce Housing Developments. Monroe County Because the prototypical unit should be a complete buildable unit, instead of using the average of 2.2 bedrooms per unit and an average size taken from units with different numbers of bedrooms, we suggest the prototypical unit should be set at 2 bedrooms per unit and calculated specifically from the population of 2 bedroom units identified in Table D- 1 — resulting in a size for the prototypical affordable workforce housing unit of 955 square feet. See Table D -3: Size Prototypical Affordable Workforce Housing Unit, Monroe County. P =�-. n_? Packet Pg. 1198 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Prototypical Table D-3: Size of Affordable .. Multi -Unit Modular Apartments ... Number of .. Units Size of 2 Bedroom Units (Square Feet) Total Square Footage _Be droo m smaller floorplan 6 750 4,500 larger floorplan 72 1,120 80,640 Meridian West (Harbor Bay Investments) 68 817 55,556 Tradewinds Hammocks (Phase 1) 35 890 31,150 Blue Water 24 801 19,224 Multi -Unit Townhome Development 40 1,150 46,000 Multi -Unit Apartment Built 2016 27 950 25,650 Multi -Unit Senior Living Apartment 14 757 10,598 Multi -Unit Apartment Under Construction 2017 22 950 20,900 TOTAL 308 294,218 Average Size of 2 Bedroom Unit (Square Feet) 955 Source: Table D -1: Affordable Workforce Housing Developments, Monroe County In sum, and based on a review of the data on existing affordable workforce housing units built within the last decade, for which the County had information on size (square feet), the number of bedrooms, and the costs to build the units, the prototypical affordable workforce housing unit has 2 bedrooms and is 955 square feet in area. See Table D -4: Prototypical vvorKTorce Housing Unit. ivionroe Lou I Number of Bedrooms 1 2 1 Size of Unit (in square feet) 955 SOURCE: Analysis in Tables B -1, B -2 and B -3. B. Coe, - rS n0 , AhnRKF0 &CE HousIIvr The costs of the prototypical unit are based on the square foot costs of building affordable workforce housing. The square foot costs are based on six affordable workforce housing developments for which development costs information was available through a survey of local builders /developers. The total costs of these projects are shown in Table D -5: Costs to Construct Affordable Workforce Housing Developments, Monroe County. The total building and land cost of the 350 units where data was available was $118,824,593. The total square footage of the affordable workforce housing units built in these projects was 376,655 square feet. 13 This number addresses and includes land costs for one project where the land was provided by a land trust, but the true costs of a unit will include both building and land costs. P, -,- n Packet Pg. 1199 M.1.d Monroe County Support Study for Non- Residential Development Table D-5: Costs to Construct Affordable MW .. .- 46 I f Units P Oject Area (in Total Project Cost Proje J Foot t IllL 4AMI Square Feet) Building' Ad justed Multi -Unit Land Trust Middle Modular 16 17,744 $3,918,936 $4,175,944 $1,039,528 $5,215,473 $293.93 Apartments Keys Attached Built 2007 Multi -Unit Modular Upper Modular 110 128,788 $24,461,352 $25,374,846 $5,000,000 $30,374,846 $235.85 Apartments Keys Attached Built 2010 Multi -Unit Lower Modular Townhome 89 108,475 $31,105,831 $32,231,782 $8,900,000 $41,131,782 $379.18 Built 2015 Keys Attached Multi -Unit Middle Conventional Apartment 51 50,050 $15,265,341 $15,265,341 $2,100,000 $17,365,341 $346.96 Built 20163 Keys Attached Multi -Unit Senior Upper Conventional Living 42 30,058 $7,811,110 $7,811,110 $771,668 $8,582,778 $285.54 Keys Attached Apartment Built 2017 Multi -Unit Middle Apartment and Conventional Under 42 41,540 $13,654,373 $13,654,373 $2,500,000 $16,154,373 $388.89 Lower Attached Construction 2017 Keys TOTALS 350 376,655 $96,216,943 $98,513,396 20,311,196 118,824,593 $326.40 Source: Data provided by Monroe County affordable housing developers, December 2016 and March 2017. NOTES: 'Building costs include the costs of design, engineering, contingencies, site preparation, utilities, and mark -up. 2 The Multi -Unit Land Trust Apartments Built 2007 was built in conjunction with a land trust and had no land costs. Land costs this project is included even though the land was provided by a land trust, because land costs are costs that should be included in determining the cost to build affordable workforce housing. Land costs for the project was estimated by taking the land costs of the Multi -Unit Townhome Built 2015 and the Multi -Unit Modular Apartments Built 2010 and dividing the land costs by the total square footage of the other two projects to establish an average land costs per square foot. This was then multiplied by the total square footage of the land trust project. 3 These developments were reported with significant communal or office areas. Costs were adjusted to account for the proportion of the project in actual residences. 4 This number addresses and includes land costs for one project where the land was provided by a land trust. See note 2. 5 The cost per foot is the result of eliminating the high and the low costs per foot of floor area. Based on the total costs of building 376,655 square feet of affordable workforce housing at a cost of $118,824,593, the simple average square foot costs of an affordable workforce housing unit is $321.73. Costs range from a low of $235.80 to a high of $388.89. Table D -6 P�� -•.. n Packet Pg. 1200 M.1.d Support Study for Non- Residential Develor�--, shows several different ways to look at costs per foot of floor area. A simple average gives great weight to lower or higher values. A weighted average gives more consideration to larger verses smaller projects. A median is just that, a mid -point between the extremes. The last alternative is to drop the highest and lowest costs and then calculate the average of the remainder. Among the various methods, it is recommended that the last, dropping the highest and the lowest per square foot costs, be used as the typical costs of a workforce housing unit. Note should be taken that costs are all inclusive; it includes land, site preparation, hard buildings costs, soft costs, utility extensions and connections, and a reasonable return to the builder /developer. Based on a per square foot costs of $326.40, the costs to build a prototypical unit of affordable workforce housing is $311,712. See Table D -7: Costs to Build Prototypical Workforce Housing Unit, Monroe County. P n_ Packet Pg. 1201 Simple Average $321.73 Median $320.45 Weighted Average $315.47 Average, Excluding High and Low Per Square Foot Costs $326.40 Average Square Foot Costs Used $326.40 Based on a per square foot costs of $326.40, the costs to build a prototypical unit of affordable workforce housing is $311,712. See Table D -7: Costs to Build Prototypical Workforce Housing Unit, Monroe County. P n_ Packet Pg. 1201