Ordinance 009-1979ORDINANCE NO. 9 - 1979
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADOPTING THE MONROE COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT 1977
AS REVISED FEBRUARY 1979 AS THE SECOND ELEMENT
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA PROVIDING LEGAL STATUS OF HOUSING ELE-
MENT, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, in conforming with, and in furtherance of, the purposes of
the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975", Florida
Statutes Sections 163.3161-163.3211; and of the "Florida Environ-
mental Land Water Management Act of 1972, Florida Statute Chapter
380, have after due consideration and study with public participa-
tion completed the Monroe County Housing Element - 1977 as Revised
February 1.979, and
WHEREAS, said Housing Element has been duly approved by the
Monroe County Planning and Zoning Department and the Monroe County
Zoning Board acting as the designated local planning agency pursuant
to F.S. 163.3174, and
WHEREAS, said Board having recommended to the Board of
County Commissioners that said housing element be approved and
adopted by the County as an element to the Comprehensive Plan for
Monroe County, and
WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan has been approved by the Division
of State Land Planning in accordance with Florida Statute Chapter 163,
now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the MONROE COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT - 1977,
as Revised February, 1979, be and the same is hereby adopted by
reference as the Second Element of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Section 2. That said Second Element to the Comprehensive
Plan shall be accorded and have the full legal status and effect as
set forth in Florida Statutes Section 163.3194, and particularly no
-2-
land development regulation, land development code, or amendment
thereto shall be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County, Florida until such regulation, code or amendment
thereto has been referred to the local planning agency for review
and recommendation as to the relationship of such proposal to the
adopted element or portion thereofofthe Comprehensive Plan.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon
receipt of the official acknowledgment from the Department of
State acknowledging receipt of certified copy of this Ordinance
and that said Ordinance has been filed in said office by the
D epartment of Administration, Division of State Planning pur-
suant to the requirements of Florida Statutes Section 380.05 and
Florida Statutes Chapter 120.
i wet€ v Cr°R3{aY that this
t
C6f7tf °4. iae t` b'A
R3Ly9A..� '
1`3
ono :1+- 9_►III
.. .
� o
Dp/ii) %e
`J " c� county
housing (;m@)n
�
f
"
MONROE COUNTY
HOUSING ELEMENT
Pi.ral Draft
April, 1978
Revised: February, 1979
Prepared by
Monroe County Planning Department
The Monroe County Housing Element
has been prepared under the directive
of the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners designating the Planning
and Zoning Department as the County's
Local Planning Agency (Monroe County
Ordinance No. 25-1976) pursuant to
the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Act of 1975 (Chapters 163.3161-
163.3211 F.S.), to meet the requirements
of the said Act, and in conformance with
the HUD regulations for 701 Comprehensive
Planning Assistance.
4
MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Puriegton Howanitz, Chairman
Richard A. Kerr, Vice Chairman
Gerald Hernandez
Don Schloesser
Jerome Shipley
MONROE COUNTY
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Edward Davidson, Chairman
Roy Anderson
Ted Carter
Paul Cates
Nathaniel Funke
ti.
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Kermit H. Lewin, Director
Henry F. Weinkam, Senior Planner
*Pravin C. Shah, Planner
Sheldon Kulik, Planning Aide
Donna Moscone, Planning Aide
Herman Sweeti-ng,Graphics Technician
Lorraine Rogers, Secretary
*Primarily responsible for the report.
II
•.t ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Summary 1-2
Introduction 3-4
Chapter 1: HOUSING STOCK -INVENTORY & ANALYSIS 5-28
Introduction 5
Number and Type 6-10
Location and Type 10-12
Occupancy and Vacancy 13-18
Age 19-22
Condition 23-25
Chapter 2: HOUSING TRENDS 29-37
Building Permit Activity 29-35
Housing Costs 36-37
Chapter 3: HOUSING NEEDS 38-51
Population Growth 38-40
Future Housing Needs 41-45
Geographical Distribution 46-48
Assisted Housing Needs 49-51
Chapter 4: GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 52-64
Goals 52
Planning Objectives 53-54
Measurable Objectives 55-56
Housing Policies 57-64
Chapter 5: IMPLEMENTATION 65-.85
Housing & The Comprehensive Plan 65-67
Location of Assisted Housing 68-72
Implementation Strategies 73-85
APPENDIX:
86-104
Technical
Appendix
1
86-88
Technical
Appendix
2
89
Technical
Appendix
3
90-94
Technical
Appendix
4
95-97
Glossary
98-101
Reference
Material
►
102-103
Resource
Individuals
104
III
TABLES
Tables
Pages
1
Residential Units by Structure Type
7
2
Monroe County Housing Stock 1970 to 1977
9
3
Residential Units by Structure Type in the
11
Lower, Middle and Upper Keys
4
Residential Electric Meters - Key West
14
5
Residential Electric Meters- Lower Keys
15
6
Residential Electric Meters - Middle &
16
Upper Keys
7
Estimated Vacancy in Housing Stock
18
8
Age of Monroe County's Housing Stock
19
9
Housing Conditions
24
10
Building Permit Activity in South Florida
30
11
Residential Building Permit Activity in
31
Unincorporated Area of Monroe County
12
Residential Building Permit Activity in
34
the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys
13
Housing Needs 1977-1985
14
Housing Needs 1986-2000
43
15
Estimated Housing Needs by Geographical
48
Sectors, 1977-1985 and 1986-2000
16
Housing Assistance Needs of Monroe County,
50
1976
17
Housing Assistance Needs in Unincorporated
i
50
Area, 1976
IV
FIGURES
Figures
Pages
1-A
Relationship of Housing Stock to
Selected
26
Elements of Community - Lower Keys
1-B
Relationship of Housing Stock to
Selected
27
Elements- of Community -Middle Keys
1-C
Relationship of Housing Stock to
Selected
28
Elements of Community - Upper Keys
2
Residential Building Permit Activity
32
in Unincorporated Area of Monroe
County
3-A
Recommended General Locations for
Low and
70
Moderate Income Housing in Lower
Keys
3-B
Recommended General Locations for
Low and
71
Moderate Income Housing in Middle
Keys
3-C
Recommended General Locations for
Low and
72
Moderate Income Housing in Upper
Keys
V
• SUMMARY
The Housing Element of Monroe County presents a compendium of
housing issues, a statement of goals and objectives, and a
framework of policies and strategies intended to provide guidelines
in housing planning and programming. While recognizing the lack
of an available economic mix of housing as the most pressing
problem in the housing market in the county, it emphasizes a
collective effort by both the public and private sectors to arrive
at a solution.
Analysis- of th.e county's housing market reveals that though the
housing production has increased at a faster rate than the growth
in population, the. housing needs of the low and moderate income
households which account for over 50% of the county's total
households-, have remained vastly unmet. The housing stock has
expanded by nearly 34% since 1970 as opposed to nearly 5% increase
in the permanent population of th.e county. Paradoxically,
however, th.e vacancy rate has dropped since 1970. These
seemingly contradictory trends- could be justified in light of the
recent changes in the demographic structure of the county: an
increase in the number of seasonal residents, and a steady decline
of household size.
On the basis- of the projected population of the county, there
will be a need for nearly 2500 new units by the year 1985, and
additional 7600 new units by the year 2000 in the unincorporated
area of the county. The future demand for new housing in the
unincorporated area will be generated primarily by growth
- 1 -
in population, whereas in Key West it will be generated by both the' -
modest growth in population and the large number of units needed
to replace substandard houses.
Due to the structural soundness of standard -built housing stock
of the unincorporated area, rehabilitation will not constitute
a major housing program by the year 2000, however, programs to
conserve the existing housing stock and improve the neighborhood
quality must be established.
It is estimated that in 1976, there were over 9,000 households in
need of housing assistance in the County of which approximately
50% are estimated to be in the unincorporated area. Most of
these households are presently housed in nearly 6300 mobile homes
which make up approximately 36% of the entire housing stock of
d
the unincorporated area. Meeting housing needs of these low and
moderate income households will require State and Federal financial
assistance and a cooperative effort between the County and the
private developer. While the County will continue its efforts to
develop assisted housing through various State and Federal
programs, it will also provide incentive and encouragement to the
private developer to construct a wide range of housing types that
will meet the needs of all segments of the population within
Monroe County.
-2-
INTRODUCTION
The housing element of Monroe County, although dealing with a number
of issues on a countywide basis, is addressed primarily to the un-
incorporated area of the County. The purpose of this element is to
provide better understanding of the housing issues and to set up a
series of policies and programs which will establish a more effective
basis for collectively identifying and solving housing problems.
The first of the five chapters contained in this element presents
the inventory of the existing housing stock by number and type of
units, occupancy and vacancy, location and structural condition.
The second chapter is a narration on the current major housing
trends which include building permit activity and the factors
• influencing housing costs. The third chapter looks into the
projected population growth for the County and makes an estimate
of the current housing assistance needs and projects the housing
needs by the year 2000 in the unincorporated area of the County.
Goals, objectives, and policies contained in Chapter 4 provide a
framework within which all decisions related to housing could be
evaluated. The final chapter defines relationship of housing
element to the other elements of the comprehensive plan, and
provides implementation strategies and activities necessary to
accomplish housing goals and objectives.
The dynamics influencing the local housing market transcend local,
regional, and state jurisdictions and are impossible to predict.
Without the prior knowledge of how the circumstances are going to
shape up in the future, any attempt in developing detailed long-
range plans and programs is likely to be an exercise in futility.
-3-
For this reason, it is essential that the county, although committed
to provide safe and decent housing for all residents, remains
flexible enough to adapt to any changes in circumstances and to
participate in any programs which may help alleviate housing
problems. As the county accumulates new information and experience
in the area of housing planning, the policies and programs
presented in this document will be refined or modified as
circumstances warrant.
-4-
CHAPTER
HOUSING STOCK
INTRODUCTION
• As a rule, formulation of plans and programs in the planning
process is generally preceded by analysis of existing conditions
and characteristics. To this, housing is no exception. The
foundation of a meaningful and viable housing plan must rest in
the inventory of existing housing stock and analysis of present
and future housing needs. Normally, prior to the preparation
of the housing plan, a study should be undertaken to determine the
size, form, and condition of the existing housing stock. Or,if a
study was conducted in the recent years, it should be brought up-
to-date to reflect changes that might have occurred since its
completion.
In Monroe County, the only recent study or survey dealing with
housing is the survey of Occupied Property in the Florida Keys
conducted by the Municipal Service District in 1976, and updated
periodically. This survey, though quite thorough in its inventory
of residential and commercial property in the Keys, provides only
breakdown of residential units by type and location, and it excludes
the City of Key West. Due to the inadequacy of the current housing
data available, data from the 1970 U.S. Census of housing and few
other land -use studies and plans prepared in the past years were
used in extrapolating information unavailable at the present time.
Whenever the information derived by this method appeared un-
realistic, attempts were made to resort to other methods by way
of making estimates based on present trends, or by talking to
appropriate persons in the area, or by actual site visits.
The data and information that are contained in the pages to follow
-5-
are the result of combination of these methodologies and techniques
used during the preparation of this report.
NUMBER AND TYPE
The existing housing stock in Monroe County as of July, 1977, stands
at 27,769, an increase of nearly 34% in the last seven years. This
figure includes detached single family homes, multi -family units
(two or more dwellings per structure), and mobile homes in the three
cities and the unincorporated area of the County, excluding main-
land portion.*
Nearly 63% of all the housing units are located in the unincorporated
area of the County housing nearly 50% of the County's total popu-
lation (1976 estimate). The City of Key West accounts for nearly
9400 residential units or approximately 34% of the total housing
stock accommodating nearly 47% of the County's total population.
*The relative insignificance _of its size, little knowledge
of .its characteristics, and its remoteness from the Keys are the
reasons why the housing stock of the mainland portion of
Monroe County has been eliminated from the inventory presented ---
in this report.
1970 population - mainland Monroe Co. - 154
(Cape Sable Division)
at the rate of population growth for the unincorporated
area of the County, the 1976 mainland population is
estimated at - 180
at 1.9 persons per dwelling units based
on the existing countywide housing stock
and the present population (1976 estimate):
180 a- 1.9 = 95 Dwelling Units
N
— f
r
r\
n
cn
LO LA
F- N
Z +•)
� •r
U
J
a a
�-0
Z
W
Q
0-4
(N
W
0
o
c
O
C
c
o
0
0
0
J
Q
1-
O
N
d-
O
d-
a)
r
01
O
C
Il-
l0
Z
M
d
Cit
n
r
N
O
M
p
IN
\
-
W
l0
d
I•
Y
d
M
N
O
2
W
J
N
C
Z
N
d"
La
Ln
N
C+•M
I
O
C
rl
U)
O
J
N
00
N
M
Q
LL
I
N
C")
q
00
r
N
-j
Z
I -I
I�
n
M
M
CYM
00
Ln
Ln
I,
M
C
J
�-•y
o\\�
CV
Ln
CV
a
LL
LL1
J
N
d-
Z
P-•+
00
r
r
Ln
I*_
Z
M
N
r
{�
N
=
I�
Ln
N
r
J
Q
M
�-
r
2
O
U
I-
�
Q
W
W
F-
03
F-
Q
Z
N
>-
C
O
Z
C
a
F--
O
d
U
IY
N
J
O >-
W
C
Z
W
U I--•
3
U
C
O
Z Z
F--
<O
W
W
C
n
n
Ol
r
O
CM
nJ
l0� C
n O
rn �
r
OJ
(n 4-3
N �
Y CL
O
r0
S. U
O
LL i-) O
H �
N •.- O
t O t
4-) 4-)
QJ 4=
c U
> S
>� S. O
a--) O 4
S• N
� r �
srr U
O (a X t0
S. Q N
CL •r 00
U O
Q o
O O
U 4--)
O O • U >:
4- O O Y
O U -O
U 4-
W.
N O f-- O
> S.
S C Iv 4j
O O O r
N X: Ln v
r N M 1'
W
cr-
C
O
Ln
The remainder of the housing stock is divided between the f _
cities of Key Colony Beach and Layton with the percentages being
3% and 0.26%, respectively. (See TABLE 1)
The total number of housing units in the unincorporated area
increased by 59% since 1970 as compared to 34% for the whole
County. The City of Key West experienced a loss of 198 units
(or 2% of the 1970 stock) during the seven year period. The
proposed demolition of 340 condemned Navy owned units at Sigsbee
Park has done much to outweigh any slight increase in the overall
housing stock of Key West.
Single-family unit, as it was in 1970, is still the predominating
structure type in the unincorporated area and the -cities with
the exception of Key Colony Beach wher-e-multi-family units out-
number single-family units by 7 to 1. After single-family unit,
the next most numerous type of residential unit in the unincorporated
area is the mobile home. The mobile home stock of the unincorporated
area makes up 36% of all housing units in the unincorporated
area, and nearly 94% of the mobile home stock of the entire
County. Presently, there are 6263 mobile homes in the unincorporated
area which represents a gain of 3273 units or 109.5% in the mobile
home inventory since 1970. This inordinate proliferation of
mobile homes in the unincorporated area of the County could be
attributed to the higher costs of conventional housing units,
and greater in -migration of low and moderate income families and
retired people on fixed income. As for the multi -family units,
the City of Key West has the greatest number of 3782 or nearly
45% of all the multi -family units in the County. However, a
10
Y
U
C)
F-
N
N
Z
LLJ ►
J V)
m
d C)
F- S
}
F-
Z
C)
U
LU
C)
z
O
ko
ko
Lr)
a
r�
0\o
n
(M
Ol
C31
I.
N
C)
U')
O
r
t\
d
r
LLJ
=
LLJ
to
Q
C3
F-
r-
Ln
CM
Ln
Z
CT
00
1�
Ln
M
d
Z
LO
Ln
N
W
S
S
r
r
M
Cp
F-
U
Q
CC
a
O
r
O
1�
00
CM
M
U
(3)
CM
1l
C Q
I�
►-•4
M
l0
r
Z_
k (n
4.0
O =
N
C
C)
M
1� f/)
01
LO
Q1
t}')
Gil Z
r
(n
n•
r W
Ln
N
N
C)
U
r
O
r
Ln
C)
I�
10
C;
r
t+M
C)
M
C)
r
01
r
LU
N
Ul
F-
OY
d
01
N
>-
Z
►•+
LO
N
U')
v-
F-
Ol
c+')
C)
Z
S
r
r
M
1�
S
U
C)
U
W
C
CQ
C
C71
O
1�
1l,
N
ko
1.0
<Y
n
n
M
LC
1--
z
rn
oo
%D
r
N
n
L
r
N
L/7
LO
N
C)
1�
JC
r
C)
r
N
C) Ln
CD
Ct
cM
1�
Ol LU
r
C)
r U
r
N
LLJ
}
(n
>-
J
W
Ln
F-
M:
F-
Q
O
�+
LU
LL..
Q
S
Z
LL_
S
S
W
1
Lt1
U
C'3
F-
r
cz
S
Z
J
Ca
j-
•
S
C0
C)
F-
N
r
F-
N
-0
O U
Cl- UJ
ra S-
S-
4-3 Ln
Xm
N
N
UJ •r
aJ C
-0 =
-9-
large percentage of multi -family units in Key West are low-rise
duplex or row -house units. The countywide multi -family housing
stock expanded nearly 30% since 1970, whereas in the unincorporated
area the growth in multi -family housing in the same period has
been more significant - nearly 74%. (.See TABLE 2)
LOCATION AND TYPE
In the unincorporated area of the County, the Upper Keys with 8092
units have nearly 47% of all housing units in the unincorporated
area of the County. However, the greatest concentration of housing
(units/land area) occurs in the Middle Keys where 25% of all
housing units of the unincorporated area are located. LTABLE 3)
The composition of housing stock in each division is rather
peculiar. In the Lower Keys, mobile home is the predominating _
structure type of residential unit numbering 21436 or 48.6% of the
housing stock of the Lower Keys. The Lower Keys is also the
division having the lowest number and percentage of multi -family
units which make up only 8.7% of the housing stock of the Lower
Keys. The Middle Keys' housing stock does not have any one
structure type as the predominating unit type because their entire
stock is rather equally divided among all three types. Single-
family and multi -family units, both accounting for 34.4% each,
have a slight edge over mobile homes, making up 31.2% of the
housing stock of the Middle Keys. In the Upper Keys, single-
family units are clearly the predominating type followed by mobile
homes, and multi -family units.
The different compositions of the housing stocks in the three
divisions of the Keys are influenced by different conditions
-10-
M
W
_J
m
Q
W O
LL U
}
F- W
O
W w
� Z
O
F- 7:--
U
Of p r�l
F- 1�
V) Q Ol
W r-
m Q n
}
N in J
F- W O
►-+ F_ 7
Z Q
O
J LL
Q �
O
F- U
Z Z
W F-+
0 Z
N
W Z
Un
LO
Cl
Q
o\\°
N
1-
lD
O
W
d'
CV
M
r
CL' CC
O Q
LL
J U
N
F- r-�
►�
Q1
01
M
Ql
O Z
Z
O
M
lG
M
CM
tl-
N
I*_
lD
lD
00
p
o°
tD
N
O
O
k
d-
N
M
r
N
}
W
Ne
N
N
00
N
N
W
F-
1-
N
ON
O1
o_
P-4
r-_
co
d
C
CL
Z
M
r
N
OC
d
d'
(V
t/)
m
M
M
r-
}
uj
Y
W
_1
(n
lD
d'
LC)
LO
O
F-
Il_
n
m
co
►-+
d
d'
M
N
F-•i
Z
r
r
r•
'�
O
N
00
00
O
•K
to
}
W
Y
N
d-
W
d-
O
O
O
N
N
LO
J
}
► +
r-i
J
W
Q
y
O
W
W
W
(D
Cl-
z
J
m
F-
>-
O
O
O
F-
N
2::
M
F-
In •
U n
•r �
i r
+)
N
•r O
� M
N
O �
fn lD
N Ol
U r �
O
N ^4J
L fN f0
4-J >.-o
N Q.
.1-- Y
+-)
•r R3 �
3
E S-
S.- O •r
4- Li +3
C N
O N •r
U t O
N �
C C U
O r •r
•r >
N >, i
r {-) W
> i CN
•r �
O r0
of i LL
>> iZ•r
N U
QJ C
i •r O
N a �
Q O
O U +3
O O
O
C 4- O
tO O U
>> N
N QJ O
r > i
i C
� 7 O
cr N M:
G
i N
O U
3 S-
o =3
J O
V)
prevalent in those areas. In the Lower Keys, the housing market '
is influenced by Key West as the major urban center of'the area.
The two major mobile home concentration areas, viz. Stock Island
and Big Coppitt Key, account for nearly 62% of the mobile home
stock of the Lower Keys excluding Key West. Their growth is the
result of spillover of unmet housing needs -of Key West, and the
general propensity for suburban living. The mobile home parks
that have mushroomed around Key West represent non-contiguous
urban sprawl of an island well circumscribed by nature. The very
low percentage of multi -family units in the Lower Keys reflects
comparatively better availability of undeveloped land and the
preference for single-family living. In the Middle Keys, due to
the higher level of urbanization and rather limited supply of
land, multi -family living has been more common than in the rest
of the Keys. Nevertheless, single-family living, whether in a
detached home or a mobile home, is the most preferred type of
living in the Keys.
S['•I
OCCUPANCY AND VACANCY
Vacancy characteristics of the housing stock of the Keys are so
highly differentiated from one segment to another that estimating
their rate is quite problematic. Among number of factors affecting
vacancy characteristics in the Keys, the long stretch of the Keys,
varying levels of urbanization along its chain, and a high
percentage of seasonal population have the most bearing.
It is customary to use information from electric companies on inactive
residential meters to estimate vacancy rate in the housing stock
of any community. But, since the Keys are served by two separate
electric companies which use slightly different systems of main-
taining service data, applicability of this methodology becomes
rather limited. Nevertheless, attempt has been made to use the
information on residential electric meters wherever possible along
ti
with data accumulated from various other sources.
The data received from the City Electric Co. have been tabulated
in Tables 4 and 5 , indicating a steady decline in vacancy
rate since 1970 in Key West and the Lower Keys. The percentages
of inactive residential meters in January, 1977, were 5.6% in
Key West and 6.7% in the Lower Keys. These figures, however, do
not truly reflect vacancy rates because not all units with
inactive residential meters are for sale or rental, or are in sound
condition. While the actual percentage of unoccupied units that
are substandard or not available for sale or rental is likely to
be different for different areas, it is estimated that it could
be as high as 25% to 30%. In the Lower Keys, excluding Key West,
the total number of residential electric meters (5820) for July,
1977, is more than 13% higher than the number of residential units
-13-
TABLE 4
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC METERS
KEY WEST
ACTIVE
INACTIVE
TOTAL
% INACTIVE -
April 1962
7,189
432
7621
5.7
April 1970
8,032
951
8983
10.6
January 1971
8,099
896
8995
10.0
April 1971
8,034
960
8994
10.7
July 1971
7,794
1,216
9010
13.5
January 1972
8,257
768
9043
8.5
April 1972
8,181
863
9044
9.5
July 1972
7,907
1,023
8930
11.5
January 1973
8,253
680
8933
7.6
April 1973
8,094
854
8948
9.5
July 1973
7,860
1,102
8962
12.3
January 1974
8,199
686
8885
7.7
April 1974
8,062
842
8904
9.5
July 1974
7,849
1,054
8903
11.8
January 1975
8,160
721
8881
8.1
April 1975
8,118
765
8883
8.6
July 1975
8,000
876
8876
9.9
January 1976
8,368
548
8916
6.1
April 1976
8,300
650
8950
7.3
July 1976
8,158
767
8925
8.6
January 1977
8,434
503
8937
5.6
April 1977
8,349
609
8958
6.8
July 1977
8,173
797
8970
8.9
Source: Utility
Board of
the City of Key
West
-
August,
1977
'
-14-
TABLE 5
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC METERS - LOWER KEYS
STOCK ISLAND NORTHWARD THRU BIG, PINE KEY
April 1962
April 1970
January 1971
April 1971
July 1971
January 1972
April 1972
July 1972
January 1973
April 1973
July 1973
January 1974
April 1974
July 1974
January 1975
April 1975
July 1975
January 1976
April 1976
July 1976
January 1977
April 1977
July 1977
ACTIVE INACTIVE
1,634 272
2,880
621
3,209
482
3,076
716
2,967
859
3,574
397
3,448
578
3,312
755
3,837
440
3,821
533
3,693
742
4,325
348
4,188
559
4,073
748
4,671
375
4,644
570
4,515
736
5,002
356
4,850
566
4,739
746
5,327
381
5,167
590
5,074
746
TOTAL % INACTIVE
1906 14.2
3501
17.7
3691
13.1
3792
18.9
3826
22.5
3971
10.0
4026
14.4
4067
18.6
4277
10.3
4354
12.2
4435
16.7
4673
7.4
4747
11.8
4821
15.5
5046
7.4
5214
10.9
5251
14.0
5358
6.6
5416
10.5
5485
13.6
5708
6.7
5757
10.2
5820
12.8
Source: Utility Board of the City of Key West
August, 1977
-15-
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC METERS
MIDDLE AND UPPER KEYS
ACTIVE SERVICES:
YEAR & MONTH
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
April
Jan.
Apr.
July
Jan.
Apr.
July
Jan.
Apr.
July
Jan.
Apr.
July
Jan.
Apr.
July
Jan.
Apr.
July
Jan.
Apr.
July
MIDDLE
KEYS
2,022
2,224
2,246
2,092
2,410
2,456
2,339
2,650
2,742
2,590
2,973
3,061
2,911
3,183
3,234
3,158
3,407
3,446
3,283
3,497
3,563
3,426
IDLE OR INACTIVE SERVICES:
1960-1972 204
1973-1977 78
TABLE 6
UPPER
KEY
KEYS
COLONY BEACH
LAYTON
TOTAL
4,172
417
6,611
4,541
466
7,231
4,660
473
7,379
4,533
469
7,094
5,173
503
8,086
5,522
529
8,507
5,408
530
8,277
6,068
620
74
9,412
6,204
623
76
9,645
6,235
622
79
9,526
6,863
785
89
10,710
7,008
739
99
10,907 -
7,035
751
99
10,796 •
7,305
811
102
11,401
7,454
833
101
11,622 '
7,387
827
104
11,476
7,524
927
107
11,965
7,832
977
106
12,361
7,545
961
106
11,895
8,079
966
110
12,652
8,215
985
112
12,875
8,317
996
113
12,852
SOURCE: Florida Keys Electric
September, 1977
NOTE: Tabulated Data for Key Colony Beach and Layton also show
non-residential meters by error. The correct counts of
residential meters for July, 1977, are 926 for Key Colony
Beach and 73 for Layton.
-16-
accounted for in the survey. It is unlikely that such a large
number of residential units (806) could have been missed by an
error during the survey. The only logical explanation for such
a discrepancy is that quite a few unoccupied residential units
in the Keys are not available for sale or rental or are in
unsound condition, thus reducing the size of the available
vacant housing stock. On this premise, it is estimated that
actual vacancy rate reflecting sound residential units available
for sale or rental is nearly 4% in Key West and slightly under
5% in the Lower Keys.
In the case of Middle and Upper Keys, it is not possible to base
vacancy rate estimate on the percentage of inactive residential
meters since idle or inactive services are not listed by month
and year, and seem to be unbelievably low.
By way of comparing the total housing stock with the number of
active residential meters, it appears an estimate of the vacancy
rate could be made. The total housing stock in the unincorporated
area of the Middle and Upper Keys is 12,377 as opposed to 11,778
active residential meters as of April, 1977. It can be assumed
that of the 12,377 residential units in the Middle and Upper Keys,
some 11,778 were occupied, leaving 599, or nearly 4.8% of all
units vacant. Between the Middle and Upper Keys, vacancy rate
is likely to be lower in the Upper Keys because of the higher
percentage of multi -family units in the Middle Keys. It is
estimated that vacancy rate in the Middle Keys is around 4.75%,
and in the Upper Keys 4.5%. The estimated average vacancy rate
for the unincorporated area of the County comes to approximately
4.75%.
-17-
TABLE 7
ESTIMATED VACANCY LN HOUSING STOCK, 1977
AREA
OCCUPIED UNITS
VACANT UNITS/
NO.
pE
TOTAL
NO.
pE
TOTAL
UNINCORPORATED
AREA
16565
95.25
826
4.75
KEY WEST
9028
96.0
376
4.0
Source; Monroe: County Planning Dept., 1977.
The vacancy rates as listed in Table 7 indicate housing
availability for year-round occupancy either by sale or rental.
Actual percentage of unoccupied units is likely to be slightly
higher than the vacancy rates indicated since many of the un-
occupied units are seasonal.
A 1970 study by Milo Smith & Associates indicated that approximately
25 to 30 percent of the households, not including Key West, were
seasonal residences. Residential units occupied by seasonal
households should be considered occupied year-round if these units
are not available for sale or rental.
It is also important to note that vacancy rates vary with the type
of residential unit and the price range. It is estimated that vacancy
rate in multi -family units, particularly condominiums, is at least
twice the vacancy rate of single-family and mobile home units.
Also, higher vacancy rates in upper price range housing tend to boost
the overall vacancy rate implying that housing availability is
adequate. But in reality, there is an acute shortage of sound
housing that low and moderate income households of the Keys can
afford to pay for.
AGE
Due to the inadequacy of the information available, breakdown of
residential units by age for Unincorporated area has not been
possible. For the entire County, 86% of residential units are
less than 37 years old (Table 8 ), implying that approximately
3900 units can be expected to become substandard if not
rehabilitated within the next 20 years or so in Monroe County.
This is based on the assumption that the typical mortgage length
is 20-30 years, and that renovation after mortgage maturity may
extend the economic life by another 20-30 years.resulting in the
total average life of a housing unit of 40-60. years.
TABLE
AGE OF MONROE COUNTY'S HOUSING STOCK
PERIOD
NUMBER OF
UNITS
% OF TOTAL
PRIOR TO 1940
3888
14
1940 TO 1959
8053
29
1960 TO 1969
8331
30
1970 TO 1977
7497
27
TOTAL
27,769
100
SOURCE: Monroe County Planning Dept., Oct. 1977,
extrapolated from housing in Florida, 1973.
Note: Residential units demolished or condemned
since 1970 in Key West have been assumed to be of
"prior to 1940" period and have been deducted from
the housing stock of that period.
No demolition of residential units since 1970 has
been assumed for the unincorporated area and the cities
of Key Colony Beach and Layton.
-19-
The forementioned thumb -rule of life expectancy cannot be applied
to mobile homes whose life -span *is much shorter than that of
standard -built units. This would mean that most of the 6669 mobile
homes presently located in Monroe County will have outlived their
average life expectancy period within the next 20 years or so,
thus becoming unfit for occupancy. This combined with more than
3500 units mentioned earlier could cause a great deficiency in
the supply of standard housing if the production of housing by
way of new construction and rehabilitation does not keep pace
with the obsolescense expected to occur within the next 20 years.
It is important to note that the age profile of the housing
stock of Key West is so much different from that of the rest of
the County that any attempt in correlating structural conditions
with age on a county -wide basis is likely to be misleading.
The housing stock of Key West is significantly older than that
of the balance of the County. Most of the housing units in Key
West are over 20 years of age; whereas, most of the housing units
in the balance of the County are under 20 years old.
Ln1960, there were over 9300+ occupied housing units in Key West.
Assuming 100% occupancy, the entire housing stock of Key West in
1960 must have been 9300 units. Assuming that 10% of these units
were demolished since.1960, and replaced by the new ones, -there
+Based on 1970 U.S. Census of Housing Data
1960 population in housing units - 29,921
persons per occupied unit 3.2
Therefore, Number of Occupied Units=29,921 = 9350
3.2
*10 to 15 years
-20-
are still more than 8000 units existing today in Key West that
were built prior to 1960. It is estimated that nearly 3500+ of
• these units were built prior to 1940. It can be construed then,
that approximately 37% or 3500 of the existing housing units in
Key West will be 50 years or older by the year 1990, and in
addition, 48% or 4500 of the existing units in Key West will be
over 50 years old by the year 2010. These numbers indicate that
the City of Key West will have to undertake a massive rehabilitation
program in the years to come to save those units which could be
economically rehabilitated. The rest of the substandard units
will have to be replaced by new construction.
The picture is very different in the unincorporated area of the
County where, unlike Key West,a large portion (nearly 36%) of the
housing stock is in mobile homes and the standard -built housing
is relatively more recent. It is estimated that over 90% of the
standard -built housing units in the unincorporated area were built
after 1950. Therefore, less than 10%* of standard -built units
will be over 50 years old by the year 2000. Due to the small
number of standard -built units likely to be substandard by the
year 2000, a major rehabilitation program will not be necessary
in the unincorporated area.
+Estimate based on the 1940 population of Key West and assuming
3 persons per housing unit. Therefore, 12900 = 4300 housing units
3
Assuming 80% of 4300 units in existence today, 4300x80 = 3440 units
100
*1950 population of the balance of the County - 3,500 (excl.Key West)
Assuming 2.5'persons per dwelling unit (No. of persons per dwelling
unit has always been lower for the balance of the County than Key
West) .
Therefore, 3500 = 1400 housing units in 1950 in the balance of the
County. 2.5
(Continuted on Page 22)
-21-
Estimating that 25% of these older units can be ecnomically .
rehabilitated, 75% or nearly 760 of the older units will have to
be replaced by additional new sound housing units by the year
2000.
The mobile home stock of the unincorporated area is likely to
pose a serious problem of unsound housing in the years to come.
Due to their short life span (10-15 years), and the large number
(36% of the housing stock), the supply of sound housing could be
severely affected in the next 5 to 10 years unless production of
moderately priced housing speeds up. It is estimated that
approximately 50% of the existing mobile homes by the year 1980
and nearly 80% of the mobile homes by the year 1985 will be
10 years or older. Predicated on this estimate, nearly 90%
of the existing mobile home stock (over 5500 units) in the un-
incorporated area will be in need of replacement by the year 1990. '.
Continued from Page 21
*Assuming 90% of these units as standard -built units located in
the presently unincorporated area of the County, and further
assuming 80% of these in existence today:
Therefore, number of standard -built units built prior to 1950
and existing today in the unincorproated area of the County =
1400 x 90 x 80 = 1008
0 x 10 0
-22-
CONDITION:
Since 1970 U.S. Census of housing, there h.as been only one survey
of housing conditions in Monroe County. This was a windshield
survey conducted by th.e Consulting Firm of Howard, Needles, Tammen,
& Bergendoff, during the 1974 Land Use Plan Update. The survey was
very limited in its scope and findings, and excluded the housing
stock of Key West. The information contained in this section is
extracted and/or extrapolated from the 1970 Census, 1974 survey,
and the 1977 Housing Assistance Plan prepared by the Monroe County
Housing Authority.
In 1970, nearly 11 percent of the occupie-d uni-ts i:n Monroe County
were overcrowded and 5 percent of all year-round housing units were
considered to be substandard because they lacked some or all
plumbing facilities. These figures apply to the entire housing
stock of Monroe County including Key West.
The 1974 survey which examined the standard --built h.ousi-ng in th.e
unincorporated area concluded that:
"-----housing in the Keys is generally well maintained.
The ratio of dilapidated housing to the overall housing
picture is very small. Throughout the entire Keys, 99.0%
of the housing is either in sound (96.7%) or minor repair
(2.3%) condition. Of course, this deals only with the 60%
of the housing stock that is standard --built housing since
the mobile home was not evaluated as to structural condition.
A precursory inspection revealed that a great number of the
mobile homes- would fall into the dilapidated category-- 11
The above statement is quite descriptive of the standard -built
housing stock of the unincorporated area of the county. Of course,
the picture is very different in Key West where there is a higher
percentage of substandard units due to the greater number of older
units. TABLE 9 indicates estimated number of substandard units
broken down into the deteriorating and dilapidated categories for
the unincorporated area only.
-23-
TABLE 9
HOUSING CONDITIONS -
IN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF MONROE COUNTY
CONDITION
UNITS
*
% OF TOTAL
SOUND
10,739
96.5
SUBSTANDARD
389
3.5
DETERIORATING
278
2.5
DILAPIDATED
111
1.0
TOTAL*
11,128
100
*Total standard -built residential units (excluding mobile
homes) in the unincorporated area. '
Source: Monroe County Planning Dept., October, 1977.
The percentages of substandard units in Table 9 were primarily
based on the findings of the 1974 survey which in turn were based
only on exterior appearances of residential units surveyed. Complete
interior and exterior inspections might produce somewhat higher
figures. Also, overcrowding which has not been considered in the
determination of standardness could also raise the percentage of
substandard units.
-24-
The percentage of substandard units in the Keys is very low for
standard -built housing units,most of which were built in the last
20 years or so. A significant factor in reducing the number of
dilapidated units is the series of hurricanes that swept through
the Keys in the sixties. Consequently, the substandard housing
stock of the Keys (excluding Key West) is not large enough for
extensive rehabilitation at the present time. The number of units
suitable for rehabilitation* as estimated by the Monroe County
Housing Authority in March 1977 is 165 or approximately 1.5% of the
entire stock of standard -built housing in the unincorporated area.
In the absence of any premise on which to form an estimate, structural
conditions of the mobile home stock cannot be evaluated or qualified.
However, a precursory site inspection of a selected samples of mobile
home parks demonstrated that as many as 25 to 30% of the mobile homes
in the County would fall into the dilapidated category.
Figures 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C in the following pages illustrate the
distribution of the County's housing stock in the Keys and its
relationship to primary and secondary employment centers, major
public recreation facilities presently available, and the
proposed wastewater treatment facility service areas.
*Any substandard unit that is economically feasible to
rehabilitate considering the defect to be cured, the costs
involved, the rehabilitated useful life of the structure, and the
location of the unit. - Housing Assistance Plan, 1977, M.C.H.A.
-25-
R
w
d
CD
LL
f � F
Z
to
' >f
00
Eo
P r e
�O 1 �C►rANNE� +% Q Z
N'yam
SpA
n
d !
W ! F
d �
Q /
W
.W,
I
r
� ! W o
a
3
° m
r y W
v w WTT 3
j W V w 0
° ~ / U a
a
'VD 11jdtloJ� a w 0
a ! a ��.y�3r� M / Q �w Z w w
cr
M man w w a Lg z
Ir w Z
U
¢ 3 3W00
I W
w ILW LL
N 0 UI
�,6 / F a
y r / _ g _NIL
�\ • Q
—26— :�
m
i
W
c'
D
CD
LL
I
N
Q
w
tr
•Q
w
U
w
N
F-
F-
J
w
U
L
H
J
U
U<
�
w
rc
a
a
w
x
U
M
cr
z
w
ix
w
3
CL
w
o
ir
<
cr
w
co0
m
Z
Z
xx�
W
w
N
a
E
0 2
2
0F0
YWU
LL W WO
0 U)
a0(n
I�2
z
W
a_ w
F. J
Q W
J
W
a
-27-
J
4�
4q'O 9 ♦, Fj'
u1 n
2 CC
0
1 =b` W
1 Q 0
m V
1 � w0
► t2 '.roo p Qz
Z Z
0 Q
tt b` • ••• V ♦ ^I
t vo go
• Cq T 0 U ♦ -
ids. Z • o
�• 0 '; W x ) Y Q
♦ W U (1a <i• W
fr
32 6 t
Q o �. � ♦ W a
I'I � ♦ { i' '4� Q ♦ � W
♦ O� ; IL f
♦ `�$ h \� n Y ♦ a
IL
iQ
Itoq
iW 7
• ,
IL
w •Q odo .` W� ; Y
f-cr • m B4'ri, a
a W e � i ~~' r� ♦ o
W ♦ �. �,
U z w
Q ¢`0 ♦ t7
z
w U w r N
13
o z 3 �� Qi �i �WU
w g w •
3 a ; i vi W
w 1- O ♦ 0 QQI �o'' J LL
•
a 0 Ww ♦ io �� � s • oNU
a z a0cn
U 1 O
W xx
♦ V , a�- gO • Ul W
♦ i •• Ix
-28-
CHAPTER 2
HOUSING TRENDS
BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
Over the last 17 years, residential construction activity in
Monroe County remained more or less at the same level except for
the four year span (1971-1974) when it experienced an inordinate
boom. For the period of 11 years from 1960 thru 1970, the average
numbers of single family and multi -family units permitted were
237 and 46, respectively, the corresponding percentages being
83.7 percent and 16.3 percent. From 1971 thru 1974, the averages
for single family and multi -family units permitted were 521 (.44.7%)
and 645 (55.3%), respectively. The sudden upsurge in the building
permit activity after 1970 was due to termination of the 1970 and
1971 water hookup moratorium ordered by the Department of Pollution
Control.
The construction boom of early seventies was a statewide phenomenon.
Over the State and especially in South Florida, it was the population
growth of early seventies which fostered speculative building for
anticipated demand. In Monroe County, however, the population
gowth was not significant enough to justify the heavy building
activities of the early seventies. It was primarily speculative
building based on regional trends and anticipated demands that
led to highly inflated residential construction in Monroe County,
particularly multi -family units. In 1973, 63.6% (938) of all the
residential units permitted (1476) were multi -family as opposed
to 17.9% (73) in 1970. Since 1974, building activity in Monroe
County has dropped to a level slightly above 'prior to 1971'
average, with single family as the predominating structure type.
In 1976, all the building permits issued (272) were for single-
family units - a far cry from 1974 when 61.6% (693) of the
-29-
.0
residential units permitted were multi -family.
Over -building of multi -family condominums in the Keys in the early
1970's does not reflect change in life-style or the buyer's
preference for high-rise living. It was the result of a
speculative gamble that did not pay off when the anticipated
demand failed to completely materialize due to economic factors
beyond local control. The post 1974 slump of the building
industry in Monroe County, it seems, was caused by the earlier
speculative over building and regional and national economic
problems. The designation of 'an area of Critical State Concern'
and the development regulations adopted in 1975 came into being
at a time when the down trend in residential building con-
struction had already begun. Monroe County was only a fraction
of the entire South Florida region paralyzed by sluggish building
industry in 1975. The following Table substantiates the -
statement : TABLE 10
BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY IN SOUTH FLORIDA
1974
1975
% Change
No. of Units Permitted
No. of Units Permittedin.Tot.Unit
COUNTY
Permitted
Single
Multi-
Total
Single
Multi-
Total
Family
Family
Family
Family
Broward
3,944
15,105
19,049
3,449
1,780
5,229
-72.5%
Dade
5,751
13,117
18,869
2,820
2,716
5,536
-70.6%
Palm Beach
2,053
7,633
9,686
2.,244
1,873
4,117
-57.50%
Monroe*Un-
442
693
1,135
263
38
301
-73.5%
incorporated
SOURCE: Fla. Statistical Abstract, 1976
*Due to the inconsisties found between the Monroe County Data
from the Florida Statistical Abstract and the Monroe County
Building Department, the figures received from the Building
Department which were verified have been used in this Table.
-30-
TABLE 11
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
IN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF MONROE COUNTY
1960 thru AUGUST, 1977
SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI -FAMILY TOTAL
NO. OF % NO. OF % NO. %
UNITS UNITS
1960
236
93.7
16
6.3
252
100
1961
185
74.3
64
25.7
249
100
1962
211
85.1
37
14.9
248
100
1963
283
84.0
54
16.0
337
100
1964
190
92.7
15
7.3
205
100
1965
218
87.9
30
12.1
248
100
1966
189
93.1
14
6.9
203
100
'••
1967
223
84 2
42
15.8
265
100
• 1968
255
86.4
40
13.6
295
100
1969
281
69.9
121
30.1
402
100
1970
335
82.1
73
17.9
408
100
1971
477
54.6
397
45.4
874
100
1972
627
53.1
553
46.9
1180
100
1973
538
36.4
938
63.6
1476
100
1974
442
38.9
693
61.1
1135
100
1975
263
87.4
38
12.6
301
100
1976
272
100
0
0
272
100
thru AUG.
250
83.6
49
16.4
299
100
1977
SOURCE: Monroe County Building Department
• September, 1977
-31-
IAV
LU
C1'
CM
0
C)
W
F—
W
F—
�O
CL
CC
W
Zz::D
D
W
a
O
-:)
z
O
U
z
Q
Z
>
F-
z
J
Z
WwZ
O
Q
}-
W
i-
O
LL
w
LJ
�
w
Q
tai.
w
J
Z
(n
Q
t�
F-I
:3
1
Z
m
Q
a3111WN3d S11Nn 30 'ON
L'l
Li
IL
W
O
C?
Z
O
J_
D
m
}
F-
Z
D
O
U
W
O
cr
Z
O
w
U
O
-32-
In addition to the forementioned, there were also certain local
factors making the plight of the building industry in Monroe
County worse than the rest of the South Florida area. Higher
weight restrictions on bridges imposed in 1974 increased the
cost of transportation,thus making it less profitable for the
developer to invest money in Monroe County. It was also about
the same time when major mortgage companies withdrew their
financial support from Monroe County in the face of economic
haze surrounding the region.
The recent months have brought forth revival of the building
industry in South Florida which had been hard hit for the last
two years. All the counties in South Florida have reported
increased building construction activity in the first two quarters
of 1977. In the unincorporated area of Monroe County the total
• number of new residential units permitted in the first eight
months of 1977 is 46% higher than those permitted in the first
eight months of 1976. By the end of August of 1977, there
have been 250 single family and 49 multi -family units permitted.
The total of 299 new residential units permitted in the first eight
months of 1977 is nearly 10% higher than the all year total(272)
of 1976. At the present rate of building permit activity, the
total number of new residential units permitted in the unincorporated
area of Monroe County in 1977 is likely to be nearly 450,
approximately 50% and 65% more than those permitted in 1975 and
1976, respectively.
The distribution of building activity in Monroe County is
characterized by the peculiar configuration of the Florida Keys.
-33-
The 130 mile long stretch of the Keys, their relative isolation from
the mainland, and the limited supply of developable land are the
factors which have been and are still influencial to a greater
or lesser degree in determining the rate of building activity
in the Keys. The variations in the type and rate of building permit
activity among the three segments of the Keys as displayed in the
Table below are caused primarily by these factors.
TABLE 12
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PE-RMIT ACTLVITY
IN THE LOWER, MIDDLE AND UPPER KEYS
WITHIN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF MONROE COUNTY
LOWER KEYS
MEDDLE KEYS
UPPER KEYS
YEAR
Single
Multi
TOTAL
Singl
Multi
TOTAL
Single
Multi
TOTAL
Family
Famil
UNITS
FamilyFamily
UNITS
Family
Family.
UNITS
Units
Units
Units
Units
Units
Units
1960-1970
898
76
974
383
224
607
1,325
212
1,537
1971-1974
493
209
702
503
736
1,239
1,088
1,636
2,724
1975
80
0
80
75
6
81
108
32
140
1976
90
0
90
71
0
71
ill
0
111
thru Aug.
1977
94
0
94
28
2
30
128
47
175
Source: Monroe County Building Department
-34-
For the eleven(ll) year period from 1960 thru 1970, the heaviest
residential building permit activity occurred in the Upper Keys.
During this period, the total residential units permitted in
the Upper Keys was approximately 58% higher than the Lower Keys
and approximately 153% higher than the Middle Keys. The pre-
dominating structure type in all the three segments of the Keys
was a single-family unit. Percentage wise, the Middle Keys had
the heaviest concentration of multi -family units - nearly 37%
of the total units permitted.
During the four(4) years of construction boom that stretched
from 1971 thru 1974, the pattern of building activity had changed
significantly from the previous years. The lowest level of
building permit activity was reported in the Lower Keys where
the single-family unit still remained the predominating structure
type, multi -family units made up nearly 60% of the total in the
Middle and Upper Keys. But that has changed in the recent years.
The wave of building permits for multi -family units has subsided
since 1974, with the single-family units emerging as the pre-
dominating structure type. The Upper Keys are still the area of
heaviest building permit activity in the Keys, and also having
significant percentage of multi -family units. The Middle Keys
have experienced considerable slowdown in the building permit
activity in the last two(2) years. This trend is indicative of
the very limited availability of developable land in the Middle
Keys. The total number of building permits issued in the Middle
• Keys in the first eight months of 1977 is nearly 68% below the
total for the Lower Keys, and 83% below that for the Upper Keys.
-35-
HOUSING COSTS
The most significant factors affecting total housing cost generally
include: housing finance, land, labor, and material costs, local
government regulations, and the high demand for housing. In
Monroe County, additional transportation costs, limited supply of
land, and general lack_of large-scale developments have also
contributed to the higher cost of housing to certain degree. Also
the impact of environmental regulations on housing costs has been
greater in Monroe County than the rest of South Florida due to the
very limited supply of developable land. Among other governmental
regulations, the 100 year flood level criterion for minimum floor
elevation has contributed to higher costs most significantly. The
impact of all these factors leading to higher costs of housing in
Monroe County than the rest of the state, has virtually eliminated
a very large segment of the county's population from buying a home.
The average cost of a new home in South. Florida has more than
tripled between 1965 and 1977, from $16,500 to over $50,000. In
order to secure a standard mortgage for this house from one of
the lending institutions, a family will have to earn over $20,000
per year. Based on the 1976 effective buying income for Monroe
County, nearly 80% of the families in the county will be unable
to buy a home at this cost. This situation demands greater
efforts by and cooperation between the private and public sector,
if the middle income family is to be provided with. an opportunity
to own a home. It is also imperative that these families be
*Housing Chapter -Regional Guide, South Florida Regional Planning
Council, 1977 - Page 13
-36-
provided with low interest mortgages in order to cut down long-term
housing costs. It is estimated*that for buyers using conventional
mortgages, interest payments amount to nearly 35% of the home's
total cost over a 20 year period. Therefore, there is a great
need to make low interest government financing available to such
families in order to reduce their financial burden.
It is encouraging to know that the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) has responded to some of the problems facing home buyers in
South Florida. Under the new regulations issued recently by the
FHA, low cost, low down payment FHA financing is likely to be
competitive with. large down payment, conventional loans for the
first time in several years in high cost areas like South Florida.
Specifically, the new liberalized regulations will:
1. Raise maximum FHA :mortgages to $60,000,
a $15,000 increase over the old limits of $45,000.
2. Reduce down payments by almost 50 percent in some
cases.
3. Increase FHA -backed home improvement loans
to a new $15,000 limit.
4. Free additional money for builders borrowing
construction funds at Savings and Loans.
*Housing costs rule -of -thumb, Planning, October 1977,
American Society of Planning Officials
-37-
CHAPTER 3
HOUSING NEEDS
• POPULATION GROWTH
There are three components into which Monroe County's population can
be dissected and analyzed. They are: Permanent, Seasonal, and
Transient or Tourist. Of these, the permanent and seasonal components
together generate demand in the housing market. Therefore,
population growth under this section examines, rather briefly, the
past and future growth of permanent and seasonal residents only.
Over the years, the two most commonly used sources of population
estimates and projections, in the State of Florida, have been the
U.S. Bureau of Census and the Bureau of Economic and Business
Research of the University of Florida. Both these bureaus deal
exclusively with permanent resident population only. In terms of
permanent residents as enumerated by the U.S. Census, Monroe County
'. experienced nearly 112% growth in the 40s, 60% in the 50s, and 10%
in the 60s. On the basis of the University of Florida's projection
of the County's permanent resident population in 1980, county's
growth in the 70s will be approximately 11%. The City of Key West
in 1950 accounted for 88% of the county's total population, and
reached its climax in 1960 with 33,900 permanent residents. But
since then, due to the cutbacks in military activities, Key West
population has steadily declined, and most of the post-1950 growth
has occurred outside Key West.
Monroe County has grown from its 1970 population of 52,586 to an
estimated 55,124 in 1977, which represents 4,87, increase in county's
permanent residents since 1970. Paradoxically, during the same
period, housing units and electric customers in Monroe County have
increased dramatically - up nearly 34% and 41%, respectively.
At the same time, total public and private school enrollment
in grades 1 through 8 has dropped by over 10% since 1970. Among
other demographic characteristics, birth-rate has been declining,
whereas the death -rate has escalated somewhat over the years.
It is beyond the scope of this report to delve into how and to what
degree these significant population and housing trends modify the
demographic structure of the County. But clearly enough, they are
indicative of the following trends:
1. A significant shift towards seasonal occupancy
has occurred in Monroe County since 1970.
2. The household size has been declining steadily.
3. In -migrating population of mostly older people
has been replacing the out -migrating population •.
of younger people.
Monroe County's reputation as a resort area of immense natural '
beauty has always attracted seasonal residents who because of their
large percentage play a significant role in the housing market.
The 1970 Census of Housing estimated that slightly over 4% of the
county's housing stock was seasonal. But the census did not indicate
as' to how many of the remaining year-round units were occupied by
seasonal households. It was the 1970 Milo,Smi_th Study5.which for ''.
the first time surveyed and analyzed residency characteristics of
Monroe County's population. The survey which revealed that
approximately 29% of the households were seasonal residents stated:
"Seasonal households constitute a significant number
in the Keys. More than eight percent of the households
interviewed lived in Monroe County from six to nine
months, approximately 14.5 percent reside in the area
three to six months annually, and approximately six
percent lived in the county fewer than three months
each year.This seasonality is generally spread between
-39-
the winter and the summer because of the "two -season"
nature of tourist activities. Part-time residents
are made up mainly of retirees who migrate to other
parts of the country during the remainder of the year
and of workers who come into the area to serve the
needs of tourists and other part-time residents
during the seasons of highest activity."
As mentioned earlier, the lopsided growth of housing units and
electric customers since 1970 as compared to estimated growth of
permanent residents suggests a trend towards increasing number of
seasonal households, and declining household size. It is estimated
that in some areas of the county the percentage of seasonal house-
holds may be as high as 35 to 40% of all households. As there are
no statistical data to form the basis on which seasonal household
size could be estimated, comparison between an average permanent
household size and seasonal household size is not possible.
Nonetheless, since most of the seasonal households are one or two
person households, th.eir average size will be much smaller than an
average permanent household.
An average household throughout the state and nation is getting
progressively smaller. According to a recent study by the U.S.
Department of Commerce's Bureau of the Census, one -person households
are increasing fastest nationwide. This trend,coupled with declining
birth-rate,is primarily responsible for the drop in household size
in recent years. I'n Monroe County, however, increase in the retiree
population and decline in the military population since 1970,
have also influenced household formation towards smaller size.
Monroe County's permanent resident population is- pro.iected to reach
*
71,900 by the year 2000, an increase of nearly 30% over estimated
1977 population* It is important to note that most of the DroJected
growth will occur outside of Key West, which, it is predicted, will
*Bureau o.f Economic and Business Research,
University of Florida
-40-
experience only a modest gain in its population.
FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS
Projection of housing needs in Monroe County in order to be
realistic, should be based on the combined projected permanent and
seasonal population growth. Since there is no reliable source
from which projections of seasonal residents could be attained and
since seasonal household is likely to be much smaller than a
permanent household, it was necessary to first project permanent
households on the basis of projected population and household size,
and then by way of assuming a certain percentage of all households
as seasonal, total number of projected households was arrived at.
(See Technical Appendix 3 ). On the assumptions that household
size will continue to decline in the future and that in any given
year up to 2000 approximately 30% of all households will be
comprised of seasonal residents, the following are projections of
the total number of households in the unincorporated area:
Year Projected Number of
All Households in
Unincorporated Area
1985 18696
1990 21136
1995 23250
2000 25466
Source: Monroe County Planning Dept.(See Technical Appendix 3
for methodology) October, 1977
-41-
TABLE 13
HOUSING NEEDS 1977 - 1985
(In the unincorporated area of Monroe County)
1. Number of Housing Units
needed to accommodate the
projected number of
households by 1985 18696
2. Number of Housing Units
needed to maintain an
adequate reserve of
vacant units for market
purpose (5% of No. 1) 935
3. Total number of Housing
Units needed to house 1985
population of permanent and
seasonal residents. 19631
(No. 1 + No. 2)
4. Number of existing Housing
Units* estimated to be
extant in 1985 17200
5. Total number of new Housing
Units needed by 1985 2431
(No. 3 - No. 4)
*191 units or 25% of 760 substandard units estimated to be
in need of replacement by the year 2000 have been assumed to be
condemned, demolished, or unfit for occupancy in any other way
by the year 1985, and therefore, subtracted from the existing
inventory.
NOTE: Substandard units subtracted from the existing inventory
are standard -built units. Mobile homes have not been
incorporated in the replacement factor. It is estimated
that at least 50% or more than 3100 of the existing
mobile homes will need replacement by the year 1985.
-42-
TABLE 14
HOUSING NEEDS, 1986 - 2000
(In the unincorporated area of Monroe County)
1. Number of Housing Units
needed to accommodate the
projected number of households
by 2000
2. Number of Housing Units
needed to maintain an
adequate reserve of vacant
units for market purpose
(5% of No. 1)
3. Total number of Housing
Units needed to house 2000
population of permanent
and seasonal residents
(No. 1 + No. 2)
4. Number of existing Housing*
Units estimated to be extant
in 2000
5. Number of new units needed
between 1977-85
6. Number of additional new
Housing Units needed between
1986-2000
( No. 3-(No. 4 + No. 5-)
25466
1273
26739
16631
2431
7677
*760 substandard units have been estimated to be in need of
replacement by the year 2000, and therefore, have been subtracted
from the inventory of the existing housing stock.(See Pages 21
and 22 )
NOTE: Substandard units subtracted from the existing housing
inventory are standard -built units. Mobile homes have
not been accounted for in the replacement factor. It
is estimated that approximately 90% or over 5500 of the
existing mobile homes will be in need of replacement by
the year 1990
-43-
Based on the number of households projected, housing need through
the years 1977-1985 and 1986-2000 has been depicted in Tables 13
and 14. The needs have been expressed in terms of new housing units
needed to accommodate future population. Most of the new housing
units will be needed to accommodate increasing number of households
which are likely to reside in the unincorporated area of the County.
Only a small fraction of all new housing units needed goes into
replacing existing units that are expected to be unfit for occupancy
due to structural deterioration. It is important to note that
existing mobile homes that are likely to be substandard and hence,
in need of replacement, have not been accounted for in the number of
new units needed to replace deteriorated units as indicated in
Tables 13 & 14. The magnitude of replacement factor in the case of
mobile homes far outweighs that of standard -built units during
both planning periods. Although precise numbers are difficult to
produce due to the lack of adequate data on the existing mobile home
stock, it is estimated that, by the year 1985, over 3000 of the
existing mobile homes will need replacement due to structural
deterioration. The number will jump to over 5000 by the year 1990
if the substandard units are not replaced over the years or if their
structural conditions are left to deteriorate steadily.
Housing needs as illustrated in Tables 13 and 14 reflect the need
for new standard -built units only and are, therefore, in addition
to the need of replacing substandard or dilapidated mobile homes
as expressed above. It is projected that by the year 1985, there
will be a need for over 2400 new housing units in the unincorporated
area (Table 13). This need will average a little over 300 new
units per year; however, actual production of housing units due to
-44-
to yearly fluctuations can differ substantially from these estimates.
Actual production is a function of the effective demand for housing.
This demand for housing depends not only on population growth,
but on such important factors as family size, housing costs,
family incomes, general economic conditions, availability of
financing, and tastes and preferences.
Between 1986 and 2000, it is estimated that more than 7600
additional new units will be needed in the unincorporated area
(Table 14). The average of more than 500 new units per year for
this period is much higher than the average demand during 1977-85
period. Of course, the effective demand will not be uniformly
distributed, and the transition from the '300 per year demand
period' to '500 per year demand period' will be slow and gradual.
In projecting the housing needs into the future, no attempt has
been made to forecast the needs for housing by specific structure
type, size, or tenure as these housing characteristics are.de-
pendent upon number of variables, prominent among which are
demographic make-up, family incomes, and general economic
conditions.
The housing needs as projected in Tables 13 and 14 reflect
composite profile of future housing needs which will have to be
met by both assisted and non -assisted housing resources combined.
At this stage, a realistic estimate of the future housing assistance
needs cannot be made since the factors which determine such needs
cannot be reasonably predicted. It is expected that certain
portion of the overall future housing needs which will require
housing assistance will be distributed throughout the Keys.
-45-
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Allocation of housing needs by geographical sectors would commonly
require population projections for such sectors so as to form the
premise on which growth can be contemplated. But, since population
projection for such smaller units are unavailable, and since it
was realized that the methodology used to extract population
projections for the unincorporated area will not produce satisfactory
results in the case of smaller sectors; a different approach was
considered. This approach takes into account the present population
and housing growth trends, the rate of building permit activity,
and the availability of developable land. The underlying assumption
is that the rate of residential building permit activity in the
short term period will remain at the average level of the post -boom
period ('75 thru present day) and will also exhibit the same
distribution pattern.
The population and housing in the Upper Keys section of the un-
incorporated area have experienced the heaviest growth since 1970
in the Keys. The Lower Keys on the other hand have experienced
decline in population since 1970 due to the cutbacks in military
activities in Key West and Boca Chica; however, housingwise there
has been a modest increase in the Lower Keys since 1970. As of
July, 1977, the distribution of permanent resident population
of the unincorporated area is 31% in the Lower Keys, 24% in the
Middle Keys, and 45% in the Upper Keys; whereas the housing
distribution is 29% in the Lower Keys, 24% in the Middle Keys,
and 47% in the Upper Keys.
SF-2
The residential building permit activity since the construction
boom of early seventies, seems to be indicative of the future
trend in residential construction in the Keys, for the factors
which have caused this recent change viz., environmental regulations,
high costs of construction, high unemployment, and general
economic and financial hardships, are likely to prevail at least
in the short term period. Of all the residential units permitted
(1032) in the unincorporated area of Monroe County over the last
three years ('75 thru '77), 30% are located in the Lower Keys,
20% in the Middle Keys, and 50% in the Upper Keys. The percentage
for the Upper Keys is somewhat higher than what can be considered
average due to a 35 unit multi -family permit issued in late 1977.
A more realistic average for the Upper Keys, for that reason, is
approximately 48% which would increase the percentage of the
Middle Keys average somewhat.
As for the availability of developable land, it is estimated that
over 60% of the developable land is in the Lower Keys, approx-
imately 28% in the Upper Keys with the remaining portion being in
the Middle Keys. These percentages are derived from the Florida
Keys Coastal Zone Management Study of 1974, and they exclude
preservation areas (mostly wetland and mangrove areas) from
consideration for development.
In inference, the Upper Keys, at the present time, are growing
at the fastest rate in Monroe County and the building permit
activity of the recent years indicate that the Lower Keys are
destined to become the second fastest growing area in the near
future. The housing needs during the first period of projections
-47-
(1977-851 are estimated at 32% in the Lower Keys, 22% in the Middle
Keys and 46% in the Upper Keys. But in the long run, due to the
greater availability of developable land, completion of anticipated
highway and bridge improvements, and perhaps availability of
water transportation from Miami, the Lower Keys are likely to
attract greater number of permanent and seasonal residents, there-
fore, requiring a larger portion of housing. It is estimated that
during the second period of projections (1986-2000), the Upper
and the Lower Keys will demand comparable portions of overall
housing needs with the Upper Keys having.a slight edge over the
Lower Keys-.
TABLE 15
ESTIMATED HOUSING NEEDS
by Geographical Sectors
197.7-85
1986-2000
Number of Units
%
Number of Units
%
Lower Keys 778
32
3071
40
Middle Keys 535
22
1382
18
Upper Keys 1118
46
3224
42
Source: Monroe County Planning Department
am
ASSISTED HOUSING NEEDS
The principal socio-economic groups in need of housing assistance
in Monroe County are low and moderate income families, large
families, elderly households, and some ethnic minorities. These
groups are not uniformly distributed through the County. The
composition of households in need of housing assistance is closely
related to the socio-economic make-up of a community. In Key
West, unlike the rest of the county, ethnic minorities are quite a
sizable factor in determining the housing assistance needs.
Whereas, in the unincorporated area, most of the households in
need of assistance are generally low-income families, large
families, and elderly households. In Key West, a large majority
of the low and moderate income families are housed in substandard
housing units since older housing typically becomes available to
low and moderate income families by the filter down process. But
in the unincorporated area, due to the high cost of new housing,
tight market conditions and the very limited supply of older housing,
a vast majority of the low and moderate income families have
turned,to mobile homes. Without the housing assistance in one
form orthe other, these families will have little chance for
upward mobility in housing.
The 1977 Housing Assistance Plan which is required annually to
apply for the Community Development Block Grant funds provides
the current estimate of the housing assistance needs of Monroe
County:
-49-
TABLE 16
HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS OF MONROE COUNTY, 1976
Household Type
Family
(4 or less persons)
Large Family
(5 or more persons)
Elderly
Total
Number of Households
5970
755
2930
9655
Source: 1977 Housing Assistance Plan, Monroe County
Housing Authority
Since the Housing Assistance Plan does not breakdown the assistance
needs for lower income households by separate jurisdictions, an
attempt was made to estimate the housing assistance needs in the
unincorporated area of the county. (See Technical Appendix 4 )
Using the 1970 Census distribution of families by income groups
as the benchmark, estimate was made of the 1976 households in need
of assistance:
TABLE 17
HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS
IN THE
UNINCORPORATE AREA, 1976
Geographical Segment Number of Households
Lower Keys
Middle Keys
Upper Keys
Total Unincorporated Area
1736
1076
1311
4123
Source: Monroe County Planning Dept., 1977
-50-
In all likelihood, the above estimate is an understatement of the '
actual housing assistance needs since it does not fully take into
account the relationship between family size and family income.
Nonetheless, it is a fairly accurate estimate of the percentage
breakdown by geographical segment of th-e total housing assistance
needs- of low and very low income households -
In the present circumstances, these lower income households are
the ones whose housing needs will be the most difficult to meet
for both public and private sectors. The private sector is unable
to provide sufficient housing in an affordable price range, and
the curtailment in the number and variety of Federal programs for
housing assistance to lower income households makes it difficult
to provide significant public assistance to this group. •,
-51-
CHAPTER 4
GOALS ,OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
GOALS
For the purpose of promoting and protecting public health, safety,
and general welfare, Monroe County will direct its efforts towards
attainment of the following housing goals:
1. An adequate supply of safe and sanitary housing to meet
the housing needs of Monroe County's residents.
2. A housing market which offers a wide range of choice in
housing location and types, and which satisfies housing
needs of people at all income levels.
3. A living environment which is in harmony with the natural
environment and which fosters a sense of community.
-52-
PLANNING OBJECTLVES
The formulation of plans, programs, and projects to be used by
Monroe County in attaining the stated housing goals will be guided
by the following objectives:
I. To insure that there is developed in Monroe County an adequate
supply of sound housing for permanent residents, second home
dwellers, and tourists that is safe, aesthetically pleasing,
and compatible with the surrounding natural and human environ-
ment.
2. To encourage the development of low and moderate income
housing through joint -efforts of public and private sectors
to meet the needs of elderly, handicapped, and low and moderate
income households who are unable to secure decent housing at
an affordable cost.
3. To minimize housing costs and to encourage energy and en-
vironmentally responsible planning.
4. To preserve the existing housing stock and to continue efforts
to upgrade or eliminate substandard housing through code en-
forcement, rehabilitation, or demolition.
5. To encourage the private industry to play the leading role in
meeting Monroe County`s housing needs, and to provide publicly
assisted housing in situations where housing needs are not
adequately met by the private sector.
6. To'integrate housing and community development -programs in a
manner that will facilitate creation of economically balanced
neighborhoods.
-53-
7. To promote programs that encourage citizen participation and
increase public awareness of housing problems.
8. To establish a continuing planning process to ensure the
optimal use of private and public housing resources.
-54-
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES
The specific activities and quantified objectives outlined below
are planned and tentatively scheduled in the five year time frame.
The attainment of these objectives is contingent upon a number
of highly dynamic variables such as availability of funds, general
economic conditions, etc., which at best can only be speculated.
In the present circumstances, the following appear to be the
most realistic measurable objectives that the county should
strive for:
1 to 2 'Year Time Frame:
A. Acquire a site for low and moderage income housing in
the Upper Keys.
B. Acquire site for elderly housing in the Middle Keys.
C. Construct 130 Section 8 units for low and moderate
income families in the Middle Keys(Marathon).
D. Adopt a housing code that will set up minimum
standards of safety, sanitation, and occupancy for
all types of housing.
E. Begin code enforcement program in the Middle Keys.
2 to 3 Year Time Frame:
A. Acquire site for low --income housing in the Lower Keys.
B. Acquire site for elederly housing in the Lower Keys.
C. Acquire site for elderly housing in the Upper Keys.
D. Construct 120 low-income family units in th-e Upper Keys..
E. Construct 50 elderly units in the Middle Keys.
-55-
F. Begin code enforcement program in the Upper Keys.
G. Institute neighborhood analysis program for the Middle
Keys.
3 to 4 Year Time Frame:
A. Construct 50 low-income family units in the Lower Keys.
B. Construct 10 elderly units in the Lower Keys.
C. Construct 40 elderly units in the Upper Keys.
D. Begin code enforcement program in the Lower Keys.
E. Institute neighborhood analysis program for the Upper Keys.
4 to 5 Year Time Frame:
A. Institute neighborhood analysis program for the Lower Keys.
B. Set target areas for neighborhood improvement and housing
rehabilitation throughout the County.
• C. Create a local housing finance agency to promote
rehabilitation and homeownership.
NOTE: Section 8 Housing: HUD's Section 8 program provides for a
rental subsidy to pay the difference between a family's
"ability to pay" and the cost of rental property in the
community.
Whereas, in conventional public housing, assistance is
provided by an operating subsidy which maintains low rents.
-56-
HOUSING POLICIES
• GENERAL
1. Encourage private housing industry to provide a sufficient
volume of different types of housing to satisfy the wide
range of family and individual needs.
2. Promote an open housing market which will provide equal
housing opportunity in all parts of the County, for all
types of dwelling units, whether publicly or privately
owned, to all persons regardless of race, age, religion,
sex, ethnic origin, or nationality.
3. Encourage private and joint private -public programs
designed to preserve and enhance the existing housing stock
and neighborhoods.
4. Encourage local lending institutions to promote housing
maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction by establishing
and promoting special low interest loan programs for such
purposes.
-57-
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
1. Use County's regulatory and financial resources to aid in
overcoming obstacles to the provision of housing to meet
the needs of low and moderate income residents of the County.
2. Establish improvement programs to work toward elimination
of blighting factors and upgrading of facilities through
housing code enforcement, rehabilitation, and demolition.
3. Allocate areas at appropriate locations throughout the County
for medium density residential development with permissible
densities high enough to provide opportunities for developing
moderately priced housing.
4. Solicit housing assistance funds from State and Federal
agencies for use in developing housing as needed to supplement
efforts of the private housing sector.
5. Encourage and assist in private programs designed to help
alleviate the problem of housing for low and moderate income
residents of the County.
6. Provide incentives to encourage private industry to provide
a wide range of housing including proportion of low and
moderately priced units.
7. Encourage non-profit groups to apply for Federal and State
assistance for providing sound housing to low and moderate
income households.
8. Provide technical assistance to private and non-profit
groups interested in providing low and moderate income
housing.
-58-
• 9. Promote homeownership and encourage programs that assist
• low and moderate income families in becoming homeowners.
10. Explore various means and ways of finishing the unfinished
and abandoned multi -family housing projects in the County,
especially in the Upper Keys, so as to make new housing
available to low.and moderate income households.
-59-
HOUSING COSTS
1. Encourage all public and private groups involved in the
housing process to develop a coordinated approach to controlling
the increase in housing costs.
2. Evaluate existing building code, zoning and subdivision
regulations, and construction permitting procedures with
respect to their cost implications and eliminate unnecessary
elements from such codes, standards, and procedures where
they add undue costs to housing.
3. Encourage the use of innovative design concepts, construction
techniques, and building materials which would effect re-
ductions in construction costs and energy consumption.
4. Adopt development controls that provide for flexibility in
residential design to permit a choice of housing type and
cost.
.m
CODES AND STANDARDS
1. Encourage standardization within Monroe County of local codes,
ordinances, and implementation methods whenever feasible.
2. Develop and adopt a housing code for Monroe County which will
set minimum standards of safety, sanitation, and occupancy.
3. Utilize county's technical and financial resources, when
feasible, to provide assistance to those who cannot meet code
enforcement standards by themselves.
4. Support programs and policies which provide uniform and
equitable treatment of persons or families displaced by public
action such as code enforcement, eminent domain procedures,
or public construction.
5. Ensure that an adequate number of qualified and competent
personnel are available to administer sound enforcement
programs.
6. Provide uniform and equitable system of relocating persons
and families displaced through public action such as code
enforcement, public construction, or the eminent domain
procedures affecting housing structures.
-61-
MOBILE HOMES
1. Maintain the present county moratorium on new mobile home
parks as long as the Federal regulations prohibit establishment
of new mobile home parks in 100 year statistical storm
surge area.
2:- Encourage the provision of adequate community facilities
and services in an effort to uplift the social and physical
structure of existing mobile home parks.
3. Develop and adopt minimum code and standards to insure that
mobile homes provide adequate degree of safety and
durability.
4. Seek cooperation of the Division of Motor Vehicles to
investigate the existing mobile home stock in order to
ensure that every mobile -home is properly tagged and
registered.
=62-
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
1. Promote meaningful citizen participation in the housing
planning process and in the development of housing strategies
for the county and for individual neighborhoods.
2. Disseminate available technical information on housing
planning, problems, and opportunities in an effort to
increase public awareness.
-63-
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
1. Require that efforts of any county agency in the area of
housing be coordinated with relevant county agencies and
departments.
2. Coordinate housing planning and programming with other
political jurisdictions in Monroe County.
3. Cooperate with the South Florida Regional Planning Council
in the development of the Areawide Housing Opportunity
Plan (AHOP), and assume responsibility for providing
the county's fair share of housing for low and modera%e
income families.
-64-
CHAPTER - 5
IMPLEMENTATION.
HOUSING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
,,
In the broader framework of the Comprehensive Plan, housing is
not an end in itself, but a means to an end. The housing issues
discussed in this element should not be viewed as strictly con-
cerning the provision of a dwelling unit alone, but rather, they
should be viewed from the perspective of providing a living
environment that would satisfy individual, family, and community
needs. As a necessary prelude to creating such a living environ-
ment, housing planning and programming must take cognizance of a
wide range of factors such as supporting infrastructure, community
facilities, environmental protection and so on.
The fundamental nature of relationship between the land use and
housing elements dictates that realization of housing goals and
objectives is not possible without a land use policy framework
which will provide for the range of housing opportunities necessary
for this to occur. The most primary function of the County Land Use
Plan in these regards is to assure that there are areas throughout
the County in.a wi-de.range of densities that will permit a variety
of hosuing types in different price ranges. The County Land Use
Plan while acknowledging the -housing problem, defines its nature
and sets forth policies which will promote the provision of
housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income familites.
The specific references to this effect are made in Section 'C'
of the Land Use and Development Policies contained in Chapter 2
of the County Land Use Plan.
It is important to note that the Land Use Plan which is strictly
-65-
policy -oriented in nature, avoids any reference to specific
densities for different areas of the County. This is so, because
the highly unique make-up of the County precludes any possibility
of drawing a parallel between the situations in Monroe County and
any other county on the mainland. Throughout the course of
planning for environmental management in Monroe County, it has
been recognized that distribution of structural densities in the
Keys on an areawide basis should be accomplished by way of ex-
tablishing carrying capacity based on the natural and urban
systems of the area. This is the approach that the county has
accepted and established in the 'Growth Management Policy 1.3'
as set forth in Chapter 2 of the Land Use Plan. Until such time
that a definitive carrying capacity for the Keys is established,
a premise on which a variety of high and low density standards
could be established does not exist. Nonetheless, the implementation
strategies outlined in Chapter 4 of the Land Use Plan do call for
revision of the existing zoning ordinance to assure its conformance
with the policies and principles of the Land Use Plan.
The County Zoning Ordinance presently permits development in
densities ranging from 3.5 units per gross acres to 8 units per
gross acre in residential districts RU-1 thru RU-4. It is
generally accepted that gross densities of 3.0 or more allow for
the construction of units that can accommodate the middle income
home buyer. The periodic updating and revision of the Zoning
Ordinance will assure that there are areas throughout the County
zoned for residential densities high enough to accommodate housing
for moderate income families and lower income families assisted
by government subsidies.
11
It is also imperative that planning of housing activities be
coordinated with county's existing and proposed plans and programs
in various other areas. Among such plans and programs, the supply
of potable water is a highly critical factor in the Keys. The
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority was issued a ten year water/
transport permit in 1974 by the South Florida Water Management
District which allows the Aqueduct Authority to transport up to
13.5 million gallons of water per day down the pipeline by the
year 1984. The F.K.A.A. is presently in the process of making
arrangements for the construction of a new pipeline from Florida
City to Key West which will replace the antiquated pipeline
presently in service, and thus, insure adequate supply of potable
water to the Keys' residents.
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority projects the fiaximum
water demand of approximately 19 million gallons per day by the
year 1998 to serve the maximum population of nearly 83,000
residents and 31,000 average annual equivalent of tourists.
Whereas the housing demand in Monroe County is based on the projected
permanent population of nearly 72,000 by the year 2000. It should
be pointed out that the projected resident population used in the
FKAA's water plan includes permanent as well as second home
residents whose housing needs have been projected and analyzed
on a comparable population base in this element. Among other
factors related to the creation of a desirable living environment
the ones having the most impact are the adequacy of wastewater
treatment and solid waste disposal facilities, provision of
schools, parks, and other community facilities.
-67-
LOCATION OF ASSISTED HOUSI"NG
Since the enactment of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, local governments have been required to designate
areas suitable for new construction of assisted housing. Any
HUD assisted housing development must be located within these
designated areas and any specific site selected must be approved
by the HUD officials. The Monroe County Housing Authority has
developed criteria and standards to evaluate areas- within the
county for their suitability for assisted housing. The following
criteria are presently used by the county to evaluate federally
assisted housing projects:
1. A project's ability to meet the housing needs at
the community level in terms of furthering the
revitalization and stabilization of the community.
2. A project's ability to provide a greater choice in
housing opportunities- relative to location and unit
size,
3. A project's ability to avoid undue concentrations
of lower income and minority families,
4. The availability of adequate public facilities
necessary to guarantee the viability of the housing
environment,
5. The project's effect on the surrounding environment,
and
6. The surrounding areas potential effect on the living
environment of the housing project.
The foremost consideration in site selection is the creation of
economically balanced neighborhoods which will avoid concentration
of minority groups and will offer equal housing opportunities to
all people.
This consideration is reflected in the specific site selection
standards that have been established in the Monroe County Housing
Assistance plan. The general locations recommended for asissted
housing in this document were judged suitable for such housing
by these standards and criteria. (FIGURES 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C)
-69-
;%
17
Wby r
r
� �
ybO
�Nb
!
/
a p
,
a
a
r
r
�
N
�
J
I,
n
_
a
_J
f Q /
U
v
19
yW1
.r"
% 0
W
4 �
O �
I
I1Z
r
o�
w 130
2 a 0
U
z Paz
Z2
is
Q
Y
w
Y
Y
� u
} o
w
Y ;
F
Q t
w J
30
o�
J m
m.
w3
I>
F. W
Y
0
LL
Y
o
�. 0
QOY
OQ
W
2
0�0
0
W U
OJZ
wo
2 11 w
0
ww
� W
0
50
4
1 !
a
m
1
M
W
cr
D
I
2
1
W
�l
m
0°W
I
I
w
a00
pW
i
�m2
I o
J
22` 2
I
0Q
I
I
J
a
�
i
6
14y
y�;
* T
^
ko
I Y
N�6•'y a
1
l
I 9
I �
�
I
I u
ry� 1
V
1
I
m
1
_
1
Q 1
1
Q
-
W
/
c�
F
Q
1 Y
1 r ` Y
�etact
W
Y W
1
3
1
I
I
Wo
J
I8.
0 C)
0 ►-
Q
N �
3 :f o
>
W
�%
LU
W
b�
p
=
GPdr O
'z
WY �
I LL o
0
I o
2 U!
0
ZI o
a
t-0
a
j o a
W
Y
F
ElD
0 2
z
W13
r
CC
G
0
U
0 2
�
W
b r -
20
IL
o Q
W
r
0
—71— _
U
M
w
LL
O
t
1
1 Q
1
I
�e •e
1 4
+•
1
1
Q
1
4-3
1
j
0
Y
vo
P
a o
h
0
N
SHED,.
f W
L]
yt
9
�,a
0
IQ
I
ti
g� i3
8
s I�
IL
i
/ 1
\`
Y
Q
0
•
1
1
Y
d
u
6
y�
OI
O 4Y
�'
y`• v
=
1
a
1
�
1 r
i
4 ;
�
1
i
W
Y
0
J
Q
W 0
W n
0
f
Wm
0.
3 W
Q
W �
W
a
a
7
f
0
LL
N Z
Z N
0 00
Q
UO
OQ
cW
G
3
DJz
Z
Wm
20
2aW
O F'
W
W
� W
O
SO
S `
-72-
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
In the area of housing and community development, Monroe County
has just recently got off the ground. The broad information
base and extensive housing planning experience necessary for
the county in order to develop realistic strategies and programs
just do not exist. In spite of a number of studies and reports
produced in the past years, this is Monroe County's first attempt
in developing a comprehensive housing policy. It is intended
that this housing plan will be complimentary to the efforts of
other agencies involved in the planning of housing resources,
particularly the Monroe County Housing Authority. Since its
inception in 1969, the Housing Authority has been involved in
promoting housing for the low and moderate income residents of
the county, and in the recent years it has indicated positive signs
of realizing some of its goals. As part of its policy to
distribute housing opportunities for the low and moderate income
families throughout the Keys on an equitable basis, the Housing
Authority has concentrated its efforts towards Section 8 housing
to be. built in the Middle; Upper, and Lower Keys in the order of
priority.
Due to the very limited supply of older housing in the unincorporated
area, an extensive rehabilitation program cannot be justified as
a high priority item in the housing plan. The major emphasis must
be placed on the provision of new housing of different types and
in various price ranges. In order to influence the supply picture
• of the housing market, the most effective strategy at this point
-73-
in time is to promote construction of low and moderate income
housing. Realization of this objective will necessitate that the
gap between income and costs for adequate living accommodations
be bridged with a subsidy.
HOUSING FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES:
The efforts of the Monroe County Housing Authority are presently
aimed at providing rent supplements by way of Federal subsidies
while increasing the total amount of the housing stock available
to low and moderate income households by making new construction
economically available. The Federal program chosen for this
purpose is the "new construction" component of the HUD's Section 8
program. The Section 8 program provides for a rental assistance
payment to pay the difference between a family's "ability.to pay"
(15% - 25% of the family's income) and the cost of decent, safe, .
and sound rental property in the community. The program is strictly
a rental assistance program and does not in itself provide for
mortgage financing. Financing is expected to be obtained through
the private market. The proposed new construction in Monroe
County intended for Section 8 rental assistance is expected to be
financed by creating a special instrumentality to float bonds.
I
Statewide, the Section 8 new construction program has not been very
successful. The primary reasons for this are the inadequacy of
the fair market rents, the inability of HUD to provide long-term
financing, and the absence of State role in housing finance.
With careful planning and persistent efforts, some of these
obstacles could be overcome. But, where the new construction
-74-
program does have a substantial opportunity for success is in
combination with HUD's 202 Elderly Housing Program and FmHA's
515 Rural Rental Housing Program. In both cases, the financing
is a direct Federal loan and the interest rate on the loan is
sufficiently below the market rate to add security to the project.
It would behoove the county to explore further possibility of
combining one of these two programs with the "Section 8 new
construction" component. In the future, whether it will be by way
of Section 8 or conventional public housing that the county will
choose to meet the housing needs of low and moderate income
families is a matter of speculation. The success or failure of
county's present efforts on Section 8, and the ever changing
image of Federal regulations will largely determine the course
that the County will pursue in the future in the area of low and
moderate income housing.
As a means to encourage and stimulate new construction through
creative financing, the county should also explore feasibility
of establishing local housing finance program. Community
Development Block Grant Funds could provide seed money for such a
program to make low interest loans avilable to eligible borrowers
for new construction or rehabilitation. Another form of local
housing finance program would involve the use of mortgage
insurance rather than direct lending. This means that the local
housing agency would insure the repayment of mortgage loans made
by a private lending institution to eligible participants.
-75-
In any event, the problem of providing decent housing to low and
moderate income families remains one of the most challenging and
formidable tasks of the present era. In most cases of low and
moderate income families, the gap between the cost of housing and
the family's financial capacity to pay for a housing unit is so
vast that little can be achieved towards this goal without direct
government subsidies in one form or the other. Unfortunately, over
the past several years the flow of housing assistance funds,
particularly from the Federal government, has been slowing down,
and the present trends indicate that their availability in the future
remains quite unpredictable. Under these circumstances, the County
must take a positive approach by setting aside some resources to
supplement whatever Federal or State funds by way of rental and/or
homeownership assistance could be obtained and make a consolidated
effort involving both the public and private sector. Success in
this area will depend to a large degree on community's determination,
perseverance and commitment to a goal. Mere wishful thinking or
superficial, scattered and half-hearted efforts will leave much to
be desired in the end result.
NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY:
The provision of housing alone does not create a desirable
living environment. Equally important is the creation of high
quality neighborhoods in which people will want to live. The
information on housing units and households contained in this
report is useful in helping to define the quality of neighborhoods.
But in itself, the information is inadequate to fully analyze and
evaluate the existing neighborhoods.
-76-
It is important that the county establishes a neighborhood analysis
and area treatment program. The purpose of this program would be
classifying existing neighborhoods on the basis of analysis of a
number of physical, socio-economic, and public facilities/service
factors. The neighborhood classification scheme will be used to
identify types of actions necessary to upgrade neighborhoods to
"standard" conditions. The three tier system will classify
neighborhoods according to their conditions:
1. Conservation. This category represents- areas where
housing is basically sound and which contain relatively
few units- of a substandard nature (0-25%). Substandard
conditions in such areas could be corrected with a
minimum of public enforcement. Such neighborhoods
should be under a periodic surveillance, and instances
of blighted conditions referred to an appropriate agency
for action.
2. Rehabi1itati:on. These areas are those where 25 to 75% of
homes are in deteriorated condition. These area could be
further divided into modest rehabilitation (25 to 50%)
and concentrated rehabi'litatio.n (51 to 75%) on
the basis of the extent of deterioration. Within these
areas concentrated code enforcement program should be
undertaken. Where necessary, a program of increased
maintenance, service, and repair and replacement of
-77- _
deteriorating streets and other facilities should be
initiated as part of the capital improvement program in
order to avoid the need for more drastic action in the
future.
3. Restoration. This category will include areas where 50% or
more housing units warrant demolition, or 76% or more units
are in substandard condition, or where a new development
pattern can be used to correct adverse conditions based on
outmoded platting techniques.
These areas will have to be studied and analyzed in greater
detail with a view toward developing a detailed land use
and redevelopment plan for the area.
CODE ENFORCEMENT:
At the very core of any neighborhood improvement plan are code
enforcement and rehabilitation programs which provide the
mechanism for the plan to function. This would require the county
to adopt a housing code to provide minimum standards of safety,
sanitation, and occupancy. The condition and maintenance of the
structure and its utilities, and often occupancy standards, are
regulated by housing code. Enforcement of the code will provide
current and more comprehensive information on substandardness
needed to delineate in greater detail strategies for housing
assistance.
-78-
HOMEOWNERSHIP:
Homeownership is still an integral part of American Dream,but
over the years, the cost of fulfilling this dream has become
prohibitively steep. Increasing land and construction costs and
mounting inflation together have placed homeownership beyond the
financial means of a large percentage of Americans. In Monroe
County where the median household effective buying income in 1976
was reportedly approximately 23% lower than the U.S. median, and
nearly 4% lower than the State median, the task of providing
opportunities for homeownership becomes even more formidable.
As pointed out earlier in Chapter 2 of this report, nearly 80%
of the households living in Monroe County will be unable to buy an
average home costing over $50,000 today. Furthermore, a little
over 69% of the households cannot afford a house costing over
$37,500, approximately 47% cannot afford over $25,000, while nearly
36% have their financial limit at $20,000.* This,then, is the
magnitude of the problem which demands that these grim economic
statistics be given careful consideration when instituting a program
designed to promote homeownership.
*These figures are based on the percentage of households by
Effective Buying Income group for 1976 as published in the Sales
and Marketing Management's Survey of Buying Power, and the general
thumb -rule used by the lending institutions in our area which allow
a household to secure a mortgage for unit purchase equal to 2.5
times annual income.
-79-
There are two basic ways in which homeownership could be encouraged:
1. effort by private sector , and 2. a coordinated effort by both
public and private sectors with homeownership assistance. In an
effort to encourage private sector to take a lead in promoting
homeownership, the County must encourage the use of innovative
design concepts, construction techniques, and building materials
which would result in the reduction of housing costs. Manufactured
housing, because of its lower cost and availability locally holds
a good promise in this regard. At the present time, there are four
different brands of.manufactured homes locally available which are
approved by the Department of Community Affairs and which meet the
specifications of the Southern Standard Building Code. Average cost
of a 1000 sq.ft. manufactured home (pre-fab or modular) runs
between $27,000 to $34,000, depending upon the land elevation, size,
and location of lot and site design. The cost of such homes is
certainly lower than standard -built CBS homes, but it is still
beyond the reach of 40 to 50% of the households without some form
of assistance. Nonetheless, the efforts of the private sector in
experimenting with the new concepts, techniques, designs and
materials must be recognized; and, on its part, the County must
continuously evaluate its building code, zoning, subdivision
regulations, and construction permitting procedures with respect to
their cost implications and eliminate unnecessary elements where
they add undue costs to housing.
The second approach to promoting homeownership relies upon public
assistance. One of the prime long-term objectives of housing
assistance programs is to provide the low income family with an
.m
opportunity for upward mobility in the free housing market. The
underlying assumption of this objective is that a low or moderate
income family presently occupying publicly assisted housing would
like to own a house when the savings set aside by the family over
Years are sufficient. However, in most cases savings of low and
moderate income families, including those living in publicly assisted
housing, will not be large enough to match the high cost of home-
ownership without some kind of assistance. Such assistance can be
provided in a number of ways. The County can play an active role
by establishing a local housing finance program to make low interest
loans available to eligible borrowers or hold the second mortgage
for a low interest rate for those eligible home buyers who could
obtain the first mortgage from a private financial institution.
Such a Home Ownership Assistance Loan Program has been very success-
ful in Dade County.
Homeownership assistance could also be provided in the form of
subsidy as in the case of HUD's Section 235 homeownership subsidy
program and FmHA's Section 502 homeownership loan program. HUD's
Section 235 is a program of homeownership assistance for lower
income families which provides assistance in the form of -monthly
payment to mortgagee, which in effect reduces the interest costs
to as low as 5% if the homeowner cannot afford mortgage payment with
20 percent of his adjusted income. A buyer must pay at least 20
percent of his adjusted gross income, or the 5 percent adjusted
interest rate amount; whichever is the higher; HUD then pays the
balance of the total mortgage payment to the lender on his behalf.
Maximum annual adjusted family income limits established by HUD
for Monroe County as of February 1978 are:
-81-
.De Number of Persons in the Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
QQllars 8250 9400 10600 11800 12500 13250 14000 r: 14750
er A homeownership loan under this program requires a downpayment of
p' 3% on the first $25,000, plus 5% on the balance over-$25,000, and
provides mortgage up to $37,500 in high cost areas like South Florida.
;i This maximum mortgage limit which has been raised.recently from they'
t previous low limit makes this program more attractive and practical'`
than ever.
di% Under Section 235, an individual cannot directly apply to HUD for a
subsidy. Like Section 8, the program has to be set up locally from
;e the beginning. Due to the limited availability of funds under this
;t program, HUD makes allocation for a certain number of units for 'T
.n( each community in accordance with their criteria. After the _
770, community's application for the allocated units is approved by the
HUD, funds are set aside. But it is the community's responsibility`s
to set up a program which would involve financial institutions
;ut willing to participate, builders willing to conform to the FHA
specifications, and a local housing agency capable of administering `
is the program locally. It is also necessary to make homeownership `5
)rc counseling available to prospective homeowners before units are
nc built. Section 235 does not provide funds for land acquisition.
:sFunds for this purpose must come from other source like the CDBG,
to or a loan from the Florida Rural Housing Land Acquisition and Site
u� Development Assistance Trust Fund. This trust fund enables the. r,
n Secretary of the Department of Commjnity Affairs to make loans at a
3 percent interest rate to local governments, housing authorities,
and county commissions in rural areas for the purchase of raw land
and the development of homesites which could ultimately be sold at
cost to families of low and moderate income.
Under FmHA Section 502 rural housing loan program, loans are avail-
able to eligible low a.nd moderate income families for construction,
repair or purchase of housing. Restrictions on the use of the
loans are that: a dwelling financed for a family with a low or
moderage income must be modest in size, design and cost; an applicant
must be without adequate housing or without sufficient resources to
provide on his own account the necessary housing; and be unable to
secure the necessary credit from other sources upon terms and
conditions which he reasonably could be expected to fulfill; and
the housing must be located in a place which is rural in character.
It is important to emphasize that Monroe County's experience in
housing, particularly housing for low and moderage income families,
is very limited. The experience and information necessary to take
full advantage of various state and federal housing programs will
build up as the County endeavors to solve the housing problem. But
it must -be remembered that the housing problem transcends the
capability or jurisdiction of any single entity, public or private,
to achieve a solution. It would require a smoothly functioning
team effort among the private sector, the local community, and the
County, State, and Federal Governments to provide a solution to
the problem of housing.
"11
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Evaluation of implementing programs is an important part of the
housing delivery process. In order to insure that the efforts
are properly targeted, follow-up program monitoring is necessary.
Evaluation is also needed to asses effectiveness of programs,
and to help establish priorities among programs.
The only major housing program presently underway in the unincorpor-
ated area of Monroe County is the development of new assisted
housing for low and moderate income families through Section 8
(or conventional public housing). But it is expected that in the
course of time, more programs will evolve along the lines outlined
in this document
A tentative schedule of these programs
is presented in the "measurable objectives" which conform with
the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in this document and
the Housing Assistance Plan.
Evaluation of housing programs can be carried out through analysis
of the level of achievement of measurable objectives providing
compraison of the following three program aspects:
1. Accomplishment of program compared with objectives;
2. Accomplishment level and/or cost -per -service unit of
one program or project with another of -similar type
to the same community;
3. Accomplishment level and/or cost -per -service unit of
local programs/projects compared with similar programs
in other communities, or with some accepted "yardsticks".
-84-
Evaluation of ongoing programs on a continual basis will facilitate
the planning staff in the annual review and update of the Housing
Element along the lines laid out in the Land Use Plan. The
following are the specific procedures for utilizing program
evaluation recommended by the Department of Community Affairs:
1. Set measurable objectives for each program or functional area;
2. Provide forms to report needed data for evaluation of attain-
ment of objectives;
3. Determine the most appropriate evaluation techniques to be
utilized in measuring achievement;
4. Determine interim and final impact points --reporting times --
for each program area, target and/or project;
5. Provide time schedules to permit delivery of evaluation
results prior to the next planning cycle;
6. Include statements of measurable objectives for each program
area in the proposed housing plan;
7.
Include
review of measurable
objectives as part -of plan review;
8.
Include
modification/refinement
of measurable objectives
following review, as part of
plan modification/refinement;
9.
Provide
program evaluator with
monitoring reports for use in
evaluation;
10.
Conduct
evaluations to meet
schedule as decided;
11.
Deliver
program evaluations
at required intervals; and
12. Utilize evaluation data in the deliberations concerning
subsequent project planning and selection of appropriate
programs.
A NDIA
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 1
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK IN KEY WEST
1970 U.S. Census
Total No. of all housing units
All year-round units
Single Family
Multi Family
Mobile Homes
Total
5,086
53.1%
4,178
43.6%
310
3.2%
9,574
100%
Seasonal Units
Single Family=53.1% of 28 = 15
Multi Family =43.6% of 28 = 12
Mobile Homes = 3.2% of 28 = 1
Total No. of all
Housing
Units
broken down by structure
type:
1970 Census
Single
Family
5086 + 15
= 5101
Multi
Family
4178 + 12
= 4190
Mobile
Homes
310 + 1
= 311
Total
9602
9,602
9,574
RR
In order to bring this inventory up-to-date as of June 1977, the
number of new residential units built since 1970 census will be
added and those which were demolished or condemned since 1970
census deducted from the 1970 inventory.
*Number of new residential units built after 1970 Census
Year Single Family Multi -Family
1970 10 -
1971 18 4
1972 40 -
1973 12 -
1974 20 -
1975 16 -
1976 28 4
1977(thru Aug.) 7
Total 151 8
*Telephone conversations with Ms. Bean of the City of Key West
• Building & Zoning Dept., Sept. 1977.
*The total number of units demolished or condemned in the same
period is approximately 60.
Assuming 60% single family and 40% multi family
Single Family demolished or
condemned 36
Multi -family demolished or
condemned 24
** Condemned Navy
multi -family units 340
Total 400
Net gain in the housing stock since 1970 Census:
Single Family 151 - 36 = + 115
Multi -Family 8 -400 = - 392
MOBILE HOME STOCK IN KEY WEST
The number of mobile homes registered with the County Tax Collector's
Office is 226 as of January, 1977. Since this number did not appear
to reflect the correct count, (lower than the 1970 Census count of
311), each individual mobile home park was contacted by telephone
(Sept. 1977).
Key West Trailer Court
1015 Simonton St.
Total 39 spaces
22 Mobile Homes for year-round occupancy - owned
by the trailer court
100% occupied
Key West Villas Mobile Home Park
1300 15th Court
79 Mobile Homes for year-round occupancy
*Telephone conversations with ' Ms. Bean of the City of Key West
Building & Zoning Dept., Sept. 1977.
**Telephone conversation with Mrs. Montavon, Office of Navy Housing
Project Manager, Oct. 1977.
-87-
Stadium Mobile Home Park
1213 14th St.
280 Mobile HOmes for year-round occupancy
Maspic Trailer Park (Navy owned)
42 Lots
25 Mobile Homes
Total No. of Mobile Homes = 22 + 79 + 280 + 25 = 406
All housing units by structure type, July, 1977.
Single Family 5101 + 115 = 5216
Multi Family 4190 - 392 = 3782
Mobile Homes 406
All Units Total
9404
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 2
Monroe County
1970 Housing Stock (Based on 1970 U.S. Census)
All year-round Units
Single Family
10593
53.1%
Multi -Family
6157
30.9%
Mobile Homes
3183
16.0%
19933
100
Seasonal Units
Single Family
794 x
53.1 =
422
100
Extrapolated
Multi -Family
794 x
30.9 =
245
100
Mobile Homes
794 x
16 =
127
100
794
Total Housing Stock, 1970
Single Family 10593 + 422 = 11,015
Multi -Family 6157 + 245 = 6,402
Mobile Homes 3183 + 127 = 3,310
All Units 20,727
Unincorporated Area of Monroe County
1970 Housing Stock(Based on 1970 U.S. Census):
All year-round Units 10,170
Seasonal Units
Single Family
Multi -Family
Mobile Homes
Single Family
Multi -Family
Mobile Homes
5385
53.0%
2003
19.7%
2781
27.3%
10170
1 00
766 x 53 100 = 406
766 x 19.7 100 = 151
766 x 27.3 100 = 209
766
Total Housing Stock, 1970
Single Family 5386 + 406
Multi -Family 2003 + 151
Mobile Homes 2781 + 209
= 5792
= 2154
= 2990
10936
19933
794
766
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 3
• KEY WEST
Projections of Permanent Resident Ponulati.on
Year Population
1978
29200
1980
29500
1985
30100
1990
30700
1995
31500
2000
32200
Sources: 1.
Black,
Crow,
and Eidsness
Engineering &
Financial Report to F.K.A.A.
April,
1976
2.
Black,
Crow &
Eidsness
Monroe
County
201 Facilities Plan, 1977
KEY COLONY BEACH
1976 Population 1359
Source: University
of Florida
1990 Projected Population 1800
Source: Key Colony Beach General Development Plan
Milo -Smith & Associates, 1973
Projections of Permanent Res-i'dent Population
Year Population
1978
1438
1980
1517
1985
1675
1990
1800
1995
1885
2000
1960
Source: Monroe County Planning Dept., 1977
5y extrapolating permanent population
projections contained in the Monroe County
201 Wastewater Facilities Plan (1977),
population growth for Key Colony Beach
through 2000 was based on percentage resident
population growth of 201 study area.
-90- -
LAYTON
1976 Estimate of permanent population - 174
Source: University of Florida
Projections of Permanent Resident Population
Year Population
1978
184
1980
194
1985
214
1990
230
1995
241
2000
250
Source: Monroe County Planning Dept., 1977,
By extrapolating permanent population
projections contained in the Monroe County
201 Wastewater Facilities Plan (1977),
population growth for Layton through 2000
was based on percentage resident population
growth of 201 study area.
UNINCORPORATED AREA
1976 estimate of resident population - 26,777
Source: University of Florida
Projections of Permanent Resident Population
Year Population
1978 27578
1980 29089
1985 32111
1990 34470
1995 36074
2000 37490
Source: Monroe County Planning Dept., 1977,
Projections arrived at by subtracting
future population projections of Key West,
Key Colony Beach, and Layton from the
latest Monroe County population projections
published by the Bureau of Economic &
Business Research of the University of
Florida. •
-91-
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1970 Monroe County average household size - 2.8
(U.S. Census of Population, 1970)
According to the Bureau of Economic & Business Research(UoF)
the average household size has decreased by approximately 8%
since the 1970 Census.
Therefore, 1977 household size:
2.8 x .92 = 2.58
It is estimated by the Department of Community Affairs that
Florida's family size will decrease at a rate of one to two
percent a year. Assuming a steady decline of one percent a year
in the Monroe County household size, the following projections
have been made:
1978
2.55
1980
2.50
• 1985
2.38
1990
2.26
1995
2.15
2000
2.04
PROJECTIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS
n unincorporated area
Permanent Households:
Year
Resident
Population
Permanent
In Housing
Units/H.H. Size
Households
1985
(32111 x
.97) /2.38
13087
1990
(34470 x
.97) /2.26
14795
1995
(36074 x
.97) /2.15
16275
2000
(37490 x
.97) /2.04
17826
It is estimated
that approximately
3.5% of the
present permanent
population
is housed in group
quarters (mostly
in military
• barracks on
Naval Base). It is
assumed that on
the average, 3%
of the permanent population will be housed in group quarters at
any given time through the year 2000.
-92-
SEASONAL HOUSEHOLDS
The 1970 study by Milo Smith & Associates indicated that approx-
imately 25 to 30 percent of the households, not including the
Key West area, were seasonal residents. The recently accumulated
data and information indicate a considerable shift towards seasonal -
occupancy since 1970. It is estimated that the percentage of
seasonal households at the present time may be as high as 30 to 35%.
In light of the increasingly higher costs of maintaining two homes,
it is not likely that the percentage of seasonal households will
increase in the future. In fact, the present state of economy
and higher construction costs could be construed as indicating
a downward trend. However, for the purpose of projecting future
seasonal households, it has been assumed that 30% of all households
in any year through 2000 will be seasonal residents.
Year Permanent Seasonality
Households Factor
Total
Households
1985
13087 x
1.4286*
18696
1990
14795 x
1.4286
21136
1995
16275 x
1.4286
23250
2000
17826 x
1.4286
25466
*For 100 total households, 70 permanent and 30 seasonal:
Therefore, 70 - 100 100
l (�) 70 = 1.4285714
Therefore, for every one(1) permanent household, there Will be
.4286 seasonal households.
-93-
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 4
MONROE COUNTY CENSUS DATA, 1970
Population: 52586
Number of Housing Units 20727
Number of Households 16784
Average Household Size 2.893
Number of Families 13620
Average Family Size 3.262
SECTION 8 - HOUSING ASSISTANCE INCOME LIMITS FOR MONROE COUNTY:
HUD established
Effective as of January 17, 1978
1 Person
3 0
5 Persons
6700
VERY -LOW INCOME FAMILIES
2 Persons
4950
6 Persons
7200
3 Persons
5600
7 Persons
7700
4 Persons
6200
8 Persons
$8200
LOW INCOME
FAMILIES
1 Person
2 Persons
3 Persons
4 Persons
' 6950
7950
8950
9900
' 5 Persons_
6 Persons
7 Persons
8 Persons
10,550
$11,150
TT1,800
$12,400
-94-
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
1976 Median Household Income 11500
('HUD' computed median income for
Monroe County)
Convert 1976 median income into 1970
constant dollars:
CPI 1976 x MHI' 1976 = 1976 MHI in 1970 constant dollars
CPI 1970
CPI = Consumer Price Index
MHI = Median Household Income
0.587 x 11,500 = 7849.4
0.86 = approx. 7850
But, since the breakdown of families by income and size is not
available, the basis of income and family size cannot be used as
a determinant of families in need of housing assistance. Therefore,
the conventional formula of less than 80% of the median income has
been employed. as a criterion in determining low and very low income
families.*
Therefore, 7850 x .80 = 6280
*A low income family is defined as the family whose net income
is below 80% of the median income of the area; whereas, a very
low income family's net income is below 50% of the area's median.
-95-
1970 DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY INCOME
U.S. Census of Population, 1970
1 $1-999
2 $1,000-1,999
3 $2,000-2,999
4 $3,000-3,999
5 $4,000-4,999
6 $5,000-5,999
*7 $6,000-6,999
Total
Families in
Upper Keys
50
93
179
161
149
160
285x.28= 80 120x.28= 34 136x.28= 38
Families in Families in
Lower Kevs Middle Kevs
131
55
68
81
125
98
123
131
221
137
350
145
*Assuming uniform distribution of families in
each income bracket, 28% of the families in
income bracket 7 have been computed as earning
less than $6,280 per year.
TOTAL NUMBER OF FAMILIES IN NEED OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE IN 1970
• Lower Keys
1098
42.1%
Middle Keys
681
26.7%
Upper Keys
830
31.8%
Unincorporated
Area
2609
100%
In 1970, for every 1 family there was 1.23 household:
16784 = 1.23
13620
Therefore,
2609 families x 1.23 = 3209 Households in 1970
1976 HOUSEHOLD IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE
Total No. of Households in 1970 in Unincorporated Area of
County = 8015
Total No. of Households in Unincorporated Area
in 1976 = 26777 = 10299
2.6
Therefore, number of households in need of housing assistance
in 1976:
m
10299 x 3209 = 4123 households in need of housing
8015 assistance in 1976 in the Unincorporated
Area of Monroe County
-96-
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE BY GEOGRAPHICAL
SECTORS:
Assuming the 1970 percentage distribution of families of low and
very low income families will remain the same in 1976:
Lower Keys - 4123 x .421 = 1736
Middle Keys - 4123 x .261 = 1076
Upper Keys - 4123 x .318 = 1311
Unincorporated Area 4123 low and very low income.
h.ouseh_ol ds in 1 q76 i:n
need of h-ousing assistance
-97-
GLOSSARY
Assisted Housing
Housing built orsubstantially rehabilitated with financial
assistance from local, state, or federal government to benefit
low and moderate income families including handicapped and
elderly households.
Code Enforcement
Enforcement of locally adopted ordinances or regulations
that specify the minimum conditions under which dwellings
are considered fit for human habitation. Unsanitary conditions,
faulty wiring, inadequate heat, overcrowding, and structural
hazards are housing deficiencies that housing codes are designed
to identify and prevent or control.
"Conventional" Public Housing
Responsibility for development, ownership, and management
of public housing rests with the local housing authority.
The LHA acquires property, retains the architect and con-
tractor, and manages the development after completion.
Dilapidated
Those units which are structurally questionable or unsound.
They are in need of a major rehabilitation effort and to be
brought into compliance with minimum standards would require
major work at considerable expense. These units may be unfit
for human habitation and can be characterized by bad sills,
joists, rafters, sagging rooflines, cracked walls, broken or
missing piers, unstable foundations, and unsound steps or
stairs. They also may need replacement of siding, flooring,
studding, the roof, window casings, sanitary facilities and
other related deficiencies.
Deteriorating
Those units which are basically sound, but are in need of
substantial repairs, such as, painting, roofing, replacement
of siding, flooring, or screens. The repairs required are
more than a normal maintenance effort. These structures must
have good rehabilitation potential and can be characterized
by deteriorating eaves, rafters, and appurtenances.
Effective Buying Income(EBI)
EBI ....... is personal income less personal tax and non -tax
payments. Personal income is the aggregate of wages and
salaries, other labor income (such as employer contributions
to private pension funds), proprietor's income, rental income
-98-
(which includes imputed rental income of owner. -occupants of
non -farm dwellings), dividends paid by corporations, personal
interest income from all sources, and transfer payments (such
as pensions and welfare assistance). Deducted from this total -
are personal taxes (federal, state and local), non -tax payments'
(such as fines, fees, penalties), and personal contributions
for social insurance. The resultant figure is commonly known
as "disposable personal income". Market Statistics, the
research division of Bill communications that prepares the
Survey data, removes from this figure compensation paid to
military and diplomatic personnel stationed overseas to arrive
at Effective Buying Income.
Effective Buying Income is a bulk measurement of market
potential. It indicates the general ability to buy and is
essential in comparing, selecting, and grouping markets on that
basis".
(Sales and Marketing Management, "1977 Survey of Buying Power,
p. A-54, July 25, 1977)
Family
A family consists of two or more persons related by blood,
marriage, or operation of law.
Household
A household consists of all the people occupying a single
housing unit. The members of a household need not be related,
and a single person living alone in a housing unit is also
counted as a household.
All persons who are not members of households are regarded as
living in group quarters:
Housing Finance Agency
A public agency is created and authorized to issue tax-exempt
bonds. The low net interest cost on the money generated from
the sale of the bonds enables the agency to finance, at below
market interest rates, the construction of housing for qualified
low and moderate income persons. The savings achieved by the
agency borrowing its money at the lower tax-exempt rate is
passed on to the ultimate housing consumer.
Housing Unit
A house, an apartment, a group of rooms or a single room
occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters.
Mm
Low, Very Low and Moderate Income Households
A family or a household whose net income is below 80% of the
median household income of the area is considered a low income
household; whereas a very low income household is defined as
the one whose net income is below 50% of the area's median
household income.
A moderate income family or a household is defined as earing
less than the area's median household income. (These income
levels are subject to adjustments upward or downward for family
size).
Median Household Income
This fi4ure divides the income distribution into two equal
parts. If all households in the County were lined up in order
of income size, the household with the median income would
have half the households in front of it and half behind it.
It is considered a more reliable indicator of an area's
relative income level than is Average Household Income because
it is less likely to be skewed by statistical oddities.
Median Household
•' housing programs
by the HUD, and
Effective Buying
• Buying Power.
Rehabilitation
Income used for defining thresholds in most
is computed annually for each jurisdiction
is a little different than the Median Household
Income as computed annually in the Survey of
The restoration of deteriorated structures, neighborhoods,
and public facilities.
Section 8 Housing
HUD will provide housing assistance payments: on behalf of eligible
lower -income families (i.e., families whose income does not exceed
80 percent of median income for the locality) occupying newly con-
structed, substantially rehabilitated or existing housing. This
payment will make up the difference between the approved rent for
the unit and the amount the family is required to pay which is not
less than 15 percent or more than 25 percent of the family's
adjusted income. Housing projects may be owned by private owners,
both profit -motivated and non-profit, and by public housing agencies.
Subsidy - Any grant or aid furnished by a government to a private
vidual, commercial enterprise, charity organization or the like
for an undertaking to which a private interest is imputed. The
term includes aid to promote social services and housing production,
or rehabilitation.
-100-
Substandard- A housing unit is classified as substandard if it '
lacks some or all plumbing (hot and cold piped water, flush toilet,
and bathtub or shower) or if it is designated deteriorating or
dilapidated because of other structural deficiencies.
-101-
REFERENCE MATERIAL
1. Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc., Population Projections
for the Monroe County 201 Facilities Plan, January, 1977.
2. Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc., Monroe County 201 Wastewater
Facilities Plan Executive Summary, 1977.
3. Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc., Engineering & Financial Report
to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, April 1976.
4. Bureau of Economic & Business Research, University of
Florida; Florida Statistical Abstract 1976.
5. Bureau of Economic & Business Research, Division of Population
Studies, University of Florida; Projection of Florida
Population for 1978-2000, 1976.
6. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Housing in Florida-
1977.
7. Florida Department of Community Affairs, A Housing Planning
Workbook for Local Governments.
.•
8. Florida Department of Administration and Department of
Community Affairs, Housing & Community Development Element
of the State Comprehensive Plan, 1976.
9. Hillsborough County Planning Commission, Hillsborough
County Housing Element, 1977.
10. Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff, Monroe County Land Use
Plan -Update, 1974.
11. Miami Herald, New FHA Rules Mean Cheaper Loans, November 6, 1977.
12. Milo Smith & Associates, Inc., Environment & Identity - a
Plan for Development in the Florida Keys, 1970.
13. Monroe County Housing Authority, Monroe County Housing
Assistance Plan, 1977.
14. Monroe County Planning Department, Monroe County Land Use
Plan, 1977.
15. Munroe County Planning Department, Inventory of Public
Recreation Facilities in Monroe County, 1976.
• 16. National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officials,
Developing Local HousinLq Strategies under the Housing and
_ Community Development Act of 11975.974;
• 17. Report of Monroe County Human Resources Development Study
Committee, 1972.
-102-
18. Sales & Marketing Management, Survey of Buying Power,
July, 1977.
19. South Florida Regional Planning Council, Housing -Regional
View, 1975.
20. South Florida Regional Planning Council, Housing Chapter -
Regional Guide; 1973, Revised 1977.
21. South Florida Regional Planning Council, Regional Housing
Market Analysis -Technical Report, 1977.
22. South Florida Regional Planning Council, Summary of Regional
Housing Workshops, 1977.
23. South Florida Regional Planning Council, Working Session on
Housing Resources, 1976.
24. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce; U.S. Census
of Population and Housing, 1970.
25. Watkins, Kent, and Efraim Turban; The South Florida Builder,
submitted to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, 1975.
-103-
RESOURCE INDIVIDUALS
1. Mr. Edison Archer, Realtor, Islamorada
2. Ms. Madeline Bean, Administrative Aide, The City of Key
West Public Service Department, Key West.
3. Mrs. Mariette Center, City Clerk, City of Key Colony Beach.
4. Mr. George Demas, South Florida Regional Planning Council,
Miami.
5. Mr. Paul Gibson, Jr., Ass't to Sup't of Engineering, Utility
Board of the City of Key West, Key West.
6. Mr. Oliver Kerr, Section Supervisor, Metropolitan Dade
County Planning Department, Miami.
7. Mr. Edward B. Knight, Realtor, Key West.
8. Mr. Fred Kray, General Manager, Florida Keys Electric,
Tavernier.
9. Mr. Jeff Lawlor, Senior Staff Engineer, Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority, Key West.
10. Capt. Del Layton, Mayor, City of Layton.
11. Mr. Bart Lewis, Statistician, Division of Population Studies,
Bureau of Economic & Business Research, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
12. Mrs. Ruth Montavon; Administrative Assistant, Navy Housing
Project, Key West.
13. Mr. Ray Myeres, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Board, City
of Key Colony Beach.
14. Mr. Jack Osterholt, South Florida Regional Planning Council,
Miami.
15. Mr. Larry Rogers, Executive Vice Pres.,Key West Chamber of
Commerce, Key West.
16. Mr. Joseph J. Scafuti, Assistant Director, Monroe County
Housing Authority, Key West.
-104-