The URL can be used to link to this page

Item H1BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: May 20, 2015 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes No X Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley 289-2517 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation and discussion of the Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report prepared by the FCRC Consensus Center, FSU. ITEM BACKGROUND: In August, 2014, the BOCC approved an agreement with the FCRC Consensus Center, FSU, for professional services on an Affordable Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment, in order to assess the current affordable housing situation in the County and propose a process for developing recommendations. The Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, dated April, 2015, sets out the context for addressing workforce housing issues and uses interviews, meetings, and review of data and documents to assess stakeholder perspectives on the County's workforce housing challenges. Based on this stakeholder input, the report summarizes the themes, concerns, issues, and interests that stakeholders believe ought to be considered in addressing workforce housing needs in Monroe County, and suggests the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) be reconvened to jointly define the workforce problems faced, review the range of issues and options identified in the report and previous studies, and develop a package of findings and recommendations over a 7-9 month period. The report also provides recommendations on both the composition of the AHAC and the duties assigned to the AHAC. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: At a regular meeting held on July 16, 2014, the BOCC directed staff to review the current situation regarding the number of affordable housing units in the County and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and to suggest a process to recommend changes or further action. At a regular meeting held on August 20, 2014, the BOCC discussed a possible need to reconvene the Monroe County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and also approved an agreement with the FCRC Consensus Center, FSU, for professional services on an Affordable Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: TOTAL COST: N/A INDIRECT COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes No N/A DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No N/A AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A Year APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required_ DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # u MONROE COUNTY WORKFORCE HOUSING STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT REPORT APRIL 2015 Monroe County Affordable Housing Permits Lower Keys �. . .e Middle Keys Upper Keys OW 5— Mons C 1y.a Mr%-- PWWgo.M— e ABordable Housing Permits Mlle Markers Assessment Report Prepared by: Robert Jones, Director FCRC Consensus Center, Florida State Uniersity GOSTa ER ASSESSMENT®RT TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents.............................................................--................................................ 2 .Executive Summary................................................................................................... 3 I. ASSESSMENT SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION ..........................................................10 II. WORKFORCE HOUSING IN MONROE COUN ®CONY T......— ............................11 III. WORKFORCE HOUSING CHALLENGES- IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES ..............14 A. WORKFORCF HOUSING S"'r,AKl�'110I.,DFR PERSPI"c,rIVIws COMMON TIFI'EMI S .............................14 B. WORKFORCI l HOUSING STAKFI IOLDFIR P1,ASPFC'I`1VFS COMMON ISSUES..................-.........,...15 C. STAKI'� I IOLDER IDE.1S AND ISSUES- MATRIX...................................................................................16 D. STAK11IOI.D1`,R IDLAS .AND PFRSPFC°ITffS............ ............................... ...... --.... .................... ,... —.22 1. County Government Perspective and Ideas.,... .... —.......................... ....... ....................... ......... —22 2. Municipal Government Perspectives and Ideas ......... --- ......................... --.............................. 24 3. State Government Ideas and Perspectives ............ -.... .............................. --........................ ,.... .26 4. Education Ideas and Perspectives ...... .................................... --..................... — ...... .................... 27 5. Development Ideas and Perspectives ........................ .a,,,...................... ,.......... .,...................... ,... a28 6. Lodging, Hospitality and Tourist Development Ideas and Perspectives.... . ........................ —29 7. Business Sector Ideas and Perspectives.. ..................... .................. .................... 31 8. Non Profit Sector Ideas and Perspectives ............. ............ ................... ..........34 9. Military Sector Ideas and Perspectives....... ................ In IV. WORKFORCE HOUSING PROCESS- STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ................38 A. INFORMATION NFLDL";D TO INFORM CONSENSUS BUIL,DING.i ON WORKFORC IE I IOUSING o ........38 B. WORKFORCIax HOUSING PROC PISS-•S°T AKEIFOL.DER PERSPFCTIVLS...............................................42 V. WORKFORCE HOUSING IN MONROE COUNTY -.-NEXT STEPS................................44 Appendices 1. List of Interviews/Meetings....,a........................................................................................................4.5 2. Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Ordinance ,,...................................................---.......A8 3. Workforce Housing Assessment Background Papers............-......................................................50 4. Workforce Housing Roundtable Summary of Comments, August 2014....................................51 5. Public Comment Email..........................................................--..............................--......................56 6. "Affordable Housing White Paper", September 2014, Donald Craig, AICP Director of Planning & Nicole Maio, AICP Planner, City of Key West. .......... -- .... .... ...................... -57 7. Draft Sample Advisory Committee Procedures and Protocols .... ........................................ —.—.58 8. Information on the FCRC Consensus Center, FS1.i.......................................--...........................68 Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 2 STAKEHOLDERMONROE COUNTY WORKFORCE HOUSING ASSESSMENT REPORT- ! ! ExECUTIVE SUMMARY Monroe County faces the quadruple impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and environmental features, housing supply limited by controlled growth (the Rate of Growth Ordinance) and a tourism economy with a prevalence of lower paying service -sector employment. In August 2014 the Monroe County Commission approved a stakeholder assessment effort, to be conducted by the FCRC Consensus Center at Florida State University (Consensus Center), to solicit perspectives and ideas on workforce housing challenges and on whether a county -wide consensus building effort should be convened to address the complex issues surrounding workforce housing in the Florida Keys. This assessment report sets out the context for addressing workforce housing issues and used interviews, meetings and review of data and documents to assess stakeholder perspectives on the County's workforce housing challenges. These perspectives include county, city, regional, state and federal government levels, housing and tourist development leaders in Monroe County, the business and tourist community and non- profit community and civic organizations. Based on this stakeholder input, the assessment report summarizes the themes, concerns, issues, and interests that stakeholders believe ought to be considered in addressing workforce housing needs in Monroe County. (See below) The workforce housing affordability crisis in the Florida Keys identified by the Monroe County Commission in 2014 is real. "Cost -burdened" households pay more than 30% of income for rent or mortgage costs. In 2013, 51% (or 16,849) of Monroe County households pay more than 30% of income for housing while statewide that figure is 43%. More than half of Monroe County renters are cost burdened (8,350 of 14,002) while about 45% of Monroe County homeowners are cost burdened (8,499 of the 18,936). In November 2014 the United Way of Florida released its report, ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed: Study of Financial Hardship, which indicates that nearly half of all Monroe County households (14,221of 29,241) live above the federal poverty line but still struggle to afford basic expenses including housing, child care, food, transportation and health care.' The Report also evaluates community conditions for each of Florida's counties using a weighted "Economic Viability Dashboard" in three core areas using a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).' Monroe County's results area as follows: Core Areas Ratiflf Grade Housing Affordability 40% 14 of 100 Poor job Opportunities 40% 67 of 100 Good Community Support 20% 48 of 100 Poor 1 The Report was initially developed in New Jersey and now five other states including Florida, California, Michigan, Indiana and Connecticut, have used the model and developed reports in 2014. :.a a p c.ra2°u d:roz�a.a ' au��itaaaG u2015 flAQ,��r�uflal� ,bona°glow llz�r➢➢�u-anan w�a�v�q„rsaroq.r �"sasvb?la��<m ass 9.a�r�s�.k 2 The Index provides the means to compare counties in Florida and to see changes over time. The Housing Affordability area includes three key indicators including: the Household Survival Budget (quantifying the cost of the housing, child care, food, health care, transportation); health insurance; and housing burden. The Job Opportunities area includes three key indicators including - Income Distribution; Employment Rate; and New Hire Wages. The Community Support area includes three key indicators: Violent crime rate; the annual payroll of human services nonprofits per capita; and Access to good basic health care. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder ,assessment Report, April 2015 3 The findings of all of several recent reports on Monroe County's current housing situation confirm that there is a significant and growing shortage of affordable workforce housing, both rental and ownership. In addition there exists a policy gap in that affordable housing for the working and middle classes is largely left to individual municipalities and counties to deal with. Over 75 persons participated in the interviews and meetings and identified a range of workforce housing issues. While some offered perspectives from the same sector, they live and work in different parts of the Keys and the ideas they offer are not necessarily the same as others sharing that perspective. However, across the various perspectives the following emerged as six common themes regarding key workforce housing issues: 1. A Shared vision of success for Workforce Housing in Monroe County 2. Take Action on Workforce Housing 3. Build upon the past affordable housing studies and reports 4. Defining the problem first based on data 5. Seek a balanced package of options as there is no single strategy that will solve the workforce housing crisis 6. View housing as community infrastructure, like transportation and water supply Issues generally identified as important from most perspectives included: 1. Addressing the ROGO system and workforce housing, including transfers and fractional ROGOs ,,�j/� 2. Density and livable workforce housing moll 3. Relaxing height restrictions in light of Federal flood insurance changes and to create more workforce housing 4. Monroe Housing Authority role in workforce housing 5. Transportation and its relationship to and role in workforce housing 6. Workforce Housing site identification and audit of publicly owned property. 7. Creation of new workforce housing units that are both affordable and livable with development incentives and public private partnerships 8. Preservation and maintenance of existing workforce housing and incentives to preserve workforce housing 9. Related workforce issues due to high cost of housing (insurance, childcare, food insecurity etc.) 10. County, City and state affordable housing policies and regulations including length of deed restrictions 11. Explore and expand funding sources to expand workforce housing in Monroe County The Stakeholder Assessment sought to identify how different stakeholders viewed the challenges of workforce housing facing Monroe County and its residents. The over 50 issues and ideas identified and summarized from the many interviews and meetings, help to shed light on the complexity of the issues and on the healthy diversity of views on how to best address the challenges even among those sharing the same stakeholder perspective. The assessment interviews were conducted with the understanding that the themes and ideas identified would be shared with the Commission and inform any committee that would engage in subsequent consensus building on workforce housing solutions. It was also understood that individual views would not be attributed but the related themes perspectives would be summarized. The report provides input from following perspectives: County Government; City Government; Education; Development; 0 Lodging/Hospitality/Tourism; Business; Non Profit; and Military. Over 50 workforce housing ideas and Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 4 esogigl issues were identified in the Assessment from different perspectives in the following categories: Overall Workforce Housing Planning& Zoning 1. No single solution, menu of options 1. Create a County Workforce Housing Development Plan 2. Build on work to date (studies, task forces, etc.) 2. Consider adjusting height restrictions to increase 3. Target different levels of workforce to provide workforce housing WH 3. Allow increased density for WH 4. Engage private and public sector employers in 4. Tax Credit Property Management after 15 yrs. finding WH solutions 5. Encourage mixed use 5. Political will to implement solutions 6. Explore "Micro Housing" 6. Focus on rental housing 7. Enforce Housing Codes 7. Addressing NIMBY and workforce housing 8. ROGO Allocations and Transfers, Fractional ROGO 8. Encourage public private partnerships for WH for WH 9. Encourage WH affordability and livability 9. ROGO Formula 10. Support living wages in the Keys 10. Address redevelopment and WH 11. Expand the Keys economy beyond tourism 11. Encourage commercial construction of WH by reducing 12. Address negative impacts on Keys communities of impact fee. transient workforce 12. Explore and assess the role of live -aboard boats in WH 13. Clarifying workforce housing and affordable 13. Encourage hospitality industry and the commercial housing definitions sector to build WH Workforce Housing Funding Preserve Existing Workforce Housing 1. Workforce housing site identification and audit 1. Preserve/maintain affordable units 2. Remedy Sadowski Trust Fund donor inequity 2. Address "lost" AH/WH units 3. Land Authority funds for workforce housing 3. Revisit land trusts as a tool construction 4. Provide for "no net loss" principle of affordable & 4. Dedicated local funding for workforce housing workforce housing in the County housing element 5. Consider inclusionary WH fee 5. Adopt a "lease form" for local governments owning 6. Address online marketplace for vacation rentals underlying land for WH that connects users with property to rent with 6. Address loss of deed restrictions for AH users looking to rent the space(e.g. AirBnB) and 7. Address RV/Trailer Parks as WH and conversion issues its impact on bed tax revenue 7. Provide assistance to workforce renters (down payment/deposit) Workforce Houstn& I ranortation Workforce Housing & Related Issues 1. Increase highway capacity to adjust ROGO 1. Address related issues insurance costs- wind evacuation formula 2. Address 2018 FEMA flood insurance issues. 2. Address related issues- Transportation options for 3. Address related issues- Daycare employees 4. Homelessness & Workforce Housing 3. Address & improve transit issues in the upper and 5. Protect military buffer areas lower Keys 6. Address "food security" (i.e. access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life) and workforce housing. Workforce Housing & Site Identification Workforce Housing Construction 1. Audit Local Government owned public lands for 1. Waive building fees for WH WH 2. Buy down interest rates for WH projects 2. Re -purpose land owned by local government for 3. Cut taxing rates on WH WH 4. Commercial properties for WH-tax and insurance breaks 3. Focus all 3-tier vrot)erties on XXTI Workforce Housing & the Education Sector 1. Engage the school system as largest employer 2. Improve teacher housing needs data Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder .Assessment Report, April 2015 em Monroe County staff has gathered detailed baseline data that included an inventory of affordable and workforce housing projects completed over the past 2 decades in Monroe County, along with the public incentives that were made to assist in the housing development. In the course of the assessment interviews and meetings, various studies and data sources were identified on best practices from other jurisdictions and ideas developed or considered but not implemented by previous affordable housing task forces. Among the range of stakeholders interviewed, all expressed the need for a focused and comprehensive county -wide workforce housing dialogue that involved those with a stake in the outcome. Many believed that such a committee should develop a package of consensus recommendations, informed by data and the range of stakeholder and public perspectives, that can provide for both short and longer term actions for the Board of County Commission's consideration. While some of those interviewed remained skeptical that there will be sufficient "political will" to implement the Committee's recommendations as has been the case in the past, many believed that this was an urgent and timely issue for the County to address in light of hotel redevelopment and the economic upturn. In the Fall of 2014, following the initiation of this Assessment, the Commission re -appointed members to the existing Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and with the thought of convening and charging them with addressing workforce housing issues and providing the County Commission with its recommendations. The reconvened committee would review this assessment report and other data as it addressed its charge. A workforce housing committee, ad hoc or otherwise, appointed and charged by the County Commission to address workforce housing issues in the Florida Keys was explored in the assessment interviews. A significant number of those interviewed applauded the County Commission's action in re -purposing the existing Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to focus, at least in the short term, on workforce housing. It was suggested that this approach could provide representation from each District in the County, offer workforce housing perspectives from the public, private and nonprofit sectors, and minimize confusion and any duplication of effort that an ad hoc workforce housing committee might create. It was also pointed out that this charge would be consistent with the Committee's current mission to address affordable housing opportunities in Monroe County for both "residents and workforce." The Commission should review the current Committee appointments to ensure that a balance of workforce housing stakeholder perspectives are included in its membership. If the Commission charges the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to develop consensus recommendations on workforce housing actions for consideration by the Monroe County BOCC, most stakeholders interviewed suggested there should be a sufficient range of stakeholder perspectives represented and participating in the consensus building. This would allow the Committee to develop informed workforce housing consensus findings and recommendations that stakeholders might support and the County Commission could act upon. There is a great deal of public and stakeholder interest in the workforce housing issues the Committee will take up. The membership requirements, as set forth in both Florida statute and the Monroe County Resolution, do not reference representation of the municipalities in the County, the military, the School Board and perhaps other organizations impacted by workforce housing policies and programs and with a stake in contributing to solutions to improve the availability of workforce housing in the Florida Keys. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder assessment Report, apnl 2015 t0l Lowe r Keys ' , r , Al !°'..'W�'i�"� �''W'". T" v 0' The format for the Committee meetings should encourage constructive public and stakeholder input. The Commission might consider charging the Committee with establishing an engagement strategy to involve a broader range of stakeholders in their development of findings and recommendations. This might be accomplished through opportunities for public input during their own meetings, as well as through Committee sponsored advisory workgroups, joint workshops with municipal taskforces and city commissions, workshops at key moments in the development of options and recommendations, online surveys and other techniques. It was observed by many that an advisory committee developing recommendations on workforce housing will require dedicated staff, including legal and planning expertise, and facilitation support for the Committee to do its work expeditiously. This is because of the complexity of the charge, the intense public interest in the issue, the linkages with other issues and programs and activities in the public, private and non-profit sectors, and the desire for timely actions to address the current workforce housing challenges. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners should review this Assessment Report and charge the Affordable Housing Committee to focus its efforts in the coming year on workforce housing. With a charge from the County Commission, the Committee should establish its procedures and approach and a schedule for meetings that would permit it to deliver back to the BOCC its workforce housing recommendations by mid-2016. The Committee should consider: • Developing a shared vision of success; • Jointly defining the workforce problems faced in the Florida Keys; • Reviewing the range of issues and options identified in previous studies; • Reviewing the experience and lessons learned with successful workforce housing projects developed in the Keys to date; • Reviewing this Stakeholder Assessment Report; and • Developing a package of consensus findings and recommended solutions for consideration by the Monroe County Board of County Commission. This stakeholder assessment report confirms that there is wide agreement that Monroe County is facing a significant and growing workforce housing crisis with shortages for both affordable rental and ownership units. There is also agreement that no single strategy will solve the workforce housing crisis in Monroe County. Instead the challenge ahead is to craft a balanced package of targeted options that have been refined through discussion and debate and that can serve as a consensus framework for addressing and implementing solutions. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 '• •; •' • • I. ASSESSMENT SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION Monroe County faces the quadruple impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and environmental features, housing supply limited by controlled growth (the Rate of Growth Ordinance) and a tourism economy with a prevalence of lower paying service -sector employment. In August 2014 the Monroe County Commission approved a stakeholder assessment effort, to be conducted by the FCRC Consensus Center at Florida State University (Consensus Center), to solicit perspectives and ideas on workforce housing challenges and on whether a county -wide consensus building effort should be convened to address the complex issues surrounding workforce housing in the Florida Keys. The 2005 Harvard report, "Strengthening the Workforce and Communities through Housing Solutions" suggests, solutions to the workforce housing challenge require a broad - based, proactive approach.' This stakeholder assessment engaged a broad range of public, private and non profit stakeholders to clarify substantive issues involved, options to consider, information needed and process and coordination issues. This assessment report sets out the context for addressing workforce housing issues and used interviews, meetings and review of data and documents to assess stakeholder j perspectives on the County's workforce housing challenges. These perspectives include county, city, regional, state and federal government levels, housing and tourist development leaders in Monroe County, the business and tourist community and non-profit community and civic organizations. Based on this stakeholder input, the assessment report summarized the themes, concerns, issues, and interests that stakeholders believe ought to be considered in addressing workforce housing needs in Monroe County. The assessment seeks to address the following questions: 1. What are the range of affordable workforce housing and related issues from the perspectives of County, City, State and Federal housing and tourist development leaders, the business and tourist community and the non-profit community and civic organizations and residents? 2. What are the linkages with development and land use issues, transportation mobility? 3. What interests, organizations and individuals should participate in a stakeholder county -wide committee process to develop consensus recommendations on affordable workforce housing issues in Monroe County? How Should the County convene a stakeholder committee to develop recommendations on workforce housing in Monroe County and its cities? 4. What is needed in terms of base line current data on workforce housing programs in s bttni.!. .Sara !T 1➢ a p end'au�., "By the time a workforce housing affordability- problem begins to affect the bottom line, the forces that contribute to high housing costs have long been in place and are difficult to reverse. For the housing and business communities to forestall such an outcome, they must establish a working relationship characterized bN respect, trust, and an awareness of each other's interests. They must have access to information about the causes of the affordability problem and data that demonstrate its effects." Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, „April 2015 10 %r Monroe County? What information and data on best practices should be considered in any subsequent stakeholder consensus building process? II. WORKFORCE HOUSING4 IN MONROE COUNTY- CONTEXT The workforce housing affordability crisis in the Florida Keys identified by the Monroe County Commission in 2014 is real. "Cost -burdened" households pay more than 30% of income for rent or mortgage costs. In 2013, 51% (or 16,849) of Monroe County households pay more than 30% of income for housing while statewide that figure is 43%. More than half of Monroe County renters are cost burdened (8,350 of 14,002) while about 45% of Monroe County homeowners are cost burdened (8,499 of the 18,936). In November 2014 the United Way of Florida released its report, ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed: Study of Financial Hardship, which indicates that nearly half of all Monroe County households (14,221of 29,241) live above the federal poverty line but still struggle to afford basic expenses including housing, child care, food, transportation and health care.' The Report also evaluates community conditions for each Florida county using a weighted "Economic Viability Dashboard" in three core areas employing a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).' Monroe County's results area as follows: `ore Areas Rating Grade Housing Affordability 40% 14 of 100 Poor job Opportunities 40% 67 of 100 Good ,Community Support 20% 48 of 100 Poor 4 Workforce housing can refer to any form of housing, including ownership of single or multi -family homes, as well as occupation of rental units. Workforce housing is generally understood to mean saf&'oa°u:i<ible h aaushig for households with earned income that is insufficient to secure quality housing in reasonable proximity to the workplace. The term "workforce" is meant to connote those who are gainfully employed, a group of people who are not typically understood to be the target of affordable housing programs. Workforce housing, then, implies an altered or expanded understanding of affordable housing. Workforce housing is commonly targeted at "essential workers" in a community i.e. police officers, firemen, teachers, nurses, medical personnel. However resort communities generally define "essential' more broadly to include service workers, as they often are characterized by high real estate costs and a high number of low -paying service•jobs essential to the local tourism economy. 5 The Report was initially developed in New Jersey and now five other states including Florida, California, Michigan, Indiana and Connecticut, have used the model and developed reports in 2014. gs�uiatiP;,: a a`�.,6nlnear➢�arao:au.aao°h= ar��flm:uaa�a�, �wa.ulsAaaad�pAa�ars, IAA: zaa.u°,,anpa ate, 2015 (fl s u¢3a GuaaN�lla,,Vu.0 abux `aa�s�hua�. f<ana hed , Gau floi:Ui 6 The Index provides the means to compare counties in Florida and to see changes over time. The Housing Affordability area includes three key indicators including: the Household Survival Budget (quantifying the cost of the housing, child care, food, health care, transportation); health insurance; and housing burden. The Job Opportunities area includes three key indicators including: Income Distribution; Employment Rate; and New Hire Wages. The Community Support area includes three key indicators: Violent crime rate; the annual payroll of human services nonprofits per capita; and Access to good basic health care. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 11 KEY FACTS AND A -LICE STATISTICS FOR ON OE COUNTY (From lbe, tLICE, Florida Reporl: S111(j1 of I-,'illalmial Harddlip, Vall, 2014, , 1ppeudiv 1-1) Big Coppitt Key /Monroe County Population Households Poverty% ALICE Above ALICE Unemplqy Housing Burden over Housing Burden over % Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 2016 833 12% 35% 53% 9% 55% 72% Bi Pine ev/Monr e Coun. Population Households Poverty % ALICE Above AI.ICE -jilou ing Burden over Housing Burden over Thresh % ment Ratete 35% Owner 35% Renter 3777 1619 10% 35% 1 56% 144% 0/6 Ke Lar /Monroe County Population Households Poverty % ALICE Above ALICE Unemplg- Housing Burden over Housing Burden over % Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 11409 4517 15% 38% 47% 9% 44% 57% Key West Population Households Poverty % ALICE Above ALICE Unemplg- Housing Burden over Housing Burden over I % Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 24870 9322 35% 56% 4% 44% 68% _L2' .Lower _ S/Monroe County . . . ....... -- El Above ALICE Unemplqy- Population households Poverty d10 T ALJCJ Housing Burden over Housing Burden over I I % I Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 18% 123! L.62% 5% 42% 56% .103914314 Marathon Population Households Poverty % ALICE 4boveALICE, Unemp1q), Housing Burden over Housing Burden over % Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 8389 3371 14% 41% 45% 9% 40% 65% Middle Kegs/Monroe Count Population Poverty CE Above ALICE Unemplq - Housing Burden over Housing Burden over % Threshold mentRate35% Owner 35% Renter 9731 4068 13% 40% 47% 10% 42% 64% North Ke Largo/ onroe Co ntV Po pu . 0 Households Poverp, % ALICE Unemplqy- Housing Burden over Housing Burden over P Above ALICE I I Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 1 510 1 11% 2�00/. �690/.J4% J_36% 125% .1166 Stock Island/ Monroe Coun Population Households Poverty % -ILICE, Above ALICE Une,-,yp1g- Housing Burden over Housing Burden over Thnshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 3736 1111 14% 162% 24% 8% 53% 69% Tavernier/ Monroe Coun- — — - - — - - - - - - - - I -�1�67 Population Households Poveqy"��O- ALICE Above Tnemplqy- Housing Burden over Housiq Burden over I T% I Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 2491 953 6% 146% 148% 7% 46% 37% UppeKeys/Monroe Coun . .... '-1j7ousin'C�urde-n Population Households I Poverty % I [�;lfboveALI e�r�' ne;;-- - PI?y over 17ousingg-Burden over Pi I 0/110 Threshold ment Rate m(nT, 35% Owner 5% Renter F21234 18633 113% 137% 150% 19% 143% 154% Monroe ('ountv Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 12 jpl, The findings of all of several recent reports on Monroe County's current housing situation confirm that there is a significant and growing shortage of affordable workforce housing, both rental and ownership. In addition there exists a policy gap in that affordable housing for the working and middle classes is largely left to individual municipalities and counties to deal with. In Monroe County an hourly wage needed to afford a two -bedroom FMR is $26.27/hour.' In order not to pay more than 30% of family income on housing, a household must earn $4,553 monthly or $54,640 annually. The findings of all of the reports on Monroe County's current housing situation confirm that there is a significant and growing shortage of affordable workforce housing, both rental and ownership. A significant portion of the current workforce housing in Monroe County is rental and there is a large rental housing deficit. As is the case throughout Florida, there has been increase in the demand for rental housing in Florida following the great recession and subsequent housing, crisis, particularly among younger households and families with children. Statewide, the percent of households renting increased from 29.4 percent in 2007 to 34.4 percent in 2012 (American Community Survey, 2012; Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, University of Florida, 2013)." The Shimberg Center has found that affordable rental shortages are most pronounced in southeast Florida. (SCHS, 2013). In an Affordable Housing Solutions White Paper (October 2014)' Donald Craig, Planning Director for the City of Key West, projected a deficit of amore than 6,500 units of affordable housing units in the City and characterized the affordability challenge as follows: "The City's Comprehensive Plan identified the City of Key West median household income as $52,004 while the average annual wages earned by a worker in the City are approximately $37,844 indicating that by standard guidelines for mortgage lending at the median level, a home should cost no more than $166,012, or three times the median income. This is clearly inconsistent with actual cost of housing in the City, when the Key West Board of Realtors reports that at the end of July 2014 the median sales prices of 162 single family homes sold in the preceding 7 months was $630,000 and the median sales prices for Condo/Townhouses was $368,000. Clearly persons and families making the median income or average wage cannot afford for -sale housing, even if such were being built. As to rental housing, the situation is not better. Even though dated and most assuredly higher, the 2010 reported median gross monthly rent in the City was $1,359. In order to be affordable to the average wage earner in the City, the monthly rent should be no more than $946. Rent such as this is not available in the City at this point and time and results in workers sharing housing in increasing numbers, or paying 40-50% of their income for housing." 7 "Out of Reach 2014: Florida", qu�a�,, njkha, org d rot, 2(a 1 1; V D.,, National Low Income Housing Coalition 8 Affordable Housing White Paper- Donald Craig, AICP Director of Planning & Nicole Malo AICP,Planner, City of KeyWest U l� a �a ,;�� axi l ,,gyp°xa�� p rc r> as '➢�:� A� �� ss� a taau�„ dSi ' 10, 2-191—. ,.., Ott: C'oi nur�ik�,a�au—I i 10 1 1D.. % a eaaaa,, uda F U11 Dee aka. df Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 13 The 2015 Home Matters Report from the Florida Housing Coalition' confirms what other reports have found regarding rapid increases in rents for vacant units on the market while Florida's home ownership has declined steadily since its peak in 2007. Tighter mortgage lending standards, rising mortgage interest rates and fees, and a high percentage of cash sales have squeezed many low and moderate income homebuyers out of the market. There currently. exists a policy gap to fund workforce housing development. Federal programs through HUD or state governments are generally targeted towards low-income programs designed for people that make less than 60% of Area Median Income (AMI). The Low -Income Housing Tax Credit, which mainly spurs development of rental properties, is an example of this. Affordable housing for the working and middle classes has been largely left to individual municipalities and counties to deal with. III. WORKFORCE HOUSING CHALLENGES- STAKEHOLDER IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES A. Critical Affordable Workforce Housing Common Themes The over 75 persons participating in the interviews and meetings identified a range of workforce housing issues. While some offered a perspective from the same sector, they lived and worked in different parts of the Keys and the ideas they offered were not necessarily the same as others sharing that perspective. However, across the various perspectives the following six common themes regarding key workforce housing issues emerged: 1. A Shared vision of success for Workforce Housing in Monroe County will be important to guide and gauge the menu of strategies and actions needed to address workforce housing. 2. Action orientation. All acknowledge the workforce housing context is complex and challenging but needs immediate focus and attention and that addressing gaps in workforce housing throughout the Florida Keys will require immediate and longer term actions, even if those interviewed had differences in emphasis on those options and actions. 3. Build upon the past affordable housing studies and reports. Many agreed with the following statement, "The comprehensive studies, recommendations and published works on the topic do not need to be repeated. The metrics of this problem are well known and documented. The dynamics and facts have changed little over the years." 4. Define the problem(s) first. There needs to be a careful effort to define the shared workforce housing problem facing Monroe County in a multifaceted way (different levels and needs of workers, rental vs. ownership, different locations in the Keys) and then based on data and knowledge, move to identify, craft and implement "solutions. p�a�`r.u.�� rcuxt EnnA 1t^d aau�.,n�n a,�xs, aap_" u�p;�_., Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 14 @55- 5. No single strategy. There does not appear to be a single strategy to pursue but rather a menu of combined strategies to address the workforce housing challenges in the Florida Keys. Any committee should seek to develop a balanced package of both short term and longer -term strategies and actions that are targeted to addressing the needs of different sections of the workforce and to different parts of Monroe County. Housing as community infrastructure. Given its importance to the local economy, the County should consider workforce housing as it considers other critical infrastructure such as transportation and water supply. Workforce housing should receive the policy, planning and financial attention that other areas of local infrastructure receive. The County should seek to better integrate the housing element with other plan elements such as the future land use, public facilities, transportation and capital improvements. B. Critical Affordable Workforce Housing Common Issues Issues generally identified as important to address from most perspectives included: 1. Addressing the ROGO system and workforce housing, including transfers and fractional ROGOs 2. Density and livable workforce housing 3. Relaxing height restrictions in light of Federal flood insurance changes and to create more workforce housing 4. Strengthen Monroe County Housing Authority's role in workforce housing 5. Address transportation and its relationship to and role in workforce housing 6. Update Monroe County's workforce housing site identification and audit of publicly owned property 7. Create new workforce housing units that are both affordable and livable with development incentives and public private partnerships 8. Preserve and maintain existing workforce housing and provide incentives to preserve workforce housing 9. Address related workforce issues due to high cost of housing (insurance, childcare, food insecurity etc.) 10. Review and consider changes in the County, City and state affordable housing policies and regulations including length of deed restrictions Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder .assessment Report„ April 2015 15 11. Explore and expand funding sources to expand workforce housing in Monroe County C. Stakeholder Ideas and Perspectives on Workforce Housing Matrix The Stakeholder Assessment sought to identify how different stakeholder perspectives viewed the challenges of workforce housing facing Monroe County and its residents. The over 50 issues and ideas identified and summarized from the many interviews and meetings, help to shed light on the complexity of the issues and on the healthy diversity of views on how to best address the challenges. The assessment interviews were conducted with the understanding that the themes and ideas identified would be shared with the Commission and inform any committee that would engage in subsequent consensus building on workforce housing solutions. It was also understood that individual views would not be attributed but related perspectives would be summarized. Workforce housing ideas and issues identified in the Assessment from different perspectives and included issues displayed in the matrix below in the following nine categories: 1. Overall (12 Issues/Ideas) 2. Workforce Housing Funding (7 Issues/Ideas) 3. Workforce Housing Planning, Zoning & Enforcement (13 Issues/Ideas) 4. Workforce Housing & Transportation (4 Issues/Ideas) S. Workforce Housing & Site Identification (3 IssueslIdeas) 6. Workforce Housing Construction (4 Issues/Ideas) 7. Workforce Housing- Preserve Existing (7 Issues/Ideas) 8. Workforce Housing & the Education Sector (2 Issues/Ideas) 9. Workforce Housing & Related Issues (6Issues/Ideas) Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 16 IFORI, ISSUES[ STAYXHOLDER PERSPECJIY)�� ..Y��NoiedasaaJrt ijsteelideaintliei��2��j 'T Comm 66 st��e j� fli Lod ' /1101 is X$Og P Tomrism I No single solution, otions p 2. Build on work to date (studies, task forces, etc.) 3. Target different levels of workforce to provide WIl 4. Engage private and public sector employers in finding W11 solutions 5. Political will to implement solutions G. Focus on rental housing 7. Addressing NIMBY and t/ workforce housing 3. Encourage public private V, partnerships for WH Encourage WH affordability and livability i—O. Support living wages in the ✓ Keys 11. Expand the Keys economy beyond tourism ✓ i-2. Address negative impacts on W, Keys communities of transient workforce TCollect data on V ------ —provided by hoteliers77- grgll issuts/togm- PF ibP—Etl i1vff couni; irate '—'—'S 'fLUFM �dmcatioT;ve4n; i LodgixglHo�pilafifybm st1n1e1sr ryI................. WORKFORCE HOUSING FUNDING ..... . . .I .......... . .-.... --11---- F4.1Wor�-foicehousing site 600 identification and audit 5. Changing the Tourist Development Council (TDC) law to allow those dollars to be used for affordable housing development. G. Remedy Sadowski Trust Fund donor inequity f7—Land Authority funds for G/ t/ workforce housing construction .8. Dedicated local funding for workforce housing F9—. Consider inclusionary VVH fee ?0. Address Air B&B and impact on bed tax revenue 21. Provide assistance to workforce renters (down payment dMosit) --J—WORKFORCE HOUSING,, PIS iINGT&�ING, ENFORCEMENT 22. Create a County Workforce V, Housing Development Plan 23. Consider adjusting height restrictions for more VVH 4. Allow increased density for W11 5 Tax Credit Property Management after 15 years G. Encourage mixed use Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 18 N 0 ISSUES/IDEAS . ..................... . .... STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES comfity City-, State Edmeatio Development o. Military n Tomrism 27. Enforce ''I"I'o'using Codes " 28. Explore "Micro Housing" t/ 29. ROGO Allocations and Transfers, Fractional ROGO iO-. ROGO Formula 3 1. Address redevelopment and WTI 52. Encourage commercial construction of WH by reducing impact fee. I 3. Explore the role of live - aboard boats in W11 54. Encourage hospitality Indus tr to build V 1H RKFORCE HOUSING & TRANSPORTATION �5. —Increase highway capacity to adjust ROGO evacuation formula G. Address related issues - Transportation options for employees 7. Address transit issues in the upper Keys TAddress & improve transit issues in the lower K WORKFORCE HOUSING SITE IDENTIFICATION 9.Re-purpose an owned" �y-- - --------- - - local goverrim nt for WH Focus all 3-tier properties on ✓ W11 Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 19 N Coaexty C''aty itatr Ldxcatiorr Develop next L o ginglHospitafity ExriRrlx Nox , M!ldtary 7°oxrxsrx Pro rt 1. Audit Local Govemment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ owned public lands for WI -I WORKFORCE HOUSING -•- CONSTRUCTION 2. Waive building fees for WH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3. Buy down interest rates for ✓ ✓ WH projects R. Cut taxing rates on WH ✓ 5. Commercial properties for ✓ ✓ ✓ WH-tax and insurance breaks WORKFORCE HOUSING -• PRESERVE EXISTING WH G.Preserve/maintain ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ affordable units 7.Address `lost" AH/WH ✓ ✓ units 8. Revisit land trusts as a tool ✓ ✓ ✓ 9. Provide for "no net loss" of ✓ ✓ affordable & WH m County housing element 0. Adopt a `lease form" for ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ local governments owning underlying land for WTI 1. Address loss of deed ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ restrictions for AH 2. Address RV/Trailer Parks as ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ WI3 and conversion issues WORKFORCE HOUSING — EDUCATION 3. Engage the school system as ✓ ✓ ✓ 11 larizest em to er in WII 4. Improve teacher housing ✓ needs data collection Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 10 ISSUES/IDEAS I I STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES County City State Education Development Lodging/Hospitality .Pita 0 ess Non- Military . ..... Pro it TWORIKCFORCE HOUSING RELKIED ISSUES 'Tomrism 55. Address related issues insurance costs- wind 56. Address 2018 FEMA flood insurance issues. 7. Address related issues - Daycare 8. Homelessness & Workforce Housing 59. Protect military buffer areas 50. Address "food security" and ✓ WH Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 21 0 D. Stakeholder Ideas and Perspectives on Workforce Housing Over 75 persons participated in the interviews and meetings and identified a range of workforce housing issues. Below is a compilation summary of the input received from individuals representing different sectors (public, private and non-profit) and residing in different parts of Monroe County. 1. County Government- Ideas and Perspectives Build on affordable housing work to date • We need to understand and build on what's been learned from various task forces and studies and apply to the current workforce housing situation in the Keys. Review what incentives are in ordinances and how have they worked. How do we retool to work better. What about inclusionary zoning? What about density bonuses and density waivers? What they are how they work. How to retool to work better. What doesn't work. • Come up to speed on what was done previously so we know where things were when walked away. No silver bullet, no easy fix • We need a balanced menu of options. Acknowledge the broad range of different of solution and levels of housing. • There is no easy fix, no one way to handle this problem. Workforce Housing Shortages • We are short over 6000 units and under ROGO we will get 700 over the next 10 years. That does not come close to solving the problem. • The Affordable Housing Committee should focus initially on workforce. • We are short 6,800 units of work- force housing. This is a crisis and housing is the most expensive item on the County's list. • Housing affordability in the Keys includes insurance, the cost of food and the cost of daycare as well as housing. Rental workforce housing focus • Our most critical need is in lower income and service ranges and we should focus especially on rentals for this segment of the workforce. • 98% of the residents of county -run public housing is workforce housing for working individuals (with the exception of the elderly and disabled). Rent is capped to 30% of household income and the remaining amount is subsidized. Windstorm and Flood Insurance Rates • The current windstorm and flood insurance situation is huge affecting all residents not just lower income. • If you can't pay cash, you need insurance to secure a bank loan. • FIRM- Fair insurance rates for Monroe- is engaged in grass roots advocacy work. • The Federally subsidized program flood insurance program was amended and will set a new basis for Florida insurance rates, setting the stage for immediate dramatic increases flood insurance rates for both residential and commercial properties. County growth management and affordable housing. • Should affordable housing be part of the County growth management function /� �iiD which is built more to slow growth or laced elsewhere with good staff support � P g Pp to allow it to be more active in identifying parcels and developers in getting the job done? Empower and support the Affordable Housing Committee • The Committee needs to consider a menu of recommended consensus workforce housing solutions as a package for the County Commission to consider and implement. Protect and support the Committee's affordable housing staff. • In the past considering the complex incentives and transactions for developers to build affordable housing has opened staff to attack by those opposing development in general. It has been a very public and vitriolic situation where staff have been personally attacked. Site Identification. • We should identify every piece of county property that is vacant, demolished, big enough for affordable housing and zoned properly. Preserve and maintain affordable units. • We've lost some affordable housing that was bought at low rates and sold at market rate and restrictions were ignored. We have to pay attention so games are not played with this and we lose these units. Mixed Use. • We should encourage this but it has not caught on except in Key West. • We should explore mixed use and mixed income levels vs. low income property ,�;,, projects makes for better self policing and safer and more livable communities. ��//% • The only exception to this is tax credit properties where everyone is low income with no one is over 60% AMI. Address Management on Tax Credit Properties after 15 years. • For the first 15 years, the developer is liable and responsible to maintain the tax credits and the housing. After the 15`h year property management tends to deteriorate as less cash is devoted to upkeep. Consider allowing Land Authority bed tax funds for construction. • Currently they can only use the funding for land acquisition. • Consider changing the Tourist Development Council (TDC) law to allow those dollars to be used for affordable housing development. Height Restrictions. • Should be open to relaxing this where this could produce more workforce housing. • Consider handling this on a site specific basis. • There are areas in town where building higher would not block views. The City of Key West would have the capacity to implement this although it would first have to be approved by referendum. Explore Micro Housing. • This is being implemented in cities such as New York. It might be applied in cities in the Keys to cut down on the commute time. • Note that 1—bedroom units are the shortest in supply for the public housing and tend to be occupied longer, usually by elderly and disabled. Enforce Housing Codes. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 3 Ws Enforce housing codes in terms of illegal multiple occupancy. ROGO • ROGO allocation system for permits early on effectively eliminated affordable housing construction. Three things need to come together for successful workforce housing: funding, available land and allocations. However these have not coincided. Years ago funding was available but land and allocation were not. Hospitality Industry and Workforce Housing. • The industry should step up and participate in efforts to provide more affordable workforce housing. Some are, others should. • Some wonder why County taxes would be used to subsidize the hotels' workforce housing. Hotels should do more. • We should collect data on what hoteliers are doing in providing workforce housing for their employees. Local Dedicated Funding Source. • We need a local dedicated funding source (sales tax, "sin" tax, etc) that can support the construction of workforce housing not just land acquisition. Address Sadowski Trust Fund Donor Inequity. • Monroe County contributes 60% and gets back 8%. This should be addressed when funding resumes. AddressNIMBY • Historically there has been community reactions to the old low income projects. This may continue to be an issue. ®rion Related Affordability Issues Insurance and Day Care can figure in challenges for workers in terms of costs on tight family budgets. • Many work 2-3 service jobs to be able to afford housing and other costs such as food. • The "situationally" homeless are part of the workforce housing puzzle in Monroe County. Hurricanes and Workforce Housing. • In the last hurricanes in the Keys transportation from Miami stopped and restaurant and lodging businesses in the Upper Keys had to shut their doors for lack of employees. 2. Municipal Government- Ideas and Perspectives Target the Levels of Workforce to Serve • We need to define more clearly what kind(s) of workforce housing we want for the community. Hourly wage earners may always be renters in the Florida Keys. There is a shortage of decent, reasonably priced, available housing, especially one -bedroom rentals, Engage Employers • We need the businesses in Monroe County with the different types of employees (hourly, salaried) to be at the table and part of the solution. Hotels have the highest occupancy rate and the most profits of any place in the country. They have begun to help with workforce housing and they should continue to do Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 24 more. Vacation rentals • We need to address this challenging issue and its impact on workforce housing in the current marketplace. Height restrictions • Ease height restrictions where there aren't view issues to allow for more workforce housing. Mixed use. • Seek more mixed uses with the school board and other public properties. Land Acquisition • Focus land acquisition on workforce housing properties. Focus on Redevelopment • Key West is nearing build out and most construction is redevelopment and remodeling. Loss of Deed Restrictions • Address and audit the Loss of Deed Restrictions. ("Of the total 1,089 affordable units, 223 are expected to have their deed restrictions expire, or have expired by the end of 2015." (See Appendix #6). "No net loss" of existing workforce housing • Amend the Comprehensive Plan's housing element so that future development will result in "no net loss" of existing workforce/affordable rental housing for households earning 80% or less than the area mean income. High land values limit tax credit funded affordable units • Difficult to both finance and construct units at any level except at the 600/0 of median through heavily subsidized tax credit funding. Lack of reasonably priced land has meant few of these projects have been built. • In the City of Key West, its annual allocation of 91 affordable housing BPAS units. Re -purpose land owned by local government • Land owned by the county should be re -purposed for affordable and workforce housing. Consider additional funding sources • A tax on every alcoholic beverage sold or a 10/o real estate transfer tax could generate funding for workforce housing. Relying upon the Land Authority funds won't be enough. Development Plan and Funding for Workforce Housing • We need to figure out how to put the land authority/Housing Authority and bed tax money together and form development plan for affordable housing. ROGO AH Allocations • Each year in City of Key West there are 90 affordable housing ROGO allocations with the City able to borrow up to 10 years ahead to create more affordable housing. • Focus all tier-3 properties on workforce housing if it doesn't raise a property rights issue. Adopt lease form • Cities should consider adopting a lease form with the public sector owning the Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 25 j underlying land. Support non -profits and their work on affordable and workforce housing • Provide funding for nonprofit affordable housing entities. 3. State Government- Ideas and Perspectives FFHC Set Aside for Monroe County • Work to preserve the Monroe County set aside Florida Finance Housing Corporation competitive applications for affordable housing tax credit Sadowski Fund • Sadowski Fund affordable housing funding has not been available for affordable housing since 2006. Work to bring that funding back. Tourist Development Tax and Workforce Housing • Tourist Development Tax should support the building of workforce housing. Funds go to the Monroe County Land Authority ($4 million) and Key West ($8 million). • Consider changing the tourism bed tax statute to allow for supporting the construction of workforce housing. Combination of Issues • In the Keys need to consider four factors: hurricane evacuation; environmental protection of land and species; affordable housing; and water supply. • During the economic downturn there was less interest in building AH. Rising Rents H� Rising rents represent a big challenge for workforce housing and strategies to address this should be considered. NIMBY issues and Workforce Housing • Monroe County needs to address the NIMBY issue that is a barrier to workforce housing. Protect Navy Noise and Crash Zone but look for workforce housing opportunities • Work with the Navy to protect noise and crash zones while looking for opportunities to build workforce housing. Support Deed Restrictions • Support the use of 99 year leases for $1- Affordable forever. • Assess current state of enforcement of deed restricted land and work to extend leases to 99 years. Identify and Aggregate Workforce Housing Parcels • More could be done to identify parcels of land and aggregate them and analyze opportunities for workforce housing on surplus lands. • There may be opportunities for duplexes and quadaplexes on scarified small lots for rental units. Height Restrictions • Consider relaxing height restrictions especially in the center of the islands with existing tall buildings. This would provide additional workforce housing FEMA Flood Maps Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 26 0 In • Address the impacts of the new FEMA flood maps on Monroe County and workforce housing. Homeless • Homeless are an important issue to address in a tourist economy. How many of the homeless are there because of lack of affordable housing in the Keys? ROGO System • ROGO system has evolved and the modeling is scientifically and statistically defensible in terms of hurricane evacuation time. • There are affordable housing ROGOs that have not been used. • The most recent annual travel study that shows how long takes to get over the 22 segments of the U.S. 1 highway, indicates a segment starting to fail in Islamorada. Engage the Hotel and Hospitality Industry • Hoteliers should be more engaged in the workforce housing discussion. Convened a recent meeting for hoteliers in Islamorada to discuss this issue and only 3 came. Enforcement of Housing Ordinances • Need to address and enforce the ordinances regarding unlawful modifications of homes and overcrowding of residences. Mobile Homes and RV Parks and Workforce Housing • Need to address the question of the role of mobile/RV parks in supplying workforce housing and the impact of conversions of these parks on availability of affordable housing. 4. Education Sector Ideas and Perspectives Target the kind of housing needed • Education has the same levels of workforce housing needs as other sectors. • Have to focus on the target population in terms of addressing gaps in workforce housing, e.g. Teachers, support and administrative staff, service industry workers, etc. Partnerships for workforce housing • Interested and exploring partnerships school board owned property. Recruitment and Retention for workforce housing development on • Recruiting and retaining teachers and professors in the Keys is a very challenging problem due to the relatively high cost of housing. • Retention continues to be a problem and accessible and affordable workforce housing is part of it. There is a huge organizational cost to retrain. Student Enrollment Stable • The current context in terms of student enrollment is stable but not increasing, having decreased during the economic downturn. Single vs. Family Teachers • "We have lot of young employees with over 70 new teachers." Young single teachers may rent space with roommate(s)�, but teachers with family is another matter as there is very little family friendly workforce housing. • Many teachers in Upper Keys commute to Miami Dade vs. secure housing in Monroe Clounty Workforce Housing Stakeholder assessment Report, April 2015 27 0 611,11,113", Monroe County. • In Key West and the lower keys, the property values are the highest and present a challenge for young teachers and teachers with families. Involve the Public School System at the Workforce Housing Table • Since the Public School system one of the larger employers in the County in terms of teachers, support and administrative staff, there should be place at a workforce housing table for this perspective. Increasing reliability of teacher housing needs data • The School system is working on improving the reliability of their data and its collection related to employee housing needs. Public private partnerships • Encourage and support public private partnerships as part of the workforce housing solution. 5. Development Stakeholder Ideas and Perspectives Development Constraints • The critical areas of state concern and environmental issues constrain the available land for workforce housing. • The cost of labor and insurance is climbing so incentives for workforce housing will be an important stimulus. Authorize Land Authority to Build Workforce Housing , Fund the Monroe County Housing Authority or other similar successful organizations to build workforce housing. Convert public land for workforce housing • The school board and the city may have large tracts that can be converted for workforce housing. • Need to use infrastructure $$ making land improvements for property we should own- RFPs for developers. Tax credit housing and workforce • Meridian West- 102 units for very low income. It has the lowest turnover of any very low-income housing project in Florida with 3 bedroom apartment renting for around $1100. The very low and low income are the best served in terms of affordable housing of the workforce population. Workforce housing is where the gaps are. Livability and Affordability • Tax credit developers- Designed for good purpose but because of bureaucratic overhead, can only do large scale projects that may look out of place and unattractive to the people living in and nearby the units/development. • Livability ideas are secondary with landscaping and signage not given a high priority. Need to consider "livability" not just tax credits and affordability when building workforce housing. • Scale is an issue here with smaller projects there is a greater chance of empowering residents to maintain their homes. The larger projects have ongoing maintenance and management costs Address Spectrum of Workers and Housing Needs Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 28 ��B • Have to clarify what workers want and need in terms of housing. What is the real need? Employees from Eastern Europe- Hawks Cay- Vast majority of employees- 6 months at a time. Is sharing an apartment for these workers a bad idea? • What portion of staff/employers made up of transient migrant workers? What are their needs? How many are working in City of Key West and where can their housing needs be best addressed? What role might dormitories play? Incentives for smaller unit projects • Consider providing incentives for more smaller unit projects that will be more livable. The tax credit resource funding for this doesn't practically work below 20-25 units because of costs. • Provide incentives for small apartment complexes, not big units, e.g. develop 10- 20 units with multiple occupancy. • They can be nicely done dorm style with shared kitchen consistent with character, built to code and also preserve green space. Hotels re -openings and workforce housing impacts • May not be new hotels coming on but those that were shut down are reopening. We need to be careful about what that means in terms of housing demand. There may not be growth in the population going forward. Workforce Housing and Live Aboard Boats • What are the City of Key West statistics on Mooring Fields. There may be more than 120 boats in mooring fields providing affordable housing. How many boats /// are there for a short or longer time? How many are providing workforce °" housing? What is the quality? Addressing Trailer and RV Parks as Workforce Housing • What role do existing trailer and RV parks play in affordable workforce housing in Monroe County? • What has been the enforcement experience with the 30% rule in converting trailer parks in the County? Waive building permit fees • Have local governments waive building permit fees for affordable and workforce housing projects. Political will • Is there the political will to implement workforce housing solutions? • There has been at times, for example the last Workforce Housing Task Force in 2007 had some of it recommendation implemented. Encourage mixed use • We should be encouraging mixed use in central areas throughout the Keys. Consider greater use of an inclusionary affordable housing fee • The County should set a fee for inclusionary housing such as the $40,000 per inclusionary housing credit that Marathon is proposing. This fee would be paid to the Monroe County Housing Authority in an affordable housing trust fund to be distributed to those who actually build affordable housing. This would create a subsidy paid from new market rate or transient (hotel) projects to be distributed to those who actually build the affordable housing. ec� Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 29 • To assure the housing is built and completed, the subsidy would not be funded until the certificates of occupancy for the affordable housing are issued. • This type of commitment would incentivize those who are willing to build affordable housing, and the funds would come from those building the projects that require inclusionary housing without the market rate developer from having to use some of his/her market rate allocations on affordable housing. • All transient unit development and re -development should require inclusionary affordable housing ordinance, or impact fee assessment. Increase density and height • With limited lands on which to build affordable housing, increase the density and height (e.g. 40 feet vs. 35 feet) for affordable housing to make this feasible. • Increased density in appropriate zoning districts within commercial areas to facilitate workforce housing. • Increase height in appropriate areas. • Build up! Build new! Much of the KWHA properties are old, ugly, small and inefficiently sparse. Density needs to increase. Increase the capacity of highways • To increase ROGO allocation work together to secure funding to increase the capacity of highways. Review city and county owned lands for use as workforce housing • Identify all city and county owned lands for workforce housing that do not present environmental issues and utilize for workforce housing. Develop a workforce housing 10-year strategic plan. • Look for early successes in the first 3-5 years in adjusting regulations. Set a goal of cutting the gap in workforce housing by 50%. • The approach to "renter vs. ownership" should be "both/and." Address the 2018 FEMA changes • We need to prepare in required elevations (AE 7 becomes 9) and 60% of houses will be in jeopardy making them harder to resale or rebuild. Surplus land • The County and Cities should inventory surplus land and identify land that can be used for workforce housing. • Lift the cap on the number of credits, keep construction costs per unit low ($25,000) • Consider additional sales subsidy to help deals that are short. Identify and Aggregate Parcels of Public Land • County and the Cities haven't done enough to identify parcels of land and aggregate them. We need to do more surplus land analysis. Additional density for workforce housing • We have to be creative. We should consider giving additional density to developers who are constructing a workforce community/development with a couple market rate units. Add commercial development and redevelopment • Based on employees and square feet (use industry standards and sales tax codes) for an impact fee assessment. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 3'0 ROGO Transfers • Implement a ROGO transfer ordinance whereby a market rate unit may be dislodged if an affordable unit replaces the dislodged market rate. • Issue no market rate ROGO units for multi -unit development projects, instead, issue "affordables" and require developers to take the affordable units and deed restrict existing market rate properties and then dislodge the market rate for use elsewhere as their market rates. Buy Down Interest Rates for Workforce Housing Projects • Use land authority money or impact fees to buy down interest rates for development costs for work force housing projects. Cut Taxing Rates on Workforce Housing • Legislation to cut taxing rates on affordable and workforce housing. Commercial Properties for Workforce Housing • Give commercial properties that are used for workforce housing rental the same tax and insurance (flood) breaks as primary homestead properties. 6. Lodging, Hospitality and Tourist Development-- Ideas and Perspectives The Hospitality Economy • Hospitality represents 80% of the economic activity in the Keys. Its workforce is very transient and generally looking to rent not purchase. Lodging Industry and Workforce Housing Lodging industry may be only industry in the Keys that is trying to address workforce housing for new properties. For example the Westin in Key West has 75 units set aside housing 105 people from managers to cooks. Marketing and the Keys • Focusing on creating a year round destination with success in Key West. Spreading the marketing effort out over the year to increase visits and occupancy in the off season and slow season. Colorado recently decided it had marketed sufficiently and moved to disband their statewide marketing effort. The next season resulted in a big drop in tourism. Tourism remains the key part of the Key's economy. Importance of continuing to market the Keys • Colorado experience in cutting budget for statewide marketing led to big drop in the tourism economy. Environmental Land Acquisition vs. Affordable Housing • With the years in which funding was put towards environmentally land acquisition, relatively little was invested affordable housing. What is a smart split between the 2 purposes? Transportation and the Keys. • The transit service from Miami -Dade to Marathon and north in the Upper Keys is currently funded by the Dade County local transit'/z penny, state and federal dollars but no Monroe County support for the transit service. • As job opportunities grow in Miami Dade, what impact will this have on the supply of lodging industry and related tourist industry employees in the Upper 0 Keys? "Getting on bus at Walmart in Florida City to go south for work, the "Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder assessment Report, April 2015 31 question for workers is How available is work, where and how much does it pay. • Homestead and Florida City provide high densities of immigrant populations which housing in Monroe County does not offer. • Hotels in the Upper Keys are interested in working with Monroe and Dade Counties in finding a solution to sustaining and improving the transit service that provides lodging and hospitality works from Marathon and north. Some hotels are supplementing the bus routes with their own busses. • We need better transit in the lower Keys to support the workforce transportation needs. • Better public transportation in the lower keys. Reliability and cost of public transportation options to deal with fact that more affordable housing is further away from jobs. • Need reliable transit from workforce housing to work especially with parking issues in Key West. Alternatives such as biking and scooters are not practical given weather. Consider using smaller and more transit vehicles in the Key West area. Employee turnover • Person dependent industries cannot outsource jobs. Need to find ways to reduce employee turnover which often relates to housing/rental costs. Vacation rentals and Preserving Affordable Units • This is a large problem throughout the Keys impacting the supply of workforce housing. However it may be that many are above the workforce housing price Grange. • More important than building new workforce housing is how can we maintain what is affordable for the median income workers. During the downturn property values went down while rentals went up. Workforce housing is primarily the rental housing market. Consider whether there might be restrictions or new regulations creating some disincentives for converting units to vacation rentals. Online Vacation Rentals Marketplace • Address the online market place for vacation rentals that connects users with property to rent with users looking to rent the space(e.g. AirBnB) and its impact on bed tax revenue • Also, related to this is the new addition of Air B&B and lack of regulation and enforcement. This raises safety issues as well as the "free ride" by not paying the bed tax. It may be much easier to rent through this approach than to a workforce tenant. Help Workforce Renters • Consider providing down payment/deposit assistance. Hospitality Industry Data • Hotels have been reluctant to share data on workforce housing as some is tied to employment contracts and privacy concerns. Disseminating Workforce Housing Information • We need more effective affordable housing information that is available to 7\, workers. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 32 Height restrictions • Can build more rental units on both 2"d and 3`s floors with first floor commercial in the lower Keys if the height restrictions are eased. For example consider strip malls with the upper level dedicated to housing. Public Property • County and Cities may be the biggest land owners and should identify public property with buildings that might be torn down to build housing. Balance environmentally land acquisition with affordable housing • investment. Historically, nothing or little has been allocated towards AH effort. What is a smart split between the 2 purposes. NIMBYism ("Not in my back yard") • Lodging industry did general marketing efforts focusing on nurses and police and workforce housing which helped. However, there continues to be a lack of creating new workforce housing. • Give Land Authority the ability to devote some of the bed tax funding to purchase workforce housing. Retention and the High Cost of Housing • Tourist Development Council data shows that 94% of those leaving the County are leaving because of high cost of living and housing. Rents going up • While land values dropped down during the recession, rentals went up as many owners faced with increases in wind storm and flood insurance and property /11 taxes passed these on to tourism workers. 7. Business Sector including Real Estate Island economy and community • Housing has always presented a dilemma and changes in an island community and economy. 100 years ago the cigar manufacturers had to address this. • We have a dynamically changing environment with a finite piece of real estate and nothing else to fall back on. Over the past 15 years, credit should be given for successfully putting together affordable housing units in the face of regulatory and NIMBY hurdles, but we are still far short of bridging the gap and meeting the demand. • "Checks and land" can solve the workforce housing problem. Clarify our workforce targets for housing • It is not clear what kind of workforce and housing are we seeking to provide? Hotel, motel, restaurant or managers- each with a different set of problems. • We don't know anymore what the community needs. Do we need single residential occupancy for 500 guest workers in Key West? Probably not. • We may not have an analytical feel for what we need in terms of workforce housing throughout the Keys. Impact on community of transient workforce • What are we doing to the cultural makeup of the community with a transient workforce? Children grow up and move to less expensive places instead of making Monroe County their home. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 33 Biggest concern is the character and flavor of Monroe county may be going away and losing our foundation. The next generation shrinking. Wind and flood insurance • Rising insurance costs are compounding the housing problem- driving rents up beyond affordability. Political will • We will need the political will to make changes to bridge the gap of workforce housing • Previous Task Forces on affordable housing have been very difficult and challenging to serve on in terms of pleasing the elected leaders and citizens. • Do we have the political will to continue grappling with this problem and implementing solutions? Is the problem only a shortage of affordable units suitable for workforce housing? • We have opportunities but do we have the political will to get this done? There's too much, "I've got mine," in the community. How many of our elected leaders works or owns a business? Land trusts as a tool • The Bahama Land Trust debacle has made serious discussion of land trusts as part of the tool kit very difficult. Prioritize units over "money in lieu of" • Is it even possible to prevent gentrification on island that is 2X3 square miles? Don't look for $$ in lieu of as we need units. ®r@,;111111011Hold off major changes to workforce housing pending the Affordable Housing Committee's work • The County appears to be getting ready to change income limitations to target working households at the middle level. Hold off implementing changes until we have reinstituted and charged the Affordable Housing Committee. Permit Bed Tax to support purchase/building of workforce housing • Change the law to allow purchase and building of workforce housing. Put it where people can get to work. 8. Non -Profit Sector Ideas and Perspectives Living wages • Affordable housing programs for low income earners range from 80 to 140 % of AMI, yet real wages for career type workers are closer to 60% AMI. • Employers in Monroe County are not expected to pay a living wage. The wealth created in our tourist economy depends upon low wage, high turnover, and low skill employees. Limited housing supply and investment wealth • The outside wealth that purchases a second home or invests in real estate in the Keys drives up the asking and selling prices for all properties where the dynamic of a limited supply of land and great wealth seeking investment churns on constantly. This dynamic is shared with other resort locations. The compromises workers make then is to work several jobs and/or to live in substandard housing or to leave. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 34 • We need to get more citizens of Monroe County invested in the future of this place. ROGO and affordable housing • The measured gap between the number of units needed and the available ROGOs demonstrates the futility of trying to build our way out of the crisis. The negotiations with DEO provide affordable housing units for the next 20 years within the frame work of evacuation limits. These new affordable units are critical but will not solve the need. • The operative assumption for allowing more density for certain types of affordable housing is that all of the types of ROGOs are not necessarily equal. Consider assigning a ROGO value of less than one unit for affordable homes less than 600 square feet or so. The Comprehensive Plan, the DEO, and evacuation models can be examined for alternative methods to allow more density for affordable units that are smaller. • The second home owners who are not necessarily in residence during the hurricane evacuation season is an example of units counted against evacuation times where the actual impact may not exist. The number of homes that are vacant in Monroe County due to second home ownership has been noted in several studies • The Area of State Critical Concern uses the dwelling unit as its basic unit of control. The management of and regulation of all home types will become critical to assessing evacuation time. Monroe County should audit all housing types and create an inventory detailing the status of each ROGO. Benefits from an audit would include identifying flood prone structures, uninhabitable units, illegal units, etc. • Change ROGO to square footage. Affordable housing has not been protected • When government has granted greater densities or used inclusionary zoning it has not always registered, audited or tracked compliance to ensure the permanency of these precious units. Deed restrictions were not monitored. • The temptation to convert affordable units into market rate units, rental or ownership, is too great and with little penalty or notice. Affordable housing "lost units" • The community has a strong common interest in protecting those affordable units it has lost after subsidizing or underwriting their creation. If the will were to exist, these "lost "units could be investigated and the current owner asked to revert them to affordable status. Liens and other mechanisms exist to "take" on the public's behalf what was not proper to convert in the first place. Redevelopment and inclusionary zoning • Inclusionary zoning as a government policy has been in place for new development. It is time to explore requiring affordable housing units from redevelopment projects. Lower and Middle Keys different workforce housing issues • The lower and middle keys have different issues and solutions from the upper keys where day labor bused in from the mainland can assist in the workforce, But the market dynamics are found in common through all of the keys. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder assessment Report, April 2015 35 Funding inequity • A strong argument can be made to correct the inequity of the donor/recipient that exists, based on the $6 million a year that Monroe County gives to The Sadowski Housing Trust Fund every year compared to the pittance of $300,000 in SHIP funds returned this year and in the past. Transportation • Lack of transportation infrastructure makes workforce housing more problematic. New workforce housing partnerships needed • Many differing approaches in scope and scale will be required with various partnerships between government, private, for profit and nonprofit developers. Affordable yet substandard housing • Rental housing that costs less than $900 a month, regardless of size or condition, is termed affordable despite being unsafe or substandard or very small. Political will • The political will to make real changes in policies, incentives, regulations and to commit resources remains to be sustained. Don't repeat studies, focus on action • The comprehensive studies, recommendations and published works on the topic do not need to be repeated. The metrics of this problem are well known and documented. The dynamics and facts have changed little over the years: outside wealth creates seasonal homes that are not available; the profit generated from transient units puts pressure on dense mobile home and RV parks; tourist industry wages are low, turnover is high landlords can rent substandard units due to high demand for any type of housing, etc. Other related issues • While workforce housing is the focus of the moment, there are important related issues of food insecurity, education, child care for employees are critical to the workforce housing discussion. • While addressing workforce housing, we should address homelessness (and the growing youth % of this population) and help with the path back to working for families. • Where will the employees of the new lodging establishments be housed? • There has been a huge uptick in the demand at food pantries across the County and not just among homeless people but with working families still in homes. 47% of families countywide with kids under 18 are eligible for reduced lunch. Of this population, 469/o are minorities. Lack of affordable workforce housing has led to food insecurity. If we didn't have a housing problem we wouldn't have a food security issue. • Many elected leaders are not aware of the childcare challenges faced by those working and living in the Keys. Those who haven't raised family here are not aware of the lack of child care options and its impact on the work force. • If we can't control housing costs for working families, all other costs such as childcare, food prices, etc. are related and compounded. Expand the Keys Economy. • We need to think outside the box and expand our efforts to build a future Keys Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 36 economy beyond tourism. • We need all parts of the demographic in Monroe County. 9. Military Sector Ideas and Perspectives Recruitment and retention • Workforce housing affects the recruitment and retention. The housing set aside for the base workforce has a long wait list. Housing is the #1 issue for their civilian workforce. There is not a week where the Commander is not involved in a family housing issue. Communication and coordination • In terms of the Naval Air Station lines of communication and coordination have been improved with the Commander now the point of contact for coordination. Presence in the community • In terms of presence in Monroe County, there are roughly 1600 military (including Coast Guard), 1000 civilians and 400 contractors or about 3000 employees and about 5500 including families, spouses and dependents. Evacuation procedures • In terms of evacuation, the Commanding Officer implements the recommendations of the County Emergency Manager and will close the base and issue evacuation orders for military personnel. Civilian workers are urged to evacuate and are provided travel orders and funds to evacuate. The 550 RV units in the Naval Air Station campgrounds evacuated first. also, Need for buffer areas and workforce housing • In terms of searching for solutions to locating workforce housing in Key West, the Naval Air Station strives to protect public health and welfare and its mission by keeping buffer areas separate without housing in the high noise of unsafe areas surrounding the base. • The Naval Air Station does not get directly involved in growth issues such as density and intensity unless it directly impacts the buffer areas. Only exception to this was their support for the widening of the 18-mile stretch of US 1. • General concern with the impact of vacation rentals on the supply of workforce rental housing for the over 5,500 Base employees and their families, spouses and dependents. N Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 3' IV. WORKFORCE HOUSING PROCESS- STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES A. Information Needed to Inform Consensus Building on Workforce Housing Monroe County staff has gathered a draft detailed baseline data that included an inventory of affordable and workforce housing projects completed over the past 2 decades in Monroe County, along with the public incentives that were made to assist in the housing development. (See. http: consensus.fsu.edu1 \Workforce-Housillg- ..Assessment df,2(DR.-1F'l' County AF I-Iousinttr De-Nclopments and Incentives N-9- '.pdf The maps that provide the locations of the developments included in the Table throughout Monroe County: Monroe County Affordable Housing Permits Middle Keys Lower Keys Ar AW oms..... w...e..m-a..wwws....- Pbmft e..� Dlonroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 r•q u c� Upper Keys A d 0 AttordsWe Housing Permits Mlle Msrkem rr `s 38 u M Me Afonroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 39 _ r LIO ti �9g' x Staff also provided information on the ROGO system and annual allocations. Based on the affordable housing units that are in the Affordable and Workforce Housing Projects Table, the distribution of deed restricted affordable housing units is currently: ROGO Subarea10 # Units U2per Keys 343 Lower Keys 452 Big Pine Key and No Name Key 19 Total 814 Now incorporated as Islamorada 5 Now incorporated as Marathon 4 Total including those now incorporated 823 The balances of Affordable Housing Allocation" available as of Quarter 3 Year 23 Gan. 13, 2015-April 13, 2015) are: a. Big Pine/No Name Key Subarea affordable housing allocation breakdown into the two income categories are as follows: 1) very low, low, & median income 8 allocations and 2) moderate income 8 allocation., and b. Unincorporated Monroe County excluding the Big Pine/No Name Key Subarea affordable housing allocation breakdown into the two income categories are as follows: 1) very low income, low income and median income 114 allocations and 2) moderate 112 allocations. The additional affordable allocations by Subarea up through 2023 include 710 total including 20 to Big Pine Key/No Name Key Subarea and 690 available for countywide allocation except for Big Pine Key/No Name Key subarea In the course of the assessment interviews and meetings, various studies and data sources 10 The ROGO subareas are defined in Section 138-20 of the land development code as follows: Sec. 138-20. - General provisions. (c) The ROGO allocation system shall apply within the unincorporated area of the county outside of the county mainland, and such area, for purposes hereof, has been divided into subareas as follows: (1) Upper Keys: the unincorporated area of the county north of Tavernier Creek and corporate limits of the Village of Islamorada (approximately mile marker 90). (2) Lower Keys: the unincorporated area of the county from the corporate limits of the Village of Islamorada (approximately mile marker 72) south to the corporate limits of the City of Key West at Cow Key Bridge on U.S. Highway 1 (approximately mile marker 4), excluding Big Pine Key and No Name Key. (3) Big Pine Key and No Name Key: the islands of Big Pule Ker and No Name Key within unincorporated the county. 11 Monroe County Code Sec. 138-24. Residential ROGO allocations...... (1) Yearly residential ROGO allocation ratio. Each subarea shall have its number of market rate residential ROGO allocations available per ROGO year. Affordable ROGO allocations shall be available for countywide allocation except for Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The annual allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be eight market rate and two affordable dwelling units. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April2015 41 86RE In the course of the assessment interviews and meetings, various studies and data sources were identified on best practices from other jurisdictions and ideas developed or considered but not implemented by previous affordable housing task forces. These background papers can be found at: lit . //qq,nsell k is., flsg,,ed a/\Vi:)rlcforce Llousin:� \,rosessincrgj� B. Workforce Housing Stakeholder Perspectives on the Process Going Forward Among the range of stakeholders interviewed, all expressed the need for a focused and comprehensive county -wide workforce housing dialogue that involved those with a stake in the outcome. Many believed that such a committee should develop a package of consensus recommendations, informed by data and the range of stakeholder and public perspectives, that can provide for both short and longer term actions for the Board of County Commission's consideration. While some of those interviewed remained skeptical that there will be sufficient "political will" to implement the Committee's recommendations as has been the case in the past, many believed that this was an urgent and timely issue for the County to address in light of hotel redevelopment and the economic upturn. As one stakeholder put it, "the re-establishing of the Affordable Housing Committee is a good step. Funding staff to work with it will be a measure of the commitment to effect real solutions. The mix of expertise, perspective and operating experience that the committee can bring to bear has great potential value. However, the community support and political will must be nurtured for difficult decisions on the demonstrated effective approaches of density, height and permanent protection and the mix of rentals and ownership." In the Fall of 2014, following the initiation of this Assessment, the Commission re- appointed members to the existing Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and with the thought of convening and charging them with addressing workforce housing issues and providing the County Commission with its recommendations. The reconvened committee would review this assessment report and other data as it addressed its charge. A workforce housing committee, ad hoc or otherwise, appointed and charged by the County Commission to address workforce housing issues in the Florida Keys was explored in the assessment interviews. A significant number of those interviewed applauded the County Commission's action in re -purposing the existing Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to focus, at least in the short term, on workforce housing. It was suggested that this approach could provide representation from each District in the County, offer workforce housing perspectives from the public, private and nonprofit sectors, and minimize confusion and any duplication of effort that an ad hoc workforce housing committee might create. It was also pointed out that this charge would be consistent with the Committee's current mission to address affordable housing opportunities in Monroe County for both "residents and workforce." (emphasis added) A workforce housing committee, ad hoc or otherwise, appointed and charged by the County Commission to address workforce housing issues in the Florida Keys was explored in the assessment interviews. A significant number of those interviewed suggested the County Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 42 ® Commission should consider utilizing and re -purposing the existing Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to focus at least in the short term on workforce housing.12 It was suggested that this would provide representation from each District in the County and minimize confusion and any duplication of effort that an ad hoc workforce housing committee might create in relation to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. It was also pointed out that this would be consistent with the Committee's current mission to address affordable housing opportunities in Monroe County. The Ordinance also provides that, "The advisory committee may perform additional responsibilities related to affordable housing at the request of the BOCC, including creating best management practices for the development of affordable housing in the community." [2-701(c)] The Commission should review the current Committee appointments to ensure that a balance of workforce housing stakeholder perspectives are included in its membership. If the Commission charges the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to develop consensus recommendations on workforce housing actions for consideration by the Monroe County BOCC, most stakeholders interviewed suggested there should be a sufficient range of stakeholder perspectives represented and participating in the consensus building. This would allow the Committee to develop informed workforce housing consensus findings and recommendations that stakeholders might support and the County Commission could act 13 upon. There is a great deal of public and stakeholder interest in the workforce housing issues the Committee will take up. The membership requirements, as set forth in both Florida statute QZ and the Monroe County Resolution, do not reference representation of the municipalities in the County, the military, the Monroe County School Board and perhaps other organizations impacted by workforce housing policies and programs and with a stake in contributing to solutions to improve the availability of workforce housing in the Florida Keys." The format for the Committee meetings should encourage constructive public and stakeholder input. The Commission might consider charging the Committee with establishing an engagement strategy to involve a broader range of stakeholders in their development of findings and recommendations. This might be accomplished through opportunities for public input during their own meetings, as well as through Committee 12 This would be consistent with their responsibility for developing every three years an affordable housing incentive recommendations report to the BOCC. The next triennial report will be due December 312017 13 The Current membership includes the following 11 members: Sylvia Murphy, Monroe County BOCC, Expires 11/2015, Tim Root, District 1, Expires 11/2016, Heather Roberts, District 1, Expires 11/2016, James D. Cameron, District 2, Expires 11/2018, Randy Wall, District 2, Expires 11/2018, Warren Leamard, District 3, Expires 11/2016, Ken Naylor, District 3, Expires 11/2016, Hana Eskra, District 4, Expires 11/2018, Edwin Swift III, District 4, Expires 11/2018, William Wiatt, District 4, Expires 11/ 2016, Jun Saunders, District 5, Expires 11/2016 and Stephanie Scuderi District 5, Expires 11/2016. 14 oi�ty�Resolution 062�2009,�andcal ls 5�e membership follows the requirements of Monroe County Florida Statute 420.9076 and alls for representation from those involved in affordable housing in: the residential home building industry from both a business and labor perspective, the mortgage and banking industry, the real estate industry, an advocate for low income persons, a for profit and a not for profit provider of affordable housing, a representative of employers in the County and a member of the local planning, and a representative of essential services personnel. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 43 sponsored advisory workgroups, joint workshops with municipal taskforces and city commissions, workshops at key moments in the development of options and recommendations, online surveys and other techniques. (See Appendix #7 for Advisory Group process recommendations). It was observed by many that an advisory committee developing recommendations on workforce housing will require dedicated staff, including legal and planning expertise, and facilitation support for the Committee to do its work expeditiously. This is because of the complexity of the charge, the intense public interest in the issue, the linkages with other issues and programs and activities in the public, private and non-profit sectors, and the desire for timely actions to address the current workforce housing challenges. V. WORKFORCE HOUSING IN MONROE COUNTY --NEXT STEPS The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners should review this Assessment Report and charge the Affordable Housing Committee to focus its efforts in the coming year on workforce housing. With a charge from the County Commission, the Committee should establish its procedures and approach and a schedule for meetings that would permit it to deliver back to the BOCC its workforce housing recommendations by mid-2016. The Committee should consider: O• Developing a shared vision of success; • Jointly defining the workforce problems faced in the Florida Keys; • Reviewing the range of issues and options identified in previous studies; • Reviewing the experience and lessons learned with successful workforce housing projects developed in the Keys to date; • Reviewing this Stakeholder Assessment Report; and • Developing a package of consensus findings and recommended solutions for consideration by the Monroe County Board of County Commission. This stakeholder assessment report confirms that there is wide agreement that Monroe County is facing a significant and growing workforce housing crisis with shortages for both affordable rental and ownership units. There is also agreement that no single strategy will solve this crisis. Instead the challenge ahead for Monroe County and municipalities and the range of stakeholders interested in workforce housing, is to craft a balanced package of targeted options that have been refined through discussion and debate and that can serve as a consensus framework for addressing and implementing solutions. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 4 07 APPENDix LIST OF a •E COUNTY WOREFORCEAND MEETINGS Name Organization Position 1. Tony Allen Allen -Beyer Funeral Home Owner 2. Steven Auger Florida Housing Finance Corporation Executive Director 3. Debbie Swift Batty Historic Tours of America Director of Property Development 4. Jennifer Bennett Tourist Development Council Research Director 5. Kristen Brenner American Caribbean Real Estate Realtor 6. Dustan Carpenter Divine Dining by Dustan Caterer 7. Heather Carruthers Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Commissioner, District 3 8. J. Manuel Castillo, Sr. Key West Housing Authority Executive Director 9. Harold Cates City of Key West Mayor 10. Don Craig City of Key West Planning Director 11. Pornchai Davidson Naval Air Station, Key West Commander, Executive Officer 12. Ron Demes Naval Air Station, Key West Special Asst. Advisor to the Commanding Officer 13. Brenda Edmonds Remax Realty, Marathon Realtor 14. Hana Eskra Gorman Development Inc. Florida Market President 15. Debra Farrell, 215t Century Schwartz Realty Realtor 16. George Garrett City of Marathon Planning Director 17. Roman Gastesi Monroe County Administrator 18. Karen Hamilton South Florida Regional Planning Council Regional Planner 19. Christine Hurley Monroe County Growth Management Division Director 20. Rebecca Jetton Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Planner 21. Derrick ohnson Coco Plum Real Estate Realtor 22. Danny Kolhage Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Commissioner, District 1 (Mayor Pro Tem 23. Kurt Lewin First State Bank of the Florida Keys Executive Vice President 24. Kara Lundgren The Islamorada Resort General Manager 25. Ysela Llort Miami -Dade Transit Director 26. Capt. Steve McAlearney Naval Air Station, Key West Commanding Officer 27. Ashley Monnier Naval Air Station, Key West Community Planning Liaison Officer 28. Nancy Muller Florida Housing Finance Corporation, Tallahassee Policy & Special Programs Director 29. Jim Murley South Florida Regional Planning Council Executive Director 30. Sylvia Murphy Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Commission, District Five 31. Mark Moss Habitat for Humanity Key West Executive Director 32. Virginia Panico Kev West Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President 33. Mary Pecorino Coast to Coast Real Estate Group Realtor 34. Mark Porter Monroe County Schools Su erintendent 35. Barbara Powell Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Planner Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 45 0 0 36. Dick Ramsey CitV of Marathon Mayor 37. Holly Raschein Florida House of Representatives, District 120 Representative 38. David Rice Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Commissioner, District 4 39. Mark Rison Citizen email comment 40. `Tim Root Mingo & Company CEO, Commercial construction 41. Mark Rousch Monroe County Land Authority Director 42. Mayte Santamaria Growth Management, Monroe County, Florida Assistant Director of Planning and Environmental Resources 43. Jim Saunders Bayview Land Development & Permitting Manager 44. Stephanie Scuderi Home BancShares- Centennial Bank Senior VP, Director of Business Development 45. Jeff Sharkey The Capitol Alliance Group, Tallahassee CEO 46. Jeff Sharp, Ray Freis, & Christy Crooks Florida Keys Seahorse Park, Homeowner's Association Big Pine Key Homeowners Seahorse Park 47. Pritam Singh The Singh Company, Key West Developer 48. Andrew Spann Mt. Carmel Communications, St. Louis, Real Estate Investment & Development Developer 49. Terry Strickland Yankee Freedom II Manager 50. Ed Swift Historic Tours of America CEO 51. Lisa Tennyson Monroe County 52. David Thompson Key Largo Develo er 53. Sandy Tuttle American Caribbean Real Estate, Marathon and Lower Keys Assoc. of Realtors Realtor 54. Jodi Weinhofer The Lodging Association of the Florida Keys & Key West President 55. Donna Windle Southernmost Realty, Key West Realtor �- Monroe County Workforce Housing Roundtable µParticipants, August 2014 - 56. Debbie Swift Batty 57. Richard Beal 58. Heather Carruthers 59. J. Manual Castillo Sr. 60. Rita Cotter 61. Raymond Fries 62. Johnathan Gueverra 63. Derrick Johnson 64. Amber Ernst -Leonard 65. Mark Moss Historic Tours of America/Habitat for Humanity Skeeter's Marine Monroe BOCC (District 3 Commissioner) Key West and Monroe Co. Housing Congressman Garcia's Office Florida Keys Seahorse Park Association Florida Keys Community College Marathon and Lower Keys Assoc. of Realtors Florida Keys Community College Habitat for Humanity, Lower Keys and Key West 66. Jack Niedbalski Habitat for Humanity, Upper Keys 67. Holly Raschein Florida House of Representatives 68. David Rise AOCC 69. Timothy W. Root Utility Board Keys Energy/Workforce Housing member 70. Mark Rosch Monroe Co. Land Authority 71. Jim Saunders Bayview Homes/Development 72. Bob Shillinger Monroe Co. Attorney's Office Monroe County Workforce 14ousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 Wo O// N 73. Donna Stayton 74. Jeff Stuncard 75. Owen Trepanier 76. Mark Warmouth 77. Tim Wonderlin 78. Charles Todd Young Florida DOH, Monroe Co. Village of Islamorada Trepanier and Associates, Inc. Individual Advocate/Wells Fargo Bank Habitat for Humanity, Middle Keys Habitat for Humanity, Middle Keys Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 47 APPENDix MONROE, COUNTY WORKFORCE BACKGROUND DO lntt n:/` .cc�t�s axsaa .fsux.ec tt,''\� carkf()ac:e i itaw,tnp,-Assessrrle:nt/ AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDIES-FLORIDA Sadowski I lctaisttn G f,.oaYttiorn. Press Release, 2015 ltclaort .Tom the Florida ..,11ousrfn4m C o ah ion, 2015 Out €�rf R, e as 1a J0I 4: f Fonda- Link 111-31 1„C.I.0 Re�rerrt �ttaci.I Q Fina nclal Hardship ' 014 United ...\\ al of I lcreida AFFORDABLE & WORKFORCE HOUSING MONROE COUNTY fd nr a,a€ C ountt 1 ffordable l lousin Dev € lolra ,roents tatd Itacenti� e,� Dll2,- I� ,'F' 3 f 25,/2015 nv If CRC Conseil -us ('enter: �ssessitn A \` cork f�orce..l lousaa n, lanntzaativ,c. 2014 ltile1. C._i te oatStadw of Financial jardship 20,1.�4,.. _onzoeLggg,y l xce, t Nlonroe County 2014 lncoixLimits Rent nrntts Flotidllij logs,iia , Fny anse C,0o,loa,ataon N� Est Data UpAd,ates, 2012 Affordable Iousna,.�dtiso Conna111111111111tee, 2012� _ , loi:q oe County Hot}sntn ; needs tssessznxent, 2008 f slazrrraaada \4 orkf€ qq 1 Ia usii-W.Stir4 ps I t : tudy , 2007 ffardalnl€:, F lousirig ,f'rewesit tti�nat, 2007 Off art ahle llatiasnan,4,13jgk).r uaxci,,,,2006 kfford able I iousin2 Needs ;�is�cssrment 2006 g port on R anaIorsrWorkers 11,, 2006 ar Affordable I lousing \ hate P npq, Don Craig, City of Key West, 2014 :\Ioznroe County and-1ccluisitioan and ManaUennneant tlRaster Plan, 2006 Su,artranaa% of Workforce Flo Task Force Recommendations...1, 2006 S Recommendations fI, 2006 urni-tano foreosikTaskoc tokca aaWrkfozcc: Re ort on Ret€mitV,I oaarzsm Workers, 2005 .y...,. loridaKeSts 11_�t�;asjD a, 2001 Operation Seamles,:,, 2000 DCA GENERAL INFORMATION- MONROE COUNTY `4lonroe C eraaantl PKgf ie, 2012 Monroe Count Pgpaulataoaa f'rotwectzqaj, ` 010 ' 030, 2011 Housing Viand has taig ioan Ctngaa t, 2010 MONROE COUNTY AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN Florida_ eVs hrcasofCratcca. oan(;erra,2013 I Iormla K s bens of G riticad Coancerzn, 2012 AFFORDABLE HOUSING- BEST PRACTICES AND TOOLS aaf£oadalnle,f fauszzn a I aaeuclizni Sources, 2014 FHC \vorkforc I lousitng I cols, 2009 \4 orkforee f Ioush-11? B .st Iarac t c1es AFFORDABLE HOUSING- LOCAL MEDIA COVERAGE 5„tdecs Link- West Irloustan � Crisis Part I -Video Video U n4: i, e t' West l lousing. t rfsis_10 az t 1.1 Video Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder „assessment Report, April 2015 48 0 APPENDIX #3 •I AD TT ., NAN SECTION 0-70 Sec. 2-700. - Establishment of affordable housing advisory committee. (a) The affordable housing advisory committee shall be established and operational by June 30, 2008. It shall comply with all requirements in F.S. § 420.9076 (2007) or as subsequently amended. (b) The committee shall consist of 11 members who shall be appointed by the BOCC by resolution. (c) The committee must include: (1) One citizen who is actively engaged in the residential homebuilding industry in connection with affordable housing. (2) One citizen who is actively engaged in the banking or mortgage banking industry in connection with affordable housing. (3) One citizen who is a representative of those areas of labor actively engaged in home building in connection with affordable housing. (4) One citizen who is actively engaged as an advocate for low-income persons in connection with affordable housing. (5) One citizen who is actively engaged as a for -profit provider of affordable housing. (6) One citizen who is actively engaged as a not -for -profit provider of affordable housing. (7) One citizen who is actively engaged as a real estate professional in connection with affordable iil� 1 OW housing. (8) One citizen who actively serves on the local planning agency pursuant to F.S. 4 163.3174. (9) One citizen who resides within the jurisdiction of the local governing body making the appointments. (10) One citizen who represents employers within the jurisdiction. (11) One citizen who represents essential services personnel, as defined in the local housing assistance plan. (d) All meetings of the advisory committee are public meetings, and all committee records are public records. (e) Staff, administrative, and facility support to the advisory committee shall be provided by the BOCC. The advisory committee shall be cooperatively staffed by the local government department or division having authority to administer local planning or housing programs to ensure an integrated approach to the work of the advisory committee. (Ord. No. 014-2008, 5 1) Sec. 2-701. - Duties of the affordable housing advisory committee. (a) The affordable housing advisory committee shall review established policies and procedures, ordinances, land development regulations, and the adopted local government comprehensive plan of the appointing local government and shall recommend specific actions or initiatives to encourage or facilitate affordable housing while protecting the ability of the property to appreciate in value. The recommendations may include the modification or repeal of exiting policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan provisions; the creation of exceptions applicable to affordable housing or the adoption of new policies, procedures, regulations, ordinances, or plan provisions, including recommendations to amend the local government comprehensive plan and corresponding regulations, ordinances and other policies. (b) By December 31, 2008, the affordable housing advisory committee is required to submit its Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 49 ��/:. '; incentive recommendations report to the BOCC. After this initial submission the reports are required to be submitted triennially on December 31, of the year preceding the submission of the local housing assistance plan. At a minimum, the advisory committee shall submit a report to the local governing body that includes recommendations on, and evaluates the implementation of, affordable housing incentives in the following areas: (1) The processing of approvals of development orders or permits as defined in F.S. § 163.3164(7) and (8), for affordable housing projects is expedited to a greater degree than other projects; (2) The modification of impact fee requirements, including reduction or waiver of fees and alternative methods of fee payment for affordable housing; (3) The allowance of flexibility in densities for affordable housing; (4) The reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for very low income, low income and moderate income persons; (5) The allowance of affordable accessory residential units in residential zoning districts; (6) The reduction of parking and setback requirements for affordable housing; (7) The allowance of flexible lot configurations, including zero -lot -line configurations for affordable housing; (8) The modification of street requirements for affordable housing; (9) The establishment of a process by which a local government considers, before adoptions, policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan provisions that increase the cost of housing; (10) The preparation of a printed inventory of locally owned public lands suitable for affordable housing; (11) The support of development near transportation hubs and major employment centers and mixed -use developments; (12) Other affordable housing incentives as recommended. (c) The advisory committee may perform additional responsibilities related to affordable housing at the request of the BOCC, including creating best management practices for the development of affordable housing in the community. (Ord. No. 014-2008, § 1) Sec. 2-702. - Public hearing. The approval of the advisory committee of its local housing incentive strategies recommendations and its review of local government implementation of previously recommended strategies must be made by affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the advisory committee taken at a public hearing. Notice of time, dates, and place of public hearing of the committee to adopt final local housing incentive strategies recommendations must be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation, must contain a short summary of the incentives strategies recommendations to be considered by the committee, and must state the public place where a copy of the tentative recommendations can by obtained by interested persons. (Ord. No. 014-2008, § 1) Sec. 2-703. - Commission action required. (a) Within 90 days after the date of receipt of the local housing incentive strategies recommendations from the advisory committee, but no later than March 31, 2009, the BOCC shall adopt an amendment to its local housing assistance plan (LHAP) to incorporate the local housing incentive strategies it will implement within its jurisdiction. The BOCC must consider all of the strategies specified in subsection'-2- "'�) � as recommended by the committee. (b) However, the amendment at a minimum, must include: (1) Assurance that permits for affordable housing are expedited to a greater degree than other projects. ("Permits" are defined by statute to include development orders, building permit, zoning subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official permit, action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land); (2) An ongoing process for review of local policies, ordinances, regulations, and plan provisions that increase the cost of housing prior to their adoption; and (3) A schedule for implementing the incentive strategies... b) By May 2, 2009, the BOCC shall notify the Florida Housing Finance Corporation by certified mail of its adoption of the amended LHAP and include a copy of the approved amended plan. (Ord. No. 014-2008, § 1) Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 50 APPENDIX MONROE COUNTY WORKFORCE HOUSING ROUNDTABLE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS, AUGUST WORKFORCE HOUSING ROUNDTABLE August 25, 2014 Marathon, Florida Representative Holly Raschein, Florida House of Representatives District 120 ROUNDTABLE COMMENT FORM SUMMARY Participants in the Workforce Housing Roundtable were invited to provide comments for consideration in the Workforce Housing Assessment being conducted by the FCRC Consensus Center at FS 1J. Below is a list of the respondents and the compiled responses for the Comment form questions: 1. Debbie Swift Batty Organization: Historic Tours of America/Habitat for Humanity 2. Richard Beal Organization: Skeeter's Marine 3. Heather Carruthers Organization: Monroe BOCC (District 3 Commissioner) 4. J. Manuel Castillo Sr., Organization: Key West and Monroe Co. Housing 5. Rita Cotter Organization: Congressman Garcia's Office 6. Raymond Fries Organization: Florida Keys Seahorse Park Association 7. Derrick Johnson Organization(s): Marathon and Lower Keys Association of Realtors, American Legion, Overseas Village Homeowners Association. 8. Johnathan Gueverra, Organization: Florida Keys Community College 9. Amber Ernst -Leonard Organization: Florida Keys Community College 10. Mark Moss Organization: Habitat for Humanity, Lower Keys and Key West 11. Jack Niedbalski Organization: Habitat for Humanity, Upper Keys 12. Holly Raschein Organization: Florida House of Representatives 13. David Rice Organization: Monroe County Commission 14. Mark Rosch, Organization- Monroe County Land Authority 15. Timothy W. Root Organization: Member of Utility Board Keys Energy, Appointed member of Workforce Housing Committee by Commissioner Kohlage 16. Bob Schillinger Organization: Monroe Co. Attorney's Office 17. Donna Stayton Organization: Florida DOH, Monroe Co. 18. Jeff Stuncard Organization: Village of Islamorada 19. Jim Saunders Organization: Bayview Homes/Development 20. Owen Trepanier Organization: Trepanier and Associates, Inc. 21. Mark Warmouth Organization: Individual Advocate/Wells Fargo Bank 22. Tim Wonderlin Organization: Habitat for Humanity, Middle Keys 23. Chris Todd Young Organization: Habitat for Humanity, Middle Keys Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder ,assessment Report, April 2015 51 f 1. WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES AFFECTING MONROE COUNTY'S „ , WORKFORCE HOUSING? What is working well? • The 100-pear deed restriction. • Consideration of workforce housing. • Collection of affordable housing (in -line) fees. • When funded, Sadowski. • Florida housing finance Corporation funding. Monroe County 40 funding. Key West housing authority and Munroe County Housing Authority's management of government owned apartments. • Tax -credit housing has made gains recently, particularly in the Upper Keys. Building has slowed over the past several years and presently is proceeding but only at a moderate rate. • Land Authority — somewhat. • PPP's (public private partnerships) • Our park provides for visitors accommodation and tourist revenues. • Habitat does well because they use partnerships and provide permanent housing. • Habitat for humanity. • Gorman developments in Upper Keys. • New projects on Stock Island. • Habitat for humanity-- he is one of the leading builders and renters of homes. They need more assistance from government to provide land to build. '! Not enough information to know. • Not much, if anything. • Nothing. • Nothing! What's not? • Confusion on definitions. • Financing, high costs • Cost of insurance. • Set up funds for new construction, first time home buyers. • Sadowski fund --replenished for Monroe County. • Sadowski Act funding. • Lack of incentives for building affordable housing. • More work, fewer people to do it, • Workforce/affordable housing programs do not cover the full range of individuals struggling to afford to live and work in the Keys. • Insufficient collaboration and comprehensive county wide planning. • I don't see a strategic plan all encompassing of all entities. This confusing topic must be simplified, and can be. • We need to figure out how to put the land authority/Housing Authority and bed tax money together and form development plan for affordable housing. • Workforce housing is not affordable for working people. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder ,Assessment Report, April 2015 52 Availability of housing to reduce out of pocket rental cost to less than 20% salary. Personally My I am being priced out of housing as I do not qualify for affordable housing. rent went up $350 in the past three years with 10 pay raises to offset. • Tourism/service jobs with low salaries. Wages insufficient for high cost of living. • Not enough housing. • Lack of availability. • Buildable land for affordable housing. • More second -home owners eating up properties. • Limitations with non -tier 3 land • Regulations, density, height. • Length of permitting time, • State housing allocations, land development, • Legislation to cut taxing rates on affordable housing. • Connection with job creators and requirements for housing. • Many affordable units historically approved had short-term (20 years) deed restrictions that are now expiring. • Prior developers have not developed workforce housing as required. • Housing for new businesses which require numerous employees. Identifying property to locate workforce housing and providing incentives to builders. Always being, as we are now, lagging behind the need. • Landlords are having to raise their rent as they incur more costs for their properties through tax increases, sewer, etc. • Needs to be split between rental and home ownership. Not cone -size -fits -all solution. • Availability of rentals. • HGTV. • Affordable housing advisory committee, 2. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE FUTURE HOLD FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING IN MONROE COUNTY? What are the future challenges that need to be addressed? • Affordable housing allocations. • Limited land/permitting. • Difficulty to get permits. • Finding a formula that functions as a continuum. One size fits all will not work. • Lack of land on which to build housing. • Land acquisition. There are less vacant buildable lots available each year. The market rate applications/construction is increasing rapidly. • Height ordinances • Higher cost for rental properties, wind and flood insurance, plus higher taxes. • Funding to offset housing costs. • County requirements to match funding sources (HUD). • Lack of funds to subsidize or offer incentives. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 53 �// • Changing state legislation to Land Authority and Housing Authority money to be used for workforce housing. Using our bed tax money for workforce housing. • Much of our current affordable housing is aging and not up to par for hurricanes which could lead to a future loss of workforce housing. • Ways to bring in new workforce housing for those at the top of the wage spectrum. • Environmental regulations often "trump" the ability to build. • Rising sea levels. • Insurance rates, • Tax rates, • The same as the past 15 years. • Focus! We need heads down, rolled up sleeves, and accountability! Distinct set aside time and deliverables. What are the future opportunities that .should be leveraged? • Funding is increasing. • Land Authority money. • Counties (municipalities) inclusionary housing requirements should be funded partly by business development with funding for employee/affordable housing. • Sadowski fund --replenished for Monroe County. Set up funds for new construction, first time home buyers. • Local, state and federal funds. State leverage for units to become allocated for affordable housing/workforce housing. Huge opportunities if we effectively link workforce housing to development an redevelopment projects. • Housing units must be incorporated in new developments being constructed. • Require developers to build housing for the workforce. • As energy efficient technology becomes better and better it should be used to make new housing more affordable in the long term, especially since electricity is not cheap. • Smoke free housing as an amenity for the health and safety of residence as a cost -saving benefit for refurbishing units. • Explore increasing height limit of structures and increase densities in certain zonings. Use state and federal land for large affordable projects. • Buildable land for affordable housing. • Density requirements. • Build up! Build new! Much of the KWHA properties are old, ugly, small and inefficiently sparse. Density needs to increase. • The greatest opportunity is the current threat to our service economy. This threat has to be leveraged to bring this issue to the forefront. • Need to greatly increase the affordable workforce rentals. • Housing requirements for commercial development. • Rising flood and windstorm insurance rates. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 54 3. HOW SHOULD THE COUNTY BEST ADDRESS THESE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES AS WELL AS THE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTS IN THE FLORIDA KEYS? What strategies should Monroe County consider in addressing workforce housing issues going forwardi? • Putting together a task force/committee. • Task force with staff (and legal support). Suggestions: o All transient unit development and re -development to be inclusionary housing ordinance, or impact fee assessment. o Add commercial development and redevelopment based on employees/square feet (use industry standards and sales tax codes) for an impact fee assessment. o Fund the Monroe County Housing Authority or other similar successful organizations to build workforce housing. o Implement a ROGO transfer ordinance whereby a market rate unit may be dislodged if an affordable unit replaces the dislodged market rate. o Issue no market rate ROGO units for multi -unit development projects, instead, issue "affordables" and require developers to take the affordable units and deed restrict existing market rate properties and then dislodge the market rate for use elsewhere as their market rates. o Use land authority money or impact fees to buy down interest rates for development costs for work force housing projects. o Increased density in appropriate zoning districts within commercial areas to facilitate gw� worhousing. o Increase height in appropriate areas. • Special considerations for landlords to make rental units affordable, while monitoring them to verify affordability. • Again, unifying developers, county and Key West city government representatives and finding funding streams for us to define land acquisitions, builders to build on this land, and the Housing Authority to oversee these affordable units. • Offer additional subsidies or incentives. Countywide effort to identify and acquire property to build. • Work with DEO to increase ROGO allocations. • Leveraging all resources. • Many need more space. • Focus all tier-3 properties on workforce housing. • Give commercial properties that are used for workforce rental the same tax and insurance (flood) breaks as primary homestead properties. • Focus land acquisition on workforce housing properties. • Provide funding for nonprofit affordable housing entities. • Develop a comprehensive plan that also deal with density and height restrictions. • Create a strategy. There is no 1 year, 5 year, 10 year plan. Set goals. Consider "Outside the box" ideas. • Keep our unique parks. • Adding to the planning smoke free amenity to curb costs in renovation. it is a CDC best practice for reducing secondhand smoke and it's related to chronic health issues. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 55 fAPPENDIX5 EMAIL COMMENTS From: Mike Rison <dfcmike@iserv.net> Subject: Re: Article in Key West Citizen regarding Affordable Housing Monroe County Date: August 28, 2014 11:28:02 AM EDT To: Bob Jones a::bg4�neb(as ➢�C,fl i.a �jan I was reading an article in the Key West Citizen regarding "Affordable Housing" and your name was mentioned soliciting I like to submit a comment about the "Affordable Housing" issue in Monroe County. Please Citizen comments. would suggest the best way to submit a comment. I might suggest some background information that could form the basis for your continued study of this issue. As follows: The only place there is an "Affordable Housing" issue in the Florida Keys (Monroe County) is Key West). That pressure is caused by a 2 by 4 mile Island with 22,000 permanent residents that welcomes 2,000,000 Visitors per year. To service those 2,000,000 Visitors Key West has approximately 7000 lodging units. In most areas across the country prices flow percentage wise from the cost of residential housing (for many different reasons) in the case of Key West because the Tourist Development Council has done such a spectacular job of enticing visitors to visit Key West all pricing flows from the room rates of lodging. Consider this; a company was formed to purchase 4 old and aging hotels, closed them down, spent 3 years re -constructing them and will soon add 700 "Affordable additional rooms to the lodging supplyl The first thing that appears necessary is a fee on all Lodging to build Housing" for all working people as almost everyone in Key West is impacted by these huge numbers to support the Industry. SOLodging A solution put forward by (probably by Developers) was to provide cheap transportation to areas of Monroe County that have cheap housing costs, like Florida City. So enter the Lower Keys Shuttle (Key West to Marathon, $2.00), The Upper Keys Shuttle (Marathon to Florida City $0.50 with a transfer). So for a maximum $2.50 you can ride anywhere between mml and mml20, 120 miles the only problem is you could spend 2-4 hours on an air conditioned bus each way every day. All subsidized by the Federal Government with no cost borne by the recepientants of this great service. I have personally spent about $4.50 to ride to Fort Lauderdale International Airport (the Senior price). That's the Lower Keys Shuttle, The Upper Keys Shuttle, #38 Busway, The Metro Rail, The Tri Rail, free shuttle to Fort Lauderdale Int. Airport. Also as printed in the news paper your e-mail address is listed incorrectly ( py qon s('y fsi'l.a d"U. ) that last dot after edu will cause an e-mail program to "choke". This may be your first indication of how the "powers that be" try to impede your work while still appearing to support the idea of Citizen input! If you need a copy I have included as an attachment a copy of the Citizen containing your e-mail address as printed in the Citizen. Regards MR �lkc,qu e ,q s+e.rk,s et Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 56 APPENDIX #6 "AFFORDABLE HOUSINGI PAPER- CITY OF KEY WEST OT ALD CRtw; & Nicoi,,E NPLLO Affordable Housing White Paper_ Donald Craig, AICP Director of Planning & Nicole Malo AICP,Planner, September 2014 City of Key West m i Pa uunzs cap ryaxe 1b�a�� gar a na d~�...�$�u�rissic�n-i & 10 QiU iL a �_fw�aa� Q:r�e-ru.. 0- Monroe (;iounty Workforce Housing Stakeholder ,assessment Report, .April 2015 57 0 APPENDIX PROTOCOLSSAMPLE COMMITTEE There was a request for a sample of protocols that the Board of County Commission and any committee they charge with addressing workforce housing might consider as they develop the charge and organize the Committee's efforts. These are based on protocols developed and used by a variety of local, regional and statewide committees that have been charged with seeking consensus on policy options. Defining Consensus Consensus is a deliberative process where a group seeks a shared understanding of a problem considers and evaluates all options and strives to achieve a practical agreement that all can live with. Consensus means that, to the extent possible, each member commits to work toward agreements that meet their own and other members needs so that all can support the outcome. ��/ Consensus is a process, an attitude and an outcome. Consensus processes have the potential of ,�� P � P producing better quality, more informed and better -supported outcomes. As a process, consensus is a problem solving approach in which all members: 1. Jointly share, clarify and distinguish their concerns; 2. Educate each other on substantive issues; 3. Jointly develop alternatives to address concerns; and then; 4. Seek to adopt recommendations everyone can embrace or at least live with. In a consensus process, members should be able to honestly say: • I believe that other members understand my point of view; • I believe I understand other members' points of view; and • Whether or not I prefer this decision, I support it because it was arrived at openly and fairly and because it is the best solution we can achieve at this time. Consensus as an attitude means that each member commits to work toward agreements that meet their own and other member needs and interests so that all can support the outcome. Consensus as an outcome means that agreement on decisions is reached by all members or by a significant majority of members after a process of active problem solving. In a consensus outcome, the level of enthusiasm for the agreement may not be the same among all members on any issue, but on balance all should be able to live with the overall package. Levels of consensus on a committee outcome can include a mix of: • Participants who strongly support the solution; • Participants who can "live with" the solution; and, Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 58 010 • Some participants who do not support the solution but agree not to vote against it. Successful Meetings Overview A successful meeting is a collaboration between members, staff, chair, facilitator, consultants (if relevant) and affected stakeholder interest groups. Consensus -based processes and decisions, developed working with diverse stakeholder interests affected by the issue(s), takes time to educate members' on the range of issues and possible solutions. Members have different levels of expertise and knowledge on the issues and require different levels of preparation and education ("getting up to speed") before they are prepared to evaluate options and make decisions. This is especially relevant to consensus -based decisions that strive for unanimity, or at a minimum a 75% level of support. In consensus -based processes one is not dealing with a simple majority decision requirement, instead the full range of issues and options are evaluated with the goal of ensuring stakeholder interests are addressed to the extent possible, and at a minimum are fairly considered. The reality is that consensus decisions, once reached, are durable, efficacious, long-lasting, and will have achieved the support of most if not all of the stakeholder interests affected by the issue(s). A meeting will be successful to the extent that staff, chair, facilitator(s) and project consultants plan meetings and meeting objectives, ensure members receive relevant materials, and design and prepare agenda packets, worksheets, surveys, and summary reports sufficiently in advance of meetings. A meeting will be successful to the extent that members' review materials, study the issues, consult with constituent stakeholders between meetings, complete pre and between meeting assignments, an prepare prior to the meetings. If there are documents and/or information members believe should be evaluated they should let chair/staff/facilitator know. Similarly, if there are meeting objectives and/or agenda items member's think should be added to the agenda, they should identify them during "Agenda Review" and during the "Next Steps" phase of each meeting where next meeting agenda items are requested. In summary, meeting success is a group effort requiring collaboration, cooperation, planning, commitment, time and resources. It is the responsibility of staff, chairs, facilitators, consultants, members, stakeholder groups, and the public to ensure meetings are productive and successful. In short, it is "our" responsibility. The Monroe County Affordable Housing Committee (Committee) will seek consensus on guidance and recommendations to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) The Committee's consensus building and decision making process is participatory, on matters of substance, the members will jointly strive for agreements which all of the members can accept, Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 59 support or at least agree not to oppose. In instances where, after vigorously exploring possible ways to enhance the members' support for the final decision on an issue or package of advisory recommendations, and where 100% acceptance or support is not achievable, final recommendations of the Committee will require at least a 75% favorable vote of all members present and voting. This super majority decision rule underscores the Committee's view of the importance of seeking consensus. In the event the Committee can not reach consensus (75% in favor) on a decision, a minority report may be requested immediately following the vote, describing the rationales and preferences of those dissenting, to be included in the meeting summary report. The Committee will make advisory recommendations only when a quorum is present. A quorum shall be constituted by at least 51% of the appointed members being present (simple majority). The Committee will utilize Robert's Rules of Order, as modified by the Committee's adopted consensus guidelines and procedures, to make and approve motions; however, the 75% supermajority voting requirement will supercede the normal voting requirements used in Robert's Rules of Order for decision making on substantive motions and amendments to motions. In addition, the Committee will utilize their adopted meeting guidelines for conduct during meetings. The Committee will make substantive advisory recommendations using their adopted facilitated consensus -building procedures, and will use Robert's Rules of Order only for formal motions once a facilitated discussion is completed. The Committee's facilitation team, in general, should use parliamentary procedures set forth in Robert's Rules of Order, as modified by Committee's adopted procedural guidelines. Any voting member may make a motion when a quorum is present, and after a thorough discussion. j A second is required to discuss the motion. If a motion is seconded, the Facilitator will open the floor for discussion. The Facilitator will recognize members wishing to speak on the motion. The Facilitator will, if time permits, recognize other participants wishing to speak on the motion. The Facilitator may elect or be requested by the member making the motion to take a "straw poll" on the motion. Based on the result, the Facilitator may table the motion with the agreement of the member moving it, pending further discussion. The member making the motion may accept friendly amendments to the motion. After completing discussion, the Facilitator will call the discussion to a close and restate the motion, with any friendly amendments, and call for a vote. If the motion receives a 75% or more favorable vote of the members present and voting it will be approved. io I,; N1i, liIs R01..,L;, ✓ Prepare for meetings. Review documents and background material prior to meetings. ✓ Keep to the agenda and meeting procedural polices and guidelines. ✓ The Committee process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an idea does not necessarily imply support for it. ✓ Listen to understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don't agree. ✓ Be focused and concise —balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime. ✓ Look to the facilitator(s) to be recognized. Please raise your hand (or tent card) to speak. ✓ Speak one person at a time. Please don't interrupt each other. ✓ Focus on issues, not personalities. "Using insult instead of argument is the sign of a small mind. " ✓ Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks. `Mud thrown isground lost. " Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 G0 M ✓ To the extent possible, offer options to address other's concerns, as well as your own. ✓ Participate fully in discussions, and complete meeting assignments as requested. ✓ Represent and communicate with member's constituent group(s). ✓ Refrain from using electronic devices during the meetings; Keep electronic devices turned off or silent. i" i ,S, ) ,�.�'�.11[� �°�°�.'� �� :Ilfii�.��; �i i i��mur� �� m��,�;� Center �'�� 116 �� ✓ Design and facilitate a participatory Committee process. ✓ Ensure a fair process during which all perspectives are considered. ✓ Enhance the opportunity for consensus building encouraging constructive discussions among the members. ✓ Assist the Committee to build consensus on advisory recommendations. ✓ Assist participants to stay focused and on task. ✓ Assure that participants follow ground rules. ✓ Prepare agenda packets and provide meeting summary reports. IS4T"i( ST.,"i W III 1�i WIX ✓ Respect meeting process and guidelines. ��4 17 11,1 III! 1 i u� „S F T 1..1II U 13 III ' .110 I E ✓ Respect meeting process and guidelines. ✓ Provide input during provided public comment opportunities. ✓ Consult d provide input to their representative stakeholder members to enhance the efficacy of o/ onsuand p p Y the process. ✓ Speak when recognized by the Facilitator(s). ✓ Offer one idea per person without explanation. ✓ No comments, criticism, or discussion of other's ideas. ✓ Listen respectively to other's ideas and opinions. ✓ Seek understanding and not agreement at this point in the discussion. ✓ Determines the speaking order. ✓ Participant raises hand to speak (or raise name tent). Facilitator(s) will call on participants in turn. ✓ Facilitator(s) may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote discussion on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who have not spoken on an issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have already spoken on the issue. IIF-01i ii.Il.^:PORT"'.AND ✓ Facilitator introduces presenter. ✓ Hold all questions until report or presentation is complete, unless invited by the speaker. ✓ Facilitator stacks names. ✓ Facilitator calls on members to speak. ✓ Clarifying questions only. (For discussions, see guidelines below.) Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 1 ME ✓ Facilitator guides process. ✓ Meeting guidelines remain in effect. ✓ Facilitator stacks names. ✓ Proposal is presented (no comments or discussion). ✓ Clarifying questions are taken (no comments or discussion of the proposal). ✓ Discussion of proposal (focus on issues, refine proposal, and consensus building). ✓ Consensus/Acceptability ranking as needed. ✓ Facilitator tests for consensus with a motion to approve and a vote. During the meetings, members will be asked to develop and rank options, and following discussion and refinement, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if requested by members and staff. Please be prepared to offer specific refinements or changes to address your reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercises: X6CEP'IABILI`1°Y" 4= .acceptable, .I= .acceptable, 2= Not Acceptable, RANKING I agree I agree witb minor I donY1,xgree unless major SCALE __..___._. _._.�.._.._ addressed re�°erraahont rerer�at:on�r �addresse„..._ 111C A I l , 5 Highest Level of Priority; Urgent 4 High Priority 3 Moderate Level of Priority 2 Low Level of Priority 1 Lowest Possible Priority; Committee Should not Pursue 1= Not Acceptable RAw I AVERAGE SCORE I VI;:) PI l�t 0f "E I:) �J III E,H All agenda items must be submitted by close of business ten (10) days prior to the next scheduled Committee meeting. The staff will review a proposed agenda item for a determination of whether the issue falls under the charge of the Committee. Staff will notify the member proposing the agenda item of the determination whether the issue will be placed on the Committee's next agenda. Committee members will receive all proposed agenda items and supporting documentation at least seven days prior to the next scheduled Committee meeting. No new agenda items will be considered at the Committee meeting with the exception of those issues raised by the staff that have been determined to require immediate Committee action, or by the unanimous (100%) approval of a quorum of the Committee through the Chair. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder :assessment Report, April 2015 62 55 I ,Van Agenda items that meet submittal criteria and arrive after the established deadline will be placed on the next regularly scheduled Committee meeting agenda. Based on number of agenda items the Facilitator, in consultation with the Chair, may allocate a specific amount of time for each agenda item. The Committee by a 75% o favorable vote may discuss requested agenda items not meeting the submittal criteria requirements but may not take any formal action on the issue until the next scheduled Committee meeting. Special meetings may be called by the staff in consultation with the Chair, based on urgency and necessity for immediate action. N 11^T I11E 14 SIJBP1u1I 1 Y,"!k;1 CRI, r, 1�1.m. Agenda item must be submitted 10 days prior to regularly scheduled Committee meetings. Proposed agenda item must clearly state the action requested of the Committee. If applicable, proponent should provide exact ordinance, rule or statutory references that the proposal addresses. Proponent should provide all necessary supporting documentation required for Committee and staff to determine the merits of the request. Proponent must indicate that they have not requested any additional actions on the proposed agenda items such as an administrative hearing or declaratory statement. Proponent must provide the following contact and agenda information: AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION Date of Committee Meeting: Name of Presenter: Representation of Presenter: Agenda Item Title: Amount of Time Requested: Rationale for Agenda Item: Specific Action Requested: Background Documentation: i "r f"I' II (_ is T',N II) E' A 1 1( I' 1 i R Olw E D 1 i 11 L1'm,, 1. Facilitator introduces the agenda item/proposal. 2. Proponent states the action requested and provides rationale for proposal. :Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 63 @grepr. 3. Facilitator asks Committee members only for clarifying questions (a clarifying question addresses a specific point that is not understood, and should not indicate support or opposition to the proposal). 4. After questions, the facilitator opens the issue up for discussion. All Committee members and Staff wishing to speak raise their name tents and be acknowledged by the Facilitator prior to speaking. Committee approved meeting guidelines are in effect at all times. FOR PROPOSALS (issues requiring Committee action): Following Committee member's preliminary discussion, the facilitator asks if any members of the public wishes to address the Committee on the current issue under Committee consideration. The facilitator serves as a moderator for public input. The facilitator asks for those who wish to speak in favor of the proposal or topic under discussion to offer brief comments, others who wish to speak in favor will be asked to offer new points or simply state agreement with previous speakers. The same opportunity and requirements will be offered for those who wish to speak in opposition to the proposal or topic under discussion. The facilitator ensures that all views are expressed and similar views are not repeated. Members may, through the facilitator or chair, ask clarifying questions to members of the public offering comments. The facilitator or chair may limit public comment to three (3) minutes per person. This process will be used for substantive Committee issues and not for procedural matters before the Committee. FOR DISCUSSION ISSUES (no formal action required): Following Committee member's preliminary discussion, the facilitator asks if any members of the public wishes to address the Committee on the current issue under Committee consideration. The facilitator serves as a moderator iii?„ for public input. Members of the public will be provided one opportunity to comment per discussion �5 //� agenda item, and may be limited to three (3) minutes. Members may, through the facilitator or chair, ask clarifying questions to members of the public offering comments. This process is used for Committee substantive issues and not for procedural matters before the Committee. 0 FOR PROPOSALS AND DISCUSSION ISSUES (Substantive Agenda Items): After discussion and public comment, a Committee member may make a motion for an action on the issue. If there is a second to the motion, the facilitator will call for discussion. Once a motion is made and seconded the discussion will be restricted to only Committee members unless the facilitator or chair requests specific clarification from the staff or a member of the public. Members may request specific clarification from a member of the public through the facilitator/chair. A member may wish to second a motion for the purpose of Committee discussion and not necessarily as a show of support for the motion. If the motion involves an option that the public has already commented on, then the vote is taken, if the proposed action (motion) is materially different from what was discussed, an additional opportunity should be provided for public comment, and then the Committee votes on the motion. Only motions to approve will be considered. There will be no motions to disapprove. If there is no motion after discussion or a motion with no second, the requested action is not approved. Dlonroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 64 • Facilitator introduces each agenda item. • Proponent/Presenter provides overview, rationale for proposal, and any requested action. • Clarifying questions from members (i.e. something you don't understand). Names stacked (raise name tents). • Committee begins discussion only after all questions are answered. • General discussion by Committee members. • When appropriate: Facilitator asks if any members of the public wishes to address the Committee on the current issue under Committee consideration. Facilitator asks for those who wish to speak in favor of the proposal or topic under discussion to offer brief comments, others who wish to speak in favor will be asked to offer new points or simply state agreement with previous speakers. • The same opportunity and requirements will be offered for those who wish to speak in opposition to the proposal or topic under discussion. • Facilitator ensures that all views are expressed and similar views are not repeated. • Facilitator may instruct members of the public to avoid repeating points, and encourage them to summarize key points and to submit lengthy prepared statements into the record that will be included in the meeting summary (instead of reading them). • When appropriate: Members of the public will be provided one opportunity to comment and may be limited to three (3) minutes. • Members may, through the facilitator or chair, ask clarifying questions to members of the public offering comments. • After public comment, facilitator calls for members' discussion and stacks names of members wishing to speak. • Members explore the pros and cons of all options prior to making a formal motion. • Any voting member may make a motion when a quorum is present which will require a second. • If a motion is seconded, the facilitator opens the floor for discussion. The Facilitator will recognize members wishing to speak on the motion. • Committee votes on the motion. • Once a motion is on the floor discussion is restricted to Committee members except as allowed by the facilitator or chair for purposes of clarification. • For Committee members offering a second, is it understood that they may be seconding for purposes of discussion, and not necessarily due to agreement with the motion. • Committee members may offer friendly amendments. If accepted by maker of the motion, the friendly amendment becomes a part of the motion currently under discussion. • In order to get a "read" on a motion, the Facilitator may elect or be requested by the member making the motion to take a "straw poll" on the motion. Based on the result, the Facilitator may suggest to the member moving that they withdraw or table the motion pending further discussion. • Committee members may offer an amendment to the motion: second required, discussion, vote on the amendment only. • The motion on the table is now the motion as amended (if amendment was accepted by the mover and approved by 759/o or greater of the Committee). After completing discussion, the Facilitator will call the discussion to a close and restate the motion, with any friendly amendments or approved amendments, and the Facilitator will call for a vote. If the motion receives a 75% or greater favorable vote of the Committee members it will be deemed approved. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 65 s,' p u m,uII,.: P O C I,JLAJ R I ;,S II11) U IW'1` PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES: Public comment opportunities provided during Committee meetings are for comments only. The public is also encouraged to provide their comments in writing using the Public Comment Forms to ensure accuracy. All written and or electronic comments will be included as in the Facilitator's Summary Report. Public comment provided orally during meetings will be summarized and included in the Facilitator's Summary Report. TIME LIMITS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT POLICY: The minimum time allowed per person wishing to comment is three (3) minutes and the maximum is five (5) minutes. The facilitator will check for the number of people wishing to comment and the amount of time left in the meeting, and poll Committee members for the amount of time they prefer to allow for each person wishing to comment from three (3), four (4) or five (5) minutes. PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD POLICY: The Committee will provide a regularly scheduled general public comment opportunity at each Committee meeting. In addition, the public will be provided an opportunity to comment prior to the Committee voting on substantive policy matters (actions that are not procedural or ministerial in content). If a decision is to be made over the course of multiple meetings (i.e., discussed at one meeting and voted on at another meeting) the public will be allowed an opportunity to speak on the issue during the regularly scheduled Public Comment opportunity. If a decision is to be made at the same meeting where the issue is first discussed the public will be provided an opportunity to speak after Committee discussion but before a vote is taken. If there are a large number of individuals wishing to speak from the same group, the Committee Chair and facilitator may decide to require representatives of groups to speak on behalf of their respective groups, rather than all members of a group speaking. The group shall elect one person to speak on their behalf and notify the Committee of their selected representative prior to public comment. PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING TO MAKE PRESENTATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE: Members of the public wishing to make a presentation to the Committee should contact their constituent stakeholder representative on the Committee. If the Committee member agrees that the presentation is relevant and beneficial to the Committee they will discuss the presentation with staff, and staff will review the presentation for relevance, accuracy of data, and balance of perspective and if deemed beneficial to the Committee, they will present the request to the Committee for their consideration. If the Committee is interested in having the presentation it will be scheduled for a subsequent meeting with appropriate time set for the agenda per agenda submittal policy. DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION TO COMMITTEE PROCEDURES: Members of the public wishing to distribute information to the Committee should provide the information to the facilitator or staff in electronic format for distribution to the Committee. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 66 "R"C.Wµ P, TEj� jry j� jry p py jry u� jry Any members of the Committee who fails to attend two consecutive regularly scheduled meetings will be contacted by staff to determine why the member was not able to attend and if the member still wishes to serve on the Committee. If the member cannot demonstrate his or her absence was for good cause, which includes but is not limited to personal or family illness or military service, or no longer wishes to serve on the Committee, Staff will request the member submit a written resignation from the Committee to their appointing member of the County Commission. If the member refuses to resign, the Committee will recommend to the Board that the member's appointment be terminated and a new member be appointed as a replacement. i..', ON 1 P0vl 1 T E E A, 1) O P 1 E,1) i' 11)1; 1 G .P R 1 N C 1. The Committee will adhere to their charge and purpose by providing advisory recommendations to the County Commission 2. The Committee will strive to achieve consensus on the evaluation and development of substantive advisory recommendations submitted to the County Commission. 3. The Committee will operate under adopted policies and procedures that are clear and concise, and consistently and equitably applied. 4. Committee members will serve as liaisons between the stakeholder groups they have been appointed to represent on the Committee, and they should strive to both inform and seek input on issues the Committee is addressing from those they represent. mull 1_•,1"1�a6 F 111 Q I E 1 f (""Y 13110 1...,;l C Y' „/ /�� The Committee shall agree on a workplan and schedule consistent with meeting its charge at its organizational meeting. Additional meetings may be called by the Staff or Committee chair as required. A I"S F�,P,)"@'1^ [," i 1111) IM:'N!1ITT F11p A I EI B 1'" R Any member of the Committee who wishes to have their comments/opinions read into the record at a meeting they will not be able to attend, may send their written comments by e-mail to the Facilitator and the Staff. The member should identify the agenda item(s) that the comment(s) pertains to. The Facilitator will read the absentee member's comments into the record during the discussion portion of the specific agenda item the member is commenting on, and the member's comments will be included in the Facilitator's meeting summary report. The Committee member may only make one comment per agenda item, and each comment will be limited to a maximum of five -hundred (500) words. CIMIR EILECTIOJ,i POLICY The Committee will elect a chair from within the existing membership, who will serve in that position for a one-year term. The Chair will work with the facilitator to moderate the Committee meetings. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 67 g `Facilitating Consensus Solutions, Supporting Collaborative Action. " The Florida State University Morgan Building, Suite 236 2035 East Paul Dirac Drive Tallahassee, FL 32310 Phone: (850) 644-6320 Fax: (850) 644-4968 htlt,p.- /off ,on ensti fsi.i.:dut The FCRC Consensus Center serves as an independent public resource facilitating consensus solutions and supporting collaborative action. The Consensus Center, based at Florida State University in Tallahassee and University of Central Florida in Orlando, provides consensus building and collaborative planning services, education, training and applied research. Through our work, we strive to build a broader understanding of the value of collaborative approaches and create a cadre of leaders, professionals, managers, stakeholders and students skilled in using collaborative consensus building processes to produce and implement solutions. The Center offers neutral technical assistance to a wide range of public and private organizations, professionals, agency staff and private citizens engaged in collaboration on public and organizational challenges throughout Florida and the country. We help to design and implement efforts for strategic planning and public problem -solving. We have substantial experience assisting with a range of stakeholder collaborations on topics such as building codes, land use, water resources, environmental, energy, airspace. Contact us if you'd like to explore utilizing a collaborative approach and the Center's services. Robert M. Jones, Director FCRC Consensus Center rtrmjone (°ii)f ume:du .'Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 68 Additional Affordable Housing data and printed copies of "linked" reports within the Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report (FSU April 2015) 4 9 f a � a i 3 ffiz E� 0 A A X i X X o �$ti..wwr<.�.ww� ,'RwowiAwwww w.$www w.www w.,.,»Swww - II b 8 w. a Y..... '�' � _ t i ppwwww w..w �Xwww."nww w� '�w�:n ww wwwwwwwww'wwwww$ww w,,,w �iaww w'w—w ww ww w — V ffi m $ e a Q 3` $ -- --- ---- --- --------------- -- a" z g n as axa �Es -H-1 �L HT +1- -H— - - - t TH + + + I+ — —1 H e _ _ _ t _ _ _ _ _ It _ _ _ - _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E g .0 2gg2SC IC.2C C?C N C CaCC : C G_1 C dC3C a �C WC aC a yyq r� q j ogegmo`o 00 02000 8:oe'°^`a'm a`�'� V mn g. P`9 !t In3Ina a m R� a �'a f F g&$$P� P� f qY f C'i A' a acr5"�MSgaaa ri vi ti rv- w ry $aa a5 9 C a o n a m 3 a' `m 3 o N ��., C a3:ary`a` ry `a 2 r C N 77- `n n G G G G G G G G � G G G � � � S" J J,:J o � ;:A ":Y mi "a J .) .'1 J J .J � �� '3 :Y � 4 :i .) � 'J :.J � ::�,. "J •emu _j �. '. d ffi s a S 3 F F z m i m s 0 �s �.. d5 F. s s s u5 5 c �. s w �:x s..�. 2 i> S '✓ s= V� 3 uF §. 5 c5 F�` .fix g ggu.� a8 �S e g 8?p U Q �FGC C 5 0, z� •r i < _ r i f 95 U,» V P Eli! «�., ...www«wwwwwwwwww wa ww w....w ww w..w ,..www«Nv.w m � w w e w a m F Q v w« w 11 11111 m w v v � a 3 I � e E — �e3 �r S 4ffiy 9 V a� w tap a� of aip9; �- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ Of _ Of _ _ _ y� 0 _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �V cSm�$cS$Icaaccc c''ccecrS �S'��b'�S g$ 5'�.. Se,c,ccccSccccccW.rcccccpnacce p "'8 b""�'S' b"^b'..'ib' �A`��8�b"de�'pd G �,� _aSS�aa__a�w�� gas o�m Sfo+o oo$ _I03,�.5 'A I,& 11, al �1 3 ffi �CGd'Ys...sa 's�:� MUCH oF%Ml: ks m�R— i x FOr,� O� ry S a R 0 K n R R 3 - � $ .4S»'3 ww w» w�'»»x»»w«Hwwwwwwww w»w .,wzsw w a a � E x' F � a k^»»$»»»»»$»»«»w.»»5,»w ww w,,,.»wwww ri w g3 ® 8 , f a vi 8 a"ate dffi 1 �v S Y d H- - - -- - - - - ' -- X S a� X z n $ arg Fy t� �o -+H-H- -+H- + - - - --- - a a- ash r� g- sg 5 0000ggo�g8��ooa=�a�Po888�3n�gm aaaaa�� c rc- a«ze; 6Sooga o ma 8 � ��amma�S�=�smao nay o a'aa�°aa�ca„ $ ,7 g y yy '`39 �3 fifi y CA m a' a Z ,? ' �. �1 a�• . .� � � M� �+ ,f *M' M gym,- 'ry ��p W yy r r. o 1 7m PA hit am IP Ell 0 • �• B _ � t Ar AIL 1Ct7 f! r � '1��,,,.r •.�. `_ � ; �� . �P:; f r` W • �� +� fit:. ffik f.f s l r ±� i I !1 rah 'f 1 lai,i jl;°. t �ry ti� � r Ii • r • 1 r� ��. � _we�•w -• �� a. it -_ ri 001 77 41 PK ya bit 1 ti -2 a. Lr RTI.21-41 .9% m � tm 4 i a` 10 �5 CD ILL m LL f? si9f 'i V 1 1 v �� / � � � � �.. Rid - i►t !. y � ��•;7, � 1 r 4 r 7 �! r i , W. 10 A' Vft w f nrY.r f. y N d � • C E � ze r C � 7 N O T 2 d C � rn ¢ 'E m c � U c 01 N r2 r2 O ' a� tgtt �� 'fig• � n:. ca in SVI TA 72L.. ml -,g 4i iv Rl rip 6 iii L i lYw i r 'iL r-_ k V sM en j 4Ax r K" X+ 6 +, a; -d 0 0 �+ d a a 0 ril 0 .x °�3°° a rnrno rn ax ° � v � a.� � �° � � En P4 o° o a 3 v :° v 4' r. L3 °' v cd o O a, m w .b C° 4 J ►. m �cd ��, f°.' p p y w o v b o x v � a0i a; o m to w o �'� rn o '�" o �' : o n. iti (U a) w 0 v ••c -d t�/� o G1 �i "d 'b V N tad N r0 A w 0 v g .. v> o op o v 0 aai i a° O � v UO J cu o v01iy a' 'a v w 3 E rn o 'd v v -d a v o ,� �� c 4 o r C,4 U QJ w d >` m x 'd r. 4 id N v m m o v M v co p o .i d-0 * 3 ° 114 AW a°J, EA wo .a +r °o v 3 O N v cd �` �� v w •� ad 3 o v 3 ai o 00 w ° O 3 .�4 x P� `-4 "g �4 � CDCDO 14 En ar w cry 3 N q 3 0 coo ao cu q Ea bv b v ovcd v a d w v Ex � a'� 01� 0 0 ovo a u� v wrd x cuoa a, 3 �x x 3 3 rCd �>1 •� cu cn r O O 0 � Q J .. Q) ' o v ' .� °; 3 v .fir d ro E" x g4° 4A 4 q g -d 'i � .°a aC, m o o ° `y b°'o ° ' ° 41 a: ca v a � 4 tv t�R tdW N t�tl >1 W 0 0 LO A 0 0 U) O v 0 N O e 0 Li L c v 0 N m X 0 5 O a �• C. W N p u F d• ri '0!m .� ti V' Ly Ln L':n ri ti tD N ti M ri M ri m ri M ri h ri V' ri I*!N .y '•i m V! ti .� V! .� Lq ti Ln ri t0 '-i L� ri fn ti Ll ri V' L••i .-1 ,a E eY0 o O i p y w3 H N O H m V� r- n O N H Ln L f/: Fo 5 p E v w Vim' w OOf w w� m w w °mi : w w« V' w w w w Vm] w m w w w m w w mw w m w w m w w m w m w Ln '" F v ~ b N L O M 0 a E� W {0m Lygy E 3 n Vm' tN0• tq VM! tm0• [~V [�] m T N tm+1. O q ONi• Om1 N tt1 L�11 m f�`!. r-: V n o'1• Vmf N Lam!] Ln M -i m .-. N %••I O N N O t+1 M O N l rl O O m OI .y v LH w rl w w rl w rl rl w w rl w M rl w rl w rl w rl w rl w rl w rl w rl w rl rl w w '-1 w rl w rl w '•1 w '•1 w 'i w w rl w w p..7., 'O O LD C M � 2 mtC N Y r m m m m v m m m m m m o H a o w m o m A H �L ,LU z y+ Y w Ln two two v�i w N V' M N N Lin q LU ° g Ex .0 N O•C F a N 'l7 H m N O O L.- m M V' m n m m LA m H n m t0 m s� N m H w O O m N m m O o v to n rn m m H to v%D O N N m N o M w n m cn m o O to v m m to O t° O t° rl m O O 'i N O °1 r1 - t° m m L% rl N r-1 y N m ~ w N N H VN� C N m N � m N h N N LnV' .`r. ti VNI � N 2° PG O p x v N 'n DQ b T Y :a 82 i to m tD m m N o m LH Ln N m m m o mcp .H LH Ln H cn-a- N q y y to+1 ¢ v m v m w mw m w w w m w w w w w w w M M w M W Qp y p -m to fob W O Lui Em� Ln Ln N o m N t0 0 m V' 0 O V: 0 0 v to m V: 0 v Ln 0 N m 0 m Of o N r1 a N Ln o N m 0 m It o LH n p V' V' o .••i N o o m m 00 m o N Ln o n o o H L% o H V: o V' 0 N N p V' O o m m o N t° o T C �.E 0 gQ ri sr N m Ln (1 m m A v m rl m to w to r- r- n w m m ri l7 m m Wa F p m 'i w .-Y w ••1 w rl w rl rl w w rl w rl w rl w '-I w rl w L-1 w LH w . w . w N w . w w . w w . rl w rl w '-I w rl w N w '•1 w '•1 w•L� Y Z wo d T Q Ln q f Y T W rl M H m m O m O CO r� a0 Ln v Ln m O m O m o H m m m M d' O Ll- m .H m m o pp o m m N m m m m o N m O rl m m V1 m •� a�i Te N V: I Ln N Ln t° Ln N N Ln V; .-1 ti m vi V' M M ti m V' m Ln N to N a LLJ c M 0 ri w r M H w H w H r w w H w H w H w H w H w r w N w w w r w r r w w r w r w r w w r w H w H w w w ti ._o 00 Na y. NN M w LLJ V o 0 0 o o o 0 o m o o o o 0 0 0 O o 0 o o o 0 o o Ewa t : LLnn L% rl O m Ln cq N V' V' DI m L% m L% M Ln p V_ OI Lt L% m V' m m Vi Q w w w mw nw w w w w w w w w w tw w w w M�'7'Y dC ww w w w w w w wm �' w.b ________________________ nP4 ow W 7 .O y V; of m N N rl 'i rl M O m V! LA m v rl V' r1 O N 'i '-I N to m c7 "t N N Y 'M b 3 n 0 C) L Ln N O O O o o O O O o o.p� O o O o p O O O o O o 0 mm N n% um7 'N-1 n dO'_ N N V' Vm_ LNn coopp V' 0oOpp T V' r O m Lmn v O M O n z a V. ° m N m m m Ln m M m Vm VO' VO' m m m emir m m m m m m m m °' H F o a w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w o N m m r1 M 01 m O m In N w m H n m N m N o m m V' o Hm N °t a s m � N w o M w M w oI m w m r m m m N w w m m m o m m .H w o o w Hm 0 w r` m m m m m m m m N m m m w m .H m In m Ln L- o N w m LU m a a m n ------------------------ m In o m to .H m N N n m o m H m m .H N N O m o N H (C F1 n M o o .H .H m N � m Ln, m .H m Ln N Ln m m n m m Ln N m m .•+ 3 b N a e of r Ln VL r- r ri w r r V' N w r t, r m r N N of r m r Ln r w w m w ♦i Ln w r w rl rl r r a r m N ID r 3 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w . w . w w . w w . w w w w w w w w F '^ V x b Z y N 0 y _ n b E a Ynl a LL. y � � D a D E h N 1. y O m Q fa/1 t/Y1 a W Y E a W � �FFy J4 .. C F N mi w0 W tA+ r'Z. 'Wx" .Wom b y WE 7 F a N a W ? x m LL 'O xD G 3 FO .� y v Y mq H M D a T+ }�+ m 'x"' co d a L•' W �+ ° M• Y F o m v��>7' ��+ 1+ {yL O A Y x P. o 7 LA F y m Y°y�,1 1°ro� t�.� >. b '^ a `o c u E o U u up P. a w b o f°g a F 3 E E c c x G ra w o n y� LL u u w° Z Z O 0O a a a li M. mo r° N IT r h Y «O O q u Go d• N N tD to u] M O` N d: m N N M aO ao q O H N O N O m N to O to tD •p •p Q ti rl H .-1 rl N rl rl H .-1 H .-1 N rl rl rl r1 N f`1 rl '-I rl H H N H H rl rl H N .�^ m u m H o m N N N m N rl M N O1 00 Q1 rl O 00 N W Op y� N O,7f 10 n O rl OI w C m m w � n v N m Ln tnO N an m n w vOi m m v 'D vOi m vni r- m °V' n v v�i "r m C. CO) O M3 W w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w o ~ n tl o u u e0 R W b �.' V' N V' wm m O m H m N m ID m n m v H N en m m H H o m o m N GO H H O C .� E to N m n en .-i en co to O m to C m co m o m to m V; n v, o H n m v m o to m n r+ N .y v n w N H w m H VI H GD w ri H OJ H H N H H of w Oi w V' H v! H O H O` w t0 w 00 w rY H H H PI H H H 4 H Oi w Oi w V� H m w G H O` w W 7 O w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w = m tG W o o ae Be Be Be a4 Be Be Be Be Be Be ee ee ee ee ae ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee N u W Z « -C t`+ N mN m N to MN m to N m M N N o N n H m N to N o m to N m N m m to m o N m M o n1 m H N N n N m N n N H m m H N N m N N N N W o Ox E n_ v N Fy bcd u O o n m t0 m M H O N N m yn O v m o m M m H GOO m N GO � m w H � v O M v n Oai N H H m H v H N Vf v m n o L n co L m a O ONi v tN0 N N .5 O y e1 =O axv rl •d' N N t0 V1 GO N .-1 V' H Oi 1A rl O1 N n N r-1 d' w Cl)H rl rl d' H rl H fV m m W N oo H m rl m 4 u �r pY O OQ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — u c.n '— —` T _ bBe tD O m to v m m h v N tD m � � O N tD {it��D .-1 lD O VI In N r1 O rl V1 O pmp tpp0pp �o�� y HN^N �c0. G b u 0 W m o M 0 to 0 n 0 H o O 0 H 0 O 0 tD 0 n 0 N 0 n 0 v 0 tD 0 N 0 m 0 N N N M m o O o H O O o ow N N o O 0 N 0 O H H o to Dv'E x 0 yo d: a0 h N to n n m m a0 O .-1 m m to CO V� tD a0 a H t0 e M d: C N N N cN M a m M q u T..r7 o u Z g2 o n w n w tri w Go M t$ H to rri co ao tri to Vi ao Lq tc N of of tri V' N vi n1 to of ; Q-----------------^^^^^------------- Y m O O w m to m o o m to o0 to o o m m p to m to O m O VI o to w)O M o •� ow IV n c T q y Ln H w rl m N .-1 H VI .-1 v to .-1 n m w m GM t-i M H rl O to rl n VI rl m O rl m O H v N rl w M rl wO v rl v rl m N rl N D .-1 m tD H h H H O N H H N H H H .-1 v O H M H o H H M V_ H H H H wtD n1 H m rl N tD rl W h i G Nn vv Mw M o w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 0H Q b NN ub«F LU 'v 0 H 0 0 m 0 0 0 O 0 n 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 p 0p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 6� Q m o H to Mw O N m m m m N v m V' a0 V' H tD n tD tD -ctr- O v m n to coMu^J•vy w N N w wM w w M W w w N M N w0 M w w w N W w K W w W W Oat OY O re G4 ow ------------------------------- 'i Vi «x 7n v W OR H h H H to H Go M V' m O to M O n N H OR n h tp m M n n] Lq H Lq N fV fr)d' y q � � N H CI rl N [t7 t-1 L`I rl tV CV rl H t-1 N r! N .-1 N N H r-1 rl rl rl N H [V '-I N H CV N C o N O N IC% y O O (Op O O GOp O M O GOO O C O N O N O r O It O V; O N O CO1_ O N O V: O r% O c O N OOp V' O H O H VOA O O cq O O pOp V_ O VOf_ pOp C O V: 4.3 w N t�+1 N m VOI N m N fn1 V m N f� M m m N m m N tOtl N NH m rn m N m N m N �E axa o w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O N °� n m m 00 N nI� m m m n to m co 8 H n v m [ nv� m m T (off m m M M n o M m OM to n o f, n m ao tn0 ((ag�o n H OMi n W H T m m cQ w w 00 M :li OOa m tD M w m V N n O V N w m GO w H N O H VI O M v w m o m VI /LU « N 'O N P: O V' M tC N [`I VI tL1 N V' N rl tl1 tD M V' M n M m O Vi Lq cN N IV m C` m m N m V1 m N n n tLl M V' t0 M N N O n1 m d' N CD V: m N O N N N t0 tLl V1 N N O N n s7 It D xr Z Q r C N W m (Q U O U U 7 1T. U G C�. U 7 O O v. O L'' U 7 O U U o 7 U yC •O 'O ; O y�,` O .b U 'O U « p U F O O U tS .D U O o O U U U y U �' O U F p F O U u 'C y U U O G _ U w 9 N 3 7 0o w pp u u E « o U w U 6 u v �(i u u L �+ O a F O y D 0 M mm g u A ti h as a`a m u u U u u (] A w w c�c�7 c7 C�.7 T 7G T x x S Cl) It U) J O W H O S W LU Nz w O m G Qi C4 P� N w 0 LL m Ln d: Ln to t` vLn Ln O m Ln m m t` v, m N to Ln Ln v. Ln r-: m V. L` m N •p .-i .-i .=i ri .� .-i .-i .ti .� .� .ti ri .-i .-i .y ri ri .� ri .•i .-i .-i .-i .-i .-i .ti .-i ,-� .i o .-i ;t b ro G N' Ln m m O m1 N m mf O O w m m m m m VVON N N n w h IMA VOI w t0 NLin F Ln m Ln a m m Ln m m w m Ln Ln m Ln IIDD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O 0 At F N m m o m m m vLn H m Ln m N vm o v Ln m .-� m m H v .� m m N vo f m o v m m m w t' o o vLn m m o m y m ry m m w m m Ln v; L o m a L GG O m O Lt] to n .4 O N � O7 .4 .4 .4 vi .-1 t0 .4 Ln tV m O ti N O r4 m L� N O N .-I .i .i N N N rl rl .i .i .i .i .i .i .i .i rl rl .i .i N .i r1 rl .i .•1 N N .i .i p..7., N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N beb m tC LFG. Be Be Be Be Be W Be Be 9e W Be Be Be 9 Be Be 9 Be Be 9 Be Be 9 W 9e 9 0 Be Be Be Be �S N o m m Ln o N m m m m m n m N m m N N m m m Ln m m Ln o n m m w q N N N V' N N N N N N V' M N M N d' M N N m N N N N N N N .•1 N .-1 m Ex Y F 'a m m m M m O m N m N N m v m m m m L- Ln m Ln C N m N m m v ti m N Gf'il m V' M N m n N m m rl .i m n m n m m <' y� m - N m Ln m .-1 N .•a N ;�•� Ln d' m t0 t-1 Ln t0 O O Ln rl r L% m v' N N N O Oi c0 r O m .i N Ln O N 't M F "oL; L. m m H r� .-i m o m v m H m � H Ln w I ri m r, w v� d' ri .•i Y F m m H m .+ N r- m y v� N m .r d' d' .•L N o° — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 'im tip p t.•� m ` -9 W M N w mN mN N mN N M N N W W N N N N N W W N N N Nm N N N 7 .F pp x Y �o tO0 O O VOL N GOO 000 m OH N N m w v W O d' OOf N N N m N T Omt O Ln T O q °u T.� aT t r O O .-1 n O Ln O m m m d' m N N L-1 F Ln .•L N to N m m m m L.- m N V' Of m m N w w m N N m H n N m m r. t0 m Ln n .i .i .i .i .i .i .i .i .i .i .i .•i .i .i .-1 t-1 .•1 .•1 .i L-1 .•1 L-1 .•1 .i .Y 1-1 1-1 .i .Y 9 V °' � Y p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a L§ U T X.d — — — — Fi Fi Y Ln O O O o m o m O O m m m O m •� GGpp pp O m M m O 2 O o 0 0 o m Ln Ln V F Ln N N N V' V' m m d' NH GG - n L.- N m m m m m m m h m N . w m m w �f y d' m tD .y m O .-1 V' N Ln m N Ln O A] m Ln d: N m C V: m Ln V' rl N V: G N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N N N N N N N ry o vb Nyro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 N m o m m m t° m t` m a Ln ri m m m m m v, Y' m d' m m N m Ln Ln o m 0o v oo Lri ni t+i Lri to pp tri m N N v� Lri n n o of m va m to w to o m t0 V' M V� M sF h m m m V� M h m M h LA m m N N m m m v N N '�w•.� p y w w w N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NDo A aa.:o — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ww .i lV mv�Ln Ln V! N N Ln M LD Ln m N m M M N GO V! d; m th m O m o Ln d' m N L: t0 LA Ln .i N N N r-1 .i .i N r1 N N m N N �-1 N N N N N t`! .�1 t`! t`1 [V t`1 N .••� .ti .a .-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m r w vv n 't Lmn m m m o rmi N m y m t% a Ln m Vf w Vf LA w O .y N w v L, Ln o m m pppp DD GO N w m O Oi L� L, w Ln Ln LA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m m o t- t` to m m m Ln m m m m N . .•L N- o m Ln m m m m m m m o m m m m Lnm m N m m m Lta `aa o m m m L N N N N N ------------------------------- Ln O L O Ln Ln m m . N L- m O O O O N m m N N m V� O m H H m h N N cn .-1 Ln N N m .y m d' N m m m m t -i i N m n m C m N N Ln Lm m m L� N N to [� n N [`I [`! Oi Lfj l� t`! cG l� L� V' GO GLl t.1 l%7 Ln N Lri to GO L� n ctl tV N tV .y .•I .i .i .y .•1 .i .•1 .•L .-1 N N .i .1 r-1 .-1 r-1 N .I .1 r-1 r-1 .i .i VVi .i -A .L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N tl/ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a X m a Q m m •7 C 793 •o o 7 LL F 7 0 ° ° > q y > 'G7 7 O G O C U U w F 7 7 o U F 7 O �' 7 O u ro O U u U o O C N C w 7 70 o u C. U U F '� ° U F (J Q q. w U o ro o' O J U N m b m p U U 7 ° U p o ° F .c ^ U u y c U U 0. w ,uy u L A ro O X ro u �i A O 7 N N W a F 10 ni 3 rO .a .a a c .a F. .ecFtl. � �q+ i 2 2, Z c o O w a+ 7 7 is a vs'2 O V. W .p F v N L p n rl n rl to rl c r1 m m 0 7 W b 3 b a N W W N w v wwww tD O o b b Y O O W e�� Ns i ti N O [+1 O1 to 01 t0 0 U) E '-1 H 7 C N 66 ,q W � W O..y. O w LL a be b L Li LLI �i^ fV ttl wOQ Z yy v N N N N LU p 0 0 OC 15, Y7 Cl O O O H N N lD Cl b•0 93 „ 8 Ln �-1 a G n o O x N OQ a M v pN"u C-n w N 0 M m M M m W Ng? Q �C b Qx LJJ o 0 0 0 o�u ._, 6 .0 V a N o N n m N ��•5 s M W N H q Yi v Q v v aop0p 0 LU T [V tt0 mod_ cp W y u Ep 0 G O w NNMM N O M ao li to o ''au�' `v 7 N m N 'Vww'AOpa w w w a PC u u N a r1[`!6i d'1l] .� 7 by W L . a rl N 1p ri N N N rl C' N (� b v 'o m IO) b 3 b vI^ W W N t0 cn c O a a0 d' o p o w vi wm w to w vi w d) E o caa O ++ N O 5 as m m N W d 'a co 0 In /A a0+ KIN a CR w t0 w O Cl! CD x z U) O 2 a x a a m m cc U 'O U U m CL U. LO NO`, La'arard'c�rwvrwd adrada�,w ruaa„',,rvM aarvV''a couun4004tyvnu i muffs ru^rum M"VW n U08 r*11 ar ratios aura „g... &V 5wpaaar aaww!ue°a mr,w. as rVrd mamaa0aalthp km ddmaa a'!wwwaaddraawd Owns a'4'waaa adsamn"d rmapaaua rwaa.uarrrau and r:uaa,y i,,uwaWaap Wth d:`mwrr;aa+w De drvid'a�"iimace's(COP) Population: 74,8091 Number of Households: 29,241 Median Household Income: $53,637 (state average: $45,040) Florida Underemployment Rate for 2012: 16% Ginl Coefficient (zero = equaiity; one = inequaVty): 0.53 (state average: 0.48) ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, are househoids that earn more than the U.S. poverty level, but less than the basic cost of living for the county. Combined, the number of poverty and AUCE households equals the total population struggling to afford basic needs. Poverty ALICE Above ALICE 3„557 HH 10,664 HH 15,020 HH 12% 36% 51% economicWhat are the ii ? The Economic Viability Dashboard evaluates community conditions for AUCE in three core areas. Each is an index with a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best). Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (1.4) good (67) poor (48) i This bare -minimum budget does not allow for any savings, leaving a household vulnerable to unexpected expenses. Affording only a very modest living in each community, this budget is still significantly more than the U.S. poverty rate of $11,170 for a single adult and $23,050 for a fami@y of four. g'oldru„e r d g Dopamd"rerW ed d^gousarrg and Ohara a Mwuadg0 crud (NBpJO7 , U SDepartment OfAg ncr,aCftwv (U«aOk Baamarrua of d.a&)r SfabsRacs VSL& fiMurcaa! fl overnm Summ e (IRS) and slate Treasury aurae" Cdaa&adCdarn Aware 2012 Arraannacav" Crrm:aau n d,y Survey A yew, ma.sdrrrrr0e Big Coppitt Key /Monroe Count Population Households Povery % ALICE Above ALICE Unemploy- Housing Burden over Housing ng Burden over % Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 2016 833 12% 35% 53% 50/. 72% Big Pine ey/Monr e Coun Population Households Poverty % ALICE Above ALICE Unemply- Housing Burden over Housing Burden over Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 3777 1619 10% 135% 56% 4% 44% 42% Key LarM ,,onroe (ounty /, ';&"ve"AhiET _A0"U_si'n,__ Population �iou_seb;l�j Poverty A1JC__E' FU,ie_,;;/_ey-g Burden over 1-14ousingBurden over % Threshold me35% Owner 35% Renter ,,e 11409 14517 115% 38% 47% 9% 44% 57% Ke West Population Households Povertyg Burden over % ALICE Above Unenp1qy- Housing Burden over Housing % Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 24870 9322 9% 35% 56% 4% 44% % Lower Ke s/Monroe County Population Households Pover-4 % ADEh Above ALICE Unemplg- Housing Burden over Housing Burden over Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 10394 4314 8% 123% 62% 15% 142% 56% Marathon —P--opulati—on" jHo_useb��jP_ove_r_ g Burden over % ALICE AboveALICE Unenplg- Housing Burden over Mousing I % Threshold % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 8389 1 3371 14% J41!/o 45% 9% 40% Middle _Ke' s/Mo'nroc Count —lio—pulation Households Poverty % ALICE Above ALICE ] —Unemplqy- Housing Burden over Housing Burden over 71 l t%los'Owner % Threshold % ment Rate 35% Renter 9731 1 068 1 a'/—. 140% 1,47% 64% _LIE. North Ke LarjZo/ onroe Counter_ . . ........... ...... .. ._. Population— Ro� - _Po_ver_4 % I ALICE I Above ALICE Unemplqy- Housing Burden over Housing Burden over riThrrsbold % % ment Rate 35% Owner 35% Renter 1166 1510 120% 169% 4% 36% 25% _110. Island/ Monroe Count ....... — ------- . .... . .... " -Stock ALICE Above t_�fbove_ADC�_F(,� Population households Poverty06 ALI( nemply- Housing Burden over Housing Burden over ij m 35% Owner 35% Renter % Threshold ment Rate 3736 1111 14% [_62% 24% 80/6. 69% Tavernier/ Monroe Coup — --------- . .... '7'- - Poverty I ALICE LTnenp7�_-'Ouj g Burde Ro-pulatio-n-' I Households vro o ALICE A'bo_ve�A" housing Burden Housing Burden over t F35 q35% % Threshold % ment Rate 0/ �o Renter 953 6% 146% 48%_ 17% 46% 37% .2491 ,U er — s/Monroe County "I"To-us-e'i)o—ldsl'-i5oi—,er�; —,I Population % ove ALICE Housing Barden over l Housing Burden over % Threshold Olt ment ale" 35% Owner 35% Renter Rate 21234 18633 113% 137% 150% 9% 143% 154% IL :R O J p D: . 16. � T C C E LL J 0 C m i V ® CO O O N LL T Cl) N a� 'O m a U _ LL ya{C�� y`n y o`S O °D C7 91 Inr rn u�i CD Ol N co n Q! N C ''.. tD A W q ONi M N M M M 10 OS Qt ^ M r- r -7 c N M1 01 M1� D D ! co f 1 � COO, CO, � ppM1� remm 3 MCU R'S �CO � M r NyfS�O! r mt✓f ylCv(v�i� O) N h Qf 1� a f� ODD y ! n rM" e0 f+] ti Opp i O M Cfi M o CO !^ ° h tJ N M N! CDLn N i�'7 O) u� N Ql N eQC+v7t 1� r y N Sq,~ N CD CO Ln ®M ! to CD t+ W O r N N N ! Cft i 1C7 CD r ! in v i m w t�D m ce+e a 2 v h + e� cO - 9 C5 Cq n m M Lo . m t°D•t r 1 r N*! c o o4-i t� o � in , _h rrt eMp O r a h P! v N ! in + CO @ g.- Cf7 1C') t� ' N CD t0 aoIx r- C33 '... - r C,4 N t 1� to M CD i0 r• N N m O� W Y7 r co � N mD tl C 17b eD 1� h CO �^ � h N W W A r N ! Ef7 to ' N A Of r tq O CA @ ^ l'Jt m c M1 Q7 eg cp�i e* a !i v ! s L-n ccopop n r m c� v e u1 L r- co m 5 po~mpi N a 4 ® fN0 peg tpD_ 00 Ot Om CM _.. W CD �pppp N ON] � PO7 c03 C�7 �!p M ' rq v e®T Ln CO n li i tD N O Cyfppf tN0 07 < yo� M p�N i `n 10 N CND O yC@� R i i� O ' �p des a cn cn '" 1N� 1 9 Ca~�p] ap Q yr(C1 Yo7 Cm+7 t0 C^D ate- CN7 0 e 2 pN Cp cz p �• M C� O N N! 3 t7 G N t- t�J N iD N tpp0 t1t�� ttCtrC�� aCf Of -& LO C^D CO - ttC'r�7tt P N p�p m ; tLBOO MiM1+7 iD fD 4m7 pp ppp tpp f �p t i p iQs7 CO ® N y te+7 Q, d tD Of t+� tp eD pp M ! M M �p � Cp r; h` cd 'a M ire . p° M M m N ui N o w Le ! e cn c LO o ttp0D C N N cm en ! !op iH 1p� � N m p pp� FO 8� tOD, �C7 NQ t�Npj ytC•�f� M1 r iPJ �Ny N tO+ N� N M ttOC�OD pO LLS_ N � N N N ®�® p�p - a0 lV ....... Z T N C7 ! Ln ' M N' f7 C- E 5� o a s c$m ' s m c� A CO i c2i- o co Ln typpe � , m o v CTa N N 1��' N N pa'ppp6 N CN Ch+t I{M� @ CD Le 04 1-4 iM1D �1 a N N N e'q po Cl) Cat L42 � y o M `$NF o gg c�� g c� S ef{� Mt N CL to o N Cat y v No ui Np of C064, a m m gyp! i t1p0 � � Di — N {� yn ; N N l+> Cpo7 or C/Y oN h NOR O O M O M1_ O_ p� O O tD a0 O N O "'I 1-. CN ! peV N j O QO I O� s N pm CO Ce N O I� tD_ m t700DDD_ t7f ' M VV'' tp pf try Ot N Ot N RRR�� p� M1 Of O c� N ° N ! N n l N M N N ih Ln fp Mo Of r- r .ttDOt M yNt oNp ttphO C COD N ma Ln � cc r ON N. N N M {tp'� a®®Qy r of ! {+! O O Of N N [7D ta�a0}� r— W P CD N N N N c'7 CC" N CAD CD Ot 2� ee d� o O S S S .. 2 S 2 Sp = _p rt�p+ N ccM Cow B @ LO G.7 N N d o t N CL C O L't {� Qc AED N O!D S G ICI € m C V � O1 C Q m L W 0 OC Z U Z H J O IL 0 W 2 H O z O z O U w O IL o. m W m W H LL �61 (MD M(A >= +j 0 Vf L = ma Q L M m m m .J a1 x 4w 4w 4w 0 c 0 c m m 4w al 13 LL �= i 0 O a1 0Lo>� ___._ Vm C1•_ a1 O 'Q M L LU 0� E m no 0 0 CD i &+ = E w m4) OC 0 C V c �.-_ _m 4w c E m 4) CL m m m 4w c 0 Ch Am m Q = .- E _ .= i m 3c 0 O N M CL U V 'Q = V � .- W .- E _ m = .� .� m Q O a� 0 L� ch '—`�a�sn v_ 0 c E V05 V L. —Mi o amoo V=w0 a�a Q s ❖0�= aOGV� ❖� N N Q H E� CL a 3 cn .y 3 0 x N a a 3 ni 0 0 z N 0 x ■ CM 00 V� Or. :,**% = O O '- Vf M a1 � Ann_ L O c %moo a1 D O O = Elm >� N _ � L = �— & ■_ 4 = v E O M =Will 4w 3 � O � c 0 O a1 L O— V M 00 O M �O L O C _ 0 O OCs Oelm 4w N to O a1 a•+ _ a1 ._ ._ v� �+ OL �p L = MMIMMI >` _ O r1 4w V N V Q LA Le O 0Ln O O e >�M4w WN � O4w.—NV! _ � � _ L N L Lee O OW O �O= O,O V L.�' ,�.+ V = �` One O E o L > > O s ;� O O ILL L F- _ �L.N Wit' mLL = N L O = O O� > =o �o O O = N _ O IA _ @= L = O = O 4w � J O ' oG o M %D 7414 4W _ 3 O V O O L _ O 0 _ 0� O Lo O ow _ O m (A O L O = 3 ❖ N 9A 0 _ ow O = 0 O i- V m O� L Ln = N O L O O @ V m O X O O = L ._ CL CL 3 Q O .;. _ O z W z ac 4w O �4� o V 4� t 4W N W he J J Q O H z W i z 0 z N 0 x O M N o� N C� co ti N o `O cfl C Ira N N N N N 00 I co Irm M � N /mow w w W ` E O 0 = AIL _p N N W vm J Q O H z W i z (D z N 0 x O O O O O O O O O O O O O w w w w w M Or A .E m UL 13 to co co r to O� M Von O 0 O TM M TOMN N o to N O c L� m L / O 0 N N V r 0 ti co o vow 0o to � ti M CA V M to M ai LO as E 0 0 0NINE C N at E 0 �� i 0 E t V L v `v � h o 0 >. 0 h 0 'u W m = 4W .a _ v) V V � � O� � o�� Loo a� > o o �a o Z ooC ,00� O MSIMON V _ 4' SIMON m _ � MMIS 5'mO =. 01 M CDC _ _ '- o 'm O O = O=O aX(Ar4q O OMO Von CDIft M O cvfM I M Xm 0 0 0 � N N � 0 'Al O z W i z ■ O .O L 0 = O 0 . C" ' �+ L■ W ■_ 00 so0 Rai E r'I 0 a•+ ■_ MENEM m w C ■� ■C IMEN m > > NOMMI > V Ln M O = � o 00 � N^IMMEN _> >M� 0h O� = C =NN ° N O � V Los 0� = O O *.� L 0 m E L� O V —.w > 00 O _ C _ O 3 = 0 �, o Oi V M L o O� m 0 = V1 C a�° C> a�a =M■— = V 4w ° 0 0 0 Ln UO 0 000 0% 0 V = 01 i- OM O 0 0= 01 = 0� O N L 0 r4 O N N 0 = oD = oo Ln a�%b . _41 cG 74 N H Z H z Q u a 0 PME W i z z N 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 N TM VM cn o N N E O O cu V cu 0 0 N 0 Co o o V rl W DC z W H ol z W i z CD C) 40 0 0 0 0 40 0 40 0 N VM C by N cc o 0 N .� CL 3 v t� 0 L LO C 0 N 0 0 0 N d 3 t� 0 L. C C r 0 0 0 9 co o LO M C4 00 Irmo rmw c � o a -4 a 0 13 m O Som Lon_ O O Vj L p V O. O _=+ = 4U p to OSIMON�- L �n �73 X � o 0. Q = �+ O O ' no �- N MENEMS Em (aM; V >.X M ow i L. i = O � .INEW � O O = V p, � >N �?� Em OOp O �V V V qT O Le O pI,A� O O o V p u. �+0 0� O L L = O . O N ,� a1 = O = N Ow � Q .p O p==&I xm V E J L a��0 EE o.- co V�pO �0 O O E O V .L = tI� o = W m o �' ❖ p it ❖ Ln � O V W) u L 0 O o DC = M Lu ,M 00 m 0 F- N V LA U LeQ ON OO Ix V = O =N � 3 O O .a O O u a� = (L) U) O N tWi� OL � OL �} _� _E O O= °O 4m p O O OV z Ow Q ° O° CD N V M N M Z p=N pL O O~ L O V F= Ov0 O= Q N O a1 N Aso E a� � p0O O� L L. O o Ln O U. N um ❖_ ❖M Fm m 3 c 0 O 0 ._ Lo W �J L .O O m a) L. V m 4w c O V V) u W m _ 1-0 - ._ go a �O = a = O O U V J O L O Lo = i� O O W H - y.. M O OL M _ Z m O a vZ Z 9 > O Oma ~ a _ O 'a O V W 4+ L .- L ow O tl� a- 4i O. O s rmL� CL _ 0 0 o 4w 0 m M Z ce 14 MEMOS o 4w � L a) L L CL Vi E MV O L� V E _ M ^ L W CO i O O V O � E 4 'i 0 %I= O 4w = 0 O E4w '- V 'Q W O O '^ m O O O Lo _ O O 4w 4w c v mom 0 a E W R LO O 0 N 1 O O O N a W O Co A a W 0 O 0 N Ir- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 CO V N S33AOIdW3 r� M o Ln L v N o �O O O N +♦ x � x � Z v a I o M x x x x x v O . L 06 0 Ln x x N y u O dW a L.0 O f O o > M C _ rj 3 d9 �C m _ c cc .j C ._ O C C O •i Z C '0 i, ++ C C (AZ Z •p O I d •_ 'G •c 0 Ch �. 41 f y C O a.+ O u k C C i V V V V O O, O O C m O O 0 O O Ch d O N 0 U. z V N W V) d 19 M cc O N E O V C 1�1 .a 0 s O m �n C O V 0 0 O ►i Z W 0 vi W Ix 0 H Z W i z Z O a z W u Z O u W he Ix • O) ti LO • N CV) CO ti • o N qli N 1z • ' 00 M o CV) o MMW co n Re Vi V coW co W 0) � � Nw w w W ' 0 o o as o • N t� N • V ri w • to ti to M V M M to Q vi =O H . .� C n Q ai 0V J �E � H Es v N m -.4 -.4 0 a a 0 z a vs W 0 z H 0 2 O s IAA 4 s � O = L. � O OO _o �a > os E owml% O ko =O �O _ N E �. MO IL O .1 N = L ._ is >M _ .m ►-i a� L V ►7 4w _ 4 O CD m 4) Lo J 4w _ _ M L O O O oQ .o os o rs 4 W i� O O V �V x Lo 4) a L O m _ %OE. Go E rl m ,� O U. x 4) E O .— = O ._ M m La. E 1 O � V Ch _ = 1■■1 ._ 02 = O ms o Vf = _ M _ .— O O V� 1 O O L _ O V4 N 41 _ 4) L V H W J J Q Q Q C**4 C O% O� N W J a N J Q LL P .J U. pq k, � O O LO O w w ofN w w CV � � ti O N cc 0 N 0 N Co N M O N pe W N O N O N O O N La C) N W J J Q a V) w 2 O W J m O 2 J Q LL H J D 2 O O O O O O O O N N N N O O N N HV3A O W O Co O O O 0 O qqF O O cM w Q U. w w O 40 O Z N Cl O V J LaL. H J M 2 Ell u LL W 2 0 J_ m 0 2 i rq u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O N LO 0 N 0 O N O O NLU Q N >- O N O N O O N a)VM H WLL J a W � J g 0 U. 0 N N g � o O O, W J 0 N , LU z Q v H 0o Co 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 t0 Lf) M N T- 0 0 N 0 N O N Re O Co N M O N � W N O N O O O N tie) LLJ LL. j LLJ LL US + N '' y Lmu 0 II LU Zj IM COP) LW O O O O r*- m Won `` 1,, r.-... LU r f _J LL H D 2 U. f O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co ti O UA 69 69). 69 641* O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N 6F? 6Fl, 61? 6q O EA O O N O O O N O O N O O N M O N w N O O N T- O O N O O N V) O) C) O Q� Q� O O N O O� W >= LU J � a i W H am CL J � Q H z LU 0 J a LL 1- J D 0 LL to 11 W 2 O w J m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 N O N O N 0 N Q o } O N O N O O N 0 0) TM O O N a O� � N tI� � W W Q W W � Q H z LU 0 �i J a LL J a LL 2 w m O Z V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N EA !A Efl 64 d). 44% ti O N 0 N LO O N Iq 0 N M O N N O N V- 0 N O O N O ON r� i H y W >= W J he aix W 44 3: W O Q N z uj J Q LL J M 2 00 U) LU LU m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w O O O O O O O O O O M N 40 449. 64). 64). 44% ti O N O O N O O O N O N !M O N Q N 0 N r— CO wi 0- O- CD cl i!} N rl% C ..r O O O W) Q O LL LU O O ffD O CCD h N W) -0 O CIOco W) 0- M Z� - 0 N CLLU L J LLU LU LU LU a o a a o J W W .j ca L - Q 0 CD- - - N - - = c CL O O - w 2 o o = Q M O N = N O O m _ O - C O • E � v a� i L C - CO k'.134 I T m a _%MOO i .�0 O 00 a1 3:0V= as�C O �O �O = [A OV NO ;�� L ON �O �� 4.O NO O=_ Vfmv , 04 TOO OVA ' _ O M0 :1 V cm—x O O = i- ='O V� �� p00 4� V O a=.+ O .= V �. 00 O>O _� p= LM Off= LJ =_\ x0.� = 0(A° 00 CD 0 = pV� x._ _0 " —.__ OvCL _0 m4� N c OtK �0 0. O\ L V le�+ LA fQ V Vf =mod' =L OVA cn M Ln m 0 z 0 1 _ O = p .0Val �N _ W —o O NINA �; > o =s= 0 o E� ONON =V =p sue. ,� C E 0 N_ V v� Poll> O 51001 W.2 cm �_ �O L�� O=O E O > =Op Wo ox =o Ot pO = = Ov =ago _O =0 ._ Vf O a•+ = fQ Mc NrA U. Sam V '2800 agc 0 Ea as `,° = o = >, V _ >• Vi = _ V = _ � ii V0 •_— V O M +000 O� C Amm LL �L� Vf0Mer V V 00 =p �O�= 00 s= N ul I- th m X-C I- :4S 1 OO a p Ln = O 00 .= O L. p 4w O pCN p 13 y- r M m 0 fA NSA 0=,�,m MEX _'-.5 4w s2 E Lm O= I- =Va a•+0 H��p mp -= �.Ll 0 ovv v E W>% @ oy4w 0 0O�M V� i-= O= p•- 0 4w Lo 0 4� — a Vf c � 4� V� _ -ampTucOE _x _0_ _� mc ZZ O 4w Vf Cc OOT 4w c=NNZ pEcowa.p m.T woo=0 =iva00 0x CC=V.- n I-ummwx 0 p c E O V M 0 m fQ 1L L 0. :- y E m -0 ■ L.Q ■- ' 0�0.0 ,_�M0 Vf LAB `�"' _� IA 0 .- �. Htl 0E _ _M_c1 � 0 Im C ZI� 0 ow C. 0 = �z m o L � � oC -�0(Ai C.c zi a� LL! �0�IA E = 3 ='000 000 �IA =ivy =Vro Lm�VA �.OL vE_m 0_co so�0 000� 1- _ ; V cA x V a CD c O H v L O 4Z b- ma 4w so OA L C 00 �4w x13 (1) c =O OV O4w .O O � L mc 0 O 4, V = _ O�M L O _= r O E E x m 0� E E L O O > O 41 IL C O _ _ ;� O > O >•- c ,O 3 cn = x c = O O O = VCn .� �i= O v o = v� �. a" .=Em pV V �"'� a•+ O Oak 0 a O a L 0 O. cn .10 �Jc _ X M ® � _ o � � = o 4w *= m� O p3 ,� O — �E �_ �acn% .0—o L>�= O= ~000 sad we Q0=V HOC (am M 4) O L O r� 4 O L 0� O L 0 i 3 I �_ O_V m O .Cl. V M■— � L L d O Q%woo i. 4) mw L O ■O m 4W i 3 O V O rA O ce 0 :1 ri -4 ■ e 00 . ( o F \ i � ■ $ « @$ § � $ � «§ § � k@� f Of . � � � §■ � §§ .G C d .a `a on W H C E0.0 c. t E0 W a' 0 ry 0 s� -4 F' i � ■ o % 0 0 0 04 � e _ � ® � ° Ct) ® E § ca o L5 Ul t L �— j 2 0 w � UmfA% ® o § . @ & $ $ ■ e �E >1 §u ■ | Euj m - °to § u @ © % § M c » J 0 0 eo RR 00 0 - 0 � � � �c ©a CD � � .. ■ � e � 6I ' "■ e X-- iel A - qi Y O Y a w M Y Y Y Y � � w a Y Y N O N► i.( d O E, V V 402 Q ` am H R � J C o6. 2 C. G. o c Qo 0 IL r Fly A So Q O a n G z N W (n Ln WOO M J Vj in O m W U Now IL LL X THE CITY OF KEY WEST PuS.O—cc .3m 1409 hc\ 1Vcst. FL _3041-4`19 3:5' Date: September 4, 2014 To: Jim Scholl, City Manager From: Donald Leland Craig, AICP Planning Director and Nicole Malo, AICP, Planner II Subject: Affordable Housing Needs Solutions Copy To: Sarah Spurlock, Assistant City Manager and Shawn Smith, City Attorney Attachments: 1. 2012 Comprehensive Plan Affordable Housing Data and Analysis Report 2. 2014 U.S. HUD Income and Rent Limits 3. City of Key West 2014 Income and Rental Limits 4. 2008 South Florida Workforce Housing Best Practices S. Florida Statutes 259 - Land Acquisitions for Conservation or Recreation 6. Florida Statutes 420.5095 — Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program 7. U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2010-2012 Median Household Income for the City of Key West Purpose This presentation is in response to requests from the City Commission to improve the way the City's workforce housing issues are addressed. Over the next ten years the City will be receiving over 500 residential Building Permit Allocation System (BPAS) units that are required to be deed restricted affordable. The availability of these new BPAS units provides the City an opportunity to create a significant number of net new affordable housing units for the first time in over a decade. The following discussion describes several key scenarios for potential action to provide workforce housing in order to maintain a sustainable local economy. Method This presentation is the result of staff review and discussion of relevant data, the Comprehensive Plan and site visits to certain City and Key West Housing Authority owned properties which could be candidates for the construction of affordable housing. It is also the product of several meetings with the Executive Director of the Key West Housing Authority to discuss specific methods for creating new Affordable Housing Needs Solutions October, 2014 City Commission Presentation housing and updating the Workforce Housing Ordinance. Finally, staff reviewed key state statutes whose subject matter is, or relates to, affordable housing; and identified Land Development Regulations (LDRs) in local Florida jurisdictions addressing affordable housing which may be models for amendments to the City's LDRs. Problems and Key Findings Identified There are currently 508 privately held affordable housing units, with varying degrees of deed restrictions and subsidy assistance, and 581 public housing units in the City representing 7% of the 14,892 residential dwelling units in the City, as identified by staff in the May 2010 Affordable Housing Deed Restriction Audit. The 2010 Census and the City Comprehensive Plan report a lower number of 14,107. Of the total 1,089 affordable units, 223 are expected to have their deed restrictions expire, or have expired by year's end. However, according to the findings of the 2012 Data and Analysis report (Attachment 1), prepared to support the Comprehensive Plan and confirmed by updated data provided by the Key West Housing Authority (08/2014) there continues to be and will continue to be a significant number of cost burdened households and a shortage of decent, reasonably priced, available housing, particularly one bedroom rentals. Specifically, data from the Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Census indicate that at every income level from 30% to 140% of the Monroe County Median Income ($63,500 in 2014), individuals and families are cost burdened as to amount paid for rent or mortgage. The City's Comprehensive Plan, the City's Land Development Regulations, and U.S. HUD guidelines indicate that not more than 30% of incomes should be expended for housing costs. In Key West over seventy-five percent (77% - 10,352) of all households, both renters and owners are cost burdened utilizing this guideline. According to the Comprehensive Plan and the University of Florida Shimberg Center for affordable Housing, there is a need (deficit) of affordable housing units across the income spectrum. The deficit is at least 6,500 units. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the City of Key West median household Income as $52,004 while the average annual wages earned by a worker in the City are approximately $37,844, indicating that by standard guidelines for mortgage lending at the median level a home should cost no more than $156,012, or three time the median income. This is clearly inconsistent with actual cost of housing in the City, when the Key West Board of realtors' reports that at the end of July 2014 the median sales price of 162 single family homes sold in the preceding 7 months was $630,000, and the median sales price for Condo/Townhouses was $368,000. Clearly persons and and families making the median income or average wage cannot afford for sale housing, even if such were being built. As to rental housing, the situation is no better. Even though dated and most assuredly higher the 2010 reported median gross monthly rent in the City was $1,359. In order to be affordable to the average wage earner in the City, the then monthly rent should be no more than $946. Rent such as this is not available in the City at this point in time, and result in workers sharing housing in increasing numbers, or paying 40-50% of their income for housing. The Workforce Housing Ordinance (WFHO) of the City' Land Development Regulations has not been updated since 2005. At the time the WFHO was created real estate values, affordable housing stocks, and demands were different. The WFHO's stratification across the income spectrum from 80% to 140% of the median income at the Monroe County level (now $63,500) is out of date with the actual incomes of today's workforce. Further, at the time and up until 2012, there were very, very few BPAS allocations available to create new housing, regardless of the WFHO's emphasis for housing for all income groups, resulting in very few new deed restrictions being built. Since 2008 lending practices have been tightened and it is very difficult to both finance and construct units at any level except at the 60% of median through heavily subsidized tax credit funding, and none of these types of project have been built in the City due to the lack of reasonable priced land. Additionally, the cost of constructing units is extremely high at $200-$250 per square foot. Factored into the equation the focus in recent years has been to use Page 2 of 6 Affordable Housing Needs Solutions October, 2014 City Commission Presentation Land Authority Funds to acquire property together with Habitat for Humanity processes to reconstruct and manage the units. This has resulted in an emphasis being place on the acquisition of existing units, often at high prices, which though deed restricted, require renovation and result in no net new units. There are not enough very low (60% AMI) to low (80% AMI) income deed restricted units in the City to meet the needs of the local workforce. Yet the mechanisms to provide this housing are limited by outdated regulations and state statutes. For instance, in addition to the outdated Workforce Housing Ordinance, the Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA) statute, as presently written, does not work efficiently for Key West because it is limited to the purchases of land for three distinct purposes: 1. Conservation of environmentally sensitive lands; 2. Preservation of coastal access and recreation; 3. Affordable Housing. The first two objectives have been met in the City as all conservation lands are now in the public realm and the access to coastal areas assured and adequate monies allocated through infrastructure taxes and Tourist Development Council grants. The third use of MCLA funds for affordable housing has experienced some successes, but at a very high price due to the very high cost of land. The City of Key West MCLA fund is presently approximately $7 million which has been generated primarily from transient unit bed tax, as the City accounts for approximately 49% of the hotel rooms in the County. The $7million is expected to increase to approximately $8milllion after the start of the new fiscal year. While the funds have increased steadily the opportunities to use the funds have proven difficult to identify due to high land and costs and until recently the lack of new BPAS allocations. Possible Solutions Invest in Immediate Solutions while Planning for the Long Term While there is an array of long term solutions which should be pursued, some of which are listed below, there may also be a nearer solution. This specific method can utilize existing publicly owned land together with MCLA funds, in order to create monies to build or subsidize net new affordable housing. The method has the following steps: 1. Identify land held by the City of Key West or the Key West Housing Authority which is capable of further development as affordable housing. 2. If necessary, rezone the property to achieve a higher density, which in Key West would be Medium Density Residential (MDR) at 16 units per acre, or High Density Residential (HDR) at 22 units per acre. If necessary, the Comprehensive Plan designations can be amended in an expedited manner for parcels whose use is to be affordable housing, enabled by state statute 163.3187. As a part of this effort the City may borrow forward one year from its annual allocation of 91 BPAS units. 3. The City of Key West sells its interest in the land to the Monroe County Land Authority, and restricts its use in the conveyance, consistent with the MCLA statute, to affordable housing. 4. The MCLA conveys the land to the Key West Housing Authority, and the city modifies its existing Inter - Local agreement with the KWHA to provide for the construction of affordable housing in partnership with city, and/or a developer partner. 5. The City uses the funds yielded from the sale of the property for the direct construction of the affordable housing on the site or uses the funds to otherwise subsidize the cost or operation of the affordable housing. The housing remains the property of the Housing Authority and or the City depending on the parcel and the arrangement reached with the transfer of the property to the Housing Authority. 6. Target projects which can accommodate mixed income users that provide relief to developers of affordable housing projects. Page 3 of 6 Affordable Housing Needs Solutions October, 2014 City Commission Presentation 7. Repeat the process with other City or Housing Authority properties until all remaining affordable housing BPAS units are utilized. Provide a Holistic Approach to Adjusting All Elements of Affordable Housing Tool 1. Work towards reducing wind and flood insurance premiums which increase the cost of homeownership and rental rates. If the proposed referendum on building height flexibility in response to FEMA insurance rates passes the ability to lower insurance rates may occur. 2. Amend Comprehensive Plan — Add policy(ies) to the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element to provide that all future development shall not result in a "net loss" of existing workforce/affordable rental housing for households earning 80°Y or less than the area mean income. (Findings of Municipal Scorecard for Affordable Housing Delivery: Best Management Case Study for South Florida. Prepared for the South Florida Regional Business Alliance by FIU Metropolitan Center). 3. Ask State Representative Raschein and State Senator Bullard to Sponsor Legislation to Amend the Land Authority Statute as it Applies to the City of Key West Currently the statute has been interpreted by local attorneys such that it allows the funds accumulated to be used for land purchases only. As has been demonstrated the cost of land reasonably priced for affordable housing in the City is very sparse. Also demonstrated is that conservation lands in the City have been acquired and protected. Couple that with the fact that the City has already protected its undeveloped lots with sufficient BPAS allocations to prevent inverse condemnation( "takings") litigation against the City. Therefore , new state legislation to allow the City the ability to use MCLA funds for construction or other subsidy to provide affordable housing. 4. Revise the Workforce Housing Ordinance: The Planning Department has requested proposals for a consultant who will assist staff with amendments to the Land Development Regulations, specifically the Workforce Housing Ordinance. Staff has researched the American Community Survey to extract data for the City's area median income (AMI) in order to compare it to that of the County's, which is used as the current baseline. However, the ACS survey shows that the County's and City's AMI are within a few thousand dollars of each other with the City's being higher in a few critical income household sizes. Further, petitioning HUD to allow the City to use the ACS numbers instead of the universally excepted US Census figures to establish the AMI may put our federal funding in jeopardy when using such federal subsidies. However, if the model put forth above as immediate action is pursued and no federal funds or subsidies are utilized or otherwise compromised, the use of the lower City median income may be possible. The Workforce Housing Ordinance, based on income and workforce data from the early 2000, is confusing and out of date. As a result the inclusionary housing provisions (122-1467) and eligibility requirements (122-1469) are out of touch with the current housing needs. The ordinance also lacks incentive programs to encourage private developers to build new affordable housing. Based on meetings with Manny Castillo, Executive Director of the KW Housing Authority and planning analysis supported by the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Data and Analysis, staff recommends the following approach to amending the WFHO: a. Add provisions for inclusionary housing for redevelopment, not just new development. Page 4 of 6 Affordable Housing Needs Solutions October, 2014 City Commission Presentation b. Revise Section 122-1496 for required income category mix - Determine what the target incomes are and use current income level data to establish new ratios for 30% rule, such as more lower income category units. Reestablish inclusionary housing provisions requiring more low (80% AMI) and median (100% AMI) income level units. This can only be provided for by applying an approach like that used by the Village of Islamorada, wherein significant expansions of residential and commercial development, or net new development is evaluated, by type, as to the employees and jobs created to serve the new or expanded development, and thus the need for new affordable housing. A specific economic analysis for Key West, must be created to support the inclusionary housing provisions, recognizing the unique market of the City of Key West. b. Revise Eligibility Requirements (Section 122-1469) - Maintain category income range within the low, median, moderate etc. categories for pro forma purposes, but allow the actual sales and rental levels to be determined based on a person's actual percentage of income (25-30%). Currently the City's one bedroom rental rates are higher than HUD's rates but the City's three and four bedroom rental rates are all lower than HUD's. The City needs to find a method to lower rents for the most sought after units (1 bedroom). This may require the mixing of market rate units in mixed income projects to provide indirect subsidy to the affordable units. c. Create innovative regulatory and financial incentive programs for building workforce housing and maintaining rental housing. Such as: 1. Tax abatement etc. 2. Waiver all permitting fees (except impact fees which guarantee bond obligations). 3. Expedited review. S. Potential Funding Opportunities 1. Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program loans and State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (F.S. 420.5095). 2. Staff 1. Create a City Affordable Housing Officer, whose responsibility it would be to assist workers in finding and qualifying for housing. 2. Create an Economic Development Officer whose responsibility it would be to identify possible Public private partnerships for redevelopment/development potential and who can offer incentives. 3. SHIP —State Housing Incentive Program; 4 HOME — Need more information S. CDBG — Community Development Block Grants 6. TIF—Tax Increment Financing 7. Surtax — Such as additional sales tax on alcoholic beverage sales S. CHDO - Need to establish CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) per Section 122- 1471 a non-profit organization, to serve as developer for AH on City owned property and administer the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 10. Create a rental affordable housing trust fund for providing security deposits for rental housing The possible solutions described above are all consistent to one degree or another with the City's Strategic Plan and previous recommendations off many study groups dealing with eh affordable housing issue. Page 5 of 6 Affordable Housing Needs Solutions October, 2014 City Commission Presentation Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Commission direct staff to immediately proceed with the Land Authority/City of Key West/City of Key West Housing Authority program outlined above, while prioritizing the analysis of items 1 through 8 above. Page 6 of 6 CITY OF KEY WEST 2012 UPDATES TO THE DATA AND ANALYSIS FOR EAR -BASED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS APPENDIX A Introduction The City completed its first Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) in 2005, and due to the State mandated schedule was required to update the 2005 EAR the following year. There is very little difference between the two reports or the resulting recommendations. It is now the City's desire to implement the recommendations from the two EAR documents, however due to the years that have passed, the supporting data and analysis needs to be updated in order to be meaningful and to provide the most accurate amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department identified several areas that needed updating, and these are as follows: • Affordable Housing Needs Analysis • Population Estimates • Hurricane Evacuation Analysis • Land Use Analysis Level of Service Analysis The following provides some background from the 2005 and 2007 EARs and the updated analysis in the areas identified above. Chapter 1. Affordable Housing Needs Analysis The 2005 EAR listed "Affordable Housing" as one of the issues to be addressed during the updates to the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the contributing factors to the need for affordable housing included lower wage tourism based jobs; loss of military families that lived in housing subsidized by the government; increased demand for second homes; government limitations on growth; the loss of housing due to conversion to guesthouses; and the lack of available vacant land. In the 1990s the construction of transient units was permitted pursuant to the City's Building Permit Allocation System (BPAS), and as a result, approximately 874 transient units were built. However, due to Comprehensive Plan policy 1.3.12.3, which limits the percent of new units that may be allocated for transient use, no new transient allocations can be granted under the City's existing BPAS. Policy 3-1.1.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that 30 percent of units constructed each year be affordable. At the time of the 2005 EAR, it was noted that this policy has been successful, however at that time there was still a recognized shortage of affordable units. In 2005, the City adopted a workforce housing ordinance which requires that 30 percent of new market rate housing units be affordable to members of the workforce who earn at or less than 80 percent of the median household income. The affordability of units permitted under these policies is maintained through deed restrictions. It is estimated that 504 units have been allocated affordably since the implementation of the BPAS; however, not all of these units were subject to the requirements in the 2005 workforce housing ordinance. The current policy is that the affordability periods for these units remain in place for perpetuity; however some of the earlier units have affordability periods that have or will expire. It is estimated that approximately 233 affordable deed restrictions have expired. However, it is important to City of Key West Comprehensive Plan A-1 Adopted March 5, 2013, Ordinance No. 13-04 Data and Analysis note that not all of these units have been allocated as part of the BPAS. In addition to requiring private developers to provide a percentage of affordable units, the City has historically taken a proactive approach in providing affordable units. The City has worked within the limits of the BPAS policies and, while being mindful of evacuation planning, has signed agreements with the State and with private developers to allow more affordable units. On the legislative side, the City has implemented policies to allow accessory apartments to single family homes, to facilitate infill of affordable units, and to facilitate apartments above commercial developments. The 2005 EAR identifies methods in which the City has sought community involvement to address the affordable housing issue. On March 30, 2001 the City held a special summit meeting of residents to gain insight on ways to address housing. From that meeting, there were approximately 40 suggested actions that would address the problem from many different angles. Many creative suggestions were made, including ideas on how to preserve the housing stock, ways to seek out additional funding sources and suggestions to build new units or subsidize rents. In 2009, Florida International University's Metropolitan Center conducted a Housing Needs Assessment for Monroe County that included information specific to the City of Key West. In order to update the City's housing needs assessment, the information contained in the 2005 EAR and 2009 Housing Needs Assessment was revised in 2012 using the most recently available information from the 2010 Census, the University of Florida's Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, and other relevant data sources. The provision of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing to all residents continues to be one of the most daunting challenges that the City of Key West faces. The City's scarcity of land for new development, growth in the second home market, high quality of life and desirability, and unique and historic housing stock all contribute to property and housing values that are among the highest in the State. The City's economy is largely based on tourism and service industries, which generally pay lower wages than many other industries. These dynamics result in a pronounced affordability gap that continues to challenge the City even in the current economic downturn. A summary of the estimates of the City's existing housing stock is provided on Table Al-1 below. As can be seen, there is a small discrepancy between the figures from the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (AHNA), the Census, and a May 2010 estimate prepared by City staff. For the purpose of this report, the 2010 Census figure will be used since it is the most recent, and because it is closer to the City estimate than the AHNA or the U.S. Census 2009 American Fact Finder data. Use of the City's estimate is constrained by the lack of information about occupancy or tenure. Table A1-1. City of Kev West's 2010 Housing Stock by Tvne and Tenure Total Units Occupied Units Owner Units Renter Units 09 AHNA 13,307 11,017 5,024 5,993 2010 Census 14,107 10,929 4,520 6,409 2009 US Census Bureau American FactFinder 13,274 8,925 4,175 4,757 May 2010 Estimate 14,452 permanent plus 440 mobile homes The median single family home sales price in the City of Key West in 2010 was $382,450. This value is higher than the 2001 median value of $305,000, but significantly lower than the median value of City of Key West Comprehensive Plan A-2 Adopted March 5, 2013, Ordinance No. 13-04 Data and Analysis $776,000 in 2005. The median condominium sales price in 2010 was $318,000, higher than the 2001 sales price of $222,000 but lower than the peak of $575,000 in 2005. The decrease in sales prices between 2005 and 2010 is reflective of the economic downturn. The 2010 median gross rent for a rental unit in the City was $1,359.1 "Housing cost burden", defined as the percent of a household's income that is used to pay for housing costs, is frequently used as a measure for determining whether or not housing is affordable. According to federal housing program guidelines and the Shimberg Center, housing costs should not exceed 30 percent of a household's income in order to be considered affordable. Federal guidelines define an extremely low income household as a household whose income is at or below 30 percent of the median household income for the area, a very low income household as a household whose income is at or below 50 percent of the median household income for the area, a low income household as a household whose income is between 50 and 80 percent of the median for the area, and a moderate income household as a household whose income is between 80 and 120 percent of the median for the area. The median household income in the City in 2010 was $52,0042, while the average annual wages earned by a worker in the City are approximately $37,8443. In order to be affordable, an owner- occupied home should not cost more than three times a household's annual income. In order to be affordable to a household at the median level, a home should therefore cost no more than $156,012. In order to be affordable to the average wage-earner in the City, a home should cost no more than $113,532 (Note that this does not account for combined household incomes). In order to be affordable to a household earning at or less than 80% of the median for the area, a home should cost no more than $124,891. The 2010 median sales price of $382,450 for a single family home indicates an affordability gap of $226,438 for households earning at or below the median household income, while the median sales price of $318,000 for a condominium unit indicates a lower but still significant affordability gap of $161,988. The 2010 median gross monthly rent in the City was $1,359. In order to be affordable to a household at the median income level, monthly rent should be no more than $1,300.10. In order to be affordable to the average wage-earner in the City, monthly rent should be no more than $946. In order to be affordable to a household earning at or below 80% of the median, monthly rent should be less than $1,040. Approximately 50% of the City's rental units are affordable to residents at the median income level, while approximately 37% are affordable to average wage-earners and households at 80% of the median4. Table Al-2 below identifies and projects the number of households in the City by income level for the period between 2000 and 2030.5 The projections contained in this Table, provided by the Shimberg Center, are not consistent with the noted trend toward a slight population decrease in the City. Generally, however, they do provide a proximate count of households by income type for 2010. This Table indicates that 12% of the City's housing stock should be affordable to households earning less than 30% of the median, 11 % should be affordable to households earning between 30% and 50% of the median, 18% should be affordable to households earning between 50% and 80% of the median, 24% should be affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of the median, and 34% should be affordable to households earning over 120% of the median. I University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, Housing Needs Summary. Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, 2012 2 2005-2009 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau 3 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Quarter 2 Year 2011, Florida DEO Labor Market Statistics Center 4 2005-2009 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau 5 University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, Housing Needs Summary, Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, 2011 City of Key West Comprehensive Plan A-3 Adopted March 5, 2013, Ordinance No. 13-04 Data and Analysis Table A1-2. Proiected Households by Income 2000 - 2030 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 0-30% 1,295 1,295 (12%) 1,378 1,469 1,543 1,605 30-50% 1,200 1,203 (11%) 1,297 1,399 1,487 1,559 50 - 80% 1,995 1,857 (18%) 1,873 1,892 1,906 1,913 80 -120% 2,724 2,518 (24%) 2,516 2,515 2,507 2,497 120%+ 3,744 3,620 (34%) 3,665 3,715 3,735 3,750 Total 10,958 10,493 10,729 10,990 11.178 11,324 Table A 1-3 below documents the number of cost burdened households in the City by tenure for 2010.5 As can be seen, 35 percent of homeowner households and 42 percent of renter households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing. Table Al-4 documents cost burdened households by income type. As expected, the level and severity of cost burden increases as income levels decrease. Table A1-3. Cost Burdened Households by Tenure, 2009 % of income paid 0-30% 30-50% 50% plus Total for housing Owners 3,325 (65%) 909 (18%) 844 (17°io) 5,078 Renters 3,065 (58%) 1,159 (22%) 1,050 (20%) 5,274 Table A1-4. Cost Burdened Households by Income Group, 2009 % of income paid for housing 0-30% 30-50% 50% plus Total 0-30% median income 357 (28%) 160 (13°o) 754 (59%) 1,271 30 - 50% median income 357 (30%) 355 (30%) 464 (39%) 1,176 50 - 80% median income 855 (46%) 611 (33%) 373 (20%) 1,839 80%+median income 4,821 (79%) 942 (15%) 303 (4%) 6,066 5 University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, Housing Needs Summary, Flonda Housing Data Clearinghouse. 2011 City of Key West Comprehensive Plan Adopted March 5, 2013, Ordinance No. 13-04 A-4 Data and Analysis Table Al-5 below indicates the deficit or surplus of affordable housing units by income category in the City for 2010.E This information provides perhaps the best indication of unmet affordable housing need. As can be seen, there is a deficit of housing units affordable for all income types, with the exception of rental units for households at 120 percent of the median. Table A1-5. Affordable HousinK Deficit/Surplus by Income Group, 2009 30% of median 50% of median 80% of median 120% of median 200% of median Owners -500 -851 -1,571 -2,225 -2,101 Renters -349 -796 -214 +270 -288 The City of Key West has taken a proactive approach to addressing the affordable housing needs of its residents. There are currently a total of 508 federally, State and locally assisted units and 581 public housing units in the City. In order to encourage the provision of private sector affordable and workforce housing, single family units are allowed and encouraged to have accessory units that provide a more affordable housing option for the City's workforce and residents. In 2005 the City adopted a workforce housing ordinance which requires that 30 percent of new market rate housing units be affordable to members of the workforce who earn at or less than 80 percent of the median. In addition, Peary Court, a military housing complex, is transitioning from military ownership to civilian ownership, providing an additional 160 market rate housing units. Application of the workforce housing requirement would provide an additional 48 affordable or workforce housing units. Gauging the need for special needs housing and homeless assistance is another important consideration for the City. There are currently approximately 136 beds for special needs housing, 122 beds for transitional housing, and 175 homeless shelter beds in the City. Based on a count conducted in 2011, 246 homeless persons were identified in the City. A partial listing of special needs and transitional housing facilities is provided below: 1. AIDS Help — 96 Units 2. Kathy's Hope —16 rooms with communal facilities 3. Samuels House — 13 rooms with communal facilities 4. Casa de Meredith — 9 units 5. Florida Keys Outreach Coalition — One s.f house (2 bedroom) 6. Neece Center — 20 beds for men 7. Poinciana — 102 beds for men and women Chapter 2. Population Estimates Population projections are an important component of local comprehensive plans. They provide the statistical framework for future development and redevelopment, and for projecting the ability to provide key infrastructure and services at adopted levels of service. The population of Key West, a built - out community with natural and policy constraints that limit future development potential, is projected to decrease slightly during the short, mid and long range planning periods, as documented in the following analysis. 6 University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing. Affordable Housing Needs Assessment. 2011 City of Key West Comprehensive Plan A-5 Adopted March 5, 2013, Ordinance No. 13-04 Data and Analysis N Of vi w mQl O M ��j OD O c, m' Q u7 +Off N CO O j t0 iD 1� M1 y CD O �' N M v e�i O 1� O O H B' M1 Of M1 f�07 CO ^ `�' Of M N t0 m A C7> O COO C-3 U,3 f O G U2 QDD r I-- w ' Or ' w c0r0 1 0 M1 fxf aOo O w r M 1Ln M O7 'Len) N M1 1 Of 1�, .tpp Oyp tpr; • M1 Of'J P- f�� Of ,O_- {3 fir f+> 1M1C1 : 1� O�f �N � N �Mp t�pf a� �j tit N-a n m 1 m` . Z v lA �A t0 t0 ti OD C r' N t N f1 C• A O ^ W -E Cco ND e+r� v O r- a0 1 tn 1Mn N 1 N Lo W I�irf m O EM17 i��7 �Op {[p� 1+f M 1`O+ M < C{7 fD to Cf ..N' C' a C' Y7 Lff fL1 M1 co C7f c « O Epp t+! v, v � Of'! e� r. a n m n o fM17 v C r KO7 uMf cb' m `I� w N O pp ` N m ti L pNp F.at O W Qf AND r p� pep .�- t�p Ip+pJ iD a i70 Ln CD cpoO0p n - O p-, ch Of P m a Ms m i�'7 Ln W) CD a , [�p N N M@'_ `-' �Cpp O Q�p b Of IOD O_ ! ` o^, fD - m M O) !-' '�F _ C�0 m N pp ��pp e= 1+ w Of N w O m �rJ c7 {p O I�f '. y' N w ® ! r off © t0 N M1 CtlNfLn 1 sOO�f !Q�Q pN� M O § 1 M1 y m lV CO'J COp e+f 4N'!_ OJ R 4 ��f ! CM1O �i •"L tpNOp O cENNO i P- C~7 YNf_ fM2 QD = �Mp c��O C19- ppp �GQf O t1p�0 papOp- p� O M �CNy �p tpQp N� S �O C .y M1 off N [O N tpp0 {�{f'�� a0 Of Q e+f pf N r F, N {(�� tD C1 ! IMf {�'! P'f Iff fa CO r M�f . L7 1" 1ff C pepp � (pp O p �Op o ^ Cgs 'i+ R Q "+ cp CD , S tpp fD �Lf+ff N �fp� N p�ppp N m R c" a CD M 1A F N pm N N N e'pf t+pf O � M lm eyO•'f� CO' �O tp0 � p� o� 8� p� �Np Z 49 �y N Ad N p�p N r M1 M N a N l�Yf fff I'd, of cnR Qq O {per p C� rn pQ s 1 ppp �p(f p NG 1+ O N M N O to �D' O M N N hh N P. gy' Cf�� CO' � tpD p0OpD Of tV N N N p� M a.; I C Nfpf $ M YO9 �pN p N OM1f eO� tD p Oin $ pp� f N N M C" c`) -W 1f7 fif �Ntl N ui lM�f_ M1 o�ffff Q�ff ��pp N, N N Rf M Ch R CpN O e^ g 8 8 O pp� v of N o w co-M o O g q I G Cl CO 1 Of N r, I N e0 t0 O O) N N tp Of Ch [pp7 QI N Ln M1 g N Of M Of M1 r- O7 O C� N ° N f N ^ N M a ['�7 C• O N 'e! �p u7 O C" o�ffff Of opN uN�f aD i tD O M l0 CO pM f [O N O 2 Nf M1 CO M Co � M R f7 : M pppp . � ® inN O rp- e0 N tOD 10- NY C7 w � O1 N O N N cmN N- M N M t+O] C• EOM O O O O O pf off N amp N . i�7 M C'7 M m V' 1A ID . co �b lrf O O O O QY , W� N co N M w M - In --r C' LO M f Q M n O N w O � C O s N 9RE ,d uU m c CITY OF KEY WEST Work Force Housing Income and Rental Limits 2014 Based on Monroe County Annual Median Income (AMI) for a family of four of $63,500 (CHN Commission Resolution 14-053) Income Limits for Single Persons Household Size Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 120% Middle 140% 1 Person $ 46,160 $ 57,700 $ 69,240 $ 80,780 2 Persons $ 52,800 $ 66,000 $ 79,200 $ 92,400 3 Persons $ 59,360 $ 74,200 $ 89,040 $ 103,880 4 Persons $ 65,920 $ 82,400 $ 98,880 $ 115,360 5 Persons $ 71,200 $ 89,000 $ 106,800 $ 124,600 6 Persons $ 76,480 $ 95,600 $ ' 114,720 $ 133,840 7 Persons $ 81,760 $ 102,200 $ 122,640 $ 143,080 8 Persons $ 87,040 $ 108,800 $ 130,560 $ 152,320 Income Limits for Married or Domestic Partners Household Size Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 120% Middle 140% 2 Persons $ 70,400 $ 88,000 $ 105,600 $ 123,200 3 Persons $ 79,147 $ 98,933 $ 118,720 $ 138,507 4 Persons $ 87,893 $ 109,867 $ 131,840 $ 153,813 5 Persons $ 94,933 $ 118,667 $ 142,400 $ 166,133 6 Persons $ 101,973 $ 127,467 $ 152,960 $ 178,453 7 Persons $ 109,013 $ 136,267 $ 163,520 $ 190,773 8 Persons $ 116,053 1 $ 145,067 1 $ 174,080 1 $ 203,093 Per City Ord. Sec.122-1469(13) Maximun Monthly Rental Rates Unit Size Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 120% Middle 140% Efficiency $ 1,154 $ 1,443 $ 1,731 $ 2,020 1 bedroom $ 1,320 $ 1,650 $ 1,980 $ 2,310 2 bedrooms $ 1,484 $ 1,855 $ 2,226 $ 2,597 3 bedrooms $ 1,648 $ 2,060 $ 2,472 $ 2,884 4 bedrooms $ 1,780 $ 2,225 $ 2,670 $ 3,115 Per City Ord. Sec.122-1466 Definitions Income limits are based upon figures provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and published by Florida Housing Finance Corporation CITY OF KEY WEST Work Force Housing Owner Occupied Income and Sales Limits 2014 Based on Monroe County Annual Median Income (AM I) for a family of four of $63,500 (Cit) Commission Resolution 14-053) Income Limits for Single Persons Household Size Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 120% Middle 140% 1 Person $ 46,160 $ 57,700 $ 69,240 $ 80,780 2 Persons $ 52,800 $ 66,000 $ 79,200 $ 92,400 3 Persons $ 59,360 $ 74,200 $ 89,040 $ 103,880 4 Persons $ 65,920 $ 82,400 $ 98,880 $ 115,360 5 Persons $ 71,200 $ 89,000 $ 106,800 $ 124,600 6 Persons $ 76,480 $ 95,600 $ 114,720 $ 133,840 7 Persons $ 81,7601 $ 102,200 1 $ 122,640 1 $ 143,080 8 Persons $ 87,040 1 $ 108,800 1 $ 130,560 1 $ 152,320 Income Limits for Married or Domestic Partners Household Size Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 120% Middle 140% 2 Persons $ 70,400 $ 88,000 $ 105,600 $ 123,200 3 Persons $ 79,147 $ 98,933 $ 118,720 $ 138,507 4 Persons $ 87,893 $ 109,867 $ 131,840 $ 153,813 5 Persons $ 94,933 $ 118,667 $ 142,400 $ 166,133 6 Persons $ 101,973 $ 127,467 $ 152,960 $ 178,453 7 Persons $ 109,013 $ 136,267 $ 163,520 $ 190223 8 Persons $ 116,053 1 $ 145,067 $ 174,080 1 $ 203,093 Per City Ord. Sec.122-1469(13) Maximun Sales Price Unit Size Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 120% Middle 140% Efficiency $ 115,400 $ 201,950 $ 346,200 $ 525,070 1 bedroom $ 132,000 $ 231,000 $ 396,000 $ 600,600 2 bedrooms $ 148,400 $ 259,700 $ 445,200 $ 675,220 3 bedrooms $ 164,800 $ 288,400 $ 494,400 $ 749,840 4 bedrooms $ 178,000 $ 311,500 $ 534,000 $ 809,900 Per City Ord. Sec.122-1466 Definitions Income limits are based upon figures provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and published by Florida Housing Finance Corporation i, 0 rD ro IV O O 00 n o O 0 r 0 O O ('D c n O3 n O 0 rD W rD 0 O0 O J rD C r-f O d c'--h co fp w n Q n � r-► 0 O l/7 w fop w O rD Qi n zr r Q I 3 r m of m c c 8 A p1 $ a � c Uzi 0 am Pg � 9 0; Ro 11 �. 9 �� 3 aaO m$ c W a Wo� n MR 3 Ln 3 Ft O 0 �- I i pill pill LA x d 3 a z-n fu z a o C f c w 0 w g a 3 CL ; o �o ; b � 3 ry a a s 'v ' O EA s n w w w =r tb rD n �o N ,s 3 w R 1 I A, 14 E/ K g go n E EL` J1EL cm , k C § ; � IA k I g E » Et( g ¢ P— n |0.7 / r R k( g ( k )&% i § k M. & « � A f / u I 0 § 2 � � � = 7� G 8 —0 to 4 0� � & w " - , m- r !'IIm >� sago�> no•4�,0 o � 3 Ma lc al 1 mm s i Ir g Q $ a f ':r � �aam ma Ch �mm7 m o O m �4 V vm li 3m m _ 3 Qr �3 �,� D 0 �� po 151A 13- 5 �grgmo�ao 1a1,-q8 ID a 9-.U92lW1, I..Ao— d v $ S 9 mA��ga o i- ca ir AM 3 a0 Ell 3�� Unfu f 51 [..H I : .5 - a 5 g i _ $g u i 41— S�1, i111,81, EL was now cr ill ajj�- Hv o 1g1gi3amla4Sg x wa — � m � ^ m 2� � 0 3 � � � 3 m g = °•i aS�s av 3 m � � W cr� 8 �m mm FLOW IF 3 VANVio-H gym 3Nal K 0�m m m� m gg' m it., � a— o m 3 n�m Imo 3� di c ��C�a�� 3 0 ao Ojai 15,L FL 3��$P�� v� C�;ea�•alm3 OR —it am paQ.6 3 3 m c s m m a v a 3 8 3 �� 3 a + gg s �qb, S3m�co f m� m�3�= 3 ao m Alam¢m as mm 8a 03 s$�' $��-7�_ -om if lf;�m� JcL gmaw m— m $1a-3 m �� $6 i6 6.33�� ' Cg o,� �• a 83 3 m � a[8- g _ v m aI umm�� o$m�'n m �m $ 3� 1� m mo3 m�gg qm S� 3 m3 om o o m� �o ao-13 �� 3m�� o°�m`aIaa3 �m''gmgQr ' 33iff $$� o� f gm Q8 a $ 3 a s o am msliff � mgmc 'aa�aSa� �5Hm=ao a -.� QL am dm I $QeI- g - Sm�a'n Scm v, nn� m ° Q _ 3 0 �2 $ E v o m�Wv°�goa3'a� om?a9�+� ��9 � ��3�5'mn'p° 3 m0 $ro-» S cm00o _w na mSSffi °m p-.qg �I c .o E m� v acd33a o" 3�ocm 00-4 09rpm 'nm�-m9 om me9 �wo� omm��7 W m�3o $�$ gZmo �m ammSi oa �mmw $Qy� $ =— 38 a=3m owa'w�3°8mc��misi OaBgadoo mm m 3�Ea �3C) 4a 4n mamm�-° oa��q�5mni� 'nm•f'ffm' jig., c893�mm ome` .8 �f an m m am as 7 8 gm �� W m REPO � °qo ��R��p aa� 9y�90 5 0 0 mcl1$m�iid�S°33�a� $��m�maapriom=gN g8r8 a_ mm8n11 ^ c ��3 W �g ;_$ am to a FL aEd g�m n3'0�$ �, » R E� cdKKjjm.. gzm a n$ C)m m c 8 �mac3 v�m nn8a�mcR a I&�to ffi'3 q m3m-1°OmO gg777bbb�8.- o.gdmg p C� m �� —8 o $mm $�m�m ' g3a' m`ts". —,j � _ w� 00 e m m v m°m°� �3 33 n m �0m 3� � lcsc�8m°� g a ja c m 8 m 3a° -8 _-v� Fem o m m gZ'm w rnC) g a 5F c o �a �yg�� I wm!ff 3 � EF �o WaB�q'm- 9� m n o m 3 v 5 m g a m g o g' g- 3g�nommw�om8� &, �Ona'o3��sm� ° dsmam mm3 wog67on°lmff 3 '3 0ma m`gym3 �v z U3 r3�aa or-M 4° mWWNto %Q oaag�c� ,a �"mO��m �caS � 3 Err na'�' rJdS 0 c m g-473 91 Aim ffi o m m - 7 9°mam-� iomo4��-mmza8ma�3 !gig 3 m$ i CO �� Q„nm ` r m m$ 3 a6= � ° m a- ° m e a 8 z_m aao m � B � �� ° m m 0a�.fl w �R a Do S�, cs m o ao m 3 m m� mo8 ma$868am'a $ a�6��3mSm m ego VaA g � p�O- d �m is° 53 g w o E 3 nw$3 0 3m 9 '" Z9°O3bmIs$8m ��w&a �f m a ma -m�m- 3. ° a g to 3°g..3�9 3v mala° amD gK&a 3. 3 m�3m n _� �ma =gas 3000 E8 53 5 3�8�at m'3� v m g05 3g� da ;n6 3 8o aC> 8w 07m o m 8 3 o IS g CL m w z e3p 9-Ho yam m mda�a o o a m 3d � 3 Bgv o_cCT c`sid �3o c 5 ' ag c � m Aw a 3 Tw g Ag a g CL m mm �- 3I vm _o I mOra mp' w Sam `° g�8 3KAw I �a m3 "•�mm d 40 a 3 -�r0 SZo 7 m' m 4 �:rw `° m8 e w �c�z0 m �m m� omc W m�mg a Zn'g a p 8 ��' -6ma er -31 a80 gm 3� m aim n W! c 8 $_ all: 11 lug $ m 441- 1,81 Alio .93I-all Ids _ - ago CL S91 i IL m 3 �' go a � • low 03 oaB ��9��Am�8�g O iogm W -is m- 9. ggg�A$,m � —mCL y 4~ 1-1111 w cr D� 9��m�2o��m��a�mm$ ��gg'� nV9�+,�mg�T�W�.6 nn p-:.a, � m'Zc�� i=mm�m9rn ��sg� Ra QGmjSSQ=0 ��^Or 2� Olm �m9<��m m m Ai Y ii �ell M, 13mHag gg m c ma $sg.$G3 a d 3mI;:Fog = n e 3 ° m a$ $P�33°mm'�m a3 v mm , = 2�200 m o CT m $ m5 2Lm�m'n To„ m M O 0 hh rL IN m" 01gl�n=oe�a'Y'3�8n�g$ cS43Qa��°i�m3°mo� a v �� m nas= o 2 �a myo A� m� �� }aM �< m 3="�gR.m 2 0 ° ffi Z �m °$a Z° O m§m3 R mm ...T m 4$ hams m 'all m cmEP� m=ma4-mm�°.t C ° 01 nn �= m s�$a mmm=m� MI a m c m 0 a, Fla g u I P.-, H. ffl i 1 :1- F, 1; ! a g$ o KID CE gL ��TV 'ili ��ul cr 6FROpNTs m-Og11 OM-14i H e 14 S2 3 A RL 0 3 � gym' m AD1�m�� W> 1 'A p GlmIN. �pHL bJL% CI3 gs m3Am ��m�sm �i =33 3 $ �u .5 as 33a m mc�' m3a. c— mm 3c�o �a3 r3'�+°m Slat"m�� o.Ac �� 3 as�� ono ��mii� m � ma��.1m�g�ag as — c°� �m m—;3fPZ544 lv mmm3��a�m3��3 A.��m�a��3mmL�a ��3��g�ma�� °°. Q, mmm °m a-aSc—�cm a�SO E--3a `elm I < 3 �g 9 g°o R m > >,ao I man �3 =4Oo�C�`iff —;Q1 ja1�3��$Q33 � a mamm�Q'oU4Qm °m'8 o —'� � 33 o-a9,iS m�mSoSi�ii m�3`—amSp m 3 3 6m m o v °.Q 6. m m 6.103 ,0 Rea �a�jnmc�°�a3 cmiiff TWEE �Om �3m 7 is f m m$ 3 raga— o D C O. r 0 3 (/� HIT owl flal:i 113 3° Er CL gam �� a Q a� o-- ag 9 �o� " o-30 7 a �?E cr -aim=� x 8 N 0.0 c �m s C $moo o �o fl m o oI g �Qa ima caoow 03�� ju �N 1O figs m gm m m�a a�2il g ami_a� �Tjme�� (on3 m3 a m m �a�-S O All mmmmga _, a= m �a3cd�ma ' U°�a gum! Us NbnQn m1� o'2 c c c °� a 3 T q cp m gal a�� 00 � m lag _ ego 'oo EqR am0��6mogZ �am g � ��a�� it0 m31oall � n �� 8aM� L it i m m3E3log c dam o �c Q mom KPO s� 1 3om��a a 3�oO7inm�v 3 IL a N$o� mew- FAg.I82 EEO a °�Oo a �x?+t 2c; cr g a8 �� aim cm� ; M. cip p1 3 9� p '� 10 Ila .1 a, CL a mcc 1.3 ff5ff3 ale it no m I' =a 8g�8 a3 $L �� its .3 �5 yaw a � 3��sa m9941 v 3 0q�' el Ta=�° amm �m »m 910at yy� o REPO 0 33Q�g 3 3 3.10 O $� 70m? OZf Z f/lCL m e 3n= O 9 O G m 3� 3 p c a p Co 4° t2 9 c 8°`_a3 Sm ag-m� w O _ xm �� -C, VC a _ c0.1 RM M c� 'ffis a w as 8 �� m s � m3 a Vcr am m gg 381 ago n 8m a C V M _ Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page I of 8 Select Year: 2014 Go - . . ............ The 2014 Florida Statutes_ Title XVI Ch�r 2�59 View Entire PUBLIC LANDS AND LAND ACQUISITIONS FOR CONSERVATION OR gLhaSjgr PROPERTY RECREATION Jai The Department of Revenue shall credit to the fund each month the proceeds from such taxes as provided in this paragraph. (b) There shall annually be transferred from the Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund to the Land Acquisition Trust Fund that amount, not to exceed $20 million annually, as shall be necessary Wo-&W-t spivirp *n. tr fiiwd -4p�t spwice rp,;r-*/e funds, reWate obligations. or other amounts with respect to Donas Issuea pursuant to 3. -- . . . . . . . pursuant to ss. 259.101(4) and 259.105; however, no moneys transferred to the Land Acquisition Trust Fund pursuant to this paragraph, or earnings thereon, shall be used or made available to pay debt service on the Save Our Coast revenue bonds. Amounts transferred annually from the Conservation and http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App, _ mode=Di splay" Statute& Search String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 2 of 8 money credited to the tuna in triat year, such aRocation to De uset FM-1=TrF71-CT1 TUF-UT a natural areas inventory to aid in the identification of areas to be acquired pursuant to this section. (6) Moneys in the fund not needed to meet obligations incurred under this section shall be deposited with the Chief Financial Officer to the credit of the fund and may be invested in the manner provided by law. Interest received on such investments shall be credited to the Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund. (7) The board of trustees may enter into any contract necessary to accomplish the purposes of this section. The lead land managing agencies designated by the board of trustees also are directed by the http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App mode=Display Statute&Search" String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 3 of 8 Legislature to enter into contracts or interagency agreements with other governmental entities, including local soil and water conservation districts, or private land managers who have the expertise to PPA�T*Owi�*Jpm R4' in-house. Such activities shall include, but not be limited to, controlled burning, road and ditch maintenance, mowing, and wildlife assessments. (8) Lands to be considered for purchase under this section are subject to the selection procedures of s. 259.035 and related rules and shalt be acquired in accordance with acquisition procedures for state lands provided for in s. 259.041, except as otherwise provided by the Legislature. An inholding or an addition to a project selected for purchase pursuant to this chapter is not subject to the selection procedures of s. 259.035 if the estimated value of such inho[ding or addition does not exceed $500,000. When at [east 90 percent of the acreage of a project has been purchased pursuant to this chapter, the project may be removed from the List and the remaining acreage may continue to be purchased. Moneys INITIMA's http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App",mode=Display , Statute&Search String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 4 of 8 (e) Concurrent with the approval of the acquisition contract pursuant to s. 259.041(3)(c) for any interest in lands except those lands being acquired under the provisions of s. Z59.1052, the board of trustees shalt designate an agency or agencies to manage such lands. The board shalt evaluate and amend, as appropriate, the management policy statement for the project as provided by s. 259.035, consistent with the purposes for which the lands are acquired. For any fee simple acquisition of a parce which is or will be [eased back for agricultural purposes, or any acquisition of a tess-than-fee interest i land that is or will be used for agricultural purposes, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvemen cha[)te 3 Lea ehoLa in roptiateconsFY7177 mmeuy Lim: Land Acquisition and Management Advisory Council or its successor, for uses consistent with the purposes of the organizations and the protection, preservation, conservation, restoration, and proper management of the lands and their resources. Volunteer management assistance is encouraged, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App "mode=Display, Statute&Search, String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 5 of 8 including, but not limited to, assistance by youths participating in programs sponsored by state or Local agencies, by volunteers sponsored by environmental or civic organizations, and by individuals participating in programs for committed delinquents and adults. (d)1. For each project for which lands are acquired after July 1, 1995, an individual management the priority list developed pursuant to ss. ZtL)91'#1 (4) and 259. 1#5 ave been acqui—re—CF.--Ff�e--,Y,,—epartment of Environmental Protection shall distribute only 75 percent of the acquisition funds to which a budget entity or water management district would otherwise be entitled from the Preservation 2000 Trust Fune to any budget entity or any water management district that has more than one-third of its management plans overdue. 2. The requirements of subparagraph 1. do not apply to the individual management plan for the Babcock Crescent B Ranch being acquired pursuant to s. 259.105Z. The management plan for the ranch shall be adopted and in place no later than 2 years following the date of acquisition by the state. (e) Individual management plans shalt conform to the appropriate policies and guidelines of the !!,W9 �1111101'1_01=1!1111'111rzjl�� 1. A statement of the purpose for which the Lands were acquired, the projected use or uses as defined in s. 253.034, and the statutory authority for such use or uses. 2. Key management activities necessary to achieve the desired outcomes, including, but not limited to, providing public access, preserving and protecting natural resources, protecting cultural and historical resources, restoring habitat, protecting threatened and endangered species, controlling the spread of nonnative plants and animals, performing prescribed fire activities, and other appropriate resource management. 3. A specific description of how the managing agency plans to identify, Locate, protect, and preserve, or otherwise use fragile, nonrenewable natural and cultural resources. 4. A priority schedule for conducting management activities, based on the purposes for which the Lands were acquired. 5. A cost estimate for conducting priority management activities, to include recommendations for cost-effective methods of accomplishing those activities. 6. A cost estimate for conducting other management activities which would enhance the natural resource value or public recreation value for which the Lands were acquired. The cost estimate shall include recommendations for cost-effective methods of accomplishing those activities. 7. A determination of the public uses and public access that would be consistent with the purposes for which the Lands were acquired. (f) The Division of State Lands shalt submit a copy of each individual management plan for parcels which exceed 160 acres in size to each member of the Acquisition and Restoration Council, which shall: 1. Within 60 days after receiving a plan from the division, review each plan for compliance with the requirements of this subsection and with the requirements of the rules established by the board pursuant to this subsection. 2. Consider the propriety ofthe recommendations of the managing agency with regard to the future use or protection of the property. 3. After its review, submit the plan, along with its recommendations and comments, to the board of trustees, with recommendations as to whether to approve the plan as submitted, approve the plan with modifications, or reject the plan. (g) The board of trustees shall consider the individual management plan submitted by each state agency and the recommendations of the Acquisition and Restoration Council and the Division of State http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App''mode=Display Statute&Search, String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 6 of 8 Lands and shaLL approve the plan with or without modification or reject such plan. The use or possession of any Lands owned by the board of trustees which is not in accordance with an approved individual management plan is subject to termination by the board of trustees. management shall be returned to the lead agency responsime tor sucri management a s n a i i I P-MM-M pay for management activities on all conservation, preservation, and recreation Lands under the agency's jurisdiction. In addition, such revenues shalt be segregated in an agency trust fund and shall remain available to the agency in subsequent fiscal years to support land management appropriations. For the purposes of this paragraph, compatible secondary -use management shalt be those activities described in subsection (9) undertaken on parcets designated as single use pursuant to s. 253.034(2)(b). (d) Up to one -fifth of the funds provided for in paragraph (b) shalt be reserved by the board of trustees for interim management of acquisitions and for associated contractual services, to ensure the conservation and protection of natural resources on project sites and to allow limited public recreational use of lands. Interim management activities may include, but not be limited to, resource assessments, control of invasive, nonnative species, habitat restoration, fencing, taw enforcement, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App" mode=Display, Statute&Search 'String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 7 of 8 property based upon the average amounT—oT taxes pala on removed from the tax rolls. The department shall certify to the Department of Revenue those properti that may be eligible under this provision. Once eligibility has been established, that county or local government shall receive annual payments for each tax Loss until the qualifying county or local government exceeds the population threshold pursuant to this section. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App,,,mode=Display _Statute&Search String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 8 of 8 (f) Payment in Lieu of taxes pursuant to this subsection shall be made annually to qualifying counties ;,nd local governments after certification by the Department of Revenue that the amounts applied for - are reasonably appropriate, based on the amount of actual taxes paid on the eligible property. With the assistance of the local government requesting payment in Lieu of taxes, the state agency that acquired the land is responsible for preparing and submitting application requests for payment to the Department WIN (g) If the board of trustees conveys to a Local government title to any land owned by the board, any payments in Lieu of taxes on the land made to the local government shall be discontinued as of the date of the conveyance. For the purposes of this subsection, "Local government" includes municipalities, the county school board, mosquito control districts, and any other local government entity which levies ad valorem taxes, with the exception of a water management district. (13) Moneys credited to the fund each year which are not used for management, maintenance, or capital improvements pursuant to subsection (11); for payment in Lieu of taxes pursuant to subsection (12); or for the purposes of subsection (5), shall be available for the acquisition of land pursuant to this section. (14) The board of trustees may adopt rules to further define the categories of [and for acquisition under this chapter. (15) Within 90 days after receiving a certified letter from the owner of a property on the Conservation and Recreation Lands List or the priority list established pursuant to s. 259.105 objecting to the property being included in an acquisition project, where such property is a project or part of a project which has not been listed for purchase in the current year's Land acquisition work plan, the board of trustees shall delete the property from the list or from the boundary of an acquisition project History. s. 8, ch. 79-255; s. 16, ch. 80-356; s. 5, ch. 81-35; s. 1, ch. 81-210; s. 165, ch. 81-259; s. 1, ch. 82-152; s. 2, ch. 83-80; s. 1, ch. 83-114; s. 10, ch. 84-330; s. 13, ch. 86-178; s. 6, ch. 86-294; sa 1, ch. 87-96; s. 1, ch, 88-387; s. 13, ch. 89- 116; s. 1, ch. 89-276; s. 2, ch. 90-1; s. 8, ch. 90-217; sm 1, ch. 91-62; s. 5, ch. 91-420; s. 2, ch. 92-288; s. 45, ch. 93-206; s. 4, ch. 94-197; s. 1, ch. 94-212; s. 1, ch, 94-240; s. 65, ch, 94-356; s. 5, ch. 95-349; ss. 19, 20, ch. 95-430; s. 3, ch. 96-389; s. 19, ch. 96-420; s. 23, ch, 97-94; ss. 27, 29, ch, 97-153; s. 6, ch, 97-164; ss. 26, 38, ch, 98-46; s. 10, ch. 99-4; s. 34, ch. 99-13; ss. 28, 33, 53, ch. 99-228; s. 13, ch. 99-247; s. 20, ch. 99-292; s. 7, ch. 2000-170; s. 61, ch. 2000-171; s. 45, ch. 2001-61; s. 7, ch. 2002-2; s. 28, ch. 2002-402; s. 15, ch. 2003-6; s. 280, ch. 2003-261; s. 6, ch. 2003-394; s. 18, ch. 2004-5; ss. 42, 75, ch. 2004-269; s. 41, ch. 2005-71; ss. 31, 42, ch, 2006-26; s. 4, ch. 2006-231; s. 5, ch, 2008-5; s. 9, ch. 2008-229; s. 21, ch. 2009- 21; s. 36, ch, 2013-15; s. 37, ch. 2014-53. 1 Note. Section 37, ch. 2014-53, added paragraph (f) to subsection (11) "[fln order to implement Specific Appropriations 1583 and 1627A and sections 53 and 54 of the 2014-2015 General Appropriations Act," Note. Formers. 253.023. 0111� I ..... . ..................... - -------- M - - ----- http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App mode=Display, Statute&Search String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page I of 4 Select Year: [2— D q0:1 The 2013 Florida Statutes Title XXX �C�er �420 View Entire ChaQter SOCIAL WELFARE HOUSING 11oTation VILOL ?TUgTU-RT-(ud-S I eligible areas. This funding is intended to be used with other public and private sector resources. (5) The corporation shalt establish a loan application process by rule which includes selection criteria, an application review process, and a funding process. The corporation shall also establish an application review committee that may include up to three private citizens representing the areas of housing or real estate development, banking, community planning, or other areas related to the development or financing of workforce and affordable housing. q http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App mode=Display, Statute&Search String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 3 of 4 (9) Notwithstanding s. 163.3184(4)(b)-(d), any local government comprehensive plan amendment to implement a Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program project found consistent with this section shall be expedited as provided in this subsection. At least 30 days prior to adopting a plan amendment under this subsection, the Local government shalt notify the state land planning agency of its intent to adopt such an amendment, and the notice shalt include its evaluation related to site suitability and availability of facilities and services. The public notice of the hearing required by s. 163.3184(l 1 )(b)2. shalt include a statement that the local government intends to use the expedited adoption process authorized by this subsection. Such amendments shall require only a single public hearing before the governing board, which shalt be an adoption hearing as described in s. 163.3184(4) (e). Any further proceedings shalt be governed by s. 163.3184(5)-(13). (10) The processing of approvals of development orders or development permits, as defined in s. 163.3164, for innovative community workforce housing projects shall be expedited. (11) The corporation shall award loans with interest rates set at 1 to 3 percent, which may be made forgivable when Long-term affordability is provided and when at [east 80 percent of the units are set aside for workforce housing and at least 50 percent of the units are set aside for essential services personnel. (12) All eligible applications shalt: (a) For home ownership, limit the sates price of a detached unit, townhome, or condominium unit to r n of the median sales rice for that t e of unit in that count or the statewide of required infrastructure. (g) Demonstrate the applicant's affordable housing development and management experience. (h) Provide any research or facts available supporting the demand and need for rental or home ownership workforce housing for eligible persons in the market in which the project is proposed. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App mode=Display "Statute&Search_, String... 8/12/2014 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 4 of 4 (13) Projects may include manufactured housing constructed after June 1994 and installed in PERMIMM section. (15) The corporation may use a maximum of 2 percent of the annual program appropriation for administration and compliance monitoring. (16) The corporation shall review the success of the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program to ascertain whether the projects financed by the program are useful in meeting the housing needs of eligible areas and shall include its findings in the annual report required under s. 20.511(3l® History. ss. 47, 53, ch. 2006-26; s. 27, ch. 2006-69,p s, 15, ch, 2007-198; s. 116, ch, 2008-4; s. 64, ch, 2011-139; s. 332, ch. 2011-142m http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App mode=Display, Statute&Search _ String... 8/12/2014 f fk. I I J ltl) • i actFinder C B19013 I MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2012 INFLATION -ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Universe: Households 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section. Sample size and data quality measures (Including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website In the Methodology section. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it Is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. Florida Monroe County,Florida T Key West city, d Flog ida _, Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate oEstimate _ in the past 12 months (In Z012T 45,637 i _ +1-177 52,407 +/-1,932 I 51,891 infiatiop-adjc sted dollars) — 1 of 2 07/09/20114 Jerry Coleman, Esq. JERRY COLEMAN, P.L. Truman Annex John C. Rockwell, Esq. (FL only) 201 Front Street, Suite 203 Building 21 Second Floor Email: ierrycolemanpl @bellsouth.net Key West, Florida 33040 Tel',• 305-292-3095 irockwellesg(@bellsouth.net (Admitted Florida and New York) Fax: 305-296-6200 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSON PURPOSES ONLY MEMORANDUM TO: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jerry Coleman, Counsel to Monroe County Workforce Housing Task Forc SUBJECT: Summary of Task Force and Recommended BOCC Resolutions As Workforce Housing Task Force counsel, at the as Force's direction, I present Belo a summary of Task Force resolutions that are to be presented to the BOCC in a joint BOCC/Task Force public workshop to be held February 10, 2006, for subsequent action by the BOCC at its February 15, 2006 meeting in Key Largo. There is a very brief summary of each Task Force Resolution, including a brief synopsis of the Task Force's requested action by the BOCC and the impetus for the Task Force's request. My explanations come from my own recollections and necessarily will lack detail in many regards. Please note that some of the resolutions I drafted incorrectly designated the Workforce Housing Task Force as the "Affordable" Housing Task Force. Notwithstanding this discrepancy, the Task Force's resolutions are being presented to the BOCC as originally drafted, voted upon and signed by the Task Force Chairman. In contrast, I have taken the liberty to correct suggested final BOCC resolutions designed to implement the Task Force recommendations in this regard, as well as to both redate to February 15, 2006 the draft BOCC resolutions and reflect the change of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem that took place last November. Unified Coordination On September 28, 2005 the Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing the County departments to work with Islamorada, Key West and Marathon on a coordinated basis to address affordable/workforce housing issues. This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present, and addressed two other subjects, discussed separately below (Save Our Homes treatment of rental units and Fractional ROGO). A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "A". Accompanying the Task Force resolution was a proposed BOCC resolution that the undersigned v�j WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSON PURPOSES ONLY has updated for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop and which is attached as Exhibit "B". The BOCC resolution has five points: 1. BOCC directs County staff to the maximum extent possible to provide data, analysis and other planning and administrative support to the Task Force. 2. BOCC requests that the municipalities to the maximum extent possible provide data, analysis and other planning and administrative support to the Task Force. 3. BOCC directs the County Administrator to provide for Task Force members compendium copies of certain materials. 4. BOCC requests that the municipalities provide Task Force members with compendium copies of certain materials. 5. BOCC requests that each municipality support and to the extent possible staff joint planning group. The impetus for this resolution was, among other things, a DCA representative's early statements to the Task Force indicating the DCA's willingness to consider substantial increases of affordable housing ROGO allocations to the Florida Keys predicated upon the State's reassessment of hurricane evacuation model implications and the agreement among local jurisdictions to address the workforce/affordable housing crisis on a coordinated "regional" basis. The Task Force recognized, however, the overburdened situation for planning staffs across the Keys and the critical need to address the essential unfunded mandate that this resolution may constitute. Save Our Homes As mentioned above, the September 28, 2005 Task Force resolution (Exhibit "A") also recommended that the BOCC (and the County's municipalities) resolve to supportthe immediate state legislative passage of statutory authority for Keys jurisdictions to apply the "Save Our Homes" ad valorem property tax increase limitations to residential rental properties providing affordable housing for permanent residents of the Florida Keys. Accompanying the Task Force resolution was a proposed BOCC resolution that the undersigned has updated for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop and which is attached as Exhibit "C". The impetus for this resolution were, among other things, citizen comments before the Task Force and the Task Force's assessment that full commercial ad valorem property taxation of landlords providing affordable housing rendered continued maintenance and rehabilitation of these resources by private property owners unfeasible, Ieading to accelerated conversion of such property away from affordable rental uses. The existence of state statutory and constitutional implications for this proposal was recognized. 2 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSON PURPOSES ONLY Fractional ROGOs As mentioned above, the September 28, 2005 Task Force resolution (Exhibit "A") also recommended that the BOCC direct the immediate adoption of County land development regulation amendments authorizing fractional ROGO allocations for affordable housing units of limited size. Accompanying the Task Force resolution was a proposed BOCC resolution that the undersigned has updated for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop and which is attached as Exhibit "D". The proposed BOCC resolution itself contained an exhibit with proposed draft language for a "fractionalized ROGO" ordinance for affordable workforce housing units of less than 750 sq. ft. in size so that such units would be counted as .5 of an affordable ROGO allocation instead of the current 1.0. The impetus for this resolution were, among other things, the Task Force's assessment smaller workforce/housing units were unlikely to have the potential negative evacuation impacts that larger affordable and market -rate units would generate and therefore the full exhaustion of a unit allocation was not justified and provided a disincentive for development of smaller units suitable for infill projects and more intensive and efficient use of available vacant and developable land in the Keys. Density On December 15, 2005 the Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing staff to change the County's land development regulations and any necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments authorizing (1) allowable density for affordable housing projects to be calculated on a "gross" acreage or parcel sq. footage basis (versus, for example, calculation on a "net" of "open space" or other similar basis), and (2) density bonuses of up to fifty percent (50%) calculated on the number of affordable units otherwise allowable on a developable parcel. This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present, and again requested immediate drafting and passing of a Fractional ROGO ordinance in a form suggested in an attached draft BOCC resolution with a draft ordinance as previously described. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "E". Accompanying the Task Force resolution was a proposed BOCC resolution that the undersigned has updated for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop (deleting the section relating to Fractional ROGO already covered) and which is attached as Exhibit "F". On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing Planning Department staff to draft proposed amendments to the land development regulations and, where necessary any required Comprehensive Plan amendments, increasing allowable density for buildable lots where the current number of allowable residential dwelling units is limited to one (1) unit, in cases where proposed development or redevelopment of the subject lot is restricted to affordable/workforce housing units. The impetus for this recommendation was recognition that many existing affordable units are single family units (including mobile homes) on lots allowing only one single family unit, but which could support two or more units of deed -restricted affordable/workforce housing. Moreover, information that Islamorada has recently implemented a similar change to allowable WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSON PURPOSES ONLY density for single -unit zoned lots fronting US-1 suggested moving in this direction throughout the County. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "G". Accompanying this Task Force resolution is a proposed BOCC resolution that the undersigned has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop and which is attached as Exhibit "H". ROGO Lot Donation Points On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing Planning Department staff to draft proposed amendments to the land development regulations and, where necessary any required Comprehensive Plan amendments, adjusting the ROGO point system to permit an award of six (6) points (in contrast to the current two (2) points) for the donation to the County of a "ROGO-lot" upon which no negative environmental conditions or other factors would otherwise prevent the immediate construction of an affordable/workforce housing unit by a qualified owner/developer. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "I". This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present, except for one abstention which was not based upon the merits of the proposal but instead upon the abstaining member's recognition that property he owns could be affected. For donated parcels upon which more than a single unit of affordable/workforce housing can immediately be constructed, the donor should receive six (6) points for each such unit that could be built on the donated parcel. The ROGO or scoring points should be bankable, transferable and capable of being used to obtain an award for an allocation in any Monroe County planning subarea. Accompanying this Task Force resolution is a proposed BOCC resolution that the undersigned has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop and which is attached as Exhibit "J". Bedroom Size Price Limits On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing Planning Department staff to draft proposed amendments to the land development regulations and, where necessary any required Comprehensive Plan amendments, affirming the continued use of the current Monroe County Code sale price formulas for initial sales, resales and rentals of affordable housing units, but adjusting the formulas to account for the number of bedrooms contained in a respective unit. The Task Force noted that current formulas set a sale price for affordable units that is the same for a one -bedroom unit as it is for a three -bedroom unit, which negatively affects the incentives for developers to create affordable/workforce housing units containing more than a single bedroom. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "K". This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present, and addressed two other subjects, discussed separately below (Monroe County Housing Authority Role and Rights of First Refusal). Attached to this memorandum is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the relevant price formula and desired adjustment for number of bedrooms that the undersigned has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task ForceBOCC workshop and which is attached as Exhibit "L". 0 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSON PURPOSES ONLY Monroe County Housing Authority Role As discussed above, the December 15, 2005 Task Force resolution attached as Exhibit i" 0 also recommended that the BOCC consider creating a role for the Monroe County Housing Authority in administering and processing of workforce housing sales and resales, to include determining and monitoring of initial and continuing income and employment eligibility, compliance with occupancy restrictions, and compliance with resale price restrictions. The Task Force recognizes and contemplates that the Housing Authority would be permitted to recover costs incurred for providing such assistance. Attached to this memorandum is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the envisioned Housing Authority role that the undersigned has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop and which is attached as Exhibit "M". Ri ht of First Refusal As also discussed above, the December 15, 2005 Task Force resolution attached as Exhibit "K" also recommended that the BOCC require that for all affordable/workforce housing created in the future there be reserved in appropriate deed restrictions a right of first refusal in favor of Monroe County, or its designee, to purchase affordable/workforce housing offered for sale at the lawfully established offering price, for a period of no less than ninety (90) days from the date an owner notifies the County or its designee of the owner's desire to sell a property containing affordable/workforce housing. In the event that the County or its designees does not elect to purchase a unit pursuant to such right of first refusal, the owner of property containing affordable/workforce housing units should be free to sell the property to buyers otherwise qualified to own such property and subject to all other affordable/workforce housing covenants of record. Attached to this memorandum is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the right of first refusal recommendation that the undersigned has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop and which is attached as Exhibit "N". The undersigned notes that current Land Authority deed restrictions impose a requirement that a non-profit recipient of a Land Authority land grant reserve to the recipient a right'of first refusal to purchase units sold to subsequent purchasers. Allocation Pipeline On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC consider implementing a system that protects affordable housing developers' investments in the admittedly long planning, approval and financing process by reserving for two (2) years allocation awards for developers, from the date of award or reservation for their project, to certificate of occupancy, with up to a one (1) year extension where diligence and good cause is shown for delay. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit 11011. This 5 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSON PURPOSES ONLY resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present, though the "Whereas" recital clauses contained in the Task Force resolution erroneously referred the Task Force's December 15 discussion of locally derived income criteria for workforce housing, which was the subject of another Task Force resolution, discussed separately below. The impetus for this resolution and the suggested BOCC policy was the concern of Task Force members for the "banking" of affordable/workforce housing ROGO allocations as has occurred in some past cases, and also the award of allocations to recipients who are not "ready to proceed" with their projects while other developers otherwise and truly ready to proceed with a project are stymied or even eventually precluded from developing affordable housing for lack of available allocations (in some cases where prior applicants have been unable to proceed). The Task Force recognized that because the need for housing is immediate, units ready for occupancy at the earliest possible point is a priority and developers ready to make this happen should normally be first to receive allocations. However, the Task Force also recognized the difficulties and impediments faced by developers of affordable housing and the need to protect these developers' early and costly commitments to projects and the negative incentive for such developers to embark upon the process if the necessary allocations are denied the developer late in the process. Hence, the "allocation pipeline" issue was determined to be an important one (that could be made less problematic should the DCA establish a substantial pool of new and additional allocations). Attached to this memorandum is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the allocation reservation/pipeline that the undersigned has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop and which is attached as Exhibit °iP". Public Ownership On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC consider implementing a requirement that for all rental or ownership workforce housing projects receiving Monroe County financial subsidies the underlying land upon which workforce housing units are created should be owned by Monroe County or its designee, though in certain cases, nominal (e.g., $1/year) leasebacks of property to owners/developers may be appropriate. This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "O". The resolution reiterated the Task Force's beliefs that (1) permanent public ownership of the underlying land upon which workforce housing units are created is one of the best means ,to ensure long-term accountability for expenditures of public funds for workforce housing, and.,(2) all deed restrictions as to affordability, workforce uses and occupancy should be designed to insure that the relevant restrictive covenants run in perpetuity. The Task Force noted that granting a property owner/developer an affordable or workforce ROGO allocation, in and of itself, without public financial assistance, should not be deemed a "subsidy" for public ownership requirement purposes. Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit 11R" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to public ownership that the undersigned has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop. Locally Derived Income Requirements WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSON PURPOSES ONLY On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC implement a locally derived employment income requirement for all rental or ownership workforce housing projects. This resolution was the subject of 'some debate, not necessarily due to disagreement over specific challenges facing the Key with respect to providing affordable housing to working people and non -working people alike, but in recognition of limited capability to serve all competing interests and the divergent missions of various stakeholders. This resolution passed by a large majority vote of Task Force members present. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit 'IS". The resolution basically recommends to the BOCC that all rental "workforce" housing be limited strictly limited to families who derive 70% of their household income from gainful employment here in Monroe County. With respect to "ownership" workforce housing, the resolution suggests that the BOCC require that the 70% locally -derived income requirement apply for such housing at the time of purchase and for the immediately following five (5) years in order for a purchaser to be Iawfully permitted to retire with the housing constituting his or her principal residence. Income eligibility requirements must be annually verified and all such housing must permanently remain "owner occupied." An issue here is the difference between "affordable" housing for non -working people and "workforce" housing for gainfully employed persons, and the necessity that both categories of housing consumers be served from a single set of "affordable" ROGOs. Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "T" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to locally -derived income requirements that the undersigned has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop. Funding Sources On October 12, 2005 the Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC immediately begin the process of implementing a long-term funding program for affordable housing initiatives. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "U". This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present. The Task Force determined that development and implementation of a set of long-term funding mechanisms for housing initiatives was one of if not the most critical and urgent components of any program to address the workforce/affordable housing crisis. The Task Force believes that without a dedicated stream of funding any government intervention aimed at addressing market failure is unlikely to succeed. The Task Force recommends that the BOCC request that the County's state legislators introduce at the upcoming legislative session any bills necessary for the County to adopt such funding mechanisms, and that all revenues derived be exclusively held and used for the purposes of funding affordable housing initiatives including, but not limited to, land and development rights acquisition, funding construction and rehabilitation of dwelling units and related infrastructure and amenities, financing and providing of financial assistance to qualified landlords, tenants, developers and owners of affordable housing resources, as well as ongoing program administration, with authority to bond and share revenues with Monroe County municipalities, the Monroe County School Board and other local government agencies for the same uses, and for no other purposes. A list of possible, but not exclusive, mechanisms includes: 7 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSON PURPOSES ONLY authorization and adoption of a (or an additional) local option sales tax authorization and adoption of an additional "one -penny' to the Tourist Development ("Bed") Tax reallocation of existing Tourist Development ("Bed") Tax revenues • new or additional impact, user or linkage fees • authorization and adoption of a real estate transfer tax Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "V" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to funding sources that the undersigned has updated for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop. Trailer Park 380 Agreements On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC impose certain limitations on the use of Chapter 380 agreements for preserving affordable housing at trailer park sites that are redevelopable as market rate housing projects. This resolution was the subject of some debate and several rewordings and representations due to, in the first instance, a transcription error by the undersigned, and in another, a member's request for clarifying language. The final Task Force resolution regarding trailer park 380 agreements was unanimously passed by all Task Force members present at the Task Force's January 25, 2006 meeting. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "W". The resolution addresses the exchange ratios (transferable market rate unit allocations that an owner/developer can remove from a trailer park site for use elsewhere in the County in exchange for deed restricted affordable/workforce redevelopment of the trailer park), recommends County ownership of underlying land, suggests minimum unit size and a Housing authority role in administering rentals and sales and recommends limiting the affordable ROGO allocations used in such agreements to 20% of the total number of annually available to the County. Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "X" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the Task Force's recommendations concerning Trailer Park 380 Agreements that the undersigned has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop. Market Rate Units Included in Affordable Housing Proiects On January 25, 2006 the Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing staff to change the County's land development regulation's and any necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments authorizing market rate units to built as part of an affordable/workforce housing project as authorized under of the Monroe County Code to permit the developer of such a project to use affordable allocations for such market rate units. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "Y". The Task Force resolution was unanimously passed by all Task Force members present. The impetus for this recommendation was the Task Force's determination that despite the Code's incorporation of a provision allowing a small number of market rate units to be developed in affordable projects to help developers render such projects feasible, the mechanism had never been used and therefore could not be said have resulted in any incentive as currently structured. It was noted that one problem was that while a potential developer of an affordable housing project might get all of the 8 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSON PURPOSES ONLY needed affordable allocations, the corresponding market rate units would have to await the regular ROGO application process for each unit, with the delay and uncertainty associated with that process. Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "Z" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the Task Force's recommendations concerning the foregoing. Request for Review of Recommendations and Task Force Counsel Drafting On January 25, 2006 the Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC authorize and direct the undersigned and Task Force consultants follow up on any ordinance/comprehensive plan drafting tasks required to implement final BOCC resolutions concerning Task Force recommendations. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "AA". The Task Force resolution was unanimously passed by all Task Force members present. The impetus for this recommendation was the Task Force's concern that its work and recommendations, as the BOCC deems advisable and meriting further action and/or implementation, were not likely to be promptly acted on given the very real limitations on County planning and Iegal staff. The Task Force requested that the BOCC consider the Task Force's recommendations and, as to those the BOCC wants to pursue, send them down to the Task Force's counsel and consultants for drafting into appropriate legislation for review by the Task Force and submission and processing by the Task Force's counsel, including moving through staff, Planning Commission and subsequent approvals, including that of the DCA. Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "BB" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the Task Force's recommendations concerning the foregoing. E lk OUN'TY 0'r O OE KEY WEST F CIRJDA33040 (305)2944641 Mayor Pro Tem Murray E. Nelson Damaron Building, Suite 2 99198 overseas Highway Key Largo, FL 33037 Phone (305) 852-7175 Fax (305)852-7162 Email: boccdis5Sa monroccounh•-fl.Qo� Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3 Mayor Pro Tam Murray E. Nelson, District 5 George Neugent, District 2 Dipe M. Spehar, District 1 David P. Rlce, District 4 J fl/, n� c ♦ ' FLORIDAOUN�TY SO�MONROE 33040 (305) 294-4S41 Mayor Pro Tem Murray E. Nelson Damaron Building, Suite 2 99198 Overseas Highway Key Largo, FL 33037 Phone (305) 852-7175 Fax (305) 852-7162 Email: bocedlsSAmonroecounty-fLeov r i A k", �., hOARD OF COlJM COMMIS Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, I Mayor Pro Tem Murray E. Nelsor George Neugent, District 2 Dhde M. Spehar, District i David P. Rice, District 4 STEPS TARN TO SOLVE THE WORKFORCE HOUSING CRISIS IN MOVROE COUNTY 1. Insure that the County Commission has the political will to accomplish the mission. 2. Created a funding source by using an impact fee on all development and redevelopment over $5007000 total cost of the project. This includes residential and commercial properties. 3. It is the policy of the BOCC to own all the land that workforce housing is built on to insure the county controls the process. The exception would be FKAA, FKEC, Keys Energy, and similar non -profits. 4. To require that all persons applying for workforce housing receive 70% of their income from within Monroe County. Transfer payments would not qualify. 5. Require that all sold units be given a 99-year lease. When that lease expires or the owner wishes to move, the unit must be sold back to the Monroe County Housing Authority at 3% of the selling price times the number of years leased. This will insure that owned properties will become cheaper than like market rate properties as the years pass. 6. Allow developers who own land to sell their land to the county for 65% of appraised value and allow that developer to build the project without public bid. The developer must still sell the home for 120% or 160% of median income. This will insure that Monroe County can acquire enough land to solve the workforce housing crisis. STEPS TAKEN TO SOLVE THE WORKFORCE HOUSING CRISIS IN MONROE COUNT' Page 2 7. To allow over density ROGO's on trailer parks to transfer these excess ROGO's to sender sites. This will insure that trailer parks will be redeveloped into workforce housing instead of market rate. 8. Continue to buy land for Habitat for Humanity to insure that these groups can build housing for low and middle income working families. 9. Cooperate with and provide affordable housing credits to FKAA, FKEC, Keys Energy and other non -profits to provide workforce housing for their employees without cost to the county. This strategy will insure that the workforce housing crisis will be solved at an earlier date. Murray E. Nelson Mayor Pro Tem February 7, 2006 a a ova 00 o00 0 w .l� o ON Ln 0 00O O O .-+ �/1 ON ''"' C*4 6r9 619 6N9 N Vy II II II ;I �e fil I� Il �� II U a o e o Ha �.,W o0 ov, 00 o0 00 00 00 00 0ot�000In� jA U CD � -4-+N � (pm W) 00000000 0%C IpNQS vi c+i N C-4 N N N N N 64 ff! Cr9 b4 ff3 h p � z w a HQ o O e U �-, � ►-� � o Z a W W �, t7 o00a a �� pr�pqu U Oa,H N w MONROE CO - WORKFORCE :SOUSING PROJECTS READ TO PROCEE — OCT. 2005 UNITS NAME DEVELOP'E %_of MED. INCOME 14 Mandalay Monroe Co. 120% Rental 32 Burton Drive Monroe Co. 120% Rental 13 Cudjoe Key Monroe Co. 120% Rental 0 Big Coppitt Monroe Co. 120% Rental 52 Wet Net Islamorada 120% Rental/ Own 88 Falcon Pass Marathon 80% Rental 40 Stock Island Ed Swift 160% Ownership 88 Stock Island Ed Swift 160% Ownership 5 Key Largo. Habitat for 120% Ownership M.M.98.-" Humanity 24 Big Coppitt" Habitat for 120% Ownership M.M. 12 Humanity 52 Tradewind Ha� �cks — KeyLargo 160% Ownership Jerry Coleman, F.sq. JERRY COLEMAN, P.L. Truman Annex John C. Rockwell, Esq. (Fr, naly) 201 Front Street, Suite 203 Building 21 Second Floor Email: r<racoleman !p,(n W11soutlh.no Key West, Florida 33040 Tgl; 305-292-3095 rockwel belisouth.nel (Admitted Florida and New York) Fax: 305.296-6200 MEMORANDUM TO: Monroe Cuunty Board of County Commissioaers FROM: Jerry Coleman, Counsel to Monroe County Workforce Housing Task Force SUBJECT: Summary of Task Force and Recommended HOCC Resolutions On January 25 the Workforce Housing Task Force directed counsel to draft a summary ,of 'cask Force resolutions for presentation to the BOCC at a joint BOCC/Task Force public workshop to be held February 10, 2006, including final preparation of recommended resolutions for subsequent BOCC action at its February 15, 2006 meeting in Key Largo. Below is a brief summary of each Task Farce Resolution, including a synopsis of the Task Force's requested action by the BOCC and a recap of the impetus for the Task Force's recommendation(s). My explanations come from my own recollections and drafting notes and necessarily will lack some otherwise relevant details that Task Force members may address at the workshop. Attached here as Exbi_ bit i" is a copy of the Workforce Housing Task Force: Initial Conclusions, by consultant Steve Seibert and dated November 1.2005. Please note that on some of the early Task Force resolutions I. had incorrectly designated the Workforce Nousing Tusk Force as the "Affordable" Housing Task Force. Notwithstanding this discrepancy, the Task Force's resolutions are being presented to the BOCC as originally drafted, voted upon and signed by the Task Force Chairman. In contrast, I have taken the liberty to cumct the proposed final BOCC; resolutions designed to implement the Task force recommendations, both in this regard, and as well to reflect the change of Mayor and Mayor faro Tern that took place last November and for the February 15, 2006 BOCC meeting daio. Unified Coordination On September 28, 2005 the Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the DO�C pass a resolution directing the County staff to work with Islarnorada, Key West and Marathon on a coordinated basis to address affordable/workforce housing issues. This resolution �/as unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Norco members present, and it addressed two other subjects, discussed separately below (Save Our Homes treatment of rental units Pd Fractional R000). A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "A". Accompanying the 'Task Force resolution was a proposed B&C resolution that counsel etas 7n• - Tnn• oN cT:gt 9O 2T 933 T8TS—S6Z—SO£:QI AiI210Hlfld GNU I '0'14 updated for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCG workshop and which Is attached here as Exhibit " D". The BOCC resolution has five points; 1. BOCC directs County staff to the maximum extent possible to provide data, analysis and other planning and administrative support to the Task Force. 2. BOCC requests that the municipalities, to the maximum extent possible, provide data, analysis and other planning and administrative support to the Task Force. 3. BOCC directs the County Administrator to have County staff provide Task Force members with compendium copies of certain materials. 4. BOCC requests that the municipalities provide Task Force members with compendium copies of certain materials. 5. BOCC requests that each municipality support to the maximum extent possible staffing of a joint housing planninggroup. The impetus for this resolution was, among other things, a DCA representative's early statements to the Task Force indicating the Department's willingness to consider a substantial Infusion of additional affordable housing ROGO allocations to the Florida Keys predicated upon (i) the State's reassessment of hurricane evacuation model implications, and (ii) an agreement among local jurisdictions to address the workforce/affordable housing crisis on a coordinated "regional" basis. The Task Force recognized, however, that planning st4ffs across the Keys ate already overburdened, and the Task Force did not with these requests want simply to create yet another, self-imposed unfunded mandate. Saw Og r Ho es As mentioned above, the September 23, 2005 Task Force resolution (Exhibit -"A") also recommended that the BOCC (and the County's municipalities) resolve to support the immediate state legislative passage of statutory authority for Keys jurisdictions to apply "Save Our Homes" ad valorem property tax increase limitations to residential rental properties providing affordable hotising for permanent residents of the Florida Keys. Accompanying the Task Force resolution was a proposed BOCC resolution that counsel has updated for presentation to the BOCC and which is attached here as Exhibit "C"'. This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present. The impetuscs for this resolution were, among other things, citizen comments before the Task Force and the Task Force's assessment that full commercial ad valorem property taxation of landlords providing affordable housing rendered continued maintenance and rehabilitation of these private resources unfeasible, lending s0'd T00'oN bT:ST M £T E133 T81S-S6Z-SO£:QI AiINOHinu MT 'Y W to accelerated conversion of such property away From affordable rental uses. The Task Force recognized the existence of suite statutory and constitutional implications for this proposal. Fracllonal ROC As also mentioned above, the September 28, 2005 Task Force resolution (Exhibit "A») also recommended that the BOCC direct the immediate adoption of County land development regulation amendments authorizing fractional POGO allocations for affordable housing units of limited size. Accompanying the Task Force resolution was a proposed 13OCC resolution that counsel has updated for presentation to the BOCC and which Is_atlached here as Exhibit "D". This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present. The proposed BOCC resolution itself contained an exhibit with proposed draft language for a "fractionalized ROGO" ordinance for affordable workforce housing units of less than 750 sq. ft. in size, so that such units would be counted as 0.5 of an affordable POGO allocation instead of the current full 1.0. An impetus for this resolution was, among other things, theme W&t es F rce's assessment that smaller workforce/housing units were unlikely to have the potential c_+ f negative evacuation impacts of larger affordable and market -rate units and, therefore, the exhaustion of a full unit allocation was not only not justified, but also provided a disincentive (or development of smaller units suitable for Infill projects and the more intensive and efficient use of available vacant and developable land in the Keys. Denai On December 15, 2005 the 'Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing staff to draft changes the County's land development regulations apd any necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments authorizing (1) allowable density for affordable housing projects to be calculated on a "gross" acreage or parcel sq. footage basis (versus, for example, allowable density calculated on a "net" of required "open space" or other similar basis), and (2) density bonuses of up to fifty percent (50%) calculated on the number 'of affordable units otherwise allowable on a developable parcel. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attach1d as Exhibit, "E". This resolution was unanimously passed by en affirmative vote of all Task Force members present. It again requested immediate drafting apd passing of a Fractional ROGO ordinance in a form, suggested in an attached• draft BOCC resolution that Included with it a draft ordinance as previously described. Accompanying the Task Force resolution and which is attached here as Exhibit 'IF" was a proposed BOCC resolution on "density. bonuses" and "gross acreage" calculations that counsel has updated for presentation to the BOCC (deleting the section relating to Fractional ROGO already covered)., ;. Also on December 15, 2005 the Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing Planning Department staff to draft proposed amendments to the land development regulations and, where necessary any required Comprehensive Plan amendments, increasing allowable density for buildable lots (e.g., current IS -zoned lots) whore thu number of allowable residential dwelling units is now limited to one (1), in case': when; 3 r,n. Tnrt•nni CT -CT On cr R-4A IBIS-S6Z-S0£:QI AII2fOHinu GNUI '0'W proposed development or redevelnpment of a lot is restricted to affordable/workforce housing. The impetus for this recommendation was recognition that many existing affordable units are single family units (including mobile homes) on lots allowing only a single family unit, though the lot could comfortably support two or more units, of deed -restricted affordable/workforce housing. Moreover, the understanding that Islamorada has recently implemented a similar change allowing increased density for single -unit zoned lots fronting US -I suggested a unified move in this direction throughout the County. A copy of this Task Force resolution Is attached pI Exhibit "G". I note t; at the Task force icsolution included tut errai,t "'Whereas" drafting clause carried over and actually relating to locally derived income requirements for occupant eligibility that was addressed in a separate Task Force resolution discussed below. Accompanying this Task Force resolution is here attached as Exhibit "H" a proposed BOCC resolution counsel has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/13OCC workshop. IiOG01l.q_t Doaatlep Points The December 15, 2005 meeting was a busy one and the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing Planning Department staff to draft proposed amendments to the land development regulations and, where necessary any required Comprehensive Plan amendments, adjusting, the ROGO point system to permit an award of six (6) points (in contrast to the current two (2) points) for the donation of a "ROGO- lot" to the County, in cases where no negative environmental conditions on the lot or other factors would otherwise prevent the immediate construction of an affordable/workforce housing unit by a qualified owner/developer. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attacltied here as Exhibit "I". This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present, except for one abstention which was not based upon the merits of the proposal, but instead upon the abstaining member's recognition that property he owns could potentially be affected. The Task Force believes for larger donated parcels upon which more than a single unit of affordable/workforce housing can immediately be constructed, the donor should receive six (6) points for each affordable unit that could potentially be built on the donated parcel. It also believes the ROGO or scoring points should be bankable, transferable and capable of being used to obtain an award for an allocation in any Monroe County planning subarea. Accompanying this Task Force resolution and attached here as Exhibit "J.". is a proposed BOCC resolution that counsel has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, g006 joint Task i:orce/1i000 workshop, BedroQrn Size Price Limits On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing planning Department s►afi' to draft proposed amendments to the land development regulations and, where necessary any required Comprehensive Plan amendments, affirming then continued use of the current Monroe County Code sale price formula methodology for initial sales, resales and rentals, of affordable housing units, but adjusting the formulas to account for the number of bedrooms contained in a unit. The Task Force noted that current formulas set the same sale price for one -bedroom affordable units for three -bedroom 4 qn * A tnn, oN ST: ST 90, £T 93J T81S—SRZ—SO£: GI ,11IKHlnti QNU� ' 3' W units, which negatively affect the incentives for developers to create affordable/workforce housing units containing more than one bedroom. A copy of this 'task Force resolution Ls attached here as Exhibit "K". This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present, and addressed two other subjects which are discussed separately below (Monroe County Housing Authority Role and Rights of First Refusal). Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "L" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the relevant price formula and desired adjustment for number of bedrooms that counsel has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop. Monroe County 11293111,Authority Rolf' As di§cussed above, the December 15, 2005 Task Force resolution gtik4hgd as Exhibit K also unanimously recommended that the BOCC consider formalizing a role for the Monroe County Housing Authority in administering and processing of workforce housing sales and resales, to Include determining and monitoring of initial and continuing income and employment eligibility and compliance with occupancy and resale price restrictions. The Task Force recognizes and suggests that the Housing Authority should be permitted to recover the costs it would incur for providing such assistance. Attached to this memorandum as ExIM2111" " is a proposed ROCC resolution relating to the envisioned Housing Authority role that counsel has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/13OCC workshop. Right of First Refusal As also discussed above, the December 1S, 2005 Task Force resolution attAS11ad as Exhibit "K" also recommended that the BOCC require that for all affordable/workforce housing created in the fixture there be reserved through appropriate deed restrictions a right of first refusal in favor of Monroe County, or its designee, to purchase affordable/workforce housing offered for sale at the lawfully established offering price, with an option period of no less than ninety (90) days from the date an owner notifies the County or its designee of the owner's desire to sell a deed -restricted affordable/workforce housing property. in the event that the County or its designees does not elect to purchase a unit pursuant to its right of first refusal, the owner of property containing restricted affordable/workforce housing units should be Sree to sell the property to buyers who are otherwise qualified to own such property and subject.to_pil other affordable/workforce housing covenants -of record. Attached to this memorandum Eggszhi "N" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the right of first refusal recommendation that counsel has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop. Counsel notes that current Land Authority deed restrictions impose a requirement that a non-profit recipient of a Land Authority land grant reserve to the recipient a right of first refusal to purchase units/parcels sold to subsequent purchasers. The Task Force also recognized the need to deal with the equitable interests of heirs and legatees of owners of deed -restricted affordable housing resources. 90'd 100'oN 9T:Sl 90. 2T H33 T8TS—S6Z—SO2: CI AiIdOHinu CNUI ' O' N Allocatign Pipeline On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the DOCC consider implementing a system that protects affordable housing developers' investments in the admittedly long planning, approval and financing process by reserving for developers for two (2) years their allocation awards, from the date of an allocation award or reservation, to the date of issuance of certificates of occupancy for planned units, with up to a one (1) year extension where diligence and good cause for delay is shown, A copy of this Task Force resolution is sgached Metre as Exhibit "O". This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present, though counsel notes that the "Whereas" recital clauses in this resolution also erroneously referred the Task Force's December 15 discussion of locally derived income criteria for workforce housing, which as mentioned above, was the subject of another Task force resolution discussed separately below. An impetus for this resolution and the suggested DOCC policy was the concern of Task Force members for the potential for "banking" of affordable/workforce housing ROGO allocations, as may have occurred in the past, and also with possible award of allocations to recipients who are not actually "ready to proceed" with their projects while other developers who are truly ready to proceed with their projccis art stymied or even eventually precluded from developing affordable housing for lack of immediately available allocations. The Task Force recognized that because the need for housing is immediate, units readied for occupancy at the earliest possible point should be a priority and developers ready to make this happen should normally be the first to receive allocations. However, the Task Force also recognized the difficulties faced by developers of affordable housing and the need to protect these developers' early and costly commitments to projects and to minimize the negative incentive for such developers to embark upon the development process where they are likely to be denied the necessary allocations late .in that process, Hence, the Task Force determined the "allocation pipeline" issue to be an important one (that could be made less problematic should the DCA establish a substantial pool of additional allocations). Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "P" is a proposed 13OCC resolution relating to the allocation reservation/pipeline that counsel has drafted for presentation to the DOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/UOCC workshop. Public Ownershln On December IS, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution at ache here as Exhibit "U" requesting that the l3OCC consider implementing a requirement that for all rental or ownership workforce housing projects receiving Monroe County financial subsidies the underlying land upon which the workforce housing units are created should be owned by Monroe County or its designee, though in certain cases, nominal (e.g., $1/year) leasebacks of property to owners/developers may be appropriate. This resolution was unanimously passed by an affirmative vote of all Task Force members present. I note that this Task Force resolution also included the errant "Whereas" clause relating to locally derived income requirements for occupant eligibility that is discussed below. The resolution reiterated the Task Force's beliefs that (1) permanent public ownership of the underlying land upon which workforce housing units ZO'd T00'0N �-T:ST 90,2T E33 T8TS-S6Z-SO£:QI AiIKHinU GNU-1 ' 0" W are created is one of the best means to ensure long-term accountability for expenditures of public funds for workforce housing, and (2) all deed restrictions as to affordability, workforce uses and occupancy should be designed to insure that all affordability restrictive covenants run in perpetuity. The Task Force noted that granting a property owner/developer an affordable or workforce ROGO allocation, in and of itself, without public financial assistance, should not be decmud a "subsidy" for these public ownership requirement purposes. Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit u " is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to public ownership that counsel has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Forcc/BOCC workshop. Locally Derived Income Requirements On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC implement a locally -derived employment income requirement for all rental or ownership workforce housing projects. This resolution was the subject of some debate, not necessarily due to disagreement over specific challenges facing the Keys with respect to providing affordable housing to working people and non -working people alike, but in recognition of limited capability to fully serve all competing interests and the divergent missions of various stakeholders. This resolution passed by a large majority vote of Task Force members present. A copy of this Task Force resolution is attached as Exhibit "S". The resolution basically recommends to the BOCC that all rental "workforce" housing be limited to families who derive 70% of their household income from gainful employment here, in Monroe County. With respect to "ownership" workforce housing, the resolution suggests that the ROCC require that the 70% locally -derived gainful employment income requirement apply for such housing at the time of purchase and for the immediately following five (5) years in order for a purchaser to be permitted to retire with dedicated workforce housing constituting his or her principal residence. The Task Force felt that income eligibility requirements must be annually vuriftcd and all workforce/affordable housing must permanently remain "owner occupied" An issue here is the difference between "affordable" housing for non -working people and "workforce" housing for gainfully employed persons, and the necessity that both categories of housing consumers be served from a single pool of "affordable" ROGOs, Attached as Exhibit "T" to this memorandum is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to locally -derived Income requirements that counsel has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint'rask Forcc/BOCC workshop. Funding So ce rew� tNV On October 12, 2005 the Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC immediately begin the process of implementing a long-term funding program for - affordable housing initiatives. A copy, of this Task Force resolution Is attar ed as Exhibit "U". This resolution was unanimously passed by an affitmativc vote of all Task Force members present. The Task Force determined that development and LOP implementation of a set of long-term funding mechanisms for housing initiatives was one L-�" - of if not the most critical and urgent components 'of any program to address the workforce/affordable housing crisis. The Task Force believes that without a dedicated stream of funding any government intervention aimed at comprehensively addressing wei 100*oN 8T:ST 90,21 93A T8TS-S6Z-SO2:QI AIINOHinu QNUI '0'W housing market failure is unlikely to succeed. The Task Force recommends that the BOCC request that the County's state legislators introduce at the upcoming legislative session any bills necessary for the County to adopt proposed funding mechanisms, and that all revenues derived from these funding progratns'be exclusively held and used for the purposes of funding affordable/workforce housing initiatives, including, but not limited to, land and development rights acquisition, construction and rehabilitation of dwelling units and rclatad infrastructure and amenities, financing and financial assistance to qualified landlords, tenants, developers and owners of affordable housing resources, as well as underwriting ongoing program administration, with authority also being granted to bond and share revenues with Monroe County municipalities, the Monroe County School Board and other local government agencies for the same and for no other purposes. A list of possible, but non-exclusive funding mechanisms includes: authorization and adoption of a (or an additional) local option sales tax authorization and adoption of an additional "one -penny' to the Tourist Development (" Bed') Tax 41 reallocation of existing Tourist Development ("Bed') Tax revenues e new or additional impact, user or link loy" LN'mi ' WWa*-%. authorization and adoption of a real estate transfer tax Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "V" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to funding sources that counsel has updated for presentation to the DOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop. Trailer Park 380 Agrcements On December 15, 2005 the Task Force also adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC adopt certain guidelines for the use of Chapter 380 agreements for preserving affordable housing at trailer park sites that arc otherwise redevelopable as market rate housing projects. This resolution wits the subject of some discussion and I brought back to the Task Force several rewordings due to, in the first instance, my own transcription error, and in another, a member's request for clarifying language. The final Task Force resolution regarding trailer park 380 agreements was unanimously passed by all Task Force members present at the Task Force's January 25, 2006 meeting. A copy of this Task Force resolution b altiched as Eahibr_ 't, W^. The resolution addresses the exchange ratios (transferable market rate unit allocations that an owner/developer can remove from a trailer park site for use elsewhere in the County in exchange for deed restricted affordable/workforce redevelopment of the trailer park), recommarids County ownership of underlying land, suggests minimum unit size, suggests a Housing Authority role in administering rentals and sales, and recommends limiting Vie affordable ROGO allocations used for such agreements to 20% of the total number of affordable allocations annually available to the County. Attached to this memorandum as Exhlbij "X" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the 'Task Force's recommendations concerning Trailer Park 380 Agreements that counsel has drafted for presentation to the BOCC at the February 10, 2006 joint Task Force/BOCC workshop, 60'd T00'ON 8T:ST 90,21 93J T8TS-S6Z-S0£:(II AlIdOHinu GNU-1 'Y W Dggd-Restricted Market Rate Units Included in Affordable''Housing Projects On January 25, 2006 the 'Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC pass a resolution directing staff to draft changes to the County's land development regulations and any necessary Comprehensive Elan amendments authorizing deed -restricted market rate incentive units built as part of an affordable/workforce housing project, as is currently authorized under Sections 9.5-266(li)(a) and (b) of the Monroe County Code, to be developed through use of aftordabic ROGO allocations. A copy of this ']'ask Force resolution !s jigaellod as Exhibit "Yl� The Task Forcv resolution was unanimously passed by all 'Task Force members present. The impetus for this recommendation was the Task Force's determination that despite the Code's incorporation of an Incentive provision allowing a small number of deed -restricted market rate units (up to 20%) to be developed in affordable projects, which provision was designed to help developers render such mixed -use projects feasible, the mechanism has never been used and t therefore could not be said to have provided any incentive as currently structured. It was noted that one problem was that while a potential developer of an affordable housing project might promptly obtain all of the needed affordable allocations for a project's affordable units, the corresponding allocations for the deed -restricted market rate units still have to be competitively secured through the regular ROGO application process, with the associated delay and uncertainty. This set of circumstances has negated any incentive value that might have resulted in affordable workforce housing being built as envisioned, it was noted that planning staff has ruled in the past that while the deed -restricted market rate units are part of the affordable housing provisions of the Code, they arc nonetheless subject to the standard market rate ROGO allocation paradigm, It was also noted that the Code currently requires that the sale and resale of any deed -restricted market rate units authorized by Section 9.5-266(8) be restricted to buyers making 70% of their income in Monroe County. This deed restriction requirement coupled with the placement of the home in an affordable project naturally reduces the home's potential market value. Attached to this memorandum as E21l ihit 11V is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the Task Force's recommendations concerning the foregoing. Rgguest for Review of Recottlrt jrdad9ns and Counsel and Consultant Asslstaneg On January 25, 2006 the Task Force adopted a resolution requesting that the BOCC authorize and direct counsel and the Task Force's consultants to follow up on any ordinancelcomprehensive plan drafting tasks required to implement all final BOCC resolutions, A copy of this Task Force resolution Is attachEd as Exhibit "AA". The Task Force resolution was unanimously passed by all Task Force members present. Counsel acknowledges the rather peculiar situation of his drafting of a proposed BOCC resolution calling for his atnHhe Task Force consultants' continued engagement. Be that as it may, the resolution was made, with the impetus for it being the 'Task Force's concern that its work and recommendations —to the extent the BOCC deems one or more of its recommendations advisable and meriting of further action and/or implementation --could not likely be acted upon as promptly and with reference to the full deliberative background that engendered them, given the limitations an County planning and legal staff. The Task Force therefore requested that the BOCC consider the Task Force's recommendations and, as to those the 0OCC wants to pursue, refer them back to the 'Task Force's counsel and consultants for drafting into appropriate legislation for review by the Task OT' d T00' oN 61: ST 90„ £T 933 T8TS-S6Z-S0£: QI AIINOHinu QNUI K Force, and subsequent submission and processing by the Task Force's counsel, including i shepherding the measures through staff, the Planning Commission, and through subsequent approvals, including those of the UCA. Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "BB" is a proposed BOCC resolution relating to the Task Vorce's recommendations concerning the foregoing. r to I I' d I00' oN OZ: SI 90� £i 93J I8IS-S6Z-SO£: QI A1I21OH1f1H QNd3 ' Y W PROPOSAL FOR AN END GAME Presented August 25`h, 2003 to the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity 28-20 Work'Group At the Marathon Garden Center, Marathon, Florida. Prepared By: Edwin O. Swift, III We, the affordable housing interests and the environmental community, must ultimately come to agreement on the number of living units that will be built in the Florida Keys and on the amount of land and number of lots that will be removed from the marketplace and dedicated to habitat preservation. The cost of land for habitat and for affordable housing and the plan for protection of both needs to be firmly established as we proceed to identify a funding source and then join in the effort to see it put in place. For the many months we have been meeting as the 28-20 Work Group I have been debating both publicly and with myself on a fair and equitable way to presme and nurture our human communities throughout the Keys while achieving a sustainable balance with nature. There is little doubt that people impact the natural systems. There is also no doubt that over time we as humans have caused stress and change to the habitat of many species of which some are now threatened with loss of habitat possibly essential to their very existence. Allowing the previous statement as a given we must then also consider the fact that over the last 180 years or so we have granted by word and law certain property rights and expectations to land owners that cannot be easily denied or pushed aside. We have also created, by restricting the .issuance of residential permits and setting up permitting systems (under Critical Concern guidance) that have favored the wealthy and inhibited the building or replacement of affordable homes, a situation that has systematically destroyed our housing stock for working people. Today we find ourselves with two great challenges. How to maintain the homes of those threatened species and how to secure homes enough to perpetually sustain our Keys communities of human beings in a balance and sufficiency necessary so not to destroy the very fabric, mix and character we so prize. At some point in this quest for balance we must get to numbers. In establishing the number, size and scope of sustainable habitat lands to be set aside we have drawn on scientific studies and best guesses. I propose that now we use the same process of kno,,vledge and educated guesses to set goals for future housing stock as well. First let us consider what we know. That in "Tier I" and "Tier II" (Tier I: high quality hammock and pine lands habitat and "Tier II" buffer and Iow quality hammock and pine land habitat) there are between 8,000 - 10,000 platted lots that the environmentalists fervently believe need to be eliminated. (Purchased) It is certain the environmental groups and organizations, even after purchasing all of "Tier I", will continue to buy into "Tier II" and "Tier III" as to assure interconnectivity and buffers to the habitat. Let us assume that these 8 to 10 thousand lots are purchased. Let us then consider that this will ultimately leave approximately another 7,000 buildable scarified lots within substantially built out subdivisions ("Tier III") and available for construction. (Lnfill) If history were to be our guide it is reasonable to assume that 20 years from now at least 15% of this number will have been absorbed into the system by: A. Estates comprised of more than one lot. B. Remain unbuilt because of extended family or multiplicity of ownership problems. C. Have been eliminated by further environmental protection purchases. After the above purchases and marketplace forces take place this leaves us with 6,000 lots to deal with for buildout. These lots will be mostly expensive and have the greatest claim to the "right to build." Of these 6,000 lots it is safe to assume that few will become affordable housing and should at the beginning a few become affordable the less lots that are available will cause the price to become dearer and dearer over time. In looking at the 6,000 lots over the 20 years we could then, in an effort to move slowly and also to sustain the building industry, spread these units out at 300 units a year. If a longer time frame is desired the number could be, over 25 years, at 240 a year. These units would become our market rate units. These units would contribute mightily to the tax base and help to support government services with a steadily increasing revenue stream. 'f hat then brings us to the affordable housing need. All but the totally unaware understand the pressing need for affordable housing reaching from the low and very low wage earner to the median and moderate middle class. Today we are losing those who represent the support systems for our communities. We continue to experience an exodus of the people who do the work. In Monroe County our permanent residence population is shrinking. (Depopulation) We see more and more the absorption of their traditional homes and neighborhoods into the seasonal and second home market place. Realizing we cannot legally stop this gentrification we must then set up mechanisms to build and then protect homes for our workforce in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS: Funding: As we identify funding sources and raise money and allocate these funds to purchase land that we do so with the habitat and affordable housing lands being bought in tandem. My suggestions is that 66-2/3`d's percent of the money would be spent on land for the animals and 33-1/3`d percent be spent for land for people to live on. The land purchased for affordable housing should ideally be commercially zoned. As I have stated previously the change of these lands from commercial to affordable residential is very important to preserving the Keys communities and also protecting the,habitat. The rational for the purchase of commercial property is to insure that both the affordable housing stock and the natural environment are protected by limiting ultimate buildout. If we leave large tracts of commercial land available those landowners will eventually build commercial structures. By reducing commercial possibilities in the future this in turn will reduce the ultimate need for more housing i.e. people to work in the new commercial buildings will require yet again more living units and that will ultimately increase the number of people who will reside here permanently. Elimination of commercial use will reduce buildout totals. 2. Use the commercial land purchased exclusively for affordable housing. It is mostly away from the water and thus it is less expensive and it is usuall.- isolated from existing market subdivisions thus cutting through the NIMBY disputes. NOTE: The above does not suggest that all commercial possibilities be eliminated in the near term or long term just that it is in everyone's best interest to dramatically reduce the amount and intensity of this zoning category in favor of affordable housing. There is ample argument that commercial flexibility must be maintained. fly suggestion is that 75% of commercial be converted to affordable residential. THE NEED LEVEL: In 1996, 1997 and into 1998 the Shimberg Institute working with the City of Key West housing Task Force speni 18 months arriving at a count for the affordable housing need. The bottom line of this report is that by 2005 we would find ourselves with 7,000 families that were housing cost burdened or in need of affordable housing. (See enclosed summary) Considering that if we built these 7,000 units tomorrow morning there is no doubt one-third would be filled by those who already live here and another 20% would be filled by those who have previously abandoned the Keys because of the housing shortage (depopulation) causing the shortage of workers now absent from the pool and evidenced by their jobs that now go unstaffed. To try and break the back of our affordable housing crisis I would recommend the following: A. The funds raised in conjunction with the habitat protection funding mechanism be spent to purchase commercial scarified and under utilized property. B. That those lands remain in control of the governments and that they be offered by R.F.P. (Request For Proposals) to private interests or public entities for lease (long term 50 to 100 years — 50 years for rentals and 99 years for ownership housing) That the lease provide for maximum rents, accountability and in the instance of those units that are sold that any re -sales be coordinated by the governmental agency to insure future pricing restrictions and compliance with deed restrictions in place requiring maintenance of affordability in the future. C. That the number of affordable units be reduced to 6,000 units to offset those market rate sites that may actually be built as affordable and as a compromise to those who fear over population. D. That the first three years up to 1,500 units are all allowed at 500 a year and that the balance of 4,500 is allocated at 225 a year over 20 years. It should be noted that this number of units will not solve our problem or meet our total need for affordable housing but this number along with: A. Protecting our trailer parks (existing stock); B. Restricting all new transient unit allocation; C. Linking any new commercial building to affordable unit construction; D. Halting the FEMA induced destruction of downstairs apartments etc. Accomplishing all of the above will allow us to move into the future with some sense of hope for our communities well being and stability. It is my gut instinct to want the 7,000-unit shortfall allowed plus 2 or 3 more thousand units of affordable housing in the years to come. I am willing to compromise my best guess as to our current and future needs in this area in an effort to gain the support of the environmental community and to move forward in saving that which they hold dear. What I feel is essential for the health and welfare of our communities and our economy must be provided for in order to receive my support for the environmental communities unprecedented efforts to buy the tremendous amounts of land and lots they now desire. Should either the community or the economy cease to function then we will all loose because it is only in an environment of hope and where a sense of fair play and a secure future prevails can we garner the broad based support necessary to win the day and raise the money to save the habitat. There is ample opportunity to argue about the flaws in the Carrying Capacity Study or the fact that the Shimberg Study may contain errors. We can all call for more studies and re-evaluation and trash each other's data and statistics or we can agree to more forward to gain the historic agreement and cooperation of all players at the table. I know this will take selling by all parties to their constituencies but the result will be worth the effort. I believe that within the above few paragraphs there is a foundation or plan on which to establish a dynamic partnership that will achieve success. cc: Carrying Capacity 28-20 Work Group Ed Davidson County Commissioners City Commissioners Ken Sorenson Joan Borel Jim Quinn Lloyd Boggio Randy Meatus Mark Rosch 4 12/10/14 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OR COMMITTEE: Affordable Housina Advisory Committee Sylvia Murphy 102050 Overseas Hwy, Suite 234 Key Largo, FL 33037 Work) 453-8787 Appointed: 12/12/12 Term Expires: 11/2016 Heather Carruthers 500 Whitehead St., Suite102 Key West, FL 33040 Work) 292-3430 Appointed: 12/10/14 Term Expires: 11/2016 Tim Root 1410 Johnson Street Key West, FL 33040 Work) 293-0443 tim minaoandcollc.com Appointed: 5/15/13 (Replacing Sherry Phillips) Term Expires: 11/2016 Heather Roberts iBeria Bank Mortgage 1000 Kennedy Drive Key West, FL 33040 Work) 296-0016 Cell) (305)879-1092 heather. robertsa.iberiaban kmortgage.com Appointed: 03/21/12 Reappointed: 01 /16/13 Term Expires: 11/2016 James D. Cameron 1561 Narcissus Ave. Big Pine Key, FL 33043 Home) 872-7237 Cell) 394-3316 JDCBPkey aol.com Appointed: 03/21/12 (Replacing Bruce Ferraro) Reappointed: 12/10/14 Term Expires: 11/2018 Randy Wall 1208 Cactus Street Key Largo, FL 33037 Home) 852-2767 Cell) (305)394-3268 Fax) 853- 0479 nnwallbellsouth.n et Appointed: 03/21/12 Reappointed: 12/10/14 Term Expires: 11/2018 Monroe County Commissioner Monroe County Commissioner DISTRICT 1 Rep. Residential Home Building Industry DISTRICT 1 Banking and Mortgage Industry DISTRICT 2 Affordable Housing Advocate DISTRICT 2 Rep. the Local Planning Agency Warren Leamard 2300 Harris Avenue Key West, FL 33040 Cell) 923-1906 Jamhungry1 Qaol.com Appointed: 4/18/12 Reappointed: 11 /20/12 Term Expires: 11/2016 Ken Naylor Carlisle Development Group 2950 SW 27th Ave., Suite 200 Miami, FL 33133 Work) (305)357-4713 Fax) (305)476- 1557 knaylor carlisledevelopmentgroup.com Appointed: 03/18/09 Reappointed: 12/12/12 Term Expires: 11/2016 Hana Eskra 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33056 Work) 305-668-5810 heskra@ gormanusa.com Appointed: 10/17/14 (IC pD 11 aced IIMorgai n Ih lllil1) Term Expires: 11/01/18 Ed Swift III 201 Front Street, Suite 224 Key West, FL 33040 Work) 294-4142 Cell) 304-2798 Fax) 292- 8902 hcasashistorictours.com Appointed: 03/18/09, 03/21/12, 10/17/14 Term Expires: 11/01/18 William Wiatt 100 W. Conch Ave. Marathon, FL 33050 Home) 743-3684 Cell) 394-7778 BWiatt gmail.com Appointed: 03/21 /12 Reappointed: 12/10/14 Term Expires: 11/2016 DISTRICT 3 Not -for -profit Developer DISTRICT 3 For -profit Developer DISTRICT 4 Real Estate Professional DISTRICT 4 Residing within County Jurisdiction DISTRICT 4 Mayoral Appt. Planning Commission Rep. Jim Saunders Bayview Homes 99198 Oversease Hwy, Ste. 2 Key Largo, FL 33037 Cell) 305-240-0957 Work) 305-453-4521 Fax)305-453-4522 Isaundersbayviewdev.com Appointed: 10/17/14 (IC I�D Itaced Jerry Gsd6,sO Term Expires: 11/1/16 Stephanie Scuderi 127 N. Rolling Hill Road Tavernier, FL 33070 Cell) 305-394-4822 Work) 305-676-3127 Fax) 305-676-3138 sscuderi myl00bank.com Appointed: 10/17/14 (IC pD llsaced IC on II" lil1er) Term Expires: 11/1/16 DISTRICT 5 Rep. Employers within Jurisdiction DISTRICT 5 Rep. Essential Services Personnel Created: 05/21/08, Ordinance No. 014-2008, Committee shall consist of 11 members appointed by a resolution to be adopted by the BOCC. Florida Statute 420.9076. Membership: 06/18/08, Resolution No. 158-2008., Each Commissioner nominates 1 member; Non -district members are nominated by Committee membership and approved by the BOCC. 02/18/09, Resolution No. 062-2009, BOCC approved retiring current membership, changing method of appointment, spreading required categories of membership through the Commission districts and setting a minimum frequency of meetings to once per year from previous quarterly meeting schedule, unless called more frequently by the BOCC. Terms: 4 years to coincide with appointing Commissioner's term. Outline of F/A Citizens Advisory Co mittee :ideas Note: Some of these ideas have been formalized as recommendations, others are still being discussed and debated 1. Data Collection and Analysis — 1. Compile statistical data — workforce -housing study done in 2003. Committee reviewed study and found huge concerns 2. Continually update statistical infonmabion that demonstrates trends impacting affordable housing. 3. Analyze all data to help determine the problem and maintain list of possible solutions 4. Complete a nexus study to determine how development/redevelopment impacts affordable housing — In progress — estimate that it will take a year — Jan 2007 2. Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing - nook for Realistic ways to preserve existing housing that has been used or is suitable for workforce/affordable housing but is not deed restricted or has deed restrictions that will end in a few years: 1. Mobile home parks — i. Nov 2004- Committee made recommendations to Council regarding changes to Florida Statute 723/513 as requested by Council. ii. Use of eminent domain to acquire mobile home parks to assure future affordability — recommended by committee — Jan 2005 iii. Moratorium on redevelopment of mobile home parks established by Council — In Jan 2006 Council asked to extend for an additional 6 months. iv. Committee recommended changes to mobile home park zoning in April 2005 2. Small homes and apartments i. Committee recommended changes to the nonconformity ordinance to address redevelopment of small dwelling units — April 2005 3. "Downstairs enclosures" in single family homes 4. Multi -use commercial buildings i. Ordinance, which allows affordable housing density in addition to nonresidential density, in progress. 3. Affordable Housing Policies and Regulations - Establish proper policy, procedures and regulations to assure appropriate use of restricted housing. 1. Establish best rules for end result in and out of BPAS i. Length of deed restrictions Committee made recommendations (Feb -Mar 2006) to make all new affordable housing deed restricted in perpetuity. ii. Qualify on basis of assets as well as income iii. Qualify only at time of occupancy (for owners) with three years of data not just one. iv. Building limitations — all qualifications currently based on median income of family of 4 but size of unit is not restricted to a minimum size for that family size. v. Initial and annual qualification processing I. Village contracting with Middle Keys Land Trust 2. Need to establish requirements 3. Audit to assure process is working vi. Address all levels of affordability based on real needs of community — Committee recommendation Jan 2006 vii. Rental versus Ownership for Village or Land Trust projects viii. Assure appropriate documentation of deed restrictions in chain of title. ix. Provide limit as to sales price. x. Preference to members of workforce xi. Preference based on length of residency 2. Audit to assure compliance with policies and regulations established. 4. Creation of New Affordable Housing Units - Establish appropriate policies and regulations to encourage and facilitate new deed restricted affordable housing for long term use 1. Incentives i. Defer Impact fees, building permit fees, BPAS application fees — Committee recommendations Jan 2006 ii. Density bonuses — properties on U.S. One — Committee recommendation Aug 2005 2. Works with the Monroe County Property Appraiser to assure that deed restricted homes have the most advantageous treatment possible. 3. Consider creating low/very low income rental housing owned by a not for profit -,, this arrangement could be tax exempt -- saving a significant portion of the monthly allowance for rent/mortgage costs. 4. Reduce cost for someone wishing to build an affordable home by having standard pre -approved designs for small basic affordable homes, including pre -approved modular designs so applicants would not have to hire architects, engineers and permit facilitators. 5. Pay for property owners to deed restrict their homes. 5. Site Identification - Identify locations where affordable housing would work and is appropriate 1. Committee recommended Wet Net — Aug 2005 2. Committee recommended Islamorada Motel —Jan 2006 6. Funding Sources - Find funding sources for both the local government and for members of the workforce 1. Use of deed transfer tax for affordable housing projects — Committee recommended a letter be sent to Gov. Bush to encourage him to allow all deed transfer revenue to be used for affordable housing... after he capped it. 2. Create a Trust Fund for affordable housing projects — i. Committee recommendation — April 2005 ii. Committee recommendation — Nov 2005 — contract with MKLT to set up Trust Fund while he's doing it for Marathon. 3. Establish sources of funding Trust Fund in local budget — Committee recommendation April 2005 -- 5 sources mentioned i. Excess in the fund balance (audited amount minus budgeted amount) following the annual audit of the general fund. ii. A line item in the general fund budget for affordable housing as is done for other not for profit organizations in the Upper Keys. iii. "Linkage fee" Committee recommendation — April 2005 iv. Infrastructure funds in excess of funds needed for debt payments, specifically earmarked for affordable housing land acquisition. v. Fees in lieu — part of inclusionary zoning recommended by committee Nov 2005 4. Impact fees — Committee recommendation that Village let County take lead since this is a countywide issue 5. Mitigation fees — Committee recommendation that Village let County take lead Monroe County Land Development Code Sec. 101-1:.- Definitions: The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Affordable housing. (1) Affordable housing means residential dwelling units that meet the following requirements: a. Meet all applicable requirements of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development minimum property standards as to room sizes, fixtures, landscaping and building materials, when not in conflict with applicable laws of the county; and b. A dwelling unit whose monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of that amount which represents either 50 percent (very low income) or 80 percent (low income) or 100 percent (median income) or 120 percent (moderate income) of the monthly median adjusted household income for the county. (2) Affordable housing owner occupied, low income, means a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household income does not exceed 80 percent of the median monthly household income for the county. (3) Affordable housing owner occupied, median income, means a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household income does not exceed 100 percent of the median monthly household income for the county. (4) Affordable housing owner occupied, moderate income, means a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household income does not exceed 160 percent of the median monthly household income for the county. (5) Affordable housing owner occupied, very low income, means a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household income does not exceed 50 percent of the median monthly household income for the county. (6) Affordable housing trust fund means a trust fund established and maintained by the county for the purpose of preserving existing and promoting creation of new affordable and employee housing. Funds collected for and deposited in the trust fund shall be used exclusively for purposes of creating, preserving or maintaining affordable and employee housing in the Florida Keys. (7) Affordable rental housing, low income, means a dwelling unit whose monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 80 percent of the monthly median adjusted household income for the county. (8) Affordable rental housing, median income, means a dwelling unit whose monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 100 percent of the monthly adjusted median household income for the county. (9) Affordable rental housing, moderate income, means a dwelling unit whose monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 120 percent of the monthly median adjusted household income for the county. (10) Affordable rental housing, very low income, means a rental dwelling unit whose monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 50 percent of the monthly median adjusted household income for the county. (11) Employee housing means an attached or detached dwelling unit that is intended to serve as affordable, permanent housing for working households, which derive at least 70 percent of their household income from gainful employment in the county and meet the requirements for affordable housing as defined in this section and as per section 130-161 Page 1 Monroe County Land Development Code (12) Employer -owned rental housing means an attached or detached dwelling unit owned by a firm, business, educational institution, non -governmental or governmental agency, corporation or other entity that is intended to serve as affordable, permanent housing for its employees. This category of employee housing shall be located on the same parcel of land as the nonresidential use. (13) Inclusionary housing means the resulting affordable and/or employee housing created or preserved with the development and/or redevelopment of a parcel where provisions of approved development agreements or orders implement and promote affordable and/or employee housing goals, objectives and policies contained in the plan by requiring set -asides for affordable and/or employee housing units. (14) Median income, rental rates and qualifying incomes table, means eligibility requirements compiled each year by the planning department based upon the median annual household income published for the county on an annual basis by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and similar information for median and moderate income levels from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Affordable housing eligibility requirements for each household will be based upon median annual household income adjusted by family size, as set forth by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The county shall rely upon this information to determine maximum rental rates and maximum household incomes eligible for affordable housing rental or purchase. (15) Monthly median household income means the median annual household income for the county divided by 12. Sec. 130.161. ,. Affordable and employee housing; administration. Generally. (a) (1) Notwithstanding the density limitations in section 130-157, the owner of a parcel of land shall be entitled to: a. Develop affordable and employee housing as defined in section 101-1, on parcels of land classified as urban residential (UR) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 25 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as mixed use (MU) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre. b. Develop affordable and employee housing, as defined in section 101-1, on parcels of land classified as suburban commercial (SC) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as urban residential UR at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 25 dwelling units per acre. c. Develop market rate housing, as defined in section 101-1, as part of an affordable or employee housing project in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section, provided that on parcels of land classified as urban residential (UR), the maximum net residential density shall not be greater than 18 dwelling units per acre. (2) The maximum net residential density allowed per district and by this section shall not require transferable development rights (TDR) for affordable and employee housing and market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section. (3) Market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8) below shall be eligible to receive points pursuant to section 138-28(5). (4) The requirements of this chapter for the provision of impact fees shall be waived for affordable and employee housing and any market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, when calculating density, any existing lawfully established or proposed affordable or employee housing on a parcel and the floor area thereof Page 2 Monroe County Land Development Code shall be excluded from the calculation of the total gross nonresidential floor area development that may be lawfully established on the parcel, provided, however, that the total residential density allowed on the site shall not exceed the maximum net density for affordable and employee housing. (6) In order for the owner of a parcel of land to be entitled to the incentives for affordable or employee housing outlined in this section and chapter 138, articles II and III, the owner must ensure that: a. The use of the affordable housing dwelling unit is restricted to households that meet the adjusted gross annual income limits for median -income as defined in section 101-1 b. Except as provided for under the special provisions for employer -owned rental housing as set forth under subsection (a)(6)k of this section, if the affordable housing dwelling unit is designed for employee housing, the use of the dwelling is restricted to households that derive at least 70 percent of their household income from gainful employment in the county and meet the adjusted gross annual income limits for median income as defined in section 101-1 c. The use of the affordable or employee dwelling unit is restricted for the period specified in section 101-1 d. Tourist housing use or vacation rental use of affordable or employee housing units is prohibited. e. The parcel of land proposed for development of affordable or employee housing shall only be located within a tier III designated area or, within a tier III -A (special protection area) designated area that does not propose the clearing of any portion of an upland native habitat patch of one acre or greater in area. f. At the time of sale of an owner -occupied affordable unit, the total income of households eligible to purchase shall not exceed 120 percent of the median household income for the county. However, a unit within a class of affordable housing eligibility may only be sold to a household within that same class, i.e., a median income household that purchased a home within this category must sell the home to a qualifying household within the median income category; g. During occupancy of any affordable housing rental unit, not otherwise limited by state or federal statute or rule concerning household income, a household's annual income may increase to an amount not to exceed 140 percent of the median household income for the county. If the income of the lessee exceeds this amount, the tenant's occupancy shall terminate at the end of the existing lease term. The maximum lease for any term shall be three years or 36 months; h. Affordable housing projects shall be no greater than 20 units unless approved by resolution of the county planning commission. The planning commission's decision may be appealed to the board of county commissioners using the procedures described in section 102-185, with the board of county commissioners serving as the appellate body for the purpose of this section only; i. When establishing a rental and sales amount, the county shall assume family size as indicated in the table below. This section shall not be used to establish the maximum number of individuals who actually live in the unit. This table shall be used in conjunction with the eligibility requirements created by section 101-1 Size of Unit Assumed Family Size Minimum Occupancy Efficiency (no separate bedroom) 1 1 Page 3 Monroe County Land Development Code One bedroom Two bedroom i 3 Three bedroom 4 3 Four or more bedrooms 1 5 1 per bedroom Except for tenants of employer -owned rental housing, as set forth in subsection (a)(6)k. of this section, the income of eligible households shall be determined by counting only the first and highest paid 40 hours of employment per week of each unrelated adult. For a household containing adults related by marriage or a domestic partnership registered with the county, only the highest 60 hours of the combined employment hours shall be counted, which shall be considered to be 75 percent of the adjusted gross income. The income of dependents regardless of age shall not be counted in calculating a household's income; and k. In the special case of employer -owned rental housing, as defined in section 101-1, employees shall be eligible as tenants of the affordable rental housing, if the income of each tenant, as determined following the requirements in subsection (a)(6)j. of this section, is not more than the 80 percent of the median income adjusted gross income for households within the county. The tenants of this affordable employee housing shall be required to derive at least 70 percent of their income from within the county. The maximum occupancy of employer -owned rental housing for employees shall be no more than two tenants per bedroom; with a maximum of three bedrooms per unit. The total monthly lease charged tenants for each dwelling unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the median adjusted gross annual income for households within the county, divided by 12. (7) Commercial apartment dwelling units, as defined in section 101-1, shall only be eligible for the incentives outlined in this section if they meet the requirements of subsection (a)(6) of this section for employee housing. (8) If an affordable or employee housing project or an eligible commercial apartment designated for employee housing contains at least five dwelling units, a ma)dmum of 20 percent of these units may be developed as market rate housing dwelling units. The owner of a parcel of land must develop the market rate housing dwelling units as an integral part of an affordable or employee housing project. In order for the market rate housing dwelling units to be elligible for incentives outlined in this section, the owner must ensure that: a. The use of the market rate housing dwelling unit is restricted for a period of at least 30 years to households that derive at least 70 percent of their household income from gainful employment in the county; and b. Tourist housing use and vacation rental use of the market rate dwelling unit is prohibited. Incluslonary housing requirements. (b) Purpose and intent. (1) The purpose of this subsection (b), consistent with Goal 601 of the plan, is to ensure that the need for affordable housing is not exacerbated by new residential development and redevelopment of existing affordable housing stock. The intent of this subsection is to protect the existing affordable housing stock, to permit owners of mobile homes Page 4 Monroe County Land Development Code and mobile home spaces to continue established mobile home uses consistent with current building and safety standards and regulations and to ensure that, as residential development, redevelopment and mobile home conversions occur, plan policies regarding affordable housing are implemented. Applicability. (2) Except as provided in subsection (b)(3) of this section, the inclusionary housing requirements set forth below shall apply. Determinations regarding the applicability of this subsection shall be made by the planning director. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this subsection, density bonuses shall not be counted and only fractional requirements equal to or greater than .5 shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. a. Residential developments, other than mobile home or mobile home spaces covered by subsection (b)(2)b. of this section, that result in the development or redevelopment of three or more dwelling units on a parcel or contiguous parcels shall be required to develop or redevelop at least 30 percent of the residential units as affordable housing units. Residential development or redevelopment of three units on a parcel or contiguous parcels shall require that one developed or redeveloped unit be an affordable housing unit. For the purpose of this section, and notwithstanding subsection (b)(2)b. of this section, any dwelling unit exceeding the number of lawfully established dwelling units on site, which are created by either a THE or ROGO allocation award, shall be considered developed units. b. The removal and replacement with other types of dwelling units of ten or more mobile homes that are located on a parcel or contiguous parcels and/or the conversion of mobile home spaces located on a parcel or contiguous parcels into a use other than mobile homes shall be required to include in the development or redevelopment a number of affordable housing units equal to at least 30 percent of the number of existing units being removed and replaced or converted from mobile home use or, in the event the new use is nonresidential, to develop affordable housing units at least equal in number to 30 percent of the number of mobile homes or mobile home spaces being converted to other than mobile home use. Removal and replacement or conversion to a different use of ten mobile homes or mobile home spaces on a parcel or contiguous parcels shall require that three units be replaced or converted to deed -restricted affordable housing. c. In calculating the number of affordable housing units required for a particular project, or phase of a project, all dwelling units proposed for development or redevelopment or mobile homes or mobile home spaces to be converted from mobile home use since the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived shall be counted. In phased projects, the affordable housing requirements shall be proportionally allocated among the phases. If a subsequent development or redevelopment is proposed following a prior development approved on the same property as it existed as of the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived, which prior development did not meet the compliance thresholds set forth in subsection (b)(2)a. or (b)(2)b. of this section, the requirements of subsection (b)(2)a. or (b)(2)b. of this section shall be met as part of the subsequent development for all units proposed for development or redevelopment after the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived. Exemptions and waivers. (3) a. The following uses shall be exempt from the inclusionary housing requirements set forth in subsection (b)(2)a. of this section: affordable housing, employee housing, nursing homes, or assisted care living facilities. b. The board of county commissioners may reduce, adjust, or waive the requirements set forth in this subsection (b) where, based on specific findings of fact, the board concludes, with respect to any developer or property owner, that: Page 5 Monroe County Land Development Code 1. Strict application of the requirements would produce a result inconsistent with the plan or the purpose and intent of this subsection; 2. Due to the nature of the proposed residential development, the development furthers plan policies and the purpose and intent of this subsection through means other than strict compliance with the requirements set forth herein; 3. The developer or property owner demonstrates an absence of any reasonable relationship between the impact of the proposed residential development and requirements of this subsection (b); or 4. The strict application with the requirements set forth herein would improperly deprive or deny the developer or property owner of constitutional or statutory rights. Any developer or property owner who believes that he may be eligible for relief from the strict application of this section may petition the board of county commissioners for relief under this subsection (b)(3) of this section. Any petitioner for relief hereunder shall provide evidentiary and legal justification for any reduction, adjustment or waiver of any requirements under this section. Alternate compliance. (4) a. Compliance with this subsection may be achieved through the deed -restriction of existing dwelling units requiring that the affected units remain subject to the county's affordable housing restrictions for a period not less than the period prescribed in subsection (5)(c)3., below, according to administrative procedures established by the county. The following example is set forth to illustrate potential application options: Example: Owner/developer has 100 development rights - Option 1: Owner/developer may build up to 70 market rate units and shall build 30 affordable units (using conventional compliance method.) The owner's 100 development rights yield a ratio of 70 market rate units and 30 affordable units. Option 2: Owner/developer may build up to 70 market rate units and shall purchase and deed -restrict 30 existing market rate units (in lieu of building 30 new affordable units.) The owner's 100 development rights again yield a ratio of 70 market rate units to 30 affordable units. Option 3: Owner/developer may build up to 100 new market rates. If the developer wishes to use all 100 development rights for market rate development, his inclusionary compliance requirement to purchase and deed -restrict existing market rate units increases, and in this case for example, calculates to 43 total affordable units. (The owner's 100 development rights yield a ratio of 100 market rate units to 43 affordable units, which is equivalent to the ratio of 70 market rates to 30 affordables: 100/43 = 70/30.) b. In -lieu fees. The developer of a project subject to the requirements of this subsection (b) may contribute a fee in -lieu of the inclusionary housing requirements for all or a percentage of the affordable housing units required by subsection (b)(2). The developer shall pay per unit in -lieu fees the current maximum sales price for a one -bedroom affordable unit as established under section 130-161(a). All in -lieu fees shall be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund and spent solely for the purposes allowed for that fund. The developer, along with any corresponding in -lieu fees, shall transfer to the county ownership of the associated ROGO-exempt development rights for any affordable unit(s) required by this section for which the in -lieu fee option is used. Page 6 Monroe County Land Development Code Land donation. Upon the acceptance of the board of county commissioners of a proposed onsite or offsite parcel (or parcels), a developer may satisfy the requirements of this subsection by donating to the county, or other agency or not -for -profit organization approved by the board, one IS or URM lot for each unit required but not provided through actual construction or in -lieu fees (or a parcel or parcels of land zoned other than IS or URM as long as the donated parcel(s) will support the development of an appropriate number of affordable units). Lots or other parcels so provided shall not be subject to environmental or other constraints that would prohibit immediate construction of affordable housing units. The developer, along with any corresponding donated parcel(s), shall transfer to the county ownership of the associated ROGO allocations or ROGO-exempt development rights for any affordable unit(s) required under this section. Applicable standards. (5) a. Incentives. All incentives and bonuses provided by the land development and other regulations for the construction of affordable housing shall be available to builders of affordable housing provided pursuant to this subsection (b) including, but not limited to, density and floor area ratio bonuses, residential ROGO allocation set asides and points, and impact fee waivers. b. Developer financial responsibility. 1. If a developer does not elect to meet the requirements of subsection (b)(2) of this section through alternative compliance as set forth in subsection (b)(4) of this section, or obtain approval for an adjustment to, a partial exemption from or a waiver of strict compliance pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of this section, the developer must post a bond equivalent to 110 percent of the in -lieu fees that otherwise would have been required through the in -lieu alternate compliance option prior to the issuance of a building permit for any market rate units. The county shall retain any bond money or guaranties in escrow until the affordable housing is completed, or for a period of three years, whichever comes first. Upon the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the affordable housing units, the county shall release to the developer any bonds or guaranties relating to the portion of the inclusionary housing requirement satisfied. If the developer has not satisfied the requirements of this section by completing the required affordable housing units within three years, all or the corresponding portion of the bond funds shall be forfeited to the affordable housing trust fund. 2. If the applicant elects to pursue alternative compliance as set forth in subsection (b)(4) of this section, any in -lieu fees must be paid or parcels donated prior to the issuance of a building permit for any market rate unit. c. Standards. Affordable housing provided pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section shall comply with the standards set forth below and applications for development projects subject to these requirements and developers and property owners shall provide to the county information and necessary legal assurances to demonstrate current and continued compliance with these provisions, consistent with the applicable enforcement mechanisms set forth in subsection (f) of this section, as amended or supplemented from time to time. The county may institute any appropriate legal action necessary to ensure compliance with this subsection. 1. Affordable housing units required pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section are restricted to sales prices and annual rental amounts for households that shall not exceed the adjusted gross annual income limits for moderate -income owner -occupied or rental housing, as defined in section 101-1 2. Affordable housing units may be sold or rented only to persons whose total household income does not exceed the adjusted gross annual income limits for moderate -income as defined in section 101-1 Page 7 Monroe County Land Development Code 3. Except as specifically provided otherwise herein, affordable housing dwelling units are restricted for a period of 99 years to households that meet the requirements of subsection (b)(5)c.2. of this section; 4. Affordable housing units provided pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section may be provided on -site, off -site or through linkage with another off -site project as provided in subsection (c) of this section; 5. Affordable housing units may not be used for tourist housing or vacation rental use; 6. Each affordable unit provided pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of habitable floor area and the average enclosed habitable floor area of all units so provided shall be at least 700 square feet; 7. Each affordable unit provided pursuant to subsection (b)(2) shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of habitable floor area; and during occupancy of any affordable housing rental unit, not otherwise limited by state or federal statute or rule concerning household income, a lessee household's annual income may increase to an amount not to exceed 140 percent of the median household income for the county, to be annually verified. If the income of the lessee household exceeds this amount, the occupancy shall terminate at the end of the existing lease term. The maximum lease for any term shall be three years or 36 months; 8. When determining eligibility criteria, the county shall assume family size as indicated in the table set forth in subsection (a)(6)i. of this section. That table shall not be used to establish the maximum number of individuals who actually live in the unit, but shall be used in conjunction with the eligibility requirements created by the definition of "affordable housing" in section 101-1 9. The income of eligible households shall be determined by counting only the first and highest paid 40 hours of employment per week of each unrelated adult. For a household containing adults related by marriage or a domestic partnership registered with the county, only the highest 60 hours of the combined employment hours shall be counted, which shall be considered to be 75 percent of the adjusted gross income. The income of dependents regardless of age shall not be counted in calculating a household's income; and 10. The county will not issue certificates of occupancy for market rate units associated with development or redevelopment projects subject to the provisions of this subsection (b) unless and until certificates of occupancy have been issued for required affordable housing units, lot donations are complete, or in -lieu fees have been paid as provided herein. Monitoring and review. (6) The requirements of this subsection (b) shall be monitored to ensure effective and equitable application. Every two years following the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived, the planning director shall provide to the board of county commissioners a report describing the impact of this subsection on the provision of affordable housing and other market or socioeconomic conditions influencing or being influenced by these requirements. Issues such as affordability thresholds, inclusionary requirements, and the impacts of these provisions on the affordable housing inventory and housing needs in the county shall be addressed, in addition to other matters deemed relevant by the director. Linkage of projects. (c) Two or more development projects that are required to provide affordable housing may be linked to allow the affordable housing requirement of one development project to be built at the site of another project, so long as the affordable housing requirement of the latter development is fulfilled as well. The project containing the affordable units must be built either before or simultaneously with the project without, or with fewer than, the required affordable units. Sequencing of construction of the affordable component of linked projects may be the subject of the Page 8 Monroe County Land Development Code planning department or the planning commission's approval of a project. In addition, if a developer builds more than the required number of affordable units at a development site, this development project may be linked with a subsequent development project to allow compliance with the subsequent development's affordable unit requirement. The linkage must be supplied by the developer to the planning commission at the time of the subsequent development's conditional use approval. Finally, all linkages under this subsection may occur between sites within the county and in the cities of Key West, Marathon and Islamorada, subject to an interlocal agreement, where appropriate; however, linkage must occur within the same geographic planning area, i.e., lower middle and upper keys. All linkages must be approved via a covenant running in favor of the county, and if the linkage project lies within a city, also in favor of that city. The covenant shall be placed upon two or more projects linked, stating how the requirements for affordable housing are met for each project. The covenant shall be approved by the board of county commissioners and, if applicable, the participating municipality. Affordable housing trust fund. (d) The affordable housing trust fund (referred to as the "trust fund") is established. The trust fund shall be maintained with funds earmarked for the purposes of furthering affordable housing initiatives in municipalities and unincorporated areas of the county. Monies deposited into the trust fund shall not be commingled with general operating funds of the county. The trust fund shall be used only for the following: (1) Financial aid to developers as project grants for affordable housing construction; (2) Financial aid to homebuyers as mortgage assistance, including, but not limited to, loans or grants for down payment assistance; (3) Financial incentives for the conversion of transient units to affordable residential units; (4) Direct investment in or leveraging housing affordability through site acquisition, housing development and housing conservation; or (5) Other affordable housing purposes as may be established by resolution of the board of county commissioners, which shall act as trustees for the fund. The board of county commissioners may enter into agreements or make grants relating to the use of trust funds with or to the county housing authority or other local government land or housing departments or agencies, a qualified community housing development organization or nonprofit or for -profit developer of affordable or employee housing, or a municipality within the county. Community housing development organization. (e) The board of county commissioners may establish a nonprofit community housing development organization (CHDO), pursuant to federal regulations governing such organizations, to serve as developer of affordable housing units on county -owned property, including or located in the municipalities of the county, upon interlocal agreement. In such event, the county may delegate to the community housing development organization all or partial administration of the affordable housing trust fund. Administration and compliance. (f) (1) Before any building permit may be issued for any structure, portion or phase of a project subject to this section, a restrictive covenant shall be approved by the growth management director and county attorney and recorded in the office of the clerk of the county to ensure compliance with the provision of this section running in favor of the county and enforceable by the county and, if applicable, a participating municipality. The following requirements shall apply to these restrictive covenants: a. The covenants for any affordable or employee housing units shall be effective for a period of at least 99 years. b. The covenants shall not commence running until a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the building official for the dwelling unit or dwelling units to which the covenant or covenants apply. Page 9 Monroe County Land Development Code (2) Restrictive covenants for housing subject to the provisions of this section shall be filed that require compliance with the following: a. Restricting affordable housing dwelling units to households meeting the income requirements of subsection (a)(6)a. of this section; b. Restricting employee housing dwelling units to households meeting the income and employment requirements of subsection (a)(6)b. of this section; c. Restricting market rate housing dwelling units to households meeting the employment requirements of subsection (a)(8)a. of this section; and d. Prohibiting tourist housing use or vacation rental use of any housing developed under the provisions of this section. (3) The eligibility of a potential owner -occupier or renter of an affordable, employee or market rate housing dwelling unit, developed as part of an employee or affordable housing project, shall be determined by the planning department upon submittal of an affidavit of qualification to the planning department. The form of the affidavit shall be in a form prescribed by the planning department. This eligibility shall be determined by the planning department as follows: a. At the time the potential owner either applies for affordable housing ROGO allocation, or applies to purchase a unit that used affordable housing ROGO allocation; or b. At the time the potential renter applies to occupy a residential unit that used an affordable ROGO allocation. (4) Except as provided in subsection (f)(5) of this section, the property owner of each affordable employee or market rate housing dwelling unit, developed as part of an affordable or employee housing project, shall be required to annually submit an affidavit of qualification to the planning department verifying that the applicable employment and income requirements of subsection (f)(2) of this section are met. The annual affidavit of qualification shall be in a form prescribed by the planning director and shall be filed by the property owner upon receiving written notification by certified mail from the planning department. (5) The owner -occupant of an affordable, employee, or market rate housing dwelling unit, developed as part of an affordable or employee housing project, who has received a homestead exemption as provided for under the state statutes, is not required to submit an annual affidavit of qualification as required above in subsection (f)(4) of this section if that owner -occupant was qualified previously by the planning department. Prior to any change in ownership (including, but not limited to: sale, assignment, devise, or otherwise), the owner -occupant shall be required to provide documentation to the planning department in a form prescribed by the planning director proving that the potential occupying household is eligible to occupy that unit prior to a change in ownership of the property. (6) Failure to submit the required annual verification as required in subsection (f)(4) of this section or failure to provide documentation prior to change in ownership required in subsection (f)(5) of this section shall constitute a violation of the restrictive covenant, the conditions of the certificate of occupancy and this chapter. (7) The restrictive covenants for affordable and employee housing required under this section shall be approved by the growth management director and county attorney prior to the recording of the covenant and issuance of any building permit. (8) Upon written agreement between the planning director and an eligible governmental or nongovernmental entity, the planning director may authorize that entity to administer the eligibility and compliance requirements for the planning department under subsections (f)(3), (f)(4), (f)(5) and (f)(6) of this section. Under such an agreement, the eligible entity is authorized to qualify a potential owner -occupier or renter of affordable, employee, or market rate housing developed as part of an employee or affordable housing project, and annually verify the employment and/or income eligibility of tenants pursuant to subsection (f)(2) of this section. The Page 10 Monroe County Land Development Code entity shall still be required to provide the planning department, by January 1 of each year, a written certification verifying that tenants of each affordable, employee, or market rate housing meet the applicable employment and income requirements of subsection (f)(2) of this section. The following governmental and nongovernmental entities shall be eligible for this delegation of authority: a. The county housing authority, not -for -profit community development organizations, pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, and other public entities established to provide affordable housing; b. Private developers or other nongovernmental organizations participating in a federal/state housing financial assistance or tax credit program or receiving some form of direct financial assistance from the County; or c. Nongovernmental organizations approved by the board of county commissioners as affordable housing providers. (9) Should an entity fail to satisfactorily fulfill the terms and conditions of the written agreement executed pursuant to subsection (f)(6) of this section, the planning director shall provide written notice to the subject entity to show cause why the agreement should not be terminated within 30 days. If the entity fails to respond or is unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning director that it is meeting the terms and conditions of its agreement, the agreement may be terminated by the planning director within 30 days of the written notice. Interlocal affordable rate of growth allocation agreements. (g) The board of county commissioners may authorize interlocal agreements between the county and the cities of Marathon, and Key West, and Islamorada, Village of Islands for the purpose of sharing residential rate of growth affordable housing allocations. The interlocal agreements may be based upon a specific project proposal within one or more jurisdictions or may be for a specific allocation of units on an annual basis, from the county to a municipality or from a municipality to the county. All allocations made available to a jurisdiction must meet the applicable affordable housing requirements of the receiving jurisdiction's land development regulations and affordable housing ordinances. Editor's note— Ord. No. 09-2006 appears as modified through negotiation with the state department of community affairs. Sec. 130-161.1. - Affordable housing incentive programs. Purpose and Intent. (1) The intent of this section is to set forth a program to help incentivize affordable housing development within Monroe County. Program 1: Transfer of ROGO Exemptions from Mobile Home Parks. (2) Purpose and intent: (a) The intent of this program is to establish an appropriate incentive for mobile home park owners to maintain mobile home park sites, mobile home developments in URM and URM-L districts, and contiguous parcels under common ownership containing mobile homes where any of the foregoing is presently serving as a primary source of affordable housing in Monroe County (any of the foregoing being an "eligible sender site") by providing an alternative development strategy to straightforward market -rate redevelopment. This program is intended to allow the transfer of market rate ROGO exemptions associated with lawfully established dwelling units now existing at an eligible sender site to be transferred to another site or sites in exchange for maintaining an equal or greater number of deed -restricted affordable dwelling units within Monroe County. This program seeks to address the housing needs of the Florida Keys as a regional obligation. Page 11 Monroe County Land Development Code This program provides an eligible sender site owner the opportunity to transfer market rate ROGO exemptions currently associated with existing and lawfully established dwelling units from eligible sender sites to receiver site(s) within Monroe County, provided that it involves the pooling of affordable dwelling unit rights for redevelopment at donated, purchased or otherwise appropriately deed -restricted sites, and transfer of ROGO exemptions or allocations for the purpose of implementing and facilitating one or more affordable housing projects. The provisions of this section shall control over all contrary provisions of this chapter related to the transferability of ROGO exemptions. Procedure. (b) (i) This transfer shall require an approved development agreement. (ii) Minor conditional use approval is required to complete the transfer. (iii) A development agreement shall not be required for an eligible sender site containing ten or fewer mobile homes. For the purposes of this exception, property owners shall not be permitted to subdivide by deed, split ownership or otherwise divide larger contiguous parcels containing more than ten mobile homes to create parcels containing fewer than ten mobile homes. Development agreement requirements. (c) (i) Sender site restrictions: (1) ROGO exemptions transferred under this program may be transferred on a 1 for 1 basis where the ROGO exemptions are to be transferred to single-family residential lots or parcels within the same ROGO planning subarea. However, where transfers are to be made to commercial or recreational working waterfronts (as defined by Florida Statutes), or to multi -family projects in non -IS districts, the transfers shall result in no fewer than two deed -restricted affordable or workforce housing units remaining on an eligible sender site(s) for each market rate ROGO exemption transferred. This section expresses the county's preference for transfer of ROGO exemptions to single- family lots/parcels. The following examples are set forth only to show some potential transfer scenarios. A given potential scenario may depend upon availability of affordable ROGO allocations provided by the county. Example 1: Transfer on a 1 for 1 basis. Existing 100-unit mobile home park. A development agreement with the county may, if approved, allow the owner to transfer up to 100 ROGO-exemptions to single-family lots/parcels as long as an equivalent number of deed -restricted affordable dwelling units remain or are created on one or more created on one or more eligible sender site(s). Example 2: Transfer on a 1 for 2 basis. The same existing 100-unit mobile home park. A development agreement with the county may, if approved, allow the owner to transfer up to 50 ROGO-exemptions to commercial or recreational working waterfront or multi -family projects in non -IS districts, as long as at least twice as many deed -restricted affordable dwelling units remain or are created on one or more eligible sender site(s). Example 3: Transfer on both 1 for 1 and 1 for 2 basis. The same existing 100-unit mobile home park. A development agreement with the county may, if approved, allow the owner to transfer up to 25 ROGO exemptions to a commercial or recreational working waterfront Mixed Use parcel, and 50 ROGO- Page 12 Monroe County Land Development Code exemptions to single-family lots/parcels, as long as 100 deed -restricted affordable dwelling units remain or are created on one or more eligible sender site(s). (2) The eligible sender site property(ies) shall be donated or sold to Monroe County, or otherwise appropriately deed -restricted for long-term affordability. Prior to acceptance of a donated or purchased parcel, all units to be maintained on site shall pass a life safety inspection conducted in a manner prescribed by the Monroe County Building Department. Monroe County may then lease the sender site property to a party who will serve as lessee and sub -lessor of the eligible sender site(s). (3) The number of transferred ROGO exemptions shall not exceed the number of restricted affordable dwelling units maintained at the eligible sender sites. (4) The resulting development or redevelopment of affordable housing pursuant to the governing development agreement will be targeted to serve as closely as possible the following household income categories: 25 percent very low income households, 25 percent low income households, 25 percent median income households, and 25 percent moderate income households (or as otherwise approved by the BOCC). (5) Lot rents and/or sales prices for resulting deed -restricted dwelling units shall be established in accordance with restrictions outlined in Florida Statutes and/or the Monroe County Code. (6) All units designated by the applicable development agreement to remain as deed restricted affordable housing at the donated, purchased or appropriately deed - restricted site(s) shall comply with hurricane standards established by the Florida Building Code and habitability standards established under the Florida Landlord and Tenant Act. Compliance shall be accomplished in a manner and within a timeframe set forth in the development agreement or, if applicable, in the relevant minor conditional use. (7) A development agreement proposed under this program shall not utilize more than 50 percent of the existing affordable housing allocations then available to Monroe County, unless otherwise approved by the BOCC. (8) All of the redeveloped or preserved affordable housing units, whether redeveloped or retained at the original sender site(s), or at alternate alternate or additional locations, shall remain in the same planning sub -district as the original sender site(s). Minor conditional use requirements. (d) (i) Receiver site criteria: (1) The receiver site shall be located in a Tier III designated area. (2) The receiver site shall not be located in a velocity (V) zone. (3) A property owner cannot receive a certificate of occupancy for any unit constructed as a result of a transferred ROGO-exemption until all corresponding eligible sender site units are completed and deed -restricted as affordable dwelling units. (4) All or any portion of the redeveloped or preserved affordable housing units may be redeveloped or retained at one or more alternate or additional locations donated or sold to Monroe County, identified in the Development Agreement and otherwise compliant with the remainder of this section, including but not limited to the requirements set forth in subsection (2)(c)(i)(2). (5) Transferred ROGO-exemptions shall remain in the same ROGO planning subarea. (e) Nothing herein shall preclude the county's replacement of sender site dwelling units with affordable allocations and recovery and transfer of market -rate ROGO-exemptions from the sender sites for use in administrative relief programs or other like purposes. Page 13 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA ° PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 2798 Overseas Hwy, Suite 400, Marathon, FL 33050; (305)289-2500 Rental Affordable Housing Units, Monroe County 2015 Qualifying Income Limits Income Limits for Single Persons Household Size Very Low 50% Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 120% 1 Person $30,600 $48,900 $61,200 $73,440 2 Persons $34,950 $55,850 $69,900 $83,880 3 Persons ' $39,300 $62,850 $78,600 $94,320 4 Persons $43,650 $69,800 $87,300 $104,760 5 Persons $47,150 $75,400 $94,300 - $113,160 6 Persons $50,650 $81,000 $101,300 $121,560 7 Persons $54,150 ' $86,600 $108,300 $129,960 8 Persons 1 $57,6501 $92,150 $115,3001 $138,360 Per MCC § 101-1. Affordable Housing Definitions Income Limits for Married or Domestic Partners Household Size Very Low 50% Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 120% 2 Persons $46,600 $74,467 $93,200 $111,840 3 Persons $52,400 $83,800 $104,800 $125,760 4 Persons $58,200 $93,067 $116,400 $139,680 5 Persons $62,867 $100,533 $125,733 $150,880 6 Persons $67,533 $108,000 $135,067 $162,080 7 Persons $72,200 $115,467 $144,400 $173,280 8 Persons $76,867 $122,867 $153,733 $184,480 Per MCC §130-161.(a)(6)0) Maximum onthly Rental Rates Unit Size Very Low 50% Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 120% Efficiency $765 $1,223 $1,530 $1,836 1 bedroom $874 $1,396 $1,748 $2,097 2 bedrooms - $983 $1,571 $1,965 $2,358 3 bedrooms $1,091 $1,7451 $2,183 $2,619 4+ bedrooms - $1,179 $1,8851 $2,358 $2,829 Per MCC §130-161.(a)(6)(i) and MCC §101-1. Affordable Housing Definitions ited 03/19, 2015 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT a� 2798 Overseas Hwy, Suite 400, Marathon, FL 33050; (305)289-2500 Owner Occupied Affordable Housing, Units, Monroe County 2015 Qualifying Income Limits Income Limits for Single Persons Household Size Very Low 50% Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 160% 1 Person ' $30,600 < $48,900 $61,200 - $97,920 2 Persons $34,950 $55,850 $69,900 $111,840 3 Persons $39,300 ' $62,850 $78,600 $1,25,760 4 Persons $43,650 $69,800 $87,300 $139,680 5 Persons $47,150 $75,400 $94,300 $150,880 6 Persons $50,650 $81,000 $101,300 $162,080 7 Persons $54,150 $86,600 $108,300 $173,280 8 Persons 1 $57,6501 $92,1501 $115,300 $184,480 Per MCC §101-1. Affordable Housing Definitions Income Limits for Married or Domestic Partners Household Size Very Low 50% Low 80% Median 100% Moderate 160% 2 Persons $46,600 $74,467 $93,200 $149,120 3 Persons $52,400 $83,800 $104,800 $167,680 4 Persons $58,200 $93,067 $116,400 $186,240 5 Persons $62,867 $100,533 $125,733 $201173 6 Persons $67,533 $108,000 $135,067 $216,107 7 Persons $72,200 $115,467 $144,400 $231,040 8 Persons $76,867 $122,8671 $153,733 $245,973 Per MCC §130-161.(a)(6)0) Maximum Sales Price County Maximum Unit Size Median Ratio Sales Price Income Efficiency $70400 3.75 $264,000 1 Bedroom $70,400 3.75 $264,000 2 Bedroom $701400 4,25 $299,200 >_ 3 Bedroom $70,400 4.75 $334,400 Per MCC § 101-1. Definition of Maximum sales price, owner occupied affordable housing unit .s?-d ted03('09;20�5 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA pp� PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 2798 Overseas Hwy, Suite 400, Marathon, FL 33050; (305)289-2500 Owner Occupied Affordable Housing Units Monroe County 2015 Qualifying Income Limits Income Limits for Single Persons Household Size Very Low 50% Low 80% Median 100% 120% Deed Restriction Moderate 160% 1 Person $30,600 $48,9001 $61,200 $73,440 $97,920 2 Persons $34,950 $55,8501 $69,900 S83,880 $111,840 3 Persons $39,300 $62,850 $78,600 $94,321) $125,760 4 Persons $43,650 $69,800 $87,300 $104,760 $139,680 5 Persons $47,150 $75,400 $94,300 $11. 3,160 $150,880 6 Persons $50,650 $81,000 $101,300 S121,560 $162,080 7 Persons $54,150 $86,600 $108,300 $129,5611 $173,280 8 Persons $57,650 $92,150 $115,300 S138,360 $184,480 Per MCC §101-1. Affordable Housing Definitions Income Limits for Married or Domestic Partners Household Size Very Low 50% Low 80% Median 100% 120% Deed Restriction Moderate 160% 2 Persons 3 Persons $46,600 $52,400 $74,467 $83,80 $93,200 $104,800 $11.1,840 $125,760 $149,120 $167,680 4 Persons $58,200 $93,067 $116,400 $139,680 $186,240 5 Persons $62,867 $100,533 $125,733 S1,50,880 $201,173 6 Persons $67,533 $108,000 $135,067 $162,080 $216,107 7 Persons 8 Persons $72,200 $76,867 $115,467 $122,867 $144,400 $153,733 S1173,280 $184,480 $231,040 $245,973 Per MCC § 130-161.(a)(6xj) Maximum Sales Price County Maximum Unit Size Median Ratio Sales Price Income Efficiency $70,400 3.75 $264,000 1 Bedroom $70,400 3.75 $264,000 2 Bedroom $70,400 4.25 $299,200 >_ 3 Bedroom $70,400 4.75 $334,400 Per MCC § 101-1. Definition of Maximum sales price, owner occupied affordable housing unit �J a" W 0 3, 09, 7 01 !", a� B E Ss' v e m �m �>a�s � m �ssssssss see ss s s ss assess s s ss$ S vu, o. e _ _ _ _ _ _ — — _ _ _ _ _ _ a< 'Lgs€"a w a � r L � a on +H-H-4 -H- - y p; �•Vgg K; ,Y F �— U a — =�s m i g cc ccm&cc' c�c �c n'rccc c�rccc`nc��`c�cc -rccr�r crc�»na � 9 s a N "1 119 Hg 10 g ig SY, R ° 0, - - - - u � 9 " oo�oao�o= o S ��$ S � goo •.. -. 0 a« c mP�P�aaaaa g m a m�a m __ aeaP m a a a a a a a m q�a�a m� �'ar��rm�m�r a �®c cgocmr��'eccc,r�c�� ac�rra„Sad- Mc°-- l oll mi'm i mi�l mum I A A A i 1�. I A 111 A I A I I I i Iy�n 55� ^§'1fL- �a�W x•r n�x%x�r ��5,-sa�r.'.iisci 3.us x E z� 0 a �. aaaa8ass88'sssasssss e assssssss�ss��ss 4s° -- - -lt�t a Sr a (j b z K oS p C Q 9 3C t It 1-� - - - - - G n C Es g C N C 5nb; n g C,C C C_ aa_8_?n57i C C C C _.' C..0 C C w+ C C 3n Cea CC o.'�I�`�r`7 C C C C �+ n43 C�a r� t-= r r'^ a . rcSe eC. n9 I _ m �rna`a"�x..°`°?^. $am`"$'$.$aag94u � _ P P P — gg a_ymP ^cg ao -ma00aN- - oPCo -oa-�ecg oa c o«aoca-- na�u � c��u ttgoga�g�� an�b „a „7 3s 5�.iI AI A"I a a I�' A :i .3 .7��.i,tx°:�I".�.35. � G � � � .i 3 .1 J ........E g B 5 1 5 a S 6 s I -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - SSA54s% e. as ZZ It + + I w.t - -- - - - - - - - + + + ag I L I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L p + -H- I- - - - + + + s g s 2 9 1 9 89 9 A A A S 8 S 9 g t j i s 2 e v S S t 9 O8 s 28 Q 8 e Q Q Q e o o v e a o Q S S 8 8 8 m I f i I A "L A A t� 'I c i-ql