Item H1Meeting Date: March 18, 2015 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Planning & Environmental Resources
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley, Ext. 2517
Michael Roberts, Ext, 2502
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation and discussion of the Trust for Public Lands' revised
Conservation Finance Feasibility Study and preliminary review of the results of the land acquisition
priorities parcel analysis.
ITEM BACKGROUND: The TPL approved contract services includes: (1) Feasibility research & report
on funding options, (2) development of a criteria matrix of habitat conditions and development constraints
to be evaluated, and (3) construction of GIS conservation priorities models based on the assessment
criteria detailed in the criteria matrix.
The draft TPL Finance Feasibility Report and criteria matrix were presented at the February 18, 2015
BOCC meeting. Based on BOC:C and staff input, the finance feasibility report has been updated and
finalized (attached). In addition, the parcel analysis criteria matrix and GIS file of private, vacant parcels
with assessment and priority classification results have been provided. Deliverables include a refined
criteria matrix detailing the classification system used for parcel scoring and ranking that will enable staff
to run various scenarios as requested by the BOCC.
The attached preliminary analysis is based on the 8,168 vacant, private parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County, identified in the County White Paper (see attached table). The model identifies parcels that have
significant development constraints and which can be removed from consideration for purchase. The
remaining parcels, for which a landowner would expect to receive a permit for at least one unit, will be
prioritized for land acquisition purposes based on conservation priorities and development compatibility,
as well as criteria from State and Federal land acquisition programs.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
7/1,7/2013: BOCC directed staff to contract with a firm to gauge community interest in alternative land
acquisition strategies.
2/19/2014: BOCC directed staff to amend contract to provide research relative to land acquisition funding
and to develop a GIS analysis tool to assist staff in prioritizing parcels for acquisition.
7/25/2014. BOCC approved the contract for the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) to identify options, for
purchasing or financing future land acquisitions to support the County's conservation and growth
management objectives and to develop a GIS based analysis tool to assist in determining Conservation
Acquisition Priorities by assessing habitat conditions and development constraints on each parcel.
2/18/2015: BOCC directed staff to amend the Contract to include tasks for public education, outreach and
surveys and for land acquisition advocacy at the State level. BOCC also directed amendments to the
Finance Feasibility report — which are provided in the attached revised report.
CONTRAC�T/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting Board direction regarding the finance study and the
matrix criteria so TPL can finalize these components of the contract.
TOTAL COST.- — INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes , No
wig w DI R DION 99111: 111111,111 111 111 ill 11
gfflfflp���
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No N/A AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty X 3 OMB/Purchasing —Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X
Not Required
DISPOSITIO11: AGENDA ITEM #
C(D�'ql',--,;ERVA"To,,j FNANJCE FEASMUTY SI-LADY, NAAR(.,l 20,15
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
'TH E 'Tip ,us,-r'.fi,, PUB1.1c, LAND
LA ND FOR PEOPLE
Col.1w), , Cols�ERVA Fioj Fll'�IANCIE. IFEASIBILI IY S FUCY INAARci-f 2015
m
Copyright C March 2015, The Trust for Public Land. AU rights reserved.
Col'PsERVAC" -,j FH,4ANC,'E DEPkRi 1NAEI41
TABLE OF C"C"
�
Introduction���'~�'~�^.^�^�'^�^����^'.'`'^'^.'~~^'~`^^^^��'�~^'~`^~~�^' ��
^�^^^-`~~^`~~~~`'""^°^^^ar2 —'—'~^^^'~'~^~'^'~~^--^'--^^^~^'~------~~~'
�
Overview.....................................................................
~..................... -'
Locationand Population ... ..... _......................... ....... ---.........................
_....... ---...... 5
Economy........... .... -........ .............. ..-.......... ...........................
....... .......... ........... .......... ..5
LandUse .............. __--................ ........ --....... _...........................
_... -_.... ................. _.6
Lonezmuoce.__... _---................ ..... ..... .............................................
---.......... ................. 6
FiscalStatus ..... ----.................... ............. -.................. .............
.......... ----.................. ..6
Parks ~o°S '1I Programs ...................................................
and Conservation
LocalPrograms ..... ............ ..... _-....... ............................ -_----_............
... _............ _-'7
State Conservation Programs / Florida Forever .....................
-...... .................... -..... .... -_8
' Local
\�ll()[)�I1�[� Ji �^`/Cuu Funding ��T��lC ....^....^,......-.'.-......................
Q
/
Local Public Finance in ykoridu--......... ............ ............. ..........
................................. --- .... .... 9
GeneralObligation Z\modx .... ---.... ......................... _--...
....................................... ..... 18
Property1as............................ -_--........... -.... ....................
... .................... .......... -.... 11
InfrastructureSales Tax _--....... .................... .................. ...............................
--..... ...... 13
SpecialDistricts ....... -_---..................... -....... -.... ..........................
_-----............. 16
ElectionHistory .... _.......... -... -..... ...........................................
..... --- .............. ---- ...... 18
~(J 1l._-.~~~~.'...~..--~_~.~_^.,~,,^.,^_^~_,,,.,.~,~.,.^~,
Conclusion .........................................................................................
19
WDI',sROE GOUNITY C0 NS E RVA-1-10i,,j RN A )(T. FEASIB I L ITY STUDY NIAFIC,� 210,15
DUCTI"N INTROIT .1 k--),
The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land conservation organization working to
protect land for human enjoyment and well-being by conserving land for parks, greenways, recreation
areas, watersheds and wilderness. TPL has helped protect nearly 4,300 properties, totaling more than
three million acres in 47 states. In Florida, the Trust for Public Land has protected more than 160,000,
acres of waterfront, greenways, archaeological sates, and iconic "Old Florida" attractions, such as the
Key West Custom House in Monroe County.
To help public agencies or land trusts acquire land, the Trust for Public Land's Conservation Finance
program assists communities in identifying and securing public financing. TPL offers technical
assistance to elected officials, public agencies and community groups to design, pass and ui-nplcment
public funding measures that reflect popular priorities. Helping communities secure dedicated
conservation funding is often tl-.te tipping point that leads to deeper ecological responsibility, including
more prudent land use, better managed growth, and increased protection of natural landscapes. To
stimulate engagement across jurisdictions and constituencies, TPL has historically found effective
partnerships among broad spectrum of players from the environmental left to the fiscally conservative
right and recognizes the importance of exploring new tools, such as economic benefits research, that can
encourage and strengthen the willpower of voters to seek dedicated conservation funds. This focused,
up -front investment pays dividends over the long-term by securing voter -supported funding that is
dedicated to conservation.
Since 1996JPL has been involved in nearly 500 successful ballot measures and twenty successful
legislative campaigns that have created more than $47 billion iri new funding for land conservation.
Voters have approved 81 percent of the ballot measures supported by TP1_
The study presents several viable local public options for funding land conservation in Monroe County
and provides analysis of which local options and funding levels are legally available, economically
prudent, and likely to be publicly acceptable.' This research provides a fact -based reference document
that can be used to evaluate many available financing mechanisms from an objective vantage point. The
report does not directly address funding for related and important purposes such as restoration, species
management, and stewardship.
I The contents of this report are based on the bestavailablu information W the tirno ofrc',qearch and draffing, Cktober 2014.
-1"i o ri F I Al (7, E I � E F" f i\41 NT C'0 N S E F,1
MOIR0E('X._XJNTY FFA,5fflIL7"'SIUDY MAR C'i-12i()15
E-."ice UTIVE S,UNINIARY
At the request of the Monroe County Board of Corn rrds sioners, the Trust for Public Land has
undertaken a feasibility, analysis to explore public funding options available to the county to fund the
acquisition and development of land as parks, recreation facilities and open space. In a, separate study,
the Trust for Public Land will work with the county to identify priority lands for protection.
At the heart of the most successful conservation funding programs is a substantial, long-term, dedicated
source of local revenue. With a reliable source of funds,, local governments can establish meaningful
conservation priorities that protect the most valuable resources, are geographically distributed, and
otherwise meet important goals and values. Local and state governments with significant funds are much
better positioned to secure and leverage funding from federal government agencies and attract other
local and state government or private philanthropic partners.
Nationwide, a range of public financing options has been utilized to fund parks and open space
preservation. These include general obligation bonds, the local sales tax, the property tax, and less
frequently used mechanisms such as special assessment districts, real estate transfer taxes, impact fees,
and income taxes. Corntnunities in Florida have traditionally been able to rely on a mix of funding due
to the availability,, of state funding and local conservation funding measures. Local government funding
options for land conservation have primarily taken the form of general obligation bonds backed by
property taxes or the infrastructure sales tax. In Monroe County, funding for parks and open space
conservation currently comes from a variety of revenue sources including general county ad valorem
taxes, the tourist impact tax, the infrastructure sales tax, and impact fees.
Given the substantial investment of time and resources required for a successful conservation finance
measure campaign, preliniinary research is essential to determine the feasibility of such an effort. This
report provides a brief examination of the options for generating and dedicating local revenue for
conservation.' In order to understand what would be ,in appropriate funding source or sources, this
report first reviews the county's background,nicludirig its fiscal status and governance. Next, the report
analyzes possible alternatives for funding parks and recreation land acquisition and management
program, including their legal authority and revenue raising capacity. finally, since most revenue options
require approval by voters, this report provides pertinent election information, such as voter turnout
history and election results, for local finance measures. This study focuses, on several options that present
the most viable opportunities for financing in Monroe County, which are as follows:
General Obligation Bonds. Monroe County has debt capacity to issue general obligation
bonds and levy property taxes to pay the debt sellrice on the bonds. For example, a bond issue
for $15 million would add roughly $1 million to the county's annual debt service and cost the
typical homeowner an average of $22 per year in additional property taxes for twenty years.
Property tax, The county could consider asking voters to approve a property tax dedicated to
park and open space purposes. For example, based on the county's total taxable value of $213
billion estimated for FY 2015, a 0.05 mill increase would generate approximately, $1 million
annually for parks and conservation at cost of roughly $21 a year to the average homeowner.
=The contents of the report are based on the best available information it the ire ofrescarch and drafting; (Fall 2014), with much of the data
compiled from Internet resources, and dirccr communication with local, state and federal government agencies.
�*DINPOE Cr-JUNI Y :: C(X,4S,',EHV/-', N R,)I'4 F EASBILIT,S [ UDY I �AARC�� 2015
The County Unincorporated Service District is a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) which
also has the capacity7 to levy up to 10 mills in 1he unincor mill _poraled area of the county. Based on the total
taxable value of property in the county unincorporated area of $10 billion, an additional 0.05 mill
increase would generate approximately $500,000 at a cost of roughly $21 per year to the average
homeowner.
Sales and use tax. the county currently levies all of the relevant local option sales taxes,
however it may dedicate. more of the current revenue to issue revenue bonds for land
acquisition. A significant portion of existing debt backed by the county's infrastructure sales
tax will be retired in 2018, potentially freeing approximately $3.5 million for other purposes.
Monroe County also could consider the possibility of amending existing state statutes to
authorize counties to levy surtax specifically to fund land conservation efforts. A new 0.5
percent tax could be expected to generate approxinately $9 - $10 million annually for the
county (roughly $16 million total), at cost of about 572 a year for the average household in
the county.
Special districts. The counts/ could consider forming special district that would levy ad
valorem taxes or special assessments within the unincorporated area. Existing special districts,
including the South Florida Water Management District, also could help with land acquisition
that benefits their respective goals.
All of the options above, except for the MSTU and special districts, consider the entire county including
municipalities. Additional stnaller local revenue sources could be utilized to support county parks and
conservation prograrn, such as donations, bequests, and philanthropic support, but these options have
not been examined in this report.
Next steps should include narrowing funding options to those that match the needs identified
by the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department and testing voter
attitudes toward a specific set of ffinding proposals. TPI, recommends conducting a public opinion
survey that tests ballot language, tax tolerance, and program priorities of voters in Monroe County.
FVA I 10 N F I N A N (,-�,E [) E I IA H 7 Nd E NI
Monroe County is the southernmost county in Florida and the United States. It is made up of two
regions, specifically a largely uninhabited portion of Everglades rational Park and Big Cypress National
Preserve, and a 125-mile-long chain of islands known as the Florida Keys.
In total area, Monroe County is comprised of 3,737 square milers, mostly of water, 73 percent. Most
known are the Florida. Keys with its string of islands connected by U.S. Highway 1, which ends in Key
West, 150 .miles southwest of Miami. The bulk of the population lives in communities strung out along
the Keys, with one road and more than 60 bridges serving as the primary means for people to move
between population centers along the island chain. Key
Monroe County Population'est is the largest of the islands in the chain with a natural Fprtl 2013 estimate
deep water harbor.
Monroe County has a 2012 population of nearly 73,000
residents. Approximately 61 percent of the county's
population lives in five: incorporated areas: Key West,
Marathon, Key Colony Beach, Layton and 'Islainorada. '1"he
remainder of the population lives in unincorporated
Monroe County.
The Florida Keys attract many seasonal residents. In 2010, the I.I.S. Census Bureau reported a total of
52,764 housing units across the Florida Keys. Approximately 62 percent of those housing units (32,629)
were occupied. Seasonal housing units (15,037) represent approximately 28 percent of all housing units
in the Florida Keys. In addition, approximately 1,600 active: duty personnel representing all branches of
the armed services and 2,500 of their dependents call Key West home. By 2025 the permanent
population of the county is expected to grow to more than 76,000 while the seasonal resident population
is projected to number 84,500.
.:COI-1 1-111
The southern tip of Florida and the Florida Keys contains one of the country's most diverse
assemblages of terrestrial, estuarine„ and marine flora and fauna. The region includes vast freshwater
wetlands of the Florida Everglades and Big Cypress, transitional areas where the waters of the
Everglades discharge into the estuarine environment of Florida Bay, one of the world's largest coral reef
tracts (the only one in the continental United States), the largest contiguous seagrass community in the
world, and the subtropical habitats of the island chain. The environmental setting of the Keys is
exceptional and unique, making the region a mapor travel destination..
The Monroe County Tourist Development Council indicates that roughly 3.8 million persons visit the
Florida Keys on an annual basis primarily during winter months. Visitors contributed approximately
$2.23 billion to the local economy (about 60 percent of total local economy) and approximately $970
Information for this scetion was largely excerpted from county department welipages and documents during Oct(.)ber 2014. Sources vncludc:
drilr,rlilirraFialis4ilaarte�,�1\I.MAM_V(Dw ^Ji1lift Itti'ea�rIru._+nrn�to/a n�rce�Pgiu 'iYVwiir�? �t-
.... _. CL _m.n..G L
t„arrt..�_t^dri rria�5ad4; y�e ul '�Isri� �t u �i�cr'G6:� ncVC; anei foi Yy-�._...�_..:. bw e�N�oGzcr�ct a iMriub...11..r,° ..1)a�,,,,,,�¢ard.
1'i,h , i, -' . f,JOII IEf'r✓F11`Noil FINIAilr E C)EPA ,TYV@{'B,, F
MoIrc)F,COUNIY : C 0NSE1RVA_Fi(.>j F W�,(,E F E/ SIB I LIT Y S� I LIDY :
million to local income (about 44 percent of total local income) during the December 2007-November
2008 visitor year'. In addition, the tourism industry accounted for approximately 55 percent of the total
work force in the county (32,107 of 57,9928 jobs). Tourism is the largest industry in the Florida Keys and
the largest employer in Monroe County.
Land Use
There are over 4 million acres of publicly -owned (Federal) conservation and recreation lands and waters
provided in the county. The mainland portion of the county accounts for 1.62 million acres of this, total.
Residential uses comprise the next highest land use activity. The county is predominantly a residential
area, with a great deal of focus on a single-family home environment. Its location has attracted
residential development not only for permanent, but also for seasonal residents.
The Keys have long been recognized as strategically significant by the U.S. military forces, and military
operations still play an important role 111 the economy of the Keys. Military lands account for 4,025
acres, or approximately 5.5 percent of the unincorporated Keys. Military lands in the unincorporated
areas of the County are entirely located in the Lower Keys, including the Boca Chica Naval Air Station
on Boca Chica,Rockland and Geiger Keys-, and additional facilities on Saddlebunch Icy and Cudjoe
Key.Flerning Key and Dredgers Keys in the City of Key West make up an additional 536 acres of
military land.
Gov"crnatice
Monroe County is a non -chartered county. The Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC), which performs
the legislative and executive functions of the county
government, consists of five members elected at large
by the citizens in the general election in November in
the even years. Each comitussioner represents one of
five county, districts and is elected for a term of four
years.
Board of County Commissioners
Name District Term
Expires
Danny Kohage
N&yor 1st
2016
George Neugent
trod
2018
Heather Carruthers
Mayor Pro Tern
2016
3rd
David Rice
4th
2a18
Sylvia Murphy
2016
County Mayor is the title given the chairperson of the Board of Cominissioners. The Mayor and Mayor
Pro Tern are elected by the board. As chairperson, the Mayor presides over board meetings and serves as
representative of the county on ceremonial occasions.
Fiscal SWILIS
The 2015 Proposed Budget for Monroe County is $441.7 million. This represents a $25 million increase
over the 2014A.dopted Budget. The main reason for this increase is the construction of the Cudjoe
Regional wastewater project. This project will be primarily funded by Clean Water State Revolving Loan
Funds in 2015.
Monroe County's budget is composed of a variety of revenue sources. Major revenue sources for the
County are: Property 'taxes, I lalf-C ent Sales Tax, State Revenue Sharing, Tourist Impact Tax, Motor
; Rq)fcscnts the most cufrem data avaiha61c.
, f , J" t", � , 'I', - , i , ' FW/o,ioI�i FINAIQ('�'E DE:F/)IR'P/IENT
MONROE COIJNIY:` C0NSEPN,P,rIO[,j F I F, EAS I BIL FY S"I JDY MARCH 2015
Fuel Taxes and Infrastructure Sales Tax. Ad valorem taxes (property taxes) represent the single largest
revenue source, directly used for the operation and services for the County and budgeted in the County's
General Fund, Fine and Forfeiture Fund, Fire and .Ambulance Fund, Parks and Beaches Fund, and Road
Patrol Law Enforcement Fund.
Under state statutes, a portion of the state sales tax revenue is distributed to each county. Monroe
County receives a monthly revenue receipts based on allocation factors, such as population (total county
and unincorporated areas) and funds earmarked to be distributed within the county. This revenue is split
between the General Fund and the General Purpose Municipal Service Taxing Unit (.MS'I'U),The
MSTU is discussed further in the Property Tax section of this study. The charts below illustrate the
county's major revenue and expenditure funds
Source: Monroe County Proposed FY 2015 BUdget, p. B-2.
PV j T -"R`-'GRAN1S` ARKS AND CCINSEAIRM ATION IV Ct
]..,ocal Prograrns
C
Monroe County Public Works Management is responsible for guiding, directing and managing public
works and facilities, which consists of Facilities Maintenance (including Detention Facilities, I liggs
Beach and Unincorporated Parks and Beaches), Fleet Management, Roads and Bridges, Card Sound Toll
Authority, Solid Waste Management and Animal Control. This department is funded by Ad Valorem
taxes and other General Revenue Funds. Unincorporated Parks and Beaches maintains over 100 acres of
parks and beaches, including playgrounds, tennis courts, basketball courts, and skate parks from Stock
Island to Key Largo. The Department is funded in part by Tourist Development Taxes but it also
includes a portion of Ad Valorem taxes.
� :�j: r I ,.!! . CoiSFRVAFIOI�d F I DEP,6,4rTMF N T
PO(DNROE COUN-f)' CONSERVA" RNANCE F I-,AS,3F3 It, I I"Y STLID)t I rd,f,,Rc� 12015
Relevant Line Items from the FY 2015 Budget Summary
Fund Description Budget
Unincorporated Service District Parks & Rec $2,293,358
One-Cenflnfrastructure ��es-T—axParks —&Re`cCa--p'it—a1Projects $5,517,881
Impact Fees Fund Parks & Rec $ 39 6 801
I ai�id AUdI.OritV
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Land Authority was established to -acquire property in the
county for conservation, recreation, and affordable housing. it is a legany separate entity from the
county but is governed by the County Board of Commissioners, A five -member advisory committee,
appointed by the BOCC, provides recommendations regarding land acquisitions. The Land Authority is
largely funded by a surcharge on admissions and overnight occupancy at state parks Hil the
unincorporated county and by a half -cent of the tourist impact tax charged on lodging in the Keys. The
tourist impact tax was approved by voters in 1988.
The FY 2015 budget for the Land Authority is just over $18 million. The vast majority of budget
appropriations are for property acq-Lusitions and reserves. The largest appropriation is for property in
the KCvWest Area of Critical State Concern ($9.6 nuillion), followed by the Rate of Growth Ordiiance
(ROGO) Reserve' ($4.8 million), and property in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (523
million).
Stat.e (...'on.servation Prograrns / Florid -a Porever
Florida Forever is the umbrella prograrn under which specific grant -making programs are organised and
funded, including the Florida ConarnunifiesTmst, Florida Greenways and'Frails, and the Florida
Recreation Development Assistance Program. Until recently, Florida had an annual budget exceeding
$300 rniffion for land acquisition. This land acquisition budget exceeded that of any other state or even
the federal government in the 1990s.1 The state's land acquisition program, once known as Preservation
2000 or P-2000, purchased over 2.5 million acres in Florida. Florida Forever replaced P-2000 ten years
ago, and remained funded at over $300 million annually for quite some time. Although it is unfunded at
present, the Florida Forever Program is scheduled to continue to the year 2020.
A Constitutional Amendment (Amendment 1) to restore conservation funding was approved
overwhelmingly by Florida voters at the November 2014 election. Amendment 1 will, dedicate funding
to conserve and restore Florida's waterways and natural areas using existing state revenues generated by
real estate transactions. Fees on .real estate transactions, known as "doc stamps," have been allocated to
water and land conservation since 1968. However, since 2009', these fees have been diverted to the
slate's general revenues resulting in significant cuts to funding for water and land conservation projects.
Amendment I provides $10 billion over the twenty-year life of the measure, by dedicating 33 percent of
net revenues from the existnig excise tax on documents for 20 years.
5The Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO is a limitation on development in the Keys, State ➢aw dictates that the Kcys can only build to a level
in u1iich the chain elf islands can be evacuated 24 hours pnor to a hurricane making landfall. The Land Authority expccts to purchase properlk:s
for which dLNT&oPJnCJJJ is lirnited or precluded by this ordinance.
I James A. Farr and Greg Brock, 'Tloridti's, Landmark Programs for Consciiation and Recrcarion ],and .Acquisition," 3uslaw, V(.A. 14,
m7-,JiJaJ)Ie at I II I I. LI L ; -�-( lf-�% I I 1111.
I - , : —1P I�')!J ' 1, F INANCE i.it- I w-I n
%DNROECOUIFTY. :M�,,[,,ci-f2CO5
With the commitment of state funds to Florida Forever, Monroe County will be better positioned to
garner grants from the conservation programs if it has a reliable source of matchu"Ig funds, as well as a
set of defined conservation acquisition priorities.
CH01(_),S-1N(_T A L(-.-'),CA1., FUNDING, STRATI.'GN17
Generally, there are three broad -based types of revenue sources available to local governments to pay for
parks and land conservation: discretionary annual spending (i.e. budget appropriation), creation of
dedicated funding streams such as voter -approved special taxes, and the issuance of bonds. The
financing options utilized by a corritilunity will depend on a variety of factors such as taxing capacity,
budgetary resources, voter preferences, and political -will. \X7hile rnost local governments can create
funding for park and recreation through their budgetary process, this either happens infrequently or
does not yield adequate funding.
In the Trust for Public Land's experience, local governments that create funding via the budget process
provide substantially less funding than those that create funding through ballot measures. As elected
officials go through the process of making critical budgetary decisions, funding for land conservation
often lags behind other public purposes and well behind what voters would support. It is often quite
difficult to raise taxes without an indisputable public mandate for the intended purpose.
The power of conservation finance ballot measures is they provide a tangible means to ituplementa
local government's vision, With their own funding, local governments are better positioned to secure
scarce funding from state or federal governments or private philanthropic partners. Having a predictable
funding source empowers the city, county, or special district to establish long-term conservation
priorities that protect the most valuable resources, are geographically distributed, and otherwise meet
irnportant community goals and values.
Nationwide, a range of public financing options has been utilized by local jurisdictions to fund parks and
open space, including general obligation bonds, the local sales tax, and the property tax. Less frequently
used mechanisms have included real estate transfer taxes, iinpact fees, and income taxes. The ability of
local governments and special districts to establish dedicated funding sources depends upon -,rate
enabling authority.
Conservation finance measures are not right for every local government or they inight not be the best
approach at the moment. Budget appropriations and other revenue mechanisms that can be
implemented by the local government, such as developer incentives, may provide short-term funding
options while parks and conservation proponents develop a strategy and cultivate broad support for
longer -term financing options.
Loc.al. Put)lic Finance in. F� lorIda
The State of Florida authorizes local communities to use various revenue sources for parks and
recreation purposes including property taxes, sales and use taxes, general obligation bonds, and the
creation of special districts. Each of these funding mechanisms requires approval by the electorate and
in various communities in the state, they have enjoyed widespread support.
Voters approved 82 percent of local conservation finance measures (82 of 100) on the ballot in Florida
between 1990 and 2013. General obligation bonds are the most popular public finance mechanism in
riow,i F11'JANCE Di::PAR"fwP4 r
MONROE (' .moO4.,1N'iY :: CC) NSERVA I CM FINANCE FEAS B H _lY S 1 W . tY I MA R(H 2 0 6 5
Florida for parks and open space. Nearly
two-thirds of the local ballot ineasutes for
conservation purposes have sought voter
approval for the issuance of bonds.
The table to the right illustrates the number
and type of conservation finance measures
that have gone before voters over the past
Local Conservation Finance Mechanisms in Florida
Sonyrary of local ballot measures from 1988
- 2013
Mechanism Passed Failed
Total
Passed
Bond
59 6
65
91%
SaF
12 9
21
57%
Property Tax
11 1 3
14
79%
Total 82 18
100
82%
Source: TPL LandVote Database
15 years. The following pages, present a
range of public funding mechanisms that could be used for land acquisition in Monroe County
. I
Tctleral (_)bhgation Bonds
Florida counties and municipalities are authorized to issue debt for capital improvement purposes
including parks, and open space in the form of general obligation bonds. The state statutes do not place
specific limits on the amount of debt that can be incurred by a community, but do limit the duration of
the bonds to a period not exceeding 40 years. When bonds have been issued, the governing body must
levy annually a tax upon taxable property in the jurisdiction sufficient to pay the debt service and interest
on the bonds.?
As of September 30, 2013„ Monroe County had long-term debt in the amount of $81 million. This debt
mainly comprises revenue bonds and notes secured by pledges of revenues. Revenue secured debt for
governmental activities was $35 million. Monroe County has no general obligation bonds outstanding.,,
Monroe County bonds have historically been rated "Aaa" and "AAA" from Moody's Investor Service
and Standard & Poor's Corporation, respectively. More recently, the Fitch Rating agency of New York
affirmed Monroe County's rating as "AA -".These ratings indicate strong credit and low nisk.9
1SSL111-10� Kmds foi- Parks xIrid ( )y)en SpI.cc
The table on the following page illustrates the debt service and millage required for bond amounts that
could potentially be issued for parks and open space in Monroe County. For instance, a countywide
bond issue for $15 million would add roughly $1 million to the county's annual debt service and cost the
typical homeowner an average of $22 per year in additional property taxes.
TPL's bond cost calculations provide a basic
estimate of debt service, tax 'increase, and cost
to the average homeowner in the community
of potential bond issuances for parks and
land conservation. Assumptions include the
following: the entire debt amount is issued in
the first year and payments are equal until
maturity-, 20-year maturity; and 4 percent
interest rate. The property tax estimates
assume that the jurisdiction would raise
property taxes to pay the debt service on
7 7 (1-aprers 100 and 130, ind Scction 200.19 1, Flopwk,Slaflll(v
H Monroe (:ounty 2013 (]AFR ar p. c-1 I
I Monroe (:oust, n' 2015 Proposal Annual Budget, p. W-2
Bond Financings Costs for Monroe County
20-year Bond Issues at4.0% Interest Rate
Assessed Value = $21.5 billion
Annual Mill Levy Costl Year/
Bond Issue Size Debt Svee increase Avg. SFR
$5,000,000 $367,909 0,017 $7
'S 1 8 0 034 $ 1 4
$15,000,000 $1,103,726 0.051 $22
_�H 0-0 C&O—O'" ji—,4 � 1 '_,C
$30,000,000 $2,207,453 0,102 $43
Sources: Total county taxable value, Monroe Cnty Growth Mgt GIS.
Avg single family residential tax value ($423,481), Florida DOR, July 2014.
MONROEC',CqJ1'0-Y C(,)�\ISEIR'A0`I )ICJ FpPJ,�',V'J(-'EF,4F.71t..@-i fSf�.ii1`,,.:Mfir:>cI-i2ol5
bonds, however other revenue streams may be used. The cost per household represents the average
annual impact of increased property taxes levied to pay the debt service. The estimates do not take into
account growth in the tax base due to new construction and annexation over the fife of the bonds. The
jurisdiction's officials, financial advisors, bond counsel and underwriters would establish the actual terms
of any bond.
1"Inacti-nent procedures
`fhe Board of County Commission must call a referendum election prior to the issuance of bonds. 11)
There must be at least 30 days notice published in the local newspaper of general circulation. I I Bond
elections may be held concurrently with any general or primary election.12 Bonds must be approved by a
majority of voters in the county. If any bond order fails at referendum, then no other referendum for the
approval of bonds for the same purpose may be called for at least six months.
General elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even
numbered year.13 Special elections may also be called after the supervisor of elections consents.`In any
special election or referendum not otherwise provided for there shall be at least 30 days' notice of the
election or referendum by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. The
publication shall be made at least twice, once 111, the fifth week and once in the third week prior to the
week in which the election or referendums is to be held.
Ballot Language
The ballot for bond referenda must be printed on plain white paper with a description of the bonds to
be voted on as prescribed by the local government calling the vote. iN separate statement of each issue of
bonds to be approved, giving the amount of the bonds and the interest rates, and "other information
necessary to inform the voters," must also be on the ballot. The body of the measure must not exceed
75 words in length. The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by
which the measure is COMITIOnlyteferted to or spoken of 11 This 11-1forrnation must be followed by the
choices: "For Bonds" and "Against Bonds.""
Property 'fax
Ad valorem taxes, commonly referred to as property taxes, are the single most important revenue source
for local governmentsu"i Florida, funding schools and locally provided government services. Property
taxes account for approximately 38 percent of local government funding. Property taxes are levied by
counties, municipalities, schools, and various special taxing authorities such as water management and
fire districts.
The "general millage" is set by the governing body of the local taxing authority. Cities, counties, and
school districts are subject to a constitutional limit of 10 inills each for operating purposes. Exceptions
include "debt service millage" and a "voted millage" not to exceed a period of two years. In addition, the
maximum tax levy alloNved by a majority vote of the governing body is based on the rate of growth in
ue FS. y 100201.
FS. 100,342.
F.S. 100.361.
V.S. 100,031.
F.S. 100.151.
F.S. 101.161.
urr 1,S. 100.341.
N4011POE COUN I"Y :: C ONl ";ERV/, I k)IN FINAW."T FE,60BIL If YSTUDY M/,i,ci2015
per capita personal income in Florida. Ad valorem taxes may be increased at a greater rate only with a
super majority or unanimous vote of the local government governing body or a vote of the electorate. 17
Counties providing municipal services may also levy up to an additional ten mills above the ten mill
county limitation within the unincorporated areas receiving rnunicipal-tTpe services (known as Municipal
Service Taxing Units or MSTU). Subject to the consent by ordinance of the governing body of the
affected municipality, an msTu may include all or a part of the boundaries of a municipality, Under the
general constitutional i-niUage hinits of 10 mills for municipal purposes, the millage levied by MSTUs and
the municipality may not exceed in the aggregate 10 mills.
The Prol-)City 'Fax In Nlmltoe ("oulltv
The 2015 proposed rnillage for countywide services is 3.1037 rills. The aggregate countywide levy is
3.9005.The county levies 0.1753 rnffls for municipal services provided in the unincorporated area. In
addition, municipalities and special districts within the county levy their own millages on property.18 The
average aggregate mdlage rate for Florida counties for .FY 2014-15 was 7.9797.19
(Jsln',)the Prtiperty 'I'a.x Cor Parks, 'and OpCri Sfv'CC
Monroe County's tax rate is below the
Constitutional linjit of 10 mills, so, with Estimated Revenue & Costs of Property Tax Increase
regard to that limit, the county has room to Monroe County
utilize property taxes to fund open space Mill Levy Total) County Annual Cost[Avg.
purchases. The table to the right illustrates Increase Taxable Valuation Revenue SFR
0.03 $21,537,819,555 $646,135 $13
the: revenue and cost of various millage 0.05 $21,537,819,555 $1,076,891 $21
amounts. For instance, based on the 0.08 $21,5:37,819,555 $1,723,026 $34
county's total taxable value of $21.5 billion 0.10 $21,537,819,555 $2,153,782 $42
estimated for FY 2015, an additional 0.05 0.15 $21,537,819,555 $3,230,673 $64
mill increase would generate approximately Sources: Monroe County Growth Mgt GIS, Florida FOR
$1 million annually for parks and Avg single family residential (SFR) taxable value ($423,481), as of July 2014.
conservation at a cost of roughly $21 a year to the average homeowner. Alternatively, Monroe County
could impose a voted millage not to exceed a period of two years. A voted rnillage is not subject to the
10 mill cap.
`1'he County- Unincorporated Service
District is a Municipal Service Taxing Unit
(MSTU) which also has the capacity to levy
up to 10 mills in the uniucoiporated area of the
county. The table to the right illustrates the
revenue and cost of various millage
amounts. For instance, based on the total
taxable value of property in the count),,
unincorporated area of $10 billion, an
additional 0.05 inffl increase would generate
Estimated Revenue & Costs of Property Tax Increase
Mionroo County Unicorporated (MSTU)
Mill Levy Total County Annual
CostlAvg.
Increase Taxable Valuation Revenue
SFR
0.03 $10,070,462,038 $302,114
$13
0.05 $10,070,462,038 $503,523
$21
0.08 $10,070,462,038 $805,637
$34
0.10 $10,070,462,038 $1,007,046
$42
0.15 $10,070,462,038 $1,510,569
$64
Sources: Monroe County Growth Mgt GIS, Florida DOR
Avg single family residential (SFR) taxable value ($423,481), as of July2014.
approximately $500,000 at a cost of roughly $21 per year to the average homeowner.
17 F.S. � 200,005(5) and 200.195.
18 Monroe COLITII[V FY2015 PrOPOSCd ,Annual Budget, p, B-54.
11 litrp://fl-counticq.com/docs:/dcf,,iult-s(urce/liesearch/fy-2(114-15-prt)l)crt),-E,,ix-report/summary-data.pdf-?.sfN�rsn=2
12 1. " I )-! r j (' , (
f ION F INAPJCE IOEN1
MONROE 01,4 Fi�,ua,,k-F F I -ASM I i I! Y STUDY KARCi-i 2015
I �`Imactrncl.l r Procedure"
County Financial staff and advisors would need to determine the requirements for approval of any
proposed increase/override in the general millage based on the recent property tax reforms. Such .1
change could require either a supermajority vote of the Board of County Comilmissions and/or a public
referendum. An increase in the general millage does not represent a permanent dedication of funds for
parks and open space purposes. The millage may be used for other purposes as determined by the
comiritissioners.
A voted levy (2-year levy) must be approved by majority vote of the qualified electors 11"I the county, or
district voting in an election called for that purpose. Such an election may be called by the governing
body of any such count), or district on its own motion or by -a citizen petition. The petition must specify
the amount of millage sought to be levied and the purpose for which the proceeds will be expended and
contain the signatures of at least 10 percent of the persons qualified to vote in such clection.21�
Miami -Dade County Environmentally Endangered Land Prograin
The Miami -Dade County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program could serve as a model for a
two-year levy for parks and recreation in Monroe County. In 1990, Miami -Dade voters approved an ad
valorem tax of 0,075 mills for a two-year period from 1990 to 1992 to fund the acquisition, protection
and maintenance of environmentally endangered lands. A total of $90 million was raised for land
acquisition. The county established an I-,Invironmentafly Endangered Land program to administer the
funds and set aside $10 million of the $90 rniffion to pay for site management. Each year, the interest
from this $10 million is used to secure, restore, and care for the sites acquired by the EEL program.
Voters approved another $40 million in 2004 through the Building Better Communities Bonds,
The EEL Program and its partners have brought more than 18,350 acres of environmentally
endangered lands into public ownership since 1990. Additionally, the EEL Program manages nearly
3,000 acres of natural lands within Miami -Dade County Parks, for a total of more than 23,500 acres
protected. The purchase and conservation of these lands ensure that they are shielded from
development and will continue to thrive as natural habitats.
llifra�tructutre Saks 'Fax
Local governments are authorized to levy several types of local option sales surtaxes subject to eligibility
requirements, rate limits, and certain authorized purposes. State statutes entitled "J...,ocal Government
Infrastructure Surtax," allow any county to impose a sales surtax of 0.5 percent or 1.0 percent in order to
"finance, plan and construct infrastructure and to acquire land for public recreation or conservation of
natural resources."'
Proceeds of the infrastructure sales tax must be spent on capital expenditures and may not be used for
operational expenses.21 Counties designated as areas of critical state concern, including Monroe County,
2't F.S. § 200.091
2t F.S. § 212.055. I'lorida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opiriion AGO-94-79, further clarifics that the term "infrastructure" would not
,lVlX21` to include such 4LMN -IN, fLncing, swings, lumber forlilcachmand lighting fixtures; nor materials for landscape design Ind tree: and
sirrubbefy planting. I lowever, hand improvement or dvsign expenses that may arise in conjunction with a fixed capital expenditure or fixed
capiral outlay associated with the construction, reconstruction or improvellient of Pubhc filcilities, of expcilditurc for such thinks as matcrials for
landscape design may he purchased with they procceds of the surtax.
I-, CON'EE".RVA1 ON BhiYf K.E DEPAR r MEN I
i. N OE COUNTY :: C ONUf,ERVrtl IOrq IFINAIQt F 1h A 1MILI FY Wed I U[)Y A AF U f 2015
may use up to 10 percent of the tax revenues for any public purpose."- Counties may pledge proceeds
for the purpose of servicing bonds.23 The duration of the sales tax can be for any period of time
specified by the final referendum. measure. If the measure is adopted, the county and each municipality
receive a portion of the proceeds based on an interlocal agreement or according to a formula provided.
by the state (based on the unincorporated population and the incorporated populations of each
municipalli'ty).24
Monroe County currently imposes the full one -cent Local Government Infrastructure Sales Tax for
physical environment, general government, public safety, and parks and recreation capital improventents.
In 2012 county voters extended the surtax expiration from 2018 to 2033 with 68 percent in favor. The
tax is projected to generate approximately $18 - $20 million per year. The county regularly bonds against
the Infrastructure ;gales Tax revenue. One of the existing bond packages„ issued in 2007, is due to be
retired in 2018 freeing up annual debt service of approxirliately $3.5 million to be used for other
purposes.
Infrastructure Sales Tax revenues can be used to
finance, plan, and construct infrastructure and to
acquire land for public recreation or conservation or
protection of natural resources. Generally, revenues
are allocated during the county's annual budgeting
process to projects identi:kied .in the 5-year capital.
plan. The county would likely issue revenue bonds
for projects or groups of projects costing more than
$ 10 million.25
Revenue Bond Financing Casts
Interest Years to Annual
Band Issue Rate Maturity Debt Sege
$5,000,000
5.0% 10
$647,523
$10,000,000
5.0% 10
$1,295,046
$15,000, 00
___
5.0%a 10
$ i 942,569
$20 000,000
5.0% 10
$2,590,091
$25'000,000
5.0% 10
$i,237,6'k4
Below is the county staff recommendation for land acquisition budget utilizing existing Infrastructure
Sales Tax revenue.'-6
Revenue
2015,
2016
2017,
2018.
2019
2020
2021
2022
Potential &Pkcioaa 10 CapitralI,zaproveaaaent PrgrFaaaa'
$2M
$2M
$2M.
Saks, Tax 'vaari,geleF1
$2M
Free' up Sales f.Gdx (bond irp atd)
$2
$2M
$2M
$2M
This option requires bonding $6 million for projects currently included in the adopted CIP in order to
budget $2 million annually for FY's 2016-2018 for land acquisition. tin addition, General Obligation
bonds require voter approval.
221.S. � 211055(2)(03 "Those counties designated as an arca of critical state concern which qualify to use the surtax for any public purpose.
tnaV use only up to 10 percent oft he surtax proceeds for any public pan -pose other than for iflnfrastructurc purposes authorized by this sacoon,
2' 11.S. j 212.055.
24 d^.S. 218.62
2' Personal corrrnvunication with Kevin Madok, Sr. Drector ofStrateg;ic Planning, January 20, 2015.
21 Providedby Kevin Madok„ Sr. Director of Stratcg;ic Manning, February 27, 2015.
L� f, c)r,ISERVA I DE ARII"Rd21'sV"I'
NR)NROL1 C, KJI`,F Y C01JSEW/,�,'I ION F_1NAill. ,E n AS 11PKJTY ST01)1 ` Iti,T°°.� Is 2015
Additional S,11C,'fi1,_S ALA110.1_11�7
Monroe County may also consider tLie possibility of amending existing statutes to add a surtax
specifically to fund land conservation efforts. A new 0.5 percent tax levied countywide could be
expected to generate apl)rO,XiMatCl)7 $9 -$10 million annually for
the county (roughly $16 million total), at a cost of about $72 a Distribution of Infrastructur
year for the average household in the county.
Estimated Revenue and Cost of Infrastructure Sales Tax
Sales Annual Household Spending on Annual Cost/
Tax Revenue' Taxable Goods" Household
1.01% $31,984,658 $14,352 $144
0.5% $15,992,329 $14,352 $72
Sales Annual Total Revenue Attributed %of Revenue
Tax Revenue* to Resident Spending— Generated by Residents
1.0% $31,984,658 $12,793,863 40%
0.5% $15,992,329 $6,396,932 40%
"Monroe County Budget Director, 213115
—Est avg household spending on taxable items= 25% of median household income ($67,408)
—'National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin - Visitor Profiles Florida Keys 2007-08.
lhttp:llsanctuaries.2oaa.govlsciencelsocioe,conomiclfloridakeyslpdfslkey Kest profile 08.odf
Estimated Amt.
Source: Monroe County Budget Director
In 2009, existing statutes were amended to add the option for a Fire and Rescue surtax. Some
information is available about supporters and the passing of the amendment, detailed below.
Additionally, bills to amend the legislation to add a Higher Education surtax option have been
introduced four dines, however the amendment has not passed. The legislative process is described in
Appendix D�.
I ire and Kei-we Sw-la
Approval of this surtax in 2009 added an eighth discretionary sales surtax to those allowed by law under
Florida statutes 212-053.27 The surtax was approved by Senate 39-0 on April 29, 2009 (SB 1000), then
approved by the House 110-8 the following day (FIB 365). It was signed into law by the Governor on
June 16, 2009. It becarne effective July 1, 2009.21 In the Senate, the bill was sponsored by the following:
the judiciary Committee, Military Affairs and Domestic Security Committee, and Senator Mike Fasano
(R). In the House, the bill was sponsored by the following: Economic Development and Community.
Affairs Policy Council, Military and Local Affairs Policy Committee, and Representative Ed Hooper
(R).29
Under the legislation, up to a 1 percent surtax may be imposed by acounty, except those which have
imposed two other separate surtaxes without an expiration date. Like the other surtaxes, the Fire and
Rescue surtax must be enacted by ordinance of the county commission and approved by a referendum.
Certain actions must be taken before the surtax may be put in place, and once in place, ad valorem taxes
21 2014 Florida Statutes, ":212.055(8)�, Discretionark, sales surtaxes, Lgislaiwe inteM; authorization and use oflirocceds,"
�LL!, _HJW "'A n',•lj' t 'Phis s-urtax cap,
tax i.�' not subject ro I hQ
Florida Department ofRevenue, Discretionan, Sales Surtax"
Florida HuUsL Of RCFTCSC1uati%T'S, 100o - Discretionan, Sales Sureaxcs/Firc llcscue Sen ices, 2009"
Florida I JOUSL of Ruprescnrafives, IB365 - Discretionary Saks Surtaxes„ 2009"
http://%iT%%�%%T.iTiyrflorf,d,-thouse.gol/Sccti(.)ns/13ills:/billsdet,,id.,,ispx?13ill'(d=4C127(8&
Mu,14ROE. COUNTY � ION PNAId(E IF EASIBILIlY S I UDY MARcId 2015
must be reduced equal to the estimated amount of surtax collections. A calculation done in June 2009
estimated that if all 65 eligible counties (Miami -Dade and Madison were not eligible) implemented the
surtax it would generate $2.2 billion annually.111 The Fire and Rescue surtax has yet to be implemented by
a Florida county.
.1 h,'gber Educalio v Swlax,
Four bills, the most recent during the 2014 legislative session (HB 113), have been put forth proposing
an amendment to Florida statutes 212.55 to add a Higher Education surtax as a ninth discretionary sales
surtax option. The proposed change would allow up to a 0.5 percent higher education surtax for five
years benefiting the Florida College System institution and state university in the county. Only Miami -
Dade County would qualify at first-, Monroe County and Hillsborough County may be eligible in the
future. Tile surtax would raise an estimated $234.7 trillion annually in Miami -bade County.31
The 2014 bill was sponsored in the House by the Education Cominitteeand Representative Erik Fresen
(R, Dist. 114).32 In the Senate, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Finance and Tax and Senator
Anitere Flores (R, Dist. 37) co -sponsored the bill.33 Both bills died in May 2014.
S , pecial I.Districts
Special districts are a political subdivision in the state created to provide limited government on a local
level. There are more than 1,600 special districts in Florida providing local infrastructure and services,
such as water and road management, fire rescue and safety, health care services, community
development, housing and parks. Many special districts may impose property taxes, assessments, or
uripact fees. Enabhug legislation of some special districts authorizes theirs to issue bonds, payable from
taxes or special assessments, to finance capital improvements after a majority of the people living within
the special district approve -a bond referendum. Some special districts have the authority to issue a bond
without a referendum. Districts are also eligible to utilize tax increment financing, charge tolls, and apply
for grants.
There are several types of special districts in Florida that provide park and recreation opportunities. For
instance, comi-nunity development districts (CDDs) are special taxing districts that property owners
from a defined area may establish by voting to levy a tax or assessment in support of public
improvements to the area in which they live. CDDs also issue bonds.3'1 The state also authorizes
counties to create a special district to implement a beach and shoreline preservation program. The board
of county commissioners as the governing body of the district may levy a uniform ad valorem tax not to
exceed 1 mill per year on all nonexempt taxable property within the district for a period of not more
than 2 years to defray organizational and administrative costs of said district. In addition, file
commissioners may levy upon all taxable property within each district an ad valorem 15enqfits tax in any
amount necessary to meet the requirements of the program. This tax is levied in proportion to benefits
each property, will receive.
"' Ro,onuc LAimating Conferencc, "Tax: 1.4)cal 01nion Disuctionary Surtax," 6/4/2oog,
hap://edrstate,fl-u/conrent/c(.)nfCrClICeS/fCr'CIILICII-np,'ICt/;trckiii,cs/2009/pdf/pige"',�20861-863.pdf
" Revenue Estimaring Conference, Sales until Us'c Tax," 1/17/2014,
htap://c.cir.st-,itc.fl.Lis/(-ol]tCflt/C,C)nferencu,q/rct-(A)LiciiTip,,ict/arciiitTes/20 14/pdf/Vagc68-69.pdf
Flo6da House of'Rcpresentatives, "CS/I M 113 - Discretionary Sales Surtaxes, 2014"
http://Ni,%i,w,.m,Ai)ridahc�use.goV/Sections/l,ii,lls/bilisder,iil.aspx?13illld=51229
Florida Ifimse of'Rupreseniatives„ "("S/S13 66 - Discretionary Sales Suaaxes, 2014"
�4 F.S , . § 190.021 (1).
C01',�SER',//', FIOq F NAP CE DEPAH, [ MEN T
t,A ON R(DE COUNTY : CONSER',/Anoiq Fiw,i!t�cE FEAS I B) I L FY STUDY MAR 2015
At present, there are 13 existing special districts in Monroe County that provide services including
wastewater, mosquito control, fire and rescue, hospitals, and redevelopment.3-9 The Monroe County
Land Authority is discussed in more detail on page 8.
The South Florida Water Managernetit District
The South Florida Water Management District (SF)X7MD) oversees water resources in the southern half
of Florida. The district comprises sixteen counties from Orlando to the Florida Keys, serving
population of 7.7 million residents. This area encompasses two major watersheds --the Okeechobee
Basin and the Big Cypress Basin --which are, in part, separately managed and funded. Some revenue is
used for district -wide capital improvements, while other revenue is directed to basin -specific projects.
Created in 1949, the South Florida Water Management District is the oldest and largest of Florida's five
water management districts. The district's mission is to manage and protect water resources through
water quality, flood control, natural systems and flood supply.
Nine Governing Board members direct the district. The board members are volunteers who must reside
within district boundaries. They are appointed by Florida's Governor and continued by the state senate
for four-year terms. There is also a separate Basin Board for the Big Cypress Basim, The Governing
Board appoints, and the state senate confirms, the district"s Executive Director who directs all district
activities.
The district has legislative authority to collect ad valorem taxes from landowners throughout its
jurisdiction. The maximum rate the district may collect is 0.80 mills, of which tip to 40 percent may be
used for district -wide projects, and up to 60 percent may be used for basin -wide projects. 36 These
property taxes and other sources including federal, state and local revenue, licenses, permit fees, grants,
agricultural taxes, investment income and bond proceeds fund the district's annual budget.
The annual budget for FY 2015, is $720.4 million. Nearly 80 percent budget is dedicated to restoration
and operations and maintenance The rolled -back combined millage rates for the SPnID represent
$38.42 per $100,000 of taxable value in 15 of the District's 16 counties (the Okee(-hobee Basin). For Collier
County and mainland Monroe County (the Bi g (�Iprrss Baran), the rolled back combined rate represents
$30.97 per $100�,000 of taxable value.31
To fund projects, the district often partners with federal and state government, local counties, and
municipalities. Partnerships are also made with local utilities and drainage districts. Activities regulated
by the district include projects such as dredge and fill with impacts on wetlands, use of district lands,
canals, streams and aquifers, drainage system construction or operation, and well construction.
The district also "acquires, manages, and restores lands for the conservation and preservation of water
resources as well as for the ancillary benefit of public recreation."" However, most of the conservation
and preservation initiatives the district has pursued in the past eight years have been directed towards its
Everglades restoration work. If the district could be convinced to dedicate some funding towards other
county or municipal projects, it could be a good partner for park-buidding and open space conservation
in Monroe County due to its reliable funding.
3,'
FS. 373-5()3(,5)-(,5)(b) (2010).
htip: budget approval.pdf
2010 Cornprehemire Annual Nscal Report at 1-3, available it
iittp://,xr%Nvv..qRw,md.goi7/portal/page/portil/\iNTcb'S,20,.ibout"/m20us/ageiicy"',,20reports#Ftiaancialreports
DFPAJ:MAPP
MONROE COUNIY - COINSFRVATi ON 11 INANCE FEAS211 i� I Y SRJDY :.MAR(,, ii 2015
Creatitig a new special district
Florida municipalities and counties are permitted to create special districts for recreation and
conservation services. This authority may be applied by counties only in the unincolporated areas.39
Such districts may acquire land, collect fees and issue bonds. Monroe County could potentially create
new district, such as a recreation district or a beach and shore preservation district."' The governing
board of the latter district is the county BOCC, whereas a recreation district may be governed by the
BOCC or by an independently elected board. Each of these districts has the autilority to levy property
taxes and to acquire land.
One of the advantages to creating a district is that special districts provide highly specialized local
governmental services - often in response to citizen demand - that a municipality or county is unable or
unwilling to provide. Special districts provide for a local special-purpose governmental agency with
funding, employment, and inissions separate from local general-purpose government. However, Monroe
County currently has the capacity and administrative structures in place to provide parks, and
conservation services. As such, the benefits of having a separate entity would have to be weighed
against the additional steps needed to create and fund a new district.
F.11cctioll History
Since most local public finance mechanisms require voter approval it is useful to look at election history
for the county. ,.k re -view of the Monroe County election canvas record of the past few years indicates
that there have been few major county] finance propositions before voters by which to gauge current
voter attitudes toward public spending measures, Results of those measures, voter registration, and
turnout are summarized in the tables below.
Monroe County Voter Turnout
Monroe County Voter Registration
Election Registered Voters,
Ballots Cast
%Tur out
Party
Registered Voters 3! %
Aug- 14 SO 587
13,760
27%
Repub@scan
-- -----------
18 704 37
7 3
4,866
31%
Indep. /Other
5,473 30
13,482
27%
Total
51 71,T�_
Public Spending Election Results (selected examples since 2008)
Date Measure Description Results Yes
Nov-14
Sales Tax
Renew1/2-cent tax or county schools
Pass
64%
Nov-12
Sales Tax
Extend I -cent lnfrastructure sales tax
Pass
68%
Jan- 1-2
Levy
Renew 0.5 mill levy for county schools
Pass
75%
Jan-0,8
Levy
Renew 0.5 mill levy for county schools
Pass
76%
F.S. § 418.20and F.S. �I 61.25.
F.S �I 6 L25
1, C'0K,',,E R 101�d F %4ANCE DEPAIFI lAIN"I
IM;-,RcMi2015
lialf Cent Sales Tax Rcnc\\'-.tI
With the expiration of the existing half -cent sales tax occurring on December 3P 2015, the Monroe
County School Board proposed a renewal of this levy for another ten years to upgrade and -address
security needs at school facilities, equip schools with modern technology, construct new facilities, and
provide for renovations and additions to existing school structures. 'fl-,Lis renewal was approved by voters
of Monroe County at the November 4TI, election.
C N C L
Any park and land conservation program in Monroe County must rely on a combination of funding
sources to sustain land acquisition both in the near term and over the long run. "]"he county has several
firiance options to generate significant dedicated funding for parks and open space at relatively low cost
to taxpayers. Once target properties have been identified for conservation or conversion to parks,
further discussion of the funding mechanisms described in this report is recommended to match the
most viable sources with the needs,. Public opinion polling could provide insights to the political
feasibility of mechanisms requiring voter approval.
"'," '"I, P1 'Jw I lj�� 11)
NA m� F,,, o [--, C c) � ) tNi T Y, Cc)�,�,.,,ERWATIONJ FF:AS01.1 f'Y'STUDY . MARC�i 2011 E5
APPENDICES
ll�l I, - � -,, �� P 1 o I �dd, � C(DNISERVA, ricx,� F I NAIIJCE DiEPAR'NOEki F
IVIONRCE CC�UNT',' . C,CY'QSERVA0 F IF FA ,, I MI ITY '-'> [ UDY , MAPCH 20 5
A.pperidix A: Monroe County Map & Population
Key We, 9�
Land Area
Density
Population
square
population per
Area (incorporated shaded)
2010
miles
square mile
Viliage of Islarnorada
6,119
7.2
850
City of Layton
184
0.07
2,629
City of Key Colony Beach
810
0.44
1,841
City of Marathon
8,287
9.1
911
City of Key West (New Tow n, Old Town, Stock Gs land)
29,550
7
4,221
Key Largo/Tavernier/Ocean Reef
18,872
35.4
533
Long Key
131
1.8
73
Duck Key/Conch Keys
621
0.6
1,035
Big Fine Key/No Narre Key
4,284
12.04
356
Little Torch/Middle TorchlBig Torch Keys
970
5.2
187
Ramrod Key
688
1.67
412
Surnrnerland Key
944
11
555
Cudjoe Key
1,763
6
294
Sugarloaf KeylSaddlebunch Key
1,948
16
122
Big, Coppitt/Rockland/Geiger/Shark Keys
2,747
2.6
1,057
Bahia Honda/Scout Key/Boca Chica Key/Dry Tortugas/Ballast
KeyfCooks Is land/Knock-errDown Key
163
8.03
20
Florida Keys Totals
73,081
114.85
1536
Mainland Monree Totals
9
833
0
Source: Monroe County Grow th Management Division, Florida Dept, of Health; http://www ftoridahealth.gov/provider-
and-partner-resources/conTrunfty-partnerships/floridamapp/state-and-comTmn4-reports/monroe-
NAONROE COUn',] iY (.,'ON SEFWA,nuFINr 'J%,CL FEASIB I LITY S'f(,JL)Y ..RAI, r ,F 20 5
z- ppendix B: Florida C'ounty me-,tsurc Hlstor)7
Florida Co�un,ty Conservation Finance Measures -Approved by Voters 20,00-2O�13
Finance Total Funds
Jurisdiction Name Date Mechanism Purpose Approved % Yes
, Ochua County . ... ......
..........
Nov-00
',Bond
en..space.. wildlife habitat
P . ...... ................. ....... .
529,00 0,000
61%
Alachua County
Nov-08
Sales tax
...... ................ ...
Open space, parks, recreation
. ... ..........
$40,000,0W
51%
Brewward County
..........,ace
............... ..................
Nov-04
... ......................
�Bond
...... . . . ...... ..........
............... ...... ....... ........... ..............
..... . .......
[Open-sp
............ 11_ .. ........ ............ ... ...
0
�6 000,0w
...........
69%
...... .... .. .. r ... ........ ........... .. ...
:Parks, watershed proteCtionwildlife
. ............
....... ........ .. ...
Bro�ward Count X
Nov-00
'Bond
!habitat, open seace
$400,,000,0001
74%
Charlotte COUnty, _j
........... .................. ..
Nov-06
...........
;:Bond
. . .... r. space....§77,000,0001
...... ... .......... ................................. ....... .....
63%
.Pyr��Y .........
Nov-02
.................. ............
:Bond ......................
�O Open
....... .. .. ...... .......... .................
59%
Collier Count
................... ........... ... ........... .. .......................
Nov-04
.....................
'Bond ..... ....... ...
........... ........... ........... .....................
:Parks and recreation
......... .. ........ - .......... ..........
.......... . . ....... ... .......... ........................
$40,0,0 0,0001
73%
�Open space, watershed protection,
......... .. ...... .......... .......
... ..............
C 11 er Count
0 i.
Nov-06
:P yJax...._'wildlife
peity
t
habitat, recreation
.... ....... .... . . . ........ .. .. .... . ..... ..... ... ...
$12300
,0,000:
82%
.F....l.aq.l.e....r. ..C... o...u....i..t.Y .....
N.. m......-...0...2............:Bo.n...d...
...
................
y''atershed. p ,ro...t...e...c.tio.n...,..pa....r.. kI..s.....................
.......
.... .. ................. ...........
.$670,0,00� .......
............
... .......
74%
:Open space, parks, recreation, wildlife
flagler County .
............... .
Nov-08
. ...... . . . ........ .. ... ...
Property
... p tax.....'
.......... .. ...
..qy
e
habitat, watersh d.protection
$40,00 0,0001
65%
Hillsborough
Nov-08
'Bond
...............
........... .......................... ..... .. ... ................... ............
Open..space 4
.................................
$200,000,0W
79%
In Jan River Countv
... .................. ... ...... ............ . .........
Nov-04
.....................
Bond
.................................
....
:PPeP,.Rpacer
*
... ... ...
$50, 0 0 0, 000
.................
67%
Lake County
14OV-01
4 Sales tax
Parks
.......... ........... .. ............................
$30,0001,0W
63%
Lake County ..
....... .. ...
..............
Nov-04
':Bond
............. .............
................. . ....... . ........... ..........
1.0 en..space
............... ...... .. .. .... ... ......
... ....... ..
$36,00 0,000:
................ .
7 T%
;Open space, watershed protection,
........... .. .......
........ .
Leon .,COL]nt y
Nov-00
Sales tax
.............. ..........
recreation
....... ............ ... ...
$728�000,001)i
60%
... ...
Open space, parks, wildife, watershed
.... ......... ... ..........
.............. ..
Iiartin County
Nov-06
... ... .........
:SaI[es tax
.......... ... ...
:P
protection trails
560,000 000!
55°r®
Miami -Dade CountV i
Nov-04
:Bond
Parks, recreationop space
$680,25 8,000:
66%
Miami -Dade Count Y i
Nov-04
:Band
12Ren_sgace, recreation
............. .......... . ... ... .. . ......
............
58%
Mi2rnii-Dade CoLintp
Nov-04
iBond ............. ...
ation �Ace, recrp
............ .. ... ............
... .............. ...................
Cdpen space, watershed protection,
..... .. ........ .............
....... ..........
,Osceola County
... .. ....... ............. ... . . ........
N ov-04
... ... ... .... ..............
Bond
... ... ........ ... ..
�wilcllife habitat, recreation
...........
$60,000,00W
67%
Palm Beach County
.............. ...........
W42
.... ................... ...
�Band
... ........ .. ... ...
Parks, recreation, open space
........
........... .............. ..........
$50,000,000
62%
®Parks ... ........ ........... ............... r ... ... ....... ............... ...........
�Open space, recreation, watershed
....... ... ..........
........... ..
Palm Beach County
.................................... ......... ..........
Nov-04
Ta�j
. ....... .... ... ... .... ... ............. ............ i
$6000,000i
.............. ............ ......... .. ...
P O'Co ..... ............... ....
Mar-04
Sales tax
............ ...... I ...............
Recreation, wildlife habitat
....................... ..............
$145,6100,000�
.... ...... .......... .. ...
52%
.........
Pasco County ......... ...
Nov-12
...........
:Sales tax
.. .........
. ....... .�irks, recreation
$502,00U00
70%
Sarasota Count
..................... ....... .............. .. y
...... ........... . . .....
N&i-06
................
�Trop
.......... ........... ..............
s
... ...............................
.................. .......... .
$170,00 01,000:
................
80%
Sarasota Coun
Nov-05
................ ...
'Bond:
... . ................. .... .. .. ... .. .._Parksop
2 ...........
recreation
........... .............. .......... ... ........ . .
$250,00 0,000
78%
Seminole County
...... .... r ....... .......... ...... .. ... .... .. ...... .................
Nov-00
..............
Mond .........
_eq_spa�e, ... ... .......... .. ...
'Open space, wildlife habitat
L
... ... .. ........... .. .............
$25,00 0,000
..... ...........
58%
St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .N. . iov0. . . .2 . . . . . ..
... . -
. . . . . Property tax
.
1--l-.1- ................................... .. ...................... ... .........
Parks,.:qpen..spAspace ttails, recreation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .
......... .................. ..
$56,90 0,000
52%
IW2tershed protecfion, wildlife habitat,,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. .. . . . . . . . . . .
Volusia County
Nov-00
�:Bond
:recreation
$40,00 0,000:
61%
Total
$4,832,120,000
150uree. Trust or Pub& Laud, LgndVotE databa45E accessed 1PI211
MONROE COU�,4TY � CONSEF�VAFK)N F-'�N AN CF.. FFA.SH31L I FY STUDY � MARC'�i 2015
ERVA-rION R114ANCE DL-PAR I P,AEN
NAON,'ROE COUN I Y RP4ANCE FEASIBHJIY STUDY MARcii 201,5
)Appendix C: Count,, Re-�Tenue Options Sum.niary
Option
Description and Generating Potential
Process
Comment
General
The county could issue general obligation bonds to Support open
Majority voter approval is
Bonds raise substantial
Obligation
space purposes. For example, a Sl 5 NI bond could be issued at a
reeLATC(l.
amounts of money, enabling
Bond
cost of roughly $22 per year to the average homeowner.
the county to make important
(Option 1)
Bondls-we DehtSerpire Txv Re q V JpZ. House
acquisitions now while land is
S 10 Million $735,818 0.036 S14
available. Costs are spread out
pp. 10-11
S Is million $1,103,726 0,055 S22
over a long time horizon, and
are borne by all current and
I -igures above are based upon bonds issued for 20 years at 4
future county property owners.
percent interest. County officials and bond counsel and
underwriters—,vould establish the actual term,,, of any bond issue.
Bond funds may not he used
Voter approval will be sought for a max. bond amt (e.g. S30NI) to
for maintenance and
be issue(] over a period of 10-15 years.
operations.
Property Tax
Monroe County could raise revenue for open space acquisition by
An extraordinary (2/3rds
A countywide millage increase
(ad valorem)
increasing the county property tax rate for that purpose through a
or unanimous) vote of the
would create a significant
(Option 2)
general indlage increase or a voted levy.
County Commissioners
funding source for
required. A referendum
conservation that Could be used
pp. 11-13
Tax Revenue Llised .,,Mnual Cent for
may be required,
for acquisition as well as
Rate per ]'ear Ag How-e-
development and maintenance
0,03 $646,135 $13
purposes.
0.05 S1,076,991 $21
A general levy is not
`5423,481, -.average single family residential value.
dedicated to a
specific
specific purpose. A voted levy
may be imposed for two years.
Sales Tax -
Monroe County Could allocate existing Infrastructure. Sales Tax
Revenues are allocated by
The counrywide sales tax
Existing
revenue to conservation after 2018 by bonding or pay -as -you go in
the Board of County,
generates significant revenue
(Option 3)
the amount of $2 million annually for 15 years.
Comnlissioners during the
budget process.
RUVCuLICs can fluctuate with the
pp. 13-14
economy.
Other priorities may Compete
for these revenue,;.
Sales Tax —
Monroc County could seek authorization from the Leoslaturc to
A hill must be passed by
A countywide sales tax would
Additional
levy ail additional sales tax for conservation.
both chambers before it
raise significant revenue.
(Option 4)
becomes a law. COUnty
Tax Reveime Raised TotalAwsaal E'st. coyl� lby-
voter,, would then be
Revenues call fluctuate with the
pp, 14-15
Rate ..per Year for the Counfjr Revenue A?4g Houfe
asked to approve a
Measure to ITTIPOSC the
economy.
0.5% §9.5NI S15.91%1 S72
tax.
A large portion of sales, tax
I .0% SMIXII S31.9NI S144
rMuLICS are generated by
visitors to the County.
MSTU or
Monroe County could levy an additional property tax ill the
An extraordinary (2/3rds
A millage increase in the
Special
unincorporated area to Support conservation.
or unatumous) vote of the
unincorporrited arcs
District
County Commissioners
generates significan dy less
Property Tax
required. A referendum
revenue than a coun"ide
(Option 5)
T(;X Revenue Raised Annual CosfjOr-
May be required.
rn illage increase.
pp. 16-17
Rate be), Year AU Polar*
0,5 S503,523 S21
Procceds may be used to fund
ongoing expenses as well as
capital investments.
FIN M,jC:E I)ERAR INIENI
\1UJRC)'E t:mOUr1 YL IEOr,� FIKIiArar,T FFA,SIBILI! q S[u. D M/%Rc,.i� 2015
The Florida Legislature meets once a year for 60 days, typically beginning the first Tuesday in March.
Bills are filed by Representatives and Senators for consideration during the session. When a bill is filed, it
is referred to several committees to be reviewed by smaller groups of members. "through the committee
process, the bill is discussed and debated and amendments or changes can be added to the bill. Interim
committee meetings begin in November through. Februaryof the following year.
After passing out of committees the bill is brought before the entire chamber of the House and Senate.
Committees have several options when considering a bill, They can approve the bill. They can defeat the
ball. Or they can choose to amend the bill. If a bill is defeated in committee, that idea isdead for the rest
of session.
Once the bill has passed each of the comtrnittees to which it is assigned„ it is available to be voted on by
the entire body of members. A bill passes by receiving a majority of the votes in that chamber. Each bill
must be passed by both chambers before it becomes a law.
If both chambers approve the bill, it goes to the. Governor's office. The Governor can sign the bill,
allow it to become a law without his signature or veto the bill. If the Governor chooses to veto a bill, the.
Legislature can overturn the next time they meet by a two thirds vote of both chambers. If a ball doesn't
make it all the way through this process before the end of session, that bill dies and must begin the
process anew the next year.
016 SESSION DATES
August 1, 2014 headline for filing claim bills (Rule 4.81(2))
January 23, 2015 Deadline for submitting requests for drafts of general bills and joint resolutions,
including requests for companion bills
February 25, 2015 [deadline for approving final drafts of general bills and joint resolutions,
including companion bills
March 3, 2015 Regular Session convenes (Artiode III, section 3(b), Constitution)
March 3, 2015 Deadline for filing bills for introduction (Rule 3.7(1))
April 18, 2015 All bills are immediately certified (Rule 6.8)
April 21, 2015 50th day —last day for regularly scheduled committee meetings (Rule 2.9(2))
April 27, 015 Conference Committee Reports require only one reading (Rule 4.5(1))
Motion to reconsider made and considered the same day (Rule 6.4 (4))
May 1, 2015 60th day —last day of Regular Session (Article ill, section 3(d), Constitution)
I�ii. /�liairrrl!� evF, 9c_.r Pztiv, l�am[l_iPq�r�� liillMba�a;ti i�ucr�-IN-I,�te ';hr :f o�rnu.t�ac°n to a��,/Se si27rnf(;alcadar 2(J75 y asi�an_I) Cv4_2015-01-
14 103301.P1)I,
J, t 1_', , .', 1.;t;')I'1.,1 F'VA.IInI'd FiloOP CF' DEFIAf�llVENI �r
MONROE CQUI,fl"Y : (CONSERVAWN RNANCE Mown SRmy MMCH 2ME)
For any questions or more information please contact:
Wendy Muzzy
Conservation Finance Program
Director of Feasibility Research
The Trust for Public Land
Office: 206-274-2914
K M ; " JAv. t L , v : CONSERVArwi MACE DEPARTMENT
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
:r-
Planning&Environmental Resources Board of County Commissioners
Department `` Mayor Danny L.Kolhage,Dist. 1
2798 Overseas Highway,Suite 410 Mayor Pro Tern Heather Carruthers,Dist.3
Marathon,FL 33050 George Neugent,Dist.2
Voice: (305)289-2500 David Rice,Dist.4
FAX: (305)289-2536 Sylvia Murphy,Dist.5
We strive to be caring,professional, and fair.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 13, 2015
TO: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Christine Hurley, Growth Management Director
Mayte Santamaria, Planning&Environmental Resources Director
FROM: Michael Roberts, Sr. Administrator—Environmental Resources
RE: Preliminary Analysis and Summary of Results of TPL Parcel Scoring and Classification
In March 2013, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the State Administration Commission, approved the
recommendation to allocate 10 years' worth of growth (197 x 10 = 1,970 permits) to Monroe County while
maintaining an evacuation clearance time of 24 hours, through the year 2023. Table 1 and 2 (see two summary
tables from White Paper) demonstrate the challenges unincorporated Monroe County may face, as there are
8,168 privately owned vacant parcels. With just 197 permits per year, it would take over 41 years' worth of
annual allocations (at the current rate of 197) to absorb these parcels. This may result in a balance of 6,198
privately held vacant parcels at risk of not obtaining permits in the future. This deficit of building permit
allocations could trigger takings suits against both the State and Monroe County, if no additional permits are
allowed beyond the year 2023.
The Planning & Environmental Resources Department has been reviewing and evaluating land acquisition
options for private vacant parcels in the Florida Keys since the hurricane evacuation clearance time modeling
task was completed. The 2012 hurricane modeling demonstrated that with 10 years' worth of building permits,
the Florida Keys would be at the maximum evacuation clearance time of 24 hours (see citations below).
Hurricane Clearance Time:
380.0552(9)(a)2., F. S., Goals, objectives, and policies to protect public safety and welfare in the event of a
natural disaster by maintaining a hurricane evacuation clearance time for permanent residents of no more than 24
hours. The hurricane evacuation clearance time shall be determined by a hurricane evacuation study conducted in
accordance with a professionally accepted methodology and approved by the state land planning agency.
28-20.140(5)12., F.A.C., By July 1, 2012, the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model shall be run with the
agreed upon variables from the memorandum of understanding to complete an analysis of maximum build-out
capacity for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, consistent with the requirement to maintain a 24-
1
hour evacuation clearance time and the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study constraints. This analysis shall be
prepared in coordination with the Department of Community Affairs and each municipality in the Keys.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan:
Objective 101.2: Monroe County shall reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times to 24 hours by the year
2010.
Objective 216.1: Monroe County shall reduce hurricane evacuation clearance time to 24 hours by the year
2010.
Policy 216.1.1: Within one year of the effective date of this plan, Monroe County shall adopt Land
Development Regulations which establish a Permit Allocation System for new residential development. The
Permit Allocation System shall limit the number of permits issued for new residential development to be
consistent with the Future Land Use Element in order to maintain hurricane evacuation clearance times at a
maximum of 24 hours(See Land Use Objective 101.2 and supporting policies).
Policy 216.1.8: In the event of a pending major hurricane(category 3-5)Monroe County shall implement the
following staged/phased evacuation procedures to achieve and maintain an overall 24-hour hurricane
evacuation clearance time for the resident population.
1. Approximately 48 hours in advance of tropical storm winds, a mandatory evacuation of non-residents,
visitors, recreational vehicles (RV's), travel trailers, live-aboards (transient and non-transient), and
military personnel from the Keys shall be initiated. State parks and campgrounds should be closed at this
time or sooner and entry into the Florida Keys by non-residents should be strictly limited.
2. Approximately 36 hours in advance of tropical storm winds, a mandatory evacuation of mobile home
residents, special needs residents, and hospital and nursing home patients from the Keys shall be
initiated.
3. Approximately 30 hours in advance of tropical storm winds, a mandatory phased evacuation of
permanent residents by evacuation zone(described below)shall be initiated...
Land acquisition options are being reviewed to address the inventory of vacant parcels following the issuance of
the available 1,970 allocations available through 2023 (see two summary tables from White Paper below).
Table l
NO.VACANT AVERAGE APPROXIMATE LAND VALUE
AREA (December 2012 MC Property
PARCELS PARCEL VALUE
Appraiser data)
Key West ACSC 104 $355,045 $ 36,924,754
Unincorporated Monroe 8,168 $ 30,400 $248,314,487
County
Marathon 1,680 $ 49,845 $ 83,740,226
Layton 34 $ 51,080 $ 1,736,724
Key Colony Beach 109 $129,746 $ 14,142,347
Islamorada 1,269 $ 60.877 $77.253,680
TOTAL PARCLS 11,361Ihik.
TOTAL ALLOCATIONS 3,550
PARCELS TO m...,.. -
PURCHASE 7,814 S40,664 S 317,748,496
(COUNTYWIDE)
Table 2
ESTIMATED YEARS TO
APPROXIMAT FUNDING GENERATE THE
NO. AVERAGE E LAND VALUE Based on Historic FUNDS EQUAL
AREA VACANT PARCEL (December 2012 Rates For TO THE TAX
PARCELS VALUE MC Property Acquisition of ASSESSED
Appraiser data) Conservation
Lands VALUE
Key West ACSC* 104 $355,045 $ 36,924,754 $ 270,000 137
Marathon 1,680 $ 49,845 $ 83,740,226 93
Layton 34 $ 51,080 $ 1,736,724 2
Key Colony Beach 109 $129,746 $ 14,142,347 16
Islamorada 1,269 $ 60,877 $ 77.253,680 86
Unincorporated Monroe 8,168 $ 30.400 $248,314,487 $ 900,000 276
County
No Tier 235
(ORCA, etc.)
e g Tier I 3,979
0,6 Tier II 393
o Tier III-A 260
Tier III 3,301
TOTAL PARCELS 11,364 $40,664 $462,112,218
TOTAL 3,550 3,550 County wide including cities, with 1,970 units for unincorporated MC
ALLOCATIONS
PARCELS TO
PURCHASE 7 814 $40,664 , $317 748 496
(COUNTYWIDE .
As can be noted in the above tables, the Florida Keys and the State may be facing significant challenges as
build-out approaches. At present, based on the historic rates of funding committed for the acquisition of
conservation lands (approximately $900,000 per year), this estimated funding amount is unlikely to be sufficient
to meet the land acquisition needs of the County in the future.
Based on the BOCC direction in July 2013, the Growth Management Division, County Attorney's Office and
the Land Authority Director are evaluating land acquisition strategies aimed at reducing the inventory of private,
vacant parcels in the Florida Keys. Additionally, the BOCC voted to include numerous policy strategies items
in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (transmitted January 14, 2015) to facilitate land acquisition and reduce the
inventory of private,vacant parcels, such as:
• Revision land acquisition priorities within Policy 102.4.2
• Policy revision directing the annual petition the state/federal government to accept primary
responsibility for acquisition of Tier I, conservation and natural lands and lands containing species
listed under the Endangered Species Act
• Policy revision to direct exploring additional funding sources for land acquisition
• Revisions to the allocation system policies to provide additional positive points in ROGO/NROGO
for the dedication of land and the aggregation of land
3
• Policy revision to direct creating a program to provide a monetary incentive to private property
owners to deed restrict their privately-owned adjacent, vacant parcels to restrict residential
development on the vacant parcels
• Policy revision to distribute 1,970 allocations over a 20-year period to allow additional time to
implement land acquisition, achieve substantial financial support from State/Federal partners and to
implement other strategies to reduce the demand for ROGO allocations and help transition land into
public ownership (see proposed policy amendment):
Policy 101.3.2
The number of permits issued for residential dwelling units under the Rate of Growth Ordinance
shall not exceed a total of 1,970 new allocations for the time period of July 13, 2013 through July
12, 2033, plus any available unused ROGO allocations from a previous ROGO year. A ROGO
year means the twelve-month period beginning on July 13. Market rate allocations shall not to
exceed 126 residential units per year. Unused allocations for market rate shall be available for
Administrative Relief
In 2012, pursuant to Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., the Department of Economic Opportunity
completed the hurricane evacuation clearance time modeling task and found that with 10 years'
worth of building permits, the Florida Keys would be at a 24 hour evacuation clearance time.
This creates challenges for State of Florida and Monroe County as there are 8,168 privately
owned vacant parcels [3,979 Tier I; 393 Tier II, 260 Tier III-A (SPA); 3,301 Tier III, and 235 No
tier (ORCA, etc.)] and with 1,970 new allocations this may result in a balance of 6,198 privately
held vacant parcels at risk of not obtaining permits in the future. In recognition of the possibility
that the inventory of vacant parcels exceeds the total number of allocations which the State will
allow the County to award, the County is adopting an extended timeframe for distribution of the
ROGO allocations through 2033. This timeframe can provide a safety net to the County and
provide additional time to implement land acquisition and other strategies to reduce the demand
for ROGO allocations and help transition land into public ownership.
The County is actively engaged in acquisitions and is requesting its State and Federal partners for
assistance with implementing land acquisitions in Monroe County. The County will allocate the
1,970 new dwelling unit allocations over a 20 year timeframe, unless by July 12, 2018, the
County has not received substantial financial support from its State and Federal partners. If
substantial financial support is not provided by July 12, 2018, the County will reevaluate the
ROGO distribution allocation schedule and reconsider the distribution of market rate allocations
(through a comprehensive plan amendment). Further, the State and County shall develop a
mutually agreeable position defending inverse condemnation cases and Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private
Property Rights Protection Act cases, with the State having an active role both directly and
financially in the defense of such cases.
The County shall distribute ROGO allocations by ROGO year, as provided in the table below.
4
ROGO Year
Annual Allocation
Market Rate Affordable Housing
July 13,2013-July 12,2014 126 71
July 13,2014-July 12,2015 126 71
July 13, 2015-July 12, 2016 126
July 13, 2016-July 12, 2017 126
July 13, 2017-July 12,2018 126
July 13, 2018-July 12,2019 42
July 13, 2019-July 12, 2020 42
July 13,2020-July 12, 2021 42
July 13,2021-July 12, 2022 42
July 13,2022-July 12, 2023 42
July 13, 2023-July 12,2024 42 568 total AFH
(total available
July 13, 2024-July 12, 2025 42 immediately)
July 13, 2025-July 12, 2026 42
July 13, 2026-July 12, 2027 42
July 13, 2027-July 12, 2028 42
July 13, 2028-July 12, 2029 42
July 13, 2029-July 12,2030 42
ALly 13,2030-July 12,2031 42
July 13, 2031-July 12, 2032 42
July 13, 2032-July 12,2033 42
TOTAL 1,260 710*
*(includes two annual affordable ROGO allocations for the Big Pine Key/No Name Key subarea)
The State of Florida, pursuant to Administration Commission Rules, may modify the annual
allocation rate. Monroe County will request a Rule change from the Administration Commission
to authorize the above allocation timeframe and rate.
The County is seeking a renewed partnership for land acquisition to ward off potential State and County takings
liability.
5
In 2014, staff travelled to Tallahassee to meet with Cabinet aides, Office of Policy & Budget staff, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO)
staff, members of the Florida Defense Support Task Force and Enterprise Florida - Florida Defense Alliance to
discuss the Florida Forever program and the Military Base Protection program and the potential for future
partnerships with the State of Florida for the conservation of environmentally sensitive lands and the acquisition
of non-conservation land as military base buffers in Monroe County.
The following table demonstrates the remaining Florida Forever lands compared to the total
vacant privately owned parcel inventory:
Parcels 2012 Value 2014 Value
White paper
Private Vacant Parcel Data 8,168 $ 248,314,487 $ 248,313,407
(Unincorporated Monroe County
Only)
Total Parcels within Florida
Forever Boundary $ 52,675,638*
(all 3 Florida Forever projects)
2012 2015
Florida Forever Project Remaining 2012 Value* Remaining
Acres* acres
Florida Keys Ecosystem 8,571 $38,187,008 7,330**
Key Deer/Coupon Bight 1,641 $9,142,863 1.155**
TOTALS 10,012 $47,329,871 8,485
North Key Largo Hammocks 864 $5,345,767 864***
TOTALS 11,076 $ 52,675,638* 9,349
* From Florida Forever Five Year Plan,April 2012 Report—unknown valuation period.
**ARC Approved 2015 Florida Forever Priority List.
***The North Key Largo Hammocks project data is from the April 2012 Five Year Plan. While
this project was removed from the priority list because it is substantially complete, but DEP staff
has indicated that purchases can occur within this project.
2012 and 2015 Florida Forever Priority Lists attached as Exhibit 1.
6
STATE OF FLORIDA LAND ACQUISITION PAST & PRESENT
In recognition of its unique environment, public agencies at all levels (Federal, State and Local) have
aggressively pursued acquisition of conservation land throughout the Keys. The State of Florida has invested
significant resources in Monroe County throughout the past 45 years. Unfortunately, State funding has not been
available for the Division of State Lands to continue its partnership with Monroe County and purchase
additional preservation and conservation lands in the Keys since 2009; although one large purchase occurred in
2015.
Past State of Florida Division of State Lands Acquisition Strategy in Monroe County
State of Florida Total Number Total
Land Acquisition Programs Years of Acres Total Cost
Transactions
Land Acquisition Trust Fund 1966 - 1979 100 1,623.42 $ 12,097,641
Conservation& Recreation Land 1982 - 1993 143 3,028.64 $ 74,669,999
(CARL)Trust Fund
Save Our Coast Trust Fund 1983 - 1993 4 39.03 $2,400,000
Preservation 2000 (P-2000)Trust Fund 1993 - 2002 798 3,689.1 $ 73,687,905
Florida Forever Trust Fund 2002 - 2009 808 1,192.45 $ 77,502,431
1,853 9,572.64 $ 240,357,976
Total Avg. purchase
State of Florida Avg. historic
Number of Total price based on
Land Acquisition Transaction Acres Total Cost purchase price assumption of
Programs s per acre 4 lots per acre
Florida Forever Trust Fund 808 1,192.45 $ 77,502,431 $64,994 $ 16,248
Florida Forever Appraisal Process:
18-1.006 Appraisal Procedures, Report Requirements and Determining Maximum Amounts.
(1) The development and reporting of all appraisal services by the fee appraiser shall be consistent with
the USPAP, Supplemental Standards,this chapter and the specific assignment.
(2) The acquiring agency shall provide, or coordinate through the Division, to the fee appraiser all
pertinent title information developed, a specification of the rights to be acquired, a list of items, if
any, considered to be noncompensable, minimum appraisal requirements that apply, required
appraisal forms or formats, and a certified survey or appraisal map.
(3) The appraisal report shall state any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition made by the
appraiser in determining market value and shall document and adequately support the fee appraiser's
estimate or conclusion as to value.
(4) In accordance with Section 253.025(6)(f), F.S., the appraisal report shall be accompanied by a sales
history of the parcel for the prior five years,with the following exceptions:
(a)The appraisal assignment consists of 25 or more parcels;
7
(b)Each parcel is 20 acres or less in size; and
(c) The most recent ad valorem tax assessment for each parcel is $75,000 or less, excluding tax
exemptions.
(5) When two appraisals are required under Section 253.025(6)(a) or 259.041(7)(b), F.S., a third
appraisal shall be obtained if the two appraisals differ significantly. Two appraisals shall be
considered to differ significantly if the higher of the two values exceeds 120% of the lower value.
However, a third appraisal shall not be obtained if the decision is made by the Director to attempt to
negotiate an acquisition price of no more than 120% of the lower of the two appraisals.
(6)Determining the maximum amount.
(a) The maximum amount that may be paid by the State for a parcel to be acquired shall be the value
indicated in a single approved appraisal if only one appraisal is required. If two appraisals are
obtained and approved when only one is required by law,the maximum value shall be the higher
of the appraisals,regardless of their divergency.
(b) If two appraisals are required by law and their values do not differ significantly, the maximum
amount that may be paid by the State for the parcel shall be the higher value indicated in the two
approved appraisals.
(c)If a third appraisal is obtained and approved,the maximum amount that may be paid for the parcel
shall be the value contained in the higher of the two closest appraisals as long as the two closest
appraisals do not differ significantly. If the two closest appraisals differ significantly, 120% of
the lower of the two appraisals shall be the maximum value.
(7) All appraisals, as well as offers and counter offers shall be confidential, and exempt from the
provisions of Chapter 119,F.S., except that....
To be better prepared to continue our coordination with State funding partners, the BOCC directed staff to
contract with the Trust for Public Lands (TPL)to develop a GIS tool to assist in the evaluation and prioritization
of private vacant parcels for purchase for conservation purposes or to retire development rights (or military
buffering). The BOCC wanted a tool/analysis to narrow the focus of acquisition in order evaluate and determine
which of the 8,168 private vacant parcels should be targeted for acquisition.
The TPL approved contract services includes: (1) Feasibility research & report on funding options, (2)
development of a criteria matrix of habitat conditions and development constraints to be evaluated, and (3)
construction of GIS conservation priorities models based on the assessment criteria detailed in the criteria
matrix.
8
Criteria Matrix(table below):
Criteria Criteria Weights Data
(Description,Date)
Significant Constraints
SCO2:Submerged land(wet) 50% MC2006 habitat data(Freshwater wetlands,
water,Mangrove)
SC03:ITP(Incidental Take Permit)for 50% Marsh Rabbit Focus Area
marsh rabbit habitat
SRO':Sea Level Rise 1'or greater Southeast Florida Climate Compact sea level
rise vulnerability analysis
CP01: Upland native habitat 15% Land Cover Habitat
CP02:Tier I Assessments 20% Tier Assessment
CP03:Species Focus Areas 10% Combined Result from Species Weighting
Woodrat Focus Area 500m Buffer
CP04:Species Focus Areas buffer areas 10% Sliver Rice Rat Focus Area 500m Buffer
Cotton Mouse Focus Area 500m Buffer
CP05:Florida Forever Project boundaries 20% Florida Forever Acquisitions
and Essential Parcels Remaining Essential Parcels Remaining
CP06:FEMA CBRS areas 10% FEMA CBRS
CP07:Wetland extent>50% 15% Wetland Habitat
Land Cos er Habitat
4atibili ;' 1111hit: _
DI01:Tier II and ILIA Assessments 15% Tier Overlay
DI02:Canal frontage 10% Canal Frontage Parcels
DI03:Infrastructure facilities 5% Street Centerlines
Potable Water Mains
DI04:FEMA V zones 20% FEMA V zones
DI05:Clear Zones 20% NASKW Clear Zones
DI06:Noise zone>65 DNL 20% NASKW noise contours
DI07:Tier III Assessments 10% Tier Overlay
Through the TPL developed parcel analysis criteria matrix and GIS file of private, vacant parcels with
assessment and preliminary priority classification results, the County staff has started evaluating the
prioritization of acquisition efforts. Further, parcels were also assessed to evaluate other potential barriers to
development including submerged land, marsh rabbit habitat on Big Pine Key and susceptibility to inundation in
the event of 1 ft of sea level rise. Based on the parameters in the Criteria Matrix, TPL has developed the GIS
tool and staff has produced the associated table of results. The tables below summarize the initial analysis by
staff of the results of the GIS model and BOCC input. The data provided represents the preliminary review of
the data and is subject to revision upon more in-depth evaluation of the parcel data.
9
PROJECTED PRIMARY FUNDING NEED
Parcels 2012 Value 2014 Value
White paper
Private Vacant Parcel Data 8,168 $ 248,314,487 $ 248,313,407
(Unincorporated Monroe County Only)
Minus remaining Allocations 1,970 $ 59,888,000 $ 59,895,880
(value based on average parcel value) (avg. $30,400) (avg. $30,404)
Remaining: 6,198 $ 188,426,487 $ 188,417,527
The table below, Preliminary Parcel Analysis Summary #1, summarizes the private vacant parcels in
unincorporated Monroe County that consist almost entirely of submerged lands and contain less than 2,000
square feet of uplands. This table also includes those parcels on Big Pine Key and No Name Key that are within
Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit habitat. The Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Incidental Take Permit
(HCP/ITP) for Key Deer prohibits development on parcels within the Marsh Rabbit habitat. Parcels within the
significant constraints category face severe restrictions on development imposed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and/or the
South Florida Water Management District.
Preliminary Parcel Analysis Summary#1
Parcels 2014 Value Average Assessed
Parcel Value
White paper
Private Vacant Parcel Data 8,168 $ 248,313,407 $30,400
(Unincorporated Monroe County Only)
scant Constraints
Submerged Land (wet)
(Does not include parcels with 2,000 square 843 $627,038 $743
feet or more of uplands)
Marsh Rabbit Habitat 122 $595,855 $4,884
7,203 $247,090,514 $34,303
Remaining 1,970 allocations are unlikely to be awarded to parcels in the above "Significant constraint"category.
Remaining Allocations 1,970 $ 59,895,880 $30,404
(value based on average parcel value)
5,232 $187,194,634 $35,778
It should be noted that the submerged lands category above (table above) does not include significant tracts of
submerged lands that have more than 2,000 square feet of uplands, thus the average assessed values for these
parcels is less than$1,000 per parcel.
10
There are an additional 582 parcels not included in the significant constraints category that consist of submerged
lands (wet) with at least 2,000 square feet of upland. These parcels have an average assessed value of$44,645
per parcel. While these parcels face many of the regulatory obstacles as discussed above, there is the potential
that a significant portion of these parcels could obtain a development permit with the appropriate mitigation for
proposed wetland/habitat impacts.
Submerged Landswet),with 2,000 square feet or more of uVland Habitill
Parcels 2014 Assessed Average Assessed Parcel
Value Value
Submerged Land (wet)
(Parcels with 2,000 square feet or more of 582 $ 25,983,966 $ 44,645
uplands)
Within the private, vacant parcel dataset, there are 1,880 parcels identified as canal frontage. Below is the
breakdown of these parcels with the Sea Level Rise (SLR) lft projection (Note, the draft 2030 Comp Plan
includes SLR projections of 3in-7in by the year 2030 but the County does not have a dataset for inches).
Canal Frontage ilk
Parcels 2014 Assessed Value
Private Vacant Canal Frontage Parcel 821 $45,286,806
within 1 ft Sea Level Rise
Private Vacant Canal Frontage Parcel 1.059 $63,507,328
outside lft Sea Level Rise
The following tables outline the relative land acquisition needs based on 3 additional scenarios:
Preliminary Parcel Analysis Summary#2
Summarizes the remaining parcels after eliminating the parcels with Significant Constraints and parcels that
are potentially subject to inundation under 1 ft of sea level rise.
Preliminary Parcel Analysis Summary#3
Summarizes the remaining parcels after eliminating the parcels with Significant Constraints and the parcels
that have a Conservation Priority ranking.
Preliminary Parcel Analysis Summary#4
Summarizes the remaining parcels after eliminating the parcels with Significant Constraints and the parcels
that although developable, have characteristics that reduce the development compatibility — such as being
within the 65 DNL noise contour or a clear zone.
11
N
00� �
n h C14 a, e
'~ fV yNgGo
f9 I;! 669 if) �
'F1 U 64 .
; oo W
U w
• '� "' 0 0 GO "N" ry• 7 N b a N W
U. W . r a 1O
d 0 o m. p _.....
�n °� o U O
c1 0
m � H
G4
p •y�
CT
arod ° $ wMo � h U o
2 q 5r Y gay g� o v o 0
°.�y3 al oV v R°L A A � o aA� C A W F
W S d 01 o P4 OR Co
�S r7 ap, u Yw y w$ v' ° W S
w x O W p
v
�a
o e, tea`
0
9
C o M � v: � 00
o o ° m e o 0
ce Mr n N
N 69 E9 69 6A Q4 v~9
Er3
N C tn
to O cV � eM�1 qm
..Wi N Y Oi OHO .N-i ry. l �D en
W m46
pp a
cc
-WO cr
Is
Q q m O
6) N O
c V
�' v
P" 4c} ` ggam 000 Z q C m b° a
U � a u y y m $ Cep, U W zed
I z w n
� a
14
Lo
5 d O ti ID
0000 O[ N
q U a M to a °
N y C OD V^\O b >, Q
N O
m 000 N m
.� 69 69 M G Q
.04
zi
cc
V� RI M N C M b
w 00
w Pw oo
0
C e II O
'�O � •yop
p � dy0 .�•+ �0 �1 � I swat
o
•� � cn c c ti
ro P• N
•
coco
°
N co a
t
r E
000 M 0 r
NI
bD bA
.r
x
Z
E
czI
tb
z 3...
c L CI ° e i. •. ca If^ 6, kr)
o a lot M y ON y u .--i
in %. .� .; .N� y ONp v 00
M
O el E N x N .73 �-i r,.) .-y
0
cC
c
0
U
s..
as O
O
.�- .-i 0
• ° c) re) k 'n 0000 0 en 'ram
• 0 0 00
M O °` 00 O 0o
O .fir �'? (O 0 o Q^ N N
o N 0 64 64 't efi VD 0000
N � 69 E!9 6A EA
'ICI fn EA
aS t'
m
5., E
to
O E - 4;
O
G. C4 c
;" y cc :a N s. N N CT C
U M f i O O O •--. vO Ni
N •� L v,• -I-
r I N 'L in N N O
O et �i cc C N 4 N
w a U c
-0 -et °
o �
w
o U
ai a 4 c o
�7° "t" el ° >, C v C.) o � z0 , > 'i, ^ c)U ) �, Zb a o 0
'I 0
o ° °" v �c) oQ- l- o ° -o
Q. c o R;cu s. �a ° c ° or.-. N c� • N QW-
c a. C. ..o O O c A
V C,) W
C cb -, O �"
o O U
tat ° Q
a � � Q 3 0 OM
a° xGLI O
f
E
M ? 00 g
Oci,J M D
O O
env�i a
N MCA - �bA
b,, 6A
en i.
it ,er
C. kta 0 ONO L ' ' 0M0
iV. a1 p Q, i. v 00 ice. M
to et +.+ N C r! co C
E y.. •C y O\ z N s ON y 00
OC N ,--,
bA a, .0 en•cr eA M "C o 0000
o R N "x N G> .--i W
O
.-
N
v"
U
et
s..
el
r en
E a) O Ch N O .-- 00
0 00 In V a` . •• M
s.. 0 en M N
y O 00 N srj v i
CZ
O . . 00 � 00
0 N N EA EA ' — V00
69
6 9 EA
69 64 FEA= EA
et
ceS A
O E
s..
E
O.
a .c. .fl
h •� M N Np et ^ N C
y •� L 6 N N CL -t t� •: OC N
Qc 00 •.-+ O C`J . O� vD
0 GI O GJ
Q C.)
CI 5ii
�l C
i, ..
Om C E CA
U4 a Z U 4
3 - o rt ¢ z
$.. U 0 4) cd •U M p cu A a p" Q
-0 so. fa. cd o U o o u. vo U o
a, ad O. s- .r
:� cz OA a.co E o cu O 0 o a c 0 W CA
n. a� a a) a Q ¢ W
a o x " Q 0 O o a
C7
o 0 x w w
a
•
Exhibit 1
2015 Florida Forever Priority List
Rank Critical Natural Lands Projects County' Remaining CumulatLve Work Plan
Acres Acres Priority
1 Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem Lake/Osceola/Highlands/Polk 22.746 22.746 High
2 Apalachicola River Jackson/Gadsden/Liberty/Calhoun 10.986 33,732 High
3 Bombing Range Ridge Polk/Highlands/Osceola 31.891 65,623 High
4 Wekiva-Ocala Greenway Lake/Orange/Seminole/Volusia 23.169 88.791 High
5 Panther Glades Hendry 39.384 128,175 High
6 Blue Head Ranch Highlands 40.539 168.714 High
7 Triple Diamond Okeechobee 7,998 176.712 High
8 Wacissa/Aucilla River Sinks Jefferson/Taylor 17.208 193,920 High
9 Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Gilchrist/Volusia)Marion 9,679 203,599 High
10 Upper St.Marks River Corridor Leon/Jefferson/Wakulla 11.025 214.624 High
11 Pine Island Slough Ecosystem Osceola/Indian River 48,902 263.527 High/Med
12 Osceola Pine Savannas Osceola 27.483 291,010 Medium
13 Etoniah I Cross Florida Greenway Clay/Putnam/Marion 59.528 350.538 Medium
14 Devil's Garden Hendry/Collier 82,934 433,472 Medium
15 Belle Meade Collier 7.308 440,781 Medium
16 South Goethe Marion/Levy 11,642 452.422 Medium
17 Caloosahatchee Ecoscape Hendry/Glades 13.511 465.934 Medium
18 Twelvemile Slough Hendry 8,128 474.061 Medium
19 Bear Creek Forest Bay/Calhoun/Gulf 100.425 574.486 Med/Low
20 Camp Blanding-Raiford Greenway Baker.Bradford.Clay and Union 32.440 606.926 Low
21 Natural Bridge Creek Walton 1,797 608.723 Low
22 Half Circle L Ranch Hendry/Collier 11.176 619.899 Low
23 Pinhook Swamp Baker/Columbia 60.418 680.317 Low
24 Perdido Pitcher Plant Prairie Escambia 2.378 682.695 Low
25 Lake Hatchineha Watershed Osceola/Polk 5,416 688,111 Low
26 Wolfe Creek Forest Santa Rosa 10.067 698.178 Low
27 Bear Hammock Marion 4.680 702,858 Low
28 San Pedro Bay Madison/Taylor 44.999 747.857 Low
29 Shoal River Buffer Okaloosa 2.174 750.031 Low
30 Southeastern Bat Maternity Caves Jackson/Alachua/Marion)Citrus/ Sumter 585 750.616 Low
31 Upper Shoal River Walton 12.027 762.644 Low
32 Ichetucknee Trace Columbia 1,883 764.526 Low
33 Hixtown Swami Madison 22,399 786,925 Low
Rank Partnerships&Regional Incentives Projects County 1 Rem.Acres Cum.Acres' WP Priority'
1 Florida's First Magnitude Springs Washington/Bay/Jackson/Wakulla!Leon/Hamilton/ 5,714 5.714 High
Madison/Lafayette!Levy/Marion/Hernando
2 Northeast Fla Timberlands&Watershed Reserve Duval/Nassau/Clay 82.966 88.680 High
3 Indian River Lagoon Blueway Volusia/Brevard/Indian River/St.Lucie/Martin 19,566 108,246 High
4 Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem Brevard 21.055 129.300 High
5 Wakulla Springs Protection Zone Wakulla/Leon 3.648 132.948 High
6 Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Lee/Collier 36,417 169.365 HighlMed
7 Clear Creek/Whiting Field Santa Rosa 3,232 172.597 Medium
8 Heather Island/Oklawaha River Marion 19,244 191,840 Medium
9 Annutteliga Hammock Citrus/Hernando 12.430 204,271 Medium
10 Volusia Conservation Corridor Volusia!Flagler 18,332 222.603 Medium
11 Green Swamp-Hilochee Corridor Lake/Polk 55,831 278,434 Medium
12 Flagler County Blueway Flagler/Volusia 3.915 282.349 Medium
13 Dade County Archipelago Miami-Dade 307 282,655 Medium
14 Green Swamp-Withlacoochee River Headwaters Lake/Pasco/Polk 52.030 334.685 Med/Low
15 Lake Santa Fe Alachua/Bradford 9,594 344.279 Low
16 Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods Charlotte/Lee 3,896 348.175 Low
17 Pal-Mar Palm Beach!Martin 9.522 357.697 Low
18 Watermelon Pond Levy/Alachua 5,707 363.404 Low
19 Rainbow River Corridor Marion/Citrus 1.138 364.542 Low
20 Sand Mountain Washington!Bay 14.506 379.048 Low
21 Atlantic Ridge Ecosystem Martin 8.192 387.241 Low
22 Catfish Creek Polk 9.146 396.387 Low
23 Middle Chipola River Jackson/Calhoun 11.849 408.235 Low
24 Baldwin Bay/St.Marys River Duval/Nassau 9.129 417.364 Low
25 Pumpkin Hill Creek Duval 9.702 427.066 Low
26 Crossbar/Al Bar Ranch Pasco 12.371 439.438 Low
27 Lafayette Forest Lafayette 10,258 449,695 Low
28 Hall Ranch Charlotte 8.109 457.804 Low
29 Carr Farm/Price's Scrub Marion/Alachua 305 458,109 Low
30 Pringle Creek Forest Flagler 8.460 466.569 Low
Page 1 of 2
2015 Florida Forever Priority List
Rank Less-Than-Fee Projects Count1
Remaining Cumulative Work Plan
y Acres Acres2 Priority3
1 Adams Ranch Osceola 10,320 10,320 High
2 Fisheating Creek Ecosystem Glades/Highlands 108,789 119.109 High
3 Tiger Cattle Company Ranch Okeechobee 2,229 121,338 High
4 Lower Suwannee River and Gulf Watershed Dixie 46,461 167,800 High
5 Myakka Ranchlands Sarasota 24,195 191,994 High
6 Ochlockonee River Conservation Area Gadsden/Leon 3,269 195.263 High
7 Big Bend Swamp!Holopaw Ranch Osceola 50,481 245.743 High/Med
8 Gulf Hammock Levy 25,611 271.354 Medium
9 Ayavalla Plantation Leon 5,903 277,257 Medium
10 Kissimmee-St.Johns River Connector Okeechobee/Indian River 34,589 311.846 Medium
11 Green Swamp-Pine Island Recharge Area Lake 30,271 342.117 Medium
12 Ranch Reserve Osceola 12,515 354.632 Medium
13 Clay Ranch Putnam 2,460 357,092 Medium
14 Raiford-Osceola Greenway Baker!Union 67,673 424,765 Med/Low
15 Coastal Headwaters Longleaf Forest Escambia/Santa Rosa 99,547 524,312 Low
16 Arbuckle Creek Watershed Highlands 11,989 536,301 Low
17 Eastern Scarp Ranchlands Highlands 2,281 538,582 Low
18 Hosford Chapman's Rhododendron Protection Zone Gadsden/Liberty 6,921 545,503 Low
19 Mill Creek Marion 12,293 557,796 Low
20 Green Swamp-Peace River Headwaters Polk 23,703 581,499 Low
21 Lower Perdido River Buffer Escambia 2,331 583,830 Low
22 Maytown Flatwoods Brevard 4,944 588,774 Low
23 Peace River Refuge Desoto 3,845 592,620 Low
24 San Felasco Conservation Corridor Alachua 376 592,995 Low
25 Limestone Ranch Hardee 6,382 599,377 Low
26 Old Town Creek Watershed Hardee!Polk 7,303 606,680 Low
27 Little River Conservation Area Gadsden 2,057 608,737 Low
28 Horse Creek Ranch Desoto!Hardee 16,316 625,053 Low
29 West Aucilla River Buffer Jefferson 710 625,763 Low
30 Suwannee County Preservation Suwannee 1,254 627,017 Low
31 Millstone Plantation Leon 56 627,073 Low
Rank Climate Change Lands Projects County• Rem.Acres Cum.Acres' WP Priority'
1 Florida Keys Ecosystem Monroe 7,330 7,330 High
2 Northeast Florida Blueway Duval/St.Johns/Flagler 12,116 19,446 High
Bay/Franklin/Gadsden/Gulf!Jefferson/Leon/Liberty!
3 St.Joe Timberland Taylor/Wakullal Walton/Washington 82,284 101,730 High/Med
4 Caber Coastal Connector Levy 5,497 107,227 Med/Low
5 Florida Springs Coastal Greenway Citrus 6,740 113,967 Low
6 Coupon Bight!Key Deer Monroe 1,155 115,122 Low
7 Dickerson Bay I Bald Point Wakullal Franklin 3,115 118,237 Low
8 Archie Carr Sea Turtle Refuge Brevard!Indian River 223, 118,459 Low
9 St.Johns River Blueway St.Johns 24,522 142,982 Low
10 West Bay Preservation Area Bay 4,494 147,476 Low
11 Terra Ceia Manatee 2,321 149,796 Low
12 Tiger/Little Tiger Island Nassau 1,139 150,936 Low
13 Garcon Ecos tern Santa Rosa 3,403 154,339 Low
Rank Substantially Complete Projects County' Rem.Acres Cum.Acres' WP Priority'
1 Escribano Pant Santa Rosa 335 335 High
2 Charlotte Harbor Estuary Charlotte/Lee/Sarasota 6,162 6,497 High/Med
3 South Walton County Ecosystem Walton 2,692 9,189 Medium
4 Estero Bay Lee 1,991 11,180 Med/Low
5 Spruce Creek Volusia 365 11,545 Low
6 Lochloosa Wildlife Alachua 4,616 16,161 Low
7 Save Our Ever.lades Collier 61 16.222 Low
Rank Critical Historical Resources Projects County 1 Rem.Acres Cum.Acres2 WP Priority3
1 Pierce Mound Complex Franklin 559 559 High
2 Battle of Wahoo Swamp Sumter 853 1,413 High/Med
3 Three Chimneys Volusia 56 1,469 Low
4 Okeechobee Battlefield Okeechobee 89 1,558 Low
5 Pineland Site Complex Lee 146 1,704 Low
Counties with no remaining acreage to acqure in a project not listed here-see project summaries for counties in which acquisitions completed.
2 Cumulative acres used to calculate in which Priority Group of the Acquisition Work Plan each project will qualify.
'Work Plan Priority Groups pursuant to Rule 18.24.006(6),FA.C.:
High Priority Group=top t13 acreage within each Category High/Med=Portion of project in Iigh Priority Group d portion in Medium Priority Grow
Medium Priority Group=middle 1/3 acreage within each Category Med/Low=Portion of project in Medium Priority Group&portion in Low Priority Group
Low Priority Group=bottom 1/3 acreage within each Category
Page 2 of 2
Board of Trustees Florida Forever Priority List-April 24, 2012
Rank Substantially Complete Projects County' Remaining Cumulat`ve Work Plan
Acres Acres Priority'
1 Estero Bay Lee 2,359 2,359 High ,
2 Charlotte Harbor Estuary Charoottl Leel Sarasota 6,874 9,233 High/Med
3 Spruce Creek Volusia 449 9,682 Medium
4 South Walton County Ecosystem Walton 3,243 12,925 Med/Low
5 Save Our Everglades Collier 371 13,296 Low
6 Lochloosa Wildlife Alachua 4,828 18,124 Low
Subtotal:6 Pro'ects 1%of acrea i e on list 18 124
Rank Critical Historical Resources Projects County' Rem.Acres Cum.Acres2 WP Priority'
1 Windover Archaeological Site Brevard 8 8 High
2 Pierce Mound Complex Franklin 561 569 High
3 Three Chimneys Volusia 56 625 High/Med
4 Okeechobee Battlefield Okeechobee 89 714 Medium
5 Battle of Wahoo Swamp Sumter 853 1,568 Med/Low
6_Pineland Site Complex Lee 148 1,716 Low
Subtotal:6 Pro'ects 0.1%of acrea•e on list 1,716
Rank Climate Change Lands Projects County' Rem.Acres Cum.Acres2 WP Priority'
1 Florida Keys Ecosystem Monroe 8,571 8,571 High
2 Caber Coastal Connector Levy 7,804 16,375 High
3 North Key Largo Hammocks Monroe 864 17,239 High
4 Northeast Florida Blueway Duvall St.Johns/Flagler 13,118 30,356 High
5 St.Joe TimberlandBay/Franklin/Gadsden/Gulf/Jefferson/Leon/Liberty/Taylor/ 89 976 120,333 High/Med
Wakulla/Watson/Washington
6 Coupon Bight/Key Deer Monroe 1,641 121,973 Low
7 St.Johns River Blueway BA St.Johns 26,212 148,186 Low
8 Florida Springs Coastal Greenway Citrus 9,930 158,116 Low
9 Terra Ceia Manatee 2,474 160,590 Low
10 Archie Carr Sea Turtle Refuge Brevard/Indian River 245 160,835 Low
11 Dickerson Bay/Bald Point Wakulla/Franklin 2,972 163,806 Low
12 West Bay Preservation Area"P Bay 4,494 168,300 Low
13 Garcon Ecosystem Santa Rosa 3,835 172,135 Low
14 Peaceful Horse Ranch Desoto 4,177 176,312 Low
15_Tger!Little Tiger Island Nassau 1,141 177,453 Low
Subtotal:15 Pro'ects 9%of acrea.e on list 177,453
Rank Partnerships&Regional Incentives Projects County' Rem.Acres Cum.Acres2 WP Priority'
1 Florida's First Magnitude Springs Washington!Bay/Jackson/Wakulla!Leon/Hamilton! 5,771 5,771 High
Madison/Lafayette/Levy/Marion/Hemando
2 Northeast Fla Timberlands&Watershed Reserve Duval/Nassua/Clay 87,481 93,252 High
3 Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem Brevard 23,160 116,413 High
4 Indian River Lagoon Blueway Volusia!Brevard!Indian River/St Lucie/Martin 19,847 136,259 High
5 Escribano Point Santa Rosa 1,798 138,058 High
6 Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Lee/Collier 38,532 176,589 High/Med
7 Clear Creek/Whiting Field Santa Rosa 3,416 180,005 Medium
8 Annutteliga Hammock BA Citrus/Hemando 12,540 192,545 Medium
9 Wakulla Springs Protection Zone Wakullal Leon 3,969 196,514 Medium
10 Volusia Conservation Corridor Volusia)Flagler 22,418 218,932 Medium
11 Green Swamp-Hilochee ComdorRP Lake/Polk 55,894 274,826 Medium
12 Heather Island!Oklawaha River Marion 19,549 294,375 Medium
13 Flagler County Blueway BA Flagler/Volusia 4,082 298,458 Medium
1 14 Dade County Archipelago Miami-Dade 311 298,768 Medium
15 Watermelon Pond Levy/Alachua 5,933 304,701 Medium
16 Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods Charlotte/Lee 3,906 308,607 Medium
17 Middle Chipola River Jackson/Calhoun 11,877 320,484 Med/Low
18 Catfish Creek Polk 9,162 329,646 Low
19 Green Swamp-Withlacoochee River Headwaters RP Lake/Pasco!Polk 52,115 381,761 Low
20 Atlantic Ridge Ecosystem Martin 8,043 389,804 Low
21 Lake Santa Fe Alachua/Bradford 9,785 399,589 Low
22 Pal-Mar Palm Beach/Martin 9,954 409,543 Low
23 Rainbow River Corridor Marion/Citrus 1,138 410,680 Low
24 Crossbar/Al Bar Ranch Pasco 12,371 423,051 Low
25 Sand Mountain Washington/Bay 14,495 437,546 Low
26 Pumpkin Hill Creek Duval 10,850 448,396 Low
27 Baldwin Bay/St.Marys River Duvall Nassau 9,129 457,525 Low
28 Lafayette Forest Lafayette , 10,261 467,787 Low
29 Carr Farm!Price's Scrub Marion!Alachua 305 468,091 Low
30 Hall Ranch Charlotte 8,519 476,610 Low
31 Florida National Scenic Trail Columbia 7 476,617 Low
Subtotal:31 Projects 24%of acreage on list 476,617
12
I
• Board of Trustees Florida Forever Priority List-April 24, 2012
Rank Less-Than-Fee Projects County' Rem.Acres Cum.Acres` WP Priority3
1 Adams Ranch Osceola 10,340 10,340 High
2 Fisheating Creek Ecosystem Glades/Highlands 108,904 119,244 High
3 Seven Runs Creek Walton 23,869 143,114 High
4 Ochlockonee River Conservation Area Gadsden/Leon 3,269 146,383 High
5 Ayavalla Plantation Leon 6,081 152,464 High
6 Lower Suwannee River and Gulf Watershed Dixie 46,461 198,926 High/Med
7 Myakka Ranchlands Sarasota 11,239 210,165 Medium
8 Big Bend Swamp/Holopaw Ranch Osceola 50,480 260,645 Medium
9 Tiger Cattle Company Ranch Okeechobee 2,229 262,874 Medium
10 Clay Ranch Putnam 2,460 265,333 Medium
11 Ranch Reserve Osceola 12,592 277,925 Medium
12 Gulf Hammock Levy 25,611 303,536 Medium
13 Green Swamp-Pine Island Recharge Area' Lake 30,485 334,021 Med/Low
14 Raiford-Osceola Greenway Baker/Union 67,673 401,693 Low
15 Green Swamp-Peace River Headwaters 4' Polk 23,719 425,412 Low
16 Hosford Chapman's Rhododendron Protection Zone Gadsden/Liberty 6,921 432,334 Low
17 Mill Creek Marion 12,293 444,626 Low
18 Lower Perdido River Buffer Escambia 2,356 446,982 Low
19 Peace River Refuge Desoto 3,846 450,828 Low
20 Maytown Flatwoods Brevard 7,187 458,014 Low
21 Old Town Creek Watershed Hardee/Polk 7,303 465,317 Low
22 Little River Conservation Area Gadsden 2,057 467,375 Low
23 San Felasco Conservation Corridor Alachua 376 467,750 Low
24 Horse Creek Ranch DeSotol Hardee 16,316 484,066 Low
25 Suwannee County Preservation Suwannee 1,254 485,320 Low
26 West Aucilla River Buffer Jefferson 721 486,041 Low
27_Millstone Plantation Leon 56 486,097 Low
Subtotal:27 Pro ects 25%of acrea r e on list 486,097
Rank Critical Natural Lands Projects County Rem.Acres Cum.Acres2 WP Priority3
1 Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem G" Lake/Osceola/Highlands!Polk 24,237 24,237 High
2 Bombing Range Ridge Polk!Highlands/Osceola 32,717 56,953 High
3 Wekiva-Ocala Greenway Lake/Orange/Seminole/Volusia 25,488 82,441 High
4 Apalachicola River Jackson/Gadsden/Liberty/Calhoun 11,214 93,655 High
5 Panther Glades Hendry 40,634 134,289 High
6 Wacissa/Aucilla River Sinks Jefferson/Taylor 9,897 144,186 High
7 Triple Diamond Okeechobee 7,997 152,184 High
8 Upper St.Marks River Corridor Leon/Jefferson/Wakulla 11,025 163,208 High
9 Belle Meade Collier 7,336 170,545 High
10 Etoniah/Cross Florida Greenway"`' Clay/Putnam/Marion 66,302 236,847 High
11 Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Gilchrist/Volusia/Marion 9,693 246,540 High
12 Caloosahatchee Ecoscape Hendry/Glades 13,515 260,055 High
13 Pine Island Slough Ecosystem Osceola/Indian River 48,902 308,957 High/Med
14 Osceola Pine Savannas Osceola 27,572 336,529 Medium
15 Devil's Garden Hendry/Collier 82,994 419,523 Medium
16 Twelvemile Slough Hendry 8,170 427,694 Medium
17 Perdido Pitcher Plant Prairie Escambia 2,412 430,105 Medium
18 Camp Blanding-Raiford Greenway Baker,Bradford,Clay and Union 33,973 464,078 Medium
19 Half Circle L Ranch Hendry/Collier 11,176 475,254 Medium
20 Kissimmee-St.Johns River Connector Okeechobee/Indian River 34,589 509,843 Medium
21 Bear Creek Forest Bay!Calhoun/Gulf 100,424 610,267 Med/Low
22 Bear Hammock Marion 4,680 614,947 Low
23 South Goethe Marion/Levy 11,651 626,598 Low
24 Lake Hatchineha Watershed Osceola/Polk 5,416 632,015 Low
25 Wolfe Creek Forest Santa Rosa 10,068 642,083 Low
26 Pinhook Swamp Baker/Columbia 60,420 702,502 Low
27 San Pedro Bay Madison/Taylor 44,998 747,501 Low
28 Southeastern Bat Maternity Caves Jackson/Alachua/Marion/Citrus/ Sumter 591 748,091 Low
29 Shoal River Buffer Okaloosa 2,095 750,186 Low
30 Upper Shoal River Walton 12,027 762,213 Low
31 Hixtown Swamp Madison 22,429 784,642 Low
32 Ichetucknee Trace Columbia 1,887 786,529 Low
Subtotal:32 Projects 40%of acreage on list 786,529
TOTAL ACRES OF ALL PROJECTS 1,946,536
'Counties with no remaining acreage to acquire in a project not listed here-see project summaries for counties in where acquisitions completed NP=New Project added to list.
'Cumulative acres used to calculate in which Pnonty Group of the Acquisihon Work Plan each project will qualify. BA=Boundary Amended. RP=Redesigned Project.
'Work Plan Priority Groups pursuant to Rule 18-24.006(6): High Priority Group=top 1+3 acreage within each Category
HighiMed=Portion of project in High Pnonty Group&portion in Medium Pnonty Group Medium Priority Group=middle 1'3 acreage within each Category
MedlLow=Portion of project in Medium Priority Group&portion in Low Priority Group Low Priority Group=bottom 1'3 acreage within each Category
13