Item 07 HousingMonroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
HOUSING
Table of Contents
Item
Page
7.0 HOUSING ELEMENT.................................................................................................................................1
7.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
7.1.1 Policy Framework........................................................................................................1
7.1.2 Residential Land Use Characteristics.................................................................11
7.2 Existing Housing Stock Characteristics............................................................................12
7.2.1
Type of Housing.........................................................................................................12
7.2.2
Occupancy and Tenure............................................................................................14
7.2.3
Vacancy Status............................................................................................................16
7.2.4
Age of Housing...........................................................................................................18
7.2.5
Price/Rent Characteristics and Affordability................................................19
7.2.6
Cost to Income Ratios..............................................................................................29
7.2.7
Structural Conditions of Housing Stock...........................................................31
7.2.8
Subsidized Housing Development......................................................................32
7.2.9
Group Homes...............................................................................................................38
7.2.10
Mobile Home Parks..................................................................................................38
7.2.11
Historically Significant Housing...........................................................................40
7.2.12
Residential Construction Activity........................................................................49
7.3 Housing Demand Analysis.....................................................................................................54
7.3.1
Population Projections and Approach...............................................................54
7.3.2
Projected Number of Households.........................................................................55
7.3.3
Projected Number of Households by Size..........................................................58
7.3.4
Projected Number of Households by Income...................................................58
7.3.5
Projected Housing Need...........................................................................................61
7.3.6
Land Requirements for Housing Needs...........................................................71
7.3.7
Private Sector Provision of Housing..................................................................75
7.3.8
Private Sector Housing Delivery Process.......................................................79
7.3.9
Means of Accomplishing Affordable Housing, Group Homes and
Eliminating Substandard Conditions...................................................................81
List of Tables
Table
Page
Table 7.1: Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) Allocations, per LDC Art. II Sec. 138-24 ........... 5
Table 7.2: Unincorporated County Market Rate and Affordable ROGO Year 1-17 ..................... 8
Table 7.3: Summary Table of Awarded and Allocated for Market and Affordable. ROGO........ 9
Table 7.4: Residual Market Rate ROGO Allocations by Subarea......................................................10
Table 7.5: Residual Affordable ROGO Allocations by Subarea..........................................................10
Table 7.6: Residual Affordable Allocations Distribution by Subarea.............................................11
Table 7.7: Countywide Housing Units by Type 1990-2000...............................................................13
Housing i Technical Document: May 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.8: Unincorporated Housing Units by Type 2000-2010 .....................
Table 7.9: Unincorporated Housing Inventory by Occupancy Status and Tenure, 2000 .......15
Table 7.10: Vacancy Status, 2000............................................................
Table 7.11: Vacancy Status, 1990.....................................................16
............................ ..............................................................
Table 7.12: Distribution of HousingUnits by Age,"'
Table 7.13: Historic Median Housing Value..............................................................................................21
Table 7.14: Qualifying Incomes for Single Income Provider (40 hours).......................................22
Table 7.15: Qualifying Incomes for Married or Domestic Partnership Households.................22
Table 7.16: Tenant Maximum Rental Rates for Single Income Provider.......................................23
Table 7.17: Tenant Maximum Rental Rates for Married or Domestic Partnership
Households .............................
Table 7.18: Maximum Selling Price for Affordable Units in 2010....................................................24
Table 7.19: Distribution of Owner -Occupied Housing by Value, 2000..........................................24
Table 7.20: Distribution of Owner -Occupied Housing by Value, 1990..........................................25
Table 7.21: Mortgage Status and Selected Monthly Owner Costs Unincorporated
MonroeCounty, 2000 .................................................................................26
Table 7.22: Mortgage Status and Selected Monthly Owner Costs
Monroe County, 1990 ................
...............................
Table 7.23: Non Mortgaged Status and Selected Monthly Owner Costs,
Unincorporated Monroe County, 2000....................
Table 7.24: Distribution of Renter Occupied Units by Contract Rent Range, 2000...................28
Table 7.25: Distribution of Renter Occupied Units by Contract Rent Range, 1990.....................28
Table 7.26: Rent -to -Income for Renter -Occupied Units, 1999..........................................................29
Table 7.27: Rent -to -Income for Renter -Occupied Units, 1989..........................................................30
Table 7.28: Monthly Owner Cost by Income, 1999.................................................................................30
Table 7.29: Inventory of Housing by Specified Condition, 2000......................................................3
Table 7.30: Subsidized Housing Developments, 2010....................1
.....................................................3
Table 7.31: Section 8 Subsidized Housing Developments, 2010........................................................37
Table 7.32: Mobile Home Parks Mobile Home Parks ....................... ...................................
Table 7.33: Florida Master Site File, Historic Houses Potentially Eligible .....
for Listing .......
in the ......3 9
National Register of Historic Places.......................................................................................41
Table 7.34: Florida Master Site File Housing...........................................................................................42
Table 7.35: Tavernier Historic Housing Potentially Eligible for Listing on the National
Registerof Historic Places.......................................................................................................46
Table 7.36: Tavernier Historic Housing......................................................................................................47
Table 7.37: Residential Building Permit Activity, April 1st 2000 - December 31, 2010 ........50
Table 7.38: Residential Demolitions, April 1st 2000 - December 31, 2010................................51
Table 7.39: Replacement Units Receiving Certificate of Occupancy, April 1st, 2000 -
December2010..........................................................................................................
Table 7.40: Summary of Construction Activity April 1st, 2000 - 2010............................................53
Table 7.41: Permanent Household Estimates and Projections, 2010-2030................................56
Table 7.42: Seasonal Household Estimates and Projections, 2010-2030.....................................57
Table 7.43: Functional Household Estimates and Projections, 2010-2030.................
Table 7.44: Functional Population Households by Size, 2010-2030..............................................58
Table 7.45: Functional Population Estimated and Projected Households by Income, 2010-
2 0 3 0.................................................................................................................................................. 60
Housing ii Technical Document: May 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.46: Permanent Population Estimated and Projected Households by Income, 2010-
2030.................................................................................................................................................ol
Table 7.47: Functional Population Dwelling Units Need for Unincorporated County 2015-
2030.................................................................................................................................................62
Table 7.48: Functional Population Housing Need by Planning Area 2015-2030 ......................63
Table 7.49: Estimated Number of Households Needing Affordable Housing by Income
Level- Lower Keys Planning Area........................................................................................65
Table 7.50: Estimated Number of Households Needing Affordable Housing by Income
Level - Middle Keys Planning Area.......................................................................................66
Table 7.51: Estimated Number of Households Needing Affordable Housing by Income
Level - Upper Keys Planning Area........................................................................................67
Table 7.52: Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030...............................68
Table 7.53: Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 -
LowerKeys Planning Area.......................................................................................................68
Table 7.54: Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 -
MiddleKeys Planning Area......................................................................................................69
Table 7.55: Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 -
UpperKeys Planning Area........................................................................................................69
Table 7.56: Vacant Dwelling Units (functional)......................................................................................71
Table 7.57: Vacant Land in Tier III and Residential Density by Type - Lower Keys Planning
Area...................................................................................................................................................72
Table 7.58: Vacant Land in Tier III and Residential Density by Type - Middle Keys Planning
Area...................................................................................................................................................73
Table 7.59: Vacant Land in Tier III and Residential Density by Type - Upper Keys Planning
Area...................................................................................................................................................74
Table 7.60: Vacant Land in Tier III and Residential Density by Type - Unincorporated
County............................................................................................................................................75
Table 7.61: Dwelling Units by Type, 2010-2030....................................................................................76
Table 7.62: Estimated and Projected Households by Tenure, 2010-2030...................................77
Table 7.63: Affordable Maximum Monthly Rental Rates per AMI projections 2015-2030.... 78
Table 7.64: Affordable Maximum Selling Price 2015-2030...............................................................79
Appendix7-1: ROGO History, Year 1-17....................................................................................................86
Housing iii Technical Document: May 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.0 HOUSING ELEMENT
[Rule 9J-5.010 F.A.C.]
The Housing Element of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan addresses the data
inventory requirements of 9J-5.0005 (2) of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The data
inventory requirement will support the development of goals, objectives, policies, and
implementation programs for the Housing Element.
7.1 Introduction
The information provided for housing characteristics was retrieved from the Florida Housing
Data Clearinghouse (FHDC) in April 20101. The FHDC data is based on Census 2000 and it is
the best available data for unincorporated Monroe County analysis. Detailed housing
information from the 2010 U.S. Census is scheduled for release in early 2011 and will provide
the basis for a refined housing analysis for the planning period. There are limitations to the
data presented in the housing inventory and these limitations have been noted where
relevant throughout this document. However, until that time permitting data has been used
to demonstrate the housing inventory as of 2009. This element also focuses on the housing
characteristics, construction activity, and affordable housing issues.
7.1.1 Policy Framework
Below is a summary of federal, state and local government regulations that impact the
development of housing:
7.1.1.1 Federal Regulations
• Fair Housing Act:
The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, disability, familial status, and national origin. Its coverage includes private housing,
housing that receives Federal financial assistance, and State and local government housing.
It is unlawful to discriminate in any aspect of selling or renting housing or to deny a dwelling
to a buyer or renter because of the disability of that individual, an individual associated with
the buyer or renter, or an individual who intends to live in the residence. Other covered
activities include, for example, financing, zoning practices, new construction design, and
advertising.
' Accessed through: http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edLI/a/profiles?action=results&nid=4499 on April, 8
2010.
Housing 1 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• Section 504:
The Fair Housing Act Section 504 requires owners of housing facilities to make reasonable
exceptions in their policies and operations to afford people with disabilities equal housing
opportunities. For example, a landlord with a "no pets" policy may be required to grant an
exception to this rule and allow an individual who is blind to keep a guide dog in the
residence. The Fair Housing Act also requires landlords to allow tenants with disabilities to
make reasonable access -related modifications to their private living space, as well as to
common use spaces. (The landlord is not required to pay for the changes.) The Act further
requires that new multifamily housing with four or more units be designed and built to allow
access for persons with disabilities. This includes accessible common use areas, doors that
are wide enough for wheelchairs, kitchens and bathrooms that allow a person using a
wheelchair to maneuver, and other adaptable features within the units.
7.1.1.2 State Regulations
• HB 697, which amended portions of Chapter 163.3177(6)(01, F.S., requires that the
Housing Element be amended to include standards, plans, and principles for:
h) "Energy efficiency in the design and construction of new housing" and
i) "Use of renewable energy resources."
In order to acknowledge the benefit of renewable resources, such as solar energy, and
encourage energy efficiency in building construction, the County will assure there are no
obstacles within the County's Comprehensive Plan and/or Monroe County Land
Development Code (MCLDC) which may conflict with these requirements.
• The Florida Fair Housing Act:
The Florida Fair Housing Act declares it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental,
advertising, financing, or providing of brokerage services for housing. The Florida Fair
Housing Act parallels the Federal Fair Housing Act.
• Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program:
The 2006 Florida Legislature passed House Bill 1363 (Ch. 2006-69, s. 27, Laws of Fla.), a
housing bill focused on addressing some of the affordable housing challenges the State
currently faces. HB 1363 includes $50 million for an affordable housing pilot program
called the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP). Florida
Housing will administer CWHIP, and these funds will be awarded on a competitive basis
through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to public -private entities seeking to build
affordable housing for Florida's workforce. Monroe County, as a high cost county, is
eligible to qualify households making 160 percent of the area median income for affordable
housing.
Housing 2 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Florida Landlord/Tenant Law:
Florida's Landlord/Tenant Law Chapter 83, Part II - Florida Statutes explains tenant and
landlord rights and responsibilities on rental agreements and disputes.
7.1.1.3 Monroe County Regulations
Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)
Due to the State of Florida limitation on the amount of growth the County could absorb,
based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, on June 23, 1992, the
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016-1992, thereby
implementing the Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation System, today known as the Rate of
Growth Ordinance or ROGO. The Ordinance became effective on July 13, 1992, and has
been amended through the years based on changing conditions related to infrastructure.
ROGO allows development subject to the ability to safely evacuate the Florida Keys (the
Keys) within 24 hours.
The ROGO system is a method of prioritizing where growth should be directed based on the
fact that the State of Florida currently allocates 197 housing units annually for building
permit issuance (Table 7.1), MCLDC Art. II Sec. 138-24. The number of allocations has
varied throughout the years, depending on the progress the County has made toward
achieving State set goals. The annual allocation period, or ROGO year, is the 12-month
period beginning on July 13, 1992, (the effective date of the original dwelling unit
allocation ordinance), and subsequent one-year periods. Initially, the total number of
available allocations was split among the three subareasz which included Upper Keys,
Middle Keys, and Lower Keys (not to be confused with the Planning Area geographic
locations as described in Section 2.2.1 "Geographic Location/Planning Areas').
Environmental issue and community vision plans have further refined the distribution of
available allocations.
Efforts to address the development impacts on the habitat of the Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh
Rabbit and the Eastern Indigo Snake on Big Pine Key/No Name Key started in the mid-
1980s. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission signed a Memorandum
of Agreement to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other
protected species in the project area.
In 1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the DCA
signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which they committed to develop a (HCP) for these
two Keys. On June 9, 2006, a Federal Incidental Take Permit (#TE083411-0, ITP) from the
U.S. Federal Fish and Wildlife Commission was issued to three (3) permitees: Monroe
2 Subareas are geographic locations used to distribute ROGO allocations. Subareas are not to be confused
with Planning Areas (Lower, Middle and Upper) as defined by Section 2.2.1 Geographic Location/ Planning
Areas of the Future Land Use Element.
Housing 3 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
County, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs. The ITP ensures that development bears its fair share of required mitigation and
that the take of the covered species is minimized and mitigated.
The Livable Communikeys Program (LCP), Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine
Key and No Name Key was adopted on August 18, 2004 under Ordinance 029-2004. The
LCP envisioned the issuance of 200 residential dwelling units over 20 year horizon at a rate
of roughly 10 per year. A minimum of twenty percent of the 10 units per year are to be set
aside for affordable housing development. Today the 197 housing permits are allocated in
the Lower, Upper and Big Pine/No Name Keys Subareas, due to municipal incorporation
and environmental impact / constraints.
On September 22, 2005, the Monroe County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance
025-2005 which revised the ROGO to utilize the Tier Overlay System as the basis for the
competitive point system to implement Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The
ordinance became effective on February 5, 2006, under final Ordinance 009-2006. The
Tier System, still a ROGO, made changes such as subarea boundary districts for allocation
distribution, basis of scoring applications, and administrative relief. The Ordinance
changed the total available allocation number to 197. It also provided vesting provisions to
subareas geographically defined as follows and are depicted in the Tier Overlay District
Map:
• Upper Keys (Lower and Middle Keys combined): the unincorporated area of the county
north of Tavernier Creek and corporate limits of the Village of Islamorada
(approximately mile marker 90).
• Lower Keys: the unincorporated area of the County from the corporate limits of the
Village of Islamorada (approximately mile marker 72) south to the corporate limits of
the City of Key West at Cow Key Bridge on U.S. Highway 1 (approximately mile marker
4), excluding Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
• Big Pine Key/No Name Key: the islands of Big Pine Key and No Name Key within
unincorporated the County. Based on the revised 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the
adopted Maps as part of the Master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, they are
now evaluated as their own subarea.
Once an application is submitted, it is scored based on which Tier the property is located.
The basic process is: 1) applicant applies for residential building permit, 2) if applicant
receives all required approvals for residential development then the applicant may submit
an application for a residential unit, 3) applicant completes for an allocation award, 4)
applicant receives allocation award, then has 60 days to pick up permit. If the applicant
does not use the permit then the allocation expires.
The total number of available allocations is split among the three subareas of the County.
Each applicant competes against the other applicants located within the same subarea.
Housing 4 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
There is one exception to this process, applicants for affordable housing. Affordable
housing applicants compete against all applicants for affordable housing keys wide; with
the caveat that one affordable allocation goes to Big Pine and another one goes to No Name
Key. Allocations are awarded each quarter in each subarea with the exception of the Big
Pine Key/No Name Key subarea, where allocations are awarded annually. Table 7.1
depicts the current distribution of available allocations per MCLDC Art. II Sec. 138-24.
There are a limited number of available annual residential ROGO allocations. The number
of market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea of the unincorporated
County and total number of affordable residential ROGO allocations available countywide
on a yearly basis are illustrated in Table 7.1. According to MCLDC Art. II Sec. 138-24, the
market rate available allocations total 126 and the available affordable housing allocations
total 71 units (2 affordable allocations are reserved for the Big Pine/No Name Key
Subarea).
In addition, there is a ratio of affordable housing ROGO allocations to market rate ROGO
allocations. Prior to October of each year, the Board of County Commission (BOCC) may
adopt a resolution changing the ratio of affordable housing to market rate ROGO allocations
based upon the recommendations of the planning director and planning commission
arising from the annual review of ROGO. This ratio may be amended pursuant to the
following:
• The percentage of affordable housing shall never be less than 20 percent of the total
ROGO allocations available or the minimum established by rule of the Florida
Administration Commission, whichever is greater.
• The increase or decrease in the percentage of affordable housing of the total ROGO
allocations available shall not exceed 50 percent of the previous year's ROGO
allocations to market rate and affordable housing.
Table 7.1- Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) Allocations, per MCLDC Art. II Sec.138-24
NumberSubarea
Dwelling Units
Upper Keys
61
Lower Keys
57
Big Pine and No Name Keys
8
Total Market Rate
126
Affordable Dwelling Units
Number of Dwelling
Units
Very Low, Low, and Median Incomes
36*
Moderate Income
35*
Total Affordable Units
71
Total Units a Year
197
*Includes one for Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
MCLDC Art. II Sec. 138-24
Housing 5 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The primary basis of the competition is the Tier designation which will award an applicant
between 0 and 30 points. Points are intended to discourage development in
environmentally sensitive areas (Tier I) and to direct and encourage development to
appropriate infill areas (Tier III). Points also recognize that any development can affect the
functioning of natural and man-made infrastructure. Points vary depending on whether a
proposed development project is located on Big Pine Key or No Name Key or if it is located
elsewhere in the unincorporated County.
A penalty is assigned if the project is within a V flood zone. Lot aggregation is the process
of combining a contiguous, platted, vacant, and buildable parcel with another and building
only one unit. This is a reduction of density. Lot aggregation is only possible in Tier III and
Tier III (A) areas, where upland native habitat is not cleared. Additional points may be
awarded through lot aggregation, land dedication and land dedication. Payment to land
acquisition fund is the process of purchasing points (maximum of 2) by donating to the
County fund which allows for the retirement of development rights through the acquisition
of property. Land dedication is made prior to issuance of the permit. The primary point
assignments system is provided is Section 3.19.1.1 "Point System within ROGO".
A historic account of market rate and affordable ROGO allocations and awards are depicted
on Table 7.2. A detailed account of number of ROGO allocated and awarded is provided in
Appendix 7-1. Below is a brief history of the ROGO system.
• During ROGO Year 1-6 a total of 255 allocations (203 market rate and 52 affordable)
were allowed each year. During this period, unused affordable housing allocations
could be rolled- over to market rate allocations (Ord. 016-1992) in the Lower Keys,
Middle Keys and Upper Keys subareas.
• ROGO Years 6-14 allocations were affected by reductions due to Cesspit and Nutrient
Credit requirements.
• On December 31, 1997, the Village of Islamorada incorporated, thus reducing the
unincorporated allocations by 28 to 227 (182 market rate 45 affordable) for Rogo Year
6 and reducing the Upper Keys subarea boundary.
• During ROGO Year 8 (2000), the City of Marathon incorporated (November 30, 1999),
therefore reducing the unincorporated allocations by 24 and modifying the Middle
Keys subarea boundary. Also, during ROGO Year 8, the Department of Community
Affairs entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the County to allow 90
affordable housing allocations in exchange of good faith effort to begin the FEMA
inspection program.
• For ROGO Year 9 (2001), the Department of Community Affairs reinstated 201
affordable housing allocations (2001). This number includes both market and
affordable housing allocations that were lost due the inability to match an allocation
with nutrient reduction credits.
Housing 6 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• For ROGO Year 10 (2002), the Lower Keys subarea lost 25 allocations due to nutrient
credit requirements.
• Beginning in ROGO Year 11 (2003), affordable allocations can be grouped into a single
pool for countywide allocations.
• During ROGO Year 14 (2004), Ord. 009-2006 was enacted changing the allocation
number to 197 (126 market rate 71 affordable) pursuant to Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C.
The same rule also returned 165 allocations to the County to be used for affordable
housing.
• By ROGO Year 15 (2005), the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the
197 allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations are assigned to this subarea.
Cesspit requirements end during the first quarter of this ROGO year.
As seen in Table 7.2, from ROGO Year 1 to 17, of the grand total of available market rate
allocations of 2,755, 2,804 were awarded. The excess of awards may be due in part to the
rollover of affordable allocations that went unused from ROGO Year 1-6 into market rate
and the reuse of expired allocations from one ROGO quarter to another and from one ROGO
year to another ROGO year. These expired allocations were awarded to the next applicant
or "reused." Of the 1,242 available affordable housing allocations, 977 were awarded.
Between ROGO Years 1-17, an average of 222 ROGO allocations were awarded each year.
Of the allocations awarded, affordable housing awards represent 25 percent of the total
award. A detailed historical account of the number allocations available and awarded is
provided in Appendix 7-1.
As seen in Table 7.3, there were 49 market rate allocations that expired which were
tracked, recaptured and reused by the County. Therefore, at this point in time, there are
zero market rate allocations remaining. As seen in Table 7.3, there were 167 affordable
allocations that were rolled over to market rate (ROGO Years 2-6); 10 affordable
allocations expired; and 100 affordable allocations went unused. Therefore, a grand total of
110 affordable allocations are available.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 7 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.2 - Unincorporated County Market Rate and Affordable ROGO Year 1-17
r ear 1
Jul 14, 1992 -July 13, 1993
204
204
52
11
Year 2
Jul 14, 1993 -July 13, 1994)
243
231
52
9
Year 3
Jul 14, 1994 -July 13, 1995)
246
249
52
10
Year 4
(Jul 14, 1995 -July 13, 1996)
245
263
52
40
Year 5
ul 14, 1996 -Jul 13, 1997
215
218
52
23
Year 6
Jul 14, 1997 -July 13, 1998
211
197
77
56
Year 7
Jul 14, 1998 -July 12, 1999
101
102
30
9
Year 8
ul 13, 1999 -Jul 14, 2000
127
136
109
66
Year 9
Jul 13, 2000 -July 14, 2001
127
129
224
203
Year 10
Jul 14, 2001 -July 15, 2002
102
102
31
58
Year 11
Jul 16, 2002 -July 14, 2003
127
127
31
31
Year 12
Jul 13, 2 003-july 14, 2004
127
127
31
21
Year 13
Jul 14, 2004 -July 13, 2005
96
96
29
16
Year 14
Jul 14, 2005 -July 13, 2006
126
126
236
271
Year 15
Jul 14, 2006 -July 13, 2007
126
129
49
17
Year 16
Jul 14, 2007 -July 13, 2008
126
126
68
100
Year 17
(July 14, 2008 -July 13, 2009
206
242
67
36
TOTALS
2,755
2,804
1,242
977
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, Data provided on May 02, 2011.
Housing 8 Technical Document: May 2011
R
a
2
rA
^r _C
y
0
eel
O
bC O r
DCt
C) cz a
o
O. i.. U U U
° m
r-1
•
O cz
O c6 O O
• 'CS cz CU N
e-1
O O m w
�
a)
O CZ
U CC
�O�o3
C
� O
N
O U
N
¢ Q
y 0�0
4-1 Ij CZ
O O. C) u u
d
F i+
• X Lx. O O O
O O_ O
O cz 4 U cC
F" p :?,
CO
N
¢ ¢
v7
O
cz
LO
O � � U
E— G"
�
_O
N
C�
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
As seen in Table 7.4 below, there are zero remaining market rate allocations. A detailed
account of number of available allocations and the number of awarded is provided in
Appendix 7-1.
Table 7.4 - Residual Market Rate ROGO Allocations by Subarea
Lower (after Yr 15 includes Middle)
4�
-24
41
17
Middle (until Yr 15)
22
3
25
Upper
-47
4
-43
Big Pine/No Name (starts in Yr 15)
0
1
1
Total Remaining Market Allocations
p
�UUI LC: rv,vuI ue Uuunry urowrn management, Data provided on May 02, 2011.
As seen in Table 7.5, there are 111 remaining affordable allocations. A detailed account of
number of available allocations and the number of awarded is provided in Appendix 7-1.
Table 7.5 - Residual Affordable ROGO Allocations by Subarea
Lower (until Yr 10) 23
2
25
Middle (until Yr 10)
22
0
22
Upper (until Yr 10)
7
6
13
Big Pine/ No Name (starts in Yr 15)
5
1
6
Countywide (Yr 11-17 and 29 in Yr 8 from
agreement)
43
2
45
Total Remaining Affordable Allocations
111
Y, wiucu Lpu rviay UG, GU11.
3 Total market rate allocations available minus total market rate allocations awarded.
4 Expired market rate allocations minus recaptures and reused allocations
Housing 10 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Affordable allocations are currently grouped into two pools: Countywide and Big Pine/No
Name Sub -area and 1 pool with affordable allocations available Countywide. Again, there
are 111 residual affordable ROGO allocations of which 6 belong to the Big Pine/No Name
Key Subarea
Table 7.6 - Residual Affordable Allocations Distribution by Subarea
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, Data provided on May 02, 2011.
7.1.2 Residential Land Use Characteristics
As evidenced in Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Element the County has 4,988.2 acres of
residential land. This makes up 6.8 percent of the land use. The residential land use
distribution is 52.1 percent in the Upper Keys Planning Area (UKPA), 4.0 percent in the
Middle Keys Planning Area (MKPA), and 43.8 percent in the Lower Keys Planning Area
(LKPA).
Density and intensity is determined by Policy 101.4.21 of the 2010 Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan (1995). However, Property Appraiser's data provides the current
status of actual density and intensity by land acreage and number of dwelling units. As of
January 2010, the current density for single-family homes was 2.2 units per acre, 0.71 for
mobile homes, and 7.5 in average for all multi -family type (i.e. multifamily, condominium,
etc.), according to the Property Appraiser data. These are illustrated in Appendix 2-2 of the
Future Land Use Element
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 11 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2 Existing Housing Stock Characteristics
An inventory of existing housing is necessary to analyze the present housing situation in
unincorporated Monroe County and to determine future housing needs. To obtain a count of
existing housing in unincorporated Monroe County, two resources are combined: FHDC, and
building permits and demolitions of housing from April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010. The latter is
discussed in Section 7.2.12 `Residential Construction Activity"
Mainland Florida accounts for 90 percent of the land mass of the County; the majority of this
land is located within the Everglades National Park and is under federal jurisdiction. Only 41
year-round households are located on the Mainland portion of the County, with virtually no
demand for additional units projected, and no private lands available for development.
Therefore, this element will focus primarily on lands within the unincorporated Lower,
Middle, and Upper Planning Areas, as identified below, and illustrated on Map Series 2.1:
• Lower Keys Planning Area (LKPA): West boundary of Stock Island to the eastern limit of
the Seven Mile Bridge. The Marquesas Keys, located 30 miles west of Key West and the
Dry Tortuga Keys, located 70 miles west of Key West are also included within this
planning area;
• Middle Keys Planning Area (MKPA): Eastern limit of the City of Marathon to the western
limit of the Village of Islamorada, including Lignumvitae Key and Shell Key. It excludes
the incorporated City of Layton, City of Marathon, City of Key Colony Beach and Village of
Islamorada; and
• Upper Keys Planning Area (UKPA): Western limit of the Village of Islamorada to the
northern County line.
7.2.1 Type of Housing
[Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(a) F.A.C.J
Table 7.7 provides housing units by type countywide for 1990 and 2010, which includes the
municipalities within the County. Overall, the total housing stock countywide increased by
13.4 percent or 6,135 dwelling units from 1990 to 2000. Major changes are noted in single
family attached units with a 79 percent increase. Duplex units and mobile
home/trailer/other decreased by 24.9 percent and 5.2 percent respectively.
Housing 12 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.7- Countywide Housing Units by Type 1990-2000
991
Number
of Units
%
Dist.
2000
Number %
of Units Dist.
Chang•I 1.11
Number %
of Units Dist.
Unit Type
Single -Family (Detached)
19,773
43.3%
24,212
46.7%
4,439
22.4%
Single -Family (Attached)
2,348
5.1%
4,203
8.1%
1,855
79.0%
Duplex (2-units)
3,369
7.4%
2,531
4.9%
-838
-24.9%
Multi -Family 3+ units
8,812
19.3%
10,078
19.5%
1,266
14.4%
Mobile Home/Trailer/Other
11,359
24.9%
10,772
20.8%
-587
-5.2%
Total Year -Round Units
45,661 1
100.0%
1 51,796
1 100.0%
6,135
13.4%
Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, April 2010; 1990 data-U.S. Bureau of the Census
Note: To be updated on upon 2010 U.S. Census release April 1, 2011.
Table 7.8 provides housing units by type for unincorporated County for 2000. Based on
2000 Census (dated April 1, 2000), more than half of the unincorporated County's 24,595
year -rounds housing units were single-family units; 10.4 percent were multi -family units, 2.7
percent were duplex units, and another 30.9 percent were mobile homes/trailers/other.
Table 7.8 - Unincorporated Housing Units by Type 2000-2010
111
2010
Unit Type
Number of
Units
%
Dist.
Number of
Units
%
Dist.
Single -Family (Detached)
12,847
52.2%
Single -Family (Attached)
920
3.7%
Duplex (2-units)
669
2.7%
Multi -Family 3+ units
2,561
10.4%
Mobile Home/Trailer/Other
7,598
30.9%
Total Year -Round Units
24,595
100.0%
Source: Florida Housinc Data Clearinghouse.
Anril 2010_ 2010 data
will ha nrnuirleri nncP n
Census.
7.2.1.1 Hotel/Motel Transient Units
zblished by the
Section 101-1 of the County LCD defines housing as, "lawfully established hotel rooms,
campground spaces, mobile homes, transient residential units, institutional residential
units (except hospital rooms) and live-aboards".
Historically the number of hotel/motel transient units has declined in the last years. In
2003 the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation reported 9,373
5 The U.S. Census number of dwelling units excludes seasonal population, live aboards, etc.
Housing 13 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
hotel/motel rooms countywide. In 2010 there were 7,967. By March 14, 2011 there were
3,632 countywide.
The County has adopted a series of ordinances regarding hotel/motel transient units:
1) The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted Ordinance No. 47-1999 on
November 10, 1999, creating Sec. 9.5-120.5, which established that new transient
residential units, such as hotel/motel rooms, or campground, recreational vehicle or
travel trailers spaces, would not be eligible for residential ROGO allocations until January
1, 2002.
2) The BOCC extended the moratorium on new transient units from January.1, 2002 to
December 31, 2006, through Ordinance No. 001-2002. The BOCC adopted Ordinance No.
001-2007 to extend the moratorium on new transient units to December 31, 2008. The
moratorium was then set to expire on July 31, 2010.
3) According to the Economic Trends and Opportunities in Unincorporated Monroe County
report, the number of licensed hotel/motel6 rooms in unincorporated County was 2,199
and 8,680 countywide. According to the Monroe County Tourist Development Report
dated March 2010, the County excluding Key West, had 56.3, percent occupancy as of
January 2010. Key Largos occupancy rate was at 57.9 percent and Key West at 78.4
percent during the same period.
4) At their July 21, 2010 meeting, the BOCC extended the prohibition of new transient
residential units including hotel or motel rooms, campground spaces or spaces for
parking or recreational vehicle or travel until December 31, 2011 (Ord. 023-2010 and
MCLDC Section 138.23).
7.2.2 Occupancy and Tenure
[Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(a) F.A.C.J
As indicated in Table 7.9, occupied units dominated the County's housing market in 2000,
accounting for 64.0 percent of all units; vacancy was reported at 36.0 percent. Owner
occupancy predominates at 70.4 percent; whereas, renter occupancy was reported at 29.6
percent. The MKPA had the highest vacancy rate at 71.9 percent when compared to the
other planning areas; this percentage exceeds that of the County (36.0 percent). Of the
dwelling units that were occupied in the MKPA, at the time of the 2000 Census, 81.6 percent
were occupied by owners.
As seen in Table 7.9, the geographic distribution was assessed through Geographic
Information System (GIS) from the U.S. Census. Analysis was performed at the block level in
order to carve out the unincorporated County planning areas. The Lower and Upper Keys
6Number of rooms from licensed hotel/motel acquired from Economic Trends and Opportunities in
Unincorporated Monroe County by Fishkind and Associates, Inc. February 23, 2011 report.
Housing 14 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Areas have the highest dwelling unit distribution with 47.3 and 46.9 percent,
respectively, of the housing stock. In comparison, the MKPA has the lowest percentage of
housing stock at 5.8 percent.
According to the 2008 Hurricane Evacuation Model Report by Reid Ewing, for the County as a
whole, occupancy rates for permanent dwelling units appear to have declined by about 20
percent between the 2000 Census and the 2007 ACS. Therefore, it is estimated that the
occupancy rate for the unincorporated County of 64.0 percent, as reported by the 2000
Census, has decreased to 51.2 percent.
Table 7.9 - Unincorporated Housing Inventory by Occupancy Status and Tenure, 2000
IQ
Lower Keys
Number
Units
Percent
Middle Keys
Number
Percent
�Units�
Upper Keys
Number
Percent
Units
Total
Number
Units
Percent
ON •.
®
.
3uurce: riuriva housing uara Liearingnouse, Hpru zuiu
*41 dwelling units located in the Mainland according to Census Block GIS analysis.
Note: Will be updated with Census 2010 upon data release scheduled for April 1st 2011.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 15 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.3 Vacancy Status
[Rule 9J- S. 0 10 (1) (a) F.A.C.]
At the time of the 2000 Census, the vacant homes were classified as 79.1 percent seasonal,
recreational or occasional use; 7.4 percent was categorized as "Other Vacant"; and 6.2
percent of the vacant homes were for rent. The remaining units were classified as for sale,
rented or sold, not occupied, and for migrant workers. This is illustrated on Table 7.10.
Table 7.10 - Vacancy Status, 2000
! ! ! Occupied
15,788
64.2%
Vacant
Total Units
For Rent
8,807
32.8%
24,595
100.0%
548
6.2%
For Sale Only
430
4.9%
! Rented or Sold Not Occupied
Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use
For Migrant Workers
203
2.3%
6,967
79.1%
6
0.1%
Other Vacant
653
7.4%
.,...,, ..�.. ,.., ,uu a,�u�,a,b a�a,.a �,icai iLis�luuJC, tips ii GUI V
Note: Will be updated with Census 2010 upon data release scheduled for Aprillst 2011.
As a comparison, Table 7.11 provides the Vacancy Status from 1990. It is important to note
that at the time the 1990 data was collected, the City of Marathon and the Village of
Islamorada were not incorporated. Therefore, 1990 unincorporated numbers will be higher
when compared to those of unincorporated 2000.
Table 7.11- Vacancy Status, 1990
! f Occupied
22,564
69.0%
Vacant
10,133
31.0%
Total Units
For Rent
32,697
100.0%
19065
10.5%
' ! For Sale Only
Rented or Sold Not Occupied
731
7.2%
1,316
13.0%
Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use
7,021
69.3%
b .....,,.—, .., „, , ,.,.,,,,,, a, 1 aide /.G or Lne 6U1 U Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan
Note: "For Migrant Workers" and "Other Vacant" not available; and the City of Marathon and
the Village of Islamorada was not incorporated in 1990.
In recent years Census 2000 and ACS from 2005-2008 have shown a substantial amount of
home units are held for seasonal use. The data indicates the number of seasonal units has
risen from 12,628 in 2000 to 15,262 in 2005 to 19,195 in 2008. This is an increase of 6,567
seasonal units. During the same period, permanently occupied units have fallen from
Housing 16 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
35,086 to 29,084, or about 6,002 units. Based on the ACS and Census data, the loss in
permanent population is approximately equivalent to the gain in seasonal population since
year 2000.
Contributing to the declining permanently occupied units is the rate of foreclosed homes
and the increasing rate of non -homesteaded units. During the 2000-2009 period total
homesteaded units increased from 16,005 to 16,698 units, a net increase of 693 units.
During the same period, non -homesteaded units moved from 20,784 to 22,197, a net
increase of 1,413 units. In general, non -homesteaded properties represent seasonal
vacant, second homes, or for rent units. Population in these should be distinguished from
short-term tourist visitors. However, in times of high foreclosure rates, a shift to non -
homestead may represent a temporary loss in permanent population.
This compares with the 3,431 foreclosures from 2005-2009, recognizing it is likely as much
as half of the foreclosed units may have been resold since the initial foreclosures which
began in 2005, and some tendency for those units to return to a homesteaded status. By
2009, after speculative investing ceased, the share of non -homesteaded properties went
back down, falling to 2003 levels.
The non -homestead rate for all units is now 57.1 percent (2010). This is essentially the
same rate both pre and post bubble. Single family non -homestead rates began to move up
more closely in concert with rising foreclosures; therefore, a considerable portion of
permanent population losses may be attributable to foreclosures arising from the
speculative housing bubble, and thus temporary. The expectation is some permanent
population may return to these units over the course of the planning horizon - thus
permanent population may increase over this period in substantially greater numbers than
the growth in new housing units.
There has been an increase in vacant units from 2005-2009. During this period both the
Census and BEBR indicated permanent population loss. From 2005 to 2008 the ACS
indicated an increase in seasonal vacancy of 3,457 units. During the 2005-2009 period,
foreclosure data indicated there were 3,431 foreclosures, as noted earlier. Thus, the ACS
data indicates, on net, the permanent population losses and associated housing vacancy is
being shifted into seasonal units. Further, it is believed that vacant units are associated
with seasonal (non -permanent population) population. With a reported permanent
population growth in 2009 and increasing homestead exemptions in 2009 on one hand and
coinciding numbers of foreclosures and seasonal increase through ACS, it is equally
possible that permanent population loss is temporary and due as much to the end of the
housing bubble, foreclosures and rising unemployment, as it is due to a shift from
permanent to seasonal residency. It is likely both conditions exist and are occurring.
Housing 17 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.4 Age of Housing
[Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(a) F.A.Q
At the time of the 2000 Census, 19.2 percent of the housing stock is estimated to be 30 or
more years old, or built before 1970. The number of structural problems generally reflects
housing conditions and usually increases with the age of the housing stock. This is illustrated
on Table 7.12.
Table 7.12 - Distribution of Housing Units by Age, 2000
JUu1 Lc: r,uriva housing vata clearinghouse, April 2010
Note: Will be updated with Census 2010 upon data release
scheduled for April 2011.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 18 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.5 Price/Rent Characteristics and Affordability
(Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(a) F.A.C.J
7.2.5.1 Introduction
The availability of affordable housing is one of the most challenging issues facing Florida -
and around the nation. A few of the barriers to creating affordable housing in the County are
the high cost of land; a limited number of affordable ROGO allocations; and competition for a
finite amount of subsidies. Affordable housing may be defined as the "ability" of a household
to purchase a home. As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), affordable housing is one which cost does not exceed 30 percent of a household's
gross income. If it exceeds 30 percent of the households gross income the household is
considered to be cost burdened. There are two major factors that define whether a dwelling
unit is affordable: household income and cost. Two primary affordable housing indicators
are the affordability index and the number of cost burdened households.
The affordability index measures the ability of the median income household in an area to
afford a median priced house. In addition to the median income and median house price in
an area, the index construction requires the current mortgage interest rate, assumptions
about the down payment required to purchase the median price dwelling unit, and the
maximum percentage of household income that can be spent on housing. An index of 100
indicates the typical (median) family in the area has sufficient income to purchase a single-
family dwelling unit selling at the median price.
The Shimberg Center for Housing Studies developed an affordability index for all Florida
counties in a 2004 study. Median house prices were calculated from the Florida
Department of Revenue county property appraiser datasets. Median household incomes
come from the 2000 decennial US Census. Although important, median sale prices in a
county or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSAs) do not alone determine housing
affordability. A second important factor is the income of area residents. The highest
household incomes in Florida are generally in the coastal counties that also contain many
high priced housing units. However, median household incomes and single-family house
prices in an area are only moderately correlated, which can lead to significant differences
in housing affordability across counties and MSAs. According to the Shimberg Center
study, the County has the lowest affordability index with the least affordable homes.
However, the affordability index focuses only on the average incomes and housing prices
and does not consider the lowest income householders that would typically rent.
Cost burden is another method of evaluating housing affordability and probably more
reliable because it accounts for all income including those that would buy and those that
would rent. As mentioned, a household that is cost burdened is one that is paying more
than 30 percent of their gross income in housing cost (30 percent is established by HUD as
a parameter for an affordable home). Housing cost includes taxes and insurance for
owners and utility costs for owners and renters. The Shimberg Study concluded that while
20 percent of owners in the State of Florida are cost burdened, 41.6 percent of renters are
Housing 19 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
cost burdened or paying more than 30 percent of their income towards housing cost. The
cost burdened topic in the County is further elaborated in Section 7.2.7 "Cost to Income
Ratio':
7.2.5.2 Monroe County Affordable Housing Defined
As defined in Sec 101-1, of the MCLDC, affordable housing is considered to be one which:
1) Meets all applicable requirements of HUD minimum property standards as to room
sizes, fixtures, landscaping and building materials, when not in conflict with applicable
laws of the county; and
2) Monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of that amount which
represents either 50 percent (very low income) or 80 percent (low income) or 100
percent (median income) or 120 percent (moderate income) of the monthly median
adjusted household income for the County.
3) Affordable Rental Housing
• Very low income - a rental dwelling unit which monthly rent, not including utilities,
does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 50 percent of the monthly
median adjusted household income for the county.
• Low income- a rental dwelling unit which monthly rent, not including utilities, does
not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 80 percent of the monthly
median adjusted household income for the county.
• Median income - a rental dwelling unit which monthly rent, not including utilities,
does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 100 percent of the
monthly adjusted median household income for the county.
• Moderate income - a rental dwelling unit which monthly rent, not including utilities,
does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 120 percent of the
monthly median adjusted household income for the county.
4) Owner Occupied Affordable Housing
• Very Low Income - a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total
household income does not exceed 50 percent of the median monthly household
income for the county.
• Low Income - a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household
income does not exceed 80 percent of the median monthly household income for the
county.
Housing 20 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• Median Income - a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household
income does not exceed 100 percent of the median monthly household income for the
county.
• Moderate Income - a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total
household income does not exceed 160 percent of the median monthly household
income for the county.
The County's low paying jobs in the service and tourism industry have failed to keep up with
the increasing housing cost even before the recession. Typically, the moderate income range
for qualifying for affordable housing assistance is 120 percent of the area median income;
however, since the housing prices in the County are disproportionately high, the County and
the State allows households making 160 percent of the area median income to qualify for
affordable housing assistance (House Bill 1363 Ch. 2006-69, s. 27, Laws of Fla.) for home
purchase.
7.2.5.3 Housing Value and Affordability
As seen in Table 7.13, the median value of specified owner -occupied units, for the County as
a whole, according to the 2000 Census, was $241,200. This is an increase of nearly 60
percent from 1990. As seen in the ACS for 2006-2008, the 2000 median house value
increased by 154 percent in 2008 ($613,900). According to the Shimberg Institute, the
average home sales price in 2009 declined to $572,607. The 2009 decline in selling price
reflects the economic recession.
Table 7.13 - Historic Median Housing Value for Monroe County
Year
1970
Value
$16,500
Percent
1980
$62,200
276.9%
1990
$151,200
143.1%
2000
$241,200
59.5%
2008
$613,900
154.5%
2009
$572,607
-6.7%
. Vui t-c. v.. 1.c11JuJ, 17/ U, I-JOV, I" Up LUUU, American Community
Survey 2006-2008, and Shimberg Center for 2009 average home
sales price.
According to HUD data, the County's area median income in 2010 was $68,400. Table 7.14
depicts the household income levels qualifying for affordable housing based on assumed
family size for households with a single income provider working 40 hours for both renter
and owner housing. This is the best available data and is provided by the County Growth
Management Division.
nuusing 21 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.14 - Qualifying Incomes for Single Income Provider (40 hours)
wui LU. IVIUurue i,uuuLy vruwui ivianagement, GulU, MLLDC Sec 101-1
For a household comprised of adults related by marriage or domestic partnership
registered with the County, only the highest 60 hours of the combined employment hours
are counted, and considered to be 75 percent of the adjusted gross income. The income of
dependents regardless of age is not counted in calculating a household's income (MCLDC
Sec. 130.161). Income levels for domestic partnerships are illustrated on Table 7.15 and
are the best available data as provided by the County Growth Management Division.
Table 7.15 - Qualifying Incomes for Married or Domestic Partnership Households (60
hours)
source: Monroe Lounty Growth Management, 2010, MCLDC Sec. 130.161
Area median income based on HUD.
Housing 22 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
To compute the monthly maximum rental rates, 30 percent of the household income is
divided by 12 (months). Table 7.16 illustrates the maximum rental rates by income level in
2010 for single income providers.
Table 7.16 - Tenant Maximum Rental Rates for Single Income Provider
Unit Size
Efficiency
Very Low
(50 % of
AMI)
.1
Low
(80 % of
AMI)
•.
Median
(100 % of
AMI)
1,
Moderate
(1.20% of
AMI)
..
1
Source: Monroe county urowtn Management, Lo10.
To compute the monthly maximum rental rates, 30 percent of the household income is
divided by 12 (months). Table 7.17 illustrates the maximum rental rates by income level in
2010 for married or domestic partnership households.
Table 7.17 - Tenant Maximum Rental Rates for Married or Domestic Partnership
Households
Unit Size
Very Low
(50 % of
AMI)
Low
(80 % of
AMI)
Median
(100 % of
AMI)
Moderate
(120% of
AMI)
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010.
Maximum selling price for an affordable housing unit based on the 2010 median income of
$68,400 is illustrated in Table 7.18. As defined by the MCLDC 101-01, the maximum sales
price, for an owner occupied affordable housing unit, means a price not exceeding 3.75
times the annual median household income for the County for a one bedroom or efficiency
unit, 4.25 times the annual median household income for the County for a two bedroom
unit, and 4.75 times the annual median household income for the County for a three or
more bedroom unit.
Housing 23 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.18 - Maximum Selling Price for Affordable Units in 2010
Source: monroe county Growth Management, 2010.
For a median income households made up of two person income providers related by
marriage or domestic partnership, the income would be approximately $73,548, as seen in
Table 7.15. For this household, it would be difficult to purchase a market rate home.
Typically, the ability to purchase a dwelling unit is calculated by the household income
multiplied by three. Therefore, the same household of two income providers would be able
to afford a $220,644 market rate home. However, the average market rate price in 2009 was
recorded at $572,607 (Table 7.13). This is an affordability gap of 351 thousand dollars.
Affordability gap is calculated by subtracting the housing price ($572,607) by the purchase
ability ($220,644).
If the same family were to be qualified to purchase an affordable dwelling unit, and were to
purchase efficiency or 1 bedroom apartment, the selling price would have to be no greater
than $275,806, applying the 3.75 multiplier as seen in Table 7.18.
7.2.5.3.1 Owner Occupied Housin Value
As required by Rule Chapter 9J-5 F.A.C., the distribution of specified owner -occupied units
within the County and the median value trends are shown in Table 7.19 and are based on
unincorporated County data acquired an April 2010 from the Florida Housing Data
Clearinghouse (FHDC) The FHDC provides public access to data about housing in Florida.
Data for unincorporated County was acquired from the FHDC and is based on 2000 Census
data.
Table 7.19 - Distribution of Owner -Occupied Housing by Value, 2000
Value
<$50,000
Number of
Units
31
PercentHousing
Distribution
0.4%
$50,000-$99,999
350
4.9%
$100,000-$149,999
1,240
17.2%
$150,000-$199,999
1,470
20.4%
$200,000-$299,999
1,874
26.0%
$300,000-$499,999
1,447
20.1%
$500,000-$999,999
495
6.9%
>$1,000,000
291
4.0%
Total
7,198
100.0%
Source: rioriaa Housing uata uiearmghouse, April 2010
Note: Excluding mobile homes
Housing 24 Technical Document., May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The 2000 data in Table 7.19 indicates that less than one percent of units were valued below
$50,000 according to the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse; less than five percent were
valued below $99,999; approximately 94 percent of units were valued at over $100,000.
When comparing owner occupied housing cost to the 2000 median value, there were
approximately 42.9 percent of the owner occupied housing that fall below the median value
($241,200).
As a comparison, the distribution of specified owner -occupied units within the County and
the median value trends for 1990, are as reported in the "Housing Element" of the Technical
Document of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted in1995, are shown in
Table 7.20. It is important to note that at the time the 1990 data was collected, the City of
Marathon and the Village of Islamorada were not incorporated; therefore unincorporated
1990 totals will be higher when compared to unincorporated 2000 totals.
Table 7.20 - Distribution of Owner -Occupied Housing by Value, 1990
Housing Value
<$59,999
Number of
Units
609
Percent
Distribution
5.0%
$60,000-$99,999
2,441
20.2%
$100,000-$149,999
2,914
24.2%
$150,000-$199,999
2,346
19.5%
>$200,000
3,749
31.1%
Total
12,059
100.0%
,ource: Housing hiement or the Technical Document,
Table 7.5 of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
taken from the U.S. Census Bureau 1990. Note: This
excludes mobile homes.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 25 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.5.3.2 Monthly Cost of Owner -Occupied Units
Table 7.21 and Table 7.23, presents the distribution of specified owner -occupied housing
cost in the County by mortgage status and non -mortgage status for year 2000. According
to the FDCH, in 2000, about 57.1 percent of renters paid between $1,000 and $1,999 per
month.
Only 8.7 percent of the owners with non -mortgage status paid more than $1,000 per
month. About 45.7 percent of non -mortgage status owners paid between $400 and $699
per month.
It is important to mention that mortgage status and non -mortgage status are collected from
a 1-in-6 sample and weighted to represent the total population and thus totals will not
equal the 11,334 unit shown in Table 7.9.
Table 7.21- Mortgage Status and Selected Monthly Owner Costs8 Unincorporated
Monroe County, 2000
Range
I-
Less than $299
Number of
Units
7
Percent
Distribution
0.2%
$300 - $399
0
0.0%
$400 - $499
27
0.6%
$500 - $599
59
1.4%
$600 - $699
170
3.9%
$700 - $799
188
4.3%
$800 - $899
247
5.7%
$900 - $999
294
6.8%
$1,000 - $1,249
756
17.4%
$1,250 - $1,499
839
19.3%
$1,500 - $1,999
887
20.4%
$2000-$2499
373
8.6%
$2500-$2999
239
5.5%
$>$3000
253
5.8%
Tota19
4,339 1
100.0%
Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, April 2010
As a comparison, the 1990 mortgage status and selected monthly owner costs for Monroe
County, are as reported in the "Housing Element" of the Technical Document of the 2010
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted in 1995, are shown in Table 7.23. It is
important to note that at the time the 1990 data was collected, the City of Marathon and the
Village of Islamorada were not incorporated.
6 Selected monthly owner costs, such as mortgage payments and utilities, are a measure of the cost of
homeownership. When combined with income, selected monthly owner costs offer an excellent measure of
affordability and excessive shelter costs.
9 Sample data or collected from a 1-in-6 sample and weighted to represent the total population.
Housing 26 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.22 - Mortgage Status and Selected Monthly Owner Costs
Monroe County,1990
DistributionRange Number of Percent
Units
Less than $299 188 2.8%
$300 - $399
189
2.9%
$400 - $499
288
4.3%
$500 - $599
414
6.3%
$600 - $699
615
9.3%
$700 - $799
553
8.4%
$800 - $899
587
8.9%
$900 - $999
640
9.70/o
$1,000 - $1,249
1,174
17.8%
$1,250 - $1,499
688
10.4%
$1,500 - $1,999
540
8.2%
$2,000 or more
730
11.6%
Total
6,606
100.0%
Source: "Housing Element" of the Technical Document, Table
7.6 of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
Table 7.23 - Non Mortgaged Status and Selected Monthly Owner Costs,
Unincorporated Monroe County, 2000
Range Number of Percent
Units Distribution
$100-$149
61
2.1%
$150-$199
90
3.1%
$200-$249
131
4.6%
$250-$299
138
4.8%
$300-$349
282
9.9%
$350-$399
254
8.9%
$400-$499
599
21.0%
$500-$599
411
14.4%
$600-$699
295
10.3%
$700-$799
173
6.1%
$800-$899
131
4.6%
$900-$999
23
0.8%
>$1,000
248
8.7%
Total 10
2,859
100.0%
Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, April 2010.
10 Sample data or collected from a 1-in-6 sample and weighted to represent the total population. It will not
equate to the housing unit count in Table 7.5.
Housing 27 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.5.3.3 Rental Rates
The FHDC provides the distribution of units by contract rent. Contract rent is the monthly
rent agreed to, or contracted for, regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or services that may
be included. The distribution of specified renter -occupied units is illustrated in Table 7.24.
Table 7.24 - Distribution of Renter Occupied Units by Contract Rent Range, 2000
3uurce: riuriva nousmg uata Liearingnouse, April 2010.
As a comparison, the 1990 mortgage status and selected monthly owner costs for Monroe
County, are as reported in the "Housing Element" of the Technical Document of the 2010
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted in 1995, are shown in Table 7.25. It is
important to note that at the time the 1990 data was collected, the City of Marathon and the
Village of Islamorada were not incorporated. Therefore, 1990 numbers of units will be
higher.
Table 7.25 - Distribution of Renter Occupied Units by Contract Rent Range, 1990
source: -Housing dement" of the Technical Document, Table
7.7, 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan.
*includes No Cash Rent
As a comparison, it is evident from Table 7.24 and Table 7.25, that the percent distribution
of rental price below $500 has deceased for more than half from 1990 to 2000. In 1990
rental price below $500 distribution was 52.0 percent and 14.5 percent in 2000.
Housing 28 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.6 Cost to Income Ratios
[Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(a) F.A.C.J
7.2.6.1 Rent -to -Income Ratios
According to the HUD, the threshold for affordable housing is a rent -to -income ratio of 30
percent. In other words, when gross monthly housing cost exceeds 30 percent of monthly
household income, the household is considered to be paying too much for housing versus
other essential living expenses. This is known as a household that is cost burdened.
Based on the 30 percent cost burdened threshold, the general trend is that the lower the
household income range (less than $10,000 on Table 7.26), the higher the degree of being
cost burdened. 92 percent of households making an income below $10,000 are cost
burdened. In the other spectrum, at the income range of $75,000 or more, the rate of
households that were cost burdened was only 6.3 percent. This trend is consistent with the
exception of income range $50,000 - $74,999, where all renter households were cost
burdened. Renter households, with annual incomes below $34,999, accounted for 59
percent of total renter households, but represented 75 percent of households being cost
burdened. Of the 3,310 renter household sample, 54.0 percent was cost burdened. These
trends are depicted in Table 7.26.
Table 7.26 - Rent -to -Income for Renter -Occupied Units, 1999
Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse accessed April 2010
Note: Data will be updated once the Census 2010 is available, estimated to occur on April 2011.
As a comparison, the 1989 Rent -to Income for Renter -Occupied Units, are as reported in the
"Housing Element" of the Technical Document of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive
Plan as adopted in 1995, are shown in Table 7.27. The trend of the lower income being the
most cost burdened when compared the 1999. However, renters at the various income
ranges were less cost burdened back in 1989. Of the 11,183 renter households in 1989,
47.0 percent was cost burdened. This represents a five percent increase of cost -burdened
renters in 1999. This restates the affordable housing need.
Housing 29 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.27- Rent -to -Income for Renter -Occupied Units,1989
Ouui Lc. nuuauis MUUMUU l ui Lne 1 ecnnical Document, Table 7.8 of the 2010 Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan taken from the U.S. Census Bureau 1990.
7.2.6.2 Owner -to -Income Ratios
Based on the HUD threshold of households paying more than 30 percent of their income as
being cost burdened, the same trend is observed for owners. Lower income owner
occupied households (with incomes below $10,000) were the most cost burdened at 92
percent. In contrast, at the $75,000 or more income range, 11.4 percent of households
were cost burdened. Owner households with annual incomes below $34,999 accounted for
29 percent of total owner occupied households, but represent 66 percent of households
which were cost burdened. 2,356 of the 7,412 owner households or 32 percent of the
owner households were cost burdened. Owner -to -income ratios are shown on Table 7.28.
Table 7.28 - Monthly Owner Cost by Income, 1999
auui LU. rlul iud nuu5111g VdLd L.1edting'n Ouse, April Lulu
When comparing renter cost to income (Table 7.26) and owner cost to income (Table 7.28),
it is evident that the lowest income households are the most cost burdened, more so for
renters. Also, all renters at the $50,000 - $74,999 income range are cost burdened in
comparison to only a quarter of those who own in that same income range. It is evident that
renters are in more need of affordable housing assistance.
Housing 30 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.7 Structural Condition of Housing Stock
[Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(c) F.A.C.J
Substandard housing is defined as units without complete kitchen facilities; units lacking
some or all plumbing facilities (hot and cold piped water, flush toilets, no bathtub or shower);
or units designated as deteriorating or dilapidated because of other structural deficiencies.
Another characteristic of substandard housing are those that are overcrowded. Housing
conditions are available for those lacking complete plumbing facilities, complete kitchens,
central heat and over crowdedness and are illustrated in Table 7.29.
According to FHDC, which provides the latest available detail concerning structural
conditions of housing, there were 139 units or about 0.6 percent of the unincorporated
County's housing stock that lacked complete plumbing and could, therefore, be considered
"substandard". Other factors, such as the lack of complete kitchen facilities, indicate a
substandard unit; these units account for 0.8 percent of the total housing inventory.
Approximately 6.1 percent of the County's occupied housing units had more than 1.01
persons per room.
Although these conditions are the norm for accessing substandard housing, the County may
consider conducting an onsite survey to truly depict the severity of deteriorating and
substandard structures. In particular, given that the housing stock is aging as indicated on
Table 7.12.
Table 7.29 - Inventory of Housing by Specified Condition, 2000
'Share of occupied units
Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse accessed on April 1st 2010
Will be updated with Census 2010 upon data release scheduled for April 2011.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 31 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.8 Subsidized Housing Developments
[Rule 9J-5.010(1)(d) F.A.C.]
7.2.8.1 Housing Delivery Programs
Below is a list of programs that deal with the provision of subsidized and affordable
housing.
7.2.8.1.1 Federal Programs
• The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): This program has been in existence
since 1974. The program is a significant source of funds for affordable housing; however,
this is not the sole focus of such grants. CDBG funds can be used for a variety of
community development initiatives, including affordable housing construction, home
repair assistance for existing low-income homeowners, and economic development
initiatives designed to spur business investment and economic growth in distressed
neighborhoods. Funding is awarded according to a formula that attempts to quantify the
amount of need in a community compared with other communities, using several
economic and demographic measures. Communities receiving grants are required to
solicit and encourage citizen participation, particularly from the proposed beneficiaries,
in developing a final plan for using the funds.
• Home Investment Partnerships (HOME): This is a block grant program administered by
HUD designed to provide flexible funding support for affordable low-income housing in
the affordable housing solutions for low-income families. HOME funds can be used to
acquire and renovate deteriorated properties or construct new housing for rent or sale.
The funds can also be used for down payment assistance grants to individual
homebuyers, as well as to other programs. The beneficiaries of HOME -funded programs
must have incomes below 80 percent of the HUD -determined area median family income,
and most uses of HOME funds have more specific income guidelines. The flexibility of the
HOME program is designed to empower communities to find the best available uses for
the money, and requires significant interagency cooperation. HOME funds must be
matched with a 25 local contribution, which can take the form of cash from municipal
bond issues or donated labor and construction materials from the private sector.
Another form of local contribution can be vacant or abandoned properties -donated by
private donors or the city -which after HOME -funded renovation and/or construction,
would be sold to low-income homebuyers. Additionally, jurisdictions receiving HOME
funding are required to commit at least 15 percent of funding to projects which will be
owned or developed by experienced, local, community -based nonprofit organizations
called Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) by HUD, but often
known as Community Development Corporations (CDCs). HOME -funded housing is
required to remain affordable for low-income residents for at least 5 to 20 years,
depending on the type of project and proportion of funding provided by HOME.
Housing 32 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• The American Dream Down Payment Initiative: This is a corollary program to HOME
designed specifically to aid low-income first-time homebuyers with funds for closing
costs and a down payment. Families meeting the criteria are eligible for up to $10,000
or 6 percent of the purchase price (whichever is greater) of a home. Some of the funds
may also be used for remedying health hazards such as lead -based paint in the home
prior to occupancy. The ADDI program is administered in conjunction with the HOME
program, but allocations are figured separately, and different rules apply.
• The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA): This program provides
special housing assistance for low-income persons diagnosed with HIV or AIDS.
Assistance ranges from short-term rental assistance aimed at preventing homelessness,
to ongoing longer -term rental assistance, to the acquisition, construction, and provision
of supporting housing, which provides integrated services for health care, mental
health, chemical dependency, and general case management. According to HUD,
HOPWA funds are an important catalyst for partnerships; on average, approximately $2
is leveraged for every $1 provided by HOPWA. Baseline HOPWA funds are awarded
based on a statutory formula program, but additional funds are available based on a
competitive grant process awarding additional funds to highly successful or innovative
programs.
• The Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG): This program provides federal funding for
homeless shelters through HUD grants to local governments, which then disburse the
grant monies to local nonprofits. ESG funds are required to be locally matched dollar
for dollar. The matched funds are most likely to be found in the form of private
fundraising by the recipient nonprofit organizations, but can also include other federal,
state, and local grants as well as in -kind donations of real estate and volunteer time.
ESG funds are also granted to state governments, but different rules apply.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): FEMA provides grants and assistance
programs to local governments, such as the Disaster -Specific Assistance Program;
Hazard -Related Grants and Assistance Programs, and Non -Disaster Programs.
• Section 8 Voucher Program: A voucher may be either "project -based" (where its use is
limited to a specific apartment complex; public housing agencies (PHAs) may reserve up
to 20 percent of its vouchers) or "tenant -based" (where the tenant is free to choose a unit
in the private sector, is not limited to specific complexes). Under the voucher program,
individuals or families with a voucher find and lease a unit (either in a specified complex
or in the private sector) and pay a portion of the rent (based on income, but generally no
more than 30 percent (40 percent being the maximum at time of lease -up) of the family's
income).
Housing 33 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.8.1.2 Florida Pro -grams"
• State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP): State housing initiatives partnership SHIP
is the first -and only -permanently funded, state housing program in the nation to
provide funds directly to local governments to increase affordable housing
opportunities in their communities. The program channels 69 percent of the
documentary stamp tax revenues created by the Sadowski Act directly to counties and
entitlement cities in Florida on a noncompetitive basis. Designed as an incentive for the
formation of public -private partnerships for building, rehabilitating and preserving
affordable housing, the SHIP program provides a financial means to develop and
implement housing programs that are locally designed.
SHIP funds may be used to provide emergency repairs to very low, low and moderate
income households following a natural disaster as declared by the President of the
United States, Governor of the State of Florida or by the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners. Funds can be used to purchase emergency supplies to
weatherproof damaged home; interim repairs to avoid further damage; tree and debris
removal required to make the individual housing unit habitable; construction of wells
or repair of existing wells where public water is not available; post disaster assistance
with non-insured repairs; and soft costs required to process assistance applications.
The program is only implemented after a natural disaster.
SHIP funds may be also used as part of the local contribution for programs that
construct multi -family special needs rental housing. The SHIP funds that are used in
these types of projects will be in the form of a deferred payment loan for 15 years at a
one percent to five percent interest rate, depending upon cash flow of the project.
• State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) Program: SAIL stimulates production of
affordable, multi- and single-family rental housing for very low-income individuals and
families in Florida. SAIL is a development incentive program, which leverages state loan
funds, local government contributions, developer equity, and private bond financing.
The State Apartment Incentive Loan program (SAIL) provides low -interest loans on a
competitive basis to affordable housing developers each year. This money often serves
to bridge the gap between the development's primary financing and the total cost of the
development. SAIL dollars are available to individuals, public entities, not -for -profit or
for -profit organizations that propose the construction or substantial rehabilitation of
multifamily units affordable to very low income individuals and families.
• Florida Homeownership Assistance Program (HAP): Down payment Assistance Loan
Program: This helps individuals and families with low incomes purchase their own
homes by providing $2,500 in 0 percent interest, non -amortizing, second mortgage
loans for down payments and closing costs. The following are:
11"Of Ships and Sails: Affordable Housing Financing Programs In Florida" (Foresight, Fall 1997)
Housing 34 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Permanent Loan Program - This provides 0 percent interest, non -amortizing, second
mortgage loans covering 25 percent of the purchase price of a home. These loans
assist qualified borrowers with down payment/closing costs and reduce the principal
on their first mortgage.
Construction Loan Program -A nonprofit developer or sponsor is eligible to borrow the
lesser of either the total funds available in an application cycle, or 33 percent of the
cost of the project to construct or substantially rehabilitate a minimum of four homes.
At least 30 percent of the units must be set aside for low-income borrowers and 30
percent for very low-income borrowers.
• Predevelopment Loan Program (PLP): This program provides financial assistance for
predevelopment costs, site acquisition, and development of land for housing affordable
to individuals or families with very low and low incomes.
• Florida Affordable Housing Guarantee Program: This program provides guarantees on
taxable loans and tax-exempt loans to stimulate innovative, private sector lending for
multi- and single-family affordable housing.
1. Low -Income Rental Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program: This program gives
developers federal tax credits in exchange for acquisition and substantial
rehabilitation for substantially rehabilitating or for new construction of rental
housing projects for low or very low income rental housing units must be set aside
for individuals or families.
2. Multi -Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program: This program uses taxable and tax-
exempt bonds to provide below -market interest rate loans to non -profits and for
profits for developers of apartment units that set aside at least 20 percent of the
units for households earning 50 percent or less of the AMI or forty percent for
households earning 60 percent of the AMI.
3. Single -Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds (MRB) Program: This uses the proceeds
from mortgage revenue bonds from statewide qualified lending institutions to offer
below -market mortgage loans to first-time home buyers with low, moderate and or
middle incomes. (FAC Rule 67-25)
7.2.8.1.3 Monroe Countv Programs
There are various County agencies with a role in affordable housing development12; these
are:
12 Monroe County Division of Housing and Community Development, 2007, Monroe County Affordable and
Workforce Housing.
Housing 35 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department: This Department
works with property owners to develop and preserve Affordable Housing in
unincorporated Monroe County. This department recommends and provides
Comprehensive Plan amendments and MCLDCs relating to affordable housing.
• Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA): The MCLA is a land acquisition agency created
pursuant to Section 2-397 of the MCLDC, Section 380.0661 of the Florida Statutes, and
the Florida Keys and Key West Area of Critical State Concern designations. The agency
is empowered to acquire and dispose of property for a range of public purposes,
including recreation, affordable housing, environmental protection, and the protection
of private property rights. As of September 30, 2009, the Monroe County Land Authority
has expended $21 million on site acquisition, $28.5 million for affordable housing
(Source: MCLA).
• Monroe County Housing Authority: The Housing Authority is responsible for low income
and affordable rental apartments throughout the County, and oversees the SHIP program
which provides 2nd mortgages to income -qualified home buyers.
As per the Monroe County Housing Authority, a variety of housing programs provide for
subsidized housing in unincorporated Monroe County. These programs include State
Apartment Incentive Loan Program (SAIL), Monroe County Land Authority Program (MCLA),
Low Income Tax Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), Federal Emergency Management Agency
Program (FEMA) and other U.S. Housing and Community Development programs (HUD).
A total of 470 dwelling units are subsidized by several programs in unincorporated Monroe
County, which are listed in Table 7.30 and 7.31. A total of 85 units are scheduled to be built.
All of the units and developments listed in this section are rental.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 36 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.30 - Subsidized Housing Developments, 2010
Development Name
H. Bethel Apartments
Program
Jurisdiction
FEMA/MCLA
Number
of Units
18
Location
Stock Island
Stock Island Apartments
LIHTC SAIL
130
Stock Island
Meridian West
LIHTC SAIL MCLA
102
Stock Island
Fla ler Village a
LIHTC
49
Stock Island
Atlantic Pines
LIHTC SAIL
14
Big Pine Key
Scattered Sites
FEMA MCLA
S
Big Coppitt Key
Blue Water a
LIHTC MCLA
36
Tavernier
Newport Village
HUD
50
Key Largo
Tradewinds Hammocks
LIHTC/SAIL MCLA
66
Key Largo
Total
470
--
�VUILU. MUHIUC UUMILy nuuJ111gHUL11WILy, GUlU
(a) To be built.
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
MCLA - Monroe County Land Authority
LIHTC - Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
SAIL - State Apartment Incentive Loan Program
HUD - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Section 8 federal funds are used to subsidize housing through cash vouchers in lieu of rent
payments, loan assistance programs, rental rehabilitation aid, and other general assistance
programs. A total of 143 dwelling units in the County are funded through this program, as
shown in Table 7.31.
Table 7.31- Section 8 Subsidized Housing Developments, 2010
L3vu1Lc: 1Y1U111Ue kUunLy nuusing A111norny, Lulu
7.2.8.2 Subsidized Housing and the Rate of Growth (ROGO) Process
The process of receiving a building permit in Monroe County is a competitive process.
ROGO is a tool utilized by the County to control growth throughout the Keys. However,
additional consideration is given to affordable housing permit applications. ROGO is a
housing 37 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
point based system that allows applicants applying for a new residential building permit to
compete against other applicants for the limited number of allocations issued each year.
The number of allocations available is determined through the adoption of an
administrative rule on the State level. The number of allocations is based on the progress
Monroe County has made toward achieving state set goals such as a central wastewater
system being available keys wide. The total number of available allocations is split among
the three subareas of Monroe County. The Upper Keys, Lower Keys and the Big Pine/No
Name Key subareas. Each applicant competes against the other applicants located within
the same subarea. There is one exception to this process, applicants for affordable housing.
Affordable housing applicants compete against all applicants for affordable housing
permits keys wide. Allocations are awarded each quarter in each subarea with the
exception of Big Pine Key and No Name Key where allocations are awarded annually.
7.2.9 Group Homes
[Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(e) P.A.C.]
The Florida Department of Children & Families licenses one group home within the County.
It is a Residential Child Caring Agency in Key West, Florida, with a capacity of six children,
ages 11 to 17.
7.2.10 Mobile Home Parks
[Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(J) F.A.C.J
The vast majority of mobile home parks are located on the Municipalities. An account for
both unincorporated and incorporated mobile home parks as accessed through the Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulation file name mhmailings.csv is provided
in Table 7.32. A total of 1,378 units are located in the mobile home parks in the count as a
whole.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 38 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.32 - Mobile Home Parks
Unincorporated
Name
Coco Palms
Location
Cudjoe Key
Units
18
Captain Jax RV Resort
Key Largo
24
Largo Lively Inc
Key Largo
58
Paradise Point Mobile Home Park
Key Largo
15
Waters Edge Colony Mobile Home Park
Stock Island
66
Sugarloaf Mobile Home Resort
Sugar Loaf Key
22
Summerland Palms Trailer Park
Summerland
22
Driftwood Trailer Park
Tavernier
15
Total Unincorporated
Incorporated
Name
Coconut Grove Mobile Home Park
Location
Key West
240
Units
33
Island Life Village
Key West
106
Liz's Trailer Park
Key West
19
Poinciana Mobile Home Park Inc
Key West
79
Stadium Mobile Home Park
Key West
278
Sunset Harbor Manufactured Home Community
Key West
86
Tropic Palms Mobile Home Park
Key West
25
Galway Bay Mobile Home Park
Marathon
70
Jolly Roger Travel Park & Motel
Marathon
88
Sundance Trailer Village & Efficiencies
Marathon
35
Terra Marine Trailer Park
Marathon
23
Trailerama Mobile Home Park
Marathon
117
Ocean Breeze Park West
Marathon
47
Grassy Key RV Park & Resort
Grassy Key
18
Peaceful Palms
Islamorada
15
San Pedro Trailer Park
Islamorada
14
Seabreeze Mobile Home Park
Islamorada
35
Village Mobile Park Inc
Islamorada
32
WINDLEY KEY Trailer Park
ISLAMORADA
18
Total Incorporated
1,138
Countywide Total
1,378
Sou, ce: rlor iva ueparLment of rsusiness and Professional Regulation file name mhmailings.csv
accessed through http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/sto/file_download/public-records-
CTMH.html on February 24, 2011.
Note: Approved or acknowledged mobile home parks and owners. Terminated, rejected or
withdrawn projects are not included
nuubiug 39 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.11 Historically Significant Housing
(Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(g) F.A.C.]
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is the entity that maintains the Florida Master
Site File (FMSF) inventory for the County, and for coordinating the review of historic
resource nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. Historic housing in the
Keys is most often associated with Key West, which contains 2,406 historic homes according
to the (FMSF). However, historic houses, notable for their simple vernacular styles, are also
found in the unincorporated County.
Although the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) contains 391 listings of historic resources in
unincorporated Monroe County, 185 of the listings are historic houses. As seen in Table
7.33 and Table 7.35, there are 19 houses that are potentially eligible for listing on the
National Register, and 16 of them are located in Tavernier (Table 7.35). Other structures
and sites (excluding those eligible or listed on the Register, and those in the Tavernier
Historic District) listed on the FMSF, are shown on Table 7.34. Structures on the FMSF
which are located in the Tavernier Historic District are shown separately on Table 7.36.
The National Register of Historic Places lists 52 historic places. The only historically
significant housing in unincorporated Monroe County listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, are the buildings on Pigeon Key (FMSF #1260). The Pigeon Key camp housed
workers of the Overseas Railroad bridges and highway projects until 1941. The camp was
used as a retreat, and recently as a marine research facility. Now managed by the Pigeon Key
Foundation, Pigeon Key is a public cultural resource and is unlikely to be renovated for
future housing uses.
The Pigeon Key Marine Science Camp (PKMSC) is a 501(c) 3 not -for -profit organization
whose mission is to provide educational experiences in a history rich environment located
on a 5-acre island. Our programs are for all ages - elementary school to post graduate - and
are designed and endorsed by some of the most respected marine scientists in the United
States. The Teaching Team located on Pigeon Key are truly dedicated to the preservation of
our natural resources through hands-on educational and leadership development programs
for today's students and tomorrow's leaders.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 40 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.33 - Florida Master Site File, Historic Houses Potentially Eligible for Listing in
the National Register of Historic Places
MO03692 55 OCEANA DR (Key KEY LARGO Private residence
Largo Lodge)
MO01256 Rigby House Private residence
81 SOUTH CONCH
MO03711 AVENUE, CONCH KEY 81 S CONCH AVE Private residence
Source: hloricla Master Site rile, January 2010
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 41 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.34 - Florida Master Site File Housing
LOWER KEYS PLANNING AREA
M003622 ARENSON BIG PINE KEY Private residence
M003733 31131 AVENUE D BIG PINE KEY Private residence
M003734 31336 AVENUE E
BIG PINE KEY
Private residence
M003735 TACKLE AND BAIT SHOP
BIG PINE KEY
Private residence
M003736 30371 POINCIANA ROAD
BIG PINE KEY
Private residence
M003737
30457 PALM DRIVE
BIG PINE KEY
Private residence
M003738
30423 OLEANDER BOULEVARD
BIG PINE KEY
Private residence
M003739
30434 OLEANDER BOULEVARD
BIG PINE KEY
Private residence
M003740
30458 OLEANDER BOULEVARD
BIG PINE KEY
Private residence
M003741
423 BARRY AVENUE
LITTLE TORCH KEY
Private residence
M003742
433 BARRY AVENUE
LITTLE TORCH KEY
Private residence
M003743
580 BARRY AVENUE
LITTLE TORCH KEY
Private residence
M003744
1257 WARNER ROAD
LITTLE TORCH KEY
Private residence
M003745
1269 MILLS ROAD
LITTLE TORCH KEY
Private residence
M003746
1263 MILLS ROAD
LITTLE TORCH KEY
Private residence
M003747
26936 SHANAHAN ROAD
RAMROD KEY
Private residence
M003748
24915 HORACE STREET
SUMMERLAND KEY
Private residence
M003749
24945 CENTER STREET
SUMMERLAND KEY
Private residence
M003750
25063 CENTER STREET
SUMMERLAND KEY
Private residence
M003751
13 CENTER STREET
SUMMERLAND KEY
Private residence
M003752
HORACE AND CENTER STREETS
SUMMERLAND KEY
Private residence
M003754
637 2ND STREET
SUMMERLAND KEY
Private residence
M003755
25044 45TH STREET
SUMMERLAND KEY
Private residence
M003757
60 DOBIE STREET
SUMMERLAND KEY
Private residence
M003758
21074 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY
CUDJOE KEY
Private residence
M003760
81 JOHNSON ROAD
SUGARLOAF KEY
Private residence
M003761
71 JOHNSON ROAD
SUGARLOAF KEY
Private residence
M003762
19556 NAVAJO STREET
SUGARLOAF KEY
Private residence
M003763
19580 MAYAN STREET
SUGARLOAF KEY
Private residence
M003764
19674 INDIAN MOUND DRIVE
SUGARLOAF KEY
Private residence
M003765
19591 AZTEC DRIVE
SUGARLOAF KEY
Private residence
Housing 42 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.34 - Florida Master Site File Housing (continued)
SITE ID
LOWER KEYS PLANNING
NAME
AREA
521 AVENUE D
KEY
BIG COPPITT KEY
USE
Private residence
M003798
M003799
540 AVENUE D
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003800
531 AVENUE D
BIG COPPITT KEY
Apartment
M003801
530 AVENUE C
BIG COPPITT KEY
Apartment
M003802
310 AVENUE B
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003803
21 1ST STREET
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003804
46 1ST STREET
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003805
441ST STREET
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003806
45 1ST STREET
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003807
47 1ST STREET
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003808
410 AVENUE A
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003812
20 4TH STREET
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003813
217 AVENUE G
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003814
200 AVENUE G
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003815
101 AVENUE G
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003818
218 SHORE AVENUE
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003819
204 SHORE AVENUE
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003821
231 COPPITT ROAD
BIG COPPITT KEY
Private residence
M003823
519 PALM DRIVE
EAST ROCKLAND KEY
Private residence
M003824
557 PARK DRIVE
EAST ROCKLAND KEY
Private residence
M003825
578 HAMMOCK DRIVE
EAST ROCKLAND KEY
Private residence
M003829
6400 2ND STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003830
6408 2ND STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Apartment
M003831
MCKILLUP RENTALS
STOCK ISLAND
Apartment
M003832
LOPEZ APARTMENTS
STOCK ISLAND
Apartment
M003834
5339 5TH AVENUE
STOCK ISLAND
Apartment
M003835
5331 5TH AVENUE
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003836
5 6TH AVENUE
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003837
19 6TH AVENUE
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003838
315 CROSS STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003839
311 CROSS STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003840
309 CROSS STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003841
303 CROSS STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003842
408 BALIDO STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003843
404 BALIDO STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003844
400 BALIDO STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
Housing 43 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.34 - Florida Master Site File Housing (continued)
M003846
399 BALIDO STREET STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003847
403 BALIDO STREET STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003848
405 BALIDO STREET STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003849
407 BALIDO STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003850
409 BALIDO STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003851
411 BALIDO STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M0038S2
410 BALIDO TERRACE
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003853
404 BALIDO STREET
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003854
402 BALIDO TERRACE
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003855
400 BALIDO TERRACE
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003856
424 COUNTY ROAD
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003857
420 COUNTY ROAD
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003858
410 COUNTY ROAD
STOCK ISLAND
Private residence
M003859
MIDDLE KEYS PLANNING
M003701
400 COUNTY ROAD,
ARFi\
35 SEAVIEW AVE
STOCK ISLAND
CONCH KEY
Private residence
Private residence
M003702
44 SEAVIEW AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003703
55 SEAVIEW AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003704
85 SEAVIEW AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003705
42 N CONCH AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003706
52 N CONCH AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003707
63 N CONCH AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003708
73 N CONCH AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003709
97 N CONCH AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003710
120 W CONCH AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003712
61 S CONCH AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003713
30 S CONCH AVE
CONCH KEY
Private residence
M003714
UPPER KEYS PLANNINC
M001982
20 S CONCH AVE
AREA
PARSONAGE
CONCH KEY
148 ATLANTIC
CIRCLE DR
Private residence
Private residence
M002078
U.S. HWY 1, MILE MARKER 97.6 (A)
U.S. 1, MILE MARKER
97.6
Commercial and
residence
M002079
U.S. HWY 1, MILE MARKER 97.6 B
(�
U.S. 1, MILE MARKER
97.6
Private residence
Housing 44 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.34 - Florida Master Site File Housing (continued)
SITE ID SITE ID
UPPER KEYS PLANNING ARE'A
M003649 162 JO JEAN DRIVE, TAVERNIER
NAME
162 JO JEAN DR
KEY
Private residence
M003650
192 HARBORVIEW DRIVE,
192 HARBOR VIEW
TAVERNIER
DR
Private residence
M003651
140 STERLING STREET,
TAVERNIER
140 STERLING ST
Private residence
M003653
130 STERLING STREET,
TAVERNIER
130 STERLING ST
Private residence
M003654
149 STERLING STREET,
TAVERNIER
149 STERLING ST
Private residence
M003657
94400 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY,
94400 OVERSEAS
TAVERNIER
HWY
Private residence
M003658
97260 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY
97260 OVERSEAS
LARGO
HWY
Private residence
M003659
MM97.8 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY
MM97.8 OVERSEAS
LARGO
HWY
Private residence
M003663
99314 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY
99314 OVERSEAS
LARGO
HWY
Private residence
M003665
104 PALMETTO STREET,
TAVERNIER
104 PALMETTO ST
Private residence
M003666
15 SEASIDE AVENUE, TAVERNIER
15 SEASIDE AVE
Private residence
M003667
113 NORTH BAY HARBOR ROAD,
113 N BAY HARBOR
KEY LARGO
RD
Private residence
M003668
150 SOUTH BAYVIEW DRIVE, KEY
LARGO
150 S BAYVIEW RD
Private residence
M003669
239 SOUTH BAY HARBOR DRIVE,
239 S BAY HARBOR
KEY LARGO
RD
Private residence
M003670
116 SOUTH COCO PLUM DRIVE, KEY
116 S COCO PLUM
LARGO
DR
Private residence
Source: Florida Master Site File, January 2010
7.2.11.1 Locally Designated Historically Significant Housing or Neighborhoods
The Tavernier Historic District, as recommended by Tavernier Livable CommuniKeys Plan
(LCP), is bounded on the north by the U.S. 1, on the west by the Tavernier Creek, on the
south by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the east by Mile Marker 92. The general location of
Tavernier's local historic district is shown on Map Series 2.1 of the map atlas. Of the 222
listings of historic housing in unincorporated Monroe County, 53 are located in the Tavernier
Historic District.
The 2008 Tavernier Historic District Intensive -Level Survey and Publication by GAI
Consultants, Inc. takes inventory of the significantly historic housing in Tavernier and are
also reflected in Tables 7.35 and 7.36.
On February 5, 2010, the Florida Department of State, Division of Historic resources
determined that the Tavernier Historic District is potentially eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Housing 45 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.35 - Tavernier Historic Housing Potentially Eligible for Listing on the
National Register of Historic Places
SITEID
M001889
NAME
200 Beach Road
ADDRESS
200 Beach RD
USE
Private residence
M001984
WOODS, 0 M HOUSE
189 BEACH RD
Private residence
M001985
STATION MASTERS HOUSE
198 BEACH RD.
Private residence
M001990
180 LOWE ST
180 LOWE ST
Private residence
M001992
RED CROSS HOUSE
184 LOWE ST
Private residence
M001993
LOWE, ALICE HOUSE
224 OCEAN TRIAL
Private residence
M001994
131 OCEAN VIEW DRIVE
131 OCEAN VIEW DR
Private residence
M001997
ALBURY, MERLIN HOUSE
91731 OVERSEAS HWY
Private residence
M001999
ALBURY, WILLARD HOUSE
91991 OVERSEAS HWY
Private residence
M002004
CARPENTER, CLIFF HOUSE
114 SUNRISE DR
Private residence
M002009
ALBURY, CHARLES HOUSE
132 TAVERN DR
Private residence
M002010
WILKINSON HOUSE
159 TAVERNIER TRAIL
Private residence
M002013
ALBURY, RODNEY HOUSE
200 ALBURY LN
Private residence
M003630
190 ATLANTIC CIRCLE DRIVE,
TAVERNIER
190 ATLANTIC CIRCLE DR
Private residence
M003633
ROBERTS HOUSE
140 S SUNRISE DR
Private residence
M003715
165 TAVERNIER TRAIL,
TAVERNIER
165 TAVERNIER TRAIL
Private residence
Source: Florida Master Site File, January 2010
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 46 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan U
Table 7.36 - Tavernier Historic Housing
SITE ID
OTHER
MO01891
NAME
163 Coconut Row
ADDRESS
163 Coconut Row NA
Private residence
MO01892
240 Lincoln Ave
240 Lincoln Avenue AVE
Private residence
MO01893
204 Ocean Blvd.
204 Ocean BLVD
Private residence
MO01894
137 Sunrise Dr.
137 Sunrise DR
Private residence
MO01983
166 ATLANTIC CIRCLE
166 ATLANTIC CIRCLE DR
Private residence
MO01986
GEIGER PACKING HOUSE
91495 OVERSEAS HWY
Commercial and
residence
MO01987
129 COCONUT ROW
129 COCONUT ROW
Private residence
MO01988
110 LOWE ST
110 LOWE ST
Private residence
MO01989
114 LOWE ST
114 LOWE ST
Private residence
MO01991
181 LOWE ST
181 LOWE ST
Private residence
MO02001
118 SUNRISE DRIVE
118 SUNRISE DR
Private residence
MO02002
120 SUNRISE DRIVE
120 SUNRISE DR
Private residence
MO02003
ALLEN, ROBERT PORTER HOUSE
133 SUNRISE DR
Private residence
MO02006
256 TARPON DRIVE
256 TARPON ST
Private residence
MO02007
114 TAVERNIER DRIVE
114 TAVERNIER DRIVE
Private residence
MO02008
120 TAVERNIER DRIVE
120 TAVERNIER DR
Private residence
MO02011
136 TAVERNIER DR
136 TAVERNIER DR
Private residence
MO02012
140 TAVERNIER DR
140 TAVERNIER DR
Private residence
MO03628
143 ATLANTIC CIRCLE DRIVE,
TAVERNIER
143 ATLANTIC CIRCLE DR
Private residence
MO03629
186 ATLANTIC CIRCLE DRIVE,
TAVERNIER
186 ATLANTIC CIRCLE DR
Private residence
MO03631
128 TAVERNIER DRIVE, TAVERNIER
128 TAVERNIER DR
Private residence
MO03632
126 TAVERNIER DRIVE, TAVERNIER
126 TAVERNIER DR
Private residence
MO03634
162 SOUTH SUNRISE DRIVE,
TAVERNIER
162 S SUNRISE DR
Private residence
MO03635
149 SOUTH SUNRISE DRIVE,
TAVERNIER
149 S SUNRISE DR
Private residence
MO03636
114 TAVERNIER DRIVE, TAVERNIER
114 TAVERNIER DR
Private residence
aUUI L t:. r1U11 Ud 1V1aJLC1- 31LC rue, fall wary LULU
Housing 47 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.36 - Tavernier Historic Housing (continued)
SITEID
M003637
%'AML
122 LOWE STREET, TAVERNIER
ADDRESS
122 LOWE ST
USE
Private residence
M003638
124 LOWE STREET, TAVERNIER
124 LOWE ST
Private residence
M003639
130 LOWE STREET, TAVERNIER
130 LOWE ST
Private residence
M003640
157 LOWE STREET, TAVERNIER
157 LOWE ST
Private residence
M003641
185 LOWE STREET, TAVERNIER
185 LOWE ST
Private residence
M003642
195 LOWE STREET, TAVERNIER
195 LOWE ST
Private residence
M003643
178 BEACH ROAD, TAVERNIER
178 BEACH RD
Private residence
M003644
181 COCONUT ROW, TAVERNIER
181 COCONUT ROW
Private residence
M003645
115 COCONUT ROW, TAVERNIER
115 COCONUT ROW
Private residence
M003716
153 TAVERNIER TRAIL,
TAVERNIER
153 TAVERNIER TRAL
Private residence
M003717
137-141 SOUTH SUNRISE DRIVE,
TAVERNIER 1
137-141 S SUNRISE DR
Apartment
M003718
139 COCONUT ROW, TAVERNIER 1
139 COCONUT ROW
Private residence
30urc;e: riortua Master Site rue, January 20iO
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 48 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
7.2.12 Residential Construction Activity
[Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(h) F.A.C.J
Residential permit activity represents the best available information for estimating the
change in the housing stock since the 2000 Census. As indicated in Table 7.8 there were a
total of 24,595 dwelling units in unincorporated County when 2000 Census data was
collected. However, it is important to note that although the Census is held as the best
available data source, the Census counts may not be a true reflection of the number of
dwelling units given the particular residential environment in the County. That is to say,
the Census counts may not include non docked boats that serve as houses, RV's that serve
as dwelling units located in camp grounds, and alternative housing (e.g. granny flats) which
may have not been counted.
However, a base of 24,595 is established as the best available data up to April 1, 2000
(when census 2000 was collected). To arrive at a grand total of dwelling units by year
2010, an evaluation of units that received a certificate of occupancy, housing demolitions
and housing replacements from April 1, 2000 to the end of 2010 is performed.
7.2.12.1 Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy
As seen in Table 7.37, according to the Growth Management Division data received on
March 25, 2011, there were 2,067 dwelling units that received a building permit from April
1st, 2000 to end of 2010. Of the permitted units, approximately 80 percent were single
family homes and 16 percent were mobile homes and recreational vehicles. An average of
190 new and replacement dwelling units were permitted from 2001 to 2010. Of the 2,067
dwelling unit permits issued, 1,172 were the result of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the
2,067 dwelling units permits issued, a total of 1,229 dwelling units received a certificate of
occupancy. An analysis of residential building permits that received certificate of
occupancy brings the dwelling unit total to 25,824.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 49 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.37- Residential Building Permit Activity, April 15L 2000 -December 31, 2010
Single
Year Famils�-
Duplex
ail
Multi
Family-
23
Mobile
Home/R
v-30&:U1
Hotel/ Total
Motel-. Permits
83 Issued
permits
Issued
r
UnderROGO
Received
CO07
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, March 25, 2011.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 50 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.2.12.2 Housing Demolition and Replacement
As seen in Table 7.38, according to the Monroe County Growth Management Division data
received on March 25, 2011, a total of 706 dwelling units were demolished from the last
decennial census to 2010. The highest demolition rate occurred in years 2005 and 2006 with
353 units demolished. This accounts for about 50 percent of units demolished from 2001 to
2010. An average of 70 dwelling units was demolished per year between 2001 and 2010. At
this time it is not possible to determine, whether a demolition was for a single family, a
mobile home, etc. An analysis of demolition activity reduces the total housing stock to
25,118.
Table 7.38 - Residential Demolitions, April 1st 2000 - December 31, 2010
2000
DemolitionYear
2
2001
17
2002
24
2003
32
2004
80
2005
169
2006
184
2007
79
2008
52
2009
40
2010
22
TOTAL
706
Source: Monroe County Growth
Management, March 25, 2011.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 51 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
As seen in Table 7.39, the number of replacement units is reported from April 1, 2000 until
the end of 2010. A total of 642 mobile homes were replaced with a single family dwelling
unit; 229 single family homes were replaced with a single family unit; and 294 mobile homes
were replaced with a mobile home. A total of 1,165 replacement units received a certificate
of occupancy from April 1, 2000 to end of 2010. An average of 106 replacement units
received a certificate of occupancy from 2001-2010.
Table 7.39 - Replacement Units Receiving Certificate of Occupancy, April 1st,
2000 - December 2010
MH to MH to
Year SFR MH
SFR to RV Park Model Total Units
SFR Replacement Replacement Receiving a
CO
11
•1
!
JV 1I.I.. 1.1Vlll VC I"UllLy L 1VVVL111r1d11c1SC111C11L, WWIU11 G5, GUll.
MH (mobile home)
SFR (single family)
CO (certificate of occupancy)
It is important to highlight that in the last ten years (2001-2010) a total of 936 mobile home
units were replaced. Of the 936 mobile home units replaced, 642 were replaced for single
family unit. The replacement of mobile home units to single family units represents a 68.5
percent loss of mobile homes to single family units, in the last ten years. It is clear that there
is an increasing demand for single family homes and groups that are more able to afford
them. The shifting trend of mobile homes to single family units may reiterate the shifting
trend of permanent to seasonal population, whom are typically more affluent. Also, as
mobile homes are replaced by a single family structure, there is less housing stock that is
affordable for those income levels that are in need of assistance. An analysis of projected unit
by type is provided in Section 7.3.4.1 'Housing Supply by Type"
Housing 52 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
An analysis of replacement units that received certificate of occupancy from April 1st 2000 to
the end of 2010 (1,165) brings the grand total of dwelling units to 26,283 by the end of 2010.
Table 7.40 illustrates the residential building activity starting from the base, Census 2000,
until end of 2010.
Table 7.40 - Summary of Construction Activity April 15Y, 2000 - 2010
Construction Activity
Base housing number from Census 2000
1 1
24,595
Residential building activity receiving a certificate of occupancy
+1,229
Demolitions
-706
Replacement with certificate of occupancy
+1,165
TOTAL
26,283
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 53 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.3 Housing Demand Analysis
[Rule 9J-5.010 (2) F.A.C.]
The housing demand component of the Comprehensive Plan update is of primary importance
in order to plan for the needed housing stock given population growth. This element derives
from population estimates and projections as required per [Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e) F.A.C].
Population projections methodology and details are explained in Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use
Element.
Housing Demand is defined as the needed number of dwelling units that will accommodate
population growth. Given the County's location and the economic climate, housing
affordability has become an increasing problem. This section also provides the data
inventory necessary to support the policy recommendations given the population
estimates trend housing need and also addresses some of the issues related to affordable
housing demand and supply. Only unincorporated County data is presented in this analysis.
7.3.1 Population Projections and Approach
[Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e) EA.0 and Rule 9J-5. 01 0(2)(a) F.A.CJ
The Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections form the basis for household need
calculations. Population is identified according to LKPA, UKPA and MKPA. The methodology
derives from a permanent population13 forecast and a seasonal population14 forecast at the
County level. The sum of permanent and seasonal forecast is referred to as the functional
population for the unincorporated County as a whole. With the exception the housing
demand analyses are based upon projects functional population.15 Affordable housing
demand is based upon only the permanent population and permanent households because
the County's regulations require those obtaining affordable allocations to be permanent
residents.
The permanent population projection series is based on the latest published data by the
University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), published in
March 2010, for permanent population estimates. In as much as ROGO has been in place
since 1993, BEBR population projections reflect a growth trend constrained by ROGO's
implementation. This means permanent population growth projections implicitly assume
the continuation of the ROGO constraint and the effects of its implementation.
The seasonal population series is based on the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) data
series from August 24, 2004. This series includes estimates of seasonal residences,
recreational vehicles, hotel/motel, camps, boat live aboards, mobile home, and other. The
DCA required the projections herein to use the FKAA series for the purposes of estimating
the seasonal population component, with appropriate updates to the methodology.
13 Permanent population is referred to as the residents whose primary place of residency is in the County.
14 Seasonal population is referred to as the residents whose primary place of residence outside of the County
and their residences are non -homesteaded.
11 Functional population is the sum of permanent and seasonal population
Housing 54 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The best available data suggest a loss in permanent population with likely replacement
through an increase of seasonal residents.
7.3.2 Projected Number of Households16
[Rule 9J-5.010 (2)(a) F.A.CJ
7.3.2.1 Number of Households for Permanent Population
Permanent population is one component of functional population. Loss of permanent
population is thought to have occurred as a result of the recent recession, a rise in
foreclosures,- depletion of affordable housing and increased unemployment. Nearly 3,500
units have been foreclosed throughout the Keys since 2005. The rise in home prices and
threat of hurricanes has also contributed to some permanent population loss. Losses
associated with some of these conditions may be temporary, resulting in renewed growth
after the recession.
The ROGO based permanent population series is used as one component of the functional
population. At the county level, for control totals, the DCA has recommended using the latest
BEBR annual estimates and the BEBR Medium series population, published March 2010 for
permanent population estimates.
The BEBR annual population estimates for municipalities and unincorporated areas indicates
permanent population fell in the Keys from 2006-2008, with some a return to growth
evidenced in 2009. The effect of the short term decline is to drive the long term population
projections down. Thus, both recent history and future projections from BEBR suggest a
downward trend in permanent population.
The estimated average household size according to BEBR in 2009 was 2.2 persons per
household. This estimate is used to project the number of permanent households out to
2030. The estimated number of households generated by permanent population from 2010
to 2030 is shown on Table 7.41. These projections reflect the ROGO restriction on growth.
It is projected that permanent population households will decline by 1.8 percent from 2010
(16,076) to 2030 (15,786).
16 As defined by the US Census, a household includes all the people who occupy a dwelling unit as their usual
place of residence. Dwelling units or housing is referred to as the structure which may be occupied or vacant.
Housing 55 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.41 - Permanent Household Estimates and Projections, 2010-2030
P ermanent
Population
Year
Lower
Keys
ddHousehold
Percent
2010
19,877
Keys
1,061
Keys
14,430
35,368
16,076
Change
_
2015
20,061
1,071
14,564
35,696
16,225
0.93%
2020
19,880
1,061
14,433
35,374
16,079
-0.90%
2025
19,699
1,052
14,301
35,052
15,933
-0.91%
2030
19,518
1,042
14,1 00
34,730
15,786
-0.92%
Household Percent Change
from 2010 to 2030
-1.8%
I. __. ,x 33u�IaLca, llll., rcul UalY GV 11, unincorporated Monroe County Population Projection.
BEBR, 2009, Number of Households and Average Household Size in Florida: April 1, 2009.
7.3.2.2 Number of Households for Seasonal Population
Seasonal population is another component of functional population. There is evidence of
population shifting from permanent to seasonal. For instance, of all the new single family
housing growth in Monroe County since 1999, nearly 70 percent has been in non -
homesteaded units. Most likely, this is a combination of both growth in seasonal population
as well as permanent population loss. Loss of permanent population may cause once
occupied units to become non -homesteaded. In addition, a comparison of the ACS 2008 and
the Census 2000 data, illustrated that the number of seasonal units had risen.
The estimated number of households generated by seasonal population from 2010 to 2030 is
shown on Table 7.42. Seasonal population numbers are derived from the FKAA, seasonal
series. Seasonal numbers include estimates of seasonal residences, recreational vehicles,
hotel/motel, camps, boat live aboards, mobile home, and other. It is estimated that seasonal
households have a higher person per household or household size due to the increasing size
of newly built units. Therefore, the figure of 2.7 persons per household is used to calculate
the number of seasonal households and is supported by the FKAA methodology.
It is projected that households for seasonal population will increase by 10.7 percent from
2010 (13,126) to 2030 (14,529). Seasonal households are expected to increase at an average
rate of 2.57 percent every five years during the planning period.
17 Estimates for permanent households are based on the BEBR estimated average household size of 2.2 as of
April 1, 2009.
Housing 56 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
Table 7.42 - Seasonal Household Estimates and Projections, 2010-2030
Year
2010
Seasonal
Lower
Keys I
19,768
Middle
Keys
1,122
Population
Upper
Keys
1 14,550
Total
35,440
Household
13,126
Percent
Change
--
2015
20,120
1,141
14,806
36,067
13,358
1.77%
2020
20,712
1,173
15,235
37,120
13,748
2.92%
2025
21,304
1,204
15,665
38,173
14,138
2.84%
2030
21,896
1,236
16,095
39,227
14,529
2.76%
Household Percent Change from 2010 to 2030
10.7%
Source: hishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections
7.3.2.3 Number of Households for Functional Population
Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates and form
the basis for this analysis; however, only when referring to affordable housing permanent
population and household numbers.
As seen in Table 7.43, the 2010 estimated population for unincorporated Monroe County is
70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an
increase of 157.5 persons per year through the twenty year planning horizon. As illustrated
in Table 7.43, the number of households for the estimated 2010 functional population
(29,202) is projected to increase by 1,113 households (3.8 percent) in 2030 to 30,315.
Table 7.43 - Functional Household Estimates and Projections, 2010-2030
Functional Population
Lower
Middle
Upper
County
PercentYear
Keys
Keys
Keys
Total
Change
2010
39,645
1 2,183
28,980
70,808
29,202
--
2015
40,181
2,212
29,370
711,763
29,584
1.31%
2020
40,592
2,234
29,668
72,494
29,827
0.82%
2025
41,003
2,256
29,966
73,225
30,071
0.82%
2030
41,414
2,278
30,265
73,957
30,3151
0.81%
Household Percent Change
from 2010 to 2030
3.8%
30urce: risnxirru & Associates, inc., zulu, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections
BEBR, February 2010, Number of Households and Average Household Size in Florida: April 1, 2009
18 The number of seasonal households is based on seasonal population projection from the FKAA. The FKAA
estimates were originally based on the Monroe County Population Estimates and Forecast 1990-2015. The
average household size of 2.7 is used to estimate and project the number of household.
19 Functional households is the sum of seasonal and permanent households
Housing 57 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
It is important to mention that while permanent population decreases at an average rate of
less than one percent every five years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of
2.57 percent every five years; resulting in an obvious shift in population from permanent to
seasonal. Overall, functional population or total population for the unincorporated County
will increase at an average rate of less than one percent, every five years, in the twenty year
planning period.
7.3.3 Projected Number of Households by Size
[Rule 9J-5.010 (2)(a) F.A.CJ
In order to obtain the estimated and projected household by size the Shimberg Center of
Affordable Housing (SCAN) database was assessed. The SCAH creates a set of population
projections based on BEBR estimates, which are then divided into households. Then the
SCAH allocates households across size and projects them by assuming the year 2000
proportions across the entire planning horizon. For the purpose of this analysis, SCAH
percentage allotment is used in combination with the unincorporated County functional
population projections to calculate the number household by size. Therefore, the best
available data are SCAH ratios in combination with the estimated functional household
numbers.
As seen in Table 7.44 by the year 2030, 72.5 percent of households will consist of one or
two persons. The number of persons per household having five persons or more is
estimated at 5.6 percent for the same year. However, as explained in Section 7.3.2.2
"Number of Households for Seasonal Population" it is estimated that seasonal households
have a higher person per household or household size, due to the increasing size of newly
built units.
Table 7.44 - Functional Population Households by Size, 2010-2030
Source: 3nimoerg Lenrer Tor .vrroraame dousing, ZU10; Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of
functional population households.
7.3.4 Projected Number of Households by Income
[Rule 9J-5.010 (2)(a) EA.Cj
Household income is a critical factor when determining if a household would qualify for
affordable housing assistance. In order to obtain the estimated and projected household by
Housing 58 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
income, the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (AHNA) of the Shimberg Center of
Affordable Housing (SCAH) was evaluated. The SCAH creates a set of population
projections based on BEBR estimates, which are then divided into households. Then the
SCAH allocated households across income groups and projects them by assuming the year
2000 proportions across the entire planning horizon. For the purpose of this analysis,
SCAH percentage allotment is used in combination with the functional unincorporated
County population projections to calculate the number of households by income.
Household by income is a two-part analysis. The first analysis is prepared for functional
(total) households as an illustration of unincorporated Countywide household, thereby
including seasonal and permanent households. In order to illustrate the number of
households that would qualify for affordable housing assistance, the second analysis is
exclusive to permanent households. It is important to mention that the SCAH definition of
"moderate income" groups does not parallel that of the County. Moderate income is
emphasized since households at this income range or below are the households qualifying
for affordable housing assistance. The SCAH classifies income groups in the following
manner:
• Extremely Low Income - households making 0-30 percent of AMI
• Very Low Income - households making 30.1-50 percent of AMI
• Low Income - households making 50.1-80 percent of the AMI
• Moderate Income - households making 80.01-120 percent of the AMI
• Above Moderate Income - households making over 120 percent of the AMI
In contrast, as indicated in Section 7.2.5.2 "Monroe County Affordable Housing Defined",
moderate incomes are the households whose total income does not exceed 120 percent of
the area median income (for renters) and households whose total income does not exceed
160 percent of the median income of the County (for owners). With the County definition of
moderate income, in particular for owners, it is not possible to determine which households
will be making up to 160 percent of the area median income, given that SCAH lumps into the
above moderate income those in the 121 to 160 percentage of the area median income.
Therefore, some households in the above moderate income range would qualify for
assistance but it is not possible to determine how many.
7.3.4.1 Households by Income - Functional Population
Table 7.45 shows the estimated and projected functional households by income from 2010
to 2030. For the year 2010, 60.9 percent of the total households in the unincorporated
County are estimated to have incomes in the moderate income range or below (120
percent of less as defined by the SCAH). Conversely, households in the above moderate
income range (120 percent or more of the area median income) is 39.1 percent. For the
year 2030, the percentage of households making below the moderate range increases by
1.5 percent. This may indicate that more households could become cost burdened. This
income analysis illustrates where households for the unincorporated County, as a whole,
Housing 59 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
fall in relationship to the various income groups. This analysis is not meant for the purpose
of drawing conclusions on affordable housing need.
Table 7.45 - Functional Population Estimated and Projected Households by Income,
2010-2030
Extremely Low 3,033 10.4%
3,207 10.8%
3,354 11.2% 3,427 11.4%
3,497
11.5°/a
Income 0-30% AMI)
Very Low Income
3,345
11.5%
3,187
10.8%
3,328
11.2%
3,461
11.5%
3,556
11.7%
(30.1-50% AMI
Low Income
4,588
15.7%
4,737
16.0%
4,812
16.1%
4,873
16.2%
4,929
16.3%
50.1-80% AMI
Moderate Income
6,809
23.3%
7908
23.40/o
6,907
23.2%
6,909
23.0%
6,929
22.9%
80.01-120% AMI)
Above Moderate
11,427
39.1%
11,544
39.0%
11,426
38.3%
11,401
37.9%
11,403
37.6%
Income (>120% of
AMI
Total
29,2021
100.0%t
29,5841
100.0%1
29,827
100.0%__30,0711
100.0%1
30,315
100.0%
r1NnKmu &Hssoclates, tnc., Lulu, unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of
functional population households.
7.3.4.2 Households by Income - Permanent Population
Affordable housing programs are targeted to permanent residents whose income is
between the extremely low income and moderate income ranges. In the County, in order
to receive an ROGO allocation for an affordable unit, the occupants of that dwelling unit
must be permanent residents. For these reasons, it is important to illustrate the number of
permanent households by income levels to gauge the affordable housing need.
Families with incomes below the moderate range are likely to be more limited in their
ability to afford a house and other goods. As a result, extremely low income, very low
income, low income and moderate income (as defined by HUD and as used by the SCAH) are
the income groups that would typically qualify for affordable housing assistance programs.
The areas shaded in gray on Table 7.46 denote the number of permanent resident
households that would qualify for affordable housing assistance based on permanent
residents and as defined by HUD income classifications. It is then estimated that in the year
2010 about 60.9 percent of permanent residents will need affordable housing. As the
planning period extends to 2030, the need for affordable housing will increase to 62.4
percent of the permanent resident households. This is indicative that for the greater
population of permanent residents, housing affordability will continue to be an issue in the
County.
It is important, however, to restate that the County's moderate income range is set at 160
percent of the area median income, for owner occupied housing; therefore, the numbers in
Housing 60 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.46 underestimate the affordable housing need. In other words, some of the
households in the above moderate income range (making above 120 percent of the area
median income) would also qualify for affordable housing assistance, if they were home
owners.
Affordable housing need is further elaborated in Section 7.3.5.3 "Affordable Housing Need".
The table below is meant to illustrate the number of households in the various income
groups of the permanent population that would qualify for affordable housing assistance. It is
not meant for estimating future median income.
Table 7.46 - Permanent Population Estimated and Projected Households by Income,
2010-2030
Source: animoerg center ror Hrroraanre Housing, 2010; Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections (Permanent population numbers)
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution
of functional population households.
7.3,5 Projected Housing Need
[Rule 9J-5.010 (2)(b), F.A.C,]
7.3.5.1 Unincorporated County Housing Need
To determine the number of dwelling units needed, the estimates must account for
occupancy rates. The average hotel occupancy from 2003-2010 is 70 percent according to
Smith Travel Research, Fishkind & Associates, Inc. This figure is used to generate the
number of dwelling units for seasonal households.
The occupancy rate for permanent households in 2008, according to the ACS, was 89.7
percent. This figure is used to derive the number of dwelling units needed for permanent
Housing 61 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
population. Functional dwelling units, which is the sum of the seasonal and permanent
dwelling units constitutes the basis for the housing need.
An additional 1,680 dwelling units are needed during the next twenty years. The number
of dwelling units needed by year 2030 is an additional 1,680 dwelling units.
Table 7.47 - Functional Population Dwelling Units Need for Unincorporated County
2015-2030
risnxma & Associates, Inc., zuiu, unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections, Smith Travel
Research; American Community Survey 2008
It is important to differentiate between the numbers of dwelling units estimated in 2010
per population projections (36,674) and the number of dwelling units estimated to have
been constructed by 2010 as accounted in Section 7.2.12 "Residential Construction
Activity" (total of 26,283).
The number of dwelling units documented in Section 7.2.12 "Residential Construction
Activity", were based upon the Census 2000 unit count, adding the dwelling units that
received a certificate of occupancy since April 1, 2000, subtracting the demolition of units
and then adding the replacement units. This exercise should have brought the number of
existing dwelling units up to date. However, the Census 2000 number may not be a true
reflection of the number of dwelling units given the particular County housing
characteristics. That is to say, the Census counts do not take into account the whole
housing environment in the Florida Keys. There are non -docked boats that serve as
shelters; recreational vehicles that serve as dwelling units located in camp grounds; and
accessory dwelling units or secondary suites that are associated with the primary
residence. All of these types of housing particular to the Florida Keys may not counted by
the Census.
On the other hand, the number of estimated dwelling units generated by the population
projection in 2010 is different because it is driven by population projections and number of
people per household.
20 Seasonal Dwelling units are households times the occupancy rate of 70 percent
21 Permanent dwelling units are households times the occupancy rate of 89.7 percent.
22 Functional dwelling units are the sum of seasonal and permanent dwelling units.
Housing 62 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.3.5.2 Housing Need by Planning Area
As stated previously, an additional 1,680 dwelling units will be needed for the anticipated
functional population of the County by year 2030. The analysis below illustrates the
location of the needed units in relationship to the three planning areas, where growth is
anticipated. It is important to note that more (56.3 percent) of the dwelling units will be
concentrated in the LKPA primarily because this planning area will experience the most
growth in population. To meet this projection, in the twenty year horizon, an average of 84
new units per year will be needed for the unincorporated County as a whole. This is less
than the number of yearly ROGO allocations of 197, as currently established in Article II,
Section 138-24 of the MCLDC.
Table 7.48 illustrates the number of dwelling units needed from 2015 to 2030 by planning
area given functional population growth. Between the years 2020 to 2030 the dwelling unit
need remains constant.
Table 7.48 - Functional Population Housing Need by Planning Area 2015-2030
Fisnxinu & tissociates, inc., 6ulu, unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections, • Smith Travel
Research; American Community Survey 2008
7.3.5.3 Affordable Housing Need
As previously discussed the availability of affordable housing is one of the most challenging
issues in Florida and around the nation. There is resounding documentation of the housing
affordability problems the County is facing. As reported by the Monroe County Affordable and
Workforce Housing Report, dated November 2007, the County is the most cost burdened
small -county in the nation and has the most expensive single family homes and
condominiums in the State. According to a recent Harvard University Joint Center for
Housing Studies, the proportion of Americans spending more than half their incomes
(severely cost burdened) on housing increased from 12 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in
2008.
According to the Monroe County Affordable and Workforce Housing report, the County has the
highest affordability gap of all counties in Florida. The "affordability gap" is the difference
between the buying power of a median income household and the median sales price of a
single family home. The County's median income is $68,400 (HUDuser.org 2010); assuming
a 40 hour per week, 50 week year, this translates into an hourly salary of $34.20. Based on
the 2010 median income, a one income earner family would be able to afford a monthly
Housing 63 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
payment of a mortgage or rent of $1,710 (no more than 30 percent of income). A customary
measure of how much home a family can afford is the family income multiplied by three.
Therefore, a household which income is $68,400 would be able to afford a $205,200 priced
dwelling unit. In contrast, the median value in 2009 according to the Shimberg Center was
$572,608. This is an affordable gap of 370 thousand dollars.
The Monroe County Affordable and Workforce Housing report further states that 34.8 percent
of home -owning Monroe County families are cost burdened, meaning they pay 30 percent of
their income for housing, exclusive of insurance and taxes. Of the households that are cost
burdened (34.8 percent), 17.4 percent of families are severely cost burdened, meaning they
pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing. These trends exemplify the need to
increase opportunities for affordable housing options. With the market crash more houses
have been foreclosed and more permanent residents are moving out 'of the County with a
population shift of permanent residents to seasonal who are able to afford pricier homes.
As seen in Table 7.46, the affordable housing need is assigned to the households making 0 to
120 percent of the area median income for permanent population only. As a requirement
for receiving an affordable housing ROGO allocation, the residents occupying that affordable
unit must be permanent County residents. The following analysis looks at affordable
housing need by planning area only for the permanent residents.
7.3.5.3.1 Permanent Population Affordable Housing Need by Income Level
Based on the SCAR, the number of households in the various income levels has been
projected. The tables below are meant for illustration of households in the various income
groups to determine the number of households that would need affordable housing
assistance or those that would be making 120 percent of the area median income or less.
Tables are not meant for estimating of future area median income. It is important to restate
that the estimated affordable housing need is correlated to the ROGO allocations and
permanent population. Therefore, permanent population is utilized in this analysis.
Lower Keys
As shown in Table 7.49, an average of 5,545 households would need and qualify for
affordable housing assistance in the Lower Keys. Based on SCAH in 2010, 60.9 percent of
households would qualify for affordable housing assistance. By the year 2030 the percentage
will increase to 62.4 percent. These percentages may be understated since for owner
occupied housing, the qualifying income in the County is 160 percent of the area median
income. It is not possible to determine how many households in the above moderate income
range (incomes above 120 of the area median income) would qualify. Some of the
households that fall in the above moderate income range may qualify for affordable housing,
if they were owners.
Housing 64 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
Table 7.49 - Estimated Number of Households Needing Affordable Housing by Income
Level - Lower Keys Planning Area
Source: Stnmberg Center for Attordable Housing, 2010; Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of
permanent population households.
Middle Keys
As shown in Table 7.50, an average of 296 households would qualify for affordable housing
assistance in the Middle Keys. Based on SCAH in 2010, 60.9 percent of households would
qualify for affordable housing assistance; by the year 2030, the percentage will increase to
62.4 percent. These percentages are understated since for owner occupied housing, the
qualifying income in the County is 160 percent of the area median income. It is not possible
to determine how many households in the above moderate income range
(Incomes above 120 percent of the area median income) would qualify. Some of the
households that fall in the above moderate income range may qualify for affordable housing,
if they were owners.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 65 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.50 - Estimated Number of Households Needing Affordable Housing by Income
Level - Middle Keys Planning Area
3uurce: 3mmoerg 1-enter ror Arroraanie housing, LU1U; Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of
permanent population households.
Upper Keys
As shown in Table 7.51, an average of 4,026 households would qualify for affordable
housing assistance in the Upper Keys. Based on SCAH in 2010, 60.9 percent of households
that would qualify for affordable housing assistance; by the year 2030 the percentage will
increase to 62.4 percent. These percentages are understated since for owner occupied
housing, the qualifying income in the County is 160 percent of the area median income. It is
not possible to determine how many households in the above moderate income range (above
120 percent of the area median income) would qualify. Some of the households that fall in
the above moderate income range may qualify for affordable housing, if they were owners.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 66 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.51 - Estimated Number of Households Needing Affordable Housing by Income
Level - Upper Keys Planning Area
- 1 -• 0-111ucls %,U1I LUI lul riiiuivauic musing, zulu; visnxmct &Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of
functional population households.
In essence, in year 2010 the number of household requiring affordable housing assistance is
60.9 percent; by the year 2030 the percentage will increase to 62.4 percent, based on the
SCAH.
7.3.5.3.2 Permanent Population Estimated Cost Burdened Households
As explained in Section 7.2.7 "Price Rent Characteristics and Affordability", an indicator of
affordable housing need is the number of households that are cost burdened (paying more
than 30 percent of their income in housing cost) as established by HUD. In other words,
when gross monthly housing cost exceeds 30 percent of monthly household income, the
household is considered to be paying too much for housing versus other essential living
expenses. The households presented in this analysis pertain to permanent population
given that in order to qualify for affordable housing the occupants need to be permanent
residents. The percent allotment is derived from the SCAH. As seen in Table 7.52, the cost
burdened household is approximately 36 percent and are distributed as shown below.
rousing 67 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.52 - Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030
Source: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2010; Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution
of permanent population households.
The following tables illustrate were cost burdened households are distributed in relationship
to the planning areas.
Lower Kevs
Of the households generated by permanent population in the LKPA, 36.6 percent are cost
burdened according to SCAR. By the year 2030 the cost burdened household decreases to
35.7 percent. The decrease may be due in part to a shift in population from permanent to
seasonal. A distribution of households paying more than 30 percent of their income in
housing is shown in Table 7.53.
Table 7.53 - Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 -
Lower Keys Planning Area
Source: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2010; Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution
of permanent population households.
Housing 68 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Middle Keys
Of the households generated by permanent population in the MKPA 36.6 percent are cost
burdened according to SCAH. By the year 2030 the cost burdened household decreases to
35.7 percent. The decrease may be due in part to a shift in population from permanent to
seasonal. A distribution of households paying more than 30 percent of their income in
housing is shown in Table 7.54.
Table 7.54 - Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 -
Middle Keys Planning Area
Paying 30.01 92 19.1% 92 18.80% 90 18.60% 88 18.40% . 87 18.30%
50%
Paying 50+% 84 17.5% 85 17.50% 84 17.50% 83 17.40% 82 17.40°/n
Total HH 1 4821 100.0%1 4871 100.0%1 4821 100 0% R nn n1. ot 74 100 09
Source: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2010; Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution
of functional population households.
Upper Keys
Of the households generated by permanent population in the UKPA 36.6 percent are cost
burdened according to SCAR. By the year 2030 the cost burdened household decreases to
35.7 percent. The decrease may be due in part to a shift in population from permanent to
seasonal. A distribution of households paying more than 30 percent of their income in
housing is shown in Table 7.55.
Table 7.55 - Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 -
Upper Keys Planning Area
Paying 30.01 1,253 19.1% 1,245
50% 18.80% 1,220 18.60% 1,196 18.40% 1,179 18.30
Paying 50+% 1,148 17.5% 1,159 17.50% 1,148 17.50% 1,131 17.40% 1. 1 2--lf 17.40
Total HH 6,5591 100.0% 6 620 100-01%1 6,5601 1 nn not 6,500 100 Oiu 6,44 100 0°
Source. Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2010; Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Housing 69 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution
of functional population households.
In summary, the County should seek to encourage affordable housing options for households
which are cost burdened. In year 2010, 36.6 percent of the households are cost burdened.
The trend slightly lowers in the year 2030.
7.3.5.4 Need for Rural and Farm Worker Households
The County and its municipalities are either fully urbanized or under Conservation
protection. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the number of farming acres is 187
or 0.25 percent of land. There are no existing rural areas or farm worker households and
there is no future need for those households. Therefore, this requirement does not apply.
7.3.5.5 Special Housing Need
The provision of adequate sites in residential areas or areas of residential character for group
homes and foster care facilities is referenced is Section 7.2.9 "Group Homes". Only one
facility currently exists in unincorporated Monroe County. These facilities are allowed in the
Mixed Use District (MU) and Military Facility District (MF).
7.3.5.6 Replacement of Housing Units
Replacement of housing units due to deterioration is not a problem in the County. As seen
Section 7.2.12.2 "Housing Demolitions and Replacement", an average of 70 dwelling units
were demolished from 2001 - 2010. An average of 106 replacement units received a
certificate of occupancy from 2001-2010.
Most of the dwelling units replaced were mobile homes. Of the mobile homes replaced,
68.5 percent were replaced by a single family unit. This represents an increasing demand
or preference for single family homes. This may also reflect the shifting of population from
permanent to seasonal, which may be better able to afford a single family home.
Pursuant to Section 163.3191, F.S., due to Coastal High Hazard Area designation, no
additional mobile home parks are permitted in the County. Further, a moratorium for new
recreational vehicles and camp grounds is in place as illustrated in Section 7.2.1.1.
"Hotel/Motel Transient Units". A projection by housing type for the planning horizon
considering shift of mobile homes to single family is provided in Section 7.3.7.1 "Housing
Supply by Type".
Where housing units are removed as part of a federal housing program, such as the
Community Development Block Grant, households will be relocated and the units will be
replaced as per the program requirements; however, where individual housing units are
removed by private owners, replacement is at the discretion of the owner.
Housing 70 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.3.5.7 Maintenance of an Adequate Vacancy Rate
As previously shown in Table 7.9, the inventory of vacant units is based on the U.S. Census
2000 vacancy rate of 36.0 percent for unincorporated Monroe County. As previously
discussed in Section 7.3.1 'Population Projections and Approach" the number of seasonal
dwelling units is increasing and the number of permanently occupied dwelling units is
declining. This correlates with the increase on non -homesteaded units (seasonal
residents). Functional dwelling units (sum of permanent and seasonal) are used to
account for vacancy rates.
The number of vacant units is calculated by the occupancy factor. Occupancy factors were
applied to seasonal (70 percent) and permanent households (89.7 percent) to then obtain
the number of dwelling units. Dwelling units minus the number of occupied households
equate the number of vacant dwelling units.
There should be no problem for the County in maintaining an adequate vacancy rate. The
number of dwelling units projected be vacant is shown on Table 7.56.
Table 7.56 - Vacant Dwelling Units (functional)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
3uurce: risnKinu aL Nssociates, inc., M10, unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections (functional
population). Smith Travel Research, Fishkind and Associates, Inc., and American Community Survey 2008
7.3.6 Land Requirements for Housing Needs
[Rule 9J-5. 010(2)(c), F.A. C.J
The data and analysis in Section 2.7.4.4 "Vacant Land Analysis within a Tier, Density and
Intensity" (Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Element), is used to determine the land available to
accommodate the housing need as calculated in Table 7.48 (total of 1,680) by planning
area.
Housing can be accommodated in Tiers II, III and IIIA. Affordable housing can be
accommodated in Tier III and IIIA. The tables below reflect the vacant land that is located
within Tier III only since this is where the County encourages development. The following
analysis shows the maximum allowed density or "theoretical density" given the underlying
future land uses in vacant Tier III. As seen in the tables below, there is sufficient vacant
land to accommodate the total new (1,680) housing units for the County within each of the
planning areas.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses in this section are for
illustrative purposes only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical
size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory
constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
rmusing 71 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Lower Keys
As previously shown in Table 7.48, an additional 954 dwelling units are needed to
accommodate functional residents by 2030 in the LKPA . Evaluating the vacant land located
under Tier III (Section 2.7.4.4 of Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Element), the theoretical
density allows the 954 new dwelling units to be built. According to Table 7.57 a total of
1,428 single family units and 506 multifamily units would be allowed, in theory, in the LKPA.
The shaded areas in gray represent the affordable housing or multifamily opportunities for
this planning area.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses in this section are for
illustrative purposes only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical
size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory
constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
Table 7.57 - Vacant Land in Tier III and Residential Density by Type - Lower Keys
Planning Area
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"
Middle Keys
As previously shown in Table 7.48, an additional 51 dwelling units are needed to
accommodate functional residents by 2030 in the MKPA. Evaluating the vacant land located
under Tier III (Section 2.7.4.4 of Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Element), Table 7.58 shows
that there would be enough land availability to accommodate the 51 dwelling units, in
theory, in the MKPA. The shaded areas in gray represent the affordable housing or
multifamily opportunities for this planning area.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses in this section are for
illustrative purposes only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical
size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory
constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
Housing 72 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.58 - Vacant Land in Tier III and Residential Density by Type - Middle Keys
Planning Area
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"
Upper Keys
As previously shown in Table 7.48, an additional 684 dwelling units are needed to
accommodate functional residents by 2030 in the UKPA. Evaluating the vacant land located
under Tier III (Section 2.7.4.4 of Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Element) Table 7.59 shows
that there would be enough land availability to accommodate the 684 dwelling units, in
theory, in the UKPA. The shaded areas in gray represent the affordable housing multifamily
opportunities for this planning area.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses in this section are for
illustrative purposes only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical
size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory
constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
nuus.ug 73 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.59 - Vacant Land in Tier III and Residential Density by Type - Upper Keys
Planning Area
Source: monroe county Urowtn Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"
It is evident that there is enough vacant land in Tier III to accommodate the 1,680 dwelling
units needed for the planning horizon. The tables in this analysis demonstrate that there is
more vacant land in Tier III to accommodate single family homes than vacant land available
to accommodate multi -family units. However, as in previous sections, the affordable
housing need based on the SCAH is about 60 percent. Of the 1,680 dwelling units needed
for the planning horizon, the County should consider the vast majority of this housing to be
developed as multi -family to provide affordable housing options to the 60 percent of
households needing assistance.
Table 7.60 is a summary the amount of vacant land in Tier III for unincorporated County
as a whole. It appears that the County has an excess of land to accommodate the needed
dwelling units. This analysis is based on Tier III vacant land only. However, theoretical
density and intensity analyses are for illustrative purposes only; conditions specific to the
individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier
designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final
determinant of development potential.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 74 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.60 - Vacant Land in Tier III and Residential Density by Type - Unincorporated
County
ouuI% MUIlluC %luuIlLy Lzruwtn management, zu1U, "MC_ELU_510"
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"
7.3.7 Private Sector Provision of Housing
[Rule 9J-5. 010(2)(d), F.A. C.]
It is expected that all of the future housing needs identified in this analysis can and will be
met by the private sector. The demand for homes on coastal lands makes construction of
such homes economically attractive to builders and developers.
A developer must first apply for a ROGO allocation in order to develop a dwelling unit.
Then the applicant must apply for a building permit. Of the total ROGO allocations
awarded, no less than 20 percent are assigned for affordable units. The County can award
up to 197 ROGO allocations a year including 71 for affordable allocations. Between ROGO
Years 1-17, an average of 222 ROGO allocations was awarded each year. Of the allocations
awarded, affordable housing awards represent 25 percent of the total award. A detailed
historical account of the number allocations available and awarded is provided in
Appendix 7-1.
An important component of provision of housing is the number that will be needed for
families that are cost burdened and in the qualifying incomes need affordable housing.
Since the affordable housing analysis indicates that there is a need for affordability for 60
percent, at a minimum, developers should continue to receive incentives for providing
affordable housing.
Housing 75 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.3.7.1 Housing Supply by Type
The estimated and projected housing units by type are depicted in Table 7.61. In order to
obtain the estimated and projected household by type, the percent allotment from the
South Florida Regional Council 2008 estimates are used in combination with the number of
functional dwelling units projected. Additionally, the mobile home replacement for single
family dwelling units trend from 2001-2010 and as shown in Table 7.39, is integrated into
the projection. It is then estimated, that 311 mobile homes will be replaced by a single
family unit every five years.
For the purpose of this analysis, the projected household numbers only reflects the single
family, multi -family and mobile homes (not to be confused with mobile home parks) since:
• Section 163.3191, F.S. prohibits new mobile home parks in the Coastal High Hazard Area;
and
• Development of new hotel/motel units, campgrounds and recreational vehicle spaces
requires a residential ROGO allocation. The County has declared a moratorium on the
allocation of ROGO for these types of use. There is currently a moratorium on ROGO
designation for these units until December 31, 2011. The County is contemplating
extending the moratorium date.
Table 7.61- Dwelling Units by Type, 2010-2030
Single
Family
22,921
62.5%
23,599
63.5%
24,201
64.4%
24,805
65.3%
25,410
66.2%
Multi
Family
8178
22.3%
8,309
22.4%
8,412
22.4%
8,513
22.4%
8,614
22.5%
Mobile,
Boat, RV
5,574
15.2%
5,263
14.2%
4,952
13.2%
4,641
12.2%
4,330
11.3%
Total
36,674
100.0%
37,172
100.0%
37,566
100.0%
37,960
100.0%
38,354
100.0%
source: risnxma ur Associates, mc., 6ulu, unmcorporatea Monroe County Population Projections; South
Florida Regional Planning Council 2008, Housing Type Projections for2008; Monroe County Building
Department, 2010, Mobile Home Replacement 2000-2009 data.
As seen in Table 7.61, above, there is a decreasing trend for mobile homes given the
mobile home replacements by single family homes. It is estimated that 311 mobile homes
are replaced for a single family structure every 5 years. There is a dichotomy when it
comes to addressing affordable housing issues. Although mobile homes are being replaced
by single family units, mobile homes offer a solution to providing affordable housing. Then
again, no new mobile home parks are allowed given the County's CHHA designation. The
County may consider evaluating mechanisms for retaining mobile home parks and
encouraging mobile homes as affordable housing options.
Housing 76 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.3.7.2 Projected Number of by Tenure
In order to obtain the estimated and projected household by tenure, SCAH demographics
were assessed. The SCAH creates a set of population projections based on BEBR estimates,
which are then divided into households. Then households are allocated across tenure
classes. The methodology assumes that household formation rates and the distribution of
household characteristics remain constant in their year 2000 proportions across the entire
planning horizon. For the purpose of this analysis, the SCAH percentage allotment is used
in combination with the unincorporated Monroe County functional population households.
As seen in Table 7.62, the general trend is that by the year 2030, 74.5 percent of
households will be occupied by owners and 25.5 percent of households will be occupied by
renters. This is a 1.2 increase for owners when compared to year 2010.
Table 7.62 - Estimated and Projected Households by Tenure, 2010-2030
Owner 1 21,393 73.3%1 21,811 73.70/n22,037 73.9% I-) '2A-nl 74.3% I 22,577 74.5%
Renter 1 7,809 26.70/o7,7731 26.3% 7,790 26.1% 7,731 25.7%1 7,738 25.5%
Total 29,202 100.0% 29,584 100.0% 29,827 100.0% 30,0711 100.0%1 30,315 100.0%
Source: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2010; Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated
Monroe County Population Projections
Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution
of functional population households.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 77 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
7.3.7.3 Projected Need by Cost
To determine the projected cost, the historic average median incomes from 1999 to 2010
were assessed through HUD via www.huduser.org. It is estimated that the average median
income for the County will increase by 3.4 percent every year. This is based strictly on
historic area median income and does not take into consideration market forces, market
crash or current recession. Using the affordable housing cost spreadsheets generated by the
County Growth Management Division, which calculate affordable price by 30 percent of
income, the affordable monthly rent are projected for the planning horizon on Table 7.63.
Table 7.63 - Affordable Maximum Monthly Rental Rates per AMI projections 2015-
2030
115 - AMI $80, :4
Size Very Loiv
Efficiency $712
Low Incomes
$1,139
MedianUnit
$1,423
$1,708
1 Bedroom
$763
$1,221
$1,527
$1,832
2 Bedroom
$912
$1,459
$1,824
$2,189
3 Bedroom
$1,044
$1,670
$2,087
$2,505
4 Bedroom
1 '
Efficiency
$1,170
$841
$1,872
$1,346
$2,340
$1,682
$2,809
$2,019
1 Bedroom
$902
$1,444
$1,804
$2,165
2 Bedroom
$1,078
$1,725
$2,156
$2,587
3 Bedroom
$1,234
$1,974
$2,467
$2,961
4 Bedroom
1
Efficiency
$1,383
112,944
$994
$2,213
$1,591
$2,766
$1,988
$3,320
$2,386
1 Bedroom
$1,066
$1,706
$2,133
$2,559
2 Bedroom
$1,274
$2,039
$2,548
$3,058
3 Bedroom
$1,458 1
$2,333
$2,916
$3,499
4 Bedroom
2030
Efficienc
$1,635
133,496
$1,175
$2,616
$1,880
$3,270
$2,350
$3,924
$2,820
1 Bedroom
$1,260
$2,017
$2,521
$3,025
2 Bedroom
$1,506
$2,409
$3,012
$3,614
3 Bedroom
$1,723
$2,757
$3,447
$4,136
4 Bedroom
$1,932
$3,092
$3,865
$4,638
Source: www.HtJDuseLorg for estimating AMI. Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, AFH matrix future cost.xls, for cost calculations.
Housing 78 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
As seen in Table 7.64 the affordable selling prices are projected for the County. As defined
by MCLDC 101-01 the maximum sales price, owner occupied affordable housing unit,
means a price not exceeding 3.75 times the annual median household income for the
county for a one bedroom or efficiency unit, 4.25 times the annual median household
income for the county for a two bedroom unit, and 4.75 times the annual median household
income for the county for a three or more bedroom unit.
Table 7.64 - Affordable Maximum Selling Price 2015-2030
1 SI S4•
Size Multiplier
PriceUnit
Max Sales
Efficiency/1 Bedroom 175
$303,173
2 Bedroom
4.25
$343,596
3 Bedroom
4.75
$384,019
02 1 •
Efficiency/1 Bedroom
3.75
$358,339
2 Bedroom
4.25
$406,117
3 Bedroom
4.75
$453,896
1 ..,
Efficiency/1 Bedroom
3.75
$423,540
2 Bedroom
4.25
$480,012
3 Bedroom
4.75
$536,484
03 1 4•r
Efficienc 1 Bedroom
3.75
$500,610
2 Bedroom
4.25
$567,358
3 Bedroom
4.75
$634,106
�L)u1 LU. W W w.no vuser.ore for esumaung amt. Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, AFH matrix future costxls, for cost calculations.
7.3.7.4 Projected Need by Income Range
Income ranges are discussed in Section 7.3.4 "Projected Number of Households by Income"
and the analysis is based on SCAH data. Analysis was done two ways, for functional
population and permanent population. Permanent population was analyzed separate since it
is permanent population who would receive affordable housing assistance. In summary, at
least 60.9 percent of households in 2010 will be at or below the moderate income range
(80.01 to 120 percent of the area median income). By the year 2030, the number of
households at or below the moderate income range will be at 62.4 percent (as provided
earlier in Tables 7.45 and 7.46).
7.3.8 Private Sector Housing Delivery Process
[Rule 9J-5.010(2)(e), F.A.C.]
While the private sector finances and builds the housing units, local governments issue
building permits and perform inspections of the units based on health and safety issues
Housing 79 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
established in and through the Florida Building Code. Building permits are issued in
compliance with local land development regulations.
Land
There are currently 2,338 acres of vacant land in unincorporated Monroe County of which
1,294 (55 percent) are designated for Residential Low, Residential Medium and Residential
High. If developed under the current designations, the acreage could theoretically support
an additional 7,701 dwelling units. Refining the analysis to vacant acreage in Tier III,
where the County encourages infill development, the theoretical number of housing that
could be developed is 4,044. To be more precise this would be a breakdown of 2,747 single
family homes and 1,297 multifamily or affordable units. There is ample vacant land to
meet the need and future demand. However, due to the limited population growth (157
persons a year), the increasing vacancy rate, and the high price of land in a coastal
community, there is no significant demand for new residential development from
developers.
There are private -public partnerships for the provision of land acquisition and government
support for affordable housing projects.
Finance
Financing affects the purchaser and builder's cost as well. Although the high cost of land in
the County tends to limit the development of public housing and public housing programs,
the County does participate in the affordable housing programs such as Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
programs to facilitate financing for private purchasers in lower income ranges.
Services
All services are provided by the County, with the exception of potable water, which is
supplied by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA). These services are discussed in
more detail in the Potable Water, Solid Waste, Sanitary Sewer and Drainage Elements.
As a part of development, the County charges several fees for services rendered, and for
impacts on the existing facilities. The County also charges various fees for site plan review,
and redevelopment or building permits. As of November 2010, impact fees for
development are outlined as follows:
Parks/Recreation - $340.00
Sewer connection - $70 per connection
Transportation - $633
Sheriff - $150 per SFR
Fire - $105 per SFR
Library - $242 per SFR
Solid Waste - $64 per SFR
Housing 80 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
ROGO Application for SFR - $748 + $20 research fee = $768.00
NROGO Application - $774
Mobile home to SFR - $305
7.3.9 Means of Accomplishing Affordable Housing, Group Homes and
Eliminating Substandard Conditions
[Rule 9J-5.010(2)(f), F.A.C.]
Topic 1: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(01., F.A.C]
The provision of housing with supporting infrastructure for all current and
anticipated future residents of the jurisdiction with particular emphasis on the
creation or preservation of affordable housing to minimize the need for additional
local services and avoid the concentration of affordable housing units only in
specific areas of the jurisdiction.
The infrastructure currently in place is adequate to meet the projected population to meet
the future needs of County functional population in an effective, economical manner. Were
only 84 dwelling units are anticipated each year from 2010 to 2030, the supporting
infrastructure will continue to be maintained to provide the adopted level -of -service
standards throughout the community. The County does scheduled maintenance and repair
of infrastructure facilities for which it is responsible. The County will maintain an
appropriate millage rate to pay for services provided to residents. The County provides the
same level, amount, and quality of infrastructure to all residents in all areas without regard
to income levels.
Each Livable CommuniKeys Plans includes objectives to maintain housing opportunities for
all segments of the population while maintaining the availability of affordable housing and
workforce housing for local residents, while preserving the character of the community.
The County relies entirely on the private sector, supplemented by outside government
programs, to ensure the provision of adequate housing. There is a need for affordable
housing for those permanent households that are making up to 120 percent of the area
median income for renters and up to 160 percent of the area median income for owners.
According to the SCAH (Table 7.46), a minimum of 60 percent of the permanent
population will need affordable housing assistance or will be making incomes at or below
the 120 percent of the area median income.
Currently the County can award up to 71 ROGO allocations for affordable housing;
however, not all of them are being used due to the high cost of land and time and cost of the
ROGO application process. Low-cost housing is difficult to provide. However, there is a
number of housing assistance programs available to the residents of the County, including
Section 8 and low interest loans; and the County participates in the Community
Development Block Grant program and the HOME Investment Partnerships program. The
County will, additionally, take the actions available (e.g., various residential densities,
Housing 81 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
waiver of fees) to encourage the development of very -low, low, and moderate income
housing, where the need for it is identified.
Topic 2: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(02., F.A.C]
The elimination of substandard housing conditions and for the structural and
aesthetic improvement of housing;
Table 7.29 denotes the housing that is considered substandard according to the Census
2000. This is however, not a true inventory of substandard units at the County. The
County should consider taking an inventory of mobile homes on individual sites and
mobile homes in camp grounds and parks that need structural improvements.
Where existing housing units are identified and substandard, the County relies on code
enforcement to ensure that housing is repaired or rehabilitated to meet codes. New
housing units must meet the Florida Building Code; local building inspections are
performed to ensure that code provisions are met.
Topic 3: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(03., F.A.C]
The provision of adequate sites for housing for very -low, low, and moderate income
households, and for mobile homes.
The provision of adequate land for affordable housing is stated in Section 7.3.6 "Land
Requirements for Housing Need". In summary, there is a surplus of acreage in Tier III (infill
areas) that would allow for the needed affordable housing.
Given that mobile homes provide an affordable option, the County may want to consider
continuing providing the land sites where mobile home development is located and
determine if this is a financially feasible option.
Topic 4: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(04., F.A.C]
The provision of adequate sites in residential areas or areas of residential character
for group homes and foster care facilities licensed or funded by the Florida
Department of Children and Family Services.
The provision of adequate sites in residential areas or areas of residential character for group
homes and foster care facilities is referenced is Section 7.2.9 "Group Homes". Only one
facility currently exists in unincorporated Monroe County. Group homes or institutional
homes are specifically allowed in the Mixed Use (MU) and Military Facilities (MF) zoning
districts.
Topic 5: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(05., F.A.C]
The identification of conservation, rehabilitation or demolition activities, and
historically significant housing or neighborhoods.
Housing 82 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan U
The identification of conservation, rehabilitation or demolition activities, and historically
significant housing or neighborhoods is further identified in Section 7.2.11 "Historically
Significant Housing':
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Housing 83 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Bibliography
Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse http://flhousingdata shimberg ufl edu/
Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies
Monroe County Land Development Code
Monroe County, 2000, Monroe County Population Estimates and Forecast 1990-2015.
Monroe County Division of Housing and Community Development, 2007, Monroe County
Affordable and Workforce Housing.
Monroe County, Ship Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) Fiscal Years Covered
2007-2008/ 2008-2009/2009-2010
Shimberg Center for Housing Studies http:Z/www.shimberg.ufl.edu/
State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation
(Mobile Home Parks, Condominium and Subdivisions data)
http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/sto/file download/public-records-CTMH html
State of Florida, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
U.S. Census 2000
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Monroe County Area Median Incomes
from 1999 to 2010:
www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/fmr00/hud00fl
txt
www.huduser.org/Datasets,/IL-/FMROl./hudOlfl.pdf
www.huduser.org./Datasets/IL,/FMR02/hudO2fl.j2df
www.huduser.org/Datasets/``ILZFMR03./hudO3fl.-pdf
www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL04/`hudO4fl..j2df
www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/ILOS�fl
FY2005 pdf
www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL06/fl
FY2006 pdf
www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL07/fl
FY2007 pdf
www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL08/fl
FY2008 pdf
www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL091fl.12df
www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL10/fl.pd
Housing 84 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Geographic Information System
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, MC ELU 510 (Existing Land Use GIS layer
received May 2010)
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, MC FLUM 510 (Future Land Use GIS layer
received May 2010)
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, Tier 0110 (Tier Overlay)
Florida State Historic Preservation Office, 2000, Historic Structures
Housing 85 Technical Document: May 2011
Git
It
41
44
all
id
a.
- -_!
ciw Iv =iw (- p _ ra F
- s � am voe
r AI
I
1
as
I
I
Ie n
MR � —
lit
i I
AL
fli
Hit
En
s
a s I I
a
s,, r
1
o
III
1 1-
I
r o
r
Alo "
4
w a a
--
I
r I I
e e.
I
!gw I
i
1 — 4
r
ka =a I
e
sf a sa sad' Mq
A
O '
wi
' � s
n
v _
d
-
_ � I
k
ee
I
I
� s s
22
I
I
y— — �.. J Fig
1 — '.
x� _ e a
ee . laie
. e 0 e
I� r o
i li I
. e e o e o d e a •
e e e
o
i a
u
Y
v '
i giH
®fig
i
§ qp
e sff �s ee gY e
y
A
x
@ s
i _ r
m
ro y y
O N
o
'L
LTr
un
O ro ro 0
Q) c%
C
o
c
d d y p
xv
y
G!
a
a)
C❑ y C
O ~ L 0
U
O
c—lu
y y
L�
y
w w
O w w G
0
N V)
I '-'
ro
O
vi N a) ro ro 0
M
O
'C O
C G) y Co , p C O y 4C
? p
C u
O y¢ O
y >> ro C
tt ro
L
>, U p
L+ O
U .0
o y tu tua
Q) ij
ro
O. Z
U
¢ O v 0 A .C] p L
vOi U O
a
=¢ o� y �% ro
i+ i
y ro� W
C O
❑ U
y y
Y
CU
-� a ❑
a
c U
ai o � •y
Q) O y
CL)ro
y � U y
0 C
o bD U GA C C O ro o
ro O O .y ro
m y a> O O
•_ ¢�
O O
N �" ram+ i i 4w.., �,.
CU
X U
x � CQxOQQci
cmaFQ.0 7�
a) _C
F �
a+
bD
o
U
y
O
aC
O
\
w
O
N
-]
io
to
N
e-1
O
W
cu
L
cyo
0 '0
O
x v
v rA
a>
W c
w
o
¢ c Lx
c
yl�
OD y
txc
vi
O o
ro
roLno
O
u x
.a
ro
o ao
$
V
_ro
�
��
G4 'O
an c 3
G U U00
a 3
r+
\
n
O
Z
y U O¢
O N
O O p
O� �-
rl
z
O y
U
y
c04
L rl
�O O y O
.O O O O r-
U I a)
OD
=
O
O
Q) L. N
.a N C6
y
+�%' L.
W
�wr.
S,,, T3 p ate.+ t� U �O
�
��r
Cd rl
'v7 '�C cz G! y
fLC
0� C�
tv
L[ O
F- U�
OW
QC
xF% F%
C4 PC
6 >
CU
N N N
e-i
U
cap Ao°A
a CL..
A
aa0
c0
.\,
v o
O V)
o
m
•o
Q
Q)
C
CL
C O
L i
O
L,Ln
cyC
.0 L
\
w
L
Q)
N O
'.•.
Cz cu a
\
"=
9 pM.
OU ,�'
.h C
N
C RS
i
r O
fi av
L
a
O CL a
=w
s;
cuM CO
O
� 'C3
0
00
y O
m
i
r-1 U
U
V)
Q)
V) -2
0
m
to
w
C
O
C
a
cuO
Q)
.-
ctf
_
a
O C
a, a� Q,
zC
o
°'
y fc C
U
'U
y L V) O
bD •-•
L
C
U
fC v1
N CO
y
V) L N
y L
L
O
m
to
O -O
CL 4z u
C
p
1
cu
O
cu
O
Y
V) Q)
cz M
•O
= E Q) =
=to
I O
O
cSf .fl
`+
_
'
cz
"a is
Q)
4-1O
V)
o
L
C
CU a)
'C O
O L w
w
6�
'm'�
O
L"
L Q)
Q) y
tz
bA O 'tzCU
C
L
CD
Q) ,i
Ez
E
v) ..CZ
V) V)ny
N
o
^O
�oLL�.c.�oCoc
bz V)
U
>E.�3o�
y
V^ L
U
ca
t%
n
a�
O O
O
c �'
E ai
L
cu. O O
u
a>
O u>
a u
C L
O c3
s
^>
-5
E� u
O a u
u
u C
O
C; ^CS bCD u
bD
C
su
O
C_
u
Qui > ca
u u
O
Ln
O
L cC w
O y L
ro
O C
Ltr
C �,
O
CD
7z C
c�
m
=
a o-
7v
a,
y
rLo aD �
o
U
M L) fC
cu
r.."
C7
cQ
Q)
C
CO
O
-O
cu �'
r- O m
O
M
CN
�
c�C
3
M
•O
i
r
oLn
�
~
a)
L
y
L
_� X (a
CC RJ
Q cuLJ
O
i
m
cu
m
"o
L
Q)
V)
3
.0 .5.:
4.
G
y
`�
4.
N
O N
_
_
bDcu
Q)
CLO
+•+
N CQ
C9
.Q
s0.
0. C
6!
M
O
O U
L
C fU4 '�
d
V)
L Jam.+
L
>
X w R
O O
N
C n
rC
(n E
L
c9
OU L.
O cun'
C..7 O
+} eel i'G
V1 \tar
O
p,
z
.� O
_O
V)
'3
U
is d
OCD
z O
U
cu
O
cL'
u
,L'
Q x
N
Q)
Q O
GO. "C3
F
Fes- V)
v a
cn
>
a>
a�
>
a 'a�
°
cu W
Ea
Ea
CD cm
O \
O b0
by
bA
by
by
tli4
by
by
bD
a c c
o
0
o
c
Q)
�cu
o
Q)° O O
C
O
C
s L C4 m x y a)
C) �; a) a)
a)
a)
,o
O
,o
O
a) Q) tC cu s. to "= a)
cn
�' 'c -o r., •° ,o
•°
,o
w °' c6 m � 3 3 �.
co
a
b�A
LD
ao t= bn
L i.. i.
O °� ai ° r- a o
4] U L ...� �•, CZ �..
O CL u O O
O
O
O
O
�•,�
U! % O w Ln
° w P:
Q)
Q)
CU
W
.G
a�i x c n aoi s. m
aU W ° O w
° aai cu
ate)
a°'i
o 0 0° u '�
p b 0 aJ .O
S]
f]
.fl
3 U x; j 'CJ F y> p O
Z
Q) 'CS
u
>, a 0 a
fl Y
O
O .0
_ p O CU ccz
O .� - a) al w V s. a
ro u O �G bn •— y
y b�0
L y;
O a? n
o o cmaa m
°
cz
cc
�s .� a°)
c v c7 3 �7 c
c. o
an L.on
to
b4
u
= o p y co
O N L ,u
RS co
c4
m
m
m
co
O ' C cu `Y•" N
a) ,� V)
°' a
n
a
0..
a
a
10" m 6) n a) bD O O
a� O Z
m °
x v, ro C7 b C
^Cs
'Ci
O
r1
CU a)
Ts = ri m -0 bA
v1 w
V)
rn
�•'' "'
.0.tr •,[
M wo bn
W
w
cn
V)
tS1 v�i V �^ U -° O O S V O
°' 3 z
b e°
bD bOA
to
tw
bOn
a°'o
° F ' `�
u
=$
z
L O U 4y O� Vi 0 .M 0 UO
w �' 'oa o a; cc ca
c
m
ca
m
a
° ° ° x a
Co O iL. ram+ "O .O
'O
,.�
'�
w
.b u y Q+ L bD V) `+ w 0 O
cn cn
cn
rn
V) ca V p co O O
u
O ca
L: y a) sr .� s. s0 O i O u
En >
G O
OU
mC y ^CS 'CS
^C3
V 'C3
U -
U •� •� � � Q) V) Q)
" n �
CU Q)TJ
3
am.
cu ,
Ln C °
O
,� o y cam. .�. L v,
° cML
a� bn bD
v)
bn
V) L v)
C bn °°
V) u N rl ,� �% L' F S"" C G.
C
Fxvcna
w\ cc O coo z ro coo =
ZV)< NFc�
>,F ca Ln as
a)
cu
mcu
O
c9
cu
r4 u b o E
coo
CT O O
d
a) i7 C. bn 6) Q.
O
O
.9
cu _C
:zV O V, Y i
"O
- O
iL y c6 '�
u
S1
U o
Q)
o
a p o
0 a
O
L7 v
to O ¢CU ° °
Ln
i
-o
0
°
=
o 0
x
O = `'
�
toa)
ato
tb
m c0 CO e
i."
cII
cz
•i O
i
E/)
C 1, a)
O L".
L
V
=
cn
a)�
v'Ji h O
bn
[0
O
O
_
Ln N
u.
•> ••i
O by Q) OD •-
=
,C
O
yct cu L O m O m y
cC •�
c4
m
4'
a) m
d4
a) = — == i
C Q.
Q)aw)
LL
.O
"O
i =
V a] O
> U 0 i,
o� vOi m cua
d d• d �h
Ln
uO
Ln
in v) \,o
:a.
a ab° a 0.,
npb °D
ab °
a
a
a s
CL
M
a)
L
x O
v U
C to
C Lr)
9 C U
t3 L
^^ m m tuo c
cu
°-a R
a; U
N ..a 'C3 °
O .=
� �
QO
--
.cu
tx U
to U
� CL
o U O 00 to
cu Z CU O
G t-
G
ca
C
f4
U U
+ p •O Q)
C C O
t=
3
p U
,�
i+
cu v)
m U
O
N
E k n
y O ° L rn tC
CN
ci„
L
S..
cz
U
�
e•-1
T3 L' O Z c4
O
L
O
L
i,, =
t~ " U
L
[7. =
a.1
a) U M
y
a) ❑. G
L fl\ O O
p O i
C7 N
C7 y
v O L
^O cC O Cl
tz
E^ x O
r O
Vj
U
O N
O w
O O
,r
i
U Ci. C'cn
a) y0 ,� ° bD
a) a)
L
L
M]
-p a.
tC
•N '> 0 Lt.
y
�O
� a M. p w
II. O y
C
'Ci O
O
'O G y
yC.)
cu
i0.+ �
a
Q)
C)
Q)
"•-'
cam.
a)
tr
'L.L
N
v) U •� .L
L '^ G R3
i1. '� a)
il. '7• a)
V]
Vi p .�
Q = °
y
u
a)
0
O fy •N L
m-
L U_
m
x ti
O Ls. =
L
O
cC R L1 e}
3CU
a"D > O
j
Q)
0) m
CT
C'4
y
C.-
cu
w
a)> cu
bA
">
O� V U
x Q
N
y O❑
GO O
a:
>� V)
N
W O h V)
.'
chi
O w ca G
.0 .� +�
a) U
a) UU
a)
L
+� o°
a
❑
'>
o
cA c i 3
L
ate, A. a :•° Ts
bz > .5
to .°
�
Q) o cn
° o m ° o �
�
�
a a)
L p
d
bD O L "C7
c U O
ra a) O
CD
W a)
< Cn , CU
.0 a) a) p
L) S~ •� U
Q'r
c9
..�
a) O C U y
O
N
u
p
Q"'�
QM.
•ti
U
Vl �••.. L
.f". O ca
i
CU
L
R%
i II O
O
E
,
U v
o x
>
i
° 44.
�
QO
U
o; a;
on3�
Eno
4)cu
m
U fx
u4bq
.N Q.
Ri L
V) N
y
C.a
a)
7 m
y
O
Q
U v)
E O o
'n
a)
X O
E
p
y
a) C
aA
L
i ro>
tx aJ a)
ca
L)
a)CU
y L
O
¢
CG O N
x �•
CS
m
U °+ Z
o
�a
c
ca
I
cn
y a) x
=
3 OoQ
N
a)
O C
O
O
n O U O
acu
m
p i0
o
�
o c
o
C
c� W m
a) L
�, aL' aD 3
m
a
p
U L y
O
Ca '
cc M
cn
M
�
C°
..
"
C
a..
Z.
a
a°
a.
a°
.
a..
a)
O �
• U G
U
bA c.
G. O
U' n
ri
r-1
U v
mm .0
n
a)
N
N
w
O
OO :a),
O C
ij
a)
U
Q) a1
>
W
v)
,,
O �+
`�~"
N
fa C
w
O —
r
O
u
L
L
ca R1
o a
a
o� o
°
o
cCL)
O D
y
E
L ocu
O O
Ts
a
L o
U
O
O
O
a)
O
r
C
y
L to
=•
� u
v, ay"i 'C a)
'C u
O
o
O
'O
C m �
a) a)
w a)
a)
O
a)
U
U
U
MD
S
U
U M M NO
N
fa "L3 r cu
x
v O�
U�
a)
N G
a)
Ln
.hLam.+
> .ti
U
U
U
a)
�
O
a) U �.
h
V)
N N
ca ca
N
N
fn
Ca
O
vl
fa
N
Ca
y0,
.•�• F O irA 0.
U y
N
a)
h N
i
'O�
U d
a)
N G
—Cu
>
u
to
ca
O) O
A NU
ca m
cn v)
4
4
N
N
�.
F
U L.
C U y
y L
N
to
> >
>
>
>
>
C4
>+�'
to C L
h
V)
N
L L
L
L
L
L
U
a>)
Z
-�
a)
L
L
a)
U
C' •i^" y
y
U
U N
y a)
ai ai
ti
a;
ai
ai
ai
ai
O y N
.�
L L
L
L
L
L
L
L
O
U V y
a.� •�
.0 O
O
O
f/1 CD
y
U
G.
to
¢
O
5 O Z O) O
L ca p
o p .•-�
O
rti
O
.�
O
C O r1
L L
N
W C 'C x
F w E w
Ci x
O O
L
L
L y)
C
Ca Ca
Ll
°C)
ro
En
oN
c
•�
O
C.7 cu -M
;
aroj O
O '�
U U p� y
-a bA
i�� v
Ln
= C
3
c
fA F
L.
O t3 C1 O
L
p as
° x O
0)
Ln
ttC
°
O
ro o
4. CZ
O4.xo.
C
o
c aA o lu
o
o C n
C O
ro C C
U
L. ro' n ro \
Q) ap
iU
p b i
O U
ro
i C C Ln E
ro
cn
p
O .fl
4�cu
a)
C C
cu a) U
'Cf
O
C
O
O
C v° C 6�
a) u
OU
s: -'�
u
V)
U
a) a �.
v ^O
-p
C
C
CS
°
U
n
C
LS
O
C a N C
ro
CU
> y
U "y" .�
C ° ❑ ° '�
y0.+
V)
,U.+
V)
i
to
U
y+
U
i
In
i
V)
i
•C ro p bD u
70
rS
E
,�'
w
0
ro
ro .c
M
i
V)
°°
a o o
N
t� C
U
U vOi
a) ro y C C
n
V)
.�
ro
n
fn
h
O
n
.- => °
>_ , C +-
O C,
C
y
,.O s
O
� -o ro L
'�
ro
a
ro
"a
ro
M
ro
ro
E
O
a
n
ro
(n
ro
ro
"
U ro u O>�
� �
C
s0. O'
'-
C C
ro
.� In U
-p
-p
^C
ro
ro
W
^0
'O
'O
.� i� N � x
y C:7
by
ai
N
>, O cu C
O
0
W
Ln
W
m
z"
L'
E
w
w
CD
v)
C
O '>
.'_. '"' ^p O
O
0
V)
.�
a)
_(n
cu
C
CL bA
a>
s�
L
a>)
N
bron
ai
U
ai
ai
C
°�
o
ai
ai
ai
o ro
�)
u
c o
e
s"
cj
o
0. E u
b
�
N
0
a>i
y
tz
bz
bn
Q
ro
F � � 4: [x C s
m y m
F,, :L C
C
�
'•'
an
O
C
0
O
�
p
its
.. y
v
N
Ca a,
by
C
0
U s
N
C
°
S
10
ro
+C
t=
C)
N
Ln
-=
iU.+
�•
'O
U
WO
ro
•2
V
O
•O
a)
�O
bD
cam.
C
Ccu
i O
+'
..
�cu
L-
U
> Ln
a)
y
°°
v
°
L
x
a
w
-0
ro
U
v)
ro
'O
`�
O
C
O
o
U
A
b
_ro
o
C
.�.
a
Ts
C
y
C
U
O
C
C
U
O
°°
0
s.
bJ)
U
C
a, y
.�
C]. L
cn
a)
p
-0
ro
r
ro
O
U+
C.%
>~
i
i
V
'O
V)
V)
N
i,
U
-C�
C
�_ w
v)
ram.
Ln c...,
x
X
y,
cc
O
CLO
ro
0
U
>O
a)
L
C
C
c4
x
+'
>
2
C
Z
CL
M Ca
U
Z
F
O CG
ro
d'
d"
Ln
LO
t\
t\
t\
t\
ON
O,
Q,
N
1.0
L�
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
ro
ro
bA
b0
b0
bD
bD
bD
bD
a
CL
a
Cl.o.
a"
a
a"
a
CL
M.
CL
M.
a
Cl
l-]
C
°
o
o
u
V)
C
`� �
—
O
O C]
cts
O C L
\
U
.° 4�i
bD 0
^O N
.c
o
ca o
Ca
a) cr �—
z >
'CS
M
U
N
y
s.
�
O
O O y
C
G
t.
'a+ CD fin
cu
s„
O O.
L3, 6)
O
C C
to [6 O
Oi1,
C i--1
.0
•�''^,
67
tc y
„O C
�O CDU L o
N U
G
x
C
N
"LS U 3
m N U Ca
C
y
ti
O
C v
s., C Lc7
cC
cu
to
LO>
O
v O
cu C
O
L C
a0 U a)
i.
w O C ._> 'O
.O ° "-'
Ln Q cE
C
LC
h
N\
N '=
p
'� L
CA a0.+
Y
ur 'a , En cam°
s0„ O
U
.°
y cn
'CS
�' U
'L7
> O
> CLIn +-+
"O C
•�
cu N
h
V)'O
'Cf GL) -0
�-•� L
6) U C.'
O i O '_' L
p N
rq
Cz
cu cu
U O
i
Q)
i+
w cu
O
s.
V)
v
V) v
a°
bD —
c o c
x O C
C C C U
to M
on
n O p
N
at
to
ry
O L s]
`°
O V) u
bD
ao
cn
°
`„°
°°
°
a c°
y
,
m °�'
w- c
o r, m
aI c° v t= 3
° o 'n C CU
w U w
+°�' °'
w
a wca
cx¢
cc
w
cc >
a�i.[v\i
no y >
c u°'v
cn
O
'C
'O RS M
'O G..
,-+
N y w cu
v F
E cw- w
E
O
cn cu
C
W
.�
C �N C
O C E ca
C CD
C
r.
O >
O
N
C C>
v
O
N
t�, y U -C
a) c
�
>
i f4
U
�
4C7 O
.�
,� �
r
.5
y M
3
= ° s�
E 'C3
No c°
bD C
° ..O
C
tU.t:x
sU, v7
L CO
t
��.+ c: L
m
y .O 'C ci.,
+0+ L U Q
cu
E
ti
o U
Q Ll O ca U
C] Q
Q
3
L.+
c
i
aj
N
O
cn
L
i..
p
cu
cC
N
O
>, y
y
ai
SO.,
C N
N
O~
ul
c4co
6)
"..'
s.
cn
M N
O
w
;
O
NO
CA
O
x
cct O
...
[n i'.
Q
N
N Q
_U n.
f0
a)O
U
> V3
V) -M
L O
�
s
p iii
GL.
•'', i].
••
Q O
cC
Q Uv
�
N
MO
L" CSi
5 Ln
_
C
j. C
U
C
O °
C
G U
p
U
Q
°
n
i
cu
°:
x mC
C
v
C a s,ue
a) a
a+ C
bA u
s
F
U mh
cu
C O
C�
.� �
�>'
O C)
°
Ln
w.
y
0
cu
4. O
a,
° o
m
a°i
G
y
cC
x
cu
3
y
H M
O
C r.
E� v
�....� GLi
iC.
M En
+�
O
M W
pUp
ur r•I
'O
_O
C
N
N
O
N O
O
C
N ¢,
C �+ r.{ O
O
C
C U
C +•+
C
U
cuU
L. d
R
rl
"�O
U r+
OJ O
V
U •�
U
F>.. �..�
a a.+
U
En•� V)
'�
Cn ..0 V)
Ln Q
V) O
U
V) V)
V) V) h
V) y
CU
C- NLO
cc
m
07tr
H
tC O
x Li A a
a
a
a
s
a
to M.
a
a
a
I-
O
�
� L
E N
o �
C
3
+�
u
o
�
L o
a;
o
p
Ln
U aJ U
N
i
y L
W u
0 0 0 O
CT'
p
V)
u
U
U O N
L].
u
O
.�
°>
O
^p
i O C
M L.
+� 7
a.+ M
L
.� m
cc x
y
O
CS
O
c)
V)tr
h
o °
U
O •�
'' O
O
U
tD
bA
O O O
O
U U ca a�
II
O
�L+
GO
O
hA
O
bD
O
�
(n
y
VI
E�
u
n O N
y
NvUi
aUi
Q)i
(U
V O 6l
ai
L
> W v
CA OL,) �.
y p
U
0
6j
O
U
O O
Q p„ u
S.O.
n"
O
a>
6Ui
w ailz¢
Q 3 0,o
°v
iZ
o
U
(\
r
Ly-
y
\
o
^�
;> y N i
V)
o
}?
E
u�>- o x- 3
= M. cu O o @ o
a� L
�° E
o
o
L p
U
N C i i+
0Ln
CU cC
0
E a`n
U
-:t rn
x
L Q F i1. 0 0 o O
N -� U
a
L
E
0
.o
a V o= `' o °'
"
a
U
CD
O '�
a
'G
^O
¢ r M Q o O c-OC
� cL4
y
E a
c o
O
ra
ca ,�, = -a ° V
cu�
O O
to
OCUi
C3
p,
Q L y G) U
U
O
L.
o
o
�
E
C4
U- y O
3 0 3 0' o
U
s °'
ro
U
CU
c
O
R Q,OOY
C QO
V,
>O E
Q)
U
LI)
N
rH
°
4�
m �
O E
cu
m
°
cu O
rr1l °
..e
LO
�+>
m>
EL p O cz
N zu
N
N
U C m
U
N
cC
3
�_
SZ. O L
en
O Q
a
V]
a
n
a o
,=, \
r
�,
,� C ,..+ O N .. O
'LS cC cC
(�
L
.0 \
,"'
E
!n
•yrQ
�cc
L O U
CA "�'"" > �" ^� c6 M
A. C
fn L R
N
CO U
Q
m,
t)L
..-1
CL
w
F U
U Q V)
c-
cn
a a° v cts o .�
c- . c�i� ai
t\ a
t�
e-1
(71
O
N
N
t\
N
O
N
CO
N
M
M
M
to
a
a
o°D,
a
s
d
a
a
bA
1...
°
cn
rn
y C
O N a) O
O >
O
cu
O
O
4 R cts
y
•�
Q
y N
bA
y d
CU
E O
lz
c6
a� s� C
C1. y p
M C
O z. O N
0 W N
O
y y
G
O d
O V) G
W m Wo
C°
F (
a� a)
o cc V)
o M u^ au
C p
d L
a) —
U a� a�
L
> °
y
Q
cC G>
y
'C m .O n
O
� O O
V
_�
CU 7 O
F. >
a
Qi
cuCx
Q y � 'O
M.-
[7
5�.. L.
4.w
ice+ y
v
4.3 Cz Q
u O
N y $
n
>
a'
°� C] O
O
y N a,
a,
o
c
o O
�4. u
r, 0 3
u Q uO
°
o c"a\�x
o�
y
,fl v
L.0
U
M y n c4
v
GA
V, M M
M Mu
'y cuU
a)
O
--�
Q)
N 'O C U i
�
F ti-1vZ
E-z
CLCO
o H C o
> O
y
M
cu o i
a)
Cz
c0 'LS y 'Ou 110
y
CL L
Sir
s, co c4
U
Q O
O _O
C '� i.
_
aJ
F. >
cu M cu
a
C
O X
O B w O s. cC
.0
cu
� m E O vUi
_aU
_O
II.
cC O
UI... a)
OV F O
C
:N
c0 U
O E O
Cl U
O
\
y
cC
y
COD W
Ln Cs.
O s. coz
r'
W
N
N
cu
E
aO
C]
O
CU
?, E ..d
p 4'J,
M
c O° E— i O
H
cu
O
O
>
' °
O u O c4
p� F
p
6"
CD`�'
cu
0 v M.
'_' vs i
x .�
i+
O �� 'O O ice+
d ��.�
M
OU
O
n
a)
O
cu
cu
N .�
° Lam.
h
a)
cN�
a°, °' cu -oCo o
a
oa
�'
°
U is
� d
_
dci
W
�a
M
+ rd
N M
LO
1p
bb
0 A
a t
a
bn
N i
> Y O r o
v
O°
a)
w° m ,O Q O C)C O, Q)° m
h x
D, CO ON
ca u
C
a) a° O
to •3 '� n
W a
00 CS C n °� '+j 'LS
s-
m C
. O
O O
O
O a) n. a) a,
V) L)
t4 N Z' i `� L. C6 O v ,�
O
.. G)
y, w
w U s. C m �' M
U
cyC O .L'
F. O O C •in
m 'O O C
3 C Ln C> O m a
O
'-0 cu,
s- ° LO
C)3 "b
i+
M � C O ° O O cn N 'O
oo o
R a
aCi
i O E
c
aU a)
4) u O O �
.fl V) M V) O N m S>. "C3 -0 ,y0 n. .fl
L i+
c-oyo o o y
u
L. = L.
F y •L. � �' t1cu m Ct
.�.
n a, a) cX a
Cu >, = a) " - a u o is =
o
> ^_
Ln aa) L] m m
z a O s ONct Ln u O—
y
m a)
a+
�a) „�
"- •cC
CT v] aL1 vOi cC
Ln
O
w
O
rya pq a)
O
C a) C- c0 C [C O
n
v
L
a) v
y0
•0 EO ay'
°' ��
m y n v
m� o x
m
7 o is -V)
v p�> a) u
s- a) m n, o u m >
a,
cu
o 0
CU o
a) "" L L U a) V,
m
y
a)
M a) V �" L 'u -W to N O � N
-
a)
V)
U aa)
V)
H m o u v
x°
a w
°J o° m M. p
C
a,
o° w
x hX
O
Q)
C O as O m O° 0 a x
O
cu
w O O .n to p •C o 7'
N O
'�
>
yvOi
•�
cam°,>,
y
�° x
C a) yLn
en
a
v 3 a z
o
x o y> r
cm
I- " .O
'O
oo
U -0 '� y -- y � O N a)
-0
m
m
u w
° y. a)
Q) O C
.vi
_
m +-' a) .0 '� m w S— �
'C
'i:+ O .n N
ate' is
a, C g x .� n a.
v
y a a y > .0 C Ts O- y u o �_
ON
O
o
m°
ti m m U 9,
CU
O
O p C y O m m
V,
n, p >
W
°
y
O Q, C> O O .-i O a1 L c>0
Paz a vLnc�
y w y O
a
y a, °• ao- �3 ° c a, =
..., U C '+� y p Q) O p
a)
V, a)
m O
C aJ w ,� ° n. C
y
O C O m .� p a) ,� O > O i m
O
aA
a) C�
lx"+ a)
mwzC/5
o --1: - u yyUc� oU n.vL)<
U o'S.�
ca-
au
C,
cn a)
cr
>
w J) O
C
°O L
U
CO
�¢ a)
m
tO 'a
Ci
>
L)
y
e-I
r o m V)
Ln v
a
u
n
o
CLnn
C 3
ca
m a.,
u C
au
p C,m y
a)
a
m
w m
C U 'CS
u N
C
m
y
C
u m imcz
—Cu
Ln
tr
O
O N m
U h u
V
R
U Q\
i
-a
a) .� O
3m-z
i
oW�
a)
V
�•9L
u
Ln
d,
o
v
W m >
a,
mu,�
C u O
>
U
O
•�
� 4=
�
u n n
'CS L �
° u y m
C-u h C)
w
y
.X
u
m
m
.a
u y
:E C
(=
o° o
L
o m s
.0
o
p
v,
n
m u
+� E
r'
o
� tx u
.0 C C a
O-
CL V N
:E
=
N
In.co
o
0
0
C3,
bn
tpb
on
ah
un
O
y
O
m
U
CN y
y
4 y
L
y p
a L
U O .9 v
C1 O y
h �;
U
W 0 0 �,
O
O
U O L
O G'
L Ct
O t o U U E
G O L>
y
� .O
U p O
B E
cL�C O
��
U
u G
.� U '�
y
m y
O
U
�U.+ NC
>Oct3
0.3
-
.--i
°.� �� °
° ° O
O:' i+
t W d
•L f6
O
G cW0 x
O U
lD 7 ,= .O
L O c�C
y
N O U
U L7 G F d
ON CyC
\
CL4 U v fC
O� S.U.
^O
-0 >,
O y G
m y
y �
M
p
M. > �
R3 m O
U U
° f4
U y y O
> W p' ci
O U v
,
F" Ll N
ca
U ..0 r•1
L ,.� ^�
N
L a.+ "..
i, fSf L
N y U CC
> to O
u TJ
[yU
w ct O�
y
W C h U O 3
-
II cu
n sU.
G
��+ u u C-0
e-1
O Sn N y
O V)
0
'� C O
Lo
tC
O O L 'O .O r-i
O
U S4 >, O
E 'O
co
°
En
Cx O O
O L U
n
O O D U '' U
O N W, L
O V
.3
CD
W0
•�
.>
u 0
O O o C
CU
bo
0 O
U
y
,� vi
,..+ "0 .�
u
aLi
O
O
O>
c4 rn i°
rn N �"
y
GNi > m m W Sn
°
CA
w
O O Ca
O O U U
O
bA U C7
U y U
qp
O=•o
L +' > U U
GA
o o
4.
y'� u 3 U
m
E
m
m� o oN
L')
�
L
a°, °o' ° V c x
U
w
'T�
-0 O>
"� U O ^C3 N ^
m
.O
00
Q a) -05
U
.0 a.+ ,�+ -O
O L y O O
+Oj
0 .� O
L
m 0 0
vUi
L _+
O
c:°
LU QUC
C
a
U O
U
•�
CU UM
y
i
E 4.
Q
U
cc
O.
G
u C
E " -a
°
-0Nx>°u
000
>
c m
C io
cz
Q
�o-0
Z o o nNf4
U
L
U
a>
�y
O
UEn
O
y
C
°
O
O
N
O
N
O
O
O
m
3
O
y
O
O
O
y
t=
o
N
U
y
m¢Oi
to
bD
a
C
O
pII
U
.O
.0 Q)
U
O
E
U
O
U
V
U
O
U L
U
N
y
cz
U O
U
O m
E
U
O
O
C) Sn
CL)
U
O O
U?
N
O
00
cu
.O
O
O
U
y0
G O
O
W
U
y
U
C4
y
O
L
\
G
'b
U
j
u
O
c-1
LO
O
CO
y0
�+
—1 ct
y
N G
bA
O
O
y
O
a4
U O
°
oz
i
N
O
0r. L7
>,
w
'O
,°O
_O
O
vcui
L
O
C
=
a
C E
L
rn y
O
00 n
O
H
U C
OU
N
—1
N
—1
N
,--I
N
1-4
N
—4
a
s
Db
a
a
b
a
t)b
ub
tb
ocu
^ ro Ln
� "Lf y c"a
O ro L
O m N .�
bD m
C O O � ro O
n
cu¢�
y
O 3 O
CL B
ro =-EU
O y
y L .� >> .i U t.f)
C) °
y> O
O O
L
.O LS N
� O
a�
N
ab h o °: L o
`n
N
C ro o C
u y ro p � ^_ V
cz
O O p
wG L O C
'C7
°
y Ln U
N�
O N
>a,
ccC
V) OC L N
0 CU
O
a)
°
ucu
o"'
^ L cr o
a�
o a ro ro
Z3 C
ro 0
L L O N _� c, o �_ L O
v
L
p, i
cd: h CD0 t1 y• 5 ro
N CD U y ro 0
_y
V) 0 0 0 y,
N "CS U in (� L1') O C O
N
O U
O O
y0
cLC ro
O 0 0 0 0 .--� L O .'C m
O U
O.
"L1
U N N
cu
x ^� O N U ro Q7 -C
A" Q
y fn L C O
A E
^" y L, L cu [,cu
N
C O\
O
ro O y O O > O O
Cs. O. "O v' ro
a
L
C1 aj ^O
N C O ro ro
U
V) �+
U
N O .fl C .� O sO.i y t�
=
o o o o
'L o
ro ao � V) O a�
o u
C4
Ln
° c
E ao--U
ro o
n CU v C) E a.°75 m,ro
�s
y
O C
O Q >, cu O O' ro O O
i
Ln
Lnn
O
a U
,L'
_ O L y.i
C L�
L ro L N a; ¢'
coN
•CU C � 'O '�
M O "B 'C3 d ro U
N
N
ro CD C
4wr'
� O 7.� C L"
O O •Oz
L
L
z�, cL.�'�u GO
N
bLD
O
U
U
ro
U
ct
N
O ro %
°y'
o
ro
ro
c 'O
y„
L
O
M cu
E
O ro
N
v
'O
O CDro
C L
v
"a R3
V
O
N
O O
CDU
6>
U
O
N
l- .yi
n•
N>
41 'O O
O
f V
�
y
N
S =
° V,L
L— O O
x
0
>
O
.C]
O'
bD 'O
O
GO 'L3 ro
cu O
�
O O
O�
L
O a�
N
ro
c, L
,U O
C
y ro
a�
O
O
N O Ln
O 0�
p
O O .�
ro vro
>
w
O
O
X U
U ,�
U s% O
O
C>
s0.
ro
N
N
^
C
U N
U L
.0
,y U
�S"•
>
L
au a
V)
a�
o
$
o C
o L a
V) ro
'�
°
O
ro
U ro
u m U o 0
=
ct
3
ti
\.25
bD O ro
S]
O
ro
`1G
O p
E--
a w
O
cn
ro
>
a C]
d" i -- O
a, ro W vU
� Lf7
a a°D
atb
a°A,
o°p.
a
a°A.
a.
ab°.
a
a�
c
o
°
>
a)
L
O
r �
>
L
y
a)
m
O
aJ
O
0) '-{
ct
O
U
u
fC
Ln
O
°
ai
L.
L°
>
cC �
G
O
°
O.
u
O
C
z
a
°
rz
c m
ti
�'
CL
o
cz
°
+�
cC
41
4-i
O
}J
L
b.+
L
L.+
>
Q)
y
�-+
.C.
m
a) Cuta)
a)
4)
a)
y
v)
(1)
�
a)
G)
-� 4) Q)
z
p L
p
=
U
p
.; •-. 4..
O
V)
v)
.O
"
r
V)
v
V)
v)
V)
V1
v)
V)
v)
y
L.
h
y
a)
V)
v)
V)
v)
V)
cn
v)
W
O O RL
C4
_
Rf
(SS x
tC
Rf
CC
O
p
c4�
L
°
cC
RS
t6
tC
a
3
c
a
o
w
o
1r
v1
•�
U
y
VI
V)
V)
.V1.
L
.v)
'd O
f4
.v)
V)
V)
N
a) i'
•O
°
W
6i
r
y
v)
>
>
>
>
0 rn
3 -a ul
:.
L
C
O
L
L Q
L
p
L
O
L;
O=
L
v)
cz
L
L
L
L
y C
Q
cA
co
a�
a)
a�
a�
a;
�;
a-
a) ca
N
i
O
a)
a)
a)
a�
a)
L.
a)
cuN
L.
a)
L
a)
L.
a)
L'
a) +�
O
L
a)
LM
a)
L
a)
L
CC S3.
tr
cu
tr
GA
tr
DD
all
C
tr
E— O Oa
v)
O
O
4R
cu
=
v
O
N
t\
a
Q
C
c
C
a
F
ai
o
C31,
j
L
ap
O
O
C
Otic
w
�
.0
p
C
°W
ON
O
CD
a)
co
cu
Oc
O
cz
b
0D
°
¢CL°
3
m
y
c6
m
:
U
CS
ro
+t)
'Cf
cu
°O
3
-
;;
o
i
d
E
m
x
Ov
o
v)+)
O
c0
°CL)
L. ^C
U
`�
7
O
N
O
t4
,)
°
�, d
i.
c
O
m C
E w
tCC
G.
O
ca
O
LO
�
�n
E
O Li
a�
nc
CU
° c°a
cz
a
a)
CL
�
Q)
cu
`L°
C
= r-Lo�
0
o
U
O
x
lu
a�
b
'C
°
U
o
ca
+�
m
h
\ E
C cv
Q) L
o
cn
a)
�' L
O a)
bD
O
U
b.D
L
O
w
a
L
O
cC
L.
Ln p
\
�
i L L
M
r-1
CT
�
p
'C
O
0
'O
-0
cz
p
O
L
a)
m
N
cC
N a)
yr y
a.r
.-i
O
L
w
`O
x
i
N
O
'�
,�
'C °
m C>
.0
5°
_O
m
C)
O
t]D y
a)
d.
V 1
V N
rya/)
tC
tea/)
.
L >
z
CD
M
£'. �-•i
'--I
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
d"
d"
�'
l0
�O
lD
�p
�p
c.aa,aab0.
a
a.aaa.a..n°A.
aaaa
a.
ti
a.
M
rl
O
.O
C
V i
O U y C
o °
^vro
a
c! O
cOC p
L
U
V)
f° N
i p w .
ca
ro
oL
ro
yJ
V) Gi
•y
L)
V3
cu
N
.,p
'�
^O
�n
'C
.a
G' U O
p
"L3
L) .� .� ..
O ro O
'"'
CU
V)
W
y
3 cu
U
bA
a)
N
O ro
O p
WLn
O
3
txo
3
w m
o
o c
En
=V)
Ln
V)
V)
p
V)�
o
Ln
a.1
Ln
c.
Q1 c
o
V)
V)
V)
o
En
h O
CL) a;
ro
o
vV)
°�
ro
zT
ro
o
w
c�9
c�4
v)
ro
'O
°)
ro
'- y ro
cd
U ro O w0
rn
ro
cn
ro
V)
ro
w
m
Ts
a
V
ro
a)
D
o
w
O to O
O '�
O
O V)
O
II
L
ro
O
C C
s
�+
y
. C y
> C a
L
s.
s.
C O
_ v
w
a1)
a
ai
ai
ai O
a?
O o
to O
i
GD
bA
O
O y u O s.
s0,
sue.
O
�
�-
CC O
^
C
Q
Q
N i
O
0
`--�
O
�:.
a
c
>
y
O
O
Oct
� O
.�
O
O
O
O
i O
n
z.
L
O
•^-
O
�
'p ro
ro
ft7
a)
cl
rn
LEn
O
s..
O
N
t, �' n
s.
G
O
s.
C
twC O
O
y
^ i O
'�
'�
C)
'O
ro
O
4. n
O
a`
�
ro
y
ro
CL
3 c
O O ro
o
a)
s.
ro
Q)
i
r
o
S.
ro
L
~
{o.
NCU
o
N
y
Q
CU
U
tDz
ro
L
cu
im.
v
-
ro o
- tw M
c
ro
O
p
s.
w
v)
,O
iL
.V)
'~
w
^d LO �--�
w
O
O'\
cct
e
y
y
p
ro O
O
r-�
O
O p
0
_O
o ,n
O
on n
c —
.�
v
ry
a
v
o
N
O
o
o
O
m
O
O ^C
ro
m
N
ro
O +'
ro
aJ
p
0
O
co
+'
It
O eOC
M.
_`�
O
�
_V
N
`�
N
u
u
-C
O
O
O
0�
M N p
Q) 'L%
a)
�O
a)
N
ON
s%
y
—
N Ca ^p
^ ^p
.O
O ,�
�^
y
i.,
M
O
N -p
X
L.
O
O
m
..O
._•
CL
y
cn
m c0
co
Cl
p�
a1
a
a
a n°A
CL
a a
a
a0°
bb
0-
aCL
as
a,
a�
o
W
cC
.O
p
U
� o �
°
c9
c
ci.. •S
C
c4 O
C
G �.+
cc
°
O
_- fa
C4 a
•i� O v�
y
O
•,� O
i O
O
►N. �+
U
U
O F
�
CZ
O
tar
a)
;T
O
1'�..+
w
LT. y
i0.+
O
fy6
rA
y O p
O
O
C y
O
3
u
O
y v
a)
O u
u
O
O
i
z
M
sue..
O m
O m >C O
O
N
N
cC
u
O N
rOi,
O
u u
y
a)
O u
' Q
O M
Ln
bD
.Ln
Q)
h
0
h
h
h
En
c o=
ao
°'
ao
U
y
Ln
a
0
a En
U
U 4-
O L.
to
O U
CL
°' "a r
.�
= y
O 'v0�i
j
a)
,fl
C Ou
C�7
w>>
O
V)
CU CU
-
cN4
O
cN4
O
'O
CS
p s0»
G CU v
O O
a
O
W
y
y O
O
O O
h
O ,O
a�
y
w LO
o
o
o
•—
a
a�
s.
a)
s.
cu
"
cu
L.
E o
m m O O
w
"
L d:.1
L.
L.
a) O
C, y V1
L y
cu
i
bD
Q
wU
<�
<<
by
a)
L=
Fia =
c0 G O m
� o o 3
bb O O
QZ c
O a)
Z c
a i
cu
u
O
cn
M.
O
O
c0
h
O
c0
O
O
O
N
u
O
Q
N
,�
i.
y
Ln
'O
CL
bl)
cucu
cq
cuO
CC
❑
O
+�'�
cn
c4
+=
c4 ox
L
j 0
+'
�+
G
O
O
O
O
OJ
CS
'� O
U
O
u0
[C
O
O
+J
i
cC
L
y �.
•�
O
i.
a)
z
O y
O bD
O
CO
O
CU
�+
� Q
�
4.0
O
a)
L.
cz
O
N
i
O
N
_
V V)
O
i
N
uLn
O
>'
0 0
c�0
y c-a
)
a
E
c
Lo Cl.
° y
a,
y
L.
L
u
=
U
o N
O RS
m
aJ
O
O
Z
CUO
E-
CU M
U
0 0
0 C
Z 'V,
O
dJ
m
N
N
N
N
N
m
m
m
M
1•4
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a
a.
ob'0.
a.
abA.
a
ab0.
Lr)
1"4