The URL can be used to link to this page

Item H9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: October 21. 2009 Division: Growth Mana!!ement Bulk Item: Yes X No Department: Plannin!! and Env. Resources Staff Contact Person: Susan Grimslev. Actin!! Growth Manlil!ement Director AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopting the Annual Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report for 2008. ITEM BACKGROUND: This report is the annual assessment of public facilities capacity mandated by Chapter 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations (Code). Section 114-2, Adequate Facilities and Development Review Procedures, contains two major sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the four primary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and an annual assessment process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2 includes an equitable procedure for issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely to outpace the current capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2(b)3 requires the Director of Planning to prepare an annual report to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners on the capacity of available public facilities. Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the Monroe County Board of County Commission to consider this report and approve its fmdings either with or without modifications. The County Commission cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report without making specific fmdings of fact as to the reasons for the increase, and identifying the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity. Once approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commission, the Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC has considered and approved annual assessments of public facilities capacity each year since 1987. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval TOTAL COST: nla INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes _No DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year APPROVED BY: County Atty ---1L OMBlPurchasing _ Risk Management _ DOCUMENTATION: Included ---1L- Not Required_ DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # Revised 7/09 RESOLUTION NO. 2009 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE 2008 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT AS SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES. WHEREAS, Section 114-2(b)(4) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an annual assessment of public facilities capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission makes the following findings of facts: 1. Based on the analysis and findings of fact, the 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report is consistent wit the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Code. 2. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed and approved for the upcoming year. 3. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report is used to evaluate the existing level of services for roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities. 4. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report finds that sufficient capacity exists for solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth for the next (12) twelve months. 5. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report of transportation facilities is based on the 2008 US-1 Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS the County's transportation consultant. 6. Objective 101.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan ensures public facilities are available to serve the development at the level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of such development. Page 1 of3 7. Section 114-2 of the Code provides the minimum standards for level of service for roads, solid waste, potable water and educational facilities. 8. Section 114-2 of the Land Development Regulations requires the annual assessment of public facilities capacity to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe County with inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities. 9. Section 114-2(a)(1)d requires the County to publish in a local newspaper of greatest circulation information regarding the available transportation capacity for each road segment expressed in terms of number of trips remaining until the adequate transportation facilities standard is exceeded. 10. Four segments have exceeded the maximum reserve volume or trips. They are Sugarloaf (LOS "D"), Tea Table (LOS "D") , Big Pine Key (LOS "D") and Cross Key (LOS "E"). County regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to meet LOS C standards to receive an allocation not to exceed five (5%) percent below the LOS C standard. SugarloafKey and Tea Table are still within the 5% allocation. Big Pine and Cross Keys have exceeded the 5% allocation. 11. Big Pine Key traffic signal at Key Deer Boulevard intersections continues to influence the travel speeds and has experienced a high number of delays. 12. Cross Key has experienced a high number of delays due to construction of a high-level fixed bridge. Once construction is complete in this area, the level of service is likely to improve. 13. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKAA's modification ofWUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This WUP provides an annual allocation of 8,751 millions gallons or 23.98 MGD. The construction of the new water supply wells and reverse osmosis water treatment facility will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD. 14. The average daily water demand is expected to increase to 16.28 MGD due to water shortages and droughts. The construction of the new water supply wells and RO water treatment facility will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD. 15. For unincorporated Monroe County in 2008, the total permanent population is estimated to be 72,243. The seasonal population is estimated to be 35,929. The estimated 2008 seasonal population in incorporated Monroe County is estimated to be 38,346. 16. The functional population for 2008 for unincorporated and incorporated Monroe County is 146,518. Page 2 of3 17. A total of 100 new single-family residential permits were issued m unincorporated Monroe County in 2008. 18. The rate of growth guidelines indicates that unincorporated Monroe County may award up to 197 residential allocations during ROGO Year 17. The Planning Commission approved 116 ROGO allocations in the first half of ROGO Year 17. NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report for unincorporated Monroe County; PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of A.D., 2009. - Mayor George Neugent Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Murphy Commissioner Kim Wigington Commissioner Heather Carruthers Commissioner Mario Di Gennaro BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Mayor George Neugent (SEAL) ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Page3 of 3 1 I. 2 3 4 5 6 7 II. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT We strive to be caring, professional and fair To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Through: Susan Grimsley, Acting Director of Growth Management From: Kathy Grasser, Comprehensive Planner Date: October 5, 2009 Subject: 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Annual Report Meeting: October 21, 2009 PROPOSED AMENDMENT: A Resolution by The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners recommending approval to adopt The 2008 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report as submitted by The Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. PROCESS This report is the annual assessment of public facilities capacity mandated by Chapter 114 ofthe Monroe County Land Development Regulations (Code). Section 114-2, Adequate Facilities and Development Review Procedures, contains two major sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the four primary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and an annual assessment process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2 includes an equitable procedure for issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely to outpace the current capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2(b)3 requires the Director of Planning to prepare an annual report to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners on the capacity of available public facilities. Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the BOCC to consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. The BOCC cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report without making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase, and identifying the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity. Page 1 of6 Public Facilities Capacity Report 2008 BOCC: October 22, 2009 1 Once approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commission, the Public 2 Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the official assessment of public facilities 3 upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. 4 5 III. RELEVANT PRIOR COUNTY ACTIONS 6 The BOCC has considered and approved annual assessments of public facilities capacity 7 each year since 1987. 8 9 IV. CONSISTENCY WITH MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE 10 PLAN AND THE MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT 11 REGULA TIONS2 12 13 A. Consistency of the proposed amendment with the provisions and intent of the Monroe 14 County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan: 15 16 Staff: This report assesses the capacity of roads, solid waste facilities, water supply, and 17 schools that will accommodate that growth within the next twelve months. The 18 report identifies marginal and/or inadequate capacity of public facilities within 19 unincorporated Monroe County. The report is consistent with the Monroe County 20 Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 21 22 Objective 101.1 23 Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, adequate 24 public facilities are available to serve the development at the adopted level of service 25 standards concurrent with the impacts of such development. [9J-5.006(3)(b)1] 26 27 Policy 101.1.1 28 Monroe County shall adopt level of service (LOS) standards for the following public 29 facility types required by Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C: roads, sanitary sewer, solid waste, 30 drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, and paratransit. The LOS standards are 31 established in the following sections of the Comprehensive Plan: 32 1. The LOS for roads is established in Traffic and Circulation Policy 301.1.1; 33 2. The LOS for potable water is established in Potable Water Policy 701.1.1; 34 3. The LOS for solid waste is established in Solid Waste Policy 801.1.1 ; 35 4. The LOS for sanitary sewer is established in Sanitary Sewer Policy 901.1.1; 36 5. The LOS for drainage is established in Drainage Policy 1001.1.1; and 37 6. The LOS for parks and recreation is established in Recreation and Open Space 38 Policy 1201.1.1. [5.006(3)(c)3] 39 40 Policy 101.1.2 41 By January 4, 1997, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which 42 provide a Concurrency Management System (See Capital Improvements Policy 43 1401.4.5). The Concurrency Management System shall ensure that no permits will be 44 issued for new development unless adequate public facilities needed to support the 45 development at the adopted LOS standards are available concurrent with the impacts of 46 development. [9J-5.006(3)(c)3] Page 2 of6 Public Facilities Capacity Report 2008 BOCC: October 22, 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 B. Consistency of the proposed amendment with the provisions and intent of Chapter 114 of the Monroe County, Land Development Regulations: Staff: In the event that some or all public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the LOS standards required by the Code, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that the public facilities are not further burdened. The Code clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. Sec. 114-2 Adequate facilities and development review procedures. (a) Adequate Facilities: After February 28, 1988, all development or land shall be served by adequate public facilities in accordance with the following standards: (1) Roads: a. County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersections and/or roadway segments. u.s. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service C on an overall basis as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. In addition, the segment or segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be directly impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service C as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. b. All secondary roads to which traffic entering or leaving the development or use will have direct access shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis. c. In areas which are served by inadequate transportation facilities on U.S. 1, development may be approved provided that the development in combination with all other permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five (5) percent below level of service C, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. d. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the official 1989 FDOT traffic counts of U.S. Highway 1 the county shall publish a notice informing the public of the available transportation capacity for each road segment of U.S. 1 as described in the county's annual public facilities capacity report. The available capacity shall be expressed in terms of number of trips remaining until the adequate Page 3 of6 Public Facilities Capacity Report 2008 BOCC: October 22, 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 transportation facilities standard is exceeded. The notice shall be published in the nonlegal section of the local newspapers of greatest general circulation in the Lower, Middle and Upper Keys. (2) Solid waste: Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of at least three (3) years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development or use. The Monroe County Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under Florida Statutes Section 163.01, to dispose of solid waste outside of Monroe County. (3) Potable water: Sufficient potable water from an approved and permitted source shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of the proposed development or use. Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribution systems, individual water condensation systems, and any other system which complies with Florida standards for potable water. (4) Schools: Adequate school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school-age children to be generated by the proposed development or use. IX. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Based on the analysis and findings of fact, the 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report is consistent wit the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Code. 2. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed and approved for the upcoming year. 3. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report is used to evaluate the existing level of services for roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities. 4. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report finds that sufficient capacity exists for solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth for the next (12) twelve months. 5. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report of transportation facilities is based on the 2008 US-1 Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS the County's transportation consultant. Page 4 of6 Public Facilities Capacity Report 2008 BOCC: October 22, 2009 1 2 6. Objective 101.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan ensures public facilities are 3 available to serve the development at the level of service standards concurrent with the 4 impacts of such development. 5 6 7. Section 114-2 of the Code provides the minimum standards for level of service for 7 roads, solid waste, potable water and educational facilities. 8 9 8. Section 114-2 of the Land Development Regulations requires the annual assessment of 10 public facilities capacity to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe 11 County with inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities. 12 13 9. Section 114-2(a)(1)d requires the County to publish in a local newspaper of greatest 14 circulation information regarding the available transportation capacity for each road 15 segment expressed in terms of number of trips remaining until the adequate 16 transportation facilities standard is exceeded. 17 18 10. Four segments have exceeded the maximum reserve volume or trips. They are 19 Sugarloaf (LOS "D"), Tea Table (LOS "D"), Big Pine Key (LOS "D") and Cross Key 20 (LOS "E"). County regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to meet 21 LOS C standards to receive an allocation not to exceed five (5%) percent below the 22 LOS C standard. Sugarloaf Key and Tea Table are still within the 5% allocation. Big 23 Pine and Cross Keys have exceeded the 5% allocation. 24 25 11. Big Pine Key traffic signal at Key Deer Boulevard intersections continues to influence 26 the travel speeds and has experienced a high number of delays. 27 28 12. Cross Key has experienced a high number of delays due to construction of a high-level 29 fixed bridge. Once construction is complete in this area, the level of service is likely 30 to improve. 31 32 13. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKAA's 33 modification of WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and 34 Florida Aquifers. This WUP provides an annual allocation of8,751 millions gallons or 35 23.98 MGD. The construction of the new water supply wells and reverse osmosis 36 water treatment facility will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD. 37 38 14. The average daily water demand is expected to increase to 16.28 MGD due to water 39 shortages and droughts. The construction of the new water supply wells and RO water 40 treatment facility will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD. 41 42 15. For unincorporated Monroe County in 2008, the total permanent population is 43 estimated to be 72,243. The seasonal population is estimated to be 35,929. The 44 estimated 2008 seasonal population in incorporated Monroe County is estimated to be 45 38,346. 46 Page 5 of6 Public Facilities Capacity Report 2008 BOCC: October 22, 2009 1 2 16. The functional population for 2008 for unincorporated and incorporated Monroe 3 County is 146,518. 4 5 17. A total of 100 new single-family residential permits were issued in unincorporated 6 Monroe County in 2008. 7 8 18. The rate of growth guidelines indicates that unincorporated Monroe County may award 9 up to 197 residential allocations during ROGO Year 17. The Planning Commission 10 approved 116 ROGO allocations in the first half of ROGO Year 17. 11 12 X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 13 APPROVAL Page 6 of6 Public Facilities Capacity Report 2008 BOCC: October 22, 2009 2008 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REpORT GROWTH MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION POTABLE WATER EDUCATION SOLID WASTE PARKS AND RECREATION <OO!O . . .. ~ , . Monroe County " .r . . Florida Bay . _ L r7iiL/ ~- 'iiJ., .:.~6 ~ ~\O" .~so S\(6~ N A TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .. ..... .... ............ ........ ...... ... ..... .......... ... ... ................... ............ ......... .... ...... 4 Figure AI: Capacity of U.S. 1 by Segment in 2008.............................................................5 Introduction.................................................................................................................... ........ 6 Figure A2: Map of the Service Areas ................................................................................... 8 Figure A3: Planning Area Enumeration Districts (PAEDS)................................................. 9 Chapters I. Growth Management. ........ .................. .... .... ............ ............. ................. ........ ......... ......10 II. Transportation............................................................................................................., .18 III. Potable Water............................................................................................................... .27 IV. Education ..... .... ... ........... .... ............. ............. ...... ......... .......... ..... ... ........... ........ ........ .....33 V. Solid Waste. ........ ......... .......... .... ... .... ........... .......... ..... .......... .......... ........... ............ .... ...39 VI. Parks and Recreation.. .............. ..... .... ......................,... ... .... .... ....... ............. .... ........ .......43 List of Fis!Ures Chaoter I: Growth Management Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2: Figure 1.3: Figure 1.4: Figure 1.5: Figure 1.6: Figure 1.7: Figure 1.8: Figure 1.9: Figure 1.10: Figure 1.11: Figure 1.12: Functional Population 2000-2008.......... ................... .......... ... ...... ...... .......... ..11 Functional Population Gains and Losses 2000-2008.....................................11 U. S. Population Estimates 1990-2008..........................................................11 Population Estimates Chart. ........... .............................. ... ........... .......... ..........11 Housing Units 1990-2007.............. ................ ................. ............. ........ ........ ..12 Housing Units 1990-2007 Chart ....................................................................12 New Single Family Residential Permits 2005-2008......................................13 Single Family Residential 2005-2008. ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ....... ..................... .....13 Mobile Home Replacement 2005-2008.........................................................13 Recreational Vehicle Replacement 2005-2008..............................................13 NROGO Allocation Year 13 Period 2 through Year 17 Period 1..................15 ROGO Allocation Year 13 Period 2 through Year 17 Period 1 ....................17 Chapter II: Transoortation Figure 2.1 : Figure 2.2: Figure 2.3: Figure 2.4: Figure 2.5: Figure 2.6: Figure 2.7: Figure 2.8: Figure 2.9: Fully-Signalized Intersection ...... .... ...... ............ ................. .... ........... ........... ..18 Traffic Counts 2007-2008... .............. ........ .......... ..... ................... ................. ..19 Historical Comparisons AADT's 2000-2008 ................................................19 Changes in Overall Median Speed....... ......... ..... ........... ............ ........... ..........20 Changes in Overall Median Speed Chart 1992-2008 ....................................21 Level of Service Based on Flow Characteristics 1992-2008.........................22 U. S. 1 Segments Status, Median Speeds and Change 2007-2008 ................25 Level of Service and Reserve Speed Capacity ..............................................25 Reserve Speeds of Less than or Equal to 3 MPH ..........................................26 Page 2 of 45 Chapter III: Potable Water Figure 3.1: Figure 3.2: Figure 3.3: Figure 3.4: Figure 3.5: Figure 3.6: Figure 3.7: FKAA System Overview.. ... ....... ...... ........ .................... ...... ..... .............. ........29 Annual Water Withdrawal 1980-2007 ...........................................................29 Annual Water Withdrawal 1992-2007 Chart.................................................30 WUP Remaining Allocation ......... ..... ....... ..... ................ ...................... .... .... ..30 Projected Water Demand in 2008..................................................................30 Per Capita Water Availability ....... ............ ............. ........... ............ ......... ...... ..31 FKAA Five- Year Water A vailability.............................................................31 Chapter IV: Education Figure 4.1: Figure 4.2: Figure 4.3: Figure 4.4: Figure 4.5: Figure 4.6: Figure 4.7: Schools by Sub-district............ ................ ....................... ..... .......... ................34 Enrollment by Grade LeveL.......................................................................... .34 Fall School Enrollment 1997-2007.......... ............... ........ ........ ................ .......35 Fall School Enrollments for District Charter Schools and Pace Center ........35 Capital Outlay FTE Forecast for Monroe County 2008................................36 Location, Capacities and Planned Utilization Rates of Current Educational Facilities 2006-2011.....................................................37 Public School Capital Improvements....................... ............. ..... ....... ......... ....3 8 Chapter V: Solid Waste Figure 5.1: Figure 5.2: Figure 5.3: Figure 5.4: Figure 5.5: Solid Waste Contractors ................. .... ...................... ............. ....... ......... ........39 Monroe County's Landfill and Incinerators ..................................................39 Solid Waste Generation by District ...............................................................41 Solid Waste Generation 1985-2007...............................................................41 Remaining Capacity, Central Sanitary Landfill.............................................42 Chapter VI: Parks and Recreation Figure 6.1 : Figure 6.2: Figure 6.3: Parks and Recreation Facilities Serving Unincorporated Monroe County....44 Level of Service for Resourced-Based Recreation Areas ..............................45 Level of Service for Activity-Based Recreation Areas..................................45 Page 3 of 45 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Monroe County Code (hereafter referred to as "the Code") Section 114-2 mandates an annual assessment of the roads, solid waste, potable water, and school facilities serving the unincorporated portion of Monroe County. In the event that these public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS) required by the Code, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The Code clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. As required by MC Code Section 114-2 the BOCC shall consider and approve the annual report, with or without modifications. Any modifications that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact, including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity required to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document becomes the official report on public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. This report distinguishes between areas of adequate, inadequate and marginally adequate facility capacity. Inadequate facility capacity is defined as those areas with capacity below the adopted LOS standard. Marginally adequate capacity is defined as those areas at the adopted LOS standard or that are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next twelve months. 2008 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Solid waste, potable water and schools have sufficient capacity to serve the growth anticipated in 2008 at the adopted level of service. The transportation facility (roads) demonstrates marginally adequate capacity. However, in isolated situations it fails to meet the County's level of service standard. The status of each facility is summarized below. Potable Water Page 4 of 45 In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKAA's modification of WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This water use permit (WUP) provides an annual allocation of 8,751 million gallons or 23.98 MGD. The average daily water demand is expected to increase to 16.28 MGD due to water shortages and droughts. The planned construction of the new water supply wells and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment facility will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD. Schools Enrollment figures for the 2008-2009 school year and projected enrollment figures for the near future, the 2012-2013 school year, show that none of the schools are expected to exceed their recommended capacity. Solid Waste Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management (WMI). The contract authorizes the use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately eight (8) years of guaranteed capacity. Ongoing modifications at the Central Sanitary Landfill are creating additional air space and years of life. Roads: Based on the findings of the 2008 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County, as prepared by URS Corporation Southern Consultants, U.S. 1 has an overall level of service (LOS) of "C". The following table shows the available capacity of U.S. 1 by segment. Figure A 1 CAPACITY OF U. S. 1 BY SEGMENT IN 2008 Mile Marker 2008 # Range Segment LOS 2000 STATUS 1 4-5 Stock Island B Adequate 2 5-9 Boca Chica B Adequate 3 9-10.5 Big Coppitt C MARGINAL 4 10.5-16.5 Saddlebunch C MARGINAL 5 16.5-20.5 Sugarloaf D INADEQUATE 6 20.5-23 Cudjoe A Adequate 7 23-25 Summerland B Adequate 8 25-27.5 Ramrod A Adequate 9 27.5-29.5 Torch A Adequate 10 29.5-33 Big Pine D INADEQUATE 11 33-40 Bahia Honda B Adequate 12 40-47 7 -Mile Bridge B Adequate 13 47-54 Marathon A Adequate 14 54-60.5 Grassy C MARGINAL 15 60.5-63 Duck B Adequate 16 63-73 Long B Adequate 17 73-77.5 L. Matecumbe C MARGINAL 18 77.5-79.5 Tea Table D INADEQUATE 19 79.5-84 U. Matecumbe C MARGINAL 20 84-86 Windley A Adequate 21 86-91.5 Plantation B Adequate 22 91.5-99.5 Tavernier A Adequate 23 99.5-106 Largo A Adequate 24 106-112.5 Cross E INADEQUATE 2008 CAPACITY OF U.S. 1 BY SEGMENT The overall travel speed on U.S. 1 for 2008 is 0.7 mph higher than the 2007 overall travel speed. The reserve speed is 1.4 mph. Traffic volumes recorded at Big Pine, Marathon and Upper Matecumbe segments have decreased when compared to last year. The second largest delay event was construction and the third largest delay event was congestion. Four segments have exceeded the maximum reserve volume (trips). They are Sugarloaf, Tea Table, Big Pine and Cross Key. County Page 5 of 45 regulations and FDOT Policy allow segments that fail to meet LOS "C" standards to receive an allocation not to exceed five percent (5%) below the LOS "C" standard. Sugarloaf Key (LOS "D") is still within the 5% allocation below LOS "C" at 1 ,308 trips. Tea Table (LOS "D") is within the 5% allocation below the LOS "C" at 858 trips. Both Big Pine Key and Cross Key have exceeded the 5% allocation. Big Pine Key has dropped down to a LOS "D" from LOS "C". The signal at the Key Deer Boulevard intersection continues to influence the travel speeds on this segment and has experienced 13 delay events this year. Big Pine Key average median speed has been declining about 0.03% since 2000. Cross Key has also exceeded the maximum trips and the 5% allocation and subsequently dropped down to a LOS "E". County roads are subject to a lower standard than U.S. 1. Based on the analysis found in the Technical Document of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, all County roads are operating at or above LOS "D". SUMMARY Overall, most public facilities continue to be adequate. However, demands on these facilities continue to grow. The Growth Management Division is committed to monitoring changes in public facility demand and responding to changes in consumption patterns. The ability to coordinate with public facilities providers and other municipalities in the Keys will become more and more critical as we strive to maintain the quality of life we all enjoy. INTRODUCTION This report is the 2008 Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity mandated by Section 114-2, titled Adequate Facilities And Development Review Procedures, of the Monroe County Code (hereafter referred to as "the Code"). The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensuring "concurrency". Concurrency means "the necessary public facilities and services to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards available when the impacts of development occur" (Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code). In other words, local governments must establish regulations to ensure that public facilities and services that are needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of development. Section 114-2 contains two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the four primary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and an annual assessment process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. In addition, Section 114-2 includes an equitable procedure for issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely to outpace the current capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2(3) requires the Director of Planning to prepare an annual report to the BOCC on the capacity of available public facilities. This report must determine the potential amount of residential and nonresidential growth expected in the upcoming year, and make an assessment of how well the roads, solid waste, water supply facilities, and schools will accommodate that growth. The report considers potential growth and public facility capacity for only the next twelve months. In addition, the report must identify areas of unincorporated Monroe County with only marginal and/or inadequate capacity for public facilities. In the event public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the LOS standards Page 6 of 45 required by the Code, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The Code clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. BOARD ACTION REQUIRED Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the BOCC to consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. The BOCC cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report without making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase and identifying the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity. Once approved by the BOCC, this document becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS There are four (4) primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity according to the Code. They are roads, solid waste, potable water and schools. The available capacity for each of these facilities may be either sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next year, marginally adequate, or inadequate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are projected to be only marginally adequate or inadequate over the next year, the Code sets out a review procedure to be followed when issuing development permits in that area. Section 114-2(b)(5)b of the Code states: "The county shall not approve applications for development in areas of the county which are served by inadequate facilities identified in the annual adequate facilities (Public Facility Capacity Assessment) report, except the county may approve development that will have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where the developer agrees to increase the level of service of the facility to the adopted level of service standard." The Code goes on to state that "in areas of marginal facility capacity as identified in the current annual adequate facilities report, the county shall either deny the application or condition the approval so that the level of service standard is not violated. " The determination of an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas with marginal or inadequate capacity is determined by a "facilities impact report" which must be submitted with a development application. Section 114-2(a) of the Code pertains to the minimum standards for public facilities. It states, "After February 28, 1988, all development or land shall be served by adequate public facilities in accordance with the following standards: (1) Roads: a. County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS "D" as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersection and/or roadway segments. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS "C" on an overall basis as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. In addition, the segment or segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be directly impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS "C" as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. b. All secondary roads where traffic is entering or leaving a development or will have direct access shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS "D" as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis. c. In areas which are served by inadequate transportation facilities on U.S. 1, development may be approved provided that the development in combination with all other development will not decrease travel Page 7 of 45 speeds by more than five percent (5%) below Level of Service (LOS) "C", as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. (2) Solid Waste: Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of at least three (3) years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development or use. The Monroe County Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under section 163.01, Florida Statutes, to dispose of solid waste outside Monroe County. (3) Potable Water: Sufficient potable water from an approved and permitted source shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of a proposed development, or use. Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribution systems, individual water condensation systems, and any other system which complies with the Florida standards for potable water. (4) Schools: Adequate school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school age children to be generated by a proposed development or use." PERMITTING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and Development Review Procedures of the Code divides unincorporated Monroe County into three (3) service areas for the purpose of assessing potential growth and how public facilities can accommodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the Code have been revised to account for incorporations of Islamorada and Marathon. Section 114-2(b)(2) indicates three public facilities service areas: "a. Upper Keys Service Area: The unincorporated areas of the county north of the Whale Harbor Bridge; b. Middle Keys Service Area: The unincorporated areas of the county between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor Bridge; and c. Lower Keys Service Area: The unincorporated areas of the county south and/or west of the Seven Mile Bridge." The Upper Keys servIce area includes all .... The Upper Keys MM 112-91 ~......,.. " . ~ i' JIl '\. ~ J ~-~ ~ ~. ~ ~. .1-.1 .. . ..- "G ~. "1 40']> 41'. '. ". .""" do Page 8 of 45 unincorporated Monroe County north of the Tavernier Creek Bridge. The Middle Keys includes the area of unincorporated Monroe County between the Seven-Mile Bridge and the Tavernier Creek Bridge. The Lower Keys includes unincorporated Monroe County south of the Seven Mile Bridge. The following map shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized. FIGURE A2 MONROE-COUNTY MAP The Middle Keys MM 91-47 .~ :r .'" i . .<> o ~. /~-/ The Lower Keys MM 47-4 ~- ~.~ -~ PLANNING AREA ENUMERATIeN DISTRICTS (PAEDS) PAEDs are the basic unit of geographical analysis used by the Planning and Environmental Resources Department. The PAEDs are a combination of "planning areas" utilized by the Planning Department in the early 1980s and the U.S. Census Bureau's "enumeration districts". These two (2) levels of analysis were combined in 1987 for ease of use. Since most PAEDs follow island boundaries, they can be aggregated to match most service districts for public facilities. There are a total of twenty-two (22) PAEDs in unincorporated Monroe County. The City of Key West (including northern Stock Island) is not contained within any PAED boundaries. The City of Key Colony Beach is contained within the geographic area of PAED 8. The City Page 9 of 45 of Marathon encompasses PAEDs 7,8, & 9. The City of Layton falls within PAED 11. The Village of Islamorada occupies PAEDs 12A, 12B, 13, & 14. PAEDs 19 and 20 are the last PAEDs before the "bend" in U.S. 1, and have been grouped together in this report because of data constraints. Ie GROWTH ANALYSIS This section of the report examines the growth of Monroe County's population, occupied and vacant housing, Building Department permit and NROGO and ROGO data. Sources of these reports come from the Monroe County Planning and Building Departments and the U.S. Census. Except where specified, all data is for the unincorporated areas of Monroe County. POPULATION CeMPOSITION There are three (3) different measurements of population in Monroe County: permanent, seasonal, and functional. The capacity of most public facilities is designed based on potential peak demand. To help assess peak demand, the permanent and seasonal populations are often combined to give a "functional" population or the maximum population demanding services. Until better data becomes available, the Planning and Environmental Resources Department is using data from U. S. Census for permanent population estimates and the "Monroe County Population Estimates and Forecasts 1990-2015" to estimate seasonal population. As better data becomes available for permanent and seasonal population, projections for functional population will be adjusted accordingly. The incorporation of Islamorada and Marathon has created substantial reductions in both permanent and seasonal population for the Upper and Middle Keys service areas. The Upper Keys service area lost 12% of its functional population due to the incorporation of Islamorada, and the Middle Keys service area lost 87% of its functional population as a result of the incorporation of the City of Marathon. PROJECTED PE~ANENT AND SEASONAL POPULATION Permanent residents are people who spend all or most of the year living in Monroe County, and as such, exert a relatively constant demand on all public facilities. The permanent population estimate data was derived from the U.S. Census database. Except for the Year 2000 Decennial Census, the U. S. Census estimated the population for years 2001 through 2008. The seasonal population is composed of the tourist population and seasonal residents spending less than six months in the Keys. The seasonal population has a higher cyclical demand on public facilities like roads and solid waste. Seasonal population can be derived from hotels, motels, campsites, recreational vehicles, live aboard vessels, those staying with friends and relatives, and vacation rentals. The vacation rentals are accounted for within the census data under housing units, designated as "vacant" and "seasonal, recreational, or occasional use". Permanent population figures consist of the entire calendar year while seasonal population figures are the number of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. Peak seasonal population figures represent the number of people who could stay on any given evening based upon peak occupancy rates and therefore represent the peak demand which could be placed on public facilities from seasonal visitors on any given evening. When the peak seasonal population figures are combined with the permanent resident population, the result is the total functional population. The Tourist Development Council indicates that Monroe County hosts around three million visitors a year, however not all of these people are in the Keys on the same evening. FUNCTIONAL POPULATION The functional population is the sum of the number of permanent residents and the peak seasonal population. Figure 1.1 shows the functional population for all of Monroe County (including the incorporated areas). For 2008, the total permanent population is estimated to be 72,243. There was a decrease of 3 507 or 4.85% from 2005. There was also a , 5% (3,839) loss of total permanent population that occurred from years 2000 to 2005. Page 10 of 45 FIGURE 1.1 FUNCTIONAL POPULATION 2000-2008 2000 Census 2005 2008 Estimate Estimate TOTAL PERMANENT 79,589 75,750 72,243 Unincorporated 34,696 35,518 35,929 Seasonal Incorporated 38,798 38,219 38,346 Seasonal TOTAL SEASONAL 73,494 73,737 74,275 TOTAL 153,083 149,487 146,518 FUNCTIONAL Between 2000 and 2005 seasonal population decreased in the incorporated areas. Between 2005 and 2008, seasonal population increased by 127. However, in the eight year period between 2000 and 2008, seasonal population increased (Figure 1.2). The 2008 permanent population for unincorporated Monroe County is estimated to be 72,243 (Figures 1.3 and 1.4). According to the U.S. Census, Monroe County, as a whole has been losing population. The largest decrease in population happened in 2004 with an estimated 1,841 or 2.4% then again in 2005 with 1,669 or 2.2% of the residences leaving. FIGURE 1.3 U.S. POPULATION ESTIMATES 78,024 79,S89 78,999 78,790 78,639 77,S91 7S,7S0 74,081 72,910 72,243 1990 Census 2000 Census 2001 Estimate 2002 Estimate 2003 Estimate 2004 Estimate 200S Estimate 2006 Estimate 2007 Estimate 2008 Estimate During 2006, the population decreased by an Page 11 of 45 estimated 1,171 or 1.6%. Between 2007 and 2008, the decrease of population was still evident at a loss of 667 or .09%. DWELLING UNITS The Census defines housing units as "a house, apartment, group of rooms, or single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters." Occupied housing units are occupied if there is "at least one person who lives in the unit as a usual resident at the time of the interview, or if the occupants are only temporarily absent, for example, on vacation. However, if the unit is occupied entirely by people with a usual residence elsewhere, the unit is classified as vacant. By definition, the count of occupied housing units is the same as the count of households." Seasonal units fall under the definition of vacancy. Vacancy is defined as "if no one is living in it (a housing unit) at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. And, housing units where all the occupants have a usual residence elsewhere are grouped." According to the U.S. Census, housing units are broken down into occupied and vacant units. Occupied housing units form the basis for population projections. In 1990, the U. S. Census indicates 33,583 housing units were occupied and in 2000 increased to 35,086 housing units. By 2007, occupied housing units decreased by over 4,000 units to a total of 29,109. Vacant housing units increased throughout the 17 year period from 12,632 to 24,599. Even with the steady decrease in occupied housing units from 2000 through 2007, the overall housing stock increased by approximately 7,000 housing units, to a 2007 estimate of 53,708 housing units (Figures 1.5 and 1.6). FIGURE 1.5 HOUSING UNITS 1990-2007 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 OCCUPIED 33,583 35,086 33,961 33,013 29,109 VACANT 12,632 16,531 18,950 20,385 24,599 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 46,215 51,617 52,911 53,398 53,708 Page 12 of 45 Number Of Issued Residential Buildine: Permits Another component of the Growth Analysis Section is the number of residential permits issued. The majority of the issued new residential permits are for permanent residential use. However, some of the permits issued for permanent dwellings are used by the seasonal population. One issue to remember when considering growth based upon building permits is the time lapse that occurs when a permit for a new residence is issued and when that residence is ultimately occupied. As a result, there are many dwelling units in the Keys that have permits but are not yet fully constructed. Based upon this time lapse the number of residential permits issued overstates the actual number of new residential dwellings that currently require public facilities. In the Lower Keys, between 2005 and 2006, there was a 20% decrease of issued new single conventional family residential building permits. Between 2006 and 2007, the percentage of issued building permits was smaller than the previous year. In 2008, the Building Department issued over 50% fewer permits than in 2007. Seventy percent (70%) more affordable housing single family residential building permits building permits were issued in 2006 than in 2005 and 83% more the year after that. However, in 2008, the Building Department issued only 23 affordable new single family residential building permits or a decrease of 76%. In the Upper Keys, increases in new conventional issued for single family replacements. single family residential building permits occurred in 2005, 2006 and 2008. In 2007, the FIGURE 1.8 Building Department issued 7% fewer permits SINGLE FAMILY RES. REPLACEMENT PERMITS 2005-2008 than the prior year. The Building Department 2005 2006 2007 2008 issued eleven (11) affordable housing permits UPPER KEYS 15 14 12 19 throughout the four years between 2005 and MIDDLE KEYS 1 2008. In 2006, there were no affordable housing LOWER KEYS 8 9 15 10 building permits issued. TOTAL 23 23 28 29 Conventional housing building permits decreased The Upper Keys saw a 266% increase of mobile each year (Figure 1.7). Specifically in 2008, home replacements between 2007 and 2008 issued building permits decreased 27% from (Figure 1.9). However, during 2005, 2006 and 2007. Affordable housing building permits 2007, mobile home replacements declined. In the increased annually (2005, 2006 and 2007). Lower Keys, comparing 2005 to 2006, there was However, comparing 2008 to 2007, the issuance a 62% decrease of mobile home replacement of affordable housing building permits declined building permits. Year 2007 showed a 25% 75%. Overall (conventional and affordable), the increase of issued permits, while in 2008, there issuance of new single family residential building was a 30% decrease. permits increased from 2005 through 2007. By 2008 building permits decreased by 51 %. FIGURE 1.9 MOBILE HOME REPLACEMENT PERMITS 2005-2008 FIGURE 1.7 2005 2006 2007 2008 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PERMITS 2005-2008 UPPER KEYS 6 4 3 11 MIDDLE KEYS 1 LOWER KEYS 2005 2006 2007 2008 LOWER KEYS 21 8 10 7 CONVENTIONAL 76 61 54 24 TOTAL 27 13 13 18 AFFORDABLE 30 51 94 23 TOTAL 106 112 148 47 There were only four (4) recreational vehicle replacements permits in the middle and lower MIDDLE KEYS 2005 2006 2007 2008 keys in years 2006 and 2007 (Figure 1.10). CONVENTIONAL 8 9 9 9 AFFORDABLE 1 FIGURE 1.10 TOTAL 9 9 9 9 RV REPLACEMENT PERMITS 2005-2008 RV REPLACEMENT PERMITS 2005 2006 2007 2008 UPPER KEYS 2005 2006 2007 2008 UPPER KEYS CONVENTIONAL 40 45 42 43 MIDDLE KEYS 1 AFFORDABLE 5 0 5 1 LOWER KEYS 1 2 TOTAL 45 45 47 44 TOTAL 0 2 2 0 In the Upper Keys, 58% more single family NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE NROGO residential replacement permits were issued in Nonresidential permitting plays a role in growth 2008, than in 2007 (Figure 1.8). Between 2005 analysis. Nonresidential permits include and 2007, permits for residential replacements everything that IS not residential, such as declined by 14%. In the Lower Keys, there was industrial, commercial, nonprofit and public an increase of building permits for single family buildings, and replacement or remodeling of replacements in 2005,2006 and 2007. However, existing nonresidential structures. Vested and during 2008, 33% less building permits were ROGO exempt hotels, motels, campgrounds, Page 13 of 45 marinas and other commercial facilities are also included. The Building Department tracks the amount of square footage allocated and corresponding nonresidential issued permits by Sub-district in unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.1 limits the County's availability of nonresidential square footage that may be permitted. Policy 101.3.1 states: "Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and non-residential growth by limiting the square footage of non-residential development to maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of new non-residential development for each new residential unit permitted through the Residential Permit Allocation System. " The nonresidential square footage allocation is 239 square feet for each issued new residential dwelling unit permit. On average, the BOCC approves an annual availability of 35,000ft2 of NROGO floor area allocations. Comprehensive Plan Policy 10 1.3.1 assures that the balance of residential to nonresidential development is maintained. HISTORY The Tier System On September 22, 2005, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 025-2005 which revised ROGO and NROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the competitive point system. On March 15, 2006, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 009-2006 to implement the Tier System, a Rate of Growth Ordinance. The Tier System changed the service areas (subareas boundaries) mentioned in the Introduction. It is the basis for the scoring of NROGO and ROGO applications and administrative relief. The new ROGO and NROGO subareas are: "A") Lower Keys (Middle Keys are not included in the Lower Keys) and Upper Keys and "B") Big Pine / No Name Key. Big Pine and No Name Keys The Livable CommuniKeys Plan Master Plan for Page 14 of 45 Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key (LCP) was adopted on August 18, 2004 under Ordinance 029-2004. The LCP envisioned 47,800ft2 of nonresidential floor area over a twenty year period (from the date of the adopted ordinance) to be used for infill and expansion of existing businesses. NReG. ANALYSIS Figure 1.11 shows the trends in nonresidential permitting from January 14, 2005 to January 14, 2009. The last five (5) NROGO years are examined below. Year 13 data is for Period 2 only. Year 17 data is for Period 1 only. NROGO Years 14, 15, and 16 are from July to July of the next year. FIGURE 1.11 - NROGO FLOOR AREA (SQUARE YEAR 13 FOOTAGE) LOWER KEYS 3, 170 UPPER KEYS 2,899 TOTAL FT2 6,069 FLOOR AREA (SQUARE YEAR 14 FOOTAGE) LOWER KEYS 5,237 UPPER KEYS 7,357 TOTAL FT2 12,594 FLOOR AREA (SQUARE YEAR 15 FOOTAGE) LOWER KEYS 2,500 BPK/NNK KEYS 5,000 UPPER KEYS 5,000 TOTAL FT2 12,500 FLOOR AREA (SQUARE YEAR 16 FOOTAGE) LOW ER KEYS 4,145 BPK/NNK KEYS 3,809 UPPER KEYS 9,984 TOTAL FT2 17,938 FLOOR AREA (SQUARE YEAR 17 FOOTAGE) LOWER KEYS 10,556 BPK/NNK KEYS 2,500 TOTAL FT2 13,056 Page 15 of 45 YEAR 13 Period 2 (January 2005 - JULY 2005) The BOCC approved the availability of 8,000ft2 ofNROGO floor area. Five (5) building permits were issued in the upper and lower keys with an allocation of 6,069ft of nonresidential floor area. YEAR 14 (JULY 2005 - JULY 2006) The BOCC approved the availability of 16,000ff ofNROGO floor area. Eight (8) building permits were issued in the upper and lower keys with a total allocation of 12,594ft2 of nonresidential floor area. YEAR 15 (JULY 2006 THROUGH JULY 2007) With the adoption of the Tier System ordinance in 2004, Big Pine Key / No Name Key became its own subarea. The BOCC approved the availability of 18,000ft2 of NROGO floor area. Five (5) building permits were issued in the upper and lower Keys and Big Pine Key / No Name Key with a total allocation of 12,500ft2 of nonresidential floor area. YEAR 16 (JULY 2007 - JULY 2008) The BOCC approved the availability of 17,500ft2 of NROGO floor area. Ten (10) building permits were issued in the upper and lower Keys and Big Pine Key / No Name Key with a total allocation of 17,938ff of nonresidential floor area. YEAR 17 Period 1 (JULY 2008 - JANUARY 2009) The BOCC approved the availability of 35,000ff of NROGO floor area for Year 17. F or the first period of Year 17, five (5) building permits were issued in the lower Keys and Big Pine Key / No Name Key with a total allocation of 13,056ft2 of nonresidential floor area. NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATIONS ISSUED The number of dwelling units which can be permitted in Monroe County has been controlled by a Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation System (Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO) since July of 1992 (Ordinance 016-92). ROGO was developed as a response to the inability of the road network to accommodate a large-scale hurricane evacuation in a timely fashion. The ROGO system was developed as a tool to equitably distribute the remaining number of permits available both geographically and over time. "A" series of complex models developed during the first evacuation study identified an approximate number of additional dwelling units which could be permitted and which would not have a detrimental effect on the amount of time needed to evacuate the Keys. On September 22, 2005, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 025-2005 which revised ROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the competitive point system. On March 15, 2006, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 009-2006 to implement the Tier System, which is also a Rate of Growth Ordinance. The Tier System amended subarea boundary districts for allocation distribution purposes. It is the basis of scoring applications and the administrative relief process. Tier Ordinance 009-2006 provides vesting provisions and allows for allocation of an annual cap of 197 residential dwelling units. BIG PINE AND NO NAME KEYS On August 18, 2004 under Ordinance 029-2004, The Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP), Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key was adopted. Based on the revised 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the LCP adopted maps; these two keys are now evaluated as their own subarea. The LCP envisioned the issuance of 200 residential dwelling units over 20 year horizon or 10 dwelling units per year to be issued on the two Keys. Twenty percent (20%) or two (2) residential dwelling units per year are to be set aside for affordable housing development. 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 and No Name Key started in the mid-1980s. In 1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which they Page 16 of 45 committed to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (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) permittees: Monroe 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. ROGO ANALYSIS During the first half of ROGO Year 17 (July 13, The data presented in the table does not include 2008 - January 14,2009) one-hundred and fifteen allocations issued in Key West, Key Colony (115) market rate and one (1) affordable housing Beach, Layton, Islamorada or Marathon. allocation were awarded. There is a time lapse which occurs between the FIGURE 1.12 ROGO allocation date and the permit issuance ROGO ALLOCATIONS date. The allocation of ROGO is always issued prior to the building permit. YEAR 14 ALLOCA TIONS ROGO ALLOCATIONS MARKET RATE 126 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 47 In ROGO Year 13, Period 2, (January 13, 2005 - TOTAL ALLOCATIONS 173 July 14, 2005) there were thirty-seven (37) residential dwelling unit allocations throughout the lower, middle and upper keys. YEAR 15 ALLOCA TIONS During ROGO Year 14 (July 13,2005 - July 14, MARKET RATE 26 2006) one-hundred and twenty-six (126) market AFFORDABLE HOUSING 17 rate and forty-seven (47) affordable housing TOTAL 43 allocations were approved. On July 19, 2006, the BOCC approved the reservation of forty (40) YEAR 16 ALLOCA TIONS affordable housing allocations (Ordinance 273- 2006). MARKET RATE 126 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 159 During ROGO Year 15 (July 13,2006 - July 13, TOTAL 285 2007) one-hundred and twenty-six (126) market rate ROGO allocations were awarded. There were seventeen (17) affordable housing YEAR 17 PERIOD 1 ALLOCA TIONS allocations awarded of which five (5) allocations MARKET RATE 115 were reserved by County Resolution 273-2006. AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1 During ROGO Year 16 (July 13, 2007 - July 14, TOTAL 116 2008) one-hundred and twenty-six (126) market rate ROGO allocations and twenty-six (26) affordable housing allocations were awarded. On July 19, 2006, the BOCC approved Resolution 273-2006 reserving one-hundred and thirty-three (133) affordable housing allocations. Eighty-four (84) allocations were reserved for Islander Village and forty-nine (49) to Flagler prior to the end ofROGO Year 16. Page 17 of 45 II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES This section of the report investigates the current capacity of the transportation network in Monroe County. This analysis includes changes in traffic volumes, the level of service (LOS) on U.S. 1, the reserve capacity of the highway and county roads, and the Florida Department of Transportation Five- Y ear Work Program for Monroe County. Roads are one of the four (4) critical public facilities identified for annual assessment in the Code (The Code). In fact, roads are the only public facility with clear and specific standards for level of service measurements identified in the Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The regulations require all segments of U.S. 1 to remain at a LOS of "C" or higher and all county roads to remain at a LOS "D" or higher. EXISTING ReA.WAY FACILITIES Monroe County's roadway transportation system is truly unique. Nowhere else is there a chain of islands over 100 miles long connected by 42 bridges along a single highway. This single highway, the Overseas Highway (U.S. 1), functions as a collector, an arterial, and the "Main Street" for the Keys. U.S. 1 is a lifeline for the Keys from both economIC and public safety perspectives. Each day it carries food, supplies and tourists from the mainland. In the event of a hurricane, it is the only viable evacuation route to the mainland for most of Monroe County. U.S. 1 in Monroe County is predominantly a two-lane road. Of its 112 total miles, approximately 80 miles (74%) are two-lane segments that are Page 18 of 45 undivided. The four-lane sections are located on Key Largo, Tavernier (MM 90 to 106), the Marathon area (MM 48 to 54), Bahia Honda (MM 35 to 37), and from Key West to Boca Chica (MM 2 to 9). In addition to U.S. 1, there are 450 miles of county (secondary) roads with 38 bridges. Combined, U.S. 1 and county (secondary) roads have approximately 340 intersections in the Keys. The Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary roads which are located within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1. Figure 2.1 identifies the operating traffic signals along the U.S. 1 corridor (excluding those found on the island of Key West). FIGURE 2.1 FULLY -SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Mile Marker Key 4.4 Stock Island College Road 4.6 Stock Island Cross Street 4.8 Stock Island MacDonald Avenue 19.5 Upper Sugarloaf Crane Boulevard 30.3 Big Pine Key Key Deer Blvd. 48.5 Marathon 33rd StreeUSchool Crossing 50 Marathon Sombrero Beach Blvd. 52.4 Marathon 107th Street 52.5 Marathon 109th Street 53 Marathon Pedestrian Crossing 53.5 Fat Deer Key Key Colony Causeway 54 Fat Deer Key Coco Plum Drive 90 Plantation Key Woods Avenue/School Crossing 90.5 Plantation Key Sunshine Road 91.5 Tavernier Ocean Boulevard 99.5 Key Largo Atlantic Boulevard 101 Key Largo Tradewinds 105 Key Larao Pedestrian Crossina Source: 2008 u. S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study Street Page 19 of 45 LEVEL OF SERVICE BACKGROUND Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies of U.S. 1 annually since 1992. The primary objective of the U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study is to monitor the level of service on U.S. 1 for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Section 114-2(a) of the Code. The study utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume-based capacities and the speed-based level of service methodology developed by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force. The U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force is a multi-agency group with members from Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. "A" uniform methodology was developed in 1993 and amended December 1997. The methodology adopted considers both the overall level of service from Key West to the mainland, and the level of service on 24 selected segments. The methodology was developed from basic criteria and principles contained in Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two-Lane Highways) and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. OVERALL LEVEL OF SERVICE ON U.S. 1 For the purposes of this study, overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of U.S. 1 in the Keys between Key West and Dade County. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced during long distance or through trips. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in Monroe County, the movement of through traffic is an important consideration. The overall level of service or capacity of the entire length of U.S. 1 is measured in the average speed of a vehicle traveling from one end to the other of U.S. 1. Both Monroe County and the Florida Department of Transportation have adopted a LOS "C" standard for the overall length of U.S. 1. In other words, a vehicle traveling from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112 Page 20 of 45 (or vice versa) must maintain an average speed of at least 45 mph to achieve the LOS "C" standard. The median overall speed during the 2008 study was 46.4 mph and 0.7 mph higher than the 2007 median speed of 45.7 mph. The mean operating speed was 45.6 mph with a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 0.7 mph. The mean and median speeds correspond to LOS "C" conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 48.2 mph (similar to the 2007 highest overall speed of 48.3 mph), which occurred on Saturday, March 9, 2007 between 10:15 a.m. and 12:46 p.m. in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 38.5 mph (2.6 mph higher than the 2007 lowest overall speed of 41.1 mph) which occurred on Saturday March 1, 2007 between 9:30 a.m. and 12:36 p.m. in the southbound direction. Figures 2.4 and 2.5 shows that the overall median speed for U.S. 1 has remained between 45.3 mph and 47.8 from 1992 to the present but steadily decreased from 2002 through 2005 only to increase in 2006. Should the overall median speed ever fall below 45 mph (the minimum LOS "C" standard) then the U.S. 1 capacity would be considered inadequate. CHART 2.5 CHANGES IN OVERALL MEDIAN SPEED 48.0 47.5 i 47.0 46.5 I 46.0 45.5 45.0 44.5 44.0 ,,# 416.9 .4 ,,# "c# ,,# ,,# "c# ,,' ,,# # #" If #' #' ~ #' # #' LEVEL OF SERVICE eN U.S. 1 SEGMENTS In addition to a determination of the overall capacity throughout the entire 108 mile length of U.S. 1, between Mile Marker 4 and Mile Marker 112, Section 114-2 of the Code requires that the capacity of portions or "segments" of U.S. 1 be assessed annually. There are a total of twenty four (24) segments of U.S. 1 from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112. The segments were defined by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to reflect roadway cross sections, speed limits, and geographical boundaries (Figure 2.6). Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S. 1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important consideration on this multipurpose highway. However, the determination of the median speed on a segment is a more involved process than determining the overall level of service since different segments have different conditions. Segment conditions depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. The Code requires each segment of the highway maintain a LOS of "C" or better. The level of service criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. Flow characteristics relate to Page 21 of 45 YEARS the ability of a vehicle to travel through a particular segment without being slowed or stopped by traffic signals or other devices. Segments with a series of permanent traffic signals or other similar traffic control devices in close proximity to each other are considered to be "Interrupted Flow Segments" and are expected to have longer travel times due to the delays caused by these signals or control devices. Roadway segments without a series of signals or control devices are considered to be "Uninterrupted Flow Segments". Uninterrupted segments may have one or more traffic signals, but they are not in close proximity to one another as in the interrupted segment case. The methodology used to determine median speed and level of service on a particular segment is based upon that segment's status as an interrupted or uninterrupted flow segment. The criteria listed by type of flow characteristic are explained in Figure 2.6. FIGURE 2.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON FLOW CHARACTERISTICS Interrupted level of Flow Uninterrupted Flow Segment Service Segment A >- 35 mph >= 1.5 mph above speed limit B >= 28 mph 1.4 mph above to 1.5 mph below speed limit C >= 22 mph 1.6 mph below to 4.5 mph below speed limit D >= 17 mph 4.6 mph below to 7.5 mph below speed limit E >= 13 mph 7.6 mph below to 13.5 mph below speed limit F < 13 mph > 13.5 mph below speed limit Source: 2008 Arterial and Travel Timel Delay Study, URS Inc. The travel times were reduced by 25 seconds per signal to account for lost time for all "uninterrupted" segments containing isolated traffic signals. The Marathon and Stock Island segments are considered "interrupted" flow facilities. Therefore, no adjustments were made to travel times on these segments. The segment limits, the median travel speeds, and the 2007 and the 2008 LOS are presented in Figure 2.7. I- I ~-:--t -~~--;-- -=-: I~ _=-:: : - ---.._~-- ~ -- _ _.:.- _ :_~-J_=-~ _ ..::.i=_= co=-, -~ -+. -::+-t---+~= , -. - -,- - 1 - - + - - - f=- - -: - -- - -=- i= ~: -- - -t---I =--_.:..= : = -- =--;~-- '-i~t- ?~---+~:~ . -- --- -+ F-- : -"--:_-. +- -4-. :: - - : - - _ -=I-=__-i~ - 1- -=~I-:: -I~ - -~:~-~F--:-=- =i= -F---= _ Cc _ _ _ __ _ _ _ l _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I ii- - I -- T r - - - r - _ J I I _ I Compared to the 2007 study results, six (6) segments have level of service changes. Two (2) have resulted in a positive level of service change while four (4) resulted in negative level of service changes. . The Duck Key segment (Segment 15) increased from LOS "C" to LOS ""B"" . The Long Key segment (Segment 16-17) increased from LOS "C" to LOS "B" . The Boca Chica segment (Segment 2) decreased from LOS "A" to LOS "B" . The Bahia Honda segment (Segment 11) decreased from LOS "'Am to LOS "B" Page 22 of 45 · The Sugarloaf segment (Segment 5) decreased from LOS "C" to LOS "D" . The Big Pine (Segment 1 0) decreased from LOS "c" to LOS "D" Compared to 2007, the medium segment speeds increased in ten (10) of the twenty-four (24) segments ranging between 0.1 mph to 2.4 mph. Fourteen (14) segments experienced a decrease in medium speeds, ranging from 0.1 to 3.3 mph, compared to last year's data. The Cross Key segment (24) on U. S. 1 has a level of service (LOS) "E" indicating that the LOS exceeded the 5% trip allocation. The draw bridge across the Jewfish Creek was replaced with a fixed-span high level bridge bringing the LOS rating to an "E." This construction affects the travel speeds on U. S. 1 on Cross Key. Once the construction is complete, the travel speeds and the level of service for this area are most likely to improve. Tea Table and Cross Key were below the LOS threshold in 2007. This year, Big Pine, Tea Table and Cross Key segments are below the LOS threshold. The Cross Key segment has been functioning at LOS "E" since the 2007 study because of the bridge construction. However, travel speeds on the Cross Key segment are likely to improve with the construction of a high level fixed bridge. Completion is anticipated within the next two years. Big Coppitt, Saddlebunch, Sugarloaf, Grassy, Big Pine, Lower Matecumbe, Tea Table and Upper Matecumbe segments do not have any planned improvements to curtail the travel speed reductions. All of these segments have reserve volume or reserve capacities within the 5% allocation except for Big Pine Key. The Florida Department of Transportation and/or Monroe County should conduct a special study along this stretch of U.S. 1 to. determine what improvements, if any can be implemented to improve the declining travel speeds. The signal at the Key Deer Boulevard Intersection in Big Pine (Segment 10) continues to influence the travel speeds on this segment and has experienced 13 delay events compared to the 11 from the 2007 study. Careful consideration has been given to this segment as it has been observed to have fallen below the LOS threshold in the past. In 2008, this segment has fallen below the LOS with no reserve allocation. However, Florida Statutes Chapter 263.3180 states development permits may be issued if transportation facilities directly related to the new permits are in place or under construction within three (3) years after the building permit is approved. Florida Statutes 263 .3180( c): "Consistent with the public welfare, and except as otherwise provided in this section, transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after the local government approves a building permit or its functional equivalent that results in traffic generation. " The bid letting for the U.S. 1 construction will take place in January 2010 with construction to follow. RESERVE CAPACITIES The difference between the median speed and the LOS "C" standard gives the reserve speed. This can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and corresponding additional development. The median overall speed of 46.4 mph compared to the LOS "C" standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of 1.4 mph. This reserve speed can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and corresponding additional development. This reserve speed is converted into an estimated reserve volume (25,966 daily trips). The estimated reserve capacity is then converted into an estimated capacity for additional residential development (4,057 units), assuming balanced growth of other land uses. Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the twenty- Page 23 of 45 four (24) segments of U.S. 1 individually gives maximum reserve volumes for all segments totaling 81,166 trips. These individual reserve volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraints imposed by the overall reserve volume. The Code mandates a minimum LOS of "C" for all roadway segments of U.S. 1. However, county regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to meet LOS "c" standards to receive an allocation not to exceed 5% below the LOS "C" standard. The resulting flexibility will allow a limited amount of additional land development to continue until traffic speeds are measured again next year or until remedial actions are implemented. These segments are candidates for being designated either "backlogged" or "constrained" by FDOT. Applications for new development located within backlogged or constrained segments are required to undergo a thorough traffic analysis as part of the review process. Based on this year's results, Sugarloaf (Segment 5), Big Pine (Segment 10), Tea Table (Segment 18) and Cross Key (Segment 24) are below the LOS "c" threshold. However, Sugarloaf and Tea Table have reserve capacity within the 5% allocation. The Cross Key segment is under construction. Due to the strictly enforced speed limits along the Key Deer Habitat segment, the travel speeds along the Big Pine Key segment were observed to be near the posted speed limit. Segments that have used-up the 5% reserve trips are restricted from new development or redevelopment, except where redevelopment has no net increase in trips. "A" detailed summary table displaying level of service and reserve capacity values for each segment is contained in Figure 2.8. z u 0 ~ II> 0 on g .... 0.. ~ <( 00 <( In ~ ~ ~ ~ <( <( ~ ~ <( ~ <( <( In <( ~ <( <( <( ~ 1: Z '" Z 00 Z Z Z Z Z 0 Z Z Z Z 0 .... ~ Z In 00 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 00 Z .... 0 <( .... ... /It. '" In .... 8 ... N ~ ... II> ... ... ~ i In 0 .... In 00 In In ~ In 0 a- 0 M N 0 00 0 '" a- '" a- N 0 In a- a- M 00 .... q .... ~ ; In In N '" li 0 a- 0 M 0 ~ .... N M ... ::! ~ 00 N In ~ "!. :0 0 '" ~ 0 N .n N" M ~ N N ,.: .n ~ ~ M M M :: > ~ z 0 u ~ l3 on 00 g .... ~ ~ <( ~ <( <( <( ~ ~ <( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <( 00 <( ~ ~ ~ <( ~ z z 0 z z 0 z Z In Z Z 0 .... z z ::! z z z z z z z 00 z z z .... 0 <( .... ... /It. '" In CD 8 ... N ~ ... lil ... '" ~ on .... 0 N ~ a- N ~ ; '" '" ~ 0 '" 00 00 ~ N 0.. ~ 00 ... ;! ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ M 0 00 In M 0 :Ii: .... li ~ 0:. 0 0 M .... "!. '" ... ... ~ ~ ~ M ~ N N N N .n .D .0 00 ~ .n M ~ M M 0: ,.: i ... Q ~ :2 ... 0.. .... a- In 0 0 .... a- N 0 .... '" M 00 a- M In 0 "! ": '" In 0 "': ... ... .n II> a.. S- a: .n ci N ci ,,; .n ...: ,,; ci .; .n ci ,.; ,.; ci ci ~ :: ,.; ...: .n ci ~ ... II> '" II> 0 '" '" U U Q <( '" <( <( Q '" '" <( U '" '" U Q U <( '" <( <( ... U .... Z .... Q :2 <( ... ... .... .... M M .... ... M 0 00 '" ... M ... ~ ... "! In .... "! N .... '" "! 0: is ... 0.. .n .n ...: ...: ~ ~ ~ .n N ,,; ...: ci .; N ci N ,.; ~ ~ oci ..; ... a.. S- ;;:; In ... ~ ... ... M In In M In In In ~ In ... ... ~ M ... :Ii: II> Q :$ ... u :2 I- '" In a- In In In 0 In 00 .... 0 II> II> ... 0 '" N '" '" "! In In In M '" 0 :::l I- 0.. N a: .n a: ~ ci ~ ~ ...: ~ ci N a: ci a- ci ci ~ N oci ci ...: ,.; .,; 0 S- ~ ... d .... ii: N ... ... ... ... M In N ... In In In M M ... M ... ... <( U Q ~ .... :2 II> '" <( <( <( ~ ~ ~ <( <( <( <( 00 <( <( <( <( <( <( <( ~ ~ ... N ~ :::l 0 Z 0.. Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z d IL !2 S- z z z N z z oci N N N z <( II> .. Q on :2 M .... In 0 0 0 0 0 N ... 0 In 0 '" 0 0 0 ... N ... :! 0.. oci .; a: i, N .n .n .n .n .n N .n N i, .n ,.; .n i, .n .n .n ...: ~ ~ ... .. S- a.. ~ M In ... In ... ... ... ... ... In In ... In In In ... ... ... ... II> Q - ... ~ In In In tl :2 ~ ~ ~ a.. E 0.. In In In In In In 0 In In In In 0 In In ::; S- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In M In ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... In M ... In In In In ... ... ... ... M M ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ a.. 0 M .... U .... ~ C !!!. < U e e '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 e '2 '2 e '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 e e '2 ll. ~ < .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... U ..;. ..;. N N N N N N N N N ..;. N N ..;. N N N N N N N N ..;. ..;. N ~ lIJ ~ i= '^ I '" ... :> lIJ Cl "': a- Ii'! 00 0 In N M ... 0 00 M ... .... a- In N 0: 00 0 00 N .0 t III Z I ,.; .n .; N N N N ,.; ...: ,,; ...: ,,; N a: .; N .; .n oci ,,; ,,; lIJ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ Ill: .... Q ,., ~ z ;!i < j lIJ in 0 0 0 in 0 u ~ ~ ~ 0 ;: ~ 0 in ,,; in .n ~ 0 in ir? in ~ .n 0 ci N in 0 a: .;, 0 a: .g in I- .;, ci 0 0 0 .; 0 c;; lIJ z a: N 0 ...: in ,.; In in ,.; .... ~ ,,; a- N III ... 0 0 0 ~ .;, ,.; ,.; N a: M ,.; ~ 0 ci 0 0 c .;, 00 0 -'l .;, " ~ ~ N !::i C '" ,.; ,.; c II.. !d- e:. 0 N .;, ~ 0 ,,; a: ~ 0 ~ ,,; .;, a: '" .. ...: 0 '" .... 1l 1l ; !!!. e. e- o ]1 ... -g '" ~ u ci -g .n .;, "0 on ~ .;, 0 E ....I II> ~ C '" !::i ...: !::i c "0 .; E .. c .. .g ~ lIJ ~ u "5. :> - !::i "t: 0 1: c !0. ci ,.; :> 2S :> il .. ~ :E ..c '" !::i 2! CD 0 ~ ~ CD ~ 0.. .g .. 2 :I: e e ~ E "" u 0 .. 8 .. ~ ~ ~ S ~ '2 N .>< '6 E ~ a:: '" ~ ~ ~ ....I .9 '" u '" :s E E ~ :E I~ ~ .>< l!' '" ~ "0 C .. ~ ... ~ "0 on u :Ii: '" c > S :81 on '" :> :> :> '" 0 en '" ~ :> 0 {!'. j '" '" '" '" CD iii '" '" u '" '" I- iD CD C) Q .... .... :::l a: I- u ~ :::l N M ... In '" .... 00 a- ~ I~ ::! ;! ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N M ... Cl 0 ~ :: ~ N ;;: N N N N N ~ ll'l ~ ..... o ~ N Ql en IV ll. LEVEL OF SERVICE ON COUNTY ROADS Section 114-2 of the Code establishes LOS "D" standard for all County roads as measured on traffic volume or AADT basis. The Code also requires areas with marginally adequate public facilities to be identified. u.s. 1 segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given particular attention when approving development applications. This year, there are nine (9) segments of U.S. 1 in this category (Figure 2.9). IMPROVEMENTS TO ROADWAY FACILITIES Major improvements scheduled for U.S. 1 are outlined in the Florida Department of Transportation Five- Year Work Program. The major project for unincorporated Monroe County in the current FDOT Five- Year Work Program (2008/09 to 2012/2013) is to replace the Jewfish Creek draw bridge with a high-level fixed-span bridge and the installation of culverts to improve the tidal flow to the surrounding wetlands. The construction phase for this project began in 2005. Construction is still underway, but almost complete, on the 18-mile stretch between the Jewfish Creek Bridge and Florida City. The construction of the intersection conversion of Card Sound Road/County Road 905 is scheduled for 2012. FDOT's Page 25 of 45 bid letting on the widening and resurfacing of existing lanes from SR 5 from Ships Way to Sands Road and from Sands Road to west of Key Deer Crossing in Big Pine Key happens in January 2010. FDOT's Five-year Work Program outlines numerous projects that will be scheduled throughout the Keys such as resurfacing and turn lanes. The construction of different segments of the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail is included in the 5-year Work Plan. These construction projects include: · The segment from MM 60.5-Craig Key to 62.9-Long Key · The segment from MM 16.5-Lower Sugarloaf to MM 24.5-Summerland Key · The segment from MM 47 to MM 54 for safety improvements · The segment from MM 106 (new trailhead) between U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road · The segment from MM 83.5-Windley Key to MM 84.8 · The segment from MM 92 to MM 96 (safety improvements) · The segment from MM 15 to MM 16.5- Lower SugarloafKey · The segment from MM 96 to MM 106- Key Largo The following historic bridges are part of the Overseas Heritage Trail and are scheduled for reconstruction: . The Ohio-Missouri Historic Bridge (MM 39.1) · The Kemp Channel Bridge (MM 23.6) . The Spanish Harbor Historic Bridge (MM 33) . The Historic South Pine Channel Bridge (MM 29) Copies of the FDOT's Five- Y ear Work Program are available at the Florida Department of Transportation offices in Marathon. TRAVEL SPEEDS Compared to 2007 data, fourteen (14) segments have decreased travel speeds and ten (10) segments have increased travel speeds. TRAVEL SPEEDS DECREASED Boca Chica (-2.4 mph) Bahia Honda (-1.8 mph) Saddlebilllch (-0.6 mph) Cudjoe (-0.8 mph) Grassy Key (-0.2 mph) Ramrod (-0.4 mph) Big Pine (-3.3 mph) Key Largo (-1.3 mph) L. Matecumbe (-0.1 mph) Marathon (-0.4 mph) Stock Island (-2.9 mph) Sugarbaf(-0.6 mph) Tavernier (- 2.3 mph) Torch (-0.5 mph) --I Compared to last year's results, six (6) of the segments studied resulted m LOS changes. The Boca Chica and Bahia Honda segments experienced a decrease in LOS from "A" to "B". Sugarloaf and Big Pine segments experienced a decrease in LOS from "C" to "D". Duck Key and Long Key segments experienced an increase in LOS from "B" to "C". INCREASED 7 Mile Bridge (+ 1.0 mph) Big Coppitt (+0.5 mph) Cross (+ 1.2 mph) Duck (+ 1.5 mph) Long (+ 1.0 mph) Plantation (+0.1 mph) Summerland Key (+0.8 mph) Tea Table (+0.2 mph) U. Matecumbe (+0.7 mph) Windley (+ 1.4 mph) --------- --...------j ~ The largest speed increase of 1.5 mph was recorded in the Duck Key segment, while the largest speed decrease of 3.3 mph was recorded in the Big Pine Key segment. DELA Y EVENTS There were a total of 112 delay events, five (5) of which were excluded due to their non- recurring nature. The delay due to traffic signals proved to be the largest delay- causing event this year. Traffic signals caused 94 of the delays resulting in 46 minutes-31 seconds of delay. The signals caused an average of 1 minute 40 second delay per trip. This was a 15% decrease compared to 2007. Page 26 of 45 The construction delay was the second largest delay event in 2008. There were eight (8) construction delay events resulting in 12 minutes 1 seconds of delay. This is a significant decrease when compared to 2007 construction delay of 23 minutes and 52 seconds. There were two (2) drawbridge opening delays amounting to 10 minutes and 11 seconds. One of the drawbridge delays occurred along the Cross segment and one along the Plantation segment. The drawbridge openIng contributed to an average of 22 seconds per trip, a 71 % decrease compared to the delays recorded in 2007. The congestion delay was the third most delay event recorded in 2008 contributing a total of 26 minutes and 36 seconds or 47 seconds per trip. This was an 85% increase compared to 2007. The number of congestion events decreased from nineteen (19) last year to three (3) this year. III. POTABLE WATER The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in the Florida Keys. The Biscayne Aquifer is a shallow groundwater source and FKAA's primary water supply. The FKAA's wellfield is located in a pineland preserve west of Florida City in south Miami-Dade County. The FKAA's wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater in the State, meeting or exceeding all regulatory standards pnor to treatment. Strong laws protect the wellfield from potential contamination from adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's requirements, FKAA is committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water quality standards and requirements. The groundwater from the wellfield IS treated at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Facility in Florida City, which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 23.8 million gallons per day (MGD). The water treatment process consists primarily of lime softening, filtration, disinfection and fluoridation. The treated water is pumped to the Florida Keys through a 130-mile long pipeline at a maximum pressure of250 pounds per square inch (psi). The pipeline varies in diameter from 36 inches in Key Largo to 18 inches in Key West. The FKAA distributes the treated water through 648 miles of distribution piping ranging in size from % inch to 12 inches in diameter. The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of 45.2 million gallons system wide. The sizes of tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million gallons. These tanks are utilized during periods of peak water demand and serve as an emergency water supply. Since the existing transmission line serves the entire Florida Keys (including Key West), and storage capacity is an integral part of the system, the capacity of the entire system must be considered together, rather than in separate service districts. Also, the two saltwater Reserve Osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock Island and Marathon, are available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants have design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MGD of water, respectively. At present, Key West and Ocean Reef are the only areas of the County served by a flow of potable water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of water sources, including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting sites on the open water or from specially constructed fire wells. Although sufficient flow to fight fires is not guaranteed in the County, new hydrants are being installed as water lines are replaced to make water available for fire- fighting purposes and pump station/tank facilities are being upgraded to provide additional fire flow and pressure. "A" map of the various Page 27 of 45 FKAA facilities in the Keys IS shown on Figure 3.1. ~ w.~ ~~.o l:l~ I::E Q:~ on z~ <(:r: ~ g: ~~ i a::IL :.:;O::J: (JalC O~1'l Q:::z:_ @;) ~ T""" < O~ ~::l OA. ~!! ~~ II) t- III f) ~ ~~ ~ ~ I~~s~ ~ ~ ~::E;;loiil ~@J ;~~;i It) IDrnlD~::! It) Ii; ,.jNItl...... /II a::~ wI %IL a:: 0.. WlX > ~Sl '" ~ WI :.:; ~ ~ ~; :.:;:;) A. ~!I: ~o 0'" N /Jf\ ~ ~Idf\ ~~ Q: ~; j 1-110. (I) !I: :Eo 0)11) (1)/'4 ~ ~ lilt/) U! :;)j ll.A. U! 00 ~:2 NC'l 3: w :> ~ w > o ~ I.&J I- CJ) >- en Ie ZZ O{ :I:~ ~:J: ~!i ::\:/11 ~ t)1 t)~i ~ U ~ .. !i j A. ~ ~lC ::Iii Wlj ZA. ii:!; 22 inN c _ :z ..J :5 <[ (/l VI - I.oJ o :.:; '-4L. I.) Q~ o :z: t:; j151 K! !Q ~ ~ ~ ~ o~:z: 8o~ VlI')- _0-1 ~ ~Il.. W:;)iI :x: A. ~ o ~Il.. o ::J: a:: 8 c ::\: -2 4( Q: -.... ~~ w~ :x: o I(l z ~ j ~ CI:: ~ WI ~ ~ :J: ::\: III :::) .. Ch /II C") W c:: ::> C> u. Page 28 of 45 DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provide a historical overview of the water demands in the FKAA service area, Water Use Permit (WUP) allocation limits, yearly percent change, and water allocation remaining. Page 29 of 45 In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the FKAA's modification of WUP 13- 00005-5- W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Floridian Aquifers. The WUP provides an annual allocation of 8,751 Million Gallons (MG) or 23.98 MGD and a maximum monthly allocation of 809 MG with a limited annual withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer of 6,492 MG or 17.79 MGD and an average dry season (December 1st-April 30th) of 17.0 MGD. This limitation is accomplished by using an alternative water source (blending of the Floridian Aquifer and operation of RO desalination plants), pressure reduction, public outreach, and assistance from municipal agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances (i.e. irrigation ordinance while the construction of a Floridian Aquifer Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment system. This system is designed to withdraw brackish water from the Floridian Aquifer which is approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface and treat to drinking water standards. The treated water from the Floridian Aquifer will be designed to meet current and future water demands. The RO water treatment system is expected to be completed in 2009/2010 and provide an additional 6.0 MGD of potable water. Demand for potable water is influenced by many factors, including the size of the permanent residents, seasonal populations and day visitors, the demand for commercial water use, landscaping practices, conservation measures, and the weather. In 2007, the FKAA distributed an annual average day of 16.02 MGD and a dry season average day of 16.62 MGD as shown in Figure 3.5. The maximum monthly water demand of 567.15 MG shown in Figure 3.5 occurred in March of 2007. FIGURE 3.5 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND IN 2008 FKAA Permit Thresholds 23.98 809.01 16.28 542.01 5942 16.14 16.02 5,891 o o ril Although water shortage / drought conditions and water restrictions imposed by SFWMD were in effect in 2008, preliminary figures and projections for 2008 indicate a slight increase to an annual average daily demand of 16.28 MGD and decrease in maximum monthly demand 547.01 MG as compared to 2007 figures. Also, Figure 3.5 provides the water treatment capacities of the RO plants. The RO plants do not require a WUP because the water source is seawater. However, the RO plants are available for emergency water supply. Figure 3.6 indicates the amount of water available on a per capita basis. Based on Functional Population and permitted water withdrawal from Biscayne Aquifer, the Page 30 of 45 average water available is above 100 gallons per capita (person). The 100 gallons per person per day standard is commonly accepted as appropriate, and reflected in Policy 701.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. IMPROVEMENTS TO POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FKAA has a 20-year Water System Capital FIGURE 3.6 PER CAPITA WATER AVAilABILITY verage al Y Functional Withdrawal Year Po ulation 1 allons 2 1998 151,163 15,830,000 1999 151,396 15,830,000 2000 153,080 15,830,000 2001 153,552 15,830,000 2002 154,023 19,930,000 2003 154,495 19,930,000 2004 154,966 19,930,000 2005 155,438 19,930,000 2006 155,937 19,930,000 2007 156,436 19,930 000 2008 156,935 17,786,301 Source: 1. Projected Permanent and Seasonal County-wide Population Update (1990-2015)- Monroe County Planning Department, 2007 2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2008 Improvement Master Plan for water supply, water treatment; transmission mains, booster pump stations, distribution mains, facilities, structures, information technology, reclaimed water system, and Navy water system. The master plan was revised in 2008 to include the critical projects as shown in Figure 3.7 summarized below. Figure 3.7 shows the schedule and costs projected for the capital improvements to the potable/alternative water systems planned by the FKAA. The total cost of the scheduled improvements is approximately $85 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be funded by the newly revised water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants. In 1989 FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Upgrade Program to replace approximately 190 miles of galvanized lines throughout the Keys. FKAA continues to replace and upgrade its distribution system throughout the Florida Costs Tranamlaalon Malna and Booatllr Pu Slatlona 230,000 4,500.000 4800 000 3,000,000 Dlatrlbutlon MaIns , 2,200,000 1.200 000 1.000 000 . Faoll,," and 8lrvotures 12,530.000 Costs 4,400,000 . I . I I lfoalllhl Keys and the schedule for these upgrades is reflected in their long-range capital improvement plan. The FKAA' s Water Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of approximately 20,000 feet of water main during fiscal year 2008. In addition to improvements to the distribution system, FKAA also has significant improvements planned for the water supply and treatment system. FKAA is expanding the treatment capacity at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant to meet future water demands by construction of Floridian Aquifer supply wells and a 6.0 MGD RO Water Treatment Facility. Also, the FKAA is planning improvements to the transmission and distribution pump stations to improve flow/pressure. SUMMARY In summary, the average daily water demand is expected to slightly increase to 16.28 MGD over last year's of 16.02 MGD due to water shortage/drought conditions/water restriction and water conservation efforts. In conclusion, with the construction of the new water supply wells and RO water treatment facility that will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plant for additional capacity, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and future demand. Page 31 of 45 IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 13 public schools located throughout the Keys. Their data includes both unincorporated and incorporated Monroe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three middle/elementary schools, and six elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields, computer labs, bus service and a cafetorium that serves as both a cafeteria and an auditorium. Approximately 54 busses transport about 4,316 students to and from school each day. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums. The school system is divided into three Sub- districts that are similar, but not identical to the service areas outlined in Section 114- 2(a)(4) of the Code. One difference is that the School Board includes Fiesta Key and the islands that make up Islamorada in the Upper Keys (Sub-district 1), while the Code places them in the Middle Keys (Sub-district 2). Also, the School Board includes Key West in the Lower Keys (Sub-district 3), while the Code does not consider Key West. The data presented in this section are based on the School Board's Sub-districts. Sub-district 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes one high school and two elementary/middle schools, as shown in Figure 4.1. Sub-district 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven Mile Bridge and includes one high/middle school and one elementary school. Sub-district 3 covers the Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school, one middle school, one elementary/middle school, and five elementary schools. :1, :;'4:._."'-:,;-:"~.-'" ". ":.':'}. :t;~,~~~"ti'~ ~.:':-~;':"~ :i..;~ .-' ~ ~~- .7'~ :..;...., ._ '~.;~;~~.,~< "" ~~~,::,.. :fl :'~"-.:, """'.-'. . -,.' ..~.,,,,,, '. ...m_.. -"--. -- -.. __.~.'''J' .~~.,... ,1. .f, 'i'i ' ..-........ ......#.'4~_ '.' ....;.... ....i....., ._h.._.t....._:.r-~ 'l.:J. _~ - Al~"" l'~~: ":":.~.:..;,. ~.;... :.f...J:'~.. - :\ -."i. "iIIi"? .~ ,:' f\ ,..,.' ':;""'. ;i.l.u"11~1 \~{-\~'~lb.'-:-':,,' ":'_'~j. '~'-;~~J~~~ j.;~ ::e';.,}';~.' '''_.''~' ~. ~ ~p__~:--(l: I,.. .;~, ':i?> .' m-;'~ ,',~ I 'I Miles frolll Key:Largo to Bey West ~ {~ . ~ Q ~f1: ~ ....~m-_,I09L.~~~r ,'.' 1,/ , . .)~ "'Key~, ~.~ .. '??;, '-,'. {::C:Q:r PlaatationKel School ~'i~: "(i;H'. ,~ ..,}~' "........ Page 32 of 45 The following table (Figure 4.3) shows the Sub-district. This data is from the School fall school enrollments from 1997 to 2007 Board's Fall Student Survey. FIGURE 4.3 FALL SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS 1997-2007 Sub istrict 1 Coral Shores (H) 701 757 758 800 801 811 619 760 790 Key Largo (ElM) 1,273 1,253 1,183 1,173 1112 1073 992 985 989 Plantation (ElM) 703 675 643 668 641 650 548 617 618 Subtotal 2,677 2,685 2,584 2,641 2,554 2,53 2,159 2362 2,397 Subdistrict 2 Marathon (H) 612 637 660 679 682 65 596 581 614 Switlik (E) 815 834 791 671 687 676 62 600 614 Subtotal 1,427 1,471 1,451 1,350 1,369 1,330 1,220 1181 1,228 Subdistrict 3 Key West (H) 1,372 1,344 1,305 1,327 1301 1303 1327 1394 1,368 O'Bryant (M) 899 814 838 85 87 800 781 788 761 Sugarloaf (ElM) 937 913 941 854 901 718 767 7n 71 Adams (E) 574 566 513 5 598 291 492 504 491 Archer (E) 493 460 393 376 386 360 354 341 306 Poinciana (E) 620 632 599 586 583 536 526 537 598 Sigsbee (E) 423 393 358 363 326 237 250 264 245 Sands 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u tota LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES The Monroe County Code does not identify a numeric level of service standard for schools (such as 10 square feet of classroom space per student). Instead, Section 114- 2(a)(4) of the regulations requires classroom capacity to be "adequate" to accommodate the school-age children generated by proposed land development. The School Board uses recommended capacities provided by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) to determine each school's capacity. All Page 34 of 45 schools have adequate reserve capacity to accommodate the impacts of the additional land development activities projected for 2006-2007 school year. Figure 4.4 shows fall school enrollments and Figure 4.5 shows each school's capacity and the projected number of students. FIGURE 4.4 FALL SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS FOR DISTRICT CHARTER SCHOOLS AND PACE CENTERS Charter School 2004 2005 2006 2007 Big Pine Neighborhood Charter 22 63 73 105 Monroe County DJJ 4 3 7 2 Montessori Charter - KW 48 60 62 74 Montessori Island Charter 137 149 152 153 PACE - Lower Keys 16 31 31 31 - pper eys FIGURE 4.5 2008 CAPITAL OUTLAY FTE FORECAST FOR MONROE COUNTY Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 PreK 61 62 61 57 55 54 53 53 53 Grade K 546 590 641 651 597 562 542 529 518 Grade 1 538 543 598 648 659 605 567 545 529 Grade 2 584 596 615 667 712 713 646 596 563 Grade 3 514 593 623 644 694 740 744 676 622 Grade 4 534 479 562 592 613 661 704 710 648 Grade 5 569 537 493 575 602 620 665 704 706 Grade 6 574 588 569 520 602 628 644 689 726 Grade 7 613 591 617 598 549 623 654 670 713 Grade 8 687 616 607 627 605 553 618 647 659 Grade 9 739 747 694 678 697 676 623 679 713 Grade 10 631 652 675 629 608 616 596 547 583 Grade 11 577 551 579 598 560 537 540 523 481 Grade 12 566 562 549 570 582 538 511 506 485 TOTAL 7,732 7,707 7,884 8,056 8,134 8,128 8,108 8,073 7,997 Grade Level Summary Actual Projected proJectea Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 PreK-5 3,344 3,400 3,594 3,834 3,932 3,955 3,922 3,813 3,639 6-8 1,874 1,795 1,792 1,746 1,756 1,805 1,917 2,005 2,097 9-12 2,514 2,512 2,497 2,476 2,446 2,368 2,270 2,256 2,261 PreK-G12 7,732 7,707 7,884 8,056 8,134 8,128 8,108 8,073 7,997 Lastly, Figure 4.6 shows Locations, Capacities, and Planned Utilization Rates of current Educational Facilities based on state requirements. The capacity runs approximately 90-95% of student stations which vary in number from elementary, middle and high school due to class size reduction. The class size reduction was a result of a state constitutional amendment setting limits for the maximum allowable number of student in a class by the start of the 2010-11 school year that was passed by Florida's voters in November 2002 Page 35 of 45 Enrollment figures for the 2008-2009 school year and projected enrollment figures for the 2012-2013 school year, show that none of the schools are expected to exceed their recommended capacity. School facility plans are based on enrollment projections 5 years out for which Figure 4.6 confirms adequate capacity by showing that projected utilization will be between 50 to 100 percent. If utilization was projected to exceed one hundred percent then there would not be sufficient capacity IMPROVEMENTS TO SCHOOL FACILITIES Florida Statute 163.3177 requires counties to identify lands and zoning districts needed to accommodate future school expansions. The Monroe County Planning Department and School Board conducted research in 1998 to determine the existing school capacity and the potential need for future educational facilities in Monroe County. This study focused on land requirements for each of the schools expansion needs. Overall, the County has sufficient vacant and appropriately zoned land to meet the area's current and future school siting needs. Figure 4.7 is a table showing the results of the investigation completed by the Monroe County School Board and Planning Department in 1998 and updated in 2008. The specific public school capital improvements for the public schools in the County are discussed below. Plantation Key Elementary / Middle School (K-8) The design process is currently underway for replacement of the existing elementary building and the addition of a new gym. Horace O'Bryant Middle School The design process is currently underway to replace the old middle school building and cafeteria. Renovate or Relocate Administrative Facility The District is considering using the existing property for affordable housing and relocating to another property. Sugarloaf Elementary and Middle School The District is considering using two acres of the existing property for affordable housing dwelling units. Page 36 of 45 Upper Keys Maintenance Building There is potential to remodel an existing building on site and dispose of two temporary office trailers. Founder Park Ball Field Lights Adding lights to the ball field so games could be played at night is another project FIGURE 4.7 PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Schools Developed Site Land Needed On-going Capital Projects acres and zoning 2008 Plantation Key Currently in the design process to Elementary! Middle School 8.29 acres (SR) none replace the existing elementary building (K-8) and adding a new gym. Horace O'Bryant Middle Currently in the design phase to replace 10 acres none the old middle school building and School cafeteria Renovate or Relocate The District is considering using the Administrative Facility 6 acres 2.5-3 acres existing property for affordable housing and moving to another property Sugarlloaf Elementary and The District is considering using two 42 acres(SC & NA) 2 acres acres of the existing property for Middle School affordable housing Upper Keys Maintenance Remodel an existing building on site to 2 acres 2 acres allow for the disposal of two temporary Building office trailors Founder Park Ball Field 1.5-2 acres Add lights to the ball field so games Lights none could be played at night Page 37 of 45 v. SeLID WASTE In August 1990, the County entered into a FACILITIES contract with Waste Management, Inc. Monroe County's solid waste facilities are (WMI) to transport the solid waste to the managed by the Solid Waste Management contractor's private landfill m Broward Department, which oversees a County . In accordance with County- comprehensive system of collection, approved franchise agreements, private recycling, and disposal of solid waste. Prior contractors perform collection of solid to 1990 the County's disposal methods waste. Residential collection takes place consisted of incineration and land filling at three times a week (2 garbage/trash, 1 sites on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe recycling); nonresidential collection varies Key. Combustible materials were burned by contract. The four (4) contractors either in an incinerator or in an air curtain currently serving the Keys are identified in destructor. The resulting ash was used as Figure 5.1 cover on the landfills. Non-combustible materials were deposited directly in the landfills. FIGURE 5.1 SOLID WASTE CONTRACTORS Upper Keys Middle Keys* Lower Keys Keys Sanitary Service 8: Mid-Keys Waste, Inc. Waste Management of Florida, Ocean Reef Club, Inc. Inc. Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2008 *Onyx currently serves the Village of Islamorada. The County's landfills and incinerators are However, it is important to note that a no longer in operation. The landfill sites are second, unused site on Cudjoe Key could be now used as transfer stations for wet opened if necessary. Figure 5.2 below garbage, yard waste, and construction debris summanzes the status of the County's collected throughout the Keys by the four landfills and incinerators curbside contractors and prepared by WMI for shipment out of the Keys. FIGURE 5.2 MONROE COUNTY'S LANDFILL AND INCINERATORS Reserve Capacity Site Incinerators Landfills (cubic yards) Key Largo Closed 12/31/90 No Longer Active 0 Long Key Closed 1/7/91 No Longer Active 0 Cudjoe Old Site Closed 2/25/91 No Longer Active 0 Unused Site None Currently Inactive 45,000 Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department Page 38 of 45 The County's recycling efforts began in October 1994, when curbside collection of recyclable materials was made available to all County residences and businesses. Recycling transfer centers have been established in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. Some agencies are mulching and reusing yard waste, and private enterprises are collecting aluminum and other recyclable materials. While goods, waste oil, batteries and tires are handled separately, with collection sites operating at each landfill/transfer station site. The County collects household hazardous waste at the Long Key and Cudjoe Key Transfer Stations, in addition to the Key Largo Recycling Yard. Hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators is collected once a year as part of an Amnesty Days program. An electronics recycling program is in the initial phases, and will be conducted in cooperation with the Household Hazardous Waste collections. Demand for Solid Waste Facilities For solid waste accounting purposes, the County is divided into three districts which are similar, but not identical to the service areas outlined in Section 114-2(b)(2) of the Code (LDRs). One difference is that Windley Key, which is considered to be in the Upper Keys district in the LDRs, is included in the Middle Keys district for purposes of solid waste management. Another difference from the LDRs is that the cities of Layton and Key Colony Beach are included in the Middle Keys district for solid waste management. Although Islamorada incorporated on December 31, 1997, the municipality Page 39 of 45 continued to participate with Monroe County in the contract with Waste Management Inc. until September 30, 1998. Data for Monroe County solid waste generation is calculated by fiscal year which runs from October 1 to September 30. Therefore, the effects of Islamorada's incorporation on solid waste services appear in the 1999 data. Data for the City of Key West and the Village of Islamorada is not included in this report. Marathon's incorporation was effective on October 1, 2000 and they continue to participate in the Waste Management Inc. contract. Effects of the incorporation, if any, would have appeared in the 2001 data. Demand for solid waste facilities is influenced by many factors, including the size and income levels of resident and seasonal populations, the extent of recycling efforts, household consumptive practices, landscaping practices, land development activities, and natural events such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Analyses provided by a private research group indicate that the average single-family house generates 2.15 tons of solid waste per year. Mobile homes and multifamily units, having smaller yards and household sizes, typically generate less solid waste (1.96 and 1.28 tons per year, respectively). Figure 5.3 and Chart 5.4 summarize the past 10 years of solid waste generated by each district. The totals for each district are a combination of four categories of solid waste: garbage, yard waste, bulk yard waste and other (includes construction and demolition debris). FIGURE 5.3 SOLID WASTE GENERATION BY DISTRICT Year Key Largo Long Key Cudjoe Key Total % Change 1997 32,003 33,625 29,350 94,978 4.10% 1998 33,119 36,440 30,920 100,479 5.79% 1999 29,382 30,938 37,431 97,751 -2.71% 2000 32,635 30,079 33,420 96,134 -1.65% 2001 29,663 29,367 31 , 166 90,196 -6.18% 2002 31,018 31,217 30,700 92,935 3.04% 2003 31,529 31 ,889 30,385 93,803 0.93% 2004 32,193 31 ,583 33,762 97,538 3.98% 2005 36,035 32,257 35,290 103,582 6.20% 2006 35,211 33,704 36,168 105,083 1.45% 2007 37,423 30,759 30,999 99,001 -6.14% Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department From 1996 onward the amount of solid waste generated had been on the increase until 1998, when it reached its highest level yet. This increase is attributed to the debris associated with Hurricane George, which made landfall in the Keys in September of 1998. "A" portion of the decline seen from 1998 to 1999 may be attributable to the reduction in solid waste collected from Islamorada. The continuing decline shown in 2000 and 2001 is due to a reduction in construction and demolition debris being brought to the County transfer stations Page 40 of 45 following the implementation of the Specialty Hauler ordinances. Solid Waste Generation continues to rise again from 2002 through 2005 with a 6.2% increase between 2004 and 2005. "A" very active hurricane season in 2005 could have caused increased generation. Yearly fluctuations are expected to continue due to increasing storm activity and seasonal population changes. LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Section 114-2(a)(2) of the Code requires that the County maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate all existing and approved development for at least three (3) years. The regulations specifically recognize the concept of using disposal sites outside Monroe County. As of2008, Waste Management Inc., reports a reserve capacity of approximately 26.91 million cubic yards at their Central Sanitary Landfill in Broward County, a volume sufficient to serve their clients for another seventeen (17) years. Figure 5.5 shows the remaining capacity at the Central Sanitary Landfill. FIGURE 5.5 REMAINING CAPACITY, CENTRAL SANITARY LANDFILL 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 34.2 ydl 32.3 ydl 30.5 ydl 31.2 ydl 26 ydl 22.62 ydl 26.91 ydl Monroe County has a contract with WMI authorizing use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately eight years of Page 41 of 45 6 years 17 years guaranteed capacity. Ongoing modifications at the Central Sanitary Landfill are creating additional air space and years of life. VI. PARKS AND RECREATION An annual assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Section 114-2 of the Monroe County the Code, though it is required for concurrency management systems by the Florida Statutes. The following section has been included in the 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report for informational purposes only. Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are not mentioned in the Code, but are listed in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. PARKS AN. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE STAN. AU The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the provisions of resource- and activity-based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are: 0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population; and 0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population The LOS standards for each type of recreation area can be applied to unincorporated Monroe County as a whole or to each subarea (Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys) of unincorporated Monroe County. Resource- and activity-based recreation areas differ when applying a LOS standard. Resource-based recreation areas are Page 42 of 45 established around eXlstmg natural or cultural resources of significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity-based recreation areas can be established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other athletic events. Since the location of resource-based recreation areas depends upon the natural features or cultural resources of the area and cannot always be provided near the largest population centers, it is reasonable to apply the LOS standard for resource-based areas to all of unincorporated Monroe County. Since activity-based recreation areas do not rely on natural features or cultural resources for their location and because they can be provided in areas with concentrated populations, it is more appropriate to apply the LOS standard to each subarea of the Keys. It is important to note that the subareas used for park and recreational facilities differ from those subareas used in the population projections. For the purpose of park and recreational facilities, the Upper Keys are considered to be the area north of Tavernier (P AEDs 15 through 22). The Middle Keys are considered to be the area between Pigeon Key and Long Key (P AEDs 6 through 11). The Lower Keys are the area south of the Seven Mile Bridge (P AEDs 1 through 6). Although the Middle and Lower Keys subareas both contain portions of P AED 6, the population of P AED 6 is located in the Lower Keys subarea. An inventory of Monroe County's parks and recreational facilities are listed on Figure 6.1. The facilities are grouped by subarea and are classified according to the principal use (resource or activity). There are currently 97.96 acres of resource-based recreation areas either owned or leased by Monroe County as shown in Figure 6.1 FIGURE 6.1 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES SERVING UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY Site Name F aci lities I Classification and I Resource I Activitv UDDer KeyS 5uDarea Coral Shores Hieh School Monroe County School District; baseball field, football field, softball field, five (5) tennis courts, 10.1 Friendship Park Two (2) basketball courts, playground, ball field, picnic shelters, public restrooms, and parkine. 1.92 Garden Cove Undeveloped. 1.5 Harrv Harris Two (2) ball fields, playground, restrooms, picnic shelters, beach, parking (89), and boat ramp. 16.4 Hibiscus Park Undeveloped. 0.46 Kev Largo Community Park Soccer field, two (2) ball fields, six (6) tennis courts, iogging trail, three (3) basketball courts, 14 Kev LaIl!O Elementarv Monroe County School District; plaveround, ball field, running track, and indoor gym. 3.4 Plantation Key Elementarv Monroe County School District; playground, tennis court, basketball court, and ball field. 1.7 Settler's Park Playground, park benches, trails, and a historic platform. 3 Sunny Haven Undeveloped. 0.09 Sunset Point Waterfront park with a boat ramp. 1.2 Subarea Total 5.79 47.98 Middle Keys Subarea Marathon High School Monroe County School District; football field, baseball field, softball field, three (3) tennis courts, 7.8 Pigeon Key Historic structures, research/ educational facilities, and a railroad museum. 5 Switlik Elementarv Monroe County School District; plaveround, two (2) baseball fields, and shared soccer/football 2.5 Subarea Total 5.00 10.3 Lower Keys Subarea Bavooint Park Playground, volleyball, bocchi ball, two (2) tennis courts, and picnic area. 1.58 Bernstei n Park Ball field, soccer, basketball court, track, tennis courts, playground, restrooms, and volleyball. 11 Bie Coppitt Fire Department Plaveround Plaveround and benches. 0.75 Big Coppitt Skate Park One full court skating rink, a single racquetball/ handball court, picnic area 0.57 Bie Pine Key Community Park 1 baseball/softball field, one large multi-purpose field, one basketball/roller-hockey 10 Big Pine Leisure Club Undeveloped. 1.75 Blue Heron Park Playground, basketball court, youth center, and picnic shelters. 5.5 Boca Chica Beach Beach area. 6 Delmar Avenue Boat ramp. 0.2 East Martello Historic structures, teen center, and picnic area. 14.58 Heron Avenue Undeveloped. 0.69 HiRes Beach/ Astro City Five (5) tennis courts, playground, volleyball, picnic shelters, beach area, pier, and public 15.5 Lighthouse Museum Historic structure and museum. 0.77 Little Duck Key Picnic shelters, restrooms, boat ramp, and beach area. 25.5 Little Torch Boat Ramp Boat ramp. 0.1 Missouri Kev Undeveloped. 3.5 Palm Drive cuI-de sac Undeveloped. 0.1 Palm Villa Plaveround and benches. 0.57 Ramrod Key Swim Hole Swimming area with no facilities. 0.5 Rockland Hammock Undeveloped. 2.5 Sugarloaf Elementary Monroe County School District; baseball field and playground. 3.1 Sugarloaf School Monroe County School District; undeveloped. 6.6 Summerland Estates Undevelooed. 0.13 Watson Field Two (2) tennis courts, ball field, playground, and volleyball. 2.4 West Martello Historic structure. 0.8 West Summerland Boat Ramp. 31.8 Wilhelmina Harvey Children's Park Two (2) playground areas, a walking trail, and green space. 0.65 Subarea Total 87.17 59.97 UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY TOTAL 97.96 118.25 Page 43 of 45 Using the functional population projection The county currently has enough resource- for 2007 of 70,432 persons m based land to meet the level of service with unincorporated Monroe County, and the an extra 40.21 acres of reserve capacity LOS standard of 0.82 acres per 1,000 (Figure 6.2). functional population, the demand for resource based recreation areas IS approximately 57.75 acres. FIGURE 6.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR RESOURCE-BASED RECREATION AREAS Total Resource- 2008 Functional based Acreage Demand (.82 Reserve Capacity (in Subarea Population Available AC/1 ,000 people) acres) Upper Keys Total 35,942 5.79 29.47 -23.68 Middle Keys Total 3,760 5 3.08 1.92 Lower Keys Total 32,541 87.17 26.68 60.49 Total 72,243 97.96 59.24 38.72 Source: Monroe County Planning Department, Based on Unincorporated Monroe County Functional Population Note: Population figures were updated based on 2008 Permanent Population Estimates. However, data was not available by subarea therefore "Subarea" was extrapalated based on percentages of 2007 data for subarea. LEVEL eF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR ACTIVITY-BASED Based on a LOS standard of 0.82 acres of RECREATIeN AREAS activity-based recreation areas per 1,000 The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows functional population m unincorporated Monroe County (35,041-Upper, 3,666- activity -based recreational land found at middle, and 31,725-Lower), the demand for educational facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. these recreation areas are 28.73, 3.01 and There is currently a total of 107.68 acres of 26.01 acres for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys, respectively. There IS developed activity-based recreation areas currently a reserve of 19.25, 7.29, and 23.39 either owned or leased by Monroe County acres (Upper, Middle, and Lower) for a total and the Monroe County School Board. This of 49.93 acres of activity-based recreation total represents 47.98 acres in the Upper areas for all of unincorporated Monroe Keys (including Plantation Key m County (Figure 6.3). Islamorada), 10.3 acres in the Middle Keys (including Marathon), and 49.4 acres in the Lower Keys. FIGURE 6.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR ACTIVITY -BASED RECREATION AREAS Total Activity- 2007 Functional based Acreage Demand (.82 Reserve Capacity (in Subarea Population Available AC/1 ,000 people) acres) Upper Keys Total 35,942 47.98 29.47 18.51 Middle Keys Total 3,760 10.3 3.08 7.22 Lower Keys Total 32,541 59.97 26.68 33.29 Total 72,243 118.25 59.24 59.01 Source: Monroe County Planning Department, Based on Unincorporated Monroe County Functional Population Note: Population figures were updated based on 2008 Permanent Population Estimates. However. data was not available by subarea therefore "Subarea" was extrapalated based on percentages of 2007 data for subarea. Page 44 of 45 FUTURE PARKS AND RECREATION PLANNING Identifying parks and recreation needs is a part of the on going Livable CommuniKeys Program. This community based planning initiative looks at all aspects of an area and, among other planning concerns, identifies the parks and recreation desires of the local population. The Livable CommuniKeys Program has been completed on Big Pine Key/No Name Key, Stock Island and Tavernier and partially completed on Key Largo. The LCP from Sugarloaf to Little Torch Key is in process. The Big Pine Key Community Park has been completed. Next year's report will reflect this and it will be added to the inventory list. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL RECREATION AREAS The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of resource-based and activity- based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level of service standards." The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6) mechanisms that are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as for providing adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are: 1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land that is already owned by the county but that is not being used for park and recreation purposes; 2. Acquisition of new park sites; 3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board that would allow for the use of existing school-park facilities by county residents; 4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated Page 45 of 45 cities within Monroe County that would allow for the use of existing city-owned park facilities by county residents; 5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments that would allow for the use of existing publicly-owned lands or facilities by county residents; and 6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities that would allow for the use of private park facilities by county residents. To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms - acquisition of new park sites and interlocal agreements with the School Board. However, these agreements need to be examined more closely to determine the amount of available acreage for calculating concurrency. Furthermore, Monroe County cannot rely upon joint use facilities to eliminate existing deficiencies or meet future LOS requirements until interlocal, intergovernmental, or private use joint agreements are executed. For instance, the County is currently reviewing and revising the interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board to provide greater day time accessibility for students to public recreational facilities. Once executed, these agreements will ensure that the facilities will be available for general use to Monroe County residents to meet peak season, weekend, or time of day recreation demands.