Item S3BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 20, 2010 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes_ No X Department: Planning & Environmental Resources
Staff Contact Person: Christine Hurley, AICP,
Director of Growth Mana eg ment
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A public hearing to consider an ordinance by The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
adopting an amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Pursuant To F.S. Sec.
163.3177(3)(b); amending Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule Of Capital Improvements.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The annual update requires an amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
Table 4.1: Five - Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. F. S. Sec. 163.3177(3)(a) and F. S. Sec.
163.3177(3)(B) requires that a local government's Capital Improvements Element be reviewed on an
annual basis and updated as necessary in order to maintain level of service standards for capital
improvements.
The purpose of the Five - Year Schedule of Capital Improvements is to direct expenditures for public
facilities to reduce existing deficiencies in levels of service, provide for replacements of worn out
facilities, and meet future demands for Transportation, Solid Waste, Wastewater and Storm Water
Management, and Parks and Recreation.
Pursuant to F.S. Sec. 164.3177 (b) 1, Monroe County Capital Improvements Plan is not required to be
financially feasible until December 1, 2011.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
N/A
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty x OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included x Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
..
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Christine Hurley, AICP, Growth Management Director
Through: Townsley Schwab, Sr. Planning Director, Planning and Environmental Resources
From: Kathy Grasser, Comprehensive Planner
Date: October 25, 2010
Subject: Request for an Amendment to the Year 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive
Plan to amend Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements
Meeting: November 17, 2010
1 PURPOSE:
2 The principal purpose of this element is to determine the cost of any major County public facility
3 improvements recommended in the various elements of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan for
4 implementation during the five year period of Fiscal Years 2010-2015 and demonstrate the
5 ability to fund those improvements. The Capital Improvements Element is required to be
6 updated annually.
7
8 PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
9 Staff is requesting the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopt an amendment to
10 the Year 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan amending Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of
11 Capital Improvements (Exhibit A). A single public hearing is required (F.S. 163.3177).
12
13 PROCESS
14 Pursuant to F.S. Sec. 163.3177(3)(a) and 163.3177(3)(b) the capital improvements element must
15 be reviewed on an annual basis and modified as necessary in accordance with F.S. Sec. 163.3187
16 or F.S. Sec. 163.3189 in order to maintain a financially feasible five-year schedule of capital
17 improvements. Corrections and modifications concerning costs; revenue sources; or acceptance
18 of facilities pursuant to dedications which are consistent with the plan may be accomplished by
19 ordinance and shall not be deemed to be amendments to the local comprehensive plan. Capital
20 improvements element amendments adopted after the effective date of this act shall require only
21 a single public hearing before the governing board which shall be an adoption hearing as
22 described in F.S. Sec. 163.3184(7). A copy of the ordinance shall be transmitted to the state land
23 planning agency. An amendment to the comprehensive plan is required to update the schedule on
24 an annual basis or to eliminate, defer, or delay the construction for any facility listed in the 5-
25 year schedule. All public facilities must be consistent with the capital improvements element.
26
Page 1 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1 Monroe County must become financially feasible by December 1, 2011 as stated in Florida
2 Statutes Ch. 163.3177 (b)1:
3 The capital improvements element must be reviewed on an annual basis
4 and modified as necessary in accordance with s. 163.3187 or s. 163.3189
5 in order to maintain a financially feasible 5-year schedule of capital
6 improvements. Corrections and modifications concerning costs; revenue
7 sources; or acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications which are
8 consistent with the plan may be accomplished by ordinance and shall not
9 be deemed to be amendments to the local comprehensive plan. A copy of
10 the ordinance shall be transmitted to the state land planning agency. An
11 amendment to the comprehensive plan is required to update the schedule
12 on an annual basis or to eliminate, defer, or delay the construction for any
13 facility listed in the 5-year schedule. All public facilities must be consistent
14 with the capital improvements element. The annual update to the capital
15 improvements element of the comprehensive plan need not comply with the
16 financial feasibility requirement until December 1, 2011. Thereafter, a
17 local government may not amend its future land use map, except for plan
18 amendments to meet new requirements under this part and emergency
19 amendments pursuant to s. 163.3187(1)(a), after December 1, 2011, and
20 every year thereafter, unless and until the local government has adopted
21 the annual update and it has been transmitted to the state land planning
22 agency.
23
24
25 RELEVANT PRIOR COUNTY ACTIONS
26 The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 34-10 on November 16, 2010 recommending the
27 BOCC adopt the new Capital Improvements Implementation element Table 4.1.
28
29 DATA AND ANALYSIS
30 Table 4. 1, Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (Fiscal Years 2010-2011, 2011-2012,
31 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015), lists the public facilities which Monroe County will
32 provide in order to reduce existing deficiencies, provide for necessary replacements, and meet
33 the future demand identified by the Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with Rule 9J-5 of the
34 Florida Administrative Code, the schedule includes the following public facility types for the
35 five years subsequent to plan adoption.
36
37 The public facilities types are:
38 1. Transportation facilities
39 2. Potable Water
40 3. Wastewater
41 4. Drainage and Storm Water
42 5. Solid Waste
43 6. Parks and Recreation
44
45 Additionally, the Growth Management Division, The Monroe County Land Authority and The
46 School Board have capital improvement projects in their budget.
Page 2 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
I TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
2 The revenue for transportation projects comes from Funds 102 and 130. The Road
and Bridge
3 Fund County Capital Projects, the bike / shared use path, Key Colony Beach Roadway Project
4 and the Truman Pedestrian Bridge Projects have expenditures totalling $3,689,506. FDOT
5 revenues for these projects total $30,589,000. The following are FDOT's construction
projects
6 and associated expenditures. Exhibit A contains all of FDOT's projects, including resurfacing.
1. SR 5/BIG COPPITT KEY FROM ROCKLAND CHNL BRIDGE TO OLD
BOCA CHICA CHANNEL Turn Lanes Construction
69,000
2. SR 5/BIG COPPITT KEY FROM ROCKLAND CHNL BRIDGE TO OLD
BOCA CHICA CHANNEL
20,000
3. SR AIA/S. ROOSEVELT FROM BERTHA STREET TO SR 5/US-1
Flexible Pavement Construction: ROW
4,986,000
4. SR AIA/S. ROOSEVELT FROM BERTHA STREET TO SR 5/US-1
Flexible Pavement Construction: Construction
20,877,000
5. Bike Path Trail SR 5/N. ROOSEVELT FROM EISENHOWER DRIVE TO
SR 5/US-1: Construction
1,073,000
6. SR 5/US-1/LONG KEY V-PIERS REPL. & DEVIATION BLOCK
REPAIRS: Prelim Eng.
20,000
7. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL FROM MM 15-BAY POINT TO MM 16.5-
SUGARLOAF KEY: Construction
883,000
8. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL AT MM 106 (NEW TRAILHEAD) BTWN
US-1 & CARD SOUND RD (bike path and trail) construction
2,620,000
9. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL KEMP CHANNEL BRIDGE (MM 23.6) LAP:
Construction
1,350,000
10. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL (WINDLEY KEY) FROM MM 83.5 TO MM
84.8" Bike Path Construction
825,000
11. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL AT SPANISH HARBOR HISTORIC
BRIDGE (MM 33): Bike Path Construction
1,300,000
12. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL AT SOUTH PINE CHANNEL HISTORIC
BRIDGE (MM 29): Bike Path Construction
920,000
13. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL FROM MM 15 TO MM 16.5 (LOWER
SUGARLOAF) Bike path construction
900,000
14. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL FROM MM 96 TO MM 106 (KEY LARGO)
Bike path construction
1,400,000
15. SR 5/OVERSEAS HWY FROM N. PINE CHL(MM 29.5) TO SPANISH
HRBR CHL(MM33) ROW ACQ
1,795,000
16. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL AT MM 47 (KNIGHTS KEY) PEDESTRIAN
UNDERPASS/ADA Bike Path
1,150,000
17. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL FROM MM 54.5 TO MM 60 (GRASSY KEY)
Bike Path
1,635,000
18. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL & SCENIC HWY - VISTAS AT VARIOUS
LOCATIONS Bike Path
1,225,000
19. SR 5/OVRSEAS HRT.TRL ALL AMERICAN ROAD MM 0 TO MM 106
Bike Path
1,020,000
20. FDOT Expenditures
$44,068,000
Page 3 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1 Roads are one of the four critical public facilities identified for annual assessment in the Monroe
2 County Land Development (LDC). Regulations require all segments of U.S. 1 to remain at a
3 LOS C or higher and all county roads are to remain at a LOS D or higher.
4
5 This section of the report investigates the current capacity of the transportation network in
6 Monroe County. The analysis includes changes in traffic volumes, the U.S. 1 level of service
7 (LOS), the reserve capacity of the highway and county roads, and the Florida Department of
8 Transportation Five -Year Work Program for Monroe County. All data and analysis was obtained
9 from the 2009 U. S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study' prepared by URS Corporation
10 Southern, 3343 W. Commercial Blvd., Suite 100, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309.
11
12 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
13 OVERALL LEVEL OF SERVICE ON U.S. 1
14 The overall level of service or capacity of the entire length of U.S. 1 is measured in the average
15 speed of a vehicle traveling from one end to the other of U.S. 1. Both Monroe County and the
16 Florida Department of Transportation have adopted a LOS C standard for the overall length of
17 U.S. 1. In other words, a vehicle traveling from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112 (or vice
18 versa) must maintain an average speed of at least 45 mph to achieve the LOS C standard.
19
20 The median overall speed during the 2009 study was 46.6 mph, which is 0.2 mph higher than the
21 2008 median speed of 46.2 mph. The mean operating speed was 46.3 mph with a 95%
22 confidence interval of plus or minus 0.7 mph. The mean and median speeds correspond to LOS
23 C conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 48.4 mph (similar to the 2008
24 highest overall speed of 48.2 mph), which occurred on Thursday, March 5, 2009 between 3:15
25 p.m. and 5:45 p.m. in the southbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 42.6
26 mph (4.1 mph higher than the 2008 lowest overall speed of 38.5 mph) which occurred on
27 Monday, March 2, 2009 between 9:45 a.m. and 12:40 p.m. in the southbound direction.
28
29 LEVEL OF SERVICE ON U.S.1 SEGMENTS
30 The Land Development Code requires each segment of the highway to maintain a LOS of C or
31 better. The LOS criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County depend on the flow
32 characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. Flow characteristics relate
33 to the ability of a vehicle to travel through a particular segment without being slowed or stopped
34 by traffic signals or other devices. Segments with a series of permanent traffic signals or other
35 similar traffic control devices in close proximity to each other are considered to be "Interrupted
36 Flow Segments" and are expected to have longer travel times due to the delays caused by these
37 signals or control devices. Roadway segments without a series of signals or control devices are
38 considered to be "Uninterrupted Flow Segments". Uninterrupted segments may have one or
39 more traffic signals, but they are not in close proximity to one another as in the interrupted
40 segment case. The methodology used to determine median speed and level of service on a
41 particular segment is based upon that segment's status as an interrupted or uninterrupted flow
42 segment.
43
44
45
46
Page 4 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
Interrupted Flow
Uninterrupted Flow
LOS A> 35 mph
LOS A 1.5 mph above speed limit
LOS B> 28 mph
LOS B 1.5 mph below speed limit
LOS C> 22 mph
LOS C 45 mph below speed limit
LOS D> 17 mph
LOS D 7.5 mph below speed limit
LOS F> 13 mph
LOS E 13.5 mph below speed limit
LOS F< 13 mph
LOS F more than 13.5 mph below speed limit
2 Compared to last year's (2008) study results, there is level of service changes to eight segments —
3 three (3) resulted in positive level of service changes while five (5) resulted in negative level of
4 service changes.
5
6 The Boca Chica segment (Segment 2) increased from LOS `B' to LOS `A'
7 The Big Pine (Segment 10) increased from LOS `D" to LOS `C'
8 The Cross segment (Segment 24) increased from LOS `E' to LOS `A'
9 The Big Coppitt (Segment 3) decreased from LOS `C' to LOS `D'
10 The Cudjoe segment (Segment 6) decreased from LOS `A" to LOS `B"
11 The Duck segment (Segment 15) decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C'
12 The Long Key segment (Segment 16) decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C'
13 The Plantation segment (Segment 21) decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C'
14
15 Compared to 2008, the median segment speeds increased in ten (10) of the 24 segments ranging
16 between 0.4 mph to 13.8 mph. Fourteen segments experienced a decrease in median speeds,
17 ranging from 0.1 mph to 3.4 mph, compared to last year's data. The biggest difference in speed
18 change was observed for Segment 24, the level of service changed from LOS `E' to LOS `A'
19 because most of the construction work has been completed and the bascule bridge was replaced
20 with a fixed —span bridge.
21
22 DELAY EVENTS
23 A delay event occurs whenever the speed of the test vehicle fell below 5 mph. The delay event
24 continues until the test vehicle's speed rose to 15 mph. During the study, the observers
25 encountered a total of 123 separate delay events (a 10% increase compared to the 2008 study).
26 Six of these delay events at 20 minutes and 50 seconds were excluded from the overall travel
27 times. The excluded delay events were caused by non -recurring congestion events such as
28 accidents, school bus, roadside construction. In addition to these six delay events, the 6
29 drawbridge delay events were also excluded from the segment travel times (41 minutes and 51
30 seconds). The mean delay per trip is the total delay recorded for a given sources divided by the
31 study's 28 one-way trips. The mean delay per trip is found to be 5 minutes and 19 seconds (a 1
32 minute and 51 second increase in delay compared to the 2008 data).
33
34 SIGNAL DELAYS
35 The largest single delay source along U.S. 1 in Monroe County is the traffic signal. During the
36 2009 study, 99 (80%) out of 123 delay events were caused by signals which is 5% higher than
37 the 2008 study. The signal delays accounted for 1 hour 19 minutes and 43 seconds (53% of total
38 delays).
Page 5 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1
2 The mean delay per event for signals in segments 5, 10, 13, 14, 21 and 22 are higher than the
3 LOS C threshold value of 25 seconds, which is the signal impact discount in the methodology.
4 The signal on Big Pine Key segment (Segment 10) caused 18 (18%) signals delay events
5 accounting for 31 minutes and 22 seconds.
6
7 Key Deer Boulevard signal was the most significant delay causing 18 signal delay events
8 accounting for 31 minutes and 22 seconds (39% of the total signal delays). The mean delay per
9 event at Key Deer Boulevard signal was higher than the threshold of 25 seconds at 1 minute and
10 45 seconds. The mean delay per trip was also higher than the threshold of 25 seconds at 1
11 minute and 7 seconds.
12
13 The signals on the Marathon segment (Segment 13) were the second most significant causing 36
14 signal delay events account for 20 minutes and 2 seconds (25% for the total signal delays). The
15 mean delay per event at the Marathon signals was higher than the 25 seconds threshold at 22
16 seconds. The mean delay per trip was higher than the 25 seconds threshold at 43 seconds.
17
18 ACCIDENT DELAY
19 The accident delays were the third largest delay events during the 2009 study. There were three
20 (3) accident delays recorded during the 2009 study accounting for 16 minutes and 47 seconds.
21 The accident delays account for 11 % of the total delays. No accident delays were recorded
22 during the 2008 study. The drawbridge delays were excluded from the overall travel time.
23
24 TURNING VEHICLE DELAY
25 There were 7 left -turn delays amounting to 2 minutes and 35 seconds during this year's study.
26 The total delay time related to turns increased compared to last year's turn delays of 58 seconds.
27
28 DRAW BRIDGE DELAY
29 There is one drawbridge along the length of U.S. 1 in Monroe County, across Snake Creek. This
30 year drawbridge delays were the second largest delay events. The Snake Creek Draw Bridge
31 (between Segments 20 and 21) created six (6) drawbridge related delay during this year's travel
32 time runs, totally 41 minutes and 51 seconds. The drawbridge delay events and total time were
33 significantly higher in the 2009 study compared to the 2008 study accounting for only 4 minutes
34 and 21 seconds. The drawbridge delays were excluded from the segment travel time but are
35 included in the overall travel time.
36
37 CONGESTION DELAY
38 The delays caused by congestion were not that significant during 2009. In previous years,
39 congestion delays were caused by events such as the Kid's Carnival (MM 34) and the Islamorada
40 Flea Market. In 2009, the largest congestion delay occurred at Segment 20 at Snake Creek
41 Bridge. The congestion delay events contributed an average of 8 seconds per trip, a significant
42 decrease compared to last year's average delay per trip of 57 seconds. Four congestion delay
43 events amounted to 3 minutes and 37 seconds during the 2009 study.
44
45
46
Page 6 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
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
CONSTRUCTION DELAY
The construction delay was the fourth largest delay
construction at the following segments:
1. Stock Island (Segment 1)
2. Big Coppitt (Segment 3)
3. Duck (Segment 15)
4. Snake Creek Bridge (Segment 21)
5. Cross (Segment 24)
During the 2009 study there was on -going
The construction delay events accounted for 4 minutes and 3 seconds in 2009. This is a
significant decrease from 2008 construction delays accounting for 12 minutes and 1 second.
During years 2007 and 2008 construction delays occurred mostly along Cross segment (Segment
24). The construction of a high level fixed bridge has been completed along Cross segment and
speeds along the approach sections of the segment that are still under construction were observed
to be above the posted speed limit.
SPEED LIMIT
The posted speed limit affects both the segment and the overall LOS. For instance, a lower
speed limit could benefit a segment's LOS by reducing the difference between the travel speed
and the posted speed limit. The reduction in the speed limit negatively impacts the overall LOS
because motorists tend to travel at reduced speeds to comply with the speed limits, whereas the
overall LOS C threshold is set at 45 mph regardless of the speed limits changes. For these
reasons, the posted speed limit is an important component in this study.
In Big Pine Key, due to the Key Deer habitat, the speed limit is strictly enforced with additional
signs and frequent police presence. The travel speeds in this segment were observed to be near
the posted speed limit, unless impeded by delays created by the signal.
Page 7 of 26
THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
M28082
BOCC: November 17, 2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
FIGURE 2.7
US 1 SEGMENTS STATUS, MEDIAN SPEEDS AND CHANGE 2008-2009
2009
2008
2009
2008
Median
Median
Numeric
#
S ment
LOS
LOS
Seed
Seed
Chan e
1
4-5
Stock Island
B
B
34.2
31.7
2.5
2
5-9
Boca Chica
A
B
56.7
55.5
1.2
3
9-10.5 --
Big C_oppitt
D
C
42.3
45.7
-3.4
4
10.5-16.5
Saddlebunch
C
C
52.4
0.8
Sugarloaf
D
D
46.8
_51.6
47.2
-0.4
3
Cud'oe
B
A
47.0
47.7
_
-0.7
SummerIand
B
B
7
46.4
-1.7
C0.5
.5
Ramrod
A
6
f47.9
47.7
-0.1
.5
Torch
EjA
46.6
1.3
3
Bi Pine
C
_A
D
37.9
.1
2.2
Bahia Honda
B
B
51.7
52.3
-0.6
7-Mile Brid e
B
B
55.4
56.1
-0.7
13
47-54
Marathon
A
A
38.2
37.3 _
0.9
14
54-60.5
Grass
C
C
50.3
50.7
-0.4
15
60.5-63
Duck
C
B
51.3
54.4
-3.1
16
63-73
Lon
C
B
51.3
_ 52.3
-1.0
17
73_-77.5
L. Matecumbe
C
C
51.4
51.0
0.4
18
77.5-79.5
Tea Table
D
D
48.5
50.0
-1.5
19
79.544
U. Matecumbe
C
C_
40.8
42.1
-1.3
20
84-86
Windley
A
A
42.2
43.8
-1.6
21
86-91.5
Plantation
C
B
39.6
41.9
-2.3
22
91.5-99.5
Tavernier -
A
A
47.6
0.6
23
99.5-106
La o
A
A
_48.2
46.0
44.4
1.6
24
106-112.5
Cross
A
E
52.1 -
38.3
13.8
Overall
C
C
46.6
46.4
0.2
Due to construction in 2009 the posted speed limit was changed from 45 mph to 35 mph in some
sections of the following segments:
1.
Stock Island (Segment 1)
2.
Bog Coppitt (Segment 3)
3.
Duck (Segment 15)
4.
Snake Creek Bridge (Segment 21)
5.
Cross (Segment 24)
This caused these segments' medium speed to decrease since year 2008. In Segment 15 and
Segment 21, this action caused the LOS to decrease.
A large part of the traffic in Monroe County consists of tourist travelers, who generally tend to
have a leisurely driving style. The traffic also tends to include a large number of recreational
vehicles. Combined with some slow moving heavy vehicles, the travel speeds tend to go below
the speed limits when there are no opportunities for faster moving vehicles to pass. Such
impacts are evident on 16 of the 24 segments operating below the posted speed limits.
Page 8 of 26
M28082
BOCC: November 17, 2010
I RESERVE CAPACITIES
2 The difference between the median speed and the LOS C standard gives the reserve speed, which
3 in turn can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and
4 corresponding additional development using mathematical formulas. The median overall speed
5 of 46.6 mph compared to the LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of 1.6
6 mph. The reserve speed is then converted into an estimated number of reserve trips. The
7 estimated reserve capacity is then converted into an estimated capacity for additional residential
8 development, assuming balanced growth of other land uses. Applying the formula for reserve
9 volume to each of the 24 segments of U.S. 1 individually gives maximum reserves volumes for
10 all segments totally 86,707 trips. These individual reserve volumes may be unobtainable, due to
11 constraint imposed by the overall reserve volume.
12
13 County regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to meet LOS C standards to
14 receive an allocation not to exceed five percent (5%) below the LOS C standard. The flexibility
15 allows a limited amount of additional land development to continue until traffic speeds are
16 measured again next year or until remedial actions are implemented. These segments are
17 candidates for being designated either `backlogged' or `constrained' by FDOT.
18
19 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
20 Based on this year's results, Big Coppitt (Segment 3), Sugarloaf (Segment 5) and Tea Table
21 (Segment 18) are below the LOS C threshold. However, Sugarloaf and Tea Table have reserve
22 capacity within the 5% allocation and Big Coppitt segment is under construction. Segments that
23 have used -up the 5% reserve trips are restricted from new development or redevelopment, except
24 where redevelopment has no net increase in trips.
25
26 POTABLE WATER
27 Monroe County does not own or maintain a potable water supply or distribution and treatment
28 system. FKAA is the County's provider / supplier and ensures that sufficient supply and
29 distributional capacity is available to serve the current and projected potable water needs in the
30 county.
31
32 The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in the
33 Florida Keys. The Biscayne Aquifer is a shallow groundwater source and FKAA's primary
34 water supply. The FKAA's wellfield is located in a pineland preserve west of Florida City in
35 south Miami -Dade County. The FKAA's wellfield contains some of the highest quality
36 groundwater in the State, meeting all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Laws protect the
37 wellfield from potential contamination from adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's
38 requirements, FKAA is committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water quality
39 standards and requirements.
40
Page 9 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
PLORIDA Kn S AUiiEDUCT AUTHORITY The groundwater from the
TR.","ISaI°" °IsrRINUT(O" 2 welliield is treated at the
S"S7EM UbERV�EMd
45.2 MG STORAGE CAPACITY
3 FKAA's Water Treatment
4 Facility in Florida City,
5 which currently has a
6 maximum water treatment
7 design capacity of 29. Y� LYl�LK ..
�, f�� (" .n.; : FRS 8 million gallons per day
. 3:�%r !Y 9 (MGD). The primary water
10 treatment process is a
r'ff Nl lvflrT KrY Wv{ K I .. VlM.. MR �
11 conventional lime
12 softening/filtration water
K _.,..., .., 13 treatment plant and is
f` �'t er rrrErwurt :v,nr .uaKm�, l • •.. e. ws� ,sr KKnrwK
`' 14 capable of treating up to
TRANM:SS ON BACKPUMPING CAPA4-&S 23.8 MGD from the
C, �L •raK nr. :;°csW MARATHON (})-5 MG TANK
--- STOCK ISLAND (3)— 5 MG TANKS 1 Biscayne Aquifer. The
STOCK ISLAND CTSAL (i)—S MG 4N
secondary water treatment
18 process is the newly constructed Reverse Osmosis water treatment plant and is capable of
19 producing 6 MGD from the brackish Floridian Aquifer. The product water from these treatment
20 processes is then disinfected and fluoridated. The FKAA treated water is pumped 130 miles
21 from Florida City to Key West supplying water to the entire Florida Keys. Including
22 overlapping coverage, the FKAA maintains 187 miles of transmission main at a maximum
23 pressure of 250 pounds per square inch. The transmission pipeline varies in diameter from 36
24 inches to 12 inches. The FKAA distributes the treated water through 690 miles of distribution
25 piping ranging in size from3/4-inch to 12 inches in diameter.
26
27 The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of 45.2
28 million gallons system wide. The sizes of tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 millions gallons. These
29 tanks are utilized during periods of peak water demand and serve as an emergency water supply.
30 Since the existing transmission line serves the entire Florida Keys (including Key West), and
31 storage capacity is an integral part of the system, the capacity of the entire system must be
32 considered together, rather than in separate service districts.
33
34 Also, the two (2) saltwater Reserve Osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock Island and Marathon,
35 are available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants
36 have design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MGD of water, respectively.
37
38 At present, Key West and Ocean Reef are the only areas of the County served by a flow of
39 potable water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of
40 water sources, including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting sites on the
41 open water or from specially constructed fire wells. Although sufficient flow to fight fires is not
42 guaranteed in the County, new hydrants are being installed as water lines are replaced to make
43 water available for fire -fighting purposes and pump station/tank facilities are being upgraded to
44 provide additional fire flow and pressure.
45
46
Page 10 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1 DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER
2
Annual Water Withdrawals 1980 to 2009
Year
Annual
Withdrawal
(MG)
%
Change
Limit
(MG)
WUP
Allocation
(MG)
1980
2,855
-
N/A
N/A
1981
3,101
8.60%
N/A
N/A
1982
3,497
12.80%
N/A
N/A
1983
3,390
-3.10%
N/A
N/A
1984
3,468
2.30%
4,450
983
1985
4,139
19.40%
4,450
311
1986
4,642
12.10%
5,110
469
1987
4,795
3.30%
5,110
315
1988
4,820
0.50%
5,110
290
1989
4,936
2.40%
5,110
174
1990
14,404
-10.80%
5,560
1156
1991
4,286
-2.70%
5,560
1274
1992
4,461
4.10%
5,560
1099
1993
5,024
12.60%
5,560
536
1994
5,080
1.10%
5,560
480
1995
5,140
1.20%
5,778
638
1996
5,272
2.60%
5,778
506
1997
5,356
1.60%
5,778
422
1998
5,630
5.10%
5,778
148
1999
5,935
5.40%
5,778
-157
2000
6,228
10.60%
5,778
-450
2001
5,627
-9.70%
5,778
151
2002
6,191
10.03%
7,274
1083
2003
6,288
1.57%
7,274
986
2004
6,461
2.74% 17,274
813
2005
6,471
0.16%
7,274
803
2006
6,310
-2.49%
7,274
964
2007
51846
-7.35%
7,274
1428
2008
5,960
1.95%
8,751
2791
2009
5,966 10.09%
1
8,751
2785
Source:
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,
2009
The chart and two tables below
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.
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 1"-April 301h) of
17.0 MGD.
In order to meet the
requirements of this limitation,
the FKAA constructed a new
Floridian Aquifer Reverse
Osmosis (RO) water treatment
system. This RO water
treatment system is designed to
withdraw brackish water from
the Floridian Aquifer, an
alternative water source, which
41 is approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treated to drinking water standards.
42 The new RO water treatment plant provides added capability to limit Biscayne aquifer
43 withdrawals and is designed to meet current and future water demands. The RO water treatment
44 system provides an additional 6.0 MGD of potable water.
45
46
Page 11 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
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
Along with the new RO water treatment plant, compliance with withdrawal limits can also be
accomplished by using other alternative water sources (blending of the Floridian Aquifer,
reclaimed water and operation of the RO desalination plants), pressure reduction, public
outreach, and assistance from municipal agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances
(i.e. irrigation ordinance).
FKAA ANNUAL WATER WITHDRAWL
10,000
9,000
0
8,000
c7
7,000
N
6,000
000
41000
31000
2,000
w
1,000
s ,
,
till
4�
f
'
o
co,
Q
v
<v
<v
o
0
0
Annual Withdrawal (MG)
—4— WUP Limit (MG)
WUP REMAINING ALLOCATION
3000
500
,_goo
0
sou
.«,A
-,.000
Page 12 of 26
M28082
Demand for potable water is influenced
by many factors, including the number
of permanent residents, seasonal
populations and day visitors, the demand
for commercial water use, landscaping
practices, conservation measures, and
the weather. In 2009, the FKAA
distributed an annual average day of
16.35 MGD and a dry season average
day of 17.34 MGD as shown in Figure
3.5.
The maximum monthly water demand
of 562 MG shown in Figure 3.5
occurred in March of 2009. Preliminary
BOCC: November 17, 2010
1 figures and projections for 2010 indicate a slight increase to an annual average daily demand to
2 16.58 MGD and an increase in maximum monthly demand to 564.78 MG as compared to 2009
3 figures. Also, Figure 3.5 provides the water treatment capacities of the RO plants. The RO
4 plants do not require a WUP because the water source is seawater. However, the RO plants are
5 available for emergency water supply.
6
Projected Water Demand in 2010 (in MG)
FKAA Permit
Thresholds
2009 Pumpage
2010 Water
Demand
Projected
Annual Allocation
Average Daily Withdrawal
23.98
16.35
16.58
Maximum Monthly Withdrawal
809.01
562.62
564.78
Annual Withdrawal
8,751
5,966.00
6,051.00
Biscayne Aquifer AnnualAllocation/Limitations
Average Daily Withdrawal
17.79
15.9
15.47
Average Dry Season Withdrawal*
17
17.34
16.08
Annual Withdrawal
6,492
5,801.68
5,645.46
Emergency RO WTP Facilities
Kermit L. Lewin Design Capacity
2.00 (MGD)
2.78 (MGY)
0
Marathon RO Design Capacity
1.00 (MGD)
0.00 (MGY)
0
All figures are in millions of gallons
*Dry Season is defined as December thru April
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2010
7
8 The chart below indicates the amount of water available on a per capita basis. Based on
9 Functional Population and permitted water withdrawal from Biscayne Aquifer, the average water
10 available is above 100 gallons per capita (person). The 100 gallons per person per day standard is
11 commonly accepted as appropriate, and reflected in Policy 701.1.1 of the Year 2010
12 Comprehensive Plan. The Per Capita Water Availability Table by KFAA projects a functional
13 per capita water demand of 158.73.
14
15
Page 13 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Per Capita
Water Availability
Year
Functional
Population)
Average
Available Daily
Withdrawal
(gallons)2
Average Water
Available Per
Capita (gallons)2
Actual Average
Daily
Withdrawal
(gallons)2,3
Actual
Average
Water Use Per
Capita
(gallons)2,3
19981
151,163
15,830,000
104.72
15,424,657
102.04
1999
151,396
15,830,000
104.56
16,260,274
107.4
2000
153,080
15, 830,000
103.41
17,063,014
111.46
2001
153,552
15, 830,000
103.09
15,416,438
100.4
2002
154,023
19,930,000
129.4
16,961,644
110.12
20031
154,495
19,930,000
129
17,227,397
111.51
2004
154,966
19,930,000
128.61
17,701,370
114.23
2005
151,227
19,930,000
131.79
17,728,767
117.23
2006
151,189
19,930,000
131.82
17,287,671
114.34
2007
151,151
19,930,000
131.85
16,016,438
105.96
20081
151,114
23,975,000
158.66
16,328,767
108.06
2
H009
151,076
23,975,000
158.69
16,345,205
108.19
2010
151,039
23,975,000
158.73
16,345,210
108.22
Source: 1. Projected Permanent and Seasonal County -wide Population
Update
(1990-2015)- Monroe County Planning Department, 2007
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2010
3. Projected Actual Withdrawal and Per Capita for 2010
Projected Population
Permanent Population
The MCPD permanent population projections include the most appropriate and applicable
information and are viewed as the basis of future projections in this Plan. From 1990 through
1995, the permanent population of Monroe County increased from 78,856 to 79,200 (0.4
percent); from 1995 through 2000, it increased from 79,200 to 79,589 (0.5 percent); and from
2000 through 2005, it increased from 79,589 to 81,701 (2.7 percent). The MCPD data in the
USACE Carrying Capacity Study (USACE, 2003) project a permanent population of 79,589 for
2000; 81,701 in 2005; 83,400 in 2010; 83,799 in 2015; 84,200 in 2020; and 84,603 in 2025.
Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the MCPD permanent population projections. The permanent population
is projected to grow at an overall average rate of 1.2 percent for each 5-year period from 2005
through 2025, with a higher rate (2.1 percent from 2005 to 2010) and a lower rate (0.5 percent)
thereafter as Monroe County nears build -out.
Seasonal Population
The MCPD seasonal population projections in the USACE Carrying Capacity Study (USACE,
2003) also were used to project the seasonal population for Monroe County. Although there are
Page 14 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
I no exact counts of the seasonal population, the MCPD developed historical seasonal population
2 projections for 1990, 1995, and 2000. The MCPD projected that the 1990 seasonal population of
3 70,493 increased by 1.1 percent to a 1995 population of 71,266, and further increased by 3.1
4 percent to a 2000 seasonal population of 73,491.The MCPD continues these seasonal population
5 projections in 5-year increments starting with a seasonal population of 73,737 in 2005; 74,533 in
6 2010; 74,712 in 2015; 74,891 in 2020; and 75,071 in 2025. The seasonal population is projected
7 to increase at an overall average rate of 0.4 percent for each 5-year period from 2005 through
8 2025, with a 1.1 percent increase between 2005 and 2010 and a 0.24 percent increase from 2010
9 through 2025.
10
11 Functional Population
12 The term "functional population" is a concept that incorporates three elements of population:
13 permanent residents, seasonal visitors, and day visitors. Because of the unique nature of the
14 Keys, which has an economy based on seasonal tourism, it is appropriate to use one "population"
15 number that incorporates these three separate population components. In 2004 and 2005, CH2M
16 HILL developed population projections for the FKAA service area. The population projections
17 were based on those developed by the Monroe County Planning Department, and combined the
18 permanent population with the seasonal population to form a "functional population" that was
19 used to estimate water demand.
20
21 FKAA serves three distinct populations: permanent residents, seasonal residents (those residing
22 in the Keys for 6 months or less), and day visitors. The term "functional population" is a concept
23 that incorporates these three elements of population. Because of the unique nature of the Keys,
24 which has an economy based on seasonal tourism, it is appropriate to use one "population"
25 number that incorporates these three separate population components. For this Plan, the
26 functional population value is used in all per capita calculations and estimates. There are
27 approximately 3.6 people per customer account within FKAA's service area using functional
28 population as the basis. Population projections developed by the Monroe County Planning
29 Department (MCPD) indicate that the permanent population for the Florida Keys in 2005 was
30 81,701, and the seasonal population was 73,737. The term "functional population" is a concept
31 that incorporates permanent residents, seasonal residents, and day visitors. The functional
32 population for Monroe County in the year 2005 was 155,438. By 2025, Monroe County is
33 expected to have a permanent population of 84,603, a seasonal population of 75,071, and a
34 functional population of 159,674.
35
36
37
38
39 THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
40
41
42
Page 15 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1 Proiected Water Demand
2 The maximum day projected finished water demands in the FKAA service area are expected to
3 increase from 22.39 mgd in 2005 to 25.09 mgd in 2010, 27.60 mgd in 2015, 29.26 mgd in 2020,
4 and 29.85 mgd in 2025. Projected maximum -day and peak hour demand were also calculated
5 using peaking factors of 1.25 and 1.35, respectively.
6
POPULATION
FINISHED WATER DEMANDS
YEAR
FUNCTIONAL
PER CAPITA
( cd)
MAKDAY
(mgd
AVG. DAY
(md )
2005
155,438
114.08
22.39
17.73
2010
157,933
127.08
25.09
20.07
2015
158,511
139.30
27.60
22.08
2020
1 159,091
1 147.15
1 29.26
23.41
2025
1 159,674
1 149.55
1 29.85
23.88
7
8 Water Supply Recommendations
9 Because of recent regulatory trends, it is unlikely that FKAA will be able to rely on the Biscayne
10 Aquifer, its historical source of potable water, to meet its future needs for additional water. The
11 South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD's) Lower East Coast (LEC) Regional
12 Water Supply Plan (RWSP) (SFWMD, 2005) advocates the use of the Floridan aquifer as an
13 alternative water supply, either for ASR or for direct withdrawals for blending or reverse
14 osmosis (RO).
15
16 IMPROVEMENTS TO POTABLE WATER FACILITIES
17 FKAA has a 20-year Water System Capital Improvement Master Plan for water supply, water
18 treatment, transmission mains and booster pump stations, distribution mains, facilities and
19 structures, information technology, reclaimed water systems, and Navy water systems. The
20 master plan was revised in 2009 to include the critical projects such as:
21
22
TOTAL
CONSULT,
TOTAL
CONST.
CONSTRUC-
ADMIN,
PROJECT
PROJECT
COST
TION COST
LEGAL
CONT.
COST
TIMING
J. Robert Dean WTP Phase I
and Phase II RO Facility,
Floridan Wells Construction
Cost
Floridan Water Supply Well
$5,913,044
$5,913,044
$1,182,609
$1,064,348
$8,160,000
2007-2009
- Phase 14.5 mgd WTP
Three 2mgd wells and one
standby
Floridan Water Supply Well
$1,750,000
$1,750,000
$350,000
$315,000
$2,415,000
2013
- Phase 11 adding 1.5 mgd for
a total of 6 mgd WTP
One additional 2 mgd well
ASR (Cost per FKAA for FY
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
2007
2007 only)
Project Total
$11,575,000
Page 16 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1 The table above shows the schedule and costs projected for the capital improvements to the
2 potable/alternative water systems planned by the FKAA. The total cost of the scheduled
3 improvements is approximately $49 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be
4 funded by the water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants.
5
6 In 1989 FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Upgrade Program to replace approximately
7 190 miles of galvanized lines throughout the Keys. FKAA continues to replace and upgrade its
8 distribution system throughout the Florida Keys and the schedule for these upgrades is reflected
9 in their long-range capital improvement plan. The FKAA's Water Distribution System Upgrade
10 Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of approximately 20,000 feet of water main during
11 fiscal year 2010.
12
13 Additionally, significant improvements have been completed at the water treatment plant and
14 ongoing improvements continue on the transmission and distribution water mains and pump
15 stations. Most notably in 2009 was the completion of the new state of the art reverse osmosis
16 (RO) facility at the Florida City Water Treatment Plant.
17
18 SUMMARY
19 In summary, with the construction of the new water supply wells and RO water treatment facility
20 that will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD, the new reclaimed systems, and the ability
21 to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations, there is an adequate
22 supply of water to meet current and future demand.
23
24 Also, the continued implementation of conservation measures and the continued system
25 distribution and transmission upgrades will help to minimize the projected increase in water
26 demand. A 1.4% increase in demand is projected in 2010.
27
28 The following projects are funded through the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.
29 FKAA's revenues are 53,780,357. The total cost for all FKAA projects for the five fiscal years
30 is $79,886,500.
31
32
1. J. Robert Dean Floridan Wells
2. J. Robert Dean RO Facility
3. J. Robert Dean New Storage Tank
4. Key largo Booster Pump Station
5. Plantation Key Booster Pump Station
6. Marathon Transmission Main Replacements
7. Marathon Booster Pump Station
8. Ramrod Booster PS
9. Upsize Mains
10. Ocean Reef Storage Tank
11. Lake Surprise Pub Station and Storage Tank
12. Rockharbor Pump Station Replacement
13. Rock Harbor Storage Tank
14. Tavernier Pump Station Replacement & Storage Tank
Page 17 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
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
15. Tavernier Water Lines
16. Vaca Cut Storage Tank
17. 33rd Street Storage Tank Replacement
18. Stock Island Pump Station Replacement
SOLID WASTE
Monroe County's solid waste facilities are managed by the Solid Waste Management
Department, which oversees a comprehensive system of collection, recycling, and disposal of
solid waste. Prior to 1990 the County's disposal methods consisted of incineration and land
filling at sites on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe Key. Combustible materials were burned
either in an incinerator or in an air curtain destructor. The resulting ash was used as cover on the
landfills. Non-combustible materials were deposited directly in the landfills.
In accordance with County -approved franchise agreements, private contractors perform
collection of solid waste. Residential collection takes place three times a week (2 garbage/trash,
1 recycling); nonresidential collection varies by contract. The four (4) contractors currently
serving the Keys are:
SOLID WASTE CONTRACTORS
Upper Keys
Middle Keys*
Lower Keys
Keys Sanitary Service &
Ocean Reef Club, Inc.
Marathon Garbage
Service, Inc.
Waste Management of
Florida, Inc.
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2009
*Veolia ES (Onyx) currently serves the Village of Islamorada.
MONROE COUNTY'S LANDFILL AND INCINERATORS
Site
Incinerators
Landfills
Reserve Capacity
(cubicyards)
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
INo Longer Active
0
Unused Site
None
I Currently Inactive 145,000
The County's landfills and incinerators are no longer in operation. The landfill sites are now
used as transfer stations for wet garbage, yard waste, and construction debris collected
throughout the Keys by the four curbside contractors and prepared by WMI for shipment out of
the Keys. However, it is important to note that a second, unused site on Cudjoe Key may be
opened if necessary.
Household hazardous waste is collected at the Long Key and Cudjoe Key Transfer Stations and
the Key Largo Recycling Yard. Hazardous waste from small quantity generators is collected
once a year as part of an Amnesty Days program. An electronics recycling program is conducted
in cooperation with the Household Hazardous Waste collections. Recycling transfer centers have
Page 18 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
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
been established in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. There are three (3) drop off locations:
• Cudjoe Key Transfer Station, MM 21.5
• Long Key Transfer Station, MM 68
• Waste Management Recycling Center MM 100.2
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 LDC. The main
difference is Windley Key is located in the upper keys, but for solid waste accounting, is in the
middle keys district. Layton and Key Colony Beach are incorporated, but included in the middle
keys accounting.
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.
The Department of Agriculture has suspended the County's mulching program indefinitely due to
the presence of Citrus Canker in the Florida Keys. This is a highly contagious bacterial disease
for citrus trees.
The following chart summarizes the past 8 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).
SOLID WASTE
GENERATION BY DISTRICT
Year
Key
Largo
Long
Key
Cudjoe
Key
Total
%
Change
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
1 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%
2008
33,996
28,402
29,190
91,589
-7.00%
A decline shown in 2000 and 2001 is due to a reduction in construction and demolition debris
being brought to the County transfer stations 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. The dramatic decrease in solid waste generation
Page 19 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
could be explained by the downturn of the economy forcing residents to move out of the county
and the decrease in tourism.
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Section 114-2(a)(2) of the Land Development 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 of 2009, 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.
REMAINING CAPACITY, CENTRAL
SANITARY
LANDFILL
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Remaining Capacity
(volume in millions
of cubic yards, ( d3))
34.2
32.3
30.5
31.2
26
22.62
26.91
26.91
Remaining Capacity (years)
14
14
14 1
12 1
7 1
6 1
17 1
17
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 guaranteed capacity.
Ongoing modifications at the Central Sanitary Landfill are creating additional air space and years
of life.
20 WASTEWATER
21 Monroe County is designing and constructing sanitary sewer facilities in order to comply with
22 Chapter 99-395 of the Laws of Florida which require construction of Advanced Wastewater
23 Treatment systems 2015. The proposed service areas for central sewer are based on the results
24 of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan that was completed in June 2000. The level of service
25 for residential and nonresidential flow is 145 gallons per day per EDU.
26
27 Wastewater flow and customer projects were developed from FKAA water use records for the
28 baseline year of 1998 and 10 year (2008) and 20 year (2018) planning horizons. (EXHIBIT 3-6, Sanitary
29 Wastewater Master Plan)
30
Page 20 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
TOTAL ESTIMATED 1998 WASTEWATER
FLOWS
mgd
EDU
gpd/EDU
Total Residential Flow
4.5985
31,847
145
Total Non -Residential Flow
2.5475
17,004
Total Flow (excludes small contributions from
live -aboard flows)
7.1460
48,851
TOTAL ESTIMATED 2008 WASTEWATER
FLOWS
mgd
EDU
gpd/EDU
Total Residential Flow
5.0183
34,613
145
Total Non -Residential Flow
2.6341
17,594
Total Flow (excludes small contributions from
live -aboard flows)
7.6524
52,207
TOTAL ESTIMATED 2018 WASTEWATER
FLOWS
mgd
EDU
gpd/EDU
Total Residential Flow
5.4208
37,343
145
Total Non -Residential Flow
2.7239
18,208
Total Flow (excludes small contributions from
live -aboard flows)
8.1447
55,511
2
3 There are currently four wastewater projects listed in the capital improvements Table 4.1. They
4 are: Big Coppitt, Duck Key, Key Largo and Cudjoe Key Regional Wastewater projects.
6 Big Coppitt Wastewater District consists of the following five service areas: Rockland Gulf,
7 Rockland Ocean, Big Coppitt, Shark Key and Geiger Key. A collection system for each service
8 area will tie into a transmission main along US 1 that conveys the wastewater to the WWTP at
9 MM 8.5. Approximately 80,000 feet of collection system piping, 13,000 feet of transmission
10 main and 25 pump stations will be installed for the project. Total funding for this project is
11 $36,770,400. Funding for this project is received from Funds 310 and 304. Past expenditures
12 amounted to $29,400,163. Duck Key total project cost is $16,428,500. Funds are received from
13 Funds 311 and 304. Prior expenditures amounted to $3,734,185. Cudjoe Regional's total project
14 cost is $3,700,000 and comes from Fund 308. Past expenditures amounted to $3,146,589.
15 Lastly, Key Largo's total project cost is $20,000,000 and revenues are received from Funds 308
16 and 304. Prior expenditures total $7,054,202. Total revenues for the four wastewater projects
17 amount to $76,898,900.
18
19 The Big Coppitt Waste Water Project, Fund 311 received $2,000,000 from Fund 304. Current
20 revenues for this project contain a DEP Grant, A FRUFC Loan, and Special Assessments. The
21 purpose of the Loan Agreement is to construct the collection systems to service Geiger Key and
22 Rockland Key portions of the Big Coppitt Regional Wastewater Treatment System and the South
23 Lower Keys Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The programmed funding was for
24 $21,000,000. In FY 2011, there is $150,000 left on the loan. The DEP grant was approved by
25 the BOCC on March 21, 2007. This grant is to provide construction funds for the Big Coppitt
26 Regional Wastewater System project not to exceed $10,962,000.
Page 21 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
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
Special Assessments total $2,158,324 for FY 2011 only. DEP Grant LP8983 will be used to
fund construction of the wastewater collection system on Geiger and Rockland Keys. On
January 28, 2009, the BOCC approved to execute the Grant. The grant amount was $100,000
plus $33,000 grant match for a total project of $133,000.
Duck Key Wastewater's funding is received from Special Assessments and Fund 311. The
special Assessment refunds equal $5,000 for FY 2011 only. Transfers from Fund 304 of
$14,100,000, will fund construction of a gravity wastewater collection and transmission system
to serve all of the islands of Duck Key. Addition of capacity to the Hawk's Cay Wastewater
Treatment Plant to service Duck Key, Conch Key and Hawk's Cay flows, and upgrade of
treatment to meet advanced wastewater treatment standards. Fund 311 was created on
11/14/2007. The special assessments amount to $39,315 for FY 2011 only.
Key Largo Wastewater funds are received through Fund 308 for total programmed funding of
$20,000,000. The project is for a new wastewater system. Payments for this project are made to
the Key Largo WWTD. Fund 308 Project costs for FY 08 & 09 were $5,853,450. FY 10
expenditure was an estimated $3,992,349. FY 11 proposed budget is $3,100,000. For the four
years project costs were $12,945,799. Fund 304 expenditures were $7,054,202 from FY 05
through FY 08.
The Cudjoe Regional Wastewater project is funded from Fund 308 for a portion of the total
Cudjoe/Summerland Wastewater Project. On May 20, 2009, $3,700,000 was transferred from
the Public Works Compound Project #CG0803.
SOLID WASTE AND DRAINAGE
There is no drainage or solid waste projects report for the next five fiscal years.
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Section 114-2(a)(2) of the Land Development 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 of 2009, 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.
REMAINING CAPACITY, CENTRAL
SANITARY
LANDFILL
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Remaining Capacity
(volume in millions
of cubic yards, ( d3))
34.2
32.3
30.5
31.2
26
22.62
26.91
26.91
Remaining Capacity (years)
14 1
14
14 1
1 1
7 1
6 1
17
17
Page 22 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1 Monroe County has a contract with WMI authorizing use of in -state facilities through September
2 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately eight years of guaranteed capacity.
3 Ongoing modifications at the Central Sanitary Landfill are creating additional air space and years
4 of life.
5
6 PARKS AND RECREATION
7 An annual assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County
8 Code, though it is required for by the Florida Statutes. The following section has been included
9 for informational purposes only. The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational
10 facilities are listed in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
11 However, they are not mentioned in the LDC
12
13 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
14 The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated
15 Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the
16 provisions of resource- and activity -based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided
17 equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are:
18
19 0.82 acres of resource -based recreation area per 1,000 functional population; and
20 0.82 acres of activity -based recreation area per 1,000 functional population
21
22 Resource -based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources of
23 significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity -based recreation areas can be
24 established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other
25 athletic events.
26
27 It is important to note that the subareas used for park and recreational facilities differ from those
28 subareas used in the population projections. For the purpose of park and recreational facilities,
29 the Upper Keys are considered to be the area north of Tavernier (PAEDs 15 through 22). The
30 Middle Keys are considered to be the area between Pigeon Key and Long Key (PAEDs 6 through
31 11). The Lower Keys are the area south of the Seven Mile Bridge (PAEDs 1 through 6).
32 Although the Middle and Lower Keys subareas both contain portions of PAED 6, the population
33 of PAED 6 is located in the Lower Keys subarea.
34
35 An inventory of Monroe County's parks and recreational facilities are listed on Figure 6.1. The
36 facilities are grouped by subarea and are classified according to the principal use (resource or
37 activity). There are currently 97.96 acres of resource -based recreation areas either owned or
38 leased by Monroe County.
39
40 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR ACTIVITY -BASED RECREATION AREAS
41 The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity -based recreational land found at educational
42 facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. There is currently a total
43 98.98 acres of developed resourced-based and 118.25 acres of activity -based recreation areas
44 either owned or leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board.
45
46
Page 23 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES SERVING UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY
Site Name
FacllRles
Classification and Size (acres)
Resource Activity
Upper Keys Subarea
Coral Shores High School
Monroe County Schad District; baseball field, football field, softball field, five (5) tennis courts, and
indoor
10.1
Friendship Park
Two (2) basketball courts, playground, ball field, picnic shelters, public restrooms, and parking.
1.92
Garden Cove
Undeveloped.
1.5
Harry Harris
Two (2) ball fields, playground, restroxxns, picnic shelters, beach, parking (89), and boat ramp.
16.4
Hibiscus Park
Undeveloped.
0.46
Key Largo Community Park
Soccer field, two (2) ball fields, six (6) tennis courts, jogging trail, three (3) basketball courts, roller
hockey, volleyball, skate park, playground, picnic shelters, public restrooms, aquatic center, and
parking.
14
Key Lar o Elementary
Monroe County School District' playground, ball field running track and indoor
3.4
Plantation Key Elementary
Monroe County School Districtplayground, tennis courtbasketball courtand ball field.
1.7
Settler's Park
Playground, ark benches trails and a historic platform.
3
Sunny Haven
Undeveloped.
0.09
Sunset Point
Waterfront ark with a boat ram
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, three (3)
basketball courts and indoor
7.8
Pigeon Key
Historic structures research/educational facilities and a railroad museum.
5
SWtlik Elementary
Monroe County School District; playground, two (2) baseball fields, and shared soccer/football field.
2.5
Subarea Total 5.00 ia3
Lower Keys Subarea
Baypoint Park
Playground, volleyball, bocehi bell two 2 tennis courts and picnic area.
1.58
Bernstein Park
Ball field soccer, basketball courttrack tennis courts playground, restrooms, and volleyball.
11
Big Coppitt Fire Department Playground
Playground and benches.
0.75
Big Coppitt Skate Park
One full court skating rink a single racquetball / handball courtpicnic area
0.57
Big Pine Key Community Park
1 baseball/softball field, one large mufti -purpose field, one basketball/roller-hockey (combination) court,
two tennis courts, one skate park, tm mufti -purpose (handball) courts, four shuffleboard courts, one
playground area six station fitness trail
10
Big Pine Leisure Club
Undeveloped.
1.75
Blue Heron Park
Playground, basketball courtyouth 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
Higgs Beach/Astro City
Five (5) tennis courts, playground, volleyball, picnic shelters, beach area, pier, and public restrooms.
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 Key
Undeveloped.
3.5
Palm Drive cul-de sac
Undeveloped.
0.1
Palm Villa
Plavoround and benches.
0.57
Ramrod Key Swim Hole
Swmminq 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
Undeveloped.
0.13
Watson Field
Two 2 tennis courts ball field playground, and volleyball.
2.4
West Martello
Historic structure.
0.8
West Summerland
Boat Ram .
31.8
Wilhelmina Ha Children's Park
Two 2 playground areas a walking trail and green space.
0.65
Subarea Total In acres
87.17
59.97
UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY TOTAL In acres
97.95
118.25
2 FUTURE PARKS AND RECREATION PLANNING
3 Identifying parks and recreation needs is a part of the on -going Livable CommuniKeys Program.
4 This community based planning initiative looks at all aspects of an area and, among other
5 planning concerns, identifies the parks and recreation desires of the local population. The
6 Livable CommuniKeys Program has been completed on Big Pine Key/No Name Key, Stock
7 Island and Tavernier and partially completed on Key Largo. The LCP from Sugarloaf to Little
8 Torch Key is in process. The Big Pine Key Community Park has been completed.
9
10
Page 24 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
1 ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL RECREATION AREAS
2 The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe
3 County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of resource -based and
4 activity -based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level of service
5 standards." The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be
6 accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6)
7 mechanisms that are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as
8 for providing adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result
9 from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are:
10
11 1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land that is already owned by the
12 county but that is not being used for park and recreation purposes;
13 2. Acquisition of new park sites;
14 3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board that would allow for the use
15 of existing school -park facilities by county residents;
16 4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County that would allow
17 for the use of existing city -owned park facilities by county residents;
18 5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments that would
19 allow for the use of existing publicly -owned lands or facilities by county residents; and
20 6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities that would
21 allow for the use of private park facilities by county residents.
22
23 To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms — acquisition of new park sites
24 and interlocal agreements with the School Board.
25
26 The Parks and Recreation projects are funded with the Impact Fees collected in Fund 131.
27 Current revenues are received from the three park districts. There are currently five projects
28 listed. Bay Point Park, Big Coppitt Park, Palm Villa Park and Watson field are listed on the CIP.
29 Total revenue for the projects is $379,941.
30
31 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
32 The Growth Management Division has one (1) capital improvement project. This project is a
33 four year project. Its end purpose is to update the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
34 Plan. Keith and Schnars, is the consultant for the project. The update of the Year 2010
35 Comprehensive Plan has a project deadline of 2014 and will be funded through ad valorum taxes
36 at $260,000 for each of the four years.
37
38 MONROE COUNTY LAND ACQUISITION
39 The Monroe County Land Acquisition is reports annually on its budget of $9,817,420.00 for FY
40 2011. The Monroe County Land Authority is funded through property acquisitions. The funding
41 provides for the buying of property for conservation lands.
42
43 PUBLIC EDUCATION
44 Subsection 163.3177(12), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department of Community Affairs to
45 provide a waiver to a county and to the municipalities within the county if (a) the capacity rate
46 for all the schools within the school district is not greater than 100 percent, and (b) the projected
Page 25 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
I 5-year capital outlay full-time equivalent student growth rate is less than 10 percent. The data
2 analyzed in The Monroe County School District's Work Plan 2009-2010 capacity rate does not
3 exceed 100 percent and the projected 5-year capital outlay full-time equivalent student growth
4 rate is 0.12%. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 163.3177 (6)(h) 2 and 163.31777, if the
5 local government has failed to adopt the public school facility element and enter into an
6 approved interlocal agreement, amendments which increase residential density may not be
7 adopted. In order for Monroe County to fulfill its requirements, The Board of County
8 Commissioners approved and signed the waiver in 2010 waiving the adoption of a public school
9 facilities element and implementation of school concurrency from the municipalities.
10
11 The Monroe County School Boards annually distributes the 5-Year District Facilities Work
12 Program. The district's facilities work program must be a complete, balanced capital outlay plan
13 that is financially feasible. The School Board's budget for FY 11 is $21,992,852,537. There are
14 two projects having expenditures of $1,746,000.
15
16 RECOMMENDATION
17 Staff recommends APPROVAL to the Board of County Commissioners.
Page 26 of 26 M28082 BOCC: November 17, 2010
ORDINANCE NO - 2010
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING TABLE 4.1 FIVE-
YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OF THE
MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; DIRECTING THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO FORWARD A COPY TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS;
PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
WHEREAS: The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners makes the following
Findings:
Pursuant to Chapter 163.3177 (3)(a)6.(b)1 F.S., the capital improvements
element shall be reviewed on an annual basis and modified as necessary in
order to maintain a financially feasible five (5) - year schedule of capital
improvements; and
2. Pursuant to Chapter 163.3177 (3)(a)6.(b)1 F.S., an amendment to the
comprehensive plan is required to update the schedule on an annual basis or to
eliminate, defer, or delay the construction for any facility listed in the five (5) -
year schedule; and
3. Pursuant to Chapter 163.3177 (3)(a)6.(b)1 F.S., a local government may not
amend its future land use map, except for plan amendments to meet new
requirements under this part and emergency amendments after December 1,
2010, and every year thereafter, unless and until the local government has
adopted the annual update to the Five (5) -Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements and it has been transmitted to the state land planning agency;
and
4. Pursuant to Chapter 163.3177 (3)(a)6.(c) F.S., if the local government does
not adopt the required annual update to the schedule of capital improvements
or the annual update is found not in compliance, the state land planning
agency must notify the Administration Commission that the local government
has a demonstrated lack of commitment to meeting its obligations identified
in the capital improvements element and may be subject to sanctions by the
Administration Commission; and
Page 1 of 4
5. Pursuant to Chapter 163.3177 (3)(a)6.(b)2 F.S., capital improvements
element amendments adopted after the effective date of this act shall require
only a single public hearing before the governing board which shall be an
adoption hearing; and
6. Pursuant to Chapter 164.3177 (b) 1 F. S., Monroe County Capital
Improvements Plan is not required to be financially feasible until
December 1, 2011.
7. Rule 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code requires that the Five (5) - Year
Schedule of Capital Improvements (CIP) be reviewed and updated annually.
8. Objective 1401.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandates Monroe
County to provide the capital improvements necessary to correct existing
deficiencies, to accommodate projected future growth, and to replace obsolete
and worn-out facilities, in accordance with an adopted Capital Improvements
Program; and
9. Policy 1401.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandates Monroe
County to revise the existing County Capital Improvements Program to
incorporate the improvements identified in the Five -Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements included in Table 4.1 of Capital Improvements
Implementation; and
10. Policy 1401.1.2 mandates Monroe County to annually update the
Comprehensive Plan Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, and
further provides that revisions to the schedule shall be incorporated into the
Capital Improvements Program on an annual basis; and
11. Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures 5.0 (1) and (2) of the Comprehensive
Plan requires that the Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (CIP) be
reviewed and updated annually, in order to allocate financial resources to
implement the Plan; and
12. The amendment furthers Principal (a) of the Principals for Guiding
Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: To
strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and
development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives
without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation; and
13. The amendment furthers Principal (h) of the Principals for Guiding
Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: To protect
the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
proposed major public investments, including: water supply facilities; sewage
collection and disposal facilities; solid waste collection and disposal facilities;
transportation facilities; parks, recreation facilities, and other publicly owned
properties; and
Page 2 of 4
14. Annually updating the Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements to
provide and maintain adequate public facilities for transportation, solid waste
removal, sanitary sewers and storm water treatment and, cultural and
recreational facilities protects and promotes the public health, safety, and
welfare of both existing and future citizens of Monroe County.
15. The improvements listed in Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements further the public health, safety, and welfare of both existing
and future citizens of Monroe County.
16. At a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 16th day of November, 2010,
the Monroe County Planning Commission reviewed this matter and
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
amendments to Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Fiscal
Year 2010 through 2015 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The preceding recitals support the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners' decision to adopt the following amendments to Table 4.1
Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Fiscal Year 2010 through 2015
of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. The amended Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Fiscal
Year 2010 through 2015 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan of the Capital
Improvements Implementation Element is hereby adopted and attached hereto
as Exhibit A. Amendments are presented in underline (Exhibit A) to
indicate additions to text and stfiletIffeugh (Exhibit Al) to indicate
deletions. All other words, characters, and language of the comprehensive
plan remain unchanged.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this
ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected
by such invalidity.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the
Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida
Statutes.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of
Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the
Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the
amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes after applicable
appeal periods have expired.
Page 3 of 4
Section 6. This amendment shall be incorporated into the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 171h day of November, 2010.
Mayor
Mayor pro tem
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
:•
AT'TEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
Page 4 of 4
a
a
|
�
f � •
$
%k
k$
« \
�
£
`
!
k
|
�
�
:
!
LA-
3
7
j '
. •
ƒ
,
■
ƒ
El
An Assessment of De Minimis Impact (2009) Along US 1 in Monroe County
A "De Minimis Impact" is an assignment of a development's traffic to a roadway
segment that is not greater than 1 % of the maximum service volume (100%) at the
adopted Level of Service (LOS). A development within "De Minimis Impact" and that
does not exceed the maximum service volume will not require a Traffic Concurrency
Analysis. However, the cumulative impact cannot exceed 10% of the adopted LOS.
Monroe County is required to ensure that the 110% criterion is not exceeded due to the
cumulative impact of developments approved within Monroe County.
U.S. 1 (the Overseas Highway) is the only principal arterial serving people and visitors
in the Florida Keys. Although the Overseas Highway is predominantly an uninterrupted,
two-lane roadway, its uniqueness warrants an alternative LOS evaluation process to
that found in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
The U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study is conducted annually during peak
season to monitor the level of service on U.S. 1 for concurrency management purposes
pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 of the Monroe County
Land Development Regulations. The study utilizes an empirical relationship between
the volume -based capacities and the speed -based LOS. This uniform method was
developed in 1993 and amended December of 1997 by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task
Force to assess the level of service on U.S. 1 in Monroe County. The adopted method
considers both the overall level of service from Key West to the mainland, and the level
of service on 24 selected segments (see Attachment # 1).
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of the Keys
between Key West and Miami -Dade County. Overall speeds reflect the conditions
experienced by long distance trips or traffic traveling the entire length of the Keys.
Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The
segments were defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross -sections, speed
limits, and geographical boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced
during local trips. Both Monroe County and the FDOT have adopted a LOS C Standard
for U.S. 1. Further, 45 mph has been adopted as the corresponding speed of LOS C
Standard for the entire length of U.S. 1, regardless of the posted speed limits. Whereas
the weighted average posted speed limit, presence of signalized intersections and the
traffic flow conditions (free -flow vs. interrupted flow) within a segment dictates the LOS
C standard for that particular segment.
The LOS records for individual roadway segments of US 1 established through the
speed based procedure is used to support the "De Minimis Reporting Requirements" for
U.S. 1 in Monroe County. The `2009 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study'
establishes the most recent LOS record. The `2009 LOS and Reserve Capacity' table is
included as Attachment # 1. Out of the 24 segments 3 segments have exceeded the
LOS C standards. They are:
- Big Coppitt
- Sugarloaf
- Tea Table
De Minimis Impact Monroe Countv
I= Page 1
An Assessment of De Minimis Impact Along US 1 in Monroe County
July 27, 2010
Page 2 of 2
The empirical relationship between the LOS and speed is non -linear. Therefore, the
speed based methodology for determining LOS uses the following formula to establish
the 10% threshold. A negative trip allocation indicates that the segment has exceeded
the 10% threshold.
10% Allocation = (median speed - 90% of LOS C) x 1656 x Length
Trip Length
Roadway
Segment
Median
Seed MPH
LOS C
Seed MPH
Segment
Length(Miles)
Trip Length
(Miles
10% Allocation
# of Tri s
Big Coppitt
42.3
45.2
1.5
10
+402
Sugarloaf
46.8
47.6
4.0
10
+2,623
Tea Table
48.5
50.1
2.2
10
+1,242
The Big Coppitt, Sugarloaf, and Tea Table segments are within the 110% criterion. It
should be noted that although the Big Coppitt segment had exceeded the LOS C
standards, there is on -going construction along this segment during the 2009
evaluation. The travel speeds along the Big Coppitt segment was affected by the
construction activities. Upon completion the travel speeds, hence the LOS along the Big
Coppitt segment is expected to improve.
We conclude that U.S. 1 in Monroe County meets the De Minimis Concurrency
exception.
De Minimis Impact Monroe Conn
Page 2
f-
Z
L1J
S
U
H
O U
o
Q a_
a_
a_
a_
O
i O
v Z
Z
Z
Z
M
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
a -I
uj
o m
O
OLLI
M
N
x
LLI
W
Li.
O
N
O
O
O
7
0)
N
e}
M
V
n
V
O
O
0)
V
V
V
O
M O=
M
N
N
N
N
(O
O
°p
Lc�
M
M
M
Q
O U
H U
O
2. QQ
QQ
QQ
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
0
0
v Z
Z
O
Z
m
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
M
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
J
a
uj
rn
o m
C>
LLI
O
O
>
x
N LLI
W
N N
N
tO
00
0)
00
tt
O
V'
Cl)
00
Cl)
00
O
d'
00
a-
d'
00
�
O
O
d'
EL
N
LO
O
to
O
00
d'
M
LO
O
I--
i-
to
M
M
Lo
F-
a-
to
Lf)N
LO
ti
n�
O
O
tO
O
LO
O
N
LO
11
N
to
O>
N
'd'
N
N
a-
N
N
'd'
to
Cl)
Cl)
O
N
N
a-
OD
X
LU
w LU
W LU
a N
0?
CO
co
O
N
(0
T
N
V
w
M
m
0
M
(0
0.
E
N
N
0)
7
O
N
O
O
6I�
00
00
(n
cn
m
Q
O
U
0
0]
0]
Q
Q
U
0]
0]
Q
U
U
U
U
0
0
0
U
Q
Q
Q
U
JO
Z J _
Q j W L
O
N
M
d'
00
O
O
O
CDej'
N
M
M
M
r!'
tO
00
N
(O
N
O
a-
G (L
d
tG
N
N
(O
i-
Itt
[.-
[.-
[.-
a-
tfj
00
O
a-
a-
r-
00
C
N
M
00
(C
CV
O
LU0. E
LU t y v
Cl)
tO
ej'
tO
t
'IT
'IT
M
LO
LO
Cl)
tO
tO
Lo
0d'
It
'IT
tO
7
a
LU
U
F
Cl) y W CL
O
(O
N
(O
(O
O
U-)
Lorn
M
(O
u)
N
0)
u)
W
u)
7
u)
00
U')U')(O
r-
O I_' E
N
O
(O
m
r
O
O
O.
r
V
O
(O
N
CA
V
(O
(O
(O
W
a J Q: ....
a U
N
V'
IT
IT
V
IT
IT
IT
V'
M
M
V'
M
d
O
d
J
a O Z c
N
r`
O
M¢
a LL LD E
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
(+j
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
N
N
N
Z
N
N
DI
Wmm
Q.
M
7
r-
7
7
(O
O
O
O
O
O
N
7
O
(O
O
(O
O
O
O
.-
7
N
CL
E
00
v
of
u'i
LO
u'i
u'i
u'i
(N
u')
It
LO
m
LO
dt
ui
LO
LO
r.
v
00
m
a "
M
n
v
n
n
v
v
v
v
v
n
n
v
n
n
n
n
U')v
v
v
v
o
w
N
w F
�
CL
E
n
n
n
n
n
n
o
n
n
n
n
o
n
n
d
E
M
V'
(O
�
(O
(O
(O
V'
(O
7
M
LO
u)
V'
V
V
V
V
(O
V
(O
V
(O
d'
(�
V
Lo
(O
(�
co
u)
7
(O
(O
u)
(O
(O
m
(�
(O
V
(O
V
N
V
V
co
co
L
I-- LU
o 0
0 0
C
0-
v
C0 r
U F
Co
u
Lt.
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J J
J
J J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
C
V
4
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N 4
N
N 4
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
4
7
N
c
C
2
c
U
m
(O
00
O
(O
N
M
7
O
W
Cl?
V
O
O
N
CA
CO
O
CO
N
ZE
J
M
to
N
N
N
N
M
f�
O
n
O
N
CA
V
N
7
(O
O7
co
co
00
O f
F
O
O
O
f
O
C
C
co
LO7
Vim'
c
to
O
O
O'
O
O
O
V'
O
M
f\
LQ
C^
O
c
(`
N
LO
N
r
N
CA
co
M
M
O
V'
LO
B
O
O
n
M
C
O7
O
O
0)
L
N
O'
(Mo
cli
a
u�
0)
v
o
v
E
00
rn
rn
o
i
Z
m
U
.Q
�
N
r
OC
=
C
v
O
7
Q)
�
00O
O
LLI
N
U
D_
N
O
N
m
U
T
O_
N
�-
U
m
O
U
_
m
O
O
U
0_
(6
Y
m
~
_N
m
_N
'O
`
m
J
[
@
0
tq
O
m
C
N
tNn
i
U)
U)
m
m
U)
U)
U
U)
o:
F-
co
0
O
0
F-
O
d
F-
Y
U
O F
(O
O
n
CO
CA
O
N
M
V
4
N
N
N
N
N
IL
-
u