The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 090-2013 II • RESOLUTION NO. 090 -2013 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE 2012 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT AS SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES WHEREAS, the annual assessment of public facilities capacity is mandated by Chapter 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC): 1. 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; and 2. 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; and 3. Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners to consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. The County Commission 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; and WHEREAS, once approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, the Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Land Development Regulations require the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an annual assessment of public facilities capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners makes the following findings of facts: 1. The 2012 annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and 2. The 2012 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; and Page 1 of 3 3. Section 114-2 of the Land Development Regulations provides the minimum standards for level of service for roads, solid waste, potable water and educational facilities; and 4. 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 adequate, inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities; and 5. The capacity assessment of transportation facilities is based on the 2012 US-1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS, the County's transportation consultant. Based on the findings of the 2012 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) C; and 6. In March 2009, 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 Floridan Aquifers; and 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 30t ) of 17.0 MGD. The reverse osmosis water treatment system provides an additional 6.0 MGD of potable water; and 7. Enrollment figures for the 2011-2012 through 2015-2016 school years indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2011- 2012 utilization is 63.39% of the school system capacity. 8. Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract authorizes the use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately four (4) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for the next twelve (12) months; and 9. There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage); and 10. The 2012 annual assessment therefore finds that adequate capacity exists for transportation, potable water, education, solid waste, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth through 2013; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: The annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity for 2012 is approved. Page 2 of 3 q � PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of February, 2013. Mayor George Neugent Yes Mayor Pro Tern Heather Carruthers Yes Commissioner David Rice Yes— Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Yes Commissioner Danny Kolhage Yes BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA BY4Y ij Mayor George Neugent • ; �' ` ,;,�:; •r�'=pit ;17 �(SEAL`)_=,a i a. ATTEST, Am Heavilin, Clerk Deputy Clerk MON•' COUNTY ATTORNEY ry •' sVED'ASTO ORM Date: *.-D w t� C. rTl r -")C^I G7 rri Ca O 77, Page 3 of 3 2012 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT hy A' �A ; GROWL-IT MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION POTABLE WATER EDUCATION . SOLID WASTE PARKS AND RECREATION Monroe County planning and Environmental Resources Department 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 I. Growth Management 11 II. Transportation 24 III. Potable Water 37 IV. Education 44 V. Solid Waste 47 VI. Parks and Recreation 51 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Monroe County Land Development(LDC) 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 LDC, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The LDC 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 LDC Section 114-2 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (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. 2012 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Potable water, roads, solid waste, and schools have adequate capacity to serve the growth :anticipated in.20:12-2013 at the adopted level of service standard. The status of each facility is summarized below. Potable Water - In March 2009, 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 MUD: 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. With the construction,of the new:water supply wells:and reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment facility, the new reclaimed systems, and the ability to operate.the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and future demands;:based on current conditions and projections: 3` : .Schools Enrollment figures for the 2011-2012 through 2015-20.16 school years indicate that there is • adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system: -'The overall 2011-2012 utilization is 66..88%of the school system capacity - Solid Waste Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WM1).:The contract authorizes the use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2016, ;thereby providing the County with approximately four(4) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity:for solid waste generation for the next twelve(12)months. Roads: Based on the findings of the 2012 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)C. Compared to last year's (2011). study results, there is level of service changes to four (4) segments—All of which resulted in negative level of service changes. • • 7-Mile Bridge segment(12)_decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C' • The Duck segment(15)decreased from LOS `B' to LOS.`C' • The Sugarloaf segment(5)decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C' • The Tea Table segment(18)decreased from LOS `D' to LOS `E' The biggest difference in speed:change was observed on Segment# 18 (Tea Table MM 77.5 - -MM 79.5), which.resulted in the LOS:change from a `D' to:an `E'. This segment had been at LOS D for the past five years, and reached a critical threshold this year. A similar trend could be observed at the adjacent:Segment # 17 (L Matecumbe MM 73.0 MM 77.5), where the LOS remained at D for the:past three consecutive years. These .two segments are located within the Village of Islamorada and are therefore not subject to the-development restrictions specified within the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Parks:and Recreation There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities(acreage). SUMMARY: Public.facilities within unincorporated Monroe County continue to be adequate: Potable water, solid waste,roads, and schools have sufficient capacity to serve the growth anticipated in 2012 at : -the adopted level of service. 4 INTRODUCTION. . The 2012 Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity is mandated by the Monroe County- Land:Development Code (LDC) Section 114-2, titled Adequate Facilities and'Development Review Procedures. They State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensuring "concurrency" or providing :public facilities in order to achieve and maintain_the.. adopted level of service standard. In other words, local governments must establish regulations to ensure that public facilities and services that are needed to support development are available simultaneously with development impacts. Section 1•14-2(a) 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. Section 414-2(b)(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 :w'ell the water supply facilities, solidi Waste, roads, 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. •Section 114-2(b)(4):requires the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (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-BOCCi this document becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals:will be based for the next year In the event public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS) : , standards required by the Comprehensive Plan:or.the LDC, development activities must conform to special procedures 'to ensure that public facilities are not further .burdened: The :Comprehensive Plan and the LDC clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless = the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. Comprehensive Plan Objective 101.1'states: "Monroe County shall ensure that:at the time a development permit is issued, adequate. public facilities are available to serve the development at the adopted level of'service standards concurrent with the impacts of such development:" . . The LDC; Section 114-2,"Adequate Facilities and Development Review Procedures"states:. "Local governments must establish regulations to ensure that public facilities and services that are needed to support development are available .simultaneously with •. development impacts." - • 5 PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS There are four (4) primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity according to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code (LDC). These facilities 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 LDC sets out a review procedure to be followed when issuing development permits in that area. Section 114-2(b)(5)b of the LDC 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 LDC 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. Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.1 establishes that at the time a development permit is issued, adequate public facilities are available to serve the development at the adopted level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of such development. Roads: The LOS for roads is regulated by the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 301.1.1 establishes the.LOS for County roads. The policy states: "For all County roads, Monroe County hereby adopts a minimum peak hour level .of service(LOS) standard of D, based on the Florida Department of Transportation.(FDOT) methodology for determination of LOS, as measured by peak hour traffic volume. The County shall maintain the level of service on County roads within five percent (5%) of LOS D. Policy 301.1.2 establishes the LOS for U.S. 1. The policy states: "For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C based on the methodology development by the US-1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991, for analyzing the LOS on US-1 in Monroe County. This methodology replaces a peak hour volume standard for US-1. The level,of service on US-1 shall be maintained within five percent(5%)of LOS C. Section 114-2(a)(1)of the LDC pertains to the minimum LOS standards for Roads: 6 • a. County Road 905 within three 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 US.;1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. In addition;the 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 US. 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 that 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 percent below level-of service C; as measured by the U.S..1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. d. Within 30 days of the receipt of the official 1989 FDOT traffic counts of U.S. . Highway: 1 the county shall publish a notice;inforining 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 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. Potable Water: The Monroe County Comprehensive.Plan adopts the LOS=standards and further the LDC regulates. . .. . the source of potable water for development or use. . Objective:701.1 . Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a development.:permit is issued, ;adequate otable::water supply, treatment, and distribution: facilities are available to support the P, Ppy� development at the adopted level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of such development. Policy 701.1.1 -Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective 701.1 :and shall use these: standards as the basis for detemumng facility capacity and the demand generated by a:development. Level of Service Standards 7 1. Quantity: Residential LOS 66.50 gal./capita/day Non-Residential LOS 0.35 gal./sq. ft./day Overall LOS 132.00 gal./capita/day(Ord. 021-2009) Equivalent Residential Unit 149.00 gallons per day (2.24 average persons per household x 66.5 gallons/capita/day) 2. Minimum Pressure: 20 PSI at customer service 3. Minimum Potable Water Quality: Shall be as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Part 143-National Secondary Drinking Standards, 40 CFR 143,44FR 42198) The LDC Section 114-2(a)(3) does not include a LOS standard but requires 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. Solid Waste: The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC require that "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 years from the projected date of completion of a proposed development or use" (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)). Objective 801.1 Monroe County shall ensure that solid waste collection service and disposal capacity is available to serve development at the adopted level of service standards,:concurrent with the impacts of such development. Policy 801.1.1 Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective 801.1, and shall use:these standards as the basis for determining facility capacity and the demand generated by a development. Level of Service Standards: Disposal Quantity: 5.44 pounds per:capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) Haul Out Capacity: 95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs. Duration of Capacity: 8 Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of three (3) years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development.or use. Schools: The Comprehensive Plari does not establish a LOS standard for schools but does include Policy 1301.5.6 which requires the County to coordinate with the District School Board of Monroe County on the siting and expansion of required facilities; LDC Section 114-2(a)(4) requires that school classroom capacity be available to accommodate all school-age children to be generated by the proposed development or use. Parks and Recreation: The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are included in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1201.1.1 Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective 1201.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining recreation land and facility capacity: Level of Service Standards for Neighborhood and Community Parks: 1: 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population of. passive, resource-based neighborhood and community parks; and 2. 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population of activity-based neighborhood and community parks within each of the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys subareas. . An annual assessment of parks:and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County Code, Section 114-2,but data for parks and recreational facilities is provided in=this document. 9 PERMITTING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and Development Review Procedures 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 Monroe County Land Development Code have been revised to account for incorporations of the Village of Islamorada and the City of Marathon. Section 114-2(b)(2) defines the county's unincorporated public facilities service areas: • Upper Keys Service Area: north of the Whale Harbor Bridge; • Middle Keys Service Area: between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor Bridge; and • Lower Keys Service Area: south (west) of the Seven Mile Bridge. The map shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized. MONROE COUNTY .. • II MAP '` L_)�� The Upper Keys Ili MM 112-91 y ! The Middle Keys .'� f MM 91-47 it '•- g "'''‘.' , / icy •o b' di I-11.4 • , .r• °g �°. la ''f• • �'�...., 'mil• -i6� ./*' The Lower Keys �7 MM 47-4 •."•:, �� fir s • . 4A IL • .�'• .2. r. • . • 1 .v e 4 10 I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT GROWTH ANALYSIS This section of the report examines the projected growth of Monroe County's permanent, seasonal and functional population, occupied and vacant housing data, Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) allocations and Building Department permit data. CENSUS DATA The U.S. Census Bureau released 2010 demographic information related to population, housing on March 17, 2011. The following tables provide summary information for Monroe County and the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been included for comparison purposes. The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) declined by 8% (-6,499 people) from the year 2000 to 2010. Total housing units increased by 1,147 units or 2%. The number of occupied units decreased by 2,457 units or 7%. Vacant units increased by 3,604 units or 22%. Census Census Change % Change 2000 2010 POPULATION City of Key West 25,478 24,649 -829 -3.25% City of Marathon_ 10,255 8,297 -1,958 -19.09% City of Key Colony Beach 788 _ 797 +9 1.14% City of Layton 186 184 -2 -1.08% Village of Islamorada 6,846 6,119 -727 -10.62% Unincorporated Monroe County 36,036 _ 33,044 -2,992 -8.30% Total Population (Uninc. County&Cities) 79,589 73,090 -6,499 -8.17% HOUSING UNITS City of Key West 13,306 14,107 +801 6.01% City of Marathon 6,791 _ 6,187 -604 -8.89% City of Key Colony Beach 1,293 _ 1,431 +138 10.67% City of Layton 165 184 +19 11.15% _ Village of Islamorada 5,461 5,692 +231 4.23% Unincorporated Monroe County 24,601 25,163 +562 2.28% Total HousingUnits (Uninc. County& Cities) 51,617 52,764 +1,147 2.22% Total housing units (Uninc. County& Cities) 51,617 52,764 +1,147 2.22% Occupied housing units (Uninc. County& Cities) 35,086 32,629 -2,457 -7.00% Vacant housing units (Uninc. County & Cities) 16,531 20,135 +3,604 21.80% _ % Vacant housing units (Uninc. County & Cities) 32.02% 38.16% 11 POPULATION ESTIMATES Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates. 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. Seasonal population figures are the number of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. They are composed of the tourist population and residents spending less than six months in the Keys. The seasonal population has a higher cyclical demand on public facilities like water, roads and solid waste. The 2010 projected population for unincorporated Monroe County is 70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an increase of 157.5 persons per year through the twenty year planning horizon. Unincorporated Functional Population Estimates and Projections,2010-2030 Unincorporated Functional Population Total Year Unincorporated Lower Keys Middle Keys Upper Keys Monroe County 2010 39,645 2,183 28,980 70,808 2015 40,181 2,212 29,370 71,763 2020 40,592 2,234 29,668 72,494 2025 41,003 2,256 29,966 73,225 2030 41,414 2,278 30,265 73,957 Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates The population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a loss of permanent population. The data suggests the permanent population losses and associate increase in vacant housing units, shifting into an increase in seasonal population. Fishkind & Associates estimates that while permanent population decreases at an average rate of less than one percent every five years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of 2.57 percent every five years; resulting in a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. Overall, functional population or total population for the unincorporated County will increase at an average rate of less than one percent, every five years, in the twenty year planning period. 12 • HOUSING According to the U.S. Census, housing units are broken down into occupied and vacant 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, such as seasonal units.. The table below shows the housing units by status and tenure from the 2009-2011 American Communities Survey. Housing Units by Status:and Tenure by Units in Structure 2009-2011 Monroe County-Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas HOUSING OCCUPANCY Estimates Percent Total housing units 52,730 100.00% Occupied housing units 27,613 52.40% Vacant housing units . . 25,117 ! 47.60% UNITS IN STRUCTURE Estimates j _Percent Total housing units 52,730 100 00%0 1-unit, detached 1 22,129 51.40% 1-unit, attached 4,885 9.30% 2 units i 1,678 3.20% 3 or 4 units 2,422 ' 4.60% 5 to 9 units 3,041 10.to.19 units . I 2,228 I 4.20% 20 or more units 1 3,278 6.20% Mobile home 7,974 15.10% Boat, RV, van, etc. . . 95 0.20% HOUSING TENURE I Estimates -----_i Percent Occupied housing units ! 27613 ' 100.00% Owner-occupied _17,136 62.10% Renter-occupied . :. . I 10,477 ; 37.90% Average household size of owner- occupied unit 2.51_ Average household size of renter- ' occupied unit . . . . 2.72 . 13 RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE:(ROGO) Based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies,the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted:Ordinance 016-1992 on June 23, 1992, creating the Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation System known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO. ROGO was developed to limit the annual amount and rate of development commensurate with the County's ability to maintain its hurricane evacuation clearance time; and to deter the deterioration of public facility service levels, environmental degradation, and potential land use conflicts. It is used as a tool to equitably distribute the remaining number Of permits available both geographically and over time. ROGO allows development subject to the ability to safely evacuate the Florida Keys(the Keys) within 24 hours. The annual allocation period, or ROGO year, is the 12-month period beginning on July 13, 1992, (the effective date of the original dwelling unit allocation ordinance), and subsequent one-year periods. The number of dwelling units which can be permitted in Monroe County has consequently been controlled since July of 1992 (adoption of Ordinance 016-92). Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.2.3 regulate the number of permits issued annually for residential development under ROGO. Monroe County can award 197 allocations per year within the unincorporated area. These allocations are divided between three geographic subareas and are issued quarterly. Each year's ROGO allocation of 197new=units is split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate allocations not to exceed 126 new residential units per year. Rule 28-20.140(b),F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.2.3 state: "The number of permits issued annually for residential development under the Rate of Growth Ordinance shall not exceed a total annual unit cap of 197, plus any available unused ROGO allocations from a previous ROGO year.: Each year's ROGO allocation of 197.units shall be split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate allocations not to exceed 126 residential units per year. Unused ROGO allocations may be. retained and made available only: for affordable housing and Administrative Relief from.ROGO year to ROGO year. Unused allocations for market rate shall be available for Administrative Relief Any unused affordable allocations will roll over to affordable housing.A ROGO year means the twelve-month period beginning on July 13." LDC, Section 138-24(2) establishes-that ROGO allocations are to be awarded quarterly. "Each subarea shall have its number of market rate housing residential ROGO allocations available per ROGO quarter determined by the following formula: a. Market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea per quarter is equal to the market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea divided by four. b. Affordable housing residential ROGO for all four ROGO quarters, including the two available for Big Pine Key, shall be made available at the beginning of the first quarter for a ROGO year." 14 TIER'SYSTEM On September 22, 2005, the BOCC:.adopted Ordinance 025-2005 which amended the" Comprehensive Plan to revise 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 incorporate the Tier System as a basis of implementing ROGO within the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). 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 the Lower Keys (Middle Keys are not included in the ower Keys), Upper Keys, and Big Pine No Name Keys. Tier Ordinance 009-2006 provides vesting provisions and allows for allocation of an annual:cap of 197 residential:dwelling units The Tier.System made changes such as subarea boundary districts for allocation:distribution, basis of scoring applications, and administrative relief. . • During ROGO Year:14 (2004), Ord. 009-2006 was enacted changing the allocation number to`197 (126 market rate 71.iaffordable) pursuant to Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C. The same rule also returned 165 allocations to the County to be used for affordable,housing. • -By ROGO Year 15 (2005), the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the 197 allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations are assigned to:this subarea. BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEYS Efforts to address the development impacts on the habitat of the Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit and the Eastern Indigo,Snake on Big-Pine Key/No Name,Key started in the mid-1-980s. In 1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT) and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which they committed to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for these two Keys The HCP was completed in April, 2003: The Livable.CommuniKeys.Program (LCP), Master Plan for Future Development of Big-Pine Key and No Name.Key was adopted on August 18, 2004 pursuant to Ordinance 029-2004. .The LCP envisioned the issuance of 200 residential dwelling units over 20 year horizon at a rate of roughly 10 per year. .A minimum of-twenty percent (20%).of the 10 units per year are.to be set aside'for affordable housing development(e g:2 units per year set aside for affordable housing.) On June 9, 2006, a Federal Incidental Take,Permit (#TE083411-0, ITP)-froth'the U.S. Federal - Fish and Wildlife Commission was issued:.to: three (3) permitees: 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., . ._ - 15 RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO)ANALYSIS There is a time lapse which occurs between the ROGO allocation date and the permit issuance date. An allocation award expires when its corresponding building permit is not picked up after sixty (60) days of notification by certified mail of the award, or after issuance of the building permit, or upon expiration of the permit. The historic data presented in the table below do not include allocations issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, Islamorada or Marathon. Unincor•orated Coun Market Rate and Affordable ROGO Historical Data Year 1-20 Market 'ate Market Rate Affordable Affordable ROGO Yea ROGO ROGO Housing ROGO Housing ROGO Year 204 204 52 11 (July 14, 1992-July 13, 1993) Year2 243 231 52 9 (July 14, 1993-July 13, 1994) Year 3 246 249 52 10 (July 14, 1994-July 13, 1995) Year 4 245 263 52 40 (July 14, 1995-July 13,1996) r Year 5 215 218 52 23 (July 14, 1996-July 13, 1997) Year 6 211 197 77 56 (July 14, 1997-July 13,1998) Year 7 101 102 30 9 (July 14, 1998-July 12,1999) _ Year 8 127 136 109 66 (July 13, 1999-July 14,2000) Year 9 127 129 224 203 (July 13,2000-July 14,2001) Year 10 102 102 31 58 (July 14,2001 -July 15,2002) Year 11 127 127 31 31 (July 16,2002-July 14,2003) Year 12 127 127 31 21 (July 13,2003-July 14,2004) Year 13 96 96 29 16 (July 14,2004-July 13,2005) Year 14 126 126 236 271 (July 14,2005-July 13,2006) _ Year 15 126 129 49 17 (July 14,2006-July 13,2007) Year 16 126 126 68 100 (July 14,2007-July 14,2008) Year 17 206 242 67 36 (July 15,2008-July 13,2009) Year 18 126 128 71 0 (July 14,2009-July 12,2010) Year 19 126 119 71 0 (July 13,2010-July 12,2011) Year 20 126 92 71 4 (July 13,2011-July 13,2012_) TOTALS 3,133 3,143 1,455 977 Source:Monroe County 2010-2030 Technical Document&Data from Quarterly ROGO Result Reports for Years 18- 20 16 NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO) - Monroe County adopted the Non-Residential Rate of Growth (NROGO) :in.2001 in order to ensure a reasonable balance between the amount of future non-residential development and the needs of a slower growing residential population. Monroe County Comprehensive .Plan Policy 1 01 3 1. ;limits the Coun y's availability of nonresidential square footage that may be permitted. This policy assures that the balance of residential to nonresidential development is maintained. On average, the BOCC-:approves an annual availability of 35,000fe of NROGO floor area allocations. 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." Big Pine and No Name Keys NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the .Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the.Key. Deer and other protected species. The annual maximum amount of nonresidential floor area to be allocated is limited:to a maximum of 2;390 square feet for any one site. - Section 138-51 of the LDC establishes the semi-annual award distribution of NROGO allocations and the annual award allocations on Big Pine Key and No:Name Keys. - LDC, Section 138-51: Annual allocation .. The Board of County Commissioners may make available for allocation all or part of the maximum annual allocation. This:annual allocation:may be.distributed between the two allocation dates. First allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key For the first allocation period (starting ROGO,year 15, quarter 1), the maximum amount of floor area available for allocation shall be based on the number 'of permits issued under the 200 allocations authorized by the Big Pine Key:and No Name Key Community Master'Plan:and the number of ROGO allocations to be made available in the ROGO year 15,beginning July 14,2006. • Separate allocations for Big Pine'Key and No Name Key Allocations for Big Pine Key:and No Name Key shall be administered- and awarded separately from those for the remainder of the unincorporated county ?'p - .17. NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO)ANALYSIS The "maximum annual allocations" and the distribution between the-first and second allocation dates are determined by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and as recommended by Growth Management and the Planning Commission. This provides flexibility and::assures that goals are being met. • A summary of square footage of non-residential floor area previously made available and allocated in the unincorporated Keys from Year 14(2006)to Year 19 (2011)is shown below. NROGO Allocations for Unincorporated Monroe County (Excluding Big Fine/No Name Keys) Year 14 (2006) to Year 20 (2012) Year Amount Available Total Allocations Awarded Year 14 (2006). . . 16,000 sq/ft 12,594.sq/ft Year 15 (2007) 18,000 sq/ft 12,500 sq/ft Year 16 (2008) 35,000 sq/ft 17,938 sq/ft Year 17 (2009) . 30,000 sq/ft 13,056•sq/ft Year 18 (2010). 20,000 sq/ft. 6,355 sq/ft Year 19 (2011) 20,000 sq/ft 6,116 sq/ft Year 20 (2012) 44,700 sq/ft 8,234 sq./ft NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other protected species. The maximum amount of nonresidential floor area to be allocated is limited to a maximum of 2,500 square feet for any one site. A summary of allocations in these environmentally sensitive keys is shown below. NROGO Allocations for Big Pine/No Name Keys Year 14(2006) Year 20 (2012).. Available Number of Year Total Allocations Awarded Applicants Year 15 (2007) 9.082 sq/ft 2 5,000 sq/ft Year 16(2008) 0 sq/ft 2 3,809 sq/ft Year 17 (2009) 5,000 sq/ft 0 . 0 sq/ft. Year 18 (2010) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft Year 19.(2011) 2,390 sq/fl 0 384 sq/ft Year 20 (2012) 2,390 sq.ft. 4 7,500 sq/ft 18 • BUILDING PERMIT DATA There were 3,382 dwelling units that received a building permit from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2011. Of these units, approximately 85 percent were single family homes and 8 percent were mobile homes and recreational vehicles. An average of 307 new and replacement - dwelling units per year were permitted from 2001 to 2011. Of the 3,382 dwelling unit permits issued, 1,172 were the result of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the 3,382 dwelling units permits issued, a total of 3,063:dwelling units received a certificate.of occupancy. . Residential Building Permit Activity,April 1,2000—December 31,2011 . Mobile Total Permits Single Multi Hotel/ Issued Received Year Family Duplex Family Home/ Motel Permits Under CO RV Issued ROGO January 1; 2000- 171 0 35 49 34 289 92 372 December 31, 2000 January 1,2001 157 0 13 55 1 226 118 261 December 31, 2001 .. . • January 1; 2002- 205 0 16 47 1 269 181 243 . December 31, 2002 . .: . . January 1, 2003- 230 0 12 38 28 308 161 290 December 31, 2003 . January 1,2004- 241 0 54 29 0 324. 105 288 . December 31, 2004 . January 1;2005- 362 8 1 .28 0 399 160 288 December 31,2005 . January 1, 2006- 376 0 2 14 0 392 198 289 December 31-,2006 January 1,.2007- 381 0 0 13 0 394 103 317 .December 31, 2007 • January.1, 2008- • 170 1- 4 • . 12 0 187 .45 236 December 31,2008 January I, 2009- - 197 0 0 4 • 0 201 4 140 December 31,2009 January 1,2010- 222 0 0 ' • 5 1 228 5 . 137 • December 31,2010 • January 1, 2011-- 162 0. 1 2 0 165 202 • December 31, 2011 . . TOTAL . 2,874 9 138 296 .65 3,382 1,172' , .3,063- Monroe County Growth Management, September 2012 RV-Recreational Vehicle CO-Certificate of Occupancy . 19 A total of 2,358 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 to 2012. The highest demolition rate occurred in years 2005 and 2006 with 677 units demolished. This accounts for about 16 percent of units demolished from 2001 to 2012. An average of 196 dwelling units were demolished per year between 2001 and 2012. At this time it is not possible to determine, whether a demolition was for a single family, a mobile home, etc. Housing Demolition Year Residential Demolitions January 1, 2000-December 31, 2000 •98 :January 1, 2001-December 31, 2001 . 157 January 1,2002-December 31,2002 140 January. 1.,2003-December 31, 2003 . 143 January 1,2004-December 31, 2004: 218 January 1,2005-December 31, 2005 341 January 1,2006-December 342006 336 January 1,2007-December 31, 2007 . 241 January 1, 2008-December 31,2008 146 January 1,2009-December 31,2009 -129. January 1, 2010-December 31,2010 239 January 1, 2011-December 31, 2011 . 98 January 1, 2012-August 31, 2012 72. TOTAL 2,358 Monroe County Growth Management, September 2012 20 • A total of 642 mobile homes were replaced with a single family dwelling unit; 229 single family homes were replaced with a single family unit; arid 294 mobile homes were replaced with a mobile home. A total of 1,165 replacement units received a certificate of occupancy,from April 1,2000 to end of 2010. Replacement Units Receiving Certificate of Occupancy April 1, 2000-December 31, 2010 SFR Total.Units Year MH to MH to MH to RV Park Model Receiving SFR •• SFR Replacement Replacement a CO April 1,2000- 21 55 21 0 0 97 December 31,2000 January 1, 2001- 11 41 14 0 0 66 December 31,2001 January 1,2001 14 47 18 0 0 79 December 31,2002 January 1, 2001- 27 34 26 0 0 87 December 31, 2003 . January 1, 2001- 85 27 19 0 0 131 December 31, 2004 January 1,2001- 90 28 19 0 0 137 December 31, 2005 January 1; 2001- 136 22 18 0 0 176 December 31,2006 . :January 1, 2001- 143 12 30 0 0. 185 December 31,2007 January 1,2001- 54 18 23 0 0 95 December 31, 2008 January 1, 2001= 30 7 24 0 0 61 December 31,2009 . : January.1, 2001- December 31,2010 31 3 17 0 0 51 Total 642 294 229 0 0 1,165 Monroe County Technical Document July 2011 MH-Mobile Home; SFR-Single Family Residential; CO-Certificate of Occupancy; RV-Recreational Vehicle It is important:to highlight that in the last ten years (2001-2010) a total of 936 mobile home units were replaced. Of the 936 mobile home units replaced, 642 were replaced for single family units. The replacement of mobile home units to single family units represents a 68.5 percent loss of mobile homes to single family units,in the last ten years. 21 II TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Roads are one of the four critical public facilities identified for annual assessment in the Monroe- County Land Development (LDC). .The Comprehensive Plan and LDC regulations require U.S. 1 to remain at a LOS C or higher and that all county roads to remain at a LOS D or higher. The Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary . roads within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT)is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1. - Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies=of U.S. 1 on an annual basis since 1991 The data collection for years 1991 through 1996 was conducted by the Monroe County Planning Department,with assistance from the Monroe County Engineering Department, and the .:. -Florida Department of.Transportation. URS has collected the data for years 1997:through 2012, on behalf of the Monroe County Planning Department with assistance from the agencies identified above. The following are the the travel time/delay data and findings for the year 2012.. The U.S:.,1 Arterial Travel-Time and Delay.Study's primary objective is to monitor the level of service on U.S.. 1 .for concurrency. management purposes pursuant to -Chapter 163, Florida 'Statutes and Section 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. The study utilizes;an empirical relationship between the volume-based capacities and the speed-based level of service (LOS) methodology developed for U.S. 1 in Monroe County, by the U.S. 1 Level of . Service Task Force. A county-imposed building moratorium results when the measured speeds of a seg ment gment OR the overall travel speeds :of the entire U.S. 1 fall below the adopted level of service thresholds; segment level failure result in,building moratorium specific to the area served by that particular segment, and the overall failure would result in a countywide moratorium. Although there have never been a countywide moratorium; Big Pine Key between 1994 and 2002 experienced a localized development moratorium. Due to the significant role of:this study in the County's growth management process, the accuracy of the data collection and the results of this study are quite important. U.S. :1 (the Overseas Highway) is the only principal arterial serving people and visitor§ in the Keys. The unique geography, land use patterns and trip making characteristics of the Florida Keys present a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable,method to assess LOS.:Although U.S 1 in the Florida Keys is predominantly an uninterrupted-flow, two- lane roadway, its-uniqueness warrants an alternative LOS -evaluation process found in the Highway Capacity Manual. .. A uniform method was developed in 1993 and amended December 1997 by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to assess the level of service on U:S. 1. 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 Table 1). . The methodolog y..was developed from basic criteria and . .< principles contained in Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter.8 (Rural Two-Lane 22 Highways) and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of Highway Capacity Manual. The . . methodology establishes a procedure for using travel speeds as;a means of assessing the level of service and reserve capacity of U.S. 1 in the unique setting of the Florida Keys. The travel speeds for the entire 108-mile stretch of U.S. 1 and the 24 individual segments are established by conducting travel time runs_'during the peak season. The peak season, for the purpose of this study,.has been established by the task force as the six-week window beginning the second week of February and ending the fourth week of March. 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. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in unincorporated Monroe County, the movement of long,distance traffic is-an important consideration. Both Monroe, County and the FDOT have adopted a LOS C Standard for U.S. 1. Further, 45 mph has been adopted as the LOS C Standard for the:entire length of U.S. 1 regardless of the posted speed limits. Under the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS:for.U.S. 1 falls below.the LOS C Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed in the Florida 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. 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. A comparison of average posted speed limits and the average travel speeds for individual segments leads to the level of service on the respective segments along..U.S. 1 The difference between the segment travel speeds and the LOS C Standard is called reserve speed. The reserve speed is converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volumes: and corresponding additional development. If the travel speed falls below the LOS C Standard, -.. additional trips equivalent to 5% -of LOS C capacity are allowed, to accommodate a limited amount of land development to continue until traffic speeds are measured again next year or until - remedial actions are implemented. The segments of U.S. 1 that fall below.the LOS C Standard . . are candidates for being designated either backlogged or constrained by FDOT. 3 2 U.S. 1 Segments and Mile Markers Segment Mile Segment Segment Number Marker Segment Name Number Mile Marker Name 1 4-5 Stock Island 13 47-54 Marathon 2 5-9 Boca Chica 14 54-60.5 Grassy 3 9-10.5 Big Coppitt 15 60.5-63 Duck 4 10.5-16.5 Saddlebunch 16 63-73 Long _ 5 16.5-20.5 _ Sugarloaf 17 73-77.5 L. Matecumbe 6 20.5-23 Cudjoe 18 77.5-79.5 Tea Table 7 23-25 Summerland 19 79.5-84 U. Matecumbe 8 25-27.5 Ramrod 20 84-86 Windley 9 27.5-29.5 Torch 21 86-91.5 Plantation 10 29.5-33 Big Pine 22 91.5-99.5 Tavernier 11 33-40 Bahia Honda 23 99.5-106 Key Largo 12 40-47 7-Mile Bridge 24 106-112.5 Cross Key The travel time, delay, and distance data were collected by URS staff The data were recorded by date, day of the week, time of the day, and direction. The field data collection took place between March 1, 2012 and March 14, 2012. Fourteen (14) round trips were made to successfully complete the twenty-eight (28) required northbound and southbound runs. These runs represent a sample of two runs of each day of the week. Every one of the twenty-eight travel time run data sheets was quality checked. The seven-day, 24-hour traffic data were collected in Islamorada, Marathon, and Big Pine Key from March 4 2012 to March 10 2012, concurrently with the travel time runs. Traffic Volumes U.S. 1 is predominately a four-lane facility in Marathon and a two-lane facility in Upper Matecumbe and Big Pine Key. Seven-day continuous traffic counts recorded at three locations along U.S. 1 yielded the following average daily traffic (ADT) and annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes for 2012. These volumes for 5-day and 7-day are averages of the raw volumes counted. The volumes have been adjusted using 2011 seasonal and axle factors to estimate the 2012 AADT's. Location 5-Day ADT 7-Day ADT AADT Big Pine Key (MM 29) 21,056 20,579 18,011 Marathon (MM 50) 34,145 32,985 29,208 Upper Matecumbe (MM 84) 24,561 24,936 21,009 24 • The average weekday.(5-Day.ADT) and.the,average weekly_ (7-Day ADT) traffic.volumes, compared to last year's:data, at Marathon, Upper Matecumbe and Big Pine Key traffic volumes have increased in '2012 (except the;5-Day ADT in Big Pine:Key). Likewise, the AADT have increased(except in Upper Matecumbe), although seasonal factor recorded by FDOT were lower : . compared to:previous year. A detailed historical comparison of the U.S. 1 traffic counts for the • period 1993 to 2012 is presented in Appendix D. A comparison of the most recent seven years of: data is presented-on Table 2 and represented graphically in Figure.1.: U.S. 1 historical traffic growth is depicted in a regression graph anal sis. a .h in Fi y gore 2. A linear. .. regression analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last -eighteen years indicates that statistically:there is virtually no:overall traffic growth within the last 18 years at the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe count locations, whereas the traffic volumes at the Big Pine Key count location have decreased • Overall Speeds Overall speeds are those speeds recorded:over the 108=mile length of US 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. us the only principal arterial in Monroe County, the • :movement of through traffic is an important consideration. The levels of service(LOS)criteria for overall speeds on U.S. 1 inMonroe.County, as adopted by the Task Force, are as follows:; LOS A : 51.0 mph or above .LOS.B 50:9:mph to 48 mph:::' LOS C 47.9 mph to-45:mph LOS D 44.9 mph to 42 mph: LOSE. : 41.9 mph to36mph - - . LOS F below 36 mph Both Monroe County and the FDOT have adopted a LOS C standard for U.S. 1. • 25 U.S. 1 TRAFFIC COUNTS—HISTORICAL COMPARISON 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ok % % % % % Count Change Count Change Count Change Count Change Count Change count change Count Change Big Pine �:. �� ti . 5—Day �. Average 22,451 -7.62% 25,235 12.40% 21,495 -14.82% 21,242 20,651 -2.78% 20,468 -0.88% 21,056 -2.79% 7—Day Average 21,691 -8.82% 25,550 17.79% 20,612 -19.33% 20,656 1 20,115 -2.62% 20,070 1 -0.22% 20,579 2.47% 7 AADT I 18,095 -8.81% I 20,215 11.72% 16,308 -19.33% 16,680 2.28% 17,842 6.97% 17,684 -0.88% 18,011 1.81% i 1 ---.._ Marathon I ' f f i ,:. 5—Day Average 35,388 -5.39% 36,742 3.83% 34,414 -6.34% 34,193 -0.64% 31,883 -6.76% 32,156 0.85% 34,145 5.80% 7—Day Average 33,414 -7.40% 34,811 4.18% 31,731 -8.85% 32,298 1.79% 30,548 -5.42% 31,097 1.79% 32,985 5.72% AADT 27,874 -7.40% 27,542 -1.19% 25,106 -8.84% 26,081 3.88% 27,547 5.62% 27,782 0.85% 29,208 4.88% as i :, �� -'r; "' - ya' l 1'!‘. 5—Day i Average 23,982 -14.29% 27,933 16.47% 23,416 -16.17% 23,071 -1.47% 22,588 -2.09% 24,326 7.69% 24,561 0.95% 7—Day Average 23,916 -13.64% 28,410 18.79% 23,024 -18.96% 23,016 -0.03% 22,634 -1.66% 24,508 8.27% 24,936 1.71% AADT 19,951 -12.98% 23,455 17.56% 19,008 -18.96% 18,585 -2.23% 19,516 5.01% 21,017 7.69% 21,009 -0.03% N Q AADT - HISTORICAL COMPARISON 30000 25000 III aO Q 20000 407 d E > 15000 144 F- 10000 5000 J 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year oBig Pine Key ®Marathon ❑Upper Matecumbe J U.S. 1 Historical Traffic Growth AADT 32,000 — --___ -- ■ • ■ in 30,000 - _ _ i II ■ II i ..a _ - f • 57. 26,000 - - U. Matecumbe Rate of Growth ____ _� - =0.00% per year — m Marathon Rate of Growth • 24,000 - =0.00% per year • 1 • • • ,000 - 4- --- i • i it 4- - a • 20,000 - �a — ._ ♦ ♦ _ • • • 18,000 - - ---- Big Pine Rate of Growth ---1, — - —____ __`___. =-0.85%per year • 16,000 1 - I• 1 I 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year • Big Pine • Marathon • U.Matecumbe 1 ••••••Big Pine Regression Line . 8•••Marathon Regression Line -.U.Matecumbe Regression Line UET120131TTp5MPPEPIDICESWEaE 13 I tV CO The median overall speed during the 2012 study was 47.0 mph, which is 0.1 mph lower than the 2011 median speed of 47.1 mph. The mean operating speed was 46.1 mph with a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 0.5 mph. The mean and median speeds correspond to LOS C conditions. The highest overall speed recorded was 49.2 mph (0.5 mph higher than the 2011 highest overall speed of 48.7 mph), which occurred on Thursday, March 1, 2012 between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 35.6 mph (6.3 mph lower than the 2011 lowest overall speed of 41.9 mph), which occurred on Sunday, March 10, 2012 between 2:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the southbound direction. Segment Speeds 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. 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. The level of service criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County depends on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. The criteria, listed by type of flow characteristic, are summarized below. *oft armor craw. cperl®[Z Qalt771=7®<7 NUBILE 00fO oc—luolorealcar' IS Oath om0=111Ms;iwO0©CB 111=1=Wls = tocaoaauo rifr 2s�-7��uVrriti�Or1-i 101111' "17111 11fd©Ia0C1l11 t11 rc--T-�r._�111 o o r11 r311 o c11 1111 T71T001111111df7 �"T_T! 1�O�a!iL'11r l cam- -sueWirfC1711111C111 UMW oormw-s -f 1Q1111M•in1111 O1<7oRatr'a1rW rl ._.L.=.1 -ram O C71 R71 O r-1 e tt-t�ECM CMOW WW1cnW-111 11 . O____ ____ _^r>11Ot,1tslo ow, Era h Ica cm rum cm rim o____ W 7=- 1 r a w 1A o o rs r7r-'-______TTZ_ tJOtotat'ars ` ri1[r 2 TL �-�0CMf4AQ!! W3 1•77=1•1!"==111111 ICE ICE MI WM Irwin"a7f t_'�CMIC310ESllW'f Ira�.. 1.11=700f0111:111r'7 1[J•11:71AnC !". lL i6 - (ii h, L . ti 1u ► • Wlik Li 41 LA II :-a `I ter •,. Average Travel Speeds And levels Of Service 3 URS 2012 Travel Time Delay Study The median segment speed ranged from 57.0 mph (LOS A) in the Boca Chica segment to 32.0 • mph(LOS B) in the Stock Island segment. The level of service determined from the 2012 travel time'data yield the following level of service changes as compared':to 2011 data: Compared to last year's (2011) study results, there is level of service changes to four (4) • segments-All of which resulted in negative level of service changes: • 7-MileBridge segment(1-2)decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C' • The Duck seg ment(15)-decreased from LOS `B' to LOS 'C' • .: The Sugarloaf segment(5)decreased from LOS 'B'to LOS `C' • The.Tea Table segment.(18),decreased from LOS 'D' to LOS `E' . .. Compared to 2011, the median segment speeds increased in six (6) of the 24 segments:ranging between 0.3 mph to 0.47 Mph. Eighteen(18) segments experienced a decrease in median speeds, • ranging from 005 mph to 4.0 mph. The biggestg g difference in speed'change was observed on Segment" g # 18 (Tea Table MM 77.5 — MM 79.5), which resulted in the LOS change from a `D'.to.an `E'. This segment had been at LOS D for the past five years, and reached a critical threshold this year. A similar:trend could be -. observed at the adjacent,Segment # 17 (L Matecumbe MM 73 0 _.MM 77.5), where the LOS remained at D for the past three consecutive years. These::two segments are located within the Village of Islamorada and are therefore not subject to the development restrictions specified within the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and:Land Development Code. Delay • A delay event occurs whenever the speed of-the-test vehicle fell below"5 mph. The;delay event continues until .the test vehicle's: speed.rose to 15: mph. During the:study, the observers encountered a;total of 135 separate delay-events (a 4% decrease compared to the 2011 study): • Seven (7) of these delay events totaling 30 minutes and 16 seconds were excluded from the overall travel. times and the segment travel times.. The excluded delays were caused by .. nonrecurring events such as accidents and roadside construction. In addition to these seven nonrecurring: delay events, 5 drawbridge delay events were also excluded during':this year's travel times (22 minutes and 18 seconds). However, the drawbridge delay events are accounted in calculating the overall travel speeds: A detailed listing of the:specific sources of-delay is included in Appendix H of this report. A summary of the delay data, compared to last year's data, is provided in Table 3 : The mean delay per trip is the total delay recorded for.a given source divided by the study's 28 one-way trips. The mean delay per trip is found to be 6 minutes and 52 seconds (1 minute and 3' seconds increased compared to the 2011 data). 30 DELAY DATA SUMMARY AND:COMPARISON :: Number of - Total. Excluded Mean Delay Mean Delay Delay . Events: Delay Time:. Per Event Per Trip 2012 : (2011) 2012 (2011) 2012 (2011) 2012 Traffic Signals:' 00100:00 00:00:00 110 118 01:13:34 00:46:14 0 40: 0:24 2:38 1.39. • Drawbridges . 00:22:18 00:15 05 5 2 00:22:18 00:15:05 4:28 7 32 , 0:48 0:32 Congestion: 00:00:00: 00:00:00 13 9 01:06:01 00:08:36 5 05 0 57 2:21 0 18 • Left Turns : .: 00 . 00:00: 00:00 00 .. 0 1 00:00.00. 00:00:11 0.00 011 0.00 0.00 00•'01:29 00•'00:00. School:Related • 3 0 :00:01.29 00 00:00 : 0:30 0.00 0.03 0.00 Construction ` .1 . . 5 00:07:48. 00:28:09 00.07:48: 00:28:09 7 48: 5.38 0:17 1:00 Accidents 3 6 00:20.59 00:49:18 00:20:59 00:49.18 :.7:00 8.13 0:45 1:45 00:52 34 01:32:32 1:15. 1:03 6:52 5 16 Total 135 141 . 03:12:09 02:27:33 Signal Delays The largest single recurring delay: source along U.S. 1. in Monroe County is traffic signals: During the 2012 study 110 (81%).out of 135 delay events:were caused by signals which is 3% lower than the 2011 study. The:signal delays however, accounted for 1 hour 13 minutes and 34 .seconds(44%of total delays)versus 31%in 2011. The mean delay per event for:signals in segments 5, 7, 13, 21,22 and 23 are higher:than the LOS C threshold value of 25 seconds;which is the signal impact discounted in the methodology. • The signal on Big Pine Key segment(Segment 10) caused 9 (8%)signal delay events accounting for 12 minutes and 34 seconds,which is higher to last year's total of 4-minutes and 42'seconds. The signals on Marathon segment:(Segment 13) were the most significant, causing 34 signal delay events (13 less than last year)accounting for 22 minutes and 51 seconds (31% of the total signal delays), which is almost 3-minutes more than the 2011 signal delays in this segment.: The mean delay per:event'at the Marathon signals was higher y than the 25 seconds threshold at 40 seconds. The mean delay,per trip was also higher than the.25 seconds threshold.at 43 seconds. 31 Accident Delay The-accident delays, although nonrecurring,'were the second largest nonrecurring-delay events after draw bridge delay during the 201-2 study. There were 3 accident delays recorded during.the 2012 study accounting for 20 minutes and 59 seconds. The accident delays accounted for:11% of the total delays. The accident delays were excluded from the overall and:segment travel time. Turning Vehicles Delay There was no left-turn delay during this year's study; a significant reduction from 2010 study's 17 delays at 6 minutes and 18 seconds. Draw Bridge Delay Since the reconstruction of the Jew Fish Creek Bridge, the bridge across the Snake Creek is the • only bridge along the entire length of U.S. .1 .in Monroe County'that causes drawbridge delays. The Snake Creek. Draw Bridge (between Segments 20 and 21) created. 5 drawbridge related delays during this year's travel time runs, totaling 22 minutes and 18 seconds. The drawbridge delays were excluded from the segment travel time but included in the overall travel.time. 'Congestion Delay Congestion delays represent the second largest recurring delay events in this year's study. There were thirteen (13) congestion related delay y events this year. totaling 1 hour 6.minutes and 1 second. The congestion delay events contributed an average of 2 minutes and 21 seconds of delay per trip, which is considerably higher than,last year's average congestion delay per trip of 18 seconds. Construction Delay • There was (1) construction delay event in this year's study and it accounted for 7 minutes and 48 seconds. This is a decrease from 2011 construction delays accounting for 28 minutes and 9 seconds. The construction delay reduction is partly due to completion of road work in Marathon (Segment 13). .Sneed Limit The posted speed limits affect 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, however, 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 limit changes. For - . these reasons,the posted speed limit is an important component in this study. A large part of the.traffic in Monroe County consists of tourist travelers, who generally tend to have a le isurely driving style. The traffic also tends to include a large number of recreational. . . 32 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 17 of the 24 segments operating below the weighted average posted speed limits as noted in Appendix G; it is a slight decline from last year's data, which had 14 segments operating below the speed limit. Reserve Capacities The difference between the median speed and the LOS C Standard gives the reserve speed, which in turn can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and corresponding additional development. The median overall speed of 47.0 mph compared to the LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of 2.0 mph. U.S. 1 has a maximum reserve volume for all segments totaling 92,568 trips. County regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to meet the LOS C standards to receive an allocation not to exceed five percent below the LOS C standard. In 2011, there were 2 segments identified to be functioning below the LOS C threshold: the L. Matecumbe (Segment# 17) and the Tea Table(Segment# 18). The following is a detailed summary table displaying levels of service a reserve capacity values for each segment. 33 2012 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND RESERVE CAPACITY . - ADJ. MIMEO U0055N >n12. .. .. 2011 - , SEGMENT LENGTH , FACILITY POSTED STEED FOR LOSC TRAVEL LOS RESERVE MAXIMUM RESERVE 5%ALLOCATION hUUUMUM RESERVE 6%ALLOCATIM 906451 TYPE Limits Avenue SIGNAL CRRERIA SPEH)' SPEED VOLUME -BELOWLOSC VOLUME O9.O10 Los (nil) , (2430) :) m M +1 _, no) OT4X6 (ram! (mil MVO) (A) 187od1141rd(4D-5,0) 1.1 44A1 30/3545 383 NIA • 220 32.0 B , 10D 1.122 • WA 2,131 WA .. 2Boci (5D-9D) 19 _ 4-UO 55/45 57.1` WA 49.6 '570- A 7A . 4,779' WA 5,683 - N/A 3&y Camel(9.0-105) 1.5 24A1 4555 '483 WA. 43.8 45.3 ''C 1.5. 373 WA 522 WA 4 BaddIeburdi(105.165) , 5.8 :241U 4555 •54.1 WA 496 5Z6 B 3.0- 2,831 WA 3,074 • N/A 5S/gMim1(185205) 39 24A) ' 4555 57_1 42 43.4 -• 48.4 C 3.0 1.938 . WA . 1131. ' N/A 6 0.400(20.5.23.0) 25 ' 21A) 45(55 455 N/A 41.0' 45.4 B 4.4 -. . 1322 . WA - 2401 • NIA 7StmmaeAatl(23.0-2503 22 24A) 45 450 N/A_ 405 44.7 B 42 1,530 N/A 2.004 N/A 8 Ra00d125.0.275) 23 241U 45 45D N/A 40.5 45.5 B • • 5.3 2010 WA 2.247 N/A- - 9Tad8(275-295) 21 •'24A) 45 45D - NIA , 405 47.4 A 69 2.411 • - WA 1609 NIA . 104 Ire(295 33D9 34 211U 45 , 45D 34 37.1 392 C 2.1' _ 1.112 N/A 645 WA _ 11 BOO-WO(33,0-40D) 7.0 24AM(7D%). 455055 521 NW D. 53.5 B 5..9 • 6,839 WA ..6713... WA 127-11eBrike(480-471) 6.8 2-W 55 . .55D , NIA 505 ' -535 C 3.0 3.375 WA 5,193 WA 13ItaaDrar(47.9-540) 73 24AI(13%) 35145 422 NIA 22 ]ll A 14.7 17,771 -WA 17,408 NIA - •44/0(87%) - . - 14 Grassy(54.0-605) 54 2451 4555 544 15 48.4 . 51.0 C • 26 ' 2,756 WA 3,074 . 0 15I>Ur*(ED5.63.0) 2.7 241U .' 55 556 NIA 505 • 53.0 C 2.5 _ 1,118 N/A - .1,431 - WA - 18LEV(EGA-73.0) 99 '24N ' 55(45 53.5 NIA ' 49 4.6 B 3.6 5,002 WA 5,246 WA • 17 L I1Ci1Srdle(13.03775) 45 `.24A1 56 ' •55.0' " WA 50S , 492 •D ..-13 (96) - D50 (671) 1196 18 Tea Taal(775.795)_ 22- ••24A1 55145 ; 54.6 :.NIA 50.1 452 .E -4.9 (1.785) • . ' 0' (328) .577 19UItatarmbe1795-846) . 4.1 24/U 45 45.0 WA , 40.5 40.7 C 02 136 WA 151 N/A A W4r0ey(84D•119.0) 1.9 24A)- 45 45D NIA 405 ' 41.3 'C 0.8 . . 252 WA ..W2.... WA 21 Pfati:(M.0-815) 5.8 2W 45.. , 45.0 3.7 . 30.8 ; 41.9 B Si 4,393 . WA ..4,418 - WA 721avvi (015-995) 8.0 44/D 4559 471 21 405 , 40.7. A 82 10,1E1 WA 11.12E N/A 23Ioy Lama 199.5-108D) 69 41/0 35/45 ' 'M.4 , 3.8 383 489 • A 10.6 11,936 - 'WA 9234 .NIA' 24 Cr (106.01125)- 6.2 21A1 35(45955 ':482 WA 43.7 522' • A` 8.5- 0.771 - •WA • , 8.932 NIA OogrSi 1083 45D' 47D . C 2A 37,094 Fife.T-1Abr ooca reA.2 1212017(70ss6$EFD0O1' •r . . . • • • • • • • 34 UMMARY Following is a summary of the 2012 Travel Time and Delay Study results: a) The traffic volumes have generally increased compared to last year. b) The overall travel speed on U.S. 1 for 2012 is 0.1 mph lower compared to the 2011 overall travel speed. c) Compared to 2011 data, the travel speeds on 18 of the 24 segments have decreased. They are: - Stock Island (-1.8 mph) . - Grassy(-0.3 mph) -Boca Chica(-1.4 mph) -Duck(-0.7 mph) -Big Coppitt(-0.6 mph) - L Matecumbe(-0.3 mph) - Saddlebunch(-0.2 mph) -Tea Table(-4.0 mph) -Cudjoe(-1.5 mph) -U Matecumbe(-1.1 mph) - Summerland (-_1.3 mph) -Windley(-1.4 mph) - Ramrod (-0.6 mph) -Tavernier(-0.1 mph) -Torch(-0.7 mph) -Cross(-0.3 mph) - 7-Mile Bridge(-1.6 mph) - Sugarloaf(-0.3 mph) Travel speeds on 6 segments have increased. They are: - Big Pine(+0.5 mph) -Long(+0.4 mph) - Bahia Honda (+0.1 mph) -'Plantation (+0.3 mph) - Marathon(+0.3 mph) -Key Largo(+2.3 mph) 35 d) Compared to last year's (2011) study results, there are LOS changes in four of the 24 segments: - Sugarloaf segment(5) decreased from LOS `B' to LOS.`C' - 7-Mile Bridge segment (12)decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C' - Duck segment(15)decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C' - Tea Table segment(18)decreased from LOS `D' to LOS `E' Segment# 17 (L Matecumbe—MM 73.0—MM 77.5)has remained at level of service D.for the past three years, special attention should be given to this segment. e) There were a total of 135 delay events, 7 of which were excluded due to :their non- recurring nature. The delays due to traffic signals were the largest recurring delay-causing event this year. The traffic signals caused 110 delays, totaling 1 hour, 13 minutes and 34 seconds. The signals caused on average a 2 minute 38 seconds delay per trip, which is 59 seconds more compared to 2011. f) Since the reconstruction of the Jew Fish Creek Bridge,the bridge across the Snake Creek is the only bridge along the entire length of U.S. 1 , in Monroe County that causes drawbridge delays. The Snake Creek Draw Bridge(between Segments 20 and 21 created 5 drawbridge related delays during this year's travel:time runs, totaling 22 minutes and 18 seconds. The drawbridge delays were excluded from the segment travel time but included in the overall travel time. g) The accident delays were the second largest nonrecurring delay accounting for 20 minutes and 59 seconds. The accident delays were excluded from the overall and segment travel times. h) The construction delay was significantly reduced when compared to the 2011 study; this reduction of 20 minutes 21 seconds is mainly due to the completion of road work along Marathon(Segment 13). i) There were thirteen (13) congestion related delay events this year totaling 1 hour, 6 minutes and 1 second. The congestion delay events contributed on average 2 minutes and 21 seconds of delay per trip, which is excessively higher when compared to last year's average congestion delay per trip of 18 seconds. j) 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 eleven segments of U.S. 1 in this category, four more than last year. 36 -Big Coppitt(MM 9.0-MM 10.5) -Duck(MM 60.5-MM 63.0 -Saddlebunch (M1VI 10.5-MM -L Matecumbe (MM 73.0-MM 77.5) 16.5) - Sugarloaf(MM 16.5-MM 20.5) -Tea Table (MM 77.5-MM 79.5) -Big Pine (MM 29.5-MM 33.0) -U.Matecumbe (MM 79.5-MM 84.0) -7-Mile Bridge (MM 40.0-MM -Windley (84.0-86.0) 47.0) - Grassy (MM 54.0-MM 60.5) The,two contiguous segments in the lower keys - Saddlebunch (MM 10.5 -MM 16.5) and Sugarloaf(MM 16.5 MM 20.5) has reappeared this year to make the most of lower keys - from Big Coppitt (MM 9.0) to Sugarloaf(MM 20.5) and the Big Pine Key segment (MM 29.5 MM 33.0) to be within the `area of concern'. Similarly, the Duck Key segment (from MM 60.5 to MM 63.0) has been added this year to make the most of middle keys from Grassy (MM 54.0) to Duck (MM 63.0) ) to be within the 'area of concern'. Approximately 13 mile segment of upper keys from L. Matecumbe (MM 73.0) to Windley .(MM 84.0) continue to stay within the 'area of concern'. The most critical segment of all is the Tea Table(MM 79.5-.MM 84.0)that has no reserve volumes.left to allow any new development that could impact this segment. Road widening.is a typical capacity improvement remedy exercised by most municipalities: In Monroe County, however road widening, specifically along U.S.-1 is restricted by the adopted comprehensive :plan policies to preserve and .protect the fragile ecological conditions. There- are other less intrusive remedies could be explored and evaluated to improve the traffic flow and the capacity of U.S. 1, they include: Identifying strategic locations to add turn lanes. . - Conducting speed studies on selected segment of U.S. 1 to confirm the posted speed limits, and correct, if necessary. Consolidating driveways/access points to reduce/minimize friction. - Enhancing signal timing at existing signalized intersections along U.S. 1 to improve the traffic flow. - Not allowing new signalized intersections along U.S. 1 if there is 'alternative safe access to accommodate the turning movements exist. - Improving the conditions along the county maintained local streets to minimize U.S. 1 being used as the local street. U.S. 1 is a state maintained roadway. Therefore, any modifications/improvements to U.S. 1 have to be developed in collaboration with the Florida Department of Transportation. 37 III.POTABLE WATER The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable,water in the Florida Keys. FKAA's primary.water supply is the Biscayne Aquifer, a shallow groundwater source. 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 all regulatory standards prior to.treatment. 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 FKAA's Water Treatment Facility in Florida City,which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8 million gallons per day (MGD). The, primary water treatment process is a,conventional lime softening/filtration water treatment plant and is capable of treating up to 23.8 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer. The secondary water treatment process is the newly constructed Reverse Osmosis water treatment plant and is capable of producing 6 MGD from the brackish Floridan Aquifer. The product water from these treatment processes is then disinfected and fluoridated. The FKAA treated water is pumped 130 miles from Florida City to Key West supplying water to the entire Florida Keys. 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 of2.0 and 1.0 MGD,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 key FKAA transmission and distribution facilities is shown in Figure 3.1. 38 FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY Figure 3.1 TRANSMISSION &-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OVERVIEW 45.2.MG STORAGE CAPACITY 15. FLORIDA CITY . .. MO,tm0 E 14. OCEAN REEF .. 06TRI6UIIOH �. z2.e m00 we]a%sou,,masn¢IP KAKI 2 70 II' STAnON ,MGI 2 S I PWUP]TYENT PWrt 7 SOO HP PIMPS 1.2 0 PUMPS 7WIM=SASa PwPs :=1 gym` tYg0p107 suKUP , 570� `.. ]mo�. .. • � .r /\16. KEY LARGO 01W3 di0N �� - -. MARATHON a:.. ... 'b � H le STAfKIN I 700 1P PUPS . \S M,� 2 JO MP PUMPS S •�Y f.� 3 700 NP PIMPS 2 STOCK ISLAND +_B!!5 HP PUMP 2 300 HP Pwn s ma - _B.VACA T 12.TAVERNIER +A "'. 2'75 fP �2 50 HP FUM' .. .PUMPS' �J .. 13.HA ROCK RAMROD KEY.. RBOR "' '. 1000 HP POMP 6..BIG PINE KEY 10. CRAWL KEYS -t` +20 ro POMP .1D I eoo IIP PUMP 2 75 HP PIMPS S —2 50 HP PIMPS / 5.SUMMERLAND KEY DUCK TistAki 2!D HP PWPS ��. i KE Y0p PAY TREATMENT PUNT i is HP PMORADA -411111111513... BIG COPPITT KEY MARATHON 2 73 MP PUtlPs - ' LONG KEY 1.0' \ � 3 -431113.- •� ��q I f LITTLE VENICE FA; IAYION 1? F� N'YI TREATMENT PUNT+r++� .. � tlPN TREATMENT PLANT BAY POINT .03!li0 7:MARATHON VAV TREATMENT PLANT ] Y 9th WM%ARATHON 2 500 HP PUMPS ®kill I00PWIS 1 350 HP PUMPS LO _ . STOCK ISLAND TRANMISSION BACKPUMPING CAPABILITIES tle 0ISTICIUSON STA �STOC PNDD(DESAL) MARATHON (1)-5 MG TANK Iss w PINTS STOCK ISLAND (3)-5 MG TANKS STOCK ISLAND DESAL (1)-5 MG TANK Demand for Potable Water The Figures.3.2 and 3.3 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 2009, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the. FKAA's modification of WUP 13-00005-5-W for 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers. As shown in Figure 3.4 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 1n-April 30t) of 17.0 MGD. In order to meet the requirements of this limitation, the FKAA constructed a new Floridan Aquifer Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment system. This RO water treatment system is designed to withdraw brackish water from the Floridan Aquifer, an alternative water source, which is approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat to drinking water standards. The new RO water treatment plant provides added capability to limit Biscayne aquifer withdrawals and is designed to meet current and future water demands. The RO water treatment system provides an additional 6.0 MGD of potable water. 39 Along with the new reverse osmosis water treatment plant, compliance with withdrawal limits can also be accomplished by using other alternative water sources (blending of the Floridan 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). Figure 3.2-Annual Water Withdrawals 2001 to 2011 Annual WUP Limit WUP+/-Annual Year Withdrawal %Change (MG) (MG) Allocation(MG) 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 6,383 2.74% 7,274 813 2005 6,477 0.16% 7,274 803 2006 6,283 -2.49% 7,274 964 2007 5,850 -7.35% 7,274 1428 2008 5,960 1.89% 8,751 2791 2009 5,966 0.09% 8,751 2785 2010 5,919 -0.79% 8,751 2832 2011 6,327 6.89% 8,751 2424 Source:Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2012 I Figure 3.3-FKAA Annual Water Withdrawal 10,000 9,000 4/1 • • • g 8,000 — .a 7,000 ♦ • ♦ • 0 uiTi1ii1iii1iii g f g IN Oa Os o N� N$ N Ng N 8 N N N N I•Annual Withdrawal(MG) —+—WUP Limit(MG) ' J 40 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 2011, the FKAA distributed an annual average day of 15.84 MGD — 16.48 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer plus 1.49 MGD from Floridan RO Production as shown in Figure 3.4. Also, this table provides the water treatment capacities of the RO plants. The emergency RO plants do not require a WUP because the water source is seawater. Figure 3.4-Projected Water Demand in 2012 On MG) 2012 FKAA Water Permit 2011 Demand Thresholds Pumpage Projected Annual Allocation Average Daily Withdrawal 23.98 17.33 17.62 Maximum Monthly Withdrawal 809.01 603.05 596.99 Annual Withdrawal 8,751 6,324 6,431 Biscayne Aquifer Annual Allocation/Limitations Average Daily Withdrawal 17.79 15.84 16.10 Average Dry Season Withdrawal* 17.00 16.48 16.69 Annual Withdrawal 6,492 5,780 5,877 Floridan RO Production Average Daily Withdrawal 6.00 1.49 1.52 Emergency RO WTP Facilities 2.00 0.00 Kermit L.Lewin Design Capacity (MGD) (MGY) 0.00 1.00 0.00 Marathon RO Design Capacity _ (MGD) (MGY) 0.00 Allfigures are in millions of gallons *Dry Season is defined as December thru April Source:Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2012 The maximum monthly water demand of 603.05 MG, shown in figure 3.4, occurred in March of 2011. Preliminary figures and projections for 2012 indicate a slight increase to an annual average daily demand to 17.62 MGD and a decrease in maximum monthly demand to 596.99 MG as compared to 2011 figures. Figure 3.5 provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional Population and average daily demand, the average and projected water consumption for 2011 and 2012 is approximately 106 and 113 gallons per capita(person), respectively. 41 Fi•ure 3.5-Per Capita Water Use Daily Average Per Capita Functional Withdrawal Water Consumption Year Population' (gallons)2 (gallons)2, 2000 153,080 17,016,393 111 2001 153,552 15,415,616 100 2002 154,023 16,962,082 110 2003 154,495 17,228,192 112 2004 154,924 17,652,596 114 2005 156,150 17,730,000 114 2006 155,738 17,287,671 111 2007 155,440 16,017,315 103 2008 154,728 16,285,383 105 2009 155,441 16,345,205 105 2010 155,288 16,210,959 _ 104 2011 156,054 16 540 000 106 Source: 1. Monroe County Population Projections -Monroe County Planning Department,2011 2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2012 Improvements to Potable Water Facilities FKAA has a 20-year Water System Capital Improvement Master Plan for water supply, water treatment, transmission mains and booster pump stations, distribution mains, facilities and structures, information technology, reclaimed water systems,and Navy water systems. 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 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 36,000 feet of water main during fiscal year 2012. The master plan was revised in 2011 to include the critical projects as summarized in Figure 3.6. Figure 3.6 also provides 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 $44 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be funded by the water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants. 42 Figure 3.6-FKAA Projected 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan 2012 2013 2014 2015 _ 2016 Total Water Supply $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000 Water Treatment $80,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $0 $0 $5,280,000 Transmission Mains & Booster Pump Stations $1,000,000 $1,100,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,600,000 Distribution Mains $3,447000 $3,000,000 $3,050,000 $7,100,000 $2,000,000 $18,597,000 Facilities&Structures $500,000 $0 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $4,500,000 Information Technology $2,605,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,105,000 Reclaimed Water Systems $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500000 Navy Water Systems $1,293,000 $663,000 $833,000 $1,008,000 $675,000 $4,472,000 Totals $10,425,000 $9,863,000 $10,983,000 $9,608,000 $3,175,000 $44,054,000 Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2012 SUMMARY In summary, with the construction of the new water supply wells and RO water treatment, the new reclaimed systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and future demands based on current conditions and projections. FKAA will continue to monitor and track conditions and events that could negatively impact the existing water supply. Any such impacts will be evaluated to determine future changes necessary to continue servicing Monroe County with adequate supply. 43 IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 11 public schools located throughout the Keys. School Board data includes both unincorporated and incorporated Monroe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three middle/elementary schools, and four elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields, computer labs, bus service and a cafetorium that serves as both a cafeteria and an auditorium. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums. All three high schools offer a performance auditorium with a working stage. The Monroe County school system is divided into three (3)sub-districts (see map below). School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates. Sub-district 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes the islands that make up Islamorada and Fiesta Key and includes one high school and two elementary/middle schools. 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 three elementary schools. fir R ,. r .� 106 Miles from Key Largo to Key West 1os NW,- Key L Plantation Key School 4. Administration Building 241 Tr unbo Hey West,Fl O MM �. t Stanley Switlik School , $ SO NM Sigsbee .o G • afd dams Eie C1 he 9��-�_�, ',. Poiatci� �• 13" r 44 School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates. The Florida Inventory of School Houses.(FISH) capacity rate is 11,409 students and the Capital Outlay of Full-Time Equivalent (COFTE) is 7,232. The actual utilization during:2012 — 2013 was 63.39%. Overall, the projected growth utilization rate is 6% for the years 2012-2013 through 2015-2016. . ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL LOCATION 2012-2013 . 2012-2013 2012-2013 FISH CAPACITY COFTE UTILIZATION CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH 981 765 78.00% KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH 1,431 ., 1,189 83.00% HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE .1,064 703 66.00% MARATHON SENIOR HIGH. . .. 1,370 622 45.00% GERALD ADAMS 652 .. 462 .. 79.00% PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL 650 43:0 66.00% GLYNN ARCHER ELEMENTARY. 598 311 52.00% POINCIANA ELEMENTARY 641 591 92.00% SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY . 1,239 689 .56.00% STANLEY SWITLIK ELEMENTARY 871 . 479 55.00% KEY LARGO SCHOOL 1;243 852 69:00% TOTAL 11,409 7,232 . .. 63.39% Annually, prior to the adoption of the district school budget, each school board must:prepare a tentative district facilities.work program that includes a major repair and renovation projects necessary to maintain the educational and ancillary facilities of the district. Some of the items listed in the 2012-2013, Monroe County School District Work Plan include HVAC, flooring, roofing, safety to life, sewers projects, and fencing for various schools. Other items include concrete repairs,ADA projects and site drainage maintenance. The 2010-2011 Monroe County School District 1.50 Mill Revenues Source actual value is $9,367,063, The PECO Revenue Source actual budget is $15,223,672 after budgeted projects are completed. PECO maintenance revenue is $70,737. The revenue from capital outlay and debt service is $49,135. Additional revenue sources include proceeds from Y2 cent sales surtax at $14,203,272 and funds carried forward at $8,479,016. The total revenue source for this time period is$42,301;516 and total revenue available is$42,682,288. The total project costs for construction, maintenance, repair and renovation during 2012-2013 is $27,077,844. Plans approved by the school board that reduce the need for permanent student stations such as acceptable school capacity levels, redistricting, busing, year-round schools, 45 charter schools, magnet schools, public-private partnerships, multi-track scheduling, grade level organization, block scheduling or other alternatives. Glynn Archer.School is being moved into the planned Horace O'Bryan replacement. This will free up the old Glynn Archer Campus for other uses. The Monroe County School District is in compliance with the class size reduction requirement. The Board has approved the plan to close Glynn Archer Elementary School in the most recent Plant Survey The property is being considered for Administrative offices and transfer to the City of Key West. SUMMARY Enrollment figures;for the 2012-2013 school year indicates:that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2012-2013 utilization is 63.39% of the school system:capacity . 46 V. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Solid waste management is a critical issue in the Florida Keys. While problems of landfill sitings, . . facilities, financing, and hazardous waste disposal have increased throughout Monroe County; the unique setting of the Keys makes waste management even more difficult. The geographic isolation, the limited land area, the environmental constraints, and the presence of nationally significant natural resources adds to the challenge of responsibly and efficiently managing the Keys' solid waste stream. Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 5.44 pounds per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU) and establishes a haul out capacity of 95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs. The Comprehensive plan requires sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of three years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development of use. The Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC), in compliance with State concurrency requirements, require that, "...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 years from the projected date of completion of a proposed development or use" (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)). This regulation went into effect on February 28, 1988, and serves as a level of service (LOS) standard for solid waste disposal. The LDC also requires that solid waste management plans be completed before any proposed development of a Major Conditional Use is reviewed by.the Growth Management Department Solid waste generation rates and capacity assessments must be submitted for .review and coordination with the Public Works Division, Department of Solid Waste/Recycling (PWD- DSW/R). In 2010, the County provided solid waste service to accommodate 70,808 residents;: FDEP certification of solid waste data for December 31, 2009 is reported to be 73,090 residents in the County. For the purpose of this document,this data will be used as the most recent certified data. 47 The table below summarizes historical solid waste generation for the service area. Solid Waste Generation in Tons per Year FY FDEP Total Recycling Disposal 1998 N/A N/A N/A 1999 N/A N/A N/A 2000 .. 158,327 59,798 131,825 _ 2001 - 125,893 51,435 96,075.: : . 2002 . 134,950 68,738 113,071 _ 2003 134,734 34,619 113,427 : 2004 112,102 13,757 . 110,333 _ 2005 212,470 73,085 212,470 2006 200,338 12,206 200,338 2007 134,467 . . 12,497 134,467 2008 130,245 13,743 130,245 2009 116,884 12,099 95,327 2010 156,465 33,071 . 123,394 Monroe County Technical Document July 2011 . Data collection calendar year is January 1 to December 31. These are scale tonnages. Fluctuations in yearly data may a result of major storm events, economic conditions, : and,other generation factors. FDEP calendar years do not coincide with Monroe County's calendar years,thus creating a differential in datum between departments. . . . The historical solid waste generation values for Monroe County show a steady increase of total solid waste generation between the years 1998-2001. During the period 2002 -2006, the County's solid waste generation was significantly higher. These higher values do not correspond to normal solid waste generation trends within the County and in actuality result from a cluster of outliers. The outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions (greater consumption of goods and services) and storm events that cause a significant amount of over generation due to debris. Furthermore, during the period of 2007-2008,. an economic recession affected" solid waste generation,significantly reducing standard trends for generation growth. The tourism industry in the Florida Keys is another large factor in solid waste generation that needs to be accounted for in projected demands calculations. The Monroe County Tourist Development Council estimated 4.3 million county-wide tourist visits occured in 2011. The County and tourist population is expected to continue increasing,,which will impact solid waste generation within the County. . 48 Solid waste is collected by franchise and taken to the three historic landfill_sites,-which serve as transfer facilities: At the transfer stations, the waste is compacted and loaded:on Waste Management, Inc. (WMI):trucks for haul out. Recyclable materials, including white goods; tires, glass, aluminum, plastic bottles and:newspaper are included as part of the solid waste haul out contract. A recent(2009) amendment to the contract includes.WMI and the County's commitment to increase annual recycling rate to 40 percent by 2014. Solid Waste Transfer Facility Sizes and Capacities Transfer Facility Acreage Capacity Cudjoe Key Transfer Station 20.2 acres 200:tons/day Long Key Transfer Station 29.5 acres, 400 tons/day Key Largo Transfer Station 15.0 acres 200 tons/day Source: .Waste Management Inc., 1991 Any future declines will also reflect the diligent efforts by the citizens of the County:to reduce the amount of solid waste they generate, through the conscious consumption of goods, composting, mulching or other sustainability efforts. Additional factors which are less easily quantifiable could also affect solid waste generation. The amount of construction taking place in the County, and thus the amount of construction debris being disposed of, also significantly affects the total amount of .. solid waste generated. Periods with less construction could have contributed to the decline in total waste generation. Finally, the weather affects the:rate of-vegetative growth, and therefore affects the amount of yard waste generated. Drier years could result in less total waste generation. The analysis below represents a general trend of solid waste generation with respect to functional. population growth. The LOS creates a conservative rate of solid waste generation in comparison to the increasing trend of solid waste generation between the years 1998-2000, thus predicting a comparative or slightly higher annual solid waste production in relation to population. Limitations on future growth should reduce the amount,of construction and:demolition debris:generation. Recycling efforts in Monroe County have increased and should reduce the amount of solid waste generation. 49 • Solid Waste Generation Trends GENERATION' POPULATION2 Year (Tons/Yr) Permanent Seasonal Functional (LBS/CAP/DAY) 2000 158,327 36,036 33,241 69,277 12.52 2001 125,893 36,250 33,263 69,513 9.92 2002 134,950 36,452 33,285 69,737 10.6 2003 134,734 36,543 33,307 69,850 10.57 2004. 112,102 36,606 . 33,329 69,935 . 8.78 : 2005 . - 212,470 _ 37,164 33,351 70,515 16.51 2006 200,338 36,466 _ 34,019 70,485 15.57 2007 . 134,467 35,749 . 34,568 70,317 10.48 2008 130,245 . 34,788 35,550 70,338 10.15 2009 116,884 36,268 35,043 . 71,311 8.98 2010. 156,465 . 35,368 35,440 70,808 12.10 2011 165,675 . 35,917 35,249 71,166 12.75 Source: . 1.Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2. Monroe County 2012-2030 Monroe County Population Projections,Keith& Schnars and Fishkind&Associates, 3-15-11 SUMMARY 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 four (4) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for the next twelve(12)months. 50 VI.PARKS AND RECREATION An annual assessment of parks;and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County Land Development Code;however,data is provided. The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities is provided in Policy-1201.1.i • • of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. . . Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service Standard • .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 . " Resource-based recreation areas are established around existing 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 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS • Monroe County Surplus or Comprehensive Plan Policy 1201.1.1, Existing Demand in Functional: (Deficit)in Parks and Recreation Acreage . Acreage Population 2010 _ creage 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive,resourced-based 138,803 2,502 113.8 136.2 neighborhood and community parks 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive,:activity-based 138,803 4,343 113.8., 320.2` _ neighborhood and community parks .Monroe County Technical Document,Chapter 13,Recreation and Open Space;May 11, 2011, Section 13.5.1..1.2. Therefare approximately 10,000 acres of resource-based recreation lands currently available in the :. County for public use. Removing beaches which are.primarily Federal and State owned from the resource-based lands results in:approximately 250 acres remaining. • 51 Level of Service Analysis For Activity-Based Recreation Areas The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at educational facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. As of May 2011, a total of 98.98 acres of developed resourced-based and 118.25 acres of activity-based recreation areas either owned or leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board. The activity-based recreational facilities that are inventoried include facilities and activities such as baseball/softball, football/soccer, tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic tables and picnic pavilions, volleyball courts, handball/racquetball courts, equipped play areas, multi-use areas, benches, tracks, piers, bike paths, boat ramps, fishing, swimming, swimming pools, barbeque grills, shuffleboard courts,beaches and restrooms. Additionally,other recreation uses and facilities are indicated such as historic structures, bandshells, dog parks, skateboard facilities, aquatic parks, museums, and concessions. The subareas for the park and recreational facilities include the Upper Keys, north of Tavernier; Middle Keys, between Pigeon Key and Long Key; and the Lower Keys, south of the Seven Mile Bridge. The tables below provide resource- and activity-based parks and recreation in acres for the three subarea planning areas. MIDDLE KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING AREA MM 38.5-73 Mile Classification(Acres) Name Location Marker Facilities Resource Activity Sunset Bay Park Grassy Key 58 Beach 0.6 NA Vaca Key Boat ramp, teen club, 2 Yacht Club (1) (Marathon) 54 tennis courts,basketball NA 2 court Beach,picnic pavilions, Sombrero Beach ball field, 2 volleyball (Switlik Park) Monroe County 50 courts, equipped play 0.6 8 area, dog park,pier, fishing, BBQ Old 7-Mile Bridge Monroe County 41-47 Fishing, Bicycling, 5 NA Beaches 7-Mile Bridge Pigeon Key 45 Historical structures 5 NA 52 UPPER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING AREA MM 73-112 Mile Classification (Acres) Name Location Marker Facilities Resource Activity Hibiscus Park Key Largo 101.5 Vacant, inaccessible 0.5 NA (Buttonwood Lane) waterfront Riviera Village Boat basin, four picnic Park Key Largo 105.5 pavilions, 1.8 NA (Bay Drive) Waterfront, benches Garden Cove Park Key Largo 106 Boat ramp 1.5 NA Ball field, 3 basketball Friendship Park Key Largo 101 courts, picnic shelters, NA 2.38 Play equipment, restrooms, trail Key Largo 2 boat ramps,play Community Park- Key Largo 99.6 equipment, aquatic 1.5 13.6 Jacob's Aquatic park, 3 swimming Center pools,beach Varadero Beach Key Largo 95.5 Beach 2 NA Park Beach, two ball fields, play equipment, Harry Harris Key Largo swimming boat ramp, County Park (Tavernier) 94 BBQs, shuffleboard, 2 15.1 beach,picnic tables, restrooms Key Largo Play Equipment,picnic, Old Settlers Park (Tavernier) 92.5 shelter,beach, butterfly NA 3 garden Key Largo Vacant, waterfront Sunset Point Park (Tavernier) 92 1 2 0.9 access, boat ramp Burr Beach Park Key Largo 91 Vacant, waterfront (Sunny Haven) y gaccess 0.1 NA Uper Old State Rte. 4A Matecupmbe Key 82.5 Vacant 0.3 NA Old State Rte. 4A, Uper Hurricane Matecupmbe Key 81 Historical marker 1.2 NA Monument Anne's Beach, Lower Beach, swimming,bike Lower Matecumbe Matecumbe Key 73.5 path, picnic pavilions, 6.1 6 Beach (5) boardwalk 53 LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5 Mile Classification(Acres) Name Location Marker Facilities Resource Activity Picnic pavilions,beach, Little Duck Key BBQs,boat ramp, Veterans Memorial Park (Ohio Key) 40 swimming,beach, 0.6 24.9 restrooms * Missouri Key/South side Missouri Key 39 Roadside pull-off,beach 3.5 NA US 1 Heron Ave./Tarpon St. Big Pine Key 30 Vacant 0.7 NA Historic House, 2 tennis J.Watson Field(Stiglitz courts, volleyball,play ert (2) Big Pine Key 301.2 2.4 Property)y) equipment,baseball, picnic Big Pine Key Park Big Pine Key 30 Vacant 5.5 4.6 Play equipment,3 Blue Heron Park Big Pine Key 30 pavilions, basketball, NA 5.5 volleyball, Bob Evans/Chamber of Big Pine Key 30 Vacant 0.3 NA Commerce Benches, waterfront, Palm Villa Park Big Pine Key 30 play equipment, NA 0.6 basketball • State Road 4 Little Torch Key 28 Boat ramps 0.1 NA Ramrod Key Park Ramrod Key 27 Beach*, swimming 1.2 1.2 West Summerland Park West 25 2 Boat ramps 31.8 NA Summerland Key Play equipment, volleyball, picnic tables, Bay Point Park Saddlebunch Key 15 trail,basketball, 2 tennis NA 1.58 courts, pavilions, soccer nets Boca Chica Beach, S R Boca Chica Key 11 Beach,picnic table* 6 NA 941 (3) Palm Drive cul-de-sac Big Coppitt Key 11 Vacant 0.1 NA Big Coppitt Volunteer Fire Big Coppitt Key 10 Play equipment, NA 0.75 Department Park(4) benches, skateboard Wilhelmina Harvey Park Big Coppitt Key 9.5 Play equipment,path NA 0.65 54 Gulfview Park,Delmar Ave. Big Coppitt Key 10 Boat ramp 0.2 NA Rockland Hammock : Rockland Key 10 Vacant 2.5 NA Play equipment, volleyball,baseball, Bernstein Park . Raccoon'Key 4.5 track,trail, soccer field, NA ;11 tennis courts,basketball, _ restrooms East Martello Park Key West Island 1.5 Picnic, teen center, 14.56 NA Historic Fort . . 1.6 mile beach, concession area,2 band Higgs Beach Park, C.B. shells,pier,picnic KeyWest Island 1 grills Harvey,Rest Beach pavilions and lls 5 5 12.1 tennis courts,playarea, bike path, volleyball, swimming, dog park West Martello Park Key West Island 1 Historic Fort. 0.8 NA Whitehead Street Key west Island 1 Historic.Fort,Museum 0.8 NA Lighthouse . Pines Park(S. Roosevelt) Key West.Island 1 Picnic NA 1..72 (1) The total acreage of the Yacht Club is approximately 6.0 acres. The unique layout of this facility - restricts active recreation to approximately 2 acres partially leased to the Marathon Yacht.Club by Monroe County (2) House and yard_(1.2 acres) owned by Monroe County Additional 2.4 acres leased by Monroe County from the Big Pine Athletic Association. (3) Lands Leased to Monroe County from U. S.Navy (4) Church to west of park has public access 2 basketbaIl, volleyball, and bocce courts.. (5) Beach leased to Village of Islamorada *Denotes approximate acreage;(for beaches the length of the beach x a minimum of 15 ft) Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011 55 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 activit -basedj neighborhood and communi y gh ty 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:. l. , 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 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. . 56