Resolution 340-2015MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION NO" 2015
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE 2014 -2015 MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT AS
SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
WHEREAS, Goal 104 of the Monroe County Comrpehensive Plan requires Monroe
County to provide and maintain adquage public facilities for both existing and future
populations, consistent with available financial resources and other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan; and
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
Page 1 of 3
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 2014 -2015 annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for
roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and
2. The 2014 -2015 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
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. US 1 has an overall level of service of C and an overall travel speed of 45.1 MPH;
based on the 2015 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS, the
County's transpooation consultant; and
6. The Florida Keys Aquaduct Authority water use permit allows an average daily
allocation of 23.98 MGD. The County's average daily water demand in 2014 was
17.47 MGD and the projected 2015 average daily water demand is 17.76 MGD,
providing 6.22 MGD surplus water allocation based on the projected 2015 demand;
and
7. Enrollment figures for the 2013 -2014 through 2014 -2015 school years indicate that
there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2014-
2015 utilization is 70.10% 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, 2024, thereby
providing the County with approximately ten (10) years of guaranteed capacity.
There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for 2015 -2016; and
9. There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage); and
10. The 2014 -2015 annual assessment; therefore, finds that adequate capacity exists for
transportation, potable water, solid waste, and educational facilities to meet
anticipated growth through 2015 -2016;
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
The 2014 -2015 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report , attached
as Exhibit A, is approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 21 st day of October, 2015.
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Mayor Danny L. Kolhage Yes
Pro Tern Heather Carruthers Yes
Commissioner George Neugent Y PG
Commissioner David Rice Yes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor ann . Kolhage
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
PROVED TO FORM:
7 L,-,) .
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
Date
Page 3 of 3
2014 -2015
MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
REPORT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORTATION
POTABLE WATER
EDUCATION
SOLID WASTE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Monroe County
Planning and Environmental Resources Department
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary ....................................................................... ............................... 3
I . Growth Management ....................................................................... .............................13
II . Transportation .................................................................................. .............................?3
III Potable Water ................................................................................... .............................37
IV. Education ......................................................................................... .............................44
V. Solid Waste ...................................................................................... .............................46
VI. Parks and Recreation ........................................................................ .............................50
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Goal 104 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan required Monroe County to provide and
maintain adequate public facilities for both existing and future population, consistent with
available financial resources and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
2014 -2015 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Potable water, roads, solid waste, schools, and parks have adequate capacity to serve the growth
anticipated in 2015 -2016 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 23.98 MGD. The recently completed
water supply wells and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment facility provide an additional
capacity of 6.0 MGD.
The County's 2014 -water demand was 17.47 MGD, with a projected 2015 water demand of
17.76 MGD. This provides a 6.22 MGD surplus water allocation based upon the projected 2015
demand. With the construction of the new water supply wells and reverse osmosis (RO) water
treatment facility and a projected surplus allocation, there is an adequate supply of water to meet
current and future demands, based on current conditions and projections.
3
Schools
The overall 2014 -2015 utilization is 70.10% of the school system capacity. Enrollment figures
for 2014 -2015 indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system.
Solid Waste
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract authorizes the
use of in -state facilities through September 30, 2024, thereby providing the County with
approximately ten (10) 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 2015 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. The overall travel speed on US 1 is 45.1 MPH.
Compared to last study results in 2013, there is level of service changes on eight (8) segments —
five (5) of which resulted in positive level of service changes and three (3) segments resulted in
negative level of service changes (in bold below).
Segment
Number
Segment
Jurisdiction
(county or
municipality)
2013
LOS
2015
LOS
Reserve Trips
Remaining
5%
Allocation
below LOS C
8
Ramrod
County
B
A
2,323
N/A
10
Big Pine
County
B
C
394
N/A
12
7 -Mile Bride
County
B
C
2,703
N/A
15
Duck
County
D
B
1,788
N/A
16
Long
County
C
B
5,902
N/A
18
Tea Table
Islamorada
E
D
(401)
4
19
Upper Matecumbe
Islamorada
D
C
1,494
3
21
Plantation
Islamorada
B
C
1
N/A
Compared to 2013, the median segment speeds increased in ten (10) of the 24 segments ranging
between 0.1 mph to 2.3 mph. Fourteen (14) segments experienced a decrease in median speeds,
ranging from -0.2 mph to -3.3 mph. The majority of the speed reductions were in the middle and
upper keys.
The largest difference and decrease in speed ( -3.3 mph) was recorded on Segment # 20 (Windley
— MM 84.0 to MM 86.0); however, the LOS remained the same at `C'. The largest increase in
speed (2.3 mph) was recorded on Segment # 15 (Duck — MM 60.5 to MM 63.0), which resulted
in a LOS change from `D' to `B'. The removal of the temporary signal at the entrance to Hawks
Cay to manage the Duck Key Bridge rehabilitation is the primary reason for this speed increase.
The rehabilitation project (and the removal of the temporary signal) was completed in the fall of
2013.
4
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 2015-
2016 at the adopted level of service.
INTRODUCTION
The 2014 -2015 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. The 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 114 -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 114- 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 well the water supply facilities, solid 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 BOCC, 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 10 1. 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."
A
PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS
There are four (4) primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity
according to both the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code
(LDC). These facilities are roads, solid waste, potable water and schools (Comp Plan also
includes parks & recreation and sanitary sewer. The County is finalizing the development of
central sewers and is proposing to develop and adopt capacity LOS standards). 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.
►A
Section 114- 2(a)(1) of the LDC pertains to the minimum LOS standards for Roads:
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 U.S. 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
U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service C as
measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology.
b. All secondary roads to which traffic entering or leaving the development or use will
have direct access shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service
D as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis.
c. In areas 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 informing the public of the available transportation
capacity for each road segment of U.S. 1 as described in the county's annual public
facilities capacity report. The available capacity shall be expressed in terms of number
of trips remaining until the adequate 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 is issued, adequate potable water
supply, treatment, and distribution facilities are available to support the 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 determining facility capacity and the
demand generated by a development.
8
Level of Service Standards
1. Quantity:
100 gal. /capita/day*
*Note Based on historical
FKAA, December 2012.
Residential LOS
Non - Residential LOS
Overall LOS
data through December 2011; provided by
66.50 gal. /capita/day
0.35 gal. /sq. ft. /day
132.00 gal. /capita/day (Ord. 021 -2009)
Equivalent Residential Unit
(2.24 average persons per
household x 66.5 gallons /capita/day)
2. Minimum Pressure:
20 PSI at customer service
149.00 gallons per day
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)
Chapter 62 -550 F.A.C.
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.
Snhd W,)�,te-
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 11.41 pounds per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per ERU
(Equivalent Residential Unit)
9
Haul Out Capacity:
95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs.
Duration of Capacity:
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 Plan 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. l 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:
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.
Sanitary Sewer:
The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a capacity LOS standard for sanitary sewers but does
includes treatment standards in Policy 901. 1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan.
10
Policy 901.1.1
Monroe County shall ensure that at a time a development permit is issued, adequate sanitary
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available to support the development at the
adopted level of service standards, concurrent with the impacts of such development. [9J-
5.011(2)(c)2]
Permanent Level of Service Standards
(A) The permanent level of service standards for wastewater treatment in Monroe
County are as provided in House Bill 1993 adopted by the 1999 Legislature.
(B) The County and the State shall actively engage in an educational program to
reduce demand for phosphate products.
(C) The County shall require mandatory pump -out of septic tanks and require regular
reports from qualified contractors to ensure proper septage disposal.
A capacity analysis is not included in this report.
11
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
d,
MAP
S
The Upper Keys
MM 112 -91
The Middle Kev_ s
MM 91 -47
V I
� t 1 ..
The Lower Keys
MM 47 -4
Q ,
A
k
12
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 %.
13
Census
2000
Census
2010
Change
%
Change
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 (Unincorporated 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 Housing Units (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%
13
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 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. According to the American Community Survey, the
2014 population estimate for all of Monroe County (incorporated and unincorporated) is 77, 136.
UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATES AND
PROJECTIONS, 2010 -2030
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.
14
Unincorporated Functional Population
Year
Lower Keys
Middle Keys
Upper Keys
Total
Unincorporated
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
1 41,414
1 2,278
1 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.
14
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 -2013 American Community Survey.
HOUSING UNITS BY STATUS AND TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE
2009 -2013
(Monroe County-Unincorporated And Incorporated Areas)
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
52,748
100.00%
Occupied housing units
28,503
54.00%
Vacant housing units
24,245
46.00%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
52,748
100.00%
1 -unit, detached
27,593
52.30%
1 -unit, attached
4,482
8.50%
2 units
1,954
3.70%
3 or 4 units
2,398
4.50%
5 to 9 units
3,629
5.00%
10 to 19 units
2,090
4.00%
20 or more units
3,366
6.40%
Mobile home
8,126
15.40%
Boat, RV, van, etc.
110
0.20%
HOUSING TENURE
Estimates
Percent
Occupied housing units
28,503
100.00%
Owner - occupied
17,586
61.70%
Renter-occupied
10,917
38.30%
Average household size of owner - occupied unit
2.45
Average household size of renter-occupied unit
2.69
Source: US Censes 2013 American Community Survey
is
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 197 new 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."
16
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
Lower 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 affordable) pursuant to Rule 28- 20.110, F.A.C. The same rule
also returned 165 allocations to the County to be used for affordable housing.
• By ROGO Year 15 (2005), the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the
197 allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations are assigned to this subarea.
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- 1980s.
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) from 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 TTP
ensures that development bears its fair share of required mitigation and that the take of the
covered species is minimized and mitigated.
17
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.
UNINCORPORATED COUNTY MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE ROGO
HISTORICAL DATA YEAR 1 -22
Market Rate
Market Rate
Affordable
Affordable
ROGO
ROGO
Housing ROGO
Housing ROGO
ROGO Year
Allocations
Awarded
Allocations
Awarded
Year 1
204
204
52
11
(July 14, 1992 -July 13, 1993)
Year 2
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)
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, 200 1)
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, 20 10 -July 12, 2011)
Year 20
126
92
71
4
(July 13, 2011 -July 13, 2012)
Year 21
126
43
71
0
(July 13, 2012 -July 13, 2013)
Year 22
126
90
71
9
(July 13, 2013 -July 13, 2014)
Totals
3 5
1 3,276
1,597
986
Source: Monroe County 2010 -2030 Technical Document & Data from Quarterly ROGO Result Reports for Years
18 -22.
18
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 101.3.1 limits the County's availability of
nonresidential square footage that may be permitted. This policy assures that the balance of
residential to nonresidential development is maintained.
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."
Section 138 -51 of the LDC establishes the annual award distribution of NROGO allocations.
Sec. 138 -51 NROGO allocations.
Maximum amount of available floor area for the annual nonresidential ROGO allocations. The
annual amount of floor area available for allocation under NROGO shall be 47,083 square feet.
Beginning NROGO Year 23 (July 13, 2014), this floor area shall be distributed to each of
subareas based on the number of residential dwelling unit permits made available for each of the
subareas, as provided in the following table:
19
Number of
Approximate
ROGO subarea
market rate
number of
Total dwelling
Annual NROGO
units
affordable units*
units
allocation
Upper
61
35
96
22,944 SF
Lower
57
34
91
21,749 SF
Big Pine/No
Name
8
2
10
2,390 SF
Total
47,083 SF
19
NON - RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE ( NROGO) ANALYSIS
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 22 (2014) is shown below.
NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED MONROE
COUNTY YEAR 14 (2006) TO YEAR 22 (2014)
(Excluding Big Pine & No Name Key)
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 s /ft
Year 16 (2008)
35,000 sq /ft
17,938 sq /ft
Year 17 (2009)
30,000 s /ft
13,056 s /ft
Year 18 (2010)
20,000 s /ft
6,355 s /ft
Year 19 (2011)
20,000 s /ft
6,116 sq /ft
Year 20 (2012)
44,700 sq /ft
8,234 sq. /ft
Year 21 (;0 13)
44,700 sq /ft
2,500 sq /ft
Year 22 (2014)
44,700 sq /ft
7,395 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 and the USFWS issued
Incidental Take Permit (ITP). Annually the amount of new nonresidential floor area allocated to
the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is 2,390 square feet. A summary of allocations in these
environmentally sensitive keys is shown below.
NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR BIG PINE/NO NAME KEYS
YEAR 14 (2006) — YEAR 22 (2014)
Year
Available
Number of
Applicants
Total Allocations
Awarded
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 s /ft
Year 18 (2010)
2,390 sq /ft
0
0 s /ft
Year 19 (2011)
2,390 sq /ft
0
384 s /ft
Year 20 (2012)
2,390 sq.ft.
4
7,500 sq /ft
Year 21 (2013)
6,729 sq /ft
3
5,240 sq /ft
Year 22 (2014)
2,390 sq /ft
1
1,011sq /ft
20
BUILDING PERMIT DATA
There were 3,994 dwelling units that received a building permit from January 1, 2000 to
December 31, 2014. Of these units, approximately 85 percent were single family homes and 9
percent were mobile homes and recreational vehicles (RV). An average of 266 new and
replacement dwelling units per year were permitted from 2000 to 2014. Of the 3,994 dwelling unit
permits issued, 1,708 were the result of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the 3,994 dwelling units
permits issued, a total of 3,620 dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY, JANUARY 1, 2000 - DECEMBER 31, 2014
Mobile
Total
Permits
Year
Single
Duplex
Multi
Home /
Hotel /
Permits
Issued
Received
Family
Family
RV
Motel
Issued
Under
CO
ROGO
January 1, 2000-
December 31, 2000
169
0
35
49
34
287
92
372
January 1, 2001-
153
0
13
55
1
222
118
261
December 31, 2001
January 1, 2002-
200
0
16
47
1
264
181
243
December 31, 2002
January 1, 2003-
December 31, 2003
228
0
12
38
28
306
161
290
January 1, 2004-
241
0
54
29
0
324
105
288
December 31, 2004
January 1, 2005-
December 31, 2005
361
8
2
28
0
399
160
288
January 1, 2006-
376
0
2
14
0
392
198
289
December 31, 2006
January 1, 2007-
380
0
0
13
0
393
103
317
December 31, 2007
January 1, 2008-
168
1
3
12
0
184
45
236
December 31, 2008
January 1, 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
0
2
0
164
165
202
December 31, 2011
January 1, 2012-
109
0
12
7
0
128
175
218
December 31, 2012
January 1, 2013-
174
0
0
25
0
199
103
144
December 31, 2013
January 1, 2014-
256
0
1
46
0
303
93
195
December 31, 2014
TOTAL 1
3,396 1
9 1
150 1
374 1
65
3,994
1,708
3,620
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, September 2015
21
A total of 2,642 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 to December 31, 2014. The highest
demolition rate occurred in years 2005 and 2006 with 677 units demolished. This accounts for
about 26 percent of units demolished from 2001 to 2014. An average of 176 dwelling units was
demolished per year between 2001 and 2014. At this time it is not possible to determine, whether a
demolition was for a single family, a mobile home, etc.
HOUSING DEMOLITION PERMITS
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 31, 2006
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
96
January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012
106
January 1, 2013- December 31, 2013
120
January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
132
TOTAL
2,642
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, September 2015
22
II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Roads are one of the 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 2013,
on behalf of the Monroe County Planning Department with assistance from the agencies
identified above. The following are the travel time /delay data and findings for the year 2013.
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 segment 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
significant.
U.S. 1 (the Overseas Highway) is the only principal arterial serving people and visitors 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 than 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 methodology was developed from basic criteria and
principles contained in Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two -Lane
Highways) and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of 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.
23
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.
U.S.1 Segments and Mile Markers
Segment
Number
Mile
Marker
Segment
Name
Segment
Number
Mile
Marker
Segment
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
Lower Matecumbe
6
20.5 -23
Cudjoe
18
77.5 -79.5
Tea Table
7
23 -25
Summerland
19
79.5 -84
Upper 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
24
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 and March 14, 2014. 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 3, 2015 to March 9, 2015, 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 2013. These volumes for 5 -day and 7 -day are averages of the raw volumes
counted. The volumes have been adjusted using 2014 seasonal and axle factors to estimate the
2013 AADT's. The traffic counts were recorded between March 3, 2015 and March 9, 2015.
LOCATION
5 -DAY ADT
7 -DAY ADT
AADT
Big Pine Key (MM 29)
22,833
22,106
20,139
Marathon (MM 50)
38,824
38,144
34,243
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84)
26,079
25,817
23,002
The average weekday (5 -Day ADT) and the average weekly (7 -Day ADT) traffic volumes,
compared to 2013 data, at Marathon, Upper Matecumbe and Big Pine Key have increased in
2015. Likewise, the AADT have increased. The seasonal factor recorded by FDOT has not
changed from 2013 while the axle factor is minimally higher. A detailed historical comparison of
the U.S. 1 traffic counts for the period 1993 to 2015 is presented in Appendix D. A comparison
of the most recent seven years of data is presented on Table 3 and represented graphically in
Figure 1.
U.S. 1 historical traffic growth is depicted in a regression analysis graph in Figure 2. A linear
regression analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last twenty two years
indicates that statistically there is virtually no overall traffic growth within at the Marathon and
Upper Matecumbe count locations with a slight decreasing trend in traffic volumes at Big Pine
Key.
25
Overall Seeds
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108 -mile length of US 1 in the Keys between
Key West and Miami -Dade County line. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced
during long distance or through trips. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in Monroe
County, the movement of through traffic is an important consideration.
The levels of service (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe 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
LOS E
41.9 mph to 36 mph
LOS F
below 36 mph
Both Monroe County and the FDOT have adopted a LOS C standard for U.S. 1.
The median overall speed during the 2015 study was 45.1 mph, which is .8 mph lower than the
2013 median speed of 45.9 mph. The mean operating speed was 44.8 mph with a 95%
confidence interval of plus or minus 0.8 mph. The mean and median speeds correspond to LOS
C conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 49.1 mph (0.7 mph higher than
the 2013 highest overall speed of 48.4 mph), which occurred on Monday, March 2, 2015
between 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded
was 39.4 mph (1.8 mph lower than the 2013 lowest overall speed of 41.2 mph), which occurred
on Saturday, March 14, 2015 between 2:45 p.m. and 6:15 p.m. in the southbound direction.
26
U.S. 1 TRAFFIC COUNTS - HISTORICAL COMPARISON
Source: 2015 — U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study -URS
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2015
Count
Change
Count
Change
I Count
Change
Count
Change
Count
Change
Count
Change
Count
Chan
Big Pile
5 - Day
AveraQe
21,495
- 14.82%
21
-1.18%
20,651
- 2.78%
20,468
-0.88%
21,056
2.87%
20,986
-0.33%
22,833
8.80%
7 — Day
Average
20,612
- 19.33%
20,656
0.21%
20,115
- 2.62%
20,070
-0.22%
20,579
2.53%
20,066
-2.49%
22,106
10.17%
AADT
16
- 19.33%
16
2.28%
17
6.97%
17
-0.88%
18
1.85%
17
-0.38%
20
12.24%
Marathon
5 —Day
Averse
34 ,414
-6.34%
34,193
-0.64%
31,863
-0.76%
32
0.85%
34
6.19%
34
-0.14%
38
1186%
7 — Day
Average
31
- 8.85%
32
1.79%
30,548
-5.42%
31
1.79%
32,985
6.07%
32.783
-0.61%
38
16.35%
AADT
25,106
-8.84%
26,081
I 3.88%
27,547
5.62%
27,782
0.85%
29,208
5.13%
29,153
-0.19%
34,243
17.46%
UPW
McElgMlbe
5 -Day
Averaqe
23
- 16.17%
23,071
-1.47%
22,588
-2.09%
24,326
7.69%
24,561
0.97%
23
-3.68%
26
10.24%
7 -Day
Average
23,024
- 18.96%
23,016
403%
22,634
-1.66%
24,508
8.27%
24,936
1.75%
23,164
-7.11%
25,817
11.45%
AADT
19
- 18.96%
18
-2.23%
19
5.01%
21
7.69%
21
-0.04%
20
-3.73%
23
13.72%
Source: 2015 — U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study -URS
Iwe M'1
37000
0 25000
a
a
0) 20000
0
; 2 15000
w
10000
5000
U.S. 1 AADT- HISTORICAL COMPARISON
Year
•Big Pine Key aMarakhon O Uppet Matecumbe - - -�
Source: 2015 — U.S. I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study -URS
2006 Olt =a 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015
U.S. 1 AADT- HISTORICAL TRAFFIC GROWTH
AADT
Source: 2015 - U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study -URS
34,000
32,000
•
•
•
■
30,000
a -
■
28,000
•
_
v
L
26,000
--
■
-- - - - -- - — — - ------- - --
- - -- - -- - -a- - -- --
Marathon Rate of Growth
U. Matecumbe Rate of Growth ■
o
24,000
= 0.18% per year
- - - --
- - - -- = 0_08% per year
22,000
•
• -
♦
♦ •
20,000
• •
• • • ♦ • •
♦
18,000
♦ • ♦
Big Pine Rate of Growth •
_ -0.69% per year
16,000
1993
1994 1995 1996 1997 1993 199-4 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
r_
e Bp Pie ■ Maraehon ♦
i
– -
U. Mamewmbe —mm— Big Pine Regression Lino +Maratian Repression Lie — U. Matecunbe Repression Lie
Source: 2015 - U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study -URS
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.
Interrupted Flow
LOS Az 35 mph
LOS Bz 28 mph
LOS C>— 22 mph
LOS D > -17 mph
LOS E >: 13 mph
LOS F < 13 mph
Uninterrupted Flow
LOS A 1.5 mph above speed limit
LOS B 1.5 mph below speed limit
LOS C4.5 mph below speed limit
LOS D7.5 mph below speed limit
LOS E 13.5 mph below speed limit
LOS F more than 13.5 mph below speed limit
For all "uninterrupted" segments containing isolated traffic signals, the travel times were reduced
by 25 seconds per signal to account for lost time due to signals. The Marathon and the Stock
Island segments are considered "interrupted" flow facilities. Therefore, no adjustments were
made to travel times to account for signals on these segments.
The segment limits, the median travel speeds, and the 2013 and the 2015 LOS are presented in
Appendix G and shown on Figure 3. The median segment speed ranged from 58.1 mph (LOS A)
in the Boca Chica segment to 32.9 mph (LOS B) in the Stock Island segment. The level of
service determined from the 2015 travel time data yield the following level of service changes as
compared to 2013 data:
Compared to last year's (2013) study results, there is level of service changes to eight (8)
segments — five (5) of which resulted in positive level of service changes and three (3) of which
resulted in negative level of service changes.
• Ramrod segment (8) increased from LOS B' to LOS `A'
• Big Pine segment (10) decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C'
• 7 -Mile Bridge segment (12) decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C'
• Duck segment (15) increased from LOS `D' to LOS `B'
• Long segment (16) increased from LOS `C' to LOS `B' Village of Isle
• Tea Table segment (18) increased from LOS `E' to LOS `D'
• Upper Matecumbe segment (19) increased from LOS `D' to LOS `C' - Village of
Islamorada
• Plantation segment (21) decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C'
Compared to 2013, the median segment speeds increased in ten (10) of the 24 segments ranging
between 0.1 mph to 2.3 mph. Fourteen (14) segments experienced a decrease in median speeds,
ranging from -0.2 mph to -3.3 mph.
The largest difference in speed change was recorded on Segment # 20 (Windley - MM 84.0 to
MM 86.0); however the LOS remained the same at 'C'. The largest increase in speed (2.3 mph)
was recorded on Segment #15 (Duck —MM 60.5 to MM 63.0), which resulted in the LOS change
from a `D' to a `B'. The removal of the temporary signal at the entrance to Hawks Kay to
manage the Duck Key Bridge rehabilitation is the primary reason for this speed increase. The
rehabilitation project (and the removal of the temporary signal) was completed in the fall of
2013.
LOS A (1)
LOS B (2)
LOS C (4)
LOS D (1)
LOS E (0)
(+ Ramrod (8)
( +) Duck (10)
( -) Big Pine (10)
( +) Tea Table (18)
( +) Long (16)
( -) 7 -Mile Br (12)
( +) U. Mate. (19)
( -) Plantation (21)
Reserve Capacities
The difference between the median speed and the LOS C Standard gives the reserve speed,
which in turn can be converted to an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and
corresponding additional development. The median overall speed of 45.1 mph compared to the
LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of 0.1 mph. This reserve speed is
converted into an estimated number of reserve trips using the following formula:
Reserve Volume = Reserve Speed x k x Overall Length
Trip Length
Reserve Volume = 0.1 mph x 1656 daily trips/mph x 112 miles
10 miles
Reserve Volume = 1,855 daily trips
31
The estimated reserve capacity is then converted into an estimated capacity for additional
residential development, assuming balanced growth of other land uses, and using the following
formula:
Residential Capacity = Reserve Volume
Trip Generation Rate x % Impact on US 1
Residential Capacity = 1. 855 daily trips
8 (daily trips / unit) x 0.8
Residential Capacity = 290 units
Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of U.S. 1 individually gives
maximum reserve volumes for all segments totaling 91,147 trips. These individual reserve
volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraint imposed by the overall reserve volume.
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. The so- called five
percent allocations were calculated for such segments as follows:
5% Allocation = median speed - 95% of LOS Q x 1656 x Length
Trip Length
In 2015, there were two (2) segments identified to be functioning below the LOS C threshold -
the L. Matecumbe (Segment #17) and Tea Table (Segment #18). Both segments are in the
Village of Islamorada.
The two segments identified above have depleted their reserve capacities, leaving 967 trips in L.
Matecumbe (Segment #17) and 459 trips in Tea Table (Segment #18) based on the 5% below
LOS C allocation.
The following table details the segment levels of service and reserve capacity values for each
segment.
32
O
n
R
a
m
A
4
y
0.
r
m
m
r
O
T
N
m
n
m
Z
v
m
m
<
m
n
a
D
r l
A
W
N
N .
O
iD
®
V
01
VI
A
w
N
O
w
w
V
m
U1
A
W
N
0
ry
0
K
'0
�
E
C
3'
(p er
CJ
r
r
7
C O
n
G7
6�
K
- 4
5
m
�
M
- 1
0
n
C 6
N
C
0
0.
CL
m
666 n 111
U1
p
N
w�
v3
a
�+
0
rm
a
n
n
z
P
iS
S
P
V CY V �
V
r
W
O
W
P
V
N
S^
P
G,
n
m
S
`^
a
A
N
`"
O
W
co
cm
v
1+
W
P
O
Q
P•
NNP
Lo
O
W
Co
A
p
N
O
O
O
N
C.
Zu
rn
N
4f
Of
Co
O
N+
07
t0
A
+
rf
fd
A
0
t0
10
N
V
OI
;b
V
W
C1
Ge
V
O
W
+
14
+
N
W
N
1,;
N
VI
t0
w
o
t0
Z
q
M �
N
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A N
N
A N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
k�
K
rn<
In A
N
A
N
Ao
��.n
tt��
N
N
N
lJ1
�+
N
N
N
A
F
O
y
Ln
O
A
CN
A
N
W
P
N
t
CAR
N
N
N
N
N
R � 1 1
N
V
N
aa
O+
5V
O
NN
#
N
{{//��
A
+
N
A A
A
0
N
0
N
bo
O
j.1
O
N
CO
W +
V
6
A
r
V
f0
O
O
C
0
0
0
CI
�
in
W
d
O
s
aaaass�
n
a
Z
a
N
Z
a'ssDAa'Dbn
Z
2
2
A
Z
z
Z
Z
3 ,n 0 0
z
r
b
V
V
V
CI
O�
T
t
N
t�i
�o
{"i
A
v
w
7q
A
o
A
o
A
o.0m
A
W
A
w.
A
{A
0
N
s
i0 r 0
3 iOC
W
Al
Cf
V
W
m
C1
N
+
A
O
Ai
0.
w
in
in
in
0
��
t0
"
O
m H H
^ �
s 0
!�
vi
N
A
OD
W
Q7
W
W
01
A
A
fo
O+
w
w
to
N
iT
W
A
A
J�
A
A
�T
A
C
b0
it
in
V
�O
to
w
V
•
bo
:►
GT
V
i0
C7
N
OD
O
V
'v+
T
Cf
A
T
i0
V+
'v+
V
V
fu
0
:►
N
ip
rm
S T < rn
o
maa���vvva��
a
ao
�aamaa�maao
r
H
ol rTl
ol V1
A
Cf
Of
10
+
iV
N
.a
IU
Cf
o
+
W
+
V
V
O
+
Cf
1.
+
0
Ai
O
jp
A
v
O A
V
i71
A
O
V
A
O
V
V
N+
(�
CT
in
CM
Cn
N
W
N7
OC
W
V
pp
f0
A
O
N
co
CO
m
0
�
O
W
♦
pi
W
A
N
W
N
iT
O
O7
W
�L
V
ID
N
Of
V
CO
m
N
g
T
I
y
Ui
rn �
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
a`saasam.,aa``>
n
a
a
aaaaaa`n`nn`n`
r�
O -pi
n
r
Qf
W V
O
Pj
A
tNin
N�
aA
.WI
N
C i f
N
T
N
N
pp W
V
N
-+
A
P
V
CO
N[
Or m
C A C
T
0
W �
w
zzzzz�
�zz
z
z
z
z
zzzzzzz?,
n
Li
r
m
m
r
O
T
N
m
n
m
Z
v
m
m
<
m
n
a
D
r l
SUMMARY
Following is a summary of the 2015 Travel Time and Delay Study results:
a) The traffic volumes have increased by approximate 15% compared to 2013.
b) The overall travel speed on U.S. 1 for 2015 is 45.1 mph, and .8 mph lower compared to
the 2013 overall travel speed.
c) Compared to 2013 data, the travel speeds on 10 of the 24 segments have increased. They
are:
Boca Chica +1.0 mph)
Marathon +2.0 mph) - City of Marathon
Big Cop itt ( +0.7 mph)
Grass +0.5 mph)
Saddlebunch +0.5 mph)
Duck +2.3 mph
Sugarloaf +0.1 mph
Tavernier +1.7 mph
Ramrod +0.8 mph)
Key Largo +0.9 mph
Travel speeds on 14 segments have decreased. They are:
Stock Island -0.2 mph)
Lon -2.4 mph
Cud'oe ( -1.0 mph)
L. Matecumbe -1.5 mph) - Village of Islamorada
Summerland ( -0.7 mph)
Tea Table ( -1.7 mph) - Village of Islamorada
Torch ( -0.4 mph)
U Matecumbe ( -1.7 mph) - Village of Islamorada
Big Pine -2.1 mph)
Windle -3.3 mph
Bahia Honda -1.6 mph)
Plantation -2.7 mph
7 -Mile Bridge ( -2.3 mph )
Cross ( -0.9 mph
d) Compared to 2013 study results, there are LOS changes in eight (8) of the twenty- four
(24) segments; five (5) increases and three (3) decreases.
e) Segment # 17 (L Matecumbe - MM 73.0 - MM 77.5) has remained at level of service D
for the past six years, although the travel speeds have decreased this year compared to
2013. The adjacent segment - Segment # 18 (U Matecumbe - MM 77.5 - MM 79.5) has
improved to level of service D; although, the travel speeds have decreased this year
compared to 2013. The improvement in the level of service (despite the decrease in speed)
is due to a decrease in the weighted average posted speed, which affects the level of
service threshold. Special attention should be given to these segments.
f) There were 243 delay events, 32 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 152 delays, totaling 2 hours, 19 minutes and 44 seconds. The
signals caused on average a 4 minute and 59 seconds delay per trip, which is 1 minute and
39 seconds more compared to 2013.
g) There were three (3) drawbridge related delays this year. Per established procedures, they
were excluded from the individual segment calculation and included in the overall delay.
h) The construction delays were the largest nonrecurring delay accounting for 32 minutes
and 20 seconds. The construction delays were excluded from the overall and segment
travel times.
i) There were forty (40) congestion related delay events this year totaling 1 hour 28 minutes
and 16 second compared to 12 minutes and 41 seconds in 2013. The congestion delay
events contributed on average 3 minutes and 9 seconds of delay per trip, which is
significantly higher when compared to the 2013 average congestion delay per trip of 27
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 eight (8)
segments of U.S. 1 in this category (same number of segments as in the 2013 study).
Saddlebunch MM 10.5 — MM 16.5
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 47.0
Windle (84.0 — 86.0)
L. Matecumbe MM 73.0 — MM 77.5
Plantation (86.0 — 91.5)
The 10 -mile stretch of Long Key segment (from MM 63.0 to MM 73.0) has been removed
this year to make a contiguous 18.5 -mile segment of upper keys from L. Matecumbe (MM
73.0) to Plantation (MM 86.0) to be within the Area of Critical County Concern (ACCC).
Within the Lower Keys, Saddlebunch (MM 10.5 — MM 16.5) and Big Pine (MM 29.5 —
MM 33.0) segments are identified to be within the ACCC. The 7 -Mile Bridge segment
should be excluded due to temporary construction. Once construction is completed, the
reserve speed is anticipated to improve from 2.4 mph to over 3.0 mph over the LOS C
speed threshold.
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.
• 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.
35
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 within an environmentally protected pine rockland
forest west of Florida City. The location of the wellfield near Everglades National Park, along
with restrictions enforced by state and local regulatory agencies, contributes to the unusually
high water quality. These wells contain some of the highest quality groundwater in the state,
meeting all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Additionally, the FKAA is continually
monitoring, assessing, and working to eliminate potential hazards to our water source, including
inappropriate aquifer utilization, unsuitable land uses, and the potential for saltwater intrusion.
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 which 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 of 2.0 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.
36
Figure 3.1
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
45.2 MG STORAGE CAPACITY
_ _ r
OI �NR 1 N: I Yp
9. KEY WEST 25
3 0 HP PUMPS
OISIRIBUTOH Y Pie S Iq
STRTIOH Aar
s MIC
2. STOCK ISLAND 1 665 HP PUMP
2 300 W PUMPS S MG
RAMROD KEY
A 1 1000 HP PUMP 6. BIG PINE KEY
° 1 600 HP PUMP 2 75 HP PUMPS tN
3
5. SU MMERLAND KEY
2 30 W PUMPS I.1 MG td 1100
RA. PIAM
T - 4. KEY MARATHON 1II1
BAY POINT wq L T MARATHON
WW TREATMENT PLANT TII /�,(J ^RYpL\I' S . 69th ST MARATHON
"J 3 130 HP PUMPS
S YC
A 1 630 W PUMPS
2A YGO
R.O. PLANT
U U
STOCK ISLAND TRANMISSION BACKPLMP!NG CAPABILITIES
DWIMMOI
FrA 3. STOCK ISLAND (DESAL) MARATHON (1) -5 MG TANK
i uNP- UNPS �'" STOCK ISLAND (3) -5 MG TANKS
STOCK ISLAND DESAL (1) -5 MG TANK
Demand for Potable Water
The Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provide a historical overview of the water demands in the FKAA
service area including Water Use Permit (WUP) allocation limits, yearly percent changes, and
remaining water allocations. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) approved the FKAA's modification of WUP 13- 00005 -5 -W for a 20 -year allocation
from the Biscayne and 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 I"-April 3&) 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
approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat the water to drinking water
standards. The 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.
37
, JJS KEY LARGO
_
s MG 15. FLORIDA CITY
d T
00 HMW r VY rs
5
s
L YG
Mc L Mc
14. OCEAN REEF
29.5 M WE S ENNG TREATMENT PLANT 2 75 MP PUMPS
6 MGD R.O. " %ENT PLANT
CRAWL KEY
2 5" W PIMrs
7 SW W PUMPS
W PUMPS
7 1000 HP DIESEL PUMPS
EMERGENCY BACKUP
,
BAY POINT wq L T MARATHON
WW TREATMENT PLANT TII /�,(J ^RYpL\I' S . 69th ST MARATHON
"J 3 130 HP PUMPS
S YC
A 1 630 W PUMPS
2A YGO
R.O. PLANT
U U
STOCK ISLAND TRANMISSION BACKPLMP!NG CAPABILITIES
DWIMMOI
FrA 3. STOCK ISLAND (DESAL) MARATHON (1) -5 MG TANK
i uNP- UNPS �'" STOCK ISLAND (3) -5 MG TANKS
STOCK ISLAND DESAL (1) -5 MG TANK
Demand for Potable Water
The Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provide a historical overview of the water demands in the FKAA
service area including Water Use Permit (WUP) allocation limits, yearly percent changes, and
remaining water allocations. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) approved the FKAA's modification of WUP 13- 00005 -5 -W for a 20 -year allocation
from the Biscayne and 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 I"-April 3&) 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
approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat the water to drinking water
standards. The 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.
37
, JJS KEY LARGO
_
N ®
d T
00 HMW r VY rs
5
]P
3 7 00 H PUMPS
GUT 12. TAVERNIER MG 2 30 MP WM
S IW
13. ROCK
N HARBOR A
CRAWL KEY
1 3G W PUMP
W PUMPS
z
ZWWTREATM
K KEY �'
11. ISLAMORADA 3 M
TREATMENT PLANT
2 7s Hv Purr 1 �
N
LONG KEY B00 57� R x MP
3600 NP PUMPS
E VENICE •1b M
u W
WW TREATMENT PUNT
Y TON EMT PLANT GeR M
BAY POINT wq L T MARATHON
WW TREATMENT PLANT TII /�,(J ^RYpL\I' S . 69th ST MARATHON
"J 3 130 HP PUMPS
S YC
A 1 630 W PUMPS
2A YGO
R.O. PLANT
U U
STOCK ISLAND TRANMISSION BACKPLMP!NG CAPABILITIES
DWIMMOI
FrA 3. STOCK ISLAND (DESAL) MARATHON (1) -5 MG TANK
i uNP- UNPS �'" STOCK ISLAND (3) -5 MG TANKS
STOCK ISLAND DESAL (1) -5 MG TANK
Demand for Potable Water
The Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provide a historical overview of the water demands in the FKAA
service area including Water Use Permit (WUP) allocation limits, yearly percent changes, and
remaining water allocations. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) approved the FKAA's modification of WUP 13- 00005 -5 -W for a 20 -year allocation
from the Biscayne and 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 I"-April 3&) 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
approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat the water to drinking water
standards. The 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.
37
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.
Figure 3.2 Annual Water Withdrawals 2001 -2014
Year
Annual
Withdrawal
(MG)
% Change
WUP Limiit
_)
WUP +/- Annual
Allocation (MG
2 (01
2 002
5,627
6191
6.288
-9 .70%
10 .03%
1.57
5,7 78
7,274
15
1,083_
2003
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
j 5,850
- 7.35%
-
7,274
- _ ._....._.
1,428
2008
2009
5,960 �-
I 5,966
1.89% - -
0.09%
I 8,751
1 -
8,751
2,791 -
2,785
2010
j 5,919
- 0.
8,751
2,832
2011
6,327
1 6.89%
j 8,751
2,424
2012
6,042
j - 4. 50%
8,751
_
j 2,709
. . ............................__. .........................__.._. _.
2013
--
6,105
- --
1.04%
- ..................... - .,.-
8
.._.._.._
2,646
2014
6,377
4.46%
8,751
2,374
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2014
Figure 3.3 FLORI A KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
Potable Water Demand Summa - New Water Demand, Actual Water Demand, and Expected
Water Demand
Year -2014
Year -2014
Year2015
Municipality
New Water
Service -
Gallons/Year
Metered Water
. Gallons/Year
Actual Water
Demand -
Gallons /Year'
Expected Water Demand -
Gallons/Year
Unincorporated Monroe County
15,679
1 903 099 800
2,479,931
2 495 611 17
City of Key West
3,631
1,766,546,300
2 301 988 924
2
City of Marathon
8
495 760 700
646
654
Cdy of Key Colony
0
95 524 800
124
124,478,499
City of Layton
0
10,950,400
14
14
City of Islamorada
7,273,200
622144
810,716,966
817,990,166
Entire Florida Keys
34,898,400
4,894,026,200
6,377.412.301
6,412,310,701
SFWMD WUP Annual Allocadon
8.751.000,000
8,751,000,000
- -Wmd • uvneftmd raw da -m .- ftym& Macs. aw
38
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 2014, the FKAA distributed
an annual average day of 16.83 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer plus 0.64 MGD from Floridan
RO Production as shown in Figure 3.5. This table also provides the water treatment capacities of
the RO plants. Since the emergency RO plants utilize seawater, a WUP is not required for these
facilities.
Figure 3.5 Projected Water Demand in 2015 (in MG)
- FKAA Permit 2014 Water 2015 Water
Thresholds Demand Demand Projected
Annual Allocation
Average Daily Demand
23.98
17.47
17.76
Maximum Monthly Demand
809.01
546.94
596.29
Annual Demand
8,751
6,377
6,481
Biscayne Aquifer Annual Allocation/Limitations
Average Daily Demand
17.79
16.83
17.11
Average Dry Season Demand *(Dec through April)
17.00
16.67
16.85
Annual Demand
6,492
6,143
6,245
Floridan RO Production
Average Daily Demand 6.00 0.64 0.65
Emergency RO WTP Facilities
Kermit L. Lewin Design Capacity
2.00 (MGD)
0.00 (MGY)
0.00
Marathon RO Design Capacity
1.00 (MGD)
0.00 (MGY)
0.00
All figures are in millions of'gallons
*Dry Season is defined as December thru April
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2015
39
Figure 3AFLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
Water Supply Available vs. Water Demand Projections
Preliminary 2014 figures and projections for 2015 indicate a slight increase in annual average
daily demand from 17.47 MGD to 17.76 and an increase in maximum monthly demand from
546.94 MG to 596.29 MG.
Figure 3.6 provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional
Population and average daily demand, the average water consumption for 2014 was
approximately 111 gallons per capita (person).
Figure 3.6 - Per Capita Water Use
Functional Daily Average Per Capita Water
Year Population' Demand (gallons) 2 Consum lion (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
17,334,247
111
2012
156,391
16,508,197
106
2013
1 156,727
16,836,164
107
2014
1 157,063
1 17,472,362
1 111
Source: 1. Monroe County Population Projections - Monroe County Planning Department, 2011
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2014
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 58,000
feet of water main during fiscal year 2014.
The master plan was revised in 2013 to include the critical projects as summarized in Figure 3.6.
40
Figure 3.7 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 $34 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be
funded by the water rate structure, long -term bank loans, and grants.
Figure 3.7 - FKAA Projected 5 Year Ca ital Improvement Plan
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Total
Water Supply
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
$2,000,000
Water Treatment
$0
$0
$2,600,000
$2,600,000
$0
$5,200,000
Transmission Mains
& Booster Pump
Stations
$200,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$1,250,000
$2,950,000
Distribution Mains
$4,300,000
$3,700,000
$2,250,000
$7,700,000
$3,600,000
$21,550,000
Facilities & Structures
$0
$0
$100,000
$500,000
$0
$600,000
Information
Technolo
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reclaimed Water
Systems
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Navy Water Systems
$500,000
$400,000
$510,000
$585,000
$100,000
$2,095,000
Totals
$5,000,000
$4,600,000
$6,960,000
$12,885,000
$4,950,000
$34,395,000
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2013
SUMMARY
The County's 2014 average daily water demand was 17.74 MGD, with a projected 2015 average daily
water demand of 17.76 MGD. This provides a 6.22 MGD surplus water allocation based upon the
projected 2015 demand. With the construction of the new water supply wells and reverse osmosis
(RO) water treatment facility and a projected surplus allocation, there is an adequate supply of
water to meet current and future demands, based on current conditions and projections.
41
IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES
The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 10 traditional and 6 charter 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. Seven (7) cafetoriums serve 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.
imi - Dade
County
Gulf of Alexlco
L. ♦ >
Key Largo' /
r �Elemintary/Mioole Scho
Florida Bay
Ocean Studies
Monroe County Charter School
Coral Shores
Treasure Village High School
105 Mlles from Key Largo to Key West Montessori School
Y Plantation School
Key West • Manley SWitllk
collegiate 1 \ Elementary School ,
Gerald Adams Spgarba�ENmentttaaary -� , t
Elementary School �IIrtOM/ h 'M• Mhon
Nig at Sohool
Sigsbee
Elementary School
-� Key West of FWD
Key Ne Montessori School �g
Nigh J: t Poinciana Stt�
Elementary School
Glynn Archer Norace O'Bryani
Elementary School Middle School
School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in
planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates.
42
The Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate is 10,080 students and the Capital
Outlay of Full -Time Equivalent ( COFTE) is 6,962. The actual utilization during 2014 — 2015
was 70.10 %.
LOCATION
ACTUAL
2014 -2015
FISH CAPACITY
ACTUAL
2013 -2014
COFTE
ACTUAL
2014 -2015
UTILIZATION
CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH
981
716
73.00%
KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH
1,431
1,163
81.00%
HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE
1,124
966
86.00%
MARATHON SENIOR HIGH
1,370
626
46.00%
GERALD ADAMS
604
467
77.00%
PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL
602
429
71.00%
POINCIANA ELEMENTARY
628
621
99.00%
SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY
1,239
665
54.00%
STANLEY SWITLIK
ELEMENTARY
858
486
57.00%
KEY LARGO SCHOOL
1,243
823
66.00%
TOTAL
10,080
6,962
70.10%
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 2014 -2015 Monroe County School District Work Plan include HVAC, flooring, paint
,roofing, safety to life, electrical, parking, fencing, maintenance /repair, fire alarms,
telephone /intercom systems and closed circuit television for various schools. Other items include
concrete repairs, site work and drainage maintenance, plumbing, ADA updates, carpentry and
small construction projects and maintenance and repair.
The 2014 -2015 Monroe County School District 1.50 Mill Revenues Source actual value is
$10,533,941. The revenue from capital outlay and debt service is $60,290. Additional revenue
sources include proceeds from 1 /i cent sales surtax at $15,767,847 and funds carried forward at
$19,678,486. The total revenue available is $33,928,326.
The total project costs for construction, maintenance, repair and renovation during 2014 -2015 is
$15,638,876.
SUMMARY
Enrollment figures for the 2014 -2015 school year indicates that there is adequate capacity in the
Monroe County school system. The overall 2014 -2015 utilization is 70.10% of the school system
capacity.
43
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 2012, the County provided solid waste service to accommodate 74,809 residents. Population
change between 2010 to 2012 was 2.4% according to the US Census Bureau.
44
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
2011
125,402
27,808
97,594
2012
145,889
38,985
106,904
2013
95,137
30,329
64,808
2014
1 114,764
51,520
1 63,244
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011; Monroe County Public Works 2013
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2014
Data collection calendar year is January 1 to December 31.
These are scale tonnages.
Fluctuations in yearly data may be 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.
45
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.
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. Based on the information obtained by
Florida Department of Environmental Protection solid waste management this goal was met.
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.
46
Solid Waste Generation Trends
GENERATION
POPULATION
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
125,402
35,917
35,249
71,166
9.7
2012
145,889
39,371
35,438
74,089
11.65
2013
93,157
35,806
35,658
71,464
7.14
2014
114,764
35,751
35,862
71,613
8.8
Sources:
1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2. Monroe County 2012 -2030 Monroe County Population Projections, Keith & Schnars and Fishkind &
Associates, 3 -15 -11 (Unincorporated Population -Table 9)
SUMMARY
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management (WMI). The contract authorizes the use
of in -state facilities through September 30, 2024; thereby, providing the County with
approximately ten (10) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste
generation for 2015 -2016.
47
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 1201.1.1
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
Comprehensive Plan Policy 1201.1.1.
Monroe County
Existing
Demand in
Surplus or
Parks and Recreation
Functional
Acreage
Acreage
(Deficit) in
Population 2010
Acreage
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
Source: Monroe County Technical Document, Chapter 13, Recreation and Open Space, May 11, 2011,
Section 13.5.1.1.2.
There are approximately 10,900 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.
48
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. A total of 98.98 acres of
developed resourced -based and 118.25 acres of activity -based recreation areas are 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 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
49
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
yy 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
94
swimming boat ramp,
15.1
County Park
(Tavernier)
BBQs, shuffleboard,
beach, picnic tables,
restrooms
Key Largo
Play Equipment, picnic,
Old Settlers Park
(Tavernier)
92.5
shelter, beach, butterfly
NA
3
g arden
Sunset Point Park
Key Largo
92
Vacant, waterfront
1.2
0.9
(Tavernier)
access, boat ramp
Burr Beach Park
Key Largo
91
Vacant, waterfront
0.1
NA
(Sunny Haven)
access
Old State Rte. 4A
82.5
Vacant
0.3
NA
Matecumbe Key
Old State Rte. 4A,
Upper
Hurricane
Matecumbe 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
s0
LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 0 -38.5
Mile
Classification (Acres)
Name
Location
Marker
Facilities
Resource
Activity
Little Duck
Picnic pavilions, beach,
Veteran's Memorial Park
Key (Ohio
40
BBQs, boat ramp,
0.6
24.9
Key)
swimming, beach,
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
J. Watson Field (Stiglitz
Historic House, 2 tennis
Property) (2)
Big Pine Key
30
courts, volleyball, play
1.2
2.4
equipment, baseball, picnic
Big Pine Key Park
Big Pine Key
30
Vacant
5.5
4.6
Blue Heron Park
Big Pine Key
30
Play equipment, 3 pavilions,
NA
5.5
basketball, volleyball,
Bob Evans/ Chamber of
Big Pine Key
30
Vacant
0.3
NA
Commerce
Palm Villa Park
Big Pine Key
30
Benches, waterfront, play
NA
0.6
equipment, basketball
State Road 4
Little Torch
-)8
Boat ramps
0.1
NA
Key
Ramrod Key Park
Ramrod Key
27
Beach *, swimming
1.2
1.2
West
West Summerland Park
Summerland
25
2 Boat ramps
31.8
NA
Ke
Play equipment, volleyball,
Bay Point Park
Saddlebunch
15
picnic tables, trail,
NA
1.58
Key
basketball, 2 tennis courts,
pavilions, soccer nets
Boca Chica Beach, S R
Boca Chica
11
Beach, picnic table *
6
NA
941 (3)
Key
Palm Drive cul -de -sac
Big Coppitt
11
Vacant
0.1
NA
Key
Big Coppitt Volunteer Fire
Big Coppitt
10
Play equipment, benches,
NA
0.75
Department Park (4)
Key
skateboard
51
Wilhelmina Harvey Park
Big C ppitt
9.5
Play equipment, path
NA
0.65
Key
Gulfview Park, Delmar
Big Coppitt
10
Boat ramp
0.2
NA
Ave.
Key
Rockland Hammock
Rockland
10
Vacant
2.5
NA
Play equipment, volleyball,
Bernstein Park
Raccoon Key
4.5
baseball, track, trail, soccer
NA
11
field, tennis courts,
basketball, restrooms
East Martello Park
Key West
1.5
Picnic, teen center, Historic
14.56
NA
Island
Fort
1.6 mile beach, concession
area, 2 band shells, pier,
Higgs Beach Park, C.B.
Key West
picnic pavilions and grills, 5
5
12.1
Harvey, Rest Beach
Island
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
1
Historic Fort, Museum
0.8
NA
Lighthouse
Island
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 basketball, 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 1 S ft.)
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
52
Acquisition of Additional Recreation Areas
The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe
County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of resource -based and
activity -based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level of service
standards." The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be
accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6)
mechanisms that are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as
for providing adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result
from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are:
1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land that is already owned by the
county but that is not being used for park and recreation purposes;
2. Acquisition of new park sites;
3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board that would allow for the
use of existing school -park facilities by county residents;
4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated 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.
SUMMARY
There County continues to maintain a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage).
53