Loading...
Resolution 341-2018 • MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO.341.2018 • A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE 2016-2017 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT AS SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES WHEREAS, Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires Monroe County to provide and maintain, in timely and efficient manner, adequate public facilities for both existing and future populations, consistent with available financial resources and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan;and WHEREAS,the biennial 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 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 a biennial 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 Planning Director to prepare a biennial 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.In the event the BOCC acts to increase the development capacity of any service area,the BOCC shall make specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase, including 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 two year; and Page 1 of3 • WHEREAS, the Monroe County Land Development Regulations require the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a biennial 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 2016-2017 annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for roads,solid waste,potable water,and educational facilities; and 2. The 2016-2017 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 biennial 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 46 MPH; based on the 2017 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS,the County's transportation consultant; and 6. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority water use permit allows an average daily allocation of 23.98 MGD. The County's average daily water demand in 2016 was 17.66 MGD and the projected 2017 average daily water demand is 17.99 MGD, providing 5.99 MGD surplus water allocation based on the projected 2017 demand; and 7. Enrollment figures for the 2015-2016 through 2015-2016 school years indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2015- 2016 utilization is 70.09%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 2018-2019;and 9. There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities(acreage);and 10. The 2016-2017 biennial assessment;therefore, finds that adequate capacity exists for transportation, potable water, solid waste, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth through 2018-2019; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA: Page 2 of 3 The 2016-2017 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 17th day of October 2018. Mayor David Rice Yes Pro Tern Sylvia Murphy Yes Commissioner Heather Carruthers Yes Commissioner George Neugent Yes Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage Yes BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MO O UNTY LORIDA BY Mayor David Rice '13 ,\ \' iqv./1t (SEAL)-° ' a r MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY 'rys hJ -W;;/ 1 j�p91jO�D M k`"f ATT • Kevin Madok, Clerk Date:• ti 4.,".."-dA14.44.4.4-111_, _ • Deputy Clerk N i-- rn rn • ;;may..• . 'C! al pa -- -- -to- .. ' --ice .. .. n 7 Page 3 of 3 I Exhibit A 2016-2017 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT fft. �� t 1) • GROWTH MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION POTABLE WATER EDUCATION SOLID WASTE PARKS AND RECREATION SANITARY SEWER Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 I. Growth Manageme1t 13 II. Transportation 23 III. Potable Water 37 IV. Education 44 V. Solid Waste 46 VI. Parks and Recreation 50 VII. Sanitary Sewer 58 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan required Monroe County shall provide and maintain, in a timely and efficient manner, adequate public facilities for both existing and future populations, consistent with available financial resources and the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. [§163.3177(3)(a),F.S.] The Monroe County Land Development (LDC) Section 114-2(b)(3) mandates a biennial assessment of the roadways, solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer, schools and recreation and open space 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 biennial 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. 2016-2017 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Potable water, roads, solid waste, schools, and parks have adequate capacity to serve,the growth anticipated in 2017-2018 at the adopted level of service standard. The status of each facility is summarized below. Potable Water In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKAA's modification of WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This water use permit (WUP) provides an annual allocation of 23.98 MGD. The recently completed water supply wells and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment facility provides an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD. The County's 2015-2016 water demand were 17.89 & 17.66 MGD respectively,with a projected 2017 water demand of 17.99 MGD. This provides a 5.99 MGD surplus water allocation based upon the projected 2017 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 2015-2016 utilization is 70.09% of the school system capacity and is projected for 2019-2020 a 67.57 % utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2015-2016 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 a solid waste generation for the nex twelve (12) months. Roads Based on the findings of the 2017 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 median travel speed on US 1 is 46'MPH. The traffic volumes have decreased by approximately-0.32% compared to 2015. , Compared to last study results in 2015, there is a level of service changes in eight (8) segments of the 24 segments; four (4) of which resulted in a positive level of service changes and four (4) segments resulted in a negative level of service changes (in bold below). Segment ',(county or 2015 2017 ,Reserve Trips Allocation ''Number ; Segment'. mumcipahty) ' LOS LOS'; Remaining. :. _below.LOS C. 4 Saddlebunch County C B 4,034 N/A 8 Ramrod County A B 2,133 N/A 12 7-Mile Bridge County C B 3,603 N/A 15 Duck County B C 1,252 N/A 16 Long County B C 2,459 N/A 17 Lower Matecumbe Islamorada D C 224 N/A 19 Upper Islamorada C D (883) . 522 Matecumbe 21 Plantation Islamorada C B 3,266 N/A Compared to 2015, the median segment speeds. increased in eighteen (18) of the 24 segments ranging between 0.1 mph to 3.2 mph. Five (5) segments experienced a decrease in median speeds, ranging from -0.4 mph to -3.5 mph. The majority of the speed reductions were in the middle and upper keys. The largest difference and decrease in speed (-3.5 mph) was recorded on Segment # 1 (Stock Island—MM 4.0 to MM 5.0); however,the LOS remained the same at `B'. 4 The largest increase in speed (3.2 mph) was recorded on Segment# 15 (Duck—MM 60.5 to MM 63.0). The increase in speed is related to the increase in the posted speed limit in this segment. However, the LOS changed from B' to 'C'; the lower LOS is due to methodology procedures and not a lower speed. Parks and Recreation There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities(acreage). Sanitary Sewer The Monroe County Sanitary Sewer Master Plan was part of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. As population and tourism within the Keys have increased over the years have resulted in a significant degradation of water quality in canals and nearshore waters surrounding the keys. The creation of a new Sanitary Sewer System to replace the old system consisting mostly of collecting sewage waters by private septic tanks and small water treatment plants was imperative. The new Sanitary Sewer System collects the wastewater mainly by a network of pipelines, force mains, pump stations and sewage treatment plants. The majority of the household units of unincorporated areas of the County have been connected to the system in 2017. The sewage collection system operates below the capacity for which it was designed and the quality and disposal of treated waste water is in compliance with requirements established by FAC, FS, and MC Comprehensive plan. 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 2017- 2018 at the adopted level of service. 5 INTRODUCTION The 2016-2017 Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity is mandated by the Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 114-2, titled Adequate Facilities and 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 five primary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools, sanitary sewer), and biennial assessment process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2(b)(3) requires the Director of Planning to prepare a biennial 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, sanitary sewer, 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 state that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. Comprehensive Plan Objective 101.1 states: "Monroe County shall ensure that all development and redevelopment taking place within its boundaries does not result in a reduction of the level-of-service requirements established and adopted by this comprehensive plan. Further, Monroe County shall ensure that comprehensive plan amendments include an analysis of the availability of facilities and services or demonstrate that the adopted levels of service can be reasonably met". {F.S. § 163.3177; F.S. § 163.3180] The LDC, Section 114-2, "Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures" states: Development application shall include a written evaluation (facilities impact report and traffic report) of the impact of the anticipated development on the level of services are available prior to or concurrent with the impacts of development. 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS There are five (5) 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, sanitary sewer and schools (Comp Plan also includes parks & recreation and drainage. The available capacity for each of these facilities may be either sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next year, marginally adequate, or ina equate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are projected to be only margin ly adequate or inadequate over the next year, the LDC sets out a review procedure to be follo ed when issuing development permits in that area. Section 114-2(b)(5)c of the LDC states: "The county shall not approve applications for development in areas of the county that are served by inadequate facilities identified in the biennial assessment of public facility capacity 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 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. 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, measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, as necessary to determine proposed development impacts. 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, as measured by the methodology established by the US-1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on US-1 shall be maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C" 7 Section 114-2(a)(1) of the LDC pertains to the minimum LOS standards for Roads: (1) Transportation/Roadways. a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall arterial length and the 24 roadway segments of U.S.1, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway segments. In addition, all segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C. b. Development may be approved, provided that the development in combination with all other per tted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent (5%) below LOS C, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS C and/or deficiencies. c. All paved County roads shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at or within 5% of a LOS D as measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS D, the development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS D and/or deficiencies. d. The development of one single family residence on a single parcel shall be considered de minimis and shall not be considered to impact road capacity established in this subsection. e. The County shall post on the Monroe County website informing the public of the available transportation capacity for each road segment of U.S. 1 as described in the county's biennial public facilities capacity report. The available capacity shall be expressed in terms of a number of trips remaining until the adequate transportation facilities standard is exceeded. f. The County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic monitoring program to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of the 24 study segments of U.S.1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and through traffic. The County shall coordinate with municipalities in the review of the systematic traffic monitoring program to monitor traffic volumes and travel speeds of U.S.1 as well as on 8 each of the 24 study segments on U.S.1. The County and municipalities shall coordinate with FDOT to evaluate segments with deficiencies of LOS to determine necessary improvements and strategies to address any degradation and/or deficiencies. 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 certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent is issued, adequate potable water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities ar available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards. [§ 63.3177(6)(c), F.S.,] 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. [§163.3180(1)(b)., F.S., §163.3180(2)., F.S., §163.3177(3)(a)3.,F.S.] Level of Service Standards - 1. Quantity: 100 gal./capita/day* *Note Based on historical data through December 2011; provided by FKAA,December 2012. 2, Minimum Pressure: 20 PSI at customer service 3. Minimum Potable Water Quality: Shall be as defined by 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. Solid Waste: The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC require that "sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site at a level of services of 11.41 pounds per capita per day. The county solid waste and resource recovery authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under F.S. Section 163.01,to dispose of solid waste outside of the county. (LDC,Section 114-2(a)(2)). 9 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. [§163.3180(1)(b)., F.S.], [§163.3180(2).,F.S.] 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. [§163.3180(1)(b).,F.S.], [§163.3180(2).,F.S.] Level of Service Standards: Disposal Quantity: 11.41 pounds per capita per day Schools: The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a LOS standard for schools but does include Policy 1301.5.3 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)(6)requires that sufficient school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school-age children to be generated by the proposed development. Parks and Recreation: The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are included in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1201.1.1 Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective 1201.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining recreation land and facility capacity: Level of Service Standards for Neighborhood and Community Parks: 1. 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive,resource-based neighborhood and community parks; and 2. 1.5 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. A biennial assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County Code;Section 114-2,but data for parks and recreational facilities are provided in this document. 10 Sanitary Sewer: The Comprehensive Plan 2030 and LDC establish the capacity LOS and the wastewater treatment level of service standards for sanitary sewers in Policy 901.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Policy 901.1.1 Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a certificate of occupancy, or its functional equivalent is issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards. [§163.3180(1)(b),F.S., §163.3180(2),F.S., §163.3177(6)(c)2., F.S.] December 31, 2015, Level of Service Standards (A)The permanent level of service standards for wastewater treatment in Monroe County are as follows: Mg/L -- — BOD TSS TN TP On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal System 10 10 10 1 Design flows less than 100,000 gpd (BAT) 10 10 10 1 Design flows greater than or equal to 100,000 gpd(AWT) 5 5 3 1 Source:Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan,2000. BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand TSS: Total Suspended Solids TN: Total Nitrogen TP: Total Phosphorus BAT: Best Available Technology AWT: Advanced Wastewater Technology (B) The County shall support State and Federal educational programs to reduce demand for phosphate products. (C)The capacity level of service standard: 167 gallons per day per EDU. • 11 PERMITTING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and 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 • �■ .o. MAP • �L,� • . . The Upper Keys '1 `,, . „- MM 112-91 S, y. '/' '�`�` `'f The Mid91- dle Keys iiille kkAy'tiltif, , ,e"a • /7' ? V*4'1) ' ' 4'4 el 7 .. a` - �7, a / © C/ 177 eg op. t ` 6 • 7 w • �.---''JJ The Lower Keys 1, ''16""+ '" -- MM 47-4 •!�J .r •+ y 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%. Census Census Change % g • 2000 2010 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 unincorporate' )is 77, 136. UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS,2010-2030 Unincorporated Functional Population Total Year Unincorporated Lower Keys Middle Keys Upper Keys 1VIoruoe County 2010 39,645 2,183 28,980 70,808 2015 40,181 2,212 29,370 71,763 2020 40,592 2,234 29,668 72,494 2025 41,003 2,256 29,966 73,225 2030 41,414 2,278 30,265 73,957 Source:Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates The population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a loss of permanent population. The data suggests the permanent population losses and associated 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 2011-2015 American Community Survey. ROUSING UNITS BY STATUS AND'TENURE BY UNITS IN.STRUCTU_ - - 2011 2015 •(Monroe County.Unincorporated And Incorporated Areas) HOUSING OCCUPANCY Estimates Percent Total housing units 52,913 100.00% Occupied housing units 28,910 54.60% Vacant housing units 24,003 46.40% UNITS IN STRUCTURE Estimates Percent Total housing units 52,913 ; 100.00% 1-unit, detached 27,475 51.90% 1-unit, attached 3,878 7.30% 2 units 2,504 4.70% 3 or 4 units 2,475 ` 4.70% 5 to 9 units 2,435 4.60% 10 to 19 units 2,510 4.70% 20 or more units 3,386 7.50% Mobile home 7,528 14.20% Boat,RV, van, etc. 122 0.20% HOUSING TENURE Estimates Percent Occupied housing units 28,910 100.00% Owner-occupied 17,675 61.10% Renter-occupied 11,235 38.90% Average household size of owner-occupied unit 2.44 Average household size of renter-occupied unit 2.71 Source: US Census 2015 American Community Survey 15 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)w thin 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 101.3.2 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 101.3.2 state: "The number of permits issued for residential dwelling units under the Rate of Growth Ordinance shall not exceed a total of 1,970 new allocations for the timeperiod of July 13,2013 through July 12,2023, plus any available unused ROGO allocations from a previous ROGO year. A ROGO year means the twelve-month period beginning on July 13. Market rate allocations shall not to exceed 126 residential.units per year. Unused allocations for market rate shall be available for Administrative Relief'. LDC, Section 138-24(a)(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 allocations available for Big Pine Key, shall be made available at the beginning of the first quarter for a ROGO year. Beginning July 13, 2016,the balance of all remaining affordable housing residential ROGO allocations shall be made available for award. 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 for 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, the 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 is 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) permittees: Monroe County, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The ITP ensures that development bears its fair share of required mitigation and that the take of the covered species is minimized and mitigated. 17 RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO)ANALYSIS 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 14,2001) Year 10 102 102 31 58 (July 14,2001-July 15,2002) • • Year 11 127 127 31 31 (July 16,2002-July 14,2003) Year 12 127 127 31 21 (July 13,2003-July 14,2004) Year 13 96 96 29 16 (July 14,2004-July 13,2005) Year 14 126 126 236 271 (July 14,2005-July 13,2006) Year 15 126 129 49 17 (July 14,2006-July 13,2007) Year 16 126 126 68 100 (July 14,2007-July 14,2008) Year 17 206 242 67 36 (July 15,2008-July 13,2009) Year 18 126 128 71 0 (July 14,2009-July 12,2010) Year 19 126 119 71 0 (July 13,2010-July 12,2011) Year 20 126 92 71 4 (July 13,2011-July 13,2012) Year 21 126 43 71 0 (July 13,2012-July 13,2013) Year'22 126 90 71 9 (July 13,2013-July 13,2014) Year 23 126 106 71 1 (July 13,2014-July 13,2015) Year24 126 126 71 45 (July 13,2015-July 13,2016) Totals 3,637 3,508 1,739 1032 Source:Monroe County 2010-2030 Technical Document&Data from Quarterly ROGO Result Reports for Years 18-24 18 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 historical data presented in the table above do not include allocations issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach,Layton, Islamorada, or Marathon. 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 101.4.1 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 101.4.1 states: "Monroe County shall maintain a Permit Allocation System for new nonresidential floor area, known as the Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) System. Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and nonresidential growth by limiting the floor area of new nonresidential development available within the County to maintain a maximum of 47,083 square feet of floor area per NROGO year. The nonresidential allocation allowed by this policy shall be distributed on an annual basis, pursuant to Policy 101.4.3. The NROGO allocation system shall apply within the unincorporated area of the county, excluding areas within the county mainland and within the Ocean Reef planned development (Future development in the Ocean Reef planned development is based upon the December 2010 Ocean Reef Club VestedDevelopment Rights Letter recognized and issued by the Department of Community Affairs)."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 22 (July 13, 2013), this floor area shall be distributed to each of subareas as provided in the following table: Number of Approximate Total dwelling Annual NROGO, ,ROGO;.subarea market rate,: number of units allocation` --' units � affordable uriits45 Upper 61 35 96 22,944 SF Lower 57 34 91 21,749 SF Big Pine/No 8 2 10 2,390 SF Name 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 UMNCORPORATED MONROE; COUNTY YEAR 14 (2006) TO YEAR 22(2014) (Excluding Big Pine 8&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 sq/ft Year 16 (2008) 35,000 sq/ft 17,938 sq/ft Year 17 (2009) 30,000 sq/ft 13,056 sq/ft Year 18 (2010) 20,000 sq/ft 6,355 sq/ft Year 19 (2011) 20,000 sq/ft 6,116 sq/ft Year 20 (2012) 44,700 sq/ft 8,234 sq./ft Year 21 (2013) 44,700 sq/ft 2,500 sq/ft Year 22 (2014) 44,700 sq/ft 7,395 sq/ft Year 23 (2015) _ 44,693 sq/ft 2,484 sq/ft Year 24 (2016) 44,693 sq/ft 1,756 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 T`It.M O NAIVIE KEYS: - s: YEAR.14.(2006)=YEAR 22,(2014) . . . Year Available Number of Total Allocations - Applicants 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 sq/ft Year.18 (2010) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft Year 19 (2011) 2,390 sq/ft 0 384 sq/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 Year 23 (2015) 2,390 sq/ft 2 728 sq/ft Year 24 (2016) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft 20 BUILDING PERMIT DATA There were 4,544 dwelling units that received a building permit from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016. Of these units, approximately 84.5 percent were single family homes and 9.1 percent were mobile homes and recreational vehicles (RV). An average of 267 new and replacement dwelling units per year were permitted from 2000 to 2016. Of the 4,544 dwelling unit permits issued, 2,070 were the result of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the 4,544 dwelling units permits issued, a total of 4,113 dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY,JANUARY 1,2000', DECEMBER 31 2016. Mobile Total Permits Year Single Duplex Multi Home/ Hotel/ Permits Y Issued Received Familyamity RV Motel Issued ROGO UnderCO January 1,2000 169 0 35 49 34 287 92 372 December 31,2000 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 228 0 12 38 28 306 161 290 December 31,2003 _ January 1,2004 241 0 54 29 0 324 105 288 December 31,2004 _ January 1;2005 361 8 2 28 0 399 160 288 December 31,2005 January 1,2006 376 0 2 14 0 392 198 289 December 31,2006 January 1,2007 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 January 1,2015- 209 0 44 27 1 281 197 267 December 31,2015 January 1,2016 252 0 4 12 1 269 165 226 December 31,2016 _ _ TOTAL 3,857 9 150 374 65 4,544 2,070 4,113 Source:Monroe County Growth Management,September 2017 21 A total of 2,934 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 to December 31, 2016. The highest demolition rate occurred in years 2005 and 2006 with 677 units demolished. An average of 172 dwelling units was demolished per year between 2000 and 20.16. 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 January 1, 2015-December 31, 2015 140 January 1, 2016-December 31,2016 152 TOTAL 2,934 Source:Monroe County Growth Management, July 2017 22 II.TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Roads are one of the critical public facilities identified for biennial 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 2017. 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 has 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 multi purpose 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. US, Segments and Mile Markers Segment Mile Segment Segment Mile Segment Number Marker Name Number Marker Name 1 4-5 Stock Island 13 47-54 Marathon 2 5-9 Boca Chica 14 54-60.5 Grassy 3 9-10.5 Big Coppitt 15 60.5-63 Duck 4 10.5-16.5 Saddlebunch 16 63-73 Long 5 . 16.5-20.5 Sugarloaf 17 73-77.5 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 February 26, 2017, and March 11, 2017. 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 6, 2017, to March 12, 2017, concurrently with the travel time runs. Traffic Volumes U.S. 1 is predominately a four-lane facili'y in Marathon and a two-lane facility in Upper Matecumbe and Big Pine Key. Seven-day ontinuous traffic counts recorded at three locations along U.S. 1 yielded the following average aily traffic (ADT) and annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes for 2017. These volumes for 5-day and 7-day are averages of the raw volumes counted. The volumes have been adjusted using 2015 seasonal and axle factors to estimate the 2017 AADT's. The traffic counts were recorded between March 6, 2017, and March 12, 2017. LOCATION 5-DAY ADT ' 7-DAY ADT.' AADT Big Pine Key(MM 29) 21,771 21,595 19,047 Marathon (MM 50) 39,673 39,239 34,609 Upper Matecumbe (MM 84) 26,47.1 26,126 23,043 The average weekday (5-Day ADT) have decreased in Big Pine Key and Upper Matacumbe and increased in Marathon, and the average weekly (7-Day ADT) and AADT traffic volumes have decreased at Big Pine Key and increased at Marathon and Upper Matacumbe compared to 2015 data. The seasonal and axle factor recorded by FDOT has not changed from 2015. A comparison of the most recent seven years of data is presented below in a table and also is 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 slightly decreasing trend in traffic volumes for Big Pine Key. 25 Overall Speeds 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 mpl to 45 mph LOS D 44.9 mp 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 2017 study was 46 mph, which is 0.9 mph higher than the 2015 median speed of 45.1 mph. The mean operating speed was 45 mph with a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 1.3 mph. The mean and median speeds correspond to LOS C conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 49.4 mph (0.3 mph higher than the 2015 highest overall speed of 49.1 mph), which occurred on Monday, February 27, 2017, between 4:20.p.m. and 6:40 p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 34.8 mph (4.6 mph lower than the 2015 lowest overall speed of 39.4 mph), which occurred on Saturday,March 11,2017,between 3:45 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. in the southbound direction. 26 U.S. 1 TRAFFIC COUNTS —HISTORICAL COMPARISON 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 % Count Change Count Change Count Change Count Change Count Change Count Change Count Change • - --3to F-Aw,z,zzi WIROT-14 Vii.r.Wak4 5—Day Average 21,242 -1.18% 20,651 -2.78% 20,468 -0.88% 21,056 2.87% 20,986 -0.33% 22,833 8.80% 21,915 -4.02% 7—Day Average 20,656 0.21% 20;115 -2.62% 20,070 -0.22% 20,579 2.53% 20,066 -2.49% 22,106 10.17% 21,595 -2.31% AADT 16,680 2:28% 17,842 6.97% 17,684 -0.88% 18,011. 1.85% 17,943 -0.38% 20,139 12.24% 19,047 -5.42% Marathon iA 5—Day Average 34,193 -0.64% 31,883 -6.76% 32,156 0.85% 34,145 6.1.9% 34,097 -0.14% 38,824 13.86% 39,382 1.44% 7—Day Average 32,298 1.79% 30,548 -5.42% 31,097 1.79% 32,985 6.07% 32,783 -0.61% 38,144 16.35% 39,239 2.87% AADT • 26,081 3.88% 27,547 5.62% 27,782 0.85% 29,208 5.13% 29,153 •;0.19% 34,243 17.46% 34,609 1.07% er MPO*40 ?'S.)4.4401 qttel matecum be ,ef r- 5—Day Average 23,071 -1.47% 22,588 -2.09% 24,326 7.69% 24,561 0.97% 23,656 -3.68% 26,079 10.24% 25,598 -1.85% 7—Day Average 23,016 -0.03% 22,634 -1.66% 24,508 8.27% 24,936 1.75% 23,164 -7.11% 25,817 11.45% 26,126 1.20% AADT S .18,585 72.23% 19,516 5.01% 21,017 7.69% 21,009 -0.04% 20,226 -3.73% 23,002 13.72% 23,043 0.18% Source:2017—U.S.1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study-URS • • U.S. 1 AADT- HISTORICAL COMPARISON / t 35000 m . �: '•. 30000 f I- 25000 o (II20000iiiii.‘ , ir , m ipp E 15000 .gyp i o I I 1 h 3 f 5000 iI I R 7 j 1 !, 1 l fj L 5. ,i ; 11 I l 'It Ill 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 Year oBig Pine oMarathon 0 Upper Matecumbe Source:2017—U.S.1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study-URS U.S. 1 AADT- HISTORICAL TRAFFIC GROWTH AADT ' 34,000 - ------- _._ — ■ _ i 32,000 ---__ --------------- •ir - ■ a 30,000 - a ■ ■ • • 28,000 • ■ ■ ■ • § • .�M.�tec. b:_Ra of Groh`__ 26,000 • s = 0.17% per year Marathon Rate of Growth 24,000 =0.41% per year • 22,000 • 20,000 • ... ...•...„.._,,,.. .._•-- • • • A-----"� A ......_•____ - • 18,000 ---- • _ ._._.- • ♦ ---r—_.___- ® Big Pine Rate of Growth -0.63% per year • • 16,000 i r r r r II 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year • Big Pine ■ Marathon a U.Matecumbe••+.•••Big Pine Regression Line�.••Marathon Regression Line U.Matecumbe Regression Line Source:2017—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 A>_ 35 mph LOS B>_ 28 mph LOS C>_ 22 mph LOS D>_ 17 mph LOS E>_ 13 mph LOSF< 13 mph Uninterrupted Flow LOS A1.5 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 E13.5 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 and three (3) seconds per pedestrian 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 2015 and the 2017 LOS are presented in a table below. The median segment speed ranged from 59.6 mph (LOS A) in the Boca Chica segment to 29.4 mph (LOS B) in the Stock Island segment. The level of service determined from the 2017 travel time data yield the following level of service changes as compared to 2015 data: LOS A (0) LOS B (4) LOS C (3) LOS D (1) LOS E(0) (+)Saddlebunch (4) (-)Duck(15) (-)U.Matecumbe(19) (-) Ramrod(8) (-)Long(16) (+)7 Mile Bridge (+)L.Matecumbe(1) (+)Plantation(21) Compared to last study year (2015) results, there is a level of service changes to eight (8) segments—four (4) of which resulted in a positive level of service changes and four (4) of which resulted in a negative level of service changes. • Saddlebunch segment(4) increased from LOS `C' to LOS `B' • Ramrod segment(8)decreased from LOS 'A' to LOS `B' • 7-Mile Bridge segment(12) increased from LOS `C' to LOS B' • Duck segment(15) decreased from LOS 'B' to LOS `C' • Long segment(16)decreased from LOS `B' to LOS `C' Village of Isle • Lower Matecumbe segment(17) increased from LOS `D' to LOS `C' • Upper Matecumbe segment(19) decreased from LOS ` ' to LOS `D' -Village of I lamorada • Plantation segment(21) increased from LOS B' to LOS `C' Compared to 2015, the median segment speeds increased in eighteen (18) of the 24 segments ranging between 0.1 mph to 3.2 mph. Five (5) segments experienced a decrease in median speeds,ranging from-0.4 mph to -3.5 mph. Segment(13),Marathon remained the same. The largest difference and decrease in speed (-3.5 mph) was recorded on Segment # 1 (Stock Island-MM 4.0 to MM 5.0) however, the LOS remained the same at `B'. The largest increase in speed(3.2 mph)was recorded on Segment#15 (Duck—MM 60.5 to MM 63.0),however the LOS change from a B' to a `C', which is counterintuitive. The increased in speed is expected to be related to the increased in posted speeds in this segment and the lower LOS is due to the methodology procedures and not a lower speed. However, LOS `C' is considered an acceptable LOS for the Keys and the higher speed observed through Segment#15 in 2017 helps to increase the overall median operating speeds along US-1/Overseas Highway and retain an overall LOS for US-1/Overseas Highway of`C' or better. 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 46 mph compared to the LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of 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 = 1 mph x 1656 daily trips/mph x 112 miles 10 miles Reserve Volume = 18,547 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 = 18,547 daily trips 8 (daily trips/unit)x 0.8 Residential Capacity = 2,898 units Applying the formula for reserve volume to eac of the 24 segments of U.S. 1 individually gives maximum reserve volumes for all segments otaling 93,174 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 C) x 1656 x Length Trip Length In 2017, there were two (2) segments identified to be functioning below the LOS C threshold - Upper Matecumbe (Segment #19) and Tea Table (Segment #18). Both segments are in the Village of Islamorada. The two segments identified above have depleted their reserve capacities,leaving 522 trips in U. Matecumbe(Segment#19) and 193 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 2017 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND RESERVE CAPACITY ADJ. ADJUSTED MEDIAN 2017 2015 SEGMENT LENGTH FACILITY POSTED SPEED FOR LOS C TRAVEL RESERVE OnUY RESERVE 55ALLOCATIDH I/A%lldtltl RESHiYE 51LALLOCATIDN" (miss) TYPE Limits Avsrago SIGNAL CRITERIA SPEED LOS 11Al SPEED OS/LYVOLUME BELOWLOSC DAILYYOLOLVE BELOWLOSC (mnh1 (mph) (mph) (mph) (mOh) (mph) (tttpsl (trtpsl (trsps) ((rt63) 1 Stock Island all-5.01 1.10 4-1-/D 30/45 42.8 WA 22.0 29.4 B 7.4 1,348 WA 1,986 N/A 2 Bora CNca 15.0-9.01 3,9 .1-UD 45/55 51.7 WA 532 53.6 A 9.4 6,071 N/A 5,167 N/A 3 610 C0008119.0-10.51 1.5 2-UU 45/55 45.7 NA 412 46.6 B 5.4 1,341 WA 1,292 N/A 4 Middlebonch(10.5-16.5) 5.8 2-1./U 45/55 53.6 WA 49.1 53.3 B 4.2 4.034 WA 2.497 N/A 5 Sunartc a/(16. -20.5) 3.9 2-UU 45 45.0 4.5 36.0 48.3 A 12.3 7.944 NIA 7.363 N/A 6 CIRO*?/205-23.01 2.5 2-LR3 45 45.0 WA 40.5 48.2 A 7.7 3,188 N/A 2,650 N/A 7$ummRland(23.0-25.01 2.2 2-UU 45 45.0 WA 40.5 45.0 B 4.5 1.633 WA 1,312 N/A 8 Ramrod(25.0-27.5) 2.3 2-UU 45 45.0 WA 40.5 46.1 B 5.6 2.133 NIA 2.323 N/A 9 Torch(27.5-29.51 2.1 2-LIU 45 45.0 WA 40.5 47.7 A 7.2 2,504 WA 2.434 N/A 10 010 Prue(29.5-33.0) 3.4 2-LIU 45 45.0 3.4 37.1 39.4 C 2,3 1,235 NIA 394 N/A 11 Banta Honda(33.0-40.0) 7.0 2 as) 45J$O/S5 52.4 WA 47.9 53.7 B SS 6.723 NIA 5.448 N/A 127-MlleeSrlalte(40.0.47.01 6.8 2d111 45/50/55 54.6 WA 50.1 53.3 B 32 3.603 N/A 2,703 N/A 13 MaraVton(47.0-54.0) 7.3 2-LtU(13%) 45 42.3 WA 22.0 97.3 A 15.9 15.221 WA 19,221 N/A 4-L1D(87%1 14 Grz5CV(54,0.60.51 6.4 2-UU 45155 , 54:5 1.5 48.5 51.6 C 3.1 3.284 NIA 3,286 N/A 15 Duck(60.S-63.0) 2.7 . 2-UU 55 55.0 N/A 50.5 53.3 C 2.8 1252 WA 1.788 N/A 16 Lono(63.0-73.0) 9.9 2-WU 40/45/50/55 534 NIA 48.9 50.5 C 15 2.459 WA 5.902 WA 17 L Matecumbe 173.0-77.51 . 4.5 2-UU 50/55 54.0 WA 495 49.8 C 0.3 224 WA (8941 957 18 Tea Table(77.5-79.51 2.2 2-UU 45155 54.1 WA 49.6 47.6 0 -1.9 16921 193 (4011 459 19 t/Ma:e0t¢nbe(79.5-84.0 4.1 2-UU 30/40/45 45.0 WA 40.5 39.2 0 -1.3 1883) 522 1.494 N/A 20%MotleY(84.0-66.0) 1.9 2-1/11 30/40/45 45.0 WA 40.5 41.0 C 0.5 157 WA 378 NIA 21 Plsnta5bh(E6.0-91.51 5.8 2-L/U 45 45.0 3.4 37:1 40.5 B 3.4 3.246 WA 1,057 NIA 22 Tavenner(915-99.5) 8.0 4-UD 45/50 472 2.0 40.7 47.4 A 6.7 8,876 N/A 10.466 N/A 23 Key Largo(99.5-105.0) 6.8 , 4-UD 45 45.0 3.5 37.0 44.4 A TA 8.333 WA 8.558 N/A 24 Cross(106.0.11251 62 2-LIU 45/55 514 WA 46.9 52.7 B - 5.7 5.852 WA 4,723 NtA Overall 108:3 45.0 46.0 C 1.0 18,547 Source:2017-U.S.1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study-URS SUMMARY Following is a summary of the 2017 Travel Time and Delay Study results: a) The traffic volumes have decreased by approximate-0.32% compared to 2015. b) The overall travel speed on U.S. 1 for 2017 is 46 mph, and 0.9 mph higher compared to the 2015 overall travel speed. c) Compared to 2015 data, the median travel speeds on 18 of the 24 segments have increased. They are: Boca Chica( 1.5 mph) Grassy(+0.1 mph) Saddlebunch (+1.6 mph) Duck(+3.2 mph) Sugarloaf(+0 8 mph) Long (+1.7 mph) Cudjoe(+1.3 mph) L. Matecumbe(+1.4 mph)-Village of Islamorada Summerland (+0.9 mph) Tea Table(+1.9 mph)-Village of Islamorada Torch(+0.2 mph) U.Matecumbe(+0.7)-Village of Islamorada Big Pine Key(+1.4 mph) Windley(+3.1 mph) Bahia Honda (+1.6 mph) Plantation (+2.0 mph) • 7-Mile Bridge(+0.8 mph) Cross(+0.7 mph) Median travel speeds'on 5 segments have decreased. They are: Stock Island (-3.5 mph) Tavernier(-1.1 mph) Big Coppitt(-0.6 mph) Key Largo(-0.4 mph) Ramrod(-0.5 mph) d) Compared to 2015 study results, there are LOS changes in eight (8) of the twenty- four (24) segments; four (4)increases and four (4) decreases. e) Segment# 17 (L Matecumbe-MM 73.0-MM 77.5) finally went from a LOS 'D' to `C' this year after having spent the past seven years at LOS `D'. The change in LOS was due to an increased in speed from 48.4 mph in 2015 to 49.8 mph this year. Segment #18 (Tea Table-MM 77.5 - MM 79.5) remained at LOS `D'; although, the travel speeds have increased from 46.8 in 2015 to 47.6 this year. Segment#19 (U. Matecumbe-MM 79.5 - MM 84.0) went from LOS `C' to `D' this year. The decreased in level of service (despite the increase in speed) is due to an increased on the weighted average posted speed, which affects the level of services thresholds. Speed increased from 38.5 in 2015 to 39.2 this year while the weighted average posted speed went from 40.8 in 2015 to 45.0 this year. Special attention should be given to these segments. f) It should be noted that Segments #15, #16 and #19 have increased median speeds but decreased LOS due to differences in weighted posted speed as explained in the bullet above. For segment#16, the LOS changed from B' in 2015 to `C' in 2017. LOS C is still an acceptable LOS for the Keys and higher speed observed for Segment#16 in 2017 helps to increase the overall median operating speed along US-1/Overseas Highway. g) There were a total of 331 delay events, 33 of which were excluded due to their nonrecurring nature. The delays due to traffic signals were the largest recurring delay- causing event this year. The traffic signals caused 213 delays, totaling 2 hours, 10 minutes and 29 seconds. The signals caused on average a 4 minutes and 30 seconds delay per trip, which is 29 seconds less compared to 2015. h) There was no draw bridge related delays this year. i) There were no construction delays this year. j) There were sixty-four (64) congestion related delay event this year totaling 3 hours 16 minutes and 44 seconds compared to 1 hour 28 minutes and 16 seconds in 2015. The congestion delay events contributed on average 7 minutes and 2 seconds of delay per trip of 3 minutes and 9 seconds. k) Segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given particular attention when approving developments applications. This year, there are seven segments of US 1 in this category(one segment less than the 2015 stu y) Big Pine(MM 29.5—MM 33.0) Tea Table(M 77.5—MM 79.5) Duck(MM 60.5-MM 63.0) U. Matecumbe(MM 79.5—MM 84.0) Long (MM 63.0—MM 73.0) Windley(84.0—86.0) L. Matecumbe (MM 73.0—MM 77.5) The 12.5-mile stretch of Duck Key and Long Key (from MM 60.5 to MM 73.0) has been added this year to make a contiguous 25.51-mile segment of upper keys from Duck (MM 60.5) to Windley (MM 86.0) to be within the Area of Critical County Concern (ACCC). Within the Lower Keys, Big Pine (MM 29.5 — MM 33.0) segment was identified to be within the ACCC. 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. • Providing transit service or other than single passenger vehicle modes of transportation to connect the city of Key West and other major origin/destinations in the Keys with the mainland. 35 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. 36 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. 37 FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY Figure 3.1 TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OVERVIEW 45.2 MG STORAGE CAPACITY l, MO 15. FLORIDA CITY 14.OCEAN REEF nbaroll" 0 29"6 M00 171E 50PTU11110 TRTArMENT PI.WT 275I!PWPS 1 YG 6 M00 R.O.TREATMENT PUNT 2 500 HP PUMPS �� 1.KEY WEST 7 1R0000 HP PUMPS / 7 1000 HP DIEM OU PUMrS 2 250 HP PUMPS T `r EMERGENCY 6 Up / moo,I s bp, i � Illy 16. KEY LARGO Di511 N �'n.1i*'.; ll �`�" ` MARATHON OR�� ty 6uosrtR w 2 40 HP PUMPS t2;17 SgTgp 3 700 rPUYPS 2.STOCK ISLAND 1 665 H PUMP' `4yti 2 300!r PUMPS .5 M0 9.VACA T el 12.TAVERNIER �� 2rUI3tl5p GI x 50 Iw PUM - 13, ROCK pEgwILA 6aos�.-�Puwv RAMROD -EY j HARBOR F^AN6M 1 1000 HP PULP 6. BIG PINE KEY 10.CRAWL KEY ,. a 1 sR O PVYP Cl 1600 HP PUMP 2 75 HP PUMPS p 2 30 HP PUMPS �' 5.SUMMERLAND KEY /'� DUCK KEY FTv RwR y tIZ J ORADA M 2 30 HP PUMPS 6 f 1 WW TREATMENT PLANT • 2 75 HP P MP ALP LO M00 R.O.PLANT ^ BIG COPPIiT KEY MARATHON- 2 75 HP PUMPS 4'— LONG KEY 6 RNA r / „ 3 600 HP PUMPS k)i \, i�� -( LITTLE VENICEMS: LAM" oas wG ,j• 4 TREATMENT PLANT WW TREATMENT PLANT�� . =3' BAY POINT 7. MARATHON r f 3 YC NWTREATMENT PLANT B2 30 HP PUMPS . 69th Si MARATHON ^ 60OSTTH PUMPM il gTFMIN 2 300 P PUMPS / \ 1 650 HP PUMPS 20 MC0 17.0,PUNT ermarna, G� TRANMISSION BACKPUMPING CAPABILITIES STOCK ISLAND , � T 3.STOCK ISLAND(STOAL) MARATHON (1)-5 MG TANK 2 MS HP 1 30 HP MOWER PAP 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 1st-April30`h) 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. 38 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 2002-2016 r r � . .z s,,�nnt' �i � t ,WU viral , +/.-Annual Year Withdrawak a ;''%,Changes o � b �'` ° :: d t ,/ n' G - ALllocahon ge- °t 2002 6,191 ( 10.03% 7,274 1,083 2003 6,288 1.57% 7,274 986 2004 6,383 j 2.74% 7,274 i 813 _ 2005 6,477 ' 0.16% 7,274 j 803 2006 6,283 -2.49% 7,274 964 2007 5,850 j -7.35% 7,274 j 1,428 _ 2008 5,960 -j 1.89% 8,751 2,791 2009 5,966 I 0.09% 8,751 2,785 2010 5,919 I -0.79% 8,751 ! 2,832 2011 6,327 j 6.89% 8,751 2,424 2012 6,042 I -4.50% 8,751 2,709 2013 I- 6,105 j 1.04% 8,751 , 2,646 2014 6,377 I 4.46% 8,751 2,374 - 2015 6,530 I 2.4% 8,751 2,221 2016 6,462. I -1.04% 8,751 j 2,289 Source:Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2017 39 FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY Potable Water Demand Summary New Water Demand, Actual Water Demand, and Expected Water Demand Year—2015** Year-2015 Year 2016 New Water Actual Water Expected Water Service- Metered Water Demand- Demand- -Gallons/Year Municipality Gallons/Year Gallons/Year* Gallons/Year Unincorporated Monroe County 2,893,300 2,020,640,300 2,531,813,432 2,534,706,732 City of Key West 869,500 1,892,130,300 2,370,793,510 2,371,663,010 City of Marathon 633,000 526,344,800 659,497,306 660,130,306 City of Key Colony 5,900 100,606,000 126,056,885 126,062,785 City of Layton 0 10,641,300 13,333,292 13,333,292 City of Islamorada 794,400 661,294,600 828,586,142 829,380,542 Entire Florida Keys 5,196,100 5,211,657,300 6,530,080,566 6,535,276,666 SFWMD WUP Annual Allocation 8,751,000,000 8,751,000,000 *metered+unmetered water demand(ie.flushing,leaks,etc.) FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY Potable Water Demand Summary New Water Demand, Actual Water Demand, and Expected Water Demand Year—2016 Year-2016 Year-2017 New Water Metered Water Actual Water Expected Water Service- -Gallons/Year Demand- Demand- Municipality Gallons/Year Gallons/Year* Gallons/Year Unincorporated " 3,351,500 2,153,059,242 2,751,334,717 2,754,686,217 Monroe County City of Key West 800,800 1,659,349,580 2,120,436,827 2,121,237,627 City of Marathon 1,489,900 518,317,910 662,344,088 663,833,988 City of Key Colony 80,500 108,161,726 138,216,871 138,297,371 City of Layton 0 9,101,171 11,630,134 11,630,134 City of Islamorada 405,000 630,427,920 805,606,362 806,011,362 Entire Florida Keys 6,127,700 5,078,417,549 6,489,569,000 6,495,696,700 SFWMD WUP Annual Allocation 8,751,000,000 8,751,000,000 40 FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY Water Supply Available vs. Water Demand Projections 30 .� Rmit Floridan Blend and Bypass(mgd) O ®Proposed Reclaimed Water 15 _ -- -- -- —• — --. ___ — _ — — — .— -- --- — — -- — -- tram Reverse-Osmosis WTP(mgd) e mom Biscayne Aquifer(mgd) gusted 2016 Avg.Day Projections 10 , — — — -- — — — - —2005 Avg Dory Projections thru 2026 N D .�. i. 1' _ - 1. 'f- _I Y. - --I ..,•_..t__.t._..r.. '-, r -i- ..r' -.-_ ---t- "- -`t- _ p� 0 Qp1 N N N .N-1 N .1 'i N N N N NNrV N N N N N N Nl N rn O O 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 2016, the FKAA distributed an annual average day of 17.12 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer plus 0.54 MGD from Floridan RO Production. This next 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. 41 Projected Water Demand in 2017 (in MG) FKAA Permit 2016 Water 2017 Water Demand Thresholds Demand Annual Allocation Average Daily Demand 23.98 17.66 17.99 Maximum Monthly Demand 809.01 594.5 604.11 Annual Demand 8,751 6,462 6,566 Biscayne Aquifer Annual Allocation/Limitations Average Daily Demand 17.79 17.12 17.79 Average Dry Season Den-and* 17.00 16.82 Annual Demand 6,492 6,250 6,366 Floridan RO Production - Average Daily Demand 6.00 0.54 0.2 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(MG) *Dry Season is defined as December 2015 through April 2016 Source:Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2017 Preliminary 2016 figures and projections for 2017 indicate a slight increase in annual average daily demand from 17.66 MGD to 17.99 and an increase in maximum monthly demand from 594.5 MG to 604.11 MG. 42 The following table provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional Population and average daily demand, the average water consumption for 2016 was approximately 112 gallons per capita(person)—within the adopted LOS of 132.00 gal./capita/day. Figure 3.6-Per Capita Water Use age Functional Av er Per Capita Water Year Po, , a ___. pulations _,• Daily Demand,(gallons)? . Consumption(gallons)? 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 156,727 16,836,164 107 2014 157,063 17,472,362 111 2015 157,400 17,890,411 114 2016 157,730 17,655,738 112 Source:1. Monroe County Population Projections-Monroe County Planning Department,2011 2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2017 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. 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 approximate$34 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be funded by the water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants. 43 Figure 3.7-FKAA Projected 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan �_� $O $U $0 $O *O $O Water Supply $11.000000 *20250.000 *7,200000 $O $O $38.450'000 Water Treatment $11.800.000 $3,250000 $13.750.000 $2'250.000 *8.000.000 $33.050.000 Transmission yNoins& $5.450.00O $0.35O.00O $8.30O.UOU $0.2OO.0UO $5.TOO.OUO $320O0O0O BoosterPummpStations ' ' Distribution Mains $400.000 $400.000 $100.000 $O $O $SOO.UOO- Facilities&Structures $583.000 $385.000 $835.000 *O *O $1.253.000 Information Technology $U oO *O *O $O $0 Reclaimed Water $550.000 $550.000 *550.000 $550.000 $550.000 $2.750.000 Systems Navy Water Systems *29.783.000 *31.135.000 $30,235,000 *$,000'000 $8.250,000 $108,403.000 Totals ' S0MNMRY IbeC000iy`a 2010 average daily vvu1er demand was 17.66 M(}D, with uprojected 2017 average daily vvu1cr demand of 17.99 M[}D. This provides u 599 MGD surplus water allocation based upon the projected 2Ol7demand. With the construction of the new water supply wells and reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment facility and a projecteduuodoo allocation, there is an adequate supply of water tn meet current and future demands,based oo current conditions and projections. ' ' 44 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 d' ided into three (3) sub-districts (see map below). School concurrency ensures coordination betty en local governments and school boards in planning and permitting residential developments tha 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. • r � > �'� ' ¢:. z a Gulf of Mexico .yr ' tw ' t ,C 4.2"4 ft'„ 1; i . i ° �� ' ib p i °�"° 's Al w ' �ti "' � ;a 41r '°sue. �'fie p a Key Mtddl ", . , u � �" � � YES i ,. m�ntaryttdtddb �he Florida Boy d _ cchrSeliool'y lif Monroe County ;s _ co hnns Treasure i Sch a dMI9h}whoa. 905•MUes from Key Lergo to Kaya�yJest � - < btomersort Sdtool ', h '.a Plantation School .r Keywest * StantoypSwidik „� x ,t ' r Coll�gtav 3 �� �. 4 Elementary School Oer''' ' ams S yarbatEl me - .h _ Elementary School •� "- �"-�� Marathon - 1 k!. `.. �-._ �P H hSchool SIO 8e@ - , Elementary seliool t ,. a g ` f Key w.st ,y - ���p{„,„ R;{ ,� -� H Dry Poinciana Mont�ssorl School y , 8 rEl!menmry school '�' A ciynn Arther ,Horace O Bryant ,. ro ' ,}ElementarygSehool Diddle School A. School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates. 45 The Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate is 10,026 students and the Capital Outlay of Full-Time Equivalent (COFTE) is 7,027. The actual utilization during 2015 — 2016 was 70.09%. ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL LOCATION 2015-2016 2014-2015 2015-2016 FISH CAPACITY COFTE UTILIZATION CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH 981 723 74.00% KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH 1,431 1,154 81.00% HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE 1,124 985 88.00% MARATHON SENIOR HIGH 1,370 654 48.00% GERALD ADAMS . 585 477 82.00% PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL 602 406 67.00% POINCIANA ELEMENTARY 672 622 93.00% SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY 1,130 540 48.00% STANLEY SWITLIK ELEMENTARY 858 518 60.00% KEY LARGO SCHOOL 1,243 795 64.00% MAY SANDS SCHOOL • 30 156 519.00% GLYNN ARCHER ELEMENTARY 0 0 0.00% BIG PINE ACADEMY 0 0 0.00% TOTAL 10,026 7,027 70.09% The projected COFTE for 2019-2020 is 6,775 students with 67.57 % of utilization. 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 2015-2016 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, elevator repair, carpentry and small construction projects and maintenance and repair. The 2015-2016 Monroe County School District expenditures from local funding sources were $23,765,689. Additional revenue sources include proceeds from I/z cent sales surtax at $17,232,283 and funds carried forward at$21,989,349 were available for this period. The total project costs for construction, maintenance, repair and renovation during 2014-2015 was $24,355,049. The projected revenue/expenditures for new construction and remodeling projects only,for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are $25,307,782 and$29,433,655,respectively. 46 SUMMARY Enrollment figures for the 2015-2016 school year indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2015-2016 utilization is 70.09% of the school system capacity. • 47 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 11.41 pounds per capita per day. Policy 801.4.2 establishes within three (3) years after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall implement a county-wide, mandatory recycling program for residential and commercial locations. 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 five 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, requires that "Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site at a level of service of 11.41 pounds per capita per day.The county solid waste and resource recovery authority may enter into agreements,including agreements under F.S. Section 163.01,to dispose of solid waste outside of the county" (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). 48 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 173,774 57,272 116,502 2014 177,312 61,421 115,891 2015 276,710 110,140 166,570 2016 353,658 200,845 152,813 Source:Monroe County Technical Document July 2011;Monroe County Public Works 2013 Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2015&2016 Annual Report 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. 49 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 occurred in 2011. The County and tourist population are 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 th solid waste haul out contract. A recent(2009) amendment to the contract includes WMI and the ounty's commitment to increase annual recycling rate to 40 percent by 2014. Based on the in ormation 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. 50 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 20;04 112,102 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 173,774 35,806 35,658 71,464 12.94 2014 . 177,312 35,751 35,862 71,613 . 13.12 2015 276,710 35,696 36,067 71,763 20.43 2016 353,658 35,632 36,277 71,909 25.48 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 eight (8) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for 2015-2016. 51 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 neigh orhood and community parks in unincorporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functio al population. To ensure a balance between the provisions of resource- and activity-based recr ation areas the LOS standard has been divided equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore,the LOS standards are: 0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population; and 0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population Resource-based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources of significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity-based recreation areas can be established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other athletic events. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Monroe County Surplus or Comprehensive Plan Policy 1201.1.1, Existing Demand in Parks and Recreation Functional Acreage Acreage (Deficit) in Population 2010 Acreage 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resourced-based 138,803 2,502 113.8 136.2 neighborhood and community parks 1.5 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. 52 Level of Service Analysis For Activity-Based Recreation Areas The Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at educational facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. A total of 108.86 acres of developed resourced-based and 117.23 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 strucures, 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 Facilities Marker 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 53 UPPER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING AREA MM 73-112 Mile Classification (Acres) Name Location Mark Facilities er Resource Activity Garden Cove Park Key Largo 106 Boat ramp 1.5 NA Picnic tables,benches, Rowell's Waterfront Key Largo 104.5 paddle-sports launch, 8 NA Park swimming area Murray Nelson Boat basin,pier, dock, five Waterfront Park Key Largo 102 pavilions,restrooms,picnic 1.2 NA tables,benches Hibiscus Park Key Largo 101.5 Vacant, inaccessible 0.5 NA (Buttonwood Lane) waterfront Ball field, 3 basketball courts, Friendship Park Key Largo 101 picnic shelters,Play NA 2.38 equipment,restrooms,trail Key Largo Community Park- 2 boat ramps,play equipment, Jacob's Aquatic Key Largo 99.6 aquatic park, 3 swimming 1.5 13.6 Center pools Vacant, waterfront access, Sunset Point Park Key Largo 95.2 boat ramp 1.2 0.9 Beach, two ball fields,play Harry Harris County Key Largo equipment, swimming,boat Park (Tavernier) 93 ramp,BBQs, shuffleboard, 2 15.1 beach,picnic tables, restrooms Key Largo Play Equipment, picnic, Old Settlers Park (Tavernier) 91.9 shelter, beach,butterflyNA 3 garden Burr Beach Park Key Largo 91 Vacant, waterfront access 0.1 NA (Sunny Haven) Upper Old State Rte. 4A Matecumbe 82.5 Vacant 0.3 NA Key Old State Rte. 4A, Upper Hurricane Matecumbe 81 Historical Marker 1.2 NA Monument Key Anne's Beach, Lower Beach, swimming,bike path, Lower Matecumbe Matecumbe 73.5 6.1 6 Beach(5) Key picnic pavilions,boardwalk 54 LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5 Mile Classification(Acres) Name Location Mark Facilities er Resource Activity Little Duck Picnic pavilions,beach, Veteran's Memorial Key (Ohio 40 BBQs,boat ramp, 0.6 24.9 Park swimming,beach, Key) restrooms * Missouri Key/South Missouri ey 39 Roadside pull-off,beach 3.5 NA side US 1 Pier,Playground, soccer field, tennis & Big Pine Key Park Big Pine Key 31 basketball courts, shade 5.5 4.6 structures,restrooms J.Watson Field Historic House, 2 tennis (Stiglitz Property) Big Pine Key 30 courts,volleyball,play 1.2 2.4 (2) equipment,baseball, picnic, dog park Play equipment, 3 Blue Heron Park • Big Pine Key 30 pavilions,basketball, NA 5.5 volleyball, Bob Evans/ Chamber of Big Pine Key 30 Vacant 0.3 NA Commerce Benches, waterfront, Palm Villa Park Big Pine Key 30 play equipment, NA 0.6 basketball State Road 4 LittK yorch 28 Boat ramps 0.1 NA Ramrod Key Park Ramrod Key 27 Beach*, swimming 1.2 1.2 West Summerland West Park Summerland 25 2 Boat ramps 31.8 NA Key Play equipment, Saddlebunch volleyball,picnic tables, Bay Point Park Key 15 trail,basketball, 2 tennis NA 1.58 courts,pavilions, soccer nets Boca Chica Beach, Boca Chica 11 Beach,picnic table * 6 NA SR 941 (3) Key Wilhelmina Harvey Big Coppitt 10 Play equipment, path NA 0.65 Park Key 55 • Mile Classification (Acres) Name Location Mark Facilities er Resource Activity Gulfview Park, Big Coppitt 9.7 Boat ramp 0.2 NA Delmar Ave. Key Rockland Hammock R Ke and 9 Vacant 2.5 NA Play equipment, baseball &soccer fields, Bernstein Park Raccoon Key 4.5 tennis,basketball & NA 11 volleyball courts, restrooms East Martello Park Key West 1 5 Picnic, teen center, 14.56 NA Island Historic Fort, museum • 1.6-mile beach, concession area, 2 band Higgs Beach Park, shells, pier,picnic C.B. Harvey,Rest Key West 1 pavilions and grills, 5 5 12.1 Beach Island tennis courts, play area, bike path, volleyball, swimming,Dog Park • West Martello Park Key West 1 Historic Fort 0.8 NA Island Whitehead Street Key West 1 Historic Fort, Museum 0.8 NA Lighthouse Island Pines Park(S. Key West 1 Picnic NA 1.72 Roosevelt) Island (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 15 ft.) Source:Monroe County Technical Document July 2011 Acquisition of Additional Recreation Areas The Monroe County Year 2030 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 56 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 which is already owned by the county but which is not being used for park and recreation purposes; 2. Acquisition of new park sites on a limited basis; 3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board for use of existing school-based park facilities by county residents; 4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County for use of existing city-owned park facilities by county residents; 5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments for use of existing publicly-owned lands or facilities by county residents; and 6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities for use of private park facilities by county residents. Objective 1201.2.3 Comprehensive Plan 2030-"Priority shall be given to locating new neighborhood and community parks in communities which deinonstrate the greatest deficiencies in parks and recreation". 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). • 57 VII. SANITARY SEWER Over the years several factors have contributed to the water quality degradation of the Florida Keys, among them are stormwater run-off, changes in flow from Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, but one of the most influential contaminated factors is the past wastewater practices. Wastewater from cesspits, septic tanks, injection wells and liveaboard vessels add nitrogen and phosphorus to our waters breaking the ecological balance. The development of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was the BOCC response toward correcting our water quality problems. Their goal was to improve the water quality of canals and confined nearshore waters through a long-term strategy and bring back the clear waters that characterize our coasts and are the source of toarist attraction. The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan adopted by the BOCC on April 1993 mandated nutrient loading levels be reduced in the keys marine ecosystem by the year 2010. In 1998, the Florida Governor issued Executive Order 98-309 which directed relevant agencies and entities to coordinate with Monroe County to implement the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and eliminate cesspits, failing septic tank systems, and revise the existing 246 treatment plants for capacity and quality of treated wastewater. In 1999 the Florida Legislature set statutory effluent standards and associated compliance schedules for wastewater treatment system in Monroe County. These standards address treatment for several water quality constituents and require best • available technology(BAT) standards for flows less than 100,000 gallons per day. Adopted water quality standards are listed below. Water Quality Standards BAT AWT Constituent (mg/L) (mg/L) Biological Oxygen Demand (BODS) 10 5 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 10 5 Total Nitrogen (TN) 10 3 Total Phosphorus (TP) 1 1 Previously in 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Oceans and Coastal Protection Divisions produced a report entitled "Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary". The report provided a list of 84 water quality hot spots with known or suspected water quality degradation. Later in 1999 Monroe County released a new study entitled "Water Quality 'Hotspots'in the Florida Keys: Evaluation for Stormwater Contributions", this study identified 88 hotspots. The definition of "Hot Spots" are areas of known or suspected water quality degradation, with known and unknown unsafe sewage disposal practices, that has to be eliminated and would receive a community wastewater collection and treatment system within the next 10 years. In contrast with "Hot Spots", "Cold Spots" were defined as areas where the on-site system would continue operating until the whole new system is established. The Florida Administrative Code created the Rule 28-20.100, which was amended in 1999 to the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by the Governor and his cabinet. This rule provided a 5-Year 58 Work Program to improve water quality emphasizing in the identification and elimination of cesspools required by Objective 901.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Monroe County adopted a new cesspool identification and elimination ordinance, Ordinance 031-1999, which complies with the Work Program. This ordinance establishes an inspection and compliance program for unknown and unpermitted on-site treatment and disposal sewage (OSTDS). The intent of the ordinance is to require operating permits for the (up to) 7,900 existing at that time unpermitted OSTDS. The Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was prepared by a multidisciplinary consultant team,under the direction of the Monroe County Department of Marine Resources to determine the acceptable levels of wastewater treatment and the strategy to follow to change the old wastewater collection system for a new modern system in the County. The goals of the Master Plan is to provide responsive, flexible and cost-effective solutions that improve wastewater management practices throughout the keys and must satisfy environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines. The implementation of the new wastewater system and the elimination of the old sewer practices in Monroe County has taken years. The planning period used for developing this Master Plan is the 20 years interval between 1998 and 2018. The transition process has been under the supervision of Monroe County. Nowadays the new system is operating satisfactorily and only a small percentage of households have not been hooked up to the new system. At this time there are four entities providing sewer services in the unincorporated areas of the County. 1. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority(FKAA) 2. Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District 3. North Key Largo Utilities Corporation 4. Key West Resort Utilities FKAA covers by far more areas of the County than any other operator. The list of their facilities and general services areas are, from south to north: • Key Haven Wastewater System- FKAA acquired this wastewater utility in 2009, which serves this neighborhood only. FKAA is in the process of replacing most of this collection system and the plan is to close this small wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and redirect the flow to and expanded Big Coppit system. All 450 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) have connected to the central system. This extended aeration wastewater treatment plan is anticipated to be taken out of service by early 2019 and flows redirected to the Big Coppit Wastewater Treatment Plant. • • Big Coppitt Regional Wastewater System- The construction of this new wastewater system with funding provided by Monroe County began in January 2007 and include services to Rockland Key, Big Coppitt Key, Geiser Key and Shark Key. Connections to the system began in August 2009. Currently, 1,584 of 1,738 EDUs (91%) have connected the Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) system. A number of the remaining unconnected properties no longer have dwelling units on site, then the percentage of unconnected properties appears greater than actual. This wastewater treatment plant will be expanded to accept flows from Key Haven and Naval Air Station Key West(NASKW) wastewater system. 59 • Bay Point Wastewater System- The FKAA began construction of the Bay Point Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection system in 2004, to provide central wastewater service to the Bay Point and Blue Water communities (Saddlebunch Keys). The first wastewater connection began in 2005, today 423 EDUs of 438 EDUs (97%) have been connected to this Best Available Technology (BAT) treatment plant. • Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System- The construction of this wastewater system began in January 2013 with funding provided by Monroe County. The new WWTP has a capacity of 940,000 gpd. Today Lower Sugarloaf Key, Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key and Little Torch Key and a majority portion of Big Pine Key have been completed and residents have received notifications to connect. Approximately 8,387 EDUs have been invited to connect and of those 3,291 EDUs have completed their connection (39%). In M y 2015, Monroe County directed the FKAA to expand boundaries of the central waste ater system to include Middle Torch Key, Big Torch Key, and No Name Key. These areas are expected to be completed layout in 2017 and will contribute approximately 130 additional EDUs. • Duck Key Regional Wastewater System- The FKAA became owner and operator of the Hawk's Cay WWTP in May 2006. The wastewater treatment plant with funding provided by Monroe County underwent an extensive redesign in 2011 and was upgraded to the rigorous AWT standards. Additionally, the collection system was expanded to serve the remaining residents of Duck Key. The last phase of upgrades was completed in September 2013. The WWTP has the capacity to serve Conch Key, Little Conch Key, Waker's Island, Hawk's Cay Resort and Duck Key with 275,000 gpd. Currently, 1,383 EDU's of 1,471 EDUs (94%) have connected to the system. • Layton Wastewater System- The FKAA began construction of the Layton Wastewater System in 2005, to provide central wastewater services to the city of Layton and Long Key State Park with a capacity of 66,000 gpd. Connection to the system began in 2006 and currently, all 351 EDUs (100%) are connected to the system. Subsequent expansion of the Layton service area to incorporate the remaining east and west ends of Long Key is currently nearing completion. This expansion will add approximately 93 EDUs to the system. Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Plant and District- This system serves Islamorada and unincorporated Monroe County areas from Tavernier Creek to Card Sound Road. The plant capacity is 3,450,000 gpd and does meet LOS for wastewater treatment quality. The District began taking flow from Islamorada on June 16, 2014, the flow from Islamorada has increased up to 550,000 gpd by March 2017. As parcels in Islamorada continue to connect flow will increase. The combined average flows from Islamorada and Key Largo for the last 365 days has been 1,310,000 gpd. In the District service area (does not include Islamorada) there are 10,176 EDUs (98%)have been connected to the system and 168 are not connected. North Key Largo Utilities Corporation- This private utility serves the Ocean Reef Community. This WWTP was constructed with Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) technology with a capacity of 499,000 gpd. The volume of sewage the plant is processing at this time is 250,000 gpd.All dwelling units of the community have been connected to the system with a total of 1,620 EDUs (100%). 60