The URL can be used to link to this page

Item K3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: Julv 17, 2002 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes No ----X- Department: Planning AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval ofthe Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity for 2002. ITEM BACKGROUND: Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development Regulations (LDR's) requires that the BOCC adopt an annual assessment of public facilities capacity for Monroe County. The Planning Department has prepared a 2002 assessment for the BOCC's consideration and approval. This year's report finds that solid waste and parks have sufficient capacity to serve anticipated growth. Permitted potable water allocations are marginally adequate, and Monroe County and the FKAA are taking steps to remedy this. All state and county roads are anticipated to meet level of service standards, except for the Big Pine Key segment (Segment # 10) of U.S. 1. Since no reserve capacity exists on this segment of U.S. 1, Florida Statutes and the County's LDR's require that the moratorium on issuance of building permits for additional traffic generating development be continued on Big Pine and No Name Keys. PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC has approved assessments of public facilities capacity each year since 1987. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval. TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes No COST TO COUNTY: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No ----X- AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Atty N/ A OMB/Purchasing DOCUMENTATION: Included ~ N/A DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Not Required _ AGENDA ITEM # K3 DISPOSITION: Revised 2/27/01 RESOLUTION NO. - 2002 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY FOR 2002 AS S.UBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT. WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292(b) of the Momoe County Land Development Regulations requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an annual assessment of public facilities capacity for unincorporated Momoe County; and WHEREAS, this annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and WHEREAS, once approved by the Board of County Commissioners, this report becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed and approved for the upcoming year; and WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations provides the minimum standards for level of service of roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292 requires the annual assessment of public facilities capacity to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Momoe County with inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities; and WHEREAS, the annual report finds that sufficient capacity exists for solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth through 2002; and WHEREAS, the transportation section of the annual report is based upon the findings of the 2002 US-l Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS Greiner, the County's transportation consultant; and WHEREAS, the annual report indicates that the Big Pine segment of US-l (Segment #10, Mile Marker 29.5 to 33.0) has remained below the mandated level of service for roads as indicated in Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, the annual report also indicates that there is no reserve capacity for additional trips on the Big Pine segment of US-I; and WHEREAS, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations require a building moratorium for all development which would generate additional traffic on the Big Pine segment needs to be maintained; and WHEREAS, the building moratorium for the Big Pine segment of US-I will continue until nex,t year when an analysis of the capacity of the US-l segment can be re-examined; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the annual assessment of Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity for 2002 is ADOPTED, and continuance of the subsequent building moratorium for Big Pine Key as mandated by the Monroe County Land Development Regulations is APPROVED. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida at a regular meeting held on the day of 2002. Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy Mayor Pro Tern Dixie Spehar Commissioner Murray Nelson Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Bert Jimenez BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy (SEAL) ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK 2002 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT ~... . ~ ~,~ '~ =~, * ... to .1 ~ ~- . ", , ''i "'J .. . '. ~; '. EDUCATION SOLID WASTE POTABLE WATER TRANSPORTATION PARKS AND RECREATION JULY 2002 PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARy......................................................................... 2 INTRO D U CTI 0 N ... ...... ... . .. ...... .... .. ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ..... .... ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... 5 I. GROWTH ANALySIS....................................................................... ....1 0 II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES......................................................... 27 III. POTABLE WATER.......................................................................... ..41 IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES............................................................. ..... 48 v. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES... ......... ......... .... .......... .... ...... ...... ........ ......54 VI. PARKS AND RECREATION... ............ ... .... ........ ... ... ...... .... ..... ... ... ... ....58 1 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Monroe County Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as "the Code") mandate an annual assessment of the roads, solid waste, potable water, and school facilities serving the unincorporated portion of Monroe County. In the event that these public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below th~ level of service required by the Code, develop- ment activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that the public facilities are not further burdened. The Code clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. As required by the Code, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider and ap- prove the annual report, with or without modifications. Any modifications that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact, including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity required to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document becomes the official report of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. This report distinguishes between areas of inadequate facility capacity and marginally adequate capacity. Inadequate facility capacity is defined as those areas with capacity below the adopted level of service standard. Marginally adequate capacity is defined as those areas at the adopted level of service standard or that are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next twelve months. Residential and Nonresidential Growth for 2001 F or the 2002 assessment, a population model that uses a 1990 Census base data and Monroe County Certificates of Occupancy to estimate and forecast population growth is used. The model is based upon the actual number of residential units built, and is therefore more accurate than previous models. The projected functional population of unincorporated Monroe County is expected to reach 74,806 people in 2002, a slight increase from 2001. Policy 10 1.3.1, the County's nonresidential ROGO policy in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, was passed by the Board of County Commissioners in September of 2001 and was ap- proved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in December of2001, but was sub- sequently appealed. The appeal will be heard in August 2002 and until that time it is antici- pated that only a limited number of permits will be issued for new nonresidential develop- ment in 2002. The only projects that will be issued permits are those that have received a determination of vested rights or those projects that are exempt from nonresidential ROGO per Policy 101.3.4. Assessment of Public Facilities for 2001 Two of the four facility types addressed by this report - solid waste and schools - have sufficient capacity to serve the growth anticipated in 2002 at the adopted level of service. Executive Summary 2 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment The remaining facility types, potable water and roads, demonstrate marginally adequate ca- pacity or fail to meet the County's level of service standard in certain isolated situations. The status of each facility is summarized below. Solid Waste: The combination of the existing haul-out contract and the space available at the Cudjoe Key landfill provides the County with sufficient capacity to accommodate all existing and approved development for up to twenty years. Schools: A 1998 study by the Momoe County Planning Department, in concert with the School Board, has determined that there is more than sufficient capacity in the schools to ac- commodate all fall emollments in 2002 and future years. Potable Water: Preliminary figures for 2002 indicate an increase in water use of 8.2 per- cent through May compared to 200 I figures. It is likely that the annual withdrawal will be above the threshold of 5.778 billion gallons in 2002. But, in May 2002, the FKAA imple- mented its new water rate structure. This new water rate is designed to encourage water con- servation and is expected to decrease water use. An analysis of data shows that the residential and overall LOS standards for water con- sumption, as set out in Objective 701.1 of the Momoe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, are being met. Currently, FKAA is working with SFWMD to increase its water use permit (WUP) to a maximum daily withdrawal of 23.79 mgd and a total annual withdrawal of 7.274 billion gallons (or average day of 19.93 mgd). The proposed increase in the WUP is expected to go before the SFWMD Board for approval in August 2002. Roads: The adopted level of service (LOS) standard for US-l is LOS C. Based on the findings of the 2001 US-l Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Momoe County, as pre- pared by URS Greiner Consultants, the overall 2001 level of service for US-l is LOS C. The table on the next page shows the available capacity of US-l by segment. County regulations allow development activities to continue in "areas of inadequate fa- cility capacity" provided traffic speeds do not fall below the standard by more than five per- cent. At this time, Big Pine Key has no reserve capacity. Thus pursuant to Section 9.5-292 (b) of the Land Development Regulations, a moratorium on new development will be main- tained until the level of service is improved. Executive Summary 3 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1 Stock Island 2 Boca Orica 3 Big Coppitt 4 SaddlebWlch 5 Sugarloaf 6 Cudjoe 7 Sunmerland 8 Ramrod 9 Torch 10 Big Pine 11 Bahia Honda 12 7-Mile Bridge 13 Marathon 14 Grassy Key 15 Duck Key 16 Long Key 17 Lower Matecumbe 18 Tea Table 19 Upper Matecumbe 20 Windley 21 Plantation 22 Tavernier 23 Largo 24 Cross 4-5 B 5-9 A 9-10.5 C 10.5-16.5 C 16.5-20.5 C 20.5-23 A 23-2 B 25-27.5 A 27.5-29.5 A 29.5-33 D 33-40 B 40-47 C 47-54 A 54-60.5 C 60.5-63 B 63- 73 B 73-77.5 C 77.5-79.5 D 79.5-84 C 84-86 A 86-91.5 B 91.5-99.5 A 99.5-106 A 106-112.5 B Adequate Adequate Marginal Marginal Marginal Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Marginal Adequate Marginal Adequate Adequate Marginal Marginal Marginal Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Ade uate Source: 2002 Arterial and Travel Tirre/ Dela Stud , URS Greiner, Ine, There are six roadway segments with a "marginally adequate" level of service, but all have adequate reserve capacity. Development activities in these areas will be closely moni- tored to minimize the possibility for further degradation in the level of service. County roads are subject to a lower standard (LOS D) than US-I. Based on the analysis found in the Technical Document of the Momoe County Year 2001 Comprehensive Plan, all County roads are operating at or above LOS D. Overall, most public facilities continue to be adequate; however demands on these facili- ties continue to grow. The Growth Management Division is committed to monitoring changes in public facility demand and responding to changes in consumption patterns. The ability to coordinate with public facility providers and other municipalities in the Keys will become more and more critical as we strive to maintain the quality of life we all enjoy. Executive Summary 4 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment INTRODUCTION This report is the annual assessment of public facilities capacity mandated by Section 9.5-292 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as "the Code"). The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensuring "concurrency". Concurrency means "that, the necessary public facilities and services to maintain the adopted level of service standards are available when the impacts of develop- ment occur" (Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code). In other words, local gov- ernments must establish regulations to ensure that public facilities and services that are needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of development. In Monroe County, these regulations are contained within Section 9.5-292 of the Code. Section 9.5-292, titled Adequate facilities and development review procedures, contains two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the four primary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and an annual assessment process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. In addition, Section 9.5-292 in- cludes an equitable procedure for issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely to outpace the current capacity of these public facilities. Section 9.5-292 also requires the Director of Planning to prepare an annual report to the Board of County Commissioners on the capacity of available public facilities. This report must determine the potential amount of residential and nonresidential growth expected in the upcoming year, and make an assessment of how well the roads, solid waste facilities, water supply, and schools will accommodate that growth. The report has a one-year planning hori- zon, or only considers potential growth and public facility capacity for the next twelve months. In addition, the report must identify areas of unincorporated Monroe County with only marginal and/or inadequate capacity for some or all public facilities. In the event that some or all public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS) standards required by the Code, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that the public facilities are not further burdened. The Code clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. Board Action Required Section 9.5-292(b)(4) requires the County Commission to consider this report and ap- prove its findings either with or without modifications. The County Commission cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report without making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase, and identifying the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity. Once approved by the County Commission, this document becomes the official assess- ment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. Introduction 5 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Public Facility Standards Section 9.5-292(a) of the Code pertains to the minimum standards for public facilities. It states, "After February 28, 1988, all development or land shall be served by adequate public facilities in accordance with the following standards: " (1) Roads: a. County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an an- nual average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersection and/or roadway segments. US-l shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service C on an over- all basis as measured by the US-l Level of Service Task Force Methodology. In addi- tion, the segment or segments of US-I, as identified in the US-l Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be directly impacted by a proposed development's ac- cess to US-I, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service C as measured by the US-l Level of Service Task Force Methodology. b. All secondary roads where traffic is entering or leaving a development or will have direct access shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis. c. In areas which are served by inadequate transportation facilities on US-I, develop- ment may be approved provided that the development in combination with all other de- velopment will not decrease travel speeds by more than five (5) percent below level of service C, as measured by the US-l Level of Service Task Force Methodology. (2) Solid Waste: Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of at least three (3) years from the pro- jected date of completion of the proposed development or use. The Monroe County Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under section 163.01, Florida Statutes, to dispose of solid waste outside Monroe County. (3) Potable Water: Sufficient potable water from an approved and permitted source shall be available to sat- isfy the projected water needs of a proposed development, or use. Approved and per- mitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribution systems, individual water condensation systems, and any other system which complies with the Florida standards for potable water. (4) Schools: Adequate school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school age children to be generated by a proposed development or use. Introduction 6 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment These are the four primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity according to the Code. The available capacity for each of these facilities may be either suffi- cient to accommodate projected growth over the next year, marginally adequate, or inade- quate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are projected to be only marginally adequate or inadequate over the next year, the Code sets out a review procedure to be fol- lowed when issuing development permits in.that area. The Code states that "the county shall not approve applications for development in areas of the county which are served by inadequate facilities identified in the annual adequate fa- cilities (Public Facility Capacity Assessment) report, except the county may approve devel- opment that will have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where the developer agrees to increase the level of service of the facility to the adopted level of service standard." The Code goes on to state that "in areas of marginal facility capacity as identified in the cur- rent annual adequate facilities report, the county shall either deny the application or condi- tion the approval so that the level of service standard is not violated." The determination of an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas with marginal or in- adequate capacity is determined by a "facilities impact report" which must be submitted with a development application. Service Areas Section 9.5-292(b)(2) of the Code divides unincorporated Monroe County into three ser- vice areas for the purposes of assessing potential growth and how public facilities can ac- commodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the Code have been revised to ac- count for recent incorporations. The map on the following page shows the three service ar- eas of the Keys as they are currently recognized. The Upper Keys service area includes all unincorporated Monroe County north of the Tavernier Creek Bridge. The Middle Keys includes the area of Unincorporated Monroe County between the Seven-Mile Bridge and the Tavernier Creek Bridge. The Lower Keys is Unincorporated Monroe County south of the Seven Mile Bridge. Unfortunately, the data available on population, permitting, and public facilities does not always conform to the above boundaries for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys. Addition- ally, due to the recent incorporation of Islamorada and Marathon (which are excluded from this assessment where specified) the boundaries identified in Section 9.5-292(b) are no longer valid for unincorporated Monroe County. This report makes use of the best available data, aggregated as closely as possible to the boundaries shown in on the following page. Introduction 7 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Map of Service Areas 't The Middle Keys MM 91-47 The Upper Keys MM 1U-91 ~ "V"" . ,,' Y. '\ ~ ~ ~_.... -t ' Ii 12 ~...." I.. .J".JT · . .... ... .. ~ ~ I ." ." .a; .p, '. The Lower Keys MM 47-4 . . ", ) ~ d. . Previous Board Action Due to the unavailability of any reserve capacity for traffic on US-Ion Big Pine Key, the County was required to impose a moratorium in 1995 on any new development on Big Pine Key. In December 1997, as a result of a change in the methodology used to determine level of service, the moratorium on Big Pine Key was lifted. However, the results of the 1999 Travel Time and Delay Study indicated that the segment of US-1 through Big Pine Key once again fell below the adopted LOS standard. Due in part to the re-timing of the intersection of US-1 and Key Deer Boulevard, the level of service on the Big Pine segment of US-1 im- proved in 2000, but decreased in 2001. However, the level of service still remains below the adopted standard. Since Big Pine Key does not have any reserve capacity for traffic, the moratorium must continue. Commercial development in the Lower Keys is evaluated to de- termine if it will result in additional trips on the Pig Pine Key segment. If any additional trips are projected on Big Pine Key, the proposed development will be denied. Introduction 8 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment The rationale for a moratorium is from Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development Regulations, which states, "...the County shall not approve applications for development in areas of the County which are served by inadequate facilities as identified in the annual ade- quate facilities report. " The Planning and Environmental Resources Department is now engaged in a master planning process with the citizens of Big Pine Key to identify possible solutions to the traffic problems in the community. The Livable CommuniKeys Program is directed at finding ways of improving the level of service on US-1 so that the building moratorium may be lifted. Areas of Critical County Concern At the County Commission's discretion, areas with marginally adequate facilities may be designated as Areas of Critical County Concern (ACCC), pursuant to Sections 9.5-473 and 9.5-473.1 of the Code. The rationale behind this designation is to assure that development in ACCC areas does not impact existing public facilities to the extent that development must be halted in the area. Should the Board initiate the ACCC designation process, the Development Review Com- mittee and Planning Commission must review the proposed designation. Section 9.5-473(c) requires the designation to include "Specific findings regarding the purpose of the designa- tion, the time schedule for the planning effort to be implemented, identification of the sources of funding for the planning and potential implementing mechanisms, delineation of a work program, a schedule for the work program and the appointment of an advisory committee, if appropriate. " Introduction 9 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment I. GROWTH ANALYSIS This section of the report examines the growth of Monroe County over the last year. This analysis considers the changes in population, the number of residential building permits is- sued, and the amount of nonresidential floor area permissible. Growth trends will be exam- ined for both the unincorporated as well as tl;1e incorporated portions of the County. Population Composition There are three different measurements of population in Monroe County: the functional population, the permanent population, and the seasonal population. The capacity of most public facilities is designed based on potential peak demand. To help assess peak demand, the permanent and seasonal populations are often combined to give a "functional" popula- tion, or the maximum population demanding services. The projected permanent population is based on a methodology created by The Depart- ment of Planning and Environmental Resources, and is based on 1990 Census data. Perma- nent population figures received from the 2000 Census data reflect a discrepancy in the esti- mates made by the planning model and actual census figures. At this time the Planning and Environmental Resources is revising the methodology for population projection to accurately reflect the permanent population figures published by the 2000 Census. Projected permanent residents spend most or all of the year in the County, while the sea- sonal population includes seasonal residents and the tourist population. The seasonal popu- lation includes the number of seasonal residents, the number of people staying in hotels, mo- tels, vacation rentals, campsites, recreational vehicles, live aboard vessels, and those staying with friends and relatives. It is important to remember that permanent population figures are for the entire calendar year, while the seasonal population figures used here is the number of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. Seasonal population figures are not the total num- ber of seasonal residents or visitors in the county over the calendar year, but the estimated number who stay on any given night. The Tourist Development Council indicate that Monroe County hosts around three mil- lion visitors a year, however not of all these people are in the Keys on the same evening. Peak seasonal population figures represent the number of people who could stay on any given evening based upon peak occupancy rates, and therefore represent the peak demand which could be placed on public facilities from seasonal visitors on any given evening. When the peak seasonal population figures are combined with the permanent resident population, the result is the functional population. Actual 2000 Census data for the perma- nent population indicates a trend towards a higher seasonal percentage of the functional population. Growth Analysis 10 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Planning Area Enumeration Districts (PAEDs) PAEDs, or Planning Area Enumeration Districts, are the basic unit of geographical analy- sis used by the Planning and Environmental Resources Department. The P AEDs are a com- bination of the "planning areas" utilized by the Planning Department in the early 1980s and the US Census Bureau's "enumeration districts". These two levels of analysis were com- bined in 1987 for ease of use. Since most PAEDs follow island boundaries, they can be ag- gregated to match most service districts for public facilities. There are a total of twenty-two (22) PAEDs in Unincorporated Monroe County. The City of Key West (including northern Stock Island) is not contained within any PAED boundaries. The City of Key Colony Beach is contained within the geographic area ofPAED 8, but is not included with the PAED population figures. The new City of Marathon encom- passes PAEDs 7, 8, & 9, and its population is contained within unincorporated Monroe County until 2000. The City of Layton falls within PAED 11, but its population is removed from Unincorporated Monroe County. The Village of Islamorada occupies PAEDs 12A, 12B, 13, & 14, and has its own population figures starting in 1998. PAEDs 19 and 20 are the last PAEDs before the "bend" in US-I, and have been grouped together in this report be- cause of data constraints. The dividing line between P AEDs is the center of US-I. J... " '\ '" . \ .'---~", PAED6 PAED 1 Growth Analysis 11 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment As mentioned earlier, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) di- vides Monroe County into three service areas. The Upper Keys service area includes P AEDs 12B through 22, or the area from Mile Marker 83.5 to 112, the Middle Keys includes PAEDs 7 through 13 (Mile Marker 47.5 to 83.4), and the Lower Keys service area is composed of PAEDs 1 through 6 from Mile Marker 4 to 47.4. The chart below shows the individual' PAEDs by their mile marker ranges, and also shows the islands included within a particular PAED's boundary. 1 Stock Island 2 Boca Chica, East Rockland, Big Coppitt, Geiger, Shark 3 Saddlebunch Keys, Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf 4a Cudjoe, Surmnerland, Ramrod, Big-Middle-Little Torch 4b No Name Key 5 Big Pine Key 6 W. Surmnerland, Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri, Little Duck, Pigeon Key 7 Knight, Hog, Vaca, Boot, Stirrup (Marathon) 8 Fat Deer, Little Crawl, Crawl #5, (Marathon) & (Key Colony Beach) 9 Grassy Key (Marathon) 10 Duck Key, Little Conch Key, Conch Key II Long Key, Fiesta Key, (Layton) 12a Craig Key, Lower Matecumbe (Islamorada) 12b Windley Key (Islamorada) 13 Teatable Key, Upper Matecumbe (Islamorada) 14 Plantation Key (Islamorada) 15 Key Largo (Tavernier area) 16 Key Largo 17 Key Largo (Rock Harbor) 18 Key Largo 19-20 Key Largo 21 Key Largo (North Key Largo, Ocean Reef, Card Sound area) 22 Cross Ke 18 Mile Stretch area Source: Monroe Coun Plannin 1, 2002 4-6 7-12.4 12.5-20.5 20.6-29 N/A 29.5-33 34.5-46 47.5-53.2 53.3-56.4 56.5-60 61-64 65-71 72-78 83.5-85.5 79-83.4 85.6-91 91.1-94.5 94.6-98 98.1-100.6 100.7-103.5 103.6-107.5 N/A 107.6-112 Functional Population The functional population is the sum of the number of permanent residents and the peak seasonal population. Figure 1.3 shows the functional population for all of Monroe County (including the incorporated areas), excluding Mainland Monroe County and the population in the Dry Tortugas. The functional population of Monroe County is expected to grow by more than 16,000 people from 1990 to 2015. This represents an increase of almost eleven percent (11 %) over the twenty-five year period. Growth Analysis 12 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1990 149,348 * * 1995 154,255 4,907 3.18% 2000 159,113 4,858 3.05% 2005 162,041 2,928 1.81% 2010 164,769 2,728 1.66% 2015 165,366 597 0.36% artm:nt, 2002 Figure 1.4 shows the trend in Functional Population Changes from 1990 to 2015. Figure 1.4 -Trend in Functional Population Changes 170.000 165.000 .. .5: 1;j ;; 160.000 Co ~ -;;; .. 'E 155.000 .. " ... 150,000 145,000 ~~#~~~~~~#~~#~#~~#~#~~~~~~ I--Trend in Population Changes I However, the numerical and percent change columns show that the rate of increase is ex- pected to slow dramatically over the same time period (see Figure 1.5). Figure 1.5 -Functional Population Rate of Increase 3,00% ~ 2.50% ~ 2,00% .. ,5: 1;j 1.50% ;; Co 1.00% ~ ,: 0,50% " 01) 1; 0.00% ... U "'- -0.50% -1.00% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~#~#~~~~~~~~~~ I__Functional Population I Growth Analysis 13 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 1.6 shows the breakdown in functional population by the three service areas. Re- gionally, the Upper Keys accounted for the largest portion of the 1990 unincorporated func- tional population (42,171 people, or 40.9% of the total). This is followed by the Middle Keys, which comprised 29.6% (30,443 people) of the total 1990 functional population; and finally, the Lower Keys, which contained 30,387 people, or 29.5% of the unincorporated functional population. For the year 2002, Upper Keys still has the largest unincorporated functional population (36,872, or 49.3% ofthe total), followed by the Lower Keys (33,826, or 45% of the total). The unincorporated Functional Population of the Middle Keys de- creases dramatically to only 4,108 people or 5.4%. This sharp decrease in Middle Keys num- bers is due to the incorporation of the City of Marathon. Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Ke Unincorporated 103001 100.009% Subtotal ' Inca orated Areas 46,348 County Total 149,349 Source: Monroe Coun Plannin 1, 2002 74,806 100.00% 85,762 160,568 78,831 100.00% 86,535 165,366 The incorporation of Islamorada and of Marathon account for the drop in unincorporated functional population in the Upper Keys service areas in 2001. The functional population in the Middle Keys service area has declined more than eighty-seven percent (87%), while the Upper Keys service area lost thirteen percent (13%) of its functional population as a result of these incorporations. The Lower Keys service area is expected to grow almost 8.5% from 1990 to 2002. By the year 2015 the Upper Keys, with a functional population of 38,362 people, is ex- pected to contain 48.7% of the unincorporated functional population. The Lower Keys are projected to have a functional population of36,263 people in 2015, or 46% of the unincorpo- rated total, while the Middle Keys will be reduced to 4,206 people, or 5.3% of the unincor- porated county total. Projected Permanent and Seasonal Population The total permanent resident population in Monroe County was projected to grow from 78,855 people in 1990 to a potential 86,612 people by the end of 2002 and 90,654 people by 2015, an increase of fifteen percent (15%) over the twenty-five year period. The projected permanent resident population as a percentage of the functional population fluctuates be- tween 44% to 45.5% from 2002 to 2015. The years 1991 and 1993 were the only years in which the county-wide permanent resident growth rate exceeded one percent (1 %) per year. Growth Analysis 14 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Fi!rnre 1.7 - Proiected Permanent and Seasonal County-wide Population 1990-2015 .y, >>c,;><2015 cc.... >> Seasonal Population 70,493 71,266 73,491 73,956 73,737 74,533 74,712 Pennanent Population 78,855 82,990 85,622 86,612 88,305 90,236 90,654 Functional Population 149,348 154,256 159,113 160,568 162,042 164,769 165,366 Source: Monroe County PlanninlZ Denartment, 2002 The peak seasonal population in Monroe County was projected to grow from 70,493 people in 1990 to 73,956 people by the end of 2002 and a potential 74,712 people by 2015, an increase of six percent (6%) over the twenty-five year period. The peak seasonal popula- tion as a percentage of the functional population fluctuates between 45.2% and 47.2% over the period. The county-wide peak seasonal population growth rate exceeded four percent (4%) in 1993. Growth rates fluctuated between -1.7% and 1.9% for the remainder of the years under study, and are expected to steadily decline after the year 2003. The incorporation of Is1amorada and Marathon have created substantial reductions in both permanent and seasonal population for the Upper and Middle Keys service areas. As mentioned in a previous section, the Upper Keys service area lost 13% of its functional population (permanent population + seasonal population), and the Middle Keys service area is expected to lose 87% of its functional population as a result of these incorporations. The functional population in the Upper Keys service area is expected to increase from 36,744 to 36,872 (0.35%) from 2001 to 2002. This projected increase results from the addi- tion of 84 permanent residents and 44 in the seasonal population. The functional population in the Lower Keys service area is expected to increase from 33,618 to 33,826 (0.62%) from 2001 to 2002. This projected increase results from the addi- tion of 155 permanent residents and 53 in the seasonal population. 2000 Census Population The projected population data for 2002 through 2015 presented in this report (both the permanent and seasonal populations) has been based on 1990 census data. The population projection model has not yet been updated to incorporate the Census 2000 data that was re- leased in late 2001. However, a comparison of the projected 2000 permanent population and the actual population reported in the 2000 census shows that the projection overestimated the population of the unincorporated area by 3,298 people. Figure 1.8 shows that the difference between the projected 2000 data and the actual permanent population reported by the 2000 census for the entire Monroe County to be 6,093 persons. Taking this discrepancy into ac- count, the permanent population of Monroe County is not growing as rapidly as predicted. However, the functional population remains a valid estimate for planning purposes because of an increase in the amount of seasonal residents. In other words, although the permanent population was estimated to be larger than what was actually reported in the 2000 Census, the number of seasonal residents has increased. Therefore, the functional population esti- mates remain valid, and indicate an increase in the percentage of the seasonal population. Growth Analysis 15 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Unicorporated Area Upper Keys 19,740 15,168 17,435 -2,267 Middle Keys 13,948 800 1,098 -298 Lower Keys 18,062 20,008 20,741 -733 Incorporated Areas Islamorada N/A 6,846 7,665 -819 Layton 183 186 208 -22 Key Colony Beach 977 788 1,101 -313 Marathon N/A 10,255 11,272 -1,017 Ke West 24,832 25,478 26,102 -624 Total 77,742 79,529 85,622 -6,093 Soun:e: U.S Census Bureau and Monroe COUll Plannin t, 2002 N umber of Residential Permits The second major component of the Growth Analysis Section is the number of residen- tial permits issued. The majority of the new residential permits issued are for permanent residential use. However, some of the permits issued for permanent dwellings are used by the seasonal population. One issue to remember when considering growth based upon building permits is the time lapse that occurs between when a permit for a new residence is issued, and when that resi- dence is ultimately occupied. The knowledge that the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) was about to be adopted in the early 1990s caused many property owners to obtain building permits prior to when they were prepared to construct their dwellings. As a result, there are many dwellings in the Keys that have permits, but are not yet fully constructed or are only partially complete. Based upon this time lapse, the number of residential permits issued overstates the actual number of new residential dwellings that currently require public facili- ties. The number of dwelling units (permanent and seasonal) which can be permitted in Mon- roe County has been controlled by ROGO (Rate of Growth Ordinance) since July of 1992. ROGO was developed as a response to the inability of the road network to accommodate a large-scale hurricane evacuation in a timely fashion, A series of complex models developed during the first evacuation study identified an approximate number of additional dwelling units which could be permitted and which would not have a detrimental effect on the amount of time needed to evacuate the Keys. The ROGO system was developed as a tool to equita- bly distribute the remaining number of permits available both geographically and over time. The ROGO system distributes a set number of allocations for new residential permits on a yearly basis from July 14 of one year to July 13th of the following year. Year 10 of the system started on July 14, 2001. Each service area of unincorporated Momoe County and several of the incorporated areas receive a set number of allocations for new residential per- Growth Analysis 16 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment mits that can be issued during that particular ROGO year. The number of allocations avail- able to a particular area was based upon the supply of vacant buildable lots located in that area prior to the start of the ROGO system. The Ocean Reef area of north Key Largo is ex- empted from the ROGO system due to its proximity to Card Sound Road, an alternate evacuation route. The ROGO system allowed 255 allocations for new residential units in unincorporated Monroe County each year for the first six years of the ROGO system. The number of alloca- tions available was reduced by the State of Florida Administration Commission during Year 7 of ROGO based upon a lack of progress on the implementation of the Year 2010 Compre- hensive Plan. Available allocations were reduced by twenty percent (20%), taking the avail- able figure from 255 to 204 new residential units. The number of available allocations in unincorporated Monroe County was further re- duced by the incorporation of Islamorada, which now receives 22 residential allocations per year. The incorporation of Islamorada reduced the number of available allocations in unin- corporated Monroe County from 204 to 182. This number was further reduced by the incor- poration of Marathon, which received a total of 24 new residential allocations. The incorpo- ration of Marathon reduced the number of available new residential allocations in unincorpo- rated Monroe County from 182 to 158. At the end of ROGO Year 9, there were 25 market rate applicants who did not receive a nutrient credit. Therefore, the Lower Keys received a reduction of 25 in available allocations in ROGO Year 10. The available allocations for ROGO Year 10 in unincorporated Monroe County are 133. In unincorporated Monroe County, the ROGO system will now allocate 57 units to the Upper Keys service area, 9 units to the Middle Keys service area, and 67 units to the Lower Keys, for an annual total of 133 additional residential units each ROGO year. Twenty per- cent of these units in each subarea are set aside for affordable housing. Figure 1.9, on the following page, shows the breakdown of new residential permits is- sued for unincorporated Monroe County through the 1990s. The data presented in the table does not include permits issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, or Islamorada. Also, the boundaries between the Upper and Middle Keys service areas, and the boundaries used for this data are slightly different. The chart below compares the boundaries. Basi- cally, the service areas from the Code breaks at Whale Harbor Channel, and does not include Upper and Lower Matecumbe in the Upper Keys, while the permitting records break at Channel Five and do include Upper and Lower Matecumbe in the Upper Keys. Figure 1.10 explains these differences. Growth Analysis 17 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 1.9 - New and Replacement Residential and Seasonal Units Permitted by Year for Unincorporated Monroe County ,,,,,'''i;+'', . "',"\4,\ 'hi 'I ';B:~ta;'i:I\T.ial:. 1991 Upper Keys 283 2 119 28 117 549 Middle Keys 75 6 0 6 27 114 Lower Keys 176 0 0 2 0 178 Subtotal 534 8 1/9 36 144 841 1992 Upper Keys 190 38 0 6 23 257 Middle Keys 67 0 0 I 0 68 Lower Keys 189 0 14 0 0 203 Subtotal 446 38 14 7 23 528 1993 Upper Keys 104 0 0 5 0 109 Middle Keys 55 2 0 I 0 58 Lower Keys 80 0 0 I 0 81 Subtotal 239 2 0 7 0 248 1994 Upper Keys 109 0 0 3 0 112 Middle Keys 94 0 0 0 0 94 Lower Keys 36 0 0 I 0 37 Subtotal 239 0 0 4 0 243 1995 Upper Keys 131 2 0 4 0 137 Middle Keys 27 2 2 I 5 37 Lower Keys 144 0 0 0 0 144 Subtotal 302 4 2 5 5 318 1996 Upper Keys 114 0 3 3 0 120 Middle Keys 40 0 15 0 0 55 Lower Keys 83 0 0 6 0 89 Subtotal 237 0 18 9 0 264 1997 Upper Keys 89 0 12 0 0 101 Middle Keys 27 4 0 0 77 108 Lower Keys 73 0 0 0 0 73 Subtotal 189 4 12 0 77 282 1998 Upper Keys 78 0 0 3 0 81 Middle Keys 13 0 0 0 110 123 Lower Keys 66 0 0 0 0 66 Subtotal 157 0 0 3 I/O 270 1999 Upper Keys 138 0 0 2 0 140 Middle Keys 20 0 0 24 63 107 Lower Keys 87 0 0 0 I 88 Subtotal 245 0 0 26 64 335 2000 Upper Keys 67 0 35 0 0 102 Middle Keys 4 0 0 0 34 38 Lower Keys 75 0 0 0 0 75 Subtotal 146 0 35 0 34 215 2001 Upper Keys 62 0 13 7 I 83 Middle Keys 9 0 0 10 0 19 Lower Keys 80 0 0 38 0 118 Subtotal 151 0 13 55 1 220 TOTAL 2,885 56 213 152 458 3,764 Source: Monroe County Buildin" Denartment, 2002 Growth Analysis 18 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment According to Building Department records, 3,764 residential permits were issued from 1991 to 2001, with 77% (2,885) being issued to single family residences. Only 11% (421) of the residential permits were issued to duplex, multifamily, or mobile home projects. Almost 37% (1,369) of all the residential permits issued in the past decade were issued in 1991 to 1992 as applicants were attempting to obtain permits prior to RaGa. A total of220 residen- tial permits were issued in unincorporated Monroe County in 2001, a slight increase from 2000. There were more new residential pennits issued in 1999 than any previous year back to 1992. Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Ke 12A-22 7-13 1-6 71-112 47.5-70.9 4-47.4 Figures 1.11 and 1.12 show the distribution of new residential permits issued in unincor- porated Monroe County during 2000 and 2001. Figure 1.11- Comparison of Residential Permits by Service Area 2000-2001 2000 2001 Lower Keys 53% Upper Keys 38% Lower Keys 35% Upper Keys 47% Middle Keys 18% Figure 1.12 - Comparison of Residential Permit Types 2000-2001 2000 Multi-Family 16% Mobile Home/RV 25% 2001 Hotel/Motel 0% Hotel/Motel 16% Multi-Family 6% Single Family 69% Mobile Home/RV 0% Single Family 68% Duplex 0% Duplex 0% Growth Analysis 19 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 1.11 shows an increase in the total number of permits issued in the Upper and Lower Keys service areas relative to the number issued in the Middle Keys in 2000 and 2001. There were only five more new residential permits issued in 2001 than 2000. Figure 1.12 shows the composition of new residential permits issued in 2000 and 2001. No new duplexes were permitted in either year. Single family residential permits occupy the largest percentage in both years, with 5 more single family permits being issued in 2001. Figure 1.13 shows the total number of permits issued in unincorporated Monroe County from 1991 to 2001. The chart shows a swell in permitting activity prior to the adoption of ROGO, and then declines following its adoption. Figure 1.13-Comparison of Residential Permit Types 1991-2001 1200 1000 2l 800 .~ '" Cl., '- 600 0 ... '" ~ E 400 ::: z 200 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 o Single Family 0 Duplex . Multi-Family Illl Mobile Home/R V . Hotel/Motel Figure 1.14 shows the breakdown in the types of residential permits issued over the 1990s. Figure 1.14 - Types of Permits Issued 1991-2001 Mobile Home/RV 4% Multi-Family 5% Hotel/Motel 11% Duplex 2% Growth Analysis 20 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Non-Residential Square Footage Nonresidential permitting also plays a role in growth analysis. Nonresidential permits include everything that is not residential, like: industrial, commercial, nonprofit & public buildings, and replacement or remodeling of existing nonresidential structures. Also in- cluded are vested and ROGO exempt hotels, motels, campgrounds, marinas and other com- mercial facilities. . With very little industrial and agricultural activity in the Keys, the predominant form of nonresidential development is commercial. In Monroe County, there are two primary types of commercial development: retail trade and services (which includes tourism-related devel- opment such as marinas and restaurants). Therefore, the impact of nonresidential develop- ment on public facilities varies significantly based on the type of commercial use. Nonresidential and residential development tend to fuel one another. Residential popula- tions provide markets for nonresidential activities. Nonresidential development, in turn, helps to drive population growth by providing services and employment. Certain types of nonresidential development also concentrate the demand for public facilities within certain locations and during peak periods. The Monroe County Building Department tracks the number of nonresidential permits by subdistrict in unincorporated Monroe County. In addition to the number of permits, the Building Department tracks the amount of square footage affected in each nonresidential building permit issued. Figure 1.15, on the following page, shows the trends in nonresidential permitting from 1991 to 2001. The subdistricts shown in the chart do not directly correspond to the service areas mandated in section of 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations. Refer to the boundary descriptions found in Figure 1.11 of this report to compare the two areas. Forty- five fewer non-residential building permits were issued in 2001 than in 2000 with 41,745 fewer square feet permitted in 2001. Growth Analysis 21 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment ment Nonresidential Permits bv Year Upper Keys 35 46,641 Middle Keys 20 103,293 Lower Keys 9 42,770 Subtotal 64 192,704 1992 Upper Keys 15 40,506 Middle Keys . 2 7,263 Lower Keys 5 1,529 Subtotal 22 49.298 1993 Upper Keys 4 16,334 Middle Keys 4 24,812 Lower Keys 4 27,236 Subtotal 12 68,382 1994 Upper Keys 4 24,648 Middle Keys 7 31,079 Lower Keys 4 0 Subtotal 15 55.727 1995 Upper Keys 24 147,319 Middle Keys 12 109,331 Lower Keys 8 10,004 Subtotal 44 266.654 1996 Upper Keys 17 102,795 Middle Keys 6 93,334 Lower Keys 2 14,149 Subtotal 25 210,278 1997 Upper Keys 14 93,503 Middle Keys 83 8,420 Lower Keys 2 18,327 Subtotal 99 120,250 1998 Upper Keys 4 60,936 Middle Keys 73 16,304 Lower Keys 1 24,152 Subtotal 78 101.392 1999 Upper Keys 8 14,861 Middle Keys 68 84,715 Lower Keys 1 2,054 Subtotal 77 101,630 2000 Upper Keys 8 33,873 Middle Keys 68 75,584 Lower Keys 5 19,168 Subtotal 81 128,625 2001 Upper Keys 31 73,307 Middle Keys 1 4,998 Lower Keys 4 8,575 Subtotal 36 86,880 TOTALS 553 1,381,820 Growth Analysis 22 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 1.16 shows the relative amount of square footage permitted in each of the three service areas from 1991 to 2001. Figure 1.16-Commercial Square Footage by Service Area 1991-2001 Upper Keys 48% Middle Keys 40% Figure 1.17 shows the trends in the amount of nonresidential permitting activity have fluctuated throughout the 1990s. The permitting activity based on square footage affected generally declined from 1990 through 1994 with a major jump in affected area occurring in 1995 which resulted from the knowledge of an impending implementation of a nonresiden- tial permit allocation system similar to the ROGO system for residential development. Non- residential development increased slightly in 2000, then continued to decline in 2001. The slight increase in 2000 can be attributed to vested or exempt projects which were only re- cently obtaining a building permit. Figure 1.17 - Nonresidential Permits by Service Area 1991-2001 <1) 00 '" "0 300,000 0 ~ <1) 250,000 .... '" ::l C' I/.l 200,000 ] "E 150,000 <1) "'0 ';jj <1) 100,000 ~ C 0 Z 50,000 "'0 <1) U 0 ~ ...... ..( 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1_ Upper Keys ... Middle Keys c::J Lower Keys --+- Yearly Total Growth Analysis 23 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Since residential development is constrained through the Rate of Growth Ordinance and the Permit Allocation System, it was thought that nonresidential (commercial) development should also be constrained in the interest of maintaining a balance of land uses. At the time the Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1991,17.6% of the land was under residential use, while 4.6% was used for commercial development as indicated in Table 2.1, Monroe County Existing Land Uses, in the'Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document. It was determined that this balance was appropriate given the knowl- edge available at the time the Comprehensive Plan was prepared. To assure that balance was maintained, the Comprehensive Plan proposed Policy 101.3.1, which states: "Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and nonresidential growth by limiting the gross square footage of nonresidential development over the 15 year planning horizon in order to maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of nonresidential de- velopment for each new residential unit permitted through the Permit Allocation In other words, the Comprehensive Plan limits the square footage of new commercial development that may be permitted. The commercial square footage allocation is 239 square feet for each (1) new residential permit issued. This equates to around 31,787 square feet of new commercial development per year throughout unincorporated Monroe County. Between adoption ofthe 2010 Comprehensive Plan on April 15, 1993, and December 31, 2001, permits were issued for 462,529 square feet of non-residential floor space, which was not exempted from the comprehensive plan defined non-residential permit allocation system. This amount of non-residential floor space includes permits for development within the Vil- lage oflslamorada and City of Marathon prior to their respective incorporation. Of the total square feet permitted, 276,641 square feet was permitted after Apri115, 1993 (adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan) and prior to January 4, 1996. The remaining 185,888 square feet was permitted after that date for projects vested from the non-residential permit allocation system provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Between April 14, 1993 (Third Quarter, ROGO Year 1) and October 13, 2001 (First Quarter, ROGO Year 10), 1,878 allocations were awarded and permits issued for residential development. However, it is important to note that these allocations do not include those awarded by Islamorada and Marathon subsequent to their incorporation. This number of residential permits would allow a total of 448,842 square feet of non-residential floor space (239 square feet per residential permit times the number of residential permits issued under ROGO). Therefore, as of October 13, 2001, the county had permitted approximately 13,687 square feet more non-residential floor space than could have been available for allocation at that time under Policy 101.3.1; the non-residential permit allocation system. Growth Analysis 24 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment It is anticipated that for the remainder of ROGO Years 10 and all of ROGO Year 11 (October 14, 2001, through July 14, 2003), 233 residential ROGO allocations will be awarded in unincorporated Monroe County. This amount of residential permits provides for an additional 55,687 square feet of non-residential floor area. Combined with the 448,842 square feet authorized by previous residential allocations, the total amount of non-residential floor space that could be permitted under Policy 101.3.1 would be 504,529 square feet. Therefore, the net amount of non-residential floor space that could be made available for allocation under a non-residential permit allocation system through the end of July 14, 2003, would be 42,000 square feet. (504,529 square feet allow- able - 462,529 square feet previously permitted = 42,000 square feet available). The amount of square feet available for allocation was furthered reduced by 11,773 as the result of a re- cent Settlement Agreement, leaving a net of 30,227 square feet of non-residential floor space that could be made available for allocation. Summary To summarize, this growth analysis is based upon projected changes in population as well as residential and nonresidential permitting in unincorporated Monroe County. There are two groups composing the population in Monroe County: the permanent resi- dent population, and the peak seasonal population. The sum of these two groups gives the functional population, or the maximum number of people in the Keys on any given evening. The functional population of all of Monroe County is expected to grow by more than 6,000 people from 1990 to 2015, an increase of 11 % over the period. Planning Department projections show the rate of increase in functional population is expected to slow after the year 2000. The functional population of unincorporated Monroe County is expected to reach 74,806 people in 2002, a decrease of 28% from 1990 due to the incorporations of Islamorada in 1997 and Marathon in 1999. The Upper Keys portion of unincorporated Monroe County ac- counts for 49.5% of the unincorporated functional population, while the Lower Keys por- tions accounts for 45.2% in 2002. These percentages are expected to remain relatively con- stant through 2015. The permanent population of all of Monroe County, according to the 2000 Census was reported as 79,529, an increase of 1,787 from the 1990 Census. This is 6,093 less than the projected 2000 population. In terms of the number of new residential permits, a total of 220 new residential permits (including vested or ROGO exempt hotel rooms) were issued in 2001, a slight increase from 2000. From 1991 to 2001, 77% of the new residential permits (2,885) were issued to single Growth Analysis 25 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment family residences, while only 11 % (421) were issued for new multifamily, duplex, or mobile homes. A total of 151 permits (60%) were issued for new single family residences in 2001. The current rate of growth guidelines indicate that unincorporated Monroe County has a total of 182 permits it may issue during the RaGa year (not including the additional 90 re- placement affordable housing units which were allowed by the DCA based upon the lower enclosure removal program). After the incorporation of Marathon, this number fell to 158 permits a year. At the end of year 9, the Lower Keys lost 25 allocations due to a lack ofnu- trient credits, further reducing the total allocations to 133. If the Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance is adopted as proposed, an additional 30,227 square feet of nonresidential development may be permitted. Growth Analysis 26 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES This section of the report investigates the current capacity of the transportation network in Monroe County. This analysis includes changes in traffic volumes, the level of service on U.S. 1, the reserve capacity of the highway and county roads, and the Florida Department of Transportation Five Year Work Program for.Monroe County. Roads are one of the four critical public facilities identified for annual assessment in the Land Development Regulations. In fact, roads are the only public facility with clear and specific standards for level of service measurements identified in the Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. The regulations require all segments of U.S. 1 to re- main at a level of service of 'C', and all County roads to be remain at a level of service 'D'. Subsequent portions of this section will explain the level of service measurements, and how the level of service is calculated. Existing Roadway Facilities Monroe County's roadway transportation system is truly unique. Nowhere else is there a chain of islands over 100 miles long connected by 42 bridges along a single highway. This single highway, the Overseas Highway (U.S. 1), functions as a collector, an arterial, and the "Main Street" for the Keys. U.S. 1 is a lifeline for the Keys, from both economic and public safety perspectives. Each day it carries food, supplies, and tourists from the mainland. In the event of a hurricane, it is the only viable evacuation route to the mainland for most of Monroe County. U.S. 1 in Monroe County is predominantly a two-lane road. Of its 112 total miles, ap- proximately 80 miles (74%) are two-lane segments that are undivided. The four-lane sec- tions are located on Key Largo, Tavernier (MM 90 to 106), the Marathon area (MM 48 to 54), Bahia Honda (MM 35 to 37), and from Key West to Boca Chica (MM 2 to 9). In addition to U.S. 1, there are 450 miles of County (secondary) roads with 38 bridges. U.S. 1 and the County (secondary) roads have a combined total of approximately 340 inter- sections in the Keys. The Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with main- taining and improving secondary roads which are located within the boundaries of unincor- porated Monroe County. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1. Figure 2.1 identifies the traffic signals in operation along the U.S. 1 corridor (excluding those found on the island of Key West). Transportation Facilities 27 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 4.4 4.6 4.8 30.3 48.5 50 52.4 52.5 53 53.5 84.5 90 90.5 91.5 99.5 101 104 Stock Island Stock Island Stock Island Big Pine Key Marathon . Marathon Marathon Marathon Marathon Fat Deer Key Windley Key Plantation Key Plantation Key Tavernier Key Largo Key Largo Ke Lar 0 College Road Cross Street MacDonald Avenue Key Deer Blvd. School Crossing Sombrero Beach Blvd. 107th Street l09th Street School Crossing Key Colony Causeway C-905 @ Holiday Isle Woods Avenue SilllShine Road Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard Tradewinds School Crossin Source: URS Greiner, me, Traffic Volumes Traffic counts can be very useful in assessing the capacity of the road network, and help determine when capacity improvements need to be made. The two primary measurements for determining traffic volumes are the average daily traffic in an area (referred to as an an "ADT"), and the annual average daily traffic (referred to as an "AADT"). Average daily traffic counts are collected from both directions over seven twenty-four hour periods which usually include a weekend. The amount of traffic counted over the week is then divided by five or seven to yield the average daily traffic for a particular location. The "5-day ADT" measurement considers only weekdays, and the "7 -day ADT" includes the weekend. The ADT information can then be used in a formula called a "weekly factor" to estimate the an- nual average daily traffic, which is an estimate of the average amount of traffic at a particu- lar location on any given day of the year. In Monroe County, traffic counts have been conducted in the same locations since 1992. These counts occur at Mile Marker 84 on Upper Matecumbe, Mile Marker 50 in Marathon, and at Mile Marker 30 on Big Pine Key. The counts are usually performed during the six- week peak tourist season which begins in the second week of February. This year's counts were completed between March 3 and March 9, 2002. Figure 2.2, on the following page, compares the traffic counts for 2002 with those for 2001. The average weekday (5-Day ADT) and the average weekly (7-Day ADT) traffic vol- umes, compared to last year, have decreased in Big Pine and increased in Upper Matecumbe and Marathon locations. The AADTs decreased on Big Pine and in Marathon, and increased in Upper Matecumbe. According to the report by URS Greiner Inc., traffic volumes during Transportation Facilities 28 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Big Pine Key (MM 30) 5-Day ADT 23,403 7-Day ADT 22,648 AADT 19,991 Marathon (MM 50) 5-Day ADT 33,777 36,989 7-Day ADT 32,106 35,442 AADT 28,340 26,475 Upper Matecumbe (MM 84) 5-Day ADT 24,177 26,589 7-Day ADT 24,719 26,475 AADT 21,819 23,369 22,612 21,937 19,364 3.38% 3.14% 3.14% 9.51% 10.39% 10.39% 9.98% 7.10% 7.10% Source: 2002 Arterial and Travel TimeJ Delay Study, URS Greiner, Inc. the study period were generally found to be "heavy". The amount of traffic was higher through the weekend in the Upper Keys, while higher weekday traffic volumes were ob- served in Marathon and the Lower Keys. A detailed historical comparison of the AADT traffic counts at all three locations for the period from 1994 to 2002 is shown in Figure 2.3. Big Pine Key Marathon U er Matecumbe 21,186 27,924 20,083 21,496 19,866 28,930 28,651 21,599 21,301 20,843 21,774 30,750 29,017 22,103 22,410 19,991 28,340 21,819 19,364 31,285 23,369 Source: 2002 Arterial and Travel Time! Dela Stud, URS Greiner, Inc. o o o o "<t o o o o. f-;M 00 <0 < o. o N o o o o - o 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 . Big Pine Key II Marathon o Upper Matecumbe Transportation Facilities 29 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 2.3 shows that the Marathon location consistently records the highest traffic vol- umes throughout the period, with counts generally in the upper 20,000 to 30,000 range. The AADT counts for Big Pine and Upper Matecumbe hover in the low 20,000 range over the period. A regression analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last eight years indicate that traffic volumes in the Big Pine Key segment have been increasing at a rate of 0.14% per year. Traffic volumes in the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe segments of U.S. 1 have been increasing at a rate of 1.09% and 1.88% per year respectively. The historical growth in traffic on U.S. 1 is depicted in Figure 2.4. Figure 2.4 - Regression Analysis of AADTs 1994-2002 Marathon 40,000 Rate of growth = 1.09% per year 30,000 ~- ---- =""" ----- .... - L . ... -. - ....... 20,000 . .A ~ - -.., - --., - - 'Wi - - - - - -., -. . Upper Matecumbe Big Pine 10,000 Rate of growth Rate of growth = 1.88% per year = 0.14 % per year 0 I , I , , , I --, 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 . Big Pine Key . Marathon Upper Matecumbe - Upper Matecumbe Trendline - - Marathon Trend1ine - - - Big Pine Key Trendline Source: 2002 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Greiner, Inc. Level of Service Background Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies of U.S. 1 on an annual basis since 1991. The primary objective of the U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study is to monitor the level of service on U.S. Highway 1 for concurrency management purposes pur- suant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 ofthe Land Development Regula- tions. The study utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume-based capacities and the speed-based level of service methodology developed by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force. The U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force is a multi-agency group with members from Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. A uniform methodology was developed in 1993 and amended Decem- ber 1997. The methodology adopted considers both the overall level of service from Key West to the mainland, and the level of service on 24 selected segments. The methodology was developed from basic criteria and principles contained in Chapters 7 (Rural Multilane Transportation Facilities 30 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two-Lane Highways) and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Overall Level of Service on U.S. 1 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 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. The overall level of service or capacity of the entire length of U.S. 1 is measured in the average speed of a vehicle travelling from one end to the other of U.S. 1. The level of ser- vice (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County, as adopted by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force, are as follows: LOS A = 51 mph or greater LOS B = 48 mph to 50.9 mph LOS C = 45 mph to 47.9 mph LOS D = 42 mph to 44.9 mph LOS E = 36 mph to 41.9 mph LOS F = below 36 mph Both Monroe County and the Florida Department of Transportation have adopted a level of service 'c' standard for the overall length of U.S. 1. In other words, a vehicle traveling from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112 (or vice versa) must maintain an average speed of at least 45 mph to achieve the level of service 'c' standard. The median overall speed during the 2002 study was 47.1 mph, which is 0.2 mph lower than the 2001 median speed of 46.9 mph. The mean operating speed was 45.9 mph with a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 1.2 mph. All of these measurements correspond to LOS C conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 49.3 mph ( 0.1 mph lower than 2001 highest overall speed), which occurred on Thursday, March 14,2002 between 3:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 39.2 mph (2.7% lower than 2001 lowest overall speed), that occurred on Friday, March 1, 2002 be- tween 3 :45 p.m. and 6:50 p.m. in the southbound direction and Thursday, March 7, 2002 be- tween 11 :45 a.m. and 2:55 p.m. in the northbound direction. Two congestion delay events which lasted almost 33 minutes in County Line segment was the primary cause for the Fri- day southbound run to be the lowest speed. The second lowest overall speed in the northbound direction was due to the signal in the Big Pine Key segment, which caused a long queue up to East Shore Drive. Figure 2.5 examines the changes in the median overall speed on U.S. 1. Transportation Facilities 31 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1992 46.9 C 1993 47.4 C 0.5 1994 47.3 C -0.1 1995 47.8 C 0.5 1996 47.1 C -0.7 1997 46.5 C -0.7 1998 45.7 C -0.8 1999 46.7 C 1 2000 46.4 C -0.3 2001 46.9 C 1 2002 47.1 C -0.2 Source: 2002 Arterial and Trnvel Time! Dela Stud , URS Greiner, me, 48.0 "'0 47.5 Il) g, 47.0 ~ 46.5 .~ 46.0 "'0 ~ 45.5 45.0 44.5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Figure 2.5 shows that the overall median speed for U.S. 1 has remained between 45.7 mph and 47.8 from 1992 to the present. It is interesting to note that most changes in the me- dian speed show a reduction, however the overall median speed has improved since 1992. Should the overall median speed fall ever below 45 mph (the minimum LOS C standard), then the U.S. 1 capacity would be considered inadequate. Level of Service on U.S. 1 Segments In addition to a determination of the overall capacity throughout the entire 108 mile length of U.S. 1 between Mile Marker 4 and 112, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations requires that the capacity of portions or "segments" of U.S. 1 also be assessed annually. There are a total of twenty four (24) segments of U.S. 1 from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112. A description of the segment boundaries can be found in Figure 2.6 on the following page. The segments were defined by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to reflect roadway cross sections, speed limits, and geographical boundaries. The capacity or level of service for a U.S. 1 segment is measured in median speeds, simi- lar to the overall capacity measurement. Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within in- dividuallinks of U.S. 1, and reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. However, Transportation Facilities 32 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Fi ure 2.7 - Descri tion of US 1 Roadwa <:;", ~ij.~x. eo (t(PJ\.FA) 4 5 Cow Key Bridge (N) Key Haven Boulevard Stock Island, Key Haven 2 5 9 Key Haven Rockland Drive Boca Chica, Rockland 2 Boulevard 3 9 10.5 Rockland Drive . Boca Chica Road Bi Co itt 2 4 10.5 16.5 Boca Chica Road Harris Channel Bridge Shark, Saddlebunch 3 5 16.5 20.5 Harris Channel Bow Channel Bridge Lower & Upper Sugarloaf 3 Brid e 6 20.5 23 Bow Channel Bridge Spanish Main Drive Cudjoe 4A 7 23 25 S anish Main Drive East Shore Drive Summerland 4A 8 25 27.5 East Shore Drive Torch-Ramrod Bridge Ramrod 4A S 9 27.5 29.5 Torch-Ramrod N. Pine Channel Little Torch 4A Brid e S Brid e 10 29.5 33 N. Pine Channel Long Beach Drive Big Pine 5 Brid e 11 33 40 Long Beach Drive 7- Mile Bridge (S) 6 12 40 47 7- Mile Brid e 7- Mile Brid e 6 13 47 54 7- Mile Brid e Cocoa Plum Drive Beach 7 14 54 60.5 Cocoa Plum Drive Toms Harbor Ch Fat Deer Crawl, Grassy 8 Brid e S 15 60.5 63 Toms Harbor Ch Long Key Bridge (S) Duck, Conch 10 Brid e S 16 63 73 Long Key Bridge (S) Channel #2 Bridge (N) Long, Fiesta, Craig 11 17 73 77.5 Channel #2 Bridge Lignumvitae Bridge Lower Matecumbe 12A S 18 77.5 79.5 Lignumvitae Bridge Tea Table Relief Fill 12A S Brid e 19 79.5 84 Tea Table Relief Whale Harbor Bridge Upper Matecumbe 13 Brid e S 20 84 86 Whale Harbor Bridge Snake Creek Bridge Windley 12B S 21 86 91.5 Snake Creek Brid e Ocean Boulevard 14 22 91.5 99.5 Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard 15 & 16 23 99.5 106 Atlantic Boulevard C-905 17 - 20 24 106 112.5 C-905 Coun 22 NOTE: the determination of the median speed on a segment is a more involved process than deter- mining the overall level of service since different segments have different conditions. The Land Development Regulations require each segment of the highway to maintain a level of service of 'c' or better. The level of service criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Transportation Facilities 33 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Monroe County depends on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. Flow characteristics relate to the ability of a vehicle to travel through a par- ticular segment without being slowed or stopped by traffic signals or other devices. Seg- ments with a series of permanent traffic signals or other similar traffic control devices in close proximity to each other are considered to be "Interrupted Flow Segments", and are ex- pected to have longer travel times due to the delays caused by these signals or control de- vices. Roadway segments without a series of signals or control devices are considered to be "Uninterrupted Flow Segments". Uninterrupted segments may have one or more traffic sig- nals, but they are not in close proximity to one another as in the interrupted segment case. The methodology used to determine median speed and level of service on a particular seg- ment is based upon that segment's status as an interrupted or uninterrupted flow segment. There are two interrupted segments of U.S. 1 in the Keys: Segment 1 in Stock Island, and Segment 13 in Marathon; the remainder of the segments are considered as uninterrupted. However, there are some uninterrupted segments which do have signal controls, like Seg- ment lOon Big Pine Key. In these situations, the travel time taken to traverse an uninter- rupted segment with a traffic signal is reduced by 25 seconds to account for the possible de- lay resulting from traffic signal. In addition to different methodologies, there are different level of service standards for interrupted and uninterrupted roadways segments. Figure 2.7 shows the different standards for a roadway segment based upon its flow characteristics. Figure 2.8 is a map of the seg- ment boundaries indicating 2001 LOS, found on the following page. Fi re 2.7 - Level of Service Standards Based on Flow Characteristics A B C D E F 1.5 mph above speed limit 1.5 mph below speed limit 4.5 mph below speed limit 7.5 mph below speed limit 13.5 mph below speed limit > 13.5 h below eed limit 35 mph 28 mph 22 mph 17 mph 13 mph <13 h Reserve Capacities The difference between the median speed and the LOS C standard gives the reserve speed, which is converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and corresponding additional development. Figure 2.10 lists the median speeds by segment for 2001 and 2002. The median overall speed of U.S. 1 in 2002 is 47.1 mph, which is a decrease of 0.3 mph from the 2001 overall median speed of 47.4 mph. Comparing the 2002 overall median speed to the LOS 'c' standard of 45 mph yields an overall reserve speed of 2.1 mph. By using a Transportation Facilities 34 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 2.8 - Map of U.S. 1 Segments LOS A Transportation Facilities 35 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Stock Island 34.6 33.3 -1.3 Boca Chica 59.6 57.1 -2.5 Big Coppitt 48.6 45.7 -2.9 SaddleblUlch 53 51.3 -1. 7 Sugarloaf 49.2 47.9 -1.3 Cudjoe 47.6 48.1 0.5 Swmnerland 44.9 45.6 0.7 Ramrod 47.5 47.3 -0.2 Torch 47.6 46.7 -0.9 Big Pine 32.9 35.4 2.5 Bahia Honda 54.7 53.2 -1.5 7-Mile Bridge 53.2 52.4 -0.8 Marathon 37.7 35.8 -1.9 Grassy 51.3 50.7 -0.6 Duck 55.1 54 -1.1 Long 54.4 52.5 -1.9 L. Matecwnbe 51.3 51.5 0.2 Tea Table 50 50 0 U. Matecwnbe 41.2 41.2 0 Windley 39.5 41.2 1.7 Plantation 42.5 42.3 -0.2 Tavernier 49.7 48.6 -1.1 Largo 47.5 45.4 -2.1 Cross 48.9 51.1 2.2 Soun:e: 2002 Arterial and Travel Tirrel DeJa Stud, URS Greiner, Inc. formula developed by the U.S. I Level of Service Task Force, the reserve speed for 2002 can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of approximately 38,949 trips for U.S. 1. The reserve capacity for U.S. 1 was decreased 5,564 trips from 2001 to 2002. The estimated reserve volume (38,949 trips) can then be converted into an estimated ca- pacity 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 U.S. 1 Residential Capacity = 38.949 (8 trips per day per unit) x 0.8 Residential Capacity = 6,086 units Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of U.S. 1 individu- ally gives maximum reserve volume of trips for all segments totaling 89,881 trips for U.S. 1. This maximum reserve volume is unobtainable due to the constraint imposed by the overall reserve volume of38,949 mentioned above. Transportation Facilities 36 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment As stated earlier, the Land Development Regulations mandate a minimum level of ser- vice of 'C' for all roadway segments of U.S. 1. However, the regulations and FDOT policy do allow segments that fail to meet the LOS C standards in a given year to receive an addi- tional allocation of trips provided the median travel speed for the segment is within 95% of the of the LOS C speed for that segment. This additional allocation is referred to as the "reserve capacity" for the segment. The resulting flexibility allows a limited amount of additional land development to con- tinue until traffic speeds are measured again next year or until remedial actions are imple- mented. These segments are candidates for designations as either "backlogged" or "constrained" by FDOT. Applications for new development located within backlogged or constrained segments are required to undergo a thorough traffic analysis as part of the review process. Based on this year's results, the Big Pine Key segment (# 10) and Tea Table segment (#18) have fallen under the LOS C threshold. The Big Pine segment continues to fail with no reserve capacity, due to median speed being lower than the 95% of LOS C condition. Therefore, no trips can be allocated to the Big Pine Segment. The Tea Table segment is still within the 95 % LOS C condition, resulting in some reserve trips. When no additional trips can be allocated to a particular roadway segment, then it is con- sidered as "inadequate" from a public facility standpoint. The Land Development Regula- tions indicate that no additional development which could impact an inadequate public facil- ity may be permitted. As a result, the current moratorium on development activities which would create additional traffic on U.S. 1 must be maintained on Big Pine and No Name Key. The Big Pine Key segment is considered inadequate based upon the 2002 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study. The Tea Table segment is at a level of service D but does have re- serve capacity. In addition to the requirement that areas with inadequate public facilities be identified in the annual assessment, the Land Development Regulations also require those areas with mar- ginally adequate public facilities to be identified. For the purposes of this report, U.S. 1 seg- ments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph in 2002 are considered as "marginally adequate". Any applications for new development which would generate traffic in marginally adequate areas must submit a detailed traffic report for consideration during reVIew. This year's report indicates that the 7.5 miles of the Big Coppitt and Saddlebunch seg- ments (#3 and #4) , the 4 mile segment on Sugarloaf (# 5), the 7-Mile Bridge, 5.5 mile seg- ment on Grassy Key (#14), the 11 mile segment from Lower Matecumbe to Upper Mate- cumbe (#s 17-19), are all marginally adequate. The 2001 report indicated nine segments as marginally adequate. This number has decreased to seven segments in 2002. The Big Pine segment remains inadequate with a median speed 2.7 mph below the acceptable LOS C cri- Transportation Facilities 37 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1 Stock Island 2 Boca Chica 3 Big Coppitt 4 Saddlebmch 5 Sugarloaf 6 Cudjoe 7 S1.1IllIrefland 8 Ramrod 9 Torch 10 Big Pine 11 Bahia Honda 12 7-Mile Bridge 13 Marathon 14 Grassy 15 Duck 16 Long 17 L. Matecwnbe 18 Tea Table 19 U. Matecwnbe 20 Windley 21 Plantation 22 Tavernier 23 Largo 24 Cross Adequate Adequate Marginal Marginal Marginal Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Marginal Adequate Marginal Adequate Adequate Marginal Marginal Marginal Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Ade uate teria of38.1 mph. Figure 2.11 summarizes each segment's status in 2002. Level of Service on County Roads Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations establishes a level of service stan- dard of LOS D for all County roads, as measured on a volume or annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis. Based on the results of this analysis as shown on Table 4.7 in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document, all of the County roads examined are oper- ating at or above the County standard of LOS D. Improvements to Roadway Facilities Major improvements scheduled for U.S. I are outlined in the Florida Department of Transportation Five-Year Work Program. The major project for unincorporated Monroe County in the current FDOT Work Program (2000/2001 to 2005/06) is to replace the Jewfish Creek drawbridge with a high-level fixed-span bridge and the installation of culverts to im- prove the tidal flow to the surrounding wetlands. The construction phase for this project is 2006. Transportation Facilities 38 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Other projects on the 5-year transportation plan include the construction of wildlife road- way crossings to decrease vehicular interactions with Key Deer on US. 1 between North Pine Channel and the Spanish Harbor Bridge. Another project is the planning, project devel- opment and environmental design for adding turn lanes to U.S. 1 on Big Coppitt Key from the Rockland Channel Bridge to Old Boca Chica Road. Additionally, the repair/ rehabilitation of the Jewfish Creek Bridge deck and the resurfacing of US. 1 from South of the Jewfish Creek Bridge to the Miami-Dade County line are scheduled for 2003/04. In addition to road projects on U.S. 1, the construction of bicycle paths are also on the work schedule for the upcoming five years. These projects include construction of bike paths in the following locations: . connecting Bahia Honda to Little Duck Key . connecting Bay Point on Saddlebunch Key to SugarloafKey . connecting MM 5.2 on Key Haven to MM 9.6 on Big Coppitt Key . MM 59.2 on Grassy Key to MM 65.2 on Long Key . MM 25 on Summerland Key to MM 37 on Bahia Honda Key . MM 16.5 SugarloafKey to MM 24.5 on Summerland Key . MM 68.4 to MM 73.8 Copies of the FDOT's most recent Five Year Work Program are available at the Florida Department of Transportation offices in Marathon. Summary The Land Development Regulations provide clear guidance for assessing the capacity of the roadway system in Monroe County. US. 1 is required to maintain at least a level of ser- vice of 'C', while County roads must maintain a level of service of 'D'. Level of service is determined using the speed-based methodology developed by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force in 1993. The speed based methodology utilizes the empirical relationship be- tween volume-based capacities, and median vehicle speeds. The level of service for U.S. 1 is measured for the overall 108 miles of the roadway as well as for the 24 individual seg- ments making up the roadway in the Keys. The traffic volumes on U.S. 1 have increased since 2001. The three count locations on U.S. 1: Big Pine, Marathon, and Upper Matecumbe, have shown a historical traffic growth. The traffic volumes recorded at Big Pine, Marathon and Lower Matecumbe have decreased compared to the traffic volumes during the 2001 study. The overall travel speed on U.S. 1 for 2001 is one mph lower compared to the 2000 over- all travel speed. The reserve speed for the entire length of U.S. 1 is 1.4 miles per hour. This means that the entire segment is operating with only marginal capacity. Transportation Facilities 39 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Compared to 2001 data, the travel speeds on 6 of the 24 segments increased. These seg- ments are: Cudjoe (+0.6 mph) Summerland (+0.6 mph) Big Pine (+2.5 mph) L. Matecumbe (+ 0.2 mph) Windley Keys (+ 1.6 mph) Cross (+2.3 mph) Travel speeds in 16 segments have decreased. These segments are: Stock Island (-1.3 mph) Boca Chica (-2.5 mph) Big Coppitt (-2.9 mph) Saddlebunch (-1.7 mph) Sugarloaf(-1.3 mph) Ramrod (-0.2 mph) Torch (-0.9 mph) Bahia Honda (-1.5 mph) 7-Mile Bridge (- 0.9 mph) Marathon (-1.8 mph) Grassy (-0.6 mph) Duck (-1.1 mph) Long Key (-1.9 mph) Plantation (-0.2 mph) Tavernier (-1.1 mph) Key largo (-0.7 mph) Compared to last year's (2001) study results, there are changes to seven segments. The Windley segment experienced a LOS increase from 'B' to 'A', whereas the Bahia Honda segment experienced a LOS decrease from 'A' to 'B'. The two segments of Big Coppitt and Saddlebunch experienced a LOS decrease from 'B' to 'C', while Cross Key experienced a LOS increase from 'c' to 'B'. Big Pine Key experienced a LOS increase from 'E' to 'D'. The 7-Mile Bridge segment dropped from LOS' A' to 'C'. The largest speed increase of 2.5 mph was recorded in the Big Pine Key segment. The same segment was recorded for largest reduction during the last year's study. The largest speed reduction of2.9 mph was recorded in the Big Coppitt segment for this year's study. U.S. 1 segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given par- ticular attention when approving development applications. The 11.5 mile segment of US. 1 beginning at MM 9.0 in Big Coppitt and ending at MM 20.5 in Sugarloaf Key, the 7 mile segment beginning at MM 40.0 and ending at MM 47.0 on the 7-Mile Bridge, the 6.5 mile segment of U.S. 1 beginning at MM 54.0 and ending at MM 60.5 in Grassy Key, and the 11 mile segment of U.S. 1 beginning at MM 73.0 and ending at MM 84.0 including the Lower Matecumbe, Tea Table and upper Matecumbe segments are in this category. It should be noted that the length of US. 1 on this category has significantly increased compared to the length of US. 1 identified in the 2001 study (36 miles in 2002 and 29 miles in 2001). The Big Pine Key segment of US. 1, which currently operates at a LOS D is below the 95% of LOS C threshold and has no reserve capacity. Therefore is should be considered an inadequate segment. As a result, the development moratorium for activities which could gen- erate additional traffic should be maintained. All County roads have levels of service above the required standard of 'D'. Transportation Facilities 40 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment III. POTABLE WATER The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the provider of potable water in the Florida Keys. The Biscayne Aquifer is the groundwater supply source for the FKAA. The wellfield is located in a pineland preserve west of Florida City in Miami-Dade County. The FKAA wellfield contains some of the high~st quality groundwater in the State, meeting or exceeding all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Strong laws protect the wellfield from potentially contaminating adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's requirements, FKAA is committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water quality standards and re- quirements. The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Fa- cility in Florida City, which currently has a maximum water treatment capacity of 22 million gallons per day (MGD). The facility has regulatory approval to withdraw up to 19.19 MGD of water from the wellfield and 5.778 billion gallons annually. In 2001, the FKAA distrib- uted 5.627 billion gallons of water to the Florida Keys. The water treatment process consists primarily of lime softening, filtration, disinfection and fluoridation. The treated water is pumped to the Florida Keys through a 130 mile long pipeline at a maximum pressure of 250 pounds per square inch (psi). The pipeline varies in diameter from 36 inches in Key Largo to 18 inches in Key West. The FKAA distributes the treated water through 648 miles of distribution piping ranging in size from % inch to 12 inches in diameter. In 2001, the FKAA replaced over 29,269 feet of various size distribution water mains. The FKAA's Water Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of53,160 feet of water main during fiscal year 2002-03. The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of 40.2 million gallons system wide. The size of the tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million gallons. An additional 5 million gallon storage tank is currently expected to be on-line in July 2002. 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 rehabilitated and new saltwater reverse osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock Island and Marathon, are available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants are capable of producing their designed capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of water, respectively. At present, Key West is the only area 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 wa- ter 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. Potable Water 41 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment A map of the various FKAA facilities in the Keys is shown below. Figure 3.1 - FKAA Facilities SYSTEM OVERVIEW I I \ \ \ I I \ \ \ I i ,BiG cOPPin KEY \:2 30 WP PUMPS \ ~ BIG PINE KEY~ \ ~ 230HOPW"'PS I \ @::1 I \ SUMMERLAND., ~ .\ i KEY \ \ 2 15 HP PWI'$ \ \ \ @::I i \ ~ \ ~~. \ \ ...., \. \ ...--~ !" ~J FLOR,.IDA CilT, .----'\ r::-.~ .~@? I ~,.~ ~~ l~~j~, ~ 1i.:3!) ~ \CC~ AN REEF ~ 22 ~CD TREA.l~E"'l PLANT ~ .cQ HF' PJl,.lPS ~ ('8,5 lIGD PER"',l1EDI \ rI ~ :2 500 HP l:)lJMPS j) .M :3 800 ~~ FtUMP$ ~ .-../.I J ii' ~/ l " ,CEY ViEST ~~~ 2 "OJ I-i:: l)",'VFS~';::'; '-2-_".:0 ~ 20: ,,"p ~'...vj:'S , ROCK ~ HAR80R~ 1 15 I4P puwP ~ I 0,9 MGO i R.O. QL.ANT I UtC!'It ~ i-I \ r MARATHON {' 2 500 HI' PUlIPS Z 850 HI' PUMPS / I j I I , { !SwAN.OR.ADA ~~ :2 30 HP PU"'PS~~ LONG KEY'~ 3 600 HI' PU"'PS CRAWL KEY ~ 2 JO HP P~""PS ~ ~\.RAMROD KEY ~ ' . U' 1 1000 HP PU/IoIP !., ~AliC)tl. 1 600 HP PUl,l1' i . 69th 5T MARATHON / 2 30 4P PUMPS ~ I ~ I ~@ LMARATHON ~! ." .2 -0 HP PUMPS ; 3 Me Demand for Potable Water Demand for potable water is influenced by many factors, including the size of the perma- nent resident and seasonal populations, the demand for commercial water use, landscaping practices, conservation measures, and the weather. Figure 3.2 summarizes FKAA's historic withdrawals, in millions of gallons. The table also shows the percent change in withdrawal from one year to the next, the existing Water Use Permit (WUP) withdrawal limits, and the reserve capacity available for future development under the existing WUP. Potable Water 42 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1980 2,854.90 1981 3,101.10 1982 3,497.30 1983 3,390.20 1984 3,467.50 1985 4,139.20 1986 4,641.50 1987 4,794.60 1988 4,819.80 1989 4,935.90 1990 4,404.10 1991 4,286.00 1992 4,461.10 1993 5,023.90 1994 5,080.00 1995 5,140.40 1996 5,272.00 1997 5,356.00 1998 5,630.00 1999 5,935.30 2000 6,228.00 2001 5,626.70 Source: Florida Ke 8.60% 12.80% -3.10% 2.30% 19.40% 12.10% 3.30% 0.50% 2.40% -10.80% -2.70% 4.10% 12.60% 1.1 0% 1.20% 2.60% 1.60% 5.10% 5.40% 10.60% -9.70% ,2002 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,450 4,450 5,110 5,110 5,110 5,110 5,560 5,560 5,560 5,560 5,560 5,778 5,778 5,778 5,778 5,778 5,778 5,778 N/A N/A N/A N/A 982.5 310.8 468.5 315.4 290.2 174.1 1,155.90 1,274.00 1,098.90 536.1 480 637.6 506 422 148 -157.3 -450 151.3 The following graphs show the relationship between the amount of water withdrawn on an annual basis and the limit of the Water Use Permit through the 1990s. '" ]5,<m 0; 24,<m o ~ 3,<m .Q == 2,<m ::E 1,<m o Flglre 3.3 - FKAAAinJaI Wtfr w.ttmMt 7,<m 6,<m .. .. .. ,... .. y T ~ r I: r 1 , " :'" :, I, " Hgure 3.4 - WUP Rermining Allocation 1,400 1,200 1,000 '" 1:: 800 ..Q 0; 600 0 ..... 400 0 '" 1:: 200 .Q ~ 0 -200 -400 -600 :-, [\ ": l>": Ie ",,\ ",,\: PI-C':-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I c::::::J 1\raulI Wtlrlawll (MJ) -+- 'M.P Urrit (MJ) I p,' p,"v p," p,l>. p," p,b p,'\ p,'b p,Oj s;:,1::l s;:,' ~~~~~~~~~"vG"vG Potable Water 43 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment FKAA's current Water Use Permit (Permit # 13-00005W) from the South Florida Water Management District was obtained in 1995, and is good for a period of ten years. The cur- rent WUP allows an average daily water withdrawal of 15.83 million gallons per day (MGD), a maximum daily withdrawal of 19.19 MGD, and a yearly maximum of 5.778 bil- lion gallons. The maximum permitted annual withdrawal was exceeded in both 1999 and 2000. However, in 2001, water demand decreased due to the severe drought and water restric- tions imposed by SFWMD from December of 2000 to October 2001. The annual average daily withdrawal was 15.42 million gallons and the maximum daily withdrawal was 19.15 million gallons. Preliminary figures for 2002 indicate an increase in water use of 8.2 percent through May compared to 2001 figures. It is likely that the annual withdrawal will be above the threshold of 5.778 billion gallons in 2002. But, in May 2002, the FKAA implemented its new water rate structure. This new water rate is designed to encourage water conserva- tion and is expected to decrease water use. Figure 3.5 shows the projected water demand for the Keys in 2002. Figure 3.6 indicates the amount of water available on a per capita basis. Based on Func- tional Population and permitted water withdrawal, the average water available is slightly be- low 100 gallons per capita (person). The 100 gallons per person per day standard is com- monly accepted as appropriate, and is reflected in Policy 701.1.1 of the Year 2010 Compre- hensive Plan. Currently, FKAA is working with SFWMD to increase its WUP to a maxi- mum daily withdrawal of 23.79 mgd and a total annual withdrawal of 7.274 billion gallons (or average day of 19.93 mgd). The proposed increase in the WUP is expected to go before the SFWMD Board for approval in August 2002. 1998 101.4 19,190,000 122.9 1999 100.7 19,190,000 122.1 2000 99.5 19,190,000 120.6 2001 99 19,190,000 120.1 2002 98.6 19,190,000 119.5 148.2 withdrawals Potable Water 44 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment The 1999 Public Facility Capacity Assessment Report indicated four recommended ac- tions to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to potable water: - Continue to monitor water consumption and return to the Board for further direction - Prepare and adopt a series of ordinances related to water conservation, including plumbing efficiency standards, a landscaping ordinance, and a permanent irrigation ordi- nance - Enter into a memorandum of understanding with the FKAA to address the above items The Growth Management Division plans to work with the FKAA on water consumption patterns and the revisions to the FKAA Water Use Permit. Revised plumbing efficiency standards have been implemented. Efforts on a permanent irrigation ordinance should be co- ordinated with Momoe County and other local governments. The Growth Management Di- vision has offered to work with the FKAA on the development of an intergovernmental team to discuss water conservation options since conservation efforts must be undertaken by all jurisdictions in the Keys to be successful. Improvements to Potable Water Facilities FKAA has ,a long-range capital improvement plan for both the distribution system and the transmission and supply system, as shown in the table below. The total cost of the sched- uled improvements is approximately $60 million over the next 6 years. These projects are to be funded by the newly revised water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants. The scheduled distribution system improvements include replacing and upgrading lines in various subdivisions throughout the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. These improve- ments began in 1989, when FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Upgrade Program to replace approximately 190 miles of galvanized lines. In addition to improvements to the distribution system, FKAA also has significant im- provements planned for the transmission and supply system. FKAA expects to expand the treatment capacity at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant to meet future water de- mands. Also, the FKAA is planning improvements to the pump stations to improve flow! pressure and construction of water storage tanks to provide additional emergency water sup- ply. Figure 3.7 on the following pages shows the projected capital improvements to the pota- ble water system planned by the FKAA. Potable Water 45 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1<X>5 Phase 1 - Tank, IiIre Slaker, 2,750,000 2, 750,000 Wells, Otan 1077 Phase II - Additional Filter & 50,000 500,000 1,600,000 2, 150,000 Plant Inst. 1073 Aquifer StmIge and RemYel)' 80,200 1,000,000 950,000 2,030,200 ASR SwJrity Cam::nls and 350,000 350,000 Ii * Desalination Production 50,000 50,000 Facili Replace Distribution Pipe 4,000,000 5,100,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 20,600,000 North Roooevelt Blvd (JPA 425,000 425,000 850,000 2186 Key West Plant Purrp Station 60,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,060,000 2130 Big Coppitt Tank and Purrp 76,050 650,000 726,050 Station 2183 SI.lI111'UlandlOxljoe Tank & 200,000 650,000 850,000 Station 2191 Vaca ClIt Tank & Purrp 250,000 250,000 500,000 Station 2187 Isl3lllJl'llda TanksfDistribution 200,000 200,000 2189 Big Pine Purrp Station 50,000 250,000 300,000 2190 Storage Tank Inin Wells 40,000 65,000 105,000 3 0 2143 U:ean RrefPurrp Station 350,000 350,000 Key Largo Storage Tank & 1,000,000 1,000,000 Dist. Station Water Tank Long Key Station 1,100,000 1,100,000 Water Tank Rarrrod Station 1,100,000 1,100,000 Mlra1:hon Purrp Station Irrp. 250,000 475,000 725,000 1042 Jewfish G-eek (OOl) 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 1051 Cross Key(JPA wlOOl) 1,200,000 1,200,000 2,400,000 North Roo'ievelt Blvd (JPA 425,000 425,000 850,000 1058 Cathodic Protection System 50,000 700,000 700,000 1,450,000 1<X>8 Valve Replacem:nt 150,000 100,000 250,000 1072 Big Pine Trans. MUn 563,024 563,024 Re1oc. JPA 1064 Key Largo Trans Purrp Sta & 50,000 1,500,000 2,950,000 4,500,000 Pi line Inst. Transnission System Misc. 50,000 150,000 200,000 SCADA Mxi Potable Water 46 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 3038 280,000 3<X>8 60,937 3037 95,000 3<X>9 475,000 3073 50,000 3047 1,075,000 400,000 680,000 60,937 95,000 475,000 250,000 1,075,000 1,300,000 200,000 200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3077 Mlra1:hon Centra1 Warehouse 50,000 400,000 3074 Front Street/RO Plant Sewer 75,000 3076 Mlra1:hon RO Plant Acoustic 50,000 Wall Records Retention Warehouse 85,000 900,000 1,350,000 75,000 50,000 85,000 170,000 DfSAL - Olstotrer Serv. Field Office Mu-athon OJstorner Service Center 1UI'ALS 10,255,211 14,275,000 15,410,000 8,075,000 8,475,000 3,200,000 59,690,211 * Based on the evaluation of need scheduled for 2003, capital plan rmy be arrmded to include $30 million desalination fucility in 2006 Soon:e: Horida Authcri , 2002 600,000 600,000 175,000 825,000 1,000,000 Potable Water 47 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES This element of the Public Facilities Capacity report will be omitted once Policy 1401.4.1 of the Momoe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is implemented. This policy requires the establishment of a Concurrency Management System (CMS). The CMS will en- sure that no new development permits will be issued unless adequate public facilities needed to support the development at the level of service (LOS) standards for all of the public facil- ity types are available concurrent with the impacts of development. Existing School Facilities The Momoe County School Board oversees the operation of 13 public schools located throughout the Keys. Their data includes both unincorporated and incorporated Momoe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three middle! elementary schools, and six elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields, computer labs, a cafetorium that serves as both a cafeteria and auditorium, and bus service. Roughly 60 school busses transport about 4,452 students to and from school each day. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums. The school system is divided into three subdistricts that are similar, but not identical to the service areas outlined in Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations. One difference is that the School Board includes Fiesta Key and the islands that make up Islamo- rada in the Upper Keys (Subdistrict 1), while the Land Development Regulations place them in the Middle Keys (Subdistrict 2). Also, the School Board includes Key West in the Lower Keys (Subdistrict 3), while the Land Development Regulations do not consider Key West. The data presented in this section are based on the School Board's subdistricts. Subdistrict 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and in- cludes one high school and two elementary/middle schools, as shown in Figure 4.1. Subdis- trict 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven Mile Bridge and includes one high/middle school and one elementary school. Subdistrict 3 covers the Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school, one middle school, one elementary! middle school, and five elementary schools. Fi ure 4.1 - Schools bv Subdistrict Coral Shores High School (9-12) Key Largo ElementarylMiddIe School (K-8) Plantation Key Elementary/Middle School (K-8) Stanley Switlik Elementary (K-6) Sugarloaf ElementarylMiddIe School (K-8) Horace O'Bryant Middle School (6-8) Adams Elementary (K-5) Archer/Reynolds Elementary (K-5) Poinciana Elementary (K-5) Sigsbee Elementary (K-5) Big Pine Key Neighborhood School Pre K-2 Source: Monroe Coun School Board, 2002 Education Facilities 48 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 4.2 - Monroe County Education Facilities Key Largo Elementary .. Plantation Key Elementary/Middle Coral Shores High Horace O'Bryant Middle Marathoo High Poinciana Elementary Big Pine Neighborhood School Sigsbee Elementary Sugarloaf Elementary Gerald Adams .t:flJ '\ Elementary " .'. .. -... Key West High Glynn Archer Elementary Reynold Elementary Demand for School Facilities The population of school age children in Momoe County is influenced by many factors, including the size of the resident and seasonal populations, national demographic trends (such as the "baby boom" generation), that result in decreasing household size, economic factors such as military employment, the price and availability of housing, and the move- ments of seasonal residents. The School Board collects emollment data periodically throughout the year. Counts taken in the winter are typically the highest, due to the presence of seasonal residents. The following charts show the fall school emollments from 1991 to 2001 by subdistrict as taken from the School Board's Fall Student Survey. Education Facilities 49 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Subdistrict 1 Coral Shores (H) 550 605 597 649 702 672 701 757 758 800 810 Key Largo (ElM) 1,008 1,310 1,213 1,235 1,198 1,223 1,273 1,253 1,183 1,173 1117 Plantation ElM 627 718 698 721 737 730 703 675 643 668 647 Subtotal 2,185 2,633 2,508 2,605 2,637 2.625 2,677 2,685 2,584 2,641 2,574 Subdistrict 2 Marathon (H) 516 545 523 578 642 637 612 637 660 679 682 Switlik E 731 734 775 776 769 782 815 834 791 671 687 Subtotal 1,247 1,279 1,298 1,354 1,411 1,419 1,427 1,471 1,451 1,350 1,369 Subdistrict 3 Key West (H) 1,076 1,114 1,120 1,155 1,255 1,237 1,327 1,372 1,344 1,305 1,327 O'Bryant (M) 772 852 902 876 909 897 863 899 814 838 854 Sugarloaf (ElM) 934 899 810 1,039 1,013 987 960 937 913 941 854 Adams (E) 522 541 529 516 486 500 499 574 566 513 544 Archer (E) 493 480 441 462 454 454 520 493 460 393 376 Poinciana (E) 507 521 566 613 626 637 608 620 632 599 586 Sigsbee (E) 476 471 400 431 431 398 404 423 393 358 363 Sands 86 81 81 85 52 52 58 1 0 0 0 Subtotal 4,866 4,959 4,849 5,177 5,226 5,162 5,239 5,319 5,122 4,947 4,904 Total 8,298 8,871 8,655 9,136 9,274 9,206 9,343 9,475 9,157 8,938 8,847 Source: Monroe Coun School Board, 2002 10,000 9,500 9,000 8,500 8,000 7,500 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 I-+- Total Fall School Enrollment I Level of Service of School Facilities The Momoe County Land Development Regulations do not identify a numeric level of service standard for schools (such as 10 square feet of classroom space per student). Instead, Section 9.5-292 of the regulations requires classroom capacity "adequate" to accommodate the school-age children generated by proposed land development. The School Board uses recommended capacities provided by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) to determine each school's capacity. All schools have adequate reserve capacity to accommodate the impacts of the additional land development activities projected for 2000. Figure 4.4 shows each school's capacity and the projected number of students. Education Facilities 50 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Subdistrict 1 Coral Shores 868 831 818 Key Largo 1,240 1,191 1,115 Plantation 971 645 653 Subtotal 3,079 2,667 2,586 Subdistrict 2 Marathon 1,018 667 673 Switlik 925 668 674 Subtotal 1,943 1,335 1,347 Subdistrict 3 Key West 1,349 1,312 1,267 O'Bryant 833 818 838 Sugarloaf 1,356 941 842 Adam; 547 506 546 Archer 470 398 371 Poinciana 660 585 574 Sigsbee 534 357 373 Sands 0 0 0 Subtotal 5,749 4,917 4,811 Total 10,771 8,919 8,744 Source: Monroe Coun SchooIBoard,2002 Improvements to School Facilities Florida Statute 163.3177 requires counties to identify lands and zoning districts needed to accommodate future school expansions. In order to bring the Momoe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan into compliance with this statute, in 1998 the Momoe County Planning Department and School Board conducted research to determine the existing school capacity and the potential need for future educational facilities in Momoe County. This study focused on land requirements for each of the schools expansion needs. Over- all, the County has sufficient vacant and appropriately zoned land to meet the area's current and future school siting needs. The specific land requirements for the public schools in the County are discussed below. Key Largo School Meeting the substantial land requirements of Key Largo School is a top priority of the School Board. The Department of Education (DOE) has instructed the Momoe County School Board to construct an additional 43,100 square feet of school space. However, current land use regulations prohibit the School Board from construction of any addi- tional facilities on or adjacent to its current site due to the environmental sensitivity of the area. The School Board recently made an unsuccessful attempt to purchase a new site on which to build the required school facilities. Unless the Board is able to provide Education Facilities 51 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment these facilities in Key Largo they will be non-compliant with the minimum DOE stan- dards. Fully utilizing the current Key Largo site would enable the School Board to meet their DOE requirements and to minimize other secondary environmental impacts associ- ated with the construction of a new school. It has been determined that the School Board may clear the required amount of land, but the location of the clearing is still under re- view by the Planning and Environmental Resources Department. Plantation Key School The DOE has instructed the Momoe County School Board to construct an additional 16,600 square feet of school space for this school. The parcel of land for this school is not large enough to accommodate this development and regulations prohibit the School Board from constructing any additional facilities on, or adjacent to, its current site due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The new Village of Islamorada will address plans for Plantation Key School and other educational facilities in its compre- hensive plan. Stanley Switlik Elementary Expanding the existing school facilities into the two parcels of land flanking the current site will accommodate the land requirements for Stanley Switlik Elementary. The school has a new cafeteria/kitchenlmultipurpose building as well as new parking and ballfields. Construction on the new facilities has been completed. Marathon High and Middle School The land requirements for Marathon High and Middle School are currently being met. The DOE has instructed the Momoe County School Board to construct a new 13,000 square foot auditorium for this school that could also serve as a community center. Coral Shores High School The School Board is currently building a replacement school on this site. The first phase (approximately 140,000 s.f.) is opening in August, 2002. The second phase will be completed in August, 2003 (approximately 60,000 s.f.). Demolition of the old struc- ture began in 2000. Overall, the School Board needs to add around 100,000 square feet to its current facilities to meet or exceed the Department of Education's requirements for school size. Figure 4.5, on the following page, is a table showing the results of the investigation completed by the Momoe County School Board and Planning Department in 1998 and up- dated in 2002. Education Facilities 52 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment _;C~.l..teJI There are approximately 70 acres of vacant land zoned SR and 65 acres zoned NA surrounding the current site. N/A N/A N/A There are approximately 21 acres of vacant land zoned NA surrounding the current site. There are approximately 4.27 acres 0 vacant land zoned SC and 8.6 acres 0 vacant land zoned IS surrounding the current site. There are approximately 27 acres of vacant land zoned NA and 34 acres zoned SR surrounding the current site. (1) The School Board is working with Monroe County Planning Department to meet this need prior to 2003. (2) Islamorada will address plans for Plantation Key School, Coral Shores High School and other educational facilities in their comprehensive plan. (3) The School Board purchased two 1015 zoned SC adjacent to the current school site to expand onto in 1998. Key Largo 27 acres (SC & SR) 2 acres (1 ) o acres N/A N/A o acres Marathon High and Middle Schools 27 acres (SR) o acres (4) o acres Big Pine Neighborhood Elementary 4.5 acres (SC) o acres o acres SugarloafMiddle and Elementary 42 acres (SC & NA) o acres o acres to create an auditoriwn that also serves as a connnuni center. Education Facilities 53 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment v. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Momoe County's solid waste facilities are managed by the Solid Waste Management De- partment, which oversees a comprehensive system of collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste. Prior to 1990, the County's disposal methods consisted of incineration and landfilling at sites on Key Largo, Long Key,.and Cudjoe Key. Combustible materials were burned either in an incinerator or in an air curtain destructor. The resulting ash was used as cover on the landfills. Non-combustible materials were deposited directly in the landfills. In August 1990, the County entered into a contract with Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) to transport the solid waste to the contractor's private landfill in Broward County. In accor- dance with County-approved franchise agreements, private contractors perform collection of solid waste. Residential collection takes place four times a week (2 garbage/trash, 1 recy- cling, 1 yardwaste); nomesidential collection varies by contract. The four (4) contractors currently serving the Keys are identified in Figure 5.1. Keys Sanitary Service Ocean ReefOub, Inc. Mid-Keys Waste, Inc. Waste Managemcllt of Florida, Inc. artment, 2002 The County's incinerators and landfills are no longer in operation. The landfill sites are now used as transfer stations for wet garbage, yard waste, and construction debris collected throughout the Keys by the four curbside contractors and prepared by WMI for shipment out of the Keys. However, it is important to note that a second, unused site on Cudjoe Key could be opened if necessary. Figure 5.2 below summarizes the status of the County's landfills and incinerators. Reserve Capacity . (cubic yards) . o o Old Site Unused Site Oosed 2/25/91 None o 180,000 The County's recycling efforts began in October 1994, when curbside collection of recy- clable materials was made available to all County residences and businesses. Recycling transfer centers have been established in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. Waste Man- agement, Inc. continues to process yard waste into mulch. The mulch product is then made available to the public. In addition to County efforts, other government agencies are mulch- ing and reusing yard waste, and private enterprises are collecting aluminum and other recy- clable materials. Solid Waste Facilities 54 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment White goods, waste oil, batteries and tires are handled separately, with collection sites operating at each landfilVtransfer station site. The County collects household hazardous waste at the Long Key and Cudjoe Key Transfer Stations, in addition to the Key Largo Recy- cling Yard. Hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators is col- lected once a year, as part of an Amnesty Days program. Demand for Solid Waste Facilities For solid waste accounting purposes, the County is divided into three districts which are similar, but not identical to the service areas outlined in Section 9.5-292 of the Land Devel- opment Regulations (LDRs). One difference is that Windley Key, which is considered to be in the Upper Keys district in the LDRs, is included in the Middle Keys district for purposes of solid waste management. Another difference from the LDRs is that the cities of Layton and Key Colony Beach are included in the Middle Keys district for solid waste management. Although Islamorada incorporated on December 31, 1997, the municipality continued to participate with Momoe County in the contract with Waste Management Inc. until Septem- ber 30, 1998. Data for Momoe County solid waste generation is calculated by fiscal year which runs from October 1 to September 30. Therefore, the effects of Islamorada's incorpo- ration on solid waste services appear in the 1999 data. Data for the City of Key West and the Village oflslamorada is not included in this report. Marathon's incorporation was effective on October 1,2000 and they continue to partici- pate in the Waste Management Inc. contract. Effects of the incorporation, if any, will appear in the 2001 data. Demand for solid waste facilities is influenced by many factors, including the size and income levels of resident and seasonal populations, the extent of recycling efforts, household consumptive practices, landscaping practices, land development activities, and natural events such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Analyses provided by a private research group indi- cate that the average single-family house generates 2.15 tons of solid waste per year. Mobile homes and multifamily units, having smaller yards and household sizes, typically generate less solid waste (1.96 and 1.28 tons per year, respectively). The table and graph on the following page summarize the solid waste generated by each district. The totals for each district are a combination of four categories of solid waste: gar- bage, yard waste, bulk yard waste and other (includes construction and demolition debris). After reaching a peak in 1988, the data shows a general decline in the total amount of solid waste generated throughout the County. However, in 1993 there was an increase of 21 percent in the amount of solid waste generated. This increase is attributed to the demolition and rebuilding associated with Hurricane Andrew, which made landfall in South Florida in late August 1992. For the next two years the amount of solid waste generated in the County was once again on the decline. However, from 1996 onward the amount of solid waste gen- Solid Waste Facilities 55 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1985 28,585 28,890 15,938 73,413 NA 1987 32,193 37,094 22,206 91,493 24.63% 1989 31,173 33,931 23,033 88,137 -3.67% 1990 28,430 31,924 22,988 83,342 -5.44% 1991 26,356 28,549 20,699 75,604 -9.28% 1992 27,544 26,727 18,872 73,143 -3.26% 1993 37,211 28,986 22,198 88,395 20.85% 1994 30,110 30,662 24,831 85,603 -3.16% 1995 28,604 30,775 25,113 84,492 -1.30% 1996 31,573 31,845 27,823 91,241 7.99% 1997 32,003 33,625 29,350 94,978 4.10% 1998 33,119 36,440 30,920 100,479 5.79% 1999 29,382 30,938 37,431 97,751 -2.71% 2000 32,635 30,079 33,420 96,134 -1.65% 2001 29,663 29,367 31,166 90,196 -6.18% t, 2002 Figure 5.4 - Solid Waste Generation 1985 -2001 by District 120,000 100,000 80,000 '" = 60,000 0 f-< 40,000 20,000 0 ~., ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ # ~ ~ ~ Pi'" Pi'" s;:,~ s;:,' ,'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,0; ,0; ",1:5 ",1:5 1_ Key Largo liVV .1 Long Key c:::J Cudjoe Key -Al-Totall erated has been on the increase until 1998, when it reached its highest level yet. This in- crease is attributed to the debris associated with Hurricane Georges, which made landfall in the Keys in September of 1998. A portion of the decline seen from 1998 to 1999 may be at- tributable to the reduction in solid waste collected from Islamorada. The continuing decline shown in 2000 and 2001 is due to a reduction in construction and demolition debris being brought to the County transfer stations following the implementation of the Specialty Hauler ordinances. Level of Service of Solid Waste Facilities Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations requires that the County maintain Solid Waste Facilities 56 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment sufficient capacity to accommodate all existing and approved development for at least three (3) years. The regulations specifically recognize the concept of using disposal sites outside Momoe County. As of June 2002, Waste Management Inc., reports a reserve capacity of approximately 27 million cubic yards at their Central Sanitary Landfill in Broward County, a volume sufficient to serve their clients for another 13 years: Figure 5.5 below shows the remaining capacity at the Central Sanitary Landfill. Remaining Capacity (time) 41 years 20 million cubic yards 40 years 28 million cubic yards 14 years 27 million cubic yards 13 years Remaining Capacity (volume) en!, 2002 Momoe County has a contract with WMI authorizing use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately fifteen years of guaranteed capacity. Central Sanitary Landfill will perform a modification which will in- crease the life of the landfill another two years. In addition to this contract, the 180,000 cu- bic yard reserve at the County landfill on Cudjoe Key would be sufficient to handle the County's waste stream for an additional four to five years (at current tonnage levels), should the County choose to discontinue haul-out as the means of disposal. The combination of the existing haul-out contract and the space available at the Cudjoe Key landfill provides the County with sufficient capacity to accommodate all existing and approved development for up to twenty years. Solid Waste Facilities 57 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment VI. PARKS AND RECREATION An annual assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Section 9.5- 292 of the Momoe County Land Development Regulations, though it is required for concur- rency management systems by the Florida Statutes. The following section has been included in the 2002 Public Facilities Capacity Asses~ment Report for informational purposes only. Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are not mentioned in the Land Development Regulations, but are listed in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Momoe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Parks and Recreational Facilities Level of Service Standard The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincor- porated Momoe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the provision of resource- and activity-based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS stan- dards are: 0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population 0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population The LOS standards for each type of recreation area can be applied to unincorporated Momoe County as a whole or to each subarea (Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys) of un in cor- porated Momoe County. In determining how to apply the LOS standard for each type ofrec- reation area, the most important aspect to consider is the difference between resource- and activity-based recreation areas. Resource-based recreation areas are established around ex- isting natural or cultural resources of significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Ac- tivity-based recreation areas can be established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other athletic events. Since the location of resource-based recreation areas depends upon the natural features or cultural resources of the area and cannot always be provided near the largest population cen- ters, it is reasonable to apply the LOS standard for resource-based areas to all of unincorpo- rated Momoe County. Since activity-based recreation areas do not rely on natural features or cultural resources for their location and because they can be provided in areas with concen- trated populations, it is more appropriate to apply the LOS standard to each subarea of the Keys. It is important to note that the subareas used for park and recreational facilities differ from those subareas used in the population projections. For the purpose of park and recrea- tional facilities, the Upper Keys are considered to be the area north of Tavernier (PAEDs 15 through 22). The Middle Keys are considered to be the area between Pigeon Key and Long Key (PAEDs 6 through 11). The Lower Keys are the area south of the Seven Mile Bridge Parks and Recreation 58 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment (PAEDs 1 through 6). Although the Middle and Lower Keys subareas both contain portions ofPAED 6, the population ofPAED 6 is located in the Lower Keys subarea. An inventory of Momoe County's parks and recreational facilities is presented below. The facilities are grouped by subarea and are classified according to the principal use (resource or activity). Undevelo d. Undevelo ed. Basketball courts (2), playgrOlUld, ball field, picnic shelters, arkin and ublic restrooms. A soccer field, two (2) ball fields, six (6) tennis courts, a jogging Kc Lar Co . P k trail, three (3) basketball courts, roller hockey, volleyball, ey go rrnnumty ar playground, picnic shelters, public restrooms, parking and a uatic center. Waterfront ark with a boat r Two (2) ball fields, playground, restrooms, picnic shelters, beach, arkin 89 and boat r PIa 000 ark benches, trails, and a historic latform. Undevelo d Undevelo ed Monroe County School District; Playground, baseball field, runnin track indoor Monroe County School District; Baseball field, football field, Coral Shores High School softball field, 5 tennis courts, indoor Monroe County School District; playground, 1 tennis court, 1 Plantation Key Elementary basketball court. 1 baseball field. Friendship Park Sunset Point Harry Harris Settler's Park Sunn Haven Old S.R 4-A Key Largo Elementary Subarea Total Middle Keys Subarea Pigeon Key Marathon High School Switlik Elementary Subarea Total Lower Keys Subarea Little Duck Ke Missouri Ke West Surrnnerland Heron Avenue Palm Villa Bi Pine Leisure Club Historic structures, research/educational facilities, and a railroad museum. Monroe County School District; Baseball and football field, softball fiel 3 tennis courts 3 basketball courts, indoor Monroe County School District; Playground, 2 baseball fields, shared soccer/football field. , and beach area. 1.5 0.46 1.92 14 1.2 16.4 3 0.09 0.3 3.4 10.1 1.7 6.09 47.98 5 7.8 2.5 5 10.3 25.5 3.5 31.8 0.69 0.44 1.75 59 Parks and Recreation 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Blue Heron Park PlaygrOlmd, basketball court, youth center, and picnic shelters. Watson Field Olmd, and volle all. Ramrod Ke Swim Hole Summerland Estates Little Torch Boat Baypoint Park Palm Villa Park Rockland Hanmock Boca Chica Beach Delmar Avenue Big Coppitt Fire artment PIa oWld Wilhelmina Harvey Children's Park PlaygroWld and benches. Passive green space with no facilities. Bernstein Park Ball field, soccer, basketball court, track, termis courts, la OWl restrooms and volle all. Historic structures, teen center, and icnic area. Historic structure. Five (5) tennis courts, playgroWld, volleyball, picnic shelters, beach area, ier, and ublic restrooms. Historic structure and museum. Monroe CoWl School District. 1 baseball field la oWld. East Martello West Martello Higgs Beach 5.5 2.4 0.5 0.13 0.1 1.58 0.13 2.5 6 0.2 0.75 0.65 11 14.58 0.8 5.06 0.77 3.1 87.85 31.58 There are currently 89.81 acres of resource-based recreation areas either owned or leased by Momoe County. The resource-based acreage figure subtracts 9.13 acres of undeveloped lands from the 98.94 total shown in Figure 6.1. Using the functional population projection for 2002 of 74,388 persons in unincorporated Momoe County, and the LOS standard of 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population, the demand for resource-based recreation areas is ap- proximately 60.99 acres. The county currently has resource-based recreation land to meet the level of service with an extra 32.18 acres ofreserve capacity. Level of Service Analysis for Activity-Based Recreation Areas The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at edu- cational facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. There is cur- rently a total of 89.40 acres of developed activity-based recreation areas either owned or leased by Monroe County and the Momoe County School Board. This total represents 47.52 acres in the Upper Keys (including Plantation Key in Islamorada), 10.3 acres in the Middle Keys (including Marathon), and 31.58 acres in the Lower Keys. Based on a LOS standard of 0.82 acres of activity-based recreation areas per 1,000 functional population in unincorpo- Parks and Recreation 60 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment rated Momoe County, the demand for these recreation areas are 30.24, 3.37 and 27.74 acres for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys, respectively. There is currently a reserve of 28.52 acres of activity-based recreation areas for all of un- incorporated Momoe County. Figure 6.2 shows the level of service analysis for activity- based recreation areas in each subarea. Upper Keys Total Middle Keys Total Lower Ke Total Total Source: Monroe Coun Plannin t, 2002 Acquisition of Additional Recreation Areas The Momoe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Momoe County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of resource- based and activity-based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level of service standards." The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6) mechanisms that are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as for providing adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recrea- tion facilities that results from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are: 1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land that is already owned by the county but that is not being used for park and recreation purposes; 2. Acquisition of new park sites; 3. Interlocal agreements with the Momoe County School Board that would allow for the use of existing school-park facilities by county residents; 4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Momoe County that would al- low for the use of existing city-owned park facilities by county residents; 5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments that would allow for the use of existing publicly-owned lands or facilities by county resi- dents; and 6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities that would allow for the use of private park facilities by county residents. To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms - acquisition of new park sites (number 2 above) and interlocal agreements with the School Board (number 3 above). However, these agreements need to be examined more closely to determine the amount of available acreage for calculating concurrency. Furthermore, Momoe County cannot rely Parks and Recreation 61 2002 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment .. available acreage for calculating concurrency. Furthermore, Monroe County cannot rely upon joint use facilities to eliminate existing deficiencies or meet future LOS requirements until interlocal, intergovernmental, or private use joint agreements are executed. For in- stance, the County is currently reviewing and revising the interlocal agreements with the Momoe County School Board to provide greater day time accessibility for students to public recreational facilities. Once executed, these agreements will ensure that the facilities will be available for general use to Momoe County'residents to meet peak season, weekend, or time of day recreation demands. Parks and Recreation 62