The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 380-2006 RESOLUTION NO. 380 - 2006 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY FOR 2006 AS SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT. WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an annual assessment of public facilities capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following findings offacts: I. This annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities. 2. This report becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed and approved for the upcoming year. 3. Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations provides the minimum standards for I,evel of service of roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities. 4. Section 9.5-292 requires the annual assessment of public facilities capacity to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe County with inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities. 5. The annual report finds that sufficient capacity exists for solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth through 2006. 6. The transportation section of the annual report is based upon the findings of the 2006 US- I Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS, the County's transportation consultant. 7. U.S. I segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph ("marginally adequate") should be given particular attention when approving development applications 8. Nine segments of U.S. I were classified as "marginally adequate" in terms of reserve capacity and therefore development activities in these areas will be closely monitored to minimize the possibility for further degradation in the level of service. 9. The Lower Matecumbe segment is below the LOS C threshold, and the Tea Table segment is at LOS C without any reserve speed and the Lower Matecumbe and Tea Table segments do not have any planned improvements to curtail the travel speed reductions. 10. The Florida Department of Transportation should conduct a special study along this stretch of US 1. 11. The projected water use demand of 18.58 mgd in 2006 is anticipated to increase in 2007. 12. Water use Permit #13-00005 has allowed for withdrawal of 19.93 mgd to meet this demand. 13. Monroe County should work with FKAA to investigate the renewal of Permit #13-00005 or seek a new permit. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the annual assessment of Monroe COlmty Public Facilities Capacity for 2006 is: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of Sel>tember 2006. &f) Cl -::t :~ <:( cr::: w -J C":>,=, t.... U -..: t' ~ u,_ ~ CD ::;,~~~ g l.L -".I .L) to- ~'-:Jw 8 u Z,uC) ........ 0 :::.: 0::: =..-~z /"~~~~:[.......~ I", '-~~At~. ~\\ (t~(,~~~~)'i;: ;~ ".p\"""~,,.'.!'..,.'.e... ,~/ , .'<:' .,''C'. ..~, "",,~," -";'.:"", .-.~Ji<", DEPUTY dLERK Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy Mayor Pro Tern Dixie Spehar Commissioner Glenn Patton Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Mario DiGennaro YPR. Yes Absent Yes Yes BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE CO Y, FLORIDA BY 2006 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT ~"..,~ ~:\:..~ ;~ . 1 ,'. ~ J ...:. . -' ... 'i -P, " . " EDUCATION SOLID WASTE POTABLE WATER TRANSPORTATION PARKS AND RECREATION AUGUST 2006 PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ... ...... ............ ............ ...... ......... ...... ......... ....... i-iv INTRODUCTION... ...... ...... ............ ... ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... ............ 1-4 I. GROWTH ANALYSIS... ......... ............ ......... ............... ...... ......... ...... ...... 5-20 II. TRANSPORTATION FACIL/TIES......................................................... 21-33 III. POTABLE WATER......... ......... ............ ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... .... 34-39 IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES.................................................................. 40-45 V. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES................................................................. 46-49 VI. PARKS AND RECREATION... ............... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... 50-54 EXECUTIVESUAfAfARY 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 the level of service (LOS) required by the Code. development activities must con- form 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 st:fved by adequate public or private facilities. As requin:d by the Code, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) shall conSider and approve the annual report, with or without modifications. Any modifications that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact, including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity re- quired 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 repOlt distinguishes between areas of in- adequate facility capacity and marginallyade- quate cap,lCity. Inadequate facility capacity IS defined as those areas with capacity below the adopted LOS standard. Marginally adequate capacity lis defined as those areas at the adopted LOS standard or that are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next twelve months. Residential and Nonresidential Growth for 2006 For the 2006 assessment, a population model that uses a 2000 Census base population and household data to estimate and forecast popu- lation growth is used. The projected func- tional population of unincorporated Monroe County is expected to decline to 71,485 peo- ple in 2006, a decrease from a population of 76,334 in 2005. The projected permanent population was ini- tially based on a methodology created by The Department of Planning and EnVironmental Resources and was based on 1990 Census data Si~ce then the permanent population model has been updated to report 2000 Census data as the basis. The reason for the update in the Permanent population figures is due to new trends that were reflected in 2000 Census data and again in the 2005 Estimates which are showing a declining permanent popula- tion. By 2000 the old model overestimated permanent residents by 6,033 and the gap Wid- ened to an over estimation of 11,976 of the permanent residents in 2005. By applying the new methodology and model with the 2000 year as the base year the population estimates are more accurate. The Updated projectIOns estimated 77,490 residents in 2005 while the Census estimated 76,329 only a 1,161 differ- ence. At this time the Planning and Environ- mental Resources is revising the methodology for population projection to update seasonal population figures as well in order to arnve at a revised overall functional population. Policy 101.3.1, 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 approved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in December of 2001, but was subsequently appealed. The appeal was with- drawn in August 2002. The policy remains as stated, non-residential growth, over the 15 year planning horizon, is limited to 239 square feet of development for each new residential unit. Assessment of Public Facilities for 2006 This year's report finds that education, solid waste, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities all have sufficient capacity 110 serve anticipated growth. Al- though, State and county roads meet level of service stlmdards, Based on this years study, only the L Mate- cumbe (Segment 17) segment is below the LOS C threshold, and the Tea Table segment is at LOS C without any reserve speed. The L Matecumbe and Tea Table segments have re- serve volume or reserve capacities within the 5% allocation. The Cross Key segment is above the LOS C threshold despite the con- struction work taking place at this segment. The reduced speed limit may be a compensat- ing factor. The decrease in traffic volume might be another factor for the improved LOS threshold for the Cross segment and other seg- ments during this year's study. However, the travel speeds on Cross Key segment is likely to improve with the implementation of a high level fixed bridge, completion is anticipated within the next three years. The Lower Mate- cumbe and Tea Table segments do not have any plarmed improvements to curtail the travel speed reductions. The Florida Department of Transportation and/or the Monroe County should conduct a special study along this stretch of U. S. 1. This years water demand shows no increase through May of 2006 over last years demand through the same period. However, the water demand is still projected to increase to 18.58 MGD in 2006 up from the average of 17.73 MGD withdrawn in 2005. With Water Use Permit (Pmmit # 13-00005W) providing up to an average daily water withdrawal of 19.93 MGD there is an adequate supply of water to meet demand. However, looking forward to 2007 with Permit # 13-00005W expiring there will be 1765 MGD available. With projected demand of 18.58 MGD in 2006 and with the assumption that demand will only continue to increase in 2007, based upon water demand increasing steadily ever years since 1991 with the exception of 2001, it can be anticipated that water demand will outpace supply by 2007. Solid Waste: The combination of the existing haul-out con- tract and the space available at the Cudjoe Key landfill provides the County with suffi- cient capacity to accommodate all existing and approved development for up to thirteen years. Parks and Recreation: Unincorporated Monroe County has enough resource- and activity-based recreation areas to serve the functional population and there- fore has a LOS that is adequate. Additionally, there is adequate reserve capacity to accom- modate future population increases. Schools: The Monroe County Land Development Regula- tions 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 ca- pacity "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 accom- modate the impacts of the additional land develop- ment activities projected for 2005-2006 school year. The capacity runs approximately 93- 95% of student stations which vary in number from elementary, middle and high school due to class size reduction. The class size reduc- tion was a result of a state constitutional amendment setting limits for the maximum allowable number of student in a class by the start of the 2010-11 school year that was passed by Florida's voters in November 2002. Enrollment figures for the 2004-2005 school year and projected enrollment figures for the 2005- 2006 school year, show that none of the schools 11 are expectl:d to exceed their recommended capac- ity. School facility plans are based on enrollment projections, 5 years out. And the utilization rate 5 years out is between 50 to 90 percent confirming adequate capacity. If utilization was projected to exceed om, hundred percent then there would not be sufficient capacity, Potable Water: A comparison between 2004 and 2005 shows an increase in water consumption of .16%. This years water demand shows no increase through May of 2006 over last years demand through the same period. However, the water demand is still projected to increase to 18.58 MGD in 2006 up from the average of 17.73 MGD withdrawn in 2005. With Water Use Permit (Permit.~ 13-00005W) providing up to an average daily water withdrawal of 19,93 MGD there is an adequate supply of water to meet demand, However, looking forward to 2007 with Permit # 13-00005W expiring there will be 17,65 MGD available. With projected demand of 18.58 MGD in 2006 and with the assumption that demand will only continue to increase in 2007, based upon water demand increasing steadily ever years since 1991 with the exception of 200 I, it can be anticipated that water demand will outpace supply by 2007. Roads: The adopted level of service (LOS) standard for US-I is LOS C. Based on the findings of the 2006 US-I Arterial Travel Time and De- lay Study for Monroe County, as prepared by URS Inc., the overall 2006 level of service for US-I is LOS C. The table on the following page shows the LOS and "status" of US-I by segment. County regulations allow development activi- ties to continue in "areas of marginally ade- quate facility capacity" provided traffic speeds do not fall below the standard by more than five percent. Based on this years study, only the L Matecumbe (Segment 17) segment is below the LOS C threshold, and the Tea Table ad on U.S. 1 b S ment ::im':":':'-"."'."..'.'~.'.'.'.,.:~.i...,',:,:',..,:,:,',::,:.:,:,':,:,;,:~.'.:.:,.'....'.'Q.",.'.'.s','~."'.":,':,:,:,', .""".11..: ~ .,.. '..'$l!ltili.... 1 Stock Island 4-5 B Adequate 2 Boca Chica 5-9 A Adequate 3 Big Coppitt 9-10.5 C Marginal 4 Saddle bunch 10,5-16.5 C Marginal 5 S ugarloaf 16,5-20.5 C Marginal 6 Cudjoe 20.5-23 A Adequate 7 Summerland 23-2 B Adequate 8 Ramrod 25-27.5 B Adequate 9 Torch 27.5-29.5 A Adequate 10 Big Pine 29,5-33 C Marginal 11 Bahia Honda 33-40 A Adequate 12 7-Mile Bridge 40-47 B Adequate 13 Marathon 47-54 A Adequate 14 Grassy Key 54-60,5 C Marginal 15 Duck Key 60.5-63 B Adequate 16 Long Key 63-73 B Adequate Lower Mate- 17 cumbe 73-77.5 D Marginal 18 Tea Table 77.5-79.5 C Marginal Upper Mate- 19 cumbe 79,5-84 C Marginal 20 Windley 84-86 A Adequate 21 Plantation 86-91.5 B Adequate 22 Tavernier 91.5-99.5 A Adequate 23 Largo 99.5-106 A Adequate 24 Cross 106-112.5 C M. inaI Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time! Dela Stud , URS Inc. segment is at LOS C without any reserve speed. The L Matecumbe and Tea Table seg- ments have reserve volume or reserve capaci- ties within the 5% allocation. The Cross Key segment is above the LOS C threshold despite the construction work taking place at this seg- ment The reduced speed limit may be a com- pensating factor, The decrease in traffic vol- ume might be another factor for the improved LOS threshold for the Cross segment and other segments during this year's study. How- ever, the travel speeds on Cross Key segment is likely to improve with the implementation of a high level fixed bridge, completion is an- ticipated within the next three years. The Lower Matecumbe and Tea Table segments do not have any planned improvements to cur- tail the travel speed reductions, The Florida Department of Transportation and/or the Mon- III roe Coun1y should conduct a special study along this stretch of U.S. 1. Name Big Coppitl 9.0-10.5 1 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 2.5 Sugarloaf 16.5 - 20.5 0.5 Big Pine 29.5 - 33.0 0.7 Grassy 54.0 - 60.5 0.4 Lower Mate- cumbe 73.0 - 77.5 -1.5 Tea Table 77.5 - 79.5 0 Upper Mate- cumbe 79.5 - 84.0 0.1 Cross 106 - 112.5 0.3 Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Timel Delay Study, URS Inc. County roads ate subject to a lower standard (LOS D) than US-I. Based on the analysis found in the Technical Document of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, all County roads are operating at or above LOS D. Overall, most public facilities continue to be adequate; however demands on these facilities 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 be- come more and more critical as we strive to maintain the quality oflife we all enjoy. This year's report indicates that nine segments are "marginally adequate" and any applica- tions for new development which would gen- erate traffic in marginally adequate areas must submit a detailed traffic report for considera- tion during review. Please see table below for "marginally adequate" facilities: IV INTRODUCTION This report is the annual assessment of public facilities capacity mandated by Section 9.5- 292 of the Monroe County Land Develop- ment Regulations (hereafter referred to as "the Code"). The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensur- ing "concurrency". Concurrency means "that the necessary public facilities and services to maintain the adopted LOS standards are available when the impacts of development occur" (Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Adminis- trative Code). In other words, local govern- ments 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 con- tained 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 ser- vice standards for the four primary public fa- cilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and an annual assessment process to determine the available capacity of these pub- lic faciliti es. In addition, Section 9.5-292 in- cludes an equitable procedure for issuing per- mits when the rate of growth is likely to out- pace the current capacity of these public fa- cilities. Section 9.5-292 also requires the Director of Planning to prepare an annual report to the Board of County Commissioners on the ca- pacity of available public facilities. This re- port must determine the potential amount of residential and nonresidential growth ex- pected in the upcoming year, and make an assessment of how well the roads, solid waste facilities, water supply, and schools will ac- commodate that growth. The report has a one-year planning horizon, 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 LOS standards required by the Code, devel- opment 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 can- not act to increase development capacity be- yond that demonstrated in this report without making specific findings of fact as to the rea- sons for the increase, and identifying the source of funds to be used to pay for the addi- tional capacity. Once approved by the County Commission, this document becomes the official assess- ment of public facilities upon which develop- ment approvals will be based for the next year. 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 develop- ment or land shall be served by adequate public facilities in accordance with the fol- lowing standards: " (I) Roads: a. County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for develop- ment shall have sufficient available ca- pacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersection and/or roadway segments. US-I shall have sufficient available capacity to op- erate at level of service C on an overall basis as measured by the US-I Level of Service Task Force Methodology. In ad- dition, the segment or segments of US-I, as identified in the US-I Level of Ser- vice Task Force Methodology, which would be directly impacted by a pro- posed development's access to US-I, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service C as measured by the US-I 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 av- erage daily traffic (AADT) basis. c. In areas which are served by inade- quate transportation facilities on US-I, development may be approved provided that the development in combination with all other development will not de- crease travel speeds by more than five (5) percent below level of service C, as measured by the US-I 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 projected date of completion of the proposed development or use. The Monroe County Solid Waste and Re- source 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 ap- proved and permitted source shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of a proposed development, or use. Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribu- tion systems, individual water condensa- tion systems, and any other system which complies with the Florida stan- dards 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. 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 mar- ginally adequate or inadequate over the next year, the Code sets out a review procedure to be followed when issuing development per- mits in that area. The Code states that "the county shall not approve applications for development in ar- eas of the county which are served by inade- quate facilities identified in the annual ade- quate facilities (Public Facility Capacity As- sessment) report, except the county may ap- prove development that will have no reduc- tion 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 current annual adequate fa- cilities report, the county shall either deny the application or condition the approval so that the level of service standard is not violated." 2 The determination of an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas with marginal or inadequate capacity is determined by a "facilities impact report" which must be submitted with a development application. Service Areas Section 9.5-292(b)(2) of the Code divides unincorporated Monroe County into three service ar- eas for the purposes of assessing potential growth and how public facilities can accommodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the Code have been revised to account for recent in- corporations. The map on the following page shows the three service areas 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. Map of Service Areas , ~~ -'. .ct, The Middle Keys MM 91-47 The Upper Keys MM 112-91 0'tI~~.,. ~~ #~ ',: e...".l . ~ /~ ! ~ '. ., ",,- . '" > I I " '. _~~r' e /' 1"';-'-/ ~ --- The Lower Keys MM 47-4 .. '..... do 3 Unfortunately, the data available on popula- tion, permitting, and public facilities does not always conform to the above boundaries for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys. Addi- tionally, due to the incorporation of Islamo- rada and Marathon (which are excluded from this assessment where specified) the bounda- ries 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 possi- ble to the boundaries shown in on the follow- ing page. Previous Board Action Due to 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. 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-I through Big Pine Key once again fell below the adopted LOS standard. Due in part to the re-timing of the intersection of US I and Key Deer Boule- vard, the level of service on the Big Pine seg- ment of US I improved in 2000, but de- creased again in 2001 and 2002. Based on the 2003 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study the LOS had increased to 'C'. Mean- ing, there was sufficient reserve capacity, and the moratorium on traffic generating develop- ment was lifted. The improvement in the LOS is due in part to further re-timing of the intersection and an intersection improvement project, which was completed by FDOT in 2005. It is not anticipated that these improve- ments will permanently improve the LOS on Big Pine Key, but a 3-laning project is being designed by FDOT to achieve a longer term acceptable level of service. The Planning and Environmental Resources Department has completed a Master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which has been adopted and which will address future solutions to traffic problems within the community. Areas of Critical County Concern At the County Commission's discretion, areas with marginally adequate facilities may be designated as Areas of Critical County Con- cern (ACCC), pursuant to Sections 9.5-473 and 9.5-473.1 of the Code. The rationale be- hind this designation is to assure that devel- opment in ACCC areas does not impact exist- ing public facilities to the extent that develop- ment must be halted in the area. Should the Board initiate the ACCC designa- tion process, the Development Review Com- mittee and Planning Commission must re- view the proposed designation. Section 9.5- 473(c) requires the designation to include "Specific findings regarding the purpose of the designation, the time schedule for the planning effort to be implemented, identifica- tion of the sources offimdingfor the planning and potential implementing mechanisms, de- lineation of a work program, a schedule for the work program and the appointment of an advisory committee, if appropriate. " 4 I. GROWTH ANALYSIS This section of the report examines the growth of Monroe County over the last year. This analysis considers the changes in popu- lation, the number of residential building per- mits issued, and the amount of nonresidential floor area permissible. Growth trends will be examined for both the unincorporated as well as the 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 poten- tial peak demand. To help assess peak de- mand, the permanent and seasonal popula- tions are often combined to gIVe a "functional" population, or the maximum population demanding services. The projected permanent population was ini- tially based on a methodology created by The Department of Planning and Environmental Resources, and was based on 1990 Census data. Since then the permanent population model ha~ been updated to report 2000 Cen- sus data and 2005 estimated Census data. The reason for the update in the Permanent population figures is due to new trends that were reflected in 2000 Census data and again in the 2005 Estimates which are showing a declining permanent population. Table 8a on the following page shows that the old model had overestimated the permanent population: by 2000 the old model overestimated perma- nent residents by 6,033 and the gap widened to an over estimation of 11,976 of the perma- nent residents in 2005. By applying the new methodology and model with the 2000 year as the base year the population estimates are more accurate. The Updated projections esti- mated 77.490 residents in 2005 while the Census estimated 76,329 only a 1,161 differ- ence. At this time the Planning and Envi- ronmental Resources is revising the method- ology for population projection to update sea- sonal population figures as well in order to arrive at a revised overall functional popula- tion. 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. Seasonal popula- tion can be derived from hotels, motels, campsites, recreational vehicles, live aboard vessels, those staying with friends and rela- tives, and vacation rentals (The vacation rent- als are accounted for within the census data under housing units, more specifically desig- nated as "Vacant" and more specifically des- ignated as "for seasonal, recreational, or oc- casional use"). 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 eve- ning. Seasonal population figures are not the total number 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 indicates 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 de- mand which could be placed on public facili- ties from seasonal visitors on any given eve- nmg. When the peak seasonal population figures are combined with the permanent resident population, the result is the functional popu- lation. Actual 2000 Census data for the per- manent population indicates a trend towards a higher seasonal percentage of the functional 5 population. Planning Area Enumeration Dis- tricts (PAEDs) PAEDs, or Planning Area Enumeration Dis- tricts, . are the basic unit of geographical analysIs used by the Planning and Environ- mental Resources Department. The PAEDs are. a combination of the "planning areas" ulihzed by the Planning Department in the early 1980s and the US Census Bureau's "enumeration districts". These two levels of analysis were combined in 1987 for ease of use. Since most PAEDs follow island boundaries, they can be aggregated to match most service districts for public facilities. t. " PAED 15 " PAEO 14 The chart below shows the individual PAEDs by their mile marker ranges, and also shows the islands included within a particular PAED's boundary. There are a total of twenty-two (22) PAEDs in Unincorporated Monroe County. The City of Key West (including northern Stock Is- land) is not contained within any PAED boundaries. The City of Key Colony Beach is contained within the geographic area of PAED 8, but is not included with the PAED population figures. The City of Marathon en- compasses PAEDs 7, 8, & 9, and its popula- lion IS contained within unincorporated Mon- roe County until 2000. The City of Layton II 6 falls within PAED 11, but its population is removed from Unincorporated Monroe County. The Village of Islamorada occupies PAEDs ]2A, ]2B, 13, & ]4, and has its own population figures starting in ]998. PAEDs ] 9 and 20 are the last PAEDs before the "bend" in US-], and have been grouped to- gether in this report because of data con- straints. The dividing line between PAEDs is the center of US-I. 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 PAEDs ]2B through 22, or the area from Mile Marker 83.5 to 112, the Middle Keys in- cludes PAEDs 7 through 13 (Mile Marker 47.5 to 83.4), and the Lower Keys service area is composed of PAEDs ] through 6 from Mile Marker 4 to 47.4. 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 func- tional population of Monroe County is pro- jected to decrease by 938 people from 2005 to 20] 5 . This represents an decrease of (.62%) over the ten year period. As men- tioned earlier the seasonal population figures are being revised which may change this fig- ure. Figure 1.4 shows the trend in Functional Population Changes from ]990 to 20]5. One will notice a dip in the chart in 2000 which is due to updated permanent population figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. I Stock Is land 2 Boca Chica, East Rockland, Big Coppitt, Geiger, Shark 3 Saddlebunch Keys, Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf 4a Cudjoe, Sunnnerland, Ramrod, Big-Middle-Little Torch 4b No NaIre Key 5 Big Pine Key 6 W. Sumrnerland, Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri, Little Duck, Pigeon Key 7 Knight, Hog, Vaca, Boot, Stilmp (Mamthon) 8 Fat Deer, Little Crawl, Crawl #5, (Marathon) & (Key Colony Beach) 9 Grassy Key (Marathon) 10 Duck Key, Little Conch Key, Conch Key 11 Long Key, Fiesta Key, (Layton) 120 Craig Key, Lower Matecwnbe (Islamorada) 12b Windley Key (Islamorada) 13 T eatable Key, Upper Matecwnbe (Islarnomda) 14 Plantation Key (Islarnomda) 15 Key Largo (Iavernier 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 Key (18 Mile Stretch area) Source: Monroe Cowty Planning Depertment, 2006 4-6 7-12.4 125-205 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 The numerical and percent change columns show that the rate of decrease will be steady 159000 157000 c 0 ~ 155000 " 0- 153000 0 D- (ij 151000 c 0 /-- ~ 149000 ~ c ::> "- 147000 145000 @ ~ S'! ~ over the same time period (see Figure 1.5). 2005 2010 2015 1:::::I#4j;fflll!~:: """( 1:!I::I:I'~lr~:'liii:il'I:~~:t 151,227 . 151,039 -188 150,101 -938 -0.12% -0.62% . Source: Monroe Count Plannin D artment, 2006 ~~.Al \ '~.-...... -+--....-..... ~ l\l '" ~ ~ @ N ~ N 8 N ~ N ~ N o o N N o N .. o N I Source: Monroe County Planninp; Department, 2006 1...+... Trend in Population Changes 1 "'" 'j; 3.00% e CJ 2.00% c .Q 1.00% ;; "S ~ 0.00% 0 ~ .~ -1.00% ~ '" -2.00% c m "'" () -3.00% If. @ S'! Functional Population ~~Jil '-"'''.. '",' Sl '" ~ l\l '" ~ ill '" @ N ~ N 8 N ~ N ~ N o o N N o N .. o N Source: Monroe COlln Plannin D artmen 2006 1--..... Functional Fbpulation I 8 Projected Permanent and Seasonal Population The total permanent resident population in Monroe County is projected to decrease from 78,024 people in 1990 to a potential 75,389 people in 2015, a decrease of 3.37% over the twenty-five year period. The projected per- manent resident population as a percentage of the functional population fluctuates between 50% and 52% from 1990 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. The peak seasonal population in Monroe County is projected to grow from 70,493 peo- ple in 1990 to 74,712 people by 2015, an in- crease of six percent (6%) over the twenty- five year period. The peak seasonal popula- tion as a percentage of the functional popula- tion fluctuates between 47% in 1990 to 49% by 2015. The county-wide peak seasonal population growth rate exceeded four percent (4%) in 1993. Growth rates fluctuated be- tween -1. 7% and 1. 9% for the remainder of the years under study, and are expected to continue to decline. See figure 1.6. The incorporation of Islamorada and Mara- thon has created substantial reductions in both permanent and seasonal population for the Upper and Middle Keys service areas. The Upper Keys service area lost 12% of its functional population due to the incorporation of Islamorada, and the Middle Keys service area lost 87% of its functional population as a result of the incorporation of the City of Marathon. 2000 Census Population The proj ected population data through 2015 presented in this report (both the permanent and seasonal populations) was originally based on 1990 census data The permanent population model was updated in 2006 using 2000 Census population data as a base. 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 Monroe County by 6,033 people. Furthermore, based on 2005 estimated popu- lations from the census bureau the gap be- tween Monroe County projections for 2005 consisting of 88,305 people versus the esti- mated census of 76,329 people shows the gap widening even further to a difference of 11,976 people. Taking this discrepancy into account the model was revised and concluded that the permanent population of Monroe County is not growing as rapidly as predicted. In addi- tion a new trend will need to be monitored which has to do with the increase in "seasonal, recreational, or occasional use" housing units counted as "vacant" housing unitS. Housing units per the Census bureau are bro- ken down into occupied and vacant units. Occupied housing units form the basis for population projections. 72.67% percent of housing units were "occupied" in 1990 which dropped to 67.97% in 2000. Since occupied housing units form the basis of population it would seem odd that there was still a slight 74,533 76,506 74,712 75,389 148517 153,080 151,227 151039 150101 Source: Monroe Count Plannin De artmen 2006 9 increase in population even though the occu- pied housing units declined. See Figure I. 7 and Figures 1.8. However, upon closer analysis it must be noted that approximately 253 new housing units are added to the market each year by way of the Rate of Growth Ordinance. 253 new housing units added to the market each year with an average household size of 2.23 one could expect this would add 564 resi- dents to the population count each year. However, as was mentioned earlier perma- nent population is tied to housing units, and since the number of occupied housing units have been shrinking, therefore the population has not been growing at an expected rate and in fact as evidenced by 2005 Census esti- mates the permanent population is actually beginning to decline. Number of Residential Permits The second major component of the Growth Analysis Section is the number of residential permits issued. The majority of the new resi- dential permits issued are for permanent resi- dential use. However, some of the permits issued for permanent dwellings are used by the seasonal population. One issue to remember when considering """""",{{,{"" '.. ... . ......'19\!lF........ "".""....,.".,. ....'.'..."... '..".."..."..,.,..t.' )),"20110"",::"" """""""""""""""".""." '.'..,.'..,.'..'.'..,.'..,.'.....""..............".......'.'..'...'.....'.'..'......'. '....'...,...,.i...j~....'.}..."..:...i.:.i.i...i.i.f... .......i...'.............:.~.:.......'...........,',h.'......;.....~"""..... ......""".... .............~I. .....~_...... "'~.. .,,~.. ....~'" .. ~..,,~'''''''' ::::;;;;;;;;-:. ',"'.'..'. "",,"',:"..'.,.'. ...,.'.... :.......t,;..."'..r..'..........~.',,'......;." :.....:.~ :.......:..:............. .tlmllll,:lili'lW'lillMj~~~' ........:...~.A.........~..~.....~...:....~..........~...:.:.:......,...:.1...:.:..... :.....i...ij.i.i~...:...:.".;...:._....~.........:.~.....i.i............I.I.... "'Do ,........*.... ~~~~II~II: .i:II}".':.. }@jf);j... iItiii..1ii1iriil:I' i!..~i~~ll Unincorporated Area 52.032 N/A 36,036 39,273 34,979 Incorporated Areas 25,992 N/A 43,553 46,349 41,350 Total 78,014 78,855 -831 79,589 85,622 -6,033 76,329 Source: U.S Census Bureau and MOlU'oe Count Plannin De artmen 2006 .......................-.-.'.-.-........ .....-.........'.....'.....'.......'.... "'k,fi!iiiiiI ..II~'..: .:i!!~.. N/A N/A 88,305 -11 ,976 1990 # 1990 2000 2000 Percent of Units Percent # of Units Occupied 33583 72.67% 35086 67.97% -4.69% Vacant 12632 27.33% 16531 32.03% 4.69% For Rent 2010 15.91% 1716 10.38% For Sale Only 943 7.47% 668 4.04% Rented or sold, not 560 4.43% 358 2.17% occupied Seasonal, recrea- 7928 62.76% 12332 74.60% 11.84% tional or occasional use For Migrant Workers 6 0.05% 46 0.28% Other 1185 9.38% 1411 8.54% Total Housing Units 46215 100.00% 51617 100.00% 11.69% Source: D.S Census Bureau and Monroe COUll PI D artment, 2006 10 growth based upon building permits is the time lapse that occurs between when a permit for a new residence is issued, and when that residence is ultimately occupied. The knowl- edge 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 pre- pared to construct their dwellings. As a re- sult, there are many dwellings in the Keys that have permits, but are not yet fully con- structed or are only partially complete. Based upon this time lapse, the number of residential permits issued overstates the ac- tual number of new residential dwellings that currently require public facilities. The number of dwelling units (permanent and seasonal) which can be permitted in Monroe County has been controlled by ROGO since July of 1992. ROGO was developed as a re- sponse to the inability of the road network to accommodate a large-scale hurricane evacua- tion 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 per- mitted and which would not have a detrimen- tal effect on the amount of time needed to evacuate the Keys. The ROGO system was developed as a tool to equitably 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 13 of the system started on July 14, 2004. Year 14 be- gan on July 14, 2005. Each service area of unincorporated Monroe County and several of the incorporated areas receive a set number of allocations for new residential permits that can be issued during that particular ROGO year. The number of allocations available 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 allocations available was reduced by the State of Florida Administration Commission during Year 7 of ROGO based upon a lack of pro- gress on the implementation of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Available allocations were reduced by twenty percent (20%), tak- ing the available figure from 255 to 204 new residential units. The number of available allocations in unin- corporated 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 unincorporated Monroe County from 204 to 182. This number was further reduced by the incorporation of Marathon, which re- ceived a total of 24 new residential alloca- tions. Marathon recently has had their alloca- tions raised to 30. The incorporation of Marathon reduced the number of available new residential allocations in unincorporated Monroe County from 182 to 158. Rule 28-20 if adopted by the Administrative Commission will increase the County allocation back to the original 197 units a year, 71 units a year will be allocated for affordable housing. Rule 28-20 is pending approval of the Tier System. The Tier system was approved by both the BOCC and the State in 2006 however an ap- peal to the Tier system has put the final ap- proval on hold. Based on the 158 allocations, the ROGO sys- tem, in unincorporated Monroe County, now allocates 46 units to the Upper Keys service 11 area, 7 units to the Middle Keys service area, and 74 units to the Lower Keys, for an annual total of 127 market rate residential units each ROGO year. The remaining 31 allocations are for affordable housing. At the end of Quarter 3 Year 14 (April 2006) there were 117.5 ROGO allocations for Very Low, Low, & Median Income and 124.5 for Moderate Income. On Aug. 1,2006 Ty Symroski, Growth Man- agement Director authorized the release of 40 Affordable Housing Allocations/Nutrient Credits. Therefore the following is the amount of Affordable Housing remaining at the end of ROGO Year 14 (July 2006). . 117.5 for Very Low, Low, & Median Income . 84.5 for Moderate Income There are 202 remaining affordable housing ROGO allocations to rollover to Year 15. With the addition of71 Affordable Hous- ing ROGO allocations for year 15, the total AFH for Year 15 is 273. Figure 1.1 0, on the following page, shows the breakdown of new residential permits is- sued for unincorporated Monroe County since 1992. 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 bounda- ries used for this data are slightly different The chart below compares the boundaries. Basically, 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 1.9 explains these differences. According to Building Department records 3,470 residential permits were issued from 1993 to 2005, with 79% (2,754) being issued to single family residences. Only 12% (425) of the residential permits were issued to du- plex, multifamily, or mobile home projects. 1,369 residential permits issued in the past decade were issued in 1991 to 1992 as appli- cants were attempting to obtain permits prior to ROGO. A total of 295 residential permits were issued in unincorporated Monroe Couoty in 2005, an increase from 2004. Fi ure 1.9 - Bounda Com arison Table ;;;'itiIt!l\\iiiiliiiKi&M';i"tiIIW ;g,;i;i"i'l!iii\l~J)m&I} ..... :iliil&"~ililllilll~lilllillilllll!ii!iill!.&~.~I! 12B-22 83.5-112 12A-22 71-112 7-13 47.5- 83.4 7-13 47.5-70.9 1-6 4-47.4 1-6 4-47.4 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Ke s Source: Monroe Count Buildin D artment, 2006 12 Figure 1.10 - New and Replacement Residential and Selllional Unib Permitted by Year for Unincorporated Monroe County :~~I~lli~::li' "J~ijHi ill~~~i~:: .. ..,. ." . . . . ;~ '.:!M@iMliiIMlli'iIJi ;(;ll:'\WlIl'Mil!:; 'in) ::. ,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,....,.,.,.,...--....--,. ...................... ................................ .,..,..,..,..,..,..........., 1993 Upper Keys 104 0 0 5 0 109 Middle Keys 55 2 0 1 0 58 Lower Keys 80 0 0 1 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 1 0 37 Subtotal 239 0 0 4 0 243 1995 Upper Keys 131 2 0 4 0 137 Middle Keys 27 2 2 1 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 3 110 270 1999 Upper Keys 138 0 0 2 0 140 Middle Keys 20 0 0 24 63 107 Lower Keys 87 0 0 0 1 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 1 83 Middle Keys 9 0 0 10 0 19 Lower Keys 80 0 0 38 0 118 Subtotal 151 0 13 55 1 220 2002 Upper Keys 75 0 0 14 0 89 Middle Keys 111 0 25 22 0 158 Lower Keys 7 0 0 45 0 52 Subtotal 193 0 25 81 0 299 2003 Upper Keys 72 0 0 17 0 89 Middle Keys 138 0 0 22 0 160 Lower Keys 25 0 0 5 0 30 Subtotal 235 0 0 44 0 279 2004 Upper Keys 41 0 0 37 0 78 Middle Keys 83 0 0 9 0 92 Lower Keys 2 0 0 1 0 3 Subtotal 126 0 0 47 0 173 2005 Upper Keys 81 0 0 15 0 96 Middle Keys 183 0 0 10 0 193 Lower Keys 31 0 0 4 0 35 Subtotal 295 0 0 29 0 324 TOTAL 2754 10 105 310 291 3470 Source: Monroe Count Buildin D artment, 2006 3 Figures 1.11 and 1.12 show the distribution of new residential permits issued in unincor- Figure 1.12 shows the composition of resi- dential permits issued in 2004 and 2005. No Figure 1.11- Comparison of Residential Permits by Service Area 2004-2005 LO\\erKeys 11%. Upper Keys 30% 2005 Middle Keys 59% Source: Monroe County Building Department 2006 Lower Keys 2% 2004 Upper Keys 45% Middle Keys 53% Figure 1.12 - Comparison of Residential Permit Type. 2004-2005 Mobile HomelRV 9% Multi-Family 0% Duplex 0% Hotel/Motel 0% Source: Momoe County Building Department 2006 porated Monroe County during 2004 and 2005. Figure 1.11 shows a decrease in the total number of permits issued in the Upper and Lower Keys service areas relative to the num- ber issued in the Middle Keys from 2004 to 2005. There were 151 more new residential permits issued in 2005 than 2004. 2004 HotellMotel 0.00% Mobile HomelRV 27.17% Single Family 72.83% Multi-Family Duplex 0.00% 0.00% new duplexes or multi family dwelling units were permitted in either year. Single family residential permits occupy the largest per- centage in both years, with 169 additional single-family permits being issued in 2005. The number of mobile home permits de- creased by 18. 14 Figure 1.13 shows the total number of permits issued in unincorporated Monroe County from 1993 to 2005. Figure 1.14 shows the breakdown in the types of residential permits issued over the last dec- ade. 400 350 .~ 300 ~ 250 0. ~ 200 0 - 0 .0 150 e ~ 100 50 0 Figure 1.l3-Comparison of Residential Permit Types 1993-2005 1m ~ 1m I~ 1m 1m ~ = = = ~ = = I D Single Family D Duplex. Multi-Family !lI Mobile HomeJRV. HoteVMotell Figure 1.14 - Types of Penn its Issued 1993-2005 Mobile HomelRV 9% HoteVMotel 8% Multi-Family 3% Duplex 0% Single Family 8oo/, Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2006 IS Non-Residential Square Footage Nonresidential permitting also plays a role in growth analysis. Nonresidential permits in- clude 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 commercial facilities With very little industrial and agricultural ac- tivity 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 development such as marinas and restau- rants). Therefore, the impact of nonresiden- tial development on public facilities varies significantly based on the type of commercial use. Nonresidential and residential developments tend to fuel one another. Residential popula- tions provide markets for nonresidential ac- tivities. Nonresidential development, in tum, helps to drive population growth by provid- ing services and employment. Certain types of nonresidential development also concen- trate 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 I993 to 2005. 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 1.9 of this report to compare the two areas. There were ten non-residential permits issued for commercial construction. In 2005 the head- ing of Figure 1.15, on the following page, was changed to exclude the previously used term "redevelopment" in the heading. There- fore the number of permits and corresponding square footage refer only to new non- residential development permits and the cor- responding square footage. Figure USA is a new table that was added to show the total number of non-residential permits that were issued in each sub-area. Figure 1.15A - Number of Commer- cial Perm~s bv Year 2004 Upper Keys 443 Middle Keys 51 Lower Keys 268 Subtotal 762 2005 Upper Keys 415 Middle Keys 68 Lower Keys 154 Subtotal 637 TOTALS 1,399 Source: Monroe County Blda. Deot. 2006 Figure 1.16 shows the relative amount of square footage permitted in each of the three service areas from 1993 to 2005. Figure 1.16- New Commercial Square Footage by Senice Area 1992-2004 Lower Keys 17% Upper Keys 43% Middle Keys 40% Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2006 16 1993 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 1994 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 1995 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 1996 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 1997 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 1998 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 1999 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 2000 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 2001 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 2002 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 2003 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 2004 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 2005 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Subtotal 4 4 4 12 4 7 4 15 24 12 8 44 17 6 2 25 14 83 2 99 4 73 1 78 8 68 1 77 8 68 5 81 31 1 4 36 3 o 26 29 7 37 o 44 2 2 2 6 3 5 2 10 556 :n:fMfJiMiiJ~:: :':'::::~:~Hrt/t:i: 16,334 24,812 27,236 68,382 24,648 31,079 o 55,727 147,319 109,331 10,004 266,654 102,795 93,334 14,149 210,278 93,503 8,420 18,327 120,250 60,936 16,304 24,152 101.392 14,861 84,715 2,054 101.630 33,873 75,584 19,168 128,625 73,307 4,998 8,575 86,880 3,773 o 110,805 1l4.578 13,651 110,446 o 124.097 5,200 5,598 7,480 18,278 Unk. Unk. Unk. 10,925 1 407, 696 TOTALS Source: Monroe Count Buildin D artmen 2006 .Heading changcd in 2005 to indicate only "ncw" previously stated "new and redevelop- ment". In addition the numbers onl reflect new commercial structures. 17 Figure 1.17 shows the trends in the amOlmt of nonresidential permitting activity have fluctu- ated throughout the last decade. The permit- ting 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 nonresi- dential permit allocation system similar to the ROGO system for residential development. Comprehensive Plan proposed Policy 101.3.1, which states: "Monroe County shall maintain a bal- ance 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 nonresi- dential development for each new residential Figure 1.17 - Nonresidential Pennits by Senice Area 1993-2005 31JO,000 ~ 250,000 ] 21JO,000 " " "'" 150,000 .;; " ~ 100,000 ~ ~ 50,000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 _UpperKeys _Middle Keys = Lower Keys -+-Total Since residential development is constrained through the Rate of Growth Ordinance and the Permit Allocation System, it was thought that nonresidential (commercial) develop- ment should also be constrained in the inter- est of maintaining a balance ofland uses. At the time the Comprehensive Plan was pre- pared in 1991, 17.6% of the land was under residential use, while 4.6% was used for com- mercial development as indicated in Table 2.1, Monroe County Existing Land Uses, in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehen- sive Plan Technical Document. 1t was deter- mined that this balance was appropriate given the knowledge available at the time the Com- prehensive Plan was prepared. To assure that balance was maintained, the unit permitted through the Permit Allocation In other words, the Comprehensive Plan lim- its the square footage of new commercial de- velopment that may be permitted. The com- mercial square footage allocation is 239 square feet for each (1) new residential per- mit issued. This equates to around 37,762 square feet of new commercial development per year throughout unincorporated Monroe County. Between adoption of the 2010 Comprehen- sive 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 compre- hensive plan defined non-residential permit allocation system. This amount of non- residential floor space includes permits for 18 development within the Village ofIslamorada and City of Marathon prior to their respective incorporation. Of the total square feet permitted, 276,641 square feet was permitted after April 15, 1993 (adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan) and prior to January 4, 1996. The re- maining 185,888 square feet was permitted after that date for projects vested from the non-residential permit allocation system pro- visions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC adopted NROGO in September 2001. The approval was challenged, but sub- sequently a settlement was reached and NROGO became effective November 2002. Applicants were requesting 18,222 square footage of floor area for the year 10 NROGO allocation. There was 44,292 SF of non- residential floor area available for year 10 (July 2001-July 2002). The BOCC approved 22,150 SF to be allocated for year 10. At the end of the allocation period for year 10 there was a total of 26,090 SF to be carried over to year 11. By year 12 (July 2003-July 2004), there was approximately 85,858 SF of non-residential floor area available for allocation. The Board of County Commissioners approved the Plan- ning Commission's recommendation that 10,700 square feet of floor area be made available for Year 12. Monroe County Board of County Commissioners later amended the Year 12 annual allocation. By Resolution, passed and adopted on March 18, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners increased the annual allocation for Year 12 to 16,000 square feet of floor area, all of which was made available for applicants in a single allo- cation in January, 2004. Of the 16,000 square feet, 11,913 were granted NROGO allocations. 3,776 out of the remaining 4,587 square feet was allocated in July of 2004 with the remaining 311 square feet of floor area to be carried over. By the year 13 (July 2004 - July 2005) there was 80,741 square feet of non-residential floor area available for allocation. On No- vember 17, 2004 the Board of County Com- missioners adopted in Resolution 424-2004 and approved 16,000 square feet of floor area to be made obtainable for Year 13 (July 2004 - July 2005) with the first allocation of 8,000 square feet in January 2005, and the second allocation of 8,000 square feet in July 2005. 5,075 out of the 16,000 square feet allocated for year 13 was carried over to Year 14. By year 14 (July 2005 - July 2006) there was approximately 67,000 square feet of non- residential floor area available for allocation. On October 19, 2005 the Board of County Commissioners adopted in Resolution 383- 2005 and approved 16,000 square feet of floor area to be made obtainable for Year 14 (July 2005 - July 2006) with the first alloca- tion of 8,000 square feet in January 2006 and the second allocation of 8,000 in July 2006. The BOCC will recommend in the fall of 2006 the amount of square feet to be allo- cated for Year 15 (July 14, 2006 through July 13,2007) 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 that compose the popu- lation in Monroe County: the permanent resi- dent population, and the peak seasonal popu- lation. The sum of these two groups gives the functional population, or the maximum number of people in the Keys on any given evenmg. The functional population of all Monroe County is expected to grow very slightly from 1990 to 2015. Planning Department projections show the rate of increase in func- 19 tional population begins to slow after the year 2000. The permanent population of all of Monroe County, according to the 2000 Census was reported as 79,589, an increase of 1,565 from the 1990 Census. This is 6,093 less than the proj ected 2000 popul ati on. In terms of the number of residential permits, a total of 324 residential permits (including vested or ROGO exempt hotel rooms) were issued in 2005, an increase from 2003. From 1993 to 2005, 79% of the residential permits (3,470) were issued to single family residences, while only 12% (425) were issued for multifamily, duplex, or mobile homes. A total of 295 permits (79%) were issued for single family residences in 2005. The current rate of growth guidelines indicate that unincorporated Monroe County has a total of 158 permits it may issue during the ROGO year (not including the additional 90 replacement affordable housing units which were allowed by the DCA based upon the lower enclosure removal program). In terms of the number of new non-residential permits, a total of 10,925 square feet of new commercial development was issued between July 2004 to July 2005. The Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) was approved and became effective in November 2002. Based on approval by the BOCC, a total of 16,000 square feet ofNROGO alloca- tion was available for new non-residential development in year 14. The BOCC will rec- ommend in the fall of 2006 the amount of square feet to be allocated for Year 15 (July2006 through July 2007). 20 IL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES This section of the report investigates the cur- rent capacity of the transportation network in Monroe County. This analysis includes changes in traffic volumes, the level of ser- vice 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 fa- cilities 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 Devel- opment Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. The regulations require all segments of U.S. 1 to remain 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 meas- urements, and how the level of service is cal- culated. Existing Roadway Facilities Monroe County's roadway transportation system is truly unique. Nowhere else is there a chain of islands over 100 miles long con- nected 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 seg- ments 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 maintaining and improving secondary roads which are located within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is re- sponsible for maintaining U.S. 1. Figure 2.1 identifies the traffic signals in op- eration along the U.S. 1 corridor (excluding those found on the island of Key West). :mMi mHliif 4.4 Stock Island College Road 4.6 Stock Island Cross Street 4.8 Stock Island MacDonald Avenue 19.5 Upper Sugarloaf Crane Boulevard 30.3 Big Pine Key Key Deer Blvd. 48.5 Marathon 50 Marathon 52.4 Marathon 52.5 Marathon 53 Marathon 53.5 Fat Deer Key 54 Fat Deer Key 33rd Street/School Cross- Sombrero Beach Blvd. 107th Street 109th Street Pedestrian Crossing Key Colony Causeway Coco Phun Drive 90 Plantation Key 90.5 Plantation Key 91.5 Tavernier 99. S Key Largo 10 1 Key Largo 10S Ke Lar 0 VVoodsAvenue/School Snnshine Road Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard Tradewinds Pedestrian Crossi ource: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time! Dela Stud VRS Inc. 21 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 aver- age daily traffic in an area (referred to as an "ADT"), and the annual average daily traffic (referred to as an "AADT"). Average daily traffic counts are collected from both direc- tions 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 av- erage daily traffic for a particular location. The "5-day ADT" measurement considers only weekdays, and the "7-day ADT" in- cludes the weekend. The ADT information can then be used in a formula called a "weekly factor" to estimate the annual aver- age daily traffic, which is an estimate of the average amount of traffic at a particular loca- tion on any given day of the year. In Monroe County, traffic counts have been Fi ure 2.2 ::I~jjij$:;t(:~ilOO Big Pine Key (MM 30) 5-Day ADT 24,304 7-Day ADT 23,788 MDT 19,844 Marathon (MM 50) 5-Day ADT 37,405 7 -Day ADT 36,085 MDT 30,102 Upper Matecumbe (MM 84) 5-Day ADT 27,980 7-Day ADT 27,693 MDT 22,927 .I:.WiIljjij' 22,451 21,691 18,095 -7.62% -8.82% -8.81% 35,388 33,414 27,521 -5.39% -7.40% -8.57% 23,982 23,916 -14.29% -13.64% -12.98% 19,951 Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time! Dela Stud, URS Inc. conducted in the same locations since 1992. These counts occur at Mile Marker 84 on Up- per Matecumbe, Mile Marker 50 in Mara- thon, 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 February 26 and March 11, 2006. Figure 2.2, on the fol- lowing page, compares the traffic counts for 2006 with those for 2005. Figure 2.2 shows that the average weekday (5-Day ADT) and the average weekly (7-Day ADT) traffic volumes, compared to last year's data, decreased at Marathon, Upper Matecumbe and Big Pine Key, The AADT when compared to last year has decreased in all three segments. A detailed historical comparison of the AADT traffic counts at all three locations for the period from I996 to 2006 is shown in Figure 2.3. Figure 2.3 shows that the Marathon location consistently records the highest traffic vol- umes throughout the period, with counts gen- erally in the upper 20,000 to 30,000 range. The AADT counts for Big Pine hover in the low 20,000 range over the period. Mean- while Upper Matecumbe had been gradually increasing from 1995 to 2004 from a range of 20,000 up to around 25,000. Since then Up- per Matecumbe has been decreasing over the past couple of years, now just under 20,000. U.S. 1 historic traffic growth is depicted in a regression analysis graph in Figure 2.4. A linear regression analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last thir- (1i!Wli@:1!lll~; Big Pine Key 21,186 21,4% 19,866 20,843 Marathon 27,924 28,930 28,651 30,750 U erNlatecumbe 20083 21599 21301 22103 Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time! Dela Stud URS Inc. E~ilili#i: :jl!lii! :::\:tjjijij 21,774 19,991 19,364 20,115 19,894 19,844 18,095 29,017 28,340 31,285 31,763 32,274 30,102 27,521 22410 21819 23 69 23 404 24328 22927 19951 22 teen years indicates that in the Big Pine Key segment has negative growth rate of 0.76% per year. Traffic growth rates in Marathon and Upper Matecumbe segments of U.S. I are positive 0.06% and .31% per year, respec- tively. Level of Service Background Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies of U.S. Ion 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 ser- vice on U.S. Highway 1 for concurrency management purposes pur- suant to Chap- ter 163, Flor- ida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 of the Land Devel- opment Regulations. 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. (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 For the purposes of this study, overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of US 1 in the Keys between Key West and Dade County. Overall speeds re- flect the conditions experienced during long distance or through trips. Given that U.S. 1 is Marathon Figure 2.4 - Regression Analysis of AADTs 1996-2006 40000 30000 20000 10000 o Rate of gro\\th = .06% per year ....-_"'"'$_...=Ji::=.;.;..;~~ ...4i:....;..:.o;.;..;" Upper Matecumbe Big Pine ... " Rate of omh Rate of grov.th - -..... ... - - '#- - ... - -. - - ~~- -g:'II;'1' -... - - .- -... , ' ,j'l % per year I PI' o-,per.,..earr I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II . Area '" Big Pine Key Marathon .. .......... Upper Matecumbe - Upper Matecumbe Trendhne - - Marathon Trendhne - - - - Big Pine Key Trendhne 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 methodol- ogy was developed in 1993 and amended De- cember 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 crite- ria and principles contained in Chapters 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 the only principal arterial in Monroe County, the movement of through traffic is an impor- tant consideration. The overall level of service or capacity of the entire length of U.S. 1 is measured in the av- erage speed of a vehicle traveling from one end to the other of U.S. 1. The level of ser- vice (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. I in Monroe County, as adopted by the U.S. I Level of Service Task Force, are as follows: LOS A LOSS LOS C LOS 0 LOS E LOSF 51.0 mph or above 50.9 mph to 48 mph 47.9 mph to 45 mph 44.9 mph to 42 mph 41.9 mph to 36 mph below 36 mph Both Monroe County and the Florida Depart- 23 ment 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 ser- vice 'C' standard. The median overall speed during the 2006 study was 45.9 mph, which is 0.6 mph higher than the 2005 median speed of 45.3 mph. The mean operating speed was 45.9 mph with a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 0.5 mph. The mean and median speeds cor- respond to LOS C conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 48.3 mph (0 1 mph lower than the 2005 highest overall speed of 48.4 mph), which occurred on Thursday, March 2, 2006 between 3:30 p.m and 6:00 p.m, in the northbound direc- tion. The lowest overall speed recorded was 40.8 mph (4.0 mph higher than the 2005 low- est overall speed of 36.8 mph), which oc- curred on Sunday, February 26, 2006 be- tween 1:30 p.m. and 4:24 p.m in the northbound direction. Figure 2.5 shows that the overall median speed for U.S. 1 has re- mained between 45.3 mph and 47.8 from 1992 to the present with it decreasing steadily 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 0.5 -0.1 0.5 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 1 -0.3 I -0.2 -1 -0.7 -0.1 0.6 Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time! Dela Stud URS Inc. from 2002 through 2005, and then beginning to climb back up in 2006. Should the overall median speed ever fall below 45 mph (the minimum LOS C standard), then the U. S. I 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 Develop- ment Regulations requires that the capacity of portions or "segments" of U.S. I also be as- sessed annually. There are a total of twenty four (24) segments of U.S. I 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 seg- ments were defined by the U. S. I Level of Service Task Force to reflect roadway cross sections, speed limits, and geographical boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experi- enced during local trips. Given that U.S. I serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important consideration on this multipurpose highway. However, the determination of the median speed on a segment is a more involved proc- ess than determining the overall level of ser- vice since different segments have different conditions. Segment conditions depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. 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. I in Monroe County depends on the flow char- acteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. Flow characteristics re- late to the ability of a vehicle to travel through a particular segment without being slowed or stopped by traffic signals or other 24 .................. ..............'...............'... ,.......,..,....,... ~.~~~ I: IltiiiiillF 4 5 Cow Key Bridge (N) Key Haven Boulevard Stock Island, Key Haven 2 5 9 Key Haven Boule- Rockland Drive Boca Chica, Rockland 2 vard 3 9 10.5 Rockland Drive Boca Chica Road Big Coppitt 2 4 10.5 16.5 Boca Chica Road Harris Channel BridgeSha k S ddl b h 3 (N) r, a eunc 5 16.5 20.5 Harris Channel Bow Channel Bridge Lower & Upper Sngar- 3 Bridge (N) (N) loaf 6 20.5 23 Bow Channel Bridge S . h M' D' Cudjoe 4A (N) pams am nve 7 23 25 Spanish Main Drive East Shore Drive Summerland 4A 8 25 27.5 East Shore Drive Torch-Ramrod Bridge R d 4A (S) amre 9 27.5 29.5 Torch-Ramrod N. Pine Channel Little Torch 4A Bridge (S) Bridge (N) 10 29.5 33 N. Pine Channel Long Beach Drive Big Pine 5 Bridge (N) 11 33 40 Long Beach Drive 7- Mile Bridge (S) W. Summerland, Bahia 6 Honda, Ohio 12 40 47 7- Mile Brid e (S) 7- Mile Brid e (N) 7-Mile Brid e 6 13 47 54 7- Mile Bridge (N) Cocoa Plum Drive Vaca, Key Colony Beach 7 14 54 60.5 Cocoa Plum Drive Toms Harbor Ch Fat Deer Crawl, Grassy 8 Bridge (S) 15 60.5 63 Toms Harbor Ch Long Key Bridge (S) Duck, Conch 10 Bridge (S) 16 63 73 L K B' d (S) Channel #2 Bridge Long, Fiesta, Craig II ong ey n ge (N) 17 73 77.5 Channel #2 Bridge Lignumvitae Bridge Lower Matecwnbe 12A (N) (S) 18 77.5 79.5 Lignumvitae Bridge Tea Table Relief Fill 12A (S) Bridge (N) 19 79.5 84 Tea Table Relief Whale Harbor Bridge U M t be 13 Bridge (N) (S) pper a ecum 20 84 86 Whale Harbor Snake Creek Bridge Windley 12B Bridge (S) (N) 21 86 91.5 Snake Creek Bridge Ocean Boulevard Plantation 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 Count 22 aTE: .nd S refer to the north and south side of the brid es res ctivel ource: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time! Dela Stud URS Inc. 25 devices. Segments with a series of perma- nent traffic signals or other similar traffic control devices in close proximity to each other are considered to be "Interrupted Flow Segments", and are expected to have longer travel times due to the delays caused by these signals or control devices. Roadway seg- ments without a series of signals or control devices are considered to be "Uninterrupted Flow Segments". Uninterrupted segments may have one or more traffic signals, but they are not in close proximity to one another as in the interrupted segment case. The methodol- ogy used to determine median speed and level of service on a particular segment is based upon that segment's status as an inter- rupted or uninterrupted flow segment. The criteria, listed by type of flow characteristic, are explained in Figure 2.7. For all "uninterrupted" segments containing isolated traffic signals, the travel times were reduced by 25 seconds per signal to account for lost time due to signals. The Marathon and the Stock Island segments are considered "interrupted" flow facilities. Therefore, no adjustments were made to travel times on these segments. 2006 travel time data yielded changes to twelve segments, ten resulted in positive level of service changes while two resulted in negative level of service changes. Below is a list of the following level of service changes as compared to 2005 data: 0 The Big Coppit segment (Segment 3) increased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'C' 0 The Sugarloaf (Segment 5) increased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'C' 0 The Ramrod segment (Segment 8) de- creased from LOS 'A' to LOS 'B' 0 The Big Pine segment (Segment 10) in- creased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'C' 0 The Bahia Honda segment (Segment 11) increased from LOS 'B' to LOS' A' 0 The 7-Mile Bridge segment (Segment 12) decreased from LOS 'A' to LOS 'B' 0 The Grassy segment (Segment 14) in- creased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'C' 0 The Long Key segment (Segment 16) increased from LOS 'C' to LOS 'B' 0 The Tea Table segment (Segment 18) increased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'C' 0 The U Matecumbe segment (Segment 19) increased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'C' 0 The Plantation segment (Segment 21) increased from LOS 'c' to LOS 'B' 0 The Cross segment (Segment 24) m- creased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'C' The segment limits, the median travel speeds, and the 2005 and the 2006 LOS are presented Compared to 2005, the median segment in Figure 2.8. Figure 2.9 is a map of the seg- speeds increased in eighteen of the 24 seg- ment boundaries indicating 2006 LOS. The ments ranging between 0.2 mph to 2.8 mph. median segment speed ranged from 57.7 mph Five segments experienced a decrease in me- (LOS A) in the Boca Chica segment to 31.2 dian speeds, ranging from 0.4 mph to 2.8 mph (LOS B) in the Stock Island segment. mph, compared to last year's data. For seg- The level of service determined from the ment 24, the speed decreased from previous Figure 2.7 - Level of Service Standards Based on Flow Character- years, but the speed limits de- isties creased as well due to construction. Therefore, the segment level of ser- vice improved. >= 1.5 mph above speed limit 1.4 mph above to 1.5 mph below speed limit Reserve Capacities 1.6 mph below to 4.5 mph below speed limit Th d'''' b t th d' .. e lllerence e ween e me Ian 4.6 mph below to 7.5 mph below speed Imllt . 7.6 mph below to 13.5 mph below speed speed and the LOS C standard gIves E >~ 13 mph limit the reserve speed, which in turn can F < 13 m h > 13.5 m h below eed limit be converted into an estimated re- ource: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time! Oela Stud URS Inc. 26 serve capacity of additional traffic volume and corresponding additional development. The median overall speed of 45.9 mph com- pared to the LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of 0.9 mph. This reserve speed can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traf- fic volume and corresponding additional de- velopment. This reserve speed is converted into an estimated reserve volume (16,693 ally gives maximum reserve volumes for all segments totaling 83,203 trips. These indi- vidual reserve volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraints imposed by the overall reserve volume. As stated earlier, the Land Development Regulations mandate a minimum level of ser- vice of 'C' for all roadway segments of U.S I. However, county regulations and FDOT Figure 2.8 - US 1 Segment Statu., Median Speed., and Change 2005- 2006 I Stock Island 2 Boca Chica 3 Big Coppitt 4 Saddlebunch 5 Sugarloaf 6 Cudjoe 7 Summerland 8 Ramrod 9 Torch 10 Big Pine II Bahia Honda 12 7-Mile Bridge 13 Marathon 14 Grassy 15 Duck 16 Long 17 L. Matecumbe 18 Tea Table 19 U. Matecum be 20 Windley 21 Plantation 22 Tavernier 23 Largo 24 Cross Overall II1II B A D C D A B A A D B A A D B C D D D A C A A D C 'W" ,".',",",'. .'..,..'..,..:...:.'.,.:,..'..,'.'.....'.. :':':":':"':":";":::';";:;':";:;';";::', ...,...,...,...,.........._... ........u............... ............2005:::2006(,( :::NMliiiiltJ iiii ilil~!liiiJtI'!li ::II~llfi: B 30.2 31.2 1.0 A 55.8 57.7 1.9 C 44.7 46.2 1.5 C 50.9 52.1 1.2 C 46.6 48.1 1.5 A 47.8 48.1 0.3 B 45.7 45.7 0.0 B 47.8 46.3 -1.5 A 46.8 48.2 1.4 C 36.4 38.0 1.6 A 52.6 54.3 1.7 B 56.6 53.9 -2.7 A 35.2 36.0 0.8 C 49.5 50.3 0.8 B 53.6 53.9 0.3 B 50.8 52.1 1.3 D 50.0 49.0 -1.0 C 49.9 50.1 0.2 C 39.1 40.6 1.5 A 41.8 41.4 -0.4 B 39.4 42.2 2.8 A 47.7 49.0 1.3 A 44.7 45.9 1.2 C 44.4 44.0 -0.4 C 45.3 45.9 0.6 ....'.....'.....'.....'....,; daily trips). Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time! Dela Stud URS Inc. The estimated reserve capacity is then con- verted into an estimated capacity for addi- tional residential development (2,608 units), assuming balanced growth of other land uses. Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of U.S. 1 individu- policy allow segments that fail to meet LOS C standards to receive an allocation not to exceed five percent below the LOS C stan- dard. The resulting flexibility will allow a limited amount of additional land develop- ment to continue until traffic speeds are measured again next year or until remedial actions are implemented. 27 igure 2.9 -Map of US 1 Segments 28 These segments are candidates for being des- ignated either "backlogged" or "constrained" by FDOT. Applications for new develop- ment located within backlogged or con- strained segments are required to undergo a thorough traffic analysis as part of the review process. Based on this year's results, Lower Matecurnbe (Segment 17) is the only segment below the LOS C threshold, and Tea Table (Segment 18) is at the LOS C threshold. However both of these segments have re- serve ca~acities within the 5% allocation. Segments that have used-up all the 5% re- serve trips are restricted in new development or redevelopment, except where redevelop- ment has no net increase in trips. A detailed summary table displaying level of service and reserve capacity values for each segment is contained in Figure 2.10 on the next page. In addition to the requirement that areas with inadequate public facilities be identified in the annual assessment, the Land Develop- ment Regulations also require those areas with marginally adequate public facilities to be identified. For the purposes of this report, U.S. 1 segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph (Figure 2.10) in 2006 will be considered as "marginally adequate". This year's report indicates that nine seg- ments are "marginally adequate" and any ap- plications for new development which would generate traffic in marginally adequate areas must submit a detailed traffic report for con- sideration during review. Please see Figure 2.11 for "marginally adequate" facilities. Level of Service on County Roads Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations establishes a level of service standard 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 Figure 2.11 "Marainallv Adeauate" Seaments Mile Marker Reserve # Name Range Speed 3 Bin Coccill 9.0 -10.5 1 4 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 2.5 5 Sunarloaf 16.5 - 20.5 0.5 10 Bic Pine 29.5 - 33.0 0.7 14 Grassy 54.0 - 60.5 0.4 17 LOv.Jer Matecumbe 73.0 - 77.5 -1.5 18 Tea Table 77.5 - 79.5 0 19 Upper Matecumbe 79.5 - 64.0 0.1 24 Cross 106 -112.5 0.3 Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Timel Delay Study, URS Inc. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Docu- ment, all of the County roads examined are operating at or above the County standard of LOSD. Improvements to Roadway Facilities Major improvements scheduled for U.S. 1 are outlined in the Florida Department of Trans- portation Five-Year Work Program. The ma- jor project for unincorporated Monroe County in the current FDOT Work Program (2004/2005 to 2008/09) is to replace the J ew- fish Creek drawbridge with a high-level fixed-span bridge and the installation of cul- verts to improve the tidal flow to the sur- rounding wetlands. The construction phase for this project began in 2005. Additionally, construction on the 18 mile stretch between the Jewfish Creek Bridge and Florida City began in 2005. Another major project on the 5-year Work Program is the reconstruction of the Card Sound Road/County Road 905 intersection scheduled for 2007/08. Other road projects in the current FDOT Work Program include the preliminary engi- neering phase for adding a center turn lane on US-l at Big Coppitt Key, Knights Key (MM 46.9-49.1), Grassy Key (MM 57.5-59.9), 29 >' f- ~ <.> "' ". ffi <h 11l a: Q 2 <t U.l (.) ~ lJ.l fIJ U. o -' !" .' w -' II ~IJ ~"l~ ;:I,ii! = ~ ~ i!i~~'~l'~':'l-~ ~I~ 11/ ~ ~ ~ i! iJ ~4 !I~I \?i~.l~I..,........ ...'...1. ... ----i", ;..1........ ", .._ ~ '_"_,,_~',i.-,.~ .~ffi '.1 ii' o 111 ,- J t :;.1 '" ...' l R ",i..~ !.' I. _!" ! W~a"1'j ~: ~ ,> '" ," }S(~ "',;.......l,~ f!i!. ~:s "'t $:.;, ~I<j. "".re ........; ~J:f!: I Q. iotl::l!:,.::.: '=' <r::I: is s)'g ;. 0- .> I ~j~':'l,,~i:.; "'ll : ~'''I' ',~' ~ijJ' .- t.....-.~:.. ....1. ~ !g ~ ! I I : i! I j i ~ ;4 So;; <dot: ~ ..:::c<ioot .ct ~i,.,;: ~ -a: ~ ~ tf-,,' '" ed~ wi~I~.od!:>:ii: ..,;1.0<<:1 ~ 1,,11.'~, ~ ZI,.Z;!:Z ztz. z 'ilz %:.?: ~ Z ..~ ?e;2i,~ '-:2: 2:%'~ ~tz: i~*I-, f 1 i , T.l_..]n if~cu'r' ".,--t'.. ..,.,- j ! - j 'u"......... tl~I~~igj ~.~II:ilm~~&~ir~m!i. ~A 1:l!.~ Qlo1:; a ~'~ ~ if rei"'" ...U) 1M," CII....rt'l: ~-;l',o ;:;;!$: 'T ;';':"!lcl. ';,l: N ~ ';"i,,;:- e. ~ ! I 'I i. i i I ; 1 i, 1" i !., t ,! : ..' '. '.' ..n.... _...~__._....~ .......-.-.. ~ 'l ~ r iLl, J ~, 11 l ,.' 1, i I .!. ffi~,! ~ ....Ie ;Jivt .-''''lIDO! l';.''''!l'<' .",,;o::l: .'.Il"":.... ~l:; ....,~ N,\I'l:0~ III ~_:..~.m..... ~r..r.~r[ ~r..~---':rJTi~ i ~,~ :ri"." mm " :3 to) <' u<Jlu<lrn!ft:l: :c:<Jc- < :Ul! at 1t.);~IS!:llQlt) <..~j< u:d'd. <( 0 ::..; -~..._.....++.....- ..,t-,. +- -. -~ : <"! ",.., {'.~ '.-, ::..-;>~i t<-:i~.I~I-"; ..~ .iu:l Cl. l"',i:U' ~,.lq-. (<w~; l:IJIS.O'( ~ ..'h>b:N:'<IO>>).J:c,.<<<::,~ ~,I,~ <Co O,:,~.c-.t,"ol2l'O'!Zl','r-c:'-l,:~.m,.,. ~ in ~ .l{,I!,""""j~J.[ . t':o ~ jla Vl ~rlQm!"il' ~~. 'If Ofl'"t'.~.of m~.~~.:.;, ';,"~:,.;'~.: '~.J,.'~r~{I,;~..;,mr,' ~ ~~- cl,.' ~ $!,'.~" "~ 1 l'-~!..,,~: "., , < " . ~ , ' i ~jlffl'1 ~ ~ . mlm' +---......r I f'+'f- >"'m' ~. ~! ~ ~-!~ ~I,..: ~ ~I~ ~ ~J~ ~!~ .~!+l~ 0P~ <- r~l~i' , ........... ....mm. ....f~... . ,.... : ',- . n _ '=' N " .', ....1.,,,.1: . '. >.l "".~,.:li. ..~ ~,;,', ~ ' '1" . ;:,'.{i". :;--<,:.:,' '~ ~'I'';;I! ~ ~.~ ie, . l .~ ']' " 'f) ~ ~!'/. i; ~ ~l ~ ..':.' ~!~-~.~. ~.~ ~-1! v~ 1'. .,.t u .... "lii~""."."'.-' m.~:",;~ ~!~ <>! ~ .~. .~..;~.~. ..~L, l,,:~ '~f,.' ,) ~:,. ~ U;,'MJ..~ f;~ II ~Y~:~1 ~.~. . j ~ ~ ~ ~ C) ..,> ,,! sI 5 ~.f ~:li ',i j.~! ~ ~l5 SJ ~, ~1,'~ ~,.i,.;..i~, ~,lIL.;J,'~,..:, 1-" mm........ ::. .::. " , ,. ': ~+:.~ .. "., " ,. i ' i ~ .. ..~..~... ......=.: .~~ !:~ ~ J.i ~~ ~! ~ ~i~' ~j.~. ~ ;Jiili ; .~. 1,~,:,'~,' g I i~ ,~* _II'::';:; ~L. '.~ iL,':. lot:: :~.,,: ;:;;. .,,; '" 'OJ.<:i L~ ~ Igl';l~"'RI~:t U 6~~ :AI"" l~ ~ j:~ 1;i.!" ,~i "- :.8 :r..~~; .:~ ;{ij.: ~.<"o,,~ ;11a ~:..~ ~;il;jf, I~";. ~,.. ~ J:' ~.:t; ~. -.~ ~l.~'&i.;;rr~ @:t.i,i, ;!!,,,." ~" .,:;~.j.. ~.'.: ..!!,",'~.i,::i-~,'.j.~ ~,.. ~,j,.~.' ~ ~ ".i4it! .~}~i..i:i::~ ~: "'. ..~ . . .. ~;~..a:] ~ &it:: ;jjl~~)'~,tj ''''l' ~ : ,J;; g: ~ '""~ II :Ji:';;:.~:'''' ~ ~ ";!~ ~t~) '::'f~~' :I~j~ I~:;;i$ 21; ~j~ ::t~ :~3<~ ~r'\ I ~ , -l--....... ~ ;;~ $\]."'~ ~ ~,~ "I"~ ~.~..~~. 'J',.':" ~ g -,.- a.J '-- .. 19 ~. _"mm,>"". ... .:C. ~I--;': gll'il' ",I... ~r'.' '.: 9j.....,: ffi~~ ~..~: ~:~i i!:~ r:d:J.f. ~; -;:,: l :" W ....f!~~ t'il'.:ll'l'l'!' >l.SI.;ii'::::' ~ ~ '" .. ~ I ~ ol:~ ~ .,'1~~ -:.!;. ~l ~ ~~;~ ~ fJ _Y tl ~ " '! II :~I.~. ~l~ 1 .....--1 ~ " ~ .........i fJ ,~ ~ I ""..........i ~ "-~ ~ , ~ ~ ........l< i ! ~ ~ R ~ ~. -i.. ... ~ ~ $C: .:.; <;. '. ~ '.-", ~~ ,~ ~p iN ~ b ~~ .~ 6 w::~ j~ }. 30 Long Key (MM 65.3-66.0), and Plantation Key (MM 85.7-86.7). These projects are scheduled to begin construction in 2006, with the exception of Long Key and Plantation Key, which are scheduled for construction in 2007/08. In addition to the turn lane projects, numer- ous resurfacing projects are scheduled throughout the Keys over the span of the 5- year Work Plan. In addition to the road projects on U.S. 1, the construction of different segments of the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail are in- cluded in the current 5-year Work Plan. These construction projects include: . The segment from MM 5.2-Key Haven to MM 9.6-Big Coppitt Key . The segment from MM 16.5-Sugarloaf Key to MM 24.5-Surnrnerland Key . The segment from MM 25-Surnrnerland Key to MM 26.2-Rarnrod Key . The segment from MM 26.2-Rarnrod Key to 29.9 Big Pine Key, . The segment from MM 33.3 Spanish Har- bor Bridge to MM 40.5 (south end of the 7 -mile bridge), . The segment from MM 59.2 on Grassy Key to MM 65.2 Long Key . The segment from City of Layton MM 68.4 to MM 70.8-ChanneI5 Bridge, and . The segment from Channel 5-Bridge to Anne's Beach. The following historic bridges are also sched- uled for reconstruction to be used as part of the Overseas Heritage Trail: . The old Park Channel Bridge at MM 18.7, . The Bow Channel Historic Bridge at MM 20.2, . The Kemp Channel Bridge at MM 23.6, . The old South Pine Channel Bridge at MM 29, . The Ohio-Bahia Honda Bridge at MM 38.7, . The Ohio-Missouri Historic Bridge at MM 39.1, . The Missouri-Little Duck Key at MM 39.8, and . The old Long Key Bridge at MM 63. 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. U.S. 1 is required to maintain at least a level of service 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. I Level of Service Task Force in 1993. The speed based methodology utilizes the empirical re- lationship between volume-based capacities, and median vehicle speeds. The level of ser- vice for U.S. 1 is measured for the overall 108 miles of the roadway as well as for the 24 individual segments making up the road- way in the Keys. The traffic volumes recorded at Big Pine, Marathon and Upper Matecumbe have de- creased as compared to the traffic volumes during the 2005 study. The 2006 AADT for all three locations are the lowest since 1994. The overall travel speed on U.S. 1 for 2006 is .6 mph higher as compared to the 2005 overall travel speed. The reserve speed for the entire length of U.S. 1 is .9 miles per hour. This means that the entire segment is operating with only marginal capacity.' Compared to 2005 data, the travel speeds on 5 of the 24 segments decreased. These seg- 31 ments are: The Summerland segment had no change in travel speed between 2006 and 2005. Though, travel speeds in 18 segments have increased. They are: -Stock Island (+1.0 mph) -Boca Chica (+1.9 mph) -Big Coppitt (+1.6 mph) -Saddlebunch (+ 1.2 mph) -Sugarloaf (+ 1.6 mph) -Cudjoe (+0.4 mph) -Torch (+1.3 mph) -Big Pine (+ 1.6 mph) - Bahia Honda (+ 1. 7 mph) -Marathon (+0.9 mph) -Grassy (+0.8 mph) -Duck (+0.3 mph) -Long (+1.3 mph) -Tea Table (+0.2 mph) -U Matecumbe (+1.5 mph) -Plantation (+2.8 mph) -Tavernier (+ 1.2 mph) -Key Largo (+1.2 mph) Compared to last year's (2005) study results, there are changes in LOS to twelve of the segments studied The Ramrod and 7-Mile Bridge segments experienced decreases in LOS from A to B. The Bahia Honda segment has experienced an increase in LOS from B to A. The Long Key and Plantation segments experienced increases in LOS from C to B. The Big Coppit, Sugarloaf, Big Pine, Grassy, Tea Table, U Matecumbe, and Cross seg- ments experienced increases in LOS from D to C. The largest speed increase of 2.8 mph was recorded in the Plantation segment, while the largest speed decrease of 2.8 mph was re- corded in the 7-Mile Bridge segment. U.S. I segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given par- ticular attention when approving develop- ment applications. This year, there are nine segments of U.S. 1 in this category: Name Big Coppitt Saddlebunch Sugarloaf Big Pine Grassy Lower Matecumbe Tea Table Upper Matecumbe Cross Mile Marker Range 9.0-10.5 10.5-16.5 16.5 - 20.5 29.5 - 33.0 54.0 - 60.5 73.0 - 77.5 77.5 - 79.5 79.5 - 64.0 106 - 112.5 Last year (2005) study, Big Coppit (Segment 3), Sugarloaf (Segment 5), Big Pine (Segement 10), Grassy (Segment 14), L. Matecumbe (Segment 17), Tea Table (Segment 18), U. Matecumbe (Segment 19), and Cross Key (Segment 24) were below the LOS C threshold. In the 2006 study, only the L Matecumbe (Segment 17) segment is be- low the LOS threshold, and the Tea Table segment is at LOS C without any reserve speed. The L Matecumbe and Tea Table seg- ments have reserve volume or reserve capaci- ties within the 5% allocation. The Cross Key segment is above the LOS C threshold de- spite the construction work taking place at this segment. The reduced speed limit may be a compensating factor. The decrease in 32 traffic volume might be another factor for the improved LOS threshold for the Cross seg- ment and other segments during this year's study. However, the travel speeds on Cross Key segment is likely to improve with the implementation of a high level fixed bridge, completion is anticipated within the next three years. The Lower Matecumbe and Tea Table segments do not have any planned im- provements to curtail the travel speed reduc- tions. The Florida Department of Transporta- tion and/or the Momoe County should con- duct a special study along this stretch of U. S. 1. The signal at the Key Deer Boulevard inter- section in Big Pine (Segment 10) continues to influence the travel speeds on this segment, and has experienced 14 delay events com- pared to the 15 from the 2005 study. How- ever, the segment LOS improved, probably due to lower traffic volumes. All County roads have levels of service above the required standard of 'D'. 33 IlL 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 pinel and pre- serve west of Florida City in Miami-Dade County. The FKAA wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater in the State, meeting or exceeding all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Strong laws protect the wellfield from potentially con- taminating adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's requirements, FKAA is committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water quality standards and require- ments. The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the 1. Robert Dean Water Treatment Facil- ity in Florida City, which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 23.8 million gallons per day (MGD). 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. The FKAA's Water Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of approximately 20,000 feet of water main dur- ing fiscal year 2007. The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of 45.2 million gallons system wide. The size of the tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million gal- lons. These tanks are utilized during periods of peak water demand and serve as an emer- gency water supply. Since the existing trans- mission 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 to- gether, rather than in separate service dis- tricts. Also, the two 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 1.8 and 0.9 mil- lion gallons per day (MGD) of water, respec- tively. At present, Key West is the only area of the County served by a flow of potable water suf- ficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of water sources, including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting sites on the open water or from specially constructed fire wells. Although sufficient flow to fight fires is not guaranteed in the County, new hydrants are being installed as water lines are replaced to make water available for fire fighting pur- poses and pump/tank stations are being up- graded to provide additional fire flow and pressure. A map of the various FKAA facilities in the Keys is shown on the next page. Demand for Potable Water In October 2002, South Florida Water Man- agement District approved the FKAA's in- crease in supply through a updated Water Use Permit (WUP). The WUP increases FKAA's potential withdrawals to an average of 19.93 and a maximum of 23.79 Million Gallons per Day (MGD). In 2005, the FKAA distributed an average of 17.73 and a maximum of 22.39 MGD to the Florida Keys. As a condition of the WUP, the FKAA is constructing a Florid- ian Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) sys- 34 Figure 3.1 - FKAA Facilities tem. This system is designed to recharge and store water from the Biscayne Aquifer during the wet season (May through November) in the Floridian Aquifer which is approximately 800-1,000 feet below the ground surface, and then recover fresh water to supplement the Biscayne Aquifer during the dry season (December through April). In addition, until the ASR system is online, the FKAA must limit the dry season withdrawal from the Bis- cayne Aquifer to 17.0 MGD by using an al- ternative water source, pressure reduction, public outreach, and assistance from munici- pal agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances (i.e. irrigation ordinance). In addition, the FKAA is designing a new 6 mgd RO plant. This plant will use the brack- ish, Floridan Aquifer as an alternative source of water supply to assist in handling the fu- ture demands on the system. Per SFWMD WUP 13-00005-W, FKAA has an annual allocation of 7,274 MG (19.93mgd) through October 2007. This represents the increase in FKAA's projected water demands from 2002 through 2007. FKAA also has an annual allocation of 6,442 MG (17.65 mgd) through September 2025. This represents a 20-year allocation for FKAA's current use. FKAA's current Water Use Perruit (Perruit # 13-00005W) from the South Florida Water Management District was obtained in 2002, and is good for a period of five years. The current WUP allows an average daily water withdrawal of 19.93 million gallons per day (MGD), a maximum daily withdrawal of 23.79 MGD, and a yearly maximum of 7.274.45 billion gallons 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, landscap- ing practices, conservation measures, and the weather. 35 8,000 ~ 7,000 ~ 6,000 . o 5,000 't; 4,000 ~ 3,000 := 2,000 :l 1,000 o Fi ure 3.2 - Annual Water Withdrawals 1980 to 2005 ::':"I:II"~~IIIII..~.:.:.\WP.~.:.;.;...~.;.:...;.;.i..~...:.'..~.I.~.~.:...~.G.:.l.~.~."...l.:~.:...t.'.;...:.t.:...:........r...!...!.:.,.:.i.:.. ::::;:::::;:,:::;:,:::;:;<:;:;:,:;:;,:::;:.:.:.:.:...... :\t.!.~ ;to 1980 2,854.90 N/A N/A 1981 3,101.10 8.60% N/A N/A 1982 3,497.30 12.80% N/A N/A 1983 3,390.20 -3.10% N/A N/A 1984 3,467.50 2.30% 4,450 982.5 1985 4,139.20 19.40% 4,450 310.8 1986 4,641.50 12.10% 5,110 468.5 1987 4,794.60 3.30% 5,110 315.4 1988 4,819.80 0.50% 5,110 290.2 1989 4,935.90 2.40% 5,110 174.1 1990 4,404.10 -10.80% 5,560 1,155.90 1991 4,286.00 -2.70% 5,560 1,274.00 1992 4,461.10 4.10% 5,560 1,098.90 1993 5,023.90 12.60% 5,560 536.1 1994 5,080.00 1.10% 5,560 480 1995 5,140.40 1.20% 5,778 637.6 1996 5,272.00 2.60% 5,778 506 1997 5,356.00 1.60% 5,778 422 1998 5,630.00 5.10% 5,778 148 1999 5,935.30 5.40% 5,778 -157.3 2000 6,228.00 10.60% 5,778 -450 2001 5,626.70 -9.70% 5,778 151.3 2002 6,191.16 10.03% 7,274 1083.29 2003 6,288.29 1.57% 7,274 985.84 2004 6,460.85 2.74% 7,274 813.15 2005 6,471.45 0.16% 7,274 802.55 Source: Florida Ke s A ueduct Authori , 2006 Figure 3.3 - FKAA Annual Water \\ithdrawl Figure 3.4 - WUP Remaining Allocation 1,200 1,000 ~ 800 = 0 'a 600 " 400 .... 0 200 ~ 0 0 '" :E .200 .400 -600 <\"~ <\"" <\"~ <S" <S''' <S'~ " " " 0; 0; 0; :'.!..uJu4lri'- ~.~. . . *'....-% ~~$~$8&g~g8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ WUP Limit (MG) _.~.... Annual Withdra\W.! (MG) I 36 The projected water demand for 2006 is 18.58 MGD. However, preliminary figures for 2006 indicate no increase through Mayas compared to 2005 figures Figure 3.6 indi- cates the amount of water available on a per capita basis. Based on Functional Population and permitted water withdrawal, the average water available is above 100 gallons per cap- ita (person). The 100 gallons per person per day standard is commonly accepted as appro- priate, and is reflected in Policy 701.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. For 2006 Figure 3.6 shows a significant increase with respect to the water available on a per capita basis. This is due to revised popula- tion estimates which have shown a decrease in the per- manent population which de- creases the functional population. Since water availability on a per cap- ita basis is a function of total gallons divided by the population then, when population declines availability in- creases. Improvements to Potable Water Fa- cilities 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 $118 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be funded by the newly revised water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants. In 1989 FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Upgrade Program to replace approxi- mately 190 miles of galvanized lines through- out the Keys. FKAA continues to replace and upgrade its distribu- tion system throughout the Flor- ida Keys and the schedule for these upgrades is re- flected in their long-range capital improvement plan." Fi ure 3.5 - Pro'ecled Water Demand in 2006 lif.'~:i.ilil.lllilllllail'illl: Average Daily With- drawal Maximum Daily Withdrawal 23.79 Annual Withdrawal 7,274 All I res are in millions 0 allons Source: Florida Ke A ueduct Anthon ,2006 19.93 17.73 18.58 22.39 6,471 23.24 6,782 In addition to im- provements to the distribution system, FKAA also has signifi- cant improvements planned for the transmis- sion and supply system. FKAA expects to expand the treatment capacity at the 1. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant to meet future Fi ure 3.6. Per Ca ita Water Availabilit Ifflf"lii~IIIIIIIIIIII"'~j~IIIIIIIIIII"llf~ililllll.ll~'lll 1998 156,120 15,830,000 101.4 19,190,000 1999 157,172 15,830,000 100.7 19,190,000 2000 159,113 15,830,000 99.5 19,190,000 2001 159,840 15,830,000 99 19,190,000 2002 160,568 19,930,000 124.1 23,790,000 2003 161,227 19,930,000 123.6 23,790,000 2004 161,235 19,930,000 123.6 23,790,000 2005 162,041 19,930,000 123 23,790,000 2006 151,218 19,930,000 132 23,790,000 Source: 1. Monroe County Population Estimates & Forecasts 1990 to 2015 (February, 2000) 2 Florida Ke s A ueduct Anthori , 2006 37 water demands. Also, the FKAA is planning improvements to the pump stations to im- prove flow/pressure and construction of water storage tanks to provide additional emer- gency water supply. Figure 3.7 on the following pages shows the projected capital improvements to the potable water system planned by the FKAA. In summary, although this years water de- mand shows no increase through May of 2006 over last years demand the water de- mand is still projected to increase to 18.58 MGD in 2006 up from the average of 17.73 MGD withdrawn in 2005. With Water Use Permit (Permit # 13-00005W) providing up to an average daily water withdrawal of 19.93 MGD there is an adequate supply of water to meet demand. However, looking forward to 2007 with the Permit # 13-00005W expiring there will be 17.65 MGD available. With projected demand of 18.58 MGD in 2006 and with the assumption that demand will only continue to increase in 2007, based upon wa- ter demand increasing steadily ever years since 1991 with the expectation of 2001, it can be anticipated that water demand will outweigh supply in 2007. 38 ~Ii !t............ Wi...... ::i !!II: ~ flJi :E.... " - tJ?: ~ ..!....... "'.' q;Sf '"'g !:: :....;t "'l .N. 'i' A. "" ~..:.......... ci t,(4i) i:j......... dl !Il ~I: ::~: .jJ. j:_i ~ ,.., "" "'" ~ ... - - ,*. "" '" "'l. ." .... N ~. 8 ~ - ~i. .. "" ~ .-. ~..; N ~ li ... ~ 0\: 1'<"':. ... ~. :;; ~ ... '" N ~ - .,; - ... ~ q Q ~ ." ....... ~s: ~.,~,-:< .;-; t;>=:= .s:i~ ~'" $~:; . <<0 v; x:C 5""'t! ~1i... ~ .. __$1:> W eli~ i Q..1S":!$l~ ~.zi", 39 Fi ure 4.1 - Schools h Subdistrict ;J;:;;Jiliililll~iiii<<r~;t;> Marathon MiddlelHigh School (7-12) Key West High School (9-12) Stanley Switlik Ele- mentary (K-6) Horace O'Bryant Middle School (6-8) IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 13 public schools located throughout the Keys. Their data includes both unincorpo- rated and incorporated Monroe County. The sys- tem 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. Approximately 54 busses transport about 4,316 students to and from school each day. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums. Coral Shores High School (9-12) Key Largo Elementary /Middle School (K-8) Plantation Key Elementary/Middle School (K-8) The school system is divided into three subdis- tricts that are similar, but not identical to the ser- vice 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 Islamorada in the Upper Keys (Subdistrict I), while the Land Develop- ment 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 subdis- tricts. Subdistrict I covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes Adams Elementary (K-5) ArcherlReynolds Elementary (K-5) Poinciana Elementary (K-5) Sigsbee Elementary (K-5) Big Pine Key Neighborhood School (Pre K-9) /Middle School -8 Source: Monroe Count School Board, 2006 40 FIGURE 4.2 Enrollment by Grade L.evel is~in~~~~~~Sh"rt9f. oraF~r.-s~f9b'.~ ..kl"_ E_llbry S<lhool ynn AA:1lo, _tarY S<~OOI $I!<na:ry;tntMidd..<~ Iyl..ltr~'~l~ry Ov 11'10<' High $e1lOol t>1ltt(>U'Hltro*M!Jl n.~,C:~t)1l)J" ~~$od.c:~f"',K.yW.~t n~otllsfam1Chitteii' AC.~t.;O:..v.tK.lf.$. ACE. Uppo,K..,. ''''Ion ~01/ EIom.IIl>ry _01 !'rtcl~f.S~EY".<::~ ~~~Jrlf't\tary~l;\h:~ ~..$\Vitlil<.$~'~.$tbAAr ... ~~~f~~~~t~.. .,~ELtIEEtI&EtEIUEII&UtjE 4( $ a, '" one high school and two elementary/middle schools, as shown in Figure 4.1. Snbdistrict 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 mid- dle school, one elementary/middle school, and five elementary schools. 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 hous- ing, and the movements of seasonal residents. Student Demographics including District Charter and Pace Center Schools had district emollment at 8,372. Figure 4.2 breaks down the emollment by Grade Level. The School Board collects enrollment data peri- odically throughout the year. Counts taken in the winter are typically the highest, due to the pres- ence of seasonal residents (Figure 4.2). The fol- lowing table (Figure 4.3) shows the fall school enrollments from 1992 to 2005 subdistrict as taken from the School Board's Fall Student Sur- vey. n~'2;':: 9-~ fj{,~ T" M! , }g~~Eg~~; Level of Service of School Facilities The Monroe County Land Development Regula- tions 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 ca- pacity "adequate" to accommodate the school-age children generated by proposed land develop- ment. 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 accom- modate the impacts of the additional land devel- opment activities projected for 2005-2006 school year. Figures 4.3 and Figure 4.3a show fall school enrollments while Figure 4.4 shows each school's capacity and the projected number of students. Lastly, Figure 4.4a shows Locations, Capacities, and Planned Utilization Rates of cur- rent Educational Facilities based on state require- ments. The capacity runs approximately 93- 95% of student stations which vary in number from elementary, middle and high school due to class size reduction. The class size reduc- tion was a result of a state constitutional amendment setting limits for the maximum allowable number of student in a class by the start of the 2010-11 school year that was passed by Florida's voters in November 2002. 41 Fi ure 4.3 - Fall School Enrollments 1992-2005 'nllilii' ........................,. 'Iillil'i ,:hili!I'a~0!I ,iil.iJf;; ;aililf ,nMI ;i:iUlilii' ,riM\! II_ ::'1illi'!"m'l~Im;" Subdistrict 1 Coral Shores (H) 605 597 649 702 672 701 757 758 800 810 801 811 619 760 Key Largo (ElM) 1,310 1,213 1,235 1,198 1,223 1,273 1,253 1,183 1,173 1117 1112 1073 992 985 Plantation 718 698 721 737 730 703 675 643 668 647 641 650 548 617 Subtotal 2,633 2.508 2,605 2.637 2,625 2.677 2,685 2,584 2,641 2.574 2,554 2,534 2,159 2362 Subdistrict 2 :Marathon (H) 545 523 578 642 637 612 637 660 679 682 693 654 596 '81 Switlik: E 734 775 776 769 782 815 834 791 671 687 714 676 624 600 Subtotal 1.279 1.298 1,354 1,411 1,419 1,427 1,471 1,451 1,350 1,369 1,407 1,330 1,220 1181 Subdistrict 3 Key West (II) 1,114 1,120 1,155 1,255 1,237 1,327 1,372 1,344 1,305 1,327 1301 1382 1303 1327 O'Bryant (M) 852 902 876 909 897 863 899 814 838 854 874 873 800 781 Sugarloaf (ElM) 899 810 1,039 1,013 987 960 937 913 941 854 901 904 718 767 Adams (E) 541 529 516 486 500 499 574 566 513 544 598 591 291 492 Archer (E) 480 441 462 454 454 520 493 460 393 376 386 382 360 354 Poinciana (E) 521 566 613 626 637 608 620 632 599 586 583 547 536 526 Sigsbee (E) 471 400 431 431 398 404 423 393 358 363 326 295 237 250 Sands 81 81 85 52 52 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 4,959 4,849 5,177 5.226 5,162 5,239 5,319 5,122 4,947 4,904 4,969 4,974 4,245 4,497 Total 8,871 8,655 9,136 9,274 9206 9343 9,475 9,157 8,938 8,847 8930 8838 7,614 8,040 Source: Monroe Count School Board 2006 Figure 4.3a - Fall School Enrollments for District Charter Schools and PACE Centers Bi Pine Nei hborhood Charter Monroe Count DJJ Montessori Charter - K W Montessori Island Charter PACE - Lower Ke s PACE- U erKe s TOTAL ,I.,: 22 4 48 137 16 19 246 ,nu~n' ................... 63 3 60 149 31 26 332 42 ............,..,...'... '::~.:.:<.:.:.:::::~::::~::.:. .',' ." w." IIIII&WIII Subdistrict 1 Coral Shores 965 831 818 747 Key Largo 1,036 1,191 1,115 1,082 Plantation 650 645 653 665 Subtotnl 2,651 2,667 2,586 2,494 Subdistrict 2 Marathon 1,049 667 673 724 Switlik 921 668 674 684 Subtotnl 1,970 1,335 1347 1,408 Subdistrict 3 Key West 1,521 1,312 1,267 1,313 O'Bryant 1018 818 838 876 Sugarloaf 1,206 941 842 835 Adams 591 506 546 605 Archer 576 398 371 357 Poinciana 582 585 574 591 Sigsbee 522 357 373 327 Sands 0 0 0 0 Subtotnl 6,016 4917 4,811 4,904 Total 10,637 8,919 8,744 8,806 Source; Monroe Count School Board 2006 FIGURE 4.4a w :.,.:.:.: ;:::;;;:;:;:,:;:::::;:;:::)t:::n:; .'n'............ ..'..,..'..,..'.............'.... ........'.....'..,."......'..,. ......... ... ................"........ .. .................... ...........,.,...,........-.-.-'-.- .,..,.,..:,..,...:.,.~:'.::Pi...:_....,:.'.'.,im:......,<._:,'".:".,..'.""...'...:'..~.','..."':'....,:,:..,..,.',.',.:,.':'i:mjjjllil~}. ~",,_~u,,::'~OO~!~Il!I: 835 771 1,031 933 649 622 2,515 2,326 665 610 651 604 1 316 1,214 1,408 1,335 887 811 888 770 552 480 350 311 550 528 284 241 0 0 4 919 4,476 8,750 8,016 Locations, Capacities, and Planned Utilization Rates of current Educational Facilities 2005-2010 2005-05 Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected 2004- FISH Satisfactorv 2005-06 05 2005-06 2009-10 2009-10 CO- Utiliza- Utiliza- Location Student Stations FISH CaDacity FiE tion CO.fiE tion Coral Shores HS 1,285 965 788 82% 732 76% Gerald Adams School 691 591 490 83% 423 72% Glynn Archer ES 579 576 314 55% 302 52% Horace O'Bryant School 1,187 1,018 835 82% 747 73% Key Largo School 1,323 1,036 945 91% 921 89% Key West HS 1,601 1,521 1,335 88% 1,416 93% Marathon HS 1,187 1,049 633 60% 660 63% Plantation Key School 883 650 644 99% 574 88% Poinciana ES 504 582 530 91% 509 87% Sigsbee ES 563 522 243 47% 250 48% Switlik School 921 948 606 64% 483 51% Suaarloaf School 1,455 1,206 787 65% 740 61% Total 12,179 10,664 8150 76% 7,757 73% Source: Monroe Counlv School Board 2006 I 43 Enrollment figures for the 2004-2005 school year and projected enrollment figures for the 2005- 2006 school year, show that none of the schools are expected to exceed their recommended capac- ity. School facility plans are based on enrollment projections 5 years out for which Figure 4.4a cou- firms adequate capacity by showing that pro- jected utilization will be between 50 to 90 per- cent. If utilization was projected to exceed one hundred percent then there would not be suffi- cient capacity. Improvements to School Facilities Florida Statute 163.3177 requires counties to identifY lands and zoning districts needed to ac- commodate future school expansions. In order to bring the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehen- sive Plan into compliance with this statute, in 1998 the Monroe County Planning Department and School Board conducted research to deter- mine the existing school capacity and the poten- tial need for future educational facilities in Mon- roe County. This study focused on land requirements for each of the schools expansion needs. Overall, the County has sufficient vacant and appropriately zoned land to meet the area's current and future school siting needs. The specific land require- ments for the public schools in the County are discussed below. Kev Largo Elementary/Middle School (K-8) 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 Monroe County School Board to construct an additional 43,100 square feet of school space. The School Board has worked with the County, DCA and USFWS to come to terms to build a new classroom building with the reno- vation of the remaiuiug portions of the campus. The agreement was due to the environmentally sensitivity of the area proposed for development. Plantation Kev Elementarv/Middle School (1(-8) The DOE has instructed the Monroe County School Board to construct an additional 16,600 square feet of school space for this school. The parcel of land for this school proposed challenges to the school Board due to the size and environ- mentally sensitive nature of the area. The School Board will work with the state for any variances required to build the needed square footage for the school due to the Village of Islamorada not having jurisdictional oversight on the project. Stanlev Switlik Elementarv 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 cafete- ria/kitchen/multipurpose 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 Monroe County School Board to construct a new 13,000 square foot audito- rium for this school that could also serve as a community center. Coral Shores High School The School Board is currently finishing construc- tion on the replacement school which was com- pleted. Figure 4.5, on the following page, is a table showing the results of the investigation com- pleted by the Monroe County School Board and Planning Department in 1998 and updated in 2004. 44 FIGURE 4.5 "B~liWUllllt~~l!; ;:; iInII~;im!8lf!nt~~~} Key Largo ElementarylMiddle School (K-8) o acres 27 acres (SC & SR) 2 acres (1) Plantation Ke Elemen !Middle School K-8 N/A Coral Shores Hi h School 20.13 acres SR N/A S",nle Switlik Elementa 9.43 acres SC o acres Marathon High and Middle Schools 27 acres (SR) o acres (3) 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 (1) The School Board is working with Monroe County Planning Department to meet this need prior to the end of 2004. 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 NAsurrounding the current site. There are approximately 4.27 acres of vacant land zoned SC and 8.6 acres of vacant land zoned IS sur- roundin the current site. There are approximately 27 acres of vacant land zoned NA and 34 acres zoned SR surrounding the current site. (2) Islamorada will address plans for Plantation Key School, Coral Shores High School and other educational facilities in their comprehensive plan. (3) The Marathon High School and Middle School Boards want to partner with the County to create an auditorium that will also serves as a community center. Source: :Monroe Coun School Board, 2004 45 V. SOLID WASTE FACILI- TIES Monroe County's solid waste facilities are managed by the Solid Waste Management Department, which oversees a comprehensive system of collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste. Prior to 1990, the County's disposal methods consisted of incineration and 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 con- tractor's private landfill in Broward County. In accordance with County-approved fran- chise agreements, private contractors perform collection of solid waste. Residential collec- tion takes place four times a week (2 garbage/ trash, 1 recycling, 1 yard waste); nonresiden- tial collection varies by contract. The four (4) contractors currently serving the Keys are identified in Figure 5.1. 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 ship- ment out of the Keys. However, it is impor- tant to note that a second, unused site on Cudj oe Key could be opened if necessary. Figure 5.2 below summarizes the status of the County's landfills and incinerators. The County's recycling efforts began in Oc- tober 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. Some agencies are mulching and reusing yard waste, and private enterprises are collecting aluminum and other recyclable materials. White goods, waste oil, batteries and tires are handled separately, with collection sites oper- ating at each landfill/transfer station site. The County collects household hazardous waste at the Long Key and Cudjoe Key Transfer Sta- tions, in addition to the Key Largo Recycling Yard Hazardous waste from conditionally Fi ure 5.1 - Solid Waste Contractors ",('nnMlitjjMi'lM() ',',"iOOiWilH.... ....,.,....... Keys Sanitary Service & Waste Manage- Mid-Keys Waste, Inc. ment of Florida, Inc. Closed 2/25/91 None No Longer Active Current! Inactive o 90 000 Source: Monroe Coun Solid Waste Mana ementDe artment, 2006 46 exempt small quantity generators is collected once a year, as part of an Amnesty Days pro- gram. An electronics recycling program is in the initial phases, and will be conducted in cooperation with the Household Hazardous Waste collections. 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 Development Regulations (LDRs). One dif- ference is that Windley Key, which is consid- ered to be in the Upper Keys district in the LDRs, is included in the Middle Keys district for purposes of solid waste management. An- other 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 De- cember 31, 1997, the municipality continued to participate with Monroe County in the con- tract with Waste Management Inc. until Sep- tember 30, 1998. Data for Monroe County solid waste generation is calculated by fiscal year which runs from October 1 to September 30. Therefore, the effects of Islamorada's incorporation on solid waste services appear in the 1999 data. Data for the City of Key West and the Village of Islamorada is not in- cluded 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, would have appeared in the 2001 data. Demand for solid waste facilities is influ- enced by many factors, including the size and income levels of resident and seasonal popu- lations, the extent of recycling efforts, house- hold consumptive practices, landscaping practices, land development activities, and natural events such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Analyses provided by a private re- search group indicate that the average single- family house generates 2.15 tons of solid waste per year. Mobile homes and multifam- ily 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: garbage, 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 gener- ated. lbis increase is attributed to the demo- lition and rebuilding associated with Hurri- cane 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 generated had been on the in- crease until 1998, when it reached its highest level yet. This increase is attributed to the debris associated with Hurricane Georges, which made landfall in the Keys in Septem- ber of 1998. A portion of the decline seen from 1998 to 1999 may be attributable to the reduction in solid waste collected from Isla- morada. The continuing decline shown in 2000 and 2001 is due to a reduction in con- struction and demolition debris being brought to the County transfer stations following the implementation of the Specialty Hauler ordi- nances. Generation continues to rise again from 2002 through 2005 with a 6.2% increase between 2004 and 2005. Once again a very active hurricane season in 2005 could have caused increased generation. Yearly fluc- 47 ;.yii;i~" 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 28,585 32,193 31,173 28,430 26,356 27,544 37,211 30,110 28,604 31,573 32,003 33,119 29,382 32,635 29,663 31,018 31,529 32,193 36,035 Fi ure 5.3 - Solid Waste Generation b m;jjMif'..........\m'.m'~ii.Ki<li..n!: 28,890 15,938 37,094 22,206 33,931 23,033 31,924 22,988 28,549 20,699 26,727 18,872 28,986 22,198 30,662 24,831 30,775 25,113 31,845 27,823 33,625 29,350 36,440 30,920 30,938 37,431 30,079 33,420 29,367 31,166 31,217 30,700 31,889 30,385 31,583 33,762 32,257 35,290 District :.:nltfillii 73,413 91,493 88,137 83,342 75,604 73,143 88,395 85,603 84,492 91,241 94,978 100,479 97,751 96,134 90,196 92,935 93,803 97,538 103,582 !:,i:HWidillf' .; NA 24.63% -3.67% -5.44% -9.28% -3.26% 20.85% -3.16% -1.30% 7.99% 4.10% 5.79% -2.71% -1.65% -6.18% 3.04% 0.93% 3.98% 6.20% Note: The figures from 1985 to 1991 include white goods, tires, construction debris, and yard waste. The do not include source-se arated ree clables. Source: Monroe Count Solid Waste Mana ement D artment, 2006 120000 100000 80000 00 " 60000 0 f-< 40000 20000 0 lilgure 5.4 - Solid Waste Generation 1985 -2004 by District . ,..-"'--",- ... --",---" /....._w ",. w__.. ~........._...---:'l!t" -.."." /'-.-....--,...--~ ~ "-. :M:-.~ '\. '); ...., \l. e., b " 'b ~ ,~ " ,'); ,"" ~ ,e., ,10 ," ,'b ,"I _ Year ,....., Key Largo = Long Key __Cudjoe Key...,.,... Total Source: Monroe County Solid Wallie ManaRement Department, 2006 Remaining Capacity (vollll11e in millions of cubic yards) Remaining Capacity (time) 14 years 14 years Source; Monroe Count Solid Waste Mana ment D artment 2006 34.2 yd3 32.3 yd3 30.5 yd3 14 years 12 years 26yd3 7 years 48 tuations are expected to continue due to in- creasing storm activity and seasonal popula- tion changes. Level of Service of Solid Waste Fa- cilities Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations requires that the County maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate all exist- ing and approved development for at least three (3) years. The regulations specifically recognize the concept of using disposal sites outside Monroe County. As of June 2006, Waste Management Inc., reports a reserve capacity of approximately 26 million cubic yards at their Central Sani- tary Landfill in Broward County, a volume sufficient to serve their clients for another seven (7) years. Figure 5.5 on the previous page shows the remaining capacity at the Central Sanitary Landfill. Monroe County has a contract with WMI au- thorizing use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately ten years of guar- anteed capacity. Ongoing modifications at the Central Sanitary Landfill are creating ad- ditional air space and years of life. In addi- tion to this contract, the 90,000 cubic yard reserve at the County landfill on Cudjoe Key would be sufficient to handle the County's waste stream for an additional three years (at current tonnage levels). The combination of the existing haul-out con- tract and the space available at the Cudjoe Key landfill provides the County with suffi- cient capacity to accommodate all existing and approved development for up to thirteen years. 49 VL PARKS AND RECREATION An annual assessment of parks and recrea- tional facilities is not mandated by Section 9.5-292 of the Monroe County Land Devel- opment Regulations, though it is required for concurrency management systems by the Florida Statutes. The following section has been included in the 2005 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report for informa- tional purposes only. Level of Service standards for parks and rec- reational facilities are not mentioned in the Land Development Regulations, but are listed in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Parks and Recreational Facilities Level of Service Standard The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unin- corporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a bal- ance between the provisions of resource- and activity-based recreation areas the LOS stan- dard has been divided equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are: 0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population 0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population The LOS standards for each type of recrea- tion area can be applied to unincorporated Monroe County as a whole or to each sub- area (Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys) of un- incorporated Monroe County. In determining how to apply the LOS standard for each type of recreation area, the most important aspect to consider is the difference between re- source- and activity-based recreation areas. Resource-based recreation areas are estab- lished around existing natural or cultural re- sources of significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity-based recreation areas can be established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or bas- ketball courts, or other athletic events. Since the location of resource-based recrea- tion areas depends upon the natural features or cultural resources of the area and cannot always be provided near the largest popula- tion centers, it is reasonable to apply the LOS standard for resource-based areas to all of unincorporated Monroe County. Since activ- ity-based recreation areas do not rely on natu- ral features or cultural resources for their lo- cation and because they can be provided in areas with concentrated 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 projec- tions. For the purpose of park and recrea- tional facilities, the Upper Keys are consid- ered to be the area north of Tavernier (PAEDs 15 through 22). The Middle Keys are consid- ered 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 (PAEDs 1 through 6). Although the Middle and Lower Keys subareas both con- tain portions of PAED 6, the population of PAED 6 is located in the Lower Keys su- barea. An inventory of Monroe County's parks and recreational facilities is presented on the next page. The facilities are grouped by subarea and are classified according to the principal use (resource or activity). There are currently 97.96 acres of resource- based recreation areas either owned or leased by Monroe County as shown in Figure 6.1. 50 Garden Cove Hibiscus Park Friendship Park Key Largo Community Park Sunset Point Harry Harris Settler's Park Sunn Haven Key Largo Elementary Coral Shores High School Plantation Ke Elementar Subarea TotRl Pigeon Key Marathon High School Switlik Elementary Subarea Total Little Duck Key Missouri Key West Summerland Heron Avenue Palm Villa Big Pine Leisure Club Blue Heron Park Watson Field Ramrod Key Swim Hole Summerland Estates Little Torch Boat Ram SugarloafElementary Sugarloaf School Baypoint Park Palm Drive cul-de sac Rockland Hanunock Boca Chica Beach Dewar Avenue Big Coppitt Fire Dept Playground Wilhelmina HalVey Children's Park Bernstein Park East Martello West Martello Higgs Beach/ Astra City Figure 6.1 - Parks and Recreation Facilities Serving Unincorporated Monroe County Upper Keys Subarea Undevelo ed. Undeveloped. Two (2) basketball courts, playground, ball field, picnic shelters, public restrooms, and parking. Soccer field, two (2) ball fields, six (6) tennis courts, jogging trail, three (3) basketball courts, roller hockey, volleyball, skate park, playground, picnic shelters, public restrooms, aquatic cen- ter and arkin . Waterfront parle with a boat ramp. Two (2) ball fields, playground, restrooms, picnic shelters, beach, parking (89), and boat ramp. Playground, park benches, trails, and a historic platform. Undevelo ed. Monroe County School District; playground, ball field, running track, and indoor gym. Monroe County School District; baseball field, football field, softball field, five (5) tennis courts, and indoor Monroe Coun School District; playground, tennis court, basketball court, and ball field. Middle Keys Subarea Historic structures, research/educational facilities, and a railroad museum. Monroe County School District; football field, baseball field, softball field, three (3) tennis courts three 3 basketball courts, and indoor Monroe County School District; playground, (2) baseball fields, and shared soccer/football field. Lower Keys Sllbarea Picnic shelters, restrooms, boat ramp, and beach area. Undeveloped. Boat Ramp. Undeveloped. Playground and benches. Undeveloped. Playground, basketball court, youth center, and picnic shelters. Two (2) tennis courts, ball field, playground, and volleyball. Swimming area with no facilities. Undeveloped. Boatram . Monroe County School District; baseball field and playground. Monroe County School District; undeveloped. Playground, volleyball, bocchi ball, two (2) tennis courts, and picnic area. Undeveloped. Undevelo ed. Beach area. Boat ramp. Playground and benches. Two (2) playground areas, a walking trail, and green space. Ball field, soccer, basketball court, track, tennis courts, playground, restrooms, and volleyball. Historic structures, teen center, and picnic area. Historic structure. Five (5) tennis courts, playground, volleyball, picnic shelters, beach area, pier, and public rest- rooms. Historic structure and museum. Lighthouse Musewn Subarea TotRl UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY TOTAL Source: Monroe Count Plannin De artmen 2006 :"''1: ':'!:IMIImiII"ij"IWtSl#:':}':" ....-...'..........;..,.....,..-...-.,.,.....'..-. 1.5 0.46 1.92 14 1.2 16.4 3 0.09 3.4 5.79 10.1 1.7 47.98 5 7.' 2.5 5 10.3 25.5 3.5 31.' 0.69 0.57 1.75 5.5 2.4 0.5 0.13 0.1 3.1 6.6 1.58 0.1 2.5 6 0.2 0.75 0.65 11 14.58 0.' 15.5 0.77 87.17 49.4 97.96 107.68 Using the functional population projection for 2006 of 71,485 persons in unincorporated Monroe County, and the LOS standard of 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population, the demand for resource based recreation ar- eas is approximately 58.62 acres. The county currently has a resource-based land to meet the level of service with an extra 39.34 acres of reserve capacity. See Figure 6.2 Level of Service Analysis for Activ- ity- 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 currently a total of 107.68 acres of developed activity-based recreation areas either owned or leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board. This total represents 47.98 acres in the Upper Keys (including Plantation Key in Islamorada), 10.3 acres in the Middle Keys (including Marathon), and 49.4 acres in the Lower Keys. Based on a LOS standard of 0.82 acres of activity-based recreation areas per 1,000 functional popula- tion in unincorporated Monroe County (35,392-Upper, 4,0 I 7-middle, and 32,076- Lower), the demand for these recreation areas are 29.02, 3.29 and 26.30 acres for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys, respectively. There is currently a reserve of 18.96, 7.01, and 23.10 (Upper, Middle, and Lower) for a total of 49.06 acres of activity-based recrea- tion areas for all of unincorporated Monroe County. Figure 6.3 shows the level of service analysis for activity-based recreation areas in each subarea Fi ure 6.2 - Level of Service Anal sis for Resource-Based Recreation Areas ",";.;.;.;.:.:.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . ;;;, ........i.. ;:; i;:!f~1ll1iml~ij~~I;:; :....:...:.:.:...:.:.~.;.;.....jlO...;........I1:~....::..~.I~.:"~..;;.n.~.... ~j i.:.i i:::i':ij~~~:!\~I~Ii ...... .........;....; H\;:Aila~iiblili' ..... .. 35,392 5.79 4,017 5 32,076 87.17 71,485 97.96 Upper Keys Total Middle Keys Total Lower Ke s Total Total ::ti:::::iti:::i:i:~i:i:~i:::;::: .......,... ....... .....,...,...,.......,......,...,...,.... ................................ ...................!....!........., ..."'!Ilfij!iWjj<;iij"..... i:iilr.~:~,'iii'ii'll!iii~~I~'ii!!i 29.02 -23.23 3.29 1.71 26.30 60.87 58.62 39.34 Source: Monroe Count Plannin D artment, 2006 Based on Uninco rated Monroe COWlt Functional Po ulation Note: Population figures were updated based on 2006 Permanent Population Updates. However data was not available by subarea therefore "Subarea" was extrapolated based on percentages of 2006 data for subarea. Sea- sonal did not change, and the percentage of each category for 2006 remained the same however the total overall ermanent 0 ulation fi e ch ed IIliiilmt;\.? 'T;WAmm. !i~~'I!~~]i!: :I:ii~iiijiii 35,392 47.98 4,017 10.3 32,076 49.4 71,485 107.68 Upper Keys Total Middle Keys Total Lower Ke sTatal Total .. .....,..... ....... "'w.W" ......-.............................'... . ........ 'W' 18.96 7.01 23.10 49.06 Source: Monroe Coun Plannin D artment, 2006 Based on Uninco rated Monroe Count Functional P ulation Note: Population figures were updated based on 2006 Permanent Population Updates. However data was not available by subarea therefore "Subarea" was extrapolated based on percentages of 2006 data for subarea. Sea- sonal did not change, and the percentage of each category for 2006 remained the same however the total overall ermanent 0 ulation fi e ch ed 52 Future Parks and Recreation Plan- ning Monroe County is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis of its parks and rec- reation system in order to more accurately plan for the recreational needs of the popula- tion. A parks and recreation master plan is being prepared and is anticipated to be com- pleted by the years end. The master plan will assess the current level of service standard and how it is applied throughout the county, evaluate the current park system, recommend areas where new park sites should be ac- quired, and funding mechanisms which may be used for that acquisition. The master plan is mandated by the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and will allow the county to address the parks and recreation needs more accurately. Identirying parks and recreation needs is also a part of the on going Livable CommuniKeys Program. This community based planning initiative looks at all aspects of an area and, among other planning concerns, identifies the parks and recreation desires of the local population. The Livable CommuniKeys Pro- gram has been completed on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, and Tavernier. The proc- ess is near completion on Key Largo and Stock Island. Within the last year one new site, Sugarloaf School (separate from the existing Sugarloaf Elementary) has been added. At this time, it is undeveloped and has no facilities, but it consists of 6.6 acres of land allocated to be activity-based park space. This increased the total activity-based land for the Lower keys; the total activity-based land for the Keys in general; and the total land for parks. Al- though Big Pine Park has been identified as a potential park site and land has been acquired it has not been added to the inventory. At the time the park is funded and programmed it will be added to the inventory list. Acquisition of Additional Recreation Areas The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehen- sive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe County shall secure additional acre- age 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 recrea- tion areas can be accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehen- sive Plan provides six (6) mechanisms that are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as for pro- viding adequate land to satisry the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are: . 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; . Acquisition of new park sites; . Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board that would allow for the use of existing school-park fa- cilities by county residents; . Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County that would allow for the use of existing city-owned park facilities by county residents; . Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal govern- ments that would allow for the use of existing publicly-owned lands or facili- ties by county residents; and . 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 53 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, Monroe County cannot rely upon joint use facilities to elimi- nate existing deficiencies or meet future LOS requirements until interlocal, intergovern- mental, or private use j oint agreements are executed. For instance, the County is cur- rently reviewing and revising the interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board to provide greater day time accessibil- ity for students to public recreational facili- ties. Once executed, these agreements will ensure that the facilities will be available for general use to Monroe County residents to meet peak season, weekend, or time of day recreation demands. S4