The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 356-1990 lo .....__ . I Growth Management RESOLUTION NO. 356 -1990 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE R~VISED 1990 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY REPORT (THE REPORT) PURSUANT TO SECTION 9.5-291, ET.SEQ., MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVEL- OPMENT REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the Monroe County Land Development Regulations, Section 9.5-291, et seq., require that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an annual assessment of public facilities capacity report each year; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the 1990 annual assessment of public facilities capacity report (hereafter referred to as "the report") on March 28, 1990, subject to minor revision by the FDOT; and WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Department of Community Affairs objected to the report's assessment of transportation capacity; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and the Monroe County District School Board have entered into an inter local agreement addressing the inadequate school facilities identified in the report; and WHEREAS, the report's assessments of transportation and school capacities have been revised accordingly; now therefore The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certi- fied copy of this resolution to the Florida Department of Communi- ty Affairs. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the //t-It day of \.J&4/'j , A.D., 1990. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST l>ANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA / Gld.~ BY#-~flP/ By Clerk Mayor/Chairman (SEAL) Br Page 2: Capital Facilities Resolution .' MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACiliTIES CAPACITY ..... ... - ~ . 1990 ASSESSMENT - - ... - - Revised June 27, 1990 Monroe County Growth Management Division ... TABLE OF CONTENTS -,- " ':" ':~ Executive Summary 1. Introduction....................,.............................: 2 2. Growth Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Transportation Facilities...,............ . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .' 19 4. Solid Waste Facilities.........,.......,............,......., . . . 25 5. Potable Water Facilities..... . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6. Educational Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7. Areas of Marginal Capacity. , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8. Development Permit Monitoring. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 9. Areas of Inadequate Capacity........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Monroe County Land Dev(~lopment Regulations mandate an annual assessment of the capacity of the county's public facilities. More specifically, the code requires a report on the amount of residential and non -residential growth expected in the upcoming year, as well as an assessment of how well the roads, solid waste facilities, water supply, and schools will accommodate that growth. In the event that public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS) required by the code, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that the public facilities are not further burdened. The code clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. As required by the code, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider and approve this report, with or without modifications. Any modifications that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact, including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity required to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. Residential Growth Excluding Key West, Monroe County's 1989 resident population of 50,751 is expected to grow by 1,216 persons (2.3%) to a 1990 population of 51,967. The 1989 functional population of 97,092 (the combined resident and seasonal populations) is expected to grow by 2,203 persons (2.3%) to a 1990 population of 99,295. If recent trends continue, the County will issue permits for an additional 1,240 residential and seasonal units in 1990. The geographical distribution of this growth is likely to be 620 units in the Upper Keys, 210 units in the Middle Keys, and 410 units in the Lower Keys. The majority of this growth (60% to 70%) will be single-family homes, Non -residential Growth If recent trends continue, the County will issue permits for an additional 330,000 square feet (sq ft) of commercial development in 1990. The geographical distribution of this growth is likely to be 165,000 sq ft in the Upper Keys, 82,500 sq ft in the Middle Keys, and 82,500 sq ft in the Lower Keys. ES-1 Transportation Facilities The land development regulations set a traffic standard of LOS D, as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis. This standard applies to: a) all segments and intersections of US 1 and County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development; b) all bridges along US 1 within six (6) miles of a parcel proposed for development; c) all secondary roads with direct access to the proposed development or use. There are presently two segments of US 1 operating below the County's minimum standard of LOS D. The 55 mph segment between the County line and Jewfish Creek, approximately mile marker 112 to 108, is operating at LOS E. The segment with two through lanes from Tavernier to Upper Matecumbe Key, approximately mile marker 92 to 80, is also operating at LOS E. There are three segments of US 1 operating at the mmIDlUm standard of LOS D. Those segments are the two-lane portion on Key Largo (MM 108 to 106), Lower Matecumbe to Long Key (MM 80 to 69), and Big Pine Key to Big Coppitt Key (MM 34 to 9). The remaining segments of US 1 are operating at LOS C or higher. These determinations are based on traffic volumes measured by the FDOT and the County's consultant, Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. The methods of analysis include the FDOT Generalized LOS Tables; the two-way, two-lane V IC ratio inputs to the FDOT Generalized LOS Tables; and Chapters 8, 9, and 11 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis necessary to ensure that all 340 intersections on US 1 are operating at LOS D or higher (see item a, from above) is not possible, given the limited staff currently available to the County. Analysis of the 450 miles of secondary roads is similarly unrealistic at this time (see item c, from above). This report makes no assessment of LOS in either case. ES-2 Solid Waste Facilities The existing Class 1 landfills on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe Key, together with the 125,000 cubic yard expansion of Cudjoe Key, are projected to have adequate capacity through fiscal year (FY) 1993. If a Class 3 landfill were operational by 1992, the life of the Class 1 landfills would he extended through FY 1996. The land development regulations require "sufficient capacity... 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 three existing landfills, together with the Cudjoe expansion, are estimated to have the capacity necessary to meet this requirement. Potable Water Supply In 1989, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) withdrew 4.99 billion gallons of water from the Biscayne Aquifer. This amount was 98% of the maximum annual withdrawal allowed by FKAA's current permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). In 1990, the FKAA expects to withdraw 5. 11 billion gallons or 100% of the maximum allowed by the permit. The land development regulations require a water supply "sufficient. . . to satisfy the projected water needs of the proposed development or use." The FKAA estimates that the withdrawals allowed under the existing permit will be adequate to meet this requirement. Projections by the County Planning Department support this finding. To ensure sufficient supplies beyond 1990, the FKAA is currently seeking a permit modification from the SFWMD to allow increased withdrawals. Educational Facilities The February census taken by the Monroe County School Board indicates that four (4) schools are currently operating over the capacity recommended by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE). Those schools are Key Largo Elementary/Middle (by 85 students), Switlick Elementary (by 80 students), Sugarloaf Elementary/Middle (by 15 students), and Gerald Adams Elementary (by 11 students). The land development regulations require "adequate school classroom capacity. . . to accommodate all school-age children to be generated by the proposed development or use." For the purposes of this report, adequate capacity shall be that capacity determined by the FDOE. There is at least one (1) school in the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys subdistricts that fails to meet this standa.rd. The County Commission and the School Board have entered into an interlocal agreement to ensure these deficiencies will be corrected either before or during the 1990-1991 school year. ES-3 Areas of MarKinal Capacity The following areas are identified as having marginal public facilities capacity: Mile Marker Area Marginal Facility 108-106 Key Largo US Highway 1 (LOS D) 80-69 From L Matecumbe Key US Highway 1 (LOS D) To Long Key 34-9 From Big Pine Key US Highway 1 (LOS D) To Big Coppitt Key Development Pennit MonitorinK The land development regulations allow development to continue in areas of marginal public facility capacity J provided the County's LOS standard is not exceeded. To implement this requirement of the code J all applications for development involving more than 10 trips per day will include a traffic impact study. Single family homes and mobile homes will be exempt from this requirement J as they fall under the 10 trip per day threshold. The traffic study will estimate the number of new trips the project will generate J by mile marker J within the areas of US 1 with marginal capacity. To ensure the use of professional methodologies and standards J the study will be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or traffic planner. The County will use the traffic studies to maintain a running total of the new trips permitted in areas of marginal capacity and to determine when each area's capacity has been consumed. ES-4 Areas of Inade9!!ate Capacitx The following area!': are identified as having inadequate public facilities capacity: Mile Marker Area Inadequate Facility 112-108 Cross Key US Highway 1 (LOS E) 112-93 From County Line To Key Largo Key Largo Elementary/Middle School (85 students over capacity) 92-80 From Tavernier US Highway 1 (LOS E) To Upper Matecumbe 63-47 Prom Conch Key To 7 Mile Bridge Switlick Elementary School (80 students over capacity) 40-9 From 7 Mile Bridge To Big Coppitt Sugarloaf Elementary/Middle School (15 students over capacity) 9-4 From Boca Chiea To Stock Island Adams Elementary School (11 students over capacity) The only type of development allowed within areas of inadequate capacity is development that has no impact on inadequate facility, except where the developer has agreed to improve the facility to the LOS standard. Applicants for development approval must prepare a report demonstrating one of the following: ,:c the development will not reduce the capacity of the facility; ,:c the necessary facilities are in place at the time the building permit. is issued; ':< a development permit is issued subject to the condition that the necessary facilities and services win be in place when the impacts of development occur; ,:c the necessary facilities are under construction at the time a permit is issued; ':< the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement; ,:c the necessary facilities and services will be served by a concurrency management system which meets the requirements of Rule 9J-5, FAC or Chapter 163, FS. For inadequate school facilities, the County Commission and the School requiremen ts . interlocal agreement between the Board serves to fulfill the above ES-5 INTRODUCTION About This Report This report is the annual assessment of public facilities capacity mandated by Section 9.5-292(b) (3) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. The regulations require the Director of Planning to prepare a report on the amount of residential and non -residential growth expected in the upcoming year, as well as an assessment of how well the roads, solid waste facilities, water supply, and schools will accommodate that growth. In the event that public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS) required by the code, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that the public facilities are not further burdened. The code clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. Once approved by the County Commission, this document becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. The code requires the report to consider a one year planning horizon and the service areas identified below. Upper Keys - Unincorporated Monroe County north of the Whale Harbor Bridge; Middle Keys - Unincorporated Monroe County between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor Bridge; Lower Kpys - Unincorporated Monroe County south and/or west of the Seven Mile Bridge. Unfortunately, the data available on population and public facilities does not always conform to the above boundaries for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys. This report makes use of the best available data, aggregated as closely to the above boundaries as possible. As further required, this report identifies areas of marginal and inadequate public facility capacity and includes a development permit monitoring system for each service area. Board Action Required Section 9.5-292(b)(4) requires the County Commission to consider this assessment and approve its findings either with or without modifications. The Commission cannot act to increase development capacity without making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase, including the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity required to serve the additional development. 2 Public Facility Standards Section 9.5-291 states that no building permit shall be issued after February 28, 1988, unless the proposed use is or will be serviced by adequate public or private facilities. Section 9.5-291(a) also states: "After February 28, 1988, all development or land shall be served by adequate public facilities in accordance with the following standards: 1. Roads: a. U. S. 1 and County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersections and/or roadway segments; b. All secondary roads to which traffic entering or leaving the development or use will have direct access shall have sufficient available eapacity to operate at level of service D as measured on ~n annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis; c. All bridges along U. S. 1 within six (6) miles of the parcel proposed for development shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis; d. In areas which are served by inadequate transportation facilities, development may be approved provided that the development in combination with all other development will not increase traffic volumes by more than five (5) pArcent above the 1989 FDOT traffic counts; e. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the official 1989 FDOT traffic counts of U. S. Highway 1 the county shall publish a notice informing the public of the available transportation capacity for each road segment of U. S. 1 as described in the County's annual Public Facilities Capacity report. The available capacity shall be expressed in terms of number of trips remaining until the adequate transportation facilities standard is exceeded. The notice shall be published in the nonlegal section of the local newspapers of greatest general circulation in the lower, middle, and upper keys. 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 Resource Recovery Authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, to dispose of solid waste outside Monroe County. 3 3. Potable Water: Sufficient potable water from an approved and permitted source shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of the proposed development or use. Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribution systems, individual water condensation systems, and any other system which complies with the Florida standards for potable water. 4. Schools: Adequate school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school age children to be generated by the proposed development or use. Areas of Critical County Concern This report identifies the areas within operating at LOS D on a peak hour basis. such areas may be designated as Areas (ACCC), pursuant to Section 9.5-473 .1. three (3) miles of roads A t the Board's discretion, of Critical County Concern Once a threshold area has been identified, the ACCC designation process is outlined in section 9.5-473. Consideration by the Development Review Committee and Planning Commission is required. Ultimately, if the County Commission does adopt the 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, identification of the sources of funding for the planning and potential implementing mechanisms, delineation of a work program, a schedule for the work program and the appointment of an advisory committee, if appropriate." 4 Recent Amendments Over the past year there have been many amendments to the public facilities section of the regulations. For brevity's sake, only the topics of the relevant amendments are summarized below. Contact the Planning Department for the actual language. - definition of level of service {second round, PD 15} - definition of road capacity {PD 18C} - amended section title {DCA rule, page 21, item 21(a)} - clarification of standard {second round, PD 117} - 5% increase in traffic volumes in areas of inadequate transportation capacity {DCA rule, page 21, item 21(b)} - public notice of remaining transportation capacity {DCA rule, page 21, item 21(c)} - deletion of 25-mile solid wash~ requirement {DCA rule, page 21, item 21(d)} - monthly reports to Administration Commission {DCA rule, page 24, item 23} - amended subsection title {DCA rule, page 22, item 22 (e) } - contents of the annual report on public facilities capacity {DCA rule, page 22, item 21(f)} - amended paragraph title {DCA rule, page 22, item 21 (g) } - deletion of terms "allocation" and "allocative" {DCA rule, page 22, item 22 (h) } - areas of inadequate and marginally adequate facility capacity {DCA rule, page 22, item 22 (i) } - ACCC threshold designations {DCA rule, page 23, item 22 (a) and (b) } 5 GROWTH ANALYSIS Residential Development Population projections are one means of gauging the amount of residential development a county can expect in the coming years. In Monroe County, the demand for residential development comes, primarily from permanent residents, seasonal residents, and tourists. If these populations are expected to grow, then the number of residential and seasonal housing units can also be expected to grow. While it is difficult to predict the exact number of people who will visit or reside in the County in a given year, trends and projections provide useful benchmarks for anticipating changes in each of these populations. Permanent residents spend most or all of the year in the county and therefore exert a relatively constant demand for services. Their demand typically affects all four of the public facilities reviewed in this report: roads, solid waste, potable water, and schools. The table below summarizes the historical and projected resident population from 1980 to 2020. Based on this data, the county's 1990 population is projected to be 80,500 residents, an increase of 1.9% or 1,504 residents over 1989. This projection includes the populations of Key Colony Beach, Layton, and Key West. Permanent Resident Population By Year Key Colony Year Beach Key West Layton Unincorporated Total 1980 977 24,382 88 37,741 63,188 1981 1,007 24,709 91 38,361 64,168 1982 1,008 24,864 94 39,782 65,748 1983 1,027 24,968 99 40, 511 66,605 1984 1,041 25,154 104 42,453 68,752 1985 1,052 26,001 104 43,572 70,729 1986 1,136 26,216 111 45,008 72,471 1987 1,162 26,680 114 46,567 74,523 1988 1,269 27,795 118 47,821 77,003 1989 78,996 1990 80,500 1995 86,500 2000 91,400 2005 94,300 2010 97,200 2020 107,700 Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 1982 -1990 6 Non -permanent or seasonal residents consist of persons residing in their second home, with tenures ranging from occasional weekends to as long as six months. The tourist population consists of those persons who rent or borrow accommodations, typically staying less than two weeks. Having tenures of six months or less, the seasonal population of both seasonal residents and tourists creates a more variable demand for public services. The seasonal population also makes up a substantial portion of the peak demand for public facilities, Many public facilities are designed based on the peak demand. To help assess peak demand, the permanent and the peak seasonal populations are often combined to give a "functional" population, or the maximum population demanding services. The table on the following page shows the resident, seasonal, and functional populations for 22 subdistricts of the county, from 1989 to 1990, excluding Key West. The boundaries of these subdistricts are shown on the maps following the table. Based on this data, the 1990 resident population for the county (excluding Key West) is projected to be 51,967 persons, an increase of 1, 216 persons (2. 3%) over the previous year. This figure breaks down to an increase of 431 persons (2.6%) in the Upper Keys, 370 persons (2.3%) in the Middle Keys, and 415 persons (2.3%) in the Lower Keys. The 1990 seasonal population for the county is projected to be 47,328 persons, an increase of 987 persons (2. 1%) over the previous year. This figure breaks down to an increase of 356 persons (2.3%) in the Upper Keys, 297 persons (2 . 0%) in the Middle Keys, and 334 persons (2.0%) in the Lower Keys. Combining the resident and seasonal populations, the 1990 functional population for the county is projected to be 99,295 persons, an increase of 2,203 persons (2.3%) over the previous year. This figure breaks down to an increase of 787 persons (2.5%) in the Upper Keys, 667 persons (2.2%) in the Middle Keys, and 749 persons (2.2%) in the Lower Keys. 7 Population by Enumeration District/Planning Area (EDPA) (excluding Key West) EDP A 1989 1989 1989 Area Resident Seasonal Functional Lower Keys 1 5,688 2 3,301 3 2,235 4 3,200 5 3,504 6 80 Subtotal 18,008 Middle Keys 7 9,345 8 1,168 9 1,168 10 559 11 1,321 12 762 13 1,727 Subtotal 16,050 Upper Keys 14 3,911 15 2,336 16 1,524 17 2,336 18 2,336 19 863 20 2,286 21 863 22 238 Subtotal 16,693 Total 50,751 5,195 3,015 2,041 2,922 3,201 46 16,420 8,535 1,067 1,067 510 1,206 696 1,577 14,658 3,572 2,134 1,392 2 , 134 2,134 789 2,087 789 232 15,263 46,341 10,883 6,316 4,276 6,122 6,705 126 34,428 17,880 2,235 2,235 1,069 2,527 1,458 3,304 30,708 7,483 4,470 2,916 4,470 4,470 1,652 4,373 1,652 470 31,956 97,092 1990 1990 1990 Resident Seasonal Functional 5,820 3,326 2,286 3,274 3,637 80 18,423 9,561 1,143 1,247 572 1,351 779 1,767 16,420 4,053 2,390 1,559 2,442 2,338 883 2,338 883 238 17,124 5,301 3,029 2,082 2,982 3,313 47 16,754 8,708 1,041 1,136 521 1,230 710 1,609 14,955 3,691 2,177 1,420 2,224 2,130 805 2,130 805 237 15,619 51,967 47,328 11,121 6,355 4,368 6,256 6,950 127 35,177 18,269 2,184 2,383 1,093 2,581 1,489 3,376 31,375 7,744 4,567 2,979 4,666 4,468 1,688 4,468 1,688 475 32,743 99,295 Sources: BRW, Inc., 1990; James Hatchitt, Description of a Population Model for Monroe County, 1987. 8 \:7 ~ ~ ~ # It~ <0 - c-. ..Q .. It) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C:l' ~ ~ ~ ~ o " -- , ~ u :) mCl >W w~ ~:J a:o w~ ~i w>- ::r::W t-~ 2 o a: .... ~ ~ Q,. \\ ~ t\I -- ).. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , W lD ~ :) U ~ ~; Wa: ~; WO ......a CO Ct- -> ::EW :ll: Wen :J:~ ~CJ ~ ~ o a: II. ! ! ! "%. 4- ~ ~ o ~ ~ "%. 4- -1 '4. <::::7 ~ (Q ~ ~ Q a: ~ \a... o~ to ,! If) -- ! ! o ~ c o .... (/)~ >0 W~ ~w a:m W2 Q.8 ~i Wa: :CW t-A, A, :::) 2 o a: &I. Building permits issued for housing provide another measure of residential development. The table on the following page summarizes the permits issued from 1985 to 1989 for five different types of housing. Many of these units are built for seasonal and tourist use. The hotel and motel units will almost exclusively house tourists. Whether they spend the night or a lifetime, each person occupying a unit will impact the county roads, landfills, and water supply. Note that this data excludes permits issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach, and Layton. Also note that the boundaries between the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys used in this data are slightly different than those used in Section 9.5-292 of the land development regulations. A straight line projection over the past three years indicates there will be roughly 1,240 additional residential and seasonal units in the county in 1990. This number represents a 12% increase over the number of units permitted in 1989. If historical trends continue, about half of the new 1240 units will be permitted in the Upper Keys (620 units), about one-third will be in the Lower Keys (410 units), with the remainder in the Middle Keys (210 units). The three year trend indicates that 60% to 70% of these additional units will be single-family residences. 12 Residential and Seasonal Units Permitted by Year (Unincorporated Monroe County) Single Multi Mobile Hotel! Family Duplex Family Home/RV Motel Total -------------------------------------------------------- 1985 - Upper Keys 461 18 16 75 0 570 - Middle Keys 99 24 16 19 0 158 - Lower Keys 420 16 16 72 0 524 Subtotal 980 58 48 166 0 1,252 1986 - Upper Keys 722 34 160 na 136 1,052 - Middle Keys 113 54 97 na 0 264 - Lower Keys 442 14 14 na 28 498 Subtotal 1,277 102 271 na 164 1,814 1987 - Upper Keys 185 12 64 4 179 444 - Middle Keys 46 4 0 0 0 50 - Lower Keys 243 0 0 113 0 276 Subtotal 474 16 64 117 179 770 1988 - Upper Keys 208 2 134 5 28 377 - Middle Keys 85 10 86 4 59 244 - Lower Keys 259 0 3 4 0 266 Subtotal 552 12 223 13 87 887 1989 - Upper Keys 252 2 217 26 110 607 - Middle Keys 84 12 0 5 1 102 - Lower Keys 395 0 0 4 0 399 Subtotal 731 14 217 35 111 1,108 1985 to 1989 - Upper Keys 1,828 68 591 110 453 3,050 - Middle Keys 427 104 199 28 60 818 - Lower Keys 1,759 30 33 113 28 1,963 Total 4,014 202 823 251 541 5,831 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- RV = recreational vehicle na = not available Note: Upper Keys - north of Fiesta Key Middle Keys - Seven Mile Bridge to Fiesta Key Lower Keys - south of Seven Mile Bridge Source: Monroe County Building Department, 1990 13 en ....... g D (J) ~ CD ....-- <Xl -+--' C/) (J) -+--' CO ,-- E CD \....- (f) \....- CO >- CD (J) CL y: D "- CD <Xl (J) C/) -+--' <Xl ~ -+--' CO (J) 0 ,-- ---1 C \....- =:> 0 m 0. \....- CO 0 L C U I"- m (f) 0 C <Xl ~ >- CJ) (J) C/) -- y: c ,-- CO =:> (J) CD D --- D (j) (J) :2: 0() CO co [J (J) <Xl c CO -- CJ) (J) ,-- E -+--' I ....... '- c (f) co >- Q. CD LO (J) (J) D y: 0 CO "- -- (J) CJ) C/) (J) (fJ LO 0... c CD ........ <Xl 0... -0 -- C CJ) :) IT ~ => ,-- rn '+- ~ >. 0 c it ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO . . 0 I"- LO N 0 I"- LO N (J) N ,-- ,-- ,-- ,-- 0 '- ~ 0 (j) cf<cf< cf< C')C\! 0 ~C') 0 -- D Q) ..-----..... -+-' (f) -+-' en E Q) ~ ~ en Q) LD (f)-ill -+-' en cf< e ~ 0 => 0 CD U CD - ~ >- en 0 e u E CCi 0 e - I (f)-- CD ene - 0) Q)=> C (f) 0)-- c<5g -0) en ,--- x CD (]) := 2 -..0 '-.. 0.0 62 cf<cf< cf< ~l!) en -- -- (J) xCD 2 CD:= -..0 '-.. 0.0 62 cf< CD (J) -- >- E CCi - I ....... ::JO) 2m 0) ,--- ....... -+-' C e I CD m E Q) ....... co m '-- D cf< co m 0) 0. -- -- (]) (f) 0) cf< l!) ,--- 0 Q) N N ,--- Q) IT: N c CD >- D >- E ~ CCi -- E - co I CCi ....... >- - ....... I ::J C CD 2 ::J 0) 0 c () (f) CD 0 '-- :J 0 if) Non -residential Development With very little industrial and agricultural activity in the Keys, the predominant form of non-residential development is commercial. The impacts of commercial development on public facilities is highly dependent on the type of commercial use. For example, fast food restaurants generate lots of solid waste, while dive shops do not. Commercial and residential development tend to fuel one another. Residential populations provide a market for commercial activities. Commercial development, in turn, drives population growth by providing services and employment. Commercial uses also tend to concentrate the demand for public facilities in a certain time and place. For example, consider how rush hour traffic volumes increase near a shopping center. One measure of the number and size of commercial developments is the historical record of building permits. The table on the following page summarizes the permits issued from 1986 to 1989. Unfortunately, data on the type of commercial development is not currently available. Again, note that the boundaries between the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys used in this data are slightly different than those used in Section 9.5-292 of the land development regulations, and that the data excludes Key West, Key Colony Beach, and Layton. A straight line projection over the past two years indicates 1990 will bring an additional 330,000 square feet (sq ft) of commercial development to the county in 1990. This number represents a 23% increase over the commercial area permitted in 1989. If last year's trends continue, about half of the new commercial development will be permitted in the Upper Keys (165,000 sq ft), about one-quarter will be in both the Middle Keys and Lower Keys (82,500 sq ft). 16 Commercial Development Permitted by Year (Unincorporated Monroe County) Permits Issued Area (sq ft) ---------------------------------- 1985 - Upper Keys na na - Middle Keys na na - Lower Keys na na Subtotal na na 1986 - Upper Keys 16 78,804 - Middle Keys 17 75,010 - Lower Keys 32 143,192 Subtotal 65 297,006 1987 - Upper Keys 15 328,563 - Middle Keys 10 17,427 - Lower Keys 13 31,948 Subtotal 38 377,938 1988 - Upper Keys 23 122,542 - Middle Keys 18 50,719 - Lower Keys 14 34,004 Subtotal 55 207,265 1989 - Upper Keys 35 131,157 - Middle Keys 12 68,308 - Lower Keys 14 68,668 Subtotal 61 268,133 1986 to 1989 - Upper Keys 89 661,066 - Middle Keys 57 211,464 - Lower Keys 73 277,812 Total 219 1,150,342 na = not available Note: Upper Keys - north of Fiesta Key Middle Keys - Seven Mile Bridge to Fiesta Key Lower Keys - south of Seven Mile Bridge Source: Monroe County Building Department 17 co ....... ~ ..---... ~ D (f) 0) CD Q) CD 0) -+--' Q) r- -+--' ~ (f) E CD >- m Y:: ~ D Q) I- Q) Q) CL -+--' 3: CD 0 ~ -+--' ~ CD C 0 CD m Q) Q 0) E r- ~ Q 0 L 0 U cO (f) C ~ >- m Q) -- Y:: > C m Q) ~ D 0 -------- I'-- D CD 2 CJ) 0) CD CO r- [] -- . ' U CJ) +-' C ~ ,- Q) Q) E +-' E (f) "-- -+-J cr5 L.L >- 0... E CO Q) Q) 0- Y:: 0 0 CO (j) co I- m CJ) 0 CJ) 0 CD Q c 0) .- 0 Q -0 ,- 0 r- =:J - :J .,- rn '+- ~ >. 0 +-' C * :J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO ,. "<j- 0) 0) N N r- r- eD 0 "-- :J 0 (f) TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Existinl( Facilities Monroe County's roadway transportation system is truly unique. Nowhere else is there a chain of islands over 100 miles long connected by 41 bridges along a single highway. This single highway, the' Overseas Highway (US 1) , functions as a collector, an arterial, and the "Main Street" for the Keys. US 1 is also a lifeline for the Keys, from both economic and public safety perspectives. Each day it carries food, materials, and tourists from the mainland, upon which the Keys economy depends. In the event of a hurricane, it is the only viable road back to the mainland. US 1 in Monroe County is predominately a two-lane road. Of its 112 total miles, approximately 80 miles consist of two through lanes of traffic. The two-lane sections provide turn bays at most intersections, as well as occasional acceleration lanes. The four-lane sections are located on Key Largo (MM 106 to 91), the Marathon area (MM 54 to 48), Bahia Honda (MM 37 to 35), and from Boca Chica to Key West (MM 9 to 2). While there are approximately 340 intersections between US 1 and secondary roads in the Keys, there are only eight intersections outside of Key West that are controlled by traffic signals. The table below summarizes the location of each signalized intersection. Signalized Intersections in Monroe County (excluding Key West) Mile Mar ker Key Street 99.5 53.6 52.6 52.5 50.0 30.3 4.7 4.5 Key Largo Fat Deer Key Mara thon Marathon Marathon Big Pine Key Stock I sIan d Stock Island Ocean Bay Drive Key Colony Beach Causeway 109th Street 107th Street Sombrero Boulevard Key Deer Boulevard MacDonald A venue Cross Street While US 1 is the primary roadway in the county, there are also 450 miles of secondary roads with 38 bridges. The Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary roads. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for maintaining and improving US 1. 19 Demand Traffic volumes are influenced by a variety of factors, including the size of the resident and seasonal populations, tourist activities, as well as residential and commercial development. The Institute of Traffic Engineers estimates the average single-family home generates 10 trips per day, while commercial development may generate over 500 trips for each 1,000 square feet of floor area. The distribution of these .trips will depend on the various trip lengths. For example, a delivery truck from Miami bringing goods to a shopping center in Marathon will impact US 1 from the Dade County line to mile marker 50. Yet a customer who lives in Marathon and drives to the shopping center may impact only a single mile of US 1. The table below summarizes the historical average annual daily trips (AADT) for the various count stations maintained by FDOT. While the counts for a given location jump around from year to year, the general trend shows volume increases on the order of 5% to 10% per year throughout the Keys. Mile Marker C - 905 107 106 101 95 92 90 85 78 71 61 53 48 47 32 29 24 16 12 10 6 4 Key N Key Largo Cross Key Largo Key Largo Key Largo Tavernier Plantation Windley Tea Table Craig Duck Marathon Marathon Knight Big Pine Big Pine Cudjoe Sugarloaf Saddlebunch Big Coppitt Boca Chica Stock Island Source: FDOT 1985 2,351 10 , 546 16,119 17,141 17,578 12,601 8,252 6,783 5,150 15,948 18,979 6,390 7,031 9,504 8,426 8,051 8,748 12,904 18,037 1986 2,090 13,100 26,088 19,543 21,270 15,609 8,230 8,428 17,706 18,668 7,853 11 , 404 10,542 13,679 18,058 20 1987 2,624 15,346 18,714 17,970 22,187 26,662 21,993 16,618 11 , 486 8,441 9,003 18,604 10,310 11,959 9,557 11 , 400 11,042 9,167 10,352 19,748 31,075 1988 2,387 13,039 18,710 21,482 19,971 19,416 24,441 18,648 9,765 7,635 8,935 17,344 19,318 8,499 12,556 11, 948 10,346 10,392 11 , 041 15,856 19,996 33,442 1989 2,574 13,105 19,409 21,901 27,384 20,477 21,127 15,975 9,418 7,124 8,157 20,646 21,162 8,343 13,902 12,987 11 , 485 11 , 388 12,250 16,937 21,847 36,122 The table below summarizes the most recent AADT volumes and the corresponding levels of service for each segment of US 1. 1990 Analysis of US 1 LOS D Reserve MM AADT Limit Capacity Segment Area Level of Service (trips) (trips) (trips) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 112-108 Cross Key E 13,597 13,235 -362 (a) 108-106 Key Largo D 13,597 16,631 3,034 (d) 106-97 Key Largo A 19,409 34,900 15,491 (b) 97-92 Key Largo C 20,477 28,800 8,323 (b) 92-80 From Plan ta tion E 17,542 17,016 -526 (d) To U Matecumbe 80-69 From L Matecumbe D 11 , 894 14,352 2,458 (a) To Long Key 69-54 From Long Key C 8,157 15,000 6,843 (b) To Fat Deer 54-52 Marathon B 20,646 32,500 11 , 854 (b) 52-48 Marathon A 21,162 34,900 13,738 (b) 48-37 From Knight C 8,343 15,000 6,657 (b) To Bahia Honda 37-35 Bahia Honda A 10,379 38,000 27,621 (c) 34-31 Big Pine D 10,379 13,819 3,440 (a) 31-29 Big Pine D 16,557 18,657 2,100 (d) 29-11 From Torch Key D 13,043 15,722 2,679 (a) To Shark Key 11-9 Big Coppitt D 16,657 19,482 2,825 (d) 9-6 Boca Chica B 21,847 34,900 13,053 (b) 6-5 Stock Island B 24,852 42,551 17,699 (a) 5-4 Stock Island B 30,465 52,449 21,984 (a) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: (a) AADT and analysis from Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan, Inc. US 1 Roadway Capacity Analysis, 1990. (b) AADT from FDOT; analysis based on FDOT Generalized LOS Tables, 1989. (c) AADT from Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan, Inc. US 1 Roadway Capacity Analysis, 1990; analysis based on FDOT Generalized LOS Tables, 1989. (d) AADT from Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan, Inc. US 1 Roadway Capacity Analysis, 1990; analysis based on V IC inputs for two-way, two-lane arterials in FDOT Generalized Tables, 1989. 21 0 N 0 ~ ,- CD' ,- v ----'- ~ 0 ~O 0 ,- CDCf) 0 (J) =-==0 2--.J 0 >.'+- CD DO 0 L >.~ r---. ill ~ 4-J cD L -- cD UD 0 2 cD c CD ucD ill cD4-J 0 OCf) LD 2 CD c 0 0 > -q- ~D (I) CD CD D Cf) Cf) c 0 co 0) CD cD (I) [[CO :::J 0 ...c 0 ,.--- -I----' N Cf) >- co ~ 0 0 -......... ,- (I) 0... ,- -- f- 0 0 LD 0 LD 0 LD 0 LD 0) N N ,- ,- I Traffic count information of the type shown in the previous table is not available for the County's secondary roads. Level of Service The land development regulations set a traffic standard of LOS D, as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis. This standard applies to: a) all segments and intersections of US 1 and County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development; b) all bridges along US 1 within six (6) miles of a parcel proposed for development; c) all secondary roads with direct access to the proposed development or use. There are presently two segments of th US 1 operating below the County's minimum standard of LOS D. The 55 mph segment between the County line and Jewfish Creek, approximately mile marker 112 to 108, is operating at LOS E. The segment with two through lanes from Tavernier to Upper Matecumbe Key, approximately mile marker 92 to 80, is also operating at LOS E. Since these segments fail to meet the LOS standard of D, they qualify as areas of inadequate facility capacity (Section 9-502(b) (3), uncodified). There are three segments of US 1 operating at the mInImum standard of LOS D. Those segments are the two-lane portion on Key Largo (MM 108-106), Lower Matecumbe to Long Key (MM 80 to 69), and Big Pine Key to Big Coppitt Key (MM 34 to 9). Since these segments are at the LOS standard of D, they qualify as areas of marginal facility capacity (Section 9-502(c) (3), uncodified). The remaining segments of US 1 are operating at LOS C or higher. Since they are above the LOS standard of D, and since historical trends do not indicate they will exceed LOS D within a 12 month period, these segments qualify as areas of adequate facility capacity. The determinations of level of service contained in this report are based on traffic volumes measured by the FDOT and the County's consultant, Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. The methods of analysis include the FDOT Generalized LOS Tables; the two-way, two-lane arterial V IC ratio inputs to the FDOT Generalized LOS Tables; and Chapters 8, 9, and 11 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis necessary to ensure that all 340 intersections on US 1 are operating at LOS D or higher (see item a, from above) is not possible, given the limited staff currently available to the County. Analysis of the 450 miles of secondary roads is similarly unrealistic at this time (see item c, from above). This report makes no assessment of LOS in either of these cases. 23 Improvements Major improvements scheduled for US 1 are outlined in the FDOT District 6 Five Year Work Program. The program includes projects for both segments of US 1 identified in this report as having inadequate capacity, and for the Lower Keys segment identified as having marginal capacity. Within the area of inadequate capacity north of Jewfish Creek, the FDOT has scheduled planning, engineering, and right-of-way acquisition in preparation for 3.4 miles of multi-lane new construction. This section is part of the larger project to provide four lanes through the entire "18-mile stretch" between Key Largo and Florida City. If completed as planned, this project would provide ample capacity for the near future. The preliminary work is funded for fiscal years 90/91, 91/92, and 93/94. The actual construction remains unfunded. A second area of US 1 with inadequate capacity, from mile marker 92 to 80, is also scheduled for FDOT improvements. The four-lane design from Tavernier will be extended south to Woods A venue on Plantation Key. The project includes a new bridge, to be constructed parallel to the existing bridge across Tavernier Creek. From mile marker 92 to 90, these improvements are expected to raise the LOS from E to C. The project is funded for construction in fiscal y,~ars 89/90 and 90/91. Further south on the same segment, resurfacing work and construction of a continuous left turn lane on Upper Matecumbe Key are scheduled to begin in fiscal year 90/91. While this project will improve operating conditions, it will have no effect on the level of service, based on the V /C method used to analyze this roadway segment. The FDOT has one project slated for the area of marginal capacity in the Lower Keys. The project, resurfacing work and the construction of turn lanes on Cudjoe Key, is already underway. For secondary roads and bicycle paths, the counterpart to the FDOT Five Year Plan is the Monroe County Seven Year Road Plan. As discussed previously, no assessment has been made of the LOS on the County's secondary roads. 24 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Existinl{ Facilities Monroe County's solid waste facilities are managed by the Municipal Services District (MSD), a branch of county government under the County Administrator. The MSD oversees a comprehensive system of collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste. The MSD divides the Keys into three subdistricts which are similar, but not identical, to the service areas outlined in section 9.5-292(b)(2) of the land development regulations. One difference involves Windley Key: the MSD includes Windley in the Middle Keys Subdistrict, while the land development regulations place Windley in Upper Keys. Another difference involves the cities of Layton and Key Colony Beach, which are included by MSD, but excluded by the land development regulations. Both sets of subdistricts exclude Key West. The data presented in this chapter is based upon the MSD's subdistricts. Collection of solid waste is performed by private contractors, in accordance with County-approved franchise agreements. Residential collection takes place twice a week; non-residential collection varies by contract. The seven contractors currently serving the Keys are identified below: Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Keys Sanitary Island Disposal Ocean Reef Island Disposal Marathon Garbage Baltuff Disposal Bland Disposal Florida Disposal The MSD's recycling program provides three divided, roll-off containers for the collection of source separated newspaper, aluminum beverage cans, glass, and two types of plastic. The collection sites are located at mile marker 106 in Key Largo, on Industrial Road on Big Pine Key, and on Peter Jay Street in Marathon. For the collection of mixed office paper, the MSD has placed roll-off containers at the Plantation Key Government Center, the Public Service Building on Stock Island, and the County Courthouse in Key West. A collection crew picks up newspaper for recycling from these government offices as well. White goods, used oil, and used batteries are collected for recycling at each landfill. Yard waste, a major component of the county's waste stream, is processed into mulch at the Long Key landfill. For non -recyclable materials, the disposal methods currently used by the MSD consist of incineration and landfilling. Combustible materials are burned either in an incinerator or in an air curtain destructor. The resulting ash is used as cover on the landfills. Non -combustible materials are deposited directly on the landfills. 25 At present there is one operational landfill with incinerating facilities located in each of the MSD subdistricts. The 10,000 cubic yard landfill space at Cudjoe Key will be supplemented by a 125,000 cubic yard expansion by December 1990. The following table summarizes the facilities and capacities of each site. MSD Solid Waste Facilities Upper Keys - Key Largo 3 incinerators @ 37.5 tons per day = 112.5 tons per day 1 air curtain destructor = 10.0 tons per hour 1 landfill with 10,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity Middle Keys - Long Key 1 brush and wood crusher 3 incinerators @ 37.5 tons per day = 112.5 tons per day 1 air curtain destructor = 10.0 tons per hour 1 landfill with 80,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity Lower Keys - Cudjoe Key 2 incinerators @ 37.5 tons per day = 300.0 tons per day 1 air curtain destructor = 10.0 tons per hour 1 landfill with 10,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity plus a 125,000 cubic yard expansion by December 1990 County-wide 1 glass crusher 1 brush and wood crusher 8 incinerators @ 37.5 tons per day = 300.0 tons per day 3 air curtain destructors = 30.0 tons per hour 3 landfills with 100,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity plus a 125,000 cubic yard expansion by December 1990 Source: MSD, 1990 26 Demand Demand for solid waste facilities is influenced by many factors, including the size of resident and seasonal populations, the extent of recycling efforts, household consumptive practices, landscaping practices, and land development activities. Recent studies in the Keys by The Waste Management Group indicate that the average single-family house generates 2.15 tons of solid waste per year. Mobile homes and multi-family units, having smaller yards and household sizes, typically generate less (1. 96 and 1.05 tons per year, respectively). The table below summarizes historical solid waste generation rates for each MSD service area. Note that solid waste generated in the Key West service area is not included in this table, since it is handled by the city of Key West. Year 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Historical Solid Waste Generation by Service Area in Tons per Fiscal Year (excluding Key West) Key Largo Long Key Cudjoe Key MSD Total 17,812 27,120 15,148 60,079 23,433 26,645 12,337 62,415 30,441 29,091 14,344 73,876 29,018 28,799 14,819 72 , 635 28,585 28,890 15,938 73,413 30,367 31,623 20,715 82,705 32,193 37,094 22,206 91,493 35,362 38,101 26,097 99,560 31,173 33,931 24,414 89,518 Sources: (1) 1981-1984 data taken from Hazen & Sawyer Site ScreeninJ! Report, August 1987. Yearly rates = daily rates x 365. (2) 1985-1989 data taken from MSD tonnage reports. 27 a1 -I---' CJ) ~ co ------ CJ) 0 ..-- ~ (jJ (f) 2 CO 0) co :5: co ~ 0) CJ) L ..-- <C >-. >-.0) I'-- >- co Q) DY CJ) ::::L: ..-- Q) Q) C 0 C .~ 0 co D -- co ::J -- D CJ) 0 ~ CO ::::J ..-- L U m 0) LO L C X co cD 0) 0) CJ) ~ ..-- CJ -------- >- Q) Q) ..q- ::::L: 0) CO co 0) 0 (J) ~ CJ) c (J) (f) Q) ..-- 0 ..-- -1 CO --- CI) - 0 :5: D Cf) [] Cf) c 2 CCl co CI) CJ) .. . - - D --- :J ..-- I'- CO 0 co -- L: (J) - Q) 0 ..-- 0 ........ (\J 0) - CJ) --- c co I- '"-- CJ) a1 <D -1 >. ..-- S >- ~ CCl >- m LL ~ Q) Cf) ..-- ::::L: ......... co c<l CI) Q) ~ c C ..-- <D r2 r'.j m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 CJ) CO I'-- CO LO ..q- Cf) (\J ..-- -- w ..-- <D () '"-- :::J 0 Cf) The projected life of the County's landfills is highly dependent on a number of assumptions. This report includes two different projections, both of which are considered to be conservative. The first projection considers the remaining capacity at the three landfills available today, plus the 7 acre expansion already underway on Cudjoe Key. This projection shows adequate capacity through fiscal year (FY) 1993, with all landfills filled to capacity during FY 1994. The second projection assumes that a Class 3 landfill will be constructed and operational by 1992, in accordance with the rule proposed by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). (A Class 1 landfill receives all kinds of municipal solid waste, while a Class 3 landfill receives only trash or yard trash.) This Class 3 landfill would receive the construction debris that makes up the bulk of the non-combustible waste stream currently sent to the Class 1 landfills. By diverting the construction debris to the Class 3 landfill, the County could expect the existing Class 1 landfills to last through FY 1996, and reach capacity sometime in FY 1997. Both of these landfill projections can be considered conservative for a number reasons. First, while the most recent data available indicates the amount of solid waste generated in MSD service areas will decline for the second year in a row, the landfill projections assume solid waste generation will continue to increase. Second, the landfill projections assume the recycled portion of the waste stream will remain constant when, in fact, State law requires this portion to increase by 1994. Finally, while negotiations to dispose of solid waste outside the county are currently underway, the landfill projections assume all solid waste generated within the MSD service areas will be disposed of within the coun ty . 29 Lo.I ...J ~ ...J < (I)> ...J< ...J -Lo.I u..Q: C< Z <(I) ...J...J ...J u.. (l)C (l)Z << ...J...J U ...J a:::<( 0% u..0 (1)1- Z- OC -C 1-<( U Lo.IO .,Z o a:::Cl Q..Z 2: :::l (I) (/) < III "t:l >- >-~ u...LlJI-<- >> u...a:::U OLlJ<(O (I) Q.. .- CLo.I<.o ZQ:U::J Lo.I 0 >- u... III "t:l u... >-~ OLo.lI-<- >> Cla:::U ZLo.I<O - (I) Q.. .- %Lo.I<(.o ZQ:U::J o Cl Lo.I ~ III "t:l ....J ~ ....JC<> Cu..< (l)C:EO 2:ZLo.I.- <CoO ...J ::J o LlJ ...J ~ 1-% (/)O~ :::l-lIl ~I-I: 2: a::: 0 00.... UQ..- I % o Z Lo.I ...J ~% -O~ l--lIl (1)1-1: :::la:::0 ~O"" 2:Q..- o U C Lo.I%~ I-Olll a:::-I: Lo.II-O >a:::.... -0- CQ.. ....::rOCONONr-CON..."'\ON::r..... O\COCOr-NNO\O...",r-O"'NOO COO\Nr-"'\O::rCOOCO....."'N\O\ON r-o\\o.........o\\o.....NOOO...N::rr- ::r ... \0 ... ::r 0\ '" ... r- ..... 0\ '" ... r- ..... 0\ - -... N N M ...., ::r '" '" \0 \0 O...::rOCONONr-CON..."'\ON::r OO\OOCOr-NNO\O...",r-O"'NO OCOO\Nr-"'\O::rOOOCO....."'N\O\O , , - , , , , , , , , , , , , , Or-o\\o........o\\o.....NOOO...N::r O..:t...\O.....:tO\"'...r-MO\"'...r-..... .-.- --'-NNt'f')C't').::tLt'\lJ'\\O O\r-..:tMOCON\OO"'CO"''''\ONO\ 000000\00\0"'............."'\0000\ ....O\r-"'.....Or-..:t...CO"'...r-.....O\'" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , NN.......:t"'\O\Or-COCOO\OO......N "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''\0\0\0\0\0 l'<'l..:t\Or-O\Ol'<'l\OO\N..:t..:t..:tMl'<'lN l'<'l0r-..:t... O\N"'OON "'\Or-COO\O r-ON"'COOM"'r-ON..:t\OOOOM r-COCOCOCOO\O\O\O\OOOOO....... r-.-r-..-.-.-,....-,....(\JNC\JC\JC\JC\JC\J \oO"'O..:tO\.....:tCO...l'<'l\oCOO\.....:t MO\OMO\"'r-COo\...N..:t\OCO........ "'\O\Or-r-cor-\o"''''..:tNOCOr-''' O\O...Nl'<'l..:t"'\Or-COO\O......Nl'<'l \Or-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-CO COCO COCO r-Ol'<'lr-O\l'<'lr-'" "'O\.......:t "'\Or-CO l'<'l'" CO"'N O.....r-O.....r-CO 0\0'" N CO.....,\oo\N..:t\OO\...l'<'l"'r-ON..:t r-COCOCOCOO\O\O\O\OOOO......... ...-r-r-.,...,...,.....-.-.-C\lC\lC\JC\JC\lC\JC\J ...J < I-~ o III 1-1: o C.... (/)....;. 2: O\"'\O"'....."'.....OCO\O"'..:t..:tNN......NN.....:tr-CO.....:t r-...r-........ 00\\0... 0'" N..,..:t",..,... O\r-",O\..,r-N\o O..:t CO\O..:t r-..:t"''''... r-..,O\",... "'O\N \0 ON ",r-ON ON.....N.....N....O\O\"'\OCOO\..........:t"'r-COO...N....."'\O \O\Or-r-r-COO\O\COOOOO.........-...-NNNNNN .-..-,...,....,......-.-.-.-.-.-..-.-.-.......... >- Lo.I ~~ III LlJI: 00 .,.... C- :::l U COr-..:tO\CO"'\Or-..:t"'O\.....r-... "'00"''''00''' CO"'NO\\O ..:t.......:t-M...Oo\...\oCO........\oCO..:t...r-.....ON"'COOM .....,.....COO\r-NO..:t\oO"'O\..,r--"'CON\oo\N"'o\N , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "'N..:t..:t"'ON\O..:tr-COCOCOo\o\OOO......-NNN.., ...----NNNNNNNNNN..,......................,............,.., >- Lo.I~ ~1Il I: Cl'O Z.... 0- ....J O"'-o\OM..:t"'-\o"'\oNr-l'<'lOCO\o..:t-\O...",O", N..:tO\O\o\No\O..,ON..,"'\oCO.....,\oo\NO\r-..:tNo\ -\oOr-CO\oO...o\NOO..:tO\oNCO..,OO.....o\..,CO.....OON , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , r-\oo\OOCO....r-OO..,OO...NN............:t..:t"''''\O\Or-r-CO NNNNN..,..,....,....,..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t~..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t o Cl a:::~ <Ill ....JI: o >-.... Lo.I- ~ NM...CO"'r-MNM"''''''''''..:t..:tMN_OO\O......N..... .....,..:t-CO\OO\\Or-..,Or-..:t-COr-\O"'..:tNr-..."'O\.., OO..:t..:tO"'..,.....,...NCOMO\"'O"'O"'O"'O\..:tOONr- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , r-"'Oo\OOON ",...r-r-OOCOO\O O......NNNM..,..:t..:t -N..,NN..,..,.....MMMMM..,..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t ....J < Ua::: (1)< -LlJ u...>- ...N..,..:t"'\Or-COo\O-NM..:t"'\Or-COo\O....N.......:t'" 0000000000000000000\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\000000 0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\000000 ..........-.-r-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.....(\JNC\JC\JC\JC\J 0 0\ 0\ ... .0 Q) u... I: < 0 ... % >>0\ 00\ ... .... 0 0 0>> 0 0'- Q) '<<1 ~ 00:::::l 0 <<1...1: "- 0. <> 01 o o "t:l o ~ .... Q) 2: "t:l I: < .- ~-- "-<<I.... ~ "t:l...J0~Q) I: Q),->> <>"- Q) ~ -Q)"->><>~~I: lIleoQ) Q) I:Q)::J >>I:N O'--O~Q)<O(/)<<1- Q) .:J: 1Il"t:lQ)0~->> <<11:-00 0 .olll.o I::~""'" .- II Q) 1Il.o Q).OI N<<I- - lIl'- >><<1 .o"t:l-Q):J:"-O .- 0 OI~-OO ....OQ) - III 011: 01>>1:'" ::J 1::00 .oQ)<<IO ....11 e.... ...JO 0.- Q) 0 '" III o~e ON- '- I ~::J .. . . <>'" 0 .- >>0 -I:ON ~ ~I:Q)O "'C/lQ) lV ....00 Q).... (I)'1Il 0-0<<1 Q)lV-O<<l::Je ~- ~- 'I:"t:l .0 '-OOOQ) I: .-"t:l ~ -.- '- - Q) .... ~ .... 0..0 N III III Q) II -- <>.... "t:l lIl.... :J:.o 1IlQ)"t:l-C/l e"-<<Io<<l<<l::J eoo~', .-.0 00 "t:lll,-e ~ lIl"t:l:::::l Q)O "- -.... ~ U .... .... 0 "t:lllllV "-lVI lIlQ).->>.. el: I: .... III >>'" 0 O~C:"t:l""MQ)1: '- Q) 0 Q).- ....>O....O~.o.. o .- <> Q)"t:l c: '- Q.c:.... 0 ., 0 Q) III 0 lIl....... 00--1:: O--:::::l III ~.........- lIl.o.o Q.I:~oQ)l:e- .- 0 I: > <OQ)OQ) 0'" <<I"t:l....~~Q) ~~'-"- 01:11 Q) lV Q) 0 ., 0 1:Q)>~0\"t:l.....c: Q) ~ .- III 0\ :::::l III OI.o"t:l <- ~ Lo.I (I)...J ...J~ ...J<( -...J u...- C< Z> << ...J (I) (I)...J (I)...J <- ...Ju... UC Z a::: < O...J L6. ..... (I) Z(I) 0(1) -< I-...J UU Lo.I .,< o Q:Cl Q..Z 2: :::l (I) (I) <( III "t:l >- >-~ u...l.lJI-<- >> u..Q:U OLo.l<(O (I) Q.. .- CLo.I<.o ZQ:U::J loJ 0 >- u... III "t:l u... >-~ OLo.lI-<- >> ClQ:U ZLo.I<O - (I) Q.. '- ZLo.I<.o Za:::U:::::l o Cl Lo.I ~ N 0\ 0\ ... III "t:l ...J '- ....JC<> Cu..< (l)C2:0 2:ZLo.I.- <COO ...J :::::l o Lo.I ....J ce I-Z (l)0~ :::l-lIl ~I-C 2: a::: 0 00.... UQ..- I Z o Z Lo.I ...J ~Z -O~ 1--1Il (l)I-C :::la:::0 ceO.... 2:Q..- o U C loJZ~ 1-0 III a:::-C Lo.II-O >Q:.... -0- OQ.. ...::rO\O\Il"I\OooNMIl"Ir-Il"Ir-.:T\ON 0\ CO 0 N..:tll"lO Or-O O\N 00 00-00 OOO\Il"Ir-\ON\O"'..:tO\Il"IIl"I\OOr-Il"I ~ ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , r-o\o\OOr-\O..:tr-O\.....:tr-O..:tr-... ::r...O\r-Il"I....,...-NIl"Ir-o\N..:t\OO\ .... ----................ ---- O...::rO\O\Il"I\oOON..,Il"Ir-Il"Ir-..:t\O OO\OOON..:tll"lOOr-OO\C\ICOOO'" o COO\Il"Ir-\ON\O"'..:tO\Il"IIl"I\O or- Or-o\o\OOr-\O..:tr-O\-..:tr-O..:tr- O..:t...O\r-Il"I....,...-NIl"Ir-o\N..:t\O .... .... ----............ O\r-\oO..:tooo\O"'NNr-Nr-Nr- 00r-0000 CO..:t... r-.., 0\ N\O 0\..,\0 ... O\..:tr-O....,\OO\.....:t\OO\... "'\000 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , NNOO-......-NNNN..,"'..,M Il"IIl"INNNNNNNNNNNNNN .......:t00000000000000 "'0 r-O r-OO ...- \oOll"lO..:tO\.....:too-.....\OooO\-..:t ....,O\O..,O\Il"Ir-OOo\-N..:t\OOO....., Il"I\O\Or-r-COr-~Il"I~..:tNOOOr-Il"I o\O...N..,..:tll"l\Or-OOo\O.......N.., \Or-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-COOOOOOOOO r-OO\..:tCO.....Or-..:t...OOCOo\o\OO ........Il"IO..:tO\\ONO\\ON..:t\OOO....., oo-\oNr-Nr-N\o"'\oO..:tOO..,r- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , r-CO\Or-r-COCOO\O\OO.........NN "'-..,M..,..,"''''M..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t ...J < I-~ o III I-C o C.... (1)- 2: o\Il"I\oIl"I.....Il"IMOOO\oIl"I..:t..:tNN__NN.....:tr-CO.....:t r--r-"'-Oo\\o-O...N....,..:tll"l"'-O\r-Il"IO\..,r-N\o O..:tOO\O..:tr-..:tll"lll"l...r-"'O\Il"I"'Il"Io\N\oONIl"Ir-ON , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ON.....N....,N....O\O\Il"I\OooO\...M..:tll"lr-COO...N.....Il"I\O ~\Or-r-r-OOO\O\OOOOOO..........-__NNNNNN .................................................................. >- loJ ~~ 100 l.lJC 00 .,.... C- :::l U OOr-..:tO\ooll"l\Or-..:tll"lO\Mr-"'Il"Ioo"'Il"ICO"'COll"lNO\\O ..:t.......:t.....,...Oo\...\oOO.......,\oOO..:t...r-..,ONIl"IOOO.., .....,..,OOO\r-NO..:t\OOll"lO\"'r--Il"IOON\OO\NIl"IO\N , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Il"IN..:t..:tll"lON\O..:tr-OOCOCOO\O\OOO......._NNN.., .........-...NNNNNNNNNN"'..,"''''..,..,'''..,..,''' >- loJ~ ~1Il .C ClO Z.... 0- ...J Oll"l...o\O..,::r......\o...\oNr-.....OOO\O..:t_\O_Il"IOll"l N..:tO\O\O\NO\O..,ON....,Il"I\OCO......,\OO\NO\r-~NO\ ...~Or-OO\OO...O\NOO..:tO\ONoo"'OO"'O\..,OO.....OON , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , r-\OO\OOoo...r-ooMOO"'NN..,"'..:t..:tll"lll"l\O\Or-r-OO NNNNNMM..,..,..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t o Cl a:::~ <Ill ...JC o >-.... loJ- ~ N..,...ooll"lr-.....NMIl"IIl"IIl"IIl"I..:t..:t..,N...Oo\O...-NM .....,..:t-OO\OO\\Or-.....Or-..:t-OOr-\OIl"I..:tNr-...Il"IO\.., OO..:t..:tOll"l..,.....,-NOO..,O\Il"IOll"lOll"lOll"lO\..:tOON~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , r-"'OO\ooONIl"I-r-r-ooCOO\OO"'_NNNMM..:t.:T ...N..,NN....,..,..,M..,..,..,..,..,..:t..:t..:t..:t~..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t..:t ....J < Ua::: (1)< -loJ u..>- ...N.....::rll"l\Or-OOO\O...NM..:tll"l\Or-ooO\O....N.......:tll"l 0000000000000000000\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\000000 0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\000000 ..................................................................................NNNNNN U <( ..... o <( o ::r o ... o r- I r- ... o 0\ 0\ 01 I:: "t:l I:: Q) e < o Z ... >>0\ 00\ ... o 0>> O~ Q) '<<1 00:::::l al-C 0. <> 01 o o "t:l o ~ .... Ql 2: "t:l C < .- ~.- "-<<I.... ~ "t:l...JO~Ql.., C Q)~>> III >>"- Q) ~ III -Q)"->><<I1Il ~Q)~(I)<>~~C<>I::NO 0'--0~Q)1ll.... .- 00 al N%: "t:l.... >0(1) lll-"t:l CD %: Q) 1Il"t:l Q)O ~->>.... <<IC-CO 0'- .0<<1.0 I::~"""'Q) .-IIQ)IIl.o> Q) '01 N <<1-,- -1Il'->>al "t:l .o"t:l-Q)%:"-O .- 0 OI~ - 0 0 Q) ....OQl ....0 1Il00COI>>C... ::J 1::00.... .oQl<<lO ....1Il1l e........JO =' 0.- Q) Oll"l III e o~e ON- ~ I ~::J .. . . <<1111 Q) C III >>Il"I0'-'- >>0 -CON ~~ ~CQ)O "'lIlQ).o III ....00 Ql....Q) (I)'1Il O-O<<l"t:l Q)<<I-o<<l=,e ~- ~- 'I::"t:l I:: .0 .-OOOQ)O C .-"t:l ~....- ~ - -_ Q) .... '- .... 0..0 .... N III <>.... "t:l1ll....::J %:.0 lIlQl"t:l-lIl~ e"-<<IOal<<l::J.... e 0 0 ~.., .-.0 III 00 "CII,-ec: '- eIl"t:l::J Q)OO "- .....~U........OO "t:l III <>.. ec. C .... III >>Il"I 0 N O~C"t:l......,Q)Co\ .- Q) 0 Q).- 0\ .... > 0.... o@.o ..... 0.- <<1<<1._>> Q)"t:lC~Q.C....O . "0') OQllllOlll......... o 0.- C 0 -- :::::l III '-.........- lIl.o.oc: Q.C'-OQlce-<<<IO J C 0.-- '- 0. 0 0 OC Q)X Il"IQ) --~"C e III Ql"-r- > ....OCllOQ) 0....- lll"t:l....~'-Q) ... ~:s:.~"- 01::110 Q) <~0\"t:l....~"- Q) ~.- ell 0\ =' III "- OI.o"t:l <<I...U.... <<IQ) III ::J .... o <,(J) CJ) (jJ ~Q) CJ) ..-- Cf) -- --- u (f) co (f) I co 0... LO 0 CO 0 CJ) CJ) ...c: 0 Q) ..-- -I---' 5 0)$22 ..q- L 9 > CJ) cD L>- CJ) ~ gsLL ..-- 0) cD Q) -I---' II (f) Cf) 0 (jJ CJ) (f) CJ) -- Cf) L '-t-- ..-- II co D (f) (f) ~ C a1 CI) 0 co D (\J --.J ~ CJ) ~ -I---' C CJ) :J '-t-- ..-- 0 <D 0 --- U ...c: E +-' - ..0 '"-- 5 m D (f) :J 0.. C (f) 0 ..-- <D CJ) t 0 w CO '+- CJ) 0 ..-- Q) 0 c CI) c D c c m CCl 0 - CI) CJ) 0... :::J CJ) >. 0 ..-- - L: c :::> f- a 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO LO ..-- ..-- I <D () '"-- :::> a Cf) Monroe County is not the only governmental entity with limited landfill space. The city of Key West is expecting to close half of its landfill on Stock Island by January 1991. The remainder of the Stock Island facility will continue to accept solid waste until the City locates an additional landfill site. The consulting firm of CH2M Hill is currently preparing a landfill siting report for consideration by the City Commission. Adding the projected solid waste from Key West to the projected MSD total gives a county-wide total of over 160,000 tORS for the current year. Obviously the projected life of the County's landfills would fall significantly if Key West's solid waste were to be disposed of in the County's landfills. Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Solid Waste Generation in Tons per Fiscal Year (including Key West) Key West County-wide Total MSD Total 57,537 58,032 58,527 59,022 59,517 60,011 60,506 61,001 61,496 61,991 62,486 62,899 63,311 63, 724 64,136 64,548 105,106 106,715 108,324 109,934 111,542 113, 152 114,531 115,911 117, 292 118,672 120,051 121,294 122,537 123, 778 125,021 126,264 162,643 164,747 166,851 168,956 171,059 173,163 175,037 176,912 178,788 180,663 182,537 184,193 185,848 187,502 189,157 190,812 Source: 1990-2005 projections taken from Hazen & Sawyer letter dated 7/26/89. 33 Level of Service Section 9. 5-292(a) (2) of the land development regulations originally required 3 years capacity at a disposal facility within 25 miles of any site proposed for development. The implication of this standard was that the MSD had to maintain at least three separate solid waste facilities in order to serve the entire county and still meet the 25-mile requirement. In October 1989, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) amended this standard to delete the 25-mile requirement (paragraph 9-502(a) (2), uncodified) . The standard now requires 3 years of disposal capacity, with no mention of locational requirements. When considered by themselves, the County's existing facilities fail to meet the amended standard. The combined 100,000 cubic yards of landfill space available on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe Key will be sufficient through FY 1991, which is less than 2 years of capacity. However, construction is already underway for a 125,000 cubic yard expansion of the Cudjoe Key landfill. Once completed in December 1990, the Cudjoe expansion will provide sufficient capacity through FY 1993, at a minimum. Additional improvements currently under consideration by the County could only increase this reserve capacity. The land development regulations, as recently amended by the DCA, recognize the capacity of public facilities under construction (paragraph 9-502(b) (5) (b) (4), uncodified) . Thus for the one ;year scope of this report, the existing landfills, together with the expansion of the Cudjoe Key landfill, will meet the level of service required by the land development regulations. Improvements As previously discussed, construction of a 125,000 cubic yard expansion of the Cudjoe Key landfill is already underway. The project is scheduled for completion by December 1990 at a cost of $1.1 million. In addition to the Cudjoe expansion, there are several other proposals that, if implemented, could substantially affect solid waste disposal in the Keys. Crawl Key is under consideration as an additional site for solid waste facilities. The County is currently negotiating with Waste Management, Inc. concerning an agreement to transport and dispose of solid waste outside the county. The Solid Waste Task Force has prepared a solid waste plan for consideration by the County Commission, recommending, among other things, mandatory curbside recycling, a container deposit ordinance, and a Solid Waste Authority. The County also intends to establish one or more Class 3 landfills, to provide separate disposal sites for construction and demolition debris. With so many potential improvements under consideration, the outlook for solid waste disposal could improve dramatically in the near future. 34 POTABLE WATER FACILITIES Existlnll Facilities Potable water in the Keys is provided by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) from the Biscayne aquifer on the mainland. Withdrawals from the Biscayne aquifer are regulated by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) through the issuance of withdrawal permits. FKAA's current withdrawal permit from SFWMD, which is valid through 1995, allows an average daily withdrawal of 14.0 million gallons per day (MGD), a maximum daily withdrawal of 19.3 MGD, and a yearly maximum of 5. 11 billion gallons. The Keys I 1989 usage figures were below these limits, with an average daily withdrawal of 13.7 MGD, a peak daily withdrawal of 17. 1 MGD and a total annual withdrawal of 4.99 billion gallons. The 1989 consumption was approximately 98% of the maximum permitted withdrawal. FKAA's transmission water main from the mainland serves the entire Keys. The water main begins as a 36" diameter main, reduces at Plantation Key to a 30" diameter main, reduces at the east end of the Seven-Mile Bridge to a 24" diameter main, and finally reduces again at Upper Sugarloaf Key to an 18" diameter main. The main continues as 18" diameter to Key West, except for the portions crossing bridges, which are 24" diameter. This main does not have adequate capacity for sustained peak consumption for buildout. Construction is planned for a 24" diameter main from Sugarloaf Key to Stock Island in the mid 1990's. In addition to the transmission from the mainland, FKAA has a reverse-osmosis desalinization plant on Stock Island which is capable of producing up to 2.7 million gallons per day (MGD). This plant is used for emergencies only. The system as a whole has water tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of 40 million gallons system-wide. The final link in the prOVISIon of potable water in the Keys is the distribution lines. FKAA has approximately 500 miles of lines ranging in size from 3/4 inch to 12 inches. FKAA is currently involved in a program to replace deteriorated or undersized lines over a ten-year period funded by a rate surcharge. Recent planning studies have indicated a need to replace about 190 miles of distribution piping to ensure adequate flow and pressure for domestic purposes. At the present time, Key West is the only area of the county served by a flow of potable water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of water sources, including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting sites on the open water or from specially-constructed fire wells. Since the existing transmission line serves the entire Keys, and storage capacity is an integral part of the system, the capacity of the entire system has been considered together, rather than in separate service districts. 35 Demand Demand for potable water is influenced by many factors, including the size of resident and seasonal populations, land uses, landscaping practices, and outside factors such as droughts. The table below summarizes FKAA I s historic withdrawals and projected withdrawal for 1990, in billions of gallons. The table also shows the percent change in withdrawal from one year to the next and compares those annual withdrawals to the maximum allowed by the appropriate SFWMD permit. FKAA Water Withdrawals (Raw Water Pumpage) Year Annual Withdrawal (billion gallons) Percent Change Percent of Maximum Allowed Withdrawal 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 2.9304 2.9654 3.0508 2.8549 3. 1011 3.4973 3.3902 3.4675 4.1386 4.6415 4.8200 4.7579 4.9908 5 . 1100 1% 3% -6% 9% 13% -3% 2% 19% 12% 3% 1% 4% 4% 78% 93% 91% 94% 94% 98% 100% Note: Withdrawal figures are from FKAA and are based on the calendar year. The 1990 projection is taken from FKAA's application to SWFMD for a Consumptive Use Permit modification. The actual 1990 withdrawal may be slightly less than projection. Assuming per capita demand remains constant, functional population of 140,473 persons would require 5.09 gallons. (This population projection includes Key West.) FKAA's a 1990 billion 1989 1990 Projection Annual Withdrawal (BG) A verage Daily Withdrawal (MG) Functional Population (persons) Per Capita Demand (gal/day) 4.99 13.7 137,706 99 5.09 13.9 140,473 99 36 L 0) ~ co 50 0) Y-O) 0___ co Sr'--- COr'--- DO) -L --- ~ - 5~ coy ::::JLL C C <( CI) c o CCl CJ . . I . . .. . . . . . . I I I I '+- o CI) c o m co LO (\J Cf) ..-- ..q- o 0 CJ) CJ) ..-- CJ) co CJ) ..-- co co CJ) ..-- t'- co CJ) ..-- D co Q) co -I---' 0 CJ) CD ..-- .~ LO 0 I- co 0... CJ) ..-- D ..q- co L CJ) cD ..-- 0) ~ co a1 CJ) 0 ..-- (\J I- 0 co -I---' CJ) U) .- ..-- I ..-- CO ~ CJ) ..-- 0 CO CJ) ..-- CJ) I'-- CJ) ..-- CO I'-- CJ) ..-- <C I'-- I'-- <C CJ) y ..-- LL Q) () ~ :::J 0 U) co S co L D ...c ~ ~O) co COO) ::::J___ C CI <(~ DCO 0)0) ~--- ~ E<( L<( ~y LL ~ o ~ C 0) U L 0) D- .,....- ........ - E ~ CD CD CD 0.... 0) LO .,....- 0) I CO CD 0) .,....- cf< o o .,....- e L cD ~ ........ E co ~ co CD 0) 0.... .,....- CO CO I ~ 0 CO ::2 (J) ..-- 3: ~ LL Cf) D C eel ~ <( CO 0) <( .,....- y LL - - (f) cf< (]) cf< u cf< 0 ~ 0 ::::J 0 N 0 ~ Cf) cf< o CO .,....- Level of Service The Monroe County Land Development Regulations do not identify a numeric level of service standard for potable water (such as 100 gallons per capita per day or three years capacity). Instead, the regulations require "sufficient" potable water from an approved and permitted source. The regulations recognize alternative water sources, such as wells and cisterns, in addition to FKAA' s distribution system. Having withdrawn 4.99 billion gallons in 1989 (98% of the annual permitted amount), the FKAA estimates that the 1990 demand for water will increase to 5.11 billion gallons (100% of the permitted amount). Based on this estimate, the FKAA will be able to supply the Keys with a sufficient quantity of water during the upcoming year. Beyond the county's requirements, FKAA anticipates meeting or exceeding all state and federal standards pertaining to potable water. However, the current permit with SFWMD will be insufficient to meet demand beyond 1990. Improvements In January 1990, the FKAA filed an application for a Water Use Permit Modification with South Florida Water Management District. If approved, this modification would increase the FKAA's permitted withdrawal from 5. 11 billion gallons per year to 6.02 billion gallons per year. FKAA estimates that the increased allocation will be sufficient to meet demand in Keys through the year 2005. In addition to pursuing a permit for increased withdrawals, the FKAA has developed a 1985-2005 Capital Improvements Plan to improve the system and expand capacity. The FKAA has determined the funds for these improvements will be paid by the existing surcharge on water sales and the impact fees charged to new growth. The FKAA intends to install lines sufficient to provide fire flows of 750 gallons per minute (GPM) in residential areas and 2000 GPM in commercial, industrial and high density residential areas of Stock Island, Marathon, Key Colony Beach, Layton, and possibly Duck Key. Once these larger lines are in place, pumping stations can be built in strategic locations to provide the fire flows. In 1988 and 1989 the following projects from the Capital Improvement Plan were completed: 1. Upgraded pump station on Ramrod Key Total Cost - $162,000 2. New transmission pump station in Marathon Total Cost - $2,423,000 39 3. On Stock Island a new pumping station was constructed to pump water at a higher pressure towards the mainland. This new backup station will provide Monroe County with sufficient water pressure should the flow from the mainland be interrupted. Total Cost - $627,624 4. Improvements at the Florida City the pump station, wells and treatment plant. Total Cost - $13,149,000 5. Distribution system improvements in the following areas: - Key West - Sugarloaf Key: Indian Mounds - Grassy Key: Crains - Layton - Key Largo: Sunrise Point, Holiday Homesites Total Cost - $4,700,000 6. Construction of a new 0.5 MG Storage Tank on Big Cop pitt Key. Total Cost - $200,000 In 1990 the following projects will be completed: 1. Ramrod Diesel Pump and Piping Improvements Total Cost - $250,000 2. Aquifer Storage Recovery - Phase III Total Cost - $350,000 3. Distribution system improvements in the following areas: - Saddlebunch Keys: Gulf Rest, Bay Point - Little Torch Key: Mates Beach - Big Pine Key: Tropical Bay - Vaca Key: Marathon - Plantation Key: Indian Waterways and Indian Harbor - Key Largo: Stillwright Point, Riviera Village, Paradise Point, Tavernier Ocean Shores, Palma Sola, Twin Lakes, Sherrill Park Total Cost: $4, 700,000 4. Canal crossing isolation valve vaults at Snake Creek, Jewfish Creek, and Canal C -111 Total Cost: $300,000 40 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ExistinJ( Facilities The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 13 public schools located throughout the Keys. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, two middle/elementary schools, six elementary schools, and one school for exceptional students. School facilities include more than classrooms. Each school offers athletic fields, computer labs, a cafeterlum that serves as both a cafeteria and auditorium, and bus service. Roughly 57 school busses transport about 4,500 students to and from school each day. In addition to these standard facilities, aU high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums. The school system is typically divided into three subdistricts which are similar, but not identical, to the service areas outlined in section 9.5-292(b)(2) of the land development regulations. One difference involves Fiesta, Craig, and the Matecumbe Keys: the School Board includes these areas in the Upper Keys (Subdistrict 1), while the land development regulations place them in the Middle Keys (Subdistrict 2). Also, the School Board includes Key West in the Lower Keys (Subdistrict 3), while the land development regulations do not. The data presented in this chapter is based the School Board's subdistricts. Subdistrict 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes one high school and two elementary/middle schools, as shown below. Subdistrict 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven Mile Bridge and includes one high school and one elementary school. Subdistrict 3 covers the Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school, one middle school, one elementary/middle school, four elementary schools, and one school for exceptional students. The maps on the following pages show the location of these schools. Subdistrict 1 Subdistrict 2 Subdistrict 3 Coral Shores H (9-12) Key Largo E/M (K-8) Plantation Key E/M (K-8) Marathon H (7-12) SwiUick E (K-6) Key West H (9-12) O'Bryant M (6-8) Sugarloaf E/M (K-8) Adams E (K-5) Archer/Reynolds E (K-5) Poinciana E (K-5) Sigsbee E (K-5) Sands (exceptional) H = high school M = middle school E = elementary school Source: Monroe County School Board, 1990 41 v ..~;..., .~o -, ~ /~"~ I l)~ I 'c> . . Q .' . I \ a~ \ i ( \ ~ , J I I t I I I: o . . ;; .. S ... )00 .. . .. c . E . q iii 'i:. 0 4- a ~ = ~~ )00 . ~ I \ \ \ \ \ "Z. 4- \a.). U <:) I iii ~ Co ~ .~ ::I r , , li '0 U .. 0 l 1i co . 0 '0 ;; " 0 - i z:. u ... ... fI) () >- .. z:. - . 01 ... .. 5: ... c . ~ (I) E . - . 0 . '0 iU .. 0 .a >- ~ i ~ . ii ~ en CIQ .. c 0 ~ ~ U . .. c . ii: ~ 'ii. ~ Q~ 0 ~ II o o to- ...I c( o ...I cn~ ~g ~w a:lD W~ 0..0 o..w ::)~ W~ ::ca: ....~ Q. :) ~ o a: u. ~ ~ - - W .. ID (,) ::E - ~ ::::) .. 0 .. ~ W . I- - ~ cnc( "C ~ >::E .a Wa: ::J . ~~ en w9 ~ -'0 CI- ~ 9> ~ ::EW >- ~ ~ .. Wen . - ::el- l: . ....5 E ~ . z ;; ~ . ::E .. 0 ~ 0 0 '0 :=E a: ..... 0 u. . ~ z: ~ u . " fit - fI) z: M .! at ;: % i I: .. 0 ~ e . :=E Q , -------- C::::> , ! ~ ~ ~ ! '0 o ~ .x . ~ ;; . 'a is :I · - I :; iii ~ . ID c: '0 -a c: '0 A. . u . .. o :: 9 V' ~ } 0'0 ~~ ~ ~~ l( ~ ~ J$ CQ rr O~ ~ D ... .g .::: U) :a .a ::s en ("". ~ ~ o .. .. . - c: . E . iii ~y, q;, 'a '! . CI - i - Go . o N .. ,f/ .. .. . - c: . E . u; .. .. . is . E . iii c/3 - . o 't: . at ~ rn ~ ~ c::s i4! ~ ~ ~ ~ CI) , ~ o ~ mC >w w...J ~'= ...J 0:0 WI- 3=1- o(/) ....; w> ::z:::W t-~ ~ a: "" Demand The population of school age children in Monroe County is influenced by many factors, including the size of the resident and seasonal populations; national demographic trends such as the "baby boom" generation and decreasing household size; economic factors such as military employment and the price and availability of housing; and the movements of seasonal residents. While overall enrollment is a particularly large increase enrollment. This trend could moves through the child -rearing up, the county is in kindergarten continue, as the ages. currently experiencing through third grade baby boom generation The School Board collects enrollment data four times a year: near the beginning of the school year (October), near the middle of the school year (February), and twice during summer school (June and July). The February count is typically the highest, due to the presence of seasonal residents. The table and graph on the following pages summarize October enrollments from 1985 to 1989. 45 Historical October Enrollments 1985 - 1989 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subdistrict 1 Coral Shores H 649 676 666 520 '544 (9-12) Key Largo ElM 585 607 655 940 976 (K -8) Plantation ElM 509 508 518 520 530 (K-8) Subtotal 1,743 1,791 1,839 1,980 2,050 Subdistrict 2 Marathon H 547 549 530 483 513 (7-12) Switlick E 536 532 573 640 720 (K-8) Subtotal 1,083 1,081 1,103 1,123 1,233 Subdistrict 3 Key West H 1,144 1,296 1,205 1,192 1,155 (9-12) O'Bryant M 893 794 767 784 761 (6-8) Sugarloaf ElM 525 701 759 816 827 (K -8) Adams E 364 404 459 442 470 (K-5) Archer E 416 411 433 414 441 (K -5) Poinciana E 421 173 472 533 485 (K -5) Sigsbee E 512 506 537 520 482 (K-6) Sands 128 81 44 40 44 (exceptional) Subtotal 4,403 4,666 4,676 4,741 4,665 County-wide Total 7,229 7,538 7,618 7,844 7,948 --------------------------------------------------------------------- H = high school M = middle school E = elementary school Source: Monroe County School Board 46 o L C W o o -C U CJ) 0) QsCO DO) 0--- ~ U o Uj CO 0) ~ C 0) C L -- ~ (f) 0) 5 >-. 0) y OJ C D ) U C -------- --- CI) D e CCl CI) :J o L: ........ e CI) ........ e CD D :J ........ if) co I'-- co LO ..q- Cf) (\J ..-- 0 CJ) co CJ) ..-- co co CJ) ..-- L I'-- cD co 22 ~ co co CJ) ..-- LO co CJ) ..-- ~ <D D S I >. ....... c ::J a o ~ CI) >. <D y: '"-- <D S a ...J m CI) >. <D y: <D D D 2 D I- CCl o m o o ..c CJ CI) fl.. LJ C/) >. <D y: >- ~ e ::J o U CD o l- e o 2 '"-- <D 0.. 0.. ~ CD CJ I- ::J o CI) The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) determines the capacity of each school in the county on a regular basis. This determination is based on factors such as classroom space, the type of classroom, and the age of the students using the classroom. The FDOE publishes the results of this analysis in the Florida Inventory of School Houses. The table below summarizes the current and projected enrollments at each of the public schools in the county. The table also compares these enrollments to each school's capacity, as determined by the FDOE. There are currently four schools operating over capacity: Key Largo Elementary/Middle (by 85 students), Switlick Elementary (by 80 students), Sugarloaf Elementary/Middle (by 15 students), and Adams Elementary (by 11 students). Subdistrict 1 - Upper Keys Facility Capacity ------2/90 Data------ Remainin g Enrollment Capacity - - -to/90 Projection - -- Remaining Enrollment Capacity --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coral Shores H 659 550 109 571 88 (9-12) Key Largo E/M 926 1,011 -85 1,024 -98 (K -8) Plantation ElM 668 543 125 556 112 (K-8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- H = high school M = middle school E = elementary school Subdistrict 2 - Middle Keys Facility Capacity ------2/90 Data------ Remaining Enrollment Capacity - - -10/90 Projection - -- Remaining Enrollment Capacity --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mara thon H (7-12) Switlick E (K -8) 828 520 308 539 289 668 748 -80 756 -88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- H = high school M = middle school E = elementary school 48 Subdistrict 3 - Lower Keys Facility Capacity ------2/90 Data------ Remaining Enrollment Capacity ---10/90 Projection--- Remaining Enrollment Capacity --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key West H 1,689 1,162 527 1,213 476 (9-12) O'Bryant M 900 775 125 799 101 (6-8) Sugarloaf ElM 841 856 -15 868 -27 (K-8) Adams E 469 480 -11 493 -24 (K-5) Archer E 581 446 135 463 118 (K-5) Poinciana E 517 491 26 509 8 (K -5) Sigsbee E 658 490 168 506 152 (K -6) Sands 138 49 89 46 92 ( exceptional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- H = high school M = middle school E = elementary school Sources: Monroe County School Board, 1990 1986 Educational Plant Survey, Florida Department of Education The graph on the following page shows historic and projected reserve capacities at the four schools currently operating over the FDOE's reccommended enrollments. 49 2 '-.. W (f) a 0 (J) '"-- - 0) m 0 0) ...J 0 ..-- >. ...c ........ <D 0 ~ U 0 m U) D 0) w ~ 0 .:::1:. U 0) () 0) 0 0) ..-- 0) 0) ..0 S Cf) CJ) 0) Q) LL lli] --- .. .. .. ~ .. CO :>,CO 2 '-.. ~ CO 0) w CO U 0) 0) 4- m CO --- ..-- a 0.. ....... '"-- 0 m CO 0 (J) D :::J '"-- 0 Cf) m a ~ m 0) a > a .c L CI) CO () 0) ........ CO W Cf) e (f) (]) 0) (j) >. D ..-- +-' 0) E c :J ....... m ::) IT: ........ 0 D a Cf) 0 <( 0 '+- <D 0 D a * '"-- , , c a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 ~ N N ~ CD CO 0 I I I I ..-- <D I () '"-- ::) a Cf) Level of Service The Monroe County Land Development Regulations do not identify a numeric level of service standard for schools (such as 10 square feet of classroom space per student). Instead, the regulations require classroom capacity "adequate" to accommodate the school-age children generated by proposed land development. For the purposes of this report, adequate capacity shall be that capacity recommended by the FDOE. Based on this standard, each district of the county's school system contains a school with capacity inadequate to handle additional students. Enrollment as of February 1990 indicates that Key Largo Elementary /Middle, Switlick Elementary, Sugarloaf Elementary/Middle, and Adams Elementary all exceed FDOE's recommended capacities. The School Board estimates these four schools will be over capacity again when students return to class in the faU. As required by Section 9-502(b) (3) (uncodified), the enrollment zones of these four schools are areas of inadequate facility capacity. The enrollment zone for Key Largo Elementary is from the Dade County line to Key Largo (MM 112-93); for Switlick Elementary, from Conch Key to the Seven Mile Bridge (MM 63-47); for Sugarloaf Elementary/Middle, from the Seven Mile Bridge to Big Coppitt (MM 40-9); and for Adams Elementary, from Boca Chica to Stock Island (MM 9-4), plus areas within Key West. The only school expected to approach its capacity in the next 12 months is Poinciana Elementary, which serves students exclusively from Key West. Consequently, there are no areas outside of Key West served by schools with marginal capacity, as defined in Section 9-502(b) (3) (un codified) . 51 Improvements Recent improvements to the county's school facilities include the new middle school wings at Key Largo and Plantation Key elementary schools, which alleviated overcrowding at Coral Shores High School. Together these projects cost approximately $7.1 million. The County Commission and the School Board have entered into an interlocal agreement to ensure that the deficiencies identified at Key Largo Elementary /Middle, Switlick Elementary, Sugarloaf Elementary /Middle, and Adams Elementary will be corrected either before or during the 1990-1991 school year. To correct overcrowded conditions at Key Largo Elementary/Middle and Adams Elementary, the agreement calls for an adjustment of attendance zones by August 15, 1990. To correct overcrowded conditions at Switlick Elementary, the School Board will use capital outlay funds to lease or construct two additional classrooms during the 1990-1991 school year. As a short term solution to overcrowding at Sugarloaf Elementary/Middle, the County Commission will use existing contingency revenue funds to lease or purchase two portable classrooms. As a long term solution to overcrowding at Sugarloaf Elementary/Middle School, the School Board intends to construct an elementary school on Big Pine Key. Officials estimate it will take three years and $6 million to purchase the site and construct the school. 52 AREAS OF MARGINAl.. CAPACITY Based following capacity: on the findings discussed in the previous chapters, the areas are identified as having marginal public facilities Mile Marker Area Marginal Facility -------------------------------------------------------------- 108-106 Key Largo US Highway 1 (LOS D) 80-69 From L Matecumbe Key US Highway 1 (LOS D) To Long Key 34-9 From Big Pine Key US Highway 1 (LOS D) To Big Coppitt Key --------------------------------------------------------------- 53 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MONITORING The land development regulations, as amended by the DCA Rule (Section 9-502(b) (5) (c), uncodified), allow development to continue in areas of marginal public facility capacity, provided the County's LOS standard is not exceeded. To implement this requirement of the code, all applications for development involving more than 10 trips per. day will include a traffic impact study. Single family homes and mobile homes will be exempt from this requirement, as they fall under the 10 trip per day threshold. The traffic study will estimate the number of new trips the project will generate, by mile marker, within the areas of US 1 with marginal capacity. To ensure the use of professional methodologies and standards, the study will be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or traffic planner. The County will use the traffic studies to maintain a running total of the new trips permitted in areas of marginal capacity and to determine when each area's capacity has been consumed. 54 Based following capacity: Mile Marker AREAS OF INADEQUATE CAPACITY on the findings discussed in areas are identified as having the previous chapters, the inadequate public facilities Area Inadequate Facility 112 -108 ----------------------------------.-------------------------------------- US Highway 1 (LOS E) 112-93 92-80 63-47 40-9 9-4 Cross Key From County Line To Key Largo Key Largo Elementary/Middle School (85 students over capacity) From Tavernier US Highway 1 (LOS E) To Upper Matecumbe From Conch Key To 7 Mile Bridge Switlick Elementary School (80 students over capacity) From 7 Mile Bridge To Big Coppitt Sugarloaf Element.ary/Middle School (15 students over capacity) From Boca Chica To Stock Island Adams Elementary School (11 students over capacit.y) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ According to the code, the only type of development allowed within areas of inadequate capacity is development that has no impact on inadequate facility, except where the developer has agreed to improve the facility to the LOS standard (Section 9-502(b)(5)(b), uncodified). In order to obtain approval for development other than a single family residence, applicants must prepare a report demonstratin g one of the following: ,:e the development will not reduce the capacity of the facility; ,:c the necessary facilities are in place at the time the building permit is issued; ,:e a development permit is issued subject to the condition that the necessary and services will be in place when the impacts of development occur; 'Ie the necessary facilities are under construction at the time a permit is issued; ,:e the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement; ,:c the necessary facilities and services will be served by a concurrency management system which meets the requirements of Rule 9J-5, FAC or Chapter 163, FS. For inadequate school facilities, the interlocal agreement between the County Commission and the School Board serves to fulfill the above requirements. 55