I. Growth Management
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 19, 2007
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes X
No
Department: Planning
Staff Contact Person: Kathy Grasser, Planner
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approval of a resolution by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners to adopt the Annual
Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity for 2007
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development Regulations (LDR's) requires that the BOCC adopt an
annual assessment of public facilities capacity for Monroe County. This year's report finds that
education, solid waste, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities all have
sufficient capacity to serve anticipated growth. Although, State and county roads meet level of service
standards, nine (9) segments of US 1 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; the Tea Table and Cross Key are below an
acceptable LOS threshold. The Tea Table segment does not have any planned improvements to curtail
the travel speed reductions however; the Cross Key segment is likely to improve with the
implementation of a high level fixed bridge within the next three years.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
The BOCC has considered and approved annual assessments of public facilities capacity each year
since 1987.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval.
TOTAL COST: NA
BUDGETED: Yes No
COST TO COUNTY: NA
SOURCE OF FUNDS: NA
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No N/A
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty ~ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 8/06
RESOLUTION NO. 2007
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE ANNUAL
ASSESSMENT OF MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES
CAPACITY FOR 2007 AS SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENT AL RESOURCES
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
of facts:
1. The 2007 annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for
roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and
2. The 2007 Public Facilities Capacity Report becomes the official assessment of
public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed and approved for
the upcoming year; and
3. Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations provides the minimum
standards for level of service for roads, solid waste, potable water and educational
facilities: and
4. Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations requires the annual
assessment of public facilities capacity to clearly state those portions of unincorporated
Monroe County with inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities: and
5. The 2007 annual assessment finds that sufficient capacity exists for solid waste,
potable water, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth through 2008: and
6. The capacity assessment of transportation facilities is based on the 2007 US-l
Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS the County's transportation consultant;
and
7. US 1 segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph ("marginally
adequate") should be given particular attention when approving development
applications; and
8. Nine (9) segments of US 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; and
9. The Cross Key segment is below the LOS C threshold and the Tea Table segment
is at LOS C with a -0.3 reserve speed. The travel speeds on the Cross Key segment are
W:\GROWTH MANAGEMENT\BOCC\GMD Agenda Items'2007J2l9\Public Facilities Report\RESOLUTION
BOCC PFCR 2007 (3).doc 12/4/2007 Page I of2
likely to improve with the implementation of a high level fixed bridge. The Tea Table
segment does not have any planned improvements to curtail the travel speed reductions;
and
10. Section 9.5-292(a)(l )d. requires the County to publish in a local newspaper of
greatest circulation information regarding the available transportation capacity for each
road segment expressed in terms of number of trips remaining until the adequate
transportation facilities standard is exceeded; and
11. The actual water use demand in May 2007 was 18.77 MGD and is anticipated to
decrease further due to water shortage/draught conditions and water use restrictions
imposed by the South Florida Water Management District; and
12. Water use permit #13-00005 has allowed for withdrawal of 19.93 MGD to meet
this projected water use demand through October of 2008; and
13. The FKAA is constructing a Floridian Aquifer Reverse Osmosis (RO) water
treatment system that is designed to meet current and future water use demands,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONRE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the annual assessment
of public facilities capacity for 2007 is hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners on Monroe
County, Florida at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of December 2007.
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Mayor Pro Tern Mario Di Gennaro
Dixie M. Spehar
George Neugent
Sylvia J. Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
ATTEST: DANNY KOLHAGE, CLERK
W:\GROWTH MANAGEMENT'BOCC\GMD Agenda Items\20071219\Public Facilities Report\RESOLUTlON
BOCC PFCR 2007 (3).doc 12/4/2007 Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caringl professional and fair
To:
Board of County Commissioners
Kathy Grasser! Planner Ii f/t
Planning & EnvironmeJikiRIesources
From:
Through:
Andrew Trivettel Division Director
Growth Management
Date:
December 4/2007
RE:
Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity
1
2
3 Planning staff has completed the 2007 assessment of public facilities capacity and prepared a
4 report for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
5
6 The public facilities assessed included Transportation Facilities, Potable Water! Education
7 Facilitates, Solid Waste Facilities and Parks and Recreation Facilities. The assessment was
8 based on standard analytical methodologies and included a projection of the amount of
9 residential and non-residential growth that can be accommodated in each of the service areas
10 (Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys) during the ensuing year without exceeding safe and
11 efficient provision of essential public services.
12
13 The assessment identified two areas below the standard level of service and several areas
14 were found to have marginal capacity at the County! s adopted level of service standards for
15 County Roads! Potable Water, Solid Waste, Schools, or Parks and Recreation. Although
16 localized deficiencies exist in certain segments of US 1, sufficient reserve capacity exists in the
17 overall roadway system to accommodate the anticipated number of residential allocations for
18 2008. Permitting of development activities within Cross Key and Tea Table on US 1 with
19 below marginal capacity will be monitored over the next twelve months by requiring traffic
20 impact analyses prior to development approval, if analysis indicates further degradation,
21 development may not receive approval.
22
23 Future population growth in the three (3) service areas (Upper Keys, Middle Keys, Lower
24 Keys) is not expected to match forecasted trends and projections because of the constraints
25 imposed by the building permit allocation system! which regulates the amount, rate and
26 location of growth. The number of market rate residential allocations for 2008 is not expected
27 to exceed 233 residential units for all 3 Service Areas (46 units Upper Keys, 7 units Middle
28 Keys, 73 units Lower Keys) and the amount of non-residential development is not expected
29 to exceed 239 square feet for each residential unit allocated or 47,083 square feet. In addition,
30 there are approximately 221 affordable housing allocations reserved for future development
31 projects that may be awarded during the next 12 months.
32
33 Based on the facts contained in the report, there is sufficient capacity in all public facilities to
34 serve anticipated allocations awards for residential and non-residential development over the
35 next twelve month period.
W:IGROWTH MANAGEMENT\Non Geographic ProjectslPublic Facilities eapacity Reportl2007
PFeR\MEMO BOee PFeR 2007.doc
Page I of I
2007
MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES
CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
REPORT
0..-.1.....;.
~,~.~ ..
, 1 ~'/.
,- .1 i."- '.
. ".
.. 'I .;1,
'.
..
~ ., "'rr
EDUCATION
SOLID WASTE
POTABLE WATER
TRANSPORTATION
PARKS AND RECREATION
PREPARED BY STAFF AT MONROE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
CLARENCE FEAGIN, PH.D., AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
KATHY GRASSER, PLANNER
Educational Facilities
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy......................................................................... [-[V
INTRODUCTION................................................................................ .... 1-4
I GROWTH ANALYSIS... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ...... 5-20
II TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES......................................................... 21-33
III POTABLE WATER... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... .... 33-38
IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... 39-45
V. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ..... 46-49
VI PARKS AND RECREATION... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... 50-54
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Monroe County Land Development
Regulations (hereafter referred to as "the
Code") mandate an annual assessment of the
roads, solid waste, potable water, and school
facilities serving the unincorporated portion of
Monroe County. In the event that these public
facilities have fallen or are projected to fall
below 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 served by adequate public or private
facilities.
As required 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 report distinguishes between areas of in-
adequate facility capacity and marginally ade-
quate capacity. Inadequate facility capacity is
defined as those areas with capacity below the
adopted LOS standard. Marginally adequate
capacity is defined as those areas at the
adopted LOS standard or that are proj ected to
reach inadequate capacity within the next
twelve months.
Residential and Nonresidential
Growth for 2007
For the 2007 assessment, an extrapolation
method that uses the 2000 Census base popu-
lation and a planning document prepared to
forecast the seasonal population is used.
Based on these two sources, the proj ected
functional population of unincorporated Mon-
roe County is expected to decline to 70,432
people in 2007, a decrease from a population
of 70,463 in 2006.
The adjustments to the population projections
are made based on the need to use a variety of
sources to create the projections. Due to a
lack of updated projections for seasonal popu-
lation, the Planning and Environmental Re-
sources Department used a document titled
"Monroe County Population Estimates and
Forecasts 1990 to 2015". This document pro-
vides the best available data for projection of
seasonal population. The document also pro-
vides estimates for permanent population,
however, since more recent data is available
from the Census Bureau, the Census Bureau's
projections are used for permanent population.
Assessment of Public Facilities for
2007
This year's report finds that transportation fa-
cilities, potable water, education facilities
solid waste and parks and recreation all hav~
sufficient capacity to serve anticipated growth.
Transportation Facilities:
The adopted level of service (LOS) standard
for US-l is LOS C. Based on the findings of
the 2007 US-l Arterial Travel Time and De-
lay Study for Monroe County, as prepared by
URS Inc., the overall 2007 level of service for
US-l is LOS C. The table on the following
page shows the LOS and "status" of US-l 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, the Tea Table and
Cross Table are below LOS threshold. The
Cross Key segment has a LOS E because of
the construction along this segment. Last year
the construction did not affect the LOS at this
segment. However, the travel speeds on Cross
Key segment is likely to improve with the im-
plementation of a high level fixed bridge,
completion is anticipated within the next three
years. The Tea Table segment does not have
any planned 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.
"Marginally Adequate" Segments
Mile Marker Reserve
Name Range Speed
Big Coppitt 9.0 - 10.5 0.0
Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 2.6
Sugarloaf 16.5 - 20.5 0.2
Big Pine 29.5 - 33.0 1.9
Grassy 54.0 - 60.5 1.0
Duck 60.5-63.0 2.4
Long 63.0-73.0 2.3
L Matecumbe 73.0-77.5 0.6
U Matecumbe 79.5-84.0 .9
Source: 2007 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS
Inc.
County roads are subject to a lower standard
(LOS D) than US-I. Based on the analysis
found in the Technical Document of the Mon-
roe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan,
all County roads are operating at or above
LOSD.
1 Stock Island 4-5 B Adequate
Overall, most public facilities continue to be 2 Boca Chica 5-9 A Adequate
adequate; however demands on these facilities 3 Big Coppitt 9-10.5 C Marginal
continue to grow. The Growth Management 4 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 C Marginal
Division is committed to monitoring changes 5 SugarIoaf 16.5-20.5 C Marginal
in public facility demand and responding to 6 Cudjoe 20.5-23 A Adequate
changes in consumption patterns. The ability 7 SummerIand 23-25 B Adequate
to coordinate with public facility providers 8 Ramrod 25-27.5 A Adequate
and other municipalities in the Keys will be- 9 Torch 27.5-29.5 A Adequate
corne more and more critical as we strive to 10 Big Pine 29.5-33 C Marginal
maintain the quality oflife we all enjoy. 11 Bahia Honda 33-40 A Adequate
12 7-Mile Bridge 40-47 B Adequate
13 Marathon 47-54 A Adequate
This year's report indicates that nine segments 14 Grassy Key 54-60.5 C Marginal
are "marginally adequate" and any applica- 15 Duck Key 60.5-63 C Adequate
tions for new development which would gen- 16 Long Key 63- 73 C Adequate
erate traffic in marginally adequate areas must Lower Mate-
submit a detailed traffic report for considera- 17 cumbe 73- 77. 5 C Marginal
18 Tea Table 77.5-79.5 D Below
tion during review. Please see table below for Upper Mate-
"marginally adequate" facilities: 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 E Below
Source: 2007 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc.
H
Potable Water:
Water demand projections increased to 18.77
MGD in 2007, up from the average of 17.29
MGD withdrawn in 2006. 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
2008 with the Permit #13-00005W expiring in
October 2008, there will be 17.65 MGD avail-
able. With projected demand of 18.77 MGD
in 2007 and with the assumption that demand
will only continue to increase in 2008 once
water restrictions are lifted, based upon water
demand increasing steadily ever years since
1991 with the expectation of 2001, it can be
anticipated that water demand will outweigh
supply in 2009/2010.
Schools:
The Monroe County Land Development
Regulations does 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 re-
quires classroom capacity "adequate" to ac-
commodate the school-age children generated
by proposed land development.
~he Sch~ol Board uses recommended capaci-
tIes provIded by the Florida Department of
Education (FDOE) to determine each school's
capacity. All schools have adequate reserve
capacity to accommodate the impacts of the
additional land development activities pro-
~ected for 2006-2007 school year. The capac-
Ity runs approximately 93-95% of student sta-
ti~ns which vary in number from elementary,
mIddle and high school due to mandated class
size reduction. The class size reduction was a
result of a state constitutional amendment set-
ting 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 vot-
ers in November 2002.
Enrollment figures for the 2005-2006 school
year and enrollment figures for the 2006-2007
school year show that none of the schools are
~xpected to exceed their recommended capac-
Ity. School facility plans are based on enroll-
ment projections 5 years out. And the utiliza-
tion rate 5 years out is between 38 to 73 per-
cent confirming adequate capacity. If utiliza-
tion was projected to exceed one hundred per-
~ent then there would not be sufficient capac-
Ity.
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 twelve years.
Parks and Recreation:
Unincorporated Monroe County has enough
resource- and activity-based recreation areas
to serve the functional population and there-
fore h~s a LOS that is adequate. Additionally,
there IS adequate reserve capacity to accom-
modate future population increases.
111
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 facilities. 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: "
(1) 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
1
traffic (AADT) basis at all intersection
and/or roadway segments. US-l shall
have sufficient available capacity to op-
erate at level of service C on an overall
basis as measured by the US-l Level of
Service Task Force Methodology. In ad-
dition, the segment or segments of US-I,
as identified in the US-l 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-l Level of Service Task Force
Methodology.
b. All secondary roads where traffic is
entering or leaving a development or will
have direct access shall have sufficient
available capacity to operate at level of
service D as measured on an annual 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-l Level of Service
Task Force Methodology.
(2) Solid Waste:
Sufficient capacity shall be available at a
solid waste disposal site to accommodate
all existing and approved development
for a period of at least three (3) years
from the 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 Sencice Areas
~.
'If
The Middle Keys
MM 91-47
The Upper Keys
MM 112-91
~ 'V"'-
~ .
"
r r:o.f ,:
t6 c2 .... 0 I..
.I- . iT .. .
... G' co
~
'I;l>
9
I
."
...
6(J'p
6".
.~
The Lower Keys
MM 47-4
~.
)~. d-
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-
mg 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-l through Big Pine
Key once again fell below the adopted LOS
standard. Due in part to the re-timing of the
intersection of US 1 and Key Deer Boule-
vard, the level of service on the Big Pine seg-
ment of US 1 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 of funding for 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.
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 (See Figure
1.1). The PAEDs are a combination of the
"planning areas" utilized by the Planning De-
partment in the early 1980s and the US Cen-
sus 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 facili-
ties.
The chart on the next page (See Figure 1.2)
shows the individual PAEDs by their mile
marker ranges, and also shows the islands
included within a particular PAED's bound-
ary.
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
Figure 1.1- PAED Map
PAED
22 \
....
"
PAED 15
" PAED 14
5
population figures. The City of Marathon en-
compasses PAEDs 7, 8, & 9, and its popula-
tion is contained within unincorporated Mon-
roe County until 2000. The City of Layton
falls within PAED 11, but its population is
removed from Unincorporated Monroe
County. The Village of Islamorada occupies
PAEDs 12A, 12B, 13, & 14, and has its own
population figures starting in 1998. PAEDs
19 and 20 are the last PAEDs before the
"bend" in US-I, and have been grouped 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
12B 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 1 through 6 from
Mile Marker 4 to 47.4.
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
1 Stock Island
2 Boca ehica, East Rockland, Big eoppitt, Geiger, Shark
3 Saddlebunch Keys, Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf
4a eudjoe, Summerland, Ramrod, Big-Middle-Little Torch
4b No Name Key
5 Big Pine Key
6 W. Summerland, Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri, Little Duck, Pigeon Key
7 Knight, Hog, Vaca, Boot, Stirrup (Marathon)
8 Fat Deer, Little erawl, erawl #5, (Marathon) & (Key eolony Beach)
9 Grassy Key (Marathon)
10 Duck Key, Little Conch Key, eonch Key
11 Long Key, Fiesta Key, (Layton)
12a eraig Key, Lower Matecurnbe (Islarnorada)
12b Windley Key (Islarnorada)
13 Teatable Key, Upper Matecurnbe (Islarnorada)
14 Plantation Key (Islarnorada)
15 Key Largo (Tavernier area)
16 Key Largo
17 Key Largo (Rock Harbor)
18 Key Largo
19-20 Key Largo
21 Key Largo (North Key Largo, Ocean Reef, eard Sound area)
22 eross Key (18 Mile Stretch area)
Source: Monroe County Planning Depertment, 2007
4-6
7-12.4
12.5-20.5
20.6-29
N/A
29.5-33
34.5-46
47.5-53.2
53.3-56.4
56.5-60
61-64
65-71
72-78
83.5-85.5
79-83.4
85.6-91
91.1-94.5
94.6-98
98.1-100.6
100.7-103.5
103.6-107.5
N/A
107.6-112
Resources, and was based on 1990 Census
data. Since then the permanent population
model has 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. Using the
1990 Census as the base for the model
showed that by year 2000 the number of per-
manent residents had been overestimated by
6,033, the gap continued to widen and by
2005 the overestimation had grown to 11,976.
By updating the model with the 2000 year as
the base year the population estimates are
more accurate. The Updated projections for
permanent population in unincorporated
Monroe County were estimated at 77,490
residents in 2005 with a continuing decrease
to 76,506 residents in 2010 (See Figure 1.3).
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
Figure 1.3 - Projected Permanent and Seasonal County-wide Population
1990-2015
Seasonal Population
Permanent Po ulation
70,493
78,024
Functional Po ulation
148,517
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2007
Until better data becomes available, the Plan-
ning and Environmental Resources Depart-
ment is using the document titled "Monroe
County Population Estimates and Forecasts
1990-20 IS" to estimate seasonal population.
For the year 2007 this is estimated to be
35,802.
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-
73,491
79,589
73,737
77,490
74,533
76,506
74,712
75,389
153,080
151,227
151,039
150,101
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-
ning. When the peak seasonal population
figures are combined with the permanent
resident population, the result is the func-
tional population. Actual 2000 Census data
for the permanent population indicates a
trend towards a higher seasonal percentage of
the functional population. Using a combina-
tion of the Census projections and the
"Monroe County Population Estimates and
Projections", the functional population for
unincorporated Monroe County in 2007 is
estimated to be 70,432 (See Figure 1.4).
7
Fi ure 1.4 Functional Po ulation of U nincor orated Monroe Coun
2000(1) 2005(1) 2006 2008 2009 2010
FunctionID 70463
(1)2000 and 2005 permanent population are from u.s. Census.
(2)There is a decrease of approximately .05%/year between 2000 and 2005, this decline is used to
interpolate permanent population figures until the next Census or until better data becomes available.
(3)Seasonal 0 ulation are from "Monroe Coun Po ulation Estimates and Forecasts 1990 to 2015".
Estimates re ared b Monroe Count Plannin
Functional Population
The functional population is the sum of the
number of permanent residents and the peak
seasonal population. Figure 1.5 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 proj
ected to decrease by 938 people from 2005 to
2015. This represents a decrease of (.62%)
over the ten year period. As better data be-
comes available for permanent and seasonal
population, the projections for functional
population will be adjusted accordingly.
Figure 1.6 shows the trend in Functional
Population Changes from 1990 to 2015. One
will notice a dip in the chart in
2005
2010
2015
151,227
151,039
150,101
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2007
*
*
-188
-938
-0.12%
-0.62%
~~a@
Functional Population
.c 300%
~
2 200%
0
c
0 100%
~
"
"- 0.00%
0
Do-
.~ -100%
OJ
~ -2.00%
o
J!. -300%
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2007
~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 808 8 ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~
m m m m m m m m m moo 0 000 000 0 0 0 0 000
2000 which is due to updated permanent
population figures provided by the U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau. The numerical and percent
change columns show that the rate of de-
(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. (Refer to Figure 1.3).
..c
~
e 3.00%
Functional Population
o
~l!!I7@ ~ all
c 2.00%
o
:;::;
.!!l 1.00%
::l
g- 0.00%
0...
.~ -1.00%
~ -200%
c
~ -300%
o
::!<
o
11111111111111111111111111
I-+- Functional Population I
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2007
crease will be steady over the same time pe-
riod (see Figure 1.7).
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
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 projected County-wide population data
through 2015 presented in this report (both
the permanent and seasonal populations) was
updated using the 2000 census data. As
stated previously, the seasonal population
uses projections from the "Monroe County
Population Estimates & Forecasts 1990-
2015".
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% housing units
9
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 increase
in population even though the occupied
housing units declined. See Figure 1.8.
However, upon closer analysis it must be
noted that approximately 255 new housing
units are added to the market each year by
way of the Rate of Growth Ordinance. 255
new housing units added to the market each
year with an average household size of 2.23
one could expect this would add 569 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, the population has not
been growing at an expected rate. In fact, as
evidenced by 2005 Census estimates, the per-
manent population is actually beginning to
decline.
Housing Units 1990 # 1990 2000 # 10 Year
2000 Percent Percent
by Type of Units Percent of Units ehange
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 On! 943 7.4 7% 668 4.04%
Rented or sold, 560 4.43% 358 2.17%
not occupied
Seasonal,
recreational or 7928 62.76% 12332 74.60% 11.84%
occasional use
For Migrant 6 0.05% 46 0.28%
Workers
Other 1185 9.38% 1411 8.54%
Total Housing Units 46,215 100.00% 11.69%
Source: U. S eensus Bureau and Momoe eoun
Educational Facilities
10
Number of Residential Permits
The second maj or 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
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. As a result,
there are many dwellings in the Keys that
have permits, but are not yet fully constructed
or are only partially complete. Based upon
this time lapse, the number of residential per-
mits issued overstates the actual number of
new residential dwellings that currently re-
quire 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 15 ofROGO
began on July 14, 2006 and ends on July
13th, 2007. Each service area of unincorpo-
rated Monroe County and several of the in-
corporated areas receive a set number of allo-
cations for new residential permits that can be
issued during that particular ROGO year.
The number of allocations available to a par-
ticular area was based upon the supply of va-
cant buildable lots located in that area prior to
the start of the ROGO system. The Ocean
Reef area of north Key Largo is exempted
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, adopted by the Administrative Commis-
sion, increased 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
11
both the BOCC and the State in 2006 how-
ever an appeal to the Tier system has put the
final approval on hold.
Based on the 158 allocations, the ROGO sys-
tem in unincorporated Monroe County now
allocates 46 units to the Upper Keys service
area, 7 units to the Middle Keys service area,
and 73 units to the Lower Keys, for an annual
total of 126 market rate residential units each
ROGO year.
At the end of Quarter 4 Year 15 (July 2007)
there were 221 allocations available for af-
fordable housing. Approximately 221 afford-
able housing allocations have been reserved
for multi-unit projects.
Table 1.9 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 1.10 shows the breakdown of new
residential permits issued for unincorporated
Monroe County since 1993. The data pre-
sented in the table does not include permits
issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach,
Layton, or Islamorada. Also, the boundaries
between the Upper and Middle Keys service
areas, and the boundaries used for this data
are slightly different. According to Building
Department records 3,863 residential permits
were issued from 1993 to 2006, with 81 %
(3,131) being issued to single family resi-
dences. Only 11 % (441) of the residential
permits were issued to duplex, multifamily,
or mobile
home pro-
j ects.
in the past decade were issued in 1991 to
1992 as applicants were attempting to obtain
permits prior to ROGO. A total of 377 single-
family residential permits were issued in un-
incorporated Monroe County in 2006, a 78%
increase from 2005.
Figures 1.11 and 1.12 show the distribution
of new residential permits issued in unincor-
porated Monroe County during 2005 and
2006.
Figure 1.11 shows an increase from 30% to
39% in the total number of permits issued in
the Upper Keys and an increase from 11 % to
54% in the Lower Keys service areas. The
number of residential permits issued in the
Middle Keys from 2005 to 2006 decreased
from 59% to 7%. There were 69 more new
residential permits issued in 2006 than 2005.
Figure 1.12 shows a comparison of residen-
tial permits issued in 2005 and 2006. Only
two additional new duplex dwelling units
were permitted in 2006. Single family resi-
dential permits occupy the largest percentage
in both years, with 82 additional single-
family permits being issued in 2006. The
number of mobile home permits decreased by
15.
Figure 1.13 shows the total number of per-
mits issued in unincorporated Monroe County
from 1993 to 2006.
Figure 1.14 shows the breakdown in the types
of residential permits issued over the last dec-
ade.
1,369 resi-
dential per- Upper Keys
mits issued Middle Keys
Lower Ke s
12B-22
7-13
1-6
12 Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2007
83.5-112
47.5- 83.4
4-47.4
12A-22
7-13
1-6
71-112
47.5-70.9
4-47.4
Figure 1.10 - New and Replacement Residential and Seasonal Units Pennitted by Year for Unincorporated Monroe County
1993 Upper Keys 104 0 0 5 0 109
Middle Keys 55 2 0 I 0 58
Lower Keys 80 0 0 I 0 81
Subtotal 239 2 0 7 0 248
1994 Upper Keys 109 0 0 3 0 112
Middle Keys 94 0 0 0 0 94
Lower Keys 36 0 0 I 0 37
Subtotal 239 0 0 4 0 243
1995 Upper Keys 131 2 0 4 0 137
Middle Keys 27 2 2 I 5 37
Lower Keys 144 0 0 0 0 144
Subtotal 302 4 2 5 5 318
1996 Upper Keys 114 0 3 3 0 120
Middle Keys 40 0 15 0 0 55
Lower Keys 83 0 0 6 0 89
Subtotal 237 0 18 9 0 264
1997 Upper Keys 89 0 12 0 0 101
Middle Keys 27 4 0 0 77 108
Lower Keys 73 0 0 0 0 73
Subtotal 189 4 12 0 77 282
1998 Upper Keys 78 0 0 3 0 81
Middle Keys 13 0 0 0 lID 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 I 88
Subtotal 245 0 0 26 64 335
2000 Upper Keys 67 0 35 0 0 102
Middle Keys 4 0 0 0 34 38
Lower Keys 75 0 0 0 0 75
Subtotal 146 0 35 0 34 215
2001 Upper Keys 62 0 13 7 I 83
Middle Keys 9 0 0 10 0 19
Lower Keys 80 0 0 38 0 118
Subtotal 151 0 13 55 1 220
2002 Upper Keys 75 0 0 14 0 89
Middle Keys III 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 I 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
2006 Upper Keys 147 0 2 5 0 154
Middle Keys 26 0 0 I 0 27
Lower Keys 204 0 0 8 0 212
Subtotal 377 0 2 14 0 393
Total 3,131 10 107 324 291 3,863
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2007
13
2006
rea 2005-2006
Upper
Keys
39%
2005
Lo~r
Keys
11%
Lo~r
Keys
54%
Middle
Keys
59%
Upper
/ Keys
30%
Source: Momoe eounty Building Department 2007
Figure 1.12 - Comparison of Residential Permit Types 2005-2006
Multi-Family
1%
Duplex
0%
4%
2005 Hotel/Motel
0.00%
Hotel/Motel
0%
Mobile
Home/RV
9%
Single
Family
91%
Multi-Family
Duplex
0.00% 0.00%
Source: Momoe eounty Building Department 2007
14
450
400
350
.~
8 300
...
OJ
p.., 250
"-'
0
... 200
OJ
.n
8 150
;::l
z
100
50
0
Figure 1. 13-Comparis on of Residential Permit Types 1993-2006
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
. Single Family. Duplex. Multi-Family. Mobile Home/RV . Hotel/Mote1
Figure 1.14 - Types of Penn its Issued 1993-2006
Mobile
Home/RV
8%
Hotel/Motel
8%
Multi-Family
3%
Duplex
0%
Single Family
81%
Source: Momoe eounty Building Department, 2007
15
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 turn,
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 1.14, on the following page, shows the
trends in nonresidential permitting from 1993
to 2006. 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 three (3) non-residential permits issued
for commercial construction. In 2005 the
heading of Figure 1.14, on the following
page, was changed to exclude the previously
used term "redevelopment" in the heading.
Therefore the number of permits and corre-
sponding square footage refer only to new
non-residential development permits and the
corresponding square footage. Figure 1.15 is
a new table that was added to show the total
number of non-residential permits that were
issued in each sub-area.
Figure 1.15 - Number of Commercial
Permits by Year
2005 Upper Keys 3
Middle Keys 5
Lower Keys 2
Subtotal 10
2006 Upper Keys 1
Middle Keys 1
Lower Keys 1
Subtotal 3
TOTALS 13
Source: Monroe County Blda. OeD!. 2007
Figure 1.16 shows the relative amount of
square footage permitted in each of the three
service areas from 1993 to 2006.
Figure 1.16- New Commercial
Square Footage by Service Area 1993.
2006
Lo~r
Keys
17%
Middle
Keys
41%
Upper
Keys
42%
16
Figure 1.14 New Non-Residential Pennits
Year Service Area Number Pennits bv Service Area Floor Area (sq.Ft.) bv Service Area
1993 Upper Keys 4 16,334
Middle Keys 4 24,812
Lower Keys 4 27,236
Subtotal 12 68,382
1994 Upper Keys 4 24,648
Middle Keys 7 31,079
Lower Keys 4 0
Subtotal 15 55,727
1995 Upper Keys 24 147,319
Middle Keys 12 109,331
Lower Keys 8 10,004
Subtotal 44 266,654
1996 Upper Keys 17 102,795
Middle Keys 6 93,334
Lower Keys 2 14,149
Subtotal 25 210,278
1997 Upper Keys 14 93,503
Middle Keys 83 8,420
Lower Keys 2 18,327
Subtotal 99 120,250
1998 Upper Keys 4 60,936
Middle Keys 73 16,304
Lower Keys I 24,152
Subtotal 78 101,392
1999 Upper Keys 8 14,861
Middle Keys 68 84,715
Lower Keys I 2,054
Subtotal 77 101,630
2000 Upper Keys 8 33,873
Middle Keys 68 75,584
Lower Keys 5 19,168
Subtotal 81 128,625
2001 Upper Keys 31 73,307
Middle Keys I 4,998
Lower Keys 4 8,575
Subtotal 36 86,880
2002 Upper Keys 3 3,773
Middle Keys 0 0
Lower Keys 26 110,805
Subtotal 29 114,578
2003 Upper Keys 7 13,651
Middle Keys 37 110,446
Lower Keys 0 0
Subtotal 44 124,097
2004 Upper Keys 2 5,200
Middle Keys 2 5,598
Lower Keys 2 7,480
Subtotal 6 18,278
2005 Upper Keys 3 Unk.
Middle Keys 5 Unk.
Lower Keys 2 Unk.
Subtotal 10 10,925
2006 Upper Keys I 2,500
Middle Keys I 11,800.
Lower Keys I 364
Subtotal 3 14,664
TOTALS 559 1,422,360
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2007
*Heading changed in 2005 to indicate only "new" previously stated "new and redevelopment". In addition the numbers only reflect
new commercial structures.
17
Figure 1.17 shows the trends in the amount 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.
To assure that balance was maintained, the
Comprehensive Plan proposed Policy
101.3.1, which states:
" Monroe County shall maintain a balance
between residential and non-residential
growth by limiting the square footage of non-
residential development to maintain a ratio of
approximately 239 square feet of new non-
residential development for each new
Figure 1.17 - Nonresidential Pennits by Service Area 1993-2006
300,000
.L, 250,000
if]
OJ 200,000
.-
......
i=1
Il)
~ 150,000
if)
Il)
~ 100,000
i=1
~
50,000
0
1993
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 200 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
_ Upper Keys _ Middle Keys c:::::J 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 of land 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. It was deter-
mined that this balance was appropriate given
the knowledge available at the time the Com-
prehensive Plan was prepared.
residential unit permitted through the Resi-
dential Permit Allocation System. "
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
18
allocation system. This amount of non-
residential floor space includes permits for
development within the Village of Islamorada
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 proj ects 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 recommended 18,000 square feet
to be allocated for Year 15 and 35,000 square
feet for year 16 (July 14, 2006 through July
13, 2007, and July 14, 2007 through July 13,
2008, respectively). Of the 18,000 square
feet recommended for year 15, the planning
commission approved only 12,500 square
feet.
Summary
To summarize, this growth analysis is based
upon proj ected 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
19
evemng.
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-
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
projected 2000 population.
In terms of the number of residential permits,
a total of 377 residential permits were issued
in 2006, a 16% increase from 2005.
From 1993 to 2006, 81 % of the residential
permits (3,131) were issued to single family
residences, 14 to mobile homes, while none
were issued for multifamily or duplexes.
The current rate of growth guidelines indicate
that unincorporated Monroe County has a
total of 197 residential allocations it may
award during ROGO year 16, and there is
sufficient capacity of public facilities to ac-
commodate this annual growth.
In terms of the number of new non-residential
permits, a total of 14,664 square feet of new
commercial development was issued between
July 2005 to July 2006. The Nonresidential
Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) was
approved and became effective in November
2002. Based on approval by the BOCC, a
total of 18,000 square feet ofNROGO alloca-
tion was available for new non-residential
development in year 15, but only 12,500 was
actualized. The BOCC is recommending
35,000 of square feet to be allocated for Year
16 (July 2007 through July 2008).
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 US. 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
US. 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
(US. 1), functions as a collector, an arterial,
and the "Main Street" for the Keys. US. 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.
US. 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 US. 1, there are 450 miles of
County (secondary) roads with 38 bridges.
US. 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 US. 1.
Figure 2.1 identifies the traffic signals in op-
eration along the US. 1 corridor (excluding
those found on the island of Key West).
4.4 Stock Island eo lIege Road
4.6 Stock Island eross Street
4.8 Stock Island MacDonald Avenue
19.5 Upper Sugarloaf erane Boulevard
30.3 Big Pine Key Key Deer Blvd.
Marathon 33rd StreetlSchool
48.5 erossing
50 Marathon Sombrero Beach Blvd.
52.4 Marathon 107th Street
52.5 Marathon 109th Street
53 Marathon Pedestrian erossing
53.5 Fat Deer Key Key eolony eauseway
54 Fat Deer Key eo co Plum Drive
Woods Avenue/School
90 Plantation Key erossing
90.5 Plantation Key Sunshine Road
91.5 Tavernier Ocean Boulevard
99.5 Key Largo Atlantic Boulevard
10 1 Key Largo Tradewinds
105 Ke Lar 0 Pedestrian erossin
Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time/ Dela Stud, URS 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
Big Pine Key (MM 30)
5-Day ADT 22,451 25,235 12.40%
7-Day ADT 21,691 25,550 17.79%
AADT 18,095 20,215 11.72%
Marathon (MM 50)
5-Day ADT 35,388 36,742 3.83%
7-Day ADT 33,414 34,811 4.18%
AADT 27,874 27,542 -1.19%
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84)
5-Day ADT 23,982 27,933 16.47%
7-Day ADT 23,916 28,410 18.79%
AADT 19,951 23,455 17.56%
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 1996 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-
Big Pine Key 21,496 19,866 20,843 21,774 19,991 19,364 20,115 19,894 19,844 18,095 20,215
Marathon 28,930 28,651 30,750 29,017 28,340 31,285 31,763 32,274 30,102 27,521 27,542
U er Matecumbe 21,599 21,301 22,103 22,410 21,819 23,369 23,404 24,328 22,927 19,951 23,455
Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time/ Dela Stud, URS Inc.
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 US. 1
are positive 0.06% and .31 % per year, respec-
tively.
Level of Service Background
Monroe County has conducted travel time
and delay studies of US. 1 on an annual basis
since 1991.
The pn-
mary ob-
jective of
the US. 1
Arterial
Travel
Time and
Delay
Study is to
monitor the
level of
servl ce on
US. High-
way 1 for
concur -
Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc.
rency man-
agement purposes pursuant to Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 of the
Land Development Regulations. The study
utilizes an empirical relationship between the
volume-based capacities and the speed-based
level of service methodology developed by
the US. 1 Level of Service Task Force.
(Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8
(Rural Two-Lane Highways) and Chapter 11
(Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual.
Overall Level of Service on U.S. 1
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-
Marathon
Figure 2.4 - Regression Analysis of AADTs 1997-2007
~ ~~........... -=- .....- .... -- ... - A - .la. _
Upper Matecumbe Big Pille
Rate of growth Rate of growth
~.31%peryear ~-0.76%per
. - -..~ ~ ~*~ ~ + ~ ~*- - + ~ ~*~ ~ + ~ ~.- -..
40000
Rate of growth
~ .06% per year
.6.
30000
...
...
20000
10000
o
..
~
... ...
.
-
...
~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
. Area . Big Pine Key
... Marathon ~ Upper Matecumbe
~ Upper Matecumbe Trendbne - - Marathon Trendbne
- - - - Big Pine Key Trendbne
The US. 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
9
10
flect the conditions experienced during long
distance or through trips. Given that US. 1 is
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 US. 1 is measured in the av-
erage speed of a vehicle traveling from one
end to the other of US.!. The level of ser-
vice (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on US.
1 in Monroe County, as adopted by the US. 1
Level of Service Task Force, are as follows:
LOSA
LOSS
LOSe
LOS 0
LOS E
LOS F
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
23
Both Monroe County and the Florida Depart-
ment of Transportation have adopted a level
of service 'c' standard for the overall length
of US. 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 (same as the 2006 highest overall speed
of 48.3 mph), which occurred on Saturday,
March 3 2007 between 10:15 a.m. and 1:06
,
p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest
overall speed recorded was 41.1 mph (0.3
mph higher than the 2006 lowest overall
speed of 40.8 mph), which occurred 0 Satur-
day March 10, 2007 between 11:45 a.m. and
2:06p.m. in the southbound direction. Figure
2.5 shows that the overall median speed for
US. 1 has remained between 45.3 mph and
47.8 from 1992 to the present with it decreas-
1993 47.4 e 0.5
1994 47.3 e -0.1
1995 47.8 e 0.5
1996 47.1 e -0.7
1997 46.5 e -0.7
1998 45.7 e -0.8
1999 46.7 e 1
2000 46.4 e -0.3
2001 46.9 e 1
2002 47.1 e -0.2
2003 46.1 e -1
2004 45.4 e -0.7
2005 45.3 e -0.1
2006 45.9 e 0.6
2007 45.7 e -.01
Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time/ Dela Stud, URS Inc.
ing steadily from 2002 through 2005, and
then beginning to climb back up in 2006.
Should the overall median speed ever fall be-
low 45 mph (the minimum LOS C standard),
then the US. 1 capacity would be considered
inadequate.
Level of Service on U.S. 1 Segments
In addition to a determination of the overall
capacity throughout the entire 108 mile
length of US. 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 US. 1 also be as-
sessed annually. There are a total of twenty
four (24) segments of US. 1 from Mile
Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112. A description
of the segment boundaries can be found in
Figure 2.6 on the following page. The seg-
ments were defined by the US. 1 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 US. 1
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 US. 1
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
24
1 4 5 eow Key Bridge (N) Key Haven Boulevard Stock Island, Key Haven 1
2 5 9 Key Haven Boule- Rockland Drive Boca ehica, Rockland 2
vard
3 9 10.5 Rockland Drive Boca ehica Road Big eoppitt 2
4 10.5 16.5 Boca ehica Road Harris ehannel BridgeSh k S ddl b h 3
(N) ar, a eunc
5 16.5 20.5 Harris ehannel Bow ehannel Bridge Lower & Upper Sugar- 3
Bridge (N) (N) 10af
6 20.5 23 Bow ehannel Bridge S . h M' D' eudjoe 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) amro
9 27.5 29.5 Torch-Ramrod N. Pine ehannel Little Torch 4A
Bridge (S) Bridge (N)
10 29.5 33 N. Pine ehannel 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 Bridge (S) 7- Mile Bridge (N) 7-Mile Bridge 6
13 47 54 7- Mile Bridge (N) eocoa Plum Drive Vaca, Key eolony Beach 7
14 54 60.5 eocoa Plum Drive Toms Harbor eh Fat Deer erawl, Grassy 8
Bridge (S)
15 60.5 63 Toms Harbor eh Long Key Bridge (S) Duck, eonch 10
Bridge (S)
16 63 73 L K B'd (S) ehannel #2 Bridge Long, Fiesta, eraig 11
ong ey n ge (N)
17 73 77.5 ehannel #2 Bridge Lignumvitae Bridge Lower Matecumbe 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 b 13
Bridge (N) (S) pper atecum e
20 84 86 Whale Harbor Snake ereek Bridge Windley 12B
Bridge (S) (N)
21 86 91.5 Snake ereek Bridge Ocean Boulevard Plantation 14
(N)
22 91.5 99.5 Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard Tavernier 15 & 16
23 99.5 106 Atlantic Boulevard e-905 Key Largo 17 - 20
24 106 112.5 e-905 eounty Line Sign Key Largo, eross Key 22
Source: 2006 Arterial and Travel Time/ Dela Stud, URS Inc.
25
The segment limits, the median travel speeds,
and the 2006 and the 2007 LOS are presented
in Figure 2.8. Figure 2.9 is a map of the seg-
ment boundaries indicating 2007 LOS. The
median segment speed ranged from 57.9 mph
(LOS A) in the Boca Chica segment to 34.6 Reserve Capacities
mph (LOS B) in the Stock Island segment. The difference between the median speed and
Figure 2.7 - Level of Service Standards Based on Flow Character- the LOS C standard gives the re-
istics serve speed, which in turn can be
converted into an estimated reserve
capacity of additional traffic vol-
>= 1.5 mph above speed limit .. ume and corresponding additional
1.4 mph above to 1.5 mph below speed hnut development. The median overall
1.6 mph below to 4.5 mph below speed limit d f 45 9 h d t th
. . spee 0 . mp compare 0 e
4.6 mph below to 7.5 mph below speed hnut
7.6 mph below to 13.5 mph below speed LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves
limit an overall reserve speed of 0.9 mph.
> 13.5 m h below seed limit This reserve speed can be converted
slowed or stopped by traffic signals or other
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.
F or 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.
The level of service determined from the
2007 travel time data yielded changes to six
segments, two resulted in positive level of
service changes while four resulted in nega-
tive level of service changes.. Below is a list
of the following level of service changes as
compared to 2005 data:
.
The Ramrod segment (Segment 8)
increased from LOX B to LOS A
The L Matecumbe segment
(Segment 17) increased from LOS
D to LOS C
The Long Key segment (Segment
16) decreased from LOS b to LOS
C
The Duck segment (Segment 15
decreased from LOS B to LOS C
The Tea Table segment (Segment
18) decreased from LOC C to
LOSD
The Cross segment (Segment 24)
increased from LOC C to LOC E
.
.
.
.
.
Compared to 2006, the median segment
speeds increased in thirteen of the 24 seg-
ments ranging between .0 mph to 2.8 mph.
Eleven segments experienced a decrease in
median speeds, ranging from 0.1 mph to 6.9
mph, compared to last year's data. For seg-
ment 24, the speed decreased from previous
years, due to extensive construction. The
segment level of service decreased from LOC
C to LOS E.
A >= 35 mph
B >= 28 mph
e >= 22 mph
D >= 17 mph
E >= 13 mph
F <13mh
26
into an estimated reserve capacity of addi-
tional traffic volume and corresponding addi-
tional development. This reserve speed is
converted into an estimated reserve volume
(16,693 daily trips).
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.
As stated earlier, the Land Development
Regulations mandate a minimum level of ser-
vice of 'c' for all roadway segments of U.S.
1. However, county regulations and FDOT
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
Figure 2.8 - US 1 Segment Status, Median Speeds, and Change 2005-
2007
1 Stock Island
2 Boca ehica
3 Big eoppitt
4 Saddlebunch
5 Sugarloaf
6 eudjoe
7 Summerland
8 Ramrod
9 Torch
10 Big Pine
11 Bahia Honda
12 7-Mile Bridge
13 Marathon
14 Grassy
15 Duck
16 Long
17 L. Matecumbe
18 Tea Table
19 U. Matecumbe
20 Windley
21 Plantation
22 Tavernier
23 Largo
24 eross
Overall
B
A
e
e
e
A
B
B
A
e
A
B
A
e
B
B
D
e
e
A
B
A
A
e
e
B
A
e
e
e
A
B
A
A
e
A
B
A
e
e
e
e
D
e
A
B
A
A
E
e
31.2
57.7
46.2
52.1
48.1
48.1
45.7
46.3
48.2
38.0
54.3
53.9
36.0
50.3
53.9
52.1
49.0
50.1
40.6
41.4
42.2
49.0
45.9
44.0
45.9
34.6
57.9
45.2
52.2
47.8
48.5
45.6
48.1
47.1
39.0
54.1
55.1
37.7
50.9
52.9
51.3
51.1
49.8
41.4
42.4
41.8
49.9
45.7
37.1
45.7
3.4
0.2
-1
0.1
-0.3
0.4
-0.1
1.8
-1.1
1
-0.2
1.2
1.7
0.6
-1
-0.8
2.1
-0.3
0.8
1
-0.4
0.9
-0.2
-6.9
-0.2
Source: 2007 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc.
Applying the formula for reserve volume to measured again next year or until remedial
each of the 24 segments of U.S. 1 individu- actions are implemented.
ally gives maximum reserve volumes for all These segments are candidates for being des-
segments totaling 83,203 trips. These indi- ignated either "backlogged" or "constrained"
vidual reserve volumes may be unobtainable, by FDOT. Applications for new develop-
due to the constraints imposed by the overall ment located within backlogged or con-
reserve volume. strained segments are required to undergo a
thorough traffic analysis as part of the review
27
igure 2.9 -Map of US 1 Segments
ll' -, II
r.'_.: L:'~ (
- - I ' ..
,. :1"
::- 1~ L', ':: I)
"_ 11 ,.-.
I:: '11'-"
1<1 ,- L : .~ E' I
.c'
1:1' :' L': .:: ('
I< I -, L :,'-:' ,~
II r.;. L -, - ,
I :I 1-' L'- ~ .:.
11'11
I
,-\ I
I '" 1_ I .1- 11
:. i
i
"";L_:f'1
I
I
~11
:11' - I'
-'
l.c-l - <::-,_
..' L: _- .:.
1=11
-,-, \
~ . ,', I
""- - - -
::-- _ _ 'C' f:o
~: l ".:-.'
":'1' c'
28
process. Based on this year's results, Cross
Key (Segment 24) is the only segment below
the LOS C threshold, and Tea Table, Big
Coppitt, Saddlebunch, Sugarloaf Key, big
Pine Key, Grassy, Duck, Long, Lower Mate-
cumbe, Upper Matecumbe are all at the LOS
C threshold. However, these segments have
reserve capacities 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
2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Docu-
ment, all of the County roads examined are
operating at or above the County standard of
LOSD.
Figure 2.11
"Marginally Adequate" Segments
Mile Marker Reserve
# Name Range Speed
3 Big Coppitt 9.0 - 10.5 0.0
4 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 2.6
5 Sugarloaf 16.5 - 20.5 0.2
10 Big Pine 29.5 - 33.0 1.9
14 Grassy 54.0 - 60.5 1.0
17 Lower Matecumbe 73.0 - 77.5 .06
18 Tea Table 77.5 - 79.5 -.03
19 Upper Matecumbe 79.5 - 84.0 .09
24 Cross 106-112.5 -6.6
Source: 2007 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS
Inc.
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-
j or proj ect for unincorporated Monroe
County in the current FDOT Work Program
(2004/2005 to 2008/09) is to replace the Jew-
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),
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
29
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 US. 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-Summerland Key
. The segment from MM 25-Summerland
Key to MM 26.2- Ramrod Key
. The segment from MM 26.2- Ramrod 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 - mil e bri dge ),
. 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-Channel 5 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. US.
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 US. 1 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 US. 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 overall travel speed on US. 1 for 2007
is .2 mph higher as compared to the 2009
overall travel speed. The reserve speed for
the entire I ength of US. 1 is. 7 mil es per
hour. This means that the entire segment is
operating with only marginal capacity.
Compared to 2006 data, the travel speeds on
11 of the 24 segments decreased. These seg-
ments are:
Big Copl'itt (-1.0 ml'h) Duck (-0.1 ml'h)
Sugarloaf (-0.2 ml'h) Long (-0.8 ml'h)
Summerland (-0.1) Tea Table (-0.3 ml'h)
Torch (1.1 ml'h) Plantation (-0.4 ml'h)
Bahia Honda (-0.2 ml'h) Key Largo (-0.2 ml'h)
Cross (-(').S) ml'h)
30
Though, travel speeds in 13 segments have
increased. They are:
-Stock Is1and (+3.4 mph)
-Boca Chica (+ 0.2 mph)
Saddlebunch (+ 1.0 mph)
CU(ljoe (+0.4 mph)
Ramrod (+1.Smph)
N, Pine ClwmelBr, (+1.0 mph)
1- Mile Bridge (+1.2 mph)
Mamthon (+1.1 mph)
Grnssy (+0.6 mph)
L Matecumbe +2.1 mph)
U Matecumbe(+O,S mph)
Windley (+1.2 mph)
Tavernier (+0.9 mph)
Compared to last year's (2006) study results,
there are changes in LOS to five of the seg-
ments studied. The Ramrod segment experi-
enced increase in LOS from B to A. The
Duck and Long Segments experienced a de-
crease in LOS from B to C. The L Mate-
cumbe segment experience an increase in
LOS from D to C. The Tea Table segment
experience decreased in LOS from C to D
and Cross segment experienced a decrease
from C to E.
The largest speed increase of 2.3 mph was
recorded in the Stock Island, while the largest
speed decrease of 6.0 mph was recorded in
the Cross segment, due to the current con-
struction on this segment.
US. 1 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 eleven
segments of US. 1 in this category:
Name
Big Coppitt
(MM 9,0 : MM 10,~)
Sugm-loaf
(MM 16,S to MM20,S)
Grassy
(MM S4,0 ~MM60,S)
Long
(MM 63,0====-MM13,0)
Tea Table
(MM1'U MMS4,0)
Cross
(MM 106,0:MM1l2,~)
Mile Marker Ranae
Sadd~buooh
(MM 1O..~MM16..~)
Big Pine
(MM 29..~MM33..0)
Duclt
(MM60..~MM63..0)
L.. Matecumbe
(MM 13..O====-MM n..S)
u.. Matecumbe
(MM 19..~ SMM4..0~
Last year (2006) study, only the L Mate-
cumbe (Segment 17) segment was below the
LSO threshold, and the Tea Table segment
was at LOS C without any reserve speed.
The year Tea Table and Cross Table are be-
low LOS threshold. The Cross Key segment
has a LOS E. Because of the construction
along this segment. Last year the construc-
tion did not affect the LOS at this segment.
However, the travel speeds on Cross Key
segment is likely to improve with the imple-
mentation of a high level fixed bridge com-
pletion is anticipated within the next three
years. The Tea Table segment does not have
any planned improvements to curtail the
travel speed reductions. The Florida Depart-
ment of Transportation and/or the Monroe
County should conduct a special study along
this stretch ofU S. 1.
The signal at the Key Deer Boulevard inter-
section in Big Pine (Segment 10) continues
to influence the travel speeds on this seg-
ment, and has experienced 11 delay events
compared to the 14 from the 2006 study.
However, the segment LOS improved,
probably due to lower traffic volumes.
All County roads have levels of servIce
above the required standard of 'D'.
31
..... . -...--.
0:2 ..
ftlQ. to M- e <0 N l.Q ,..... <C CD 0') U) CD ..... Q -.::t ('I') f.O C"') 0) ,.
. ~ "
3;.5- ~ .. .. . .. ,...: "' . .. ~ "' ~ It) ~ .. " " q .
...... co Q N 0 U') ,... co ..- co ,- ,.... N N 0 0 C
0.-.
W.c
wc..
Q. E
tn""-'
c(
0::2
we..
~g
o
-I
<(:2
Zc..
S:2 E
en........
4J
CJ-
...c
.... Q.
~S
<I:
.!l:2
-- D.
.5 e
-J '-...'
[Q<CUOO<(tQ<Ccto <c
COQ)NC\lCOU)U).......~O
-11:" III... III: 11II....
~&;~~~~~~f;t~
q ~ ~ m m 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
gj~~~t;~~~sj~ti
~~~~~z~~~~zv~
ZZZZ ZZZ mZ
M ~ ~ ~ - ~ 0 0 0 0 ~
t:ci --i oi ~ C\i u:i lri lri 10 lli N
(I') 10 "tt I.() U') "'=:t "I:t" ..q -v- "*'4" to
1O
~ LO It) U') 1l) It)
~~~~~~U)tn
M lO ~ "I\t v ~ "<t v
to
~
i!?
t.O .J.O iO
-q- V ~
to <C
......
"
III:t'
It)
~ r--
* t
Lf) ,....,.
It) C"')
000000<
cnQ)C').-co~'III::l
. " . " . ~
O(\l~"",""(J)~("I
1Ott)U)lt)IICt~~
O>lOOlLO<r-U'>,...
~ g ~ g g ~ ~
~~:z~~~z~a
z Zz Z,..,
"Ct" ~ t..O 0 (0 -;.0 C
~ ~ f2 ~ ~ .~ ~
1O l.t) U')
!Q ~ ;:;
Ln 1O lO 1O U} tn 1,(:
oc:t' U') ti) to E.O "t';t ~
-- --
w #. ~ ":!!. ~
b o c
a.. 0 (t) "
t::.e .,.... co
;: - -
0 0 S ::) 5 5 :J :J S =r :J Q :;) ::J g => ::> 5 S 5 ::> :J
::J ::J ::J ::J ::J :J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J :::J :J
. ~ ~ ~ I t 1 . I c\J . t ~ 1 t ~ . . , N t I
V ~ C'\I N N C\I N C\I N N "'=t C'J N "'=t N C'J N N N (\J
-
UI .....
Q) T""" 0> U') co 0 tq C\I ('I') --- oc;t 0 g:) (I") ~ ...... m LO N ..... OJ
-
- - . - + . C\i . M t..: . r' N . ~ + ~ .
e ,...... crJ --- 10 Oo::t N N ("oJ (0 <0 m N or-
-
S $ -
10 - - 0
0 0 ~ .. ....:
- ~ -
~ .- .
U1 t\I
~ C\J
~ ~
o N
Lci N
tJ) ..q
LO
to ~
1.0 M
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 2008.
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 2.0 and 1.0 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 (SFWMD) approved the
FKAA's increase in supply through a modi-
fied 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 2006,
the FKAA distributed an average of 17.29
and a maximum of 22.36 MGD to the Florida
Keys. The FKAA is constructing a Floridian
Aquifer Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treat-
33
Figure 3.1 - FKAA Facilities
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
..( EV \"/EST
2 HP
HP
~~
~~
STOCK ISi~.Alm
2 300 HP PUM~S
~
,I~l
I~
1 20 HP PUMP
ment system. This system is designed to
withdraw brackish water from the Floridian
Aquifer which is approximately 1,000 feet
below the ground surface, and treat to drink-
ing water standards. The treated water from
the Floridian Aquifer will be designed to
meet current and future water treatment de-
mands. Under a consent agreement between
FKAA and SFWMD, the FKAA must limit
the dry season (December 1 st through April
30th) withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer
to 17.0 MGD by using an alternative water
source, pressure reduction, public outreach,
and assistance from municipal agencies in
enforcing water conservation ordinances (i.e.
irrigation ordinance).
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. In
2005, the FKAA also secured a 20 year allo-
cation of 6,442 MG (17.65 mgd).
e;JRANS FLORIDA CITY-----r ~~." ~
~ ~ \ ~~~
5 Me ~ ~ ' OCEAI, REEF
22 MGD lR~ATMENT PLANT 2 40 HP PUMPS
(18.5 MGD PERMnED)
2 5DO HP PUMPS
3 BDO H~ PUMPS
ISLAMORADA ~ ~
2 ]0 HP PUMPS~ ~
LONG KEY
CRAWL KEY ~
2 30 HP PUMPS ~
69th 5T MARATHON
2 30 HP PUMPS ~
~
MARATHON ~ ~
2 40 HP PUMPS ~
FKAA's current Water Use Permit (Permit #
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.
34
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
2006 6,310.00 -2.49% 7,274 964
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2007
Figure 3.3 - FKAA Annual Water Withdrawl
8,000
~ 7,000
..s 6,000
"@
o 5,000
'0 4,000
C/O
'-_~ 3,000
2,000
51 1,000
o
Figure 3.4 - WUP Remaining Allocation
1,200
1,000
en 800
~
0 600
~
0 400
<...,
0 200
en
~ 0
0
~
~ -200
~
-400
-600
<n 'oD r- oo 0-, 0 - <'l r'l ..;- <n 'oD
0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - <'l <'l <'l <'l <'l <'l <'l
~i~~&&&&&&&&
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-+-- WUP Limit (MG) ______ Annual Withdrawal (MG)
35
The projected water demand for 2007 is
18.77 MGD. However, preliminary figures
for 2007 indicate a decrease through Mayas
compared to 2006 figures due to water short-
age/draught and water restrictions imposed
by SFWMD. Although water demand projec-
tions show an increase in 2007, the water de-
mands are expected to be lower due to re-
strictions. Figure 3.6 indicates 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 capita (person). The
100 gallons per person per day standard is
commonly accepted as appropriate, and is
reflected in Policy 701.1.1 of the Year 2010
Comprehen-
sive Plan.
Improve-
ments to
Potable
Water Fa-
cilities
FKAA has a
long-range
capital improvement plan for both the distri-
bution system and the transmission and sup-
ply system, as shown in the table below. The
total cost of the scheduled improvements is
approximately $113 million over the next 5
Average Daily With-
drawal
Maximum Daily
Withdrawal
Annual Withdrawal
All 1 ures are in millions 0
19.93
23.79
7,274
allons
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2007
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 distribution system throughout the
Florida Keys and the schedule for these up-
grades is reflected in their long-range capital
improvement plan. "
In addition to improvements to the distribu-
tion system, FKAA also has significant im-
provements planned for the transmission and
supply system.
FKAA expects to
expand the treat-
ment capacity at the
1. Robert Dean Wa-
ter Treatment Plant
to meet future water
demands. Also, the
FKAA is planning
improvements to
the pump stations to
improve flow/
pressure and construction of water storage
tanks to provide additional emergency water
supply.
17.29
18.77
22.36
6,310
23.46
6,856
Figure 3.7 on the following pages shows the
1998 156,120 15,830,000 101.4 19,190,000 122.9
1999 157,172 15,830,000 100.7 19,190,000 122.1
2000 159,113 15,830,000 99.5 19,190,000 120.6
2001 159,840 15,830,000 99 19,190,000 120.1
2002 160,568 19,930,000 124.1 23,790,000 148.2
2003 161,227 19,930,000 123.6 23,790,000 147.6
2004 161,235 19,930,000 123.6 23,790,000 147.5
2005 162,041 19,930,000 123 23,790,000 146.8
2006 162,722 19,930,000 122 23,790,000 146.2
2007 163,361 19,930,000 122 23,790,000 145.63
Source: 1. Monroe County Population Estimates & Forecasts 1990 to 2015 (February, 2000)
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2007
projected capital improvements to the potable
water system planned by the FKAA.
In summary, water demand projections in-
creased to 18.77 MGD in 2007, up from the
average of 17.29 MGD withdrawn in 2006.
The water demand projections are expected
to increase to 18.77 MGD in 2007 up from
the average of 17.29 MGD withdrawn in
2006. 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 2008 with the
Permit #13-00005W expiring in October
2008, there will be 17.65 MGD available.
With projected demand of 18.77 MGD in
2007 and with the assumption that demand
will only continue to increase in 2008 once
water restrictions are lifted, based upon water
demand increasing steadily ever years since
1991 with the expectation of 2001, it can be
anticipated that water demand will outweigh
supply in 2009/2010.
37
(I::l 0 ~ """ 0 0 e ,.,.,
- 0 li"> ~ 0 0 e C>
0 e;. f'o-:. ~ e;. ~ e;. e;.
:;:; e """ """ N I"- 0 .:Q
I'- ...;, ~ li"> ~ .:Q ~
cil ~ li1 li"> .,... li"> "'t q
~ "'"' """ li"> """ N .:Q
..,... ~ N ..,... - N .,...
""'" - - ""'" - .,...
-
-
.... 0 ~. e 0 e - ~
.... 0 C> e 0 0 ~
0 q. ~ li1 q. li1 ~
N li"> l.("> 0 0 .:Q C>
..,... 0 ~ 0 N I'-
"'t .:Q ""t L...'1 ..... ~
N - .,... N N C>
8<> ..,.. 8<> - """
0 , , 0 0 e - 0
.... - 0 0 e 0
0 """ li1 q li"> e;.
N """ 0 .:Q ~
e 0 e .,...
"'1 li1 "'t ~
"'"' N N .:Q
..,.. - - -
Z- 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
c(~ 0 ~ e 0 e ,.,.,
..J~ e;. ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~
A. 0 ~ -2 ...;, 0 0 li">
...;, .:Q N 0 li"> N
~ q - .,... '"1 ~ ~ li1
I- ~ ~ n t..;, N ~ N .:Q
Z ..,... .,... I../') """ ..,... ~ - N
""" """
w ~ Co
-
:lE- V)
0: ~ ~
~ co 0 0 0 0 ;:::~ 0 0
0 0 ~ .... 0 ~ 0 0 ~
0 0 ',:: ~ ~ ~ q ~ - ~ ~
0 N <-0 a:: ~ - """ ~ ...;, - ~ 0 ~
"'"' c: s
~O - .,... 0 li"> I'- e """
0::: -- - c:. f'o-:. li"> -- .,... "'t
~ . g 0 - I../'j
- . ~N n
a.. :::"'1' ...;, co """ - ...;, """
1../')- ~.,... - 0_ I../') ..... .,... ""'"
:E ~- -g -- ~- -
.... t:: ~ ~
- ~ ~ -Z S
- a:: ~
;;J. --;: ~ 0 ~ -- ~
'.=5 b 0:- --
0 """ 0 - 0 """
s: ~ ~ --
o 0 e ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
is - --
I- 0 0 ~ "'1 q. 0 <"l q. ~
- N 0 0 ~ ...;, "- u: c ..,;,
a.. 0 li"> -~ I'- I'- t:: li"> li">
c( "'l ~ li1 '"1 ~ li1 .....
o ~ ~ ~ I'- N .... N ~
- -~ """ """ - """ .,...
-10: """
0::: - ~ e:,
c( ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 - 0 0
w 0 0 0 .... e 0 e 0
> 0 q. q. f.-. q. q q. q
N li"> li"> 0 0 0 0
U"l ~ c 0 0 .:Q .:Q
~ ~ "'t li"> ~ e;.
~ - .,... N - ~
""H - """ -
II'!
....
I/'!
.:>
~,
IJ'i
....
I/'!
.:>
v
11'I
....
11'I
.:>
I...)
II'!
....
I/'!
.:>
~,
IJ'i
....
I/'!
.:>
v
11'I
....
11'I
.:>
I...)
-
I/'! 0
~-
~~w
--~
(J=-
-.,:, '";
~=CQ
11'I !1i -d.
3~~
....::s~
-.,:, =
.~ ~ (J E
::::E ~ ~
Q..=:;-'$
= 1'10 ;;:;,;:'-
-<1:u..::S(l')
38
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.
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 1), 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 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key
Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes
eoral Shores High School (9-12)
Key Largo Elementary /Middle
School (K-8)
Plantation Key Elementary/Middle
School (K-8)
Marathon Middle/High
School (7-12)
Stanley Switlik Ele-
mentary (K-6)
Source: Monroe Count School Board, 2007
Key West High School (9-12)
Horace O'Bryant Middle School (6-8)
Adams Elementary (K-5)
Archer/Reynolds Elementary (K-5)
Poinciana Elementary (K-5)
Sigsbee Elementary (K-5)
Big Pine Key Neighborhood School (Pre K-9)
/Middle School (K -8)
IOSMM ,~
I(ey L70 School
Corn1"Shores Rig
Plantalion Key School ",7
/
Stanley SW'itlik School ~
50 MM ............-Mia..athon Middle/Righ
Sigsbee De Gezoald 1\da..". Ele __.r
Gl~nn_1\rcher E~--- _-:-:"'" ~ /~'1ilg Pine
POlncuu;1.at;.le'" -- 5ugarloa'School
1I~?-a-e'O''''''Yant Middle
Key Wellit High School
105 Miles frOnt Key Largo to Key West
lI.dntinistration Building
211 Tnunbo
licV Wll!st, Fl
OMM
39
Enrollment by Grade Level
one high school and two elementary/middle
schools, as shown in Figure 4.1. Subdistrict 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 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), 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 enrollment
at 8,303. This is a minimal decline from last
year's enrollment of 8,372. Figure 4.2 breaks
down the enrollment by Grade Level.
The School Board collects enrollment data peri-
0dically 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 2006 subdistrict as
taken from the School Board's Fall Student Sur-
4 5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 KG PK TOTAL
vey.
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 2006-2007 school
year. Figures 4.3 and Figure 4.4 show fall school
enrollments while Figure 4.5 shows each school's
capacity and the projected number of students.
Lastly, Figure 4.6 shows Locations, Capacities,
and Planned Utilization Rates of current Educa-
tional Facilities based on state requirements. The
capacity runs approximately 93-95% of stu-
dent stations which vary in number from ele-
mentary, middle and high school due to class
size reduction. The class size reduction was a
result of a state constitutional amendment
setting limits for the maximum allowable
number of student in a class by the start of
40
597 649 702 672 701 757 758 800 810 801 811 619 760 790
1,213 1,235 1,198 1,223 1,273 1,253 1,183 1,173 1117 1112 1073 992 985 989
698 721 737 730 703 675 643 668 647 641 650 548 617 618
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 2,397
523 578 642 637 612 637 660 679 682 693 654 596 581 614
775 776 769 782 815 834 791 671 687 714 676 624 600 614
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 1,228
Subdistrict 3
ey West (H) 1,120 1,155 1,255 1,237 1,327 1,372 1,344 1,305 1,327 1301 1382 1303 1327 1394
'Bryant (M) 902 876 909 897 863 899 814 838 854 874 873 800 781 788
Sugarloaf (ElM) 810 1,039 1,013 987 960 937 913 941 854 901 904 718 767 777
dams (E) 529 516 486 500 499 574 566 513 544 598 591 291 492 504
rcher (E) 441 462 454 454 520 493 460 393 376 386 382 360 354 341
oinciana (E) 566 613 626 637 608 620 632 599 586 583 547 536 526 537
Sigsbee (E) 400 431 431 398 404 423 393 358 363 326 295 237 250 264
Sands 81 85 52 52 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 4,605
Total 8,655 9,136 9,274 9,206 9,343 9,475 9,157 8,938 8,847 8,930 8,838 7,624 8,040 8,23
Source: Monroe Count School Board, 2007
Fi re 4.4 - Fall School Enrollments for District Charter Schools and PACE Centers
22
4
48
137
16
19
246
63
3
60
149
31
26
332
73
7
62
152
31
25
350
Source: Monroe Count School Board, 2007
41
965 831 818 747 835 771
1,036 1,191 1,115 1,082 1,031 933
650 645 653 665 649 622
2,651 2,667 2,586 2,494 2,515 2,326
1,049 667 673 724 665 610
921 668 674 684 651 604
1,970 1,335 1,347 1,408 1,316 1,214
ey West 1,521 1,312 1,267 1,313 1,408 1,335
'Bryant 1018 818 838 876 887 811
Sugarloaf 1,206 941 842 835 888 770
dams 591 506 546 605 552 480
rcher 576 398 371 357 350 311
582 585 574 591 550 528
522 357 373 327 284 241
0 0 0 0 0 0
6,016 4,917 4,811 4,904 4,919 4,476
Total 10,637 8,919 8,744 8,806 8,750 8,016
Source: Monroe Count School Board, 2006
Educational Facilities
42
FIGURE 4.6
Locations, Capacities, and Planned Utilization Rates of current
Educational Facilities 2006-2011
2006-07 Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected
FISH Satis
factory 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2010-11 2010-11
Student Sta FISH Capac
Location tions it'l CO-HE Utilization CO-HE Utilization
Coral Shores HS 1,160 986 742 75% 598 61%
Gerald Adams School 649 580 366 63% 295 51%
Glynn Archer ES 580 580 276 48% 222 38%
Horace O'Bryant School 1,132 1,018 788 77% 635 62%
Key Largo School 1,156 1,040 944 91% 760 73%
Key West HS 1,598 1,518 1,372 90% 1,025 68%
Marathon HS-New buildings
only 1,200 1,020 603 59% 626 61%
Plantation Key School 723 650 589 91% 475 73%
Poinciana ES-New buildings
only 653 653 533 82% 429 66%
Sigsbee ES 522 522 244 47% 197 38%
Switlik School 907 907 576 64% 404 45%
Sugarloaf School 1,237 1,113 801 72% 645 58%
Total 11,517 10,587 7,834 74% 6,311 60%
Source: Monroe County School Board, 2007
43
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
are expected to exceed their recommended capac-
ity. School facility plans are based on enrollment
projections 5 years out for which Figure 4.4a con-
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.
Key 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 remaining portions of the campus.
The agreement was due to the environmentally
sensitivity ofthe area proposed for development.
Plantation Key Elementary/Middle School (K-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.
Stanley Switlik Elementary
Expanding the existing school facilities into the
two parcels of land flanking the current site will
accommodate the land requirements for Stanley
Switlik Elementary. The school has a new 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 4.7 on the following page, is a table show-
ing the results of the investigation completed by
the Monroe County School Board and Planning
Department in 1998 and updated in 2004.
44
I ..
Currently under construction with a
ey Largo Elementary / 27 acres (SC& 2 acres (1) o acres 122,000 square foot classroom building/
iddle School (K-8) SR) new cafeteria/remoyation of gym, build-
ings 5&6.
Currently in the scoping and design
phase to replace the existing elementary
lantation Key Elementary/ buildng with removations to the middle
iddle School (K-8) 8.29 acres (SR) N/ A (2) N/A school area.
Construction of a 200,000 square foot
plus replacement school on the same
Coral Shores Hi h School 20.13 acres SR N/A 2 N/A cam us com leted in late 2003.
Stanle Switlik Element 9.43 acres SC N/A o acres N/A
arathon High and Middle Marathon High School is currently un-
Schools 27 acres (SR) o acres (3) o acres der construction with scheduled comple-
tion date of January 2008.
There are approximately 4.27 acres of
ig Pine Neighborhood Ele- 4.5 acres (SC) o acres o acres vacant land zoned SC and 8.6 acres of
entary vacant land zoned IS surrounding the
current site.
There are approximately 27 acres of
vacant land zoned NA and 34 acres
Sugarloaf Middle and Ele- 42 acres (SC & o acres o acres zoned SR surrounding the current site.
entary NA) There are on-going discussions to con-
struct affordable/employee housing at
the school site.
Source: Monroe Count School Board, 2007
45
J( 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 three times a week (2 gar-
bage/trash, 1 recycling); nonresidential col-
lection varies by contract. The four (4) con-
tractors currently serving the Keys are identi-
fied 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 shi p-
ment out of the Keys. However, it is impor-
tant to note that a second, unused site on
Cudjoe Key could be opened if necessary.
Figure 5.2 below summarizes the status of the
County's landfills and incinerators.
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
Closed 2/25/91
None
Source: Monroe Count
No Longer Active
Currentl Inactive
o
45,000
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. This 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. A very active hurri-
cane season in 2005 could have caused in-
creased generation. Yearly fluctuations are
47
1985 28,585 28,890 15,938 73,413 NA
1987 32,193 37,094 22,206 91,493 24.63%
1989 31,173 33,931 23,033 88,137 -3.67%
1990 28,430 31,924 22,988 83,342 -5.44%
1991 26,356 28,549 20,699 75,604 -9.28%
1992 27,544 26,727 18,872 73,143 -3.26%
1993 37,211 28,986 22,198 88,395 20.85%
1994 30,110 30,662 24,831 85,603 -3.16%
1995 28,604 30,775 25,113 84,492 -1.30%
1996 31,573 31,845 27,823 91,241 7.99%
1997 32,003 33,625 29,350 94,978 4.10%
1998 33,119 36,440 30,920 100,479 5.79%
1999 29,382 30,938 37,431 97,751 -2.71%
2000 32,635 30,079 33,420 96,134 -1.65%
2001 29,663 29,367 31,166 90,196 -6.18%
2002 31,018 31,217 30,700 92,935 3.04%
2003 31,529 31,889 30,385 93,803 0.93%
2004 32,193 31,583 33,762 97,538 3.98%
2005 36,035 32,257 35,290 103,582 6.20%
2006 35,211 33,704 36,168 105,083 1.45%
ote: The figures [rom 1985 to 1991 include white goods, tires, construction debris, and yard waste.
e do not include source-se arated rec clables.
Figure 5.4 - Solid Waste Generation 1985 -2006 by District
120,000
100,000
rf] 80,000
l=1 60,000
0
~ 40,000
20,000
0
"- 'V "J
~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ v v v ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~
_ Key Largo _ Year c=J Long Key ___ Cudjoe Key ~ Total
emaining Capacity
(volume in millions of cubic
ards)
emaining Capacity (time)
34.2 yd3
32.3 yd3
30.5 yd3
31.2 yd3
26 yd3
22.62 yd3
14 years
14 years
14 years
12 years
7 years
6 years
48
expected to continue due to increasing storm
activity and seasonal population 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 May 2007, Waste Management Inc.,
reports a reserve capacity of approximately
22.6 million cubic yards at their Central Sani-
tary Landfill in Broward County, a volume
sufficient to serve their clients for another six
(6) 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 nine years of
guaranteed capacity. Ongoing modifications
at the Central Sanitary Landfill are creating
additional air space and years oflife. In addi-
tion to this contract, the 45,000 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 twelve
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 2007 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.
Using the functional population projection for
50
Figure 6.1 - Parks and Recreation Facilities Serving Unincorporated Monroe County
Upper Keys Subarea
Garden Cove
Hibiscus Park
Undeveloped.
Undeveloped.
Two (2) basketball courts, playground, ball field, picnic shelters, tree garden 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 parking.
Waterfront park 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.
Undeveloped.
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 m.
Monroe County School District; playground, tennis court, basketball court, and ball field.
Friendship Park
Key Largo Community Park
Sunset Point
Harry Harris
Settler's Park
Sunny Haven
Key Largo Elementary
Coral Shores High School
Plantation Key Elementary
Subarea Total
Pigeon Key
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 m.
Monroe County School District; playground, (2) baseball fields, and shared soccer/football field.
Marathon High School
Switlik Elementary
Subarea Total
Little Duck Key
Missouri Key
West Summerland
Lower Keys Subarea
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 (possible improvements to come).
Undeveloped.
Boat ram .
Heron Avenue
Palm Villa
Big Pine Leisure Club
Blue Heron Park
Watson Field
Ramrod Key Swim Hole
Summerland Estates
Little Torch Boat Ram
Sugarloaf Elementary
Sugarloaf School
Baypoint Park
Palm Drive cui-de sac
Rockland Hammock
Boca Chica Beach
Delmar Avenue
Monroe County School District; baseball field and playground, track.
Monroe County School District; undeveloped.
Playground, volleyball, bocchi ball, two (2) tennis courts, and picnic area.
Undeveloped.
Undevelo ed.
Beach area.
Boat ramp.
Handball court, picnic pavilion, basketball court (small roller hockey court), two bocce court,
horseshoe/shuilleboard court.
Big Coppitt Fire Dept. Playground
Wilhelmina Harvey Children's Park
Bernstein Park
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.
East Martello
West Martello
Higgs Beach/ Astro City
Lighthouse Museum
Subarea Total
Historic structure and museum.
UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY TOTAL
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2007
1.5
0.46
1.93
14
1.2
16.4
3
0.09
5.79
3.4
10.1
1.7
47.98
5
7.8
5
2.5
10.3
25.5
3.5
31.8
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
0.8
15.5
0.77
87.17 49.4
97.96 107.68
2007 of 70,432 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 57.75 acres. The county
currently has a resource-based land to meet
the level of service with an extra 40.21 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
(35,041-Upper, 3,666-middle, and 31,725-
Lower), the demand for these recreation areas
are 28.73, 3.01 and 26..01 acres for the Up-
per, Middle, and Lower Keys, respectively.
There is currently a reserve of 19.25, 7.29,
and 23.39 (Upper, Middle, and Lower) for a
total of 49.93 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
Upper Keys Total 35,041 5.79 28.73 -22.94
Middle Keys Total 3,666 5 3.01 1.99
Lower Ke s Total 31,725 87.17 26.01 61.16
Total 70,432 97.96 57.75 40.21
Source: Monroe Count De artment, 2007 Based on Uninco orated Monroe Count
Note: Population figures were updated based on 2007 Permanent Population Updates. However data was not avail-
able by subarea therefore "Subarea" was extrapalated based on percentages of 2006 data for subarea. Seasonal did
not change, and the percentage of each category for 2006 remained the same however the total overall permanent
o ultaion fi e chan ed
Upper Keys Total
Middle Keys Total
Lower Ke s Total
Total
35,041
3,666
31,725
70,432
Source: Monroe Count
De artment, 2007 Based on Uninco orated Monroe Count
47.98
10.3
49.4
107.68
28.73
3.01
26.01
57.75
19.25
7.29
23.39
49.93
Note: Population figures were updated based on 2007 Permanent Population Updates. However data was not avail-
able by subarea therefore "Subarea" was extrapalated based on percentages of 2006 data for subarea. Seasonal did
not change, and the percentage of each category for 2006 remained the same however the total overall permanent
o ultaion fi e chan ed
52
Future Parks and Recreation Plan-
ning
Identifying parks and recreation needs is 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/
No Name Key, Key Largo, Stock Island and
Tavernier. The process is near for the Sugar-
loaf to Little Torch Key area.
A new park that is now progressing, is the
Big Pine Key Community Park at the site of
the old Mariner's resort. After completion of
the facilities in this park, 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 satisfy 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
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 joint 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.
53
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 19, 2007
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes 1L-
No
Department: Building
Staff Contact Person: Joseph Paskalik
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to advertise Notice of Intent to Adopt an ordinance and
hold a public hearing to amend Section 6-17( d) to delete outdated wording regarding Hurricane Wilma.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Deletes outdated wording in 6-17(d) regarding Hurricane Wilma
exemptions.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC approved added provisions in 6-17(d)
regarding building permitting for owners impacted by Hurricane Wilma which occurred on October 24,
2005. Those regulations are no longer needed.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes
NoX
COST TO COUNTY:
N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty ~ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 8/06
ORDINANCE
2007
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DELETING OUTDATED AND
OBSOLETE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 6 OF THE MONROE
COUNTY CODE SECTION 6-17(d) REGARDING PERMITS
FOR BUILDING ACTIVITIES RESUL TING FROM
HURRICANE WILMA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, building permit information and regulations are no longer needed for permits
resulting from Hurricane Wilma which occurred on October 24, 2005;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Existing Section 6-17( d) is hereby deleted as follows
(d) Permit Exemptions fOr Hurricane Wilma: Not'.vithstanding the pro'.'isions of paragraph (a)
above, the follO\ying ','lork shall be exempted from requiring a permit prior to the time periods
speoified belo'll:
(1) No permit shall be required '.vhere imminent danger to life or safety exists or to prevent
further property damage caused by Hurricane '.Vilma. Property o\vne[S may make necessary
repairs to the minimum extent necessary without a permit; however, photographs should be taken
before and after the necessary repairs. This exemption from the permitting requirements of this
chapter shall be for a period of sixty (60) days from the effective date of this subsection.
(2) No permit shall be required for any residential '.York involving the replacement of three
hundred (300) square feet or less of storm damage roof shingle. This exemption from the
permitting requirement of this chapter shall be for a period of sixty (60) days from the effective
date of this subsection.
(3) No permit shall be required for any work invoh'ing the demolition/removal of dry wall,
cabinet and vanities, heating/cooling and electrical systems, and floor coverings in flooded
structures, and demolition of storm damaged accessory structures or docks, sea'.valls, and lifts.
This exemption from the permitting requirement of this chapter shall be for a period of ninety
(90) days from the effectiye date of this subsection.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held
invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 4. The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated in the Code of
Ordinances of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an addition, or amendment thereto, and shall be
appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform numbering system of the Code.
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon receipt of the official notice from
the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida that this ordinance has been filed with
said office.
Section 6. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Ordinance to the
Municipal Code Corporation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida
at a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 200_
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Mayor Pro Tern Mario DiGennaro
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 19, 2007
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes x
No
Department: Building
Staff Contact Person: Joseph Paskalik
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to advertise Notice of Intent to Adopt ordinance and hold
public hearing to amend Section 6-20(b)(c) to allow all approved inspections to qualifY for equal time
(180 days) to extend an existing permit and Section 6-20(f) to increase the demolition permit
expiration time from 60 to 180 days, to be consistent with the current Florida Building Code.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Removes differentiation of red and black labeled inspections in 6-20(b)(c)
to allow all inspections to be used for the one hundred eighty (180) days timely progress calculation;
and amends the 6-20(t) exception of expiration of demolition permit in 60 days. All permits and
inspections will be handled in the same manner.
In the interests of alleviating extensive paperwork required for applicants and staff alike to renew or re-
permit an expired permit; and to allow more consistency in the permitting process and given the current
market conditions; the building department is recommending revisions to this code section to consider
all approved inspections equally.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC last voted to approve the update of Chapter
Six of the Monroe County Code with the inception of the Florida Building Code in 2002; however
these items were not addressed in that revision.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes
NoX
COST TO COUNTY:
N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management_
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 8/06
ORDINANCE 2007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING SECTIONS 6-20 CONCERNING BUILDING
PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR COMMENCEMENT OF
WORK; DELETING THE TERMS "RED" AND "BLACK" INSPECTIONS AND
PROVIDING FOR APPROVED INSPECTIONS; AMENDING SECTION 6-20 (f)
TO PROVIDE TIME PERIODS FOR DEMOLITION PERMITS; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the use of the terms "red" and "black" inspections as indicated on building permits is
outdated and obsolete; and
WHEREAS, the better practice is to provide for "approved inspections" for the commencement and
continuation of construction work; and
WHEREAS, the length of time for a demolition permit should be extended;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY, FLORIDA;
Section 1. Existing Section 6-20 is hereby amended to read as follows (new language IS
underlined and deleted language is shown as strike through):
(b) Permit Time Limitations: Every permit issued shall become null and void unless the work
authorized by such permit is commenced within six (6) months after its issuance, or if the work
authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of six (6) months after the time
the work is commenced. Work is considered commenced if it has received an approved initial
inspection pursuant to permit requirements. or an approved temporary electrical inspection. Any
valid permit, for which construction has commenced, must progress in a timely fashion. The only
method by which timely valid progress of authorized work may be demonstrated is through the
building department's having performed and approved an inspection \vhich is highlighted in red
print on the building permit display card within one hundred eighty (180) days measured from
either (1) as to the initial inspection, the date work was required to begin, or (2) as to inspections
subsequent to the initial inspection, from the date of the last approved inspection. 'Nhich was
highlighted in red print on the display card.
(c) Approved Inspections: These inspections which are highlighted in red print on the display
card, as amended from time to time by the building official, may include, but shall not be limited
to: any auger/auger cap; piling/piling cap; grade beam/slab; column/tie beams; slab/wood 11oor;
roof trusses/sheathing; final roofing; 1\/C ductvlork, total rough plumbing; total rough electrical;
framing; insulatiolb/df)'vlall; final mechanical; final plumbing; final electrical and final building.
Approved inspections include any and all inspections that are required pertaining to building,
electrical, plumbing, mechanical and/or roofing, depending upon the scope of the work.
(d) Failure to Obtain Inspections: Failure to obtain an approved inspection within one hundred
eighty ( 180) days of the previous approved inspection shall constitute suspension or
abandonment, which shall render the permit null and void. Any work completed without an
approved inspection may be subject to code compliance.
WIGROWTH MANAGEMENTlBOCCIGMD Agenda Items1200712191Notice of Intent to change code re inspections Hurricane
Wilmalordinance code change inspections red-blck inspect 12-07.doc
(e) Extensions: After work is commenced, a one-time only extension of time for a period of not
more than one hundred eighty (180) days, may be allowed by the building official for the pennit,
provided the extension is requested in writing and justifiable cause is demonstrated prior to the
expiration date. Any extension request shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee.
(f) Demolition Permits (Special Case): Any permits for the demolition of a structure shall
expire sixty (60) one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of issuance. No extensions shall be
allowed.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held
invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 4. The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated in the Code of
Ordinances of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an addition, or amendment thereto, and shall be
appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform numbering system of the Code.
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon receipt of the official notice from
the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida that this ordinance has been filed with said
office.
Section 6. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Ordinance to the
Municipal Code Corporation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida at a
regular meeting held on the _ day of , 200_
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Mayor Pro Tem Mario DiGennaro
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
(SEAL)
A TrEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
W:\GROWTH MANAGEMENT\BOCC\GMD Agenda Items\20071219\Notice of Intent to change code re inspections Hurricane
Wilma\ordinance code change inspections red-blck inspect 12-07.doc
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 19, 2007
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes X
No
Department: Planning & Environmental Resources
Staff Contact: Richard Jones
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approyal of a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners supporting the temporary installation
by Keys Hydro Power of an experimental hydrokinetic turbine at a specific location in Bahia Honda
Channel, which has been determined to be appropriate for the proposed testing and should not pose any
significant environmental impacts or navigational hazard.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
At its October 2007 meeting the BOCC heard a presentation by Keys Hydro Power regarding proposed
testing of an experimental hydrokinetic turbine in Bahia Channel. Subsequently, seafloor studies haye
been conducted to find an impact-free location, and a specific site has been chosen for the temporary
installation approximately 500' south of the Bahia Honda Bridge.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
October 2007- the Board passed a Resolution supporting the testing of a hydrokinetic turbine by Keys
Hydro Power
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
TOT AL COST: N/ A
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY: N/ A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty ---X- OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _
DOCUMENT A TION:
Included X
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
Marine Resources
RESOLUTION
- 2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING THE TEMPORARY
INSTALLATION BY KEYS HYDRO POWER OF AN
EXPERIMENTAL HYDROKINETIC TURBINE AT A
SPECIFIC LOCATION IN BAHIA HONDA CHANNEL,
WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE APPROPRIATE
FOR THE PROPOSED TESTING AND SHOULD NOT
POSE ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OR NAVIGATIONAL HAZARD.
WHEREAS, Florida Keys Hydropower Research Corporation, an active non-profit
Florida corporation doing business as Keys Hydro Power, is proposing to study the feasibility of
building tidal current hydro turbine farms in channels of the Florida Keys for the purpose of
generating electricity; and
WHEREAS, a successful result of the feasibility study will lead to the design of hydro
turbine farms that haye the potential of providing electricity at less expense for the citizens,
businesses, government and military in the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, Keys Energy System, the utility providing electricity for Key West and the
Lower Keys to the Seven Mile Bridge, has a contract with the Florida Municipal Power Agency
to purchase all its power; and
WHEREAS, the major expense of purchased power is fuel cost; and
WHEREAS, there is no fuel cost to power a tidal turbine; and
WHEREAS, tidal turbines are enyironmentally friendly alternative sources of energy
that do not produce climate change emissions; and
WHEREAS, Keys Hydro Power, Keys Electric System, and the Florida Municipal
Power Agency are in mutual cooperation; and
WHEREAS, Keys Hydro Power proposes to eventually generate substantial clean
electricity in the Florida Keys and connect it to the existing grid systems; and
WHEREAS, a primary objectiye of Keys Hydro Power is to promote conversion to
renewable, emission-free energy and environmental responsibility in the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) passed a
resolution supporting and encouraging the proposed hydro-power testing at a regular meeting
held on October 17, 2007; and
Page 1 of2
WHEREAS, seafloor studies have determined that a proposed test site in Bahia Honda
Channel, approximately five hundred feet south of the Bahia Honda Bridge, located at position
24039' 14.6" N 81.017' 19.6" W is void of any significant'benthic resources;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners;
1. The BOCC supports the testing of a hydrokinetic turbine by Keys Hydro Power at
the proposed test site in Bahia Honda Channel, located at position 240 39' 14.6"
North and 810 17' 19 .6" West, which should pose no significant enyironmental
impacts or navigational hazard.
2. The County Marine Resources Office shall support the proposed hydro power
testing, and will cooperate and coordinate with Keys Hydro Power to assist in
expediting the testing.
3. The BOCC encourages all local, state, and federal authorities to support this
innovative approach to keeping the Florida Keys, a national treasure, green.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a meeting of said Board held on the 19th day of December, A.D., 2007.
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Mayor Pro Tern Mario DiGennaro
Commissioner Dixie M. Spehar
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner George Neugent
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
By
Deputy Clerk
Mayor/Chairman
Page 2 of2