Resolution 383-2009
...
RESOLUTION NO. 383-2009
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE 2008
MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY
ASSESSMENT REPORT AS SUBMITTED BY THE
MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES.
WHEREAS, Section 114-2(b)(4) 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;
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission makes the following
findings of facts:
1. Based on the analysis and findings of fact, the 2008 Public Facilities Capacity
Assessment Report is consistent wit the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Code.
2. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the official
assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be
reviewed and approved for the upcoming year.
3. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report is used to evaluate the
existing level of services for roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational
facilities.
4. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report finds that sufficient
capacity exists for solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities to meet
anticipated growth for the next (12) twelve months.
5. The 2008 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report of transportation
facilities is based on the 2008 US-1 Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by
URS the County's transportation consultant.
6. Objective 101.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan ensures public facilities
are available to serve the development at the level of service standards
concurrent with the impacts of such development.
Page 1 of3
7. Section 114-2 of the Code provides the minimum standards for level of service
for roads, solid waste, potable water and educational facilities.
8. Section 114-2 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.
9. Section 114-2(a)(1)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.
10. Four segments have exceeded the maximum reserve volume or trips. They are
Sugarloaf (LOS "D"), Tea Table (LOS "D"), Big Pine Key (LOS "D") and
Cross Key (LOS "E"). County regulations and FDOT policy allow segments
that fail to meet LOS C standards to receive an allocation not to exceed five
(5%) percent below the LOS C standard. SugarloafKeyand Tea Table are still
within the 5% allocation. Big Pine and Cross Keys have exceeded the 5%
allocation.
11. Big Pine Key traffic signal at Key Deer Boulevard intersections continues to
influence the travel speeds and has experienced a high number of delays.
12. Cross Key has experienced a high number of delays due to construction of a
high-level fixed bridge. Once construction is complete in this area, the level of
service is likely to improve.
13. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District approved the
FKAA's modification ofWUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the
Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This WUP provides an annual allocation of
8,751 millions gallons or 23.98 MOD. The construction of the new water
supply wells and reverse osmosis water treatment facility will provide an
additional capacity of 6.0 MOD.
14. The average daily water demand is expected to increase to 16.28 MOD due to
water shortages and droughts. The construction of the new water supply wells
and RO water treatment facility will provide an additional capacity of 6.0
MOD.
15. For unincorporated Monroe County in 2008, the total permanent population is
estimated to be 72,243. The seasonal population is estimated to be 35,929. The
estimated 2008 seasonal population in incorporated Monroe County is estimated
to be 38,346.
16. The functional population for 2008 for unincorporated and incorporated Monroe
County is 146,518.
Page 2 of3
17. A total of 100 new single-family residential permits were issued In
unincorporated Monroe County in 2008.
18. The rate of growth guidelines indicates that unincorporated Monroe County
may award up to 197 residential allocations during RaGa Year 17. The
Planning Commission approved 116 RaGa allocations in the first half of
RaGa Year 17.
NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt The 2008 Public Facilities
Capacity Assessment Report for unincorporated Monroe County;
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 21 st day of October A.D., 2009.
Mayor George Neugent Yes
Mayor Pro Tern Sylvia Murphy Yes
Commissioner Kim Wigington Yes
Commissioner Heather Carruthers Yes
Commissioner Mario Di Gennaro Yes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNT~FLORIDA
BY ~~~. n~,~
Mayor George Neugent
(~eAL )
ATTES.,T:".DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
.~
~
,::) 0
~~!
~ ."
Cl::I --
\0 r-
5 rT1
'< 0
, "
CJ\ <:)
.::0
-0 ;0
:e: ",
- n
.. <=>
~ :0
c.o 0
~~~~~] ~
---; '-, -r-
::...( ~ i>
.." C)
r-- ",
Page 3 of3
III
o0 3 18 6444:;;Sii,„\\), 2008
0 23 L "C�
`� MONROE COUNTY
--Q y PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY
os +.
ASSESSMENT
rtilk
REPORT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION
POTABLE WATER EDUCATION SOLID WASTE
PARKS AND RECREATION
. g- 47,..,-„, -
„, -mmand .-,, , z
'Moiy _. .„, .
oe County � .,
.: -t. .,,
. ,
-4.. - . . .
C 'a. _4 aw.� , lc
Lk _4 w w ,:..
Key e
ler
Plantation
Key
cc
Monroe County Isla.no<ada
Florida Bay a ao
Layton '0
, B0 f t
4%, A ` Marathon
. Patel
Cudj
Suga �! V. :4514 ^°
t
a
Big Copptt ,A.� FVOt
Key_, -- t
O
W s SkC
StockIs{and
N
A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executi ve Summary ............................................................................................................... 4
Figure AI: Capacity ofV.S. 1 by Segment in 2008 ............................................................. 5
Introduction.................................................................................................................. .......... 6
Figure A2: Map of the Service Areas................................................................................... 8
Figure A3: Planning Area Enumeration Districts (P AEDS)................................................. 9
Chapters
I. Growth Management ....................................................................................................1 0
II. Transportation .............................................................................................................. .18
III. P otab I e Water................................................................................................................ 2 7
IV. Education ......................................................................................................................3 3
V. Soli d Waste................................................................................................................... 3 9
VI. P arks and Recreation..................................................................................................... 43
List of Fi2ures
Chapter I: Growth Management
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2:
Figure 1.3:
Figure 1.4:
Figure 1.5:
Figure 1.6:
Figure 1.7:
Figure 1.8:
Figure 1.9:
Figure 1.10:
Figure 1.11:
Figure 1.12:
Functional Population 2000-2008................................................................ ..11
Functional Population Gains and Losses 2000-2008.....................................11
U. S. Population Estimates 1990-2008 ..........................................................11
Population Estimates Chart........................................................................... .11
Housing Units 1990-2007 ............................................................................. .12
Housing Units 1990-2007 Chart................................................................... .12
New Single Family Residential Permits 2005-2008......................................13
Single Family Residential 2005-2008.......................................................... ..13
Mobile Home Replacement 2005-2008 ........... ...................... ............. ....... ....13
Recreational Vehicle Replacement 2005-2008............................................ ..13
NROGO Allocation Year 13 Period 2 through Year 17 Period 1..................15
ROGO Allocation Year 13 Period 2 through Year 17 Period 1 ....................17
Chapter II: Transportation
Figure 2.1 :
Figure 2.2:
Figure 2.3:
Figure 2.4:
Figure 2.5:
Figure 2.6:
Figure 2.7:
Figure 2.8:
Figure 2.9:
Fully-Signalized Intersection........................................................................ .18
Traffic Counts 2007-2008............................................................................. .19
Historical Comparisons AADT's 2000-2008 ................................................19
Changes in Overall Median Speed................................................................ .20
Changes in Overall Median Speed Chart 1992-2008 ....................................21
Level of Service Based on Flow Characteristics 1992-2008.........................22
U. S. 1 Segments Status, Median Speeds and Change 2007-2008 ................25
Level of Service and Reserve Speed Capacity............................................. .25
Reserve Speeds of Less than or Equal to 3 MPH ..........................................26
Page 2 of 45
Chapter III: Potable Water
Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.3:
Figure 3.4:
Figure 3.5:
Figure 3.6:
Figure 3.7:
FKAA System Overview.............................................................................. .29
Annual Water Withdrawal 1980-2007......................................................... ..29
Annual Water Withdrawal 1992-2007 Chart................................................ .30
WUP Remaining All ocati on .......................................................................... 30
Proj ected Water Demand in 2008 .................................................................. 30
Per Capita Water Availability ........................................................................31
FK.AA Five-Year Water Availability............................................................ .31
Chapter IV: Education
Figure 4.1 :
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:
Figure 4.5:
Figure 4.6:
Figure 4.7:
Schools by Sub-district ................................................................................. .34
Enrollment by Grade Level........................................................................... .34
Fall School Enrollment 1997-2007............................................................ ....3 5
Fall School Enrollments for District Charter Schools and Pace Center ........35
Capital Outlay FTE Forecast for Monroe County 2008 ................................36
Location, Capacities and Planned Utilization Rates of
Current Educational Facilities 2006-2011 ...................... ...............................37
Public School Capital Improvements.............................................................3 8
Chapter V: Solid Waste
Figure 5.1:
Figure 5.2:
Figure 5.3:
Figure 5.4:
Figure 5.5:
Solid Waste Contractors ................................................................................ 3 9
Monroe County's Landfill and Incinerators................................................. .39
Solid Waste Generation by District............................................................. ..41
Solid Waste Generation 1985-2007 .............................................................. .41
Remaining Capacity, Central Sanitary Landfill............................................ .42
Chapter VI: Parks and Recreation
Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.2:
Figure 6.3:
Parks and Recreation Facilities Serving Unincorporated Monroe County....44
Level of Service for Resourced-Based Recreation Areas..............................45
Level of Service for Activity-Based Recreation Areas................................. .45
Page 3 of 45
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Monroe County Code (hereafter referred to
as "the Code") Section 114-2 mandates 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 conform to special procedures to ensure that
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 MC Code Section 114-2 the
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 required to serve the
additional development. Once approved, this
document becomes the official report on public
facilities upon which development approvals will
be based for the next year. This report
distinguishes between areas of adequate,
inadequate and marginally adequate facility
capacity. Inadequate facility capacity is defined
as those areas with capacity below the adopted
LOS standard. Marginally adequate capacity is
defined as those areas at the adopted LOS
standard or that are projected to reach inadequate
capacity within the next twelve months.
2008 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC
FACILITIES
Solid waste, potable water and schools have
sufficient capacity to serve the growth anticipated
in 2008 at the adopted level of service. The
transportation facility (roads) demonstrates
marginally adequate capacity. However, in
isolated situations it fails to meet the County's
level of service standard. The status of each
facility is summarized below.
Potable Water
Page 4 of 45
In March 2008, South Florida Water Management
District approved the FKAA's modification of
WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation
from the Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This
water use permit (WUP) provides an annual
allocation of 8,751 million gallons or 23.98
MGD. The average daily water demand is
expected to increase to 16.28 MGD due to water
shortages and droughts. The planned
construction of the new water supply wells and
Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment facility
will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD.
Schools
Enrollment figures for the 2008-2009 school year
and projected enrollment figures for the near
future, the 2012-2013 school year, show that none
of the schools are expected to exceed their
recommended capacity.
Solid Waste
Monroe County has a contract with Waste
Management (WMI). The contract authorizes the
use of in-state facilities through September 30,
2016, thereby providing the County with
approximately eight (8) years of guaranteed
capacity. Ongoing modifications at the Central
Sanitary Landfill are creating additional air space
and years of life.
Roads:
Based on the findings of the 2008 U.S. 1 Arterial
Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County,
as prepared by URS Corporation Southern
Consultants, U.S. 1 has an overall level of service
(LOS) of "C". The following table shows the
available capacity of U.S. 1 by segment.
Flgure A 1
CAPACITY OF U. S. 1 BY SEGMENT IN 2008
Mile Marker 2008
# Range Segment LOS 2000 ST A TUS
1 4-5 Stock Island B Adequate
2 5-9 Boca Chica B Adequate
3 9-10.5 Blg Coppltt C MARGINAL
4 10.5-16.5 Sadd lebunch C MARGINAL
5 16.5-20.5 Sugarloaf D INADEQUATE
6 20.5-23 Cudjoe A Adequate
7 23-25 Summerland B Adequate
8 25-27.5 Ramrod A Adequate
9 27.5-29.5 Torch A Adequate
10 29.5-33 Big Pine D INADEQUATE
11 33-40 Bahia Honda B Adequate
12 40-47 7 -Mile Bridge B Adequate
13 47- 54 Marathon A Adequate
14 54-60.5 Grassy C MARGINAL
15 60.5-63 Duck B Adequate
16 63-73 Long B Adequate
17 73-77.5 L. Matecumbe C MARGINAL
18 77.5-79.5 Tea Table D INADEQUATE
19 79.5-84 U. Matecumbe C MARGINAL
20 84-86 Windley A Adequate
21 86-91.5 Plantation B Adequate
22 91.5-99.5 Tavernier A Adequate
23 99.5-106 Largo A Adequate
24 106-112.5 Cross E INADEQUATE
2008 CAPACITY OF U.S. 1 BY
SEGMENT
The overall travel speed on u.s. 1 for 2008 is 0.7
mph higher than the 2007 overall travel speed.
The reserve speed is 1.4 mph. Traffic volumes
recorded at Big Pine, Marathon and Upper
Matecumbe segments have decreased when
compared to last year. The second largest delay
event was construction and the third largest delay
event was congestion.
Four segments have exceeded the maximum
reserve volume (trips). They are Sugarloaf, Tea
Table, Big Pine and Cross Key. County
Page 5 of 45
regulations and FDOT Policy allow segments that
fail to meet LOS "e" standards to receive an
allocation not to exceed five percent (5%) below
the LOS "c" standard. Sugarloaf Key (LOS "D")
is still within the 5% allocation below LOS "c"
at 1 ,308 trips. Tea Table (LOS "D") is within the
5% allocation below the LOS "c" at 858 trips.
Both Big Pine Key and Cross Key have exceeded
the 5% allocation. Big Pine Key has dropped
down to a LOS "D" from LOS "C". The signal at
the Key Deer Boulevard intersection continues to
influence the travel speeds on this segment and
has experienced 13 delay events this year. Big
Pine Key average median speed has been
declining about 0.03% since 2000. Cross Key has
also exceeded the maximum trips and the 5%
allocation and subsequently dropped down to a
LOS "E".
County roads are subject to a lower standard than
U.S. 1. Based on the analysis found in the
Technical Document of the Monroe County Year
2010 Comprehensive Plan, all County roads are
operating at or above LOS "D".
SUMMARY
Overall, most public facilities continue to be
adequate. However, demands on these facilities
continue to grow. The Growth Management
Division is committed to monitoring changes in
public facility demand and responding to changes
in consumption patterns. The ability to
coordinate with public facilities providers and
other municipalities in the Keys will become
more and more critical as we strive to maintain
the quality of life we all enjoy.
INTRODUCTION
This report is the 2008 Annual Assessment of
Public Facilities Capacity mandated by Section
114-2, titled Adequate Facilities And
Development Review Procedures, of the Monroe
County Code (hereafter referred to as "the
Code"). The State of Florida requires all local
jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensuring
"concurrency". Concurrency means "the
necessary public facilities and services to
maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS)
standards available when the impacts of
development occur" (Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida
Administrative Code). In other words, local
governments must establish regulations to ensure
that public facilities and services that are needed
to support development are available concurrent
with the impacts of development.
Section 114-2 contains two main sets of
requirements: the minimum service standards for
the four primary public facilities (roads, solid
waste, potable water, schools), and an annual
assessment process to determine the available
capacity of these public facilities. In addition,
Section 114-2 includes an equitable procedure for
issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely
to outpace the current capacity of these public
facilities.
Section 114-2(3) requires the Director of
Planning to prepare an annual report to the BOCC
on the capacity of available public facilities. This
report must determine the potential amount of
residential and nonresidential growth expected in
the upcoming year, and make an assessment of
how well the roads, solid waste, water supply
facilities, and schools will accommodate that
growth. The report considers potential growth
and public facility capacity for only the next
twelve months. In addition, the report must
identify areas of unincorporated Monroe County
with only marginal and/or inadequate capacity for
public facilities.
In the event public facilities have fallen or are
projected to fall below the LOS standards
Page 6 of 45
required by the Code, development activities
must conform to special procedures to ensure that
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 114-2(b)(4) requires the BOCC to
consider this report and approve its findings
either with or without modifications. The BOCC
cannot act to increase development capacity
beyond that demonstrated in this report without
making specific findings of fact as to the reasons
for the increase and identifying the source of
funds to be used to pay for the additional
capacity.
Once approved by the BOCC, this document
becomes the official assessment of public
facilities upon which development approvals will
be based for the next year.
PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS
There are four (4) primary public facilities that
must be monitored for adequate capacity
according to the Code. They are roads, solid
waste, potable water and schools. The available
capacity for each of these facilities may be either
sufficient to accommodate projected growth over
the next year, marginally adequate, or inadequate.
In situations where public facilities serving an
area are projected to be only marginally adequate
or inadequate over the next year, the Code sets
out a review procedure to be followed when
issuing development permits in that area.
Section 114-2(b)(5)b of the Code states: "The
county shall not approve applications for
development in areas of the county which are
served by inadequate facilities identified in the
annual adequate facilities (Public Facility
Capacity Assessment) report, except the county
may approve development that will have no
reduction in the capacity of the facility or where
the developer agrees to increase the level of
service of the facility to the adopted level of
service standard." The Code goes on to state that
"in areas of marginal facility capacity as
identified in the current annual adequate
facilities report, the county shall either deny the
application or condition the approval so that the
level of service standard is not violated. "
The determination of an additional development's
impact on existing public facilities in areas with
marginal or inadequate capacity is determined by
a "facilities impact report" which must be
submitted with a development application.
Section 114-2(a) of the Code pertains to the
minimum standards for public facilities. It states,
"After February 28, 1988, all development or
land shall be served by adequate public facilities
in accordance with the following standards:
(1) Roads:
a. County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a
parcel proposed for development shall have
sufficient available capacity to operate at
LOS "D" as measured on an annual average
daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersection
and/or roadway segments. U.S. 1 shall have
sufficient available capacity to operate at
LOS "C" on an overall basis as measured by
the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force
Methodology. In addition, the segment or
segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S.
1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology,
which would be directly impacted by a
proposed development's access to U.S. 1,
shall have sufficient available capacity to
operate at LOS "C" as measured by the U.S.
1 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 LOS "D" as measured
on an annual average daily traffic (AADT)
basis.
c. In areas which are served by inadequate
transportation facilities on U.S. 1,
development may be approved provided that
the development in combination with all
other development will not decrease travel
Page 7 of 45
speeds by more than five percent (5%) below
Level of Service (LOS) "C", as measured by
the U.S. 1 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 Resource Recovery
Authority may enter into agreements,
including agreements under section 163.01,
Florida Statutes, to dispose of solid waste
outside Monroe County.
(3) Potable Water:
Sufficient potable water from an approved
and permitted source shall be available to
satisfy the projected water needs of a
proposed development, or use. Approved
and permitted sources shall include cisterns,
wells, FKAA distribution systems, individual
water condensation systems, and any other
system which complies with the Florida
standards for potable water.
(4) Schools:
Adequate school classroom capacity shall be
available to accommodate all school age
children to be generated by a proposed
development or use."
PERMITTING AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS
Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and
Development Review Procedures of the Code
divides unincorporated Monroe County into three
(3) service areas for the purpose of assessing
potential growth and how public facilities can
accommodate that growth. The boundaries
mentioned in the Code have been revised to
account for incorporations of Islamorada and
Marathon.
Section 114-2(b )(2) indicates three public
facilities service areas:
a. Upper Keys Service Area: The
unincorporated areas of the county north of the
Whale Harbor Bridge;
b. Middle Keys Service Area: The
unincorporated areas of the county between the
Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor Bridge;
and
c. Lower Keys Service Area: The unincorporated
areas of the county south and/or west of the Seven
Mile Bridge."
The Upper Keys servIce area includes all
The Upper Keys
MM 112-91
~ ""V,.
. '
"-
J r:... '.l · ~
~ -.,. " ...
-'-.1 · ·
.... III.. t1..
'.
.~
aU /1
aP.
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
includes unincorporated Monroe County south of
the Seven Mile Bridge.
The following map shows the three (3) service
areas of the Keys as they are currently
recognized.
FIGURE A2
MONRq.E,"C'OUNTY MAP
The Middle Keys
MM 91-47
~
..~
I
,
o~
.,.
).tI., ..
Page 8 of 45
The Lower Keys
MM 47-4
PLANNING AREA ENUMERATION
DISTRICTS (PAEDS)
PAEDs are the basic unit of geographical analysis
used by the Planning and Environmental
Resources Department.
The PAEDs are a combination of "planning
areas" utilized by the Planning Department in the
early 1980s and the u.s. Census Bureau's
"enumeration districts". These two (2) levels of
analysis were combined in 1987 for ease of use.
Since most PAEDs follow island boundaries, they
can be aggregated to match most service districts
for public facilities.
There are a total of twenty-two (22) PAEDs in
unincorporated Monroe County. The City of Key
West (including northern Stock Island) is not
contained within any PAED boundaries.
The City of Key Colony Beach is contained
within the geographic area of PAED 8. The City
Page 9 of 45
of Marathon encompasses PAEDs 7,8, & 9. The
City of Layton falls within P AED 11. The Village
of Islamorada occupies PAEDs 12A, 12B, 13, &
14. PAEDs 19 and 20 are the last PAEDs before
the "bend" in U.S. 1, and have been grouped
together in this report because of data constraints.
1.1 -. PAED 18
~ . ... ,/ /' v.. '" PAED 17
. ~/r~PAED16
.
!
AIBl1
Ie GROWTH ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the growth of
Monroe County's population, occupied and
vacant housing, Building Department permit and
NROGO and ROGO data. Sources of these
reports come from the Monroe County Planning
and Building Departments and the u.S. Census.
Except where specified, all data is for the
unincorporated areas of Monroe County.
POPULATION COMPOSITION
There are three (3) different measurements of
population in Monroe County: permanent,
seasonal, and functional. The capacity of most
public facilities is designed based on potential
peak demand. To help assess peak demand, the
permanent and seasonal populations are often
combined to give a "functional" population or the
maximum population demanding services.
Until better data becomes available, the Planning
and Environmental Resources Department is
using data from U. S. Census for permanent
population estimates and the "Monroe County
Population Estimates and Forecasts 1990-2015"
to estimate seasonal population. As better data
becomes available for permanent and seasonal
population, projections for functional population
will be adjusted accordingly.
The incorporation of Islamorada and Marathon
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.
PROJECTED PE~NENT AND
SEASONAL POPULATION
Permanent residents are people who spend all or
most of the year living in Monroe County, and as
such, exert a relatively constant demand on all
public facilities. The permanent population
estimate data was derived from the U.S. Census
database. Except for the Year 2000 Decennial
Census, the U. S. Census estimated the
population for years 2001 through 2008.
The seasonal population is composed of the
tourist population and seasonal residents
spending less than six months in the Keys. The
seasonal population has a higher cyclical demand
on public facilities like roads and solid waste.
Seasonal population can be derived from hotels,
motels, campsites, recreational vehicles, live
aboard vessels, those staying with friends and
relatives, and vacation rentals. The vacation
rentals are accounted for within the census data
under housing units, designated as "vacant" and
"seasonal, recreational, or occasional use".
Permanent population figures consist of the entire
calendar year while seasonal population figures
are the number of seasonal residents and visitors
in the Keys on any given evening. Peak seasonal
population figures represent the number of people
who could stay on any given evening based upon
peak occupancy rates and therefore represent the
peak demand which could be placed on public
facilities from seasonal visitors on any given
evening. When the peak seasonal population
figures are combined with the permanent resident
population, the result is the total functional
population.
The Tourist Development Council indicates that
Monroe County hosts around three million
visitors a year, however not all of these people
are in the Keys on the same evening.
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
The functional population is the sum of the
number of permanent residents and the peak
seasonal population.
Figure 1.1 shows the functional population for all
of Monroe County (including the incorporated
areas). For 2008, the total permanent population
is estimated to be 72,243. There was a decrease
of 3,507 or 4.85% from 2005. There was also a
5% (3,839) loss of total permanent population
that occurred from years 2000 to 2005.
Page 10 of 45
FIGURE 1. 1
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION 2000-2008
2000 Census 2005 2008 Estimate
Estimate
TOTAL PERMANENT 79,589 75,750 72,243
Unincorporated 34,696 35,518
Seasonal
Incorporated 38,798 38,219
Seasonal
TOTAL SEASONAL 73,494 73,737
TOTAL 153,083 149,487
FUNCTIONAL
35,929
38,346
74,275
146,518
Between 2000 and 2005 seasonal population
decreased in the incorporated areas. Between
2005 and 2008, seasonal population increased by
127. However, in the eight year period between
2000 and 2008, seasonal population increased
(Figure 1.2).
The 2008 permanent population for
unincorporated Monroe County is estimated to be
72,243 (Figures 1.3 and 1.4). According to the
u.s. Census, Monroe County, as a whole has
been losing population. The largest decrease in
population happened in 2004 with an estimated
1,841 or 2.4% then again in 2005 with 1,669 or
2.2% of the residences leaving.
FIGURE 1.3
U.S. POPULATION ESTIMATES
78,024
79,589
78,999
78, 790
78,639
77,591
75, 750
74,081
72, 91 0
72,243
1990 Census
2000 Census
2001 Estimate
2002 Estimate
2003 Estimate
2004 Estimate
2005 Estimate
2006 Estimate
2007 Estimate
2008 Estimate
During 2006, the population decreased by an
Page 11 of 45
estimated 1,171 or 1.6%. Between 2007 and
2008, the decrease of population was still evident
at a loss of 667 or .09%.
FIGURE 1.4
POPULATION ESTIMATES 1990-2008
I
I
80,000
z 79,000
o 78,000
~ 77,000
..J 76,000
~ 75,000
o 74,000
a. 73,000
72,000
~
/
-------===
~
~
',,~
~
~
-------
# # # # # # # # # #
~ ~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~
c; c; <(j~ <(j~ <(j~ <(j~ <(j~ <(j~ <(j~ <(j~
~ ~ ~ Q, -~ _b. b -.en (\ _en
~Q) n<::5 ~(;;) ~(;;) ~\J ~'J- ~'5 ~\J ~(;;) ~\J
v fl) fl) fl) fl)~~ fl) fl) fl)
DWELLING UNITS
The Census defines housing units as "a house,
apartment, group of rooms, or single room
occupied or intended for occupancy as separate
living quarters." Occupied housing units are
occupied if there is "at least one person who lives
in the unit as a usual resident at the time of the
interview, or if the occupants are only
temporarily absent, for example, on vacation.
However, if the unit is occupied entirely by
people with a usual residence elsewhere, the unit
is classified as vacant. By definition, the count of
occupied housing units is the same as the count of
households." Seasonal units fall under the
definition of vacancy. Vacancy is defined as "if
no one is living in it (a housing unit) at the time
of the interview, unless its occupants are only
temporarily absent. And, housing units where all
the occupants have a usual residence elsewhere
are grouped."
According to the u.S. Census, housing units are
broken down into occupied and vacant units.
Occupied housing units form the basis for
population projections. In 1990, the U. S. Census
indicates 33,583 housing units were occupied and
in 2000 increased to 35,086 housing units.
By 2007, occupied housing units decreased by
over 4,000 units to a total of 29,109. Vacant
housing units increased throughout the 1 7 year
period from 12,632 to 24,599. Even with the
steady decrease in occupied housing units from
2000 through 2007, the overall housing stock
increased by approximately 7,000 housing units,
to a 2007 estimate of 53,708 housing units
(Figures 1.5 and 1.6).
FIGURE 1.5
HOUSING UNITS 1990-2007
1990 2000 2005 2006 2007
OCCUPIED 33,583 35,086 33,961 33,013 29,109
VACANT 12,632 16,531 18,950 20,385 24,599
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 46,215 51,617 52,911 53,398 53,708
Page 12 of 45
I
I FIGURE 1.6
HOUSING UNITS 1990-2007 I
I sg'ooo -.."''''''' 1
I ~ ~5:g~- ~ ==_~~--~ . -=---- .-- _-~j.i,l
I ~ 40,000 j
I ~ ~~:ggg · ---. .. - - .- ~-_._- -- ~~1
I! 25,000 1
! 0 20,000 i,
I::E: 15,000 -----------------ll
10,000
I ..c-rf> ~ ~~ ~ S- I
.;:.J ~ ~ ~ ~
I ~!
l.=-oCCUPIED_-- ~ACANT ~ TOTAL HOUSING ~NI"':.j
N umber Of Issued Residential
Duildin!! Permits
Another component of the Growth Analysis
Section is the number of residential permits
issued. The majority of the issued new residential
permits are for permanent residential use.
However, some of the permits issued for
permanent dwellings are used by the seasonal
population.
One issue to remember when considering growth
based upon building permits is the time lapse that
occurs when a permit for a new residence is
issued and when that residence is ultimately
occupied. As a result, there are many dwelling
units in the Keys that have permits but are not yet
fully constructed. Based upon this time lapse the
number of residential permits issued overstates
the actual number of new residential dwellings
that currently require public facilities.
In the Lower Keys, between 2005 and 2006, there
was a 20% decrease of issued new single
conventional family residential building permits.
Between 2006 and 2007, the percentage of issued
building permits was smaller than the previous
year. In 2008, the Building Department issued
over 50% fewer permits than in 2007. Seventy
percent (70%) more affordable housing single
family residential building permits building
permits were issued in 2006 than in 2005 and
83% more the year after that. However, in 2008,
the Building Department issued only 23
affordable new single family residential building
permits or a decrease of 76%.
In the Upper Keys, increases in new conventional
single family residential building permits
occurred in 2005, 2006 and 2008. In 2007, the
Building Department issued 7% fewer permits
than the prior year. The Building Department
issued eleven (11) affordable housing permits
throughout the four years between 2005 and
2008. In 2006, there were no affordable housing
building permits issued.
Conventional housing building permits decreased
each year (Figure 1.7). Specifically in 2008,
issued building permits decreased 27% from
2007. Affordable housing building permits
increased annually (2005, 2006 and 2007).
However, comparing 2008 to 2007, the issuance
of affordable housing building permits declined
75%. Overall (conventional and affordable), the
issuance of new single family residential building
permits increased from 2005 through 2007. By
2008 building permits decreased by 51 %.
FIGURE 1.7
NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PERMITS 2005-2008
LOWER KEYS 2005 2006 2007 2008
CONVENTIONAL 76 61 54 24
AFFORDABLE 30 51 94 23
TOTAL 106 112 148 47
MIDDLE KEYS 2005 2006 2007 2008
CONVENTIONAL 8 9 9 9
AFFORDABLE 1
TOTAL 9 9 9 9
UPPER KEYS 2005 2006 2007 2008
CONVENTIONAL 40 45 42 43
AFFORDABLE 5 0 5 1
TOTAL 45 45 47 44
In the Upper Keys, 58% more single family
residential replacement permits were issued in
2008, than in 2007 (Figure 1.8). Between 2005
and 2007, permits for residential replacements
declined by 14%. In the Lower Keys, there was
an increase of building permits for single family
replacements in 2005, 2006 and 2007. However,
during 2008, 33% less building permits were
Page 13 of 45
issued for single family replacements.
FIGURE 1.8
SINGLE FAMILY RES. REPLACEMENT PERMITS 2005-2008
2005 2006 2007 2008
15 14 12 19
1
15
28
UPPER KEYS
MIDDLE KEYS
LOWER KEYS
8
23
9
23
10
29
TOTAL
The Upper Keys saw a 266% increase of mobile
home replacements between 2007 and 2008
(Figure 1.9). However, during 2005, 2006 and
2007, mobile home replacements declined. In the
Lower Keys, comparing 2005 to 2006, there was
a 62% decrease of mobile home replacement
building permits. Year 2007 showed a 25%
increase of issued permits, while in 2008, there
was a 30% decrease.
FIGURE 1.9
MOBILE HOME REPLACEMENT PERMITS 2005-2008
2005 2006 2007 2008
UPPER KEYS 6 4 3 11
MI DOLE KEYS 1
LOWER KEYS 21 8 10 7
TOTAL 27 13 13 18
There were only four (4) recreational vehicle
replacements permits in the middle and lower
keys in years 2006 and 2007 (Figure 1.10).
FIGURE 1.10
RV REPLACEMENT PERMITS 2005-2008
RV REPLACEMENT PERMITS
2005 2006 2007 2008
UPPER KEYS
MIDDLE KEYS
LOWER KEYS
1
1
2
2
2
TOTAL
o
o
NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
NROGO
Nonresidential permitting plays a role in growth
analysis. Nonresidential permits include
everything that IS not residential, such as
industrial, commercial, nonprofit and public
buildings, and replacement or remodeling of
existing nonresidential structures. Vested and
ROGO exempt hotels, motels, campgrounds,
marinas and other commercial facilities are also
included.
The Building Department tracks the amount of
square footage allocated and corresponding
nonresidential issued permits by Sub-district in
unincorporated Monroe County.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy
101.3.1 limits the County's availability of
nonresidential square footage that may be
permitted. Policy 101.3.1 states: HMonroe
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 residential unit permitted through the
Residential Permit Allocation System. "
The nonresidential square footage allocation is
239 square feet for each issued new residential
dwelling unit permit. On average, the BOCC
approves an annual availability of 35,000ft2 of
NROGO floor area allocations. Comprehensive
Plan Policy 101.3.1 assures that the balance of
residential to nonresidential development is
maintained.
HISTORY
The Tier System
On September 22, 2005, the BOCC adopted
Ordinance 025-2005 which revised ROGO and
NROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis
for the competitive point system. On March 15,
2006, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 009-2006 to
implement the Tier System, a Rate of Growth
Ordinance. The Tier System changed the service
areas (subareas boundaries) mentioned in the
Introduction. It is the basis for the scoring of
NROGO and ROGO applications and
administrative relief. The new ROGO and
NROGO subareas are: "A") Lower Keys
(Middle Keys are not included in the Lower
Keys) and Upper Keys and "B") Big Pine / No
Name Key.
Big Pine and No Name Keys
The Livable CommuniKeys Plan Master Plan for
Page 14 of 45
Future Development of Big Pine Key and No
Name Key (LCP) was adopted on August 18,
2004 under Ordinance 029-2004. The LCP
envisioned 47 ,800ft2 of nonresidential floor area
over a twenty year period (from the date of the
adopted ordinance) to be used for infill and
expansion of existing businesses.
NROGO ANALYSIS
Figure 1.11 shows the trends in nonresidential
permitting from January 14, 2005 to January 14,
2009.
The last five (5) NROGO years are examined
below . Year 13 data is for Period 2 only. Year
17 data is for Period 1 only. NROGO Years 14,
15, and 16 are from July to July of the next year.
FIG U RE 1. 11
NROGO
FLOOR AREA
(SQUARE
YEAR 13 FOOTAGE)
LOWER KEYS 3, 170
UPPER KEYS 2,899
TOTAL FT2 6,069
FLOOR AREA
(SQUARE
YEAR 14 FOOTAGE)
LOWER KEYS 5,237
UPPER KEYS 7,357
TOTAL FT2 12,594
FLOOR AREA
(SQUARE
YEAR 15 FOOTAGE)
LOWER KEYS 2, 500
BPK/NNK KEYS 5,000
UPPER KEYS 5,000
TOTAL FT2 12,500
FLOOR AREA
(SQUARE
YEAR 16 FOOTAGE)
LOW ER KEYS 4, 145
BPK/NNK KEYS 3,809
UPPER KEYS 9, 984
TOTAL FT2 17, 938
FLOOR AREA
(SQUARE
YEAR 17 FOOTAGE)
LOW ER KEYS 10,556
BPK/NNK KEYS 2,500
TOTAL FT2 13,056
Page 15 of 45
YEAR 13 Period 2 (January 2005 - JULY 2005)
The BOCC approved the availability of 8,OOOft2
of NROGO floor area. Five (5) building permits
were issued in the upper and lower keys with an
allocation of 6,069ft of nonresidential floor area.
YEAR 14 (JULY 2005 - JULY 2006)
The BOCC approved the availability of 16,000ft2
ofNROGO floor area. Eight (8) building permits
were issued in the upper and lower keys with a
total allocation of 12,594ft2 of nonresidential
floor area.
YEAR 15 (JULY 2006 THROUGH JULY 2007)
With the adoption of the Tier System ordinance
in 2004, Big Pine Key / No Name Key became its
own subarea. The BOCC approved the
availability of 18,000ft2 of NROGO floor area.
Five (5) building permits were issued in the upper
and lower Keys and Big Pine Key / No Name
Key with a total allocation of 12,500ft2 of
nonresidential floor area.
YEAR 16 (JULY 2007 - JULY 2008)
The BOCC approved the availability of 1 7,500ft2
ofNROGO floor area. Ten (10) building permits
were issued in the upper and lower Keys and Big
Pine Key / No Name Key with a total allocation
of 17,938ft2 of nonresidential floor area.
YEAR 17 Period 1 (JULY 2008 - JANUARY
2009)
The BOCC approved the availability of 35,000ft2
ofNROGO floor area for Year 17. For the first
period of Year 17, five (5) building permits were
issued in the lower Keys and Big Pine Key / No
Name Key with a total allocation of 13,056ft2 of
nonresidential floor area.
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATIONS
ISSUED
The number of dwelling units which can be
permitted in Monroe County has been controlled
by a Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation System
(Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO) since July
of 1992 (Ordinance 016-92). ROGO was
developed as a response to the inability of the
road network to accommodate a large-scale
hurricane evacuation in a timely fashion. The
ROGO system was developed as a tool to
equitably distribute the remaining number of
permits available both geographically and over
time. "A" series of complex models developed
during the first evacuation study identified an
approximate number of additional dwelling units
which could be permitted and which would not
have a detrimental effect on the amount of time
needed to evacuate the Keys.
On September 22, 2005, the BOCC adopted
Ordinance 025-2005 which revised ROGO to
utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the
competitive point system. On March 15, 2006,
the BOCC adopted Ordinance 009-2006 to
implement the Tier System, which is also a Rate
of Growth Ordinance. The Tier System amended
subarea boundary districts for allocation
distribution purposes. It is the basis of scoring
applications and the administrative relief process.
Tier Ordinance 009-2006 provides vesting
provisions and allows for allocation of an annual
cap of 197 residential dwelling units.
BIG PINE AND NO NAME KEYS
On August 18, 2004 under Ordinance 029-2004,
The Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP),
Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine
Key and NoN ame Key was adopted. Based on
the revised 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the
LCP adopted maps; these two keys are now
evaluated as their own subarea.
The LCP envisioned the issuance of 200
residential dwelling units over 20 year horizon or
10 dwelling units per year to be issued on the two
Keys. Twenty percent (20%) or two (2)
residential dwelling units per year are to be set
aside for affordable housing development.
Efforts to address the development impacts on the
habitat of the Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh
Rabbit and the Eastern Indigo Snake on Big Pine
Key and No Name Key started in the mid-l 980s.
In 1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), signed
a Memorandum of Agreement in which they
Page 16 of 45
committed to develop a Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) for these two Keys.
On June 9, 2006, a Federal Incidental Take
Permit (#TE083411-0, ITP) from the u.S. Federal
Fish and Wildlife Commission was issued to
three (3) permittees: Monroe County; Florida
Department of Transportation; and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs. The ITP
ensures that development bears its fair share of
required mitigation and that the take of the
covered species is minimized and mitigated.
ROGO ANALYSIS
The data presented in the table does not include
allocations issued in Key West, Key Colony
Beach, Layton, Islamorada or Marathon.
There is a time lapse which occurs between the
ROGO allocation date and the permit issuance
date. The allocation of ROGO is always issued
prior to the building permit.
ROGO ALLOCATIONS
In ROGO Year 13, Period 2, (January 13, 2005 -
July 14, 2005) there were thirty-seven (37)
residential dwelling unit allocations throughout
the lower, middle and upper keys.
During ROGO Year 14 (July 13, 2005 - July 14,
2006) one-hundred and twenty-six (126) market
rate and forty-seven (47) affordable housing
allocations were approved. On July 19, 2006,
the BOCC approved the reservation of forty (40)
affordable housing allocations (Ordinance 273-
2006).
During ROGO Year 15 (July 13, 2006 - July 13,
2007) one-hundred and twenty-six (126) market
rate ROGO allocations were awarded. There
were seventeen (17) affordable housing
allocations awarded of which five (5) allocations
were reserved by County Resolution 273-2006.
During ROGO Year 16 (July 13, 2007 - July 14,
2008) one-hundred and twenty-six (126) market
rate ROGO allocations and twenty-six (26)
affordable housing allocations were awarded. On
July 19, 2006, the BOCC approved Resolution
273-2006 reserving one-hundred and thirty-three
(133) affordable housing allocations. Eighty-four
(84) allocations were reserved for Islander
Village and forty-nine (49) to Flagler prior to the
end of ROGO Year 16.
Page 17 of 45
During the first half of RaGa Year 17 (July 13,
2008 - January 14, 2009) one-hundred and fifteen
(115) market rate and one (1) affordable housing
allocation were awarded.
FIGURE 1.12
ROGO ALLOCATIONS
YEAR 14
MARKET RATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TOTAL ALLOCATIONS
ALLOCA TIONS
126
47
173
YEAR 15
MARKET RATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TOTAL
ALLOCA TIONS
26
17
43
YEAR 16
MARKET RATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TOTAL
ALLOCA TIONS
126
159
285
YEAR 17 PERIOD 1
MARKET RATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TOTAL
ALLOCA TIONS
115
1
116
II. TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES
This section of the report investigates the current
capacity of the transportation network in Monroe
County. This analysis includes changes in traffic
volumes, the level of service (LOS) on U.S. 1, the
reserve capacity of the highway and county roads,
and the Florida Department of Transportation
Five-Year Work Program for Monroe County.
Roads are one of the four (4) critical public
facilities identified for annual assessment in the
Code (The Code). In fact, roads are the only
public facility with clear and specific standards
for level of service measurements identified in
the Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The
regulations require all segments of U.S. 1 to
remain at a LOS of "C" or higher and all county
roads to remain at a LOS "D" or higher.
EXISTING ROADWAY
FACILITIES
Monroe County's roadway transportation system
is truly unique. Nowhere else is there a chain of
islands over 100 miles long connected by 42
bridges along a single highway. This single
highway, the Overseas Highway (U.S. 1),
functions as a collector, an arterial, and the "Main
Street" for the Keys. U.S. 1 is a lifeline for the
Keys from both economic and public safety
perspectives. Each day it carries food, supplies
and tourists from the mainland. In the event of a
hurricane, it is the only viable evacuation route to
the mainland for most of Monroe County. U.S. 1
in Monroe County is predominantly a two-lane
road. Of its 112 total miles, approximately 80
miles (74%) are two-lane segments that are
Page 18 of 45
undivided. The four-lane sections are located on
Key Largo, Tavernier (MM 90 to 106), the
Marathon area (MM 48 to 54), Bahia Honda
(MM 35 to 37), and from Key West to Boca
Chica (MM 2 to 9).
In addition to U.S. 1, there are 450 miles of
county (secondary) roads with 38 bridges.
Combined, U.S. 1 and county (secondary) roads
have approximately 340 intersections 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 responsible for maintaining U.S. 1.
Figure 2.1 identifies the operating traffic signals
along the U.S. 1 corridor (excluding those found
on the island of Key West).
FIGURE 2.1
FULL V-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Mile Marker Key
4.4 Stock Island College Road
4.6 Stock Island Cross Street
4.8 Stock Island MacDonald Avenue
19.5 Upper Sugarloaf Crane Boulevard
30.3 Big Pine Key Key Deer Blvd.
48.5 Marathon 33rd Street/Scrool Crossing
50 Marathon Sombrero Beach Blvd.
52.4 Marathon 107th Street
52.5 Marathon 109th Street
53 Marathon Pedestrian Crossing
53.5 Fat Deer Key Key Colony Causeway
54 Fat Deer Key Coco Plum Drive
90 Plantation Key Woods Avenue/School Crossing
90.5 Plantation Key Sunshine Road
91.5 Tavernier Ocean Boulevard
99.5 Key Largo Atlantic Boulevard
101 Key Largo Tradewinds
105 Key Largo Pedestrian Crossing
Source: 2008 U. S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study
Street
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic counts can be very useful in assessing the
capacity of the road network and help determine
when capacity improvements need to be made.
The two primary measurements for determining
traffic volumes are the average daily traffic
(ADT) in an area and the annual average daily
traffic (AADT). ADT counts are collected from
both directions over seven twenty-four hour
periods which usually include a weekend. The
amount of traffic counted over the week is then
divided by five or seven to yield the average daily
traffic for a particular location.
The "5-day ADT" measurement considers only
weekdays and the "7 -day ADT" includes the
weekend. The ADT information can then be used
in a formula called a "weekly factor" to estimate
the annual average daily traffic which is an
estimate of the average amount of traffic at a
particular location on any given day of the year.
In Monroe County, traffic counts have been
conducted in the same locations since 1992.
These counts occur at Mile Marker 84 on Upper
Matecumbe, Mile Marker 50 in Marathon, and
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 28 and March 12, 2008.
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 at
Marathon, Upper Matecumbe and Big Pine Key
decreased in 2008. The AADT has decreased in
all three segments when compared to last years
AADT.
FIGURE 2.2
TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR 2007 AND 2008
2007 2008 % Change
8ig Pine Key (MM 30)
5-Day ADT 25,235
7-Day ADT 25,550
AADT 20,215
Marathon (MM 50)
5-Day ADT 36,742
7-Day ADT 34,811
AADT 27,542
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84)
5-Day ADT 27,933 23,416 -16.17%
7-Day ADT 28,410 23,024 -18.96%
AADT 23,455 19,008 -18.96%
Source: 2008 U. S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay
21,495
20,612
16,308
-14.82%
-19.33%
-19.33%
34,414
31 ,731
25,106
-6.34%
-8.85%
-8.84%
"A" detailed historical comparison of the AADT traffic counts at all three (3) locations for the 2000 to
2008 period is shown in Figure 2.3. Traffic volume has decrease over the past eight (8) years.
FIGURE 2.3
HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF AADTs 2000-2008
I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 I
21,774 19,991 19,364
29,017 28,340 31,285
22,410 21,819 23,369
Big Pine Key
Marathon
Upper Matecumbe
Page 19 of 45
2003 I
20, 115
31,763
23,404
2004 I 2005 I 2006 I 2007 I
19,894 19,844 18,095 20,215
32,274 30,102 27,521 27,542
24,328 22,927 19,951 23,455
2008
16,308
25,106
19,008
LEVEL OF SERVICE BACKGROUND
Monroe County has conducted travel time and
delay studies of U.S. 1 annually since 1992. The
primary objective of the u.s. 1 Arterial Travel
Time and Delay Study is to monitor the level of
service on u.s. 1 for concurrency management
purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes and Section 114-2(a) of the Code. The
study utilizes an empirical relationship between
the volume-based capacities and the speed-based
level of service methodology developed by the
u.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force.
The U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force is a
multi-agency group with members from Monroe
County, the Florida Department of Transportation
and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs. "A" uniform methodology was
developed in 1993 and amended December 1997.
The methodology adopted considers both the
overall level of service from Key West to the
mainland, and the level of service on 24 selected
segments. The methodology was developed from
basic criteria and principles contained in Chapter
7 (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
U.S. 1 in the Keys between Key West and Dade
County. Overall speeds reflect the conditions
experienced during long distance or through trips.
Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in
Monroe County, the movement of through traffic
is an important consideration.
The overall level of service or capacity of the
entire length of u.S. 1 is measured in the average
speed of a vehicle traveling from one end to the
other of u.s. 1. Both Monroe County and the
Florida Department of Transportation have
adopted a LOS "e" standard for the overall
length of u.S. 1. In other words, a vehicle
traveling from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112
Page 20 of 45
(or vice versa) must maintain an average speed of
at least 45 mph to achieve the LOS "C" standard.
The median overall speed during the 2008 study
was 46.4 mph and 0.7 mph higher than the 2007
median speed of 45.7 mph. The mean operating
speed was 45.6 mph with a 95% confidence
interval of plus or minus 0.7 mph. The mean and
median speeds correspond to LOS "C"
conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in
the study was 48.2 mph (similar to the 2007
highest overall speed of 48.3 mph), which
occurred on Saturday, March 9, 2007 between
10:15 a.m. and 12:46 p.m. in the northbound
direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was
38.5 mph (2.6 mph higher than the 2007 lowest
overall speed of 41.1 mph) which occurred on
Saturday March 1, 2007 between 9:30 a.m. and
12:36 p.m. in the southbound direction.
Figures 2.4 and 2.5 shows that the overall median
speed for u.S. 1 has remained between 45.3 mph
and 47.8 from 1992 to the present but steadily
decreased from 2002 through 2005 only to
increase in 2006. Should the overall median
speed ever fall below 45 mph (the minimum LOS
"C" standard) then the u.S. 1 capacity would be
considered inadequate.
FIGURE 2.4
CHANGES IN OVERALL MEDIAN SPEED
Year Median level of Numeric Change in
Speed Service Speed
1992 46.9 C -
1993 47.4 C 0.5
1994 47.3 C -0.1
1995 47.8 C 0.5
1996 47.1 C -0.7
1997 46.5 C -0.7
1998 45.7 C -0.8
1999 46.7 C 1
2000 46.4 C -0.3
2001 46.9 C 1
2002 47.1 C -0.2
2003 46.1 C -1
2004 45.4 C -0.7
2005 45.3 C -0.1
2006 45.9 C 0.6
2007 45.7 C 0.2
2008 46.4 C 0.7
Source: 2008 Arterial and Travel Timel Delay Study, URS Inc.
CHART 2.5 CHANGES IN OVERALL MEDIAN SPEED
48.0
47.5
I 47.0 4jJ6 .9
46.5 G
I ~ .4
~ ~
46.0 ~ ~
Q 4601
45.5 fl 1
~ B
45.0 ~ ~
~ ~
~ 0
44.5 ~ ~
0 Q
44.0 ~ ~
,,# ,,# "cI' ,,# ,,' ,,# ,,' ,,# #' #' r ~ #' rI' ~ # #'
YEARS
LEVEL OF SERVICE ON U.S. 1
SEGMENTS
In addition to a determination of the overall
capacity throughout the entire 108 mile length of
u.s. 1, between Mile Marker 4 and Mile Marker
112, Section 114-2 of the Code requires that the
capacity of portions or "segments" of u.S. 1 be
assessed annually. There are a total of twenty
four (24) segments of U.S. 1 from Mile Marker 4
to Mile Marker 112. The segments were defined
by the u.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to
reflect roadway cross sections, speed limits, and
geographical boundaries (Figure 2.6).
Segment speeds reflect the conditions
experienced during local trips. Given that u.S. 1
serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the
movement of local traffic is also an important
consideration on this multipurpose highway.
However, the determination of the median speed
on a segment is a more involved process than
determining the overall level of service since
different segments have different conditions.
Segment conditions depend on the flow
characteristics and the posted speed limits within
the given segment.
The Code requires each segment of the highway
maintain a LOS of "C" or better. The level of
service criteria for segment speeds on u.S. 1 in
Monroe County depend on the flow
characteristics and the posted speed limits within
the given segment. Flow characteristics relate to
Page 21 of 45
the ability of a vehicle to travel through a
particular segment without being slowed or
stopped by traffic signals or other devices.
Segments with a series of permanent traffic
signals or other similar traffic control devices in
close proximity to each other are considered to be
"Interrupted Flow Segments" and are expected to
have longer travel times due to the delays caused
by these signals or control devices. Roadway
segments without a series of signals or control
devices are considered to be "Uninterrupted Flow
Segments". Uninterrupted segments may have
one or more traffic signals, but they are not in
close proximity to one another as in the
interrupted segment case. The methodology used
to determine median speed and level of service on
a particular segment is based upon that segment's
status as an interrupted or uninterrupted flow
segment. The criteria listed by type of flow
characteristic are explained in Figure 2.6.
FIGURE 2.6
LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
Interrupted
level of Flow Uninterrupted Flow Segment
Service Segment
A >= 35 mph >= 1.5 mph above speed limit
B >= 28 mph 1.4 mph above to 1.5 mph below speed limit
C >= 22 mph 1.6 mph below to 4.5 mph below speed limit
D >= 17 mph 4.6 mph below to 7.5 mph below speed limit
E >= 13 mph 7.6 mph below to 13.5 mph below speed limit
F < 13 mph > 13.5 mph below speed limit
Source: 2008 Arterial and Travel Time! Delay Study, URS Inc.
The travel times were reduced by 25 seconds per
signal to account for lost time for all
"uninterrupted" segments containing isolated
traffic signals. The Marathon and Stock Island
segments are considered "interrupted" flow
facilities. Therefore, no adjustments were made
to travel times on these segments.
The segment limits, the median travel speeds, and
the 2007 and the 2008 LOS are presented in
Figure 2.7.
FIGURE 2.7
US 1 SEGMENTS STATUS, MEDIAN SPEEDS AND CHANGE 2007-2008
I 2008 2007
2008 2007 Median Median Numeric
# Segment LOS LOS Speed Speed Chanle
ii- --::~ - Stock Island B B 31.7 34.6 2.9
Boca Chica B A ~ 55.5 57.9 .----T"4---
_. .. C C 45.7 45.2 -0.5
~.~ .t1~~i~.:..5--- Big Coppitt
~_._- C 51.6 52.2 -'---0:-6-
Saddlebunch C
5 16.5-20.5 Sugarloaf D C i 47.2 47.8 0.6
-.-- ~----_.- -- -- A A 47.7 48.5 --'---(J."s---'-
6 20.5-23 ~~joe ________ i
-- --------~ ---- 45.6 -0.8 ..-
7 23- 25 Summerland B .-_..._~_...L....._~.:~._....
-.............~.~..........._---~................... Ra.mro<f"......-..........................-... .....................-......._~...............
8 25-27.5 A A ! 47.7 48.1 0.4
9 27.5-29.5 Torch A A i 46.6 47.1 0.5
.......,.0....... i ..........-i9~. 5 - 3 3 .....-..- .......-....-......._.........~.._................_,............... ............................-...................-...............--............ -....................~........-......~............
Big Pine D C j 35.7 39.0 3.3
......~...~.......J....._......._~~:..~........._...- Bahia Honda B A 1 52.3 54.1 1.8
-------_....-.................._........._~. ......-.._---l.-...._..__.._....._......... ........-......-.......--..- ........................................-.....................
12 I 40-47 7 -Mile Bridge B B ! 56.1 55.1 -1.0
.... ....-t....--.........-.........--.-.................-.... Marathon -.----....-- ,.....---,,---1--- 37.3 -- ..~__........,...~..____._.L_~~__
13 1 47-54 A 37.7 0.4
r-;-;-t- Grassy C C 50.7 50.9 0.2
14 I 54-60.5
~-151-..-6O.:..5.~6j....--.. r-----;.--...--.- ._- >-----.--:.1:5--
Duck B C 54.4 52.9
16 I 63-73 long t B C i 52.3 51.3 -1.0
....--.............--.-...............-........-...-.......-..... !'--.---.....--------. .----..-. -..-...--...+------.---..-...--.... ..........-.-........0:1--.-....-
17! 73-77.5 ll. Matecumbe C C ! 51.0 51. 1
-18- I 77.5-79.5 1Tea Tabl-e I D _~49.~_ -0.2
:~~~~t~~"~':84=-=' ~~Matec~~~1=~= .....~.....-.........--....._............
C i 42.1 41.4 -0.7
20 l 84-86 Windley I A =-~-.--L..--~!..:_~..=.~.... ......_.......~.:{=- ----U--
.."''2''1........t........._.....86:91:'5................ Plar'tati.Q.n...........-..................... -......-....8--... .~....-.............~.._....----................
B ! 41.9 41.8 -0.1
22 f 91.5-99.5 Tavernier A A 1 47.6 49.9 2.3
........................ .......-....-............_........-.---_...~~- _..._..~......_..~.~........................._............ ...-.....-..--..--t--...-....-............................. ...............4"5:..7---- .........-......................._..................u~.......
23 99.5-106 largo A A j 44.4 1.3
24! 106-112.5 Cross E ............~.l..."'...~~.:~.._....... 37.1 -1.2
........................L.....-......-------Overall C C i 46.4 .......-...45:-3-- -:1~1'-'''-
Source: 2008 Arterial and Travel Time I Delay Study, URS Inc.
Compared to the 2007 study results, six (6)
segments have level of service changes. Two (2)
have resulted in a positive level of service change
while four (4) resulted in negative level of service
changes.
· The Duck Key segment (Segment 15)
increased from LOS "C" to LOS ""B""
· The Long Key segment (Segment 16-1 7)
increased from LOS "C" to LOS "B"
· The Boca Chica segment (Segment 2)
decreased from LOS "A" to LOS "B"
· The Bahia Honda segment (Segment 11)
decreased from LOS "'A'" to LOS "B"
Page 22 of 45
· The Sugarloaf segment (Segment 5)
decreased from LOS "C" to LOS "D"
· The Big Pine (Segment 1 0) decreased from
LOS "C" to LOS "D"
Compared to 2007, the medium segment speeds
increased in ten (10) of the twenty-four (24)
segments ranging between 0.1 mph to 2.4 mph.
Fourteen (14) segments experienced a decrease in
medium speeds, ranging from 0.1 to 3.3 mph,
compared to last year's data. The Cross Key
segment (24) on U. S. 1 has a level of service
(LOS) "E" indicating that the LOS exceeded the
5% trip allocation. The draw bridge across the
Jewfish Creek was replaced with a fixed-span
high level bridge bringing the LOS rating to an
"E." This construction affects the travel speeds
on U. S. 1 on Cross Key. Once the construction
is complete, the travel speeds and the level of
service for this area are most likely to improve.
Tea Table and Cross Key were below the LOS
threshold in 2007. This year, Big Pine, Tea Table
and Cross Key segments are below the LOS
threshold. The Cross Key segment has been
functioning at LOS "E" since the 2007 study
because of the bridge construction. However,
travel speeds on the Cross Key segment are likely
to improve with the construction of a high level
fixed bridge. Completion is anticipated within
the next two years. Big Coppitt, Saddlebunch,
Sugarloaf, Grassy, Big Pine, Lower Matecumbe,
Tea Table and Upper Matecumbe segments do
not have any planned improvements to curtail the
travel speed reductions. All of these segments
have reserve volume or reserve capacities within
the 5% allocation except for Big Pine Key. The
Florida Department of Transportation and/or
Monroe County should conduct a special study
along this stretch of U.S. 1 to determine what
improvements, if any can be implemented to
improve the declining travel speeds.
The signal at the Key Deer Boulevard
Intersection in Big Pine (Segment 10) continues
to influence the travel speeds on this segment and
has experienced 13 delay events compared to the
11 from the 2007 study. Careful consideration
has been given to this segment as it has been
observed to have fallen below the LOS threshold
in the past. In 2008, this segment has fallen
below the LOS with no reserve allocation.
However, Florida Statutes Chapter 263.3180
states development permits may be issued if
transportation facilities directly related to the new
permits are in place or under construction within
three (3) years after the building permit is
approved.
Florida Statutes 263.3180(c): HConsistent with the
public welfare, and except as otherwise provided
in this section, transportation facilities needed to
serve new development shall be in place or under
actual construction within 3 years after the local
government approves a building permit or its
functional equivalent that results in traffic
generation. "
The bid letting for the u.S. 1 construction will
take place in January 2010 with construction to
follow.
RESERVE CAPACITIES
The difference between the median speed and the
LOS "C" standard gives the reserve speed. This
can be converted into an estimated reserve
capacity of additional traffic volume and
corresponding additional development. The
median overall speed of 46.4 mph compared to
the LOS "C" standard of 45 mph leaves an
overall reserve speed of 1.4 mph. This reserve
speed can be converted into an estimated reserve
capacity of additional traffic volume and
corresponding additional development. This
reserve speed is converted into an estimated
reserve volume (25,966 daily trips).
The estimated reserve capacity is then converted
into an estimated capacity for additional
residential development (4,057 units), assuming
balanced growth of other land uses. Applying the
formula for reserve volume to each of the twenty-
Page 23 of 45
four (24) segments of u.S. 1 individually gives
maximum reserve volumes for all segments
totaling 81,166 trips. These individual reserve
volumes may be unobtainable, due to the
constraints imposed by the overall reserve
volume.
The Code mandates a minimum LOS 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 5% below the
LOS "C" standard. The resulting flexibility will
allow a limited amount of additional land
development to continue until traffic speeds are
measured again next year or until remedial
actions are implemented. These segments are
candidates for being designated either
"backlogged" or "constrained" by FDOT.
Applications for new development located within
backlogged or constrained segments are required
to undergo a thorough traffic analysis as part of
the review process.
Based on this year's results, Sugarloaf (Segment
5), Big Pine (Segment 10), Tea Table (Segment
18) and Cross Key (Segment 24) are below the
LOS "C" threshold. However, Sugarloaf and Tea
Table have reserve capacity within the 5%
allocation. The Cross Key segment is under
construction. Due to the strictly enforced speed
limits along the Key Deer Habitat segment, the
travel speeds along the Big Pine Key segment
were observed to be near the posted speed limit.
Segments that have used-up the 5% reserve trips
are restricted from new development or
redevelopment, except where redevelopment 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 2.8.
z
0 u
5 In
0 Iii
u ~ ~ ~ ~ co -<( Ln ~ -<( ~ ~ -<( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ln -<( ~ ~ ~ ~
0 ~ ~ z co Z Z 0 Z 0
~ 0 z Z Ln co Z z z z z z z z z z co z z z z
~
-c ~
I.IJ
~ a:II
In
.....
8 I.IJ
N ~
I.IJ I.IJ
In
I.IJ ~ lit Ln 0 ..... Ln co Ln Ln 0 Ln 0 0' 0 M N 0 co 0
0:: ;:) ~ 0' ~ 0' N ~ Ln 0' 0' ..... M ~ ..... ~ ..... ;:: ..... Ln Ln ~ ~
~ ~ N M 0 "lit ~ ~ co N q Ln 0' q q ..... ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ M 0
;:) 0 N Lli N M ~ N N ~ ,..: Lli ~ ~ ~ M M M :: g
~ >
~
z
0 u
5 In
0 Iii
u ~ ~ ~ -<( -<( -<( co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -<( -<( ~ ~ ~ -<( co -<( -<( -<( -<( ~
0 ~ z z z 0 0 z z Z Ln Z Z Z Z 0
~ z ~ z z z z z z z z co z
~ 0
-c ~
I.IJ
~ a:II
In
00
8 I.IJ
N ~
I.IJ I.IJ
In
I.IJ ~ Iii ..... 0 0' N co ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ co ~ N
0:: ;:) ~ ~ 00 "lit N ;:: :!: "lit N ~ 0 0' co . M co 00 Ln ~ M
~ ~ ":. ~ ~ 0 ..... ..... 0 M "lit "lit ":. ..... 0 q ~ "lit "lit 0
;:) 0 ~ M ~ N N N N Lli ..D ~ co ~ Lli M ~ M M r; .....~
~ >
~
I.IJ Q ?
~ I.IJ M r"";
I.IJ C. ..... 0' Ln 0 0 ..... 0' N 0 ..... ~ co 0' M Ln 0 ~ ~ Ln 0 ~
I.IJ A. .5- 0: LI'i 0 N 0 ..0 LI'i " ..0 0 ..j- LI'i LI'i 0 ,..; ,..; 0 0 ,..; " LI'i 0
In ~ :: -
I.IJ In
0::
In a:II a:II a:II a:II a:II a:II I.IJ
0 a:II a:II U U Q -<( -c -c Q -c u u Q U -<( -c -c u
~
z ~ Q ?
-c I.IJ ..... "lit
~ I.IJ ~ Ln ..... ~ N ..... "lit ..... ~ ..... M M "lit M ~ 0 co ~ ~ "lit M
is I.IJ C. LI'i LI'i " " ..0 " ..0 LI'i N ..0 " 0 ..j- N 0 N ,..; " ; aci '"
I.IJ A. .5- ;::; Ln "lit ~ "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit M Ln Ln M Ln Ln Ln ~ Ln "lit "lit ~ "lit M .
~ ~ In
Q -c
I.IJ
~ U ~ ? Ln 0' Ln Ln Ln ..... 0
\It \It I.IJ C. 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ Ln Ln Ln M ~ 0 0 0: 0 0' 0 0 0 0 Ln co ,..;
;:) 0 t: .5- N 0: LI'i 0: " . 0 0 0 " " N "lit N aci 0 " an
d ~ 0:: N "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit M "lit Ln N "lit Ln Ln Ln "lit M M "lit M "lit .
-c u
Q
I.IJ ~
I- 0:: -c ? -<( ~ -<( -<( -<( -<( -<( -<( -<( -<( ~ ~ -<( -<( -<( ~ -<( ~ -<(
\It co "lit N
;:) 0 z c. Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
..., La.. " .5- z N z z z z aci N N N
Q Vi
-c
in
'V
II ~
Q an ?
.., M ..... Ln 0 0 0 0 0 N "lit 0 Ln 0 ~ 0 0 0 "lit N 0
I.IJ ; c. aci ..j- 0: ..j- N LI'i LI'i LI'i LI'i LI'i N LI'i N ..j- LI'i ,..; LI'i ..j- LI'i LI'i LI'i " ; aci 'V
I.IJ .5-
A. ~ M Ln "lit Ln Ln "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit Ln Ln "lit Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit N
\It Q)
Q
- I.IJ on
I- ttJ
\It lit Ln Ln Ln ~
0 ... ? ~ ~ ~
A. "e c. Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 Ln Ln
::; .5- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
M Ln "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit "lit Ln M "lit Ln Ln Ln Ln "lit "lit "lit "lit M M
~ > I.IJ ~ ~ ~ ~
t: A. 0 0 M .....
U ~ ~ t::. ~ ~
u
~ -c e e =2 =2 =2 =2 =2 =2 =2 =2 =2 e =2 =2 e =2 =2 =2 =2 =2 =2 =2 =2 e e =2
Q. La..
~ -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J -J
U ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N ~ N N ~ N N N N N N N N ~ ~ N ~
&&.I
~ ~ VI
Iii a:::
l- . ~
&&.I " .! ~ 0' Ll"! co 0 Ln N M "lit 0 co M "lit ..... 0' Ln N ~ co 0 co N oci t
'" z I ~ ,..; ~ u-i ..j- N N N N ,..; " ..0 " ..0 N 0: ..j- N ..j- ~ u-i aci ..0 ..0 ~
&&.I I.IJ
AI:: ~
Q >-
IG
Z "i
~ 0
&&.I Ln 0 Q;
U Ln 0 0 0 E
~ 0 Ln 'i. u-i ~ " " ..j- ~ 0 j::
0 Ln N "lit 0 ..... Ln co Ln ..0 ~
~ LI'i ~ an 0 0 Ln 0 0 ..j- 0 0: an 0 c;. 0: ~ Ln
&&.I Z 0: N 0 " Ln ,..; 0 Ln Ln ,..; ..... 0: ..0 0' N t::.
'" I.IJ ~ ,..; ,..; ,..; ~ 0 0
0 0 0 an N N 0: M 0 0 t::. an t::. co 0 ~ an ~
LL. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,..; ,..; ~
0 " ~ ~ ~ an 0 N an Q) " 0 ..0 ..... Q) " Q) 0 ..0 ~ 0: 0
I.IJ 'U .&:. 'U u-i an 0: co on :!.. .!) t::. .!) ..j- ~ ~ Ii
...J \It c: co ... u 0 c: 'U 'U ..j- an 0 E E ..0 .~
u ... c: ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ c: Q) ~ c: .... a
&&.I ~ :E '5. ::1 co a 'C c: ~ 0 ,..; ::1 :0 ::1 :8 Q) ~ ~ 1:
00 > a. .!) ~ Q) Q) 'U ~ Q) z: a:1 a ~ ~ u ~ >- 'E <(
u Q) c: .s ~ Q) co Q) co ii
N &&.I ...llI:: a =5 a E a .&:. c:: co ~ ~ ~ =5 ~ -J VI ~
...J u co u co :c E E ~ 1: i co ...llI:: on ~ c: ~ VI t
I.IJ B u on 'U on on ~ co u c: co c: co ~ e
a co ::1 ::1 ::1 co a co ~ ::1 a Q) i co ~
0:: GO V"I a:1 ai V"I V"I U V"I ~ ~ ai a:1 ..:.. c -J -J ~ ::) 0:: ~ ::.::: u ~
;:) 0
" 0 ~ N M "lit Ln ..0 ..... co 0' ~ :: ~ ~ :!: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N N M "lit
Ii: N N N N N ~
LEVEL OF SERVICE ON COUNTY
ROADS
Section 114-2 of the Code establishes LOS
"D" standard for all County roads as
measured on traffic volume or AADT basis.
The Code also requIres areas with
marginally adequate public facilities to be
identified. u.S. 1 segments with reserve
speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should
be given particular attention when approving
development applications. This year, there
are nine (9) segments of u.S. 1 in this
category (Figure 2.9).
IMPROVEMENTS TO ROADW A Y
FACILITIES
Major improvements scheduled for u.S. 1
are outlined in the Florida Department of
Transportation Five-Year Work Program.
The major project for unincorporated
Monroe County in the current FDOT Five-
Year Work Program (2008/09 to 2012/2013)
is to replace the Jewfish Creek draw bridge
with a high-level fixed-span bridge and the
installation of culverts to improve the tidal
flow to the surrounding wetlands. The
construction phase for this project began in
2005. Construction is still underway, but
almost complete, on the 18-mile stretch
between the Jewfish Creek Bridge and
Florida City.
The construction of the intersection
conversion of Card Sound Road/County
Road 905 is scheduled for 2012. FDOT's
TABLE 2.9
RESERVE SPEEDS OF LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 3MPH
# Name
~.__ 3 Big Coppitt
4 Saddlebunch
5 Sugarloaf
10 Big Pine
14 Grassy
17 lower Matecumbe
18 Tea Table
19 Upper Matecumbe
-.--------
24 Cross
Mi Ie Marker Range
9.0 - 10.5
10.5-16.5
16.5 - 20.5
29.5 - 33.0
54.0 - 60.5
73.0 - 77.5
77.5 - 79.5
79.5 - 84.0
1 06 - 112.5
Reserve Speed
0.5
2
0.0
o
0.8
0.5
o
1.6
.------
o
Source: 2008 Arterial and Travel Timel Delay Study, URS Inc.
Page 25 of 45
bid letting on the widening and resurfacing
of existing lanes from SR 5 from Ships Way
to Sands Road and from Sands Road to west
of Key Deer Crossing in Big Pine Key
happens in January 2010.
FDOT's Five-year Work Program outlines
numerous projects that will be scheduled
throughout the Keys such as resurfacing and
turn lanes.
The construction of different segments of
the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail is
included in the 5-year Work Plan. These
construction projects include:
· The segment from MM 60.5-Craig Key
to 62.9-Long Key
· The segment from MM 16.5-Lower
Sugarloafto MM 24.5-Summerland Key
· The segment from MM 47 to MM 54 for
safety improvements
· The segment from MM 106 (new
trailhead) between U. S. 1 and Card
Sound Road
· The segment from MM 83.5-Windley
Key to MM 84.8
· The segment from MM 92 to MM 96
( safety improvements)
· The segment from MM 15 to MM 16.5-
Lower Sugarloaf Key
· The segment from MM 96 to MM 106-
Key Largo
The following historic bridges are part of the
Overseas Heritage Trail and are scheduled
for reconstruction:
· The Ohio-Missouri Historic Bridge (MM
39.1 )
· The Kemp Channel Bridge (MM 23.6)
· The Spanish Harbor Historic Bridge (MM
33)
· The Historic South Pine Channel Bridge
(MM 29)
Copies of the FDOT's Five-Year Work
Program are available at the Florida
Department of Transportation offices In
Marathon.
TRAVEL SPEEDS
Compared to 2007 data, fourteen (14)
segments have decreased travel speeds and
ten (10) segments have increased travel
speeds.
TRAVEL SPEEDS
DECREASED
Boca Chica (-2.4 mph)
Bahia Honda (-1.8 mph)
Saddlebmch (-0.6 mph)
Cudjoe (-0.8 mph)
Grassy Key (-0.2 mph)
Ramrod (-0.4 mph)
Big Pine (-3.3 mph)
Key Largo (-1.3 mph)
L. Matecumbe (-0.1 mph)
Marathon (-0.4 mph)
Stock Island (-2.9 mph)
Sugarbaf(-0.6 mph)
Tavernier (-2.3 mph)
Torch (-0.5 mph)
Compared to last year's results, six (6) of
the segments studied resulted In LOS
changes. The Boca Chica and Bahia Honda
segments experienced a decrease in LOS
from "A" to "B". Sugarloaf and Big Pine
segments experienced a decrease in LOS
from "C" to "D". Duck Key and Long Key
segments experienced an increase in LOS
from "B" to "C".
INCREASED
7 Mile Bridge (+ 1.0 mph)
Big Coppitt (+0.5 mph)
Cross (+ 1.2 mph)
Duck (+ 1.5 mph)
Long (+ 1.0 mph)
Plantation (+0.1 mph)
Summerland Key (+0.8 mph)
Tea Table (+0.2 mph)
U. Matecumbe (+0.7 mph)
Windley (+ 1.4 mph)
The largest speed increase of 1.5 mph was
recorded in the Duck Key segment, while
the largest speed decrease of 3.3 mph was
recorded in the Big Pine Key segment.
DELAY EVENTS
There were a total of 112 delay events, five
(5) of which were excluded due to their non-
recurring nature. The delay due to traffic
signals proved to be the largest delay-
causing event this year. Traffic signals
caused 94 of the delays resulting in 46
minutes-31 seconds of delay. The signals
caused an average of 1 minute 40 second
delay per trip. This was a 15% decrease
compared to 2007.
Page 26 of 45
The construction delay was the second
largest delay event in 2008. There were
eight (8) construction delay events resulting
in 12 minutes 1 seconds of delay. This is a
significant decrease when compared to 2007
construction delay of 23 minutes and 52
seconds.
There were two (2) drawbridge opening
delays amounting to 10 minutes and 11
seconds. One of the drawbridge delays
occurred along the Cross segment and one
along the Plantation segment. The
drawbridge opening contributed to an
average of 22 seconds per trip, a 71 %
decrease compared to the delays recorded in
2007.
The congestion delay was the third most
delay event recorded in 2008 contributing a
total of 26 minutes and 36 seconds or 47
seconds per trip. This was an 85% increase
compared to 2007. The number of
congestion events decreased from nineteen
(19) last year to three (3) this year.
III. POTABLE WATER
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
(FKAA) is the sole provider of potable
water in the Florida Keys. The Biscayne
Aquifer is a shallow groundwater source and
FKAA's primary water supply. The FKAA's
wellfield is located in a pinel and preserve
west of Florida City in south Miami-Dade
County. The FKAA's wellfield contains
some of the highest quality groundwater in
the State, meeting or exceeding all
regulatory standards pnor to treatment.
Strong laws protect the wellfield from
potential contamination from adjacent land
uses. Beyond the County's requirements,
FKAA is committed to comply with and
surpass all federal and state water quality
standards and requirements.
The groundwater from the wellfield IS
treated at the J. Robert Dean Water
Treatment Facility 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 maintains storage tank facilities
which provide an overall storage capacity of
45.2 million gallons system wide. The sizes
of tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million gallons.
These tanks are utilized during periods of
peak water demand and serve as an
emergency water supply. Since the existing
transmission line serves the entire Florida
Keys (including Key West), and storage
capacity is an integral part of the system, the
capacity of the entire system must be
considered together, rather than in separate
service districts.
Also, the two saltwater Reserve Osmosis
(RO) plants, located on Stock Island and
Marathon, are available to produce potable
water under emergency conditions. The RO
desalination plants have design capacities of
2.0 and 1.0 MGD of water, respectively.
At present, Key West and Ocean Reef are
the only areas of the County served by a
flow of potable water sufficient to fight
fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely
on a variety of water sources, including
tankers, swimming pools, and salt water
either from drafting sites on the open water
or from specially constructed fire wells.
Although sufficient flow to fight fires is not
guaranteed in the County, new hydrants are
being installed as water lines are replaced to
make water available for fire-fighting
purposes and pump station/tank facilities are
being upgraded to provide additional fire
flow and pressure. "A" map of the various
Page 27 of 45
FKAA facilities in the Keys IS shown on
Figure 3.1.
@;)~ ~
~
i
~ l:;~ ~4.
~ox
g;~ ~
~~~ a::J:_ ~i
lID Z 0.. OE
<4(:z:
~ g: S! tit
~i >-
.....
~
c::> ~
Gl::f z
9
f) ~ i ~f
z
Gl::a. ~;
~~
~ ~ !Ii~~ ~:::') z
~ II.
C'f ii ~~ ;;
~
~2 EE
t)t) ~LL%~ ~ ON ~;
~ ! ~!!!~ @t.
::J I i ~!
......
r (I) I! ~ NC'I
51 ~2
% a.. CDfle
i~
~
w
s:
a:= ~
w
>
0
::z ~t) >-
LaJ ~t
t-
en :I
~ .....E
z
ii:~
22
~ CDN
>-
~ >- teL W
E Ld :::') ~ ~~ ~
~a.
I! o te..
I !~i ~
~ ~
4(
IX _.... ~ I
W L
2 :x:
:2 It)
:) ..
U) N
~
rt)
W
c:::
::J
C>
LL
Page 28 of 45
DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER
Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provide a historical
overview of the water demands in the
FKAA service area, Water Use Permit
(WUP) allocation limits, yearly percent
change, and water allocation remaining.
FIGURE 3.2
ANNUAL WATER WITHDRAWALS 1980 TO 2007
Annual WUP Limit WUP Annual
Year Withdrawal " Change +/-
(MG) (MG) Allocation (MG)
1980 2,854.90 N/A N/A
.~-~--_._.._. -""".....-3:1~10-......- ~....B:"60%._...__.... .....-..........-.N/A..--..--- >---.-- N I A-.---
1981
1982 3,497.30 12.80% N/A N/A
-- --I----.
1983 3,390.20 - 3. 1 0% N/A N/A
.............._.._.__..._~._........... ...................-i:.467~m50-..-........... .....................~........-----......................~ '.~.~.....~....._...~.........................~'.. .......n...................................._......_................................_..~
1984 2.30% 4,450 982.5
1985 4,139.20 19.40% -... 4,450
310.8
1986 4,641.50 12. 1 0% 5,110 468.5
1987 4,794.60 _.. 3.30% ..-
5,110 315.4
...........................-..-................... ....................4:81..9.:..80...................... ................m.................._......................_ ....... .-.... ...........................-----........................ ..........................................-............................-....................
1988 0.50% 5,110 290.2
--',,'---.0.-.. _.---......-..--........__..--~-...-..........'--.. -. 2.40% .....-- -'-~- 5, 11 O-....~- f------------
1989 4,935.90 174.1
-
1990 4,404.10 -10.80% 5,560 1,155.90
1991 4,286.00 - 2.70% 5,560 1,274.00 --
.................1.99:f............ .....-............4.:.461-:-1..0....................... ..r........................................_..............~ ...._.._......5~560.._........_._.. ...........................1..~.098}j.O.............._.....--
4.10%
~-_.__........._..~ .........-....5-,023:"""90-.---.- --12.60""%""-"- ..........-...U60-.-- ----536.1--...---
1993
1994 5,080.00 1 . 1 0% 5,560 480
'---'-- - 5, 14O.~- fo---.1 .20%
1995 5,778 637.6
................1..9.96...........- ._.................5..~..m. 60..--............... ......_........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 t 5.40% 5,778 -1 57. 3
2000 6,228.00 10.60% 5,778 -450 .-
..........-..............__...........~......... ~~~.:~.:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~+==~~~~~...= ._~..........._.......~........................ ....................................m................................................................
2001 5,778 151.3
-...........-............---.......-..-.. ......._.........7~2-:i4-"""-...- r---1 083. i9-..~.-.....-
2002 f--. 6,191.16 i 10.03%
--..-
2003 6,288.29 1 .57% 7,274 985.84
2004 '==-~~=i==~~== 7,274 813.15
............-2.005.-......- .....-...-.....-................-............... m..............._........................_........_.--..........................
7,274 802.55
.........................~..__......_~... .......................~............-.-L....................._..._. __.w.---...-.............~......_..........__.._.......ou.._............
2006 6,310.00 l .2.49% 7,274 964
2007 5,846.32 I -7.35% 7,274 1427.68
Source: Rorida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2008
~-----
i FIGURE 3.3 I
IF~A!'NN~A~WATER Wrnl~~A~
8,000
-- -- _ _u I
I
7,000
.... ....
~ ....
- .... ~ .....
..... -.....- .......
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
gjIIJ$IIHHjHIHlb
[~;;;. ~I~\\BI(MG) -+-- 'M.P Unit (M~
Page 29 of 45
In March 2008, South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) approved
the FKAA's modification of WUP 13-
00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the
Biscayne and Floridian Aquifers. The WUP
provides an annual allocation of 8,751
Million Gallons (MG) or 23.98 MGD and a
maximum monthly allocation of 809 MG
with a limited annual withdrawal from the
Biscayne Aquifer of 6,492 MG or 17.79
MGD and an average dry season (December
1st-April 30th) of 17.0 MGD.
r.--.-~--~--------.---~-~------~----~----~
I FIGURE 3.4 'I i
I~p ~EMA~ING A~LO~~~~ I
I 2,000
I 1 ,500
I
uJ,OOO
: 5
Iii
I ~ 500
Ij
I ~ 0
I -500
,I' ~~~mm~m~~~~~~~~ I
-1,000
L_____________________________._ .__~_______________ ____J
This limitation is accomplished by using an
alternative water source (blending of the
Floridian Aquifer and operation of RO
desalination plants), pressure reduction,
public outreach, and assistance from
municipal agencies in enforcing water
conservation ordinances (i.e. irrigation
ordinance while the construction of a
Floridian Aquifer Reverse Osmosis (RO)
water treatment 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 drinking water
standards. The treated water from the
Floridian Aquifer will be designed to meet
current and future water demands. The RO
water treatment system is expected to be
completed in 2009/2010 and provide an
additional 6.0 MGD of potable water.
Demand for potable water is influenced by
many factors, including the size of the
permanent residents, seasonal populations
and day visitors, the demand for commercial
water use, landscaping practices,
conservation measures, and the weather. In
2007, the FKAA distributed an annual
average day of 16.02 MGD and a dry season
average day of 16.62 MGD as shown in
Figure 3.5. The maximum monthly water
demand of 567.15 MG shown in Figure 3.5
occurred in March of 2007.
FIGURE 3.5
PROJECTED WATER DEMAND IN 2008
FKAA Permit
Thresholds
23.98
809.01
16.28
542.01
5,942
16.14
16.02
5,891
o
o
Although water shortage / drought
conditions and water restrictions imposed by
SFWMD were in effect in 2008, preliminary
figures and projections for 2008 indicate a
slight increase to an annual average daily
demand of 16.28 MGD and decrease in
maximum monthly demand 547.01 MG as
compared to 2007 figures. Also, Figure 3.5
provides the water treatment capacities of
the RO plants. The RO plants do not require
a WUP because the water source is
seawater. However, the RO plants are
available for emergency water supply.
Figure 3.6 indicates the amount of water
available on a per capita basis. Based on
Functional Population and permitted water
withdrawal from Biscayne Aquifer, the
Page 30 of 45
average water available is above 100 gallons
per capita (person). The 100 gallons per
person per day standard is commonly
accepted as appropriate, and reflected in
Policy 701.1.1 of the Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan.
IMPROVEMENTS TO POTABLE
WATER FACILITIES
FKAA has a 20-year Water System Capital
FIGURE 3.6
PER CAPITA WATER AVAilABiliTY
Functional
Year Population 1
1998 151 , 163
1999 151,396
2000 153,080
2001 153,552
2002 154,023
2003 154,495
2004 154,966
2005 155,438
2006 155,937
2007 156,436
2008 156,935
Source: 1. Projected Permanent and Seasonal County-wide Population Update
(1990-2015)- Monroe County Planning Department, 2007
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2008
Improvement Master Plan for water supply,
water treatment; transmission mains, booster
pump stations, distribution mains, facilities,
structures, information technology,
reclaimed water system, and Navy water
system.
The master plan was revised in 2008 to
include the critical projects as shown in
Figure 3.7 summarized below. Figure 3.7
shows the schedule and costs projected for
the capital improvements to the
potable/alternative water systems planned by
the FKAA. The total cost of the scheduled
improvements is approximately $85 million
over the next 5 years. These projects are to
be funded by the newly revised water rate
structure, long-term bank loans, and grants.
In 1989 FKAA embarked on the
Distribution System Upgrade Program to
replace approximately 190 miles of
galvanized lines throughout the Keys.
FKAA continues to replace and upgrade its
distribution system throughout the Florida
Total
~~;:f 1(.>> ~\ <k t; ::VN /1" "; 1 /' '} ~ ~ J, ~ v v : y " ^ ~ t f f ; ; Iv: "i : ~)^ /,"~ b. /; :1.1; ~ l.y I~
Costs
2,000,000 1,700,000
3,700,000
Costs
15,763,000 22,265,000 2,200,000 1,300,000
41,528,000
Costs
230,000 4,500,000 4,800,000 3,000,000
12,530,000
Costs
2,200,000 1,200,000 1,000,000
4,400,000
Costs
5 000 000 3 095 000 3 000 000 1 600 000
12,695,000
Costs
2 200 000 753 000
2 953 000
Costs
3 663 500 500 000 1 000 000
5163500
Costs 600 000 600 000 600 000 600 000 2 400 000
TOTALS 31,056,500 34,613,000 12,600,000 6,500,000 600,000 85,369,500
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2008
Keys and the schedule for these upgrades is
reflected in their long-range capital
improvement plan. The FKAA's Water
Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for
the upgrade or replacement of
approximately 20,000 feet of water main
during fiscal year 2008. In addition to
improvements to the distribution system,
FKAA also has significant improvements
planned for the water supply and treatment
system. FKAA is expanding the treatment
capacity at the J. Robert Dean Water
Treatment Plant to meet future water
demands by construction of Floridian
Aquifer supply wells and a 6.0 MGD RO
Water Treatment Facility. Also, the FKAA
is planning improvements to the
transmission and distribution pump stations
to improve flow/pressure.
SUMMARY
In summary, the average daily water
demand is expected to slightly increase to
16.28 MGD over last year's of 16.02 MGD
due to water shortage/drought
conditions/water restriction and water
conservation efforts. In conclusion, with the
construction of the new water supply wells
and RO water treatment facility that will
provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD,
and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO
desalination plant for additional capacity,
there is an adequate supply of water to meet
current and future demand.
Page 31 of 45
IV. EDUCATION
FACILITIES
The Monroe County School Board oversees
the operation of 13 public schools located
throughout the Keys. Their data includes
both unincorporated and incorporated
Monroe County. The system consists of
three high schools, one middle school, three
middle/elementary schools, and six
elementary schools. Each school offers
athletic fields, computer labs, bus service
and a cafetorium that serves as both a
cafeteria and an auditorium. 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 Sub-
districts that are similar, but not identical to
the service areas outlined in Section 114-
2(a)(4) of the Code. One difference is that
the School Board includes Fiesta Key and
the islands that make up Islamorada in the
Upper Keys (Sub-district 1), while the Code
places them in the Middle Keys (Sub-district
2). Also, the School Board includes Key
West in the Lower Keys (Sub-district 3),
while the Code does not consider Key West.
The data presented in this section are based
on the School Board's Sub-districts.
Sub-district 1 covers the Upper Keys from
Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and
includes one high school and two
elementary/middle schools, as shown in
Figure 4.1. Sub-district 2 covers the Middle
Keys from Long Key to the Seven Mile
Bridge and includes one high/middle school
and one elementary school. Sub-district 3
covers the Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda
to Key West and includes one high school,
one middle school, one elementary/middle
school, and five elementary schools.
I
I
i
I
I. _.. ---..1Iey a...,:. tolley....
I
I
I
I
,.....'~..ratI.. a.UdJa.
2..1............
i .ey W.... n
I_-
I " fjaaaev Swit.. ::-'~
_. Ea.
Page 32 of 45
'...PI'iiiitiiU-.ii^
FIGURE 4.1
SCHOOLS BY SUBDISTRICT
Subdistrict 1
Coral Shores High School (9-12)
Key Largo Elementary/Middle School (K-8)
Plantation Key Elementary/Middle School (K-8)
Subdistrict 3
Key West High School (9-12)
Horace Q'Bryant Middle School (6-8)
Adams Elementary (K-S)
Archer/Reynolds Elementary (K-S)
Poinciana Elementary (K-S)
Sigsbee Elementary (K-S)
Big Pine Key Neighborhood School (Pre K-9)
Sugarloaf Elementary/Middle School (K-8)
Subdistrict 2
Marathon Middle/High School (7-12)
Stanley Switlik Elementary (K-6)
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). These factors result in
decreasing household size, economic factors
such as military employment, the price and
availability of housing, and the movements
of seasonal residents.
Student demographics had district
enrollment of 8,231. This number also
includes the District Charter and Pace
Center Schools. This is a minimal decline
from last year's enrollment of 8,303 breaks
down the enrollment by Grade Level (Figure
4.2). The School Board collects enrollment
data periodically throughout the year.
Counts taken in the winter are typically the
highest, due to the presence of seasonal
residents (Figure 4.2).
FIGURE 4.2
ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVEL
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 KG PK Total
Big Pine Neighborhood Charter School 21 14 18 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 36 128
--
Coral Shores High School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 232 207 177 144 0 0 761
- . -
Gerald Adams Elementary School 77 76 77 61 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 65 488
Glynn Archer elementary School 43 39 29 39 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 83 311
--
Horace O'Bryant Middle School 0 0 0 0 0 224 252 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 709
Key Largo Elementary 92 95 101 86 98 113 100 116 0 0 0 0 88 60 949
Key West High School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 448 368 309 277 0 0 1,402
Keys Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 3 0 0 12
Marathon High School 0 0 0 0 0 72 87 95 107 95 96 80 0 0 632
Monroe County DJJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Montessori Charter - Key West 14 20 20 18 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83
Montessori Island Charter 28 24 23 26 15 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 22 7 170
Plantation Key Elementary School 50 49 58 54 57 62 72 80 0 0 0 0 48 9 539
Poinciana Elementary School 93 104 108 95 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 18 613
Sigsbee Elementary School 45 35 47 27 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 27 258
Stanley Switlik Elementary School 71 69 82 73 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 54 500
Sugarloaf Elementary School 51 54 66 62 67 94 102 91 0 0 0 0 56 32 675
Total 585 579 629 555 578 579 625 616 788 675 585 504 542 391 8,231
Page 33 of 45
The following table (Figure 4.3) shows the Sub-district. This data is from the School
fall school enrollments from 1997 to 2007 Board's Fall Student Survey.
FIGURE 4.3
FALL SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS 1997-2007
Subdistrict 1
Coral Shores (H) 701 757 758 800 810 801 811 619 760 790
Key Largo (E/ M) 1 ,273 1 ,253 1 , 183 1 , 173 1117 1112 1073 992 985 989
Plantation (E/ M) 703 675 643 668 647 641 650 548 617 618
Subtotal 2,677 2,685 2,584 2,641 2,574 2,554 2,534 2, 159 2362 2,397
Subdistrict 2
Marathon (H) 612 637 660 679 682 693 654 596 581 614
Switlik (E) 815 834 791 671 687 714 676 62 600 614
Subtotal 1,427 1,471 1 ,451 1,350 1,369 1 ,407 1 ,330 1 ,220 1181 1 ,228
Subdistrict 3
Key West (H) 1,327 1 ,372 1 ,344 1 ,305 1,327 1301 1382 1303 1327 1394
O'Bryant (M) 863 899 814 838 854 874 873 800 781 788
Sugarloaf (E/ M) 960 937 913 941 854 901 904 718 767 777
Adams (E) 499 574 566 513 544 598 591 291 492 504
Archer (E) 520 493 460 393 376 386 382 360 354 341
Poinciana (E) 608 620 632 599 586 583 547 536 526 537
Sigsbee (E) 404 423 393 358 363 326 295 237 250 264
Sands 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u tota
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SCHOOL
FACILITIES
The Monroe County Code does not identify
a numeric level of service standard for
schools (such as 10 square feet of classroom
space per student). Instead, Section 114-
2(a)(4) of the regulations requires classroom
capacity to be "adequate" to accommodate
the school-age children generated by
proposed land development.
The School Board uses recommended
capacities provided by the Florida
Department of Education (FDOE) to
determine each school's capacity. All
Page 34 of 45
schools have adequate reserve capacity to
accommodate the impacts of the additional
land development activities projected for
2006-2007 school year.
Figure 4.4 shows fall school enrollments and
Figure 4.5 shows each school's capacity and
the projected number of students.
FIGURE 4.4
FALL SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS FOR DISTRICT
CHARTER SCHOOLS AND PACE CENTERS
Charter School 2004 2005 2006 2007
Big Pine Neighborhood
Charter 22 63 73 105
Monroe County DJJ 4 3 7 2
Montessori Charter - KW 48 60 62 74
Montessori Island Charter 137 149 152 153
PACE - Lower Keys 16 31 31 31
- pper eys
FIGURE 4.5
2008 CAPITAL OUTLAY FTE FORECAST FOR MONROE COUNTY
Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2007- 2008- 2009- 201 0- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015-
Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
PreK 61 62 61 57 55 54 53 53 53
Grade K 546 590 641 651 597 562 542 529 518
Grade 1 538 543 598 648 659 605 567 545 529
Grade 2 584 596 615 667 712 713 646 596 563
Grade 3 514 593 623 644 694 740 744 676 622
Grade 4 534 479 562 592 613 661 704 710 648
Grade 5 569 537 493 575 602 620 665 704 706
Grade 6 574 588 569 520 602 628 644 689 726
Grade 7 613 591 617 598 549 623 654 670 713
Grade 8 687 616 607 627 605 553 618 647 659
Grade 9 739 747 694 678 697 676 623 679 713
Grade 10 631 652 675 629 608 616 596 547 583
Grade 11 577 551 579 598 560 537 540 523 481
Grade 12 566 562 549 570 582 538 511 506 485
TOTAL 7,732 7,707 7,884 8,056 8,134 8, 128 8, 1 08 8,073 7,997
Grade Level Summary
Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2007- 2008- 2009- 201 0- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 201 5-
Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
PreK-5 3,344 3,400 3,594 3,834 3,932 3,955 3,922 3,813 3,639
6-8 1 ,874 1,795 1 ,792 1 ,746 1,756 1 ,805 1,917 2,005 2,097
9-12 2,514 2,512 2,497 2,476 2,446 2,368 2,270 2,256 2,261
PreK - G12 7,732 7,707 7,884 8,056 8, 134 8, 128 8, 108 8,073 7,997
Lastly, Figure 4.6 shows Locations,
Capacities, and Planned Utilization Rates of
current Educational Facilities based on state
requirements. The capacity runs
approximately 90-95% of student stations
which vary in number from elementary,
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
the 2010-11 school year that was passed by
Florida's voters in November 2002
Page 35 of 45
Enrollment figures for the 2008-2009 school
year and projected enrollment figures for the
2012-2013 school year, show that none of
the schools are expected to exceed their
recommended capacity. School facility
plans are based on enrollment projections 5
years out for which Figure 4.6 confirms
adequate capacity by showing that projected
utilization will be between 50 to 100
percent. If utilization was projected to
exceed one hundred percent then there
would not be sufficient capacity
IMPROVEMENTS TO
SCHOOL FACILITIES
Florida Statute 163.31 77 requires counties to
identify lands and zoning districts needed to
accommodate future school expansions. The
Monroe County Planning Department and
School Board conducted research in 1998 to
determine the existing school capacity and
the potential need for future educational
facilities in Monroe 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.
Figure 4.7 is a table showing the results of
the investigation completed by the Monroe
County School Board and Planning
Department in 1998 and updated in 2008.
The specific public school capital
improvements for the public schools in the
County are discussed below.
Plantation Key Elementary / Middle School
(K-8)
The design process is currently underway
for replacement of the existing elementary
building and the addition of a new gym.
Horace O'Bryant Middle School
The design process is currently underway to
replace the old middle school building and
cafeteria.
Renovate or Relocate Administrative
Facility
The District is considering using the existing
property for affordable housing and
relocating to another property.
Sugarloaf Elementary and Middle School
The District is considering using two acres
of the existing property for affordable
housing dwelling units.
Page 36 of 45
'10 0 N '10 0 0 N 0\ 0 M M ~ " '10 o~
-- N -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ~
i~~
~ 0 .-
N'"
.~ N ~
o ~ '"
""0-
o..NU
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'#.
i ~ .~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8N
u.; ci ~ cxi ~ ci N g ci " u.; \Ci ci cxi .an
ON
~N~ IX) 0\ " ~ '10 '10 '10 " 0\ IX) "
1 N --
.0' ~ ::
""0'"
Q.N::)
N 0 0 0 '10 0 ~ . 0 '10 c; N co '10 0 00
Ln 0\ '10 . ~ . "
ll::!t: IX) ~ " '10 M '10 Ln 0\ Ln Ln N
~
~~ -- 00"
.~ N 0
~OU
Q.N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
..,......
e"i"i
8 :s ~
ar:::<(E
~~~
z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
:i~
..- ~ .~
..-
0 ~ fi-
N ZU
I
~
0
0 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
N ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 8 8 ~ 8 8 ~ 8 8
'" 00 c: 80'
LIJ 80':8 co ci M ~ . R N N M ~ N r:: ci ~ ciaO
~ N8'" 0\ " ~ 0\ . '10 '10 " ~
;; .t:!
::i N -
~ .-
u 1j :;
~ <(
...J & Ln 0 N Ln 0\ 0 IX) " IX) M N M M '10 0,."
<I: t! 8 ~ -- N -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ~
Z II ._
0 >N'"
~ <( 1 '"
_00",
~8~
=> 1jNU
C <(
LIJ '" '" -- . N 0 Ln N 0 . " ~ " " . Ln 00'
.... :a E Ln N '10 Ln '10 M M N ~ '10 M M 00
u 8 an
Z
LIJ :e:e:ai::
a:::
a::: IX) 0 IX) M " -- Ln -- N Ln Ln 0\ N IX) ON
liIJ
=> "t: r:::: M Ln '10 N ~ 0\ N ~ '10 ~ Ln. ,."
U ~ " Ln N Ln N Ln . Ln "
LL 80 -- " ..
~U
0 "'00
'" ~8
LIJ ~N
~
0 M 0\ 0 ~ N 0\ " Ln 0\ -- 0 00
Z 00% ~ M q r:: M . N 0\ ~ . . Ln 0
0 8~€ ... ~ Ln '10 Ln -- N.. '10 '10 N
~ NL&.. -- -- -- -- -- ~
-0'''' ~
~ 8 fi-
::i 1jNU
~ <(
=> ,.; 0 ~ IX) N M 0 ~ N N " M ~ M 0 ~
C 0'''' M 0 M N M . N M 0 IX) N an
LIJ 8~ -- M Ln -- Ln Ln '10 Ln ~ 0\ M '10 " ~
Z N ~ -- -- -- -- -- -- N
z 00~ ~
:3 8 .~
~ N~
C '"
z
<I: >
'" ~ ~ ar::: ~
LIJ iIJ ~
i= -oJ ~ ~ -oJ
:f Q % ~ 0
u ; % Q ~ ~ 0
<I: ~ ~ i % ~ ~ ~ -oJ ~ %
~ % -oJ 0 -oJ -oJ U
~ ~ !z ar::: 8 -oJ ~ iIJ 0 -oJ '"
ar::: 0 iIJ ~ 0 0 iIJ >
0 ~ % % % ~ % ~
i % ar::: ! U E ~
vi' ~ ar::: 1&.1 U iIJ -oJ '" U
Z 1&.1 '" '" % iIJ ~ '" Z
~ '" '" co ~ '" ~ I&. 0 0
0 0 ~ -oJ g '"
..; z irl Ii; Q 1&.1 ~ <( ~~
~ 0 1&.1 % Z <( >
1&.1 S ~ '" ~ U ~ '" <( 1&.1 ~ iIJ :5 Q
ar::: ~ z U iIJ -oJ -oJ ~~
~ Z lID 3 z ~
::) ar::: ~ > > Z '" ~ ~
" <( 0 ~ ~ -oJ 0 " ::) 1&.1
G: ...J -oJ % % " Q. Vi '" "
Upper Keys Maintenance Building
There is potential to remodel an existing
building on site and dispose of two
temporary office trailers.
Founder Park Ball Field Lights
Adding lights to the ball field so games
could be played at night is another project
FIGURE 4.7
----- -- --_._-~--~_._~--~--_._------~--------
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Schools Developed Site Land Needed On-going Capital Projects
acres and zoning 2008
Plantation Key Currently in the design process to
Elementaryl Middle School 8.29 acres (SR) none replace the existing elementary building
(K-8 ) and adding a new gym.
Horace O'Bryant Middle Currently in the design phase to replace
School 10 acres none the old middle school building and
cafeteria
Renovate or Relocate The District is considering using the
Administrative Facility 6 acres 2.5-3 acres existing property for affordable housing
and moving to another property
Sugarlloaf Elementary and The District is considering using two
Middle School 42 acres(SC fa: NA) 2 acres acres of the existing property for
affordable housing
Upper Keys Maintenance Remodel an existing building on site to
Bui lding 2 acres 2 acres allow for the disposal of two temporary
office trailors
Founder Park Ball Field 1.5-2 acres Add lights to the ball field so games
Lights none could be played at night
Page 37 of 45
v. SOLID WASTE
FACILITIES
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 land filling at
sites on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe
Key. Combustible materials were burned
either in an incinerator or in an air curtain
destructor. The resulting ash was used as
cover on the landfills. Non-combustible
materials were deposited directly in the
landfills.
In August 1990, the County entered into a
contract with Waste Management, Inc.
(WMI) to transport the solid waste to the
contractor's private landfill In Broward
County. In accordance with County-
approved franchise agreements, private
contractors perform collection of solid
waste. Residential collection takes place
three times a week (2 garbage/trash, 1
recycling); nonresidential collection varies
by contract. The four ( 4) contractors
currently serving the Keys are identified in
Figure 5.1
FIGURE 5. 1
SOLID WASTE CONTRACTORS
Upper Keys
Keys Sanitary Service &:
Ocean Reef Club, Inc.
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2008
*Onyx currently serves the Village of Islamorada.
Middle Keys*
Lower Keys
Waste Management of Florida,
Inc.
Mid-Keys Waste, Inc.
The County's landfills and incinerators are
no longer in operation. The landfill sites are
now used as transfer stations for wet
garbage, yard waste, and construction debris
collected throughout the Keys by the four
curbside contractors and prepared by WMI
for shipment out of the Keys.
However, it is important to note that a
second, unused site on Cudjoe Key could be
opened if necessary. Figure 5.2 below
summanzes the status of the County's
landfills and incinerators
FIGURE 5.2
MONROE COUNTY'S LANDFILL AND INCINERATORS
Reserve Capacity
(cubic yards)
o
o
Site
Key Largo
Long Key
Cudjoe
Old Site Closed 2/25/91 No Longer Active
Unused Site None Currently Inactive
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department
I nci nerators
Closed 12/31/90
Closed 1 /7 /91
Page 38 of 45
Landfills
No Longer Active
No Longer Active
o
45,000
The County's recycling efforts began in
October 1994, when curbside collection of
recyclable 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.
While goods, waste oil, batteries and tires
are handled separately, with collection sites
operating at each landfill/transfer station
site. The County collects household
hazardous waste at the Long Key and
Cudjoe Key Transfer Stations, in addition to
the Key Largo Recycling Yard. Hazardous
waste from conditionally exempt small
quantity generators is collected once a year
as part of an Amnesty Days program. 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 114-2(b)(2) of the
Code (LDRs). One difference is that
Windley Key, which is considered to be in
the Upper Keys district in the LDRs, is
included in the Middle Keys district for
purposes of solid waste management.
Another difference from the LDRs is that
the cities of Layton and Key Colony Beach
are included in the Middle Keys district for
solid waste management.
Although Islamorada
December 31, 1997,
incorporated on
the municipality
Page 39 of 45
continued to participate with Monroe
County in the contract with Waste
Management Inc. until September 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
included in this report.
Marathon's incorporation was effective on
October 1, 2000 and they continue to
participate 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
influenced by many factors, including the
size and income levels of resident and
seasonal populations, the extent of recycling
efforts, household consumptive practices,
landscaping practices, land development
activities, and natural events such as
hurricanes and tropical storms. Analyses
provided by a private research group
indicate that the average single-family house
generates 2.15 tons of solid waste per year.
Mobile homes and multifamily units, having
smaller yards and household sizes, typically
generate less solid waste (1.96 and 1.28 tons
per year, respectively).
Figure 5.3 and Chart 5.4 summarize the past
10 years of 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).
FIGURE 5.3
SOLID WASTE GENERATION BY DISTRICT
Year Key Largo Long Key Cudjoe Key Total % Change
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%
2007 37,423 30,759 30, 999 99,001 -6. 14%
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department
-~---_.-~-~----------~-..---..~~-----~---.~~----~----~-----r-~--..---------...-------~---.-------.-----~.~-------------~-~~--.-,
FIGURE 5.4 I I
I
SOLID WASTE GENERATION 1985-20071 I
I I
L___ 40oo0-----~---~~-------
35000
30000
25000
""
z 20000
0
....
15000
10000
5000
0
~ .
. , ~ p ~ t . ~ !!'
I) ~ p II P p
P II '.
I
i:
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
From 1996 onward the amount of solid
waste generated had been on the increase
until 1998, when it reached its highest level
yet. This increase is attributed to the debris
associated with Hurricane George, which
made landfall in the Keys in September of
1998. "A" portion of the decline seen from
1998 to 1999 may be attributable to the
reduction in solid waste collected from
Islamorada. The continuing decline shown
in 2000 and 2001 is due to a reduction in
construction and demolition debris being
brought to the County transfer stations
Page 40 of 45
tau.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
following the implementation of the
Specialty Hauler ordinances. Solid Waste
Generation continues to rise again from
2002 through 2005 with a 6.2% increase
between 2004 and 2005. "A" very active
hurricane season in 2005 could have caused
increased generation. Yearly fluctuations
are expected to continue due to increasing
storm activity and seasonal population
changes.
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SOLID
WASTE FACILITIES
Section 114-2(a)(2) of the Code requires that
the County maintain sufficient capacity to
accommodate all existing and approved
development for at least three (3) years. The
regulations specifically recognize the
concept of using disposal sites outside
Monroe County.
As of 2008, Waste Management Inc., reports
a reserve capacity of approximately 26.91
million cubic yards at their Central Sanitary
Landfill in Broward County, a volume
sufficient to serve their clients for another
seventeen (17) years. Figure 5.5 shows the
remaining capacity at the Central Sanitary
Landfill.
FIGURE 5.5
REMAINING CAPACITY, CENTRAL SANITARY LANDFILL
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Remaining
Capacity
(volume in
millions of
cubic yards) 34.2 yd3 32.3 yd3 30.5 yd3 31.2 yd3 26 yd3 22.62 yd3 26.91 yd3
Remaining
Capacity
(time) 14 years 14 years 14 years 12 years 7 years 6 years 17 years
Source: Monroe Coun1y Solid Waste Management Department
Monroe County has a contract with WMI
authorizing use of in-state facilities through
September 30, 2016, thereby providing the
County with approximately eight years of
Page 41 of 45
guaranteed capacity. Ongoing modifications
at the Central Sanitary Landfill are creating
additional air space and years of life.
VI. PARKS AND RECREATION
An annual assessment of parks and
recreational facilities is not mandated by
Section 114-2 of the Monroe County the
Code, though it is required for concurrency
management systems by the Florida
Statutes. The following section has been
included in the 2008 Public Facilities
Capacity Assessment Report for
informational purposes only.
Level of Service standards for parks and
recreational facilities are not mentioned in
the Code, 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
unincorporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres
per 1,000 functional population. To ensure
a balance between the provisions of
resource- and activity-based recreation areas
the LOS standard has been divided equally
between these two types of recreation areas.
Therefore, the LOS standards are:
0.82 acres of resource-based recreation
area per 1,000 functional population;
and
0.82 acres of activity-based recreation
area per 1,000 functional population
The LOS standards for each type of
recreation area can be applied to
unincorporated Monroe County as a whole
or to each subarea (Upper, Middle, and
Lower Keys) of unincorporated Monroe
County.
Resource- and activity-based recreation
areas differ when applying a LOS standard.
Resource-based recreation areas are
Page 42 of 45
established around existing natural or
cultural resources of significance, such as
beach areas or historic sites. Activity-based
recreation areas can be established anywhere
there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis
or basketball courts, or other athletic events.
Since the location of resource-based
recreation areas depends upon the natural
features or cultural resources of the area and
cannot always be provided near the largest
population centers, it is reasonable to apply
the LOS standard for resource-based areas to
all of unincorporated Monroe County. Since
activity-based recreation areas do not rely on
natural features or cultural resources for
their location and because they can be
provided in areas with 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
projections. For the purpose of park and
recreational facilities, the Upper Keys are
considered to be the area north of Tavernier
(P AEDs 15 through 22). The Middle Keys
are considered to be the area between
Pigeon Key and Long Key (P AEDs 6
through 11). The Lower Keys are the area
south of the Seven Mile Bridge (P AEDs 1
through 6). Although the Middle and Lower
Keys subareas both contain portions of
P AED 6, the population of P AED 6 is
located in the Lower Keys subarea.
An inventory of Monroe County's parks and
recreational facilities are listed on Figure
6.1. 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
FIGURE 6. 1
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES SERVING UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY
Site Name Facilities Classification and
Resource Activity
Upper Keys Subarea
Coral Shores High School Monroe County School District; baseball field, football field, softball field, five (5) tennis courts, 10.1
Friendship Park Two (2) basketball courts, playground, ball field, picnic shelters, public restrooms, and parking. 1.92
Garden Cove Undeveloped. 1.5
Harry Harris Two (2) ball fields, playground, restrooms, picnic shelters, beach, parking (89), and boat ramp. 16.4
Hibiscus Park Undeveloped. 0.46
Key largo Community Park Soccer field, two (2) ball fields, six (6) tennis courts, jogging trail, three (3) basketball courts, 14
Key largo Elementary Monroe County School District; playground, ball field, running track, and indoor gym. 3.4
Plantation Key Elementary Monroe County School District; playground, tennis court, basketball court, and ball field. 1.7
Settler's Park Playground, park benches, trails, and a historic platform. 3
Sunny Haven Undeveloped. 0.09
Sunset Point Waterfront park with a boat ramp. 1.2
Subarea Total 5.79 47.98
Middle Keys Subarea
Marathon High School Monroe County School District; football field, baseball field, softball field, three (3) tennis courts, 7.8
Pigeon Key Historic structures, research/educational facilities, and a railroad museum. 5
Switlik Elementary Monroe County School District; playground, two (2) baseball fields, and shared soccer/football 2.5
Subarea Total 5.00 10.3
Lower Keys Subarea
Baypoint Park Playground, volleyball, bocchi ball, two (2) tennis courts, and picnic area. 1.58
Bernstei n Park Ball field, soccer, basketball court, track, tennis courts, playground, restrooms, and volleyball. 11
Big Coppitt Fire Department Playground Playground and benches. 0.75
Big Coppitt Skate Park One full court skating rink, a single racquetball / handball court, picnic area 0.57
Big Pine Key Community Park 1 baseball/softball field, one large multi-purpose field, one basketball/roller-hockey 10
Big Pine leisure Club Undeveloped. 1.75
Blue Heron Park Playground, basketball court, youth center, and picnic shelters. 5.5
Boca Chica Beach Beach area. 6
Delmar Avenue Boat ramp. 0.2
East Martello Historic structures, teen center, and picnic area. 14.58
Heron Avenue Undeveloped. 0.69
Higgs Beach/ Astro City Five (5) tennis courts, playground, volleyball, picnic shelters, beach area, pier, and public 15.5
Lighthouse Museum Historic structure and museum. o.n
Little Duck Key Picnic shelters, restrooms, boat ramp, and beach area. 25.5
Little Torch Boat Ramp Boat ramp. 0.1
Missouri Key Undeveloped. 3.5
Palm Drive cui-de sac Undeveloped. 0.1
Palm Villa Playground and benches. 0.57
Ramrod Key Swim Hole Swimming area with no facilities. 0.5
Rockland Hammock Undeveloped. 2.5
Sugarloaf Elementary Monroe County School District; baseball field and playground. 3.1
Sugarloaf School Monroe County School District; undeveloped. 6.6
Summerland Estates Undeveloped. 0.13
Watson Field Two (2) tennis courts, ball field, playground, and volleyball. 2.4
West Martello Historic structure. 0.8
West Summerland Boat Ramp. 31.8
Wilhelmina Harvey Children's Park Two (2) playground areas, a walking trail, and green space. 0.65
Subarea Total 87.17 59.97
UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY TOTAL 97.96 118.25
Page 43 of 45
Using the functional population projection
for 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 areas IS
approximately 57.75 acres.
The county currently has enough resource-
based land to meet the level of service with
an extra 40.21 acres of reserve capacity
(Figure 6.2).
FIGURE 6.2
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR RESOURCE-BASED RECREATION AREAS
Total Resource-
2008 Functional based Acreage Demand (.82
Subarea Population Available AC/1 ,000 people)
Upper Keys Total 35,942 5.79 29.47
Middle Keys Total 3,760 5 3.08
Lower Keys Total 32,541 87.17 26.68
Total 72,243 97.96 59.24
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, Based on Unincorporated Monroe County Functional Population
Reserve Capacity (in
acres)
-23.68
1.92
60.49
38.72
Note: Population figures were updated based on 2008 Permanent Population Estimates. However, data was not available by
subarea therefore "Subarea" was extrapalated based on percentages of 2007 data for subarea.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
FOR ACTIVITY-BASED
RECREATION AREAS
The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows
activity-based recreational land found at
educational 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 population 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 Upper, Middle, and
Lower Keys, respectively. There IS
currently a reserve of 19.25, 7.29, and 23.39
acres (Upper, Middle, and Lower) for a total
of 49.93 acres of activity-based recreation
areas for all of unincorporated Monroe
County (Figure 6.3).
FIGURE 6.3
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR ACTIVITY-BASED RECREATION AREAS
Total Activity-
2007 Functional based Acreage Demand (.82
Subarea Population Available AC/1,000 people)
Upper Keys Total 35,942 47.98 29.47
Middle Keys Total 3,760 10.3 3.08
Lower Keys Total 32,541 59.97 26.68
Total 72,243 118.25 59.24
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, Based on Unincorporated Monroe County Functional Population
Note: Population figures were updated based on 2008 Permanent Population Estimates. However. data was not available by
subarea therefore "Subarea" was extrapalated based on percentages of 2007 data for subarea.
Page 44 of 45
Reserve Capacity (in
acres)
18.51
7.22
33.29
59.01
FUTURE PARKS AND RECREATION
PLANNING
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 C ommuni Keys
Program has been completed on Big Pine
KeylNo Name Key, Stock Island and
Tavernier and partially completed on Key
Largo. The LCP from Sugarloaf to Little
Torch Key is in process. The Big Pine Key
Community Park has been completed. Next
year's report will reflect this and it will be
added to the inventory list.
ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL
RECREATION AREAS
The Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan states in Objective
1201.2 that "Monroe County shall secure
additional acreage for use and/or
development of resource-based and activity-
based neighborhood and community parks
consistent with the adopted level of service
standards." The elimination of deficiencies
in LOS standards for recreation areas can be
accomplished in a number of ways. Policy
1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan
provides six ( 6) mechanisms that are
acceptable for solving deficits in park level
of service standards, as well as for providing
adequate land to satisfy the demand for
parks and recreation facilities that result
from additional residential development.
The six (6) mechanisms are:
1. Development of park and recreational
facilities on land that is already owned
by the county but that is not being used
for park and recreation purposes;
2. Acquisition of new park sites;
3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe
County School Board that would allow
for the use of existing school-park
facilities by county residents;
4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated
Page 45 of 45
cities within Monroe County that would
allow for the use of existing city-owned
park facilities by county residents;
5. Intergovernmental agreements with
agencies of state and federal governments
that would allow for the use of existing
publicly-owned lands or facilities by
county residents; and
6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint
use agreements with private entities that
would allow for the use of private park
facilities by county residents.
To date, the county has employed two of
these six mechanisms - acquisition of new
park sites and interlocal agreements with the
School Board. 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 eliminate existing deficiencies or
meet future LOS requirements until
interlocal, intergovernmental, or private use
joint agreements are executed. For instance,
the County is currently reviewing and
revising the interlocal agreements with the
Monroe County School Board to provide
greater day time accessibility for students to
public recreational facilities. Once
executed, these agreements will ensure that
the facilities will be available for general use
to Monroe County residents to meet peak
season, weekend, or time of day recreation
demands.