Item I3BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: Februgy,20, 2013 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes X No Staff Contact Person: Christine Hurl
Growth Management Director
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approval of a resolution by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners approving the 2012
Annual Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report
10 9 Old 8 IXXOCK-ij -'01013 IM I InTMSTITITM
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. 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(b)3 requires the Director of Planning to
prepare an annual report to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners on the capacity of
available public facilities. Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the Monroe County Board of County
Commission to consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. The
County Commission cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this
report without making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase and identifying the
source of ftmds to be used to pay for the additional capacity.
Once approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commission, the Public Facilities Capacilm
Assessment Report becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which developme
approvals will be based for the next year. i
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
The BOCC has considered and approved annual assessments of public facilities capacity each year
since 1987.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
TOTAL COST: N/A INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Arty x OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management
®
Included Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
RESOLUTION _ -
RESOLUTION2013
COUNTY COUNTY
COMMISSIONERSTHE
2012 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC
FACILITIES A I SUBMITTED Y THE
MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTALC
WHEREAS, the annual assessment of public facilities capacity is mandated.. by Chapter
114 of the Monroe County Land DevelopmentCode (C:
2. Section 114-2(b)3 requires the Director of Planning to prepare an annual report to the
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners on the capacity of available public
facilities; and
3. Section 114-2(b)() requires the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners to
consider this report approve its findings either with or without modifications.
e County Commission cannot act to increase development capacity eyo that
demonstrated in this report i o t making specific findings of fact as tote reasons
for the increase, identifying the source of funds to be used to pay fort e
additional capacity; and
WHEREAS, once approved y the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, the
Public acili ies Capacity Assessmente becomes the official assessment of public facilities
upon whichevlo e t approvals will be based for the next year;
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Land DevelopmentRegulations require the Board o
County Commissioners to adopt annual assessment of public facilities capacity for
unincorporated Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners makes the following
findings of facts:
1. The 2012 annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for
roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and
2. The 2012 Public Facilities Capacity AssessmentReport becomes the official
assessment of public facilities upon is development ovals will be reviewed
and approved for the upcoming year;
Page I of 3
3. Section 114-2 of the Land Development Regulations provides the minimum standards
for level of service for reads, solid waste, potable water and educational facilities; and
4. Section 11 -2 of the Land Development Regulations requires the annual assessment
of public'facilities capacity to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe
County with adequate, inae to or marginally'adequate a lic facilities and
. The capacity assessment of transportation facilities is based on the 2012 US-1
Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS, the Co 's transportation
consultant. Based on the findings of the 2012 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay
Study for Monroe County, as prepared y URS Corporation Southern Consultants,
U.S. 1 has an overall level of service (L S) C; and
6. In March 2009, South Florida Water Management District (SF ) approved the
FKAA's modification of WUP 13- 005-5- for a 20-year allocation from the
Biscayne and FloridanAquifers; and The WUP provides an annual allocation of
,751 Million Gallons (MG) or 23.98 MOD and a maximum monthly allocation of
809 MG with a limited from the Biscayne A fifer of 6,492 r
17.79 average season (December I'a- ril 30') of 17.0 MOD. The
reverse osmosis water treatment system provides an additional of potable
water; and
7. Enrollment figures forte 2 11-2012 through 2 15-2010 school years indicate that
ere is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2011 -
2012 utilization is 63.39% of the school system a ity:
8. Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. ( I). The contract
authorizes use of in -state facilities through epte ber 30, 2016, thereby
providing the County with approximately four ) years of guaranteed capacity.
There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for the next twelve (1)
months; and
9. There is a surplus of parks _ and recreational facilities (acreage); and
10. The 2012 annual assessment therefore finds that adequate capacity exists for
transportation, potable water, education, solid waste, and educational facilities to
meet anticipated growth du 2 1;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT RESOLVEDTIFF BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
The annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity for 2012 is approved.
Page 2 of 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular eetin held on the 20d' day of February, 2013.
Mayor George Neugent
Mayor Pro Tom Heather Carruthers
Commissioner David Rice
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner y Kolhage
am
ATTEST: Amy Heavili , Clerk
Mayor George Neopent
Page 3 of 3
To:
Through:
From:
Date:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional andfair
Christine Hurley, AICP, Growth Management Director
and Environmental Resources
Mitchell N, Harvey, AICP, Comprehensive Planning
Manager
2012 Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity
1
2 Planning staff has completed the 2012 assessment of public facilities capacity and
3 prepared a report for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
4
5 The public facilities included in the assessment are included Transportation, Solid Waste,
6 Potable Water, Schools, and Parks and Recreation. The assessment was based on
7 standard analytical methodologies.
8
9 The assessment did not identify any areas of inadequate facility capacity operating below
10 the County's adopted level of service standards for County Roads, Solid Waste, Potable
I I Water, Schools, or Parks and Recreation.
12
13 Roads
14 Based on the findings of the 2012 U.S. I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for
15 Monroe County; as prepared by UPS Corporation Southern Consultants, U.S. I has an
16 overall level of service (LOS) C.
17
18 Compared to last year's (2011) study results, there is level of service changes to four (4)
19 segments — All of which resulted in negative level of service changes.
20
21 * 7-Mile Bridge segment (12) decreased from LOS 'B'to, LOS 'C'
22 e The Duck segment (15) decreased from LOS 'B'to I 'C'
23 * The Sugarloaf segment (5) decreased from LOS 'B' to LOS 'C'
24 * The Tea Table segment (18) decreased from LOS 'Dto LOS 'E'
25
26 The biggest difference in speed change was observed on Segment # 18 (Tea Table MM
27 77.5 — MM 79.5), which resulted in the LOS change from a' ' to an 'E'. This segment
28 had been at LOS D for the past five years, and reached a critical threshold this year. A
Page I of 2
I similar trend could be observed at the adjacent Segment # 17 (L Matecumbe MM 73.0 —
2 MM 77.5), where the LOS remained at D for the past three consecutive years. These two
3 segments are located within the Village of Islamorada and are therefore not subject to the
4, development restrictions specified within the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and
5 Land Development Code.
6 Potable Water
7 In March 2009, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKANs
8 modification of WTJP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and
9 Florida Aquifers. This water use permit (WUP) provides an annual allocation of 8,751
10 million gallons or 23.98 MGD. The planned construction of the new water supply wells
I I and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment facility will provide an additional capacity of
12 6.0 E.
13
14 With the construction of the new water supply wells and reverse osmosis water treatment
15 facility, the new reclaimed systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD reverse
16 osmosis desalination plants during emergency situations provide an adequate supply of
17 water to meet current and future demands.
18
19 Schools
20 Enrollment figures for the 2011-2012 through 2015-2016 school years indicate that there
21 is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2011-2012
22 utilization is 63.39% of the school system capacity.
23
24 Solid Waste
25 Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract
26 authorizes the use of in -state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the
27 County with approximately four (4) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate
28 capacity for solid waste generation for the next twelve (12) months.
29
30 Parks and Recreation
31 There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage).
32
33 Based on the facts contained in the report, there is sufficient capacity in all public
34 facilities to serve anticipated allocations awards for residential and non-residential
35 development over the next twelve month period.
2012
MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
REPORT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORTATION
POTABLE WATER
EDUCATION
SOLID WASTE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Monroe County
PlanningEnvironmental es ee Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary ..................................................................................................... 3
I. Growth Management ..... ........... ........ ................ ................ ............. ..... ......... ............ ..... I 1
II. Transportation ............................................................................................................... 24
III, Notable Water ....... ........... ............... ....... ...t................... —............. ....... ,...... .......,..,......,.37
IV. Education...................................................................................................................... 4
V. Solid Waste...................................................................................................................47
VI. Parks and Recreation.....................................................................................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Monroe County Land Development (LDC) Section 114-2 mandates an annual assessment of
g-k-gli-LI
M1 am
procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The LDC clearly states that
building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate
public or private facilities.
ULLIVIU1. JXPIVU 011 PLEUR; LULAHLIUb IfUll 'Iflm;ll Development approvals w IT oe nase
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 wit0o
capacity below the adopted LOS standard. Marginally adequate capacity is defined as those
2reas at the adopted LOS standard or that are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the
next twelve montlis. M
Potable water, roads, solid waste, and schools have adequate capacity to serve the growth
anticipated in 2012-2013 at the adopted level of service standard. The status of each facility is
summarized below.
ITM, - WNUIP .. -WrArrWA
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 planned construction of the new water supply wells and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water
treatment facility will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD.
With the construction of the new water su7i-Aly wells and reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment
facility, the new reclaimed systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination
plants during emergency situations, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and
future demands, based on current conditions and projections.
3
Schools
Enrollment figures for the 2011-2012 through 2015-2016 school years indicate that there is
adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The all 2011-2012 utilization is
66.88% of the school system capacity.
Solid to
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract authorizes the
-use of in -state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with
approximately four (4) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste
generation for the next twelve (12) months.
Based on the findings of the 2012 U.S. I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe
County, as prepared by URS Corporation Southern Consultants, U.S. I has an overall level of
service (LOS) C.
Compared to last year's (2011) study results, there is level of service changes to four (4)
segments — All of which resulted in negative level of service changes.
• 7-Mile Bridge segment (12) decreased from LOS 'B' to LOS 'C'
• The Duck segment (15) decreased from LOS 'B'to
• The Sugarloaf segment (5) decreased from LOS 'B' to
• The Tea Table segment (18) decreased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'E.
'Me biggest difference in speed change was observed on Segment # 18 (Tea Table
MM 79.5), which resulted in the LOS change from a 'D' to an V. This segment had been at
LOS D for the past five years, and reached a critical threshold this year. A similar trotINI
observed at the adjacent Segment # 17 (L Matecumbe MM 73.0 — MM 77.5), where the LOS
remained at D for the past three consecutive years. These two segments are located within the
Nnmmflommm
191111rn�!In�� III pIji gjp�qy�
11 ;, 1 1, : M=
SUMMARY
Public facilities within unincorporated Monroe County continue to be adequate. Potable water,
solid waste, roads, and schools have sufficient capacity to serve the growth anticipated in 2012 at
the adopted level of service.
4
INTRODUCTION
The 2012 Annual Assessment of Public Facilities C V. Ail
-tits
simultaneously with deve opment impacts,
Section 114-2(a) 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.
Section 114-2(b)(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 water supply facilities, solid waste, roads, 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 ng speci c i ings o et as to e reasonss r nerease and Mentifying 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.
In the event public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS)
standards required by the Comprehensive Plan or the LDC, development activities must conform
to special procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The
Comprehensive Plan and the LDC clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless
the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities.
Comprehensive Plan Objective 10 1.1 states:
"Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a development pen -nit is issued, adequate
public facilities are available to serve the development at the adopted level of service
standards concurrent with the impacts of such development."
The LDC, Section 114-2, "Adequate Facilities and Development Review Procedures" states:
"Local governments must establish regulations to ensure that public facilities and
services that are needed to support development are available simultaneously with
development impacts."
ffl�1
I
The determination of an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas
wi*rn-.2r*.&4 *� ina4hApW-ca-�,,acity is,,ic�atwitmi ky a "fwili6es--iiwp-a-a
aubmitted with a development application.
Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.1 establishes that at the time a development permit is issued,
?idequate public facilities are available to serve the development at the adopted level of servioso
q,tandards concurrent with the impacts of such development.
I � �, 11 �i I � EMMEREEMMOCKMEMEM
Policy 301. 1.1 establishes the LOS for County roads. The policy states:
"For all County roads, Monroe County hereby adopts a minimum peak hour level of
service (LOS) standard of D. based on the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
methodology for determination of LOS, as measured by peak hour traffic volume. The
County shall maintain the level of service on County roads within five percent (5%) of
LOS D.
Policy 301.1.2 establishes the LOS for U.S. 1. The policy states:
"For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C based
on the methodology development by the US-1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners in August 1991, for analyzing the LOS on US-1 in Monroe
County. This methodology replaces a peak hour volume standard for US-1. The level of
service on US- I shall be maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C.
Section 114-2(a)(1) of the LDC pertains to the minimum LOS standards for Roads:
6
a. County Road 905 wn three miles of a parcel proposed for development shall hay.v
sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an annual
average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersections and/or roadway segments. U.S. I
shall have sufficient available *--ver?ll
as measured by the U.S. I Level of Service Task Force Methodology. In addition, the
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 level of service C as measured by the U.S.
I Level of Service Task Force Methodology.
b. All secondary roads to which traffic entering or leaving the development or use will
have direct access shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D
as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis.
c. In areas that are served by inadequate transportation facilities on U.S. 1, development
may be approved, provided that the development in combination with all other permitted
development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent below level of
service C, as measured by the U.S. I Level of Service Task Force Methodology.
d. Within 30 days of the receipt of the official 1989 FDOT traffic counts
Highway I the county shall publish a notice informing the public of the available
transportation capacity for each road segment of U.S. I as described in the county's
annual public facilities capacity report. The available capacity shall be expressed in terms
of number of trips remaining until the adequate transportation facilities standard is
exceeded. The notice shall be published in the noM,--gal section of the local newkvc#-r",).tf
greatest general circulation in the Lower, Middle and Upper Keys.
= 61
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopts the LOS standards and further the LDC regulates
the source of potable water for development or use.
Objective 701.1
Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, adequate
potable water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities are available to support the
development at the adopted level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of such
development.
Policy 70 1. 1.1
Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective
701.1 and shall use these standards as the basis for determining facility capacity and the
demand generated by a development.
Level of Service Standards
7
1. Quantity:
Residential LOS 66.50 gaL/capha/day
Non -Residential LOS 0.35 gal./sq. ft./day
Overall LOS 132.00 gal./capita/day (Ord. 021-2009)
Equivalent Residential Unit 149.00 gallons per day
(2.24 average persons per
household x 66.5 gallons/capita/day)
pt. Minimum Pressure:
20 PSI at customer service
3. Minimum Potable Water Quality:
Shall be as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Part
143 -National Secondary Drinking Standards, 40 CFR 143, 44FR 42198)
three years from the projected date of completion of a proposed development or use" (LDC,
Section 114-2(a)(2)).
Objective 801.1
Monroe County shall ensure that solid waste collection service and disposal capacity is
available to serve development at the adopted level of service standards, concurrent with the
impacts of such development.
Policy 80 1. 1.1
Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective
801.1, and shall use these standards as the is for determining facility capacity and the
demand generated by a development.
Level of Service Standards:
Disposal Quantity:
5.44 pounds per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per ERU
(Equivalent Residential Unit)
Haul Out Capacity:
95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs.
Duration of Capacity:
Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to
accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of three (3)
years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development or
use.
Schools:
The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a LOS standard for schools but does include Policy
1301.5.6 which requires the County to coordinate with the District School Board of Monroe
County on the siting and expansion of required facilities. LDC Section I 14-2m)(4) requires that
school classroom capacity be available to accommodate all school -age children to be generated
by the proposed development or use.
Parks and Recreation:
The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are included in Policy
120 1. 1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Policy.1201.1.1
Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective
1201. 1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining recreation land and facility
capacity:
Level of Service Standards for Neighborhood and Community Parks:
1. 0.82 acres per 1,000 fanctional population of passive, resource -based
neighborhood and community parks; and
2. 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population of activity -based neighborhood and
community parks within each of the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys
subareas.
An annual assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County
Code, Section 114-2, but data for parks and recreational facilities is provided in this document.
9
PERMITTING AND PUBLIC S
LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities d Development Review Procedures divides
unincorporated Mode County into three (3) service areas for the purpose of assessing potential
growth and how public facilities can accommodate that growth. The boundaries 'es entioned in
the Monroe County Land Development Code have been revised to account for incorporations of
the Village of Islarnorads, and the City of Marathon.
Section 114.2(b)(2) defines the county's unincorporated public facilities service areas:
• Upper keys Service ea: north of the Whale Harbor Bridge;
• Middle Keys Service Area: between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale -_arbor
Bridge; and
• Lower Keys Service Area: south (west) of"the Seven Mile Bridge.
The map shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized.
MONROECOUNITY
FMAP
The Upper Keys
The Nfiddle Keys
i
k
1. GROWTH
GROWTH ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the projected growth of Monroe County's County'permanent,
seasonal and functional population, € ccupi d and vacant housing data, Rate of Growth
Ordinance OGO) and Nonresidential hate of Growth OrdinanceROG allocations and
Building Department permit data:
CENSUS DATA
The U.S. Census Bureau released 2010 demographic information related to population, housing
on March 17, 2011. The following tables provide summary information for Monroe o ty and
the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been included for
comparison purposes.
o permanent population for the Florida mays incorporated and incorporated) declined y
Silo -6,499 people) from the year 2000 to 2010. Total housing units increased by 1, 147 units or
2%. The number of occupied units decreased by 2,457 units or 7%. Vacant units increased b
3,604 units or 22%.
...via. a: M, t -7 1
fit ofl e colon ch' 1,293 11,431 +135 10 67%
Cijyofl a on 165 154 +19 11.15%
Villogre of Islarnorada 5,461 5,692 +231 4.23°l
Unineoq22ILtod o oe 0 24,601 25,163 +562 2.28%
Total Housiits T 'nc o Cities 51,617 52,76 +1,1 2e2 %
Total housing,units Uninc. County & Cities 51,617 52,76 +1,147 2. 2%
Occupied ousi its Uninc. County & Cities 35,086 32,629 2, 57 T 00%
Vacant housing,units 1nine. County k Cities 16,531 20,135 +3,604 21.. 01
Vacant oils° i 1 `nc. County & Cities 2'-02% 38.1 %
t�
POPULATION ESTIMATES
The population projections for the 2010-2030planning period indicate a lass of permanent
population. The data suggests the'permanent population losses and associate increase in vacant
housing its, shifting into an increase in seasonal population. Fishkind & Associates estimates
that while permanent population decreases at an average ratea less than one percent every five
years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of 2.57 percent every five years; resulting
in a shift in population ci permanent to seasonal. 1, functional population or total
population for the unincorporated Co will increase at an average rate of less than one
percent, every five years, in the twenty year l ing period.
WIW
OCCUPANCYHOUSING
s
Percent
Total housing_units
52,730
100.0 %
Occupied housing units
27,63
52,40%
Vacant housing units
25,117
47.60%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
i tes
Percent
Total housing units
52,730
100.00%
1-unit, detached
22,129
51.40%
1 -unit, attached
4,885
9.30%
2 units
1,678
3,20%
3 or 4 units
2,422
4.6 %
5 to 9 units
3,041
5.80%
10 to 19 units
2,228
4.20%
20 or more units
3,278
6,20%
Mobile home
7,974
15.1 %
Boat, E , van, etc,
95
0.20%
HOUSING TENURE
Estimates
Percent
Occupied housing units
27613
100.00%
Owner -occupied
17,136
62.10%
rat -occu icd
10,477
37.90°l
Average household size of owner -
occupied unit
2.51
Average household size ofren er
occu led unit
2.72
13'
RESIDENTIAL `T E OF GROWTH ORDINANLKA;0GO
Based on the Carrying Capacity d is Evacuation dies, the Monroe County o of
County Commissioners adopted , rdin ce 016-1992 on June 23, 1992, creating the Residential
well Unit location Systemo as e ate of Growth Ordinanceor ROOD. ROOD
was
developed o limit the annual amount and rate of development commensurate with the
Co ty's ability to maintain its hurricane evacuation clearance time; and to deter the
deterioration of public facility service levels, environmental degradation, and potentialland use
conflicts. It is used as a tool to equitably distribute the remaining number of permits available
both geographically and over time. ROGO allows development subject to the ability to safely
evacuate the Florida Keys (theKeys) within 24 hours,
The annual allocation period, or ROOD year, is the 12- onth period beginning on July 13, 1992,
(the effective date of the original elli g unit allocation ordinance), and subsequent one-year
periods. The number of dwelling units which can be permitted in Monroe County has
consequently be controlled since July of 1992 (adoption of Ordinance 01 f-92).
Rule 28. ,1 , F.. .C., and Comprehensive Pl oli y 1 1.2.3 'regulate the number of permits
issued annually for residential development under ROOD. Monroe County can award 197
allocations per year within the unincorporated area. These allocations e divided between three
geographic subareas and are issue.. quarterly. Each year's ROOD allocation of 197 new units is
split wit.. a minimumof 71 units allocated o affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate
allocations not to exceed 126 new residential units per year.
Rule 28-20.1 0 , .C.; and Comprehensive Plan Policy 1 1.2.3 state;
"The number of permits issued annually for residential development under the Rate of
Growth Ordinance shall not exceed a total annual -unit cap of 197, plus any available unused
ROOD allocations o a previous ROOD year. Each year's ROOD allocation of 197 units
shall be split with a minimum of 71 units allocated foraffordable ousin in perpetuity and
market rate' allocations not to exceed 126 residential is per year. Unused ROOD
locations may be retained made available only for affordable housing and
Administrative Relief from G year to'ROOD year. Unused locatio for market rate'
shall be available for Administrative' Relief y,un se affordable allocations willrollover
to affordable housing. A year meansthe twelve-month' period beginning on July'13.**
LDC, Section 138-2 (2) establishes that ROGO allocations are to be awarded a ely.
"Each subarea shall have its number of market rate housing residential ROOD allocations
available per ROOD quarter determinedby the following formula:
a. Market'rate residential locations available in each ea per quarter is
equal to the market'rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea
divided ,by four.
. Affordable housing residential for all four quarters, including e
o available for Big Pine Key, shall be made available at the beginning of the
first quarter for a ROOD year."
14
TIER SYSTEM
On September 2, 2005, the BOCC adopted Ordi ce 025-2005 which amended
Comprehensive l o revise ti izTier overlay as the basis for the competitive
oft system. c 5, 2006, the BOCC adoptedOrdinance 0 6 to incorporate e
Tier System as a basis of implementing ROGO withine Land Development Regulations
(' s)
e Tier System changede service areas (subareas o s) mentioned in the Introduction.
t is the basis for the scoring of NROGO and ROGO applications and administrative e ef. The
new ROOD andea e the Lower Keys (Middle Keys are not included in the
LowerKeys), Upper Keys, and Big Pine 1 No Name Keys. Tier Ordinance 009-2006 provides
vesting provisions and allows for allocationof an annual cap' of 197 residential dwelling units.
e Tier Systemmade changes such as subarea is `cs for allocation distribution,
basis of scoringis do s, and administrative relief.
• During ROOD e (2004), Ord. 009-2006 was enacted changing the allocation number
to 197 (126 market rate 71 affordable) pursuant to Rule -2 .1 , e same rule
also returned 165 allocations tote County to be used for affordable housing.
• By ROOD Year 15 (2005), the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the
197 allocations, rate and 2 affordableallocations e assigned to this subarea.
BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEYS
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/No Name Key started in the mid-1980s.
In 1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation( T) and the Department
f Conummity Affairs (DC') signed a Memorandum of Agreementn which theycommitted to
develop a Habitat Conservation Plan O for these o Keys, The HCP was completed
April, 2003.
e Livable CommuniKeys Program (' ), _Master1 or Future Development of BigPine
Key and No Name Key was adoptedon August, 2004 pursuantto Ordinance 029-2004.' e
LCP envisioned the issuance of 200 residential ein its over 20 year o izon at a rate of
roughly 10 per year. A minimumof twenty percent (2 ) of the 'its per'ye e to be set'
aside foraffordable housi evelo ent (e.g. 2 units' e year set'aside for affordable housing.)
On e, 2006, a FederalIncidental e Permit (#TE08341) from the U.S. Federal
Fish life Commission was issued to three (3) e tees: Monroe County, Florida
Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Communityairs! The ITP
ensures that development bears its fair share of required mitigation e take oft e
covered species is ini ie ii ate .
1
RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE MQGOIANALYSIS
There 1s a time lapse which occurs between the
ROGO allocation date and the permit issuance
date. An allocation award expires when its corresponding branding permit is not picked up after
sixtydays of notification by certified mail
of the award, or after issuance of the building
permit, or upon expiration of the permit. The historic
data. presented in the table below do not
include allocations issued 1n Key West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, Islamorada or Marathon.
Unincorporatedo r- at Rate and Affordable ROGO Historical Data Year1-20
Market Rate
Market Rate
Affordable Affordable
ROGO Year ROGOHousing
Housing
Allocations
Awarded
Allocations Awarded
Year 1 204
Jul 14 1992-Ju1 13, 1993
2(}4
52 11
Year 2 243
Jul ] 4 1993 —Ju] 13 1994
231
52 9
Year .3 246
(July 14, 1994 —Jul 13 1995
249
52 10
Year 4 245
(July 14, ] 995 —Ju1 13, 199
263
52 40
Year 5 15
(July] 4, 1996 —July 13 1997
218
52 23
Year 6 211
(July 14, 1997 —Ju] 13, 1998
197
77 5
Year 7 101
Quly 14 1998 —July 12 1999
102
30 9
Year 8 ] 27
d'uly 13 1999 —July 14, 2000
136
109 66
Year 9 127
(July 13, 200 —July 14, 2001
129
224 203
Year10 102
(July 14, 2001 —July 15 2002
102
31 58
Year11 127
127
31 31
(July 16 2002 —July 14 2003
Year 22 127
(July 13 2003—July 14, 2004)
127
31 21
Year 13 96
(July 14, 2004 —July 13 2005
96
29 16
Year 14 126
(July 14 200 —Jul 13, 2qQ§
126
236 271
Year 15 126
(July 1, 2006 —July 13, 2007
19
49 17
Year 16 126
Ilml 14, 2007 —July 14, 2008
126
68 100
Year 17 206
(July 15 2008 —July 13 2009
242
67 36
Year 18 126
(July 14 2009 —July 12, 2010
128
71 0
Year 19 126
119
71 0
(July 13, 2010,,—July, 12 2011
Year 20 126
92
_71
Ju] 13 2011 —July 13 2012
TOTALS 1__1,133
3,143
1,455 9'77
__L_Source: Monroe County 2010-2030 Technical Document As Data from erl ROGO Result Reports for Years 8-
2tl
16
NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCEffiROGO)
Monroe County adopted the Non -Residential Rate of in 2001 in order t
ensure a reasonable balance between the amount of future'non-residential development the
needs of a slower growing residential population.
Monroe County Comprehensive l Policy 101.3.1 limits the o t °s availability of
nonresidential square footage that may' e permitted. This policy assures that the balance of
residential o nonresidential development is maintained. On average, the BOCC approves an
annual availability of 35,000ft2 of NROGO, floor area loca io s:
Policy 101.3.1 states;
"Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential non-residential o
y limiting e square footage of non-residential development to maintain a ratio of
approximately 239 square feet of new non-residential development for each new
residential it permitted throughthe Residential Permit Allocation System."
Big Pine and No Name Keys
NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the Livable
CommuniKeys PlanLC) Habitat Conservation C) for the Key Deer and other
protected species. The annual maximumamount of nonresidential floor area to be allocated is
limited to a maximum of2,3 0 square feet for any one site,
Section 13 S 1 of the LOG establishes e semi-annual award distribution of NROGO
locations and the annual award locations on Big Pine Key and No Name Keys.
LDC, Section 13 -51:
Annualallocation
The Board of County Commissioners may make available for allocation all or part
of the maximum annualallocation, This annual allocation may be distributed
between the two allocation dates.
First allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key
For the first allocation period (starting year 15, quarter 1), the maximum
amount of floor area available for location shall be based on the number of
permits issued under the 200 allocations authorized by the Big Pine Key and No
Name Key Community Master Plan and the' b' of ROOD allocationsto be
made available in the ROOD year 1, beginning July 14, 2006,
Separate allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key
Allocations for Big Pine' ey and No Name Key shall e administered
awarded separately from those for the remainder of the unincorporated county.
1
_NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH I
NANCE.,ffROGO) ANALYSIS
The "maximum ual allocations" and the distribution between the first and second allocation
dates are determined by the Board of County Commissioners ( ) and as recommended by
Growth Management and the Planning Commission. This provides flexibility and assures that
goals are being met.
A summary of square footage of non-residential floor area previously made available and
allocated in the unincorporated Keys from Year 14 (2006) to Year 19 (2011) is shown below.
NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other protected species. The maximuni amount
of nonresidential floor area to be allocated is limited to a maximum of 2,500 square feet for any
one site. A summary of allocations in these environmentally
c
Available
er of
Applicants
"Total Allocations Awarded
Year 15 (2007)
9.042 sq/ft
2
5,000 s /
Year 16 (200)
0 sq/fit
2
3,809 sq/ft
Year 17 (2009)
- 5;000 sq/ft
0
0 s 7Tt
Year 18 (2010)
2,390 sq/ _
0
0 sq/ft
Year 19 (2 11)
2,390 sq/ft
0
384 sq/ft
Year 20 (2012)
2,390 sq :
4
7;500 s /ft
BUILDING PERMIT DATA
There were 3,382 dwelling units that received a building permit from January 1, 2000 to
December 31, 2011 Of these units, approximately 85 percent were single family homes and
percent were mobile homes and recreational vehicles. An average of 307 new and replacement
dwelling units per year were permitted from 2001 to 2011 o Of the 3;3 82 dwelling 't permits
issued, 1,172 were the result of obtaining a ROOD allocation. Of the 3,382 dwelling units permits
issued, a total of 3,063 dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy.
Residential Building Permit Activity, April 1, 2 —
December 31, 2011
Mobile
Total
Permits
Year
Single
.
Duplex
Multi
Home /
hotel J
Permits
Issued
deceived
F ily
Family
BY
Motel
Issued
Linder
CO
ROOD
January 1,2000-
December 31, 2000
171
0
35
49
34
29
92
372
January 1, 2001-
157
0
13
55
1
226
118
261
December 31, 2001
January 1, 2002-
205
0
16
47
1
269
181
243
December 31, 2002
January 1,2003-
December 31, 2003
230
0
12
38
28
308
161
290
January 1,2004-
241
0
54
29
0
324
105
28
December 31, 2004
January 1, 2005-
December 31, 2005
362
S
1
28
0
399
160
288
January 1, 2006-
December 31, 2006
376
0
2
14
0
392
198
289
January 1, 2007-
381
0
0
13
0
394
103
317
December 31, 2007
January 1, 200-
170
1
4
12
0
187
45
236
December 31, 200
January 1, 2009-
17
0
0
4
0
201
4
140
December 31, 2009
January 1, 2010-
222
0
0
5
1
228
5
137
December 31, 2010
January 1, 2011-
162
0
1
2
0
165
202
December 31 2011
TOTAL_2,
74
_9_ _
138
65
3,382
1,172
3,063
Monroe County Growth Management, September 2012
RV -Recreational VehicleCO-Certificate
of Occupancy
A total of 2,358 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 to 2012. The highest demolition rate
occurred in years 2005 and 2006 with 677 units demolished. This accounts for about 16 percent o
its demolished from2001 to 2012. An average of 196 dwelling units were demolished per year
between 2001 and 2012. At this time it is not possible to determine, whether a demolition was for
a single family, a mobile home, etc.
',,,:.li'lill rl IIII Demolitions
Residential
�*1■
Illuu " m� m Il im*Iu r
15798
II
140
3 III WIN
M
341
uuuullllll # . 1
241
11 uumul
III IIII II � Iy III I
'��I �l��i�i, I�) III �► ���III�I _ � . ��r'����1��*�''
II ,IIII 11119 II ru I II (IIII II
�•IIIh�I CIE.,239
A total of 642 mobile homes were replaced with a single family dwelling `t; 229 single family
homes were replaced with a single family it; and 294 mobile homes were replaced with a mobile
home. A total of 1,165 replacement units received a certificate of occupancy from April 1, 2000 to
end of 2010.
Replacement Units Receiving Certificate of Occupancy
April 1, 2000 — December 31, 2010
F`
i�il-1 to V Park Model Total Units
Year MH to CID to Receiving
S1~1t S� Replacement Replacement a C
April 1, 2000 21 55 21 0 0 97
December 31, 2000
January 1, 2001- 11 41 14 0 0 66
December 31, 2001
January 1, 2001- 14 47 18 0 0 79
December 31, 2002
January 1, 2001- 27 34 26 0 0 87
December 31, 2003
January 1, 2001- 85 27 19 0 0 131
December 31, 2004
January 1, 2001- 90 28 19 0 0 137
December 31, 2005
January 1, 2001- 136 22 18 0 0 176
December 31, 2006
January 1, 2001- 143 12 30 0 0 185
December 31, 2007
January 1, 2001- 54 18 23 0 0 95
December 31, 2008
January 1, 2001- 30 7 24 0 0 61
December 31 2009
January 1, 2001- 31 3 17 0 0 51
December 31, 2010
Total 642 24 229 0 0 1,165
-Monroe County Technical Document ent July 2011
Iir H—Mobile Home; SFR-Single Family Residential; CO -Certificate of Occupancy;
-RV-Recreational Vehicle
It is important to highlight that in the last ten years (2001.2010) a total of 936 mobile home units
were replaced. Of the 936 mobile home units replaced, 642 were replaced for single family units.
c replacement of mobile home units to single family units represents a 68.5 percent loss of
mobile homes to single family snits, in the last ten years:
2
Roads are one of the four critical public facilities identified for annual assessment in the Monroe
County Land Development (LDC). The Comprehensive Plan and LDC regulations require U.S.
I to remain at a LOS C or higher and that all county roads to remain at a LOS D or higher. The
Monroe Countv Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving sec nd o ary
roads within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1.
Monroe Countv has conducted travel time and delay studies of U.S. I
on an annual basis since
1991. The data collection for years 1991 through 1996 was conducted by the Monroe County
Planning Department, with assistance from the Monroe County Engineering Department, and the
Florida Department of Transportation. URS has collected the data for years 1997 through 2012,
on behalf of the Monroe County Planning Department with assistance from the agencies
identified above. The following are the the travel time/delay data and findings for the year 2 0 12.
The U.S. I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study's primary objective is to monitor the level of
service on U.S. I for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes and Section 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. The study
utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume -based capacities and the speed -based level
of service (LOS) methodology developed for U.S. I in Monroe County, by the U.S. I Level of
Service Task Force.
A county -imposed building moratorium results when the measured speeds of a segment OR th*
overall travel speeds of the entire U.S. I fall below the adopted level of service thresholds;
segment level failure result in building moratorium specific to the area served by that particular
segment, and the overall failure would result in a countywide moratorium. Although there have
never been a countywide moratorium, Big Pine Key between 1994 and 2002 experienced a
localized development moratorium. Due to the significant role of this study in the County's
growth management process, the accuracy of the data collection and the results of this study are
i,uite important.
U.S. I (the Overseas Highway) is the only principal arterial serving people and visitors in the
Keys. The unique geography, land use patterns and trip making characteristics of the Florida
Keys present a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable method to
assess LOS. Although U.S. I in the Florida Keys is predominantly an uninterrupted -flow, two-
lane roadway, its uniqueness warrants an alternative LOS evaluation process found in the
Highway Capacity Manual,
A uniform method was developed in 1993 and amended December 1997 by the U.S. I Level of
Service as Force to assess the level of service on U.S. 1. The adopted method considers of
the overall level of service from Key West tote mainland, and the level of service on 24
selected segments (See Table 1). The methodology was developed from basic criteria and
principles contained in Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two -Lane
22
Highways) Chapter I 1 (Urban and Suburban Arterials)of Highway Capacity Manual. The
methodology establishes a procedure for using travel speeds a means of assessingthe level of
service reserve capacity of U.S. 1 in the unique setting of the Floridaeys.
e travel speeds for the entire1- ile stretch of U.S. 1 and the 24 individual segments are
established by conducting travel time runs during the peak season. The peak season, for the
purpose of this study, has'been s s e y the force s e six -week window beginning
e secondweekof y ending efourth week _ of March.
Overall speeds are those sees recorded over the 108-mile length of the Keys between Key
West i- ty. Overall sees reflect the conditions experienced by lo
distance s or traffic traveling the entire length of the Keys. Given that U.S. l is the only
: principal e ` in unincorporatedo o y, the movement of long distance traffic is an
important consideration.
Both oe County and the FOOT have adopted a LOS C Standard forU.S. 1Further, 45
mph s been adoptede LOS C Standard for the entire length of U.S. 1 regardless of the
posted speed limits. Under the adopted growth manage e roc Ss, if the overall or U.S.
1 falls below the LOS C Standard,then no additional land developmentill be allowed in the
Florida ...Keys.
Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The segments were
defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross -sections, speed limits, and geographical
boundaries.Segment #_'#,s reflect the conditions exi- e# during# atrips.- that
localU.S. I serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of also an important
consideration on this multipurpose highway.
+ comparison of average posted speed limits and the
average
,_aa. travel#_.,# 1; individual
segments leads to the level of service on the respective segments along U.S. 1. The difference
between the segment travel speeds and the LOS C Standard is called reserve speed. The reserve
speed is converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volumes and
corresponding additional development. If the travel speed falls below the LOS C Standard,
additional trips equivalent to 5% of LOS C capacity are allowed, to accommodate a limited
amount of land development to continue until traffic speeds are measured again next year or until
remedial actions are implemented. The segments of U.S. I that fall below the LOS C Standard
are candidatesbeing designated backlogged or # . -# by FDOT.
3
e travel time, delay, and distance data were collected by URS staff The data were recorded
y date, day of the week, time of the _ ay, and direction. The field data collection took place
between c 1, 2012 and March14, 2012. Fourteen 1) round trips were made to
successfully complete the twenty-eight required northbound and southbound runs. These
runs represent'a sample of two runs of each ay of the week. Every one of the twenty-eight
travel time run data sheets was qualitychecked. The seven-day, 2-hourtraffic a e
collected in Islamorada, Marathon, and BigPine Key from ch 4 2012 to March 10 2012,
concurrently i e travel time runs.
Traffic Volumes
U.S. 1 is predominatelya four -lane facility in Marathon and a two-lane facility in Upper
Matecumbe and Big Pine Key. Seven-day continuous traffic counts recorded at three locations
along U.S. 1 yielded the following average daily traffic {.A al average daily traffic
() volumes for 2012. These volumes for 5-day and 7-day are averages of the raw volumes
counted. The volumes ave been adjusted using 2011 seasonal and axle factors to estimate the
2012 T's:
Location - -_Day ADT AADT
Big Pine Key 2) 21,056 20,579,
Marathon (MM ) 34,145 32,985,
Upper Matecumbe' ) 24,561 24,936,
2
e average weekday (5-T average wee i- a T) traffic volumes,
compared to last year's data, at Marathon, Upper MatecumbeBig Pine Key traffic volumes
have increased in 2012 (except the 5-Day ADT in Big Pine Key). Likewise, the AADT have
increased (except in Upper at be); although seasonal factor recorded by FOOT were lower
compared to previous year.detailed is o °cal comparison of the U.S. I traffic counts for the'
period 193 to 2012 is presentedin Appendix D. A comparisonof the ...cast recent seven years of
data is presented can Table 2 and representedgraphically in Figure I r
U.S. 1 historical traffic growthis depicted in a regression analysis graph in Figure 2. A linear
regression is of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last eighteen years
indicates that statistically there is ally no overall traffic growthwithine last 18 years at the
Marathon d Upper Morecambe count locations, whereas e traffic volumes at the Big Pine
y count location have decreased.
Overall 52teds
Overall ee e those speeds recorded over e 108-mile length of US I 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. I is the only principal arterial in Monroe County, the
movement of through traffic is an important si eratio .
e levels ofservice L ) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. I in Monroe County, as adopted
y the Task Force, are as follows:
above
50.9
_ t
o 48 mph
47.9 mph to 45 mph
to 36 mph
�� ►
a
e
0a
s
c
cv
co
ci
?
x-
Cs
c
acs
LO
to
co
�
R
(0
tv
�
04
ffi
;-
cs
`
co
ra
w
c
cv
OD
o
to
r-.
c,
cv
r
csiCD
rw
c�
't
Nt
n
I--
a
C4
i
wi
CD
ca
CN
co
r
—
'co
�-'
C�
N
04
C14
Cq
04
a�
o c
—
04
(a
Ci
cea
9
_rco
CN
_o
cv
..
airs
w
o
co
ers
�-
co
R-
tci
irs
�
cv
M
`cli
04
cv)
0
F
@
OD
co
00
ad
co
pal
k�'ad
_
Yam'
c
w
to
co
N
Q
P
C
CN
m
C14
ci
Y�
4
�"
(%:
0
r�.
0^
M
to
CD
T
11
cv
us
in
cv
r
OR Y-
U
css
Nt
m
04
C4
CD
m
m
Clq
W
ro
r
ads
cd
'
r
r
yymm
4v✓
Q
CLi
C9
Ci
1XP
{#s
O
to
C
06
m
co
CA
04
${
pngy
0
m coC
coy
Ism
t C
ecS Cis
}�
La
�,
,>
#�,
1>
c>
ti3
hw
2
d«««««<«dw«d«2d»2d?»wdd?wdwdwwdwwddd«wdwdwdw»wdw«2w»d««»wwdw«<37?
cat
------- ............. .........
'
c�
c�
......
v ....
cv
Q
!
Q
r
04
E
to
LO
4d
�
10.
cq
0
01)
x 0a
10.
SRO
W.J.
..
x .tea
9
€
_IIp
S79
1
w RmP`
B8
3 d
I
bB
{
V
ybA�B
c
yu�
0
�q.
pay
bm✓
C C
yMu,�✓
y„n
C
C
pig
b
phi
e• f
co
(D
� � C1q :
4 +tl L W
`ypV
;F.kgl.
kqd
rya
iYF�j
��pp $ggg gg g�
(Ae
28
The median overall speed during the 2012 study was 47.0 mph, which is 0. 1 mph lower than the
2011 median speed of 47.1 mph. 'Me mean operating sped. was 45.1 mph with a 95%
confidence interval of plus or minus 0.5 mph.
The mean and median speeds correspond to L S
conditions. The highest overall sped recorded was 49.2 mph (0.5 mph higher than the 2011
highest overall speed of 48.7 h), which occurred on Thursday, larch 1, 2012 between : 0
p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall spud recorded 35.E mph
(6.3 mph leer than the 2011 lowest overall speed of 41.9 mph), which occurred on Sunday,
March 10, 2012 between 230 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. in the southbound direction.
Segment Sgeeds
Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The segments were
defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross -sections, speed limits, and geographical
boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that
U.& 1 serves as the "main street'" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important
consideration on this multipurpose highway
e level of se ice criteria for segment speeds on U.S. I in Monroe County depends on the flow
characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment, The criteria, listed by type
of flow characteristic, are summarized below.
a
$ Vie
.v ....:
#.
Average Travel Spends And levels Of Service
x.:
2012 Tr avel Time Delay Study Ply
The median segment speed ed from 57.0_( ) in the Boca Chica. segment o 32.
mph ( ) in the Stock Islandsegment. The level of service determined frome 2012 avel
time data yieldthe followinglevel of service changes as compared to 2011 aa:
Compared to last year's (2 11) study results, there is level of service changes o )
segments - All of whichresulted in negative level of service changes.
• 7—Mile Bridge segment (1) decreased from' to LOS `
• e Duck segment (5decreased o ' to L `'
• e Sugarloaf segment () decreased from LOS 'B' to LOS `C'
• e Tea Table segment (1) decreased
e o `_ ' to _ `
Comparedo 2011, the mediansegment speeds increased in six of the 24 segments ranging
between .3 mph to . Eighteen ( ) segments experienced a decrease i median speeds,
ranging o 0.05
t
e biggest difference in speed change was observed on Segment # 1 (Tea Table MM 77.5 —
MM .5), which resulted in the LOS change from a` ' to an ` '. This segment had beent
for the past five years, and reacheda critical threshold this year. A similar trend could e
observed at the adjacent Segment # 17 (L Matecumbe MM 73. — MM 77.5), where the LOS
remained t D forte past three consecutive years. These two segments e located withine
Village of Islamorada and are therefore not subject tote development restrictions specified
withinthe Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Developmente.
delay event occurs whenever the speed oft e test vehicle fell below 5 mph. The delay event
continues until the test vehicle's speed rose to 15 mph. During the study, the observers
encountered total of 135 separate delay events a to decrease compared o the 2011 study).
Seven (7) ofthese delay events totaling 30 minutes and 16 seconds were excluded fromthe
overall traveltimes and the segment travel times. The excluded elays were caused y
nonrecurring events such s accidents and roadside construction. In additionto these seven
nonrecurring lay events, 5 drawbridge delay events were also excluded this year's
travel times (2 minutes and 18 seconds). However, the drawbridge delay events are accounted
in calculating overall travel speeds.
detailed listingof the specific sources of delay is included in Appendixothis report.
s of the delay data, compared to last year's data, is provided in Table 3. The mean delay
per trip is the total delay recorded for a given source divided by the s 's 28 one-way trips.
The mean delay per trip is found to be 6 minutes and 52 seconds (1 minute and 3 seconds
increase.d co e to the 2011 ).
DELAY DATA SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
Delay Number r f Total Excluded Mean Delay Mean Delay
Source Events Delay Time Per Event Per Trip
2012 (2011) 2012 (2010 2012 12 11) 2012 (2011) 201 2011)
Traffic Signals 00:00:00 00:00:00
11i� 113 01.13.34 .�4.14 0:40 0.24 2.35 1.3
Drawbridges 00.22 15 00.15.05
2 00.22.1 fi [ltd:15.05 4.3 7.32 0.49 0.32
Congestion 00:00.00 00.00.00
13 9 01.05.01 00.03.30 5:05 0.57 2:21 0.15
Left Turns 00:00:00 00:00.00
0 1 00.00.00 00.00.11 Os00 0.11 0.00 0.00
School Ranged 3 0 00.01.29 00;00;00 00:01,29 00:00:000.30 0a00 0.03 0.00
00°07° 00:25.09 7.48 5,33 0.17 1.00
�r��'r��ti�� 1 � 00.07.4td f20.5.9
Accidents 1 3 5 1 00:20r59 00:49:15 .20 59 00; 9:15 7.00 3.13 0.`45 1:45
00.52.34 01. 2, 2 1.15 1.03 5.52 5.15
Total 135 141 03:12:09 02.27.33
e largest single recurring l source along U.S. 1 in Monroe County is traffic signals.
Duringe 2012 study 110 (81 ) out of 135 delay events were causedy signals which is %
lower than the 2011 study. The signal delays however, accounted for 1 hour 13 minutes and 34
seconds %cif total delays) versus 3 1 o in 2011
The mean delay per event for signals in segments 5, 7, 13, 21, 22 and 23 are higher than the LOS
threshold value of 25 seconds, which s the signal impact discounted the methodology.
The signal can Big PineKey segment (Segment 1 ) caul (8%) signal delay events accounting
for 12 minutes and 34'seconds, which is higher to last year's total of minutes and 42 seconds,
e signals on Marathonsegment (Segment 13) were the most significant, causing 34 signal
delay events (13 less than last ye accounting for 22 minutes and 51 seconds (3 1 1o'of the total
signal delays), which is almost 3 minutes more than the 2011 signal clays in this segment. The
mean delay per event at the Marathon signals was higher than the 25 seconds threshold at 40
seconds. The mean delay per trip was alsohigher than the 25 seconds threshold at 43 seconds.
31
RIM ! (l G _.
The accident delays, although nonrecurring, e the second largest eu delay events
after draw bridge delay during the 2012 study. There were 3 accidentdelays recorded the
2012 study accounting for 20 minutes and 59 seconds. The accident delays accounted or 11% o
the total delays. The accident delays were excluded frome overall and segment traveltime.
s Bela
There was no left -turn delay during this year's study; a significant__e ction from 2010s _ _y's
17 delays at 6 minutes and 18 seconds.
Draw B
v
Since the reconstruction of the Jew FishCreek e, the bridge across the Snake Creek is the
bridgeonly along the entire length f U.S. 1 in Monroe County that causes drawbridge delays.
e Snake_ _ Creek Draw Bridge (between Segments 20 and 21) created 5 drawbridge relate
delays is year's travel time s; totaling i tes and 18 seconds. The drawbridge
slays were excluded om the segment travel time but included in the overall travel time.
Congestion Dela
Congestion e as represent the second largest recurring delay events in this year's study. There
were thirteen (13) congestion related delay events this year totaling 1 hour 6 minutes and 1
second. The congestion delay events contributed average of 2 minutes and 21 seconds o
slay per trip, whichis considerably i e than last year's average congestion lay per trip o
18 seconds.
Construe
There was (1) construction ely event in this year's study and it accounted or 7 minutes and 48
seconds. This is a decrease from 2011 construction delays accounting for 28 minutes and 9
seconds. The construction lay reduction is partly due to completion f road or in Marathon
(Segment 13.
e posted speed limits affect of e segment and the overall LOS. For instance, a lower
speed limit could benefit a s e is LOS by reducing e difference between the travel speed
and e posted speed i it. The reduction in the speed limit, however, negatively impacts the
overall LOS because motorists tend to travel at reduced sees to comply with the speed limits,
whereas t v all LOS C threshold is set at 45 mph regardless of the speed limit changes. For
these reasons, the posted speed limit is an important e t in this study.
large part oft e traffic in Monroe County consists of tourist travelers, who generallytend to
have a leisurely driving style, The traffic also tends to include large number of recreational
32
vehicles. Combined with some slow moving heavy vehicles, the travel speeds to to go to
the speed limits when there are no opportunities for faster moving vehicles to pass. Such impacts
are evident on 17 of the 24 segments operating below the weighted average posted speed limits
as noted in Appendix G; it is a slight decline from last year's data, which had 14 segments
operating below the speed limit.
Reserve
The difference between the median speed and the LOS C Standard gives the reserve speed,
which in turn can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume
and corresponding additional development. The median over speed of 47.0 mph compared to
the LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of 2.0 mph. U.S. 1 has a
maximum reserve volume for all segments totaling 92,568 trips.
County regulations and MOT policy allow segments that fail to meet the LOS C standards to
receive an allocation not to exceed five percent below the LOS C standard. In 2011, there were 2
segments identified to be functioning below the LOS C threshold: the L. Matecumbe (Segment #
17) and the Tea Table (Segment # 18).
The following is a detailed summary table displaying levels of service a reserve capacity values
for each segment.
a
Au 'Abougliffi
2012 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND RESERVE CAPACITY
Pr TH F EIS c L AL
f (40-50 1 f .3 22>f f00 1 eta 243E
9A f45 f.5 46 8.5 375
4 mcff S4.1 4id{i 532t x 3074
5 1 2815 3 9 2 521 42 414 41L4 3.0 1 MA � 2 WA
0 56a 2 455 PSfh 410 454 44 1. k409
7�&fdi-v:0i 22 : 2dhi 45 450 < P3tR 4e 44.7.E '$ jk �"
$ aa$ 275j 23 4$ 454 4 11 �$$' � 5� �099 2
9i �v 295° 21 45 45Si i�tA 8�1 87.4 69 2 fett x.
AAAAAAAAA LA
10 _ �29.5 m m 34 45 45.0 3A 371 .x ' 0 2.1 1,1 WA $45
i 9 {33 tk 4Sl } 7 0 ) . .a 521 47.E 5a.5 ' 5.9 MA $,WA
ELIW�nq:41-0--_ $S 56 55@ MA 5055 c 30 33 $ 9@A 5106
13 MWAM (471)- 54 Sig : 7.3 2W (1 ) a2 WA 22 7 : A : 14.7 17, *fA 17,400 WA
4 �,i
14 ' 64.0 GD54 84 2 655 544 13 494 511315 2:755 D4tA 3,074 0
15 !m 5-630i 2-1 21A) �aS 5£iJl 5S15 33:0 2.5 y 'i,f1$ : DCIA 1,439 k+StA
PNfA
1$ mi0- 73. 99 : 2 SU45 53.5 49 Sx.G : : 3.5 :: A
17I retie .0 775c 4.S 2 55 SSfi 5 49.2'> t7 -13 571, 11i9t
10'rt�m7 {i7.5745}'. 22 5 54.61.1 : 11,7$1'S :.: 9;. 571
19Ue1795 040 41 2 45 45.6 P4lPa 405 40.7 02 136 :A f
20 YY $4 6 9i f.d 45 450 40 $ 410 0 $on WA @td4
21 f�0 9151 5.824M 45 45.0 31 30:$ 511 i �dA A.4f$
22 TOOT&t993-£?.: $0 :44M 455D 471 2.1
23 .5-1oo OS $ 44 4 3A 3 A 10 $ 11 NIA 9ZW
(100.011x5} 6.2 2 PJA QJ 52,2 A 05 $ CIA &.9-32 cross
owe 1083 45.0 47.0 c 24 37,094
UMMARY
Following is a summary of the 2012 Travel Time and Delay Study results:
a) The traffic volumes have generally increasede to last year.
b) The overall travel speed on US. I for 2012 is 0.1 mph lower compared to the 2011
overall travel speed.
c) Compared to 2011 data, the travelspeeds on 18 of the 24 segments have decreased. They
are:
- Stock Island (1.8 ) Grassy (-0.3 mph)
-Boca Chia (-1.4 p) -Duck (. )
........ ............ .
-Big Co t (AS ) - L Matecumbe (- . )
... ....... ............. .
le .2 _ ) - Tea Table 4 )
........
- Cn joe.(4.S ) - U atecu e (4.1 h)
- Summerland (-1.3 ) -Windley -1, )
- o . (- e h) - Tavernier (A I )
..
- Torch (-0.7 ) - Crass (-0,3 )
- 7-Mile Bridge (-, h)
... ........ ...
....: .........
- Sugarloaf (- .3 )
Travel speeds can 6 segments have increased. ey e.
.........
1 (+ ) Long (+ . )
...
Bahia Honda (+ (- . )
_ Marathon ( t _ e ( )
35
) Compared to last year's ( 1) study results, there are LOS changes in four of the 2
segments:
Sugarloaf segment (5)_decreased o L r' to LOS s
7-Mile e segment (12) decreased fromL ' to LOS `C'
Duck segment (1) decreased from' o L 'C°
Tea Table segment (1) decreased _ o ` ' o
Segment17 (L Matecurnbe - MM 73. 77.) has remained at level of service D for
e past three years, special attention should be given to this segment.
e) There were a total of 135 delay events, 7 of which were excluded e to their non-
recurring na e. The delays due to traffic signals were the largest recurring delay -causing
event this year. The traffic signals caused 110 delays, totaling our, 13 minutes and 34
seconds. The signals caused on average a 2 minute 38 seconds _delay per trip, whichis 5
seconds more compared to 2011.
Since econs cio f the Jew Fish Creeke, the bridge across the Snake Creek
is the only bridge along e entire length o._ 1 in Monroe County that causes
drawbridge delays. The Snake Creek Draw e (between e e is 20 and 21 created 5
drawbridge related delays_during this year's travel time runs, totaling 22 minutes and 18
seconds. The drawbridge delays were excluded o the segment travel time but included
in the overall travel time.
e accident delays were the second largest nonrecurring delay accounting for 20 minutes
and 59 seconds. The accident delays were excluded o overall and segment travel
times.
e construction elay was significantly reduced e compared o the 2011 study; this
reduction of 20 minutes 21 seconds is mainly due to the completion of roado along
Marathon (Segment 13):
) There were thirteen (1) congestion related delayevents this year totaling 1 hour,
minutes second. The congestion del y events contributed on average 2 minutes and
21 seconds of delay per trip, `c is excessively higher whencompared to last year's
average congestion delay per trip of 18 seconds.
Segments it reserve speeds of less than ore _ al to 3 mph should be given particular
attention when approving e elo e t applications. is year, there are eleven segments
of U.S. 1 in this category, four more than last year.
- Big Co i 9.0 - MM 10.5) - Duck
. (MM 60.5 3.
- atecir 7.0 - 77g5)
16.5)
- Sugarloaf (MM 16.5 a5) - Tea Table (MM 77.5 - ,.MM 79.5)
- Big Pine (NIM 29.5 - MM 33.0) - U. Matecumbe (MM 79.5 - MM 84.0)
- 7-Mile Bridge (MM 40.0 - MM dley (84.0 - s0)
47<0)
- Grassy 54. -.MM .5)
The two contiguous segments in the lower keysa eb (MM 10.5 - MM 16.5) and
Sugarloaf (MM 1 _ .5 - MM 20.5) has reappeared this year to make the most of lower keys
from BigCop itt' (MM 9.0) to Sugarloaf (MM 20.5) and the Big Pine Key segment (MM
29.5 - MM 33,) to be within the 'area of concern'. Similarly, the Duck Key segment (fro
SIM 50.5 to SIM 53.0) has been added this year e most of middle keyso
Grassy 54.0) to Duck (MM 63,0) ) to be ea of '. Approximately
13 mile segment of upper keyso , Matecumbe 73.0) to Windley 84.0)
continue to Stay within the 'area of concern'. e most critical segment of all is the Tea
Table (MM 79.5 84.0) that has no reserve volumes left to allow any'new development
that could impact this segment.
oad'widening is a typical capacity improvement remedy vise y most municipalities.
In Monroe o ty, however road widening, specifically along U.S. 1 is restricted by the
adopted cc reh iv plan o f ie to preserve and protect the fragilee lc i
conditions. There' other less intrusive remedies could be explored evaluated to
improve the traffic flow and the capacity ofU.S. 1, they,include:
-Identifying strategic locations to add turn lanes.
- Conducting speed studies on selected segment of U.S. 1 to confirm the posted speed
limits, and correct, if necessary.
- Consolidating driveways/access points to reduce/minimize friction.
-Enhancing signal timing t existing signalized intersections along U.S. 1 to improve
e traffic' caw,
Not allowing new signalized intersections along U.S 1 if there is alternative safe
access to accommodate e turning movements exist,
- Improving the conditions along the county maintained local streets to minimize U.S. 1
being used as the local street.
U.. 1 is a state maintained roadway. Therefore, any modifications/ improvements to U.S. I have
to be developed in collaboration with the Floridae t of Transportation.'
3
i
e Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority ) is the sole provider of potable_water in the
Florida eys. 's primary water supply is the Biscayne Aquifer, a shallow o aer
source. The 's wellfield is located in a pinelandpreserve west of to ` City in south
Miami -Dade o y. The FKAA's wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater
in the State, meeting all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Laws protect'the wellfield from
potential contamination fro adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's requirements, FKAA is
committed to comply with surpass all federal and state waterquality standards and
requirements.
e groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the 's Water Treatment cili in Florida
City, which currentlyhas a maximuma eat edesign capacity of 29.8 milliongallons per
y e primary water treatment processis a conventional lime softening/filtration
water treatment1 is capable of treating2.8 MOD from the Biscayne Aquifer. The
secondary water treatment process is the newly constructed Reverse Osmosis water treatment
plant and is capable of producing 6 MGD fromthe brackish FloridanAquifer. The product
Ater _from these treatment processes is then disinfectedfluoridated._e FKAA treated
water is pumped 130 miles from Florida City to Key West supplying water tote entire Florida
Keys.
e FKAA maintains storage t facilities °c provide overall storage capacity o 5.2
milliongallonssystem wide. The sizes of tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 milliongallons. These
tanks are utilized during periods of peakwater demand and serve as an emergency wAter supply.
Since the existing transmission lie serves the entire to ` a Keys (including Key es); and
storage capacity is an integral of the system, the capacity of the entire system must be
considered to e , rather than in separate service districts.
Also, the two saltwater Rese e Osmosis ) plants, located on Stock Island and Marathon,e
available ' o produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalinationis
have design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MOD, respectively.
At resent, Key West a_ Ocean Reefe the only areas of the County served y a flow o
potable water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key ..west, firefighters rely on a variety o
water sources, including tankers, swimming oo s, and salt water either o ra in sites on the
open ae or from specially constructed e wells. Although sufficient o o fight fires is not
guaranteed in the County, new y r is are being installedas water lines are replaced o make
Ater available for fire -fighting purposes and pump station/tank facilities are being upgradedto
provide additional fire flow and pressure. A mapof the key FKAA transmission and dis ti
facilities is shown in Figure 3..
FLORIQA KEY5
AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
F11zr 3.l
TRANSMISSION
& DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
5.2 }AG
STORAGE CAPACITY
M15. FLORIDA cIrr
mnn
N
25.5MAN.....E A.T..
14N REEF
2T5 HP. PS
5%k5M {..
r
I. KEY .WEST ....
A M pT
xRM HP MAIN
TNo ' PWAN
T left MP 01130. PAAI
' 2 250 MP PUMPS
"
5 M5
T6. KEY LARK@
s
140 HR.FUMPS
.w.05Ha.MANSgy
5 740 HP ..
4. STOCK ISIAND 1 00AHP PUMP
s =A Ha WON,
S. V%A T TZ INVEIGHER
13. ROCKkN
HARBOR
MORGAN, KEY
x , low IN, PUMP
0 BIG PINE KEY
T(L CRAWL KEY
1 IN HP pop
a 1 NP.AVAN,
2 SS HP.FROM
2# NP
S. SUMERLANB KEY
2 50 W PS
q,pVAN
BUCK KEY ,5a 11. MIUMMORARA,
TREATMENT PLANT 2 AS MP PUMP Nn
P.O.
2 PM BIG PPITE KEY
MARATHON
LONG KEY
K da
aar
5 wo Na mom
LITTLE VENICE .150 LAYTON
kegs M
WIN TM PLANT WIN INPATIENT
PLANT
BAY POINT
INK4 AN
ANY TREATMENT TMENT PLANT �. MARATHON
B. MAIN ST MARATHON
$ VIA 2 IN HP PAIM
2 MP PUMPS
No MP PUMPS
TRANMISSION DACKPUMPING CAPABILITIES
K ISLAND
° T* A�
s d5 3. STOCK (DEBdL�
MARATHON (/1 tt-5 MG TANK
i d
1
2125 PO a
STOCK ISLAND (3) 5 SAG TANKS
---------------------------------------------------------
STOCK ISLAND DECAL {I)-5 MG TANK
e d for Potable Water
e Figures 3.2 and 3.3 provide a historical overview oft e water demands in the FKAA service
area, Water Use Permit UP allocation limits, yearly percent change, and water allocation
remaining. c 2009, South Floridaater Management District (SFWMD)approved e
modification of )VIR 13-00 0 - for a 20-year allocationthe Biscayne and
Floridan lifers. As shun in Figure 3.4 the WUP provides an annual allocation of 8,751
Million Gallons or 23.98 MODd a maximum monthlyallocation of 809 MG with a
limited al withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer of 6,492 MG or 17.79 la and an
average dry season (December 1 sT-April 30E') of 17.0 MOD.
n order to meet the requirements of this limitation, the FKAA constructed a new Floridan
Aquifer Reverse Osmosis water treatment system. This RO water treatment system i
designed to withdraw brackish water o the Floridan Aquifer, an alternative water source,
which is approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat to drinking water
standards. e newO grater treatment plant provides capability to limit Biscayne
aquiferwithdrawals _and is designed to meet current and _future water demands. The RO grater
treatment system provides an additional .0 MOD of potable water:
Along with the new reverse osmosis water treatment plant, compliance with withdrawal limits
can also be accomplished using other alternative water sources (blending of the Floridan
Aquifer, reclaimed water and operation ofthe RO desalination plants), pressure reduction, public
outreach,assistance from ici agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances
(i.e. irrigation ordinance).
vre 3. �'l AterWithdrawals mmmm �_ .mm
wWUP
'
l
Withdrawal
lChange
a t
+I- AnnualYear
Allocation
2001
5,627
_ .70%
5,778
151
2002
6,191
10.03%
7,274
1083
2003
6,288'
1.57%
7,274
986
2004
6,383
2.7 %
7,274
813
2005
6,477
0.1 %
7,274
803
' 2006
6,283
-2t49%
7,274
964
2007
5,850
-7-35%
7,274
1428
2008
5,960
1.89%
8,751
2791
2009
5,966
0.0 %
8,751
2785
201(}
5,919
-0.79%
8,751
283
2011
6,327
6.89%
8,751
2424
Source_ Flortd iCs Aqueduct Authority 2{} 12
a
Figure 3.3 - FKAA Annual Water Withdrawal
10,000
9,00(}
_ n.......
a
8,000
7,000
6,000
'.
®
5,000
4,000
3,000 ..
2,000
11000
0.
SIMM Annual Withdrawal (MG) WUP Limit (MG)
40
Demandfor potable water is influenced by many factors, including the number of permanent
residents, seasonal populations and day visitors, the demand for commercial wateruse,
landscaping practices, conservation e ures, and the weather. In 2011, the'FKAA distributed
an annual average day of 15.84 — 16.48 MGD frome Biscayne',Aquifer plus 1.49 MGD
from Floridan Production as shown in Figure 3.. Also, this table provides the water
treatment capacities of the RO plants. The emergency RO plants do not require a WUP because
the water source is seawater.
Figure 3.4 rt gei tecl water Demand is 2012 ! 1YI
012
FKAA Water
Permit 2011 Demand
Thresholds Pum a e Protected
Annual Allocation
Average Daily Withdrawal 23.98 17.33 17.62
Maximum onthlWithdrawal 809.01 603.05 596.99
Annual Withdrawal 8,751 6,324 6,431
Biscayne Aquifer Annual
Allocation/Undtations
Avery I�ai1 Witdrav�al 17.9 15.4 16.10
Avery I Seas�h With veal* 17.00 M48 16.69
Annual Withdrawal' 6,492 5,780 5,877
Floridan DO Production
AveEade Daily Withdrawal 6.00 1 A9 1.52
WTP Facilities
2.00 0.00
Kermit L, LeLy�acit MGD _jMGD 0.04
1.00 UO
Marathon esi n C a i (LGD) (M 9YJ 0.0
11"All t acres are in millions allons
*Dry Season is defined as December thruA ril
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2012
The i monthly water demandof 603.05 MG shown in figure 3.4, occurred in March of
2011. Preliminary figures and projections for 2012 indicate a slight increase to an annual average
daily demand to 17.62 MGDand a decrease in maximummonthly demand to 596.99 ' O as
compared to 211 figures.
Figure 3.5 provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional
Population and average daily demand, the average and projected water consumption for 2011
and 2012 is approximately 106 and' 113 gallons per capita on) respectively.
4
Per Capita Water Use
Daily Average Per Capita
Functional it ra ai Water Consumption
Year Population, o s a cR s
2000 153,080 17,016,393 111
2001 153,552 15 415,616 100
2002154,023' 16,962,082 110
2003 154,495 17,228,192' 112
2004 15,924 17,652,596 114
2005 156,150 __i7,730,000 114
2006 155,738, 1727,671' 111
2007 155,440 16,017,315 103
2008 154,728 16,285,383 105
2009 155,441 16,345,205 105
2010' 155,28' 16210,959' 104
12011 156,054'> 162540,000;; 106
1,2012 156,391 17,620,000 113
So e:1. Monroe County Population Projections
-Monme County Planning Department, 2011
2. Florida Keys Mumeduct An ri ,'2012
Improvements to Potable Water Facilities
FKAA has a 20-yearWater System Capital Improvement Master Plan for water supply, water
treatment, transmission mains and booster pump ,stations, distribution mains, facilities and
structures, information tec olo y reclaimed water systems, and Navy water systems.
In 1989, FKAA embarked on e Distribution' System Upgrade Program to replace
approximately 190 miles of galvanized lines throughout the Keys. FKAA continues to replace
and upgrade its distribution system ou o t the Florida Keys and the schedule for these
upgradesis reflected in their long-range capital improvement plan. The F 's Water
Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of approximately 36,000
feet of water main durings year 2012.
e master plan was revised in 2011 to include the critical rojects as summarized in Figure 3.6.
Figure
e 3.6 also'provides e schedule and costs projected forte capital improvements to the
potable/altemative water systems planned by the FKAA. The total cost of the scheduled
improvements is approximately $44 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be
fundedy the water rate structure, long-term loans, and grants.
42
�i. r .... tI'll .... ,tal I .. n. v t Plan
.... ..._ _ _... v
. .®® . 9 9 l
tr I0 98{yP /0,00 iY pV ti} i/ m a W_.V n}yLFV Vii
Water Treatment ,0 p t...-_-- _ ......__ . __
, 0
Transmission Mains
__-_oast r u vv.1.. at'on ....v. 1,O00,000 _....W. $1,100,0 0 ...v___. 500p 00 $500,000 500p00 3.1 600 000
® p� y �qt �Mp�M®php fqg ®M�gMp(� f} ®h� f�f}gY. tp f} (�f} �m^a®�....f.'(.�f} _......,®A®®h_�yy
..Distr..... Mains
3 447,000 __v_ry ,000,(}00 $3 050,000 �,1 0!-(?0 $2 (} O Oqo 1 7 00
Facilities Structures �vvvv $5 0000 0 3 Q00 000 1 000 000 P P .v $4 5 0 000
Inft�...v ,anon ... Holey 2,605100 1,50 000 .v -__ ,$0_..... 0 4 1 000
�.u__. .vv p_._.... _.
" alai t'r
ystas..v v vvvv. $1 P500,000 mm (i_vv_v $0 _® 0 . $ 1,00,0 0
v
vy tar Systems s 1,293,00 $663,000 833,000 1,008,00 g6y5,000 ,4 ,000
...._...: Totals
...................... ... ............. .......®__ P g.»...... �... 9 ....._... 7 9 __ g.„,„. 9 -� ! / 7 g
Source:FloridaiC s induct u#t�ri 1
SUMMARY
In summary, with the construction of the new water supply wells and RO water treatment, the
new reclaimed systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during
emergency situations, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and future demands
based on current conditions and projections. FKAA will continue to monitor and track conditions
and events that could negatively impact the existing water supply. Any such impacts will be
evaluated to determine future changes , necessary to continue servicing Monroe County' with
adequate supply.
43
School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in
planning e itting residential deV l e t at affect school capacity utilization rags.
FloridaThe veo of School Houses I capacity rate is 11,409's e is and the Capital
Outlay of Full -Time Equivalent( ) is 7,232. The actual utilization 1 —'2013
s 63.39%. Overall,'th roj t growth utilization rate is % for the years 2 1 -2 13 through
2 15-201 .
FISH CAPACITY
ACTUAL
COFTE
ACTUAL
UTILIZATION
SENIORACTUAL
CORAL SHORES I
91
765
78.00%
KEY T SENIOR HIGH
1943
1
3. %
1,064
703
66.00%
MARATHON1,370
45. %
652
462
7 . %
PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL
650
- 430
66.00%
GLYNN ARCHER ELEMENTARY
598
311
52.00%
POINCIANA ELEMENTARY
41
591
92.00%
SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY
1,239
689
56.00%
STANLEY SWITLIK
71
479
55. l0
KEYLARGOSCHOOL
1,243
8521®
. to
Annually, prior to the' o do the district school et, each schoolo sprepare
tentative i `cfacilities work programt includes aj r repair and renovation projects
necessary o maintain the educational and anc cili i s of the district. Some of the'items
listed in the 2012-2013 Monroe County School District Workinclude , flooring,
roofing, safety to life, sewers projects, and fencingfor various schools. Other items include
concrete repairs, ADA projects and site drainage maintenance.
T'he 2010-2011 Monroe County School District 1.50ill Revenues Source actual value is
$9,367,063. The PECO RevenueSource actual e s $15,223,672 after budgeted projects
are completed. PECO maintenance revenue is' 7 ,7 7. e revenue o capital 'outlay
e ices , 5.Additional' revenue sourcesinclude', proceeds %Z cent sales surtax
$14,203,272 and funds carried ,, e total revenue source fortis time
periods $42,301,516 and total revenue available is $42,682,288.
e total project costs' or construction, maintenance, repairand renovation 2 1 -213 is
$27,077,844. Plans approved the school board that reduce the need for permanent student
stations such s acceptable sco capacity levels, redistricting, busing, year-round c ols,
5
charter schools, magnet schools, public -private ers i s, multi -track scheduling, grade level
organization, loc scheduling or other alternatives. Glynn Archercool is beingmoved o
the plannedHorace e lace ent. This will free up the old GlynnArcher campus for
other se. The Monroe County School District is in compliance with the class size reduction
requirement. The Boardas approved the planto close Glynn ArcherElementary c oo in the
most recent Plant Survey. The property is being considered for Administrative offices and
transfer tote City of Key West.
SUMMARY
Enrollment re fort e 2012-2013 schoolyear indicatesthat there is'adequate capacity i
Monroe County school system. The overall 2012-2013 utilization is 63.39% of the school
system capacity.
46
V. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Solid to management is a criticalissue in the Florida Keys. While problems of landfill sitings,
facilities, financing, and hazardous waste disposal have increased o o t Monroe County, the
unique setting of the Keys makes waste management even more difficult. The geographic
isolation, e limited e e environmental stra s, and the presence of nationally
significant r resources adds to the challenge of responsibly and efficiently e
Keys' solid to stream.
Comprehensive o icy 80 1..1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 3.44 po
per capita per dayr 12.2 pounds per dayequivalent residential unit '(ERU) and establishes a
haul out capacity of 95,000 tons per year or 42,668s. The Comprehensive plan requires
sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid wastedisposal site to accommodate all existing
approved eve o or a periodof three years from the projected date of completion of the
proposed v to e t of use.
e Monroe County Land DevelopmentCoe (), in compliance with State concurrency
requirements, require that, "...sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid to disposal site to
accommodate all existingapproved evelo ent for a period of at least three years from
projected ate of completionof a proposeddevelopment or se" (LDC, Section 11 2()(. This
regulation wentinto eec on February 28, 1988, and serves as a level of service ( ) standard
r solid to disposal.
e LDC also requires that solid waste management planse completed before any proposed
development of a Majoro f `o se is reviewed by the Growth Management.
Solid to generation rates and capacity assessments must be submitted or review
coordination itPublic ors Division, Department of Solidto ycl -
In 2010, e County provided solid to service to accommodate 70,808 residents. FDEP
certification of solid waste data for December 31, 2009 is reported to be 73,090 residents in the
County. For the purpose of this document,s to will be used as the most recent certified data.
7
The table below summarizes ist solid e er do for the service ea.
WasteSolid
Total
Recycling
Disposal
1
/
/
/
99
/
/
/
2000
158,327
59,798
131,825
2001
125,893
51,435
96,075
2002134,950,7
113,071
2003
134,734
34,619
13, 7
2004
112,102
1757
110,333
2005
212,47073,085
212,470
2006
200,338
12,206
200,338
2007
134,467
12,497134,467
2008
130,245
13,743
130,245
2009.
, 4
116,884
2
,327
2010
156,465
33,071
123,3
Mama o Technical 1 20 1
Data collection calendar year is January 1 to December'3.
These are scale tonnages.
Fluctuations in yearly data may be a result of major storm events, economic conditions,
otherand generation factors.
FDEP calendar years do not coincide t Monroe o y's calendar years, thus
creating a differentialin datumbetween departments.
e historical solid to generation values or Monroe County show a' steady increase of total
solid waste generation betweenyears 1998-2001. During the period2 - 2006, the County's
solid to generation was significantly higher. These higher values do not correspond to normal
solid to generation trendsi e County and in actuality result from a cluster outliers.
e outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions eater consumption of goods and
services) storm events t cause a significant o of over generation ue to debris.
Furthermore, during the periodof 2007-2008, an economic recession affected solid
generation, significantly reducing standard trends for generation
The tourism industryin the Florida Keys is anothere factor in solid to generation that needs
to be accounted for in projected demands 'calculations, The Monroe County Tourist Development
Council estimated 4.3 million county -wide tourist visits occured in 2011. The County and tourist
population s expected to continue' e i, which willimpact solid waste generation within
County.
4
Solid to is collected y franchise and takento the three ' o .c landfill sites, which serve as
transfer facilities. At the transferstations, the waste is compacted loaded on Waste
Management, Inc. ( 1) trucks for haulout. Recyclable materials, including whito goods,'tires,
glass, aluminum,plastic bottles and newspapere included as part of the solid waste haul out
contract. A recent) amendment to the contract includes WMI and the County's commitmentCounty'
o increase recycling rate to'40 percent by 2014.
I I- - Y - r 4
� • _
Ai��l��14 I i S
� . - - Y .
� I�gIAIVIIII III IIII ■
, � � � IIIII i*�� ��� 4
y future declines will alsoreflect the diligent efforts citizens of e t t reduce e
amount solid s e generate, o e consciousconsumption
do of goods, composting,
mulching or other sustainability efforts. do 1 factors which are less easily'quantifiable could
so affect solid waste'generation. The amount of construction ace in the County, and thus
amountthe of constructione s os of, also significantly affects the total amount
solid waste generated.Periods with less construction could havet o the decline in total
waste generation. Finally, the weather affects the rate of vegetativetherefore affects
amountthe of yard waste generated, Drier years could result in less total waste generation.
The analysis below represents a general trendof solid waste' e ra ° respect to functional
population o e LOS creates a conservative rate of solid to generation in comparison
to the increasing trendof solid to generation between e e - s predicting
comparative or slightly r solid
waste production in relationto o aio, 'Limitations
on re growth should reduce 'o of construction ltion debris generation.
Recycling efforts in Monroeo ve increased should ce the amount ofsolid to
generation.
Solid Waste Generation Trends
GENERATION'
POPULATION"
Year (Tons/Yr)
Permanent
Seasonal
Functional
LBSI PID.
2000 15,327
36,036
33,241
69,277
12.52
2001 125,893
365250
33,263
69,513
9.92
2002 134,950
36,42
33,25
69,737
10.6
2003 134,734
36,543
33,307
69,550
10.7
2004 112,102
36,606
33,329
69,935
8.78
05 212,470
37,164
33,351
70,515
16,51
2006 200,338
36,466
34,019
70,485
15.57
2007 134,467
35,749
34,565
70,317
10.48
2008 130,245
34,75
_3,550
70,338
10.15
2009 116,884
36,268
35,043
71,311
8.98
010 156,465
35,365
35,440
70,808
12.1
2011 165,675
35,917
35,249
71,166
12.75
I a Florida Department of Environmental Protection
20 Monroe unty 2012-203 0
Monroe County Population Projections, Keith & S hnars and
Fishkind & Associates, -15-11
SUMMARY
Monroe o ty has a contract
with Waste Management
I . The contract authorizes the use
of in -stag facilities through
September
30, 2016,
thereby providing
ty with
approximately four 4) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste
generation __ for the next twelve
12 months.
so
VI. PARKS AND RECREATION
An al assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County
Land Development Code; however, data is provided.
The Level of Service standards for parks and recreationalfacilities is provided in Policy 120 1.1.
of the Monroe o 2010 Comprehensive P
Parks and RecreationalFacilities Level Of ServiceStandard
The level of service ( standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated
Monroe County is 1'acres per'1,000 functionalti s e a balance
provisions of resource- and activity-basedrecreation e LOS standard has been divided
equally o types of recreations. Therefore, the LOS standards re:
acres of resource -based recreation a per 1,000ctio a population; and
0.82 acres of activity -based recreation area per 1,000 functionaldo
Resource-basedResource-based recreation s s e o existing r r cultural eso cs of
significance, such eac s or historic sites.Activity-based recreation e can be
established r ere is sufficient space r ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other
athletic events.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Comprehensive l Policy 1. .1,
Monroe _ t
Functio1
Existing
e i
- Surplus o
Parks Recreation
Population 1
Acreage(Deficit)
Acreage
Acreage
0.82 acres per , ci T
population of passive, res c -
138,803
113.8
.2
neighborhood a community s
_. acres r 1, functional
population passive, activity -based
13
,3
11.
320.2
neighborhoodcommunity parks
MonroeCounty Technical Document, Chapter 13,RecreationSpace, 1, 1, Section
13.5.1.1.2.
There are approximately 1_ acress rce- recreations currently available i e
Countyor c i beaches is e Federal State o_
resource -based lands results approximately 2 acres remaining.
Level of Service Analysis For Activity-BasedRecreation Areas
e Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity -based recreational land foundat'educational
'
facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational conc rrency. As of May 2011, a total'
of 98.98 acresof developed reso ' ce -based and 118.25 acres of activity -based recreation areas
either owned r leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County cool Board.
e activity-basedactivity-based recreational facilities that are inventoried include facilities and activities such
baseball/softball, football/soccer, tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic tables and picnic'
pavilions, volleyball courts, ll/ra et 1 courts, equipped play areas, multi -use areas,
benches, tracks, piers, bike paths, oat s, fishing, swimming, swimming pools, ue
ills, shueboard
, courts, _ caches'and restroo s. Additionally, other recreation uses and facilities
e indicated such as historic structures, bandshells, dog parks, skateboard faci ites, aquatic parks,
museums, and concessions.
e subareas for the park and recreational facilities include the Upper Keys, north of Tavernier;
Middle Keys, between Pigeon Key and Lon Key; and the Lower Keys, south of the Seven Mile
Bridge.
e tables below provide resource- and activity -based s and recreation in acres for the three
subarea planning areas.
MIDDLE KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM . -7
MileNam
1 s ication (Acres)
e
Location
Marker
aches
ResourceActivity
Sunset Bay Park
Grassy Key
55
_ Beach
0.6
NA
aca Key
oat ramp, teen' club,
Yacht Club (1)(Marathon)
54
tennis courts, basketball
NA
2
court
Beach, picnic pavilions,
Sombrero Beach
bal1 field,2 volleyball
witi )
Monroe County
50
courts, equipped play
area, dog park, pier,
fishing,
Old 7-Mile Bridge
Monroe County
1-47
Fishing, Bicycling,
5
NA
Beaches
7-Mile Bridge
Pigeon Key
45
Historicalstructures
UPPER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 7-11
MileName
Facilities
Classification (Acres)Location
Marker
Resource
Activity
Hibiscus Park
Key Largo
101,5
Vacant, inaccessible
0.5
NA
(Buttonwood Lane)
waterfront
Riviera Village
Boat basin, four picnic
Park
Key Largo
105.E
pavilions,
1.8
NA
(Bay rive)
Waterfront, benches
Garden Cove ark
Key Largo
106
oat r
1.5
A
Ball ' field,' 3 basketball
Friendship Park
Largo
Key L
101
courts _ picnic shelters,
A
2.3
Play equipment,
restroo' s, trail
Key Largo
2 boat ramps, play
Community Park-
Key Largo
9.6
equipment, aquatic
1.5
13.6
acob's Aquatic
park, 3 swimming
Center
pgools, beach
Veradern Beach
Park
Key Largo
95.5
Beach
2
NA
Beach, two ball fields,
play equipment,
Harry Harris
Key Largo
94
swimming boat ramp,
2
15.1
County k
(Tavernier)
s, shuffleboard,
beach, picnic tables,
restroo s
Key Largo
Play Equipment, picnic,'
Old Settlers Park
(Tavernier)
2.
shelter, beach, butterfly
'den
IOTA
3
Sunset Point Park
Key Largo
2
Vacant, waterfront
1.2
0.
(Tavernier)
access, boat ramp
Burr Beach Park
Key Largo
1
Vacant waterfront
p
0.1
NA
(Sunny Haven)
access
Old State Rte. 4A
Upper
Matecumbe Key
2.5
Vacant
0.3
NA
Old State Rte. 4A
Upper
Hurricane
atecu be c
1
Historical marker
L2
NA
Monument
Anne's Beach,
Lower
each swimming, bike
Lower Matecumbe
'
atecbeev
73.5
path, picnic pavilions,
.1
6
Beach (5)
boardwalk
3
LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5
Mile
Classification (Acres)
Na
Location
Marker
Facilities
Resource
Activity
Picnic pavilions, beach,
W
Veteran's s Memorial k
Little Duck Key'
400:6
BBQs, beat ramp,
24.9
(Ohio Key)
swimming, beach,
restroo s
Missouri Key/South side
us
Missouri Key
39
Roadside pull -off, beach
3.5
NA
Heron Ave./Terpon St.
Big Pine Key
30
Vacant
0.7
NA
Historic House, 2 tennis
J. Watson Field (Stilitz
i Pine Ivey
30
courts volleyball, play
1.2
2:4
Property) (2)
equipment, baseball,
picnic
Big Pine Key Park
Big Pine Key
30
Vacant
5.5
4.6
Play equipment, 3
Blue Heron Park
Big Pine Key
30
pavilions, basketball,
NA
5.5
voll ball,
BobEvans/ Chamber of
Big Pine Ivey
30
Vacant
0.3
NA
Commerce
Benches, waterfront,
Palm Villa Park
i Pine Ivey
30
play equipment,
NA
0.6
basketball
State Road 4
Little Torch Ivey
28
Boat ramps
01
NA
Ramrod Key Park
Ramrod Key
27
Beach*, swimming
1.2
1.2
West Summerland Park
S erl anstd ey;
25
2' oat ramps
31.
A
Play equipment,
volleyball, picnic tables
Bay Point Park
Saddlebunch ley
15
trail, basketball, 2 tennis
NA
1.58
courts, pavilions, soccer
nets
Boca Chica Beach, s R
941 (3)
Boca C iea Key
11
Beach, picnic table *
6
NA
Palm Drive cul-de-sac
Big Coppitt Key',
11
Vacant
0:1
IAA
Big Coppitt Volunteer Fire
13i Co pitt ley
1
Play equipment,
'
NA0.75
Department Park (4)
benches, skateboard
Wil el,,, ina Harvey Park
Big Coppitt Key
9:5
Play equipment, path
NA
0.6
5
Gulfview Delmar
Big Coppitt y 10
_
oat ramp .2 A
Rockland Hammock oc 1 d Key 10
Vacant 2.5 ILIA
Play equipment,
volleyball, baseball;
Bernstein Park Raccoon Key 4.5
track, trail, soccer field, IOTA 11
tennis courts, basketball,
restroo s
East Martello Park Key West IslandPicnic
,teen center, 1.5 NA
Historic
stoc Fort
1.6 mile beach,
concession area, 2'band
Higgs Beach Park, C.B.shells,
pier, picnic
Harvey, Rest Beach Key West Island 1
pavilions and grills, 5 5 12.1
tennis courts, play ea,
bike path,volleyball,
swi in ; dog pEk
West Martello Park Key West Island 1
Historic Fort 0.8 NA
Whitehead Street Key west Island I
Lighthouse
Historic Fort, Museum 0.8 NA
Pines P (SRoosevelt) �Key I
Picnic NA 1.72
(1) The total acreage of eYacht Club is approximately 6.0 acres. The unique layout of this facility -
restricts active recreation to approximately 2 acres partially leased tote Marathon Yacht Club by Monroe
County.
(2) House and yard (1.2 acres) owned by Monroe County. Additional 2.4 acres leased by Monroe County
from the Big Pine Athletic Association.
(3) Lands Leased to Monroe County from U. S. Navy.
() Church to west of park has public access 2 basketball,
volleyball, and bocce courts.
(5) Beach leased to Village of Isl oraa
*Denotes approximate acreage; (for beachesthe length of
the beach x a minimum of 15 ft.)
Source: Mooree Co t Tee ical oc ent Jnly 211
5
Aggifisition of Additional Recreation Areas
The Monroe County Year 01 Comprehensive Plan stags in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe
County shall secure additional acreage for useand/or development of resource -based
activity -based neighborhood and communityconsistent with adopted level of service
standards." The elimination of efficiencies in L S standards for recreation areas can be
accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six 6
mechanisms at are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service ssa 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 e
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;
Interlocal agreements with e Monroe County School Board'that would allow for the
use of existing school -park facilities by county residents;
4. Interloeal agreements with incorporated cities within o oe County that would
allow for the use of existing city -owned k 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;
6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint usea ee ents with private entities that would
allow for the use of private park facilities by county residents.
To date, the countyhas employed two of these six mechanisms -- acquisition of new park sites
and i terlocal agreements with e School Board.
W