Item P6BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 20,2012 Division: Growth Managemen
Staff Contact Person: Christine Hurley, AJCP
Qrowth Management Director
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
11MMIJIMMENT M-W.1011trell
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Section 163.3180, F.S. requires sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water to be the only public
facilities and services subject to the concurrency requirement state-wide. The local comprehensive plan musl
include adopted level of service standards to guide its application of concurrency. Section 163.3177(3)(a), F.S.
re uires the com rehensive Ian to include a Cavital Inwrovements Element.
of Capital Improvements is consistent with the Monroe County F'T' 2013 Budget that was adopted by the BOC
on September 13, 2012.
. 111111 ...............................................................
IWATITWO!"11111, WAX-ftV .
1 11
11 1 1111111 111 11 111 1111gill
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N.4,
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST:- RIDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED ® County Arty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included - Not Required.
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM 9-
. . ...... .. ... ..
..........
. ......... . . ......... .
... ....... .. . ............
. .. .........
.............
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL REsouNcEs DEPARTMENT
We Strive to be caring, of easy
zmll�, 111111111H 1; 1111 n
I M—MI
gliffow
121M
I Subject: Request for an Amendment to the Year 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive
2 Plan to amend Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements
Meeting: February 20, 2013
Page I of 12
File #2012-007
1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
2 Staff is requesting the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopt an amendment to
3 Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements to reflect the capital improvement
4 projects adopted by the BOCC in the County's annual budget and ensure level -of -service
5 standards are achieved and maintained (Exhibit A).
6
7 The definition of "Capital Improvement" pursuant to Section 163.3164(7), Florida Statutes,
8 means "physical assets constructed or purchased to provide, improve, or replace a public facility
9 and which are typically large scale and high in cost. The cost of a capital improvement is
10 generally nonrecurring and may require multiyear financing. For the purposes of this part,
11 physical assets that have been identified as existing or projected needs in the individual
12 comprehensive plan elements shall be considered capital improvements."
13
14 Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes, require that projects necessary to ensure that any
15 adopted level -of -service standards are achieved and maintained for the five-year period be
16 identified as either funded of unfunded and given a level of priority for funding and that the
17 capital improvements element must be reviewed by the local government on an annual basis.
18
19 DATA AND ANALYSIS:
20 Table 4.1, Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (Fiscal Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014,
21 and 2014-2015, and 2015-2016, 2-16-2017), lists the public facilities is Monroe County will
22 provide in order to reduce existing deficiencies, provide for necessary replacements, and meet
23 the future demand identified by the Comprehensive Plan.
24
25 Specific data and analysis for all public facilities are located in the draft 2012 Public Facilities
26 Capacity Assessment Report, attached as Exhibit B. Exhibit C includes portions of the County's
27 adopted budget which identify and support capital improvement projects included in this
28 amendment.
29
30 The public facilities types are:
31 1 . Transportation facilities
32 2. Potable Water
Wastewater
34 4. Drainage and Storm Water
35 5. Solid Waste
36 6. Parks and Recreation
37
38 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.1 establishes that at the time a development permit is issued,
39 adequate public facilities are available to serve the development at the adopted level of service
40 standard concurrent with the impacts of such development.
41
42
43
44
45
46
Page 2 of 12
File #2012-007
1 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
2
3 GROWTH ANALYSIS
4
5 This section of the report examines the projected growth of Monroe County's permanent,
6 seasonal and functional population, occupied and vacant housing data.
7
8 The following population and housing characteristics tables provide summary information for
9 Monroe County and the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been
10 included for comparison purposes. The U.S. Census Bureau released 2010 demographic
11 information related to population on March 17, 2011. fhe U.S. Census Bureau released housing
12 characteristics based on data collected from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 to the public
13 on September 22, 2011.
14
15 POPULATION ESTIMATES
16
17 The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) declined by
18 8% (-6,499 people) from the year 2000 to 2010.
19
Census
2000
X 01:
..........
-727
-2,992
.........................................................................................................................
................
..............
-6-499 ......
.......................
20
21 Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates. Permanent
22 residents are people whose all or most of the year living in Monroe County, and as such,
23 exert a relatively constant demand on all public facilities. Seasonal population figures are the
24 number of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. They are composed
25 of the tourist population and residents spending less than six months in the Keys. The seasonal
26 population has a higher cyclical demand on public facilities like roads and solid waste.
27
28 According to the Monroe County 2010-2030 Population Projections (Keith and Schnars, P.A.
29 and Fishkind and Associates, March 15, 2011), approved by the Florida Department of Community
30 Affairs (DCA), the 2010 estimated population for unincorporated Monroe County was 70,808 and
31 by 2030, it is projected to increase by 3,148 additional persons to 73,956. This is an increase of
32 157.5 persons per year through the twenty year planning horizon.
33
34
35
36
Page 3 of 12
File #2012-007
m
I
UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
Year
-
Unincorporated
Lower Keys Middle Keys
Upper Keys
Monroe County
Total
2010
39,645 2,183
28,980
70,808
2015
40,181 2,212
29,370
71,763
2020
40,592 2,234
29,668
72,494
2025
41,003 2,256
29,966
73,225
2030
41,414 2,278
30,265
73,956
Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith
and Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates
The population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a loss of permanent
population. The data in the Monroe County 2010-2030 Population Projections report suggests
the permanent population losses and associate increase in vacant housing units
being shifted into an increase in seasonal population. Fishkind & Associates estim that while
permanent population decreases at an average rate of 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 from permanent to seasonal. Overall, lunctional population or total
population for the unincorporated County will increase at an average rate of less than one
percent, every five years, in the twenty year planning period.
Between 200 and 2010, the 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 by 3,604 units or 22%.
Page 4 of 12
File #2012-007
1 According to the U.S. Census, housing units are broken down into occupied and vacant units.
2 The Census defines housing units as "a house, apartment, group of rooms, or single room
3 occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters." Occupied housing units are
4 occupied if there is "at least one person who lives in the unit as a usual resident at the time of the
5 interview, or if the occupants are only temporarily absent, for example, on vacation. However, if
6 the unit is occupied entirely by people with a usual residence elsewhere, the unit is classified as
7 vacant, such as seasonal units. The table below shows the housing units by status and tenure
8 from the 2011 American Communities Survey.
9
10
Housing Units by Status and Tenure by Units in Structure
2009-2011
Monroe incorporated and Inc2rp 2ratedAreas
HOUSING OCCUPANCY Estimates Percent
Total housing units 52,730 100.00%
Occupied housing units 27,613 52.40%
Vacant housiEa units 25,117 47.60%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE Estimates Percent
Total housing its 52,730 100.00%
1-_ t,detached 22,129 51.40%
1 -unit, attached 4,885 9.30%
2 units 1,678 3.20%
3 or 4 its 2,422 4.60%
5 to 9 units 3,041 5.80%
10 to 19 its 2,228 4.20%
20 or more units 3,278 6.20%
Mobile home 7,974 15.10%
Boat, RV, van, etc. 95 0.20%
HOUSING TENURE Estimates Percent
Occupied housing its 27613 100.00%
Owner -occupied 17,136 62.10%
Renter -occupied ..... 10,477 37.90%_
Average household size of owner -
occupied unit 2.51
Average household size of renter-
occiTie t 2.72
11
12
W2312M
File #2012-007
I TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES:
2
3 The Level of Service (LOS) for roads is regulated by Section 3.3 Traffic Circulation of the
4 Comprehensive Plan.
5
6 Goal 301: To provide a safe, convenient, efficient, and environmentally -compatible motorized
7 and non -motorized transportation system for the movement of people and goods in Monroe
8 County.
9
10 Policy 301.1.1: For all County roads, Monroe County hereby adopts a minimum peak
11 hour level of service (LOS) standard of D, based on the Florida Department of
12 Transportation (FDOT) methodology for determination of LOS, as measured by peak
13 hour traffic volume. The County shall maintain the level of service on County roads
14 within five percent (5%) of LOS D.
15
16 Policy 301.1.2: For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS)
17 standard of C based on the methodology development by the US-1 LOS Task Force and
18 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991, for analyzing the LOS
19 on US- I in Monroe County. This methodology replaces a peak hour volume standard for
20 US-1. The level of service on US-1 shall be maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS
21 C.
22
23 Objective 301.2: Errs= that all roads have sufficient capacity to serve development at the adopted
24 LOS standards concurrent with the impact of said development
25
26 Policy 301.2.2: Monroe County shall not pennit new development winch, in combination with all
27 other development would significantly degrade the LOS below the adopted LOS standards. A five
28 percent projected decrease in travel speeds is a significant degradation in the level of service on US-
29 1. Traffic volume which exceeds the LOS D standard by more than five percent is a significant
30 degradation in the level of service on any other road.
31
32 The FDOT, District 6 transportation improvement projects are included in the 5-Year CIE
33 Schedule.
34
35 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
36
37 U.S. I is the only principal arterial serving the Keys. Monroe County has the Florida
38 Department of Transportation (FDOT) conduct a yearly study to monitor the level of service on
39 U.S. 1. The 2012 Arterial Travel and Time Delay Study indicates that the overall level of service
40 (LOS) of U.S. I at "C." Based on this data, the County is maintaining it adopted LOS.
41
42 The reserve capacity is the difference between the median speed and the LOS "C" standard
43 speed, which in turn can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic
44 volume and corresponding additional development. The median overall speed of 47.0 mph
45 compared to the LOS "C" standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of 3 mph.
46 Segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given particular attention
Page 6 of 12
File #2012-007
I
when approving development applications. In 2012, there were eleven segments of U.S. 1 in this
category -
Big Coppitt (MM 9.0 - MM 10.5)
Duck (MM 60.5 - MM 63.0)
Saddlebunch (MM 10.5 — 16.5)
Lower Matecumbe (MM 73.0 — 77.5
Sugarloaf (MM 16.5 — 20.5)
Tea Table (MM 77.5 — 79.5
Big Pine Key (MM 29.5 — MM 33.0)
Upper Matecumbe (MM 79.5 — MM 84.0)
7-Mile Bridge (MM 40.0 — MM 47.0)
Windley (84.0 — 86.0)
Grass Key (MM 54.0 — MM 60.5)
Monroe County regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to meet the LOS C
standard to receive an allocation not to exceed five percent below the LOS C standard. This
provision will allow a limited amount of additional land development to continue until traffic
speeds are measured again next year or until remedial actions are implemented. These segments
are candidates for being designated either "backlogged" or "constrained" by Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT).
Based on the 2012 Arterial Travel and Time Delay Study, two of the above segments are
identified as operating below LOS C. The Lower Matecumbe segment functions at LOS D, but
has a reserve capacity within the 5% reserve allocation. The Tea Table segment functions at LOS
E and has depleted its reserve capacity. It is important to note that the Lower Matecumbe and
Tea Table segments are both located within the Village of Islamorada and are, therefore, not
subject to the development constraints specified within the Monroe County Land Development
Code.
W qFWAUPPMAP
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 standard concurrent with the impacts
of such development.
Policy 701.1.1 Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standard
concurrent to achieve Objective 701.1 and shall use these standards as the basis for
determining facility capacity and the demand generated by a development.
File #2012-007
019MEW
I Residential LOS 66.50 gal./capita/day
2 Non -Residential LOS 0.35 gal./sq. ft./day
3 Overall LOS 132.00 gal./capita/day
4 (Ord. 021-2009)
6 Equivalent Residential Unit 149.00 gallons per day
7 (2.24 average persons per household x 66.5 gallons/capita/day)
8
9 2. Minimum Pressure:
10 20 PSI at customer service
11
12 3. Minimum Potable Water Quality:
13 Shall be as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Part
14 143 -National Secondary Drinking Standards, 40 CFR 143, 44FR 42198)
15
16
17 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
18
19 The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in the
20 Florida Keys. The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the FKAA's Water Treatment
21 Facility in Florida City, is currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8
22 million gallons per day (MGD). The primary water treatment process is a conventional lime
23 softening/filtration water treatment plant and is capable of treating up to 23.8 MOD from the
24 Biscayne Aquifer. The secondary water treatment process is the newly constructed Reverse
25 Osmosis water treatment plant and is capable of producing 6 MOO from the brackish Floridan
26 Aquifer. The two saltwater Reserve Osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock Island and
27 Marathon, are available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO
28 desalination plants have design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MOD of water, respectively.
29
30 In 2011, the annual average daily demand was 17.33 MOO and the maximum monthly water
31 demand in Monroe County is 603.05 MG which occurred in March of 2011. Preliminary figures
32 and projections for 2012 indicate a slight increase to an annual average daily demand to 17.62
33 MGD and a decrease in maximum monthly demand to 596.99 MG as compared to 2011 figures.
34 Based on Functional Population and average daily demand, the average and projected water
35 consumption for 2011 and 2012 is approximately 106 and 113 gallons per capita (person),
36 respectively.
37
38 With the construction of the new water supply wells and RO water treatment, the new reclaimed
39 systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MON RO desalination plants during emergency
40 situations, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and future demands, based on
41 current conditions and projections. FKAA will continue to monitor and track conditions and
42 events that could negatively impact the existing water supply. Any such impacts will be
43 evaluated to determine future changes necessary to continue servicing Monroe County with
44 adequate supply. Based on this data, the County is maintaining it adopted LOS.
45
46 FKAA replacement and improvement projects are included in the 5-Year CIE Schedule.
47
Page 8 of 12
File #2012-007
Objective801.1: Monroe County shall ensure that solid waste collection service and disposal
capacity is available to serve development at the adopted level of service standari
zoncurrent, concurrent with the impacts of such development.
g1m."ll Kim F441,1L.2 rimulp .Amt3sm43 4
•
Level of Service Standard:
Disposal Quantity:
5.44 pounds per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per ERU
(Equivalent Residential Unit)
Haul Out Capacity:
21-
J&
Duration of Capacity:
Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to
accommodate all existing and approved development fora period oft ee (3)
years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development or
use.
During 2010, the pounds/capita/day exceeded the LOS standards established by the
Comprehensive Plan (12.2 lbs vs. 12.11 lbs). Limitations on fitture growth should reduce the
amount of construction and demolition debris generation. Recycling efforts in Monroe County
have increased and should reduce the amount of solid waste generation. In 2010, the County
provided solid waste service to accommodate 70,808 residents.
Solid Waste Generation Trends
GENERATION
POPULATION
Year (To ns/Yr)
Permanent
Seas nal
unctional (LBS/CAP/DAY)
2010 115,465
35,368
35,440
70,808 12.11
Source: Monroe County Recommended Functional Population Series,
Fishkind & Associates 2010
1
2 Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management (WMI). The contract authorizes the use
3 of in -state facilities through September 30, 2016; thereby, providing the County with
4 approximately five (5) years of guaranteed capacity. Currently, there is adequate capacity for
5 solid waste generation.
6
7 SCHOOL FACILITIES
8
9 The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a LOS standard for schools, but does include Policy
10 1301.5.6 which requires the County to coordinate with the School Board on the siting and
11 expansion of required facilities. Enrollment figures for the 2012-2013 through 2015-2015 school
12 years indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall
13 2012-2013 utilization is 63.39% of the school system capacity. There are no projects identified
14 in the CIE 5-Year Schedule.
15
16 PARKS AND RECREATION:
17
18 Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are listed in Policy 120 1. 1.1 of the
19 Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
20
21 Policy 120 1. 1. 1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standard to
22 achieve Objective 120 1. 1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining
23 recreation land and facility capacity:
24
25 Level of Service Standard for Neighborhood and Community Parks:
26
0.82 acres per 1,000 finictional population of passive, resource -based
28 neighborhood and community parks; and
29
30 2. 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population of activity -based neighborhood and
31 community parks within each of the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys
32 subareas.
33
34 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
35
36 Resource -based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources of
37 significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity -based recreation areas can be
38 established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other
39 athletic events.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Page 10 of 12
File #2012-007
Comprehensive Plan Policy
Monroe County
Existing
Demand
Surplus or
1201.1.1, Parks and Recreation
Functional
Acreage
in
(Deficit) in
Population 2010
Acreage
Acreage
0.82 acres per 1,000 fimetional
population of passive, resourced-
138,803
2,502
113.8
136.2
based neighborhood and
communi�y.p�Eks
0.82 acres per 1,000 ffinctional
population of passive, activity-
based neighborhood and
138,803
4,343
113.8
320.2
community parks
Monroe County Technical Document,
Chapter 13, Recreation and Open Space, May 11,
2011, Section 13.5.1.1.2.
2 As of May 2012, the LOS for parks and open space exceeds the LOS standard stated in the
3 Comprehensive Plan. There are several maintenance projects for existing park facilities listed in
4 the CIE 5-Year Schedule.
5
6 WASTEWATER FACILITIES
7
8 The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan establishes the LOS treannent standards for sanitary
9 sewer.
10
11 Objective 901.1: Monroe County shall ensure that, at the time a development permit is
12 issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, including wastewater
13 treatment facilities and onsite sewage treatment and disposal, are available to support the
14 development at the adopted level of service standards, concurrent with the impacts of such
15 development.
16
17 Policy 90 1, 1. 1: Monroe County shall ensure that, at the time a development permit
18 is issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are
19 available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards,
20 concurrent with the impacts of such development.
21
22 (A) The permanent level of service standards for wastewater treatment in
23 Monroe County are as provided in House Bill 1993 adopted by the 1999
24 Legislature.
25
26 The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, mandated by the Comprehensive Plan,
27 establishes a LOS capacity of 145 gpd/EDU. Currently, the following wastewater facilities are
28 listed as scheduled projects on the 5-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements table: Big Coppitt,
29 Cudjoe Regional, Duck Key, Key Largo, and Long Key.
Page 11 of 12
File 42012-007
Multiple waste water projects are included to
380-00522P 403-086, 381.0065, Florida Staw
Code, by 2015.
111411111111 �1111
WERINOMMEW110 "OE�i 1 11', 11, 1111111111,1111111111,1111 1111
In 2012, the State approved an allocation of $50 million for Monroe County's centralize4-
wastewater system expansion. $30 million of these funds are to be applied to the Unincorporated
Area and will be dedicated to the comucletion of the
treatment facility. In addition, Monroe County voters approved an extension of the one cent
infrastructure sales tax which specially earmarks funding for the completion of central
wastewater collections and treatment systems. These two funding sources will help Monroe
County meet the 2015 State mandate for County -wide centralized wastewater collection and
treatment.
RECOMMENDATION
I I 1 11 111 J I., la
I Will W V
1111q�l�:�111111�� NIPPON 1111�11111111111 1111 �1111�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�
23 Exhibit A. 2012 Public Facilities Capacity Report
24 Exhibit B. Monroe County Adopted FY 13 Annual Budget, Funded Capital Improvemenj
Page 12 of 12
File #2012-007
mm
MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORTATION
POTABLE WATER
EDUCATION
SOLID WASTE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Monroe County
PlanningEnvironmental Resources Department
q
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary.... ... ........ ...... ...... ... -- .... ................. .......... ...... 3
1. Growth Management ... ........... ........ ............ ....... ......................... .............................. .... I I
II. Transportation... -- . ..... - .............. ............... .......... ...... ......... --- .... — ........ ..... f24
III. Potable Water ......... ................f....,,.,,..,,..........,,.....,....... ,... ,.......... ,......... .......... .,,......... 3'7
IV. Education......................................................................................................9......9........44
VrSolid Waste................................................................................................................... 47
I. Darks and Recreation..... .................. .......... .............. ............ ...... ..... -1
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A
procedures to ensure that pu ic faci ities 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.
As required by LDC Section 114-2 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) shall consider and approve the annual report, with or without modifications. Any
modifications that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by
findings of fact, including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the
additional capacity required to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document
becomes the official re3ort on public facilities upon which develo�,*ment
for the next ym. This report distinguishes between areas of adequate, inadequate and
marginally adequate facility capacity. Inadequate facility capacity is defined as those areas with
capacity below the adopted LOS standard. Marginally adequate capacity is defined as those
areas at the adopted LOS standard or that are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the
next twelve months.
Potable water, roads, solid waste, and schools have adequate capacity to serve the growth
anticipateI in 2012-2013 at the adopted level of service standard. The status of each facility is
summarized below.
1=61
In March 2009, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKANs modification of
WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This
water use permit (WUP) provides an annual allocation of 8,751 million gallons or 23.98 MGD.
The 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 supply 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 anM
future demands, based on current conditions and projections.
H
Enrollment figures for the 2011-2012 through 2015-2016
adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system.
66.88% of the school system capacity.
school years indicate that there is
The overall 2011-2012 utilization is
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 our (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.
The biggest difference in speed change was observed on Segment # 18 (Tea Table MM 77.5 —
MM 79.5), which resulted in the LOS change from a 'D' to an 'E'. This segment had been at
LOS D for thmk9r.-_kM&vj yvaowixx&:- wthm"winiAtais 9mmWwiailRr tren,"tuli Voi
*bserved at the adjacent Segment # 17 (L Matecurnbe MM 73.0 — MM 77.5), where the LOS
remained at D for the past three consecutive years, These two segments are located within thw
Village of Islamorada and are therefore not subject to the development restrictions specified
11.3 X MMITI "111 111111 1
1==11
610010ELM
MwPh"It"RIM 11.1 /—IT, IL d_1 Q I
the adopted level of service.
a]
INTRODUCTION
The 2012 Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity is mandated by the Monroe County
Land Development Code (LDC) Section 114-2, tided Adequate Facilities and Development
Review Procedures. The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations
ensuring "concurrency" or providing public facilities in order to achieve and maintain the
adopted level of service standard. In other words, local governments must establish regulations
tw ent.%�t e# #suppa.-nL tael+p7i9Y-t are avoila-VIs
simultaneously with development impacts.
MUM - 141-1. --W
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.
Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to
consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. The BOCC
cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report without
making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase and identifying the source of
funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity. Once approved by the BOCC, this document
becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be
based for the next year.
# i Plan Objective 10 1. 1 states:
"Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a development permit 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."
I
all
of these facilities may be either sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next year,
marginally adequate, or inadequate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are
projected to be only marginally adequate or inadequate over the next year, the LDC sets out a
review procedure to be followed when issuing development permits in that area.
Section 114-2(b)(5)b of the LDC states: "The county shall not approve applications for
development in areas of the county which are served by inadequate facilities identified in the
annual adequate facilities (Public Facility Capacity Assessment) report, except the county may
approve development that will have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where the
teveloper agrees to increase the level of service of the facility to the adopted level of service
standard." The LDC goes on to state that "in areas of marginal facility capacity as identified in
the current annual adequate facilities report, the county shall either deny the application or
condition the approval so that the level of service standard is not violated."
The determination of an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas
wi&-rrlaarg *r ina*kyzftm-a-�,aci�y is,&tcmTii-o-4'Vy &"11461ifies
submitted with a development application.
Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101. 1 establishes that at the time a development permit 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.
Policy 30 1. 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
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 has
on the methodology development by the US-1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Boar
of County Commissioners in August 1991, for analyzing the LOS on US-1 in Monrol
County. This methodology replaces a peak hour volume standard for US-1. Thelevel
service on US- 1 shall be maintained within five percent
RMNITITM TI.- Iff � � I � � E � "I ailillil�MUMMMKI�,i�ll�'l,il��1111111��IlI I
i I ��IMEMM
M
a. County Road 905 within three miles of a parcel proposed for development shall have
sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an annual
average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersections and/or roadway segments. U.S. I
shall have sufficient available cayaQihy to operate at level of service C Qn-an-gaiv.,711 ft,�-S�
as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. In addition, the
segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. I 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.
1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology.
WAN
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 of U.S,
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 capacit , ort. The available c acity shall be expressed
of number of trips remaining until the adequate transportation facilities standard is
exceeded, The notice shall be published in the nonlegal section of the local newspapers of
greatest general circulation in the Lower, Middle and Upper Keys.
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopts the LOS standards and finther 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, adequaig
potable water supply, treatment, and distribution faces are available to support ft
development at the adopted level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of such
ievelopment.
Policy 70 1.1. I
Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective
701.1 and shall use these standards as the is for determining facility capacity and the
demand generated by a development.
Level of Service StandarJ
N
1. Quantity:
Residential LOS
Non -Residential LOS
Overall LOS
Equivalent Residential Unit
(2.24 average persons per
2. Minimum Pressure:
20 PSI at customer service
66.50 gal./capita/day
*35ft./day
132.00 gal./capita/day (Ord. 021-2009)
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)
I d Lei MI 0 03PAW-le-W
1r,
I 6TWIM TOM
14" u;,rclopment ][()I- it punwt 44 at leas
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)
fimzzmz�
13
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.
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 114-2(a)(4) requires that
school classroom capacity be available to accommodate all school -age children to be generated
by the proposed development or use.
01=11
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
01.1 , and shall use these standards as the basis for detennining recreation land and facility
capacity:
asm IRRIMI lammmma=
1. 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resource -based
neighborhood and community parks; and
2. 0.82 acres per 1,000 fimetional population of activity -based neighborhood ani
community parks within each of the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys
subareas.
M
PERMITTING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS
LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and Development Review Procedures divides
unincorporated Monroe County into three (3) service areas for the purpose of assessing potential
growth and how public facilities can accommodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in
the Monroe County Land Development Code have been revised to account for incorporations of
the Village of Islamorada, and the City of Marathon.
Section 114-2(b)(2) defines the county's unincorporated public facilities service areas:
• Upper Keys Service Area: north of the Whale Harbor Bridge;
• Middle Keys Service Area: between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor
Bridge; and
• Lower Keys Service Area. south (vest) of the Seven Mile Bridge.
The map shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized.
MONROECOUNTY A
MAP
The Upper Keys
NIM 112-91
The Nfiddle Keys
MM 91-47
Ise
80
k A
N.
alic
The Lower Keys
NIM 47-4
.. ... . . ..... .... le
IM
1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GROWTH ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the projected growth of Monroe County's permanent,
seasonal and functional population, occupied and vacant housing data, Rate of Growth
Ordinance (ROGO) and Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) 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 County and
the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been included for
comparison purposes.
The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) declined by
8% (-6,499 people) from the year 2000 to 2010. Total housing its increased by 1,147 its or
2%. The number of occupied units decreased by 2,457 is or 7%. Vacant units increased by
3,604 units or 22%.
Census
Censu
nge
2000
2010
Cn:C of �ar
-0'-
. ... ... ... ... ..
Cioo ty of
of Isl
Villag�e
Unincolporated Monroe Count
. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................
...................
............ ..............................
... ... ... ...
City f Key West
City of Marathon
City of Key Colony Beach
City of Layton
Villaae of lslamom�d I a
Umncq orated Monroe County
. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
..
.. ... ... ...
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
M
POPULATION ESTIMATES
The 2010 projected population for unincorporated Monroe County is 70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it
is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an increase of 157.5 persons per year
through the twenty year planning horizon.
IMIFII lillillilll!lllll:lllililillilliI I
The population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a loss of permanent
population. The data suggests the permanent population losses and associate increase in vacant
housing units, shifting into an increase in seasonal population. Fisbkind & Associates estimates
it an Tjm*raga roti. Gf less thact cc eoery 6iva�
years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of 2.57 percent every five years; resulting
in a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. Overall, firactional population or total
population for the unincorporated County will increase at an average rate of less than one
percent, every five years, in the twenty year planning period.
IN
According to the U.S. Census, housing units are broken down into occupied and vacant units,
The Census defines housing units as "a house, apartment, group of rooms, or single room
occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters." Occupied housing units are
occupied if there is "at least one person who lives in the unit as a usual resident at the time of the
interview, or if the occupants are only temporarily absent, for example, on vacation. However, if
the unit is occupied entirely by people with a usual residence elsewhere, the unit is classified as
vacant, such as seasonal units. The table below shows the housing units by status and tenure
frI m the 2009-2011 American Communities Survey.
Housing Units by Status and Tenure by Units in
Structure
2009-2011
Monroe Coug!XtKnincoKporated and Incorp2rated
Areas
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
52,730
100.00%
Occupied housing units
27,613
52.40%
Vacant housinE its
25,117
47.60%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
52,730
100.00%
1- t, detached
22,129
51.40%
1- i, attached
4,885
9.30%
2 units
1,678
3.20%
3 or 4 units
2,422
4.60%
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
15.10%
Boat, RV, van, etc.
95
0.20%
HOUSING TENURE
Estimates
Percent
Occupied housing units
27613
100.00%
Owner -occupied
17,136
62.10%
Renter-oc d
10,477
37.90%
Average household size of owner -
occupied unit
2.51
Average household size of renter-
occupie unit
2.72
W,
RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE,,IRQGO
J
Based on th Carrvin Canaci and VU-4,cije Ji"a-tiji-t, Studij -lit, -*11 �v 1r1i Of fle
s aU+p1c*'V!-1%111ktTkT 1,1110-1,1PY2 on JUT '932, VIVUL11% Ult; fNXS1UVn11a1
Dwelling Unit Allocation System known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO. ROGO
was developed to limit the annual amount and rate of development commensurate with the
County's ability to maintain its hurricane evacuation clearance time; and to deter the
deterioration of public facility service levels, environmental degradation, and potential land 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 (the Keys) wn 24 hours.
Spli with a nummuni of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate
allocations -not to exceed 126 new residential units per year.
Rule 28-20.140(b), F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.2.3 state:
"The number of pen -nits 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
ROGO allocations from a previous ROGO year. Each year's ROGO allocation of 197 units
shall be split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and
market rate allocations not to exceed 126 residential units per year. Unused ROGO
allocations may be retained and made available only for affordable housing and
Administrative Relief from ROGO year to ROGO year. Unused allocations for market rate
shall be available for Administrative Relief. Any unused affordable allocations will roll over
to affordable housing. A ROGO year means the twelve-month period beginning on July 13 "
LDC, Section 138-24(2) establishes that ROGO allocations are to be awarded quarterly.
"Each subarea shall have its number of market rate housing residential ROGO allocations
available per ROGO quarter determined by the following formula:
a. Market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea per quarter is
equal to the market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea
divided by four.
bAffordable housing residential ROGO for all four ROGO quarters, de including the
two available for Big Pine Key, shall be maavailable at the beginning of the
first quarter for a ROGO year."
im,
TIER SYSTEM
On September 22, 2005, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 025-2005 which amended the
Comprehensive Plan to revise ROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the competitive
point system. On March 15, 2006, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 009-2006 to incorporate the
Tier System as a basis of implementing ROGO within the Land Development Regulations
(LDRs).
is W
01W ts) CKWO How, IQ UWAFRURMUMIGHWI:
The Tier System made changes such as subarea boundary districts for allocation distribution,
basis of scoring applications, and administrative relief.
During ROGO Year 14 (2004), Ord. 009-2006 was enacted changing the allocation number
to 197 (126 market rate 71 affordable) pursuant to Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C. The same rule
also returned 165 allocations to the County to be used for affordable housing.
By ROGO Year 15 (2005), the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of th--
197 allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations are assigned to this subarea.
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 (FDOT) and the Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which they committed to
develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for these two Keys. The HCP was completed in
April, 2003.
On June 9, 2006, a Federal Incidental Take Permit (#TE08341 1-0, ITP) from the U.S. Federal
Fish and Wildlife Commission was issued to three (3) eoood
rmirees: Mnre Cunty, Floria
P
Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The ITP
ensures that development bears its fair share of required mitigation and that the take of the
covered species is minimized and mitigated.
W,
Unincorporated o r° t Rate and AffordableHistorical Data Year_1-
�rket Rase
Market ate
ff and ble
A ffcar0dble
ROGO Year
ROGO
ROGO
Housing ROGO
Housing
Allocations
Awarded
Allocations
Awarded
Year 1
204
204
52
11
(July
14, 1992 —July
13, 1993
Year 2
243
231
52
9
jJuly
14, 1993 —July
13, 1994
Year 3
246
249
52
10
(July
14, 194 —July
13, 1995
(July
Year 4
14, 1995 —July
13, 199E
25
263
52
40
Year 5
215
218
52
23
LJuly
14 1996 —July
13 1997
�July
Year 6
14 1997 —Jul
13y 1998)
211
197
77
56
Year 7
101
102
30
9
Jul
14y 1998 —Jul
l2, 1999
Year 8
127
136
109
66
Jul
13, 1999 —Ju1
14 2000
(July
Year 9
13, 2000 —July
14 2001
127
129
224
203
Year 10
102
102
31
5
(July
14 2001 —July
15 2002
Jul
Year 11
16y 2{}02 —Jul
14, 2{13
127
127
31
31
Year 12
127
127
31
21
�July
13, 2003—Ju1
14, 2004
Year 13
6
96
29
16
(July
l4 200! —Jul
13,2005
Year 14
126
126
236
271
(July
14, 2005 —JuD
13, 200E
Year 15
126
129
49
17
(July
14, 2006 —July
13 20{17
Year 16
126
126
68
l oo
�July
14 2007 —July
14 2008
Year 17
206
242
67
36
Jul
15y 2{108 —Ju1
13y 2009}
Year 18
126
128
71
0
(July
14, 2009 —July
12 2010
Year 19
126
119
71
0
(July
13 2010 —July
12 2{l11
Year 20
126
92
71
4
Jul
13y 2t}l1—Jul
13, 2012
11r9i 8
,133
3,143
1,455
977
Source: Monroe County
2010-2030 Ted 'cal Document &Data from Quarterly 1tOGO Result Reports for Years 18-
20
In
laill2a"U''M I W191 Imn M I 9011M IUMIA 129 ILI] It1IRM9W mats
Monroe County adopted the Non -Residential Rate of Growth (NROGO) in 2001 in order to
ensure a reasonable balance between the amount of future non-residential development and the
needs of a slower growing residential population.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.1 limits the County's availability 41
nonresidential square footage that may be permitted. This policy assures that the balance of
residential to nonresidential development is maintained. On average, the BOCC approves a-)
annual availability of 35,000fi2 of NROGO floor area allocations.
I*olicy 101.3.1 states:
"Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and non-residential growth
by limiting the square footage of non-residential development to maintain a ratio of
approximately 239 square feet of new non-residential development for each new
residential unit permitted through the Residential Permit Allocation System."
6 1 1
NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the Livable
CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other
protected species. The annual maximum amount of nonresidential floor area to be allocated is
limited to a maximum of 2,390 square feet for any one site.
rill (SIMMI Ell WIM If U E I MWO III I* H; MUM- I ILI IN; EM I I too, Mus *'In W= =11i Is
LDC, Section 138-51:
Annual allocatil
The Board of County Commissioners may make available for allocation all or part
of the maximum annual allocation. 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 ROGO year 15, quarter 1), the maximum
amount of floor area available for allocation 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 number of ROGO allocations to be
made available in the ROGO year 15, beginning July 14, 2006.
separate allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key
Allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be administered and
awarded separately from those for the remainder of the unincorporated county.
W
dates are determined by the Board ot County Commissioners (BOCC) and
frecommended
beingGrowth Management and the Planning Commission. This provides flexibility and assures that
goals are
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 Allocations for Unincorporated Monroe County
(Excluding Big Pine/No Name Keys)
Year 14 (2006) to Year 20 (2012)
Year
Amount Available
Year 15 ....
VII III III,I
IIIII
'II'�
I� J
Year 18 y
I IIIII
44,700 ` . Ig'..
R: .. i for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the Habitat
Conservation .. .:
summary and other protected species. The maximum amount
of nonresidential floor area to be allocated is limited to a maximum of 2,500 square feet for any
one site. A €
NROGO Allocations for Big Pine/No Name Keys
Year 1 2 — Year 20 202
Year
Available
Number of
Total Allocations Awarded
Applicants
Year 15 (2007)
9.082 sg/f1
2
5,000 sq/ft
Year 1 (2008)
0 sq/f1
2
3,809 sq/ft
Year 17 (2009)
5,000 sq/f
0
0 sq/fl
Year 18 (2010)
2,390 sq/ft
0
0 sq/fl
Year 19 (2011)
2,390 sq/ff
0
384 sq/fi
Year 20 (2012)
2,390 sq.11.
4
7,500 sq/ft
BUILDING PERMIT DATA
There were 3,382 dwelling waits that received a building permit from January 1, 2000 to
December 31, 2011. Of these units, approximately 45 percent were single family homes and 8
percent were mobile homes and recreational vehicles, An average of 307 new and replacement
dwelling units per year ere permitted from 2001 to 2011 ° Of the 3,3 82 dwelling unit pen -nits
issued, 1,172 were the result of obtaining a ROOD allocation. Of the 3,382 dwelling its permits
issued, a total of 3,063 dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy.
Residential Building Permit Activity, .April
1, 2 - December 31, 2011
Year
Single
Duplex
multi
Mobile
Home 1
Hotel 1
Total
its
Permits
Issued
Received
Family
Family
Motel1'e
UnderCORVissued
ROOD
January 1, 2000-
December 31, 2000
171
0
35
49
34
289
92
372
January 1,2001-
December3l,2001
157
0
13
55
1
226
118
261
January 1, 2002-
December 31, 2002
205
0
16
47
1
269
181
243
January 1,2003-
December 31, 2003
230
0
12
38
28
308
161
290
J nary 1, 204-
Dece ber 31, 2004
241
0
54
29
0
324
105
28
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
2 9
January 1,2007-
December 31, 2007
381
0
0
13
0
394
103
317
January 1, 2008-
December 31, 2008
170
1
4
12
Q
187
45
236
January 1, 2009-
December 31, 2009
17
0
0
4
0
201
4
140
January 1, 2010-
December 31, 2010
222
0
0
5
1
228
5
137
January 1, 2011-
December 31, 2011
162
0
1
2
0
165
202
TOTAL,
29,74 1
9
13
296
6
112
1,12
3,3
Monroe County Growth Management, September 2012
RV -Recreational Vehicle
CC} -Certificate of Occupancy
19
A total of 2,358 dwelling is were demolished from 2000 to 2012. The highest demolition to
occurred in years 2005 and 2006 with 677 its demolished. This accounts for about 16 percent of
units demolished from 2001 to 2012. An average of 196 dwelling is 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.
Houshm Demolition
Year
Residential Demolitions
January 1, 2000-Doeember 31, 2000
98
January 1, 2001 -December 3 1, 2001
157
January 1, 2002-Deco_nmer 31, 2002
140
January 1, 2003-Decombcr 31, 2003
143
January 1, 2004-December 31, 2004
218
January 1, 2005-December 31, 2005
341
January 1, 2006-December 31, 2006
336
January 1, 2007-December 31, 2007
241
January 1, 2008-December 31, 2008
146
January 1, 2009-December 31, 2009
129
January 1, 2010-Decomber 31, 2010
239
January 1, 201 1-December 31, 2011
98
January 1, 2012-August 31, 2012
72
TOTAL
2,358
Monroe County Growth Management, September 2012
no
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 — Dec ber 31, 2010
MH to
SFR
ITV Park
Model
'Total Units
Year
SFR
MH to MH
to
Replacement Replacement
Deceiving
SFR
a CO
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, 200
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
294
229
0
0
1,165
-Monroe oe County..Technical Document
July 2011
MH-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.
e replacement of mobile home units to single family units represents a 68.5 percent loss of
mobile homes to single family units, in the last ten years.
91
" M V.. x I - I tt ,I VVI
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.
1 to remain at a LOS C or higher and that all county roads to remain at a LOS D or higher. The
Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary
roads within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1.
Monroe County 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 2012.
The U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study's primary objective is to monitor the level of
service on U.S. 1 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 die U.S. I Level of
Se,-&fice TasV Force.
A county -imposed building moratorium results when the measured speeds of a segment OR the
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
quite important.
U.S. 1 (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. 1 Level of
Service Task Force to assess the level of service on U.S. 1. The adopted method considers both
the overall level of service from Key West to the 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
M
Highways) and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of Highway Capacity Manual. The
methodology establishes a procedure for using travel speeds as a means of assessing the level of
service and reserve capacity of U.S. 1 in the unique setting of the Florida Keys.
The travel speeds for the entire 108-mile stretch of U.S. I 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 established by the task force as the six -week window beginning
the second week of February and ending the fourth week of March.
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of the Keys between Key
West and Miami -Dade County. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced by long
distance trips or traffic traveling the entire length of the Keys. Given that U.S. I is the only
principal arterial in unincorporated Monroe County, the movement of long distance traffic is an
important consideration.
Both Monroe County and the FDOT have adopted a LOS C Standard for U.S. 1. Further, 45
mph has been adopted as the LOS C Standard for the entire length of U.S. I regardless of the
posted speed limits. Under the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for U.S.
I falls below the LOS C Standard, then no additional land development will 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 speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that
U.& I serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important
consideration on this multipurpose highway.
A comparison of average posted speed limits and the average travel speeds for 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 addonal 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
t* r.+Atimue gre mzemurcl 7j;airrTrc3&-fCa!r-*r untH
remedial actions are implemented. The segments of U.S. I that fall below the LOS C Standard
are candidates for being designated either backlogged or constrained by FDOT.
RE
The travel time, delay, and distance data were collected by URS staff. The data were recorded
by date, day of the week, time of the day, and direction. The field data collection took place
between March 1, 2012 and March 14, 2012. Fourteen (14) round trips were made to
successfully complete the twenty-eight (28) required northbound and southbound runs. These
runs represent a sample of two runs of each day of the week. Every one of the twenty-eiglo
travel time rim data sheets was quality checked. The seven-day, 24-hour traffic data were
collected in Islamorada, Marathon, and Big Pine Key from March 4 2012 to March 10 2012,
concurrently with the travel time runs.
Traffic Volumes
U.S. I is predominately a 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 (ADT) and annual average daily traffic
(AADT) volumes for 2012. These volumes for 5-day and 7-day are averages of the raw volumes
counted. The volumes have been adjusted using 2011 seasonal and axle factors to estimate the
2012 AADT's.
Location
Big Pine Key (MM 29)
Marathon (MM 50)
Upper Marecumbe (MM 84)
7--DaLADT AADT
21,056 20,579 18�011
34,145 32,985 29,208
24,561 24,936 21,009
M
The average weekday (5-Day ADT) and the average weekly (7-Day ADT) traffic volumes,
compared to last year's data, at Marathon, Upper Matecumbe and Big Pine Key traffic volumes
have increased in 2012 (except the 5-Day ADT in Big Pine Key). Likewise, the AADT have
increased (except in Upper Matecumbe), although seasonal factor recorded by FDOT were lower
compared to previous year. A detailed historical comparison of the U.S. 1 traffic counts for the
period 1993 to 2012 is presented in Appendix D. A comparison of the most recent seven years of
data is presented on Table 2 and represented graphically in Figure 1.
U.S. I historical traffic growth is depicted in a regression analysis graph in Figure 2. A linear
regression analysis of the AADT at each oft three locations over the last eighteen years
indicates that statistically there is virtually no overall traffic growth within the last 18 years at the
Marathon and Upper at be count locations, whereas the traffic volumes at the Big Pine
Key count location have decreased.
Overall Sheeds
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 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. 1 is the only principal arterial in Monroe County, the
movement of through traffic is an important consideration.
The levels of service (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on US. I in Monroe County, as adopted
by the Task Force, are as follows:
LOS A
51.0 mph or above
LOS B
50.9 mph to 48 mph
LOS C
47.9 mph to 45 mph
LOS D
44.9 mph to 42 mph
LOS E
41.9 mph to 36 mph
LOS F
below 36 mph
W
.
mm Mn ..v.
i_.....
Fl>
I
ID co 0
CJ M CD
C7@ 0 sv C7;gr saa C7 �Q
ID jI
too w
0, t,
s Csa tv p tin CD
CA
x _
CD
� i p i ' p 1 I N \
i C6 (6
CC5 C79 co Ct G 0 Chi C%� Oa I AD
m .p. {p � cC J ny t~5N3 i ' a
C Q OR
.....:......
x x.........................� .. 'a
_. _ti
cca c a I , a cta cn (n 4
...i D
......... ....v.w .........
m w o co W1 to 0 Q
6 O 4 Q O Q 6 O O M
P p
V
co
rn i n co tj to
0
f � p
cr
Im
v can is w m
o a o 0 0 o \ Cif}
to
co
co
CI1 fl? --n ' «x CA Cr3 d CA
tl} }
..m...m,.nx
# 0
i cra Ci3
(A w coo a A n M o
n a a
cr
........... .„
C% ittgco �i O Q 0
tl3` W4�1 co
I F
($i ®I.a I C79 iS1 ii 7 .e
Ci 0
------ . ......
s, N A gI CA O7 o t
o C N
� o
°n...
t
...... ..n.nnnm�v
#
Ila
--ll :Fti .R 1 N
Ga C7 A C
I
C;3 RS tb ^J Cai R
co
lz
..M. ...... t
tl O tl DCDM---------
C3
w 4M
Cp C7a � CXa a3t C7i E ^� Cp i, O5
.........PO
-,—....,m....
__ ....�. .........
bo -4 '*2 ( Oy c x
o o a o z to
o I
t-,-__ -.. ....�.......... ®®......: ...... .-.�.�.. ,«...._._ ...... .. I.�.®....._.. .. ____..._., ..... m«m.«.:.»...,.....__..1. _........W
4
AADT
cn
coco
0"
i
3
arCD
E
CD
i
SO
#
0�
m
co
(l
�
i
[
co
Poll
i
i.
E
r
m
Cr
�k
C
x
W
G
C
�
A
{
OD
{:
r
...a......... ..
. ....... _.:.
...
... .............
....
...........
....""""® .-
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. The mean operating speed was 46.1 mph with a 95%
confidence interval of plus or minus 0.5 mph. The mean and median speeds correspond to LOS
C conditions. The highest overall speed recorded was 49.2 mph (0.5 mph higher than the 2011
highest overall speed of 48.7 mph), which occurred on Thursday, March 1, 2012 between 3-30
p.m. and 6:00 pm., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 35.6 mph
(6.3 mph lower than the 2011 lowest overall speed of 41.9 mph), which occurred on Sunday,
March 10, 2012 between 2:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the southbound direction,
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.S, 1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important
consideration on this multipurpose highway.
The level of service 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.
0
The median segment speed ranged from 57.0 mph (LOS A) in the Boca Chica segment to 32.0
mph (LOS B) in the Stock Island segment. The level of service determined from the 2012 travel
time data yield the following level of service changes as compared to 2011 data:
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 LOS 'C'
The Sugarloaf decreased I • i to
The Tea Table segment (18) decreased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'E'
Compared to 2011, the median segment speeds increased in six (6) of the 24 segments ranging
between 0.3 mph to 0.47 mph. Eighteen (18) segments experienced a decrease in median speeds,
ranging from 0.05 mphto
The biggest difference in speed change was observed on Segment # 18 (Tea Table MM 77.5 —
MM 79.5), which resulted in the LOS change from a 'D' to an 'E'. This segment had been at
LOS D for the past five years, and reached a critical threshold this year. A similar trend could be
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
Village of Islamorada and are therefore not subject to the development restrictions specified
within the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.
9M
A delay event occurs whenever the speed of the 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 a total of 135 separate delay events (a 4% decrease compared to the 2011 study).
Seven (7) of delay eventstotaling # 16 seconds were excluded from
nonrecurringoverall travel times and the segment travel times. The excluded delays were caused by
events as accidentsand roadside construction.#1 # # these seven
nonrecurring delay events, 5 drawbridge delay events were also excluded during this year's
travel times (22 minutes 1 18 seconds). However,drawbridge deevents are accounted
in calculating the overall travel speeds.
A detailed listing of the specific sources of delay is included in Appendix H of this report. A
summary of the delay data, compared to last year's data, is provided in Table 3. The mean delay
Lver trip is the total delay recorded for a given source divided by the study's 28 one-way trips.
The mean delay per trip is found to be 6 minutes and 52 seconds (I minute and 3 seconds
increased compared to the 2011 data).
9N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ..............................................................................................................................................................
Number of
. . . .
TO
Excluded
--------------------
Mean Delay
Events
Delay
Time
1 Per Event
Per
Trio
2012
(2011)�
2012
(2011)
201:2
(2011)
2012
(2011)
2012
(2011)
...................•...
Traffic Signals
110
- -
f 18
----------------
01:13. -34
.......
-46,14
00,
.............................
............................
.........................................................
0:40
0:24
2:38
1:39
j Drawbridges
5
2
00.22.18
00:15:05
00�22:fll
00:15:05:,
-2
4. 87.32
0:48
0:32
Congestion
00:00:00
00:00-100
5:05
0-57
2:21
Left Turns
0
f
00W:00
00,00.11
m-00,00
00,00--40-
0. 00
0.11
0.00
0.00
00:01:29
00-00,00
School Related
3
0
00:01:29
00.00:00
0:30
0.00
0.03
0.00
00:07:48
00:28.09
7,48
5.38
0:17
1.
Construction
1
5
00.07.48
00:28.09
4
Accidents
00:20:59
0:49:18 1:
0IIIIIIII
00:20.59
00:49:18
7:00
8:f3
0.45
1:�4�5
.................................................
III
....................................
�.......,,L-------------------------...................................
..... . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... ..................... ................... .................. .................
................ ................
The largest single recumng delay source along U.S. I in Monroe County is traffic signals.
During the 2012 study 110 (81%) out of 135 delay events were caused by signals which is 3%
flower than the 2011 study. The signal delays however, accounted for I hour 13 minutes and 34
qeconds (44% of total delays) versus 3 1 % in 2011.
The mean delay per event for signals in segments 5, 7, 13, 21, 22 and 23 are higher than the LOS
C threshold value of 25 secondswhich is the signal impact discounted in the methodology.
The signal on Big Pine Key segment (Segment 10) caused 9 (8%) signal delay events accounting
for 12 minutes and 34 seconds, which is higher to last year's total of 4 minutes and 42 seconds.
The signals on Marathon segment (Segment 13) were the most significant, causing 34 signal
delay events (13 less than last year) accounting for 22 minutes and 51 seconds (3 1 % of the total
signal delays), which is almost 3 minutes more than the 2011 signal delays in this segment. The
mean delay per event at the Marathon signals was higher than the 25 seconds threshold at 44,
seconds. The mean delay per trip was also higher than the 25 seconds threshold at 43 seconds.
W
OR==
The accident delays, although nonrecurring, were the second largest nonrecurring delay events
after draw bridge delay during the 2012 study. There were 3 accident delays recorded during the
0 2012 stud accounting for 20 minutes and 59 seconds. The accident de % *f
II-
I-
I kI 1 a aMNIM IM M M WA
There was no left -turn delay during this year's study; a significant reduction from 2010 study's
17 delays at 6 minutes and 18 seconds.
MMMI,r. 1 f
Since the reconstruction of the Jew Fish Creek Bridge, the bridge across the Snake Creek is the
only bridge along the entire length of U.S. I in Monroe County that causes drawbridge delays.
The Snake Creek Draw Bridge (between Segments 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 from the segment travel time but included in the overall travel time.
Congestion delays 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 I
second. The congestion delay events contributed an average of 2 minutes and 21 seconds of
Ielay per trip, which is considerably higher than last year's average congestion delay per trip of
18 seconds.
'Mere was (1) construction delay event in this year's study and it accounted for 7 minutes and 48
seconds. This is a decrease from 2011 construction delays accounting for 28 minutes and 9
seconds. The construction delay reduction is partly due to completion of road work in Marathon
(Segment 13).
The posted speed limits affect both the segment and the overall LOS. For instance, a lower
speed limit could benefit a segment's LOS by reducing the difference between the travel speed
and the posted speed limit. The reduction in the speed limit, however, negatively impacts the
overall LOS because motorists tend to travel at reduced speeds to comply with the speed limits,
whereas the overall LOS C threshold is set at 45 mph regardless of the speed limit changes. For
these reasons, the posted speed limit is an important component in this study.
A large part of the traffic in Monroe County consists of tourist travelers, who generally tend to
have a leisurely driving style. 'Me traffic also tends to include a large number of recreational
W
vehicles. Combined with some slow moving heavy vehicles, the travel speeds tend to go below
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 Capacities
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 overall 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 FOOT 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 CSC threshold: the L. Matecundre (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.
KE
m
All:
Id The overall travel speed on U.S. I for 2012 is 0.1 mph to compared to the 2011
overall travel speed.
c) Compared to 2011 data, the travel speeds on 18 of the 24 segments have decreased. They
are:
. StocIsla. .. .. . . . ....
k nd (-1.8 mph)
... . . ... . ................. ... . . . ....... . ......... ..
Grassy (43 mph)
... ....... ... . . ............................... ... ....... ..... ........... . . ..... .. ... .. .....
-Boca Chian 1.4 mph)
. ..........
Duck (47 mph)
Big Coppitt (-0.6 mph)
L Mato (43 mph)
Saddlebunch (42 mph)
Tea Table (AS mph)
Cudjoe 1- 1.5 mph)
. . ..... . .............
U Matecumbe 1- 1. 1 mph)
-Summerland -1.3mph)
........................... ..... ............................................ ... . ... ... .. . .
Whalley (4.4 mph)
Ramrod (46 mph)
Tavernier (-0. 1 mph)
- Torch (-0.7 mph)
Cross (43 mph)
- 7-Mile Bridge (-1.6 mph)
............
Sugarloaf (43 mph)
........... ... . . . . ..
............................... ... ... .
99
d) Compared to as year's (2011) study results, there are LOS changes in four oft 24
segments:
- Sugarloaf segment (5) decreased from LOS 'B' to LOS 'C'
TUM 4 5 MITI-1 I MORM 0. 1 a, ON FIR 5 N
IF igp�gffr
Segment # 17 (L Matecumbe — MM 73.0 — MM 77.5) has remained at level of service D for
the 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 due to their non-
recurring nature. The delays due to traffic signals were the largest recurring delay -causing
event this year. The traffic signals caused 110 delays, totaling I hour, 13 minutes and 34
seconds. The signals caused on average a 2 minute 38 seconds delay per trip, which is 59
seconds more compared to 2011.
Since the reconstruction of the Jew Fish Creek Bridge, the bridge across the Snake Creek
is the only bridge along the entire length of U.S. I in Monroe County that causes
drawbridge delays. The Snake Creek Draw Bridge (between Segments 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 from the segment travel time but included
in the overall travel fi-tte.
S) The accident delays were the second largest nonrecurring delay accounting for 20 minutes
and 59 seconds. The accident delays were excluded from the overall and segment travel
times.
h) The construction delay was significantly reduced when compared to the 2011 study; this
reduction of 20 minutes 21 seconds is mainly due to the completion of road work along
Marathon (Segment 13).
There were thirteen (13) congestion related delay events this year totaling I hour, RI
minutes and I second. The congestion delay events contributed on average 2 minutes anii
21 seconds of delay per trip, i�hich is excessively higher when compared to last year's
average congestion delay per trip of 18 seconds.
j) Segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given particular
attention when approving development applications. This year, there are eleven segments
of U.S. I in this category, four more than last year.
KM
- Big Coppitt (MM 9.0 - MM 10.5) - Duck (RIM 60.5 - MRI 63.0
- Saddlebunch (MM 10.5 - MM - L Morecambe (MM 73.0 - MM 77.5)
16.5)
- Sugarloaf (MR1 16.5 - MM 20.5) - Tea Table (MM 77.5 - MM 79.5)
- Big Pine (MM 29.5 - MRI 33.0) - U. Morecambe (MM 79.5 - MM 84.0)
- 7-Mile Bridge (MR1 40.0 - MM - Windley (84.0 - 86.0)
47.0)
- Grassy (MM 54.0 - MM 60.5)
The two contiguous segments in the lower keys - Saddlebuneh (MM 10.5 - MM 16.5)
Sugarloaf (MM 16.5 - MM 20.5) has reappeared this year to make the most of lower keys
from Big Coppitt (MM 9.0) to Sugarloaf (MM 20.5) and the Big Pine Key segment (M
29.5 - MM 33.0) to be within the 'area of concern'. Similarly, the Duck Key segment (fro
MM 60.5 to MM 63.0) has been added this year to make the most of middle keys fro
Grassy (MM 54.0) to Duck (MM 63.0) ) to be within the 'area of concern'. Approximate
13 mile segment of upper keys from L. Matecumbe (MM 73.0) to Windley (MM 84.
continue to stay within the 'area of concern'. The most critical segment of all is the T
Table (MM 79.5 - MM 84.0) that has no reserve volumes left to allow any new developm
that could impact this segment. I
Road widening is a typical capacity improvement remedy exercised by most municipalities.
In Monroe County, however road widening, specifically along U.S. I is restricted by the
adopted comprehensive plan policies to preserve and protect the fragile ecological
conditions. There are other less intrusive remedies could be explored and evaluated to
improve the traffic flow and the capacity of U.S. 1, they include-
- Identifying strategic locations to add tura lanes.
- Conducting speed studies on selected segment of U.S. 1 to confirm the posted speed
limits, and coffect, if necessary.
- Consolidating driveways/access points to reduce/minimize friction.
- Enhancing signal timing at existing signalized intersections along U.S. 1 to improve
the of flow.
- Not allowing new signalized intersections to U.S. I if there is alternative safe
access to accommodate the turning movements exist.
- Improving the conditions along the county maintained local streets to minimize U.S. 1
being used as the local street.
U.S. I is a state maintained roadway. Therefore, any modifications/ improvements to U.S. I have
to be developed in collaboration with the Florida Department of Transportation.
M
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in the
Florida Keys. FKAA's primary water supply is the Biscayne Aquifer, a shallow groundwater
source. The FKAA's wellfield is located in a pineland preserve west of Florida City in south
Miami -Dade County. The FKAA's wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater
in the State, meeting all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Laws protect the welffield from
potential contamination from adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's requirements, FKAA is
committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water quality standards and
requirements.
The groundwater from the welffield is treated at the FKAA's Water Treatment Facility in Florid.?
City, a &3�g-reaynei�y *f 21.V
day (MGD). The primary water treatment process is a conventional lime softening/filtration
water treatment plant and is capable of treating up to 23.8 MGD 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 from the brackish Floridan Aquifer. The product
water from these treatment processes is then disinfected and fluoridated. The FKAA treated
water is pumped 130 miles from Florida City to Key West supplying water to the entire Florida
Keys.
The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of 45.2
million gallons system wide. The sizes of tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million gallons. These
tanks are utilized during periods of peak water demand and serve as an emergency water supply.
Since the existing transmission line serves the entire Florida Keys (including Key West), and
storage capacity is an integral part of the system, the capacity of the entire system must be
considered together, rather than in separate service districts.
available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants
have design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MGD, respectively.
At present, Key West and Ocean Reef are the only areas of the County served by a flow of
potable water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of
water sources, including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting sites on the
open water or from specially constructed fire wells. Although sufficient flow to fight fires is not
guaranteed in the County, new hydrants are being installed as water lines are replaced to make
water available for fire -fighting purposes and Dump station/tank facilities are being upgraded to
provide additional fire flow and pressure. A map of the key FKAA transmission and distribution
facilities is shown in Figure
9E.
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
Figure 3.El
TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
45.2 BIG STORAGE CAPACITY
M5. FLORIDA CITY
MISS
a 9 j
$TATtpN3N 5 `'- -
14. OCEANREEF
pumps
5 .M P.O. COMMENT IVAN
I, WEST
alsoRP PAAM
7000 IMP PI PS
7 9 ImpM PUMP$
2 P$ p
11g. KEt CARDO
G bG
5PA� A�
3
MG 2 av OUT g is A 3 7 0 HP Pam p5
2, STOCK ISLAND I HP pMus
Ps
2 HIP Pumps
a MG R, AVON r IS 13. TkYERNI£R .'�
276 NP � �
KMO
13, ROCK
ROR
RAMROD KEY
A NP
1
6. 9A PINE KEY /0, CRA KEYf.:y.""'9 I xt W PUMP
NP PUMP
F 75 MP PY 2 d0 Nr HAND
S. SUMMERLAND KEY
7 $9 IN,M 2
6
0 KEY itP i1. iSLAMi4 RADA
q,p TREATMENT 2 75 0 9 M¢ •.
Kam.
. O)O PPITT KEY
2 7z W rumps
MARATHON LONG KEY PGMP
n
9C
E Np p"Ns
ILL LE VENICE .98fl M iAYT N P M
TM
SAY POINT !.Gsa As 7. MARATHON
Me TREATMENT PLANT R. 89i1� ST MARATHON
3 2 tU� pM
2 Np PUMPS 6
9 up r7MPffi
STOCK I D
G�
e srA fi3, STOCK ISLAND (DESAL)
2N' IN iwitm NOW
IN PWOS
TRANMI SIGN BACKPUMPING CAPAIBILITI
MARATHON (1)-5 IRS TANK
STOCK ISLAND (3)-5 AID TANKS
STOCK ISLAND DESAL (1)-5 MG TANK
withdrawalsstann S. c new water treatment p ant provi es e capability to limit Biscayne
aquifer
treatment
KE
Dam.
or me AU desalmation plants), pressure Wredu c-tion, Npublic
on ea and assistance from municipal agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances
(i.e. irrigation ordinance).
2001 5,627 -930% 5,778 151 1
2002 6,191 10.03% 7,274 1083
2003 6,288 1.57% 7,274 986
2004 6,383 2.74% 7,274 813
2005 6,477 0, 16% 7,274 803
2006 6,283 -149% 7,274 964
2007 5,850 -735% 7,274 1428 i
2008 5,960 1.89% 8,751 2791
2009 5,966 0.09% 8,751 2785
2010 5,919 -0.79% 8,751 2832
2011 A.. 6,327 6.89% 8,751
----2424
Source: Florida Keys Aqupdnct Authort 2(i 12
.. . . ........... ......... ..
Figure 3.3 - FKAA Annual Water Withdrawal
10,000
9,000
. . .......... .
8,00)
7,000 'a ---------- +----0 . ......... . - - ----
6,000
5,000
4,000 -
3,000
2,000
1,000 -
Ile
r. .................... ....
UMSM Annual Withdrawal (MQ)
WLTP Limit (MG)
. ........... . . .......... -- - --- - ---- . ........ . .........
........ . . ..... . ..... . . . .... ...... . .... . . ... .....
EN
Demand for potable water is influenced by many factors, including the number of permanent
residents, seasonal populations and day visitors, the demand for commercial water -use,
landscaping practices, conservation measures, and the weather. In 2011, the FKAA distributed
an annual average day of 15.84 MGD — 1648 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer plus 1.49 MGD
from Floridan RO Production as shown in Figure 3.4, Also, this table provides the water
treatment capacities of the RO plants. The emergency RO plants do not require a NNUP because
the water source is seawater.
The maximum monthly water demand of 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 MGD and a decrease in maximum monthly demand to 596.99 MG as
compared to 2011 figures.
all I-MISMI
ftivltwm�
M
Krm��ml
FKAA has a 20-year Water System Capital Improvement Master Plan for water supply, water
treatment, transmission mains and booster pump stations, distribution mains, facilities and
structures, information technology, reclaimed water systems, and Navy water systems.
In 1989, FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Upgrade Program to replace
approximately 190 miles of galvanized lines throughout the Keys. FKAA continues to replace
and upgrade its distribution system throughout the Florida Keys and the schedule for these
upgrades is reflected in their long-range capital improvement plan. The FKAA's Water
[Pistribution Svstem e Plan calls for the uggade or renlacertent of roxi-niatelv 3,1-*0*
RkM§"*E=WJ - frAMIKIIII119
III ��� III 112� I I
Figure 3.6 also provides the schedule and costs projected for the 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
funded by the water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants.
EN
ln 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 cutrent 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.
EN
IV EDUCATION FACILITIES
The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 11 public schools located
throughout the Keys. School Board data includes both unincorporated and incorporated Monroe
County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three middle/elementary
schools, and four elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields, computer tabs, bus
service and a caletorium. that serves as both a cafeteria and an auditorium. In addition to these
standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums. All three high
schools offer a performance auditorium with a working stage.
Sub -district 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes
the islands that make up Islamorada and Fiesta Key and includes one high school and two
elementary/middle schools. Sub -district 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven
Mile Bridge and includes one high/middle school and one elementary school. Sub -district 3
covers the Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school, one
middle school, one elementary/middle school, and three elementary schools.
School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in
planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates.
m
2015-2016. .......... S7 am
LOCATION
ACTUAL
2012-2013
FISH CAPACITY
ACTUAL
2012-2013
COFTE
ACTUAL
2012-2013
UTILIZATION
CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH
981
765
78.00%
KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH
1,431
IJ89
83.00%
HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE
1,064
703
66.00%
MARATHON SENIOR HIGH
1,370
622
45.00%
GERALD ADAMS
652
462
79,00%
PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL
650
430
66.00%
GLYNN ARCHER ELEMENTARY
598
311
52.00%
POINCIANA ELEMENTARY
641
591
92.00%
SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY
1,239
689
56.00%
STANLEY SWITLIK
,ELEMENTARY
871
479
55.00%
KEY LARGO SCHOOL
1,243
852
69.00%
TOTAL
_____11,409
7,232
63.39%
Annually, prior to the adoption of the district school budget, each school board must prepare a
tentative district facilities work program that includes a major repair and renovation projects
necessary to maintain the educational and ancillary facilities of the district. Some of the items
listed in the 2012-2013 Monroe County School District Work Plan include HVAC, flooring,
E'oofing, safety to life, sewers projects, and fencing for various schools. Other items include
concrete repairs, ADA projects and site drainage maintenance.
The 2010 2011 Monroe County School District 1.50 Mill Revenues Source actual value i�-!
$9,367,063. The PECO Revenue Source actual budget is $15,223,672 after budgeted projects
are completed, PECO maintenance revenue is $70,737. The revenue from capital outlay and
debt service is $49,135. Additional revenue sources include proceeds from V2 cent sales surtax aj
$14,203,272 and funds carried forward at $8,479,016. The total revenue source for this time
period is $42,301,516 and total revenue available is $42,682,288.
The total project costs for construction, maintenance, repair and renovation during 2012-2013 is
$27 ' 077,844. Plans approved by the school board that reduce the need for permanent student
stations such as acceptable school capacity levels, redistricting, busing, year-round schools,
W
_UflanUVSUftOOIS, magnet sclools, public -private partnerships, multi -track scheduling, grade level
organization, block scheduling or other alternatives. Glynn Archer School is being moved into
the planned Horace O'Bryan replacement. This will free up the old Glynn Archer campus for
other uses. The Monroe County School District is in compliance with the class size reduction
requirement. The Board has approved the plan to close Glynn Archer Elementary School in the
most recent Plant Survey. The property is being considered for Administrative offices and
transfer to the City of Key West.
Enrollment figures for the 2012-2013 school year indicates that there is adequate capacity in the
Monroe County school system. The overall 2012-2013 utilization is 63.39% of the school
system capacity.
M
Solid waste management is a critical issue in the Florida Keys. While problems of landfill sitings,
facilities, financing, and hazardous waste disposal have increased throughout Monroe County, the
unique setting of the Keys makes waste management even more difficult. The geographic
isolation, the limited land area, the environmental constraints, and the presence of nationally
significant natural resources adds to the challenge of responsibly and efficiently managing the
Keys' solid waste stream.
Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 5.44 pounds
per capita per #• or 12.2 pounds per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU) and establishes •,,
haul out capacity of 95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs. The Comprehensive plan requires
sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and
approved development for a period of three years from the projected date of completion of the
proposed development of use.
The Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC), in compliance with State concurrency
requirements, require that, "...sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to
accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of at least three years from the
projected date of completion of a proposed development or use" (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)). This
regulation went into effect on February 28, 1988, and serves as a level of service (LOS) standard
for solid waste disposal.
The LDC also requires that solid waste management plans be completed before any proposei
development of a Major Conditional Use is reviewed by the Growth Management Department.
Solid waste generation rates and capacity assessments must be submitted for review and
coordination with the Public Works Division, Department of Solid Waste/Recycling (PWD-
DSW/R).
NIIIIII NOUN I , 5
mKO)AIMAS _W011141 III
M
Solid Waste Generation in Tone
FY
FDEP Total
ec clin
Disposal
1998
/
/
19
/
f
/
2000
158,327
59,798
131,825
2001
125,893
51,435
96,075
2002
134,950
68,738
113,071
203
134,734
34,619
113,427
2004
112,102
13,757
110,333
2005
212,470
73,085
212,470
2006
200,338
12,206
200,338
2007
134,467
12,497
134,467
2008
130,245
13,743
130,245
2009
116,884
12,099
9,27
2010
156,465
33,071
12,4
Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
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,
and other generation factors.
FDEP calendar years do not coincide with Monroe a ty's calendar years, thus
crest a differ tia in a e ee e s.
The historical solid waste generation values for Monroe County show a steady increase of total
solid waste generation between the years 1998-2001. During the period 2002 - 2006, the County's
solid waste generation was significantly
solid waste generation trends
The outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions (greater consumption of goods and
services) and storm events that cause a significant
economicFurthermore, during the pen*od of 2007-2008, an
generation, g standard trends forgeneration growth,
�. .. 1 I 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
populationcontinue
Solid waste is collected by franchise and taken to the three historic landfill sites, which serve as
transfer facilities. At the transfer stations, the waste is compacted and loaded on Waste
Management,
trucksout. Recyclable
Solid
glass, aluminum, plastic bottles and newspaper are included as part of the solid waste haul out
contract. A recent (2009) amendment to the contract includes WMI and the County's commitment
to increase annual recycling rate to 40 percent by 2014.
waste Transfer Facility Sizes and Capacities
■
Transfer Facility Acreage
II y
E t'= Key Transfer Stationtons/day
Long _Station Transfer I� E... EcEres......... ! tons/day
mulching
Key Largo Transfer Station 15.0 acres 200 tons/day
Source: Waste Management hic., 1991
Any future declines will also reflect the diligent efforts by the citizens of the County to reduce the
amount of solid waste they generate, through the conscious conswirption of goods, composting,
or . Eefforts.Additional #which are less easily quantifiable could
alstaffect solidwastegeneration.'amountofconstruction, _ in the County, r
vegetativend thus
the amount of construction debris being disposed of, also significantly affects the total amount of
solid waste generated. Periods with less construction could have contributed to the decline in total
waste generation. Finally, the weather affects the rate of
the amount of yard waste generated. Drier years could result in less total was'te generation.
# E.i.r - E ■ # # ##: t. t # i. M
on future growth should reduce the amountis construction and demolition debris generation.
mulching
# E.i.r - E ■ # # ##: t. t # i. M
on future growth should reduce the amountis construction and demolition debris generation.
-
GENERATION'
POPULATION2
Year
--20-00
(Tons/Yr) Permanent
-
Seasonal
Functional
(LBS/CAP/DAY)
-�-
158,327
6
L,036
-
33,241
-69,277
12.5 2
001
j25,93
8
16,250
-
33,263
69,513
992
2002
134,950
36,452
--3-3,285
- 69,737
10.6
2003
134,734
36,543
33,307
-'33,329
69,850
10.57
2004
112,102
36,606
69,935
8.78
2005
212,470
37,164
33,351
70,515
16.51
2006
&
200,338
0
36,466
34,019
70,485 --15.57
2007
134,467
35,749
34,568
-35,550
70,317
10.48
2008
130,245
34,788
70,338
10.15
2009
116,884
-156,465-,-
36,268
35,043
-71,311
8.98
2010
35,368
- 35,440
70,808 ry --
12.10
2011
165,675
35,917
35,249
71,166 ----12
.75
Source:
1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2. Monroe County 2012-2030 Monroe County
Population Projections, Keith & Schnars and
Fishkind
& Associates, 3-15-11
-1.111-1.111.- .........................
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management (WIND. 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 0 2) months.
ce
VI. PARKS AND RECREATION
An annual 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 recreational facilities is provided in Policy 120 1. 1
of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated
Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the
provisions of resource- and activity -based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided
equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are:
Resource -based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources of
significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity -based recreation areas can be
established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other
athletic events.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan Policy 120 1. 1. 1,
Monroe County
Functional
Existing
Demand in
Surplus or
Parks and Recreation
Population 2010
Acreage
Acreage
1
(Deficit) in
Acreage
0.82 acres per 1,000 fractional
population of passive, resourced-based
138,803
2,502
113.8
136.2
neighborhood and community parks
0.82 acres per 1,000 fractional
population of passive, activity -based
138,803
4,343
113.8
320.2
neighborhood and community parks
Monroe County Technical Document, Chapter 13, Recreation and Open Space, May 11, 2011, Section
13.5.1.1.2.
There are approximately 10,900 acres of resource -based recreation lands currently available in the
County for public use. Removing beaches is are primarily Federal and State owned from the
resource -based lands results in approximately 250 acres remaining.
611
The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity -based recreational land found at educational
facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. As of May 2011, a total
of 98.98 acres of developed resourced-based and 118.25 acres of activity -based recreation areas
either owned or leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board.
Fe activity -based recreational facilities that are inventoried include facilities and activities such as
baseball/softball, football/soccer, tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic tables and picnic
pavilions, volleyball courts, handball/racquetball courts, equipped play areas, multi -use areas,
benches, tracks, piers, bike paths, boat ramps, fishing, swimming, swimming pools, barbeque
grills, shuffleboard courts, beaches and restrooms. Additionally, other recreation uses and facilities
are indicated such as historic structures, bandshells, dog parks, skateboard facilities, aquatic parks,
museums, and concessions.
The subareas for the park and recreational facilities include the Upper Keys, north of Tavernier;
Middle Keys, between Pigeon Key and Long Key; and the Lower Keys, south of the Seven Mile
Bridge.
The tables below provide resource- and activity -based parks and recreation in acres for the three
subarea planning areas.
MID DLE KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 38.5-73
Name
Location
Mile
Facilities
Classification (Acres)
Marker
Resource
Activity
Sunset Bay Park
Grassy Key
58
Beach
0.6
NA
Vaca Key
Boat ramp, teen club, 2
Yacht Club (1)
(Marathon)
54
tennis courts, basketball
NA
2
court
Beach, picnic pavilions,
Sombrero Beach
ball field, 2 volleyball
(Switlik Park)
Monroe County
50
courts, equipped play
O6
8
area, dog park, pier,
fishing, BBQ
Old 7-Mile Bridge
Monroe County
41-47
Fishing, Bicycling,
5
NA
Beaches
7-Mile Bridee
Pigeon Key
45
Historical structures
5
NA
ON
Name
Location
Mile
Facilities
Classification (Acres)
Marker
Resource
Activity
Hibiscus Park
(Buttonwood Lane)
Key Largo
101.5
Vacant, inaccessible
waterfront
0.5
NA
Riviera Village
Boat basin, four picnic
Park
Key Largo
105.5
pavilions,
1.8
NA
(Bay Drive)
Waterfront, benches
Garden Cove Park
Key Largo
106
Boat ramp-
1.5
NA
Ball field, 3 basketball
Friendship Park
Key Largo
101
courts, picnic shelters,
NA
2.38
Play equipment,
restrooms, trail
Key Largo
2 boat ramps, play
Community Park-
Jacob's Aquatic
Key Largo
99.6
equipment, aquatic
park, 3 swimming
1.75
13.6
Center
pools, beach
Varadero each
. ..............
Park
Key Largo
95.5
each
2
NA
Beach, two ball fields,
play equipment,
Harry Harris
Key Largo
94
swimming boat ramp,
County Park
(Tavernier)
BBQs, shuffleboard,
2
15.1
beach, picnic tables,
restrooms
Key Largo
Play Equipment, picnic,
Old Settlers Park
(Tavernier)
92.5
shelter, beach, butterfly
NA
3
igarden
Sunset Point Park
Key Largo
92
Vacant, waterfront
1.2
0.9
(Tavernier)
access, boat ramp
Burr Beach Park
Key Largo
91
Vacant, waterfront
0.1
NA
(Sunny Haven)
access
Old State Rte. 4A
Upper
Morecambe Key
82.5
Vacant
0.3
NA
Old State Rte. 4A,
Hurricane
Upper
Matecurnbe Key
81
Historical marker
L2
NA
Monument
Anne's each,
Lower
Beach, swimming, bike
Lower Matecumbe
Matecumbe Key
715
path, picnic pavilions,
&1
6
Beach (5)
L
boardwalk
M
LOWER KEYS tglpjtC3!
PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5
Name
Location
Mile
Facilities
Classification (Acres)
Marker
. ..... ------- —
Resource
Activity
Picnic pavilions, beach,
Veteran's Memorial Park
Little Duck Key
40
BBQs, boat rarnp,
0.6
24.9
(Ohio Key)
swiwing, beach,
restrooms *
Missouri Key/South side
—
---
I
MissoKey
9
Roadsidepull-off,beach
.5us
NA
H ,ron Ave./Turpon Sto
ig Pine Key
30
Vacant
U
NA
historic House, 2 tennis
J. Watson Field (Stiglitz
Big Pine Key
30
courts, volleyball, play
1.2
Property) (2)
equipment, baseball,
2.4
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
voile ball,
Bob Evans/ Chamber of
Commerce
Big Pine Key
30
Vacant
0.3
NA
Benches, waterfront,
Palm Villa Park
Big Pine Key
30
play equipment,
NA
0.6
basketball
State Road 4
Little Torch Key
28
Boat ramps
0.1
NA
Ramrod Key Park
Ramrod Key
27
Reach*, swimming
1.2
1.2
West Summerland Park
W Est
Six mmerland Key
25
2 Boats ps
31.8
NA
Play equipment,
volleyball, picnic tables,
Bay Point Park
Saddlebunch Key
15
trail, basketball, 2 tennis
NA
L58
courts, pavilions, soccer
nets
Boca Chica each, S R
941(3)
Boca Chica Key
I I
Beach, picnic table
6
NA
Palm Drive cul-de-sac
Big Coppitt Key
11
Vacant
0.1
_NA
Big Coppitt Volunteer Fire
Big Coppitt Key
10
Play equipment,
NA
—
— Department Park (4)
benches, skateboard
0.75
Wilhelmina Harvey Park
Big Coppitt _j�e
�.5�Flay
�eqmp�mmt, �Fath �
_NA
0.65
54
Culfvicw Park, Delmar i Coppitt Ivey 1
Boat ramp p 0.2 NA
Rockland Hammock Rockland Key 10
Vacant 2.5 NA
Play equipment,
volleyball, baseball,
Bernstein Park Raccoon Key 4.5
track, trail, soccer Feld, NA 21
tennis courts, basketball,
restroc s
East elio Park Ivey West Island 105
Pl�r�i
14.56 NA
ric Foortrtter,
Hisstoric.
1.6 mile beach,
concession area, d
Higgs Beach Park, C.B.
shells, pier, picnic
Harvey, Rest Beach Ivey West Island I
pavilions and grills, 5 5 12.1
tennis courts, playarea,
bike path, volleyball,
West Martello Park Ivey West Island 1
Historic Port 0.8 NA
Whitehead Street
Key west Island 1
Lighthouse
thouse
Historic Fort, Museum 0,4 NA
Pines Park (S. Roosevelt) Ivey West Island I
Picnic NA 1.72
(1) The total acreage of the Yacht Club is approximately 6.0 acres. The unique layout of this facility
restricts active recreation to approximately 2 acres partially leased to the 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 or d
*Denotes approximate acreage; (for beaches the length of the beach x a minimum of 15 ft.)
Source: Mourn Ca ty Tee icai L)oc� ei�t July 2021
The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroi�
County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of resource -based and
activity -based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level of service
standards." The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be
accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6)
mechanisms that are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as
for providing adequate land to satisfy the demand for it and recreation facilities that result
from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are:
1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land that is already owned by the
county but that is not being used for park and recreation purposes;
2. Acquisition of new park sites,
3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board that would allow for the
use of existing school -park facilities by county residents;
4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County that would
allow for the use of existing city -owned park facilities by county residents;
5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments that
would allow for the use of existing publicly -owned lands or facilities by county
residents; and
6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities that would
allow for the use of private park facilities by county residents.
To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms — acquisition of new park sites
?nd interlocal agreements with the School Board.
M,
.-c
— - ------------------------------ ---
An
M-
a all
A g a a
on
m
I
9
I
I
a
I
Eli
�A As
ez at
ff A
Lj U,
m
R
a
I
0�
n
Ell
CL
.0
C, a,
wUS
24
od
............. .
x
5. Ll.
>
is
Cis
=
1I55gg
pgjj
F § § §
a
t 2!
10
r6
-n
0
I
0
WE
i
I
IEilll
0
10
25 ;;
q co
cm 0
o In
CIE V:
cm —
Ct
0
x
0
0 10 3
wx 00
P LL
a
E a al
s S a
Is
Li
I
v
Ri
I
OEM
.0
I
�g
v
I
I
I
I
t
5
7 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
8 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
9 ORDINANCE NO. -2013
10
11
12 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
13 COMMISSIONERS TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
14 ELEMENT TO UPDATE TABLE 4.1, THE 5-YEAR SCHEDULE OF
15 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE YEAR 2010 MONROE
6 COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PURSUANT TO §163.3177(3)(A)
7 77()(B), FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR
18 7
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT
19 ; PROVIDING
2 7 PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
21
22
23
24 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Boardof County Commissioners makes the following Findings:
25
26 1. Pursuant to § 163.31 (7), Florida Statutes, "Capital i prove ent" means physicalsets
7 constructed or purchased to provide, improve, or replace a public facility and which are
28 typically large scale and high in cost. The cast of a capital improvement is generally
29 nonrecurring and may require multiyear financing. For the purposes of this part, physical
30 assets that have been identified as existing or projected needs in the individual
31 comprehensive plan elements shall be considered capital improvements.
32
33 2° Pursuant o 63,3177(3)(a), Florida Statues, the comprehensive plan shall contain a
34 capitalimprovements element designed to consider the need for and the location of public
35 facilities in order to encourage the efficient use of such facilities.
36
37 3. Pursuant to 163.3177(3)(a)l,, Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan shall containa
38 component that outlines principles for construction, extension, or increase in capacity of
39 public facilities, as well as outline principles for correcting existing public facility
40 deficiencies, which are necessary to implement e comprehensive plan. The components
41 shall cover at least a 5 -year period.
2
43 4. Pursuant to 163.3177(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan shall contain
44 estimated ublic facility casts, including a delineation of when facilities will be needed,
45 general location of the facilities, and projected revenue sources to fund the facilities.
46
File #2412-007
Page I of
7
49
50
48
52
53
54
55
57
58
59
60
61
62
56
65
66
64
69
68
7
standards
Objective8. 0of i 1 Comprehensivemandatesr, rCountyr
provide the capital improvements necessary to correct existing deficiencies, to
accommodate projected future growth, and to replace obsolete and worn-out facilities, in
accordance with adopted Capital ImprovementsProgram.
♦; Policy of ,Comprehensivemandatesr, re County to
existingrevise the County CapitalImprovements Program to incorporate
improvements identified in the Five -Year Scheduleof .► Improvements
r y included
Table 4.1 of Capital Improvements Implementation.
3 10. Policy1..2 mandates Monroe County to annually update the Year 2010
74 Comprehensive Plan Five-YearSchedule a tal Improvements, and further provides
75 that revisions tote schedule shall e incorporated into the CapitalImprovements
Program76 on _ _annual basis.
77
78 1. Monitoring and Evaluationrocs u s 5. () and (2) of the Year 20 10 Comprehensive
79 Planrequires a theFive-Year_ Scheduleof Capital Improvements( ) be reviewed
80 and updated annually, in orderto allocate financial resources to implement e
81
82 12. The amendment finthers Principle () of the Principles for GuidingDevelopment
3 Florida Keys Area of Critical State o Strengthening oc government capabilities
84 for managing land use and developmentso that local government is ale to achievethese
85 objectives o e continuation of the area of critical state concern es to .
86
87 13. The amendment furthers Principle of the Principles for Guiding Developmentin the
88 Florida es Area of CriticalState Concern: Protecting the value, efficiency, c, cos -
effectiveness, and amortizedlife of existing proposed a'o is investments,
90 including: wat r supply facilities; sewage collection t e t and disposalfacilities;
1 solid waste collection is safacilities; transportation facilities; parks, recreation
2 facilities, and other publicly owned properties.
File #2012-007
Rage 2 of 4
93
94 14. The amendment farthers Principle 0) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
95 Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Ensuring the improvement of nearshore
96 water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management
97 facilities that meet the requirements of as. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable,
98 and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
99 permit allocation systems.
100
101 15. The amenchnent ffirthers Principle (k) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
102 Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Limiting the adverse impacts of public
103 investments on teenvironmental resources of the Florida Keys.
104
105 16. The amendment furthers Principle (n) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
106 Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Protecting the public health, safety, and
107 welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys s a unique
108 Florida resource.
109
110 WHEREAS, The Florida Legislature approved an allocation of $50 million to be used for
ill the construction of new central wastewater treatment and transmission systems in
112 Monroe County. The County's portion will primarily be used forte construction of the
113 Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility.
114
115 WHEREAS, The Monroe County voters approved a referendum on November 6, 2012 to
116 extend the one cent sales tax through 2033 with the proceeds to be used for wastewater
117 projects and other infrastructure projects when wastewater projects are completed.
118
119 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on the ah day of January, 2013, the Monroe
120 County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter and recommended that
121 the Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments to Table 4.1 Five -Year
122 Schedule of Capital Improvements Fiscal Year 2012 through 2017 of the Year 2010
123 Comprehensive Plan, as shown on the attached Exhibit A and Exhibit Al. Amendments
124 are presented in underline (Exhibit A) to indicate additions to text and strikethrough
125 (Exhibit Al) to indicate deletions. All other words, characters, and language of the
126 comprehensive plan remain unchanged.
127
128 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
129 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
130
131
132 Section 1. The amended Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Fiscal Year
133 2012 through 2017 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan of the Capital
134 Improvements Implementation Element is hereby adopted and attached hereto as
135 Exhibit A.
136
137 Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this
138 ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by
139 such invalidity.
File #2012-007
Page 3 of 4
140 Section 3. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida and
141 shall become effective as provided by law.
142
143 Section 4. This amendment shall be incorporated into the Monroe County Year 2010
144 Comprehensive Plan.
145
146 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a
147 regular meeting held on the 20'h day of February, 2013.
148
149 Mayor George Neugent
150 Mayor Pro Tem, Heather Carruthers
151 Commissioner David Rice
152 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
153 Commissioner Danny Kolkage
so
155 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
156 BY
157 Mayor George Neugent
158
159 (SEAL)
160 ATTEST: Amy Heavilin, Clerk
161
162 Deputy Clerk
163
File #2012-007
Page 4 of 4
. .
. . .........
VY
Cl
tO
-n!
Ol
41
3g
55
S net
i-
...... . ...
11
-L
'I n�e
<�j CE 0,
. ... . .....
'O. 0 —c �3�
g
1=1
r.
IN
E -k n
nf� 5
-'E, -A Gq Ein
�t EXE
tv
E�o
IZ4
Q
i
I
9
Z f2
F�
l:
5i t
V.
21
m at
C,
US
ac, W,
14,
P4 d
'I El
�81
c,
ClC,
14
14
-19 to
Vs
-------- ---
16
cl
ol c,
1p cp c�
1:71 17,
g, 8
Cl. o
6,1 im
..........
.8 C lz;l C,
S!
T
o 'c' 1=1
WtA
RI
ls,
41
-21 cc�
ae -Y
�le
,U-L
IS;
�
#G `fit +h m C� h LV r£
'.✓" N h 'G
�
,"J�+ et K? �: �' .�C' tom'
Ih
I
C
i
�
c
cit-
4'c,
It
Q
h
ry
i
I
!
3. t-
oil
N
InP,
I
j
i
I
3
14
jjj I
3
444
O
06
I,
E IL5
j
.5
a
23,
us
f'g.
��.4
� a
v
szj
],
t I:
i.N x3+
Ft
mjt �#i.
G
w
i d}
+�* C3 A ; N
tb
ll
It
x'�"
a.,
re "d
01
N N ty
o
ro ro: ro ro'^.ro ro ro.ro-�j�n�'vro.
C: C' �❑❑� C G G
C C C 3 «"".' G C
a
x !
�
3
E
V
V}i{-•H
C
...............
Oi=
`q i
-0 1= 0�
:;,q
� - - c C, 10
C, i
G u'S
�
I
i Oli
0
ir-
14
14
era
..... ..... .. i
E
-i
A1
0 EHO E 1.14
I
CI G
yj
t 6
w i
Nu
U, *iFpu v,
c,� c4
Z
C4
z 1 <
pne
me
S
E
9 5-
W
tL
Q!
T�i
E!
t5
A
t
2
-2 Z
Ei i� .1
gj
Th.
>
14Z
C�
E
At
1 Jill
JILLILI I
rlot&
le. 1 !z
1 ,
Hill ijjjj
1
I
em
L--J— —I
1,54_ J
i'S I I
21'
LL
9 Sir
'r
15,
1
LF
IJINS S7
13J3-'if cEi A
jttt
1� 2,
1
i�o
I
Ni E
.. ... ... ......
...........
fiat
. ..... ...
i8l
I
:21 1
2rx
dEr
f
cm
I
zi
m
09
lr
`>.4 -c
q
qjC
ck:
E 2
-,I; -o! -d
Lf
.WLi.
ED
■
del F-g
U w
In
In -in
In
-0 o C4 i=
< I.Y.