Item I01lrl
Coof Mope
ty
�'
; '�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IleFl OI1da Keys
m
�� u 1 , i
Mayor David Rice, District 4
Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
. �, zm
George Neugenf District 2
Heather Carruthers, District 3
County Commission Meeting
October 17, 2018
Agenda Item Number: I.1
Agenda Item Summary #4624
BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper (305) 289-2506
n/a
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution by the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners approving the 2016-2017 Biennial Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
This report is the biennial assessment of public facilities capacity as required by Chapter 114 of the
Monroe County Land Development Regulations. Section 114-2, Adequate Facilities and Review
Procedures, contains two major sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the four
primary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and a biennial assessment
process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2 includes an
equitable procedure for issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely to outpace the current
capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2(b) (3) requires the Planning Director to prepare a
biennial report to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners on the capacity of available
public facilities. Section 114-2(b) (4) requires the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
to consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. In the event the
BOCC acts to increase the development capacity of any service area, the BOCC shall make specific
findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase, including the source of funds to be used to pay for
the additional capacity.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
The BOCC has considered and approved annual assessment of public facilities capacity each year
since 1987. After the new Land Development Code became effective in April 2017, the Public
Facilities Capacity Assessment Report is now required to be updated biennially as opposed to
annually.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
DOCUMENTATION:
2016-2017 Public Facilities Capacity Report Resolution (REV STAMPED 10 9 18)
2016-2017 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Total Dollar Value of Contract:
Total Cost to County:
Current Year Portion:
Budgeted:
Source of Funds:
CPI:
Indirect Costs:
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts:
Revenue Producing:
Grant:
County Match:
Insurance Required:
Additional Details:
REVIEWED BY:
If yes, amount:
Emily Schemper
Completed
Steve Williams
Completed
Maureen Proffitt
Completed
Assistant County Administrator Christine
Hurley
09/27/2018 10:21 AM
Budget and Finance
Completed
Maria Slavik
Completed
Kathy Peters
Completed
Board of County Commissioners
Pending
09/26/2018 1:52 AM
09/26/2018 8:53 AM
09/26/2018 10:35 AM
Completed
09/27/2018 3:56 PM
09/28/2018 7:08 AM
10/03/2018 11:30 AM
10/17/2018 9:00 AM
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION NO. - 2018
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE 2016-2017 MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT AS
SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
WHEREAS, Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires Monroe
County to provide and maintain, in timely and efficient manner, adequate public facilities for
both existing and future populations, consistent with available financial resources and other
elements of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the biennial assessment of public facilities capacity is mandated by Chapter
114 of the Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC):
Section 114-2, Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures, contains two major sets of
requirements: the minimum service standards for the four primary public facilities
(roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and a biennial assessment process to
determine the available capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2 includes an
equitable procedure for issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely to outpace
the current capacity of these public facilities; and
2. Section 114-2(b)3 requires the Planning Director to prepare a biennial report to the
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners on the capacity of available public
facilities; and
3. Section 114-2(b) (4) requires the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners to
consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. In
the event the BOCC acts to increase the development capacity of any service area, the
BOCC shall make specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase,
including the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity; and
WHEREAS, once approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, the
Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the official assessment of public facilities
upon which development approvals will be based for the next two year; and
Page] of 3
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Land Development Regulations require the Board of
County Commissioners to adopt a biennial assessment of public facilities capacity for
unincorporated Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners makes the following
findings of facts:
1. The 2016-2017 annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for
roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and
2. The 2016-2017 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the official
assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed
and approved for the upcoming year; and
3. Section 114-2 of the Land Development Regulations provides the minimum standards
for level of service for roads, solid waste, potable water and educational facilities; and
4. Section 114-2 of the Land Development Regulations requires the biennial assessment
of public facilities capacity to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe
County with adequate, inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities; and
US I has an overall level of service of C and an overall travel speed of 46 MPH;
based on the 2017 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS, the
County's transportation consultant; and
6. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority water use permit allows an average daily
allocation of 23.98 MGD. The County's average daily water demand in 2016 was
17.66 MGD and the projected 2017 average daily water demand is 17.99 MGD,
providing 5.99 MGD surplus water allocation based on the projected 2017 demand;
and
7. Enrollment figures for the 2015-2016 through 2015-2016 school years indicate that
there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2015-
2016 utilization is 70.09% of the school system capacity.
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract
authorizes the use of in -state facilities through September 30, 2024, thereby
providing the County with approximately ten (10) years of guaranteed capacity.
There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for 2018-2019; and
9. There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage); and
10. The 2016-2017 biennial assessment; therefore, finds that adequate capacity exists for
transportation, potable water, solid waste, and educational facilities to meet
anticipated growth through 2018-2019;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Page 2 of 3
The 2016-2017 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report, attached
as Exhibit A, is approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 17'' day of October 2018.
Mayor David Rice
Pro Tern Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
(SEAL)
ATTEST: Kevin Madok, Clerk
Deputy Clerk
Mayor David Rice
MONFJOE COUIM ATT.ORN*Y
AP�RE A�lOII:
h y . �WILUAW
ASSISTruN i 00 RT�' ATTORNEY
alte _ � 1 t�1 I X.
Page 3 of 3
M
Monroe County
Planning and Environmental Resources Department
I
ExecutiveSummary ........................................... ................ ............... .............. .... —_3
L
Grovvdz Management .................... ................................................ ..............................
l3
IL—
... .............. —.............. .................... —......... ........................ ...........
23
111.
Potable Water ................................................................................................................
37
[V.
EdocnLkou---------------------------------------/44
V.
Solid Wumte..................... ....... ...................................................................................
46
\/I
Parks and Recreation .....................................................................................................
50
l/kK
Sanitary Sewer ................................................................................................................
5X
N
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan required Monroe County shall provide
and maintain, in a timely and efficient manner, adequate public facilities for both existing and
future populations, consistent with available financial resources and the other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. [§163.3177(3)(a),ES.]
The Monroe County Land Development (LDC) Section 114-2(b)(3) mandates a biennial
assessment of the roadways, solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer, schools and recreation
and open space facilities serving the unincorporated portion of Monroe County. In the event that
these public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS)
required by the LDC, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that
public facilities are not further burdened. The LDC clearly states that building permits shall not
be issued. unless the proposed. use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities.
As required by LDC Section 114-2 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) shall consider and approve the biennial report, with or without modifications. Any
modifications that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by
findings of fact, including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the
additional capacity required to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document
becomes the official report on public facilities upon which development approvals will be based
for the next year. This report distinguishes between areas of adequate, inadequate and
marginally adequate facility capacity. Inadequate facility capacity is defined as those areas with
capacity below the adopted LOS standard. Marginally adequate capacity is defined as those
areas at the adopted LOS standard or that are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the
next twelve months.
2016-2017 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Potable water, roads, solid waste, schools, and parks have adequate capacity to serve the growth
anticipated in 2017-2018 at the adopted level of service standard. The status of each facility is
summarized below.
Potable Water
In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKAA's modification of
WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This
water use permit (WUP) provides an annual allocation of 23.98 MGD. The recently completed
water supply wells and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment facility provides an additional
capacity of 6.0 MGD.
The County's 2015-2016 water demand were 17.89 & 17.66 MGD respectively, with a projected
2017 water demand of 17.99 MGD. This provides a 5.99 MGD surplus water allocation based
upon the projected 2017 demand. With the construction of the new water supply wells and
reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment facility and a projected surplus allocation, there is an
adequate supply of water to meet current and future demands, based on current conditions and
projections.
3
Schools
The overall 2015-2016 utilization is 70.09% of the school system capacity and is projected for
2019-2020 a 67.57 % utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2015-2016
indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system.
ZPAI,UM
MM
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract authorizes the
use of in -state facilities through September 30, 2024, thereby providing the County with
approximately ten (10) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for a solid waste
generation for the next twelve (12) months,
HAVAT a"
Based on the findings of the 2017 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. The overall median travel speed on US I is 46 MPH.
The traffic volumes have decreased by approximately -0.32% compared to 2015.
Compared to last study results in 2015, there is a level of service changes in eight (8) segments
of the 24 segments; four (4) of which resulted in a positive level of service changes and four (4)
segments resulted in a negative level of service changes (in bold below).
Segment
Number
Segment
Jurisdiction
(county or
municipality)
2015
LOS
2017
LOS
Reserve Trips
Remaining
5%
Allocation
below LOS C
4
Saddlebunch
County
C
B
4,034
N/A
8
Ramrod
A
B
2,133
N/A
12
7-Mile Bridge
-County
County
C
B
3,603
N/A
15
Duck
County
B
C
1,252
N/A
16
Long
County
B
C
2,459
N/A
17
Lower Matecuiribe
Islamorada
D
C
224
N/A
19
Upper
Matecumbe
Islamorada
C
D
(883)
522
21
Plantation
Islamorada
C
B
3,266
N/A
Compared to 2015, the median segment speeds increased in eighteen (18) of the 24 segments
ranging between 0.1 mph to 3.2 mph. Five (5) segments experienced a decrease in median
speeds, ranging from -0.4 mph to -3.5 mph. The majority of the speed reductions were in the
middle and upper keys.
The largest difference and decrease in speed (-3.5 mph) was recorded on Segment # I (Stock
Island — MM 4.0 to MM 5.0); however, the LOS remained the same at 'B'.
11
The largest increase in speed (3.2 mph) was recorded on Segment # 15 (Duck — MM 60.5 to MM
63.0). The increase in speed is related to the increase in the posted speed limit in this segment.
However, the LOS changed from '13' to 'C'; the lower LOS is due to methodology procedures
and not a lower speed.
Parks and Recreation
There is a surplus of parIccs and recreational facilities (acreage).
Sanitary Sewer
The Monroe County Sanitary Sewer Master Plan was part of the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan. As population and tourism within the Keys have increased over the years
have resulted in a significant degradation of water quality in canals and nearshore waters
surrounding the keys. The creation of a new Sanitary Sewer System to replace the old system
consisting mostly of collecting sewage waters by private septic tanks and small water treatment
plants was imperative.
The new Sanitary Sewer System collects the wastewater mainly by a network of pipelines, force
mains, pump stations and sewage treatment plants. The majority of the household units of
unincorporated areas of the County have been connected to the system in 2017.
The sewage collection system operates below the capacity for which it was designed and the
quality and disposal of treated waste water is in compliance with requirements established by FAC,
FS, and MC Comprehensive plan.
SUMMARY
Public facilities within unincorporated Monroe County continue to be adequate. Potable water,
solid waste, roads, and schools have sufficient capacity to serve the growth anticipated in 2017-
2018 at the adopted level of service.
5
The 2016-2017 Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity is mandated by the Monroe
County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 114-2, titled Adequate Facilities and Review
Procedures. The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensuring
14 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 to ensure that
public facilities and services that are needed to support development are available simultaneously
with development impacts.
Section 114-2(a) contains two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the
five primary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools, sanitary sewer), and
biennial assessment process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities.
Section 114-2(b)(3) requires the Director of Planning to prepare a biennial 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, sanitary sewer, 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.
In the event public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS)
standards required by the Comprehensive Plan or the LDC, development activities must conform
to special procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The
Comprehensive Plan and the LDC clearly state that building permits shall not be issued unless
the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities.
Comprehensive Plan Objective 10 1. 1 states:
"Monroe County shall ensure that all developinew and redevelopment taking place within its
C�
boundaries does not result in a reduction of the level -of -service requirements established and
adopted by this comprehensive plan. Further, Monroe County shall ensure that comprehensive
plan amendments include an analysis of the availability of facilities and services or demonstrate
that the adopted levels of service can be reasonably met". [F.S. § 163.3177; F.S. § 163.3180]
The LDC, Section 114-2, "Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures" states:
Development application shall include a written evaluation (facilities impact report and traffic
report) of the impact of the anticipated development on the level of services are available prior to
or concurrent with the impacts of development.
X
Jus"'ag Wj, M." "'gu,
There are five (5) primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity
according to both the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code
(LDC), These facilities are roads, solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer and schools (Comp
Plan also includes parks & recreation and drainage. The available capacity for each of these
facilities may be either sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next year,
marginally adequate, or inadequate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are
projected to be only marginally adequate or inadequate over the next year, the LDC sets out a
review procedure to be followed when issuing development permits in that area.
Section 114-2(b)(5)c of the LDC states: "The county shall not approve applications for
development in areas of the county that are served by inadequate facilities identified in the
biennial assessment of public facility capacity report, except the county may approve
development that will have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where the developer
agrees to increase the level of service of the facility to the adopted level of service standard."
The determination of an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas
with marginal or inadequate capacity is determined by a "facilities impact report" which must be
submitted with a development application.
Roads:
The LOS for roads is regulated by the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
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, measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of
the Highway Capacity Manual, as necessary to determine proposed development impacts.
The County shall maintain the level of service on County roads within five percent (5%) of
LOS D"
Policy 301.1.2 establishes the LOS for U.S. 1. The policy states:
"For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as
measured by the methodology established by the US-1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on US-1 shall be
maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C"
7
Section 114-2(a)(1) of the LDC pertains to the minimum LOS standards for Roads:
(1) Transportation/Roadways.
a. U.S. I shall. have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall arterial
length and the 24 roadway segments of U.S.1, as measured by the U.S. I Level of Service
Task Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway segments. In addition, all
segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. I Level of Service Task Force Methodology,
which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. I., shall have
sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C.
b. 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
(5%) below LOS C, as measured by the U.S. I Level of Service Task Force
Methodology. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed
development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development
mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned shared
contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT
to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS C and/or deficiencies.
c. All paved County roads shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at or within 5%
of a LOS D as measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the
Highway Capacity Manual. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS D,
the development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation.
Development mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned
shared contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or
FDOT to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS D and/or deficiencies.
d. The development of one single family residence on a single parcel shall be considered de
minimis and shall not be considered to impact road capacity established in this
subsection.
e. The County shall post on the Monroe County website informing the public of the
available transportation capacity for each road segment of U.S. I as described in the
county's biennial public facilities capacity report. The available capacity shall be
expressed in terms of a number of trips remaining until the adequate transportation
facilities standard is exceeded.
f. The County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic
monitoring program to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations
and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of the 24 study segments of
U.S.1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and through traffic. The
County shall coordinate with municipalities in the review of the systematic traffic
monitoring program to monitor traffic volumes and travel speeds of U.S.1 as well as on
8
each of the 24 study segments on U.S. I. The County and municipalities shall coordinate
with FDOT to evaluate segments with deficiencies of LOS to determine necessary
improvements and strategies to address any degradation and/or deficiencies.
"M
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopts the LOS standards and further, the LDC regulates
the source of potable water for development or use.
Objective 701.1
Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a certificate of occupancy or its functional
equivalent is issued, adequate potable water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities
are available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards.
[§163.3177(6)(c), F.S.,]
Policy 701.1.1.
Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve
Objective 701.1 and shall use these standards as the basis for determining facility
capacity and the demand generated by a development.
[§163.3180(l)(b)., F.S., §163.3180(2)., F.S., §163.3177(3)(a)3., F.S.]
Level of Service Standards
Quantity:
1.00 gal./capitaJday*
'VNote Based on historical data through December 201.1; provided by
FKAA, December 2012.
2. Minimum Pressure:
20 PSI at customer service
Minimum Potable Water Quality:
Shall be as defined by Chapter 62-550 F.A.C.
The LDC Section 114-2(a)(3) does not include a LOS standard but requires sufficient potable
water from an approved and permitted source shall be available to satisfy the projected water
needs of a proposed development, or use. Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns,
wells, FKAA distribution systems, individual water condensation systems, and any other system
which complies with the Florida standards for potable water.
Solid Waste:
The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC require that "sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid
waste disposal site at a level of services of 11.41 pounds per capita per day. The county solid waste
and resource recovery authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under F.S.
Section 163.01, to dispose of solid waste outside of the county. (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)).
Objective 80 1. 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. [§163.3180(1)(b).,
F.S.], [§163.3180(2)., F.S.]
Policy 80 IA 1,
Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve
Objective 801 . 1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining facility
capacity and the demand generated by a development. [§ 163.3180(l)(b)., F.S.],
[§163.3180(2)., F.S.]
Level of Service Standards:
Disposal Quantity: 11.41 pounds per capita per day
N a ITA"A M
The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a LOS standard for schools but does include Policy
1301.5.3 which requires the County to coordinate with the District School Board of Monroe
County on the siting and expansion of required facilities. LDC Section I 14-2(a)(6) requires that
sufficient school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school -age children to
be generated by the proposed development.
Parks and Recreation:
The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are included in Policy
120 1. 1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 1201.1.1
Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective
1201. 1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining recreation land and facility
capacity:
Level of Service Standards for Neighborhood and Community Parks:
L 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resource -based neighborhood
and community parks; and
2. 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of activity -based neighborhood and
community parks within each of the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys
subareas.
A biennial assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County
Code, Section 114-2, but data for parks and recreational facilities are provided in this document.
IR
Sanitary Sewer:
The Comprehensive Plan 2030 and LDC establish the capacity LOS and the wastewater
treatment level of service standards for sanitary sewers in Policy 90 1. 1.1 of the Monroe County
Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 901. LI
Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a certificate of occupancy, or its
functional equivalent is issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and
disposal facilities are available to support the development at the adopted level of
service standards. [§163.3180(l)(b), F.S., §163.3180(2), F.S., §163.3177(6)(c)2.,
F.S.]
(A)The permanent level of service standards for wastewater treatment in Monroe
County are as follows:
g/L
BOD
TSS
TN
TP
On -site Sewage Treatment and Disposal System
10
10
10
1
Design flows less than 100,000 gpd (BAT)
10
10
10
1
Design flows greater than orequal to AWT)
5
5
3
1
Source: Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, 2000.
BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand
TSS: Total Suspended Solids
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
BAT: Best Available Technology
AWT: Advanced Wastewater Technology
(B) The County shall support State and Federal educational programs to reduce
demand for phosphate products.
(C) The capacity level of service standard: 167 gallons per day per EDU.
11
LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and 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 Islan-iorada 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 (west) of the Seven Mile Bridge.
The map shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized.
MONROE COUNTY
MAP
The Upper Keys
MM 112-91
The Nfiddle Keys
MM 91-47
nJ
V
The Lower Keys
MM 47-4
12
1 -1 210010 191 ! N L" "t 111A!A 9 of 104 � fil L
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.
[421LIk OWN
�Jfla I AM
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 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%.
Census
2000
Census
2010
Change
%
Change
POPULATION
City of Key West
25,478
24,649
-829
-3.25%
City of Marathon
10,255
8,297
-1,958
-19.09%
City of KeyColonyBeach
788
797
+9
1.14%
City of Layton
186
1.84
-2
-1.08%
Village of Islamorada
6,846
6,119
-727
-10.62%
Unincorporated Monroe County
36,036
33,044
-2,992
-8.30%
Total Population (Unincorporated County & Cities)
79,589 73,090
HOUSING
-6,499 -8.17%
UNITS
City of Key West
13,306
14,107
+801
6.01%
City of Marathon
6,791
6,187
-604
-8.89%
City of Key Colony Beach
1,293
1,431
+138
10.67%
City of Layton
165
184
+19
11.15%
Village of Islamorada
5,461
5,692
+231
4.23%
Unincorporated Monroe County
24,601
25,163
+562
2.28%
Total Housing Units (Uninc. County & Cities)
Total housing units (Uninc. County & Cities)
51,617
51,617
52,764
52,764
+1,147
+1,147
2.22%
2.22%
Occupied housing units (Uninc. County & Cities)
35,086
32,629
-2,457
-7.00%
Vacant housing units (Uninc. County & Cities)
16,531
20,135
+3,604
21.80%
% Vacant housing units (Ursine. County & Cities)
32.02%
38.16%
13
a
Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates. Permanent
residents are people who spend all or most of the year living in Monroe County, and as such,
exert a relatively constant demand on all public facilities. Seasonal population figures are the
number of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. They are composed
of the tourist population and residents spending less than six months in the Keys. The seasonal
population has a higher cyclical demand on public facilities like water, roads and solid waste.
The 201.0 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. According to the American Community Survey, the
2014 population estimate for all of Monroe County (incorporated and unincorporated) is 77, 136.
A21
I I V, I
Unincorporated Functional Population
Year
Lower Keys
Middle Keys
Upper Keys
Total
Unincorporated
Monroe County
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 1
41,414
1 2,278
1 30,265
1 73,957
Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March IS, 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 suggests the permanent population losses and associated increase in vacant
housing units, shifting into an increase in seasonal population. Fishkind & Associates estimates
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, functional 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.
W
MMEW
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
from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey.
HOUSING UNITS BY STATUS AND TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE
2011-2015
(Monroe County -Unincorporated And Incorporated Areas)
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
52,913
100.00%
Occupied housing units
28,910
54.60%
Vacant housing units
24,003
46.40%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
52,913
100.00%
1-unit, detached
27,475
51.90%
1 -unit, attached
3,878
7.30%
2 units
2,504
4.70%
3 or 4 units
2,475
4.70%
5 to 9 units
2,435
4.60%
10 to 19 units
2,510
4.70%
20 or more units
3,386
7.50%
Mobile home
7,528
14.20%
Boat, RV, van, etc.
122
0.20%
HOUSING TENURE
Estimates
Percent
Occupied housing units
28,910
100.00%
Owner -occupied
17,675
61.10%
Renter -occupied
11,235
38.90%
Average household size of owner -occupied unit
2.44
Average household size of renter -occupied unit
2.71
Source: US Censits 2015 American Community Survey
W
11,21F.-WINOW1 till
Based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016-1992 on June 23, .1.992, creating the Residential
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) within 24 hours.
The annual allocation period, or ROGO year, is the 12-month period beginning on July 13, 1992,
(the effective date of the original dwelling unit allocation ordinance), and subsequent one-year
periods. The number of dwelling units which can be permitted in Monroe County has
consequently been controlled since July of 1992 (adoption of Ordinance 0 16-92).
Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.2 regulate the number of permits
issued annually for residential development under ROGO. Monroe County can award 197
allocations per year within the unincorporated area. These allocations are divided between three
geographic subareas and are issued quarterly. Each year's ROGO allocation of 197 new units is
split with a minimum 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 101.3.2 state:
"The number of permits issued for residential dwelling units under the Rate of Growth
Ordinance shall not exceed a total of 1,970 new allocations for the timeperiod of July 13, 2013
through July 12, 2023, plus any available unused ROGO allocations from a previous ROGO
year. A ROGO year means the twelve-month period beginning on July 13. Market rate
allocations shall not to exceed 126 residential units per year. Unused allocations for market rate
shall be available for Administrative Relief.
LDC, Section 138-24(a)(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.
b. Affordable housing residential ROGO for all four ROGO quarters, including the
allocations available for Big Pine Key, shall be made available at the beginning of the
first quarter for a ROGO year. Beginning July 13, 2016, the balance of all remaining
affordable housing residential ROGO allocations shall be made available for award.
16
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 for implementing ROGO within the Land Development Regulations
(LDRs).
The Tier System changed the service areas (subareas boundaries) mentioned in the Introduction.
It is the basis for the scoring of NROGO and ROGO applications and administrative relief. The
new ROGO and NROGO subareas are the Lower Keys (Middle Keys are not included in the
Lower Keys), Upper Keys, and Big Pine / No Name Keys. Tier Ordinance 009-2006 provides
vesting provisions and allows for allocation of an annual cap of 197 residential dwelling units.
The Tier System made changes such as subarea boundary districts for allocation distribution, the
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 the
197 allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations are assigned to this subarea.
I a' Eel' a
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 1.998, 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.
The Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP), Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine
Key and No Name Key was adopted on August 18, 2004, pursuant to Ordinance 029-2004. The
LCP envisioned the issuance of 200 residential dwelling units over 20 year horizon at a rate of
roughly 10 per year. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the 10 units per year is to be set
aside for affordable housing development (e.g. 2 units per year set aside for affordable housing.)
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) permittees: Monroe County, Florida
Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The TIP
ensures that development bears its fair share of required mitigation and that the take of the
covered species is minimized and mitigated.
17
UNINCORPORATED COUNTY MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE ROGO
HISTORICAL DATA YEAR 1-22
Market Rate
Market Rate
Affordable
Affordable
ROGO
ROGO
Housing ROGO
Housing ROGO
ROGO Year
Allocations
Awarded
Allocations
Awarded
Year 1
204
204
52
11
(July 14, 1992 -July 13, 1993)
Year 2
243
231
52
9
(July 14, 1993 -July 13, 1994)
Year 3
246
249
52
10
(July 14, 1994 -July 13, 1995)
Year 4
245
263
52
40
(July 14, 1995 -July 13, 1996)
Year 5
215
218
52
23
(July 14, 1996 -July 13, 1997)
Year 6
211
197
77
56
(July 14, 1997 -July 13, 1998)
Year 7
101
102
30
9
(July 14, 1998 -July 12, 1999)
Year 8
127
136
109
66
(July 13, 1999 -July 14,2000)
Year 9
127
129
224
203
(July 13, 2000 -July 14,2001)
Year 10
102
102
31
58
(July 14, 2001 -July 15,2002)
Year 11
127
127
31
31
(July 16, 2002 -July 14,2003)
Year 12
127
127
31
21
(July 13, 2003-July 14,2004)
Year 13
96
96
29
16
(July 14, 2004 -July 13,2005)
Year 14
126
126
236
271
(July 14, 2005 -July 13,2006)
Year 15
126
129
49
17
(July 14, 2006 -July 13,2007)
Year 16
126
126
68
100
(July 14, 2007 -July 14,2008)
Year 17
206
242
67
36
(July 15, 2008 -JLIIY 13,2009)
Year 18
126
128
71
0
(July 14, 2009 -July 12, 2010)
Year 19
126
119
71
0
(July 13, 2010 -July 12,2011)
Year 20
126
92
71
4
(July 13, 2011 -July 13,2012)
Year 21
126
43
71
0
(July 13, 2012 -July 13,2013)
Year 22
126
90
71
9
(July 13, 2013 -July 13,2014)
Year 23
126
106
71
1
(July 13, 2014 -July 13,2015)
Year 24
126
126
71
45
(July 13, 2015 -July 13,2016)
Totals
3,637
3,508
1,739
1032
Source: Monroe County 2010-2030 Technical Document & Data from Quarterly ROGO Result Relgorts for Years
18-24
IN
There is a time lapse, which occurs between the ROGO allocation date and the permit issuance
date. An allocation award expires when its corresponding building permit is not picked up after
sixty (60) days of notification by certified mail of the award, or after issuance of the building
permit, or upon expiration of the permit. The historical data presented in the table above do not
include allocations issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, Islamorada, or Marathon.
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 101.4.1 limits the County's availability of
nonresidential square footage that may be permitted. This policy assures that the balance of
residential to nonresidential development is maintained.
Policy 101.4.1 states:
"Monroe County shall maintain a Permit Allocation System for new nonresidential floor area,
known as the Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) System. Monroe County shall
maintain a balance between residential and nonresidential growth by limiting the floor area of
new nonresidential development available within the County to maintain a maximum of 47,083
square feet of floor area per NROGO year. The nonresidential allocation allowed by this policy
shall be distributed on an annual basis, pursuant to Policy 101.4.3. The NROGO allocation
system shall apply within the unincorporated area of the county, excluding areas within the
county mainland and within the Ocean Reef planned development (Future development in the
Ocean Reef planned development is based upon the December 2010 Ocean Reef Club
VestedDevelopment Rights Letter recognized and issued by the Department of Community
Affairs). "Section 138-51 of the LDC establishes the annual award distribution of NROGO
allocations.
Sec. 138-51 NROGO allocations.
Maximum amount of available floor area for the annual nonresidential ROGO allocations. The
annual amount of floor area available for allocation under NROGO shall be 47,083 square feet.
Beginning NROGO Year 22 (July 13, 2013), this floor area shall be distributed to each of
subareas as provided in the following table:
Number of
Approximate
ROGO subarea
market rate
number of
Total dwelling
Annual NROGO
units
affordable units*
units
allocation
Upper
61
35
96
22,944 SF
Lower
57
34
91
21,749 SF
Big Pine/No
8
2
10
2,390 SF
Name
Total
47,083 SF
Me
�i ',M! � 1 i 11 � � 1 1 1 0F."VATM
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 22 (2014) is shown below.
NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED MONROE
COUNTY YEAR 14 (2006) TO YEAR 22 (2014)
(Excluding Big Pine & No Name Key)
Year
Amount Available
Total Allocations Awarded
Year14 (2006)
16,000 sq/ft
12,594 sq/ft
Year 15 (2007)
18,000 sq/ft
12,500 sq/ft
Year 16 (2008)
35,000 sq/ft
17,938 sq/ft
Year 17 (2009)
30,000 sq/ft
13,056 sq/ft
Year 18 (2010)
20,000 sq/ft
6,355 sq/ft
Year 19 (2011)
20,000 sq/ft
6,116 sq/ft
Year 20 (2012)
44,700 sq/ft
8,234 sq./ft
Year 21 (2013)
44,700 sq/ft
2,500 sq/ft
Year 22 (2014)
44,700 sq/ft
7,395 sq/ft
Year 23 (2015)
44,693 sq/ft
2,484 sq/ft
Year 24 (2016)
44,693 sq/ft
1,756 sq/ft
NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other protected species and the USFWS issued
Incidental Take Permit (ITP). Annually the amount of new nonresidential floor area allocated to
the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is 2,390 square feet. A summary of allocations in these
environmentally sensitive keys is shown below.
NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR BIG PINE/NO NAME KEYS
YEAR 14 (2006) - YEAR 22 (2014)
Year
Available
Number of
A licants
Total Allocations
Awarded
Year 15 (2007)
9,082 sq/ft
2
5,000 sq/ft
Year 16 (2008)
0 sq/ft
2
3,809 sq/ft
Year 17 (2009)
5,000 sq/ft
0
0 sq/ft
Year 18 (2010)
2,390 sq/ft
0
0 sq/ft
Year 19 (2011)
2,390 sq/ft
0
384 sq/ft
Year 20 (2012)
2,390 sq.ft.
4
7,500 sq/ft
Year 21 (2013)
6,729 sq/ft
3
5,240 sq/ft
Year 22 (2014)
2,390 sq/ft
1
1,0 11 sq/ft
Year 23 (2015)
2,390 sq/ft
2
728 sq/ft
Year 24 (2016)
2,390 sq/ft
0
0 sq/ft
we
There were 4,544 dwelling units that received a building permit from January 1, 2000, to
December 31, 2016. Of these units, approximately 84.5 percent were single family homes and
9.1 percent were mobile homes and recreational vehicles (RV). An average of 267 new and
replacement dwelling units per year were permitted from 2000 to 2016. Of the 4,544 dwelling unit
permits issued, 2,070 were the result of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the 4,544 dwelling units
permits issued, a total of 4,11.3 dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY, JANUARY 1, 2000 - DECEMBER 31,2016
Mobile
Total
Permits
ngl
Sie
Multi
Hotel /
Issued
Received
Year
Duplex
Home
Permits
Family
Family
Motel
Under
Co
RV
Issued
ROGO
January 1, 2000-
169
0
35
49
34
287
92
372
December 31, 2000
January 1, 2001 -
153
0
13
55
1
222
118
261
December 31, 2001
January 1, 2002-
0
0
16
47
1
264
181
243
December 31, 2002
January 1, 2003-
228
0
12
38
28
306
161
290
December 31, 2003
January 1, 2004-
1
0
54
29
0
324
105
288
December 31, 2004
January 1, 2005-
A
8
2
28
0
399
160
288
December 31, 2005
January 1, 2006-
376
0
2
14
0
392
198
289
December 31, 2006
January 1, 2007-
380
0
0
13
0
393
103
317
December 31, 2007
January 1, 2008-
168
1
3
12
0
184
45
236
December 31, 2008
January 1, 2009-
197
0
0
4
0
201
4
140
December 31, 2009
January 1, 2010-
222
0
0
5
1
228
5
137
December 31, 2010
January 1, 2011-
162
0
0
2
0
164
165
202
December 31, 2011
January 1, 2012-
109
0
12
7
0
128
175
218
December 31, 2012
January 1, 2013-
174
0
0
25
0
199
103
144
December 31, 2013
January 1, 2014-
256
0
1
46
0
303
93
195
December 31, 2014
January 1, 2015-
209
0
44
27
1
281
197
267
December 31, 2015
January 1, 2016-
252
0
4
12
1
269
165
226
December 31, 2016
1
1
TOTAL
3,857
9
150
374
65
4,544
2,070
1 4,113
Source.- Monroe County Growth Management, September 2017
N"
A total of 2,934 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 to December 31, 2016. The highest
demolition rate occurred in years 2005 and 2006 with 677 units demolished. An average of 172
dwelling units was demolished per year between 2000 and 2016. At this time it is not possible to
determine, whether a demolition was for a single family, a mobile home, etc.
HOUSING DEMOLITION PERMITS
Year
Residential Demolitions
January 1, 2000-December 31, 2000
98
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2001
1,57
January 1, 2002-December 31, 2002
140
January 1, 2003-December 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-December 31, 2010
239
January 1, 2011 -December 31, 2011
96
January 1, 2012-December 31, 2012
106
January 1, 2013-December 31, 2013
120
January 1, 2014-December 31, 2014
132
January 1, 2015-December 31, 2015
140
January 1, 2016- December 31, 2016
152
TOTAL
2,934
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, July 2017
22
�Ml I I I I I 1 9,1191111, 1
Roads are one of the critical public facilities identified for biennial assessment in the Monroe
County Land Development (LDC). The Comprehensive Plan and LDC regulations require U.S.
I to remain at a LOS C or higher and that all County roads to remain at a LOS D or higher. The
Monroe 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 2013,
on behalf of the Monroe County Planning Department with assistance from the agencies
identified above. The following are the travel time/delay data and findings for the year 2017.
The U.S. I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study's primary objective is to monitor the level of
service on U.S. I for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes and Section 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. The study
utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume -based capacities and the speed -based level
of service (LOS) methodology developed for U.S. I in Monroe County, by the U.S. I Level of
Service Task Force.
A county -imposed building moratorium results when the measured speeds of a segment OR 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 has
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
significant.
U.S. I (the Overseas Highway) is the only principal arterial serving people and visitors in the
Keys. The unique geography, land use patterns and trip making characteristics of the Florida
Keys present a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable method to
assess LOS. Although U.S. I in the Florida Keys is predominantly an uninterrupted -flow, two-
lane roadway, its uniqueness warrants an alternative LOS evaluation process than found in the
Highway Capacity Manual.
A uniform method was developed in 1993 and amended December 1997 by the U.S. I Level of
Service 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 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. I in the unique setting of the Florida Keys.
23
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.S. I serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local. traffic is also an important
consideration on this multi purpose 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 additional traffic volumes and
corresponding additional development. If the travel speed falls below the LOS C Standard,
additional trips equivalent to 5% of LOS C capacity are allowed, to accommodate a limited
amount of land development to continue until traffic speeds are measured again next year or until
remedial actions are implemented. The segments of U.S. I that fall below the LOS C Standard
are candidates for being designated either backlogged or constrained by FDOT.
U.S. 1 Segments and Mile Markers
Segment
Number
Mile
Marker
Segment
Name
Segment
Number
Mile
Marker
Segment
Name
1
4-5
Stock Island
13
47-54
Marathon
2
5-9
Boca Chica
14
54-60.5
Grassy
3
9-10.5
Big Coppitt
15
60.5-63
Duck
4
10.5-16.5
Saddlebunch
16
63-73
Long
5
16.5-20.5
Sugarloaf
17
73-77.5
Lower Matecurnbe
6
20.5-23
Cudjoe
18
77.5-79.5
Tea Table
7
23-25
Summerland
19
79.5-84
Upper Matecumbe
8
25-27.5
Ramrod
20
84-86
Windley
9
27.5-29.5
Torch
21
86-91.5
Plantation
10
29.5-33
Big Pine
22
91.5-99.5
Tavernier
11
33-40
Bahia Honda
23
99.5-106
Key Largo
12
40-47
7-Mile Bridge
24
106-112.5
Cross Key
24
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 February 26, 201.7, and March 11, 2017. Fourteen (14) round trips were made to
success -fully complete the twenty-eight (28) required northbound and SOLIthbound runs. These
runs represent a sample of two runs of each day of the week. Every one of the twenty-eight
travel time run data sheets was quality checked. The seven-day, 24-hour traffic data were
collected in Islamorada, Marathon, and Big Pine Key from March 6, 201.7, to March 1.2, 2017,
concurrently with the travel time runs.
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. I yielded the following average daily traffic (ADT) and annual average daily traffic
(AADT) volumes for 2017. These volumes for 5-day and 7-day are averages of the raw volumes
counted. The volumes have been adjusted using 2015 seasonal and axle factors to estimate the
2017 AADT's. The traffic counts were recorded between March 6, 2017, and March 12, 2017.
LOCATION
5-DAY ADT
7-DAY ADT
AADT
Big Pine Key (MM 29)
21,771
21,595
19,047
Marathon (MM 50)
39,673
39,239
34,609
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84)
26,471
26,126
23,043
The average weekday (5-Day ADT) have decreased in Big Pine Key and Upper Matecumbe and
increased in Marathon, and the average weekly (7-Day ADT) and AADT traffic volumes have
decreased at Big Pine Key and increased at Marathon and Upper Matacumbe compared to 2015
data. The seasonal and axle factor recorded by FDOT has not changed from 2015. A comparison
of the most recent seven years of data is presented below in a table and also is 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 of the three locations over the last twenty-two years
indicates that statistically there is virtually no overall traffic growth within at the Marathon and
Upper Matecumbe count locations with a slightly decreasing trend in traffic volumes for Big
Pine Key.
25
Overall Speeds
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of US I in the Keys between
Key West and Miami -Dade County line. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced
during long distance or through trips. Given that U.S. I is the only principal arterial in Monroe
County, the movement of through traffic is an. important consideration.
The levels of service (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. 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
Both Monroe County and the FDOT have adopted a LOS C standard for U.S. 1.
The median overall speed during the 2017 study was 46 mph, which is 0.9 mph higher than the
2015 median speed of 45.1 mph. The mean operating speed was 45 mph with a 95% confidence
interval of plus or minus 1.3 mph. The mean and median speeds correspond to LOS C
conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 49.4 mph (0.3 mph higher than
the 2015 highest overall speed of 49.1 mph), which occurred on Monday, February 27, 2017,
between 4:20 p.m. and 6:40 p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded
was 34.8 mph (4.6 mph lower than the 2015 lowest overall speed of 39.4 mph), which occurred
on Saturday, March 11, 2017, between 3:45 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. in the southbound direction.
NE.
O
0-�
0
0-1
0
0-0
0-1
e
C\j
co
00
r-
C�
LO
cq
(D
CQ
00
-
.S--
(N
L6
C\j
0
C\l
LO
Lo
rl-
N
0)
0)
00
(D
M
0)
It
co
CY)
0
(3)
LCI
CQ
C�
0
0)
0)
"t
LO
(D
m
Cl)
Cl)
co
N
C\j
C\j
0
0
0-O
-0
-0
'o
0
N
(D
LO
(D
N
LD
C\j
o ca
00
O�
I:
r-�
00
CY)
(D
co
0
(Y)
0
r
-
0
oc�
C\!
0
00
N
N
C\j
N
C\j
00
CY)
co
Cl)
-t
Cl)
(6
NC\j
tx
co�
cli
0-0
0�
-
60
0�
c
co
C)
co
-
0)
00
M
.-0 ca
Cl)
Cl)
(D
-
C\j
6
G
C;
C6
r-h
C15
Cl)
C)
C\j
CD
Cp
(Y)
Cl)
CY)
(D
It
(D
00
Cy�
(D
W
0)
co
�2
Lo
0
Ci
C)
p/""j"
C\j
CQ
M
i
CYC\)
(3i
C\j
co
N
Cl)
N
0
C\j
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
r-
m
Lr)
I,-
Cf)
rl
L)
-It
Co
00
Lq
co
C�
C�
0
C\j
N
(D
(D
Lo
0
o
C\j
C:
Lf)
0
It
00
0)
0
C\j
Lno
Cl)
0)
0
0
0
�
C\j
Cl)
(NUJ
C\j
CCNNt\\i
(N
CU
...........
a)
0-�
0
000
0-0
N
C�
co
cq
0-�
LO
m
Lr)
0-�
0)
rl-
C)
OD
r-
m
CO
CQ
(D
06
rh
0
C\j
00
0
(0
r�
cli
co
co
rl-
C�
co
cc
LO
0)
0
00
1-
7"�
Cli
LQ
O
0
0
0
r-
C\j
C\j
C\j
Cl)
Cl)
C\j
N
C\j
N
00�0
0
6
0
_R
OR
0-0
"0
'oO
OD
C\j
I-
(D
N0
CV
(D
cfl
r*-:
I:
(.C)
O
lO
N
N
CO
N
7
O
C\j
C\j
m
co
(D
00
00
co
0
oci
LO
LO
LO
(D
lO
c
C\l
C\i
cy�
C\j
C\j
m
(N
C\j
CQ
0
e
o
0
00-
0
0
0
-0
0
00
C\J
00
NC�
0)
00
rl-
co
0
CY)
C\j
.
CY)
O
N
O
C\l
C:
Nt
LO
co
co
m
co
m
;-D
Ln
00
C\!
(q
Iq
C\�
0
O
O
CO
0
C\j
(6
co
co
00
C\j
m
(Y)
C\j
C\j
C\j
-
61,
co
I—
co
0)
a
0)
0'
M
ca
(z
C)C)
x.
C)
C)
>
>
>
>
Lo <
r-
LO <
r- <
"
I <
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
C> 0 0 0 0 C8 �
8 8 8
LO Q
'A
I
9 �1111 ���
I
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
C� C� C� q, C� 9, C�, C�
It C14 0 00 w CA 0 00
(Y) c1r) cq CN C14 04 Cq (14 V—
■
0
0
Sep
SReeds
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. I 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.
Uninterrut)ted Flow
LOS A1.5 mph abll oIII
ve speed limit
LOS B 1.5 mph below speed limit
LOS C4.5 mph below speed limit
LOS 17.5 mph below speed limit
LOS E 13.5 mph below speed limit
For all "uninterrupted" segments containing isolated traffic signals, the travel times were reduced
by 25 seconds per signal and three (3) seconds per pedestrian signal to account for lost time due
to signals. The Marathon and the Stock Island segments are considered "interrupted" flow
facilities. Therefore, no adjustments were made to travel times to account for signals on these
segments.
The segment limits, the median travel speeds, and the 2015 and the 2017 LOS are presented in a
table below. The median segment speed ranged from 59.6 mph (LOS A) in the Boca Chica
segment to 29.4 mph (LOS B) in the Stock Island segment. The level of service determined from
the 2017 travel time data yield the following level of service changes as compared to 2015 data:
LOS A (0) LOS B (4) LOS C (3) LOS D (1) LOLL_(0)
Saddlebunch (4) Duck (15) U. Matecumbe(19)
Ramrod (8) Long (16)
7 Mile Bridge L. Matecumbe (1)
Plantation (21)
Compared to last study year (2015) results, there is a level of service changes to eight (8)
segments — four (4) of which resulted in a positive level of service changes and four (4) of which
resulted in a negative level of service changes.
• Saddlebunch segment (4) increased from LOS 'C' to LOS 'B'
« Ramrod segment (8) decreased from LOS 'A' to LOS '13'
• 7-Mile Bridge segment (12) increased from LOS 'C' to LOS 'B'
• Duck segment (15) decreased from LOS '13' to LOS 'C'
• Long segment (16) decreased from LOS '13' to LOS 'C' Village of Isle
• Lower Matecumbe segment (17) increased from LOS 'D' to LOS 'C'
• Upper Matecumbe segment (19) decreased from LOS 'C' to LOS 'D' - Village of
Islamorada
® Plantation segment (2 1) increased from LOS 'B' to LOS 'C'
Compared to 2015, the median segment speeds increased in eighteen (18) of the 24 segments
ranging between 0.1 mph to 3.2 mph. Five (5) segments experienced a decrease in median
speeds, ranging from -0.4 mph to -3.5 mph. Segment (13), Marathon remained the same.
The largest difference and decrease in speed (-3.5 mph) was recorded on Segment # I (Stock
Island - MM 4.0 to MM 5.0) however, the LOS remained the same at '13'. The largest increase in
speed (3.2 mph) was recorded on Segment # 15 (Duck —MM 60.5 to MM 63.0), however the LOS
change from a 'B' to a 'C', which is counterintuitive. The increased in speed is expected to be
related to the increased in posted speeds in this segment and the lower LOS is due to the
methodology procedures and not a lower speed. However, LOS 'C' is considered an acceptable
LOS for the Keys and the higher speed observed through Segment # 15 in 2017 helps to increase
the overall median operating speeds along US-1/Overseas Highway and retain an overall LOS
far• US-1/Overseas Highway of 'C' or better.
Reserve Capacities
The difference between the median speed and the LOS C Standard gives the reserve speed,
which in turn can be converted to an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and
corresponding additional development. The median overall speed of 46 mph compared to the
LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of I mph. This reserve speed is
converted into an estimated number of reserve trips using the following formula:
Reserve Volume = Reserve Speed x k x Overall Length
Trip Length
Reserve Volume = I mph x 1656 daily trips/mph x 112 miles
10 miles
Reserve Volume = 18,547 daily trips
31
The estimated reserve capacity is then converted into an estimated capacity for additional
residential development, assuming balanced growth of other land uses and using the following
formula:
Residential Capacity = Reserve Volume
Trip Generation Rate x % Impact on US I
Residential Capacity = 18,547 daily trips
8 (daily trips / unit) x 0.8
Residential Capacity = 2,898 units
Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of U.S. I individually gives
maximum reserve Volumes for all segments totaling 93,174 trips. These individual reserve
volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraint imposed by the overall reserve volume.
County regulations and FDOT 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. The so-called five
percent allocations were calculated for such segments as follows:
5% Allocation = (median speed - 95% of LOS Q x 1656 x Length
Trip Length
In 2017, there were two (2) segments identified to be functioning below the LOS C threshold -
Upper Matecumbe (Segment #19) and Tea Table (Segment #18). Both segments are in the
Village of Islamorada.
The two segments identified above have depleted their reserve capacities, leaving 522 trips in U.
Matecumbe (Segment #19) and 193 trips in Tea Table (Segment #18) based on the 5% below
LOS C allocation.
The following table details the segment levels of service and reserve capacity values for each
segment.
M
9
Following is a summary of the 2017 Travel Time and Delay Study results:
a) The traffic volumes have decreased by approximate -0.32% compared to 201.5.
b) The overall travel speed on U.S. I for 2017 is 46 mph, and 0.9 mph higher compared to
the 2015 overall travel speed,
c) Compared to 2015 data, the median travel speeds on 18 of the 24 segments have
increased. They are:
wim ru rzlimm M'Q L�m
WarlITIEWM
Cudjoe W.3 mo)
Summerland (+0.9 mph)
in
CTO I M7,01 M
orch (+0.2 mph)
Median travel speeds on 5 segments have decreased. They are:
Stock Island (-3.5 mph)
Tavernier
Big Coppift (-0.6 mph)
Ke Largo (-0.4 mph)
Ramrod (-0.5 mph)
d) Compared to 2015 study results, there are LOS changes in eight (8) of the twenty- four
(24) segments; four (4) increases and four (4) decreases.
e) Segment # 17 (L Matecumbe — MM 73.0 — MM 77.5) finally went from a LOS 'D' to 'C'
this year after having spent the past seven years at LOS 'D'. The change in LOS was due
to an increased in speed from 48.4 mph in 2015 to 49.8 mph this year. Segment #18 (Tea
Table-MM 77.5 — MM 79.5) remained at LOS 'D'; although, the travel speeds have
increased from 46.8 in 2015 to 47.6 this year. Segment #19 (U. Matecumbe — MM 79.5 —
MM 84.0) went from LOS 'C' to 'D' this year. The decreased in level of service (despite
the increase in speed) is due to an increased on the weighted average posted speed, which
affects the level of services thresholds. Speed increased from 38.5 in 2015 to 39.2 this
year while the weighted average posted speed went from 40.8 in 2015 to 45.0 this year.
Special attention should be given to these segments.
f) It should be noted that Segments #15, #16 and #19 have increased median speeds but
decreased LOS due to differences in weighted posted speed as explained in the bullet
above. For segment #16, the LOS changed from 'B' in 2015 to 'C' in 2017. LOS C is still
an acceptable LOS for the Keys and higher speed observed for Segment #16 in 2017 helps
to increase the overall median operating speed along US-1/Overseas Highway.
g) There were a total of 331 delay events, 33 of which were excluded due to their
nonrecurring nature. The delays due to traffic signals were the largest recurring delay -
causing event this year. The traffic signals caused 213 delays, totaling 2 hours, 10 minutes
and 29 seconds. The signals caused on average a 4 minutes and 30 seconds delay per trip,
which is 29 seconds less compared to 2015.
h) There was no draw bridge related delays this year.
i) There were no construction delays this year,
j) There were sixty-four (64) congestion related delay event this year totaling 3 hours 16
minutes and 44 seconds compared to I hour 28 minutes and 16 seconds in 2015. The
congestion delay events contributed on average 7 minutes and 2 seconds of delay per trip
of 3 minutes and 9 seconds.
k) Segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given particular
attention when approving developments applications. This year, there are seven segments
of US I in this category (one segment less than the 2015 study)
U. Matecumbe (MM 79.5 — MM 84.0)
Windley (84.0 — 86.0)
The 12.5-mile stretch of Duck Key and Long Key (from MM 60.5 to MM 73.0) has been
added this year to make a contiguous 25.5-mile segment of upper keys from Duck (MM
60.5) to Windley (MM 86.0) to be within the Area of Critical County Concern (ACCC).
Within the Lower Keys, Big Pine (MM 29.5 — MM 33.0) segment was identified to be
within the ACCC.
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 turn lanes.
® Conducting speed studies on selected segment of U.S. I to confirm the posted speed
limits, and correct, if necessary.
® Consolidating driveways/access points to reduce/minimize friction.
• Enhancing signal timing at existing signalized intersections along U.S. I to improve
the traffic flow.
• Not allowing new signalized intersections along U.S. I if there is alternative safe
access to accommodate the turning movements.
® Improving the conditions along the county maintained local streets to minimize U.S.
I being used as the local street.
® Providing transit service or other than single passenger vehicle modes of
transportation to connect the city of Key West and other major origin/destinations in
the Keys with the mainland.
35
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.
W.
I' I' I N awava"
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 within an environmentally protected pine rockland
forest west of Florida City. The location of the wellfield near Everglades National Park, along
with restrictions enforced by state and local regulatory agencies, contributes to the unusually
high water quality. These wells contain some of the highest quality groundwater in the state,
meeting all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Additionally, the FKAA is continually
monitoring, assessing, and working to eliminate potential hazards to our water source, including
inappropriate aquifer utilization, unsuitable land uses, and the potential for saltwater intrusion.
The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the FKAA's Water Treatment Facility in Florida
City, which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8 million gallons per
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 which 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.
Also, the two saltwater Reserve Osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock1sland and Marathon, are
available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants
have design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MGD, respectively.
At present, Key West and Ocean Reef are the only areas of the County served by a flow of
potable water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of
water sources, including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting sites on the
open water or from specially constructed fire wells. Although sufficient flow to fight fires is not
guaranteed in the County, new hydrants are being installed as water lines are replaced to make
water available for fire -fighting purposes and pump station/tank facilities are being upgraded to
provide additional fire flow and pressure. A map of the key FKAA transmission and distribution
facilities is shown in Figure 3.1.
37
IFigure 3.1
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
45.2 MG STORAGE CAPACITY
1. KEY WEST
2 250 HP PUMPS
7TUTION
STATION STATION
5 No
_
2 STOCK ISLAND 1 665 HP PUMP
H, RUN"
s MG
s MG
RAMROD KEY-7
l000 jul Puw
-6. BIG PINE KEY
SOO up Pump
I � 2 75 HP PUMPS 0
5. SUMMERLAND KEY-
2 30 HP PUMPS
W.O. PLANT
�-7 BIG UMCOPPITT KEY
5 HIP PPS
MARATHON
BAY POINT `S' MU
WW TREATMENT PLANT
2.0 MOO
R.O. PLANT
STOCK ISLAND
DISTR@BUTION
I
STATION 3. STOCK ISLAND (DESAL)
I
Ll �N- Is H IFINRSFut PIMA
5 Ir PUMP$
MINNI1M7950M MEMO= WAJ
TONA
5 MG 15. FLORIDA CITY
,MGEP9INS !R14OCEA
29.8 MOD LIME SOFTENING TREATWRNT PLANT
2 75 NPP PUMPS
6 MOD R.O. TREATMENT PLANT
2 5M Up PUMPS 7 a "P PUMPS
7 1000 HP DIESEL PUMPS
EMERGENCY BACKUP
KEY LARGO
—MARATHON
—MARATHON
H
U
2 40 HP PUMPS
T H PUMPS
I
3 7"M HHPP PUMP
�N 12;, TAVE
9. TAVERNIER
VA
VA C A U
CA 2;D
RNIER aA
F ELI
F PUMPS'
PUMPS
NP PUMPS
13, ROCK
K
11
HARBOR , A,
R
3 HARBOR
0
10. CRAWL KEY
CRAWL
C W L KEY
IWC lu
1 30 H`P PUMP
U—
2 M M
up PUMPS
2 30 up PUMPS
DUCK KEY
LA ORADA
11. ISLAMORADA
TREATMENT PLANT
REATMERN PLANT
I 7i HI PUMP MG
LONG KEY
C
Rao oN MP
3 SOD HP PUMPS
.100 MGD LITTLE VENICE
LITTLE VENICE
L 0
LAYTON
WIN TREATMENT PLANT
___T , _ ENI mol
WIN TREATMENT PLANT[!"—
MARATHONC_—__)__._B. 69th ST MARATHON
3 MG 2 W .1 ...
STATION
I I'D 11 PUMPS S MC 650 .1 lumps
TRANMISSION BACKPUMPING CAPABILITI
MARATHON (1)-5 MG TANK
STOCK ISLAND (3)-5 MIS TANKS
STOCK ISLAND DESAL (1)-5 MG TANK
The Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provide a historical overview of the water demands in the FKAA
service area including Water Use Permit (WUP) allocation limits, yearly percent changes, and
remaining water allocations. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) approved the FKAA's modification of WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation
from the Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers. As shown in Figure 3.4, the WUP provides an annual
allocation of 8,751 Million Gallons (MG) or 23.98 MGD and a maximum monthly allocation of
809 MG with a limited annual withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer of 6,492 MG or 17.79
MGD and an average dry season (December Is' -April 301h) of 17.0 MGD.
In order to meet the requirements of this limitation, the FKAA constructed a new Floridan
Aquifer Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment system. This RO water treatment system is
designed to withdraw brackish water from the Floridan Aquifer, an alternative water source
approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat the water to drinking water
standards. The RO water treatment plant provides added capability to limit Biscayne aquifer
withdrawals and is designed to meet current and future water demands. The RO water treatment
system provides an additional 6.0 MGD of potable water.
NH.*
Along with the new reverse osmosis water treatment plant, compliance with withdrawal limits
can also be accomplished by using other alternative water sources (blending of the Floridan
Aquifer, reclaimed water and operation of the RO desalination plants), pressure reduction, public
outreach, and assistance from municipal agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances.
Figure 3.2 Annual Water Withdrawals 2002-2016
44"
a
Wt
ear,
rawa
2002
....................................................................
6,191 ......................
10.03%
................ ............... ..... ...... ......
7,274
........................................... ...........................................................................................
1,083
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
.......................................... I'll, ..................
6,283
............. ............................... - .....................................
-2.49%
.......................................................
7,274
....................... - .......... .......... ..............
964 ......................
2007
............ .............................................................
5,850
........... . ......................... ................. .....................
-7.35%
............................................
7,274
....................................... ....................................... ...................
1,428
........................................................ ......................
2008
...................... ........................... ...........................
5,960
. .................................................. .............................. ...................
1.89%
--....................................................................................
8,751
........................................................................................................................................
2,791
2009
......................................... ...........
5,966
........................................ ..................
0.09%
................. ...........................
8,751
................................. --- .............. ....................... ............................................................
2,785 11-11 ...............................
2010
..........................................................
5,919
.. .. ................................................. ..................................
-0.79%
............................................................
8,751
................... ............. ................................... .............................................................
2,832 ..........
2011
............ ............... ................
6,327
......... . .................. ....................... ........... ..............
6.89%
.........................................................
8,751
.............................................. - .........................................................................................................
2,424
2012
.............. ..............................
6,042
............ ................. ..................
-4.50%
..................... ....................................
8,751
..................... ................................................................................................................................
2,709
2013
........... ... ...................... 11111.1 ...............
6,105
........... ................. .......................................
1.04%
...................................................
8,751
..........................................................................................................................................
2,646
2014
................... 1.11"..."'. ...........
6,377
............ .................................................................................................
4.46%
...................................................
8,751
................... ..........
2,374
................ ................ ................. ..........................
2015
.......... ............... .............
6,530
.................................................................
2.4%
...............
8,751
....................... ..........................................................
2,221
...................... ...........
2016
6,462
-1.04%
8,751
2,289
Source: Florida Kels Aqueduct Authority, 2017
Mal
hYear
- 2015
wActual
w
Water
,I I
Water
Expected
Demand-
Demand -
Municipality
Unincorporated
I
IIIII �1
y of ii�rathon
. 633,000
526,344,800 II
659,497,'30MI
660,130,306 '.
u
City of Key Colony
iI
100,606,000
126,056,885126,062,785
City of Layton
13.333 99
w
r
FLORIDA KEYAQUEDUCT
•.table Water Demand
Demand,New Water Demand,.- Demand
.,
Y .
Year r�l r7
Water
WaterNew
Metered
Actual Water
Expected Water
Service -
- w
GllonsNear
Demand-
Demand-
Munici•.Gallons/Year■
r
Gall.
Gallons/Year
I P �1
NI Unincorporated
Monroe County
� �� ■.
3,351,500
2,153,059,242
II II
� �� I�� I�
2,751,334,717
��
■iiCity of IKey West
11 " 1 /
1,659,349,580
l 1 � IC III
,
2,121,237,627City
of Marathon
4.9I0
M31.1192VALS 1
.G G;ll�ll 11
663,833,988
City of • •n
1
108,161,726
®I. IIII
138,297,371
City of Layton1
11
I 11,630,134
0C4
• • .•�
�1 IIi
• 1
630,427,920
3
:1 .1. .
06r1 6
FloridaCity Entire Keys
6,127,700
1
6,489,569,000
6,495,696,700
I
8,751,000.000
111 1r1
Mr
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
Water Supply Available vs. Water Demand Projections
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 2016, the FKAA distributed
an annual average day of 17.12 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer plus 0.54 MGD from Floridan
RO Production. This next table also provides the water treatment capacities of the RO plants.
Since the emergency RO plants utilize seawater, a WUP is not required for these facilities.
41
Projected Water Demand in 2017 (in MG)
FKA'A',,PL WOf ThrOth"bilds" ehittrid,,", 'ProJ6ct4d,:,'
Annual Allocation
Average Daily Demand
23.98
17.66
17.99
Maximum Monthly Demand
809.01
594.5
604.11
Annual Demand
8,751
6,462
6,566
Biscayne Aquifer Annual Allocation/Limitations
Average Daily Demand
17.79
17.12
17.79
Average Dry Season Demand*
17.00
16.82
Annual Demand
6,492
6,250
6,366
Floridan RO Production
Average Daily Demand
6.00
0.54
0.2
Emergency RO VAITP Facilities
Kermit L. Lewin Design Capacity
2.00 (MGD)
0.00 (MGY)
0.00
Marathon RO Design Capacity
1.00 (MGD)
0.00 (MGY)
0.00
All figures are in millions of gallons (MG)
*Dry Season is defined as December 2015 through April 2016
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2017
Preliminary 2016 figures and projections for 2017 indicate a slight increase in annual average
daily demand from 17.66 MGD to 17.99 and an increase in maximum monthly demand from
594.5 MG to 604.11 MG.
EN
The following table provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional
Population and average daily demand, the average water consumption for 2016 was approximately 112
gallons per capita (person) — within the adopted LOS of 132.00 gal./capita/day.
Figure 3.6 - Per Capita Water Use
o' rl'Z � "P'. ........ .
poka 'on''- oiy'anJ,pmiyio rira lk 40Z
2001
153,552
15,415,616
100
2002
154,023
16,962,082
110
2003
154,495
17,228,192
112
2004
154,924
17,652,596
114
2005
156,150
17,730,000
114
2006
155,738
17,287,671
ill
2007
155,440
16,017,315
103
2008
154,728
16,285,383
105
2009
155,441
16,345,205
105
2010
155,288
16,210,959
104
2011
156,054
17,334,247
ill
2012
156,391
16,508,197
106
2013
156,727
16,836,164
107
2014
157,063
17,472,362
ill
2015
157,400
17,890,411
114
2016
157,730
17,655,738
112
Source: 1. Monroe County Population Projections - Monroe County Planning Department, 2011
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2017
Improvements to Potable Water Facilities
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
Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of approximately 58,000
feet of water main during fiscal year 2014.
The master plan was revised in 2013 to include the critical projects as summarized in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.7 also provides the schedule and costs projected for the capital improvements to the
potable/alternative water systems planned by the FKAA. The total cost of the scheduled
improvements is approximate $34 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be funded
by the water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants.
43
Figure 3.7 - FKAA Projected 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan
Water Supply
L Water Treatment
Transmission Mains &
Booster Pump Stations
Distribution Mains
5,450,000
$8,300,000
$6,200,000
i
32,000,000
Facilities & Structures
$1,253,000
Rec aimed Water
Systems
$2,750,000
Navy Water Systems
L--L
The County's 2016 average daily water demand was 17.66 MGD, with a projected 2017 average daily
water demand of 17.99 MGD. This provides a 5.99 MGD surplus water allocation based upon the
projected 2017 demand. With the construction of the new water supply wells and reverse osmosis
(RO) water treatment facility and a projected surplus allocation, there is an adequate supply of
water to meet current and future demands, based on current conditions and projections.
WA
The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 10 traditional and 6 charter 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 labs, bus service and a cafetorium. Seven (7) cafetoriums serve 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.
The Monroe County school system is divided into three (3) sub -districts (see map below). School
concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in planning and
permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates.
Sub -district I covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes
the islands that make tip Islarnorada 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.
W
The Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate is 10,026 students and the Capital
Outlay of Full -Time Equivalent (COFTE) is 7,027. The actual utilization during 2015 — 2016
was 70.09%.
LOCATION
ACTUAL
2 5-2016
FISH CAPACITY
ACTUAL
201.4-2015
COFTE
ACTUAL
2 1.5-2016
UTILIZATION
CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH
981
723
74.00%
KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH
1,431
1,154
81.00%
HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE
1,124
985
88.00%
MARATHON SENIOR HIGH
1,370
654
48.00%
GERALD ADAMS
585
477
82.00%
PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL
602
406
67.00%
POINCIANA ELEMENTARY
672
622
93.00%
SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY
1,1.30
540
48.00%
STANLEY SWITLIK
ELEMENTARY
858
518
60.00%
KEY LARGO SCHOOL
1,243
795
64.00%
MAY SANDS SCHOOL
30
156
519.00%
GLYNN ARCHER ELEMENTARY
0
0
0.00%
BIG PINE ACADEMY
0
0
0.00%
TOTAL
10,026
7,027
70.09 %®
The projected COFTE for 2019-2020 is 6,775 students with 67.57 % of utilization.
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 2015-2016 Monroe County School District Work Plan include HVAC, flooring,
paint, roofing, safety to life, electrical, parking, fencing, maintenance/repair, fire alarms,
telephone/intercom systems and closed circuit television for various schools. Other items include
concrete repairs, site work and drainage maintenance, plumbing, ADA updates, elevator repair,
carpentry and small construction projects and maintenance and repair.
The 2015-2016 Monroe County School District expenditures from local funding sources were
$23,765,689. Additional revenue sources include proceeds from 1/2 cent sales surtax at
$17,232,283 and funds carried forward at $21,989,349 were available for this period.
The total project costs for construction, maintenance, repair and renovation during 2014-2015
was $24,355,049. The projected revenue/expenditures for new construction and remodeling
projects only, for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are $25,307,782 and $29,433,655, respectively.
SUMMARY
Enrollment figures for the 2015-2016 school year indicate that there is adequate capacity in the
Monroe County school system. The overall 2015-2016 utilization is 70.09% 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 80 1. 1. 1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 11.41 pounds
per capita per day. Policy 801.4.2 establishes within three (3) years after the adoption of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall implement a county -wide, mandatory recycling
program for residential and commercial locations. 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 five 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, requires that "Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site at a
level of service of 11.4-1 pounds per capita per day.The county solid waste and resource recovery
authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under F.S. Section 163.01, to dispose of
solid waste outside of the county" (LDC, Section I 14-2(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 proposed
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).
M
The table below summarizes historical solid waste generation for the service area.
Solid Waste Generation in Tons per Year
FY
FDEP Total
Recycling
Disposal
1998
N/A
N/A
N/A
1999
N/A
N/A
NIA
2000
158,327
59,798
131,825
2001
125,893
51,435
96,075
2002
134,950
68,738
113,071
2003
134,734
34,619
113,427
2004
112,102
13,757
11.0,333
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
1.1.6,884
12,099
95,327
2010
156,465
33,071
123,394
2011
125,402
27,808
97,594
2012
145,889
38,985
106,904
2013
1.73,774
57,272
116,502
2014
177,312
61,421
115,891
2015
276,710
110,140
166,570
2016
353,658
200,845
152,813
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011; Monroe County Public Works 2013
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2015& 2016 Annual Report
Data collection calendar year is January 1 to December 31.
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 County's calendar years, thus
creating a differential in datum between departments.
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 higher. These higher values do not correspond to normal
solid waste generation trends within the County and in actuality result from a cluster of outliers.
The outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions (greater consumption of goods and
services) and storm events that cause a significant amount of over generation due to debris.
Furthermore, during the period of 2007-2008, an economic recession affected solid waste
generation, significantly reducing standard trends for generation growth.
The tourism industry in the Florida Keys is another large factor in solid waste generation that needs
to be accounted for in projected demands calculations. The Monroe County Tourist Development
Council estimated 4.3 million county -wide tourist visits occurred in 2011. The County and tourist
population are expected to continue increasing, which will impact solid waste generation within the
County.
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, Inc. (WMI) trucks for haul out. Recyclable materials, including white goods, tires,
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. Based on the information obtained by
Florida Department of Environmental Protection solid waste management this goal was met.
Solid Waste Transfer Facility Sizes and Capacities
Transfer Facility
Acreage
Capacity
Cudjoe Key Transfer Station
20.2 acres
200 tons/day
Long Key Transfer Station
29.5 acres
400 tons/day
Key Largo Transfer Station
15.0 acres
200 tons/day
Source: Waste Management Inc., 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 consumption of goods, composting,
mulching or other sustainability efforts. Additional factors which are less easily quantifiable could
also affect solid waste generation. The amount of construction taking place in the County, and 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 vegetative growth, and therefore affects
the amount of yard waste generated. Drier years could result in less total waste generation.
The analysis below represents a general trend of solid waste generation with respect to functional
population growth. 'The LOS creates a conservative rate of solid waste generation in comparison
to the increasing trend of solid waste generation between the years 1998-2000, thus predicting a
comparative or slightly higher annual solid waste production in relation to population. Limitations
on future 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.
all
Solid Waste Generation Trends
GENERATION
POPULATION
Year
(Tons/Yr)
Permanent
Seasonal
Functional
(LBS/CAP/DAY)
2000
1.58,327
36,036
33,241
69,277
1.2.52
2001
125,893
36,250
33,263
69,513
9.92
2002
134,950
36,452
33,285
69,737
10.6
2003
134,734
36,543
33,307
69,850
10.57
2004
1.1.2,102
36,606
33,329
69,935
8.78
2005
212,470
37,164
33,351
70,515
1.6.51
2006
200,338
36,466
34,019
70,485
1.5.57
2007
134,467
35,749
34,568
70,317
10.48
2008
130,245
34,788
35,550
70,338
10.15
2009
116,884
36,268
35,043
71,31.1
8.98
2010
156,465
35,368
35,440
70,808
12.10
2011.
125,402
35,917
35,249
71,166
9.7
2012
1.45,889
39,371
35,438
74,089
11.65
2013
173,774
35,806
35,658
71,464
12.94
2014
1.77,312
35,751
35,862
71,613
13.12
2015.
276,710
35,696
36,067
71,763
20.43
2016.
353,658
35,632
36,277
71,909
25.48
Sources:
1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2. Monroe County 2012-2030 Monroe County Population Projections, Keith & Schnars, and Fishkind
& Associates, 3-15-11 (Unincorporated Population -Table 9)
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management (WMI). The contract authorizes the use
of in -state facilities through September 30, 2024; thereby, providing the County with
approximately eight (8) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste
generation for 2015-2016.
51
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. 1.1
of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service Standard
The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated
Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the
provisions of resource- and activity -based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided
equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are:
0.82 acres of resource -based recreation area per 1,000 functional population; and
0.82 acres of activity -based recreation area per 1,000 functional population
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
Existing
Demand in
Surplus or
Parks and Recreation
Functional
Acreage
ge
Acreage
(Deficit) in
Population 2010
Acreage
1.5 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, resourced-based
138,803
2,502
113.8
136.2
neighborhood and community parks
1.5 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, activity -based
138,803
4,343
113.8
320.2
neighborhood and community parks
Source: Monroe County Technical Docunient, 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 which are primarily Federal and State owned from the
resource -based lands results in approximately 250 acres remaining.
52
Level of Service Analysis For Activity -Based Recreation Areas
The Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan allows activity -based recreational land found at educational
facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. A total of 108.86 acres of
developed resourced-based and 117.23 acres of activity -based recreation areas are either owned
or leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board.
The 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 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.
MIDDLE KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 38.5-73
Mile
Classification (Acres)
Name
Location
Marker
Facilities
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
0.6
8
area, dog park, pier,
fishing, BBQ
Old 7-Mile Bridge
Monroe County
41-47
Fishing, Bicycling,
5
NA
Beaches
7-Mile Bridge
Pigeon Key
45
Historical structures
5
NA
6N
UPPER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 73-112
Mile
Classification (Acres)
Name
Location
Mark
Facilities
Resource
Activity
er
Garden Cove Park
Key Largo
106
Boat ramp
1.5
NA
Rowell's Waterfront
Picnic tables, benches,
Park
Key Largo
104.5
paddle -sports launch,
8
NA
swimming area
Murray Nelson
Boat basin, pier, dock, five
Waterfront Park
Key Largo
102
pavilions, restrooms, picnic
1.2
NA
tables, benches
Hibiscus Park
Key Largo
101.5
Vacant, inaccessible
0.5
NA
(Buttonwood Lane)
waterfront
Ball field, 3 basketball courts,
Friendship Park
Key Largo
101
picnic shelters, Play
NA
2.38
equipment, restrooms, trail
Key Largo
2 boat ramps, play equipment,
Community Park-
Key Largo
99.6
aquatic park, 3 swimming
1.5
13.6
Jacob's Aquatic
pools
Center
Sunset Point Park
Key Largo
95.2
Vacant, waterfront access,
1.2
0.9
boat ramp
Beach, two ball fields, play
Harry Harris County
Key Largo
equipment, swimming, boat
Park
(Tavernier)
93
ramp, BBQs, shuffleboard,
2
15.1
beach, picnic tables,
restrooms
Key Largo
Play Equipment, picnic,
Old Settlers Park
(Tavernier)
91.9
shelter, beach, butterfly
NA
3
garden
Burr Beach Park
Key Largo
91
Vacant, waterfront access
0.1
NA
(Sunny Haven)
Upper
Old State Ric. 4A
Matecumbe
82.5
Vacant
0.3
NA
Key
Old State Rte. 4A,
Upper
Hurricane
Matecumbe
81
Historical Marker
1.2
NA
Monument
Key
Anne's Beach,
Lower
Beach, swimming, bike path,
Lower Matecumbe
Matecumbe
73.5
picnic pavilions, boardwalk
6.1
6
Beach (5)
Key
54
LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5
Mile
Classification (Acres)
Name
Location
Mark
Facilities
Resource
Activity
er
Little Duck
Picnic pavilions, beach,
Veteran's Memorial
Key (Ohio
40
BBQs, boat ramp,
0.6
24.9
Park
Key)
swimming, beach,
restrooms *
Missouri Key/South
Missouri Key
39
Roadside pull -off, beach
3.5
NA
side US I
Pier, Playground., soccer
Big Pine Key Park
Big Pine Key
31
field, tennis &
5.5
4.6
basketball courts, shade
structures, restrooms
J. Watson Field
Historic House, 2 tennis
(Stiglitz Property)
Big Pine Key
30
courts, volleyball, play
1.2
2.4
(2)
equipment, baseball,
picnic, dog park
Play equipment, 3
Blue Heron Park
Big Pine Key
30
pavilions, basketball,
NA
5.5
volleyball,
Bob Evans/
Chamber of
Big Pine Key
30
Vacant
0.3
NA
Commerce
Benches, waterfront,
Palm Villa Park
Big Pine Key
30
play equipment,
NA
0.6
basketball
State Road 4
Little Torch
28
Boat ramps
0.1
NA
Key
Ramrod Key Park
Ramrod Key
27
Beach-', swimming
1.2
1.2
West Surnmerland
West
Park
Summerland
25
2 Boat ramps
31.8
NA
Key
Play equipment,
Saddlebunch
volleyball, picnic tables,
Bay Point Park
Key
15
trail, basketball, 2 tennis
NA
1.58
courts, pavilions, soccer
nets
Boca Chica Beach,
Boca Chica
11
Beach, picnic table
6
NA
SR 941 (3)
Key
Wilhelmina Harvey
Big Coppitt
10
Play equipment, path
NA
0.65
Park
Key
M
Mile
Classification (Acres)
Name
Location
Mark
Facilities
Resource
Activity
er
Gulfview Park,
Big Coppitt
9.7
Boat ramp
0.2
NA
Delmar Ave.
Key
Rockland Hammock
RoKckland
9
Vacant
2.5
NA
ey
Play equipment,
baseball & soccer fields,
Bernstein Park
Raccoon Key
4.5
tennis, basketball &
NA
11
volleyball courts,
restrooms
East Martello Park
Key West
1.5
Picnic, teen center,
14.56
NA
Island
Historic Fort, museum
1.6-inile beach,
concession area, 2 band
Higgs Beach Park,
Key West
shells, pier, picnic
C.B. Harvey, Rest
Island
I
pavilions and grills, 5
5
12.1
Beach
tennis courts, play area,
bike path, volleyball,
swimming, Dog Park
West Martello Park Key West I Historic Fort 0.8 NA
Island
Whitehead Street Key West I Historic Fort, Museum 0.8 NA
Lighthouse Island
Pines Park (S. Key West Picnic NA 1.72
Roosevelt) Island
(1) The total acreage (�fthe 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.
(4) Church to west of park has public access 2 basketball, volleyball, and bocce courts.
(5) Beach leased to Village of Islamorada
"Denotes approximate acreage,- (for beaches the length of*the beach x a minimum of 15fit.)
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
Acauisition of Additional Recreation Areas
The Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe
County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of resource -based and
activity -based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level qf'service
56
standards." The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be
accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6)
mechanisms that are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as
for providing adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result
from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are:
1. Development (�f park and recreational facilities on land which is already owned by
the county but which is not being used for park and recreation purposes;
2. Acquisition of new park sites on a limited basis;
3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board for use of existing
school -based park facilities by county residents;
4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County for use of
existing city -owned park facilities by county residents;
5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments for use
of existing publicly -owned lands or facilities by county residents; and
6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities for use of
private park facilities by county residents.
Objective 1201.2.3 Comprehensive Plan 2030- "Priority shall be given to locating new
neighborhood and community parks in communities which demonstrate the greatest deficiencies
in parks and recreation".
To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms — acquisition of new park sites
and interloca.] agreements with the School Board.
There County continues to maintain a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage).
57
Over the years several factors have contributed to the water quality degradation of the Florida
Keys, among them are stormwater run-off, changes in flow from Florida Bay and the Gulf of
Mexico, but one of the most influential contaminated factors is the past wastewater practices.
Wastewater from cesspits, septic tanks, injection wells and liveaboard vessels add nitrogen and
phosphorus to our waters breaking the ecological balance.
The development of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was the BOCC response toward
correcting our water quality problems. Their goal was to improve the water quality of canals and
confined nearsbore waters through a long-term strategy and bring back the clear waters that
characterize our coasts and are the source of tourist attraction.
The Monroe County Year 201.0 Comprehensive Plan adopted by the BOCC on April 1993
mandated nutrient loading levels be reduced in the keys marine ecosystem by the year 2010. In
1998, the Florida Governor issued Executive Order 98-309 which directed relevant agencies and
entities to coordinate with Monroe County to implement the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and
eliminate cesspits, failing septic tank systems, and revise the existing 246 treatment plants for
capacity and quality of treated wastewater. In 1999 the Florida Legislature set statutory effluent
standards and associated compliance schedules for wastewater treatment system in Monroe
County. These standards address treatment for several water quality constituents and require best
available technology (BAT) standards for flows less than 100,000 gallons per day. Adopted water
quality standards are listed below.
Water Quality Standards
BAT AWT
Constituent (mg/L) (mg/L)
Biological Oxygen Demand (GODS) 10 5
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 10 5
Total Nitrogen JN) 10 3
Total Phosphorus (TP) I I
Previously in 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Oceans and Coastal
Protection Divisions produced a report entitled "Water Quality Protection Program for the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary". The report provided a list of 84 water quality hot
spots with known or suspected water quality degradation. Later in 1999 Monroe County released
a new study entitled "Water Quality 'Hotspots'in the Florida Keys: Evaluation far Stormwater
Contributions", this study identified 88 hotspots. The definition of "Hot Spots" are areas of
known or suspected water quality degradation, with known and unknown unsafe sewage disposal
practices, that has to be eliminated and would receive a community wastewater collection and
treatment system within the next 10 years. In contrast with "Hot Spots", "Cold Spots" were
defined as areas where the on -site system would continue operating until the whole new system
is established.
The Florida Administrative Code created the Rule 28-20. 100, which was amended in 1.999 to the
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by the Governor and his cabinet. This rule provided a 5-Year
ME
Work Program to improve water quality emphasizing in the identification and elimination of
cesspools required by Objective 901.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Monroe
County adopted a new cesspool identification and elimination ordinance, Ordinance 031-1999,
which complies with the Work Program. This ordinance establishes an inspection and
compliance program for unknown and unpermitted on -site treatment and disposal sewage
(OSTDS). The intent of the ordinance is to require operating permits for the (up to) 7,900
existing at that time unpermitted OSTDS,
The Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was prepared by a multidisciplinary consultant team, under
the direction of the Monroe County Department of Marine Resources to determine the acceptable
levels of wastewater treatment and the strategy to follow to change the old wastewater collection
system for a new modern system in the County. The goals of the Master Plan is to provide
responsive, flexible and cost-effective solutions that improve wastewater management practices
throughout the keys and must satisfy environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines.
The implementation of the new wastewater system and the elimination of the old sewer practices
in Monroe County has taken years. The planning period used for developing this Master Plan is
the 20 years interval between 1998 and 2018. The transition process has been under the
supervision of Monroe County. Nowadays the new system is operating satisfactorily and only a
small percentage of households have not been hooked up to the new system.
At this time there are four entities providing sewer services in the unincorporated areas of the
County.
1. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA)
2. Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District
3. North Key Largo Utilities Corporation
4. Key West Resort Utilities
FKAA covers by far more areas of the County than any other operator. The list of their facilities
and general services areas are, from south to north:
® Key Haven Wastewater System- FKAA acquired this wastewater utility in 2009, which
serves this neighborhood only. FKAA is in the process of replacing most of this
collection system and the plan is to close this small wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
and redirect the flow to and expanded Big Coppit system. All 450 Equivalent Dwelling
Units (EDUs) have connected to the central system. This extended aeration wastewater
treatment plan is anticipated to be taken out of service by early 2019 and flows redirected
to the Big Coppit Wastewater Treatment Plant.
• Big Convitt Regional Wastewater S s e - The construction of this new wastewater
system with funding provided by Monroe County began in January 2007 and include
services to Rockland Key, Big Coppitt Key, Geiser Key and Shark Key. Connections to
the system began in August 2009. Currently, 1,584 of 1,738 EDUs (9 1 %) have connected
the Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) system. A number of the remaining
unconnected properties no longer have dwelling units on site, then the percentage of
unconnected properties appears greater than actual. This wastewater treatment plant will
be expanded to accept flows from Key Haven and Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW)
wastewater system.
we
® Bay Point Wastewater Svste - The FKAA began construction of the Bay Point
Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection system in 2004, to provide central wastewater
service to the Bay Point and Blue Water communities (Saddlebunch Keys). The first
wastewater connection began in 2005, today 423 EDUs of 438 EDUs (97%) have been
connected to this Best Available Technology (BAT) treatment plant.
• Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System- The construction of this wastewater system began
in January 2013 with funding provided by Monroe County. The new WWTP has a
capacity of 940,000 gpd. Today Lower Sugarloaf Key, Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key,
Surnmerland Key, Ramrod Key and Little Torch Key and a majority portion of Big Pine
Key have been completed and residents have received notifications to connect.
Approximately 8,387 EDUs have been invited to connect and of those 3,291 EDUs have
completed their connection (39%). In May 2015, Monroe County directed the FKAA to
expand boundaries of the central wastewater system to include Middle Torch Key, Big
Torch Key, and No Name Key. These areas are expected to be completed layout in 2017
and will contribute approximately 130 additional EDUs.
• Duck Key Regional Wastewater System- The FKAA became owner and operator of the
Hawk's Cay WWTP in May 2006. The wastewater treatment plant with funding provided
by Monroe County underwent an extensive redesign in 2011 and was upgraded to the
rigorous AWT standards. Additionally, the collection system was expanded to serve the
remaining residents of Duck Key. The last phase of upgrades was completed in
September 2013. The WWTP has the capacity to serve Conch Key, Little Conch Key,
Waker's Island, Hawk's Cay Resort and Duck Key with 275,000 gpd. Currently, 1,383
EDU's of 1,471 EDUs (94%) have connected to the system.
• Layton Wastewater System- The FKAA began construction of the Layton Wastewater
System in 2005, to provide central wastewater services to the city of Layton and Long
Key State Park with a capacity of 66,000 gpd. Connection to the system began in 2006
and currently, all 351 EDUs (100%) are connected to the system. Subsequent expansion
of the Layton service area to incorporate the remaining east and west ends of Long Key is
currently nearing completion. This expansion will add approximately 93 EDUs to the
system.
Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Plant and District- This system serves Islamorada and
unincorporated Monroe County areas from Tavernier Creek to Card Sound Road. The plant
capacity is 3,450,000 gpd and does meet LOS for wastewater treatment quality. The District
began taking flow from Islamorada on June 16, 2014, the flow from Islamorada has increased up
to 550,000 gpd by March 2017. As parcels in Islamorada continue to connect flow will increase.
The combined average flows from Islamorada and Key Largo for the last 365 days has been
1,3 10,000 gpd. In the District service area (does not include Islamorada) there are 10, 176 EDUs
(98%) have been connected to the system and 168 are not connected.
North Key Largo Utilities Corporation- This private utility serves the Ocean Reef Community.
This WWTP was constructed with Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) technology with a
capacity of 499,000 gpd. The volume of sewage the plant is processing at this time is 250,000
gpd. All dwelling units of the community have been connected to the system with a total of 1,620
EDUs (100%).