Resolution 248-2020 1
2t�)
3
/ l
4 1
5 `
6
7 � 4,
8
10 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
12 RESOLUTION NO. 248 -2020
13
14 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
15 COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE 2018-2019 MONROE COUNTY
16 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT AS
17 SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND
18 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
19
20 WHEREAS, Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires Monroe
21 County to provide and maintain, in timely and efficient manner, adequate public facilities for both
22 existing and future populations, consistent with available financial resources and other elements
23 of the Comprehensive Plan; and
24
25 WHEREAS, the biennial assessment of public facilities capacity is mandated by Chapter
26 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC):
27
28 1. LDC Section 114-2,Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures, contains two major
29 sets of requirements: The minimum service standards for the four primary public
30 facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and a biennial assessment
31 process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. LDC Section
32 114-2 includes an equitable procedure for issuing permits when the rate of growth is
33 likely to outpace the current capacity of these public facilities; and
34
35 2. LDC Section 114-2(b)3 requires the Planning Director to prepare a biennial report to
36 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on the capacity of
37 available public facilities; and
38
39 3. LDC Section 114-2(b) (4)requires the BOCC to consider this report and approve its
40 findings either with or without modifications. In the event the BOCC acts to increase
41 the development capacity of any service area, the BOCC shall make specific findings
42 of fact as to the reasons for the increase, including the source of funds to be used to
43 pay for the additional capacity; and
44
45 WHEREAS, once approved by the BOCC, the Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
46 Report becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will
47 be based for the next two years; and
48
1 of 3
I WHEREAS, the Monroe County Land Development Regulations require the BOCC to
2 adopt a biennial assessment of public facilities capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; and
3
4 WHEREAS, on July 15, 2020, at their regular meeting, the BOCC discussed the Draft
5 2019 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, and directed staff to prepare the Biennial
6 Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Reportwith the current 2017 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time
7 and Delay Study and to request to re-engage the US 1 Level of Service (LOS) Task Force to
8 evaluate the LOS methodology and consider updates to it; and
9
10 WHEREAS,the BOCC makes the following additional findings of fact:
11
12 1. The 2018-2019 biennial assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for
13 roads, solid waste,potable water, sanitary sewer,parks and recreation, and educational
14 facilities; and
15
16 2. The 2018-2019 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the official
17 assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed and
18 approved for the upcoming two years; and
19
20 3. Section 114-2 of the Land Development Regulations provides the minimum standards
21 for level of service (LOS) for roads, solid waste, potable water and educational
22 facilities; and
23
24 4. Section 114-2 of the Land Development Regulations requires the biennial assessment
25 of public facilities capacity to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe
26 County with adequate, inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities; and
27
28 5. U.S. 1 has an overall level of service of C and an overall travel speed of 46 MPH based
29 on the 2017 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS; and
30
31 6. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority water use permit allows an average daily
32 allocation of 23.98 MGD. The County's average daily water demand in 2018 was 17.64
33 MGD and the projected 2019 average daily water demand is 18.2 MGD,providing 5.78
34 MGD surplus water allocation based on the projected 2019 demand; and
35
36 7. Enrollment figures for the 2019-2020 through 2023-2024 school years indicate that
37 there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2019-
38 2020 utilization is 68.51% of the school system capacity; and
39
40 8. Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract
41 authorizes the use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2024,thereby providing
42 the County with approximately four (4) more years of guaranteed capacity. There is
43 adequate capacity for solid waste generation for 2020-2021; and
44
45 9. There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage); and
46
47 10. The 2018-2019 biennial assessment finds that transportation/roadways (subject to
48 concurrency review at time of development permit), potable water, solid waste,
2of3
1 schools,parks and recreation, and sanitary sewer all have adequate capacity to serve
2 the growth anticipated in 2020-2021 at the adopted level of service standard;
3
4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
5 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA:
6
7 Section 1. Recitals and Legislative Intent. The foregoing recitals, findings of fact,
8 and statements of legislative intent are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as if fully
9 stated herein.
10
11 Section 2. The 2018-2019 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
12 Report, attached as Exhibit "A." hereto and hereby incorporated as if fully stated herein, is
13 approved.
14
15 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
16 at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 16d'day of September 2020.
17
18 Mayor Heather Carruthers Yes
19 Mayor Pro Tern Michelle Coldiron Yes
20 Craig Cates Yes
21 David Rice Yes
22 Sylvia J. Murphy Yes
23
24
25- - a ""Pi r. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
26 �" OF TONRO7rA
Mayor arruthers
31
32 YIN MADOK, CLERK
33 MONROE co ovrary
ro-
3 i 0 �..
PrEFI mama
35 By Byc. L/ ASSISTANT vonuonnrroaaei
36 As Deputy Clerk °"
2
0
z rn ..r
xc- rn
Tr
-n
5c- co
.
t- 2 rig,
-n r C)
.. o
D N
C O
3 of 3
Exhibit
2018-2019
MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
REPORT
;i w wP
f
Ot
9m 1 Vt---- � �
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORTATION
POTABLE WATER
SCHOOLS
SOLID WASTE
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER
Monroe County
Planning and Environmental Resources Department
1
Exhibit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................... 3
I. Growth Management....................................................................................................13
II. Transportation/Roadways .............................................................................................23
III. Potable Water................................................................................................................37
IV. Education/Schools.........................................................................................................44
V. Solid Waste...................................................................................................................46
VI. Parks and Recreation.....................................................................................................50
VII. Sanitary Sewer................................................................................................................58
2
E '
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires that 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), F.S.]
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 below 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 two years.
This report distinguishes between areas of adequate, inadequate and marginally adequate facility
capacity. Areas of inadequate facility capacity are those areas with capacity below the adopted
LOS standards. Areas of marginally adequate facility capacity are those areas at the adopted level
of service standard or which are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next 12 to 24
months.
2018-2019 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Roads
On July 15, 2020, at their regular meeting, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
discussed the Draft 2019 US1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, and directed staff to prepare
the Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report with the current 2017 US 1 Arterial
Travel Time and Delay Study and to request to re-engage the US 1 Level of Service Task Force to
evaluate the LOS methodology and consider updates to it.
Based on the findings of the 2017 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County,
as prepared by URS Corporation Southern Consultants,U.S. 1 has an overall level of service(LOS)
C. The overall median travel speed on US 1 is 46 MPH.
Traffic volumes decreased by approximately 0.32% compared to 2015.
Compared to the study results in 2015, there were level of service changes in eight (8) of the 24
segments of USl; four (4) of which resulted in positive level of service changes and four (4) of
which resulted in negative level of service changes. Negative LOS changes are shown in bold text
in the table below.
3
E bi
Jurisdiction 5%
Segment (county or 2015 2017 Reserve Trips Allocation
Number Segment municipality) LOS LOS Remaining below LOS C
4 Saddlebunch County C B 4,034 N/A
8 Ramrod County A B 2,133 N/A
12 7-Mile Bride 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 Matecumbe Islamorada D C 224 N/A
19 Upper Islamorada C D (883) 522
Matecumbe
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 41 (Stock Island
—MM 4.0 to MM 5.0); however, the LOS remained the same at B'.
The largest increase in speed(3.2 mph)was recorded on Segment 4 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 B' to `C'; the lower LOS is due to methodology procedures and
not a lower speed.
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 2018 figures and projections for 2019 indicate a slight increase in annual average
daily demand from 17.64 to 18.2 MGD. This provides a 5.78 MGD surplus water allocation based
upon the projected 2019 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.
Schools
The overall 2019-2020 utilization is 68.51% of the school system capacity and is projected for
2023-2024 at 68.85 %utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2019-2020 indicate
that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system.
Solid Waste
4
Exhibit
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.
Parks and Recreation
There is a surplus of parks 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
Transportation/roadways (subject to concurrency review at time of development permit), potable
water, solid waste, schools, parks and recreation, and sanitary sewer all have adequate capacity to
serve the growth anticipated in 2020-2021 at the adopted level of service standard.
5
Exhibit
INTRODUCTION
The 2018-2019 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
"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 101.1 states:
"Monroe County shall ensure that all development and redevelopment taking place within its
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.
6
Exhibit
PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS
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 301.1.1 establishes the LOS for County roads. The policy states:
"For all County roads, Monroe County hereby adopts a minimum peak hour level of service
(LOS)standard of D, 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"
Section 114-2(a)(1) of the LDC pertains to the minimum LOS standards for Roads:
(1) Transportation/Roadways.
a. U.S. 1 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. 1 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. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology,
which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. 1, shall have
sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C.
7
Exhibit
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. 1 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. 1 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
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.
Potable Water:
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), ES.,]
8
Exhibit
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(1)(b)., F.S., §163.3180(2)., F.S., §163.3177(3)(a)3., F.S.]
Level of Service Standards
1. Quantity:
100 gal./capita/day*
*Note Based on historical data through December 2011; provided by
FKAA, December 2012.
2. Minimum Pressure:
20 PSI at customer service
3. 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 801.1
Monroe County shall ensure that solid waste collection service and disposal capacity is
available to serve development at the adopted level of service standards. [§163.3180(1)(b).,
F.S.], [§163.3180(2)., F.S.]
Policy 801.1.1
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(1)(b)., F.S.],
[§163.3180(2)., F.S.]
Level of Service Standards:
Disposal Quantity: 11.41 pounds per capita per day
Schools:
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
9
E bi
County on the siting and expansion of required facilities. LDC Section 114-2(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 1201.1.1
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:
1. 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.
Abiennial 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.
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 901.1.1 of the Monroe County
Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 901.1.1
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(1)(b), F.S., §163.3180(2), F.S., §163.3177(6)(c)2.,
F.S.]
December 31, 2015, Level of Service Standards
(A)The permanent level of service standards for wastewater treatment in Monroe
County are as follows:
Mg/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 or equal to 100,000 gpd(AWT) 5 5 3 1
Source:Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan,2000.
10
Exhibit
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
Exhibit
PERMITTING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS
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
Islamorada and the City of Marathon.
Section 114-2(b)(2) defines the county's unincorporated public facilities service areas:
• Upper Keys Service Area: north of the Whale Harbor Bridge;
• Middle Keys Service Area: between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor Bridge;
and
• Lower Keys Service Area: south (west) of the Seven Mile Bridge.
The map shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized.
MONROE COUNTY ,_
[MAPp.
The Upper Keys
MM 112-91
The Middle Keys
� MM 91-47
4 'q,ZT
7 a
The Lower Keys
MM 47-4
P-
4r
L GROWTH MANAGEMENT
12
E '
GROWTH ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the projected growth of Monroe County's permanent, seasonal
and functional population, occupied and vacant housing data, Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)
and Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) allocations and Building Department
permit data.
CENSUS DATA
The U.S. Census Bureau released 2010 demographic information related to population, housing
on March 17, 2011. The following tables provide summary information for Monroe County and
the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been included for
comparison purposes.
The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) declined by 8%
(-6,499 people) from the year 2000 to 2010. Total housing 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 Census Change %
2000 2010 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 Key Colony Beach 788 797 +9 1.14%
City of Layton 186 184 -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 -6,499 -8.17%
HOUSING 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) 51,617 52,764 +1,147 2.22%
Total housing units (Uninc. County&Cities) 51,617 52,764 +1,147 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 (Uninc. County&Cities) 32.02% 38.16%
POPULATION ESTIMATES
13
E '
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 2010 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.
UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATES AND
PROJECTIONS, 2010-2030
Unincorporated Functional Population
Total
Year Lower Keys Middle Keys Upper Keys 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 15, 2011, Keith and
Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates
The population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a loss of permanent
population. The data 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.
14
E '
HOUSING
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 2014-2018
American Community Survey.
HOUSING UNITS BY STATUS AND TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE
2014-2018
Monroe County-Unincorporated And Incorporated Areas
HOUSING OCCUPANCY Estimates Percent
Total housing units 53,423 100.00%
Occupied housing units 30,982 58.0%
Vacant housing units 22,441 42.0%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE Estimates Percent
Total housing units 53,423 100.00%
1-unit, detached 28,343 53.1%
1-unit, attached 3,178 5.9%
2 units 2,661 5.0%
3 or 4 units 2,906 5.4%
5 to 9 units 2,688 5.0%
10 to 19 units 2,445 4.6%
20 or more units 4,213 7.9%
Mobile home 6,849 12.8%
Boat, RV, van, etc. 140 0.3%
HOUSING TENURE Estimates Percent
Occupied housing units 30,982 100.00%
Owner-occupied 18,465 59.6%
Renter-occupied 12,517 40.4%
Average household size of owner-occupied unit 2.31
Average household size of renter-occupied unit 2.51
Source: US Census 2018 American Community Survey
15
Exhibit
RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO)
Based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016-1992 on June 23, 1992, 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 016-92).
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.
On January 22, 2020, the BOCC adopted Ordinances 005-2020 and 006-2020, amending
Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.2 and Land Development Code Section 138-24 to extend the
time period of the ROGO system through 2026 by distributing the final three (3) years of market
rate ROGO allocations over a 6-year period. For ROGO Years 29, 30, and 31, (July 13, 2020 —
16
Exhibit
July 12, 2023), the number of market rate allocations is reduced to 64 per year, rather than 126.
For ROGO Years 32, 33, and 34, (July 13, 2023 — July 12, 2026), the number of market rate
allocations will be 62 per year.
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, 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, the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the 197 annual
allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations were assigned to this subarea.
BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEYS
Efforts to address the development impacts on the habitat of the Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh
Rabbit and the Eastern Indigo Snake on Big Pine Key/No Name Key started in the mid-1980s. In
1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation (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(4TE08341 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 ITP ensures that
development bears its fair share of required mitigation and that the take of the covered species is
minimized and mitigated.
17
E '
RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO)ANALYSIS
UNINCORPORATED COUNTY MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE ROGO
HISTORICAL DATA YEARS 1-27
Market Rate Affordable
Market Rate Affordable
ROGO Housing ROGO
ROGO Housing ROGO
ROGO Year Allocations Awarded Allocations Awarded*
Available Available
Year 1
(July 14, 1992—July 13, 204 204 52 11
1993)
Year 2
(July 14, 1993 —July 13, 243 231 52 9
1994)
Year 3
(July 14, 1994—July 13, 246 249 52 10
1995)
Year 4
(July 14, 1995—July 13, 245 263 52 40
1996)
Year 5
(July 14, 1996—July 13, 215 218 52 23
1997)
Year 6
(July 14, 1997—July 13, 211 197 77 56
1998)
Year 7
(July 14, 1998 —July 12, 101 102 30 9
1999)
Year 8
(July 13, 1999—July 14, 127 136 109 66
2000)
Year 9
(July 13, 2000—July 14, 127 129 224 203
2001)
Year 10
(July 14, 2001 —July 15, 102 102 31 58
2002)
Year 11
(July 16, 2002—July 14, 127 127 31 31
2003)
Year 12 127 127 31 21
(July 13, 2003—July 14, 2004)
Year 13
(July 14, 2004—July 13, 96 96 29 16
2005)
Year 14
(July 14, 2005—July 13, 126 126 236 271
2006)
Year 15
(July 14, 2006—July 13, 126 129 49 17
2007)
18
E '
Year 16
(July 14, 2007—July 14, 126 126 68 100
2008)
Year 17
(July 15, 2008—July 13, 206 242 67 36
2009)
Year 18
(July 14, 2009—July 12, 126 128 71 0
2010)
Year 19
(July 13, 2010—July 12, 126 119 71 0
2011)
Year 20
(July 13, 2011 —July 13, 126 92 71 4
2012)
Year 21
(July 13, 2012—July 13, 126 43 71 0
2013)
Year 22
(July 13, 2013 —July 13, 126 90 71 9
2014)
Year 23
(July 13, 2014—July 13, 126 106 71 1
2015)
Year 24
(July 13, 2015—July 13, 126 126 71 45
2016)
Year 25
(July 12, 2016—July 12, 126 126 742 6
2017)
Year 26
(July 13, 2017—July 12, 126 126 587 12
2018)
Year 27
(July 13, 2018—July 12, 126 124 565 1
2019)
4,015 3,886 NSA 1,055*
Totals (not cumulative)
*Does not include Affordable Housing ROGO allocations reserved by the BOCC.
Source:Monroe Countv 2010-2030 Technical Document&Data from Quarterly ROGO Result Reports for Years
18-27;and ROGO yearly tracking data.
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 upon expiration of the issued
permit. The historical data presented in the table above do not include allocations issued in Key
West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, Islamorada, or Marathon.
NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO)
19
E '
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 Vested Development
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:
ROGO subarea Annual NROGO allocation
Upper 22,944 SF
Lower 21,749 SF
Big Pine/No Name 2,390 SF
Total 47,083 SF
NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO)ANALYSIS
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 27 (2019) is shown below.
20
Exhibit
NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED MONROE
COUNTY YEAR 14 (2006) TO YEAR 27 (2019)
E cluding Big Pine & No Name Key)
Year Amount Available Total Allocations Awarded
Year 14 (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) 47, 083 sq/ft 7,395 sq/ft
Year 23 (2015) 47, 083 sq/ft 2,484 sq/ft
Year 24 (2016) 47, 083 sq/ft 1,756 sq/ft
Year 25 (2017) 47, 083 sq/ft 3,558 sq/ft
Year 26 (2018) 47, 083 sq/ft 15,678 sq/ft
Year 27 (2019) 47, 083 sq/ft 11,092 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 15 2007 -YEAR 27 2019
Year Available Number of Total Allocations
Applicants 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 1,011sq/ft
Year 23 (2015) 2,390 sq/ft 2 728 sq/ft
Year 24 (2016) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
Year 25 (2017) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
Year 26 (2018) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
Year 27 (2019) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
21
Exhibit
BUILDING PERMIT DATA
There were 5,393 dwelling units that received a building permit from January 1,2000,to December
31, 2019. Of these units, approximately 86.2 percent were single family homes and 8.0 percent
were mobile homes and recreational vehicles (RV). An average of 270 new and replacement
dwelling units per year were permitted from 2000 to 2019. Of the 5,393 dwelling unit permits issued,
2,201 were the result of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the 5,393 dwelling units permits issued, a
total of 4,890 dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy.
RESIDENTIAL/TRANSIENT BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
JANUARY 1, 2000-DECEMBER 31, 2019
Mobile Total Permits
Single Multi Hotel/ Issued Received
Year Family Duplex Family Home/ Motel Permits 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- 200 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- 241 0 54 29 0 324 105 288
December 31,2004
January 1,2005- 361 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
January 1,2017- 199 0 28 4 1 232 67 232
December 31,2017
January 1,2018- 302 0 9 7 0 318 64 226
December 31,2018
22
Exhibit
January 1,2019- 293 0 1 5 0 299 70 319
December 31,2019
TOTAL 4,651 9 236 429 68 5,393 2,201 4,890
Source:Monroe County Growth Management,April 2020
A total of 3,880 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 to December 31, 2019. The highest
demolition rate occurred in years 2018 and 2019 with 693 units demolished,presumably in response
to damage incurred by Hurricane Irma in September, 2017. An average of 195 dwelling units were
demolished per year between 2000 and 2019. 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 157
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
January 1, 2017- December 31, 2017 262
January 1, 2018- December 31, 2018 348
January 1, 2019- December 31, 2019 345
TOTAL 3,889
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, April 2020
23
E '
II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
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. 1
to remain at a LOS C or higher and that all county roads to remain at a LOS D or higher. The
Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary
roads within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT)is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1.
Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies of U.S. 1 on an annual or biennial
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
2017, on behalf of the Monroe County Planning Department with assistance from the agencies
identified above. In 2019, data for the biennial US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study was
collected by AECOM, the County's current transportation consultant, and a draft report was
submitted to the County.
On July 15, 2020, at their regular meeting, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) discussed the Draft 2019 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study. Based on
methodology considerations identified by AECOM, the BOCC directed staff to prepare the
Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report with the current 2017 US 1 Arterial
Travel Time and Delay Study and to request to re-engage the US 1 Level of Service Task Force to
evaluate the LOS methodology and consider updates to it.
The following are the travel time/delay data and findings from the 2017 US 1 Arterial Travel Time
and Delay Study.
The U.S.1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study's primary objective is to monitor the level of
service on U.S. 1 for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes
and Section 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Code. The study utilizes an empirical
relationship between the volume-based capacities and the speed-based LOS methodology
developed for U.S. 1 in Monroe County, by the U.S. 1 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. 1 fall below the adopted level of service thresholds; segment
level failure results 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 data collection and the results of this study are significant.
U.S. 1 (the Overseas Highway)is the only principal arterial serving people and visitors in the Keys.
The unique geography, land use patterns and trip making characteristics of the Florida Keys
present a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable method to assess LOS.
Although U.S. 1 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.
24
Exhibit
A uniform method was developed in 1993 and amended December 1997 by the U.S. 1 Level of
Service Task Force to assess the level of service on U.S. 1. The adopted method considers both
the overall level of service from Key West to the mainland and the level of service on 24 selected
segments (See Table 1). The methodology was developed from basic criteria and principles
contained in Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two-Lane Highways) and
Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of Highway Capacity Manual. The methodology
establishes a procedure for using travel speeds as a means of assessing the level of service and
reserve capacity of U.S. 1 in the unique setting of the Florida Keys.
The travel speeds for the entire 108-mile stretch of U.S. 1 and the 24 individual segments are
established by conducting travel time runs during the peak season. The peak season, for the
purpose of this study, has been 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. 1 is the only principal arterial in
unincorporated Monroe County, the movement of long distance traffic is an important
consideration.
Monroe County has 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. 1 regardless of the posted speed limits. Under
the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for U.S. 1 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.
1 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 during the next biennial study or
until remedial actions are implemented.
U.S. 1 Segments and Mile Markers
Segment Mile Segment Segment Mile Segment
Number Marker Name Number Marker 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 j 17 j 73-77.5 1 Lower Matecumbe
6 20.5-23 Cudjoe 18 77.5-79.5 Tea Table
25
Exhibit
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
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, 2017, and March 11, 2017. Fourteen (14) round trips were made to successfully
complete the twenty-eight(28)required northbound and southbound runs. These runs represent a
sample of two runs of each day of the week. Every one of the twenty-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, 2017, to March 12, 2017, concurrently with the travel
time runs.
Traffic Volumes
U.S. 1 is predominately a four-lane facility in Marathon and a two-lane facility in Upper
Matecumbe and Big Pine Key. Seven-day continuous traffic counts recorded at three locations
along U.S. 1 yielded the following average daily traffic (ADT) and annual average daily traffic
(AADT)volumes for 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) volumes 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 Matecumbe
compared to 2015 data. The seasonal and axle factor recorded by FDOT has not changed from
2015. A comparison of data from the most recent seven studies is presented in a table and a graph
on pages 27 and 28, respectively.
U.S. 1 historical traffic growth is depicted in a regression analysis graph on page 29. 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.
26
o (0 O M V 00 O ORLO N 00
V N N O
C N 'IT 00 Cl) O N N V
� O 117 O M N O � — O
O _ _ LO
U N N O Cl) Cl) Cl)am N N N
Q
Q
o 0 0 0 L 0 'I L 0
o (0 OO O
D N OD Cl?
V N V r Cr
L 06 O N Cl) O � O M y
U
o
N
M O Cl) N 'IT
V � — O +�
oc OD N O oc O
U N N N OMD OMD Cl) N N N
O �C Cl) O OD O OD C) O
o M Cl) V Cl) O (C) r N
L O N O O O O P') I� co
N� Cl) U U
N N COO Cl) � OMD Lt1 O CEO N
O O O O P- Cfl N
U N N M Cl) N N N N
O
o M 00 Cl) N � O � � � O
UN N Cfl Cfl Ln O O
N_
O
N
OO � 'IT 00 O O M O
O v O O N LO O O
O
U Cl)N N O am Cl) N N N N
ICI
o M OOD N OOD Ln O Ln O N O
OD I� O O N O
U o 0 0 0 0 r_: oo r_:
O
N
O O O V Cfl � N (C) O �
(C) r- 00LO O 00N O
0 � O O O O
r l U N N Cl) M N N N N
V
r o 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0
I—jAI o M � CNO � � V N O COO
F/\iyyl O CO O
_r_ N N Cp Cfl L6 L6 N �j
o U
H o
N _
in v Cl) 00 'IT 00 v v OD vv U N N M Cl) N N N O
C OD pp V O OD I.- C) Cl)
o M N N O I.- O V O N
O N O C15 O N
rn U
O
O
N
'ITO 0OD Cl N O O N
IN Cfl Cfl N O O O LO
U N N O Cl) Cl) N N N O
G!
yd
0. Gl d I
z_sl LOQ r- Q its.. LOQ r- Q LOQ r-
Q
Q °°
N
X
LU E
O
N Q
d
q
'E
Q
d
h
m
Lf) h
C3
Q
ti
� I
0
N
A�
O
U
O
x
A) OL
H .0
A - m
v�
� a
T
CA
Q cm) C) a iD CDCD
Ck n n n C) C) C)
o 0 0 c3 0
CIA (Ni
.LGV d- gwnlOA OUJEJI
¥
G
Q
w r o y /
%
� m /
■ " 3 Q
: N \
j C f }
\ �
do \
i | i /
i �■ � � 3 [
� !
G
` -
CD \
CN \
k \
� ¥ �
� j � �■ j � � / .
I I § /
I | I @ § &
q / [
� � � ■� � � � � / }
] ) /
A
04
g � � ■ ) � � � � � f
/
ID EN
% � CL
� � ■ � � � � \ ■ } e / \
w cCL
% ( co9 2
-
� � ■ �
—
i � � ■ � i � | $
R R / CD
q R 8 R R
C 7 7 C q Ct q q q
/ m R \ \ N q q f T-
Ramer 10vv
Overall Speeds
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of US 1 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. 1 is the only principal arterial in Monroe County,
the movement of through traffic is an important consideration.
The levels of service (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. 1 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
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.
Segment Speeds
Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The segments were
defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross-sections, speed limits, and geographical
boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S.
1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important
consideration on this multipurpose highway.
The level of service criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 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.
Interrupted Flow
LOS AZ 35 mph
LOS BZ 28 mph
LOS CZ 22 mph
LOS DZ 17 mph
LOS EZ 13 mph
LOS F< 13 mph
30
Exhibit
Uninterrupted Flow
LOS A1.5 mph above speed limit
LOS B1.5 mph below speed limit
LOS C4.5 mph below speed limit
LOS D7.5 mph below speed limit
LOS E 13.5 mph below speed limit
LOS F more than 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 O LOS B 4 LOS C 3 LOS D 1 LOSE 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 B'
• 7-Mile Bridge segment(12) increased from LOS `C' to LOS B'
• Duck segment (15) decreased from LOS B' to LOS `C'
• Long segment (16) decreased from LOS B' 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(21) 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.
31
Exhibit
The largest difference and decrease in speed(-3.5 mph)was recorded on Segment 4 1 (Stock Island
- MM 4.0 to MM 5.0) however, the LOS remained the same at B'. The largest increase in speed
(3.2 mph)was recorded on Segment 415 (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 415 in 2017 helps to increase the overall
median operating speeds along US-1/Overseas Highway and retain an overall LOS for 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 1 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 = 1 mph x 1656 daily trips/mph x 112 miles
10 miles
Reserve Volume = 18,547 daily trips
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 1
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. 1 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 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:
32
Exhibit
5% Allocation= (median speed - 95% of LOS C) 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 419) and Tea Table(Segment 418). Both segments are in the Village
of Islamorada.
The two segments identified above have depleted their reserve capacities, leaving 522 trips in
Upper Matecumbe (Segment 419) and 193 trips in Tea Table (Segment 418)based on the 5%
below LOS C allocation.
The table on page 34 details the segment levels of service and reserve capacity values for each
segment.
33
�t
ry)
r'4 Z.
LL4
W, ekD 0 1— CA 1— (1) 0 CA 0 -4 Co u:- 0 C-4 I— 'r' <0 0
T
T,T r%,
u') Oj r= 4i a va 04 uj 6 ro,
13M
zz
Iz
z z z z z
LL,
Lit 03
fs —Iz
Lu
0, n
Ln
A g3 2 3 K14
co v; e'5 ;
oo 4i cc
IZI
of
uj uj
>
LU
un
LU
0 m < m m <1<1 m m < ul m Im u
<
A
UJ
LLJ E5 > q q 1 q q � as 4n q q el q Wa -t t,:
> :E kZ 0
LLJ P
.10 Lu ell ell - CA of u! ." u'l W 'H Cj u'j u) cli u'j LO ui ui r�., CA �n
un 6 t;: AA 0 11,gm W L,y rIlj ela ela r- r- `4 InA o a', ..,I, ..,I, e,,j e,,j r- e,,j r- w C.I
Q (A ko -4 -4 0-1 -4 -4 -4 -4 fl} -4 tea .
LL Ir"i
z 12
0 CA CA CA Cj Cj Cj -.T 0 llj W CA 'T c"A ws, CA CA CA OA CA ?T-
T— u'j &) u'j u'j u'j u'j u'j u'j 4 i 'T 04 'T u) rO -4 -4 u'j u'j u'j r- u'j
-4 W -4 tea -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 k kf) -4 kf) kf) W W W -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 kO
Rj CL
ui
u?l .2
u, u, u, ere
u,
u,
6 ki� (0 •�f -1 1,1 -1 -4
4
M P6
P P
{4 U, tea CA fl-) 0)
k0 (6 CA CA CA CA (6 F' u0 1,-' u0 � "A +4 kf) 0 0 0
KA
wj
r.. W C,
C-4 " c — 'j, 6 � 6 M
kq 6 6 ,7 b
kb 6 c"I a) k ut,
cli ut,
7:7 0 1, 'cl
-TI
E (rfi
w
6 E rL
ui A ry
co U, IF
V) co o o Q o CO LD
ti1, V, orm r,. IY.7m. m Y7 z7
SUMMARY
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 2015.
b) The overall travel speed on U.S. 1 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:
Boca Chica +1.5 mph) Grass +0.1 mph)
Saddlebunch (+1.6 mph) Duck (+3.2 mph)
Sugarloaf +0.8 mph) Lon +1.7 mph)
Cudjoe (+1.3 mph) L. Matecumbe (+1.4 mph)-Village of Islamorada
Summerland (+0.9 mph) Tea Table ( +1.9 mph)-Village of Islamorada
Torch +0.2 mph) U. Matecumbe + 0.7 -Village of Islamorada
Big Pine Key (+1.4 mph) Windley(+3.1 mph)
Bahia Honda +1.6 mph) Plantation +2.0 mph)
7-Mile Bridge (+0.8 mph) Cross (+0.7 mph)
Median travel speeds on 5 segments have decreased. They are:
Stock Island -3.5 mph) Tavernier -1.1 mph)
Big Coppitt (-0.6 mph) Key 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 4 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 418 (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 419 (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 415, 416 and 419 have increased median speeds but
decreased LOS due to differences in weighted posted speed as explained in the bullet above.
For segment 416, 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 416 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.
35
Exhibit
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 in 2017.
i) There were no construction delays in 2017.
j) There were sixty-four (64) congestion related delay event this year totaling 3 hours 16
minutes and 44 seconds compared to 1 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. In the 2017 study, there are seven
segments of US 1 in this category (one segment less than the 2015 study)
Big Pine ( MM 29.5— MM 33.0) Tea Table (MM 77.5— MM 79.5)
Duck MM 60.5 -MM 63.0 U. Matecumbe MM 79.5— MM 84.0
Lon MM 63.0— MM 73.0 Windle 84.0 —86.0
L. Matecumbe (MM 73.0 — MM 77.5)
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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 to improve
the traffic flow.
• Not allowing new signalized intersections along U.S. 1 if there is alternative safe access
to accommodate the turning movements.
• Improving the conditions along the county maintained local streets to minimize U.S. 1
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.
36
Exhibit
U.S. 1 is a state maintained roadway. Therefore, any modifications/ improvements to U.S. 1 have
to be developed in collaboration with the Florida Department of Transportation.
CONCURRENCY REVIEW - TRANSPORTATION/ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all
development and redevelopment taking place within unincorporated Monroe County do not result
in a reduction of the level of service requirements, including transportation facilities. The Monroe
County Comprehensive Plan and LDC have adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roads,
particularly US Highway 1, which is part of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
State Highway System.
Policy 301.1.2
For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as measured by
the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on U.S. 1 shall be maintained within five
percent (5%) of LOS C.
Sec. 114-2.-Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures.
(a) Level of Service Standards (LOS). All development shall be served by adequate public facilities
in accordance with the following standards:
(1)Transportation/Roadways.
a. U.S. 1 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. 1 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. 1 Level of Service Task Force
Methodology, which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S.
1, 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. 1 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.
This LOS standard is used within the County's Concurrency Management System to review
development proposals and ensure that the transportation facilities needed to serve development
will be in place when the impacts of the development occur; to evaluate any potential degradation
in the adopted LOS; and to determine the need for improvements in order to achieve and maintain
the adopted LOS standard.
37
Exhibit
Policy 101.1.5
Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place when the impacts of
the development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure that the adopted level-
of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement of construction, a
developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to the County
to assure construction or improvement of proportionate share of required improvements, or to
assure the provision of the proportionate share contribution of the costs for the necessary
transportation facilities. The development of a single family residential unit shall be considered
de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement.
Policy 301.2.3
Monroe County shall not permit new development which would significantly degrade the LOS
below the adopted LOS standards on U.S. 1 (overall) unless the proportionate share of the impact
is mitigated. The development of one single family residential unit, on a single parcel, shall be
considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement. A five percent projected
decrease in travel speeds, below LOS C, is a significant degradation in the level of service on U.S.
1. Traffic volume which exceeds the LOS D standard by more than five percent is a significant
degradation in the level of service on any other County road.
Although the 2017 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study shows that overall US 1 and all
segments within unincorporated Monroe County are operating at a LOS C or greater, per LDC
Section 114-2, concurrency review for proposed development within the unincorporated county
takes into account all other permitted development since the time of the 2017 study as well.
Development may only be approved if the proposed development in combination with all other
permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent(5%)below LOS
C for the overall length of US1 or for any individual segment. While development may be
approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact
that needs mitigation. Concurrency must be satisfied at the time a development permit is issued;
at the time a certificate of occupancy; or through a binding contract or agreement for the necessary
facility and/or service improvements or proportionate share contribution.
38
Exhibit
III. POTABLE WATER
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 Stock Island and Marathon, are
available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants have
design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MGD, 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.
39
Exhibit
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
Figure 3.1 TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
45.2 MG STORAGE CAPACITY
n0RA
>�NO 1.5. FLORIDA CITY
519RAG# 1PMQ .5 M
rt I G 5 MG
s Mp 11 WM 14 OCEAN REEF
OISiRIBUPIQN 29.8 MOD LINE SOPTENINO TREATMENT PLANT 2 i5 HP PUMPS
STATION I�kG 1.NG 6 MOD R.Q.TREATMENT PLANT
2 500
HP PUMPS
t. KEY WEST T S0D HP PUMPS
7 1M HP DIESEL PUMPS
2 250 HP PUMPS EMERGENCY BACKUP
- Is. KEY LARGO
WSTRIBUNOx 86CKP -MARATHON
UMP 5 MG 60O5TER POMP
STATION2HPU
STATION - 5iAiIpN 1 159 NP PUMP
2 AO P MPS 5 MG � 3 FPQ NP PUMPS
2. STOCK ISLAND 1 665�HP PUMP 12. TAVERNIER ✓j
2 500 HP PVMRS. S NO
B. VADA CDT S MG
111 - IF
2 75 V��� �1 2 59 HP PUMPPUMPS �Mc, 1E. ROCK -
D DM RAMROD KEY HARBOR .5 MG
STATION 1 1000 HP PUMP I _-6. BIG PINE KEY 1D. CRAWL KEY 5 NIO 1 30 HP PUMP
I BGG NP PUMP 2 7S HP PUMPS - 2 30 HP PUMPS
` 5 G r
5. SIJMMERLAND KEY 1 DUCK KEY ""MIT P1#1
-11. 9SLAMORADA s M
2 3D HP PUMPS 2 MG
1.6`MGfl WW TREATMENT FI.ANT 2 TS UP PUMP 1MG
R.Q.PL9Ni J
} 4. DIG CO MARATHON
PPITT KEY
z'T5 HPS ` 1 -LONG KEY 9D9srER POMP
sr aN
0 MG A
y,. I 3 b40 HP PUMPS
iY
LITTLE VENICE .1 MGp - LAYTON
WW TREATMENT PLANT WW TREATMENT PINT USS MGD;
d
BAY POINT .QSI MCA --.7 MARATHON
BA TREATMENT PLANT --_8. 69th ST MARATHON
-�r 3 MG 2 3p NP PUMPS '..
9pOSTER POMP - $MQ
STAIIQN 2 900 HP PUMPS
16S0 HP SUMPS
2.0 MGp
R.O.PLANT
a STOCK ISLAND TRANMISSION BACKPUMPING CAPABILITIES
DIsrRI9UT 13P
SATQH 1px MARATHON (1)-5 MG TANK
3. STOCK ISLAND(DESAL)
2125 I ,RNS:CRPtlM" STOCK ISLAND (3)-5 MG TANKS
2 P4WYS
STOCK ISLAND DESAL (1)-5 MG TANK
Demand for Potable Water
The Figures 2, 3 and 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 lst-April 30th) 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.
40
E '
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 2.Annual Water Withdrawals 2002-2018
Annual WUg Limit WUP+1 Annual
Year Withdrawal %Change (MG) Allocation(MG)
(MG)
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 6,283 -2.49% 7,274 964
2007 5,850 -7.35% 7,274 1,428
2008 1 5,960 1.89% 8,751 2,791
2009 1 5,966 0.09% 8,751 2,785
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 6,105 1.04% 8,751 2,646
2014 1 6,377 4.46% 8,751 2,374
2015 1 6,530 2.40% 8,751 2,221
2016 6,462 -1.04% 8,751 2,289
2017 6,324 -2.13% 8,751 2,427
2018 6,526 3.10% 8,751 2,225
Source:Florida Keys A ueduct Authority,2019
41
Exhibit A
Figure 3.2018 Potable Water Demand Summary
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
Potable Water Demand Summary-New Water Demand,Actual Water Demand,and Expected Water Demand
Year-2018 Year-2018 Year2019
New Water Service- Metered Water-GallonsfYear Actual Water Demand- Expected Water
Municipality GallonslYear GallonsfYear' Demand-GallonslYear
Unincorporated Monroe County 2,740,200 2,155,814,184 2,774,528,488 2,777,268,688
city or Key West 477,900 1,579,752,473 2,033,138 233 2,033,616,133
city or Marathon 587,900 510,038,439 656,418,438 657,Dofi 338
City of Key Colony 0 109,904,011 141,446,240 141,446,240
City or Layton 0 11,493,322 14,191,882 14,791,882
City of Islamcrada 674,300 637,249,748 820,139,135 820,813,435
Entire Florida Keys 4,480,300 5,004,252,177 6,440,462,415 6,444,942,716
SFWMD WUP Annual Allocation 8,751,000,000 8,751,000,000
•mired+ten .�d wm.d—M le.fusnins,
Figure 4.FKAA Water Supply Available vs. Water Demand Projections
30
25
a
20
Floridan Blend and Bypass(mgd)
Proposed Reclaimed Water
15
Reverse-Osmosis WTP(mgd)
4 Biscayne Aquifer(mgd)
� tAdjusted 2019 Avg.Day Projections
4 10 t 21705 Avg Day Projections th nu 2026
5
0
M et Ln sa N ca e, Q .-+ N M a Ln ko r- W m o
S S S S O O O O O O Q P P 9 9 Q O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
42
Exhibit
As shown in Figure 5, in 2018, the FKAA distributed an annual average of 17.64 MGD from the
Biscayne Aquifer plus 0.24 MGD from Floridan RO Production. This table also provides the
water treatment capacities of the emergency RO plants. Since the emergency RO plants utilize
seawater, a WUP is not required for these facilities.
Figure 5 - Projected Water Demand in 2019 (in MG)
FKAA 2019 Water
201$ Water
Permit Demand
Thresholds Demand Projected
Annual Allocation
Average Daily Demand 23.98 17.64 18.2
Maximum Monthly Demand 809.01 586.04 604.37
Annual Demand 8,751 6,440 6,641
Biscayne Aquifer Annual
Allocation/Limitations
Average Daily Demand 17.79 17.64 17.79
Annual Demand 16,492 6,439 16,492
Floridan RO Production
Average Daily Demand 6.00 0.24 0.41
Emergency RO WTP Facilities
Kermit L. Lewin Design Capacity 2.00 0.00 (MGY) 0.00
Marathon RO Design Capacity 1.100 ) 0.00 (MGY) 0.00
All a ures are in millions ofgallons
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2019
The 2018 figures and projections for 2019 indicate a slight increase in annual average daily
demand from 17.64 to 18.2 MGD and an increase in maximum monthly demand from 586.04
MGD to 604.37 MG. Preliminary projections from FKAA for 2020 indicate no increase in annual
average daily demand from the 2019 projections.
Figure 6 provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional Population
and average daily demand, the average water consumption for 2018 was approximately 113
gallons per capita(person),which reflects the entire FKAA service area, including unincorporated
Monroe County, Key West, Marathon, Islamorada, Key Colony Beach, and Layton.
43
E '
Figure 6 -Per Capita Water Use
Functional z Average Per Capita Water
Year i Daily Demand{gallons) z
Population Consumption(gallons)
2000 153,080 17,016,393 111
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 17,287,671 111
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 17,334,247 111
2012 156,391 16,508,197 106
2013 156,727 16,836,164 107
2014 157,063 17,472,362 111
2015 157,400 17,890,400 114
2016 157,730 17,704,100 112
2017 158,060 17,632,900 112
2018 158,391 17,643,800 113
Source: 1. Monroe County Population Projections-Monroe County Planning Department,2011
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2019
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.
Figure 7 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
44
Exhibit A
improvements is approximately $140 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be funded
by the water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants.
Figure 7-FKAAProjectedSYearCapitallmprovementPlan
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 Tota I
Key'hestAdministrative Buildin.w 9,000,000 9,000,000 4,364,000 - - 22,364,000
S 50,000,000,
Stock Island ROFacilit-V 3,GGG,0GG 14,1300,1300, 18,000,000, L5,000,000 -
&assy Key Transmission Line Replacement B4OOO,OOO 8,000,000,
Transmission.Terminus Replacement 840,000 3,360,000 4,200,000,
-SimontGn,Frcnt,'A!hithead 750,000 1,250,00O 2,000,000,
Islamarada Tr2r.smissinn Line Replacement 2v670,000 13,350,1300, 10,680,000, 26,700,000,
Ocean Reef Distribution and-Stcrage Improvements 3,200,000 3,900,GOG 7,100,000
New Distribution-System at N�Name Key 2,500,000 2,600,000
stock island Garage Replacement 420,000 420,000
Box Girder Bridge Coatinecoupling Replacement - 3,870,GGO 3,870,000
Flnrida City GeneratnrCnntr�l Panel Repicaernnt 500'00'0 500,000
Stuckisland Pumpztati-nAnd GeneratorReplacement 7,000,000 7,000,000
Repair,'Upgrade5ubaciecus Crcssin.w 2,000,000 2,000,000
RepairiReplace Cathadic Protection 2,7133vOGG 2,700,000,
Repair.,'Upgrade Electrical and Instrumentation I'GOO'Goo 1,00(},000
Totals 38,720,000 36,350,000 33,044,0130 19,040,000 13,3430,000 14€1,454,0()0
15c-urce:Florida Keys;Aqueduct;Authority,20-19 RudZet&Financial Plan,
SUMMARY
Based on current conditions and projects, an adequate supply of water to meet current and future
demands is provided by the following: The Biscayne permitted water supply of 17.79 MGD, the
6.0 MGD RO water treatment plant, the new reclaimed water systems, and the ability to operate
the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations. The FKAA continues to monitor
and track conditions and events that could negatively impact the existing water supply. Any such
impacts will be evaluated to determine future changes necessary to continue servicing Monroe
County with adequate water supply.
45
Exhibit A
IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES
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 cafeteria. 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 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes the
islands that make up Islamorada and Fiesta Key and includes one high school and two
elementary/middle schools. Sub-district 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven
Mile Bridge and includes one high/middle school and one elementary school. Sub-district 3 covers
the Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school, one middle school,
one elementary/middle school, and three elementary schools.
r
Ar
I
Miami-Dad'e t
— County `r
I
Guff of Mexico
_•,�,, �i � � ter_� �,�
r `E le m�ntaryfMltltlle SS�ho
~Ffor;da Bay C �-
_ o4ean 3[uCles
Monroe County Charter Schoo
Treasure VillageCoral Shores
105 Miles from Key Largo to Key West atontesson School High School
Pla nation School
Key West r '. Stanley Switlik
Collegiate 1 , + �,, - '� Elementary School
Gerald Adams s P! e�
Elementary School Sig Mid Elements � �" t
,; ltltlle " l,.l 'W- Marathon
_ High School
Si>.bee "•tt'- - '
Elementary School t
_ Key West ��onda
Key West, --' Montesson School aSS Uf
High School P❑inclana
Elementary School
Glynn Arch..er Horace O'liryant
Elementary School Midtlle School
School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in
planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates.
46
Exhibit
The Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate is 10,453 students and the Capital
Outlay of Full-Time Equivalent(COFTE)is 7,161. The actual utilization during 2019—2020 was
68.51%.
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL
LOCATION 2019-2020 2018-2019 2019-2020
FISH CAPACITY COFTE UTILIZATION
CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH 981 708 72.00%
KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH 1,447 1,183 82.00%
HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE 1,152 1,044 91.00%
MARATHON SENIOR HIGH 1,370 639 47.00%
GERALD ADAMS 631 498 79.00%
PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL 647 523 81.00%
POINCIANA ELEMENTARY 672 622 78.00%
SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY 11130 576 51.00%
STANLEY SWITLIK
ELEMENTARY 1,036 546 53.00%
KEY LARGO SCHOOL 1,243 796 64.00%
MAY SANDS SCHOOL 144 125 86.00%
GLYNN ARCHER
ELEMENTARY' 0 0 0.00%
BIG PINE ACADEMY' 0 0 0.00%
TOTAL 10,453 7,161 68.51%
'Data not available in School Work Plan
The projected COFTE for 2023-2024 is 7,197 students with 68.85 % 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 2019-2020 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 2019-2020 Monroe County School District expenditures from local funding sources were
$31,053,289.Additional revenue sources include proceeds from '/z cent sales surtax at$20,558,275
and funds carried forward at$23,869,079 were available for this period.
47
Exhibit
The total project costs for construction, maintenance,repair and renovation during 2019-2020 was
$31,291,750. The projected revenue/expenditures for new construction and remodeling projects
only, for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are $14,147,193 and $15,132,194, respectively.
SUMMARY
The overall 2019-2020 utilization is 68.51% of the school system capacity and is projected for
2023-2024 at 68.85 %utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2019-2020 indicate
that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system for the next two years.
48
Exhibit
V. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Solid waste management is a critical issue in the Florida Keys. While problems of landfill sitings,
facilities, financing, and hazardous waste disposal have increased throughout Monroe County, the
unique setting of the Keys makes waste management even more difficult. The geographic isolation,
the limited land area,the environmental constraints,and the presence of nationally significant natural
resources adds to the challenge of responsibly and efficiently managing the Keys'solid waste stream.
Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 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 11.41 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)). 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).
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 N/A
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 13,757 110,333
2005 212,470 73,085 212,470
2006 200,338 12,206 200,338
2007 134,467 12,497 134,467
2008 130,245 13,743 130,245
49
E '
2009 116,884 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 173,774 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
2017 656,783 352,156 304,618
2018 441,165 259,322 181,843
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011; Monroe County Public Works 2013
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2018 Annual Report
Data collection calendar year is January I 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 and 2015-2018,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.
50
Exhibit
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.
Solid Waste Generation Trends
GENERATION POPULATION
Year (Tons/Yr) Permanent Seasonal Functional (LBS/CAP/DAY)
2000 158,327 36,036 33,241 69,277 12.52
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 112,102 36,606 33,329 69,935 8.78
2005 212,470 37,164 33,351 70,515 16.51
2006 200,338 36,466 34,019 70,485 15.57
2007 134,467 35,749 34,568 70,317 10.48
2008 130,245 34,788 35,550 70,338 10.15
2009 116,884 36,268 35,043 71,311 8.98
2010 156,465 35,368 35,440 70,808 12.10
51
E '
2011 125,402 35,917 35,249 71,166 9.7
2012 145,889 39,371 35,438 74,089 11.65
2013 173,774 35,806 35,658 71,464 12.94
2014 177,312 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
2017 353,658 35,567 36,488 72,055 26.89
2018 656,783 35,503 36,698 72,201 49.84
2019 441,165 35,438 36,909 72,348 33.41
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)
SUMMARY
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
four (4) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for
2020-2021.
52
E '
VI. PARKS AND RECREATION
An annual assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County Land
Development Code; however, data is provided.
The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities is provided in Policy 1201.1.1
and 1201.1.2 of the Monroe County Year 2030 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 1201.1.1, Monroe County Existing Demand in Surplus or
Parks and Recreation Functional Acreage 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 Document, Chapter 13, Recreation and Open Space, May 11, 2011,
Section 13.5.1.1.2.
There are approximately 10,900 acres of resource-based recreation lands currently available in the
County for public use. Removing beaches which are primarily Federal and State owned from the
resource-based lands results in approximately 250 acres remaining.
53
Exhibit
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
Uaca 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) Marathon 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
54
Exhibit
UPPER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 73-112
Mile Classification (Acres)
Name Location Mark Facilities
er Resource Activity
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 Play equipment, aquatic park,
Community Park- Key Largo 99.6 3 swimming pools, ballfields, 1.5 13.6
Jacob's Aquatic soccer field, tennis, pickleball
Center basketball, restrooms
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, basketball
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 Rte. 4A Matecumbe 82.5 Vacant 0.3 NA
Key
Old State Rte. 4A, Upper
Hurricane Matecumbe 81 Historical Marker 1.2 NA
Monument Key
55
Exhibit
Anne's Beach, Lower
Lower Matecumbe Matecumbe 73.5 Beach, swimming, bike path, 6.1 6
Beach(5) Key picnic pavilions boardwalk
LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5
Mile Classification (Acres)
Name Location Mark Facilities
er Resource Activity
Veteran's Memorial Little Duck Beach, BBQs,
Park Key (Ohio 40 swimming, , temporary 0.6 24.9
Key) port o let restrooms *
Missouri Key/South Missouri Key 39 Roadside pull-off, beach 3.5 NA
side US 1
Pier, Playground, soccer
field, baseball, tennis &
Big Pine Key Park Big Pine Key 31 basketball courts, skate 5.5 4.6
park, bocce courts,
shade structures,
restrooms
J. Watson Field 2 tennis courts,
(Stiglitz Property) Big Pine Key 30 volleyball, play 1.2 2.4
(2) equipment, baseball,
picnic, dog park
Blue Heron Park Big Pine Key 30 Pickleball NA 5.5
Bob Evans/
Chamber of Big Pine Key 30 Vacant 0.3 NA
Commerce
Palm Villa Park Big Pine Key 30 Benches, waterfront, NA 0.6
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 Summerland West
Park Summerland 25 2 Boat ramps 31.8 NA
Key
56
Exhibit
Play equipment,
Bay Point Park Saddlebunch 15 volleyball, picnic tables, NA 1.58
Key trail, basketball, 2 tennis
courts, pavilions,
Boca Chica Beach, Boca Chica 11 Beach, picnic table * 6 NA
SR 941 (3) Key
Wilhelmina Harvey Big Coppitt Play equipment, path,
Park Key 10 shade structure with NA 0.65
picnic table
Volunteer Fireman's Big Coppitt 10 Pavilion, picnic tables,
Park Key basketball
Mile Classification (Acres)
Name Location Mark Facilities
er Resource Activity
Gulfview Park, Big Coppitt 9.7 Boat ramp 0.2 NA
Delmar Ave. Key
Rockland Hammock Roc kynd 9 Vacant 2.5 NA
Play equipment,
baseball & soccer fields,
Bernstein Park Raccoon Key 4.5 basketball, path, fitness NA 11
center, community
rooms, picnic tables,
restrooms
East Martello Park Key West 1.5 Picnic, Historic Fort, 14.56 NA
Island museum
1 beach, concession
area, 2 band shells, pier,
picnic pavilions and
Higgs Beach Park, grills, pickleball courts,
C.B. Harvey, Rest Key West 1 tennis courts, play 5 12.1
Beach Island equipment , bike path,
volleyball, fitness trail,
handball court,
horseshoes, swimming,
Dog Park
West Martello Park Key West 1 Historic Fort 0.8 NA
Island
Whitehead Street Key West 1 Historic Fort, Museum 0.8 NA
Lighthouse Island
Pines Park(S. Key West 1 Picnic NA 1.72
Roosevelt) Island
57
E '
(1) The total acreage of the Yacht Club is approximately 6.0 acres. The unique layout of this facility
restricts active recreation to approximately 2 acres partially leased to the Marathon Yacht Club by
Monroe County.
(2) House and yard (L 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.
(S) Beach leased to Village of Islamorada
*Denotes approximate acreage; (for beaches the length of the beach x a minimum of 1 S ft.)
Source:Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
Acquisition 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 of service standards."
The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be accomplished in a
number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6) mechanisms that
are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as for providing
adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result from additional
residential development. The six (6)mechanisms are:
1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land 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;
S. 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
interlocal agreements with the School Board.
SUMMARY
There County continues to maintain a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage).
58
E '
VIL SANITARY SEWER
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 nearshore 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 2010 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 (BODS) 10 5
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 10 5
Total Nitrogen (TN) 10 3
Total Phosphorus (TP) 1 1
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 for 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 1999 to the
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by the Governor and his cabinet. This rule provided a 5-Year Work
59
Exhibit
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 system in 2009 .By 2018,
FKAA replaced most of the collection system and redirect the wastewater flows from the
Key Haven wastewater treatment plant(WWTP)to the Big Coppitt WWTP for Advanced
Wastewater Treatment (AWT). The Key Haven collection system currently serves all 450
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) in the area, with plans to connect a new development
consisting of an additional 26 EDUs.
• Big Coppitt Regional Wastewater System- The construction of this wastewater system,
with funding provided by Monroe County, began in January 2007 and included service to
Rockland Key, Big Coppitt Key, Geiger Key and Shark Key. Connections to the system
began in August 2009. Currently, the Big Coppitt collection system contributes 1,601 of
1,746 EDUs (92%)to the AWT system, with the additional 450 EDUs redirected from the
Key Haven Wastewater system and an average daily flow of 0.031 million gallons per day
(mgd)redirected from Boca Chica Naval Air Station (NAS). The Big Coppitt WWTP will
be expanded to accept flows from a new affordable housing development in the Big Coppitt
60
Exhibit
Key service area and the future capactiy needs of the NAS.
• Bay Point Wastewater System-The FKAAbegan 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 424 EDUs of 439 EDUs (97%) have been connected to
this Best Available Technology (BAT)treatment plant.
• Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System- 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, and serves Lower Sugarloaf Key, Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key,
Summerland Key, Ramrod Key and Little Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, Big Torch Key,
No Name Key and Big Pine Key. Connection to this system was phased over several years
and is ongoing. To day, approximately 9,435 EDUs have been invited to connect and of
those 6,748 EDUs have completed their connection (72%).
• Duck Key Regional Wastewater System- The FKAA became owner and operator of the
Hawk's Cay WWTP in May 2006. The WWTP, 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 serves
Conch Key, Little Conch Key, Waker's Island, Hawk's Cay Resort and Duck Key with a
treatment capacity of 275,000 gpd. Currently, 1,449 EDU's of 1,486 EDUs (98%) 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 treatment capacity of 66,000 gpd. Connection to the system began in
2006 and all 351 EDUs were connected to the system. Subsequent expansion of the Layton
service area to incorporate the remaining east and west ends of Long Key is complete.With
the expansion, the service area now includes 444 EDUs, which currently has 374 EDUs
connected (84%).
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 1,310,000
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.
61
Exhibit
All dwelling units of the community have been connected to the system with a total of 1,620 EDUs
(100%).
Key West Resort Utilities- This investor owned utility serves Stock Island. This WWTP was
constructed with Advanced Wastewater Treatment(AWT) technology with a capacity of 849,000
gpd. The volume of sewage the plant is processing at this time is 565,000 gpd. There are currently
4,358 EDU's connected to the KWRU system.
62