Item L07
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 15. 2003
Division:
Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes l No
Department: Planning
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approval of the Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity for 2003.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development Regulations (LDR's) requires that the BOCC adopt
an annual assessment of public facilities capacity for Monroe County. The Planning Department
has prepared a 2003 assessment for the BOCC's consideration and approval. This year's report
finds that solid waste, education and parks have sufficient capacity to serve anticipated growth.
The FKAA applied for and received a permit from SFWMD to increase the withdrawal amount
from the Florida City Aquifer. This permit is good for five years. All state and county roads are
anticipated to meet level of service standards, including Segment 10 on Big Pine Key. Because
adequate reserve capacity is available, the moratorium on traffic generating development which
has been in place for Segment 10 may be lifted.
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:
The BOCC has approved assessments of public facilities capacity each year since 1987.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval.
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY:
N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No --X- AMOUNT PER MONTH
Year
DOCUMENTATION:
Included ~
isk Management N/ A
APPROVED BY: County Atty N/A
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
CP
To Follow
Not Required _
AGENDA ITEM #~
DISPOSITION:
Revised 2/27/01
RESOLUTION NO.
- 2003
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE ANNUAL
ASSESSMENT OF MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES
CAPACITY FOR 2003 AS SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE
COUNTY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT.
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations
requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an annual assessment of public facilities
capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, this annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for
roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and
WHEREAS, once approved by the Board of County Commissioners, this report becomes
the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed
and approved for the upcoming year; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations provides the
minimum standards for level of service of roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational
facilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292 requires the annual assessment of public facilities capacity
to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe County with inadequate or marginally
adequate public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the annual report finds that sufficient capacity exists for solid waste,
potable water, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth through 2002; and
WHEREAS, the transportation section of the annual report is based upon the findings of
the 2003 US-l Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS, the County's transportation
consultant; and
WHEREAS, the annual report indicates that the Big Pine segment of US-l (Segment
#10, Mile Marker 29.5 to 33.0) has improved to be above the mandated level of service for roads
as indicated in Section 9.5-292 ofthe Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the annual report also indicates that there is sufficient reserve capacity to
allow for additional trips on the Big Pine segment of US-I; and
JUL-07-03 l":~iIlJ J-"kUM:MU'''tt<.UC. \"Uy,.........a ,........... \.J-''' ..........
WHEREAS, the building moratoriwn for the Big Pine segment of US-l may be lifted for
the upcoming year until the level of service is again measured in 2004;
NOW THEREFOREt BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA, that the annual assessment of
Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity for 2003 is ADOPTED.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board OfCOlIDty Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida at a regular meeting held on the day of 2003.
Mayor Dixie Spehar
Mayor Pro Tem MWT8Y Nelson
Commissioner Charles "SOMY" McCoy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Bert Jimenez
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor Dixie Spehar
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
~PPRO\I
A .,.EO AS TO
AL FORM
8 I
2003
MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES
CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
REPORT
~~# .
.~ '~
. '\ '
l' .. ..'
,. .II"~.
.... .,/,.
~ oP,
'.
..
. ..; ...
.
EDUCATION
SOLID WASTE
POTABLE WATER
TRANSPORTATION
PARKS AND RECREATION
JULY 2003
PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~<:1J1rI~ S;~~.........................................................................2
INTFl()))1J<:1rI()~....................................................................................5
I. GROWTH ANALYSIS... ... ............... ...... ..... ... ...... .... ... ... ... ......... ..... ... ....10
II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.................... ......... .... .......... ........ ...... 27
III. POTABLE WATER............ ... ...... ..... .......... ... ... ... ....... .... ....... ...... .......41
IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES.. ........... ........ ... ..... ....... ... ............... ... .... ..... 48
v. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES...... ...... ............... ...... ... ... ... ...... ... ...... .... ....54
VI. P A.RK.S AND RECREATION.............................. ..... .... ......... ..... ........ ...58
1
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Monroe County Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as "the Code")
mandate an annual assessment of the roads, solid waste, potable water, and school facilities
serving the unincorporated portion of Monroe County. In the event that these public facilities
have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS) required by the Code,
development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that the public facilities
are not further burdened. The Code clearly states that building permits shall not be issued
unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities.
As required by the Code, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) shall consider
and approve the annual report, with or without modifications. Any modifications that result
in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact, including
the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity required
to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document becomes the official
report of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year.
This report distinguishes between areas of inadequate facility capacity and marginally
adequate capacity. Inadequate facility capacity is defined as those areas with capacity below
the adopted LOS standard. Marginally adequate capacity is defined as those areas at the
adopted LOS standard or that are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next
twelve months.
Residential and Nonresidential Growth for 2003
For the 2003 assessment, a population model that uses a 1990 Census base data and
Monroe County Certificates of Occupancy to estimate and forecast population growth is
used. The model is based upon the actual number of residential units built, and is therefore
more accurate than previous models. The projected functional population of unincorporated
Monroe County is expected to reach 75,219 people in 2003, a slight increase from 2002.
Policy 101.3.1, the County's nonresidential ROGO policy in the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan, was passed by the Board of County Commissioners in September of 2001 and was ap-
proved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in December of 2001, but was sub-
sequently appealed. The appeal was withdrawn in August 2002. The policy remains as
stated, non-residential growth, over the 15 year planning horizon, is limited to 239 square
feet of development for each new residential unit.
Assessment of Public Facilities for 2003
Two of the four facility types addressed by this report - solid waste and schools - have
sufficient capacity to serve the growth anticipated in 2003 at the adopted level of service.
The remaining facility types, potable water and roads, demonstrate marginally adequate ca-
pacity or fail to meet the County's LOS standard in certain isolated situations. The status of
Executive Summary
2
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
each facility is summarized below.
Solid Waste: The combination of the existing haul-out contract and the space available
at the Cudjoe Key landfill provides the County with sufficient capacity to accommodate all
existing and approved development for up to twenty years.
Schools: A 1998 study by the Monroe County Planning Department, in concert with the
School Board, has determined that there is more than sufficient capacity in the schools to
accommodate all fall enrollments in 2003 and future years.
Potable Water: Preliminary figures for 2003 indicate an increase in water use of 2 %
through May compared to 2002 figures. In October 2002, South Florida Water Management
(SFWM) approved the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority's (FKAA) Water Use Permit
(WUP) modification. The WUP allows the FKAA to withdraw an average of 19.93 and a
maximum of 23.79 million gallons per day. This new water rate is designed to encourage
water conservation and is expected to decrease water use. An analysis of data shows that the
residential and overall LOS standards for water consumption, as set out in Objective 701.1 of
the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, are being met.
Roads: The adopted level of service (LOS) standard for US-l is LOS C. Based on the
findings of the 2003 US-l Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County, as pre-
pared by URS Inc., the overall 2003 level of service for US-l is LOS C. The table on the
next page shows the available capacity of US-l by segment.
County regulations allow development activities to continue in "areas of inadequate fa-
cility capacity" provided traffic speeds do not fall below the standard by more than five per-
cent. Since 1996 there has been a moratorium on trip-generating development on the Big
Pine Segment #10 due to inadequate level of service. This year the Travel Time and Delay
Study has found that the level of service on Big Pine has improved from a level 'D' to level
'c' and has marginal reserve capacity to allow trip generating development activities.
There are ten roadway segments with a "marginally adequate" level of service, but all
have adequate reserve capacity. Development activities in these areas will be closely moni-
tored to minimize the possibility for further degradation in the level of service.
County roads are subject to a lower standard (LOS D) than US-I. Based on the analysis
found in the Technical Document of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, all
County roads are operating at or aboveWS D.
Executive Summary
3
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
1 Stock Island 4-5 A Adequate
2 Boca Otica 5-9 A Adequate
3 Big Coppitt 9-10.5 C Marginal
4 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 C Marginal
5 Sugarloaf 16.5-20.5 C Marginal
6 Gldjoe 20.5-23 A Adequate
7 Summerland 23-2 B Adequate
8 Ranrod 25-Zl.5 A Adequate
9 Torch 27.5-29.5 A Adequate
10 Big Pine 29.5-33 C Marginal
11 Bahia Honda 33-40 A Adequate
12 7-Mile Bridge 40-47 B Adequate
13 Marathon 47-54 A Adequate
14 Gassy Key 54-60.5 C Marginal
15 Duck Key 60.5-63 C Marginal
16 Long Key 63-73 B Adequate
17 Lower Matecuni>e 73-77.5 D Marginal
18 Tea Table 77.5-79.5 D Marginal
19 Upper Matecuni>e 79.5-84 C Marginal
20 Windley 84-86 A Adequate
21 Plantation 86-91.5 B Adequate
22 Tavernier 91.5-99.5 A Adequate
23 largo 99.5-106 A Adequate
24 Cross 106-112.5 D Mar inal
Source: 2003 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc.
Overall, most public facilities continue to be adequate; however demands on these facili-
ties continue to grow. The Growth Management Division is committed to monitoring
changes in public facility demand and responding to changes in consumption patterns. The
ability to coordinate with public facility providers and other municipalities in the Keys will
become more and more critical as we strive to maintain the quality of life we all enjoy.
Executive Summary
4
2003 Monroe County Public FaciUties Capacity Assessment
INTRODUCTION
This report is the annual assessment of public facilities capacity mandated by Section
9.5-292 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as "the
Code"). The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensuring
"concurrency". Concurrency means '"that the necessary public facilities and services to
maintain the adopted LOS standards are available when the impacts of development oc-
cur" (Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code). In other words, local governments
must establish regulations to ensure that public facilities and services that are needed to sup-
port development are available concurrent with the impacts of development. In Monroe
County, these regulations are contained within Section 9.5-292 of the Code.
Section 9.5-292, titled Adequate facilities and development review procedures, contains
two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the four primary public
facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and an annual assessment process to
determine the available capacity of these public facilities. In addition, Section 9.5-292 in-
cludes an equitable procedure for issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely to outpace
the current capacity of these public facilities.
Section 9.5-292 also requires the Director of Planning to prepare an annual report to the
Board of County Commissioners on the capacity of available public facilities. This report
must determine the potential amount of residential and nonresidential growth expected in the
upcoming year, and make an assessment of how well the roads, solid waste facilities, water
supply, and schools will accommodate that growth. The report has a one-year planning hori-
zon, or only considers potential growth and public facility capacity for the next twelve
months. In addition, the report must identify areas of unincorporated Monroe County with
only marginal and/or inadequate capacity for some or all public facilities.
In the event that some or all public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the
LOS standards required by the Code, development activities must conform to special proce-
dures to ensure that the public facilities are not further burdened. The Code clearly states
that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by ade-
quate public or private facilities.
Board Action Required
Section 9.5-292(b)(4) requires the County Commission to consider this report and ap-
prove its findings either with or without modifications. The County Commission cannot act
to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report without making
specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase, and identifying the source of funds
to be used to pay for the additional capacity.
Once approved by the County Commission, this document becomes the official assess-
ment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year.
Introduction
5
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
Public Facility Standards
Section 9.5-292(a) of the Code pertains to the minimum standards for public facilities. It
states, ''After February 28, 1988, all development or land shall be served by adequate public
facilities in accordance with the following standards:"
(1) Roads:
a. County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development shall
have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as measured on an an-
nual average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersection and/or roadway segments.
US-l shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service C on an over-
all basis as measured by the US-l Level of Service Task Force Methodology. In addi-
tion, the segment or segments of US-I, as identified in the US-l Level of Service Task
Force Methodology, which would be directly impacted by a proposed development's
access to US-I, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service C as
measured by the US-l Level of Service Task Force Methodology.
b. All secondary roads where traffic is entering or leaving a development or will have
direct access shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service D as
measured on an annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis.
c. In areas which are served by inadequate transportation facilities on US-I, develop-
ment may be approved provided that the development in combination with all other de-
velopment will not decrease travel speeds by more than five (5) percent below level of
service C, as measured by the US-l Level of Service Task Force Methodology.
(2) Solid Waste:
Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all
existing and approved development for a period of at least three (3) years from the pro-
jected date of completion of the proposed development or use. The Monroe County
Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Authority may enter into agreements, including
agreements under section 163.01, Florida Statutes, to dispose of solid waste outside
Monroe County.
(3) Potable Water:
Sufficient potable water from an approved and permitted source shall be available to
satisfy the projected water needs of a proposed development, or use. Approved and per-
mitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribution systems, individual water
condensation systems, and any other system which complies with the Florida standards
for potable water.
(4) Schools:
Adequate school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school age
children to be generated by a proposed development or use.
Introduction
6
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
These are the four primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity
according to the Code. The available capacity for each of these facilities may be either suffi-
cient to accommodate projected growth over the next year, marginally adequate, or inade-
quate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are projected to be only marginally
adequate or inadequate over the next year, the Code sets out a review procedure to be fol-
lowed when issuing development permits in that area.
The Code states that ''the county shall not approve applications for development in areas
of the county which are served by inadequate facilities identified in the annual adequate fa-
cilities (Public Facility Capacity Assessment) report, except the county may approve devel-
opment that will have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where the developer
agrees to increase the level of service of the facility to the adopted level of service standard."
The Code goes on to state that "in areas of marginal facility capacity as identified in the cur-
rent annual adequate facilities report, the county shall either deny the application or condi-
tion the approval so that the level of service standard is not violated." The determination of
an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas with marginal or
inadequate capacity is determined by a "facilities impact report" which must be submitted
with a development application.
Service Areas
Section 9.5-292(b)(2) of the Code divides unincorporated Monroe County into three ser-
vice areas for the purposes of assessing potential growth and how public facilities can ac-
commodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the Code have been revised to ac-
count for recent incorporations. The map on the following page shows the three service ar-
eas of the Keys as they are currently recognized.
The Upper Keys service area includes all unincorporated Monroe County north of the
Tavernier Creek Bridge. The Middle Keys includes the area of Unincorporated Monroe
County between the Seven-Mile Bridge and the Tavernier Creek Bridge. The Lower Keys is
Unincorporated Monroe County south of the Seven Mile Bridge.
Unfortunately, the data available on population, permitting, and public facilities does not
always conform to the above boundaries for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys. Addition-
ally, due to the recent incorporation of Islamorada and Marathon (which are excluded from
this assessment where specified) the boundaries identified in Section 9.5-292(b) are no
longer valid for unincorporated Monroe County. This report makes use of the best available
data, aggregated as closely as possible to the boundaries shown in on the following page.
Introduction
7
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Map of Service Areas
The Upper Keys
MM 112-91
.....
~..,
.......
/
../"
.......
..~.......
......-
The Middle Keys
MM 91-47
t
~""'~
. .
~
Jr:,~ ,~
, .. Q I..
,I..' . .
.... .
..... .. .,
/
/~.
......
.........
......., ~
// ,
, ....
'.
.....
.........
'1
.p.
.q,
The Lower Keys
MM 47-4
. .
".
J ~ .. .
Previous Board Action
Due to the unavailability of any reserve capacity for traffic on US-Ion Big Pine Key, the
County was required to impose a moratorium in 1995 on any new development on Big Pine.
In December 1997, as a result of a change in the methodology used to determine level of ser-
vice, the moratorium on Big Pine Key was lifted. However, the results of the 1999 Travel
Time and Delay Study indicated that the segment of US-l through Big Pine Key once again
fell below the adopted LOS standard. Due in part to the re-timing of the intersection of US 1
and Key Deer Boulevard, the level of service on the Big Pine segment of US 1 improved in
2000, but decreased again in 2001 and 2002. However, according to the 2003 Arterial
Travel Time and Delay Study the LOS has increased to 'C' and has sufficient reserve capac-
ity to lift the moratorium on traffic generating development. The improvement in the LOS is
due in part to further retiming of the intersection and an intersection improvement project,
which was completed by FOOT this year. It is not anticipated that these improvements will
permanently improve the LOS on Big Pine Key, but a 3-1aning project is being designed by
Introduction
8
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
FOOT to achieve a longer term acceptable level of service. The Planning and Environ-
mental Resources Department is in the final stages of completing the Master Plan for Big
Pine Key and No Name Key which address future solutions to traffic problems within the
community.
The rationale for a moratorium is from Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development
Regulations, which states, "...the County shall not approve applications for development in
areas of the County which are served by inadequate facilities as identified in the annual ade-
quate facilities report. "
The Planning and Environmental Resources Department is now engaged in a master
planning process with the citizens of Big Pine Key to identify possible solutions to the traffic
problems in the community. The Livable CommuniKeys Program is directed at finding ways
of improving the level of service on US-l so that the building moratorium may be lifted.
Areas of Critical County Concern
At the County Commission's discretion, areas with marginally adequate facilities may be
designated as Areas of Critical County Concern (ACCC), pursuant to Sections 9.5-473 and
9.5-473.1 of the Code. The rationale behind this designation is to assure that development in
ACCC areas does not impact existing public facilities to the extent that development must be
halted in the area.
Should the Board initiate the ACCC designation process, the Development Review Com-
mittee and Planning Commission must review the proposed designation. Section 9.5-473(c)
requires the designation to include "Specific findings regarding the purpose of the designa-
tion, the time schedule for the planning effort to be implemented, identification of the sources
of funding for the planning and potential implementing mechanisms, delineation of a work
program, a schedule for the work program and the appointment of an advisory committee, if
appropriate. "
Introduction
9
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
I. GROWTH ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the growth of Monroe County over the last year. This
analysis considers the changes in population, the number of residential building permits is-
sued, and the amount of nonresidential floor area permissible. Growth trends will be exam-
ined for both the unincorporated as well as the incorporated portions of the County.
Population Composition
There are three different measurements of population in Monroe County: the functional
population, the permanent population, and the seasonal population. The capacity of most
public facilities is designed based on potential peak demand. To help assess peak demand,
the permanent and seasonal populations are often combined to give a "functional" popula-
tion, or the maximum population demanding services.
The projected permanent population is based on a methodology created by The Depart-
ment of Planning and Environmental Resources, and is based on 1990 Census data. Perma-
nent population figures received from the 2000 Census data reflect a discrepancy in the esti-
mates made by the planning model and actual census figures. At this time the Planning and
Environmental Resources is revising the methodology for population projection to accurately
reflect the permanent population figures published by the 2000 Census.
Projected permanent residents spend most or all of the year in the County, while the sea-
sonal population includes seasonal residents and the tourist population. The seasonal popu-
lation includes the number of seasonal residents, the number of people staying in hotels, mo-
tels, vacation rentals, campsites, recreational vehicles, live aboard vessels, and those staying
with friends and relatives.
It is important to remember that permanent population figures are for the entire calendar
year, while the seasonal population figures used here is the number of seasonal residents and
visitors in the Keys on any given evening. Seasonal population figures are not the total num-
ber of seasonal residents or visitors in the county over the calendar year, but the estimated
number who stay on any given night.
The Tourist Development Council indicate that Monroe County hosts around three mil-
lion visitors a year, however not of all these people are in the Keys on the same evening.
Peak seasonal population figures represent the number of people who could stay on any
given evening based upon peak occupancy rates, and therefore represent the peak demand
which could be placed on public facilities from seasonal visitors on any given evening.
When the peak seasonal population figures are combined with the permanent resident
population, the result is the functional population. Actual 2000 Census data for the perma-
nent population indicates a trend towards a higher seasonal percentage of the functional
population.
Growth Analysis
10
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Planning Area Enumeration Districts (PAEDs)
PAEDs, or Planning Area Enumeration Districts, are the basic unit of geographical
analysis used by the Planning and Environmental Resources Department. The pAEDs are a
combination of the "planning areas" utilized by the Planning Department in the early 1980s
and the US Census Bureau's "enumeration districts". These two levels of analysis were
combined in 1987 for ease of use. Since most PAEDs follow island boundaries, they can be
aggregated to match most service districts for public facilities.
There are a total of twenty-two (22) PAEDs in Unincorporated Monroe County. The
City of Key West (including northern Stock Island) is not contained within any PAED
boundaries. The City of Key Colony Beach is contained within the geographic area of PAED
8, but is not included with the pAED population figures. The new City of Marathon encom-
passes PAEDs 7, 8, & 9, and its population is contained within unincorporated Monroe
County until 2000. The City of Layton falls within PAED 11, but its population is removed
from Unincorporated Monroe County. The Village of Islamorada occupies PAEDs 12A,
12B, 13, & 14, and has its own population figures starting in 1998. PAEDs 19 and 20 are the
last PAEDs before the "bend" in US-I, and have been grouped together in this report be-
cause of data constraints. The dividing line between PAEDs is the center of US-I.
.1,
PAED 1
Growth Analysis
11
2003 Monroe County Public FaciUties Capacity Assessment
As mentioned earlier, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) di-
vides Momoe County into three service areas. The Upper Keys service area includes PAEDs
12B through 22, or the area from Mile Marker 83.5 to 112, the Middle Keys includes PAEDs
7 through 13 (Mile Marker 47.5 to 83.4), and the Lower Keys service area is composed of
PAEDs 1 through 6 from Mile Marker 4 to 47.4.
The chart below shows the individual PAEDs by their mile marker ranges, and also
shows the islands included within a particular PAED's boundary.
1 Stock Island
2 Boca O1ica, Fast Rockland, Big Coppitt, Geiger, Shark
3 Saddlebunch Keys, Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf
4a Clldjoe, Su~rland, Ramrod, Big-Middle-little Torch
4b No NllJre Key
5 Big Pine Key
6 W. Sumrerland, Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri, little Duck, Pigeon Key
7 Knight, Hog, Vaca, Boot, Stinup (Marathon)
8 Fat Deer, little Oawl, Oawl#5, (Marathon) & (Key Colony Beach)
9 Gassy Key (Marathon)
10 Duck Key, little Conch Key, Conch Key
11 Long Key, Fiesta Key, (Layton)
113 Oaig Key, Lower MatecunDe (IslaIDJrada)
12b Windley Key (IslamJrada)
13 Teatable Key, Upper MatecunDe (IslamJrada)
14 Plantation Key (IslamJrada)
15 Key Uirgo (Tavernier area)
16 Key Uirgo
17 Key Uirgo (Rock Harbor)
18 Key Uirgo
19-20 Key Uirgo
21 Key Uirgo (North Key largo, Ocean Reef, Card Sound area)
22 Ooss Ke 18 Mile Stretch area
Source: Monroe ColDlty Planning Depertment, 2003
Functional Population
4-6
7-124
12.5-20.5
20.6-29
N/A
29.5-33
34.5-46
47.5-53.2
53.3-56.4
56.5-60
61-64
65-71
72-78
83.5-85.5
79-83.4
85.6-91
91.1-94.5
94.6-98
98.1-100.6
100.7-103.5
103.6-107.5
N/A
107.6-112
The functional population is the sum of the number of permanent residents and the peak
seasonal population. Figure 1.3 shows the functional population for all of Monroe County
(including the incorporated areas), excluding Mainland Monroe County and the population
in the Dry Tortugas. The functional population of Monroe County is expected to grow by
more than 16,000 people from 1990 to 2015. This represents an increase of almost eleven
percent (11 %) over the twenty-five year period.
Growth Analysis
12
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
1990 149,348 . .
1995 154,255 4,907 3.18%
2000 159,113 4,858 3.05%
2005 162,041 2,928 1.81%
2010 164,769 2, 72B 1.66%
2015 165,366 597 0.36%
Source: Monroe ColDlty Planning Department, 2003
Figure 1.4 shows the trend in Functional Population Changes from 1990 to 2015.
Figure 1.4 -Trend in Functional Population Changes
170,000
165,000
'"
.2
;;;
-; 160,000
Q.
&.
..
"
.S! 155,000
'C
"
If
150,000
145,000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I_Trend in Population Changes I
However, the numerical and percent change columns show that the rate of increase is
expected to slow dramatically over the same time period (see Figure 1.5).
Figure 1.5 -Functional Population Rate of Increase
3.00%
j 2.50%
e
~ 2.00%
.~ 1.50%
-;
~ 1.00%
.~ 0.50%
co
~ 0.00%
u
lj< -0.50%
-1.00%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
]-+-Functional Population I
Growth Analysis
13
2003 Monroe County Public FaciUties Capacity Assessment
Figure 1.6 shows the breakdown in functional population by the three service areas. Re-
gionally, the Upper Keys accounted for the largest portion of the 1990 unincorporated func-
tional population (42,171 people, or 40.9% of the total). This is followed by the Middle
Keys, which is comprised of 29.6% (30,443 people) of the total 1990 functional population;
and finally, the Lower Keys, which contained 30,387 people, or 29.5% of the unincorporated
functional population. For the year 2003, the Upper Keys still has the largest unincorporated
functional population (37,061, or 49.3% of the total), followed by the Lower Keys (34,034,
or 45.3% of the total). The unincorporated functional population of the Middle Keys de-
creases dramatically to only 4,124 people or 5.5%. This sharp decrease in Middle Keys num-
bers is due to the incorporation of the City of Marathon.
Upper Keys 42,171 40.94% 37,061 49.27% 38,362 48.66%
Middle Keys 30,443 29.56% 4,124 5.48% 4,206 5.34%
Lower Ke s 30,387 29.50% 34,034 45.25% 36,263 46.00%
Unincorporated 103,001 100.00% 75,219 100.00% 78,831 100.00%
Subtotal
Ineo orated Areas 46,348 86,009 86,535
County Total 149,349 161,228 165,366
Source: Monroe Comty Planning Department, 2003
The corporation of Islamorada and of Marathon account for the drop in unincorporated
functional population in the Upper Keys service areas in 2001. The functional population in
the Middle Keys service area has declined more than eighty-seven percent (87%), while the
Upper Keys service area lost twelve percent (12%) of its functional population as a result of
these incorporations. The Lower Keys service area is expected to grow almost 12% from
1990 to 2003.
By the year 2015 the Upper Keys, with a functional population of 38,362 people, is ex-
pected to contain 48.7% of the unincorporated functional population. The Lower Keys are
projected to have a functional population of 36,263 people in 2015, or 46% of the unincorpo-
rated total, while the Middle Keys will be reduced to 4,206 people, or 5.3% of the unincor-
porated county total.
Projected Permanent and Seasonal Population
The total permanent resident population in Monroe County was projected to grow from
78,855 people in 1990 to a potential 87,050 people by the end of 2003 and 90,654 people by
2015, an increase of fifteen percent (15%) over the twenty-five year period. The projected
permanent resident population as a percentage of the functional population fluctuates be-
tween 53% and 55% from 2003 to 2015. The years 1991 and 1993 were the only years in
which the county-wide permanent resident growth rate exceeded one percent (1 %) per year.
Growth Analysis
14
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
Seasonal Population 70,493 71,266
Permanent Po ulation 78,855 82,990
FunctiolUllPopulation 149,348 154,256
Source: Monroe ColDlty Planning Department, 2003
73,491
85,622
159,113
74,1TI
87,050
161,227
73,737
88,305
162,042
74,533
90,236
164,769
74,712
90,654
165,366
The peak seasonal population in Monroe County was projected to grow from 70,493
people in 1990 to 74,177 people by the end of 2003 and a potential 74,712 people by 2015,
an increase of six percent (6%) over the twenty-five year period. The peak seasonal popula-
tion as a percentage of the functional population fluctuates between 45.2% and 47.2% over
the period. The county-wide peak seasonal population growth rate exceeded four percent
(4%) in 1993. Growth rates fluctuated between -1.7% and 1.9% for the remainder of the
years under study, and are expected to steadily decline after the year 2003.
The incorporation of Islamorada and Marathon have created substantial reductions in
both permanent and seasonal population for the Upper and Middle Keys service areas. As
mentioned in a previous section, the Upper Keys service area lost 13% of its functional
population (permanent population + seasonal population), and the Middle Keys service area
is expected to lose 87% of its functional population as a result of these incorporations.
The functional population in the Upper Keys service area is expected to increase from
36,872 to 37,061 (0.35%) from 2002 to 2003. This projected increase results from the addi-
tion of 88 permanent residents and 103 in the seasonal population.
The functional population in the Lower Keys service area is expected to increase from
33,826 to 34,034 (0.61%) from 2002 to 2003. This projected increase results from the addi-
tion of 157 permanent residents and 51 in the seasonal population.
2000 Census Population
The projected population data for 2003 through 2015 presented in this report (both the
permanent and seasonal populations) has been based on 1990 census data. The population
projection model has not yet been updated to incorporate the Census 2000 data that was re-
leased in late 2001. However, a comparison of the projected 2000 permanent population and
the actual population reported in the 2000 census shows that the projection overestimated the
population of the unincorporated area by 3,298 people. Figure 1.8 shows that the difference
between the projected 2000 data and the actual permanent population reported by the 2000
census for the entire Monroe County to be 6,093 persons. Taking this discrepancy into ac-
count, the permanent population of Monroe County is not growing as rapidly as predicted.
However, the functional population remains a valid estimate for planning purposes because
of an increase in the amount of seasonal residents. In other words, although the permanent
population was estimated to be larger than what was actually reported in the 2000 Census,
the number of seasonal residents has increased. Therefore, the functional population esti-
mates remain valid, and indicates an increase in the percentage of the seasonal population.
Growth Analysis
15
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
t 11" ,.
-
Unicorporated Area
Upper Keys 19,740 15,168 17,435 -2,267
Middle Keys 13,948 800 1,098 -298
lower Keys 18,062 2O,cm 20,741 -733
Incorporated Areas
Is lalDl rada N/A 6,846 7,665 -819
Layton 183 186 208 -22
Key Colony Beach 9Tl 788 1,101 -313
Marathon N/A 10,255 11,272 -1,017
Kev West 24,832 25,478 26,102 -624
Total 77,742 79,529 85,622 -6,093
Source: u.s Cenm; Bureau and Monroe Comty Planning Department, 2003
Number of Residential Permits
The second major component of the Growth Analysis Section is the number of residen-
tial permits issued. The majority of the new residential permits issued are for permanent
residential use. However, some of the permits issued for permanent dwellings are used by
the seasonal population.
One issue to remember when considering growth based upon building permits is the time
lapse that occurs between when a permit for a new residence is issued, and when that resi-
dence is ultimately occupied. The knowledge that the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)
was about to be adopted in the early 1990s caused many property owners to obtain building
permits prior to when they were prepared to construct their dwellings. As a result, there are
many dwellings in the Keys that have permits, but are not yet fully constructed or are only
partially complete. Based upon this time lapse, the number of residential permits issued
overstates the actual number of new residential dwellings that currently require public facili-
ties.
The number of dwelling units (permanent and seasonal) which can be permitted in Mon-
roe County has been controlled by ROGO since July of 1992. ROGO was developed as a
response to the inability of the road network to accommodate a large-scale hurricane evacua-
tion in a timely fashion. A series of complex models developed during the first evacuation
study identified an approximate number of additional dwelling units which could be permit-
ted and which would not have a detrimental effect on the amount of time needed to evacuate
the Keys. The ROGO system was developed as a tool to equitably distribute the remaining
number of permits available both geographically and over time.
The ROGO system distributes a set number of allocations for new residential permits on
a yearly basis from July 14 of one year to July 13th of the following year. Year 11 of the sys-
tem started on July 14,2002. Each service area of unincorporated Monroe County and sev-
Growth Analysis
16
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
eral of the incorporated areas receive a set number of allocations for new residential permits
that can be issued during that particular ROGO year. The number of allocations available to
a particular area was based upon the supply of vacant buildable lots located in that area prior
to the start of the ROGO system. The Ocean Reef area of north Key Largo is exempted from
the ROGO system due to its proximity to Card Sound Road, an alternate evacuation route.
The ROGO system allowed 255 allocations for new residential units in unincorporated
Monroe County each year for the first six years of the ROGO system. The number of alloca-
tions available was reduced by the State of Florida Administration Commission during Year
7 of ROGO based upon a lack of progress on the implementation of the Year 2010 Compre-
hensive Plan. Available allocations were reduced by twenty percent (20%), taking the avail-
able figure from 255 to 204 new residential units.
The number of available allocations in unincorporated Monroe County was further re-
duced by the incorporation of Islamorada, which now receives 22 residential allocations per
year. The incorporation of Islamorada reduced the number of available allocations in unin-
corporated Monroe County from 204 to 182. This number was further reduced by the incor-
poration of Marathon, which received a total of 24 new residential allocations. The incorpo-
ration of Marathon reduced the number of available new residential allocations in unincorpo-
rated Monroe County from 182 to 158.
Market rate allocation in unincorporated Monroe County, the ROGO system will now
allocate 46 units to the Upper Keys service area, 7 units to the Middle Keys service area, and
74 units to the Lower Keys, for an annual total of 133 additional residential units each
ROGO year. Fifty-seven affordable allocations were rolled over from previous years making
a total of 114 affordable allocations available for year 11.
Figure 1.9, on the following page, shows the breakdown of new residential permits is-
sued for unincorporated Monroe County through the 1990s. The data presented in the table
does not include permits issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, or Islamorada.
Also, the boundaries between the Upper and Middle Keys service areas, and the boundaries
used for this data are slightly different. The chart below compares the boundaries. Basi-
cally, the service areas from the Code breaks at Whale Harbor Channel, and does not include
Upper and Lower Matecumbe in the Upper Keys, while the permitting records break at
Channel Five and do include Upper and Lower Matecumbe in the Upper Keys. Figure 1.10
explains these differences.
Growth Analysis
17
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 1.9 . New and Replacement Residential and Seasonal Units Permitted by Year for Unincorporated
Monroe County
1992 Upper Keys 190 38 0 6 23 257
Middle Keys 67 0 0 1 0 68
Lo\\er Keys 189 0 14 0 0 203
Subwtal 446 38 14 7 23 528
1993 Upper Keys 104 0 0 5 0 109
Middle Keys 55 2 0 1 0 58
Lo\\er Keys 80 0 0 1 0 81
Subwtal 239 2 0 7 0 248
1994 Upper Keys 109 0 0 3 0 112
Middle Keys 94 0 0 0 0 94
Lo\\er Keys 36 0 0 1 0 37
Subwtal 239 0 0 4 0 243
1995 Upper Key s 131 2 0 4 0 137
Middle Keys 27 2 2 1 5 37
Lo\\er Keys 144 0 0 0 0 144
Subwtal 302 4 2 5 5 318
1996 Upper Keys 114 0 3 3 0 120
Middle Keys 40 0 15 0 0 55
Lo\\er Keys 83 0 0 6 0 89
Subtotal 237 0 18 9 0 264
1997 Upper Keys 89 0 12 0 0 101
Middle Keys 27 4 0 0 77 108
Lo\\er Keys 73 0 0 0 0 73
Subwtal 189 4 12 0 77 282
1998 Upper Keys 78 0 0 3 0 81
Middle Keys 13 0 0 0 110 123
Lo\\er Keys 66 0 0 0 0 66
Subwtal 157 0 0 3 110 270
1999 Upper Keys 138 0 0 2 0 140
Middle Keys 20 0 0 24 63 107
Lo\\er Keys 87 0 0 0 1 88
Subwtal 245 0 0 26 64 335
2000 Upper Keys 67 0 35 0 0 102
Middle Keys 4 0 0 0 34 38
Lo\\er Keys 75 0 0 0 0 75
Subwtal 146 0 35 0 34 215
2001 Upper Keys 62 0 13 7 1 83
Middle Keys 9 0 0 10 0 19
Lo\\er Keys 80 0 0 38 0 118
Subtotal 151 0 13 55 1 220
2002 Upper Keys 10 0 11 14 2 37
Middle Keys 0 0 0 22 0 22
Lo\\er Keys 8 0 0 45 0 53
Subwtal 193 0 25 52 0 270
TOTAL 2,544 48 119 168 314 3,193
SolD'ce: Monroe County Building Department, 2003
Growth Analysis 18
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
According to Building Department records, 3,193 residential permits were issued from
1992 to 2002, with 80% (2,544) being issued to single family residences. Only 10% (335) of
the residential permits were issued to duplex, multifamily, or mobile home projects. Almost
37% (1,369) of all the residential permits issued in the past decade were issued in 1991 to
1992 as applicants were attempting to obtain permits prior to ROGO. A total of 270 residen-
tial permits were issued in unincorporated Monroe County in 2002, a slight increase from
2001. There were more new residential permits issued in 1999 than any previous year back
to 1992.
- I: .1111'
Upper Keys 12B-22 83.5-112 12A-22 71-112
Middle Keys 7-13 47.5- 83.4 7-13 47.5-70.9
lDwer Keys 1-6 4-47.4 1-6 4-47.4
Source: Monroe ColUlty Building Department, 2003
Figures 1.11 and 1.12 show the distribution of new residential permits issued in unincor-
porated Monroe County during 2001 and 2002.
Figure 1.11- Comparison of Residential Permits by Service Area 2001-2002
2001
2002
Lower Keys
47%
Upper Keys
33%
Lower Keys
53%
Upper Key~
38%
Figure 1.12 - Comparison of Residential Permit Types 2001-2002
2001
Mobile HotellMotel
HomelRV 0%
25%
Mobile
HomelRV
19%
2002
HoteVMotel
0%
Multi-
Family
6%
.
Single
Family
69%
Multi-
Family
9%
Single
Family
72%
Duplex
0%
Duplex
0%
Growth Analysis
19
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 1.11 shows a decrease in the total number of permits issued in the Upper and
Lower Keys service areas relative to the number issued in the Middle Keys from 2001 to
2002. There were 50 more new residential permits issued in 2002 than 2001.
Figure 1.12 shows the composition of residential permits issued in 2001 and 2002. No
new duplexes were permitted in either year. Single family residential permits occupy the
largest percentage in both years, with 13 more single-family permits being issued in 2002.
The number of mobile home and RV permits decreased while multi-family permits slightly
increased.
Figure 1.13 shows the total number of permits issued in unincorporated Monroe County
from 1992 to 2002. The chart shows a swell in permitting activity prior to the adoption of
ROGO, and then declines following its adoption.
Figure 1.13-CompuisOll of Residential Permit Types 1992-2002
600
500
l!i
.~ 400
If
... 300
0
..
..
.rJ
e 200
=
z
100
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2lXX) 2001 2002
[J Single Family [J Duplex. Multi-Family . Mobile Horre/RV . Hotel/Motel
Figure 1.14 shows the breakdown in the types of residential permits issued over the last
decade.
Figure 1.14 - Types ofPennits Issued 1992-2002
Multi-Family
4%
Duplex
2%
HoteVMotel
10%
Single Family
79%
Growth Analysis
20
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Non-Residential Square Footage
Nonresidential permitting also plays a role in growth analysis. Nonresidential permits
include everything that is not residential, like: industrial, commercial, nonprofit & public
buildings, and replacement or remodeling of existing nonresidential structures. Also in-
cluded are vested and ROGO exempt hotels, motels, campgrounds, marinas and other com-
mercial facilities.
With very little industrial and agricultural activity in the Keys, the predominant form of
nonresidential development is commercial. In Monroe County, there are two primary types
of commercial development: retail trade and services (which includes tourism-related devel-
opment such as marinas and restaurants). Therefore, the impact of nonresidential develop-
ment on public facilities varies significantly based on the type of commercial use.
Nonresidential and residential development tend to fuel one another. Residential popula-
tions provide markets for nonresidential activities. Nonresidential development, in turn,
helps to drive population growth by providing services and employment. Certain types of
nonresidential development also concentrate the demand for public facilities within certain
locations and during peak periods.
The Monroe County Building Department tracks the number of nonresidential permits by
subdistrict in unincorporated Monroe County. In addition to the number of permits, the
Building Department tracks the amount of square footage affected in each nonresidential
building permit issued.
Figure 1.15, on the following page, shows the trends in nonresidential permitting from
1992 to 2002. The subdistricts shown in the chart do not directly correspond to the service
areas mandated in section of 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations. Refer to the
boundary descriptions found in Figure 1.11 of this report to compare the two areas. Five
hundred and seventy-one more non-residential building permits were issued in 2002 than in
200 1.
Growth Analysis
21
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
1992 Upper Keys 15 40,506
Middle Keys 2 7 ;J.h3
lower Keys 5 1,529
Subtotal 22 49,298
1993 Upper Keys 4 16,334
Middle Keys 4 24,812
lower Keys 4 Zl,Z36
Subtotal 12 68,382
1994 Upper Keys 4 24,648
Middle Keys 7 31,079
lower Keys 4 0
Subtotal 15 55,727
1995 Upper Keys 24 147,319
Middle Keys 12 109,331
lower Keys 8 10,004
Subtotal 44 266,654
1996 Upper Keys 17 102,795
Middle Keys 6 93,334
lower Keys 2 14,149
Subtotal 25 210,278
1997 Upper Keys 14 93,503
Middle Keys 83 8,420
lower Keys 2 18,327
Subtotal 99 120,250
1998 Upper Keys 4 60,936
Middle Keys 73 16,304
lower Keys 1 24,152
Subtotal 78 101,392
1999 Upper Keys 8 14,861
Middle Keys 68 84,715
lower Keys 1 2,054
Subtotal 77 101,630
2000 Upper Keys 8 33,873
Middle Keys 68 75,584
lower Keys 5 19,168
Subtotal 81 128,625
2001 Upper Keys 31 13,m
Middle Keys 1 4,998
lower Keys 4 8,575
Subtotal 36 86,880
2002 Upper Keys 3 3,m
Middle Keys 0 0
lower Keys 26 110,805
Subtotal 29 114,578
TOTALS 518 1,303,694
Source: Monroe Comty Building Department, 2003
Growth Analysis
22
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capaeity Assessment
Figure 1.16 shows the relative amount of square footage permitted in each of the three
service areas from 1992 to 2002.
Figure 1.16-Commercial SqJ8l'e
Footage by Senice Area 1992-2002
Lower
Keys
18%
Upper
Keys
47%
Middle
Keys
35%
Figure 1.17 shows the trends in the amount of nonresidential permitting activity have
fluctuated throughout the last decade. The permitting activity based on square footage af-
fected generally declined from 1990 through 1994 with a major jump in affected area occur-
ring in 1995 which resulted from the knowledge of an impending implementation of a non-
residential permit allocation system similar to the ROGO system for residential develop-
ment. Non-residential development has slightly declined since 2000 as the amount of devel-
opment in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys has fluctuated.
Figure 1.17 - Nonresidential Permits by Service Area 1992-2002
OIl
ell
g 300,(0)
u;.
~
ell 250,(0)
::s
~
3 200,(0)
c:
:9 150,(0)
<Il
Cl)
~ 100,(0)
=
~
"0 50,(0)
Cl)
U
~
o
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2(XX) 2001 2002
_ Upper Keys _ Middle Keys c::::J Lower Keys -+- Yearly Total
Growth Analysis
23
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
Since residential development is constrained through the Rate of Growth Ordinance and
the Permit Allocation System, it was thought that nonresidential (commercial) development
should also be constrained in the interest of maintaining a balance of land uses.
At the time the Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1991, 17.6% of the land was under
residential use, while 4.6% was used for commercial development as indicated in Table 2.1,
Monroe County Existing Land Uses, in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
Technical Document. It was determined that this balance was appropriate given the knowl-
edge available at the time the Comprehensive Plan was prepared.
To assure that balance was maintained, the Comprehensive Plan proposed Policy 101.3.1,
which states:
"Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and nonresidential growth
by limiting the gross square footage of nonresidential development over the 15 year planning
horizon in order to maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of nonresidential de-
velopment for each new residential unit permitted through the Permit Allocation
In other words, the Comprehensive Plan limits the square footage of new commercial
development that may be permitted. The commercial square footage allocation is 239 square
feet for each (1) new residential permit issued. This equates to around 24,968 square feet of
new commercial development per year throughout unincorporated Monroe County.
Between adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan on April 15, 1993, and December 31,
2001, permits were issued for 462,529 square feet of non-residential floor space, which was
not exempted from the comprehensive plan defined non-residential permit allocation system.
This amount of non-residential floor space includes permits for development within the Vil-
lage of Islamorada and City of Marathon prior to their respective incorporation.
Of the total square feet permitted, 276,641 square feet was permitted after April 15, 1993
(adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan) and prior to January 4, 1996. The remaining
185,888 square feet was permitted after that date for projects vested from the non-residential
permit allocation system provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
The BOCC adopted NROGO in September 2001. The approval was challenged, but subse-
quently a settlement was reached and NROGO became effective November 2002.
Applicants were requesting 18,222 square footage of floor area for the year 10 NROGO allo-
cation. There was 44,292 SF of non-residential floor area available for year 10 (July 2001-
July 2002). The BOCC approved 22,150 SF to be allocated for year 10. The first allocation
period closed in August 2002 and the second allocation period closed in November 2002.
Therefore, there is a total of 26,090 SF that can be carried over to year 11.
In March 2003, the Monroe County Planning Commission approved non-residential floor
area for year 11. A total of 5,300 commercial square feet was requested by applicants for
Growth Analysis
24
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
year 11. Based on the BOCC a total of 16,000 square feet of NROGO allocation is available
for new non-residential development.
Summary
To summarize, this growth analysis is based upon projected changes in population as
well as residential and nonresidential permitting in unincorporated Monroe County.
There are two groups that compose the population in Monroe County: the permanent
resident population, and the peak seasonal population. The sum of these two groups gives
the functional population, or the maximum number of people in the Keys on any given eve-
ning.
The functional population of all Monroe County is expected to grow by more than 6,000
people from 1990 to 2015, an increase of 11 % over the period. Planning Department projec-
tions show the rate of increase in functional population is expected to slow after the year
2000.
The functional population of unincorporated Monroe County is expected to reach 75,219
people in 2003, a decrease of 27% from 1990 due to the incorporations of Islamorada in
1997 and Marathon in 1999. The Upper Keys portion of unincorporated Monroe County
accounts for 49.3% of the unincorporated functional population, while the Lower Keys por-
tions accounts for 45.3% in 2003. These percentages are expected to remain relatively con-
stant through 2015.
The permanent population of all of Monroe County, according to the 2000 Census was
reported as 79,529, an increase of 1,787 from the 1990 Census. This is 6,093 less than the
projected 2000 population.
In terms of the number of residential permits, a total of 270 residential permits (including
vested or ROGO exempt hotel rooms) were issued in 2002, a slight increase from 2001.
From 1992 to 2002, 80% of the residential permits (2,544) were issued to single family
residences, while only 10% (335) were issued for multifamily, duplex, or mobile homes. A
total of 193 permits (70%) were issued for single family residences in 2002.
The current rate of growth guidelines indicate that unincorporated Monroe County has a
total of 182 permits it may issue during the ROGO year (not including the additional 90 re-
placement affordable housing units which were allowed by the DCA based upon the lower
enclosure removal program). Mer the incorporation of Marathon, this number fell to 158
permits a year.
The Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) was approved and became ef-
fective in November 2002. Based on the BOCC a total of 16,000 square feet of NROGO
allocation is available for new non-residential development in year 11.
Growth Analysis
25
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
This section of the report investigates the current capacity of the transportation network
in Monroe County. This analysis includes changes in traffic volumes, the level of service on
U.S. 1, the reserve capacity of the highway and county roads, and the Florida Department of
Transportation Five Year Work Program for Monroe County.
Roads are one of the four critical public facilities identified for annual assessment in the
Land Development Regulations. In fact, roads are the only public facility with clear and
specific standards for level of service measurements identified in the Land Development
Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. The regulations require all segments of U.S. 1 to re-
main at a level of service of 'C', and all County roads to be remain at a level of service 'D'.
Subsequent portions of this section will explain the level of service measurements, and how
the level of service is calculated.
Existing Roadway Facilities
Monroe County's roadway transportation system is truly unique. Nowhere else is there a
chain of islands over 100 miles long connected by 42 bridges along a single highway. This
single highway, the Overseas Highway (U.S. 1), functions as a collector, an arterial, and the
"Main Street" for the Keys. U.S. 1 is a lifeline for the Keys, from both economic and public
safety perspectives. Each day it carries food, supplies, and tourists from the mainland. In
the event of a hurricane, it is the only viable evacuation route to the mainland for most of
Monroe County.
U.S. 1 in Monroe County is predominantly a two-lane road. Of its 112 total miles, ap-
proximately 80 miles (74%) are two-lane segments that are undivided. The four-lane sec-
tions are located on Key Largo, Tavernier (MM 90 to 106), the Marathon area (MM 48 to
54), Bahia Honda (MM 35 to 37), and from Key West to Boca Chica (MM 2 to 9).
In addition to U.S. 1, there are 450 miles of County (secondary) roads with 38 bridges.
U.S. 1 and the County (secondary) roads have a combined total of approximately 340 inter-
sections in the Keys. The Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with main-
taining and improving secondary roads which are located within the boundaries of unincor-
porated Monroe County. The Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) is responsible
for maintaining U.S. 1.
Figure 2.1 identifies the traffic signals in operation along the U.S. 1 corridor (excluding
those found on the island of Key West).
Transportation Facilities
26
2003 Monroe County Public FaciUties Capacity Assessment
4.4
4.6
4.8
30.3
485
50
524
525
53
53.5
84.5
90
90.5
91.5
99.5
101
104
Traffic Volumes
Stock Island
Stock Island
Stock Island
Big Pine Key
Marathon
Marathon
Marathon
Marathon
Marathon
Fat Deer Key
Windley Key
Plantation Key
Plantation Key
Tavernier
Key Uirgo
Key Uirgo
Ke Uir 0
lena an
College Road
Ooss Street
MacDonald Avenue
Key Deer Blvd.
School Oossing
SonDrero Beach Blvd.
l07th Street
1000h Street
School Oossing
Key Colony Causeway
G905 @ Holiday Isle
Woods Avenue
Sunshine Road
Ocean Boulevard
Atlantic Boulevard
Tradewinds
School Oossin
ay
Traffic counts can be very useful in assessing the capacity of the road network, and help
determine when capacity improvements need to be made. The two primary measurements
for determining traffic volumes are the average daily traffic in an area (referred to as an
"ADT"), and the annual average daily traffic (referred to as an "AADT"). Average daily
traffic counts are collected from both directions over seven twenty-four hour periods which
usually include a weekend. The amount of traffic counted over the week is then divided by
five or seven to yield the average daily traffic for a particular location. The "5-day ADT"
measurement considers only weekdays, and the "7 -day ADT" includes the weekend. The
ADT information can then be used in a formula called a "weekly factor" to estimate the an-
nual average daily traffic, which is an estimate of the average amount of traffic at a particu-
lar location on any given day of the year.
In Monroe County, traffic counts have been conducted in the same locations since 1992.
These counts occur at Mile Marker 84 on Upper Matecumbe, Mile Marker 50 in Marathon,
and at Mile Marker 30 on Big Pine Key. The counts are usually performed during the six-
week peak tourist season which begins in the second week of February. This year's counts
were completed between February 25 and March 10, 2003. Figure 2.2, on the following
page, compares the traffic counts for 2002 with those for 2001.
The average weekday (5-Day ADT) and the average weekly (7-Day ADT) traffic vol-
umes, compared to last year, have increased in the Big Pine and Upper Matecumbe locations.
The 5-day ADT has decreased while the and 7-day ADT increased at the Marathon location
in this year's study compared to last year. The AADTs increased in all three locations in
2003.
Transportation Facilities
27
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capaeity Assessment
Big Pine Key (MM 30)
5-Day ADT 22,612
7-Day ADT 21,937
AADT 19,364
Marathon (MM 50)
5-Day ADT 36,989 36,817
7-Day ADT 35,442 35,984
AADT 31,285 31,763
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84)
5-Day ADT 26,589 26,759 0.64%
7-Day ADT 26,475 26,514 0.15%
AADT 23,369 23,404 0.15%
Source: 2003 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study,
URS Inc.
23,341
22,788
20,115
3.22%
3.88%
3.88%
-0.47%
153%
153%
A detailed historical comparison of the AADT traffic counts at all three locations for the
period from 1994 to 2003 is shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3 shows that the Marathon location consistently records the highest traffic vol-
umes throughout the period, with counts generally in the upper 20,000 to 30,000 range. The
o
o
o~
o
"t'
o
o
q
o
~8
o~
o
N
o
o
o~
o
~
o
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2m) 2001 2002 2003
. Big Pine Key
. Marathon
o Upper Matecunne
Transportation Facilities
28
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
AADT counts for Big Pine and Upper Matecumbe hover in the low 20,000 range over the
period.
A regression analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last eight years
indicate that traffic volumes in the Big Pine Key segment have been increasing at a rate of
0.19% per year. Traffic volumes in the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe segments of U.S. 1
have been increasing at a rate of 1.47% and 2.13% per year respectively. The historical
growth in traffic on U.S. 1 is depicted in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 - Regression Analysis of AADTs 1994-2003
Marathon
4OOX) Rate of growth
= 1.47% per year
3<XXX) .- _L ---y= .......- ...... - ... - ... - .. - .. - ·
, - - t .. It . ~
2CXXX) . - -. - - .. - - - - ... - -+ - - .
Upper Matecumbe Big Pine
1<XXX:1 Rate of growth Rate of growth
= 2.13% per year = 0.19 % per year
0 , , , , I I I I --,
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2(0) 2001 2002 2003
. Big Pine Key . Marathon
Upper Matecumbe - Upper Matecunbe Trendline
- - Marathon Trendline - - - . Big Pine Key Trendline
Source: 2003 Arterial and Travel TimelDelay Study, URS, Inc.
Level of Service Background
Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies of U.S. 1 on an annual basis
since 1991. The primary objective of the U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study is to
monitor the level of service on U.S. Highway 1 for concurrency management purposes pur-
suant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regula-
tions. The study utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume-based capacities and
the speed-based level of service methodology developed by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task
Force.
The U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force is a multi-agency group with members from
Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of
Community Affairs. A uniform methodology was developed in 1993 and amended Decem-
ber 1997. The methodology adopted considers both the overall level of service from Key
West to the mainland, and the level of service on 24 selected segments. The methodology
was developed from basic criteria and principles contained in Chapters 7 (Rural Multilane
Transportation Facilities
29
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two-Lane Highways) and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban
Arterials) of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
Overall Level of Service on U.S. 1
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 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.
The overall level of service or capacity of the entire length of U.S. 1 is measured in the
average speed of a vehicle traveling from one end to the other of U.S. 1. The level of service
(LOS) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County, as adopted by the U.S. 1
Level of Service Task Force, are as follows:
LOS A = 51 mph or greater
LOS B = 48 mph to 50.9 mph
LOS C = 45 mph to 47.9 mph
LOS D = 42 mph to 44.9 mph
LOS E = 36 mph to 41.9 mph
LOS F = below 36 mph
Both Monroe County and the Florida Department of Transportation have adopted a level
of service 'c' standard for the overall length of U.S. I. In other words, a vehicle traveling
from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112 (or vice versa) must maintain an average speed of at
least 45 mph to achieve the level of service 'c' standard.
The median overall speed during the 2003 study was 46.1 mph, which is 1.0 mph lower
than the 2003 median speed of 47.1 mph. The mean operating speed was 45.9 mph with a
95% confidence interval of plus or minus 0.7 mph. All of these measurements correspond to
LOS C conditions.
The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 49.0 mph (0.1 mph lower than 2002
highest overall speed), which occurred on Thursday, February 27, 2003 between 3:15 p.m.
and 6:15 p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 41.5 mph
(5.9% higher than 2002 lowest overall speed), that occurred on Wednesday, March 5, 2003
between 2:45 p.m. and 5:20 p.m. in the southbound direction. Figure 2.5 examines the
changes in the median overall speed on U.S. 1.
Figure 2.5 shows that the overall median speed for U.S. 1 has remained between 45.7
mph and 47.8 from 1992 to the present. It is interesting to note that most changes in the me-
dian speed show a reduction, however the overall median speed has improved since 1992.
Should the overall median speed fall ever below 45 mph (the minimum LOS C standard),
then the U.S. 1 capacity would be considered inadequate.
Transportation Facilities
30
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
.1' I: .
-
1992 46.9 C -
1993 47.4 C 0.5
1994 47.3 C -0.1
1995 47.8 C 0.5
1996 47.1 C -0.7
1997 46.5 C -0.7
1998 45.7 C -0.8
1999 46.7 C 1
2(XXl 46.4 C -0.3
2001 46.9 C 1
2002 47.1 C -0.2
2003 46.1 C -1
Source: 2003 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study. URS Inc.
48.0
I 47.5
47.0
46.5
~ 46.0
J 45.5
45.0
44.5
<ft'" PI'" PI'" PI" Plio l' PI'b <fto, <S'r;:, <S'.... <S'''' <S''''
.... ....OJ ....OJ ....OJ ....OJ .... ....OJ .... 'V 'V 'V 'V
Level of Service on U.S. 1 Segments
In addition to a determination of the overall capacity throughout the entire 108 mile
length of U.S. 1 between Mile Marker 4 and 112, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development
Regulations requires that the capacity of portions or "segments" of U.S. 1 also be assessed
annually. There are a total of twenty four (24) segments of U.S. 1 from Mile Marker 4 to
Mile Marker 112. A description of the segment boundaries can be found in Figure 2.7 on the
following page. The segments were defined by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to
reflect roadway cross sections, speed limits, and geographical boundaries.
The capacity or level of service for a U.S. 1 segment is measured in median speeds, simi-
lar to the overall capacity measurement. Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within in-
dividuallinks of U.S. 1, and reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. However,
the determination of the median speed on a segment is a more involved process than deter-
mining the overall level of service since different segments have different conditions.
The Land Development Regulations require each segment of the highway to maintain a
level of service of 'c' or better. The level of service criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in
Transportation Facilities
31
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
1 4 5 Cow Key Bridge (N) Key Haven Boulevard Stock Island, Key Haven 1
2 5 9 Key Haven Rockland Drive Boca Otica, Rockland 2
Boulevard
3 9 10.5 Rockland Drive Boca Otica Road 'Co itt 2
4 10.5 16.5 Boca Otica Road Harris Otannel Bridge Shark, Saddlebunch 3
5 16.5 20.5 Harris Otannel Bow Otannel Bridge Lower & Upper Sugarloaf 3
Brid e
6 20.5 23 Bow Otannel Bridge S . h M . Driv O1djoe 4A
pams am e
7 23 25 S anish Main Drive East Shore Drive Su~rland 4A
8 25 27.5 East Shore Drive Torch-Ramrod Bridge Ranrod 4A
S
9 27.5 29.5 Torch-Ramrod N. Pine Otannel little Torch 4A
Brid e S Brid e
10 29.5 33 N. Pine Otannel Long Beach Drive Big Pine 5
Brid e
11 33 40 Long Beach Drive 7- Mile Bridge (S) 6
12 40 47 7- Mile Brid e 6
13 47 54 Cocoa Plum Drive Beach 7
14 54 60.5 Cocoa Plum Drive Toms Harbor Ot Fat Deer Oaw~ Gassy 8
Brid e S
15 60.5 63 Toms Harbor Ot Long Key Bridge (S) Duck, Conch 10
Brid e S
16 63 73 Long Key Bridge (S) Otannel #2 Bridge (N) Long, Fies ta, Oaig 11
17 73 77.5 Otannel #2 Bridge lignumvitae Bridge Lower Matecunbe 12A
S
18 77.5 79.5 lignumvitae Bridge Tea Table Relief Fill 12A
S Brid e
19 79.5 84 Tea Table Relief Whale Harbor Bridge Upper Matecunbe 13
Brid e S
20 84 86 Whale Harbor Snake Oeek Bridge Windley 12B
Brid e S
21 86 915 Snake Oeek Brid e Ocean Boulevard 14
22 91.5 99.5 Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard 15 & 16
23 99.5 106 Atlantic Boulevard C-905 17 - 20
24 106 1125 C905 Count line S' n 22
NOTE: (N) and (S) refer to the north and south side of the bridges respectively
Source: 2003 Arterial and Travel Timel Delay Study. URS Inc.
Monroe County depends on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the
given segment. Flow characteristics relate to the ability of a vehicle to travel through a par-
ticular segment without being slowed or stopped by traffic signals or other devices. Seg-
Transportation Facilities 32
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
ments with a series of permanent traffic signals or other similar traffic control devices in
close proximity to each other are considered to be "Interrupted Flow Segments", and are ex-
pected to have longer travel times due to the delays caused by these signals or control de-
vices. Roadway segments without a series of signals or control devices are considered to be
"Uninterrupted Flow Segments". Uninterrupted segments may have one or more traffic sig-
nals, but they are not in close proximity to one another as in the interrupted segment case.
The methodology used to determine median speed and level of service on a particular seg-
ment is based upon that segment's status as an interrupted or uninterrupted flow segment.
1 Stock Island A Adequate
2 Boca Chica A Adequate
3 Big Coppitt C Marginal
4 Saddlebunch C Marginal
5 Sugarloaf C Marginal
6 O1djoe A Adequate
7 Su~rland B Adequate
8 Ramrod A Adequate
9 Torch A Adequate
10 Big Pine C Marginal
11 Bahia Honda A Adequate
12 7-Mile Bridge B Adequate
13 Marathon A Adequate
14 Gassy C Marginal
15 Duck C Marginal
16 Long B Adequate
17 L Matecumbe D Marginal
18 Tea Table D Marginal
19 U. Matecunbe C Marginal
20 Windley A Adequate
21 Plantation B Adequate
22 Tavernier A Adequate
23 Ulrgo A Adequate
24 Ooss D Mar inal
Source: 2003 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study. URS Inc.
There are two interrupted segments of U.S. 1 in the Keys: Segment 1 in Stock Island, and
Segment 13 in Marathon; the remainder of the segments are considered as uninterrupted.
However, there are some uninterrupted segments which do have signal controls, like Seg-
ment 10 on Big Pine Key. In these situations, the travel time taken to traverse an uninter-
rupted segment with a traffic signal is reduced by 25 seconds to account for the possible de-
lay resulting from traffic signal.
In addition to different methodologies, there are different level of service standards for
interrupted and uninterrupted roadways segments. Figure 2.10 shows the different standards
for a roadway segment based upon its flow characteristics. Figure 2.9 is a map of the seg-
ment boundaries indicating 2001 LOS, found on the following page.
Transportation Facilities
33
2003 Monroe County PubUc FaciUties Capacity Assessment
Figure 2.9. Map of U.S. 1 Segments
" /,..",-
<~.o,,~.
. !,;'ti .,i,;
#24 LOS 0
"J.~
~;E'
(~~t
/'
,;
.~.
Transportation Facilities
34
2003 Monroe County PubUc FaciUties Capacity Assessment
ore 2.10 - Le~1 ofSernce Standard'l Based 00 Flow Cbaracteristics
A 1.5 mph above speed limit <= 35 mph
B 1.5 mph below speed limit <= 28 rq>h
C 4.5 mph below speed limit <= 22 mph
D 7.5 mph below speed limit <= 17 mph
E 13.5 mph below speed limit <= 13 mph
F > 13.5 h below seed limit > 13 h
Source: 2003 Arterial and Travel Timel Delay Study. URS Inc.
Reserve Capacities
The difference between the median speed and the LOS C standard gives the reserve
speed, which is converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and
corresponding additional development. Figure 2.11 lists the median speeds by segment for
2001 and 2002.
Stock Island 33.3 35.8 2.5
Boca Chica 57.1 58 0.9
Big Coppitt 45.7 46.1 0.4
Saddlebunch 51.3 52.3 1
Sugarloaf 47.9 47.9 0
O1djoe 48.1 47.5 -0.6
Su~rland 45.6 45.3 -0.3
Ramrod 47.3 46.7 -0.6
Torch 46.7 47.2 0.5
Big Pine 35.4 39.7 4.3
Bahia Honda 53.2 54.2 1
7-Mile Bridge 52.4 54.3 1.9
Marathon 35.8 38.2 2.4
Grassy 50.7 50.9 0.2
Duck 54 53 -1
Long 52.5 52.3 -0.2
L Matecumbe 51.5 50.1 -1.4
Tea Table 50 49.2 -0.8
U. Matecumbe 41.2 41.7 0.5
Windley 41.2 42.2 1
Plantation 42.3 41.3 -1
Tavernier 48.6 49.9 1.3
Largo 45.4 48.4 3
Ooss 51.1 46.2 -4.9
Source: 2003 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study. URS Inc.
Transportation Facilities
3S
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
The median overall speed of U.S. 1 in 2003 is 46.1 mph, which is a decrease of 1.0 mph
from the 2002 overall median speed of 47.1 mph. Comparing the 2003 overall median speed
to the LOS 'c' standard of 45 mph yields an overall reserve speed of 1.1 mph. By using a
formula developed by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force, the reserve speed for 2003 can
be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of approximately 20,402 trips for U.S. 1.
The reserve capacity for U.S. 1 was decreased 18,547 trips from 2002 to 2003.
The estimated reserve volume (20,407 trips) can then be converted into an estimated ca-
pacity 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 U.S. 1
Residential Capacity = 20.402
(8 trips per day per unit) x 0.8
Residential Capacity = 3,188 units
Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of U.S. 1 individu-
ally gives maximum reserve volume of trips for all segments totaling 101,112 trips for U.S.
1. This maximum reserve volume is unobtainable due to the constraint imposed by the over-
all reserve volume of 20,402 mentioned above.
As stated earlier, the Land Development Regulations mandate a minimum level of ser-
vice of 'c' for all roadway segments of U.S. 1. However, the regulations and FDOT policy
do allow segments that fail to meet the LOS C standards in a given year to receive an addi-
tional allocation of trips provided the median travel speed for the segment is within 95% of
the of the WS C speed for that segment. This additional allocation is referred to as the
"reserve capacity" for the segment.
The resulting flexibility allows a limited amount of additional land development to con-
tinue until traffic speeds are measured again next year or until remedial actions are imple-
mented. These segments are candidates for designations as either "backlogged" or
"constrained" by FDOT. Applications for new development located within backlogged or
constrained segments are required to undergo a thorough traffic analysis as part of the review
process.
Based on this year's results, the Lower Matecumbe segment (# 17) and Tea Table seg-
ment (#18), and Cross Key segment (# 24) have fallen under the WS C threshold. Each of
these segments are still within the 95 % WS C condition, resulting in some reserve trips.
When no additional trips can be allocated to a particular roadway segment, then it is con-
sidered as "inadequate" from a public facility standpoint. The Land Development Regula-
tions indicate that no additional development which could impact an inadequate public facil-
ity may be permitted. In 2003, no segments are considered to be 'inadequate'. The seg-
Transportation Facilities
36
2003 Monroe County Public FaciUties Capacity Assessment
ments mentioned above are at a level of service D but do have reserve capacity.
In addition to the requirement that areas with inadequate public facilities be identified in
the annual assessment, the Land Development Regulations also require those areas with mar-
ginally adequate public facilities to be identified. For the purposes of this report, U.S. 1 seg-
ments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph in 2002 are considered as
"marginally adequate". Any applications for new development which would generate traffic
in marginally adequate areas must submit a detailed traffic report for consideration during
review.
This year's report indicates that the 7.5 miles of the Big Coppitt and Saddlebunch seg-
ments (#3 and #4) , the 4 mile segment on Sugarloaf (# 5), Big Pine (#10) ,5.5 mile segment
on Grassy Key (#14), Duck Key (#15), the 11 mile segment from Lower Matecumbe to Up-
per Matecumbe (#s 17-19), and the Cross Key segment (#24) are all marginally adequate.
The 2002 report indicated eight segments as marginally adequate. This number has in-
creased to ten segments in 2003. The Big Pine segment improved to marginal with a me-
dian speed 1.6 mph above the acceptable LOS C criteria of 38.1 mph. Figure 2.11 summa-
rizes each segment's status in 2002.
Level of Service on County Roads
Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations establishes a level of service stan-
dard of LOS D for all County roads, as measured on a volume or annual average daily traffic
(AADT) basis.
Based on the results of this analysis as shown on Table 4.7 in the Monroe County Year
2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document, all of the County roads examined are oper-
ating at or above the County standard of LOS D.
Improvements to Roadway Facilities
Major improvements scheduled for U.S. 1 are outlined in the Florida Department of
Transportation Five-Year Work Program. The major project for unincorporated Monroe
County in the current FOOT Work Program (2000/2001 to 2005/06) is to replace the Jewfish
Creek drawbridge with a high-level fixed-span bridge and the installation of culverts to im-
prove the tidal flow to the surrounding wetlands. The construction phase for this project is
2006.
The construction of wildlife roadway crossings to decrease vehicular interactions with
Key Deer on U.S. 1 between North Pine Channel and the Spanish Harbor Bridge were com-
pleted in late 2002. Another project is the planning, project development and environmental
design for adding turn lanes to U.S. 1 on Big Coppitt Key from the Rockland Channel
Bridge to Old Boca Chica Road. Additionally, the repair/rehabilitation of the Jewfish Creek
Bridge deck and the resurfacing of U.S. 1 from South of the Jewfish Creek Bridge to the Mi-
ami-Dade County line are scheduled for 2003/04.
Transportation Facilities
37
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
In addition to road projects on U.S. 1, the construction of bicycle paths are also on the
work schedule for the upcoming five years. These projects include construction of bike
paths in the following locations:
. connecting Bahia Honda to Little Duck Key
. connecting Bay Point on Saddlebunch Key to Sugarloaf Key
. connecting MM 5.2 on Key Haven to MM 9.6 on Big Coppitt Key
. MM 59.2 on Grassy Key to MM 65.2 on Long Key
. MM 25 on Summerland Key to MM 37 on Bahia Honda Key
. MM 16.5 Sugarloaf Key to MM 24.5 on Summerland Key
. MM 68.4 to MM 73.8
Copies of the FDOT's most recent Five Year Work Program are available at the Florida
Department of Transportation offices in Marathon.
Summary
The Land Development Regulations provide clear guidance for assessing the capacity of
the roadway system in Momoe County. U.S. 1 is required to maintain at least a level of ser-
vice of 'C', while County roads must maintain a level of service of 'D'. Level of service is
determined using the speed-based methodology developed by the U.S. 1 Level of Service
Task Force in 1993. The speed based methodology utilizes the empirical relationship be-
tween volume-based capacities, and median vehicle speeds. The level of service for U.S. 1
is measured for the overall 108 miles of the roadway as well as for the 24 individual seg-
ments making up the roadway in the Keys.
The traffic volumes on U.S. 1 have increased since 2002. The three count locations on
U.S. 1: Big Pine, Marathon, and Upper Matecumbe, have shown a historical traffic growth.
The overall travel speed on U.S. 1 for 2003 is one mph lower compared to the 2002 over-
all travel speed. The reserve speed for the entire length of U.S. 1 is 1.1 miles per hour. This
means that the entire segment is operating with only marginal capacity.
Compared to 2002 data, the travel speeds on 14 of the 24 segments increased. These
segments are:
Stock Island (+2.5 mph)
Big Coppitt (+0.4 mph)
Boca Chica (+0.95 mph)
Big Pine (+4.3 mph)
Grassy (+0.2 mph)
Torch (+0.5 mph)
Bahia Honda (+1.0 mph)
U. Matecumbe (+ 0.5 mph)
Windley Keys (+ 1.0 mph)
Marathon (+2.4 mph)
7-Mile Bridge (+1.9 mph)
Saddlebunch (+1.0 mph)
Tavernier (+1.3 mph)
Key largo (+3.0 mph)
Transportation Facilities
38
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
Travel speeds in 9 segments have decreased. These segments are:
Compared to last year's (2002) study results, there are changes in LOS to seven seg-
ments. The Stock Island segment experienced a LOS increase from 'B' to 'A'. The Big
Pine segment experienced a LOS increase from 'D' to 'C'. The Bahia Honda and the 7-
Mile Bridge both experienced a LOS increase to 'A' and 'B' respectively. The Duck Key
segment experienced a LOS decrease from 'B' to 'C'. The Lower Matecumbe segment ex-
perienced a decrease from 'c' to 'D' which is below the threshold. The Cross segment ex-
perienced a significant LOS decrease from 'B' to 'D'.
The largest speed increase of 4.3 mph was recorded in the Big Pine Key segment. The
same segment was recorded for largest reduction during the last year's study. The largest
speed reduction of 4.9 mph was recorded in the Cross segment segment for this year's study.
In 2003 there were ten segments which are considered 'marginal' in terms of reserve ca-
pacity. The 7.5 miles of the Big Coppitt and Saddlebunch segments (#3 and #4) , the 4 mile
segment on Sugarloaf (# 5), Big Pine (#10) , 5.5 mile segment on Grassy Key (#14), Duck
Key (#15), the 11 mile segment from Lower Matecumbe to Upper Matecumbe (#s 17-19),
and the Cross Key segment (#24) are all marginally adequate. The 2002 report indicated
eight segments as marginally adequate. This number has increased to ten segments in 2003.
The Big Pine segment improved to marginal with a median speed 1.6 mph above the accept-
able LOS C criteria of 38.1 mph.
All County roads have levels of service above the required standard of 'D'.
Transportation Facilities
39
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
ITI. POTABLE WATER
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the provider of potable water in the
Florida Keys. The Biscayne Aquifer is the groundwater supply source for the FKAA. The
wellfield is located in a pineland preserve west of Florida City in Miami-Dade County. The
FKAA wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater in the State, meeting or
exceeding all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Strong laws protect the wellfield from
potentially contaminating adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's requirements, FKAA is
committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water quality standards and re-
quirements.
In October 2002, South Florida Water Management approved the FKAA's increase in
Water Use Permit (WUP). The WUP increases FKAA's potential withdraws to an average of
19.93 and a maximum of 23.79 million gallons per day. In 2002, the FKAA distributed
6.191 billion gallons of water to the Florida Keys. As a condition of the WUP, the FKAA is
constructing a Floridan Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) system. This system is de-
signed to recharge and store water from the Biscayne Aquifer during the wet season (May
through November) in the Floridan Aquifer which is approximately 800-1,000 feet below the
ground surface, and then recover fresh water to supplement the Biscayne Aquifer during the
dry season (December through April). Unless the projected future water demands decrease,
the FKAA must also consider an alternative source of water supply such as a brackish or salt
water source which will require a new water treatment plant.
The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Fa-
cility in Florida City, which currently has a maximum water treatment capacity of 22 million
gallons per day (MGD). The water treatment process consists primarily of lime softening,
filtration, disinfection and fluoridation. The treated water is pumped to the Florida Keys
through a 130 mile long pipeline at a maximum pressure of 250 pounds per square inch (psi).
The pipeline varies in diameter from 36 inches in Key Largo to 18 inches in Key West. The
FKAA distributes the treated water through 648 miles of distribution piping ranging in size
from % inch to 12 inches in diameter. In 2002, the FKAA replaced over 54,874 feet of vari-
ous size distribution water mains. The FKAA's Water Distribution System Upgrade Plan
calls for the upgrade or replacement of 53,160 feet of water main during fiscal year 2002-03.
The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of
45.2 million gallons system wide. The size of the 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 Reverse Osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock Island and
Marathon, are available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO de-
salination plants are capable of producing their designed capacities of 1.8 and 0.9 million
gallons per day (MGD) of water, respectively.
Potable Water
40
2003 Monroe County PubUc FaciUties Capacity Assessment
At present, Key West is the only area 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 wa-
ter 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/tank stations are being upgraded to
provide additional fire flow and pressure.
A map of the various FKAA facilities in the Keys is shown below.
Figure 3.1. FKAA Facilities
~..~. ~.
SlOCK ISLAND
\' lIDO HI' PUiII'S " we ." >.to . ~
\~~~
\ \. ' Ie ... PUlII'$ , 20 .. -
\ COPPllT KEY
J 3DllPl'UIoIIPS
\ ~ BIG PINE KEY
~ JJD"-
\. SUMNtR\.AND. ~
KEY
\ 7'$ oJ> ~
\ \
SYSTE'" OVERvIEW
~ FlORIDA CITY
~~~
22 _ ..,,- ......
q~*S~
3_"1'\IIlI'S
KEY WEST GE::I~
2 \00 WIt ~l'_=vc;lt,:t~J
1 200'" "ll1l'S
~9~~(!li
L~
LONe KEY ~1
CRAWl. ICEY. ~ 3 100 ... PUMPS
z 30 .. fllUt.IIIt$-~
6lJth ST UAP"'T>lON
730""_~
l~J.~~6~j
The FKAA has been working with the South Florida Water Management (SFWM) to
increase its water use permit (WUP). In October 2002, South Florida Water Management
(SFWM) approved the FKAA Water Use Permit (WUP) modification. The WUP allows the
FKAA to withdraw an average of 19.93 and a maximum of 23.79 million gallons per day.
Demand for Potable Water
Potable Water
41
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2(XXl
2001
2002
2,854.90
3,101.10
3,497.30
3,390.20
3,467.50
4,139.20
4,641.50
4,794.60
4,819.80
4,935.90
4,404.10
4,286.00
4,461.10
5,023.90
5,080.00
5,140.40
5,27200
5,356.00
5,630.00
5,935.30
6,228.00
5,626.70
6,191.16
8.60%
1280%
-3.10%
230%
19.40%
1210%
3.30%
0.50%
240%
-10.80%
-270%
4.10%
12.60%
1.10%
1.20%
260%
1.60%
5.10%
5.40%
10.60%
-9.70%
10.03%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,450
4,450
5,110
5,110
5,110
5,110
5,560
5,560
5,560
5,560
5,560
5,778
5,778
5,778
5,778
5,778
5,778
5,778
7,274
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9825
310.8
468.5
315.4
290.2
174.1
1,155.90
1,274.00
1,098.90
536.1
480
637.6
506
422
148
-157.3
-450
151.3
1083.29
Demand for potable water is influenced by many factors, including the size of the perma-
nent resident and seasonal populations, the demand for commercial water use, landscaping
practices, conservation measures, and the weather. Figure 3.2 summarizes FKAA's historic
Figure 3.3 . FKMAnnual Water Withdraw!
8,000
~, 7,000
.E 6,000
-;;
o 5,000
~ 4000
'" '
.2 3,000
i 2,000
1,000
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<>.~~~~~~~&&&
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1_ Annual Withdrawal (MG) ~ WUP Limit (MG) I
Figure 3.4 . WUP ReIDlliDing Allocation
Ie
.sa
Ol
o
...
o
g
:::l
""
,.
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
o
-200
-400
-600
rf,'I'" rf,'I"" rf,'I" rf,'I" rf,'I'" rf,'I" rf,'I'+> rf,'Io, <s>'" <s>' <s>'"
""",,,"'V'\I"\I
Potable Water
42
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
withdrawals, in millions of gallons. The table also shows the percent change in withdrawal
from one year to the next, the existing Water Use Permit (WUP) withdrawal limits, and the
reserve capacity available for future development under the existing WUP
The following graphs show the relationship between the amount of water withdrawn on
an annual basis and the limit of the Water Use Permit through the 1990s.
FK.AA's current Water Use Permit (Permit # 13-00005W) from the South Florida Water
Management District was obtained in 2002, and is good for a period of five years. The cur-
rent WUP allows an average daily water withdrawal of 19.93 million gallons per day
(MGD), a maximum daily withdrawal of 23.79 MGD, and a yearly maximum of 7.274.45
billion gallons.
Average Daily Withdrawal 19.93
MaxiImmDaily Withdrawal 23.79
Annual Withdrawal 7,274
All ures are in millions 0 a lions
Source: Aorida Keys Aqueduct Authorit y, 2003
16.97
20.46
6,191
17.49
22.2
6,382
Preliminary figures for 2003 indicate an increase in average day water use of 2 percent
through May compared to 2002 figures. Therefore, the average daily water demand with-
drawal projections for 2003 reflect this increase.
1998 156,120 15,830,(XX) 101.4 19, 190,(XX) 122.9
1999 157,172 15,830,(XX) 100.7 19,190,(XX) 122.1
2(XXl 159,113 15,830,(XX) 99.5 19,190,(XX) 120.6
2001 159,840 15,830,(XX) 99 19, 190,(XX) 120.1
2002 160,568 19,930,(XX) 124.1 23,790,(XX) 148.2
2003 161,227 19,930,(XX) 123.6 23,790,(XX) 147.6
Source: Aorida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2003
Figure 3.5 shows the projected water demand for the Keys in 2002.
Figure 3.6 indicates the amount of water available on a per capita basis. Based on Func-
tional Population and permitted water withdrawal, the average water available is slightly be-
low 100 gallons per capita (person). The 100 gallons per person per day standard is com-
monly accepted as appropriate, and is reflected in Policy 701.1.1 of the Year 2010 Compre-
hensive Plan.
The 1999 Public Facility Capacity Assessment Report indicated four recommended ac-
Potable Water
43
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
tions to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to potable water:
_ Continue to monitor water consumption and return to the Board for further direction
_ Prepare and adopt a series of ordinances related to water conservation, including
plumbing efficiency standards, a landscaping ordinance, and a permanent irrigation ordi-
nance
_ Enter into a memorandum of understanding with the FKAA to address the above items
The Growth Management Division plans to work with the FKAA on water consumption
and conservation. Revised plumbing efficiency standards have been implemented. Efforts
on a permanent irrigation ordinance should be coordinated with Momoe County and other
local governments. The Growth Management Division has offered to work with the FKAA
on the development of an intergovernmental team to discuss water conservation options
since conservation efforts must be undertaken by all jurisdictions in the Keys to be success-
ful.
Improvements to Potable Water Facilities
FKAA has a long-range capital improvement plan for both the distribution system and
the transmission and supply system, as shown in the table below. The total cost of the sched-
uled improvements is approximately $60 million over the next 6 years. These projects are to
be funded by the newly revised water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants.
The scheduled distribution system improvements include replacing and upgrading lines
in various subdivisions throughout the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. These improve-
ments began in 1989, when FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Upgrade Program
to replace approximately 190 miles of galvanized lines.
In addition to improvements to the distribution system, FKAA also has significant im-
provements planned for the transmission and supply system. FKAA expects to expand the
treatment capacity at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant to meet future water de-
mands. Also, the FKAA is planning improvements to the pump stations to improve
flow/pressure and construction of water storage tanks to provide additional emergency water
supply.
Figure 3.7 on the following pages shows the projected capital improvements to the pota-
ble water system planned by the FKAA.
Potable Water
44
2003 Monroe County PubUc FaciUties Capacity Assessment
1065 Phase 1- Tank, time Slater,
Wells, Chem
1077 Phase II - Additional Filter 100,000 500,000 1,300,000
& Plant Inst. Imp 1,900,000
1073 Aquifer StOflllJ: and 500,000 750,000 750,000 2,000,000
Recovery (ASR)
1079 WfP Control System 150,000 150,000
Security Cameras and 350,000 350,000
lighting
Desalination Production 250,000 250,000 500,000
Facility
Replace Distribution Pipe 2,800,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 18,800,000
North Roosevelt Blvd (JPA 425,000 850,000
wIFDOT) 425,000
2186 Key West Plant Pump 100,000 450,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,550,000
Station
2130 BigCoppitt Tank and Pump 430,000 430,000
Station
2183 SumrnerlandlCudjoe Tank & 100,000 800,000 400,000 1,300,000
Pump Station
2191 Vaca Cut Tank & Pump 150,000 815,000
Station 65,000 600,000
2187 lslarnorada 750,000 750,000
TankslDistnbution Imp.
2189 Big Pine Pump Station 70,000 600,000 150,000 820,000
2143 Ocean Reef Pump Station 350,000 350,000
Key Lar3' Stor~ Tank & 1,000,000 2,000,000
Dist. Pump Station 1,000,000
Water Tank Long Key 1,100,000 1,100,000
Station
Water Tank Ramrod Station 1,100,000 1,100,000
1075 Marathon Pump Station 60,000 700,000 300,000 1,060,000
Imp. (Engine&Pumps)
1042 Jewflsh Creek (DOT) 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,500,000
1051 Cross Key (JPA wIDOT) 1,200,000 1,200,000 2,400,000
North Roosevelt Blvd (JP A 425,000 425,000 850,000
wIFDOT)
1058 Cathodic Protection System 300,000 600,000 600,000 1,500,000
1068 Valve Replacement 20,000 80,000 100,000
1064 Key Lar3' Trans Pump Sta. 450,000 3,500,000 1,500,000 250,000 5,700,000
& Pipeline Inst.
Replace 500' 18" Trans. - 100,000 100,000
Key larBJ> radio
Replace 1,400' 18" Trans.- 300,000 300,000
Key larBJ> swamp
Replace 20,000' 36" Trans. 1,500,000 3,500,000
Key lar3' 2,000,000
Potable Water 45
2003 Monroe County PubUc FaciUties Capacity Assessment
3080 Rockland Key - Area 2 & 60,000 600,000 200,000 860,000
CoIISt. Crew Yard
3073 Desai Seawall & Dolphins 30,000 250,000 280,000
Admin Bldg Renov. 20,000 300,000 500,000 820,000
(Security lRoof/AClFire)
3077 Marathon Central 50,000 300,000 500,000 850,000
Warehouse
3076 Marathon RO Plant 10,000 10,000
Acoustic Wall
Records Retention 85,000 85,000 170,000
Warehouse
DPSAL - Customer Serv. 350,000 400,000 750,000
Field Rep Office
Marathon Custo~r 1,000,000
Service Center 175,<XXl 825,<XXl
Stock Island Pump Station 10,000 100,000 110,000
Wao;tewater
3083 Lower Keys G~ 20,000 100,000 120,000
Wao;tewater
roTALS 5,675,(){)() 14,435,(){)() 12,960,(){)() IO,475,(){)() IO,150,(){)() 7,O50,(){)() 6(),745,(){)()
Source: Florida Keys Aqued1l:t Authority, 2003
Potable Water
46
2003 Monroe County PubUc FaciUties Capacity Assessment
IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES
The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 13 public schools located
throughout the Keys. Their data includes both unincorporated and incorporated Monroe
County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three middle/
elementary schools, and six elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields, computer
labs, a cafetorium that serves as both a cafeteria and auditorium, and bus service. Approxi-
mately 54 busses transport about 4,316 students to and from school each day. In addition to
these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums.
The school system is divided into three subdistricts that are similar, but not identical to
the service areas outlined in Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations. One
difference is that the School Board includes Fiesta Key and the islands that make up Islamo-
rada in the Upper Keys (Subdistrict 1), while the Land Development Regulations place them
in the Middle Keys (Subdistrict 2). Also, the School Board includes Key West in the Lower
Keys (Subdistrict 3), while the Land Development Regulations do not consider Key West.
The data presented in this section are based on the School Board's subdistricts.
Subdistrict 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and in-
cludes one high school and two elementary/middle schools, as shown in Figure 4.1. Subdis-
trict 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven Mile Bridge and includes one
high/middle school and one elementary school. Subdistrict 3 covers the Lower Keys, from
Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school, one middle school, one elementary/
middle school, and five elementary schools.
Coral Shores High School (9-12)
Key Largo Elementary/Middle
School (K-8)
Plantation Key Elementary/Middle
School (K-8)
Marathon Middle/High School (7-12) Key West High School (9-12)
Stanley Switlik Elementary (K-6)
Horace OBryant Middle School (6-8)
Adams Elementary (K-S)
Archer/Reynolds Elementary (K-S)
Poinciana Elementary (K-S)
Sigsbee Elementary (K-S)
Big Pine Key Neighborhood School
(Pre K-2)
Sugarloaf Elementary IMiddle School
K-8
Demand for School Facilities
The population of school age children in Monroe County is influenced by many factors,
including the size of the resident and seasonal populations, national demographic trends
(such as the "baby boom" generation), that result in decreasing household size, economic
factors such as military employment, the price and availability of housing, and the move-
ments of seasonal residents.
Education Facilities
47
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 4.2 . Monroe County Education Facilities
Key lArgo Elementary
A.
Plantation Key
Elementary/Middle
Horace O'Bryant
Middle
Marathon High
Poinciana Elementary
Big Pine
Neighborhood
School
Sigsbee Elementary
Sugarloaf
Elementary
Gerald Adams '1J1I'
Elementary It .., ~
Key West High
Glynn Archer Elementary
Reynold Elementary
The School Board collects enrollment data periodically throughout the year. Counts
taken in the winter are typically the highest, due to the presence of seasonal residents. The
following charts show the fall school enrollments from 1992 to 2002 by subdistrict as taken
from the School Board's Fall Student Survey.
Level of Service of School Facilities
The Monroe County Land Development Regulations do not identify a numeric level of
service standard for schools (such as 10 square feet of classroom space per student). Instead,
Section 9.5-292 of the regulations requires classroom capacity "adequate" to accommodate
the school-age children generated by proposed land development.
Education Facilities
48
2003 Monroe County PubUc FaciUties Capacity Assessment
Sulxlstrict 1
Coral Shores (H) 605 5ffl 649 7fJ2. 672 701 757 758 800 810 801
Key largo (ElM) 1,310 1,213 1,235 1,198 1,223 1,273 1,253 1,183 1,173 1117 1112
Plantation 718 698 721 737 730 703 675 643 668 647 641
Subtotal 2,633 2,508 2,605 2,637 2,625 2,677 2,685 2,584 2,641 2,574 2,554
Sulxlstrict 2
Marathon (H) 545 523 578 642 637 612 637 660 679 682 693
Switlik 734 775 776 769 782 815 834 791 671 687 714
Subtotal 1,279 1,298 1,354 1,411 1,419 1,427 1,471 1,451 1,350 1,369 1,407
Sulxlstrict 3
Key West (H) 1,114 1,120 1,155 1,255 1,237 1,327 1,372 1,344 1,305 1,327 1301
O'Bryant (M) 852 902 876 909 8ffl 863 899 814 838 854 874
Sugarloaf (ElM) 899 810 1,039 1,013 987 9ro 937 913 941 854 901
Adam; (E) 541 529 516 486 500 499 574 566 513 544 598
Archer (E) 480 441 462 454 454 520 493 460 393 376 386
Poinciana(E) 521 566 613 62fj 637 608 620 632 599 586 583
Sigsbee (E) 471 400 431 431 398 404 423 393 358 363 32fj
Sands 81 81 85 52 52 58 1 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 4,959 4,849 5,177 5,226 5,162 5,239 5,319 5,122 4,947 4,904 4,969
Total 8,871 8,655 9,136 9,274 9,206 9,343 9,475 9,157 8,938 8,847 8,930
Source: Monroe County School Board, 2003
9,600
9,400 ----
9,200 9,475
9 274 -9~:r.B-
9,000 ,1~ ' - 9..,206 - - -----IT,1
8,800 ------~93r-l[93O
8,600 . 8,847'
------------
8,400 8,655
------------
8,200
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
I-+- Total Fall School Enrollment I
The School Board uses recommended capacities provided by the Florida Department of
Education (FDOE) to determine each school's capacity. All schools have adequate reserve
capacity to accommodate the impacts of the additional land development activities projected
for 2003. Figure 4.4 shows each school's capacity and the projected number of students.
Improvements to School Facilities
Florida Statute 163.3177 requires counties to identify lands and zoning districts needed to
accommodate future school expansions. In order to bring the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan into compliance with this statute, in 1998 the Monroe County Planning
Education Facilities
49
2003 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
SublIstrict 1
Coral Shores 868 831 818 747
Key Ulrgo 1,240 1,191 1,115 1,082
Plantation 971 645 653 665
Subtotal 3,079 2,667 2,586 2,494
SublIstrict 2
Marathon 1,018 667 673 724
Switlik 925 668 674 684
Subtotal 1,943 1,335 1,347 1,408
SublIstrict 3
Key West 1,349 1,312 1;267 1,313
OBryant 833 818 838 876
Sugarloaf 1,356 941 842 835
Adams 547 506 546 605
Archer 470 398 371 357
Poinciana 660 585 574 591
Sigsbee 534 357 373 327
Sands 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 5,749 4,917 4,811 4,904
Total 10,771 8,919 8,744 8,806
Source: Monroe CoWlty School Board, 2003
Department and School Board conducted research to determine the existing school capacity
and the potential need for future educational facilities in Monroe County.
This study focused on land requirements for each of the schools expansion needs. Over-
all, the County has sufficient vacant and appropriately zoned land to meet the area's current
and future school siting needs. The specific land requirements for the public schools in the
County are discussed below.
Key Largo School
Meeting the substantial land requirements of Key Largo School is a top priority of the
School Board. The Department of Education (DOE) has instructed the Monroe County
School Board to construct an additional 43,100 square feet of school space. However,
current land use regulations prohibit the School Board from construction of any addi-
tional facilities on or adjacent to its current site due to the environmental sensitivity of
the area. The School Board recently made an unsuccessful attempt to purchase a new
site on which to build the required school facilities. Unless the Board is able to provide
these facilities in Key Largo they will be non-compliant with the minimum DOE stan-
dards. Fully utilizing the current Key Largo site would enable the School Board to meet
their DOE requirements and to minimize other secondary environmental impacts associ-
ated with the construction of a new school. It has been determined that the School Board
may clear the required amount of land, but the location of the clearing is still under re-
Education Facilities
50
2003 Monroe County PubUc FaciUties Capacity Assessment
view by the Planning and Environmental Resources Department.
Plantation Key School
The DOE has instructed the Monroe County School Board to construct an additional
16,600 square feet of school space for this school. The parcel of land for this school is
not large enough to accommodate this development and regulations prohibit the School
Board from constructing any additional facilities on, or adjacent to, its current site due
to the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The new Village of Islamorada will
address plans for Plantation Key School and other educational facilities in its compre-
hensive plan.
Stanley Switlik Elementary
Expanding the existing school facilities into the two parcels of land flanking the current
site will accommodate the land requirements for Stanley Switlik Elementary. The
school has a new cafeteria/kitchen/multipurpose building as well as new parking and
ballfields. Construction on the new facilities has been completed.
Marathon High and Middle School
The land requirements for Marathon High and Middle School are currently being met.
The DOE has instructed the Monroe County School Board to construct a new 13,000
square foot auditorium for this school that could also serve as a community center.
Coral Shores High School
The School Board is currently finishing construction on the replacement school, which is
scheduled for completion by the end of 2003.
Figure 4.5, on the following page, is a table showing the results of the investigation
completed by the Monroe County School Board and Planning Department in 1998 and up-
dated in 2003.
Education Facilities
S1
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
There are approximately 70 acres of
vacant land zoned SR and 65 acres
zoned NA surrounding the current
site.
N/A
N/A
N/A
There are approximately 21 acres of
vacant land zoned NA surrounding
the current site.
There are approximately 4.27 acres
of vacant land zoned SCand 8.6
acres of vacant land zoned IS
surroundin the current site.
There are approximately 27 acres of
vacant land zoned NA and 34 acres
zoned SRsurrounding the current
site.
(1) The School Board is working with Monroe County Planning Departm:nt to m:et this need prior to the end of
(2) lsIaIIDrada will address plans for Plantation Key Schoo~ Coral Shores High School and other educational
facilities in their comprehensive plan.
3 The School Board wants to artner with the Count to create an auditorium that also serves as a commmit
Key Ulrgo
27 acres (SC & SR) 2 acres (1)
o acres
N/A
N/A
o acres
Marathon High and
Middle Schools
27 acres (SR)
o acres (4)
o acres
Big Pine Neighborhood
Flem:ntary
4.5 acres (SC)
o acres
o acres
Sugarloaf Middle and
Flem:ntary
42 acres (SC & NA) 0 acres
o acres
Source: Monroe CmUlty School Board, 2003
Education Facilities
S2
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
v. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Monroe County's solid waste facilities are managed by the Solid Waste Management De-
partment, which oversees a comprehensive system of collection, recycling, and disposal of
solid waste. Prior to 1990, the County's disposal methods consisted of incineration and
landfilling at sites on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe Key. Combustible materials were
burned either in an incinerator or in an air curtain destructor. The resulting ash was used as
cover on the landfills. Non-combustible materials were deposited directly in the landfills.
In August 1990, the County entered into a contract with Waste Management, Inc. (WMI)
to transport the solid waste to the contractor's private landfill in Broward County. In accor-
dance with County-approved franchise agreements, private contractors perform collection of
solid waste. Residential collection takes place four times a week (2 garbage/trash, 1 recy-
cling, 1 yardwaste); nonresidential collection varies by contract. The four (4) contractors
currently serving the Keys are identified in Figure 5.1.
Keys Sanitary Service
Mid-Keys Waste, Inc.
Waste Management of
Florida, Inc.
Ocean Reef Cub, Inc.
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2003
The County's incinerators and landfills are no longer in operation. The landfill sites are
now used as transfer stations for wet garbage, yard waste, and construction debris collected
throughout the Keys by the four curbside contractors and prepared by WMI for shipment out
of the Keys. However, it is important to note that a second, unused site on Cudjoe Key could
be opened if necessary. Figure 5.2 below summarizes the status of the County's landfills and
incinerators.
Key Ulrgo
Long Key
O1djoe
Dosed 12/31/90
Closed 1/7/91
No Longer Active
No Longer Active
o
o
Old Site Cosed 2/25/91 No Longer Active
Unused Site None O1rrentl Inactive
Source: Monroe CoWlly Solid Waste Management Department, 2003
o
180,(0)
The County's recycling efforts began in October 1994, when curbside collection of recy-
clable materials was made available to all County residences and businesses. Recycling
transfer centers have been established in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. Waste Man-
agement, Inc. continues to process yard waste into mulch. The mulch product is then made
available to the public. In addition to County efforts, other government agencies are mulch-
ing and reusing yard waste, and private enterprises are collecting aluminum and other recy-
clable materials.
Solid Waste Facilities
53
2003 Monroe County PubUc FacUities Capacity Assessment
White goods, waste oil, batteries and tires are handled separately, with collection sites
operating at each landfIll/transfer station site. The County collects household hazardous
waste at the Long Key and Cudjoe Key Transfer Stations, in addition to the Key Largo Recy-
cling Yard. Hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators is col-
lected once a year, as part of an Amnesty Days program.
Demand for Solid Waste Facilities
For solid waste accounting purposes, the County is divided into three districts which are
similar, but not identical to the service areas outlined in Section 9.5-292 of the Land Devel-
opment Regulations (LDRs). One difference is that Windley Key, which is considered to be
in the Upper Keys district in the LDRs, is included in the Middle Keys district for purposes
of solid waste management. Another difference from the LDRs is that the cities of Layton
and Key Colony Beach are included in the Middle Keys district for solid waste management.
Although Islamorada incorporated on December 31, 1997, the municipality continued to
participate with Momoe County in the contract with Waste Management Inc. until Septem-
ber 30, 1998. Data for Momoe County solid waste generation is calculated by fiscal year
which runs from October 1 to September 30. Therefore, the effects of Islamorada's incorpo-
ration on solid waste services appear in the 1999 data. Data for the City of Key West and the
Village of Islamorada is not included in this report.
Marathon's incorporation was effective on October I, 2000 and they continue to partici-
pate in the Waste Management Inc. contract. Effects of the incorporation, if any, will appear
in the 2001 data.
Demand for solid waste facilities is influenced by many factors, including the size and
income levels of resident and seasonal populations, the extent of recycling efforts, household
consumptive practices, landscaping practices, land development activities, and natural events
such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Analyses provided by a private research group indi-
cate that the average single-family house generates 2.15 tons of solid waste per year. Mobile
homes and multifamily units, having smaller yards and household sizes, typically generate
less solid waste (1.96 and 1.28 tons per year, respectively).
The table and graph on the following page summarize the solid waste generated by each
district. The totals for each district are a combination of four categories of solid waste: gar-
bage, yard waste, bulk yard waste and other (includes construction and demolition debris).
After reaching a peak in 1988, the data shows a general decline in the total amount of
solid waste generated throughout the County. However, in 1993 there was an increase of 21
percent in the amount of solid waste generated. This increase is attributed to the demolition
and rebuilding associated with Hurricane Andrew, which made landfall in South Florida in
late August 1992. For the next two years the amount of solid waste generated in the County
was once again on the decline. However, from 1996 onward the amount of solid waste gen-
erated has been on the increase until 1998, when it reached its highest level yet. This in-
Solid Waste FaciUties
54
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
1985 28,585 28,890 15,938 73,413 NA
1987 32,193 37,094 22,206 91,493 24.63%
1989 31,173 33,931 23,033 88,137 -3.67%
1990 28,430 31,924 22,988 83,342 -5.44%
1991 26,356 28,549 20,699 75,604 -9.28%
1992 27,544 26,727 18,872 73,143 -3.26%
1993 37,211 28,986 22,198 88,395 20.85%
1994 30,110 30,662 24,831 85,603 -3.16%
1995 28,604 30,775 25,113 84,492 -1.30%
1996 31,573 31,845 27,823 91,241 7.99%
1997 32,003 33,625 29,350 94,978 4.10%
1998 33,119 36,440 30,920 100,479 5.79%
1999 29,382 30,938 37,431 97,751 -2.71%
2(XXl 32,635 30,079 33,420 96,134 -1.65%
2001 29,663 29,367 31,166 90,196 -6.18%
2002 31,018 31,217 30,700 92,935 3.04%
Note: The figures from 1984 to 1991 include white good<;, tires, construction debris, and yard
waste. They do not include source-separated recyclables.
Source: Monroe CoWlty Solid Waste Management Department, 2003
Flgure 5.4 - Solid Waste Generation 1985 -2001 by District
120,000
100,000
80,000
'"
c:: 60,000
~
40,000
20,000
0
",," ",," ",,0, PI~ ..0..... ..0.'" ..0.'" PI'" ..0." ..0.10 ..0." ..0.'0 Plo, J:o.~ J:o..... ~'"
....OJ ....OJ ....OJ ....OJ ....~' ....~' ....~' ...."" ....~' ...."" ...."" ...."" ....OJ ",'oJ' ",'oJ' '1i
1_ Key largo _ Long Key c:::::J G1djoe Key ~ Total I
crease is attributed to the debris associated with Hurricane Georges, which made landfall in
the Keys in September of 1998. A portion of the decline seen from 1998 to 1999 may be at-
tributable to the reduction in solid waste collected from Islamorada. The continuing decline
shown in 2000 and 2001 is due to a reduction in construction and demolition debris being
brought to the County transfer stations following the implementation of the Specialty Hauler
ordinances.
Level of Service of Solid Waste Facilities
Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations requires that the County maintain
Solid Waste Facilities
55
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
sufficient capacity to accommodate all existing and approved development for at least three
(3) years. The regulations specifically recognize the concept of using disposal sites outside
Monroe County.
As of June 2002, Waste Management Inc., reports a reserve capacity of approximately 27
million cubic yards at their Central Sanitary Landfill in Broward County, a volume sufficient
to serve their clients for another 13 years. Figure 5.5 below shows the remaining capacity
at the Central Sanitary Landfill.
ReImining Capacity (volume) 27 million 20 million 28 nBllion 27 million 34.2 million
cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards
ReImining Capacity (time) 41 years 40 years 14 years 13 years 14 years
Source: Monroe ColDlty Solid Waste Management Department, 2003
Monroe County has a contract with WMI authorizing use of in-state facilities
through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately thirteen
years of guaranteed capacity. Ongoing modifications at the Central Sanitary Landfill are cre-
ating additional air space and years of life. In addition to this contract, the 180,000 cubic
yard reserve at the County landfill on Cudjoe Key would be sufficient to handle the County's
waste stream for an additional four to five years (at current tonnage levels), should the
County choose to discontinue haul-out as the means of disposal.
The combination of the existing haul-out contract and the space available at the Cudjoe
Key landfill provides the County with sufficient capacity to accommodate all existing and
approved development for up to twenty years.
Solid Waste FaciUties
S6
2003 Monroe County PubUc FaciUties Capacity Assessment
VI. PARKS AND RECREATION
An annual assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Section 9.5-
292 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations, though it is required for concur-
rency management systems by the Florida Statutes. The following section has been included
in the 2003 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report for informational purposes only.
Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are not mentioned in the
Land Development Regulations, but are listed in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Monroe County Year
2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Parks and Recreational Facilities Level of Service Standard
The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincor-
porated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance
between the provision of resource- and activity-based recreation areas the LOS standard has
been divided equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS stan-
dards are:
0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population
0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population
The LOS standards for each type of recreation area can be applied to unincorporated
Monroe County as a whole or to each subarea (Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys) of unincor-
porated Monroe County. In determining how to apply the LOS standard for each type of rec-
reation area, the most important aspect to consider is the difference between resource- and
activity-based recreation areas. Resource-based recreation areas are established around ex-
isting natural or cultural resources of significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Ac-
tivity-based recreation areas can be established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball
fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other athletic events.
Since the location of resource-based recreation areas depends upon the natural features or
cultural resources of the area and cannot always be provided near the largest population cen-
ters, it is reasonable to apply the LOS standard for resource-based areas to all of unincorpo-
rated Monroe County. Since activity-based recreation areas do not rely on natural features or
cultural resources for their location and because they can be provided in areas with concen-
trated populations, it is more appropriate to apply the LOS standard to each subarea of the
Keys.
It is important to note that the subareas used for park and recreational facilities differ
from those subareas used in the population projections. For the purpose of park and recrea-
tional facilities, the Upper Keys are considered to be the area north of Tavernier (PAEDs 15
through 22). The Middle Keys are considered to be the area between Pigeon Key and Long
Key (PAEDs 6 through 11). The Lower Keys are the area south of the Seven Mile Bridge
Parks and Recreation
57
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
(pAEDs 1 through 6). Although the Middle and Lower Keys subareas both contain portions
of PAED 6, the population of PAED 6 is located in the Lower Keys subarea.
An inventory of Monroe County's parks and recreational facilities is presented below.
The facilities are grouped by subarea and are classified according to the principal use
(resource or activity).
- ' . I " 1
Upper Keys Subarea
Garden Cove Undeveloped. 1.5
Hibiscus Park Undeveloped. 0.46
Friendship Park Basketball courts (2), playground, ball field, picnic shelters, 1.92
parkine and public restrooms.
A soccer field, two (2) ball fields, six (6) tennis courts, a
Key urgo CoDllDmity jogging tra~ three (3) basketball courts, roller hockey, 14
Park volleyba~ playground, picnic shelters, public restrooms,
parkine and aauatic center.
Sunset Point Waterfront park with a boat ram>. 1.2
Harry Harris Two (2) ball fields, playground, restrooms, picnic shelters, 16.4
beach, oarking (89) and boat ram>.
Settler's Park Plaveround, park benches, trails, and a historic olatform. 3
Sunny Haven Undevelooed. 0.09
Old S.R 4-A Undeveloped. 0.3
Key urgo Berrentary Monroe County School District; Playground, baseball field, 3.4
runnine track, indoor evm.
Coral Shores High School Monroe County School District; Baseball field, football field, 10.1
softball field, 5 tennis courts, indoor evm.
Pla . Ke El Monroe County School District; playground, 1 tennis court, 1 1.7
ntatlon y errentary
basketball court, 1 baseball field.
Subarea Total 6.09 47.98
Middle Keys Subarea
Pigeon Key Historic structures, research/educational facilities, and a 5
railroad DlJseum.
Marathon High School Monroe County School District; Baseball and football field, 7.8
softball field, 3 tennis courts, 3 basketball courts, indoor gym.
Switlik Berrentary Monroe County School District; Playground, 2 baseball 25
fields, shared soccer/football field.
Subarea Total 5 10.3
Lower Keys Subarea
little Duck Key Picnic shelters, restrooms, boat ram>, and beach area. 25.5
Missouri Key Undevelooed. 35
West Sumnerland Boat Ram>. 31.8
Heron Avenue Undeveloped. 0.69
Palm Villa Playground and benches. 0.44
Big Pine Leisure Oub Undeveloped. 1.75
Parks and Recreation
58
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
- 10 I " ,
Blue Heron Park Playground, basketball court, youth center, and picnic 5.5
shelters.
Watson Field Two (2) tennis courts, ball field, plav2round, and volleyball 24
Ranrod Kev Swim Hole Swimnin~ area with no facilities. 0.5
SUImrerland 'Estates Undeveloped. 0.13
little Torch Boat RaJro Boat raIIIJ. 0.1
Sugarloaf Bementary Monroe County School District; 1 baseball field, playground. 3.1
Baypoint Park Playground, volleyba~ bocchi ba~ two (2) tennis courts, and 1.58
picnic area.
Palm Villa Park Undeveloped. 0.13
Rockland Hamrock. Undeveloped. 25
Boca Cllica Beach Beach area. 6
Delmar Avenue Boat raJII). 0.2
Big Coppitt Fire Playground and benches. 0.75
DepartmentPlaV2round -
Wilhelmina Harvey Two playground areas, a walking trail and green space. 0.65
Cllildren's Park
Bernstein Park Ball field, soccer, basketball court, track, tennis courts, 11
plaV2round, restrooms and volleyball.
East Martello Historic structures, teen center, and picnic area. 14.58
W es t Martello Historic structure. 0.8
Higgs Beach Five (5) tennis courts, playground, volleyba~ picnic shelters, 5.06
beach area, pier, and public restrooms.
li2hthouse Museum Historic structure and mIseum 0.77
Subarea Total 87.2 32.23
UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY TOTAL 98.29 90.51
Source: Monroe COImty Planning Department, 2003
There are currently 89.16 acres of resource-based recreation areas either owned or leased
by Monroe County. The resource based acreage subtracts 9.13 acres of undeveloped lands
from the 98.29 total acres shown in Figure 6.1. The acreage has been reduced slightly from
last year due to the addition of a walking trail and playground equipment to Wilhelmina
Children's park on Big Coppitt. Using the functional population projection for 2003 of
75,219 persons in unincorporated Monroe County, and the LOS standard of 0.82 acres per
functional population, the demand for resource based recreation areas is approximately 61.68
acres. The county currently has a resource-based land to meet the level of service with an
extra 27.48 acres of reserve capacity.
Level of Service Analysis for Activity-Based Recreation Areas
The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at edu-
cational facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. There is cur-
Parks and Recreation
S9
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
rently a total of 90.51 acres of developed activity-based recreation areas either owned or
leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board. This total represents 47.98
acres in the Upper Keys (including Plantation Key in Islamorada), 10.3 acres in the Middle
Keys (including Marathon), and 32.23 acres in the Lower Keys. Based on a LOS standard of
0.82 acres of activity-based recreation areas per 1,000 functional population in unincorpo-
rated Monroe County, the demand for these recreation areas are 30.39, 3.38 and 27.91 acres
for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys, respectively.
There is currently a reserve of 28.83 acres of activity-based recreation areas for all of un-
incorporated Monroe County. Figure 6.2 shows the level of service analysis for activity-
based recreation areas in each subarea.
Upper Keys Total
Middle Keys Total
Lower Ke s Total
Total
37,~1
4,124
34,034
75,219
47.98
10.3
3223
89.86
30.39
3.38
27.91
61.68
17.59
6.92
4.32
28.83
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2003
Future Parks and Recreation Planning
Monroe County is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis of it's parks and recreation sys-
tem in order to more accurately plan for the recreational needs of the population. A parks and recreation
master plan is being prepared and is anticipated to be complete within a year of this report. The master
plan will assess the current level of service standard and how it is applied throughout the county, evalu-
ate the current park system, recommend areas where new park sites should be acquired, and funding
mechanisms which may be used for that acquisition. The master plan is mandated by the Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan and will allow the county to address the residents parks and recreation needs more
accurately.
Identifying parks and recreation needs is also a part of the on going livable CommuniKeys Pr0-
gram. This community based planning initiative looks at all aspects of an area and, among other plan-
ning concerns, identifies the parks and recreation desires of the local population. The livable Commu-
niKeys Program is nearly complete on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, Tavernier, and will begin
shortly in Stock Island. The Big Pine Key and No Name Key master plan has already identified the
need for additional active and passive recreation sites which has resulted in the purchase of a 9 acre site
for development into a park.
Acquisition of Additional Recreation Areas
The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that
"Monroe County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of resource-
Parks and Recreation
60
2003 Monroe County PubUc Facilities Capacity Assessment
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 recrea-
tion facilities that results from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms
are:
1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land that is already owned by the
county but that is not being used for park and recreation purposes;
2. Acquisition of new park sites;
3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board that would allow for
the use of existing school-park facilities by county residents;
4. Interloca1 agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County that would al-
low for the use of existing city-owned park facilities by county residents;
5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments that
would allow for the use of existing publicly-owned lands or facilities by county resi-
dents; and
6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities that
would allow for the use of private park facilities by county residents.
To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms - acquisition of new park
sites (number 2 above) and interlocal agreements with the School Board (number 3 above).
However, these agreements need to be examined more closely to determine the amount of
available acreage for calculating concurrency. Furthermore, Monroe County cannot rely
upon joint use facilities to eliminate existing deficiencies or meet future LOS requirements
until interlocal, intergovernmental, or private use joint agreements are executed. For in-
stance, the County is currently reviewing and revising the interlocal agreements with the
Monroe County School Board to provide greater day time accessibility for students to public
recreational facilities. Once executed, these agreements will ensure that the facilities will be
available for general use to Monroe County residents to meet peak season, weekend, or time
of day recreation demands.
Parks and Recreation
61