Loading...
Item H13 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: August 18. 2004 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes L No Department: Planning AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a Resolution adopting the Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report for 2004. 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 2004 assessment for the BOCC's consideration and approval. This year's report finds that education, solid waste, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities all have sufficient capacity to serve anticipated growth. Although, State and county roads meet level of service standards, two segments: Tea Table (segment 18) and Cross Key (segment 24), are below the threshold. However both segments have reserve capacities within 5%. The travel speeds on Cross Key segment is likely to improve with the implementation of a high level fixed bridge, construction of which is anticipated to begin early next year. 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 REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No -X- AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Atty N/ A OMB/Purchasing N/ A . k Management N/ A CP DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENTATION: Included ...$..- To Follow -~ Not Required AGENDA ITEM # 1-1/3 DISPOSITION: Revised 2/27/01 '-1rt! RESOLUTION NO. - 2004 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY FOR 2002 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 2004; and WHEREAS, the transportation section of the annual report is based upon the findings of the 2004 US-l Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS, the County's transportation consultant; and WHEREAS, ten segments of U.S. 1 were classified as "marginally adequate" in terms of reserve capacity and therefore development activities in these areas will be closely monitored to minimize the possibility for further degradation in the level of service. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the annual assessment of Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity for 2004 is: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida at a regular meeting held on the day of 2004. Mayor Murray Nelson Mayor Pro Tern David P. Rice Commissioner Dixie Spehar Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Mayor Murray Nelson (SEAL) ATTEST:D~L.KOLHAGE,CLERK l~tF DEPUTY CLERK I . 'fell' t-- ;,:,----:---'-:t';::':":,;ifF..:::,:j(~,,:;:;:-:-:-;',-:;:\;:-'<"'~~1>.'#,;*t~~':f!;jl;.".".....,."''''"''''''''''''''''~.;<;:.;.ffA:t;~~~~;~!Eir...,1;<.h,''~"''j:;;::k'-,;,.-,;.,c_". t ' "'" \ 2004 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT .- ~~...~ o>~~ :~.' ,. ., r" ~. ... ". ''I .p, '. , .. f. ., ... EDUCATION SOLID WASTE POTABLE WATER TRANSPORTATION PARKS AND RECREATION JULY 2004 PREPARED BY THE DEPAR'I'MENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES , 2004 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT TRANSPORTATION PARKS AND RECREATION ". EDUCATION SOLID WASTE JULY 2004 PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARy...... .................. ............... ........... ................... ....2 I~1rIl{)I)1JC1rI()~....................................................................................6 I. GROWTH ANALySIS......... ............................................. ...... .......... .....1 0 II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.................. ................... ................ .... 25 III. POTABLE WATER... .................................... ...... ............................ ...38 IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES.................. ............ ................................ .... 44 v. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES........................... .......... ......................... ...49 VI. P ARK.S AND RECREATION.................................... ... ....................... ..53 1 2004 Monroe County Public 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 pro- jected to fall below the level of service (LOS) 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 is- sued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facili- ties. As required by the Code, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) shall con- sider 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 in- crease and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity required to serve the ad- ditional 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 ca- pacity is defined as those areas with capac- ity below the adopted LOS standard. Mar- ginally 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 2004 For the 2004 assessment, a population model that uses a 1990 Census base data and Monroe County Certificates of Occu- pancy 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 popula- tion of unincorporated Monroe County is expected to reach 75,801 people in 2004, a slight increase from 2003. 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 200 1 and was approved by the Department of Com- munity Affairs (DCA) in December of 2001, but was subsequently 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 2004 This year's report finds that education, solid waste, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities all have suffi- cient capacity to serve anticipated growth. Although, State and county roads meet level of service standards, two segments: Tea Ta- ble (segment 18) and Cross Key (segment 24), are below the threshold. However both segments are presently operating within their 5% reserve capacity. The status of each facility is summarized below. Solid Waste: The combination of the existing haul-out contract and the space available at the Cud- joe Key landfill provides the County with Executive Summary 2 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment sufficient capacity to accommodate all ex- isting and approved development for up to nineteen years. Parks and Recreation: The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in un- incorporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the provisions of re- source- and activity-based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided equally between these two types of recreation areas. Unincorporated Monroe County has enough resource- and activity-based recreation ar- eas to serve the functional population and therefore has a LOS that is adequate. Addi- tionally, there is adequate reserve capacity to accommodate future population in- creases. Schools: Although enrollment figures for the 2003- 2004 school year and projected enrollment figures for the 2004-2005 school year, show that O'Bryant Middle School, and Adams Elementary School exceed their recom- mended capacity and that Key West School is projected to exceed its recommend capac- ity for the 2004-2005 school year, school facility plans are based on enrollment pro- jections 5 years out (2008-2009 school year), at which time sufficient capacity will be available. The remaining schools have more than sufficient capacity to accommo- date all fall enrollment in 2004 and future years. Potable Water: A comparison between 2002 and 2003 shows an increase in water consumption of 1.57%. In October 2002, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKAA's increase in Water Use Permit (WUP). The WUP increased FKAA's po- tential withdraws to an average of 19.93 and a maximum of 23.79 Million Gallons per Day (MGD). In 2003, the FKAA distrib- uted an average of 17.29 and a maximum of 22.2 MGD to the Florida Keys. Water dis- tribution for 2004 is projected to average 17.57 with a maximum distribution of 22 MGD. 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. As a condition of the WUP, the FKAA is constructing a Floridian Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) system. This system is designed to recharge and store water from the Biscayne Aquifer during the wet season (May through November) in the Floridian Aquifer which is approximately 800-1,000 feet below the ground surface, and then re- cover fresh water to supplement the Bis- cayne Aquifer during the dry season (December through April). Unless the pro- jected 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. Roads: The adopted level of service (LOS) standard for US-1 is LOS C. The overall 2004 level of service for US-1 is LOS C based on the findings of the 2004 US-1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County, as prepared by URS Inc.,. The table on the next page shows the LOS and "status" of US-1 by segment. County regulations allow development ac- tivities to continue in "areas of inadequate facility capacity" provided traffic speeds do not fall below the standard by more than Executive Summary 3 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment five percent. Tea Table (Segment 18), and Cross Key (Segment 24) are below the LOS C threshold, consistent with the past two years of data. However both segments have reserve capacities within 5%. Travel speed on Cross Key segment is likely to improve with the implementation of a high level fixed bridge, construction of which is antici- pated to begin early next year. This year's report indicates that ten seg- ments are "marginally adequate" and any applications for new development which would generate traffic in marginally ade- quate areas must submit a detailed traffic report for consideration during review. Please see table titled "marginally adequate segments". 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 above LOS D. Overall, public facilities meet adequacy re- quirements; however demands on these fa- cilities continue to grow. The Growth Man- agement Division is committed to monitor- ing changes in public facility demand and responding to changes in consumption pat- terns. The ability to coordinate with public facility providers and other municipalities in the Keys will become more and more criti- cal as we strive to maintain the quality of life we all enjoy. Executive Summary 4 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 4-5 5-9 9-10.5 10.5-16.5 16.5-20.5 20.5-23 23 -2 25-27.5 27.5-29.5 29.5-33 33 -40 40-47 47-54 54-60.5 60.5-63 63-73 73-77.5 77.5-79.5 79.5 -84 84-86 86-91.5 91.5-99.5 99.5-106 106-112.5 1 S to c k Isla n d 2 B 0 c a Chic a 3 Big Cop P itt 4 Sad d Ie bun c h 5 S u g a rlo a f 6 Cudjoe 7 Sum m e rla n d 8 Ramrod 9 T 0 rc h lOB ig P in e liB a h ia H 0 n d a 1 2 7 - M ile B rid g e 13 Marathon 14 Grassy Key 15 Duck Key 16 Long Key 17 Lower M atecumbe 1 8 Tea Tab Ie 19 Upper M atecumbe 20 W in d Ie y 21 PIa n tat io n 22 Tavernier 23 Largo 24 Cross Source: 2004 Arterial and Travel Tim el Delay B Adequate A Ad e qua te C Mar g in a 1 BAd e qua te C Mar g in a 1 A Adequate BAd e qua te B Adequate A Adequate C M a rg in a 1 B Adequate C Mar g in a 1 A Adequate C M ar g in a 1 BAd e qua te B Adequate C M ar g in a 1 D Inadequate C Mar g in a 1 A Ad e qua te C M a rg in a 1 A Ad e qua te A Adequate D Inade uate Study, URS Inc. II M a rg in a lIy Ad e qua te II S e 9 men ts Mile M a rke r Reserve # N a me Range Speed 3 Big Coppitt 9.0 - 10.5 0.9 5 5 u g a rlo a f 16.5 - 20.5 0.7 10 B ig P in e 29.5 - 33.0 1 .2 12 7-M ile Bridge 40.0 - 47.0 2.6 14 G ra s s y 54.0 - 60.5 0.4 17 Lower M atecum be 73.0 - 77.5 0 18 Tea Table 77.5 - 79.5 -1.1 19 Upper M atecum be 79.5 - 84.0 0.4 21 Plantation 86.0 - 91.5 1 .8 24 C ro s s 106 - 112.5 -2.3 Source: 2004 A rterial and Travel Timel Delay Study, URS In c. Executive Summary 5 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment INTRODUCTION This report is the annual assessment of pub- lic facilities capacity mandated by Section 9.5-292 of the Monroe County Land Devel- opment 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 occur" (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 support de- velopment are available concurrent with the impacts of development. In Monroe County, these regulations are contained within Section 9.5-292 ofthe Code. Section 9.5-292, titled Adequate facilities and development review procedures, con- tains two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the four pri- mary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and an annual as- sessment process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. In addi- tion, Section 9.5-292 includes 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 ca- pacity of available public facilities. This report must determine the potential amount of residential and nonresidential growth ex- pected 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 horizon, or only considers potential growth and public facil- ity capacity for the next twelve months. In addition, the report must identify areas of unincorporated Monroe County with mar- ginal 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, devel- opment activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that the public facili- ties 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 fa- cilities. 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 identify- ing 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 devel- opment approvals will be based for the next year. 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 de- velopment or land shall be served by ade- quate public facilities in accordance with the following standards: " Introduction 6 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment (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 meas- ured on an annual 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 overall basis as measured by the US-l Level of Ser- vice Task Force Methodology. In addi- tion, the segment or segments of US-I, as identified in the US-l Level of Ser- vice Task Force Methodology, which would be directly impacted by a pro- posed development's access to US-I, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service C as meas- ured by the US-l Level of Service Task Force Methodology. b. All secondary roads where traffic is en- tering 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 av- erage daily traffic (AADT) basis. c. In areas which are served by inadequate transportation facilities on US-I, devel- opment may be approved provided that the development in combination with all other development will not decrease travel speeds by more than five (5) per- cent below level of service C, as meas- ured 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 accommo- date all existing and approved develop- ment for a period of at least three (3) years from the projected date of com- pletion of the proposed development or use. The Monroe County Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Authority may enter into agreements, including agree- ments under section 163.01, Florida Statutes, to dispose of solid waste out- side Monroe County. (3) Potable Water: Sufficient potable water from an ap- proved and permitted source shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of a proposed development, or use. Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA dis- tribution systems, individual water con- densation systems, and any other sys- tem 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. These are the four primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capac- ity according to the Code. The available ca- pacity for each of these facilities may be either sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next year, marginally ade- quate, or inadequate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are pro- jected to be only marginally adequate or inadequate over the next year, the Code sets out a review procedure to be followed 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 in- adequate facilities identified in the annual adequate facilities (Public Facility Capacity Assessment) report, except the county may approve development that will have no re- duction in the capacity of the facility or Introduction 7 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 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 current annual adequate facilities report, the county shall either deny the application or condition the approval so that the level of service stan- dard is not violated." The determination of an additional development's impact on ex- isting 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 service areas for the purposes of assessing potential growth and how public facilities can accommodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the Code have been revised to account for recent incorpo- rations. The map below shows the three service areas of the Keys as they are cur- rently recognized. The Upper Keys service area includes all unincorporated Monroe County north of the Map of Service Areas .. The Upper Keys MM 112-91 ~ "",- . . '\ )". '\ ~ J J_,"t ' ~ ~ . c'" ~'.1 · . ~. e. ....... ........ / ..",,/ ............. ................. ., ..,//...,,//' /.. .// ..... .... // ..... ......... ............ // ~! .". .u, ................ ............................... ........ ............................. .................................. .....~~/.......,..........~....... . . ... :: . / .... ........... ..... .... ....... ...... ...V'" ......... . ........ ........' ..... ............. ..././ The Middle Keys ..... MM 91-47 t 'Iill , I . .0 .................. ~/ ..................~........./.. ........... The Lower Keys MM 47-4 Introduction 8 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 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 popula- tion, permitting, and public facilities does not always conform to the above boundaries for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys. Additionally, due to the recent incorporation of Islamorada and Marathon (which are ex- cluded from this assessment where speci- fied) the boundaries identified in Section 9.5-292(b) are no longer valid for unincor- porated 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. Previous Board Action The County was required to impose a mora- torium in 1995 on any new development on Big Pine Key due to a lack of any reserve capacity for traffic on US-I. In December 1997, as a result of a change in the method- ology used to determine level of service, 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 stan- dard. Due in part to the re-timing of the in- tersection 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. Based on the 2003 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study the LOS had increased to 'C'. Meaning, there was sufficient reserve capacity, and the moratorium on traffic generating develop- ment was lifted. The improvement in the LOS is due in part to further re-timing of the intersection and an intersection im- provement project, which was completed by FDOT this year. It is not anticipated that these improvements will permanently im- prove the LOS on Big Pine Key, but a 3- laning project is being designed by FDOT to achieve a longer term acceptable level of service. The Planning and Environmental Resources Department has completed a pro- posed Master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, that will address future solu- tions to traffic problems within the commu- nity. Areas of Critical County Concern At the County Commission's discretion, ar- eas 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 ration- ale behind this designation is to assure that development in ACCC areas does not im- pact existing public facilities to the extent that development must be halted in the area. Should the Board initiate the ACCC desig- nation process, the Development Review Committee and Planning Commission must review the proposed designation. Section 9.5-473(c) requires the designation to in- clude "Specific findings regarding the pur- pose of the designation, 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 pro- gram, a schedule for the work program and the appointment of an advisory committee, if appropriate. " Introduction 9 2004 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 build- ing permits issued, and the amount of non- residential floor area permissible. Growth trends will be examined for both the unin- corporated as well as the incorporated por- tions of the County. Population Composition There are three different measurements of population in Monroe County: the func- tional 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" population, or the maximum population demanding services. The projected permanent population is based on a methodology created by The De- partment of Planning and Environmental Resources, and is based on 1990 Census data. Permanent population figures re- ceived from the 2000 Census data reflect a discrepancy in the estimates made by the planning model and actual census figures. At this time the Planning and Environ- mental Resources is revising the methodol- ogy 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 seasonal population includes seasonal resi- dents and the tourist population. The sea- sonal population includes the number of seasonal residents, the number of people staying in hotels, motels, 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 calen- dar year, while the seasonal population fig- ures used here is the number of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. Seasonal population figures are not the total number of seasonal resi- dents or visitors in the county over the cal- endar 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 all of 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 de- mand which could be placed on public fa- cilities from seasonal visitors on any given evemng. When the peak seasonal population figures are combined with the permanent resident population, the result is the functional popu- lation. Actual 2000 Census data for the permanent population indicates a trend to- wards a higher seasonal percentage of the functional population. Planning Area Enumeration Dis- tricts (P AEDs) PAEDs, or Planning Area Enumeration Dis- tricts, are the basic unit of geographical analysis used by the Planning and Environ- mental 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 Growth Analysis 10 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 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 north- ern Stock Island) is not contained within any PAED boundaries; and . The City of Key Colony Beach is con- tained within the geographic area of PAED 8, but is not included with the PAED population figures; and .I.~ '" PAED 17 ~PAED 16 "- PAED 15 " PAED 14 O'AED f . The City of Marathon encompasses PAEDs 7, 8, & 9, and its population is contained within unincorporated Monroe County until 2000; and . The City of Layton falls within PAED 11, but its population is removed from Unincorporated Monroe County; and . The Village of Islamorada occupies PAEDs 12A, 12B, 13, & 14, and has its own population figures starting in 1998; and . PAEDs 19 and 20 are the last PAEDs be- fore the "bend" in US-I, and have been grouped together in this report because of data constraints. The dividing line be- Growth Analysis 11 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment tween PAEDs is the center of US-I. As mentioned earlier, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) di- vides Monroe County into three service ar- eas. The Upper Keys service area includes PAEDs 12B through 22t 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. Figure 1.2 below shows the individual PAEDs by their mile marker ranges, and also shows the islands included within a particular PAED's boundary. Functional Population The functional population is the sum of the permanent residents and the peak seasonal population. Figure 1.3 shows the functional population for all of Monroe County (including the incorporated areas), exclud- ing Mainland Monroe County and the popu- lation in the Dry Tortugas. The functional population of Monroe County is expected to grow by 3,325 people from 2005 to 2015. This represents an increase of two percent (2%) over the fifteen year period. Figure 1.4 shows the trend in Functional Population Changes from 1990 to 2015. 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). 1 Stock Island 2 Boca O1ica, East Rockland, Big Coppitt, Gliger, Shark 3 Saddlebunch Keys, Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf 4a OJdjoe, Sumrerland, Ranrod, Big-Middle-little Torch 4b No Nam: Key 5 Big Pine Key 6 W. Sumrerland, Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri, little Duck, Pigeon Key 7 Knight, Hog, Vaca, Boot, Stirrup (Marathon) 8 Fat Deer, little Caw~ Caw! #5, (Marathon) & (Key Colony Beach) 9 Gassy Key (Marathon) 10 Duck Key, little Conch Key, Conch Key 11 Long Key, Fiesta Key, (Layton) 12a Craig Key, Lower Matecurrbe (IslaIlDrada) 12b Windley Key (Islam>rada) 13 Teatable Key, Upper Matecurrbe (Islam>rada) 14 Plantation Key (Islam>rada) 15 Key largo (Tavernier area) 16 Key largo 17 Key largo (RockHarbor) 18 Key largo 19-20 Key largo 21 Key largo (North Key largo, Ocean Reef, Card Sound area) 22 Cross Ke 18 Mile Stretch area Source: Monroe Comty Planning Depertment, 2004 4-6 7-12.4 12.5-20.5 20.6-29 N/A 29.5-33 34.5-46 47.5-53.2C53.3-56.4 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 Growth Analysis 12 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 1.3 -ProJected Functional Po ulation of Monroe Count 2005 162,041 · · 2010 164,769 2,728 1.66% 2015 165,366 597 0.36% Source: Monroe County Planning Departm ent, 2004 Figure 1.4 -Trend in Functional Population Changes 170,000 165,000 = 0 '.z:l os -; 160,000 P- o ~ c; = 155,000 0 '.z:l u = = ~ 150,000 145,000 ~ ~ ~ # ~ # # # # # ~ ~ ~ .. ~' ~' .... ,,,,, '1i '1i '1i '1i '1i ",I:;) '1i ",I:;) 1_ Trend in Population Changes I Figure 1.5 -Functional Population Rate of Increase 3.00% 1 2.50% 0 2.00% 5 1.50% .~ "3 1.00% 8- ~ .5 0.50% u bO a 0.00% 0 -0.50% "#. -1. 00% ~I:;) ~.... ~~ ~b ~q" .... .... .... .... .... rS'1:;) rS'.... rS'~ rS'b rS'q" :-,1:;) 1:;),.... ~ '1i '1i '1i '1i '1i ",I:;) '1i ....1:;) I-+- Functional Population I Growth Analysis 13 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Upper Keys 42,171 40.94% 37,541 Middle Keys 30,443 29.56% 4,154 Lower Ke s 30,387 29.50010 34,639 Unincorporated 103,001 100.00% 76,334 74.11% 78,277 76.00% 78,831 100.00% Subtotal Inco orated Areas 46,348 85,707 86,492 86,535 County Total 149,349 162,041 164,769 165,366 Source: Monroe Comty Planning Department, 2004 Figure 1.6 shows the breakdown in func- tional population by the three service areas. Regionally, the Upper Keys accounted for the largest portion of the 1990 unincorpo- rated functional 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 peo- ple, or 29.5% of the unincorporated func- tional population. Based on projected functional population projections for the year 2015, the Upper Keys is expected to have the largest popula- tion (38,362 or 48.7% of the total), followed by the Lower Keys (36,263 or 46.0% of the total) and lastly the Middle Keys (4,206 or 5.34% of the total). In the year 1997, the Upper Keys service area lost twelve percent (12%) of its functional population to the incorporation of Islamorada. In the year 1999, the unincorporated functional popula- tion of the Middle Keys dramatically de- creased by more than eighty-seven percent (87%), due to the incorporation of the City of Marathon. Projected Permanent and Seasonal Population: The total permanent resident population in Monroe County is projected to grow from 78,855 people in 1990 to a potential 90,654 people in 2015, an increase of fifteen per- cent (15%) over the twenty-five year period. The projected permanent resident popula- tion as a percentage of the functional popu- lation fluctuates between 53% and 55% from 1990 to 2015. The years 1991 and 1993 were the only years in which the county-wide permanent resident growth rate exceeded one percent (I %) per year. The peak seasonal population in Monroe County is projected to grow from 70,493 people in 1990 to 74,712 people by 2015, an increase of six percent (6%) over the twenty- five year period. The peak seasonal Seasonal Population 70,493 73,491 Permanent Po ulation 78,855 85,622 Functional Population 149,348 159,113 Source: Monroe COWlty Planning Department, 2004 73,737 88,305 162,042 74,533 90,236 164,769 74,712 90,654 165,366 Growth Analysis 14 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment population as a percentage of the functional population fluctuates between 47.20% in 1990 to 45.2% by 2015. The county-wide peak seasonal population growth rate ex- ceeded 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 continue to decline. The incorporation of Islamorada and Mara- thon has created substantial reductions in both permanent and seasonal population for the Upper and Middle Keys service areas. As mentioned above, the Upper Keys ser- vice area lost 12% of its functional popula- tion, and the Middle Keys service area is lost 87% of its functional population as a result of the incorporation of the City of Marathon. The functional population in the Upper Keys service area is expected to increase from 37,061 to 37,314 (0.68%) from 2003 to 2004. This projected increase results from the addition of 86 permanent residents and 167 in the seasonal population. The functional population in the Lower Keys service area is expected to increase from 34,034 to 34,347 (0.92%) from 2003 to 2004. This projected increase results from the addition of 235 permanent resi- dents and 78 in the seasonal population. 2000 Census Population The projected population data through 2015 presented in this report (both the permanent and seasonal populations) has been based on 1990 census data. The population pro- jection model has not yet been updated to incorporate the Census 2000 data that was released in late 2001. However, a compari- son of the projected 2000 permanent popu- lation and the actual population reported in the 2000 census shows that the projection overestimated the population of the unincor- porated area by 3,298 people. Figure 1.8 shows that the difference between the pro- jected 2000 data and the actual permanent population reported by the 2000 census for the entire Monroe County to be 6,093 per- sons. Taking this discrepancy into account, the permanent population of Monroe County is not growing as rapidly as pre- dicted. However, the functional population remains a valid estimate for planning pur- p I I I - Pi> , , ~ - ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~~~.~M _ Un icorporated Area Upper Keys 19,740 15,168 17,435 -2,267 Middle Keys 13 ,948 800 1,098 -298 Lower Keys 18,062 20,008 20,741 -733 Incorporated Areas Islamorada N/A 6,846 7,665 -819 Layton 183 186 208 -22 Key Colony Beach 977 788 1,101 -313 Marathon N/A 10,255 11,272 -1,017 Key West 24,832 25,478 26,102 -624 Total 77,742 79,529 85,622 -6,093 Source: V.S Census Bureau and Monroe County Planning Department, 2004 Growth Analysis 15 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment poses because of an increase in the amount of seasonal residents. In other words, al- though the permanent population was esti- mated to be larger than what was actually reported in the 2000 Census, the number of seasonal residents has increased. Therefore, the functional population estimates remain valid, and indicates an increase in the per- centage of the seasonal population. 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 per- mits 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 per- mit for a new residence is issued, and when that residence is ultimately occupied. The knowledge that the Rate of Growth Ordi- nance (ROGO) was about to be adopted in the early 1990s caused many property own- ers to obtain building permits prior to when they were prepared to construct their dwell- ings. 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 over- states the actual number of new residential dwellings that currently require public fa- cilities. The number of dwelling units (permanent and seasonal) which can be permitted in Monroe County has been controlled by ROGO since July of 1992. ROGO was de- veloped as a response to the inability of the road network to accommodate a large-scale hurricane evacuation in a timely fashion. A series of complex models developed during the fIrst evacuation study identifIed an ap- proximate number of additional dwelling units which could be permitted 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 geo- graphically 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. Each ser- vice area of unincorporated Monroe County and several of the incorporated areas receive a set number of allocations for new residen- tial permits that can be issued during that particular ROGO year. The number of allo- cations 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 allocations 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 Comprehensive Plan. Available allocations were reduced by twenty percent (20%), taking the available fIgure from 255 to 204 new residential units. The number of available allocations in unin- corporated Monroe County was further re- duced by the incorporation of Islamorada, which now receives 22 residential alloca- Growth Analysis 16 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment tions per year. The incorporation of Islamo- rada reduced the number of available alloca- tions in unincorporated Monroe County from 204 to 182. This number was further reduced by the incorporation of Marathon, which received a total of 24 new residential allocations. The incorporation of Marathon reduced the number' of available new resi- dential allocations in unincorporated Mon- roe County from 182 to 158. Based on the 158 allocations, the ROGO system, in unincorporated Monroe County, now allocates 46 units to the Upper Keys service area, 7 units to the Middle Keys ser- vice area, and 74 units to the Lower Keys, for an annual total of 127 market rate resi- dential units each ROGO year. The remain- ing 31 allocations are for affordable hous- ing. Thirty-six (36) affordable allocations were rolled over from Year 12 making a to- tal of 67 affordable allocations available for year 13. Figure 1.9, on the following page, shows the breakdown of new and replacement resi- dential permits issued for unincorporated Monroe County since 1992. The data pre- sented 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 com- pares the boundaries. Basically, the service I Illl , 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 Lower KeyS 1-6 4-47.4 1-6 4-47.4 ScIRe: Monroe County Building Department. 2004 F1 110 areas from the Code breaks at Whale Har- bor Channel, and does not include Upper and Lower Matecumbe in the Upper Keys, while the permitting records break at Chan- nel Five and do include Upper and Lower Matecumbe in the Upper Keys. Figure 1.10 explains these differences. According to Building Department records 3,501 residential permits were issued from 1992 to 2003, with 84% (2,779) being is- sued to single family residences. Only 12% (408) of the residential permits were issued to duplex, multifamily, or mobile home pro- jects. Almost 37% (1,369) of all the resi- dential 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 235 residential permits were issued in unincorporated Monroe County in 2003, a slight increase from 2002. There were more new residential per- mits issued in 1999 than any previous year back to 1992. Figures 1.11 and 1.12 show the distribution of new residential permits issued in unin- corporated Monroe County during 2001 and 2002. 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 2002 to 2003. There were 42 more new residential permits issued in 2003 than 2002. Figure 1.12 shows the composition of resi- dential permits issued in 2002 and 2003. No new duplexes were permitted in either year. Single family residential permits oc- cupy the largest percentage in both years, with 42 more single-family permits being issued in 2003. The number of mobile home, RV, and multi-family permits de- Growth Analysis 17 2004 Monroe County Public 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 I 0 68 Lower Keys 189 0 14 0 0 203 Subtotal 446 38 14 7 23 528 1993 Upper Keys 104 0 0 5 0 109 Middle Keys 55 2 0 I 0 58 Lower Keys 80 0 0 I 0 81 Subtotal 239 2 0 7 0 248 1994 Upper Keys 109 0 0 3 0 112 Middle Keys 94 0 0 0 0 94 Lower Keys 36 0 0 I 0 37 Subtotal 239 0 0 4 0 243 1995 Upper Keys 131 2 0 4 0 137 Middle Keys 27 2 2 I 5 37 Lower Keys 144 0 0 0 0 144 Subtotal 302 4 2 5 5 318 1996 Upper Keys 114 0 3 3 0 120 Middle Keys 40 0 15 0 0 55 Lower 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 Lower Keys 73 0 0 0 0 73 Subtotal 189 4 12 0 77 282 1998 Upper Keys 78 0 0 3 0 81 Middle Keys 13 0 0 0 110 123 Lower Keys 66 0 0 0 0 66 Subtotal 157 0 0 3 110 270 1999 Upper Keys 138 0 0 2 0 140 Middle Keys 20 0 0 24 63 107 Lower Keys 87 0 0 0 I 88 Subtotal 245 0 0 26 64 335 2000 Upper Keys 67 0 35 0 0 102 Middle Keys 4 0 0 0 34 38 Lower Keys 75 0 0 0 0 75 Subtotal 146 0 35 0 34 215 2001 Upper Keys 62 0 13 7 I 83 Middle Keys 9 0 0 10 0 19 Lower Keys 80 0 0 38 0 118 Subtotal 151 0 13 55 1 220 2002 Upper Keys 75 0 0 14 0 89 Middle Keys III 0 25 22 0 158 Lower Keys 7 0 0 45 0 52 Subtotal 193 0 25 81 0 299 2003 Upper Keys 72 0 0 17 0 89 Middle Keys 138 0 0 22 0 160 Lower Keys 25 0 0 5 0 30 Subtotal 235 0 0 44 0 279 TOTAL 2,779 48 119 241 314 3,501 Source: Monroe County Buildin D artment, 2004 Growth Analysis 18 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 1.11- Comparison of Residential Permits by Service Area 2002-2003 2003 Lo~ Keys 11% Upper Keys 32% Lo~ Keys 17"10 Upper Keys 30% Source: Monroe CO\m Buildin t, 2004 Figure 1.12 - Comparison of Residential Permit Types 2002-2003 Multi-Family 0% Duplex 0% 2003 Mobile HomcIR V 270/. 2002 HotcVMotcl 0% Single Family 84% Multi-Family 8% Duplex 0% Single Family 446 239 239 302 237 189 157 245 146 151 193 235 2779 Duplex 38 2 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 Multi-Family 14 0 0 2 18 12 0 0 35 13 25 0 119 Mobile Home/RV 7 7 4 5 9 0 3 26 0 55 52 44 212 Hotel/Motel 23 0 0 5 0 77 110 64 34 1 0 0 314 Figure 1.13-Comparison of Res ide nti aI Permit Types 1992-2003 600 .1 500 ll.400 .... e 300 ., -e 200 i 100 o 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 200 I 2002 2003 o Single Family 0 Duplex. Multi-Family. Mobile HotrelRV . HoteVMotel Growth Analysis 19 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment creased. Figure 1.13 shows the total number of per- mits issued in unincorporated Monroe County from 1992 to 2003. The chart shows a swell in permitting activity prior to Figure 1.14 - Types of Permits Issued 1992-2003 Mobile Home/RV 6% Muhi-Family 3% Duplex 1% HoteVMotel 9"10 Single Family 81% the adoption of ROGO, and then declines following its adoption. Figure 1.14 shows the breakdown in the types of residential permits issued over the last decade. 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 remod- eling of existing nonresidential structures. Also included are vested and ROGO ex- empt hotels, motels, campgrounds, marinas and other commercial facilities. With very little industrial and agricultural activity in the Keys, the predominant form of nonresidential development is commer- ciaL In Monroe County, there are two pri- mary types of commercial development: retail trade and services (which includes tourism-related development such as mari- nas and restaurants). Therefore, the impact of nonresidential development on public facilities varies significantly based on the type of commercial use. Nonresidential and resi- dential development tend to fuel one another. Resi- dential populations pro- vide markets for nonresi- dential activities. Non- residential development, in turn, helps to drive population growth by pro- viding services and em- ployment. Certain types of nonresidential develop- ment also concentrate the demand for public facili- ties within certain loca- tions and during peak pe- riods. The Monroe County Building Department tracks the number of nonresidential permits by subdistrict in unincorporated Monroe County. In addition to the number of per- mits, 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 2003. The subdistricts shown in the chart do not directly correspond to the ser- vice areas mandated in section of 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations. Refer to the boundary descriptions found in Fig- ure 1.10 of this report to compare the two areas. Forty-four (44) non-residential build- ing permits were issued in 2003 as com- pared to twenty-nine (29) in 2002. Growth Analysis 20 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1992 Upper Keys 15 40,506 Middle Keys 2 7,263 Lower Keys 5 1,529 Subtotal 22 49,298 1993 Upper Keys 4 16,334 Middle Keys 4 24,812 Lower Keys 4 27,236 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 24 147,3 1 9 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 I 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 73,307 Middle Keys I 4,998 Lower Keys 4 8,575 Subtotal 36 86,880 2002 Upper Keys 3 3,773 Middle Keys 0 0 Lower Keys 26 110,805 Subtotal 29 114,578 2003 Upper Keys 7 13,651 Middle Keys 37 110,446 Lower Keys 0 0 Subtotal 44 124,097 TOTALS 562 1,427,791 Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2004 Growth Analysis 21 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 40,5(X) 16,334 24,648 147,319 102,795 93,503 00,936 13,651 7;lfi3 24,812 31,079 100,331 93,334 8,4Zl 16,304 1l0,~ 1,529 Zl)36 0 10,004 14,149 18,3Zl 24,152 49,298 68,382 55,TIl 266,654 210,278 lZl,250 101,392 101,630 128,625 86,00 114,578 124,007 1,427 791 tation of a nonresidential permit allocation system similar to the ROGO system for residential development. Non-residential development slightly declined in 2000 and 2001 and increased again in 2002 and 2003 as the amount of development in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys has fluctuated. Figure 1.16-Commercial Square Footage by Service Area 1992-2003 Lower Key. 17% Upper Keys 43% Middle Keys 40% Figure 1.16 shows the relative amount of square footage permitted in each of the three service areas from 1992 to 2003. 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 affected generally declined from 1990 through 1994 with a major jump in affected area occurring in 1995 which resulted from the knowledge of an impending imp lemen- Since residential development is con- strained through the Rate of Growth Ordi- nance 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 ap- Figure 1.17 - Nonresidential Permits by Service Area 1992-2003 u ~ 0:1 (5 300,000 o ~ ~ 250,000 ::s 0- tZl 200,000 :3 5 150,000 :'S! '" ~ 100,000 I = ~ 50,000 "0 u ~ 0 ~ -< 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 _ Upper Keys _ Middle Keys c::::J Lower Keys -+- Yearly Total Growth Analysis 22 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment propriate given the knowledge available at the time the Comprehensive Plan was pre- pared. 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 development for each new residential unit permitted through the Per- mit Allocation" In other words, the Comprehensive Plan limits the square footage of new commer- cial 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 37,762 square feet of new commercial de- velopment per year throughout unincorpo- rated Monroe County. Between adoption of the 2010 Comprehen- sive 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 compre- hensive plan defined non-residential permit allocation system. This amount of non- residential floor space includes permits for development within the Village of Islamo- rada and City of Marathon prior to their re- spective 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 re- maining 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 subsequently 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 allocation. 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. At the end of the allocation period for year 10 there was a total of 26,090 SF to be carried over to year 11. By year 12 (July 2003-July 2004), there was approximately 85,858 SF of non-residential floor area available for allocation. The Board of County Commissioners approved the Planning Commission's recommenda- tion that 10,700 square feet of floor area be made available for Year 12. Monroe County Board of County Commissioners later amended the Year 12 annual alloca- tion. By Resolution, passed and adopted on March 18, 2004, the Board of County Com- missioners increased the annual allocation for Year 12 to 16,000 square feet of floor area, all of which was made available for applicants in a single allocation in January, 2004. Of the 16,000 square feet, 11,913 were granted NROGO allocations. The re- maining 4,587 square feet is to be allocated in July of 2004. The BOCC will recom- mend in the fall of 2004 the amount of square feet to be allocated for Year 13 (July 14,2004 through July 13,2005). Summary To summarize, this growth analysis is based upon projected changes in population as well as residential and nonresidential per- mitting in unincorporated Monroe County. Growth Analysis 23 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment There are two groups that compose the population in Monroe County: the perma- nent resident population, and the peak sea- sonal population. The sum of these two groups gives the functional population, or the maximum number of people in the Keys . . on any gIven evemng. The functional population of all Monroe County is expected to grow by more than 6,000 people from 1990 to 2015, an in- crease of 11 % over the period. Planning Department projections show the rate of increase in functional population is ex- pected to slow after the year 2000. The functional population of unincorporated Monroe County is expected to reach 75,801 people in 2003, a decrease of 27% from 1990 due to the incorporations of Islamo- rada in 1997 and Marathon in 1999. The Upper Keys portion of unincorporated Mon- roe County accounts for 49.3% of the unin- corporated functional population, while the Lower Keys portions accounts for 45.3% in 2003. These percentages are expected to remain relatively constant 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. 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 fam- ily 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 indi- cate that unincorporated Monroe County has a total of 182 permits it may issue dur- ing the ROGO year (not including the addi- tional 90 replacement affordable housing units which were allowed by the DCA based upon the lower enclosure removal program). After the incorporation of Mara- thon, this number fell to 158 permits a year. The Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordi- nance (NROGO) was approved and became Growth Analysis 24 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment IL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES This section of the report investigates the current capacity of the transportation net- work in Monroe County. This analysis in- cludes changes in traffic volumes, the level of service on U.S. 1, the reserve capacity of the highway and county roads, and the Flor- ida Department of Transportation Five Year Work Program for Monroe County. Roads are one of the four critical public fa- cilities 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 Devel- opment Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. The regulations require all segments of U.S. 1 to remain 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 Over- seas Highway (U.S. 1), functions as a col- lector, an arterial, and the "Main Street" for the Keys. U.S. 1 is a lifeline for the Keys, from both economic and public safety per- spectives. Each day it carries food, sup- plies, 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 sections are located on Key Largo, Tavern- ier (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 intersections in the Keys. The Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary roads which are located within the bounda- ries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1. Figure 2.1 identifies the traffic signals in operation along the U.S. I corridor (excluding those found on the island of Key West). 4.4 Stock Island College Road 4.6 Stock Island Cross Street 4.8 Stock Island MacDonald A venue 30.3 Big Pine Key Key Deer Blvd. 48.5 Marathon School Crossing 50 Marathon Sombrero Beach Blvd. 52.4 Marathon 107th Street 52.5 Marathon 109th Street 53 Marathon Pedestrian Crossing 53.5 Fat Deer Key Key Colony Causeway 54 Fat Deer Key Coco Plum Drive 90 Plantation Key Woods A venue 90.5 Plantation Key Sunshine Road 91.5 Tavernier Ocean Boulevard 99.5 Key Largo Atlantic Boulevard 101 Key Largo Tradewinds 105 Ke La 0 Pedestrian Crossin Source: 2004 Arterial and Travel T ime/ Delay Study. URS Inc. Transportation Facilities 25 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Traffic Volumes Traffic counts can be very useful in assess- ing the capacity of the road network, and help determine when capacity improve- ments need to be made. The two primary measurements for determining traffic vol- umes 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 in- clude a weekend. The amount of traffic counted over the week is then divided by five or seven to yield the average daily traf- fic for a particular location. The "5-day ADT" measurement considers only week- days, and the "7 -day ADT" includes the weekend. The ADT information can then be used in a formula called a ''weekly fac- tor" to estimate the annual average daily traffic, which is an estimate of the average amount of traffic at a particular 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 per- formed during the six-week peak tourist season which begins in the second week of February. This year's counts were com- pleted between March I and March 21 2004. Figure 2.2, on the following page: compares the traffic counts for 2004 with those for 2003. The average weekday (5-Day ADT), aver- age weekly (7-Day ADT), and the annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes, compared to last year, have increased at the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe locations. While the 5-Day ADT, 7-Day ADT and the AADT, when compared to last year, have decreased at the Big Pine location. Big Pine Key (MM 30) 5-Day ADT 23,341 7-Day ADT 22,788 AADT 22,788 Marathon (MM 50) 5-Day ADT 36,817 37,604 7-Day ADT 35,984 36,563 AADT 31,763 32,274 Upper Matecumbe (MM 84) 5-Day ADT 26,759 27,194 1.63% 7-Day ADT 26,514 27,561 3.95% AADT 23,404 24,328 3.95% Somce: 2004 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc. 23,108 22,538 22,538 -1.00010 -1.10% -1.100tfo 2.14% 1.61% 1.61% A detailed historical comparison of the AADT traffic counts at all three locations for the period from 1994 to 2004 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 AADT counts for Big Pine hover in the low 20,000 range over the pe- riod. Meanwhile Upper Matecumbe has been gradually increasing from 1994 to 2004 from a range of 20,000 up to around 25,000. A regression analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last eleven y~ars indicate that traffic volumes in the Big Pme Key segment have been increasing at a rate of 0.07% per year. Traffic volumes in the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe seg- ments of U.S. 1 have been increasing at a Transportation Facilities 26 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 21,186 27,924 Matecumbe 19,593 20,473 20,083 Somce: 2004 Arterial and TravelTImeI Delay Study, URS Inc. o o o o ..,. ~~ N o 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 . Big Pine Key . Marathon rate of 1.51% and 2.37% per year respec- tively. The Big Pine Key rate of growth is lower, while the Marathon and Upper Mate- cumbe rates of growth are higher than last year's. U.S. 1 historic traffic growth is de- picted in a regression analysis graph in Fig- ure 2.4. o Upper Matecumbe 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 manage- ment purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Figure 2.4 - Regression Analysis of AADTs 1994-2004 Marathon 40,000 Rate of groMh = 1.51 % per year ....-. 30,000 ... ._ L .....- --.... .- "'-e- -4- - . . N,. n 20,000 - - - .- . -. - -., . -. . -~ - .. .. -., - .. - .. . Upper Matecumbe Big Pine 10,000 Rate of growth Rate of groMh = 2.37% per year =0.07 % per 0 year I 1 I I I I I 1 --, 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 . Big Pine Key . Marathon Upper Matecurrbe - Upper Matecurrbe Trendline - - Marathon Trendline - - - . Big Pine Key Trendline &ut:e: 2004 Artcrial and Trave11irrc' U:Iay Study, URS n:. Transportation Facilities 27 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Florida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations. The study utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume-based capacities and the speed- based level of service methodology devel- oped 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 method- ology was developed in 1993 and amended December 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 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 be- tween Key West and Miami-Dade County. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experi- enced by long distance traffic traveling the entire length of the Keys. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in unincorpo- rated Monroe County, the movement of long distance traffic is an important consid- eration. 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. De- partment of Transportation have adopted a level of service 'c' standard for the overall length of U.S. 1. 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 2004 study was 45.4 mph, which is 0.7 mph lower than the 2003 median speed of 46.1 mph. The mean operating speed was 45.1 mph with a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 0.8 mph. All of these measure- ments correspond to LOS C conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 47.9 mph ( 1.1 mph lower than 2003 highest overall speed), which occurred on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 between 11:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 39.3 mph (2.2 mph lower than the 2003 lowest overall speed), which occurred on Saturday March 13, 2004 between 9:30 a.m. and 12:29 a.m. in the southbound direction. Figure 2.5 shows that the overall median speed for U.S. 1 has remained between 45.4 mph and 47.8 from 1992 to the present. Should the overall median speed fall ever below 45 mph (the minimum LOS C stan- dard), then the U.S. 1 capacity would be considered inadequate. Transportation Facilities 28 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 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 2000 46.4 C -0.3 2001 46.9 C 1 2002 47.1 C -0.2 2003 46.1 C -1 2004 45.4 C -0.7 Source: 2004 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Ine 48.0 '" 47.0 II) II) 46.0 ~ [; 45.0 :a II) ::E 44.0 ~'" ~~ ~Io ~"o rSJ<::> <S;'" rSJ~ " " " " '1,; ry '1,; Years 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 Develop- ment 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 de- scription of the segment boundaries can be found in Figure 2.6 on the following page. The segments were defined by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to reflect road- way cross sections, speed limits, and geo- graphical boundaries. The capacity or level of service for a U.S. 1 segment is measured in median speeds, similar to the overall capacity measurement. Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links 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 in- volved process than determining the overall level of service since different segments have different conditions. Segment condi- tions depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given seg- ment. 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 Monroe County depends on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits Transportation Facilities 29 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 2 5 9 2 3 9 oca Chica Road 2 4 10.5 arris Channel Bridge (N) 3 5 16.5 ower & Upper Sugarloaf 3 6 20.5 4A 7 23 ast Shore Drive 4A 8 25 orch-Ramrod Bridge (S) 4A 9 27.5 orch-Ramrod Bridge . Pine Channel Bridge 4A S) ) 10 29.5 . Pine Channel ong Beach Drive 5 ridge (N) 11 33 ong Beach Drive 6 12 40 - Mile Bridge (S) - Mile Bridge (N) 6 13 47 - Mile Bridge (N) ocoa Plum Drive 7 14 54 ocoa Plum Drive oms Harbor Ch Bridge 8 S) 15 60.5 oms Harbor Ch ng Key Bridge (S) 10 ridge (S) 16 63 ong Key Bridge (S) hannel #2 Bridge (N) 11 17 73 12A 18 77.5 12A 19 79.5 13 20 84 12B 21 86 cean Boulevard 14 22 91.5 cean Boulevard 15 & 16 23 99.5 tlantic Boulevard 17 - 20 24 106 112.5 -905 ounty Line Sign 22 OTE: (N) and (S) refer to the north and south side of the bridges respectively ource: 2004 Arterial and Travel Time! Delay Study, URS Inc. Transportation Facilities 30 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment within the given segment. Flow character- istics relate to the ability of a vehicle to travel through a particular segment without being slowed or stopped by traffic signals or other devices. Segments 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 expected to have longer travel times due to the delays caused by these signals or control devices. Road- way segments without a series of signals or control devices are considered to be "Uninterrupted Flow Segments". Uninter- rupted segments may have one or more traf- fic signals, but they are not in close prox- imity to one another as in the interrupted segment case. The methodology used to determine median speed and level of service on a particular segment is based upon that segment's status as an interrupted or uninterrupted flow seg- ment. The criteria, listed by type of flow characteristic, are explained in Figure 2.7. The Marathon and the Stock Island seg- ments are considered "interrupted" flow fa- cilities, the remainder of the segments are considered uninterrupted. For all "uninterrupted" segments containing iso- lated traffic signals, the travel times were reduced by 25 seconds to account for lost time due to signals. The segments, 2003 and 2004 median travel speeds, and the 2003 and 2004 LOS are shown on Figure 2.8. The median segment speeds recorded a range from 58.0 mph in the Boca Chic a segment to 32.0 mph in the Stock Island segment. LOS ranged from A to D. Compared to last year's (2003) study results, there are level of service changes to eight segments, three resulted in positive level of service changes while five resulted in negative level of service changes. Figure 2.9 is a map of the segment boundaries indi- cating 2004 LOS. Compared to 2003, the median segment speeds decreased in fourteen (14) of the twenty-four (24) segments ranging between 0.2 mph to 3.8 mph lower. Eight segments experienced an increase in median speeds, ranging from 0.2 mph to 1.5 mph, compared to last year's data. None of the changes in speed could be at- tributed to any specific change in conditions except the changes in traffic volumes and minor signal timings. Reserve Capacities The median overall speed of U.S. 1 in 2004 is 45.4 mph, which is a decrease of 0.7 mph from the 2003 overall median speed of 46.1 mph. The difference between the median speed and the LOS C standard gives the re- serve speed, which is converted into an esti- mated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and corresponding additional devel- opment. The median overall speed of 45.4 mph compared to the LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of .4 mph. The reserve speed is then converted into an estimated reserve capacity (7,419 daily trips). The estimated reserve capacity is then con- verted into an estimated capacity for addi- tional residential development (1,159 units), assuming balanced growth of other land uses. Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of U.S. 1 individually gives maximum reserve vol- umes for all segments totaling 85,986 trips. These individual reserve volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraints im- posed by the overall reserve volume. Transportation Facilities 31 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment A >= 35 mph >= L5 mph above speed limit B >= 28 mph 1.4 mph above to 1.5 mph below speed limit C >= 22 mph 1.6 mph below to 4.5 mph below speed limit D >= 17 mph 4.6 mph below to 7.5 mph below speed limit E >= 13 mph 7.6 mph below to 13.5 mph below speed limit F < 13 m h > 13.5 m h below eed limit Source: 2004 Arterial and Travel Time! Delay Study, URS Inc. Figure 2.8 US 1 Segment Status, Median Speeds, and Change 2003-2004 1 Stock Island A B 35.8 32.0 -3.8 2 Boca Chica A A 58.0 58.2 0.2 3 Big Coppitt C C 46.1 46.1 0.0 4 Saddlebunch C B 52.3 53.7 1.4 5 Sugarloaf C C 47.9 48.3 0.4 6 Cudjoe A A 47.5 48.1 0.6 7 Summerland B B 45.3 46.4 1.1 8 Ramrod A B 46.7 46.4 -0.3 9 Torch A A 47.2 47.6 0.4 10 Big Pine C C 39.7 38.4 -1.3 11 Bahia Honda A B 54.2 52.5 -1.7 12 7-Mile Bridge B C 54.3 53.1 -1.2 13 Marathon A A 38.2 35.2 -3.0 14 Grassy C C 50.9 50.3 -0.6 15 Duck C B 53.0 54.4 1.4 16 Long B B 52.3 52.9 0.6 17 L. Matecumbe D C 50.1 50.5 0.4 18 Tea Table D D 49.2 49.0 -0.2 19 U. Matecumbe C C 41.7 40.9 -0.8 20 Windley A A 42.2 41.8 -0.4 21 Plantation B C 41.3 40.0 -1.3 22 Tavernier A A 49.9 48.3 -1.6 23 Largo A A 48.4 45.5 -2.9 24 Cross D D 46.2 45.0 -1.2 Overall C C 46.1 45.4 -0.7 Source: 2004 Arterial and Travel Time! Delay Study, URS Inc. 32 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 2.9 -Map of US 1 Segments i.~:~ ......) L'/ C..' c,:""v '~..:) ,........~- l:<,'" \t " ~ q it-.-:.ri ~ j;,:l>" f? ~ ."...' 33 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment As stated earlier, the Land Development Regulations mandate a minimum level of service of 'c' for all roadway segments of U.S. I. However, county regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to meet LOS C standards to receive an alloca- tion not to exceed five percent below the LOS C standard. The resulting flexibility will allow a limited amount of additional land development to continue until traffic speeds are measured again next year or until remedial actions are implemented. These segments are candidates for being desig- nated either "backlogged" or "constrained" by FDOT. Applications for new develop- ment located within backlogged or con- strained segments are required to undergo a thorough traffic analysis as part of the re- VIew process. Based on this year's results, Tea Table (Segment 18), and Cross Key (Segment 24) are below the LOS C threshold, consistent with past two years of data. However, both segments have reserve capacities within the 5% allocation. Although both segments have reserve capacities within the 5% allo- cation, continuous degradation of travel speeds in these segments should be of con- cern. The travel speeds on Cross Key seg- ment is likely to improve with the imple- mentation of a high level fixed bridge, con- struction of which is anticipated to begin early next year. The Tea Table segment does not have any planned improvements to curtail the travel speed reductions. Florida Department of Transportation and/or Mon- roe County should conduct a special study along this segment to determine what im- provements, if any can be implemented to improve the declining travel speeds. A de- tailed summary table displaying level of service and reserve capacity values for each segment is contained in the "2004 U.S. I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study". When no additional trips can be allocated to a particular roadway segment, then it is con- sidered as "inadequate" from a public facil- ity standpoint. The Land Development Regulations indicate that no additional de- velopment which could impact an inade- quate public facility may be permitted. No facilities were designated as "inadequate" under this guideline. In addition to the requirement that areas with inadequate public facilities be identi- fied in the annual assessment, the Land De- velopment Regulations also require those areas with marginally adequate public fa- cilities to be identified. For the purposes of this report, U.S. I segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph in 2004 will be considered as "marginally ade- quate". This year's report indicates that ten seg- ments are "marginally adequate" and any applications for new development which would generate traffic in marginally ade- quate areas must submit a detailed traffic report for consideration during review. Please see Figure 2.11 for "marginally ade- quate" facilities. "Marginally Adequate" Segments Figure 2.11 ile Marker # Name Ran e 3 Big Coppitt 9.0 - 10.5 5 Sugarloaf 16.5 - 20.5 10 Big Pine 29.5 - 33.0 12 7-Mile Bridge 40.0 - 47.0 14 Grassy 54.0 - 60.5 17 Lower Matecumbe 73.0 - 77.5 18 Tea Table 77.5 - 79.5 19 Upper Matecumbe 79.5 - 84.0 21 Plantation 86.0 - 91.5 24 Cross 106 - 112.5 -2.3 Source: 2004 Arterial and Travel Time! Delay Study, URS Inc. Transportation Facilities 34 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Level of Service on County Roads Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations establishes a level of service standard 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 exam- ined are operating at or above the County standard of LOS D. Improvements to Roadway Facilities Major improvements scheduled for U.S. I are outlined in the Florida Department of Transportation Five-Year Work Pro- gram. The major project for unincorporated Monroe County in the current FDOT Work Program (200412005 to 2008/09) is to re- place the Jewfish Creek drawbridge with a high-level fixed-span bridge and the instal- lation of culverts to improve the tidal flow to the surrounding wetlands. The construc- tion phase for this project is scheduled for 2004/05. Additionally, the 18 mile stretch between the J ewfish Creek Bridge and Florida City is also scheduled for reconstruction begin- ning in 2004/05. These road projects are pending final approval of environmental permits. Another major project on the 5-year Work Program is the reconstruction of the Card Sound Road/County Road 905 intersection scheduled for 2007/08. Other road proj ects in the current FDOT Work Program include the preliminary en- gineering phase for adding a center turn lane on US-1 at Big Coppitt Key, Knights Key (MM 46.9-49.1), Grassy Key (MM 57.5-59.9), Long Key (MM 65.3-66.0), and Plantation Key (MM 85.7-86.7). These pro- jects are scheduled to begin construction in 2006, with the exception of Long Key and Plantation Key, which are scheduled for construction in 2007/08. In addition to the turn lane projects, numer- ous resurfacing projects are scheduled throughout the Keys over the span of the 5- year Work Plan. In addition to the road projects on U.S. 1, the construction of different segments of the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail are included in the current 5-year Work Plan. These construction projects include: · the segment from MM 5.2-Key Haven to MM 9.6-Big Coppitt Key · the segment from MM 16.5-Sugarloaf Key to MM 24.5-Summerland Key · the segment from MM 25-Summerland Key to MM 26.2-Ramrod Key · the segment from MM 26.2-Ramrod Key to 29.9 Big Pine Key, · the segment from MM 33.3 Spanish Harbor Bridge to MM 40.5 (south end of the 7-mile bridge), · the segment from MM 59.2 on Grassy Key to MM 65.2 Long Key · the segment from City of Layton MM 68.4 to MM 70.8-Channel 5 Bridge, and · the segment from Channel 5-Bridge to Anne's Beach. The following historic bridges are also scheduled for reconstruction to be used as part of the Overseas Heritage Trail: · The old Park Channel Bridge at MM 18.7, · The old South Pine Channel Bridge at MM 29, Transportation Facilities 35 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment · The Ohio-Missouri Historic Bridge at MM 39.1, and · The old Long Key Bridge at MM 63. Copies of the FDOT's most recent Five Year Work Program are available at the Florida Department of Transportation of- fices in Marathon. Summary The Land Development Regulations pro- vide clear guidance for assessing the capac- ity of the roadway system in Monroe County. U.S. 1 is required to maintain at least a level of service 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 util- izes the empirical relationship between vol- ume-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 segments making up the roadway in the Keys. The traffic volumes recorded at Big Pine, Marathon and Upper Matecumbe have in- creased as compared to the traffic volumes during the 2003 study. Using the historical traffic data, incorporating the 2003 data (based on a regression analysis), the three count locations on U.S. 1 have shown a traf- fic growth of 0.07%. 1.51%, and 2.37% per year respectively. The overall travel speed on U.S. I for 2004 is .7 mph lower compared to the 2003 over- all travel speed. The reserve speed for the entire length of U.S. 1 is .4 miles per hour. This means that the entire segment is oper- ating with only marginal capacity. Compared to 2003 data. the travel speeds on 10 of the 24 segments increased. These segments are: Boca Chica (+0.2 mph) Torch (+0.4 mph) Saddlebunch (+ 1.5 mph) Duck (+1.4 mph) Sugarloaf (+0.1 mph) Long (+0.7 mph) Cudjoe (+0.5 mph) L. Matecumbe (+0.4 mph) Summerland (+ 1.1 mph) Big Coppitt (+0.1 mph) Travel speeds in 14 segments have de- creased. These segments are: Stock Island (-3.8 mph) Tea Table (-0.2 mph) Ramrod (-0.3 mph) U. Matecumbe (-0.5 mph) Big Pine (-1.4 mph) Windley (-0.4 mph) Bahia Honda (-1.7 mph) Plantation (-1.2 mph) 7 -Mile Bridge (-1.2 mph) Tavernier (-1.8 mph) Marathon (-3.0 mph) Largo (-2.8 mph) Grassy (-0.8 mph) Cross (-2.7 mph) Compared to last year's (2003) study re- sults, there are changes in LOS to eight of the segments. The Stock Island. Ramrod. and Bahia Honda segments experienced de- creases in LOS from A to B. The Saddle- bunch and Duck segments experienced in- creases in LOS from C to B. The 7-Mile Bridge and Plantation segments decreased from LOS B to LOS C. The Lower Mate- cumbe segment increased from LOS D to LOSC. The largest speed increase of 1.5 mph was Transportation Facilities 36 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment recorded in the Saddlebunch segment, while the largest speed decrease was 3.8 mph and was recorded at both Stock Island and Marathon. In 2004 there were two segments which are considered "inadequate": Tea Table (Segment 18), and Cross Key (Segment 24) are below the LOS C threshold, consistent with the past two years of data. However, both segments have reserve capacities within the 5% allocation. In 2004 there were ten segments which are "marginally adequate" in terms of reserve capacity. All County roads have levels of service above the required standard of 'D'. Transportation Facilities 37 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment IlL 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 pine- land preserve west of Florida City in Mi- ami-Dade County. The FKAA wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater in the State, meeting or ex- ceeding all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Strong laws protect the wellfield from potentially contaminating adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's require- ments, FKAA is committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water qual- ity standards and requirements. The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the J. Robert Dean Water Treat- ment Facility in Florida City, which cur- rently has a maximum water treatment de- sign capacity of 22 million gallons per day (MGD). The water treatment process con- sists 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 maxi- mum 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 distribu- tion piping ranging in size from o/.i inch to 12 inches in diameter. In 2003, the FKAA replaced over 141,000 feet of various size distribution water mains. The FK.AA's Wa- ter Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of 59,960 feet of water main during fiscal year 2003- 04. 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 pe- riods 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 ca- pacit~ is an integra.l part of the system, the capaCIty of the entire system must be con- sidered together, rather than in separate ser- vice 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 desalination plants are capable of producing their designed capacities of 1.8 and 0.9 mil- lion ?allons per day (MGD) of water, re- spectively. 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 water or from specially con- structed 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 on the next page. Demand for Potable Water In October 2002, South Florida Water Man- agement District approved the FKAA's in- crease in Water Use Permit (WUP). The WUP increases FKAA's potential withdraws to an average of 19.93 and a maximum of Potable Water 38 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 3.1 - FKAA Facilities SYSTEM OVERVIEW KEY WEST ~~ 2 100 liP I'UMPSlLSJlLSJ 1 200 liP PUWPS ~. ~..:&I. ~.. STOCK ISlAND 2:l(lOHPP~ ~1I; 5l1Cl. 51111 [jtJ ~J1IiCD. ~.&&,; STA1IONR.o. flI.Nfl' .' -_ 5 lie , 6S!l HP PUMPS 1 20 HP PUlIP BIG COPPlTT KEY 2 30 lIP PUMPS ~ BIG PINE KEY ~ 2 30 HP I'UIrS ~ 23.79 Million Gallons per Day (MGD). In 2003, the FKAA distributed an average of 17.29 and a maximum of22.2 MGD to the Florida Keys. As a condition of the WUP, the FKAA is constructing a Floridan Aqui- fer Storage and Recovery (ASR) system. This system is designed to recharge and store water from the Biscayne Aquifer dur- ing the wet season (May through Novem- ber) in the Floridan Aquifer which is ap- proximately 800-1,000 feet below the ground surface, and then recover fresh wa- ter to supplement the Biscayne Aquifer dur- ing the dry season (December through April). Unless the projected future water demands decrease, the FKAA must also consider an alternative source of water sup- ply such as a brackish or salt water source which will require a new water treatment plant. Demand for potable water is influenced by t;Q Fl~OA CITY 5~ ~~ 22 _ lllEAlwarr PI.ANl (~8fooll!$ '='[01 ) eoo .. I'UIrS .lY1 MARATHON 2 lIOO HPF'UIiIP$ 2 lI5D HP PUlIPS ISlAt.IOR.ADA ~~ 230 UP PUMPS~~ LONG KEY ~ CRAWl KEY ~. ) BOO HP PUP.! 2 30 HI' P\llIPS ~ 69th ST MARATHON 230HPPIIIoiPS~ MAR....THO"'~~ 2 40 HP PUMPS ~ many factors, including the size of the per- manent resident and seasonal populations, the demand for commercial water use, land- scaping practices, conservation measures, and the weather. Figure 3.2 summarizes FKAA's historic 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. Potable Water 39 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1980 2,854.90 N/A N/A 1981 3,IOLlO 8. 6()01o N/A N/A 1982 3,497.30 12.80% N/A N/A 1983 3,390.20 -3.10% N/A N/A 1984 3,467.50 2.30% 4,450 982.5 1985 4,139.20 19.40% 4,450 310.8 1986 4,64L50 12.10% 5,110 468.5 1987 4,794.60 3.30% 5,110 315.4 1988 4,819.80 0.50% 5,1l0 290.2 1989 4,935.90 2.40% 5,110 174.1 1990 4,404.10 -10.80% 5,560 1,155.90 1991 4,286.00 -2.70"10 5,560 1,274.00 1992 4,461.10 4.10% 5,560 1,098.90 1993 5,023.90 12.60% 5,560 536.1 1994 5,080.00 1.l0% 5,560 480 1995 5,140.40 1.20"10 5,n8 637.6 1996 5,272.00 2.6()01o 5,778 506 1997 5,356.00 1.60% 5,778 422 1998 5,630.00 5.10"10 5,n8 148 1999 5,935.30 5.40% 5,778 -157.3 2000 6,228.00 1O.6()01o 5,778 -450 2001 5,626.70 -9.70"10 5,778 15L3 2002 6,19Ll6 10.03% 7,274 1083.29 2003 6,288.29 1.57% 7,274 985.84 Source: Florida Aqueduct Authority, 2004 Figure 3.3 - FKAA Annual Water Withdrawl 8,000 jg 7,000 ~ 6,000 C1 5,000 "0 4,000_ ~ 3,000~. o is 2,000 SS 1,000 04444 iiiil~i;&~&g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. - ~. 1- Annual Withdrawal (MG) -+- WUP Limit (MG) I Figure 3.4 - WUP Remaining Allocation l!! o =a o .... o '" c:: o := ~ 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 o -200 -400 -600 cfI'" cfI'J< cfllo cfI"o r;SJ\:J r;SJ'" '" '" '" '" 'V 'V Potable Water 40 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment The prevIous graphs show the relationship be- tween the amount AverageDailyWithdrawal 19.93 f t 'th MaximmDailyWithdrawal 23.79 o wa er WI - AmuaJ Withdrawal 7,274 drawn on an an- All are in millions 0 rdlons nual basis and the Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct AutOOrity, 2004 limit of the Water Use Permit to the present. Figure 3.5 shows the projected water demand for 2004. Fig- ure 3.6 indicates the amount of water avail- able on a per capita basis. Based on Func- tional Population and permitted water with- drawal, the average water available is above 100 gallons per capita (person). The 100 gallons per person per day standard is com- monly accepted as appropriate, and is re- flected in Policy 701.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. FKAA'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 current 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. Preliminary figures for 2004 indicate an in- crease in average day water use of 2 percent through May compared to 2003 figures. Therefore, the average daily water demand withdrawal projections for 2004 reflect this Increase. 156,120 157,172 159,113 159,840 160,568 161,227 161,235 Source: Florida K e s A 15,830,000 15,830,000 15,830,000 15,830,000 19,930,000 19,930,000 19,930000 ueduct Authorit .2004 The 1999 Public Facility Capacity Assessment Report indicated three rec- ommended actions to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to potable wa- ter: 17.29 22.2 6,288 17.57 22 6,414 · Continue to monitor water consump tion and return to the Board for fur ther direction; and · Prepare and adopt a series of ordi nances related to water conservation, including plumbing efficiency stan dards, a landscaping ordinance, and a permanent irrigation ordinance; and · Enter into a memorandum of under standing 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 effi- ciency standards have been implemented. Efforts on a permanent irrigation ordinance should be coordinated with Monroe 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 ef- forts must be undertaken by all jurisdictions 19,19 ,000 19,190,000 19,190,000 19,190,000 23,790,000 23,790,000 23,790,000 Potable Water 41 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment in the Keys to be successful. Improvements to Potable Water Facilities FKAA has a long-range capital improve- ment plan for both the distribution system and the. transmission and supply system, as shown In the table below. The total cost of the scheduled improvements is approxi- mately $67.5 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be funded by the newly revised water rate structure, long- term bank loans, and grants. The scheduled distribution system improve- ments include replacing and upgrading lines in various subdivisions throughout the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. These improvements began in 1989, when FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Up- grade. Program to replace approximately 190 mIles of galvanized lines. In addition to improvements to the distribu- tion system, FKAA also has significant im- provements planned for the transmission and supply system. FKAA expects to ex- pand the treatment capacity at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant to meet future ,,:ater. demands. Also, the FKAA is plan- ling 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 42 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 1077 Phase 11 - High Service Pump 100,000 1,574,000 1,674,000 1073 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 750,000 628,000 1,378,000 ASR 1079 WTP Control System 126,000 126,000 Security Cameras and 350,000 350,000 Li htin Stock Island RO-Permeators 60,000 840,000 900,000 & Carbonation Desalination Production 75,000 250,000 250,000 575,000 F acilit Desi n Onl 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 16,000,000 425,000 425,000 850,000 2186 Key West Plant Pump Station 400,000 3,470,000 1,530,000 5,400.000 2183 Cudjoe Tank & Pump Station 850,000 615,000 615,000 2,080,000 2191 Vaca Cut Tank & Pump 416,000 341,000 757,000 Station 2187 Islam orada TankstD istribu tion 50,000 750,000 800,000 1m 2189 Bi Pine Pum Station 550,000 270,000 820,000 Key Largo Storage Tank & 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Dist. Pum Station Water Tank Long Key Station I, I 00,000 1,100,000 Water Tank Ramrod Station 1,100,000 1,100,000 1075 100,000 900,000 1,000,000 1042 85,000 60,000 1,000,000 2,700,000 1,200,000 5,045,000 425,000 425,000 850,000 500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 1064 3,500,000 2,000,000 50,000 5,550,000 150,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 3,500,000 3080 600,000 600,000 3073 50,000 50,000 464,000 564,000 150,000 150,000 500,000 800,000 100,000 500,000 4,000,000 4,600,000 3077 Marathon Cen Iral Warehouse 250,000 1,000,000 500,000 1,750,000 100,000 900,000 1,000,000 600,000 300,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 3,400,000 40,000 200,000 240,000 3083 120,000 120,000 TOTALS 12,412,000 18,488,000 18,129,000 11,400,000 7,OS','OO 67,47',0" Source: Florida Ke . A ueduct Authorit ,2004 Potable Water 43 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities 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 Mon- roe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three mid- dle/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. Approximately 54 busses transport about 4,316 students to and from school each day. In addition to these standard fa- cilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums. The school system is divided into three sub- districts 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 Is- lamorada in the Upper Keys (Subdistrict I), 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 pre- sented in this section are based on the School Board's subdistricts. Subdistrict I covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes one high school and two elemen- tary/middle schools, as shown in Figure 4.1. Subdistrict 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven Mile Bridge and in- cludes one high/middle school and one ele- mentary 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. Demand for School Facilities The population of school age children in Monroe County is influenced by many fac- tors, including the size of the resident ~d seasonal populations, national demographIc trends (such as the ''baby boom" genera- tion), that result in decreasing household size, economic factors such as military em- ployment, the price and availability of hou~- ing, and the movements of seasonal reSI- dents. 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. Coral Shores High School (9-12) Key Largo Elementary/Middle School (K-8) Stanley SwitIik Elementary (K-6) Plantation Key Elementary/Middle School (K-8) Source: Monroe County School Board, 2004 Horace Q'Bryant Middle School (6-8) Adams Elementary (K-5) Archer/Reynolds Elementary (K-5) Poinciana Elementary (K-5) Sigsbee Elementary (K-5) Big Pine Key Neighborhood School (Pre K-3) SugarIoaf Elementary/Middle School K-8 Education Facilities 44 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Key Largo Bementary Plantation Key ElementarylMiddle Stanley Switlik Elementary .... Coral Shores High Horace O'Bryant Middle Big Pine Neighborhood Poinciana Elementary School Marathon Hig, Sigsbee Elementary Key West High Glynn Archer Elementary Reynold Elementary The following table (Figure 4.3) shows the fall school enrollments from 1992 to 2003 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 gen- erated by proposed land development. The School Board uses recommended ca- pacities provided by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) to determine each school's capacity. All schools have ade- quate reserve capacity to accommodate the impacts of the additional land development activities projeeted for 2004-2005 school year. Figure 4.4 shows each school's capac- ity and the projected number of students. Education Facilities 45 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Subdistrict 1 Coral Shores (H) 605 597 649 702 672 701 757 758 800 810 801 811 Key Largo (ElM) 1,310 1,213 1,235 1,198 1,223 1,273 1,253 1,183 1,173 1117 1112 1073 Plantation ElM 718 698 721 737 730 703 675 643 668 647 641 650 Subtotal 2,633 2,508 2,605 2,637 2,625 2,677 2,685 2,584 2,641 2,574 2,554 2,534 Subdistrict :1 Marathon (H) 545 523 578 642 637 612 637 660 679 682 693 654 Switlik E 734 775 776 769 782 815 834 791 671 687 714 676 Subtotal 1,279 1,298 1,354 1,41 I 1,419 1,427 1,471 1,451 1,350 1,369 1,407 1,330 Subdistrict 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 1382 O'Bryant (M) 852 902 876 909 897 863 899 814 838 854 874 873 Sugarloaf (ElM) 899 810 1,039 1,013 987 960 937 913 941 854 901 904 Adams (E) 541 529 516 486 500 499 574 566 513 544 598 591 Archer (E) 480 441 462 454 454 520 493 460 393 376 386 382 Poinciana (E) 521 566 613 626 637 608 620 632 599 586 583 547 Sigsbee (E) 471 400 431 431 398 404 423 393 358 363 326 295 Sands 81 81 85 52 52 58 1 0 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 4,974 TDtal 8,871 8,655 9,136 9,274 9,206 9,343 9,475 9,157 8,938 8,847 8,930 8,838 Source: Monroe Count School Board, 2004 9,600 9,400 9,200 9,000 8,800 8,600 8,400 8,200 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 I-+- Total Fall School Enrollment I Subdistrict 1 Coral Shores 868 831 8 I 8 747 835 Key Largo 1,240 1,191 I, I I 5 1,082 1,031 Plantation 971 645 653 665 649 Su b to ta I 3,079 2,667 2,586 2,494 2,5 J 5 Subdistrict 2 Marathon 1,0 I 8 667 673 724 665 S w itlik 925 668 674 684 651 Subtotal 1,943 1,33 5 1,347 1,408 J ,3 J 6 Subdistrict 3 Key West 1,349 1,3 I 2 1,267 1,3 I 3 1,408 O'Bryant 833 8 I 8 838 876 887 Sugarloaf 1,356 941 842 835 888 A dam s 547 506 546 605 552 A rc her 470 398 371 357 350 Poinciana 660 585 574 591 550 Sigsbee 534 357 373 327 284 Sands 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 5,749 4,9 J 7 4,8 J J 4,904 4,9 J 9 T D ttll 10,771 8,919 8,744 8,806 8,750 Source: Monroe Count Scbool Board, 2004 Education Facilities 46 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 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 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 ap- propriately 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 Elementary/Middle School (K-8) Meeting the substantial land requirements of Key Largo School is a top priority of the School Board. The Department of Educa- tion (DOE) has instructed the Monroe County School Board to construct an addi- tional 43,100 square feet of school space. However, current land use regulations pro- hibit the School Board from construction of any additional facilities on or adjacent to its current site due to the environmental sensi- tivity of the area. The School Board re- cently made an unsuccessful attempt to pur- chase a new site on which to build the re- quired school facilities. Unless the Board is able to provide these facilities in Key Largo they will be non-compliant with the mini- mum DOE standards. Fully utilizing the current Key Largo site would enable the School Board to meet their DOE require- ments and to minimize other secondary en- vironmental impacts associated with the construction of a new school. It has been determined that the School Board may clear the required amount of land, but the loca- tion of the clearing is still under review by the Planning and Environmental Resources Department. Plantation Key Elementarv/Middle School (K-8) 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 de- velopment and regulations prohibit the School Board from constructing any addi- tional facilities on, or adjacent to, its current site due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The new Village of Isla- morada will address plans for Plantation Key School and other educational facilities in its comprehensive plan. Stanley Switlik Elementary Expanding the existing school facilities into the two parcels of land flanking the current site will accommodate the land require- ments for Stanley Switlik Elementary. The school has a new cafeteria/kitchenl multipurpose building as well as new park- ing 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 Hil;rl1 School The School Board is currently finishing construction on the replacement school, which is scheduled for completion by the end of 2003. Education Facilities 47 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Figure 4.5 is a table showing the results of the investigation completed by the Monroe County School Board and Planning Depart- ment in 1998 and updated in 2004. Key Largo Elementary/Middle School 27 acres (SC & SR) 2 acres (I) (K-8) o acres N/A N/A o acres Marathon High and Middle 27 acres (SR) o acres (3) o acres Schools Big Pine Neighborhood 4.5 acres (SC) o acres o acres Elementary SugarloafMiddle and 42 acres (SC & NA) o acres o acres Elementary 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 0 vacant land zoned SC and 8.6 acres 0 vacant land zoned IS surrounding the current site. There are approximately 27 acres of vacant land zoned NA and 34 acres zoned SR surrounding the current site. (I) The School Board is working with Monroe County Planning Department to meet this need prior to the end of2004. (2) Islamorada will address plans for Plantation Key School, Coral Shores High School and other educational facilities in their comprehensive plan. (3) The Marathon High School and Middle School Boards want to partner with the County to create an auditorium that will also serves as a communi center. Source: Monroe Coun School Board, 2004 Education Facilities 48 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment ~ SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Monroe County's solid waste facilities are managed by the Solid Waste Management Department, which oversees a comprehen- sive system of collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste. Prior to 1990, the County's disposal methods consisted of in- cineration and landfilling at sites on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe Key. Com- bustible 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 accordance with County- approved franchise agreements, private con- tractors perform collection of solid waste. Residential collection takes place four times a week (2 garbage/trash, 1 recycling, 1 yard waste); nonresidential collection varies by contract. The four (4) contractors currently serving the Keys are identified in Figure 5.1. struction 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 sum- marizes the status of the County's landfills and incinerators. The County's recycling efforts began in Oc- tober 1994, when curbside collection of re- cyclable materials was made available to all County residences and businesses. Recy- cling transfer centers have been established in the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. Waste Management, Inc. continues to proc- ess yard waste into mulch. The mulch prod- uct is then made available to the public. In addition to County efforts, other govern- ment agencies are mulching and reusing yard waste, and private enterprises are col- lecting aluminum and other recyclable ma- terials. White goods, waste oil, batteries and tires are handled separately, with collection sites operating at each landfill/transfer station site. The County collects household hazard- ous waste at the Long Key and Cudjoe Key Transfer Stations, in addition to the Key Largo Recycling Yard. Hazardous waste 5.1- SOOd Wlste <::bmido from condi- tionally ex- empt small Md-KeysWSe,Ire. WSeMmgmnof quantity gen- Fkrida, Ire. erators is col- lected once a year, as part of an Am- nesty Days program. The County's incinerators V",",ro Sanitary Service & and landfills "'--)'" are no longer O:eanReefOtb, Ire. in operation. &uo::MnreGu1y~WNeMlmgmnDp:ab.lrd,D):t The landfill sites are now used as transfer sta- Ke Lar tions for wet Lon K garbage, Cudjoe yard waste Old Site d ' Unused Site an con - Source: Monroe Coun aosed 2125/91 None Solid Waste o 180,000 Solid Waste Facilities 49 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 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 Development Regulations (LDRs). One difference is that Windley Key, which is considered to be in the Upper Keys dis- trict 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 De- cember 31, 1997, the municipality contin- ued to participate with Monroe County in the contract with Waste Management Inc. until September 30, 1998. Data for Monroe County solid waste generation is calculated by fiscal year which runs :from October 1 to September 30. Therefore, the effects of Is- lamorada's incorporation on solid waste ser- vices appear in the 1999 data. Data for the City of Key West and the Village of Islamo- rada is not included in this report. Marathon's incorporation was effective on October 1, 2000 and they continue to par- ticipate in the Waste Management Inc. con- tract. Effects of the incorporation, if any, will appear in the 2001 data. Demand for solid waste facilities is influ- enced by many factors, including the size and income levels of resident and seasonal populations, the extent of recycling efforts, household consumptive practices, landscap- ing practices, land development activities, and natural events such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Analyses provided by a private research group indicate that the av- erage 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 following table and graph summarize the solid waste generated by each district. The totals for each district are a combina- tion of four categories of solid waste: gar- 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% 2000 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% 2003 31,529 31,889 30,385 93,803 0.93% Note: The figures from 1984 to 1991 include white goods, tires, construction debris, and yard waste. They do not include source-se arated rec clables. Source: M ooroe County Solid Waste Mana Solid Waste Facilities 50 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Flgure 5.4 - Solid Waste Generation 1985 -2003 by District 120,000 100,000 80,000 U} 6 60,000 E-< 40,000 20,000 o ~~~#~~~~~#~#~#### , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~ ~ ~ ~ 1- Key Largo - Long Key C=:t Cudjoe Key...... Total I bage, yard waste, bulk yard waste and other (includes construction and demolition de- bris). 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 in- crease 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 land- fall 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 generated has been on the increase until 1998, when it reached its highest level yet. This increase 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 attributable to the reduction in solid waste collected from Islamorada. The con- tinuing 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 im- plementation of the Specialty Hauler ordi- nances. The increase in 2002 and 2003 may be attributable to fluctuations In waste streams from Islamorada. Level of Service of Solid Waste Facilities Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations requires that the County main- tain sufficient capacity to accommodate all existing and approved development for at least three (3) years. The regulations spe- cifically recognize the concept of using dis- posal sites outside Monroe County. As of June 2004, Waste Management Inc., reports a reserve capacity of approximately 30.5 million cubic yards at their Central Sanitary Landfill in Broward County, a vol- ume sufficient to serve their clients for an- other 14 years. Figure 5.5 below shows the remaining capacity at the Central Sanitary Landfill. Monroe County has a contract with WMI authorizing use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately twelve years of guaranteed capacity. Ongoing modifica- tions at the Central Sanitary Landfill are creating additional air space and years of life. In addition to this contract, the 180,000 cubic yard reserve at the County Solid Waste Facilities 51 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment landfill on Cudjoe Key would be sufficient to handle the County's waste stream for an additional four to five years (at current ton- nage levels), should the County choose to discontinue haul-out as the means of dis- posal. The combination of the existing haul-out contract and the space available at the Cud- joe Key landfill provides the County with sufficient capacity to accommodate all ex- isting and approved development for up to nineteen years. Remrining Capacity (vohu:re in millions of cubic yards) i tinr 14 Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2004 28y<f 27y<f 34.2 yd3 32.3 yd3 30.5 yd3 Solid Waste Facilities 52 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment VI. PARKS AND RECREATION An annual assessment of parks and recrea- tional facilities is not mandated by Section 9.5-292 of the Monroe County Land Devel- opment Regulations, though it is required for concurrency management systems by the Florida Statutes. The following section has been included in the 2004 Public Facili- ties Capacity Assessment Report for infor- mational 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 un- incorporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the provisions of re- source- and activity-based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are: 0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population 0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population The LOS standards for each type of recrea- tion area can be applied to unincorporated Monroe County as a whole or to each sub- area (Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys) of unincorporated Monroe County. In deter- mining how to apply the LOS standard for each type of recreation area, the most im- portant aspect to consider is the difference between resource- and activity-based rec- reation areas. Resource-based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources of significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity- based recreation areas can be established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other athletic events. Since the location of resource-based recrea- tion areas depends upon the natural features or cultural resources of the area and cannot always be provided near the largest popula- tion centers, it is reasonable to apply the LOS standard for resource-based areas to all of unincorporated Monroe County. Since activity-based recreation areas do not rely on natural features or cultural resources for their location and because they can be pro- vided in areas with concentrated popula- tions, 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 recreational 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 Pi- geon Key and Long Key (PAEDs 6 through 11). The Lower Keys are the area south of the Seven Mile Bridge (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). Parks and Recreation 53 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Undevelo ed. Undevelo ed. Basketball courts (2), playground, ball field, picnic shelters, arkin and ublic restrooms. A soccer field. two (2) ball fields, six (6) tennis courts, a jogging Ke Lar 0 Communit Park trail, three (3~ ~asketball courts,. roller hockey, vO.lleYball, y g y playground, pICniC shelters, publtc restrooms, parking and a uatic center. Waterfront ark with a boat ram . Two (2) ball fields, playground, restrooms, picnic shelters, beach arkin 89 and boat ram . PIa round ark benches trails, and a historic latform. U ndevelo ed. Undevelo ed. NOT IN MASTER PLAN Monroe County School District; Playground, baseball field, runnin track indoor m. Monroe County School District; Baseball field, football field, Coral Shores High School softball field 5 tennis courts indoor m. Monroe County School District; playground, I tennis court, I Plantation Key Elementary basketball court I baseball field. Garden Cove Hibiscus Park Friendship Park Sunset Point Harry Harris Settler's Park Sunn Haven Old S.R. 4-A Key Largo Elementary Subarea Total Pigeon Key Marathon High School Switlik Elementary Subarea Total Little Duck Ke Missouri Ke West Sum m erland Heron Avenue Palm Villa Bi Pine Leisure Club Blue Heron Park Watson Field Ramrod Ke Swim Hole Summerland Estates Little Torch Boat Ram S ugarloaf E lem entary B aypoint Park Palm Drive cuI-de sac Rockland Hammock Boca Chica Beach Delmar Avenue Big Coppitt Fire De artment Pia round Wilhelm ina Harvey Children's Park Bernstein Park East Martello West Martello Higgs Beach/Astro City Upper Keys Subarea Middle Keys Subarea Historic structures, research/educational facilities, and a railroad museum. Monroe County School District; Baseball and football field, softball field, 3 tennis courts, 3 basketball courts, indoor gym. Monroe County School District; Playground, 2 baseball fields. shared soccer/football field. Lower Keys Subarea restroom s boat ram and beach area. Playground, basketball court, youth center, and picnic shelters. Two 2 tennis courts ball field, la round, and volle ball. Swimmin area with no facilities. U ndevelo ed. Boat ram . Monroe County School District;1 baseball field, playground. bocchi ball, two (2) tennis courts, and Playground and benches. Two playground areas, a walking trail and green space. tennis courts, Ball field, soccer, basketball court. track, la round restrooms and volle ball. Historic structures teen center and icnic area. Historic structure. Five (5) tennis courts, playground, volleyball. beach area ier and ublic restroom s. Historic structure and museum. picnic shelters, Li hthouse Museum Subarea Total UNINCORPORA TED MONROE COUNTY TOTAL Source: Monroe County Plannins Department, 2004 1.5 0.46 1.92 14 1.2 16.4 3 0.09 0.3 3.4 10.1 /.7 6.09 47.98 5 7.8 5 2.5 10.3 25.5 3.5 31.8 0.69 0.57 1.75 5.5 2.4 0.5 0.13 0.1 3.1 1.58 0.1 2.5 6 0.2 0.75 0.65 11 14.58 0.8 15.5 0.77 87.17 98.26 42.8 101.08 Parks and Recreation S4 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment There are currently 98.26 acres of resource- based recreation areas either owned or leased by Monroe County shown in Figure 6.1. Using the functional population pro- jection for 2004 of 75,801 persons in unin- corporated Monroe County, and the LOS standard of 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population, the demand for resource based recreation areas is approximately 62.16 acres. The county currently has a resource- based land to meet the level of service with an extra 36.10 acres of reserve capacity. Level of Service Analysis for Activ- ity-Based Recreation Areas The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at educational facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. There is currently a total of 101.08 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 Islamo- rada), 10.3 acres in the Middle Keys (including Marathon), and 42.8 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 unincor- porated Monroe County (37,314-Upper, 4, 140-middle, and 34,347-Lower), the de- mand for these recreation areas are 30.60, 3.39 and 28.16 acres for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys, respectively. Upper Keys Total Middle Keys Total Lower Ke s Total Total 37,314 4,140 34,347 75,801 47.98 10.3 42.8 101.08 Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2004 There is currently a reserve of 17.38, 6.9, and 14.64 (Upper, Middle, and Lower) for a total of 38.92 acres of activity-based recrea- tion areas for all of unincorporated Monroe County. Figure 6.2 shows the level of ser- vice analysis for activity-based recreation areas in each subarea. Future Parks and Recreation Plan- ning Monroe County is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis of it's parks and recreation system in order to more accu- rately 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, evaluate the current park system, recommend areas where new park sites should be acquired, and funding mechanisms which may be used for that ac- quisition. 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 Commu- niKeys Program. This community based planning initiative looks at all aspects of an area and, among other planning concerns, identifies the parks and recreation desires of the local population. The Livable Commu- 30.60 3.39 28.16 62.16 17.38 6.91 14.64 38.92 Parks and Recreation 55 2004 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment ~Keys Program has been completed on Big PIne Key and No Name Key, and Tavernier. The process has recently begun in Key Largo and will begin shortly in Stock Is- land. Acquisition of Additional Recrea- tion Areas ~he Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehen- SIve Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of re- source-based and activity-based neighbor- hood and community parks consistent with the adopted level of service standards." The elimination of deficiencies in LOS stan- dards for recreation areas can be accom- plished in a number of ways. Policy 1~01.2..1 of the Comprehensive Plan pro- VIdes SIX (6) mechanisms that are accept- able for solving deficits in park level of ser- vice standards, as well as for providing ade- quate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result from ad- ditional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are: · 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; · Acquisition of new park sites; · Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board that would allow for the use of existing school-park fa- cilities by county residents; . Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County that would allow for the use of existing city-owned park facilities by county residents; . Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal govern- ments that would allow for the use of existing publicly-owned lands or facili- ties by county residents; and . 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 ~he amount of available acreage for calculat- Ing 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 instance the Co~ty is currently reviewing and reviSing the Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board to provide greater day time accessibility for students to public rec- reational facilities. Once executed, these agreements will ensure that the facilities will be available for general use to Monroe County reside~ts to meet peak season, weekend, or tIme of day recreation de- mands. Parks and Recreation 56