Item I4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: August 18. 2005 Division:Growth Management
DepartmentPlanning and Environmental Resources
Staff Contact Person: K. Marlene Conaway
Bulk Item: Yes X No
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution adopting the Annual Assessment of
Public Facilities Capacity Report for 2005.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development Regulations (LDR's) requires
the BOCC adopt an annual assessment of public facilities capacity for Monroe County. The PlaIUling
Department has prepared a 2005 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, Big Coppit (Segment 3), Sugarloaf (Segment 5), Big Pine (Segment 10), Grassy
(Segment 14), L. Matecumbe (Segment 17), Tea Table (Segment 18), U. Matecumbe (Segment 19),
Cross Key (Segment 24) are below the LOS C threshold. The Tea Table (Segment 18), Cross Key
(Segment 24) segments have been below the LOS threshold for the past four years. All of these segments
have reserve volume or reserve capacities within the 5% allocation, except for Cross Key. The Cross
Key segment has exceeded its reserve capacity. The continuous degradation of travel speeds in these
segments should be of concern. The travel speeds on Cross Key segment are likely to improve with the
implementation of a high level fixed bridge; completion is anticipated within the next three years. The
Lower Matecumbe and Tea Table segments do not have any planned improvements to curtail the travel
speed reductions. The Florida Department of Transportation, Village of Islamorada and Monroe County
should work together to find a solution for the LOS report for these three segments within the Islamorada
corporate limits.
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:The BOCC has approved assessments of public
facilities capacity each year since 1987.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None
STAFF RECOMMENDA TIONS:Approval.
TOTAL COST: N/A
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
BUDGETED: Yes
No
No -L AMOUNT PER MONTH
Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty -2L OMB/Purchasing N/A Ris
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
anagement
N/A
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X
TImot j .I MCGa~P
V
Not Required _
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
RESOLUTION NO.
~ 2005
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE Al\TNUAL
ASSESSMENT OF MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES
CAP ACITY FOR 2005 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 eapacity
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 2005; and
WHEREAS, the transportation section of the annual report is based upon the findings of
the 2005 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; and
WHEREAS, one segment, Cross Key, of U.S. 1 was classified as "inadequate" in terms
of reserve capacity but is likely to improve with the implementation of a high level fixed bridge
for which completion is anticipated within the next three years. Therefore, development activities
ill this ~a wm be closely monitored to' minimize the possibility
lev~l of servioo,
furtr~ degnuiaHon lin the
NOW THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOL'VED BV THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORiDA, that the '
Monroe County Public Facilities C~p!lcity tor 2005 i~:
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board County Commi$51oners of Mcmroe
FIOfida at a reguliU meeting held on the~" _ day of _ 200~,
Mayo!:' Di1tle Spehar
Mayor Pro Tem Chm-le:s "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner Rice
Commissioner Goorge Neugent
Comlnissiof:ler Mw-ray Nelson
...!..--,.
i
A 1'TEST: nANNY L
_,-no -~.
OlRrUTY CLERK
2005
MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES
CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
REPORT
ci..J....;.
~'\:..; .
1"::'-
Jo .#.... ~..
.' "..
'"I .P,
". .
...
'. ..., p...
EDUCATION
SOLID WASTE
POTABLE WATER
TRANSPORTATION
PARKS AND RECREATION
JULY 2005
PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy......................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 6
I. GROWTH ANALySIS....................................................................... ....1 0
II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES......................................................... 26
III. POTABLE WATER.......................................................................... ..39
IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES.................................................................. 45
V. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES.............................................................. ...51
VI. PARKS AND RECREATION.............................................................. ..55
1
2005 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 76,334 people in 2005, a
slight increase from 2004.
Policy 101.3.1, the County's nonresidential
RaGa policy in the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan, was passed by the Board of County
Commissioners in September of 2001 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
2005
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, Based on this year's
results, Big Coppitt (Segment 3), Sugarloaf
(Segment 5), Big Pine (Segment 10),
Grassy (Segment 14), Lower Matecumbe
(Segment 17), Tea Table (Segment 18), Up-
per Metacumbe (Segment 19) and Cross
Key (Segment 24) are below the LOS C
threshold. However, seven of these seg-
Executive Summary
2
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
ments have reserve capacities within the 5%
allocation, except for the Cross Key seg-
ment. Segments that have used-up all the
5% reserve trips are restricted in new devel-
opment or redevelopment, except where
redevelopment has no net increase in trips.
The Cross Key segment has used-up all the
5% reserve trips, normally restricting any
new development or redevelopment, but
based upon the new fixed span bridge and
widening at Jewfish Creek, this will not be
an issue. The status of each facility is sum-
marized below.
Solid Waste:
The combination of the eXlstmg 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
sixteeen years.
Parks and Recreation:
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:
Enrollment figures for the 2004-2005
school year and projected enrollment fig-
ures for the 2005-2006 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. How-
ever, school facility plans are based on en-
rollment projections 5 years out (2008-2009
school year), at which time sufficient capac-
ity will be available. The remaining schools
have more than sufficient capacity to ac-
commodate all fall enrollment in 2005 and
future years.
Potable Water:
A comparison between 2003 and 2004
shows an increase in water consumption of
2.74%. In October 2002, South Florida
Water Management District approved the
FKAA's increase in Water Use Permit
(WUP). The WUP increases FKAA's po-
tential withdraws to an average of 19.93 and
a maximum of 23.79 Million Gallons per
Day (MGD). In 2004, the FKAA distrib-
uted an average of 17.65 and a maximum of
22.0 MGD to the Florida Keys. Water dis-
tribution for 2005 is projected to average
18.42 and have a maximum of 22.4 MGD.
An analysis of data shows that the residen-
tial and overall LOS standards for water
consumption, as set out in Objective 701.1
of the Monroe County Year 2010 Compre-
hensive 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-
j ected 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. Based on the findings
of the 2005 US-1 Arterial Travel Time and
Delay Study for Monroe County, as pre-
Executive Summary
3
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
pared by URS Inc., the overall 2005 level of
service for US-l is LOS C. The table on the
following page shows the LOS and "status"
of US-l by segment.
County regulations allow development ac-
tivities to continue in "areas of marginally
adequate facility capacity" provided traffic
speeds do not fall below the standard by
more than five percent. Based on this
year's results ten segments were considered
marginally adequate, Big Coppitt (Segment
3), Saddlebunch (Segment 4), Sugarloaf
(Segment 5), Big Pine (Segment 10),
Grassy (Segment 14), Long (Segment 16),
Lower Matecumbe (Segment 17), Tea Table
(Segment 18), Upper Metacumbe (Segment
19), and Plantation (Segment 21) have re-
serve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph.
However, all of these segments have reserve
capacities within the 5% allocation. One
segment, Cross (Segment 24) is inadequate.
It not only falls below the LOS C threshold
and has a reserve speed less than or equal to
3 mph, but also does not have any reserve
capacities within the 5% allocation. Seg-
ments that have used-up all the 5% reserve
trips are restricted in new development or
redevelopment, except where redevelop-
ment has no net increase in trips. The Cross
Key segment has used-up all the 5% reserve
trips, normally restricting any new develop-
ment or redevelopment, but based upon the
new fixed span bridge and widening at Jew-
fish Creek, this will not be an issue.
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 on the following page for
"marginally adequate" facilities:
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, most public facilities continue to be
adequate; however demands on these facili-
ties 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 enj oy.
Executive Summary
4
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
1 Stock Island 4-5 B Adequate
2 Boca Chica 5-9 A Adequate
3 Big Coppitt 9-10.5 D Marginal
4 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 C Marginal
5 Sugarloaf 16.5-20.5 D Marginal
6 Cudjoe 20.5-23 A Adequate
7 Summerland 23-2 B Adequate
8 Ramrod 25-27.5 A Adequate
9 Torch 27.5-29.5 A Adequate
10 Big Pine 29.5-33 D Marginal
11 Bahia Honda 33-40 B Adequate
12 7-Mile Bridge 40-47 A Adequate
13 Marathon 47-54 A Adequate
14 Grassy Key 54-60.5 D Marginal
15 Duck Key 60.5-63 B Adequate
16 Long Key 63-73 C Marginal
17 Lower Matecumbe 73-77.5 D Marginal
18 Tea Table 77.5-79.5 D Marginal
19 Upper Matecumbe 79.5-84 D Marginal
20 Windley 84-86 A Adequate
21 Plantation 86-91.5 C Marginal
22 Tavernier 91.5-99.5 A Adequate
23 Largo 99.5-106 A Adequate
24 Cross 106-112.5 D Inade uate
Source: 2005 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc.
"Marginally Adequate" Segments
# Name Mile Marker Range Reserve Speed
3 Big Coppitt 9.0 - 10.5 -0.5
4 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 1.3
5 Sugarloaf 16.5 - 20.5 -1.0
10 Big Pine 29.5 - 33.0 -1.2
14 Grassy 54.0 - 60.5 -0.4
16 Long 63.0 - 73.0 1.8
17 Lower Matecumbe 73.0 - 77.5 -0.5
18 Tea Table 77.5 - 79.5 -0.2
19 Upper Matecumbe 79.5 - 84.0 -1.4
21 Plantation 86.0 - 91.5 1.1
24 Cross 106-112.5 -2.9
Source: 2005 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc.
Executive Summary
5
2005 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 of the 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 only
marginal and/or inadequate capacity for
some or all public facilities.
In the event that some or all public facilities
have fallen or are projected to fall below the
LOS standards required by the Code, 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
2005 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-I shall have
sufficient available capacity to operate
at level of service C on an overall basis
as measured by the US-I Level of Ser-
vice Task Force Methodology. In addi-
tion, the segment or segments of US-I,
as identified in the US-I 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-I 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-
0pment 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-I 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
2005 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 Sencice Areas
The Upper Keys
MM 112-91
~~ (If''Jr -u'-
~~ p~ .'
q e~~ ,;
.) ~ 00,
)':' .1 ~ J,..
.q._ a",
"
~51
.ap
.".
.. .
~.
)~. d-
The Middle Keys
MM 91-47
.t
.~
~
I
."
The Lower Keys
MM 47-4
Introduction
8
2005 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
Due to unavailability of any reserve capac-
ity for traffic on US-Ion Big Pine Key, the
County was required to impose a morato-
rium in 1995 on any new development on
Big Pine. In December 1997, as a result of
a change in the methodology used to deter-
mine level of service, the moratorium on
Big Pine Key was lifted. However, the re-
sults of the 1999 Travel Time and Delay
Study indicated that the segment of US-1
through Big Pine Key once again fell below
the adopted LOS standard. Due in part to
the re-timing of the intersection of US 1 and
Key Deer Boulevard, the level of service on
the Big Pine segment of US 1 improved in
2000, but decreased again in 2001 and
2002. Based on the 2003 Arterial Travel
Time and Delay Study the LOS had in-
creased to 'C'. Meaning, there was suffi-
cient reserve capacity, and the moratorium
on traffic generating development was
lifted. The improvement in the LOS is due
in part to further re-timing of the intersec-
tion and an intersection improvement pro-
ject, which was completed by FDOT this
year. It is not anticipated that these im-
provements will permanently improve the
LOS on Big Pine Key, but a 3-laning pro-
ject is being designed by FDOT to achieve a
longer term acceptable level of service. The
Planning and Environmental Resources De-
partment has completed a Master Plan for
Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which is
waiting to be adopted, which will address
future solutions to traffic problems within
the community.
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
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
I. GROWTHANALYSIS
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 of all these
people are in the Keys on the same evening.
Peak seasonal population figures represent
the number of people who could stay on any
given evening based upon peak occupancy
rates, and therefore represent the peak 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 (PAEDs)
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
of analysis were combined in 1987 for ease
of use. Since most PAEDs follow island
Growth Analysis
10
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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.
. 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.
. The City of Marathon encompasses
PAEDs 7, 8, & 9, and its population is
.L,
"
PAED 15
" PAED 14
contained within unincorporated Mon-
roe County until 2000.
. The City of Layton falls within PAED
11, but its population is removed from
Unincorporated Monroe County.
. The Village of Islamorada occupies
PAEDs 12A, 12B, 13, & 14, and has its
own population figures starting in 1998.
. PAEDs 19 and 20 are the last PAEDs
before the "bend" in US-I, and have
been grouped together in this report be-
cause of data constraints. The dividing
line between PAEDs is the center of US-
1.
.
Growth Analysis
11
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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 22, or the area from
Mile Marker 83.5 to 112, the Middle Keys
includes PAEDs 7 through 13 (Mile Marker
47.5 to 83.4), and the Lower Keys service
area is composed of PAEDs 1 through 6
from Mile Marker 4 to 47.4.
The chart below shows the individual
PAEDs by their mile marker ranges, and
also shows the islands included within a
particular PAED's boundary.
Functional Population
The functional population is the sum of the
number of permanent residents and the peak
seasonal population. Figure 1.3 shows the
functional population for all of Monroe
County (including the incorporated areas),
excluding Mainland Monroe County and the
population in the Dry Tortugas. The func-
tional population of Monroe County is ex-
pected 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).
Figure 1.6 shows the breakdown m func-
1 Stock Island
2 Boca Chica, East Rockland, Big Coppitt, Geiger, Shark
3 Sadd1ebunch Keys, Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf
4a Cudjoe, Summerland, Ramrod, Big-Midd1e-Little Torch
4b No Name Key
5 Big Pine Key
6 W. Summerland, Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri, Little Duck, Pigeon Key
7 Knight, Hog, Vaca, Boot, Stirrup (Marathon)
8 Fat Deer, Little Crawl, Crawl #5, (Marathon) & (Key Colony Beach)
9 Grassy Key (Marathon)
10 Duck Key, Little Conch Key, Conch Key
11 Long Key, Fiesta Key, (Layton)
12a Craig Key, Lower Matecumbe (Is1amorada)
12b Windley Key (Is1amorada)
13 Teatab1e Key, Upper Matecumbe (Is1amorada)
14 Plantation Key (Is1amorada)
15 Key Largo (Tavernier area)
16 Key Largo
17 Key Largo (Rock Harbor)
18 Key Largo
19-20 Key Largo
21 Key Largo (North Key Largo, Ocean Reef, Card Sound area)
22 Cross Key (18 Mile Stretch area)
Source: Monroe County Planning Depertment, 2005
4-6
7-12.4
12.5-20.5
20.6-29
N/A
29.5-33
34.5-46
47.5-53.2
53.3-56.4
56.5-60
61-64
65-71
72-78
83.5-85.5
79-83.4
85.6-91
91.1-94.5
94.6-98
98.1-100.6
100.7-103.5
103.6-107.5
N/A
107.6-112
Growth Analysis
12
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
2005
2010
2015
*
*
162,041
164,769
165,366
2,728
597
1.66%
0.36%
Source: Monroe COllllty Planning Department, 2005
Figure 1.4 -Trend in Functional Population Changes
170,000
::: 165,000
0
....
~
;:l 160,000
0.
0
~
"@
::: 155,000
",8
Q
:::
;:l 150,000
~
145,000
0 ('.l '7 'D 00 0 ('.l '7 'D 00 0 ('.l '7
0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0 0 0 0 0
0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - ('.l ('.l ('.l ('.l ('.l ('.l ('.l ('.l
il 3.00%
i$
0 2.50%
....
0
::: 2.00%
",8 1.50%
'"
-;
0. 1.00%
0
~ 0.50%
.s
0) 0.00%
co
::: -0.50%
'"
0 -1.00%
~
0 0 ('.l '7 'D
0\ 0\ 0\ 0\
0\ 0\ 0\ 0\
- - - -
1__ Trend in Population Changes I
Figure 1.5 -Functional Population Rate ofIncrease
00
0\
0\
-
('.l
o
o
('.l
o
o
('.l
'7
o
o
('.l
('.l
o
('.l
'7
o
('.l
o
o
o
('.l
'D
o
o
('.l
00
o
o
('.l
I---+--- Fllllctional Population I
Growth Analysis
13
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Upper Keys
Middle Keys
Lower Keys
Unincorporated 103,001
Subtotal
Incorporated Area 46,348
County Total 149,349
Source: Monroe COlmty Planning Department, 2005
42,171
30,443
30,387
40.94%
29.56%
29.50%
100.00%
76,334
85,707
162,041
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
74.11%
78,277
86,492
164,769
76.00%
78,831
86,535
165,366
100.00%
(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 (1 %) 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
population as a percentage of the functional
population fluctuates between 47.20% in
Figure 1.7 - Projected Permanent and Seasonal County-wide Population 1990-2015
Seasonal Population 70,493 73,491 73,737 74,533 74,712
Permanent Population 78,855 85,622 88,305 90,236 90,654
Functional Population 149,348 159,113 162,042 164,769 165,366
Source: Monroe COlmty Planning Department, 2005
Growth Analysis
14
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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 37,314 to 37,541 (0.61%) from 2004
to 2005. This projected increase results
from the addi ti on of 151 permanent resi-
dents and 76 in the seasonal population.
The functional population in the Middle
Keys service area is expected to increase
from 4,140 to 4,154 (0.34%) from 2004 to
2005. This projected increase results from
the addition of 9 permanent residents and 5
in the seasonal population.
The functional population in the Lower
Keys service area is expected to increase
from 34,347 to 34,639 (0.85%) from 2004
to 2005. This projected increase results
from the addition of 217 permanent resi-
dents and 74 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 proj ection
overestimated the population of the unincor-
porated area by 3,298 people. Figure 1.8
shows that the difference between the pro-
j ected 2000 data and the actual permanent
population reported by the 2000 census for
the entire Monroe County to be 6,093 per-
Unincorporated Area
Upper Keys 19,740 15,168 17,435 -2,267
Middle Key s 13,948 800 1,098 -298
Lower Keys 18,062 20,008 20,741 -733
Incorporated Areas
Is1amorada 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: D.S Census Bureau and Monroe COlmty Planning Department, 2005
Growth Analysis
15
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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-
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. Year 13 of
the system started on July 14, 2004. Year
14 began on July 14, 2005. Each service
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
Growth Analysis
16
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
In order to comply with Policy 101.2.13 re-
ductions in allocations for both ROGO Year
12 and Year 13 because nutrient reduction
credits were not available for all alloca-
tions awarded in previous years. The
Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance Number 037-2004 to hold the
k' f h . h r Upper Keys 12B-22 83.5-112
ran mgs 0 t e Slxty-t ree app lcants Middle Keys 7-13 47.5- 83.4
which would have received allocations Lower Keys 1-6 4-47.4
for ROGO Year 12 Quarter 4 and Year 13 Source Monroe COllllly Building Deparlmenl, 2005
(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-
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. Rule 28-20 if
adopted by the Administrative Commission
will increase the County allocation back to
the original 197 units a year, 71 units a year
will be allocated for affordable housing.
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. Fifteen (15), one moderate and four-
teen very low, low and median, affordable
allocations were rolled over from Year 13
making a total of 46 affordable allocations
available for year 14.
Quarter 1. Because of the reductions re-
quired for Year 13, only fifty of the sixty-
three ranked applications were allocated.
The remaining thirteen applicants will re-
ceive allocations when they become avail-
able.
Regarding Year 14, the County and State
agencies are working to adopt a less restric-
tive provision which recognizes that waste-
water treatment facilities are being con-
structed to serve existing residential units.
The Rule which would have been less re-
strictive was challenged and the Administra-
tive Hearing Judge ruled in favor of the
State and County; the rule will be consid-
ered at the August 9, 2005 meeting of the
Governor and Cabinet.
Figure 1.10, on the following page, shows
the breakdown of new residential permits
issued for unincorporated Monroe County
since 1992. The data presented in the table
does not include permits issued in Key
West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, or Isla-
morada. Also, the boundaries between the
Upper and Middle Keys service areas, and
the boundaries used for this data are slightly
different. The chart below compares the
boundaries. Basically, the service areas
from the Code breaks at Whale Harbor
Channel, and does not include Upper and
Lower Matecumbe in the Upper Keys,
while the permitting records break at Chan-
nel Five and do include Upper and Lower
Matecumbe in the Upper Keys. Figure 1.9
explains these differences.
12A-22
7-13
1-6
71-112
47.5-70.9
4-47.4
Growth Analysis
17
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 1.10 - New and Replacement Residential and Seasonal Units Pennitted 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 lID 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
2004 Upper Keys 41 0 0 37 0 78
Middle Keys 83 0 0 9 0 92
Lower Keys 2 0 0 I 0 3
Subtotal 126 0 0 47 0 173
TOTAL 2,905 48 119 288 314 3,674
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2005
Growth Analysis
18
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 1.11- Comparison of Residential Permits by Service Area 2003-2004
2004
LOWlr Keys
2%
2003 LOWlr Keys
11%
Upper Keys
32%
Middle Keys
53%
Upper Keys
I 45%
Middle Keys
57%
ource: Monroe County Building Department, 2005
Figure 1.12 - Comparison of Residential Permit Types 2003-2004
2004
Single
~Family
73%
Mobile
Home/RV
Multi} 6%
Family
0%
Duplex
0%
200Protel/Motel
0%
Multi-
Family
0%
Hotel/Motel
0%
Single
~ Family
84%
Mobile
Home/RV
27%
Duplex
0%
ource: Monroe County Building Department, 2005
Single Family 446 239 239
Duplex 38 2 0
Multi-Family 14 0 0
Mo bile Home/RV 7 7 4
302 237
4 0
2 18
5 9
189
4
12
o
157 245
o 0
o 0
3 26
146
o
35
o
151
o
13
55
193 235
o 0
25 0
81 44
126
o
o
47
2905
48
119
288
Figure 1.13-Comparison of Residentiai Permit Types 1992-2004
600
.eJ
"s 500
iJ 400
p...
'0 300
....
0)
.n 200
8
Z 100
o
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
. Single Family. Duplex. Multi-Family . Mobile Home/RV . Hotel/Motel
Growth Analysis
19
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
According to Building Department records
3,674 residential permits were issued from
1992 to 2004, with 79% (2,905) being is-
sued to single family residences. Only 12%
(455) 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 173 residential permits
were issued in unincorporated Monroe
County in 2004, a decrease from 2003 at-
tributable to Policy 101.2.13 that was men-
tioned above. There were more new resi-
dential permits issued in 1999 than any pre-
vious year back to 1992.
Figures 1.11 and 1.12 show the distribution
of new residential permits issued in unin-
corporated Monroe County during 2003 and
2004.
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
2003 to 2004. There were 106 fewer new
residential permits issued in 2004 than
2003.
Figure 1.12 shows the composition of resi-
dential permits issued in 2003 and 2004.
No new duplexes or multi family dwelling
units were permitted in either year. Single
family residential permits occupy the largest
percentage in both years, with 109 fewer
single-family permits being issued in 2004.
The number of mobile home permits in-
creased by 2.
Figure 1.13 shows the total number of per-
mits issued in unincorporated Monroe
County from 1992 to 2004. The chart
shows a swell in permitting activity prior to
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.
Figure 1.14 - Types of Permits Issued 1992-
Mobile 2004
Home/RV
8%
Multi-
Family
3%
Diip~ex
1%
Hotel!
Motel
9%
Single
Family
79%
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2005
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 residential developments
Growth Analysis
20
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 1.15 - New Nonresidential Permits by Year*
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 24 147,319
Middle Keys 12 109,331
Lower Keys 8 10,004
Subtotal 44 266,654
1996 Upper Keys 17 102)95
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 18,3 27
Subtotal 99 120,250
1998 Upper Keys 4 60,936
Middle Keys 73 16,304
Lower Keys 1 24,152
Subtotal 78 101,392
1999 Upper Keys 8 14,861
Middle Keys 68 84)15
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 1 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 pper eys
Middle Keys 37 110,446
Lower Keys 0 0
Subtotal 44 124,097
2004 pper eys
Growth Analysis
21
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
tend to fuel one another. Residential popula-
tions provide markets for nonresidential ac-
tivities. Nonresidential development, in
turn, helps to drive population growth by
providing services and employment. Cer-
tain types of nonresidential development
also concentrate the demand for public fa-
cilities within certain locations and during
peak periods.
The Monroe County Building Department
tracks the number of nonresidential permits
by subdistrict in unincorporated Monroe
County. In addition to the number of per-
mits, the Building Department tracks the
amount of square footage affected in each
nonresidential building permit issued.
Figure 1.15, on the previous page, shows
the trends in nonresidential permitting from
1992 to 2004. 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. There were six non-residential per-
mits issued for commercial construction. In
Figure 1.16- New Commercial Square
Footage by Service Area 1992-2004
LO\\er
Keys.
17% Upper
/ Keys
43%
Middle /
Keys
40%
2005 the heading of Figure 1.15 was
changed to exclude the previously used
term "redevelopment" in the heading.
Therefore the number of permits and corre-
sponding square footage refer only to new
non-residential development permits and
the corresponding square footage. Figure
1.15A is a new table that was added to show
the total number of non-residential permits
that were issued in each sub-area.
Figure 1.15A - Number of Commercial Permits
by Year
2004 Upper Keys 443
Middle Keys 51
Lower Keys 268
Subtotal 762
TOTALS 762
Figure 1.16 shows the relative amount of
square footage permitted in each of the
three service areas from 1992 to 2004.
Figure 1.17 on the following page shows
the trends in the amount of nonresidential
permitting activity have fluctuated through-
out 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 implementation of a nonresi-
dential permit allocation system similar to
the ROGO system for residential develop-
ment.
Since residential development is con-
strained through the Rate of Growth Ordi-
nance and the Permit Allocation System, it
was thought that nonresidential
40,506 16,334 24,648 147,319 102,795 93,503 60,936 14,861 33,873 73,307 3,773 13,651 5,200 630,706
7,263 24,812 31,079 109,331 93,334 8,420 16,304 84,715 75,584 4,998 0 110,446 5,598 571,884
1,529 27,236 0 10,004 14,149 18,327 24,152 2,054 19,168 8,575 110,805 0 7,480 243,4 79
49,298 68,382 55,727 266,654 210,278 120,250 101,392 101,630 128,625 86,880 114,578 124,097 18,278 1,446,069
Growth Analysis 22
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 1.17 - Nonresidential Permits by Semce Area 1992-2004
~ 300,000
if]
- 250,000
'"
.-
..... 200,000
l=1
<!)
"0 150,000
.-
m
<!) 100,000
~
l=1 50,000
0
Z
0
1992
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
_ Upper Keys _ Middle Keys c=J Lower Keys -+- Total
(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-
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 bal-
ance 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 proj ects vested from the
non-residential permit allocation system
provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Growth Analysis
23
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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. 3,776
out of the remaining 4,587 square feet was
allocated in July of 2004 with the remaining
311 square feet of floor area to be carried
over.
On November 17, 2004 the Board of
County Commissioners adopted in Resolu-
tion 424-2004 and approved 16,000 square
feet of floor area to be made obtainable for
Year 13 (July 2004 - July 2005) with the
first allocation of 8,000 square feet in Janu-
ary 2005, and the second allocation of 8,000
square feet in July 2005. There was 80,741
square feet of non-residential floor area
available for allocation in Year 13. There
was 5,075 out of the 16,000 square feet al-
located carried over to Year 14. The BOCC
will recommend in the fall of 2005 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.
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 75,219
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
Growth Analysis
24
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
from the 1990 Census. This is 6,093 less than
the projected 2000 population.
In terms of the number of residential permits,
a total of 173 residential permits (including
vested or ROGO exempt hotel rooms) were
issued in 2004, a decrease from 2002.
From 1992 to 2004, 79% of the residential
permits (2,905) were issued to single family
residences, while only 12% (455) were issued
for multifamily, duplex, or mobile homes. A
total of 173 permits (73%) were issued for
single family residences in 2004.
The current rate of growth guidelines indicate
that unincorporated Monroe County has a
total of 158 permits it may issue during the
ROGO year (not including the additional 90
replacement affordable housing units which
were allowed by the DCA based upon the
lower enclosure removal program).
In terms of the number of new non-residential
permits, a total of 6 commercial permits were
issued in 2004, accounting for 18,278 square
feet of new commercial development.
The Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordi-
nance (NROGO) was approved and became
effective in November 2002. Based on the
BOCC a total of 16,000 square feet of
NROGO allocation was available for new
non-residential development in year 13. The
BOCC will recommend in the fall of 2005 the
amount of square feet to be allocated for Year
13 (July 14,2004 through July 13,2005).
25
2005 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 US. 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 US. 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 (US. 1), functions as a col-
lector, an arterial, and the "Main Street" for
the Keys. US. 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.
US. 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 US. 1, there are 450 miles of
County (secondary) roads with 38 bridges.
US. 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 US.
1.
Figure 2.1 identifies the traffic signals in
operation along the US. 1 corridor
(excluding those found on the island of Key
West).
College Road
Cross Street
MacDonald Avenue
Key Deer Blvd.
33rd Street/School Cross-
mg
Sombrero Beach Blvd.
107th Street
109th Street
Pedestrian Crossing
Key Colony Causeway
Coco Plum Drive
Woods Avenue/School
90 Plantation Key Crossing
90.5 Plantation Key Sunshine Road
91.5 Tavernier Ocean Boulevard
99.5 Key Largo Atlantic Boulevard
10 1 Key Largo Tradewinds
105 Ke Lar 0 Pedestrian Crossin
Source: 2005 Arterial and Travel Time/ Dela Stud, URS Inc.
4.4
4.6
4.8
30.3
Stock Island
Stock Island
Stock Island
Big Pine Key
48.5
50
52.4
52.5
53
53.5
54
Marathon
Marathon
Marathon
Marathon
Marathon
Fat Deer Key
Fat Deer Key
Transportation Facilities
26
2005 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 imp~ove-
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 February 27 and March 12,
2005. Figure 2.2, on the following page,
compares the traffic counts for 2005 with
those for 2004.
The average weekday (5-Day ADT) and the
average weekly (7-Day ADT) traffic vol-
umes, compared to last year's data, slightly
decreased at Marathon. Upper Matecumbe
and Big Pine Key traffic volumes have
slightly increased in 2005. The AADT
when compared to last year has decreased in
all three segments.
Big Pine Key (MM 30)
5-Day ADT 23,108 24,304
7-Day ADT 22,538 23,788
AADT 19,894 19,844
Marathon (MM 50)
5-Day ADT 37,604 37,405
7-Day ADT 36,563 36,085
AADT 32,274 30,102
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84)
5-Day ADT 27,194 27,980 2.89%
7-Day ADT 27,561 27,693 0.48%
AADT 24,328 22,927 -5.76%
Source: 2005 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study,
URS Inc.
5.18%
5.55%
-0.25%
-0.53%
-1.31%
-6.73%
A detailed historical comparison of the
AADT traffic counts at all three locations
for the period from 1995 to 2005 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
~over in the low 20,000 range over the pe-
nod. Meanwhile Upper Matecumbe had
been gradually increasing from 1995 to
2004 from a range of 20,000 up to around
25,000. Last year Upper Matecumbe de-
creased to about 23 000
, .
US. 1 historic traffic growth is depicted in a
regression analysis graph in Figure 2.4. A
linear regression analysis of the AADT at
each of the three locations over the last
twelve years indicates that in the Big Pine
Key segment has negative growth rate of
0.05% per year. Traffic growth rates in
Marathon and Upper Matecumbe segments
of US. 1 are positive 0.79% and 1.71% per
year, respectively.
Transportation Facilities
27
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 2.4 - Regression Analysis of AADTs 1995-2005
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
o
Marathon
Rate of growth
~ 1.51 % per yearL ......... ...
..... .....-- ... - .. - ...... - ... - - - .
~.... ... """""""""""",,,,;;;;;;;;;;;,,"""""""",""""";~;;;;;""""""""""~""';;;;;;;;;;;""""'~ .
JIIi........... ~"".._'"''.;;;;;;-''''' - '''-''''''.'';;;;~.'''''.''''''~ - ... . -4' - - ~ ;;;; ;;;; ~;;;; ;;;; *- - '.
Upper Matecumbe Big Pine
Rate of growth Rate of growth
~ 2.37% per year ~ 0.07 % per year
I I I I I I~
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
. Big Pine Key . Marathon
.. Upper Matecunbe Upper Matecunbe Trendline
- - Marathon Trendline ,Big Pine Key Trendline
Source: 2005 Arterial and Tra\el Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc.
Level of Service Background
Monroe County has conducted travel time
and delay studies of US. 1 on an annual
basis since 1991. The primary objective of
the US. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay
Study is to monitor the level of service on
US. Highway 1 for concurrency manage-
ment purposes pursuant to Chapter 163,
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 US. 1 Level of Service Task
Force.
The US. 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-
Transportation Facilities
28
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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
For the purposes of this study, overall
speeds are those speeds recorded over the
108-mile length of US 1 in the Keys be-
tween Key West and Dade County. Overall
speeds reflect the conditions experienced
during long distance or through trips.
Given that US. 1 is the only principal arte-
rial in Monroe County, the movement of
through traffic is an important considera-
tion.
The overall level of service or capacity of
the entire length of US. 1 is measured in
the average speed of a vehicle traveling
from one end to the other of US.!. The
level of service (LOS) criteria for overall
speeds on US. 1 in Monroe County, as
adopted by the US. 1 Level of Service Task
Force, are as follows:
LOSA
LOSS
LOSe
LOS 0
LOS E
LOS F
51.0 mph or above
50.9 mph to 48 mph
47.9 mph to 45 mph
44.9 mph to 42 mph
41.9 mph to 36 mph
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 US.!. 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 2005 study
was 45.3 mph, which is 0.1 mph lower than the
2004 median speed of 45.4 mph. The mean op-
erating speed was 44.2 mph with a 95% confi-
dence interval of plus or minus 1.1 mph. The
mean speed correspond to LOS D conditions and
the median speed correspond to LOS C condi-
tions. The highest overall speed recorded in the
study was 48.4 mph (0.5 mph higher than the
2004 highest overall speed), which occurred on
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 between 3 :00 p.rn.
and 5:29 p.rn., in the northbound direction. The
lowest overall speed recorded was 36.8 mph (2.5
mph lower than the 2004 lowest overall speed),
which occurred on Friday, March 11, 2005 be-
tween 4:00 p.rn. and 6:27 p.rn. in the northbound
direction. Figure 2.5 shows that the overall me-
dian speed for U.S. 1 has remained between 45.3
mph and 47.8 from 1992 to the present with it
decreasing steadily for the last three years. Fur-
thermore it has reached the lowest median speed
in the last 13 years. Should the overall median
speed ever fall below 45 mph (the minimum
LOS C standard), then the U.S. 1 capacity would
be considered inadequate.
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.5
-0.1
0.5
-0.7
-0.7
-0.8
1
-0.3
1
-0.2
-1
-0.7
-0.1
46.9
47.4
47.3
47.8
47.1
46.5
45.7
46.7
46.4
46.9
47.1
46.1
45.4
45.3
Source: 2005 Arterial and Travel Time/ Dela Stud, URS Inc.
Transportation Facilities
29
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
48.0
--
~
~ 47.0
rfJ
; 46.0
=6
~ 45.0
44.0
~ W * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~
...;' ,,~ ,,~ ,,~ ,,~ ,,~ ,,~ ...;' '\;"- '\;"- '\;"- '\;<::j '\;<::j '\;<::j
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 US. 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 US. 1 also be
assessed annually. There are a total of
twenty four (24) segments of US. 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 US. 1
Level of Service Task Force to reflect road-
way cross sections, speed limits, and geo-
graphical boundaries.
Segment speeds reflect the conditions ex-
perienced during local trips. Given that
US. 1 serves as the "main street" of the
Keys, the movement of local traffic is also
an important consideration on this multipur-
pose highway. However, the determination
of the median speed on a segment is a more
involved process than determining the over-
all 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 US.
1 in Monroe County depends on the flow
characteristics and the posted speed limits
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 unin-
terrupted flow segment. The criteria, listed
by type of flow characteristic, are explained
in Figure 2.7.
F or all "uninterrupted" segments containing
isolated traffic signals, the travel times were
reduced by 25 seconds per signal to account
for lost time due to signals. The Marathon
and the Stock Island segments are consid-
Transportation Facilities
30
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
1 4 5 Cow Key Bridge Key Haven Boule- Stock Island, Key Ha- l
(N) vard ven
2 5 9 Key Haven Boule- R kl d D . Boca Chica, Rockland 2
d oc an nve
var
3 9 10.5 Rockland Drive Boca Chica Road Big Coppitt 2
4 10.5 16.5 Boca Chica Road Harris Channel Shark, Saddlebunch 3
Bridge (N)
5 16.5 20.5 Harris Channel Bow Channel BridgeLower & Upper Sugar- 3
Bridge (N) (N) loaf
6 20.5 23 Bow Channel Spanish Main Drive Cudjoe 4A
Bridge (N)
7 23 25 Spanish Main East Shore Drive Summerland 4A
Drive
8 25 27.5 East Shore Drive Torch-Ramrod Ramrod 4A
Bridge (S)
9 27.5 29.5 Torch-Ramrod N. Pine Channel Little Torch 4A
Bridge (S) Bridge (N)
10 29.5 33 N. Pine Channel Long Beach Drive Big Pine 5
Bridge (N)
11 33 40 Long Beach Drive 7- Mile Bridge (S) W. Summerland, Bahia 6
Honda, Ohio
12 40 47 7- Mile Bridge (S) 7- Mile Bridge (N) 7-Mile Bridge 6
13 47 54 7 - Mile Bridge (N) Cocoa Plum Drive Vaca, Key Colony 7
Beach
14 54 60.5 Cocoa Plum Drive Toms Harbor Ch Fat Deer Crawl, Grassy 8
Bridge (S)
15 60.5 63 Toms Harbor Ch Long Key Bridge (S)Duck, Conch 10
Bridge (S)
16 63 73 Long Key Bridge Channel #2 Bridge Long, Fiesta, Craig 11
(S) (N)
17 73 77.5 Channel #2 Bridge Lignumvitae Bridge L M b 12A
(N) (S) ower ate cum e
18 77.5 79.5 Lignumvitae Tea Table Relief Fill 12A
Bridge (S) Bridge (N)
19 79.5 84 Tea Table Relief Whale Harbor Upper Matecumbe 13
Bridge (N) Bridge (S)
20 84 86 Whale Harbor Snake Creek Bridge W. dl 12B
Bridge (S) (N) m ey
21 86 91.5 Snake Creek Ocean Boulevard Plantation 14
Brid e (N)
22 91.5 99.5 Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard Tavernier 15 & 16
23 99.5 106 Atlantic Boulevard C-905 Key Largo 17 - 20
24 106 112.5 C-905 County Line Sign Key Largo, Cross Key 22
Source: 2005 Arterial and Travel Time/ Dela
Transportation Facilities 31
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
ered "interrupted" flow facilities. There-
fore, no adjustments were made to travel
times on these segments.
The segment limits, the median travel
speeds, and the 2004 and the 2005 LOS are
presented in Figure 2.8. Figure 2.9 is a map
of the segment boundaries indicating 2005
LOS. The median segment speed ranged
from 56.6 mph (LOS A) in the 7-Mile
Bridge segment to 30.2 mph (LOS B) in the
Stock Island segment. The level of service
determined from the 2005 travel time data
yielded changes to ten segments; two re-
sulted in positive level of service changes
while eight resulted in negative level of ser-
vice changes. Below is a list of the follow-
ing level of service changes as compared to
2004 data:
. The Big Coppit segment (Segment 3) de-
creased from LOS 'c' to LOS 'D'
. The Saddlebunch segment (Segment 4) de-
creased from LOS 'B' to LOS 'c'
. The Sugarloaf segment (Segment 5) de-
creased from LOS 'c' to LOS 'D'
. The Ramrod segment (Segment 8) increased
from LOS 'B'toLOS 'i'l
. The Big Pine segment (Segment 10) de-
creased from LOS 'c' to LOS 'D'
. The 7-Mile Bridge segment (Segment 12)
increased from LOS 'C'toLOS 'i'l
. The Grassy segment (Segment 14) decreased
from LOS 'c' to LOS 'D'
. The Long Key segment (Segment 16) de-
creased from LOS 'B' to LOS 'c'
. The L Matecumbe segment (Segment 17)
decreased from LOS 'c' to LOS 'D'
. The U Matecumbe segment (Segment 19)
decreased from LOS 'c' to LOS 'D'
Compared to 2004, the median segment speeds
decreased in eighteen of the 24 segments ranging
between 0.1 mph to 2.8 mph lower. Four seg-
ments experienced an increase in median speeds,
ranging from 0.9 mph to 3.5 mph, compared to
last year's data.
None of the changes in speed could be attributed
to any specific change in conditions except the
changes in traffic volumes, frequency of draw-
bridge openings and general traffic conditions.
Reserve Capacities
The median overall speed of US. 1 in 2005
is 45.3 mph, which is a decrease of 0.1 mph
from the 2003 overall median speed of 45.4
mph. The difference between the median
speed and the LOS C standard gives the re-
serve speed, which in turn can be converted
into an estimated reserve capacity of addi-
tional traffic volume and corresponding ad-
ditional development. The median overall
speed of 45.3 mph compared to the LOS C
standard of 45 mph leaves an overall re-
serve speed of 0.3 mph. This reserve speed
is converted into an estimated into an esti-
mated reserve capacity (5,564 daily trips).
The estimated reserve capacity is then con-
verted into an estimated capacity for addi-
tional residential development (869 units),
assuming balanced growth of other land
uses. Applying the formula for reserve vol-
ume to each of the 24 segments of US. 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.
As stated earlier, the Land Development
Regulations mandate a minimum level of
service of 'c' for all roadway segments of
US. 1. 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
Transportation Facilities
32
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 2.7 - Level of Service Standards Bas ed on Flow Characteris tics
A >= 35 mph >= 1.5 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 mph > 13.5 mph below speed limit
Source: 2005 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc.
1 Stock Island B B 32.0 30.2 -1.8
2 Boca Chica A A 58.2 55.8 -2.4
3 Big Coppitt C D 46.1 44.7 -1.4
4 Saddlebunch B C 53.7 50.9 -2.8
5 Sugarloaf C D 48.3 46.6 -1.7
6 Cudjoe A A 48.1 47.8 -0.3
7 Summerland B B 46.4 45.7 -0.7
8 Ramrod B A 46.4 47.8 1.4
9 Torch A A 47.6 46.8 -0.8
10 Big Pine C D 38.4 36.4 -2.0
11 Bahia Honda B B 52.5 52.6 0.1
12 7-Mile Bridge C A 53.1 56.6 3.5
13 Marathon A A 35.2 35.2 0.0
14 Grassy C D 50.3 49.5 -0.8
15 Duck B B 54.4 53.6 -0.8
16 Long B C 52.9 50.8 -2.1
17 1. Matecumbe C D 50.5 50.0 -0.5
18 Tea Table D D 49.0 49.9 0.9
19 U. Matecumbe C D 40.9 39.1 -1.8
20 Windley A A 41.8 41.8 0.0
21 Plantation C C 40.0 39.4 -0.6
22 Tavernier A A 48.3 47.7 -0.6
23 Largo A A 45.5 44.7 -0.8
24 Cross D D 45.0 44.4 -0.6
Overall C C 45.4 45.3 -0.1
Source: 2005 Arterial and Travel Time/ Delay Study, URS Inc.
33
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 2.9 -Map of US 1 Segments
~
I #2Cl L.OS A
34
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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, Big Coppitt
(Segment 3), Sugarloaf (Segment 5), Big
Pine (Segment 10), Grassy (Segment 14),
Lower Matecumbe (Segment 17), Tea Table
(Segment 18), Upper Metacumbe (Segment
19) and Cross Key (Segment 24) are below
the LOS C threshold. However, seven of
these segments have reserve capacities
within the 5% allocation, except for the
Cross Key segment. Segments that have
used-up all the 5% reserve trips are re-
stricted in new development or redevelop-
ment, except where redevelopment has no
net increase in trips. The Cross Key seg-
ment has used-up all the 5% reserve trips,
normally restricting any new development
or redevelopment, but based upon the new
fixed span bridge and widening at Jewfish
Creek, this will not be an issue. A detailed
summary table displaying level of service
and reserve capacity values for each seg-
ment is contained in the "2005 US. 1 Arte-
rial Travel Time and Delay Study".
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, US. 1 segments with reserve
speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph
(Figure 2.10) in 2005 will be considered as
"marginally adequate".
This year's report indicates that eleven 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
Mile Marker
# Name Range Reserve
3 Big Coppitt 9.0 - 10.5 -0.5
4 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 1.3
5 Sugarloaf 16.5 - 20.5 -1.0
10 Big Pine 29.5 - 33.0 -1.2
14 Grassy 54.0 - 60.5 -0.4
16 Long 63.0 - 73.0 1.8
17 Lower Matecumbe 73.0 - 77.5 -0.5
18 Tea Table 77.5 - 79.5 -0.2
19 Upper Matecumbe 79.5 - 84.0 -1.4
21 Plantation 86.0 - 91.5 1.1
24 Cross 106-112.5 -2.9
Source: 2005 Arterial and Travel Time! Delay Study, URS
Inc.
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 Docu-
ment, all of the County roads examined are
operating at or above the County standard of
LOSD.
Improvements to Roadway Facilities
Major improvements scheduled for US. 1 are
Transportation Facilities
35
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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 (2004/2005 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 began in 2005.
Additionally, the 18 mile stretch between
the Jewfish Creek Bridge and Florida City
is also scheduled for reconstruction begin-
ning in 2005.
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 us. 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 ChannelS-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 Bow Channel Historic Bridge at
MM 20.2,
. The Kemp Channel Bridge at MM 23.6,
. The old South Pine Channel Bridge at
MM29,
. The Ohio-Bahia Honda Bridge at MM
38.7,
. The Ohio-Missouri Historic Bridge at
MM 39.1,
. The Missouri-Little Duck Key at MM
39.8, 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. US. 1 is required to maintain at
Transportation Facilities
36
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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 US. 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 US. 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 US. 1 have shown a traf-
fic growth of 0.07%, 1.51%, and 2.37% per
year respectively.
The overall travel speed on US. 1 for 2005
is .1 mph lower compared to the 2004 over-
all travel speed. The reserve speed for the
entire length of US. 1 is .3 miles per hour.
This means that the entire segment is oper-
ating with only marginal capacity.
Compared to 2004 data, the travel speeds on
4 of the 24 segments increased. These seg-
ments are:
-Ramrod (+1.4 mph)
-7-Mi1e Bridge (+3.5 mph)
-Tea Table (+0.9 mph)
-Bahia Honda (+0.1 mph)
The Marathon and Windley segments had
no change in travel speed between 2005 and
2004. Though, travel speeds in 18 segments
have decreased. They are:
-Stock Island (-1.8 mph)
-Boca Chica (-2.5 mph)
-Big Coppitt (-1.5 mph)
-Sadd1ebunch (-2.8 mph)
-Sugarloaf (-1.8 mph)
-Cudjoe (-0.3 mph)
-Summerland (-0.7 mph)
-Torch (-0.8 mph)
-Big Pine (-1.9 mph)
-Grassy (-0.8 mph)
-Duck (-0.8 mph)
-Long (-2.1 mph)
-L Matecumbe (-0.5 mph)
-U Matecumbe (-1.8 mph)
-Plantation (-0.7 mph)
-Tavernier (-0.6 mph)
-Key Largo (-0.8 mph)
-Cross (-0.6 mph)
Compared to last year's (2004) study results,
there are changes in LOS in ten of the seg-
ments studied. The Big Coppitt, Sugarloaf,
Big Pine, Grassy, L. Metacumbe and U
Metacumbe segments experienced decreases
in LOS from C to D. The Saddlebunch and
Long Key segments experienced decreases in
LOS from B to C. The Ramrod segment has
experienced an increase in LOS from B to A.
The 7-Mile Bridge segment has experienced
an increase in LOS from C to A.
The largest speed increase of 3.5 mph was
recorded in the 7-Mile Bridge segment, while
the largest speed decrease of 2.8 mph was
recorded in the Saddlebunch segment.
US. 1 segments with reserve speeds of less
than or equal to 3 mph should be given par-
ticular attention when approving develop-
ment applications. This year, there are eleven
segments of US. 1 in this category:
Transportation Facilities
37
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
-Big Coppitt (MM 9.0 - MMlO.5)
-Sadd1ebunch (MM 10.5 - 16.5)
-Sugarloaf(MM 16.5 - -20.5)
-Big Pine (MM 29.5 - MM 33.0)
-Grassy (MM54.0 - 60.5)
-Long (MM 63.0 - MM 73.0)
Big Coppit (Segment 3), Sugarloaf (Segment
5), Big Pine (Segment 10), Grassy (Segment
14), L. Matecumbe (Segment 17), Tea Table
(Segment 18), U Matecumbe (Segment 19),
Cross Key (Segment 24) are below the LOS
C threshold. The Tea Table (Segment 18),
Cross Key (Segment 24) segments have been
below the LOS threshold for the past four
years. All of these segments have reserve vol-
ume or reserve capacities within the 5% allo-
cation, except for Cross Key. The Cross Key
segment has exceeded its reserve capacity.
The continuous degradation of travel speeds
in these segments should be of concern. The
travel speeds on Cross Key segment is likely
to improve with the implementation of a high
level fixed bridge, completion is anticipated
within the next three years. The Lower Mate-
cumbe and Tea Table segments do not have
any planned improvements to curtail the
travel speed reductions. The Florida Depart-
ment of Transportation and/or the Monroe
County should conduct a special study along
-L. Matecumbe (MM 73.0 - MM 77.5)
-Tea Table (MM 77.5 - MM 79.5)
-D. Matecumbe (MM 79.5 - MM 84.0)
-Plantation (MM 86.0 - MM 91.5)
-Cross (MMI06.0 - MM 112.5)
this stretch of US. 1, which should include
the above two segments and Upper Mate-
cumbe (Segment 19) which has -1.4 mph re-
serve speed, compared to last years reserve
speed of 0.4, to determine what improve-
ments, if any can be implemented to improve
the declining travel speeds.
The signal at the Key Deer Boulevard inter-
section in Big Pine (Segment 10) continues to
influence the travel speeds on this segment,
and has experienced 15 delay events compare
to the 13 from the 2004 study. Particular at-
tention should be given to development or
redevelopment that will add more trips to this
particular segment, because the LOS has
fallen below LOS threshold and has a reserve
speed of -1.2 with a 5% allocation of 406
trips.
All County roads have levels of service above
the required standard of 'D' .
Transportation Facilities
38
2005 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 adj acent
land uses. Beyond the County's require-
ments, FKAA is committed to comply with
~nd surpass all federal and state water qual-
Ity standards and requirements.
The groundwater from the wellfield is
treated at the 1. Robert Dean Water Treat-
ment Facility in Florida City, which cur-
rently has a maximum water treatment de-
sign capacity of 23.8 million gallons per
day (MGD). The water treatment process
consists primarily of lime softening, filtra-
tion, 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 % inch to
12 inches in diameter. In 2004, the FKAA
replaced over 140,400 feet of various size
distribution water mains. The FKAA's Wa-
ter Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls
for the upgrade or replacement of approxi-
mately 40,000 feet of water main during
fiscal year 2005-06.
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 integr~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
des.alinat~on plants are capable of producing
theIr desIgned capacities of 1.8 and 0.9 mil-
lion gallons 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 withdraw-
als to an average of 19.93 and a maximum
Potable Water
39
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 3.1 - FKAA Facilities
S>STDj ~Y'v'ER\iIEW
.'0;:" ~ ..
:..: y:.~ ....~~ ) L
-,.....t
. ~~,:...,~>
-' ~.. ~ ~~.:.~,:....,:,
~' !':..~ . ,:..; -" ....1-,.1;...'.:
~;. 'J"":.
:;. v:,:
L., '.I".:, __
. ~;c.~:,:,"", '<o~~"~;---I
.~ ..._ ..~.~~.L;.~ ;~~;<J~
- 6!=!~ o-lP ;:-:,:~i'::
(~~..~~~ ~~~ r~)
\... ~, t..1~ >
, ::'0 ....;1 ;:L't.li-
I, ~!'::'; C8:-:::-.; ..:.':.....
',;:: ~:.;. Il~ ":)1,,';:-:0:;
~?i_J
~.v ;-: t.~~ VFY-,
; _~;) >-l=' p.~~PS I
(~5""-)
S'~imcRL~\: ,~:,_~j'
K~Y
? :~: ,.i-' i:.;IJ;::~
r---:'-~ M-cu>l
! ;<'.0. P.J:J."T
.....: ~ ~'""'-,-""~ .,~~
~-..... ~........ ''''~'... . 1
. ~ I
I
I
I
I
.~' -
"., ' ."
t~- ~
CI)I'~--) .
i ~:- ., 't,:
'--" "". t\(....k::. i \-...
.. '-,'. .-
','-..\ \~ -....
I'lJ \ \~,\ .'=;::\
:---..11"- "-,'>'::-, ~~ /-
,.~-
~) /---'
_/-/ -.........<~ :..:':<t)J~J[) K:.....
r~SJ[h.""-:-..:~:..: '. - :'0:: ""lr:' P~...~
$~~_.i ~ t::J::J fF ;::lJ~~
of 23.79 Million Gallons per Day (MGD).
In 2004, the FKAA distributed an average
of 17.65 and a maximum of 22.0 MGD to
the Florida Keys. As a condition of the
WUP, the FKAA is constructing a Floridian
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) sys-
tem. This system is designed to recharge
and store water from the Biscayne Aquifer
during the wet season (May through N 0-
vember) in the Floridian Aquifer which is
approximately 800-1,000 feet below the
ground surface, and then recover fresh wa-
ter to supplement the Biscayne Aquifer dur-
ing the dry season (December through
April). In addition, until the ASR system is
online, the FKAA must limit the dry season
withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer to
17.0 MGD by using an alternative water
source, pressure reduction, public outreach,
and assistance from municipal agencies in
enforcing water conservation ordinances
(i.e. irrigation ordinance).
...:.:L.=:: ) ;
..."
- ~
(..'-I~~-::.:-.... .r..-q.~.~
-- ;. ......~' ;.j
.-...--,.. -...-
~ - <. ~. ~ ~ -
:.. .....':
r,;~-;~~ l ~" "V '
I ,:i
:\ ~ ,:~ _.:' ;, .....:-:L.: ...
\-- ~,- ~
'. .......... ~ .,...
~.... 1~::<~7
-'~ jF
n"''''-'';;;;~ 'U-.II
:)fV ; ~
Cl 4fr
~re
',.....c:_',_y:~? ,! ;\.~.~~-P,..,~~ ~,~, =\.... . qc>..;:: c c.-; :;.
.... <;) -"-' .... ....vn- ~ ..... -,;;RO ~ I.;.;~:
1 i~ i-P p,..t,l;":
;.;: '..:.~ - :,:. IL -._,~..... - ... r ,
5. S LJ ,~:,. ;'~ ;"~I--: .,.
_~ c.....~: __~: ~:..~~~.'.,
. ~ ..,. .: 10,.';:,:.
~-.lt...~A~.-lOf'.~
, :lC-::: '-l~ "'U~PS
2" 65:: ~80 :'UI.,lP$
--- ;(;,LALj(....C;:.......A f,~~T-_') ~o"3i~
._ .~.....ro:....... __,_.-"
;. _~:1 HP f-l~ ~:.;.s ~.~~; .~ _1o,l.J
.-.~-
'-,
"I";':;\.'\I"S~t.f.Y t:pr-:'"
Cr--~G K [y $~A~~~
----'---~ .
J 5')0 i-1'-= i=-.....M~.::;
_____ :":;'A\\'L H.! Q~~
---- ; .10 H:-J ."UI,IPS -.:.?-~~
............-6~~...... s~ r.,!.::..Rf.<~HO'\l
;;: ~J .-l~ ....LJI.,IPS K":5V
: - !~
, ~"" -) -...-
: ~j ~~ ~T' IC~' ~~::- f-- ;!I'Sr --)
~ y .......I"'(.~. ... ........ .__ ____
:i 4:';' ,:8- p....Io)I-";-- ,.__.:~.::;_..........
However, unless the proj ected future water
demands decrease or the ASR system
proves unsuccessful, 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
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
40
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
1980 2,854.90 N/A N/A
1981 3,101.10 8.60% 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 4,641.50 12.10% 5,110 468.5
1987 4,794.60 3.30% 5,110 315.4
1988 4,819.80 0.50% 5,110 290.2
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% 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 1.1 0% 5,560 480
1995 5,140.40 1.20% 5,778 637.6
1996 5,272.00 2.60% 5,778 506
1997 5,356.00 1.60% 5,778 422
1998 5,630.00 5.10% 5,778 148
1999 5,935.30 5.40% 5,778 -157.3
2000 6,228.00 10.60% 5,778 -450
2001 5,626.70 -9.70% 5,778 151.3
2002 6,191.16 10.03% 7,274 1083.29
2003 6,288.29 1.57% 7,274 985.84
2004 6,460.85 2.74% 7,274 813.15
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2005
Figure 3.3 - FKAAAnnual Water Withdrawl
Figure 3.4 - WUP Remaining Allocation
8,000
~ 7,000
..s 6,000
'"
o 5,000
~ 4,000
:-_~ 3,000
2,000
51 1,000
o
A
- - - - -
-
1,200
1,000
en 800
~
0 600
~
0 400
<...,
0 200
en
~ 0
.~
;:;:1 -200
~
-400
-600
~'V ~l). ~Ic ~% ~<:::, ~'V ~l).
,,"I ,,"I ,,"I ,,"I 'Ii 'Ii 'V\:l
~
'"
-..
\0
~
-..
"'1-
&
"I
"'1-
~
-..
00 a
~ &
-.. "I
&
"I
1_ Annual WithdraWll (MG) -+- WUP Limit (MG) 1
Potable Water
41
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Average Daily Withdrawal 19.93
Maximum Daily Withdrawal 23.79
Annual Withdrawal 7,274
Allfigures are in millions ofgallons
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2005
The previous graphs show the relationship
between the amount of water withdrawn on
an annual basis and the limit of the Water
Use Permit to the present. Figure 3.5 shows
the projected water demand for 2005. 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
gal-
17.65
22
6,461
18.42
22.4
6,723
7.274.45 billion gallons.
Preliminary figures for 2005 indicate an in-
crease in average day water use of 4 percent
through May compared to 2004 figures.
Therefore, the average daily water demand
withdrawal projections for 2005 reflect this
Increase.
1998 156,120 15,830,000 101.4 19,190,000 122.9
1999 157,172 15,830,000 100.7 19,190,000 122.1
2000 159,113 15,830,000 99.5 19,190,000 120.6
2001 159,840 15,830,000 99 19,190,000 120.1
2002 160,568 19,930,000 124.1 23,790,000 148.2
2003 161,227 19,930,000 123.6 23,790,000 147.6
2004 161,235 19,930,000 123.6 23,790,000 147.5
2005 162,041 19,930,000 123 23,790,000 146.8
Source: 1. Monro e CountyP opulation Es timates &Forecas ts 1990 to 2015 (February, 2000)
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2005
Ions 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
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 $107 million over the next 5 years.
These proj ects are to be funded by the
newly revised water rate structure, long-
term bank loans, and grants.
Potable Water
42
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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 1. Robert
Dean Water Treatment Plant to meet future
water demands. Also, the FKAA is plan-
ning 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
43
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
1077 Phase IT-High Service Pump 897,100 2,000,000 2,897,100
1073 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 100,000 1,700,000 1,800,000
(ASR)
StockIslandRO-Permeators &
Carbonation 375,000 375,000
Des alination Production Facility 500,000 750,000 2,000,000 24,000,000 27,250,000
(Des ign Only)
Replace DistributionPipe 3,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,220,000 3,220,000 15,940,000
North Ro 0 s evelt Blvd (JP A 120,000 2,000,000 2,120,000
w/FDOT)
Water Tank-Long Key Station 1,400,000 1,400,000
2186 KeyWestPlantPump Station 2,282,000 3,218,000 5,500,000
2183 Cudjoe Tank &Pump Station 1,750,000 1, 750,000
2191 Vaca Cut Tank &Pump Station 280,000 280,000
Islamorada TanksIDistribution
2187 480,000 480,000
Imp.
2189 Big Pine Pump Station 360,000 360,000
Stock Island Pump Station 1,100,000 1,100,000
Improvements
Key Largo Storage Tank &Dist. 100,000 1,450,000 250,000 1,800,000
Pump Station
1075 MarathonPump Station Imp. 900,000 900,000
(Engine &P urn ps)
1042 J ewfish Creek/Cro ss Key (DOT) 5,980,000 18,000 120,000 6,118,000
C-lllCanalBridge (JP A w/FDOT 1,000,000 1,000,000
Phase IT-Cathodic Protection
System 1,200,000 1,200,000
1064 Key Largo Trans Pump Sta. & 2,000,000 2,000,000
Pipe line lus t.
Plantation TransmissionPump 340,000 6,400,000 1,000,000 7,740,000
Station
White he a d/S 0 uthard
TransmissionMain 150,000 150,000
Replace 1,400' 18" Trans.- Key 300,000 300,000
Largo swamp
Replace 20,000' 36" Trans. Key 1,500,000 900,000 2,400,000
Largo
3073 Des al Seawall &Do lphins 400,000 400,000
New Admin Bldg/Garage 200,000 175,000 5,700,000 8,700,000 1,200,000 15,975,000
3077 Marathon Central Warehous e 1,000,000 500,000 1,500,000
DESAL Customer
Service/Records Bldg 120,000 1,700,000 1,820,000
Marathon Cus tom er Service
Center 175,000 600,000 1,500,000 2,275,000
DESAL/Sto ck Is land/Lower Keys 200,000 200,000
Garage Wastewater
3083 Stock Island Pump Station 80,000 80,000
Wastewater
Potable Water 44
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
arathon Middle/High School (7-
Coral Shores High School (9-12) 12)
ey Largo Elementary !Middle
School (K-8) Stanley Switlik Elementary (K-6)
lantation Key Elementary!Middle
School (K-8)
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 1),
while the Land Development Regulations
place them in the Middle Keys (Subdistrict
2). Also, the School Board includes Key
West in the Lower Keys (Subdistrict 3),
Source: Monroe Count School Board, 2005
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 1 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. Refer-
ence figures 4.1 and 4.2.
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 and
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 hous-
ing, and the movements of seasonal resi-
dents. Reference figure 4.2a on the follow-
Ing page.
ey West High School (9-12)
orace O'Bryant Middle School (6-8)
dams Elementary (K-5)
rcher/Reynolds Elementary (K-5)
oinciana Elementary (K-5)
Sigsbee Elementary (K-5)
ig Pine Key Neighborhood School
Pre K-3)
Sugarloaf Elementary !Middle School
K-8)
45
Education Facilities
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 4.2
Key Largo Elementary
Coral Shores
High
Plantation Key
Bementary/Middle
stanley SWitlik
Bementary
pO
.
~'
'L~/;'"
~' Marathm Hig,
Horace 0 '8 ryant
M id d Ie
Poinciana Elementary
Sugarloaf
Sigsbee Elem entary Elem entary -li, ,
Gerald Adam s ,.... " '-~~ ~~~<_ :.~,'
ElementarY~,,., "~.,, -,
-.:..... .~~.,. ~'., '-~.
.~~JifI!JJ~' ''-'-..
KeyWestHigh
Glynn Archer Elem entary
Reynold Elem entary
Figure 4.2a
Enrollment by Grade Level
01 02 03 0-4 05 06 07 OS 09 10 11 12 KG PK Tolal
Big Pine Neighborhood Charter ( ( 0 ( [ 0 ( ( 0 ( ( ( 2 ( 2
Coral Sho res Hi gh S c h 001 ( ( 0 ( [ 0 ( 2.10 20 17 2.~ ( I 6U
Gerald Adams Elemenlary School 5 5~ 58 5 [ 0 ( ( 0 ( ( ( 5~ ( 291
Glynn Archer Elementary School 3( 4 45 5 5[ 0 ( ( 0 ( ( ( 4 81 36(.
Horace O'Bryant Middle School ( ( 0 ( [ 2.70 2.5 27 0 ( ( ( ( ( Biil
Key Largo Elemenlary 8 104 104 10 1m 112. 11 11' 0 ( ( ( 7 58 99
Key West High School ( ( 0 ( [ 0 ( ( 431 361 23! 27( ( ( 1,30
Ma lath on Hi g h School ( ( 0 ( [ 0 9 1O~ 111 9~ 11 7[ ( ( 5!H
Monroe county DJJ ( ( 0 ( [ 0 ( I 2 { I { { { ~
Mo ntessorl C harte r - Key Wesl 1 1! 15 [ 0 ( ( 0 ( ( ( ( ( 4,j
Montessori Island Charter 2 11 2.4 2' 1[ 1 ( ( 0 ( ( ( 21 ( 131
PACE - Lower Keys ( ( 0 ( [ 0 5 1 ( ( 1~
PACE - Upper Keys ( ( 0 ( [ 0 1 I 5 { { ~
Planlation Key EI e me nlary Scho oi 5 6 52 6 7 88 B ( 0 ( ( [ 51 i 54li
Poinciana Elementary School 8 9E 94 7 101 0 ( ( 0 ( ( [ 9( ( 53~
Slgsbee Elementary School 51 34 39 31 3 0 ( ( 0 ( ( [ 31 ( 231
Stanley Switli~ Elemenlary School 9 84 79 B' 7 93 ( ( 0 { { { 7' 44 62~
Sug arloaf EI em e nlary School 5[ 5 59 B 74 105 8 11 0 ( ( ( 4 2.8 7n
olal 55i 57 6fH S8< 53 66 63- 61 7fjJ, 66 53l 38 52 231 7,87G
Education Facilities
46
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
605 597 649 702 672 701 757 758 800 810 801 811 619
1,310 1,213 1,235 1,198 1,223 1,273 1,253 1,183 1,173 1117 1112 1073 992
718 698 721 737 730 703 675 643 668 647 641 650 548
2,633 2,508 2,605 2,637 2,625 2,677 2,685 2,584 2,641 2,574 2,554 2,534 2,159
545 523 578 642 637 612 637 660 679 682 693 654 596
734 775 776 769 782 815 834 791 671 687 714 676 624
1,279 1,298 1,354 1,411 1,419 1,427 1,471 1,451 1,350 1,369 1,407 1,330 1,220
1,114 1,120 1,155 1,255 1,237 1,327 1,372 1,344 1,305 1,327 1301 1382 1303
852 902 876 909 897 863 899 814 838 854 874 873 800
899 810 1,039 1,013 987 960 937 913 941 854 901 904 718
541 529 516 486 500 499 574 566 513 544 598 591 291
480 441 462 454 454 520 493 460 393 376 386 382 360
521 566 613 626 637 608 620 632 599 586 583 547 536
471 400 431 431 398 404 423 393 358 363 326 295 237
81 81 85 52 52 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
10,000
9,000
927492069,343 g;-zrTS
8871 9,136" 9,1578938 8930
8,000 ' ~5 _ _ _ _ _ _ -'----- 8,847 -'---- 8,83
6,000
7,000 - - - - - - - - - --1;6-2-4
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
I-+- Total Fall School Enrollment I
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.
Table (Figure 4.3) shows the fall school en-
rollments from 1992 to 2004 by sub districts
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
Figure 4.3a Charter Schools
Fall School Emollments, 2004
22
4
48
137
16
19
24
accommodate the school-age children gener-
ated by proposed land development.
The School Board uses recommended capaci-
ties provided by the Florida Department of
Education (FDOE) to determine each
Education Facilities
47
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
school's capacity. All schools have ade-
quate reserve capacity to accommodate the
impacts of the additional land development
activities projected for 2004-2005 school
year. Figure 4.4 shows each school's pro-
jected number of students.
Enrollment figures for the 2003-2004
school year and projected enrollment fig-
ures 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. How-
ever, school facility plans are based on en-
rollment projections 5 years out (2008-2009
school year), at which time sufficient capac-
ity will be available. The remaining schools
have more than sufficient capacity to ac-
commodate all fall enrollment in 2005 and
future years.
Figure 4.4 -School Capacity, & Projected Number of Students
Subdistrict 1
Coral Shores 868 831 818 747 835
Key Largo 1,240 1,191 1,115 1,082 1,031
Plantation 971 645 653 665 649
Subtotal 3,079 2,667 2,586 2,494 2,515
Subdistrict 2
Marathon 1,018 667 673 724 665
Switbk 925 668 674 684 651
Subtotal 1,943 1,335 1,347 1,408 1,316
Subdistrict 3
Key West 1,349 1,312 1,267 1,313 1,408
O'Bryant 833 818 838 876 887
Sugarloaf 1,356 941 842 835 888
Adams 547 506 546 605 552
Archer 470 398 371 357 350
Poinciana 660 585 574 591 550
Sigs bee 534 357 373 327 284
Student FISH Ca- be added
Location Stations pacity CO-FTE Utilization (removed) CO-FTEUtilization
Coral Shores HS 1,285 1,221 796 65% 738 60%
Gerald Adams School 691 656 562 86% -139 521 101%
Glynn Archer ES 579 550 347 63% -216 322 96%
Horace O'Bryant School 1,187 1,128 841 75% -334 780 98%
Key Largo School 1,323 1,257 1,029 82% -257 954 95%
Key West HS 1,601 1,521 1,352 89% 1,254 82%
Marathon HS 1,187 1,128 657 58% -327 609 76%
Plantation Key School 883 839 658 78% -256 610 105%
Poinciana ES 504 479 547 114% 120 507 85%
Sigsbee ES 563 535 291 54% 270 50%
Sugarloaf School 1,455 1,382 886 64% 822 59%
Switlik School 921 875 648 74% -377 601 121%
Monroe Total 12,179 11,571 8,614 74% -1,786 7,988 82%
Education Facilities
48
2005 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 Elementary/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 Village of Islamo-
rada 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/kitchen/
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 High School
The School Board is currently finishing
construction on the replacement school,
which is scheduled for completion by the
end of 2003.
Education Facilities
49
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 4.5, on the following page, is a table
showing the results of the investigation com-
pleted by the Monroe County School Board
and Planning Department III 1998 and up-
dated in 2004.
There are approximately 21 acres of
vacant land zoned NA surrounding
the current site.
There are approximately 4.27 acres
of vacant land zoned SC and 8.6
acres of vacant land zoned IS
surrounding the current site.
There are approximately 27 acres of
vacant land zoned NA and 34 acres
zoned SRsurrounding the current
site.
(1) The School Board is working with Monroe County Planning Department to meet this need prior to the end of
2004.
Key Largo
Elementary /Middle School 27 acres (SC & SR) 2 acres (1)
(K-8)
o acres
Plantation Key
Elementary/Middle School
(K-8)
Coral Shores High School
Stanley Switbk Elementary
N/ A (2)
N/A (2)
N/A
N/A
N/A
o acres
8.29 acres (SR)
20.13 acres (SR)
9.43 acres (SC)
Marathon High and
Middle Schools
27 acres (SR)
o acres (3)
o acres
Big Pine Neighborhood
Elementary
4.5 acres (SC)
o acres
o acres
SugarloafMiddle and
Elementary
42 acres (SC & NA)
o acres
o acres
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
(2) Islamorada will address plans for Plantation Key School, Coral Shores High School and other educational
facilities in their co rehensive Ian.
50
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Monroe County's solid
waste facilities are managed
by the Solid Waste Manage-
ment Department, which Key Largo
oversees a comprehensive Long Key
. CudJoe
system of collectIOn, recy- Old Site Closed 2/25/91 No Longer Active
cling, and disposal of solid Unused Site None Currently Inactive
waste. Prior to 1990, the Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2005
County's disposal methods
consisted of incineration and landfilling at
sites on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe
Key. Combustible materials were burned
either in an incinerator or in an air curtain
destructor. The resulting ash was used as
cover on the landfills. Non-combustible
materials were deposited directly in the
landfills.
J( SOLID WASTE
FACILITIES
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 neces-
Closed 12/31/90
Closed 1/7/91
o
180,000
sary. Figure 5.2 below summarizes the
status of the County's landfills and incinera-
tors.
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. The
mulching of residential yard waste has been
suspended indefinitely, due to the presence
of citrus canker in the Florida Keys. Other
government agencies are mulching and re-
using yard waste, and private enterprises are
collecting aluminum and other recyclable
materials.
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 col-
lection takes
place four times . S . & Waste Management of White goods,
a week (2 gar- Keys Sallltary ervlce Mid-Keys Waste, Inc. Florida, Inc. waste oil, bat-
Ocean Reef Club, Inc.
bage/trash, 1 Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2005 teries and tires
recycling, 1 yard *On xcurrentl serves the Villa e ofIslamorada. are handled
waste); nonresi - . separately, with collection sites operating at
dential collection vanes by contrac~. The each landfill/transfer station site. The
four (4) contractors currently servIng the County collects household hazardous waste
Keys are identified in Figure 5.1. at the Long Key and Cudj oe Key Transfer
Stations in addition to the Key Largo Recy-
cling Y~rd. Hazardous waste from cond~-
tionally exempt small quantity generators IS
collected once a year, as part of an Amnesty
Days program. An electronics recy.cling
program is in the initial phases, and wIll be
The County's incinerators and landfills are
no longer in operation. The landfill sites are
now used as transfer stations for wet gar-
bage, yard waste, and construction debris
collected throughout the Keys by the four
Solid Waste Facilities
51
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
conducted in cooperation with the House-
hold Hazardous Waste collections.
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,
would have appeared 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
1985
1987
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
28,585
32,193
31,173
28,430
26,356
27,544
37,211
30,110
28,604
31,573
32,003
33,119
29,382
32,635
29,663
31,018
31,529
28,890
37,094
33,931
31,924
28,549
26,727
28,986
30,662
30,775
31,845
33,625
36,440
30,938
30,079
29,367
31,217
31,889
15,938
22,206
23,033
22,988
20,699
18,872
22,198
24,831
25,113
27,823
29,350
30,920
37,431
33,420
31,166
30,700
30,385
73,413
91,493
88,137
83,342
75,604
73,143
88,395
85,603
84,492
91,241
94,978
100,479
97,751
96,134
90,196
92,935
93,803
NA
24.63%
-3.67%
-5.44%
-9.28%
- 3.26%
20.85%
-3.16%
-1.30%
7.99%
4.10%
5.79%
-2.71%
-1.65%
-6.18%
3.04%
0.93%
2004 32,193 31,583 33,762 97,538 3.98%
Note: The figures from 1985 to 1991 include \\hite goods, tires, construction debris, and yard waste. They do not include source-separated
recyclables.
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2005
Solid Waste Facilities
52
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 5.4 - SolidWaste Generation 1985 -2004 by District
120,000
100,000
80,000
m
i=1 60,000
0
E--<
40,000
20,000
0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1_ Key Largo - Long Key c::=:::J Cudjoe Key -k- Total 1
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 previous table and graph (Figures 5.3 &
5.4) summarize the solid waste generated by
each district. The totals for each district are
a combination of four categories of solid
waste: garbage, yard waste, bulk yard waste
and other (includes construction and demo-
lition debris).
After reaching a peak in 1988, the data
shows a general decline in the total amount
of solid waste generated throughout the
County. However, in 1993 there was an 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
had 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. Yearly fluctuations are expected
and contributed primarily by organic mate-
rial from storm events. The 2003 to 2004
increase may have been linked to citrus tree
removal due to citrus canker.
Level of Service of Solid Waste Fa-
cilities
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 January 2005, Waste Management
Inc., reports a reserve capacity of approxi-
mately 31.2 million cubic yards at their
Solid Waste Facilities
53
2005 Monroe County Public Fa life. In addition to this contract the
180,000 cubic yard reserve at the C~unty
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.
Central Sanitary Landfill m Broward
County, a volume sufficient to serve their
clients for another 12 years. Figure 5.5 be-
low 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
The combination of the eXIstmg haul-out
contract and the space available at the Cud-
joe Key landfill provides the County with
sufficient capacity to accommodate all ex-
i~ting and approved development for up to
sIxteen years.
Remaining Capacity
27 yd3 3
(volume in millions of cubic yards) 34.2 yd
Remaining Capacity (time) 13 years 14 years
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2005
3
32.3 yd
3
30.5 yd
3
31.2yd
14 years
14 years
12 years
Solid Waste Facilities
54
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
VL 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 2005 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 recrea-
tion area per 1,000 functional popu-
lation
. 0.82 acres of activity-based recrea-
tion area per 1,000 functional popu-
lation
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.
Parks and Recreation
55
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
Figure 6.1 - Parks and Recreation Facilities Semng Unincorporated Monroe County
Garden Cove
Hibis cus Park
Friendship Park
Key Largo Comm unity Park
SunsetPoint
Harry Harris
Settler's Park
SunnyHaven
Key Largo Elem entary
Coral Shores High School
Plantation Key Elem entary
Subarea Total
Pigeon Key
Mara tho n High S cho 0 I
Switlik Elem entary
Subarea Total
Little Due k Ke y
MissouriKey
West Summerland
Heron Avenue
Palm Villa
Big P ine Leisure Club
Blue Heron Park
Watson Field
Ramrod Key Swim Hole
Summ erland Es tates
Little TorchBoatRamp
Sugarlo afElem entary
Baypoint Park
Palm Drive cuI-de sac
RocklandHammock
Boca Chica Beach
Delmar Avenue
Big CoppittFire Department
Playground
Parks and Recreation
Upper Keys Subarea
Undeveloped.
Undeveloped.
Basketball courts (2), playground, ball field, picnic shelters, parking and public
res tro om s.
A soccer field, two (2) ball fields, six (6) tennis courts, a jogging trail, three (3)
basketball courts, roller hockey, volleybalL playground, picnic shelters, public
restrooms,parking and aquatic center.
Waterfront park with a boatramp.
Two (2) ball fields, playgro und, res tro 0 m s, picnic shelters, beach, parking (89) and
boat ramp.
P laygro und, park benche s, trails, and a his to ric platfo rm.
Undeveloped.
Monro e County Scho 0 lDis trict; Playground, bas eball field, running track, indoor
gym.
Monroe County School District; Baseball field, football field, softball field,S
tennis courts,indoorgym.
Monroe County School District; playground, I tennis court, I basketball court, I
baseball field.
Middle Keys Subarea
His to ric structure s, re s earch/educa tional facilities, and a railro ad m us eum.
Monroe County School District; Baseball and football field, softball field, 3
tennis courts, 3 basketballcourts, indoor gym.
Monroe County School District; Playground, 2 baseball fields, shared
so c c er/fo 0 tball field.
Lower Keys Subarea
Picnic shelters, re s tro 0 m s, bo at ram p, and be ach are a.
Undeveloped.
BoatRamp.
Undeveloped.
Playground and benches.
Undeveloped.
P laygro und, bas ketball co urt, yo uth c enter, and picnic she lters.
Two (2) tennis courts, ballfield, playground, and vo lleyball.
Swimming area with no facilities.
Undeveloped.
Boatramp.
Monro e County Scho 0 lDis trict;1 bas eball fie ld, playground.
Playground, vo lleybalL bo cchi balLtwo (2) tennis courts, and picnic area.
Undeveloped.
Undeveloped.
Beach area.
Boatramp.
Playground and benches.
15
12
3
0.09
5. 79
5
25.5
3.5
318
0.69
0.5
O.B
0.1
0.1
2.5
6
0.2
0.46
192
14
16.4
3.4
10.1
1.7
47.98
7.8
2.5
10.3
0.57
1.75
5.5
2.4
3.1
1.58
0.75
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
The facilities are grouped by subarea and
are classified according to the principal use
(resource or activity).
There are currently 98.26 acres of resource-
based recreation areas either owned or
leased by Monroe County as shown in Fig-
ure 6.1. Using the functional population
projection for 2004 of 75,801 persons in
unincorporated Monroe County, and the
LOS standard of 0.82 acres per 1,000 func-
tional population, the demand for resource
based recreation areas is approximately
62.16 acres. The county currently has a re-
source-based land to meet the level of ser-
vi ce 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.
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 its parks and rec-
reation system in order to more accurately
plan for the recreational needs of the popu-
lation. A parks and recreation master plan is
being prepared and is anticipated to be com-
plete within a year of this report. The mas-
ter plan will assess the current level of ser-
vice standard and how it is applied through-
out 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 parks and
recreation needs more accurately.
Upper Keys Total
Middle Keys Total
Lower Keys Total
Total
37,541
4,154
34,639
76,334
47.98
10.3
42.8
101.08
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2005
30.78
3.41
28.40
62.59
17.20
6.89
14.40
38.49
Parks and Recreation
57
2005 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
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-
niKeys Program has been completed on Big
Pine Key and No Name Key, and Tavernier.
The process is near completion on Key
Largo and Stock Island.
Acquisition of Additional Recrea-
tion Areas
The 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
1201.2.1 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 recrea-
tional facilities on land that is al-
ready owned by the county but that
is not being used for park and rec-
reation purposes;
. Acquisition of new park sites;
. Interlocal agreements with the
Monroe County School Board that
would allow for the use of existing
school-park facilities by county
residents;
. Interlocal agreements with incorpo-
rated cities within Monroe County
that would allow for the use of ex-
isting city-owned park facilities by
county residents;
. Intergovernmental agreements with
agencies of state and federal gov-
ernments that would allow for the
use of existing publicly-owned
lands or facilities by county resi-
dents; 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
the 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
County is currently reviewing and revising
the interlocal agreements with the Monroe
County School Board to provide greater day
time accessibility for students to public rec-
reational facilities. Once executed, these
agreements will ensure that the facilities
will be available for general use to Monroe
County residents to meet peak season,
weekend, or time of day recreation de-
mands.
Parks and Recreation
58