Resolution 284-2021 1
2 ,
i
Jf �
4
y
7
8 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
9 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10 RESOLUTION NO. 284 -2021
11
12 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
13 COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE 2021-2023 MONROE COUNTY
14 BIENNIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT AS
15 SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND
16 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
17
18
19 WHEREAS, Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive
20 Plan" or"CP")requires Monroe County to provide and maintain, in a timely and efficient manner,
21 adequate public facilities for both existing and future populations, consistent with available
22 financial resources and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan; and
23
24 WHEREAS, the biennial assessment of public facilities capacity is mandated by Chapter
25 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Code ("LDC"):
26
27 1. LDC Section 114-2, "Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures", contains two major
28 sets of requirements: The minimum service standards for the six primary public
29 facilities (roadways, solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer, schools and recreation
30 and open space facilities), and a biennial assessment process to determine the available
31 capacity of these public facilities; LDC Section 114-2 further includes an equitable
32 procedure for issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely to outpace the current
33 capacity of these public facilities; and
34
35 2. LDC Section 114-2(b)(3)requires the Senior Director of the Monroe County Planning
36 and Environmental Resources Department to prepare a biennial report to the Monroe
37 County Board of County Commissioners("BOCC")on the capacity of available public
38 facilities to accommodate growth during the next 12 to 24 months; and
39
40 3. LDC Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the BOCC to consider this report and approve its
41 findings either with or without modifications; LDC Section 114-2(b)(4) further
42 requires, in the event the BOCC acts to increase the development capacity of any
43 service area, that the BOCC shall make specific findings of fact as to the reasons for
44 the increase,including the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity;
45 and
46
47 WHEREAS, once approved by the BOCC, the Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
48 Report shall become the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals
1 of 4
I will be based for the next two years; and
2
3 WHEREAS,the Monroe County land development regulations require the BOCC to adopt
4 a biennial assessment of public facilities capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; and
5
6 WHEREAS, on September 15,2021, at a duly noticed regularly scheduled public meeting,
7 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners discussed the 2021-2023 Biennial
8 Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report; and
9
10 WHEREAS, the BOCC hereby makes the following findings of facts and/or conclusions
11 of law:
12
13 1. The 2021-2023 biennial assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for
14 roads, solid waste,potable water, sanitary sewer,parks and recreation, and educational
15 facilities; and
16
17 2. The 2021-2023 Biennial Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the
18 official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be
19 reviewed and approved for the upcoming two years; and
20
21 3. LDC Section 114-2 provides the minimum standards for level of service ("LOS") for
22 roads, solid waste,potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation and educational
23 facilities; and
24
25 4. LDC Section 114-2 requires the biennial assessment of public facilities capacity to
26 clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe County with adequate,
27 inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities; and
28
29 5. U.S. Highway 1 has an overall LOS of"C." and an overall travel speed of 45.5 miles-
30 per-hour (MPH), based upon the 2021 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study
31 prepared by AECOM; and
32
33 6. The water use permit of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority allows an average daily
34 allocation of 23.98 millions of gallons per day ("MGD"). Monroe County's average
35 daily water demand in 2020 was 18.41 MGD, and the projected 2021 average daily
36 water demand is 20.25 MGD,providing 3.73 MGD surplus water allocation based upon
37 the projected 2021 demand; and
38
39 7. Enrollment figures for the 2020-2021 through 2024-2025 school years indicate that
40 there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2020-
41 2021 utilization is 74.83 percent of the school system capacity.
42
43 8. Monroe County at present has a contract with Waste Management, Inc.; the subject
44 agreement authorizes the use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2024,thereby
45 providing the County with approximately four(4) more years of guaranteed capacity.
46 There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for 2021-2023; and
47
48 9. There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (i.e., acreage); and
2 of 4
1
2 10. The 2021-2023 biennial assessment finds and determines that transportation/roadways
3 (subject to concurrency review at time of development permit), potable water, solid
4 waste, schools,parks and recreation, and sanitary sewer all have adequate capacity to
5 serve the growth anticipated in 2021-2023 at the adopted level of service standard;
6
7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
8 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
9
10 Section 1. Recitals and Legislative Intent. The foregoing recitals, findings of fact,
11 conclusions of law, and statements of legislative intent are true and correct and are hereby
12 incorporated as if fully stated herein.
13
14 Section 2. The 2021-2023 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
15 Report, attached as Exhibit "A." hereto, incorporated as if fully stated herein, is hereby
16 approved.
17
18 Section 3. Construction and Interpretation. This resolution and its interpretation
19 shall be liberally construed and enforced in favor of Monroe County to effectuate its public
20 purpose(s) and policy(ies) of the County. The construction and interpretation of this
21 resolution and all Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provision(s), Florida Building
22 Code, Florida Statutes, and Monroe County Code(s) provision(s) whose interpretation
23 arises out of,relates to, or is interpreted in connection with this resolution shall be liberally
24 construed and enforced in favor of Monroe County to effectuate its public purpose(s) and
25 policy(ies) of the County, and shall be construed in favor of the BOCC and such
26 construction and interpretation shall be entitled to great weight in adversarial
27 administrative proceedings, at trial, bankruptcy, and on appeal.
28
29 Section 4. No Liability. Monroe County expressly reserves and in no way shall be
30 deemed to have waived, for itself or for its officer(s), employee(s), or agent(s), any
31 sovereign, governmental, and any other similar defense, immunity, exemption, or
32 protection against any suit, cause-of-action, demand, or liability.
33
34 Section 5. Severability. If any provision of this resolution, or any part or portion
35 thereof,is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any administrative hearing officer or court
36 of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity or unenforceability of such provision, or any part
37 or portion thereof, shall neither limit nor impair the operation, enforceability, or validity of
38 any other provision of this resolution, or any remaining part(s) or portion(s) thereof. All
39 other provisions of this resolution, and remaining part(s) or portion(s) thereof, shall
40 continue unimpaired in full force and effect.
41
42 Section 6. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All resolutions in conflict with this
43 resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. The repeal of a resolution
44 herein shall not repeal the repealing clause of such resolution or revive any resolution
45 which has been repealed thereby.
46
47 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
48 Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 15t'day of September 2021.
3 of 4
1
2
3 Mayor Michelle Coldiron Yes
4 Mayor Pro Tern David Rice Yes
5 Commissioner Craig Cates es
6 Commissioner Eddie Martinez Yes
7 Commissioner District V Vacant
8
9
1077----q.i.asii,,,,,
,.,`.-- \ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11 ,- c; s\ , OF MONROE C• _'" ,-FLORIDA,
1-1I14) eJ"K �����`0 ��IBICcLc.w
14p *%" ' \ By:
C )l v� :.
15 SEAAh. / MAYOR MICHELLE COLDIRON
16 .•<,_E.:_ ("
17 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK MONROE CO . ATTORNEY
18 APP ; TO FORM
19
20 By C7A.......4. 4-....-4- __..2.21 AS DEP TY CLERK PETER MORRIS
22 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
Date: 8/31/21
,--�
:v
r
- :C' - --ad—i�; rn
;--$ C-,
r CO
4 of 4
Exhibit
2021 -2023
MONROE COUNTY
BIENNIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
REPORT
IV
' �,
2�p
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORTATION
POTABLE WATER
SCHOOLS
SOLID WASTE
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER
Monroe County
Planning and Environmental Resources Department
1
Exhibit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................... 3
I. Growth Management ....................................................................................................14
II. Transportation/Roadways.............................................................................................26
III. Potable Water................................................................................................................41
IV. Education/Schools.........................................................................................................48
V. Solid Waste...................................................................................................................51
VI. Parks and Recreation.....................................................................................................55
VII. Sanitary Sewer................................................................................................................61
2
Exhibit
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires that Monroe County shall provide
and maintain, in a timely and efficient manner, adequate public facilities for both existing and
future populations, consistent with available financial resources and the other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. [§163.3177(3)(a), F.S.] Monroe County coordinates land use decisions and
fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements in order to maintain the adopted level of
service (LOS) standards for both issued development orders and future development (Objective
1401.4). Further, Monroe County maintains a Concurrency Management System to ensure that
facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impact of
development. The Concurrency Management System ensures that the County shall issue no
development order or permit which results in a reduction in the level of service (LOS) below the
adopted LOS standards (Policy 1401.4.5).
The Monroe County Land Development (LDC) Section 114-2(b)(3) mandates a biennial
assessment of the roadways, solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer, schools and recreation and
open space facilities serving the unincorporated portion of Monroe County. In the event that these
public facilities have fallen below or are projected to fall below the level of service(LOS)required
by the LDC, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that public
facilities are not further burdened. The LDC clearly states that building permits shall not be issued
unless the proposed use is, or will be, served by adequate public or private facilities.
As required by LDC Section 114-2,the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
shall consider and approve the biennial report, with or without modifications. Any modifications
that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact,
including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity
required to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document becomes the official
report on public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next two years.
This report distinguishes between areas of adequate, inadequate and marginally adequate facility
capacity. Areas of inadequate facility capacity are those areas with capacity below the adopted
LOS standards. Areas of marginally adequate facility capacity are those areas at the adopted level
of service standard or which are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next 12 to 24
months.
2021-2023 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Trans portation/Roadways
Based on the findings of the 2021 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County,
as prepared by AECOM, U.S. 1 has an overall level of service(LOS) C. The overall median travel
speed on US 1 is 45.5 MPH.
Traffic volumes have increased in Big Pine(2.00%)and Upper Matecumbe(3.07%)Keys but have
decreased in Marathon Key (-6.30%) as compared to 2017.
Compared to the study results in 2017, there were level of service changes in nine (9) of the 24
segments of US 1; five (5) of which resulted in positive level of service changes and four (4) of
3
Exhibit
which resulted in negative level of service changes. Negative LOS changes are shown in bold text
in the table below.
Jurisdiction 5%
Segment (county or 2017 2021 Reserve Trips Allocation
Number Segment municipality) LOS LOS Remaining below LOS C
1 Stock Island County B A 3,279 3,474
8 Ramrod County B A 2,285 3,063
10 Big Pine County C A 4,561 5,511
11 Bahia Honda County B A 7,998 10,730
18 Tea Table Islamorada D A 2,222 2,965
19 Upper Islamorada D E (3,531) (2,187)
Matecumbe
20 Windley Islamorada C D (378) 271
21 Plantation Islamorada B C 1,921 3,524
24 Cross County B C 2,259 4,618
Compared to 2017 results, the median segment speeds increased in 13 of the 24 segments,ranging
between 0.2 mph and 10.6 mph, and decreased in 11 segments, ranging from-0.1 mph to-5.8 mph.
The largest increase in speed (+10.6 mph) was recorded in Segment# 1 (Stock Island —MM 4.0
to MM 5.0); The largest reduction in speed (-5.8 mph) was recorded in Segment# 21 (Plantation
—MM 86.0 to MM 91.5).
Potable Water
In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKAA's modification of
WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This water
use permit (WUP) provides an annual allocation of 23.98 MGD. The recently completed water
supply wells and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment facility provides an additional capacity
of 6.0 MGD.
The County's 2020 figures and projections for 2021 indicate a slight increase in annual average
daily demand from 18.41 to 20.25 MGD. This provides a 3.73 MGD surplus water allocation based
upon the projected 2021 demand. With the construction of the new water supply wells and reverse
osmosis (RO) water treatment facility and a projected surplus allocation, there is an adequate
supply of water to meet current and future demands, based on current conditions and projections.
Schools
The overall 2020-2021 utilization is 74.83% of the school system capacity and is projected for
2024-2025 at 77.58%utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2020-2021 indicate
that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system for the next two years.
Solid Waste
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract authorizes the
use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2024, thereby providing the County with
approximately three (3)years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for a solid waste
generation for the next 12 to 24 months.
4
Exhibit
Parks and Recreation
There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage).
Sanitary Sewer
The Monroe County Sanitary Sewer Master Plan was part of the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan. As population and tourism within the Keys have increased over the years have
resulted in a significant degradation of water quality in canals and nearshore waters surrounding the
keys. The creation of a new Sanitary Sewer System to replace the old system consisting mostly of
collecting sewage waters by private septic tanks and small water treatment plants was imperative.
The new Sanitary Sewer System collects the wastewater mainly by a network of pipelines, force
mains, pump stations and sewage treatment plants. The majority of the household units of
unincorporated areas of the County have been connected to the system.
The sewage collection system operates below the capacity for which it was designed and the quality
and disposal of treated waste water is in compliance with requirements established by F.A.C., F.S.,
and Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. There is sufficient wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities and capacity available to satisfy the projected needs of the development for the next two
years.
SUMMARY
Transportation/roadways (subject to concurrency review at time of development permit), potable
water, solid waste, schools, parks and recreation, and sanitary sewer all have adequate capacity to
serve the growth anticipated in 2021-2023 at the adopted level of service standard.
5
Exhibit
INTRODUCTION
The 2021-2023 Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity is mandated by the Monroe
County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 114-2, titled Adequate Facilities and Review
Procedures. The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensuring
"concurrency" or providing public facilities in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level of
service standard. In other words, local governments must establish regulations to ensure that
public facilities and services that are needed to support development are available simultaneously
with development impacts.
Section 114-2(a) contains two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the
six primary public facilities (roads, potable water, educational facilities, solid waste, parks and
recreation, sanitary sewer), and biennial assessment process to determine the available capacity of
these public facilities.
Section 114-2(b)(3)requires the Director of Planning to prepare a biennial report to the BOCC on
the capacity of available public facilities. This report must determine the potential amount of
residential and nonresidential growth expected in the upcoming year and make an assessment of
how well the water supply facilities, solid waste, roads, sanitary sewer, and schools will
accommodate that growth. The report considers potential growth and public facility capacity for
only the next twelve months. In addition,the report must identify areas of unincorporated Monroe
County with only marginal and/or inadequate capacity for public facilities.
Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to
consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. The BOCC
cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report without
making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase and identifying the source of
funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity. Once approved by the BOCC, this document
becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be
based for the next year.
In the event public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS)
standards required by the Comprehensive Plan or the LDC, development activities must conform
to special procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The Comprehensive
Plan and the LDC clearly state that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is
or will be served by adequate public or private facilities.
Comprehensive Plan Objective 10 1.1 states:
"Monroe County shall ensure that all development and redevelopment taking place within its
boundaries does not result in a reduction of the level-of-service requirements established and
adopted by this comprehensive plan. Further, Monroe County shall ensure that comprehensive
plan amendments include an analysis of the availability of facilities and services or demonstrate
that the adopted levels of service can be reasonably met".
The LDC, Section 114-2, "Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures" states:
Development application shall include a written evaluation (facilities impact report and traffic
report) of the impact of the anticipated development on the level of services are available prior to
or concurrent with the impacts of development.
6
Exhibit
PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 163.3180,F.S., sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water are the
public facilities and services subject to the concurrency requirement on a statewide basis and a
local government may extend concurrency requirements so that it applies to additional public
facilities within its jurisdiction. If concurrency is applied to other public facilities, including
transportation facilities, the local government comprehensive plan must provide the principles,
guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service, to guide its application.
The premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and
maintain the adopted level of service standard.
Accordingly, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.1.1 provides that the County
shall maintain level of service (LOS) standards for the following public facility types required by
Chapter 163, F.S.: sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water. Policyl01.1.2 also
requires the County maintain a Concurrency Management System.
Further, the following standards have been adopted in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan:
Policy 101.1.3: Facilities for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and drainage shall
be in place and available to serve new development no later than the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. If facility improvements are needed
to ensure that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to
commencement of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally
enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction or improvement of the
facility.
Policy 101.1.4: Parks and recreation facilities to serve new development shall be in place
or under actual construction no later than one (1) year after issuance by the County of a
building permit. The acreage (land)for such facilities shall be dedicated or be acquired by
the County prior to issuance of a building permit, or funds in the amount of the developer's
fair share shall be committed no later than the County's approval to commence
construction. If park and recreation facility improvements are needed to ensure that the
adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement
of construction, the developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable
commitment to the County to assure construction of the facilities.
Policy 101.1.5: Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place
when the impacts of the development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure
that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to
commencement of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally
enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction or improvement of
proportionate share of required improvements, or to assure the provision of the
proportionate share contribution of the costs for the necessary transportation facilities. The
development of a single family residential unit shall be considered de minimis and shall
not be subj ect to this requirement.
Policy 101.1.6: Prior to the approval of a building permit, Monroe County shall consult
with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) to determine whether adequate water
7
Exhibit
supplies to serve the new development will be available no later than the anticipated date
of issuance by the County of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.
There are Six (6)primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity according
to both the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code (LDC). These
facilities are roads, solid waste,potable water, sanitary sewer and schools(Comp Plan also includes
parks & recreation and drainage. The available capacity for each of these facilities may be either
sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next year, marginally adequate, or
inadequate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are projected to be only marginally
adequate or inadequate over the next year, the LDC sets out a review procedure to be followed
when issuing development permits in that area.
Section 114-2(b)(5)c of the LDC states: "The county shall not approve applications for
development in areas of the county that are served by inadequate facilities identified in the biennial
assessment of public facility capacity report, except the county may approve development that will
have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where the developer agrees to increase the level
of service of the facility to the adopted level of service standard."
The determination of an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas with
marginal or inadequate capacity is determined by a "facilities impact report" which must be
submitted with a development application.
Trans portation/Roadways:
The LOS for roads is regulated by the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 301.1.1 establishes the LOS for County roads. The policy states:
"For all County roads, Monroe County hereby adopts a minimum peak hour level of service
(LOS) standard of D, measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the
Highway Capacity Manual, as necessary to determine proposed development impacts. The
County shall maintain the level of service on County roads within five percent (5%) of LOS
D"
Policy 301.1.2 establishes the LOS for U.S. 1. The policy states:
"For U.S. 1,Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service(LOS) standard of C, as measured
by the methodology established by the US-1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on US-1 shall be maintained
within five percent(5%) of LOS C"
It should be noted in August 2021, the BOCC adopted an update to Policy 301.1.2 as follows:
"For U.S. 1,Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service(LOS) standard of C, as measured
by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners in February 2021 (BOCC Resolution 064-2021). The level of service
on U.S. 1 shall be maintained within five percent(5%) of LOS C."
Section 114-2(a)(1) of the LDC pertains to the minimum LOS standards for Roads:
(1) Transportation/Roadways.
8
Exhibit
a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall arterial
length and the 24 roadway segments of U.S.1, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service
Task Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway segments. In addition, all
segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology,
which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. 1, shall have
sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C.
b. Development may be approved, provided that the development in combination with all
other permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent(5%)
below LOS C, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. While
development may be approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be
considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the
form of specific improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements
and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service
degradation beyond LOS C and/or deficiencies.
c. All paved County roads shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at or within 5%
of a LOS D as measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the
Highway Capacity Manual. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS D,
the development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development
mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned shared
contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT
to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS D and/or deficiencies.
d. The development of one single family residence on a single parcel shall be considered de
minimis and shall not be considered to impact road capacity established in this subsection.
e. The County shall post on the Monroe County website informing the public of the available
transportation capacity for each road segment of U.S. 1 as described in the county's biennial
public facilities capacity report. The available capacity shall be expressed in terms of a
number of trips remaining until the adequate transportation facilities standard is exceeded.
f The County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic
monitoring program to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations
and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.I and on each of the 24 study segments of
U.S.1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and through traffic. The
County shall coordinate with municipalities in the review of the systematic traffic
monitoring program to monitor traffic volumes and travel speeds of U.S.I as well as on
each of the 24 study segments on U.S.1. The County and municipalities shall coordinate
with FDOT to evaluate segments with deficiencies of LOS to determine necessary
improvements and strategies to address any degradation and/or deficiencies.
Potable Water:
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopts the LOS standards and further, the LDC regulates
the source of potable water for development or use.
Objective 701.1: Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a certificate of occupancy or its
functional equivalent is issued, adequate potable water supply,treatment, and distribution facilities
are available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards.
9
Exhibit
Policy 701.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve
Objective 70 1.1 and shall use these standards as the basis for determining facility capacity and the
demand generated by a development. [
Level of Service Standards
1. Quantity: 100 gal./capita/day*
*Note Based on historical data through December 2011;provided by FKAA,December 2012.
2. Minimum Pressure: 20 PSI at customer service
3. Minimum Potable Water Quality: Shall be as defined by Chapter 62-550
F.A.C.
The LDC Section 114-2(a)(3) requires sufficient potable water from an approved and permitted
source shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of a proposed development, or use.
Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribution systems,
individual water condensation systems, and any other system which complies with the Florida
standards for potable water.
a. Overall LOS: 100 gal./capita/day.
b. Minimum pressure: 20 pounds per square inch at customer service point.
c. Minimum quality: As defined by Chapter 62-550 F.A.C.
Policy 701.1.2: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which provide a
Concurrency Management System (See Capital Improvements Policy 1401.4.5). The Concurrency
Management System shall ensure that no certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent will
be issued for new development unless adequate potable water supply, treatment, and distribution
facilities needed to support the development at the adopted level of service standards are available.
Solid Waste:
The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC require that "sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid
waste disposal site at a level of services of 11.41 pounds per capita per day. The county solid waste
and resource recovery authority may enter into agreements,including agreements under F.S. Section
163.01, to dispose of solid waste outside of the county. (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)).
Objective 801.1: Monroe County shall ensure that solid waste collection service and disposal
capacity is available to serve development at the adopted level of service standards.
[§163.3180(1)(b)., F.S.], [§163.3180(2)., F.S.]
Policy 801.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve
Objective 801.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining facility capacity and
the demand generated by a development. [§163.3180(2)., F.S.]
Level of Service Standards:
Disposal Quantity: 11.41 pounds per capita per day
Policy 801.1.2: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which provide a
Concurrency Management System(See Capital Improvements Policy 1401.4.5). The Concurrency
Management System shall ensure that no certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent will
be issued for new development unless adequate solid waste collection and disposal facilities
needed to support the development at the adopted level of service standards are available
concurrent with the impacts of development.
10
Exhibit
Sanitary Sewer:
The Comprehensive Plan and LDC establish the capacity LOS and the wastewater treatment level
of service standards for sanitary sewers in Policy 901.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 901.1.1: Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a certificate of occupancy, or its
functional equivalent is issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are
available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards.
December 31, 2015, Level of Service Standards
(A)The permanent level of service standards for wastewater treatment in Monroe County are
as follows:
M /L
BOD TSS TN TP
On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal System 10 10 10 1
Design flows less than 100,000 gpd BAT 10 10 10 1
Design flows greater than orequal to 100,000 gpd(AWT) 5 5 3 1
Source:Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan,2000.
BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand
TSS: Total Suspended Solids
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
BAT: Best Available Technology
AWT: Advanced Wastewater Technology
(B) The County shall support State and Federal educational programs to reduce
demand for phosphate products.
(C) The capacity level of service standard: 167 gallons per day per EDU.
Policy 901.1.2: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which provide a
Concurrency Management System(See Capital Improvements Policy 1401.4.5). The Concurrency
Management System shall ensure that a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent will
not be issued for new development unless adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities needed to support the development at the adopted level of service standards are available.
Parks and Recreation:
The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are included in Policy 1201.1.1
of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 1201.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve
Objective 1201.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining recreation land and
facility capacity:
Level of Service Standards for Neighborhood and Community Parks:
1. 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resource-based neighborhood
11
Exhibit
and community parks; and
2. 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of activity-based neighborhood and
community parks within each of the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys
subareas.
Schools:
The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a LOS standard for schools but does include Policy
1301.5.3 which requires the County to coordinate with the District School Board of Monroe
County on the siting and expansion of required facilities. LDC Section 114-2(a)(6) requires that
sufficient school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school-age children to
be generated by the proposed development.
12
Exhibit
PERMITTING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS
LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures divides unincorporated
Monroe County into three (3) service areas for the purpose of assessing potential growth and how
public facilities can accommodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the Monroe County
Land Development Code have been revised to account for incorporations of the Village of
Islamorada and the City of Marathon.
Section 114-2(b)(2) defines the county's unincorporated public facilities service areas:
• Upper Keys Service Area: north of the Whale Harbor Bridge;
• Middle Keys Service Area: between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor Bridge;
and
• Lower Keys Service Area: south(west) of the Seven Mile Bridge.
The map shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized.
NIONROE COUNTY
�
MAP :
4 � g ;
The 1Jpper Keys
M 11 -91 $,
The Nfiddle Keys
MM 91-47
o
C
e y
FS
f
ro �.
e
The Lower Keys
MM 47-4
e
13
Exhibit
I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GROWTH ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the projected growth of Monroe County's permanent, seasonal
and functional population, occupied and vacant housing data, Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)
and Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) allocations and Building Department
permit data.
CENSUS DATA
The U.S. Census Bureau released some 2020 demographic information in August 2021. The
release of additional data has been delayed due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Census 2020 Census 2010 Change
Total Population 82,874 73,090 +9,784
Total Housing Units 53,892 52,764 +1,128
Occupied Housing Unit Rate 59.5% 61.8%
Occupied Housing Units calculated 32,066 32,629 -563
Vacant Housing Units calculated 21,826 40.5% 20,135 38.16% +1,691
The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) increased by
13% (9,784people) from the year 2010 to 2020. Total housing units increased by 1,128 units or
2%. The number of occupied units decreased by 563 units or 2%. Vacant units increased by 1,691
units or 8%. Further analysis will need to be conducted at a later date with the release of additional
2020 Census data.
The following tables provide 2010 summary information for Monroe County and the incorporated
municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been included for comparison purposes.
Census Census Change %
2000 2010 Change
POPULATION
City of Key West 25,478 24,649 -829 -3.25%
City of Marathon 10,255 8,297 -1,958 -19.09%
City of Key Colony Beach 788 797 +9 1.14%
City of Layton 186 184 -2 -1.08%
Village of Islamorada 6,846 6,119 -727 -10.62%
Unincorporated Monroe County 36,036 33,044 -2,992 -8.30%
Total Population (Unincorporated County&Cities) 79,589 73,090 1 -6,499 -8.17%
HOUSING UNITS
City of Key West 13,306 14,107 +801 6.01%
City of Marathon 6,791 6,187 -604 -8.89%
City of Key Colony Beach 1,293 1,431 +138 10.67%
City of Layton 165 184 +19 11.15%
Village of Islamorada 5,461 5,692 +231 4.23%
Unincorporated Monroe County 24,601 25,163 +562 2.28%
Total Housing Units (Uninc. County&Cities) 51,617 52,764 +1,147 2.22%
14
Exhibit
Total housing units (Uninc. County&Cities) 51,617 52,764 +1,147 2.22%
Occupied housing units (Uninc. County&Cities) 35,086 32,629 -2,457 -7.00%
Vacant housing units (Uninc. County&Cities) 16,531 20,135 +3,604 21.80%
% Vacant housing units (Uninc. County&Cities) 32.02% 38.16%
POPULATION ESTIMATES
Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates. Permanent
residents are people who spend all or most of the year living in Monroe County, and as such, exert
a relatively constant demand on all public facilities. Seasonal population figures are the number
of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. They are composed of the
tourist population and residents spending less than six months in the Keys. The seasonal
population has a higher cyclical demand on public facilities like water, roads and solid waste.
The 2020 total population for Monroe County is 82,874 (2020 Census).
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 2020-2030
Year Permanent Seasonal Functional
2020 76,900 82,151 159,051
2025 76,200 84,503 160,703
2030 1 75,500 86,855 162,355
Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and
Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates
UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 2020-2030
Year Permanent Seasonal Functional
2020 35,374 37,120 72,494
2025 35,052 38,173 73,225
2030 1 34,730 39,226 1 73,956
Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and
Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates
UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS by service area,
2020-2030
Unincorporated Functional Population
Total
Year Lower Keys Middle Keys Upper Keys Unincorporated
Monroe County
2020 40,592 2,234 29,668 72,494
2025 41,003 2,256 29,966 73,225
2030 41,414 2,278 30,265 73,957
Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and
Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates
15
Exhibit
The Fishkind & Associates population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a
loss of permanent population. The data suggests the permanent population losses and associated
increase in vacant housing units, shifting into an increase in seasonal population. Fishkind &
Associates estimates that while permanent population decreases at an average rate of less than one
percent every five years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of 2.57 percent every
five years; resulting in a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. Overall, functional
population or total population for the unincorporated County will increase at an average rate of
less than one percent, every five years, in the twenty year planning period.
The Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research(BEBR)provides the following estimates:
Estimates Projections, April 1
A ril 1, 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MONROE 77,823
Low 73,600 72,200 70,500 68,700 66,700
Medium 78,800 79,400 79,800 80,000 80,200
High 84,300 87,500 90,100 92,200 94,200
The Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) provides the following
estimates:
Estimates Projections, April 1
April 1, 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MONROE 77,823 78,799 79,424 79,793 80,020 80,159
16
Exhibit
HOUSING
According to the U.S. Census, housing units are broken down into occupied and vacant units. The
Census defines housing units as "a house, apartment, group of rooms, or single room occupied or
intended for occupancy as separate living quarters." Occupied housing units are occupied if there
is"at least one person who lives in the unit as a usual resident at the time of the interview, or if the
occupants are only temporarily absent, for example, on vacation. However, if the unit is occupied
entirely by people with a usual residence elsewhere, the unit is classified as vacant, such as
seasonal units.
The table below provides total housing units and occupancy based on the 2020 Census:
Census 2020 Census 2010 Change
Total Housing Units 53,892 52,764 +1,128
Occupied Housing Unit Rate 59.5% 61.8%
Occupied Housing Units calculated 32,066 32,629 -563
Vacant Housing Units calculated 21,826 40.5% 20,135 38.16% +1,691
The table below shows the housing units by status and tenure from the 2015-2019 American
Community Survey.
HOUSING UNITS BY STATUS AND TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE
2015-2019
Monroe County-Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas
HOUSING OCCUPANCY Estimates Percent
Total housing units 53,518 100.00%
Occupied housing units 32,068 59.9%
Vacant housing units 21,450 40.1%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE Estimates Percent
Total housing units 53,518 100.00%
1-unit, detached 29,086 54.3%
1-unit, attached 3,290 6.1%
2 units 2,488 4.6%
3 or 4 units 2,929 5.5%
5 to 9 units 2,554 4.8%
10 to 19 units 2,260 4.2%
20 or more units 4,389 8.2%
Mobile home 6,380 11.9%
Boat, RV, van, etc. 142 0.3%
HOUSING TENURE Estimates Percent
Occupied housing units 30,068 100.00%
Owner-occupied 19,078 59.5%
Renter-occupied 12,990 40.5%
Average household size of owner-occupied unit 2.26
Average household size of renter-occupied unit 2.36
Source: US Census 2019 American Community Survey
17
Exhibit
RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO)
Based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016-1992 on June 23, 1992, creating the Residential
Dwelling Unit Allocation System known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO. ROGO was
developed to limit the annual amount and rate of development commensurate with the County's
ability to maintain its hurricane evacuation clearance time; and to deter the deterioration of public
facility service levels, environmental degradation, and potential land use conflicts. It is used as a
tool to equitably distribute the remaining number of permits available both geographically and
over time. ROGO allows development subject to the ability to safely evacuate the Florida Keys
(the Keys)within 24 hours.
The annual allocation period, or ROGO year, is the 12-month period beginning on July 13, 1992,
(the effective date of the original dwelling unit allocation ordinance), and subsequent one-year
periods. The number of dwelling units which can be permitted in Monroe County has consequently
been controlled since July of 1992 (adoption of Ordinance 016-92).
Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.2 regulate the number of permits
issued annually for residential development under ROGO. Monroe County can award up to 197
allocations per year within the unincorporated area. These allocations are divided between three
geographic subareas and are issued quarterly. Each year's ROGO allocation of 197 new units is
split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate
allocations not to exceed 126 new residential units per year.
Rule 28-20.140(b), F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.2.1 state:
"The number of permits issued annually for residential development under the Rate of Growth
Ordinance shall not exceed a total annual unit cap of 197, plus any available unused ROGO
allocations from a previous ROGO year. Each year's ROGO allocation of 197 units shall be split
with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate
allocations not to exceed 126 residential units per year.Unused ROGO allocations may be retained
and made available only for affordable housing and Administrative Relief from ROGO year to
ROGO year. Unused allocations for market rate shall be available for Administrative Relief. Any
unused affordable allocations will roll over to affordable housing. A ROGO year means the twelve-
month period beginning on July 13".
LDC, Section 138-24(a)(2) establishes that ROGO allocations are to be awarded quarterly.
"Each subarea shall have its number of market rate housing residential ROGO allocations
available per ROGO quarter determined by the following formula:
a. Market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea per quarter is equal to
the market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea divided by four.
b. Affordable housing residential ROGO for all four ROGO quarters, including the
allocations available for Big Pine Key, shall be made available at the beginning of the first
quarter for a ROGO year. Beginning July 13, 2016, the balance of all remaining affordable
housing residential ROGO allocations shall be made available for award.
On January 22, 2020, the BOCC adopted Ordinances 005-2020 and 006-2020, amending
Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.2 and Land Development Code Section 138-24 to extend the
time period of the ROGO system through 2026 by distributing the final three (3) years of market
rate ROGO allocations over a 6-year period. For ROGO Years 29, 30, and 31, (July 13, 2020 —
July 12, 2023), the number of market rate allocations is reduced to 64 per year, rather than 126.
18
Exhibit
For ROGO Years 32, 33, and 34, (July 13, 2023 - July 12, 2026), the number of market rate
allocations will be 62 per year, as follows:
Annual Allocation
ROGO Year
Market Rate Affordable Housing
July 13,2013-July 12, 2014 126 71
July 13,2014-July 12, 2015 126 71
July 13,2015-July 12, 2016 126
July 13,2016-July 12,2017 126
July 13,2017-July 12,2018 126
July 13,2018-July 12,2019 126
July 13,2019-July 12,2020 126
568 total AFH
July 13,2020-July 12,2021 64 (total available
July 13,2021-July 12,2022 64 immediately)
July 13,2022-July 12,2023 64
July 13,2023-July 12, 2024 62
July 13,2024-July 12, 2025 62
July 13,2025-July 12, 2026 62
TOTAL 1,260 710
This change reduces the annual rate of additional new market rate residential development, to
address multiple purposes, such as hurricane modeling,land acquisition and so forth. Additionally,
this change should reduce the demands on public facilities based on new market rate residential
development.
TIER SYSTEM
On September 22, 2005, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 025-2005 which amended the
Comprehensive Plan to revise ROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the competitive
point system. On March 15, 2006,the BOCC adopted Ordinance 009-2006 to incorporate the Tier
System as a basis for implementing ROGO within the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
The Tier System changed the service areas (subareas boundaries) mentioned in the Introduction.
It is the basis for the scoring of NROGO and ROGO applications and administrative relief. The
new ROGO and NROGO subareas are the Lower Keys(Middle Keys are not included in the Lower
Keys), Upper Keys, and Big Pine / No Name Keys. Tier Ordinance 009-2006 provides vesting
provisions and allows for allocation of an annual cap of 197 residential dwelling units.
The Tier System made changes such as subarea boundary districts for allocation distribution, the
basis of scoring applications, and administrative relief.
• During ROGO Year 14, Ord. 009-2006 was enacted changing the allocation number to 197
(126 market rate 71 affordable) pursuant to Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C. The same rule also
returned 165 allocations to the County to be used for affordable housing.
19
Exhibit
• By ROGO Year 15, the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the 197 annual
allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations were assigned to this subarea.
BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEYS
Efforts to address the development impacts on the habitat of the Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh
Rabbit and the Eastern Indigo Snake on Big Pine Key/No Name Key started in the mid-1980s. In
1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which they committed to
develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for these two Keys. The HCP was completed in April
2003.
The Livable CommuniKeys Program(LCP),Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key
and No Name Key was adopted on August 18, 2004, pursuant to Ordinance 029-2004. The LCP
envisioned the issuance of 200 residential dwelling units over 20 year horizon at a rate of roughly
10 per year. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the 10 units per year is to be set aside for
affordable housing development(e.g. 2 units per year set aside for affordable housing.)
On June 9, 2006, a Federal Incidental Take Permit(#TE083411-0,ITP)from the U.S.Federal Fish
and Wildlife Commission was issued to three (3)permittees: Monroe County,Florida Department
of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The ITP ensures that
development bears its fair share of required mitigation and that the take of the covered species is
minimized and mitigated.
RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO)ANALYSIS
UNINCORPORATED COUNTY MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE ROGO HISTORICAL
DATA YEARS 1-29
Market Rate Market Affordable Affordable
ROGO Rate Housing ROGO Housing
ROGO Year Allocations ROGO Allocations ROGO
Available Awarded Available Awarded*
Year I (July 14, 1992—July 13, 1993) 204 204 52 11
Year 2 (July 14, 1993 —July 13, 1994) 243 231 52 9
Year 3 (July 14, 1994—July 13, 1995) 246 249 52 10
Year 4 (July 14, 1995 —July 13, 1996) 245 263 52 40
Year 5 (July 14, 1996—July 13, 1997) 215 218 52 23
Year 6 (July 14, 1997—July 13, 1998) 211 197 77 56
Year 7 (July 14, 1998—July 12, 1999) 101 102 30 9
20
Exhibit
Year 8 (July 13, 1999-July 14, 2000) 127 136 109 66
Year 9 (July 13, 2000-July 14, 2001) 127 129 224 203
Year 10 (July 14,2001 -July 15, 2002) 102 102 31 58
Year 11 (July 16,2002-July 14, 2003) 127 127 31 31
Year 12 (July 13, 2003-July 14, 2004) 127 127 31 21
Year 13 (July 14, 2004-July 13, 2005) 96 96 29 16
Year 14 (July 14,2005 -July 13, 2006) 126 126 236 271
Year 15 (July 14,2006-July 13, 2007) 126 129 49 17
Year 16(July 14,2007-July 14, 2008) 126 126 68 100
Year 17(July 15, 2008-July 13, 2009) 206 242 67 36
Year 18 (July 14, 2009-July 12, 2010) 126 128 71 0
Year 19 (July 13, 2010-July 12, 2011) 126 119 71 0
Year 20 (July 13, 2011 -July 13, 2012) 126 92 71 4
Year 21 (July 13, 2012-July 13, 2013) 126 43 71 0
Year 22 (July 13, 2013 -July 13, 2014) 126 90 71 9
Year 23 (July 13, 2014-July 13, 2015) 126 106 71 1
Year 24 (July 13, 2015 -July 13, 2016) 126 126 71 45
Year 25 (July 12, 2016-July 12, 2017) 126 126 742 6
Year 26(July 13, 2017-July 12, 2018) 126 126 587 12
Year 27(July 13,2018 -July 12, 2019) 126 124 565 1
Year 28 (July 13, 2019-July 12, 2020) 126 111 332 343
Year 29 (July 13, 2020-July 12, 2021) 64 64 63 11
Totals 4,015 3,886 (not cumulative) 1,409*
21
Exhibit
*Does not include Affordable Housing ROGO allocations reserved by the BOCC.
Source:Monroe Countv 2010-2030 Technical Document&Data fi^om Quarterly ROGO Result Reports for Years 18-29; and
ROGO yearly tracking data.
There is a time lapse which occurs between the ROGO allocation date and the permit issuance
date. An allocation award expires when its corresponding building permit is not picked up after
sixty (60) days of notification by certified mail of the award, or upon expiration of the issued
permit. The historical data presented in the table above do not include allocations issued in Key
West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, Islamorada, or Marathon.
NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO)
Monroe County adopted the Non-Residential Rate of Growth(NROGO)in 2001 in order to ensure
a reasonable balance between the amount of future non-residential development and the needs of
a slower growing residential population.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.4.1 limits the County's availability of
nonresidential square footage that may be permitted. This policy assures that the balance of
residential to nonresidential development is maintained.
Policy 101.4.1 states:
"Monroe County shall maintain a Permit Allocation System for new nonresidential floor area,
known as the Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) System. Monroe County shall
maintain a balance between residential and nonresidential growth by limiting the floor area of new
nonresidential development available within the County to maintain a maximum of 47,083 square
feet of floor area per NROGO year. The nonresidential allocation allowed by this policy shall be
distributed on an annual basis, pursuant to Policy 101.4.3. The NROGO allocation system shall
apply within the unincorporated area of the county, excluding areas within the county mainland
and within the Ocean Reef planned development(Future development in the Ocean Reef planned
development is based upon the December 2010 Ocean Reef Club Vested Development Rights
Letter recognized and issued by the Department of Community Affairs)."
Section 138-51 of the LDC establishes the annual award distribution of NROGO allocations.
Sec. 138-51 NROGO allocations.
Maximum amount of available floor area for the annual nonresidential ROGO allocations. The
annual amount of floor area available for allocation under NROGO shall be 47,083 square feet.
Beginning NROGO Year 22(July 13, 2013),this floor area shall be distributed to each of subareas
as provided in the following table:
ROGO subarea Annual NROGO allocation
Upper 22,944 SF
Lower 21,749 SF
Big Pine/No Name 2,390 SF
Total 47,083 SF
22
Exhibit
NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO)ANALYSIS
A summary of square footage of non-residential floor area previously made available and allocated
in the unincorporated Keys from Year 14 (2006)to Year 29 (2021) is shown below.
NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED MONROE
COUNTY YEAR 14 (2006) TO YEAR 29 (2021)
E cluding Big Pine & No Name Key)
Year Amount Available Total Allocations Awarded
Year 14 (2006) 16,000 sq/ft 12,594 sq/ft
Year 15 (2007) 18,000 sq/ft 12,500 sq/ft
Year 16 (2008) 35,000 sq/ft 17,938 sq/ft
Year 17 (2009) 30,000 sq/ft 13,056 sq/ft
Year 18 (2010) 20,000 sq/ft 6,355 sq/ft
Year 19 (2011) 20,000 sq/ft 6,116 sq/ft
Year 20 (2012) 44,700 sq/ft 8,234 sq./ft
Year 21 (2013) 44,700 sq/ft 2,500 sq/ft
Year 22 (2014) 47, 083 sq/ft 7,395 sq/ft
Year 23 (2015) 47, 083 sq/ft 2,484 sq/ft
Year 24 (2016) 47, 083 sq/ft 1,756 sq/ft
Year 25 (2017) 47, 083 sq/ft 3,558 sq/ft
Year 26 (2018) 47, 083 sq/ft 15,678 sq/ft
Year 27 (2019) 47, 083 sq/ft 11,092 sq/ft
Year 28 (2020) 47, 083 sq/ft 298 sq/ft
Year 29 (2021) 47, 083 sq/ft 10,995 sq/ft
NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other protected species and the USFWS issued
Incidental Take Permit (ITP). Annually the amount of new nonresidential floor area allocated to
the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is 2,390 square feet. A summary of allocations in these
environmentally sensitive keys is shown below.
NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR BIG PINE/NO NAME KEYS
YEAR 15 2007 -YEAR 29 2021
Year Available Number of Total Allocations
Applicants Awarded
Year 15 (2007) 9,082 sq/ft 2 5,000 sq/ft
Year 16 (2008) 0 sq/ft 2 3,809 sq/ft
Year 17 (2009) 5,000 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
Year 18 (2010) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
Year 19 (2011) 2,390 sq/ft 0 384 sq/ft
Year 20 (2012) 2,390 sq/ft 4 7,500 sq/ft
Year 21 (2013) 6,729 sq/ft 3 5,240 sq/ft
Year 22 (2014) 2,390 sq/ft 1 1,O1 lsq/ft
Year 23 (2015) 2,390 sq/ft 2 728 sq/ft
Year 24 (2016) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
23
Exhibit
Year 25 (2017) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
Year 26 (2018) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
Year 27 (2019) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
Year 28 (2020) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
Year 29 (2021) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft
BUILDING PERMIT DATA
There were 5,620 dwelling units that received a building permit from January 1,2000,to December
31, 2020. Of these units, approximately 86.6 percent were single family homes and 7.8 percent
were mobile homes and recreational vehicles (RV). An average of 268 new and replacement
dwelling units per year were permitted from 2000 to 2020. Of the 5,620 dwelling unit permits issued,
2,324 were the result of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the 5,620 dwelling units permits issued, a
total of 5,207 dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy.
RESIDENTIAL/TRANSIENT BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
JANUARY 1, 2000-DECEMBER 31, 2020
Mobile Total Permits
Single Multi Hotel/ Issued Received
Year Family Duplex Family Home/ Motel Permits Under CO
RV Issued ROGO
January 1,2000- 169 0 35 49 34 287 92 372
December 31,2000
January 1,2001- 153 0 13 55 1 222 118 261
December 31,2001
January 1,2002- 200 0 16 47 1 264 181 243
December 31,2002
January 1,2003- 228 0 12 38 28 306 161 290
December 31,2003
January 1,2004- 241 0 54 29 0 324 105 288
December 31,2004
January 1,2005- 361 8 2 28 0 399 160 288
December 31,2005
January 1,2006- 376 0 2 14 0 392 198 289
December 31,2006
January 1,2007- 380 0 0 13 0 393 103 317
December 31,2007
January 1,2008- 168 1 3 12 0 184 45 236
December 31,2008
January 1,2009- 197 0 0 4 0 201 4 140
December 31,2009
January 1,2010- 222 0 0 5 1 228 5 137
December 31,2010
January 1,2011- 162 0 0 2 0 164 165 202
December 31,2011
January 1,2012- 109 0 12 7 0 128 175 218
December 31,2012
January 1,2013- 174 0 0 25 0 199 103 144
December 31,2013
January 1,2014- 256 0 1 46 0 303 93 195
December 31,2014
January 1,2015- 209 0 44 27 1 281 197 267
December 31,2015
24
Exhibit
January 1,2016- 252 0 4 12 1 269 165 226
December 31,2016
January 1,2017- 199 0 28 4 1 232 67 232
December 31,2017
January 1,2018- 302 0 9 7 0 318 64 226
December 31,2018
January 1,2019- 293 0 1 5 0 299 70 319
December 31,2019
January 1,2020- 216 0 4 7 0 227 123 317
December 31,2020
TOTAL 4,867 9 240 436 68 5,620 2,324 5,207
Source:Monroe County Growth Management,August 2021
A total of 4,057 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 to December 31, 2020. The highest
demolition rate occurred in years 2018 and 2019 with 693 units demolished,presumably in response
to damage incurred by Hurricane Irma in September, 2017. An average of 193 dwelling units were
demolished per year between 2000 and 2020. At this time it is not possible to determine, whether a
demolition was for a single family, a mobile home, etc.
HOUSING DEMOLITION PERMITS
Year Residential
Demolitions
January 1, 2000-December 31, 2000 98
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2001 157
January 1, 2002-December 31, 2002 140
January 1, 2003-December 31, 2003 143
January 1, 2004-December 31, 2004 218
January 1, 2005-December 31, 2005 341
January 1, 2006-December 31, 2006 336
January 1, 2007-December 31, 2007 241
January 1, 2008-December 31, 2008 146
January 1, 2009-December 31, 2009 129
January 1, 2010-December 31, 2010 239
January 1, 2011-December 31, 2011 96
January 1, 2012-December 31, 2012 106
January 1, 2013-December 31, 2013 120
January 1, 2014-December 31, 2014 132
January 1, 2015-December 31, 2015 140
January 1, 2016-December 31, 2016 152
January 1, 2017-December 31, 2017 262
January 1, 2018-December 31, 2018 348
January 1, 2019-December 31, 2019 345
January 1, 2020-December 31, 2020 180
TOTAL 4,057
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, August 2021
25
Exhibit
IL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Roads are one of the critical public facilities identified for biennial assessment in the Monroe
County Land Development(LDC). The Comprehensive Plan and LDC regulations require U.S. 1
to remain at a LOS C or higher and that all county roads to remain at a LOS D or higher. The
Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary
roads within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT)is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1.
Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies of U.S. 1 on an annual or biennial
basis since 1991. The data collection for years 1991 through 1996 was conducted by the Monroe
County Planning Department, with assistance from the Monroe County Engineering Department,
and the Florida Department of Transportation. URS has collected the data for years 1997 through
2017, on behalf of the Monroe County Planning Department with assistance from the agencies
identified above. Beginning in 2019, data for the biennial US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay
Study has been collected by AECOM, the County's current transportation consultant.
The following are the travel time/delay data and findings from the 2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time
and Delay Study.
The U.S.1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study's primary objective is to monitor the level of
service on U.S. 1 for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163,Florida Statutes
and Section 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Code. The study utilizes an empirical
relationship between the volume-based capacities and the speed-based LOS methodology
developed for U.S. 1 in Monroe County, by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force.
A county-imposed building moratorium results when the measured speeds of a segment OR the
overall travel speeds of the entire U.S. 1 fall below the adopted level of service thresholds; segment
level failure results in building moratorium specific to the area served by that particular segment
and the overall failure would result in a countywide moratorium. Although there has never been a
countywide moratorium, Big Pine Key between 1994 and 2002 experienced a localized
development moratorium. Due to the significant role of this study in the County's growth
management process, the accuracy of data collection and the results of this study are significant.
U.S. 1 (the Overseas Highway)is the only principal arterial serving people and visitors in the Keys.
The unique geography, land use patterns and trip making characteristics of the Florida Keys
present a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable method to assess LOS.
Although U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys is predominantly an uninterrupted-flow, two-lane roadway,
its uniqueness warrants an alternative LOS evaluation process than found in the Highway Capacity
Manual.
A uniform method was developed in 1993 and amended December 1997 and February 2021 by
the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to assess the level of service on U.S. 1. The adopted
method considers both the overall level of service from Key West to the mainland and the level of
service on 24 selected segments (See Table 1). The methodology was developed from basic
criteria and principles contained in Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two-
Lane Highways) and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of Highway Capacity Manual.
The methodology establishes a procedure for using travel speeds as a means of assessing the level
of service and reserve capacity of U.S. 1 in the unique setting of the Florida Keys.
26
Exhibit
The travel speeds for the entire 108-mile stretch of U.S. 1 and the 24 individual segments are
established by conducting travel time runs during the peak season. The peak season, for the
purpose of this study, has been established by the task force as the six-week window beginning
the second week of February and ending the fourth week of March.
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of the Keys between Key West
and Miami-Dade County. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced by long distance trips
or traffic traveling the entire length of the Keys. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in
unincorporated Monroe County, the movement of long distance traffic is an important
consideration.
Monroe County has adopted a LOS C Standard for U.S. 1. Further, 45 mph has been adopted as
the LOS C Standard for the entire length of U.S. 1 regardless of the posted speed limits. Under
the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for U.S. 1 falls below the LOS C
Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed in the Florida Keys.
Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The segments were
defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross-sections, speed limits, and geographical
boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S.
1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important
consideration on this multi purpose highway.
A comparison of average posted speed limits and the average travel speeds for individual segments
leads to the level of service on the respective segments along U.S. 1. The difference between the
segment travel speeds and the LOS C Standard is called reserve speed. The reserve speed is
converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volumes and corresponding
additional development. If the travel speed falls below the LOS C Standard, additional trips
equivalent to 5% of LOS C capacity are allowed, to accommodate a limited amount of land
development to continue until traffic speeds are measured again during the next biennial study or
until remedial actions are implemented.
Table 1
U.S. 1 Segments and Mile Markers
Segment Mile Segment Segment Mile Segment
Number Marker Name Number Marker Name
1 4-5 Stock Island 13 47-54 Marathon
2 5-9 Boca Chica 14 54-60.5 Grassy
3 9-10.5 Big Coppitt 15 60.5-63 Duck
4 10.5-16.5 Saddlebunch 16 63-73 Long
5 16.5-20.5 Sugarloaf 17 73-77.5 Lower Matecumbe
6 20.5-23 Cudjoe 18 77.5-79.5 Tea Table
7 23-25 Summerland 19 79.5-84 Upper Matecumbe
8 25-27.5 Ramrod 20 84-86 Windley
9 27.5-29.5 Torch 21 86-91.5 Plantation
10 29.5-33 Big Pine 22 91.5-99.5 Tavernier
11 33-40 Bahia Honda 23 99.5-106 Key Largo
12 40-47 7-Mile Bridge 24 106-112.5 Cross Key
27
Exhibit
The travel time, delay, and distance data were collected by AECOM staff. The data were recorded
by date, day of the week, time of the day, and direction. The field data collection took place
between March 7, 2021, and March 20, 2021. Fourteen(14)round trips were made to successfully
complete the twenty-eight(28)required northbound and southbound runs. These runs represent a
sample of two runs of each day of the week. Every one of the twenty-eight travel time run data
sheets was quality checked. The seven-day, 24-hour traffic data were collected in Islamorada,
Marathon, and Big Pine Key from March 15, 2021,to March 21, 2021, concurrently with the travel
time runs.
Traffic Volumes
U.S. 1 is predominately a four-lane facility in Marathon and a two-lane facility in Upper
Matecumbe and Big Pine Key. Seven-day continuous traffic counts recorded at three locations
along U.S. 1 yielded the following average daily traffic (ADT) and annual average daily traffic
(AADT)volumes for 2021. These volumes for 5-day and 7-day are averages of the raw volumes
counted. The volumes have been adjusted using 2019 seasonal and axle factors to estimate the
2021 AADT's. The traffic counts were recorded between March 15, 2021, to March 21, 2021.
LOCATION 5-DAY ADT 7-DAY ADT AADT
Big Pine Key MM 29 22,799 22,009 19,427
Marathon MM 50 38,262 36,739 32,430
Upper Matecumbe MM 84 26,152 26,908 23,751
The 2021 AADT increased in Bi Pine (1.99%) and Upper Matecumbe (3.07%) Keys but
decreased in Marathon Key (-6.300/0� compared to 2017.
Similarly, the 2021 AADT increased in Big Pine (3.59%) and Upper Matecumbe (6.48%) Keys
but decreased in Marathon Key (-11.67%) as compared to 2019. A detailed historical comparison
of the US 1 traffic counts for the period from 1996 to 2021 is presented in Appendix D. A
comparison of the most recent data (2009 to 2021) is presented in a Table and graph on pages
29 and 30, respectively.
US 1 historical traffic growth is depicted in a regression analysis on page 31. A linear regression
analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last 25 years indicates that there is
a slight increase in overall traffic growth at the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe count locations,
and an overall decreasing trend in traffic volumes for the Big Pine count location (but the last
13-year data shows an increasing trend).
28
0 N r- o 0 0
U 44
N
C) a,
N s
N N NNN O (O O
Z)O N lI�!�
a'
N N � 00 (D N (O (O (h
U N N (h (h (h N N N (a
z
s
a
Z)
o o o 0 0 0 0 0
o (6 ON N N N O N
N O 6 00 (O a
U
o a
N
0 V cli_ � O Lr � W 0LO 000 (`1)
O N 00 (h N (O (f) L6 N
U N N V V m N N N h
J
OR
O
N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I(/ o m O (h V V 00 O 000 O 00
� U
A-I °
o
N N 0) V 00 (h O 0) N V
C
O0 O � N O (h N (O (f) O
U N N N N N N N N
N
0 0 0 ( 0 ( 0 0 0
o m 000 N W N V N V
~ 00
U
0
N
N N O N V r O
(..) Z) 00 00 N O 00 O
O
U N N ON N N N N N N
l� N _
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z o
(,) U
O o
N _
0 I� � N N
� N O N O (O N
C1400 N NNOC (V N N Nro
rr
FBI
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
l�I o m 00 V) 00 O � 0) r- O
N N (O (O 0 O Q
U
N
O V O N ON !� 0 O
U N ON N N N N N N
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 00 W
W W � N �m 00 N � (O (O
O 00 I�
U
0
N
00(0 O- 00 N 0) 00 N O
V O (C O Il (h N O
O
U ON ON N (h N N N N
�, N �,N i S3 �, N �, N
m O) m O) H 0 m O) m O) H d E (6 O) (6 O) H
mLO cc � Q 1—
O
M
----------------------
� w
a
Ilpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpllpll �
a
ILI)
-----------------
U
V i
r i S£5 t i z
Iv�l still str 4'}st E \ >>is'i'i£tst t5 it??4{l l)j i't`t1't)t\£r£ `11
OL �
VA
A �
d
`��. ..... �1 �} i£ l IIIIIIINIP �� I
i
wwwwww s�l�l1;�?}ttil��tt\��I£�`��st�lt£ ai�i7£ � �rs1°ssssssssss,�§.''�s �'
i
�l} r All
CA
C3 C.3 ci U C3 U, ci
0 0 � ci
to ti a
a c:i, u
a ownp34 l.1
rn
Fj
ej
0 co
Fj
C-4
ak
ri
rA
rp
CD
r,j
CD
4 4
rj
El
CL
cn
0), n cn 111) f"t CA C�j 111-4 C',j
VaPI40A)J,aVV
Overall Speeds
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of US 1 in the Keys between
Key West and Miami-Dade County line. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced during
long distance or through trips. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in Monroe County,
the movement of through traffic is an important consideration.
The levels of service (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County, as adopted by
the Task Force, are as follows:
LOS A 51.0 mph or above
LOS B 50.9 mph to 48 mph
LOS C 47.9 mph to 45 mph
LOS D 44.9 mph to 42 mph
LOS E 41.9 mph to 36 mph
LOS F below 36 mph
The overall median speed during the 2021 ATTDS was 45.5 mph,which is 0.9 mph higher than the
2019 median speed of 44.6 mph, and 0.5 mph lower than the 2017 median speed of 46 mph. The
median speed corresponds to LOS C. The highest overall speed recorded during the 14-day
ATTDS was 49.6 mph(0.9 mph lower than the 2019 highest overall speed of 50.5 mph), which
occurred on Monday, March 15, 2021 in the southbound direction. The lowest overall speed
recorded was 35.5 mph(2.3 mph lower than the 2019 lowest overall speed of 37.8 mph), which
occurred on Saturday, March 20, 2021 in the southbound direction.
Segment Speeds
Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The segments were
defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross-sections, speed limits, and geographical
boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S.
1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important
consideration on this multipurpose highway.
The level of service criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County depends on the flow
characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. The criteria, listed by type
of flow characteristic, are summarized below.
Interrupted Flow
LOS A>_ 35 mph
LOS B>_ 28 mph
LOS C>_ 22 mph
LOS D>_ 17 mph
LOS E>_ 13 mph
LOS F < 13mph
32
Exhibit
Uninterrupted Flow
LOS A 1.5 mph above speed limit
LOS B 1.5 mph below speed limit
LOS C 4.5 mph below speed limit
LOS D 7.5 mph below speed limit
LOS E 13.5 mph below speed limit
LOS F more than 13.5 mph below speed limit
For all "uninterrupted" segments containing isolated traffic signals, the travel times were reduced
by 35 seconds per signalized intersection and 3 seconds per pedestrian signal to account for delay
due to signals. The Marathon and the Stock Island segments are considered "interrupted" flow
facilities, which are evaluated using the interrupted flow LOS criteria shown above. Therefore, no
adjustments (to account for delay at signals)were made to travel times in these segments.
The segment limits, median travel speeds, and Level of Service (for 2017 and 2021) for each
segment are presented in Figure 3. The median segment speed ranged from 59.9 mph in the Boca
Chica segment to 34.7 mph in the Plantation segment. The following is a summary of LOS
changes, as compared to 2017:
LOS A LOS B LOS, LOS a LO�
+) 9,tDGk Island(l) Plantation (21) {- indley ( 0) 0 MateGumbe(1
Ramrod (8) Cross ( 4
f+ Big Pine(10)
Bahia Honda(11)
Tea T&e(18)
Compared to 2017 results, the median segment speeds increased in 13 of the 24 segments,ranging
between 0.2 mph and 10.6 mph, and decreased in 11 segments, ranging from-0.1 mph to-5.8 mph.
The largest increase in speed (+10.6 mph) was recorded in Segment# 1 (Stock Island -MM 4.0
to MM 5.0); The largest reduction in speed (-5.8 mph) was recorded in Segment# 21 (Plantation
-MM 86.0 to MM 91.5).
Compared to 2019 results, the LOS increased in seven of the 24 segments, and decreased in two
segments. The LOS did not change in the remaining segments. The most significant LOS changes
recorded in Segments # 18 (Tea Table - MM 77.5 to MM 79.5; LOS changed from `D' to LOS
`A'), #20(Windley-MM 84.0 to MM 86.0;LOS changed from `D' to LOS `C'), #21 (Plantation
-MM 86.0 to MM 91.5; LOS changed from `D' to LOS `C'), # 16 (Long-MM 63.0 to MM 73.0;
LOS changed from B' to LOS `C'), and # 24 (Cross - MM 106.0 to MM 112.5; LOS changed
from B' to LOS `C').
Compared to 2019 results, the median segment speeds increased in 15 of the 24 segments,ranging
between 0.3 mph and 7.0 mph, and decreased in nine segments, ranging from -0.1 mph to -2.1
mph. The largest increase in speed (+7.0 mph) was recorded in Segment# 1 (Stock Island-MM
33
Exhibit
4.0 to MM 5.0); The largest reduction in speed (-2.1 mph)was recorded in Segment# 16 (Long—
MM 63.0 to MM 73.0).
Reserve Capacities
The difference between the median speed and the LOS C Standard speed gives the reserve
speed, which in turn can be converted to an estimated reserve capacity. The overall median
speed of 45.5 mph compared to the LOS C standard of 45 mph results in a positive overall
reserve speed of 0.5 mph. This reserve speed is converted into an estimated number of reserve
trips using the formula below:
Reserve Volume = Reserve Speed x K x Overall Length
Trip Length
Reserve Volume = Reserve speed x 1656 daily trips/mph x 112 miles
10 miles
Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of US 1 individually gives
maximum reserve volumes for all segments totaling 105,865 trips. These individual
reserve volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraint imposed by the overall reserve
volume.
County regulations and MOT policy allow segments that fail to meet the LOS C
standards to receive an allocation not to exceed five percent below the LOS C standard. The
so-called five percent allocations were calculated for such segments as follows:
5% Allocation= (median speed - 95% of LOS C)x 1656 x Length
Trip Length
In 2021, there were two (2) segments identified to be functioning below the LOS C threshold -
Upper Matecumbe (Segment#19) and Windley (Segment#20). Both segments are in the Village
of Islamorada.
The two segments identified above have depleted their reserve capacities, leaving -2,187 trips in
Upper Matecumbe (Segment#19) and 271 trips in Windley (Segment#20)based on the 5%
below LOS C allocation.
The table on page 34 details the segment levels of service and reserve capacity values for each
segment.
34
Ln
ry)
w
w
cc
1c; pq
10 10
Cox co-, as wi
to aka10
-j m A7'
Cj in
m cr, 19 "1 TM 11,1110, cn ;z -z
4, 1-5
0
ti
0 LU
W CN C5 0 a
a W
LLJ UJ `11 t- FD (-j �r ko fn d� cl) 't r- 0 C�4 - a-, C%f
0 a- P-- U5 � "i . . I
—E U6 r4 d Nt6 -7 ry m m cv c�
w
ui
< ccl < L) -)M<,ujl= u It u
cl
z
4 1> ul -T � goo 01 '0 W P-- C9 Ili 14, 0 N t-A 0 cq f- �
tu 25 kq
0
wi ul to LO r5 IT %t
LLI
en uj 7 q ri I Ul) LQ 1p 01 ay 0 U 0 ) ch 0 U) A,'b Lr� W 0 LT,U, u
0 0 0 40
CA C6 uM 00 0, '4 0 r,R o
LL u 'It CA "I U-) IT 'VI to 11 W,
0
21 �Z� :Ii :,t 2 2�11 4,6
>
cq
Cl ED, c.]W� U) V-- 0. wp Cl wi F-
ei , Ws
ri U"J t6
0 wra U', V n 4, -f, f U'b
u- ul? n d M Ul) trp Af) 'A
�j I -� ') `� U, L
(h Lp Ln Ln to �4 C�j
u E?,I
�11 �t T W
U.
4 4 rk�4 rf r,4 C-4 c,g r a c
!4 q,--i 4 e-4 r-4 -4 v4 e,,4 cA C,4 c,4, Ci ej ry 4 4 c-v
I, U) a;, 0 U'j c"I Mi r- U) U) CIA w 0 w C'!
r� c"i ri e,,i (",I r-- w "i, c,j -i CA, 4 v',' w- W" 14)
ir) C6
0, 401
(D
LIJ
W) IM (2 E w 4,Pi f, u C2
A
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the 2021 Travel Time and Delay Study results as compared to the
2017 Travel Time and Delay Study:
a) The average traffic volumes have increased in Big Pine (2.00%) and Upper Matecumbe
(3.07%)Keys but have decreased in Marathon Key (-6.30%) as compared to 2017.
b) The overall travel speed on US 1 based on the 2021 study is 45.5 mph, which is 0.5 mph
lower than the 2017 overall travel speed.
c) As compared to the 2017 data, the median travel speeds in 13 of the 24 segments have
increased. They are:
- Stock Island (+10.6 mph) -Torch (+1.1 mph)
- Boca Chica (+6. mph) -Big Pine (+ . mph)
- Big Coppitt (+0.9 mph) _Bahia Honda (+1.1 mph)
-Saddlebunch (+0.2 mph) _ Marathon (+1. mph)
-Sugarloaf(+0. mph) - Tavernier (+2.0 mph)
ummerland (+1.1 mph) Key Largo (+0.6 mph)
-Ramrod (+ . mph)
Median travel speeds in 11 segments have decreased. They are.-
- pCud oe (-0.3 mph) - L Matecumbe (-1.6 mph) - village of Islamona a
. '-Idle Bride -11.1 m h -Tea Table -1.0 m ph -village of l lasnorada
- Grass -6.2 mph) -U Matecumbe - ,9 mph) -village of lslarnorada
- Duck -0.1 mph) -Windle -1.7 mph),-vlllarie of lsiamorad
- Long (-0.6 mph) - Plantation (-6.6 mph)-Village of lsiamorada
Cross - .6 mph)
d) As compared to the 2017 study, there are LOS changes in nine of the 24 segments - the
LOS for five segments have improved, and the LOS for four segments have degraded.
e) Segment#19 (Upper Matecumbe -MM 79.5 -MM 84.0) changed from LOS `D' to `E'.
Segment#20 (Windley-MM 84.0-MM 86.0)LOS changed from LOS `C' to `D'. These
two segments have no reserve capacity and should be given special attention.
f) There were two drawbridge delay events during the 2021 study (accounted for 12 minutes,
with an average delay of 6 minutes), as compared to no drawbridge delay events during the
2017 study.
g) There were 10 construction delay events in 2021 (accounted for 2 hours 14 minutes and
56 seconds), as compared to no construction delay events in 2017.
36
Exhibit
h) There were 124 signal related delay events in 2021, resulting in 1 hour and 8 seconds of
delay, as compared to 2 hours 10 minutes and 29 seconds in 2017. The signal delay events
contributed to an average of 2 minutes and 9 seconds of delay per trip, which is lower than
the 2017 average signal delay per trip of 4 minutes and 30 seconds.
i) Segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given particular
attention when approving development applications. Based on the 2021 study,there are six
segments in this category (same number of segments as in the 2017 study).
j - Duck (MM 60.5-MM 63.0) j -Windley (84.0-86.0) j
Lori (MM 63.0-MM 73. ) -Plantation (86.0-91. ) �
L. Matecumbe (MM 73.0-MM 77.5) �Cross (MM 106.0-MM 112.5) --------
U. Matecumbe (MM 79.5-MM 84.0)�-----------------------------------'
Following is a summary of the 2021 Travel Time and Delay Study results compared to the 2019
Travel Time and Delay Study:
a) The average traffic volumes have increased in Big Pine (3.59%) and Upper Matecumbe
(6.48%)Keys but have decreased in Marathon Key (-11.67%) as compared to 2019.
b) The overall travel speed on US 1 based on the 2021 study is 45.5 mph, which is 0.9 mph
higher than the 2019 overall travel speed.
c) As compared to the 2019 data, the median travel speeds in 15 of the 24 segments have
increased. They are:
- Stock Island (+7.0 mph) - Big Pine (+0. mph)
-Boca Chica (+4.1 mph) - Bahia Honda (+0.6 mph)
- Big Co itt +1.4 m - Marathon +1.7 mph)
-Saddlebunch +1.5 mph) -Grass _ +0.7 mph)
-Sugarloaf +0.7 mph) -Windle +2.3 mph)-Village of Islamorada
-Cudioe +0.7 rn h - Tavernier +2.5 mph)
-Surnmerland +0.9 mph) - Key Largo +0.8 mph)
-Torch (+0.7 mph)
Median travel speeds in 9 segments have decreased. They are:
- ramrod -0.2 mph) - L Matecumbe -1.4 mph) -Village of Islamorada
-7-Mile Bridge -0.2 mph) -Tea Table -0.3 mph) -Village of Islamorada
- Duck -0.1 mph) U Matecumbe -1.1 mph) -Village of Islamorada
- Lon -2.1 mph) - Plantation -0.6 mph)-village of Islamorada
-Cross -1.1 mph)
d) As compared to the 2019 study, there are LOS changes in nine of the 24 segments-the
LOS for seven segments have improved, and the LOS for two segments have degraded.
37
Exhibit
e) Segment# 20 (Windley —MM 84.0 —MM 86.0)LOS changed from LOS `E' to `D'. The
LOS for Segment#19 (Upper Matecumbe—MM 79.5 —MM 84.0) remained at LOS `E'.
These two segments have no reserve capacity and should be given special attention.
f) There were two drawbridge delay events during the 2021 study, the same as the 2019
study. Drawbridge delays accounted for 12 minutes, with an average delay of 6 minutes.
g) There were 10 construction delay events in 2021 (accounted for 2 hours 14 minutes and
56 seconds), as compared to one construction delay event(accounted for 9 minutes and
55 seconds)in 2019.
h) There were 124 signal related delay events in 2021, resulting in 1 hour and 8 seconds of
delay, as compared to 1 hour 51 minutes and 49 seconds in 2019. The signal delay events
contributed to 2 minutes and 9 seconds of delay per trip on an average, which is lower
when compared to the 2019 average signal delay per trip of 4 minutes.
The following is a list of considerations for review:
1) Under the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for US 1 falls below the
LOS C Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed unless mitigation
measures are implemented. Roadway widening is a typical mitigation measure (or capacity
improvement) used by most agencies. However, in Monroe County, road widening
(specifically along US 1)is restricted by the adopted comprehensive plan policies to preserve
and protect the fragile ecological conditions. There are other remedies that could be explored
and evaluated to improve the traffic flow and capacity along US 1. Some examples include:
• Upgrade the traffic signal infrastructure and/or signal timing at signalized intersections
along US 1 to enhance traffic flow.
• Provide or improve transit service or other multi-modal transportation alternatives.
• Implement active traffic management and Transportation System Management &
Operation type improvements, which include real-time monitoring of traffic flow and
implementing measures to address traffic congestion.
• Add turn lanes at strategic locations to improve roadway capacity.
• Implement access management improvements (consolidate driveways/access points,
modify median openings, etc.)to reduce interruptions to US 1 traffic.
• Provide and/or improve frontage roads to reduce the impacts to US 1 traffic flow. Improve
local roads to minimize US 1 being used as a local street for short trips.
• Do not allow new traffic signals along US 1, if a safe and/or less restrictive alternative
(such as indirect left-turns, a roundabout, etc.) can be provided to accommodate traffic
movements.
38
Exhibit
• Conduct speed studies on selected segments of US 1 to confirm if the current posted speed
limits are correct and modify, if necessary.
2) This is the first Travel Time and Delay Study conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic. The
traffic volumes were observed to increase in some areas and decrease in other areas, as
compared to 2019 and 2017 studies. Therefore, the travel time impacts due to the pandemic
appear to be very minimal.
U.S. 1 is a state maintained roadway. Therefore, any modifications/improvements to U.S. 1 have
to be developed in collaboration with the Florida Department of Transportation.
CONCURRENCY REVIEW - TRANSPORTATION/ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all
development and redevelopment taking place within unincorporated Monroe County do not result
in a reduction of the level of service requirements, including transportation facilities. The Monroe
County Comprehensive Plan and LDC have adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roads,
particularly US Highway 1, which is part of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
State Highway System.
Policy 301.1.2
For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as
measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on U.S. 1 shall
be maintained within five percent(5%) of LOS C.
Sec. 114-2. -Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures.
(a)Level of Service Standards (LOS). All development shall be served by adequate public
facilities in accordance with the following standards:
(1) Transportation/Roadways.
a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall
arterial length and the 24 roadway segments of U.S. 1, as measured by the U.S.
1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway
segments. In addition, all segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of
Service Task Force Methodology, which would be impacted by a proposed
development's access to U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate
at LOS C.
b. Development may be approved, provided that the development in combination
with all other permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than
five percent (5%) below LOS C, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service
Task Force Methodology. While development may be approved within 5% of
LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact that
needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the form of specific
improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements and
strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service
39
Exhibit
degradation beyond LOS C and/or deficiencies.
This LOS standard is used within the County's Concurrency Management System to review
development proposals and ensure that the transportation facilities needed to serve development
will be in place when the impacts of the development occur; to evaluate any potential degradation
in the adopted LOS; and to determine the need for improvements in order to achieve and maintain
the adopted LOS standard.
Policy 101.1.5
Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place when the
impacts of the development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure that the
adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement
of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable
commitment to the County to assure construction or improvement of proportionate share
of required improvements, or to assure the provision of the proportionate share contribution
of the costs for the necessary transportation facilities. The development of a single family
residential unit shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement.
Policy 301.2.3
Monroe County shall not permit new development which would significantly degrade the
LOS below the adopted LOS standards on U.S. 1 (overall) unless the proportionate share
of the impact is mitigated. The development of one single family residential unit, on a
single parcel, shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement.
A five percent projected decrease in travel speeds, below LOS C, is a significant
degradation in the level of service on U.S. 1. Traffic volume which exceeds the LOS D
standard by more than five percent is a significant degradation in the level of service on
any other County road.
Although the 2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study shows that overall US 1 and all
segments within unincorporated Monroe County are operating at a LOS C or greater, per LDC
Section 114-2, concurrency review for proposed development within the unincorporated county
takes into account all other permitted development since the time of the 2021 study as well.
Development may only be approved if the proposed development in combination with all other
permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent(5%)below LOS
C for the overall length of US 1 or for any individual segment. While development may be
approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact
that needs mitigation. Concurrency must be satisfied at the time a development permit is issued;
at the time a certificate of occupancy; or through a binding contract or agreement for the necessary
facility and/or service improvements or proportionate share contribution.
40
Exhibit
III. POTABLE WATER
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA)is the sole provider of potable water in the Florida
Keys. FKAA's primary water supply is the Biscayne Aquifer, a shallow groundwater source. The
FKAA's wellfield is located within an environmentally protected pine rockland forest west of
Florida City. The location of the wellfield near Everglades National Park, along with restrictions
enforced by state and local regulatory agencies, contributes to the unusually high water quality.
These wells contain some of the highest quality groundwater in the state, meeting all regulatory
standards prior to treatment. Additionally, the FKAA is continually monitoring, assessing, and
working to eliminate potential hazards to our water source, including inappropriate aquifer
utilization, unsuitable land uses, and the potential for saltwater intrusion.
The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the FKAA's Water Treatment Facility in Florida
City, which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8 million gallons per
day (MGD). The primary water treatment process is a conventional lime softening/filtration water
treatment plant and is capable of treating up to 23.8 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer. The
secondary water treatment process is the newly constructed Reverse Osmosis water treatment plant
which is capable of producing 6 MGD from the brackish Floridan Aquifer. The product water
from these treatment processes is then disinfected and fluoridated. The FKAA treated water is
pumped 130 miles from Florida City to Key West supplying water to the entire Florida Keys.
The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of 45.2
million gallons system wide. The sizes of tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million gallons. These tanks
are utilized during periods of peak water demand and serve as an emergency water supply. Since
the existing transmission line serves the entire Florida Keys (including Key West), and storage
capacity is an integral part of the system, the capacity of the entire system must be considered
together, rather than in separate service districts.
Also, the two saltwater Reserve Osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock Island and Marathon, are
available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants have
design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MGD, respectively.
At present,Key West and Ocean Reef are the only areas of the County served by a flow of potable
water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of water sources,
including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting sites on the open water or
from specially constructed fire wells. Although sufficient flow to fight fires is not guaranteed in
the County, new hydrants are being installed as water lines are replaced to make water available
for fire-fighting purposes and pump station/tank facilities are being upgraded to provide additional
fire flow and pressure. A map of the key FKAA transmission and distribution facilities is shown
in Figure 3.1.
41
Exhibit A
MR.IDA-KEYS--AQ EDUCT...AUTHORITY
..
Figure 3.1 TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTI0N
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
45.2 MG STORAGE CAPACITY
5, FLORIDA CITY
o�, RN
14. OCEAN REEF-
2 15 H?PUMPS
N6 NO R.0 NEA7MrNT
500 HP PUMPS 0
1,2 KEY WEST y P PUMPS
Mn
2 N HP ftmn 7 HP DIESE,"INtNCY BACKUP
KEY LARGO
lr sRA,T.U.z- MARATHON %2
pPUumIm JFZ 40 HP PM I1
2- STOCK ISLAND UAP
2. TAVERNIER
'U-- 9. VACA_QV !N-I
jJ F2 5 HIP
n1w, 43, ROCK
RAMROD KEY HARBOR 5 we
1
I Mj PUMP
P W PU I 10, CRAW
-6� BIG PINE KEY L KE" M He PUMP
P 1 M —2 75 HP RIM 2 X HP PUMPS
5. 51111M1RILAND KEY DIXK KEY
..PUMPS � 11, 15LAMORADA
IIIIAINIINT 1111 2 75 HP PUMP
ty
72'75 MARAT LONG KEY RQe%ERaW MP
4 BIG COPPITT KEY HON
LITTLE'VENICE '"""D —LAYTON 066 MOO,.
WIN TREATMENT PLANT WW TREATMENT PLANT
BAY POINT D54 MG 7. MARATH rj9l 5T MARATHON
WW TREATMENT PLAIT N HP PuwPS
BUGS ER WATION 2 HP PUMPS
1&W W PUMPS
-'STOCK ISLAND TRANMISSION BACKPUMPING CAPABILITIE!
3 STOCK ISLAND(DESAL) MARATHON (1)-5 MIS TANK
'M W P-,
M STOCK ISLAND (3)-5 MG TANKS
STOCK ISLAND DESAL (1)-5 MG TANK
Demand for Potable Water
The Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provides an overview of the water demands in the FKAA service area
including Water Use Permit(WLIP)allocation limits,yearly percent changes, and remaining water
allocations. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the
FKAA's modification of WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and
Floridan Aquifers. As shown in Figure 3.5, the WLIP provides an annual allocation of 8,751
Million Gallons (MG) or 23.98 MGD and a maximum monthly allocation of 809.01 MG with a
limited annual withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer of 6,492 MG
In order to meet the requirements of this limitation,the FKAA constructed a new Floridan Aquifer
Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment system. This RO water treatment system is designed to
withdraw brackish water from the Floridan Aquifer, an alternative water source approximately
1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat the water to drinking water standards. The RO
water treatment plant provides added capability to limit Biscayne aquifer withdrawals and is
designed to meet current and future water demands. The RO water treatment system provides an
additional 6.0 MGD of potable water.
Along with the new reverse osmosis water treatment plant, compliance with withdrawal limits can
also be accomplished by using other alternative water sources (blending of the Floridan Aquifer,
42
Exhibit A
reclaimed water and operation of the RO desalination plants), pressure reduction, public outreach,
and assistance from municipal agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances.
Figure 3.2. Annual Water Withdrawals 2002-2019
Annual WUP Limit WUP+/-Annual
Year Withdrawal %Change (MG) Allocation(MG)
(MG)
2002 6,191 10.03% 7,274 1,083
2003 6,288 1.57% 7,274 986
2004 6,383 2.74% 7,274 813
2005 6,477 0.16% 7,274 803
2006 6,283 -2.49% 7,274 964
2007 5,850 -7.35% 7,274 1,428
2008 5,960 1.89% 8,751 2,791
2009 5,966 0.09% 8,751 2,785
2010 5,919 -0.79% 8,751 2,832
2011 6,327 6.89% 8,751 2,424
2012 6,042 -4.50% 8,751 2,709
2013 6,105 1.04% 8,751 2,646
2014 6,377 4.46% 8,751 2,374
2015 6,530 2.40% 8,751 2,221
2016 6,462 -1.04% 8,751 2,289
2017 6,324 -2.13% 8,751 2,427
2018 6,526 3.10% 8,751 2,225
2019 6,809 4.16 8,751 1,942
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2021
43
Exhibit
Figure 3.3. 2020-2021 Potable Water Demand Summary
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
Potable Water Demand Summary-New Water Demand,Actual Water Demand,and Expected Water Demand
Year-2020 Year-2020 Year2021
New Water Service- Metered Water-GallonslYear Actual Water Demand- Expected Water Demand
Municipality Gallansrl'ear Gallons7Year` -GalionslYear
Unincorporated Monroe County 1,568,600 2,258 801 352 2,933,092,284 2934,660,984
City of Key West 1,227,500 1.494.197,833 1940,241,505 1 941469,005
City of Marathon 258,100 590 319,098 766,539,470 766 797,570
City of Key Colony 23,600 116.185 572 150,868,957 150 992,557
City of Layton 0 10 768 347 13,982,683 13 982,883
City of€slannorada 413,000 883 275 728 861,274,905 861 687,905
Entire Florida Keys 3,490,800 5,133,547 930 6,666,000,004 6,664,490,804
SF'WMDWUP Annual Allocation 8,751,000,000 8,751,000,000
meta-ed+--d wti.,s-(I..fl-.shin,...,leaks'.
As shown in Figure 3.3,FKAA expected 2021 water demands for the entire Florida Keys is 6,669
Million Gallons and can be accommodated within the South Florida Water Management WUP
annual allocation of 8,751 Million Gallons (MG). For unincorporated Monroe County, the 2020
actual demand was 2,933 MG and this is expected to slightly increase to 2,934 MG for 2021.
Figure 3.4. FKAA Water Supply Available vs. Water Demand Projections through 2030
30
a
fizz Floridan BIe,)d and Bypass(mgd)
Itwmsw Proposed Reclaimed Water
CL
15 — — OEM Reverse-OsmosisWaTP(engd)
ca
HIM Biscayne Aquifer(mgd)
t9
Adjusted 2020 Avg,Day Projections
LU — — ma 6Q5 Avg Day PGDiections thru 2026
I
I
U .
Ln' 1I0 P. 6^J 01) arW PJ fYl St' Ln �0 R. cc a) 0
11 rv4 rM. rS4 rd CN CJ, C4 f4 -rV CV M
C7 C? C1J C7 C7 CS C7 C7 C? C3 C3 C.7 C3 p O C7
CM-.. N N CW N A"1, l'*I, N N CN CJ, CN., N -rV CV CM
44
Exhibit
As shown in Figure 3.4, the FKAA water demand projections through 2030, based on the two
projections provided by FKAA, can be fulfilled through the use of the Biscayne permitted water
supply of 17.79 MGD, the 6.0 MGD RO water treatment plant, the new reclaimed water systems,
and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations.
As shown in Figure 3.5, in 2020, the FKAA distributed an annual average of 17.23 MGD from the
Biscayne Aquifer plus 0.93 MGD from Floridan RO Production. This table also provides the water
treatment capacities of the emergency RO plants. Since the emergency RO plants utilize seawater,
a WUP is not required for these facilities.
Figure 3.5 - Projected Water Demand in 2021 (in MG)
FKAA 021 Water
2020 Water
Permit Demand
Thresholds Demand Projected
Annual Allocation (Raw Water)
Average Daily Demand 23.98 18.41 20.25
Maximum Monthly Demand 809.01 612.65 654.20
Annual Demand 8,751 6,736 7,392
Biscayne Aquifer Annual
Allocation/Limitations Raw Water
Average Daily Demand 17.79 17.23 17.79
Annual Demand 6,492 6,307 6,492
Floridan RO Production
Average Daily Demand 6.00 0.93 0.56
Emergency RO WTP Facilities
Kermit L. Lewin Design Capacity 2.00 (MGD) 0.00 (MGY) 0.30
Marathon RO Design Capacity 1.00 (MGD) 0.00 (MGY) 0.00
All a ures are in millions qfgallons
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2021
Figure 3.6 provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional Population
and average daily demand, the average water consumption for 2019 was approximately 114
gallons per capita(person), which reflects the entire FKAA service area,including unincorporated
Monroe County, Key West, Marathon, Islamorada, Key Colony Beach, and Layton.
45
Exhibit
Figure 3.6 - Per Capita Water Use
Year Functional Population' Daily Demand (gallons), Average Per Capita Water
Consumption allonsf
2000 153,080 17,016,393 111
2001 153,552 15,415,616 100
2002 154,023 16,962,082 110
2003 154,495 17,228,192 112
2004 154,924 17,652,596 114
2005 156,150 17,730,000 114
2006 155,738 17,287,671 111
2007 155,440 16,017,315 103
2008 154,728 16,285,383 105
2009 155,441 16,345,205 105
2010 155,288 16,210,959 104
2011 156,054 17,334,247 111
2012 156,391 16,508,197 106
2013 156,727 16,836,164 107
2014 157,063 17,472,362 111
2015 157,400 17,890,400 114
2016 157,730 17,704,100 112
2017 158,060 17,632,900 112
2018 158,391 17,643,800 113
2019 158,721 18,070,000 114
Source: 1. Monroe County Population Projections-Monroe County Planning Department,2011
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2021
Improvements to Potable Water Facilities
FKAA has a 20-year Water System Capital Improvement Master Plan for water supply, water
treatment, transmission mains and booster pump stations, distribution mains, facilities and
structures, information technology, reclaimed water systems, and Navy water systems.
In 1989, FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Upgrade Program to replace approximately
190 miles of galvanized lines throughout the Keys. FKAA continues to replace and upgrade its
distribution system throughout the Florida Keys and the schedule for these upgrades is reflected
in their long-range capital improvement plan.
Figure 7 provides the schedule and costs projected for the capital improvements to the
potable/alternative water systems planned by the FKAA. The total cost of the scheduled
improvements is approximately $ 169,050,000 million over the next 5 years. These projects are
to be funded by the water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants.
46
Exhibit
Figure 7-FKAA Projected 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 Total
Repair/upgrade subaqueous crossing 1,900,000 1,900,000
Repair/upgrade cathodic protection 2,000,000 2,000,000
Rockland yard building 750,000 750,000
Grassy Key transmission line replacement 2,300,000 2,300,000
Stock Island pump station and generator replacement 3,000,000 3,000,000 6,000,000
Stock Island RO 81000,000 25,500,000 8,000,000 41,500,000
Stock Island RO generator 500,000 9,500,000 10,000,000
Key West administration building 11,900,000 4,300,000 16,200,000
Islamorada transmission line replacement 200,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 26,200,000
Front/Whitehead/Eaton distribution line replacement 1,750,000 1,750,000
Transmission terminus rehabilitation 1,000,000 4,500,000 5,500,000
Cross Key water distribution upgrade 200,000 200,000
South/United Streetwater distribution upgrade 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,000,000
Utility coordination relocates 1,700,000 1,700,000
Navy-connection tank feed 110,000 110,000
Navy-connectionA distribution 600,000 750,000 1,500,000 1,300,000 4,150,000
Navy-connection B distribution 340,000 340,000
Navy-second feed to Boca Chica 500,000 500,000
Navy-fire system West 1,400,000 1,400,000
Navy-fire system East 1,000,000 1,000,000 950,000 2,950,000
No Name Key 1,300,000 1,300,000
Stock Island garage replacement 520,000 520,000
Electrical improvementat Florida City-phase 1 2,200,000 2,000,000 4,200,000
Chemical system improvements at Florida City 950,000 950,000
Box girder bridge coating/coupling 3,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 15,000,000
Transmission system valve replacement 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,500,000
Marathon pump station tank installation 500,000 3,800,000 4,300,000
Coco Plum 3 2,300,000 2,300,000
Oceean Reef distribution and storage improvmements 3,200,000 4,000,000 7,200,000
Complete MIU collection system 200,000 2,000,000 2,200,000
Roof replacmenet-building K1 130,000 130,000
Totals 39,340,000 58,900,000 29,790,000 21,150,000 19,870,000 169,050,000
Source:Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2020 Budget&Financial Plan
SUMMARY
Based on current conditions and projects, an adequate supply of water to meet current and future
demands is provided by the following: The Biscayne permitted water supply of 17.79 MGD, the
6.0 MGD RO water treatment plant, the new reclaimed water systems, and the ability to operate
the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations. The FKAA continues to monitor
and track conditions and events that could negatively impact the existing water supply. Any such
impacts will be evaluated to determine future changes necessary to continue servicing Monroe
County with adequate water supply.
47
Exhibit
IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES
The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 10 traditional and 6 charter public
schools located throughout the Keys. School Board data includes both unincorporated and
incorporated Monroe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three
middle/elementary schools, and four elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields,
computer labs, bus service and a cafeteria. Seven (7) cafetoriums serve as both a cafeteria and an
auditorium. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer
gymnasiums. All three high schools offer a performance auditorium with a working stage.
The Monroe County school system is divided into three (3) sub-districts (see map below). School
concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in planning and
permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates.
Sub-district 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes the
islands that make up Islamorada and Fiesta Key and includes one high school and two
elementary/middle schools. Sub-district 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven
Mile Bridge and includes one high/middle school and one elementary school. Sub-district 3 covers
the Lower Keys,from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school, one middle school,
one elementary/middle school, and three elementary schools.
t} i 4 rj
� � s
.
El&rn!ntary;MidclJ*Sc�haa1
..J`1 ,Jrr.rty
r�.man sxcaet= `
Monroe County �ha,rt=���� �
arai Shot..
Ttea5nr'8 yf9ba{le lddoh school
105 P4'bies from key Large to Katy West ".1.6
Plantation Schaal
a+Y
Key 4'Ys=t Stanley SwttlYdt
Calddegrati Ed=rtt=ntat'y school >g~
Gerald fAaani$ +"4tilarFaa�EEeilr*nta ti �Yn=
E[=nr=ntary School Marathon
lq�h SChs1ol
E4niontaryr schaatl y,F c
Key West
K=y 1i w"ram tiaant=ssarl Sdrool
High �Padnciarwu tS�
_. Elementary Scha..r...Y.
Glynn Ar h=r w nra-=Y�"'#ryaht.
�a-erstary$.no*, Mirlc71a School
School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in
planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates.
48
Exhibit
The Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate is 9,839 students and the Capital
Outlay of Full-Time Equivalent (COFTE) is 7,363. The actual utilization during 2020-2021was
74.83%.
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL
LOCATION 2020-2021 2019-2020 2020-2021
FISH CAPACITY COFTE UTILIZATION
CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH 960 742 77.00%
KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH 1,349 1,197 89.00%
HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE 1,152 1,067 93.00%
MARATHON SENIOR HIGH 1,370 664 48.00%
GERALD ADAMS 631 523 83.00%
PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL 647 590 91.00%
POINCIANA ELEMENTARY 672 525 78.00%
SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY 935 597 64.00%
STANLEY SWITLIK
ELEMENTARY 736 564 77.00%
KEY LARGO SCHOOL 1,243 795 64.00%
MAY SANDS SCHOOL 144 99 69.00%
GLYNN ARCHER
ELEMENTARY' 0 0 0.00%
BIG PINE ACADEMY' 0 0 0.00%
TOTAL 10,453 7,161 68.51%
'Data not available in School Work Plan
The projected COFTE for 2024-2025 is 7,633 students with 77.58 % of utilization.
Annually, prior to the adoption of the district school budget, each school board must prepare a
tentative district facility work program that includes a major repair and renovation projects
necessary to maintain the educational and ancillary facilities of the district. Some of the items
listed in the 2020-2021 Monroe County School District Work Plan include HVAC, flooring, paint,
roofing, safety to life, electrical, parking, fencing, maintenance/repair, fire alarms,
telephone/intercom systems and closed circuit television for various schools. Other items include
concrete repairs, site work and drainage maintenance, plumbing, ADA updates, elevator repair,
carpentry and small construction projects and maintenance and repair.
The 2020-2021 Monroe County School District expenditures from local funding sources were
$27,135,024.Additional revenue sources include proceeds from'/z cent sales surtax at$17,000,000
and funds carried forward at$31,762,460 were available for this period.
The total project costs for construction, maintenance, repair and renovation during 2020-2021 was
$38,517,735. The projected revenue/expenditures for new construction and remodeling projects
49
Exhibit
only, for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 are $46,326,470 and $21,913,847, respectively.
SUMMARY
The overall 2020-2021 utilization is 74.83% of the school system capacity and is projected for
2024-2025 at 77.58%utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2020-2021 indicate
that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system for the next two years.
50
Exhibit
V. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Solid waste management is a critical issue in the Florida Keys. While problems of landfill sitings,
facilities, financing, and hazardous waste disposal have increased throughout Monroe County, the
unique setting of the Keys makes waste management even more difficult. The geographic isolation,
the limited land area,the environmental constraints,and the presence of nationally significant natural
resources adds to the challenge of responsibly and efficiently managing the Keys' solid waste stream.
Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 11.41 pounds
per capita per day. Policy 801.4.2 establishes within three (3) years after the adoption of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan,Monroe County shall implement a county-wide, mandatory recycling program
for residential and commercial locations. The Comprehensive Plan requires sufficient capacity shall
be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development
for a period of five years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development of use.
The Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC), in compliance with State concurrency
requirements, requires that"Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site at a
level of service of 11.41 pounds per capita per day. The county solid waste and resource recovery
authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under F.S. Section 163.01, to dispose of
solid waste outside of the county" (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)). This regulation went into effect on
February 28, 1988 and serves as a level of service (LOS) standard for solid waste disposal.
The LDC also requires that solid waste management plans be completed before any proposed
development of a Major Conditional Use is reviewed by the Growth Management Department. Solid
waste generation rates and capacity assessments must be submitted for review and coordination with
the Public Works Division, Department of Solid Waste/Recycling(PWD-DSW/R).
The table below summarizes historical solid waste generation for the service area.
Solid Waste Generation in Tons per Year
FY FDEP Total Recycling Disposal
1998 N/A N/A N/A
1999 N/A N/A N/A
2000 158,327 59,798 131,825
2001 125,893 51,435 96,075
2002 134,950 68,738 113,071
2003 134,734 34,619 113,427
2004 112,102 13,757 110,333
2005 212,470 73,085 212,470
2006 200,338 12,206 200,338
2007 134,467 12,497 134,467
2008 130,245 13,743 130,245
2009 116,884 12,099 95,327
51
Exhibit
2010 156,465 33,071 123,394
2011 125,402 27,808 97,594
2012 145,889 38,985 106,904
2013 173,774 57,272 116,502
2014 177,312 61,421 115,891
2015 276,710 110,140 166,570
2016 353,658 200,845 152,813
2017 656,783 352,156 304,618
2018 441,165 259,322 181,843
2019 302,589 110,372 192,217
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011; Monroe County Public Works 2013
Florida Department o Environmental Protection 2019 Annual Report
Data collection calendar year is January I to December 31.
These are scale tonnages.
Fluctuations in yearly data may be a result of major storm events, economic conditions, and
other generation factors.
FDEP calendar years do not coincide with Monroe County's calendar years, thus creating a
differential in datum between departments.
The historical solid waste generation values for Monroe County show a steady increase of total solid
waste generation between the years 1998-2001. During the period 2005-2006 and 2015-2019, the
County's solid waste generation was significantly higher. These higher values do not correspond to
normal solid waste generation trends within the County and in actuality result from a cluster of
outliers. The outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions(greater consumption of goods
and services) and storm events that cause a significant amount of over generation due to debris.
Furthermore, during the period of 2007-2008,an economic recession affected solid waste generation,
significantly reducing standard trends for generation growth.
The tourism industry in the Florida Keys is another large factor in solid waste generation that needs
to be accounted for in projected demands calculations. The Monroe County Tourist Development
Council estimated 4.3 million county-wide tourist visits occurred in 2011. The County and tourist
population are expected to continue increasing, which will impact solid waste generation within the
County.
Solid waste is collected by franchise and taken to the three historic landfill sites, which serve as
transfer facilities. At the transfer stations,the waste is compacted and loaded on Waste Management,
Inc. (WMI)trucks for haul out. Recyclable materials,including white goods,tires, glass, aluminum,
plastic bottles, and newspaper are included as part of the solid waste haul out contract. A recent
(2009) amendment to the contract includes WMI and the County's commitment to increase annual
recycling rate to 40 percent by 2014. Based on the information obtained by Florida Department of
Environmental Protection solid waste management this goal was met.
52
Exhibit
Solid Waste Transfer Facility Sizes and Capacities
Transfer Facility Acreage Capacity
Cudjoe Key Transfer Station 20.2 acres 200 tons/day
Long Key Transfer Station 29.5 acres 400 tons/day
Key Largo Transfer Station 15.0 acres 200 tons/day
Source: Waste Management Inc., 1991
Any future declines will also reflect the diligent efforts by the citizens of the County to reduce the
amount of solid waste they generate, through the conscious consumption of goods, composting,
mulching or other sustainability efforts. Additional factors which are less easily quantifiable could
also affect solid waste generation. The amount of construction taking place in the County, and thus
the amount of construction debris being disposed of, also significantly affects the total amount of
solid waste generated. Periods with less construction could have contributed to the decline in total
waste generation. Finally,the weather affects the rate of vegetative growth, and therefore affects the
amount of yard waste generated. Drier years could result in less total waste generation.
The analysis below represents a general trend of solid waste generation with respect to functional
population growth. The LOS creates a conservative rate of solid waste generation in comparison to
the increasing trend of solid waste generation between the years 1998-2000, thus predicting a
comparative or slightly higher annual solid waste production in relation to population. Limitations
on future growth should reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris generation.
Recycling efforts in Monroe County have increased and should reduce the amount of solid waste
generation.
Solid Waste Generation Trends
GENERATION POPULATION
Year (Tons/Yr) Permanent Seasonal Functional (LBS/CAP/DAY)
2000 158,327 36,036 33,241 69,277 12.52
2001 125,893 36,250 33,263 69,513 9.92
2002 134,950 36,452 33,285 69,737 10.6
2003 134,734 36,543 33,307 69,850 10.57
2004 112,102 36,606 33,329 69,935 8.78
2005 212,470 37,164 33,351 70,515 16.51
2006 200,338 36,466 34,019 70,485 15.57
2007 134,467 35,749 34,568 70,317 10.48
2008 130,245 34,788 35,550 70,338 10.15
2009 116,884 36,268 35,043 71,311 8.98
2010 156,465 35,368 35,440 70,808 12.10
2011 125,402 35,917 35,249 71,166 9.7
2012 145,889 39,371 35,438 74,089 11.65
2013 173,774 35,806 35,658 71,464 12.94
2014 177,312 35,751 35,862 71,613 13.12
53
Exhibit
2015 276,710 35,696 36,067 71,763 20.43
2016 353,658 35,632 36,277 71,909 25.48
2017 656,783 35,567 36,488 72,055 49.94
2018 441,165 35,503 36,698 72,201 33.48
2019 302,589 35,438 36,909 72,348 22.92
Sources:
1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2. Monroe County 2012-2030 Monroe County Population Projections, Keith& Schnars, and Fishkind&
Associates, 3-15-11 (Unincorporated Population -Table 9)
SUMMARY
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management(WMI). The contract authorizes the use of
in-state facilities through September 30, 2024; thereby, providing the County with approximately
three (3) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for
2021-2023.
54
Exhibit
VI. PARKS AND RECREATION
The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities is provided in Policy 1201.1.1
and 1201.1.2 of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service Standard
The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated
Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the
provisions of resource- and activity-based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided
equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are:
0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population; and
0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population
Resource-based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources of
significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity-based recreation areas can be
established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other
athletic events.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan Policy 1201.1.1, Monroe County Existing Demand in Surplus or
Parks and Recreation Functional Acreage Acreage (Deficit) in
Population 2020 Acreage
1.5 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, resourced-based 159,051 2,502 130.4 119.8
neighborhood and community parks
1.5 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, activity-based 159,051 4,343 130.4 303.9
neighborhood and community parks
Source: Monroe County Technical Document, Chapter 13, Recreation and Open Space, May 11, 2011,
Section 13.5.1.1.2.
There are approximately 10,900 acres of resource-based recreation lands currently available in the County
for public use. Removing beaches which are primarily Federal and State owned from the resource-based
lands results in approximately 250 acres remaining.
Level of Service Analysis for Activity-Based Recreation Areas
The Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at educational
55
Exhibit
facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. A total of 108.86 acres of
developed resourced-based and 117.23 acres of activity-based recreation areas are either owned or
leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board.
The activity-based recreational facilities that are inventoried include facilities and activities such as
baseball/softball, football/soccer, tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic tables and picnic pavilions,
volleyball courts, handball/racquetball courts, equipped play areas, multi-use areas, benches, tracks,
piers, bike paths, boat ramps, fishing, swimming, swimming pools, barbeque grills, shuffleboard
courts, beaches and restrooms. Additionally, other recreation uses and facilities are indicated such
as historic structures, bandshells, dog parks, skateboard facilities, aquatic parks, museums, and
concessions.
The subareas for park and recreational facilities include the Upper Keys, north of Tavernier;
Middle Keys, between Pigeon Key and Long Key; and the Lower Keys, south of the Seven Mile
Bridge.
The tables below provide resource- and activity-based parks and recreation in acres for the three
subarea planning areas.
MIDDLE KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 38.5-73
Mile Classification (Acres)
Name Location Marker Facilities
Resource Activity
Sunset Bay Park Grassy Key 58 Beach 0.6 NA
Uaca Key Boat ramp, teen club, 2
Yacht Club (1) (Marathon) 54 tennis courts, basketball NA 2
court
Beach, picnic pavilions,
Sombrero Beach ball field, 2 volleyball
(Switlik Park) Marathon 50 courts, equipped play 0.6 8
area, dog park, pier,
fishing, BBQ
Old 7-Mile Bridge Monroe County 41-47 Fishing, Bicycling, 5 NA
Beaches
7-Mile Bridge Pigeon Key 45 Historical structures 5 NA
56
Exhibit
UPPER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 73-112
Mile Classification (Acres)
Name Location Mark Facilities
er Resource Activity
Garden Cove Park Key Largo 106 Boat ramp 1.5 NA
Rowell's Waterfront Key Largo 104.5 Picnic tables, benches, paddle- 8 NA
Park sports launch, swimming area
Murray Nelson Boat basin, pier, dock, five
Waterfront Park Key Largo 102 pavilions, restrooms, picnic 1.2 NA
tables, benches
Hibiscus Park Key Largo 101.5 Vacant, inaccessible waterfront 0.5 NA
Buttonwood Lane
Ball field, 3 basketball courts,
Friendship Park Key Largo 101 picnic shelters, Play equipment, NA 2.38
restrooms, trail
Key Largo Play equipment, aquatic park, 3
Community Park- 6 swimming pools, ballfields
Jacob's Aquatic Key Largo 99. soccer field, tennis, pickleball, 1.5 13.6
Center basketball, restrooms
Sunset Point Park Key Largo 95.2 Vacant, waterfr
ont access, boat 1.2 0.9
Beach, two ball fields, play
Harry Harris County Key Largo equipment, swimming, boat
Park (Tavernier) 93 ramp, BBQs, shuffleboard, 2 15.1
beach, picnic tables, restrooms,
basketball
Key Largo Play Equipment, picnic, shelter
Old Settlers Park (Tavernier) 91.9 beach, butterfly garden NA 3
Burr Beach Park Key Largo 91 Vacant, waterfront access 0.1 NA
(Sunny Haven)
Upper
Old State Rte. 4A Matecumbe 82.5 Vacant 0.3 NA
Key
Old State Rte. 4A, Upper
Hurricane Matecumbe 81 Historical Marker 1.2 NA
Monument Key
Anne's Beach, Lower
Lower Matecumbe Matecumbe 73.5 Beach, swimming, bike path, 6.1 6
Beach 5 Keypicnic pavilions, boardwalk
57
Exhibit
LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5
Mile Classification (Acres)
Name Location Mark Facilities
er Resource Activity
Veteran's Memorial Little Duck Beach, BBQs, swimming
Park Key (Ohio 40 temporary port o let restrooms 0.6 24.9
Key)
Missouri Key/South Missouri Key 39 Roadside pull-off, beach 3.5 NA
side US 1
Pier, Playground, soccer field,
baseball, tennis & basketball
Big Pine Key Park Big Pine Key 31 courts, skate park, bocce 5.5 4.6
courts, shade structures,
restrooms
J. Watson Field 2 tennis courts, volleyball,
(Stiglitz Property) Big Pine Key 30 play equipment, baseball, 1.2 2.4
(2) picnic, dog park
Blue Heron Park Big Pine Key 30 Pickleball NA 5.5
Bob Evans/
Chamber of Big Pine Key 30 Vacant 0.3 NA
Commerce
Palm Villa Park Big Pine Key 30 Benches, waterfront, NA 0.6
State Road 4 Little Torch 28 Boat ramps 0.1 NA
Key
Ramrod Key Park Ramrod Key 27 Beach*, swimming 1.2 1.2
West Summerland West
Park Summerland 25 2 Boat ramps 31.8 NA
Key
Saddlebunch Play equipment, volleyball,
Bay Point Park Key15 picnic tables, trail, basketball, NA 1.58
2 tennis courts, pavilions,
Boca Chica Beach, Boca Chica 11 Beach, picnic table * 6 NA
SR 941 (3) Key
Wilhelmina Harvey Big Coppitt 10 Play equipment, path, shade
Park Keystructure with picnic table NA 0.65
58
Exhibit
Mile Classification (Acres)
Name Location Mark Facilities
er Resource Activity
Volunteer Fireman's Big Coppitt 10 Pavilion, picnic tables,
Park Key basketball
Gulfview Park, Big Coppitt 9.7 Boat ramp 0.2 NA
Delmar Ave. Key
Rockland Hammock Roc keland 9 Vacant 2.5 NA
Play equipment, baseball &
Bernstein Park Raccoon Key 4.5 soccer fields, basketball, path, NA 11
fitness center, community
rooms, picnic tables, restrooms
East Martello Park Key West 1.5 Picnic, Historic Fort, museum 14.56 NA
Island
1 beach, concession area, 2
band shells, pier, picnic
Higgs Beach Park, pavilions and grills, pickleball
C.B. Harvey, Rest Key West I courts, tennis courts, play 5 12.1
Beach Island equipment, bike path,
volleyball, fitness trail,
handball court, horseshoes,
swimming, Dog Park
West Martello Park Key West 1 Historic Fort 0.8 NA
Island
Whitehead Street Key West 1 Historic Fort, Museum 0.8 NA
Lighthouse Island
Pines Park(S. Key West 1 Picnic NA 1.72
Roosevelt) Island
(1) The total acreage of the Yacht Club is approximately 6.0 acres. The unique layout of this facility
restricts active recreation to approximately 2 acres partially leased to the Marathon Yacht Club by
Monroe County.
(2) House and yard(1.2 acres) owned by Monroe County.Additional 2.4 acres leased by Monroe County
from the Big Pine Athletic Association.
(3) Lands Leased to Monroe County from U. S. Navy.
(4) Church to west ofpark has public access 2 basketball, volleyball, and bocce courts.
(S) Beach leased to Village oflslamorada
*Denotes approximate acreage; (for beaches the length of the beach x a minimum of I S f.)
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
59
Exhibit
Acquisition of Additional Recreation Areas
The Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe
County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development ofresource-based and activity-
based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level ofservice standards."
The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be accomplished in a
number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6) mechanisms that
are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as for providing
adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result from additional
residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are:
1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land which is already owned by the
county but which is not being used for park and recreation purposes;
2. Acquisition of new park sites on a limited basis;
3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board for use of existing school-
based parkfacilities by county residents;
4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County for use of existing
city-owned park facilities by county residents;
S. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments for use of
existing publicly-owned lands or facilities by county residents; and
6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities for use of
private parkfacilities by county residents.
Objective 1201.2.3 Comprehensive Plan 2030-"Priority shall be given to locating new
neighborhood and community parks in communities which demonstrate the greatest deficiencies
in parks and recreation".
To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms—acquisition of new park sites and
interlocal agreements with the School Board.
SUMMARY
The County continues to maintain a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage).
60
Exhibit
VIL SANITARY SEWER
Over the years several factors have contributed to the water quality degradation of the Florida
Keys, among them are stormwater run-off, changes in flow from Florida Bay and the Gulf of
Mexico, but one of the most influential factors is the past wastewater practices. Wastewater from
cesspits, septic tanks, injection wells and liveaboard vessels add nitrogen and phosphorus to our
waters breaking the ecological balance.
The development of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was the BOCC response toward
correcting our water quality problems. Their goal was to improve the water quality of canals and
confined nearshore waters through a long-term strategy and bring back the clear waters that
characterize our coasts and are the source of tourist attraction.
The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan adopted by the BOCC on April 1993
mandated nutrient loading levels be reduced in the keys marine ecosystem by the year 2010. In
1998, the Florida Governor issued Executive Order 98-309 which directed relevant agencies and
entities to coordinate with Monroe County to implement the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and
eliminate cesspits, failing septic tank systems, and revise the existing 246 treatment plants for
capacity and quality of treated wastewater. In 1999, the Florida Legislature set statutory effluent
standards and associated compliance schedules for wastewater treatment system in Monroe
County. These standards address treatment for several water quality constituents and require
treatment to achieve advanced wastewater treatment standards for discharge flows in excess of
100,000 gallons per day and best available technology(BAT) standards for flows less than 100,000
gallons per day. Adopted water quality standards are listed below.
Water Quality Standards
BAT AWT
Constituent (mg/L) (mg/L)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BODS) 10 5
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 10 5
Total Nitrogen (TN) 10 3
Total Phosphorus (TP) 1 1
Previously in 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Oceans and Coastal
Protection Divisions produced a report entitled"Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary". The report provided a list of 84 water quality hot spots with
known or suspected water quality degradation. Later in 1999 Monroe County released a new study
entitled "Water Quality `Hotspots'in the Florida Keys:Evaluation for Stormwater Contributions",
this study identified 88 hotspots. The definition of"Hot Spots" are areas of known or suspected
water quality degradation, with known and unknown unsafe sewage disposal practices, that has to
be eliminated and would receive a community wastewater collection and treatment system within
the next 10 years. In contrast with"Hot Spots", "Cold Spots" were defined as areas where the on-
site system would continue operating until the whole new system is established.
The Florida Administrative Code created the Rule 28-20.100, which was amended in 1999 to the
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by the Governor and his cabinet. This rule provided a 5-Year Work
61
Exhibit
Program to improve water quality emphasizing in the identification and elimination of cesspools
required by Objective 901.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Monroe County adopted
a new cesspool identification and elimination ordinance, Ordinance 031-1999, which complies
with the Work Program. This ordinance establishes an inspection and compliance program for
unknown and unpermitted on-site treatment and disposal sewage (OSTDS). The intent of the
ordinance is to require operating permits for the (up to) 7,900 existing at that time unpermitted
OSTDS.
The Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was prepared by a multidisciplinary consultant team, under
the direction of the Monroe County Department of Marine Resources to determine the acceptable
levels of wastewater treatment and the strategy to follow to change the old wastewater collection
system for a new modern system in the County. The goals of the Master Plan was to provide
responsive, flexible and cost-effective solutions that improve wastewater management practices
throughout the keys and must satisfy environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines.
The implementation of the new wastewater system and the elimination of the old sewer practices
in Monroe County has taken years. The planning period used for developing this Master Plan is
the 20 years interval between 1998 and 2018. The transition process has been under the supervision
of Monroe County, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Key Largo Wastewater Treatment
District,the Municiaplities, and special dsitricts established for that purpose.Now the new systems
are operating satisfactorily and only a small percentage of households have not been hooked up to
the new systems.
At this time there are four entities providing sewer services in the unincorporated areas of the
County.
1. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA)
2. Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District
3. North Key Largo Utilities Corporation
4. Key West Resort Utilities
FKAA covers by far more areas of the County than any other operator. The list of their facilities
and general services areas are, from south to north:
• Key Haven Wastewater System-FKAA acquired this wastewater system in 2009 .By 2018,
FKAA replaced most of the collection system and redirect the wastewater flows from the
Key Haven wastewater treatment plant(WWTP)to the Big Coppitt WWTP for Advanced
Wastewater Treatment (AWT). The Key Haven collection system currently serves all 450
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) in the area, with plans to connect a new development
consisting of an additional 26 EDUs.
• Big Coppitt Regional Wastewater System- The construction of this wastewater system,
with funding provided by Monroe County, began in January 2007 and included service to
Rockland Key, Big Coppitt Key, Geiger Key and Shark Key. Connections to the system
began in August 2009. Currently, the Big Coppitt collection system contributes 1,601 of
1,746 EDUs (92%)to the AWT system, with the additional 450 EDUs redirected from the
Key Haven Wastewater system and an average daily flow of 0.031 million gallons per day
(mgd)redirected from Boca Chica Naval Air Station (NAS). The Big Coppitt WWTP will
62
Exhibit
be expanded to accept flows from a new affordable housing development in the Big Coppitt
Key service area and the future capactiy needs of the NAS.
• Bay Point Wastewater System-The FKAA began construction of the Bay Point Wastewater
Treatment Plant and collection system in 2004, to provide central wastewater service to the
Bay Point and Blue Water communities (Saddlebunch Keys). The first wastewater
connection began in 2005. 424 EDUs of 439 EDUs(97%)have been connected to this Best
Available Technology (BAT)treatment plant.
• Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System- Construction of this wastewater system began in
January 2013, with funding provided by Monroe County. The new WWTP has a capacity
of 940,000 gpd, and serves Lower Sugarloaf Key, Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key,
Summerland Key, Ramrod Key and Little Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, Big Torch Key,
No Name Key and Big Pine Key. Connection to this system was phased over several years
and is ongoing. Approximately 9,471 EDUs have been invited to connect and of those
7,469 EDUs have completed their connection (79%).
• Duck Key Regional Wastewater System- The FKAA became owner and operator of the
Hawk's Cay WWTP in May 2006. The WWTP, with funding provided by Monroe County,
underwent an extensive redesign in 2011 and was upgraded to the rigorous AWT standards.
Additionally,the collection system was expanded to serve the remaining residents of Duck
Key. The last phase of upgrades was completed in September 2013. The WWTP serves
Conch Key, Little Conch Key, Waker's Island, Hawk's Cay Resort and Duck Key with a
treatment capacity of 275,000 gpd. Currently, 1,445 EDU's of 1,491 EDUs (98%) have
connected to the system.
• Layton Wastewater System- The FKAA began construction of the Layton Wastewater
System in 2005,to provide central wastewater services to the City of Layton and Long Key
State Park with a treatment capacity of 66,000 gpd. Connection to the system began in
2006 and all 351 EDUs were connected to the system. Subsequent expansion of the Layton
service area to incorporate the remaining east and west ends of Long Key is complete. With
the expansion, the service area now includes 444 EDUs, which currently has 397 EDUs
connected (89%).
In summary, as of August 2021, the following connectiosn have been completed:
Yet to be Percent of
Connected Connected EDUs in Region Connection
Key Haven 450 450 100%
Big Coppitt 1,600 147 1,747 92%
Bay Point 425 14 439 97%
Duck Key 1,455 36 1,491 98%
Layton/Long Layton/Long Key 397 47 444 89%
Cudjoe Regional 7,469 2,002 9,471 79%
63
Exhibit
Lower Sugarloaf 554 77 631 88%
Upper Sugarloaf 266 324 590 45%
CudJoe Key 1,803 152 1,955 92%
Little Torch Key 678 241 919 74%
Ramrod Key 652 74 726 90%
Summerland Key 771 240 1,011 76%
Big Pine Key 2,655 863 3,518 75%
Middle Torch Key 10 5 15 67%
Big Torch Key 41 17 58 71%
No Name Key 39 8 47 83%
System-Wide
Connections 11,796 2,245 14,041 84%
Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Plant and District- This system serves Islamorada and the
territory consisting of the island of Key Largo, including all lands east of Tavernier Creek,
including Tavernier,Key Largo all in Monroe County,Florida with the exception of. all areas north
of Summerland Road on US-1, and all areas north of Charlemagne Blvd on County Road 905
including Ocean Reef. The plant capacity is 3,450,000 gpd and does meet LOS for wastewater
treatment quality. The District began taking flow from Islamorada on June 16, 2014. The 2021
average daily flow from Islamorada increased to 815,000 gpd. As parcels in Islamorada continue
to connect, flow will increase.The combined average flows from Islamorada and Key Largo for
the last 365 days is 1,970,000 gpd. In the District service area (does not include Islamorada)there
are 10,625 EDUs with 10,610 (99%) that have been connected to the system and 15 are not
connected.
North Key Largo Utilities Corporation- This private utility serves the Ocean Reef Community.
This WWTP was constructed with Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) technology with a
capacity of 499,000 gpd. The volume of sewage the plant is processing at this time is 250,000 gpd.
All dwelling units of the community have been connected to the system with a total of 1,620 EDUs
(100%).
Key West Resort Utilities- This investor owned utility serves Stock Island. This WWTP was
constructed with Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) technology with a capacity of 849,000
gpd. The volume of sewage the plant is processing at this time is 577,000 gpd. There are currently
4,358 EDU's connected to the KWRU system.
SUMMARY
There is sufficient wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and capacity available to satisfy the
projected needs of the development for the next two years.
64