Item R4BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: November 16, 2011 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes_ No X Department: Planning & Environmental Resources
Staff Contact Person: Christine Hurley, AICP,
Director of Growth Manama
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A public hearing to consider an ordinance by The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
adopting an amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Pursuant To F.S. Sec.
163.3177(3)(b); amending Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule Of Capital Improvements.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The annual update requires an amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
Table 4.1: Five - Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. F. S. Sec. 163.3177(3)(a) and F. S. Sec.
163.3177(3)(b) requires that a local government's Capital Improvements Element be reviewed on an
annual basis and updated as necessary in order to maintain level of service standards for capital
improvements.
The purpose of the Five - Year Schedule of Capital Improvements is to direct expenditures for public
facilities to reduce existing deficiencies in levels of service, provide for replacements of worn out
facilities, and meet future demands for Transportation, Solid Waste, Wastewater and Storm Water
Management, and Parks and Recreation.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
N/A
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty x OMB/Purchasmg Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included x Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Through: Christine Hurley, AICP, Growth Management Director
Mayte' Santamaria, Assistant Planning Director,
Planning and Environmental Resources
From: Kathy Grasser, Comprehensive Planner
Date: October 21, 2011
1 Subject: Request for an Amendment to the Year 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive
2 Plan to amend Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements
Meeting: November 16, 2011
3
4 PURPOSE:
5 The principal purpose of the capital improvement element is designed to consider the need for
6 and the location of public facilities in order to encourage the efficient use of such facilities as set
7 forth in §163.3177(3)(a), F.S. which states:
8
9 1. A component that outlines principles for construction, extension, or increase in capacity
10 of public facilities, as well as a component that outlines principles for correcting existing
11 public facility deficiencies, which are necessary to implement the comprehensive plan.
12 The components shall cover at least a 5-year period.
13 2. Estimated public facility costs, including a delineation of when facilities will be needed,
14 the general location of the facilities, and projected revenue sources to fund the facilities.
15 3. Standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities
16 to meet established acceptable levels of service.
17 4. A schedule of capital improvements which includes any publicly funded projects of
18 federal, state, or local government, and which may include privately funded projects for
19 which the local government has no fiscal responsibility. Projects necessary to ensure that
20 any adopted level -of -service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period
21 must be identified as either funded or unfunded and given a level of priority for funding.
22
Page 1 of 12
I PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
2 Staff is requesting the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopt an amendment to
3 the Year 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan amending Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of
4 Capital Improvements (Exhibit A).
5
6 The definition of "Capital Improvement' pursuant to § 163.3177(7), Florida Statutes, means
7 "physical assets constructed or purchased to provide, improve, or replace a public facility and
8 which are typically large scale and high in cost. The cost of a capital improvement is generally
9 nonrecurring and may require multiyear financing. For the purposes of this part, physical assets
10 that have been identified as existing or projected needs in the individual comprehensive plan
11 elements shall be considered capital improvements."
12
13 Sections 163.3177(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, require that projects necessary to ensure that any
14 adopted level -of -service standards are achieved and maintained for the five-year period be
15 identified as either funded of unfunded and given a level of priority for funding and that the
16 capital improvements element must be reviewed by the local government on an annual basis.
17
18 DATA AND ANALYSIS:
19 Table 4.1, Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (Fiscal Years 2011-2012, 2012-2013,
20 2013-2014, and 2014-2015, and 2015-2016), lists the public facilities which Monroe County will
21 provide in order to reduce existing deficiencies, provide for necessary replacements, and meet
22 the future demand identified by the Comprehensive Plan. Specific data and analysis for all
23 public facilities are located in the 2011 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report, attached as
24 Exhibit B.
25
26 The public facilities types are:
27 1. Transportation facilities
28 2. Potable Water
29 3. Wastewater
30 4. Drainage and Storm Water
31 5. Solid Waste
32 6. Parks and Recreation
33
34 There are four (4) primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity
35 according to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code (LDC).
36 These facilities are transportation/roads, solid waste, potable water and schools. The available
37 capacity for each of these facilities may be either sufficient to accommodate projected growth
38 over the next year, marginally adequate, or inadequate.
39
40 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.1 establishes that at the time a development permit is issued,
41 adequate public facilities are available to serve the development at the adopted level of service
42 standard concurrent with the impacts of such development.
43
44
45
46
Page 2 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
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.
The following population and housing characteristics tables provide summary information for
Monroe County and the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been
included for comparison purposes. The U.S. Census Bureau released 2010 demographic
information related to population on March 17, 2011. The U.S. Census Bureau released housing
characteristics based on data collected from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 to the public
on September 22, 2011.
POPULATION ESTIMATES
The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) declined by
8% (-6,499 people) from the year 2000 to 2010.
Census
2000
Census
1 2010
Change
% Change
PERMANENT 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 Po ulation (Uninc. County & Cities)
79,589
73,090
-6,499
-8.17%
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 roads and solid waste.
The 2010 estimated population for unincorporated Monroe County is 70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it
is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an increase of 157.5 persons per year
through the twenty year planning horizon.
Page 3 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Functional Population Estimates and Projections, 2010-2030
Year
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
Lower Keys
Middle Keys
Upper Keys
Unincorporated
Monroe County
Total
2010
39,645
2,183
28,980
70,808
2015
40,181
2,212
29,370
71,763
2020
40,592
2,234
29,668
72,494
2025
41,003
2,256
29,966
73,225
2030 1
41,414
2,278
30,265
73,957
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County
Population Projections
The population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a loss of permanent
population. The data suggests the permanent population losses and associate increase in vacant
housing units (shown below) is being shifted 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.
HOUSING
Total housing units increased by 1,147 units or 2%. The number of occupied units decreased by
2,457 units or 7%. Vacant units increased by 3,604 units or 22%.
Census
2000
Census
2010
1 Change
%
Change
HOUSING UNITS
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%
Uninco orated Monroe County
24,601
25,163
+562
2.28%
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) 1
32.02%
38.16%
Page 4 of 12
I According to the U.S. Census, housing units are broken down into occupied and vacant units.
2 The Census defines housing units as "a house, apartment, group of rooms, or single room
3 occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters." Occupied housing units are
4 occupied if there is "at least one person who lives in the unit as a usual resident at the time of the
5 interview, or if the occupants are only temporarily absent, for example, on vacation. However, if
6 the unit is occupied entirely by people with a usual residence elsewhere, the unit is classified as
7 vacant, such as seasonal units. The table below shows the housing units by status and tenure
8 from the 2010 American Communities Survey (with a margin of error of +/-3%).
9
10
11
Housing Units by Status and Tenure by Units in Structure
2010
Monroe County -Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
52,766
Occupied housing units
29,822
56.2%
Vacant housing units
22,944
43.5%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
52,766
1-unit, detached
30,129
57.1 %
1-unit, attached
4,116
7.8%
2 units
2,586
4.9%
3 or 4 units
1,952
3.7%
5 to 9 units
1,900
3.6%
10 or more apartments
4,327
8.2%
Mobile Home or Other Type of
Housing
7,809
14.8%
HOUSING TENURE
Estimates
Percent
Occupied housing units
29,822
Owner -occupied
Renter -occupied
17,523
12,299
58.75%
41.25%
Average household size of owner -
occupied unit
2.7
Average household size of renter -
occupied unit
2.5
Page 5 of 12
I TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES:
2
3 The Level of Service (LOS) for roads is regulated by Section 3.3 Traffic Circulation of the
4 Comprehensive Plan.
5
6 Goal 301: To provide a safe, convenient, efficient, and environmentally -compatible motorized
7 and non -motorized transportation system for the movement of people and goods in Monroe
8 County.
9
10 Policy 301.1.1: For all County roads, Monroe County hereby adopts a minimum peak
11 hour level of service (LOS) standard of D, based on the Florida Department of
12 Transportation (FDOT) methodology for determination of LOS, as measured by peak
13 hour traffic volume. The County shall maintain the level of service on County roads
14 within five percent (5%) of LOS D.
15
16 Policy 301.1.2: For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS)
17 standard of C based on the methodology development by the US-1 LOS Task Force and
18 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991, for analyzing the LOS
19 on US-1 in Monroe County. This methodology replaces a peak hour volume standard for
20 US-1. The level of service on US-1 shall be maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS
21 C.
22
23 Section I I4-2(a) of the LDC pertains to the minimum standards for public facilities.
24 1. Roads:
25 a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at a Level of service (LOS)
26 C on an overall basis as measured by the U.S. 1 level of service Task Force
27 Methodology. In addition, the segment(s) of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 level
28 of service Task Force Methodology, which would be directly impacted by a proposed
29 development's access to U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at
30 LOS C as measured by the U.S. 1 level of service Task Force Methodology.
31
32 b. County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development shall
33 have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS D as measured on an annual
34 average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersection and/or roadway segments. All
35 secondary roads where traffic is entering or leaving a development or have direct
36 access shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS D as measured on an
37 annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis.
38
39 c. In areas which are served by inadequate transportation facilities on U.S. 1,
40 development may be approved provided that the development in combination with all
41 other development will not decrease travel speeds by more than five percent (5%)
42 below LOS C.
43
44
45
46
Page 6of12
I LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
2
3 U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial serving the Keys. Monroe County has Florida Department of
4 Transportation (FDOT) conduct a yearly study to monitor the level of service on U.S. 1. The
5 2011 Arterial Travel and Time Delay Study indicates the overall level of service (LOS) of U.S. 1
6 at "C," however, two segments are identified below LOS "C." Based on the 2011 Arterial
7 Travel and Time Delay Study, Lower Matecumbe (Segment 17), and Tea Table (Segment 18)
8 continue to function below the LOS "C" threshold. These two segments have a reserve capacity
9 within the 5% allocation. The reserve capacity is the difference between the median speed and
10 the LOS "C" standard gives the reserve speed, which in turn can be converted into an estimated
11 reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and corresponding additional development. The
12 median overall speed of 47.1 mph compared to the LOS "C" standard of 45 mph leaves an
13 overall reserve speed of 2.1 mph.
14
15 County regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to meet the LOS C standards to
16 receive an allocation not to exceed five percent below the LOS C standard. This provision will
17 allow a limited amount of additional land development to continue until traffic speeds are
18 measured again next year or until remedial actions are implemented. These segments are
19 candidates for being designated either "backlogged" or "constrained" by Florida Department of
20 Transportation (FDOT).
21
22 According to the FDOT District Six, 5-Year Work Program (Year 2011/2012 through Year
23 2015/2016), there is ongoing construction along U.S. 1.
24
25 • Lower Matecumbe, Segment 17 is located at approximate mile marker 73 through 77.5.
26 This segment has a LOS D. There are no work projects cited in this year's FDOT
27 Transportation Plan. The maximum reserve volume is -671 trips and falls within the 5%
28 (1,196 trips) allocation criteria.
29 • Tea Table Relief Bridge, Segment 18 is located at approximate mile marker 77.5 through
30 79.5. This segment has a LOS D. There is preliminary engineering for resurfacing
31 between Old SR 4A/MM77.5 to Jerome Avenue (mile marker 81.5) with construction
32 starting in 2014. The maximum reserve volume is -328 trips and falls within the 5%
33 (571) allocation criteria.
34
35 The Capital Improvements Element 5-Year Schedule identifies several maintenance and
36 resurfacing projects along U.S. 1.
37
38
Page 7of12
I POTABLE WATER:
2
3 The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan establishes the LOS standards and the LDC regulates the
4 source of potable water for development or use.
5
6 Objective 701.1: Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a development permit is
7 issued, adequate potable water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities are available to
8 support the development at the adopted level of service standard concurrent with the impacts
9 of such development.
10
11 Policy 701.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standard
12 concurrent to achieve Objective 701.1 and shall use these standards as the basis for
13 determining facility capacity and the demand generated by a development.
14
15 Level of Service Standard:
16 1. Quantity:
17 Residential LOS 66.50 gal./capita/day
18 Non -Residential LOS 0.35 gal./sq. ft./day
19 Overall LOS 132.00 gal./capita/day
20 (Ord. 021-2009)
21
22 Equivalent Residential Unit 149.00 gallons per day
23 (2.24 average persons per household x 66.5 gallons/capita/day)
24
25 2. Minimum Pressure:
26 20 PSI at customer service
27
28 3. Minimum Potable Water Quality:
29 Shall be as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Part
30 143-National Secondary Drinking Standards, 40 CFR 143, 44FR 42198)
31
32 The LDC Section 114-2(3) does not include a LOS standard but requires sufficient potable water
33 from an approved and permitted source shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of
34 a proposed development, or use. Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells,
35 FKAA distribution systems, individual water condensation systems, and any other system which
36 complies with the Florida standards for potable water.
37
38 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
39
40 The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in the
41 Florida Keys. The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the FKAA's Water Treatment
42 Facility in Florida City, which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8
43 million gallons per day (MGD). The primary water treatment process is a conventional lime
44 softening/filtration water treatment plant and is capable of treating up to 23.8 MGD from the
45 Biscayne Aquifer. The secondary water treatment process is the newly constructed Reverse
46 Osmosis water treatment plant and is capable of producing 6 MGD from the brackish Floridan
Page 8of12
I Aquifer. The two saltwater Reserve Osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock Island and
2 Marathon, are available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO
3 desalination plants have design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MGD of water, respectively.
4
5 The annual average daily demand is 16.21 MGD and the maximum monthly water demand in
6 Monroe County is 533.26 MG which occurred in April of 2010. Preliminary figures and
7 projections for 2011 indicate a slight increase to an annual average daily demand to 16.54 MGD
8 and an increase in maximum monthly demand to 5 63.3 3 MG as compared to 2010 figures.
9
10 With the construction of the new water supply wells and RO water treatment, the new reclaimed
11 systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency
12 situations, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and future demands, based on
13 current conditions and projections. FKAA will continue to monitor and track conditions and
14 events that could negatively impact the existing water supply. Any such impacts will be
15 evaluated to determine future changes necessary to continue servicing Monroe County with
16 adequate supply.
17
18 FKAA replacement and improvement projects are included in the 5-Year CIE Schedule.
19
20 SOLID WASTE:
21
22 The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC require that "sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid
23 waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of at least
24 three years from the projected date of completion of a proposed development or use" (LDC,
25 Section 114-2(a)(2)).
26
27 Objective 801.1: Monroe County shall ensure that solid waste collection service and disposal
28 capacity is available to serve development at the adopted level of service standard
29 concurrent, concurrent with the impacts of such development.
30
31 Policy 801.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standard
32 concurrent to achieve Objective 801.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for
33 determining facility capacity and the demand generated by a development.
34
35 Level of Service Standard:
36 Disposal Quantity:
37 5.44 pounds per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per ERU
38 (Equivalent Residential Unit)
39
40 Haul Out Capacity:
41 95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs.
42
43 Duration of Capacity:
44 Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to
45 accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of three (3)
46 years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development or
47 use.
Page 9of12
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
During 2009, the pounds/capita/day exceeded the LOS standards established by the
Comprehensive Plan. 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. In 2010, the County provided solid waste service to
accommodate 70,808 residents. FDEP certification of solid waste data for December 31, 2009 is
reported to be 71,311 residents in the County. For the purpose of this document, this data will be
used as the most recent certified data.
Solid Waste Generation Trends
GENERATION
POPULATION
Year
(Tons/Yr)
Permanent
Seasonal
Functional
(LBS/CAP/DAY)
2009
116,884
36,268
35,043
71,311
8.98
Source: Monroe County Recommended Functional Population Series,
Fishkind & Associates 2010
12 Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management (WMI). The contract authorizes the use
13 of in -state facilities through September 30, 2016; thereby, providing the County with
14 approximately five (5) years of guaranteed capacity. Currently, there is adequate capacity for
15 solid waste generation.
16
17 SCHOOL FACILITIES
18
19 The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a LOS standard for schools, but does include Policy
20 1301.5.6 which requires the county to coordinate with the School Board on the siting and
21 expansion of required facilities. Enrollment figures for the 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 school
22 years indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall
23 2010-2011 utilization is 66.88% of the school system capacity. There are no projects identified
24 in the CIE 5-Year Schedule.
25
26 PARKS AND RECREATION:
27
28 Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are listed in Policy 1201.1.1 of the
29 Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
30
31 Policy 1201.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standard to
32 achieve Objective 1201.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining
33 recreation land and facility capacity:
34
35 Level of Service Standard for Neighborhood and Community Parks:
36
37 1. 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resource -based
38 neighborhood and community parks; and
39
Page 10of12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
2. 0.82 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.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
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.
Comprehensive Plan Policy
Monroe County
Existing
Demand
Surplus or
1201.1.1, Parks and Recreation
Functional
Acreage
in
(Deficit) in
population 2010
Acreage
Acreage
0.82 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, resourced-
138,803
2,502
113.8
136.2
based neighborhood and
community arks
0.82 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, activity-
based neighborhood and
138,803
4,343
113.8
320.2
community parks
Monroe County Technical Document, Chapter 13, Recreation and Open Space, May 11,
2011, Section 13.5.1.1.2.
As of May 2011, the LOS for parks and open space exceeds the LOS standard stated in the
Comprehensive Plan. There are several maintenance projects for existing park facilities listed in
the CIE 5-Year Schedule.
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan establishes the LOS treatment standards for sanitary
sewer.
Objective 901.1: Monroe County shall ensure that, at the time a development permit is
issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, including wastewater
treatment facilities and onsite sewage treatment and disposal, are available to support the
development at the adopted level of service standards, concurrent with the impacts of such
development.
Policy 901.1.1: Monroe County shall ensure that, at the time a development permit
is issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are
Page 11of12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards,
concurrent with the impacts of such development.
(A) The permanent level of service standards for wastewater treatment in
Monroe County are as provided in House Bill 1993 adopted by the 1999
Legislature.
The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, mandated by the Comprehensive Plan,
establishes a LOS capacity of 145 gpd/EDU. Currently, the following wastewater facilities are
listed as scheduled projects on the 5-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements table: Big Coppitt,
Cudjoe Regional, Duck Key, Key Largo, and Long Key.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the facts contained in the report, there is sufficient capacity for the County's public
facilities to serve anticipated growth.
Staff recommends APPROVAL to the Planning Commission.
Page 12 of 12
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORDINANCE NO. -2011
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
ELEMENT TO UPDATE TABLE 4.1, THE 5-YEAR SCHEDULE OF
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE YEAR 2010 MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PURSUANT TO §163.3177(3)(A)
AND §163.3177(3)(B), FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE
LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR THE FILING WITH
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners makes the following Findings:
1. Pursuant to § 163.3164(7), Florida Statutes, "Capital improvement" means physical assets
constructed or purchased to provide, improve, or replace a public facility and which are
typically large scale and high in cost. The cost of a capital improvement is generally
nonrecurring and may require multiyear financing. For the purposes of this part, physical
assets that have been identified as existing or projected needs in the individual
comprehensive plan elements shall be considered capital improvements.
2. Pursuant to §163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statues, the comprehensive plan shall contain a
capital improvements element designed to consider the need for and the location of public
facilities in order to encourage the efficient use of such facilities.
3. Pursuant to §163.3177(3)(a)1., Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan shall contain a
component that outlines principles for construction, extension, or increase in capacity of
public facilities, as well as outline principles for correcting existing public facility
deficiencies, which are necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. The components
shall cover at least a 5-year period.
4. Pursuant to §163.3177(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan shall contain
estimated public facility costs, including a delineation of when facilities will be needed, the
general location of the facilities, and projected revenue sources to fund the facilities.
Page I of 4
5. Pursuant to § 163.3177(3)(a)3., Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan shall contain
standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities to
meet established acceptable levels of service.
6. Pursuant to § 163.3177(3)(a)4., Florida Statutes, a schedule of capital improvements shall
include any publicly funded projects of federal, state, or local government, and may include
privately funded projects for which the local government has no fiscal responsibility.
Projects necessary to ensure that any adopted level -of -service standards are achieved and
maintained for the 5-year period must be identified as either funded or unfunded and given
a level of priority for funding.
7. Pursuant to § 163.3177(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the capital improvements element must be
reviewed by the local government on an annual basis. Modifications to update the 5-year
capital improvement schedule may be accomplished by ordinance and may not be deemed
to be amendments to the local comprehensive plan.
8. Objective 1401.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandates Monroe County to
provide the capital improvements necessary to correct existing deficiencies, to
accommodate projected future growth, and to replace obsolete and worn-out facilities, in
accordance with an adopted Capital Improvements Program.
9. Policy 1401.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandates Monroe County to
revise the existing County Capital Improvements Program to incorporate the
improvements identified in the Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements included in
Table 4.1 of Capital Improvements Implementation.
10. Policy 1401.1.2 mandates Monroe County to annually update the Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, and further provides
that revisions to the schedule shall be incorporated into the Capital Improvements
Program on an annual basis.
11. Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures 5.0 (1) and (2) of the Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan requires that the Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (CIP) be reviewed
and updated annually, in order to allocate financial resources to implement the Plan.
12. The amendment furthers Principle (a) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Strengthening local government capabilities
for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these
objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation.
13. The amendment furthers Principle (h) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-
effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments,
including: water supply facilities; sewage collection treatment and disposal facilities;
Page 2 of 4
solid waste collection and disposal facilities; transportation facilities; parks, recreation
facilities, and other publicly owned properties.
14. The amendment furthers Principle 0) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Ensuring the improvement of nearshore
water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management
facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable,
and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
15. The amendment furthers Principle (k) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Limiting the adverse impacts of public
investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
16. The amendment furthers Principle (n) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Protecting the public health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique
Florida resource.
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on the 18th day of October, 2011, the Monroe
County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter and recommended that
the Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments to Table 4.1 Five -Year
Schedule of Capital Improvements Fiscal Year 2011 through 2016 of the Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan, as shown on the attached Exhibit A and Exhibit Al. Amendments
are presented in underline (Exhibit A) to indicate additions to text and strikethrough
(Exhibit Al) to indicate deletions. All other words, characters, and language of the
comprehensive plan remain unchanged.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The preceding recitals support the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners'
decision to adopt the following amendments to Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of
Capital Improvements Fiscal Year 2011 through 2016 of the Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. The amended Table 4.1 Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Fiscal Year
2011 through 2016 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan of the Capital
Improvements Implementation Element is hereby adopted and attached hereto as
Exhibit A. Amendments are presented in underline (Exhibit A) to indicate
additions to text and stfikethfough (Exhibit Al) to indicate deletions. All other
words, characters, and language of the comprehensive plan remain unchanged.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this
ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by
such invalidity.
Page 3 of 4
Section 4. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the Florida State
Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida but
shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Florida State Land Planning
Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after applicable appeal periods have expired.
Section 6. This amendment shall be incorporated into the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a
regular meeting held on the 166' day of November, 2011.
Mayor Heather Carruthers
Mayor pro tem David Rice
Commissioner Kim Wigington
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
M
AT'TEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
MONROF r AUNTY ATTORNEY
Ac ., 40 FOR
Date:f
Page 4 of 4
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
u
CAI ul
u
0 3
P4
C� 119
-9
q
c oq
q C�
clq
o� o9
q
oq oq
ol�
os
oq
W
-q
-q
A
te
0�
0
od 00
O .6
6
o9
72
U
uo
E2
41
3
aF
s
S
a w 5
0 0
0 0 u u u u
0
m
0
1
.6
u
fj
Q. P. P, 0.
OC
ci
In
Vi
O
VI
O
Ni
R
O
O
sn
O
O
69
O O
O
ryr
O
b
a
nil
E A
E-R
in
2
2
4
15
-
O O
O V)
O
O
O� vt O
CT p
O O
00
Q
F
FX
V
N
r NW
S�
O
O
M ap O
N o0
S O
O� O
rn N
Ey �
b�
ham+
e
hN
O
O�
O
h b O
Ovt v�
M
N M
M
iD N
h N
F N)
99
w
W N
VI
m
O
0 op
ut op
O N
O �tl
v�
v1
op �n
p
00
h
O
O
O O
a0 O
_h O
O
a\ 00
h
N
pl
N
N
N
ti
N
�
Vf:
O
O ao
N���
O Vi
oy0
^
R O
00
N
O
h
O O
e r
h O
e} GGV1
T�
Vt N
M
M �D
M
00 O
N
0p
00
M N
O N
�1
I
N
69
N
N
F
z
rr'
M
O o0
O �f
I
�
W vi
GC
0
0 0
h O
U OD
WO
ti
wl
ti
N
z
M
D
U
�D
O
h op
O tp
O
O
O N O
O
M O
h
w
QN
�ii
�
b M
M
M �Cf
M
O
:n
O
N
Y1
N o0
b vi Vt
h N
M O�
OD
oo
�
M N�
h
M
pp
N
A
ow O
i 7
F00
W
p
G a
a
W W
ik pp
a E"
iv F
�
F
E E o
G. P. a 0 0 0
'0 '0 i C
w N u u 0
a s rri m
a,
6� yy U
C a C
a
a
tl 4
[A
w ��o �
E E E.�aa
m�rawL]LSCSa
M M
w wwww
wwwwwww wwwwSw
z
z
k7
F
W
W
Lti
F
O
N
Vl
N
D\
O
M
vt
m
�
V' 7
00 V 9
V h
O
O�
oo
00
rn
00
tT
N
�
F
�(zy�
Wy
�o
v
V
y
iC.d
tl�
w"r
O
o 0
tl
�
oV'o n v
GW�
4
p
y
O
O
U
uuQ
t
c
a c
.0
B 0,
o
z U
�
H
�''�"
�u
o'�.�y�x
x
x
�x�
�x ❑
Q
xk
oLj
3
3
s
3Oc
'�
It
ro
°
A
m
o
ya
N
N A
U
U
E H
q¢
ppR�
Q
F
C
G
C
44o�
ttor
o
o
O04
IM �
�
y
pa
C
�
H
H
C
F
U
W a
N
,+
til
O
N
N
N
b
N
N
M
O
N
O
O
W
b
h
{yLW
O
y
O
U
FO4
pW
6'N
�V,w+y1
W
N
CCU!]
W
y
_
o
C •�
C�
o
� o
F
�
Ll
m
y
�
yy
�'
� a'�i
W
U .Pa
yy
W W.
R'•
w'
w'
ai
ar aF
F4
a
�vnov1�
�ri� a
p00
00
G 4'i � id ,G �
S
�
C O C �, Y
O y u
C �
G 0.�
rn
C❑
C c W
5mn:�n
C G G
2 °
2
o �� 2�
Aw
s� o
apz
�fA
m 2
U
❑
c
mO
o9Qq
in
O
O
Rt
v;
90
W
xox�x
x
x
x
x
x
x
9
FC
U
N
tom] L
ll~
N
�r
d
N
N
rn
'n,
Q
U�
�I
R
W
a
F
E
k
;
/ \\
;
a
®)
!
0
F
W
Us
V
pp
O�
N y
o0 �.oq O N O
O� h
y N N
b VM
�
N
0��
��
N�
7•
N�
e
N
v�
N
�I
N
N
�
N'
7:W
N
Lc�
r'
V
N
U
OU
0
aO
Q
V
�
y
h
h
C
C
'V
F C
•V
C
C
C
C
yJ,
C
.ss
G
.J
o
ro
ro�
ro
ro
P.,
v
�
ro
rob
ro
roN
m
ro
z
z
z
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
c�
a
H
O
F
U
po
I
V>
O
N
N
N
O)
ti
N
ti
r
y
(n
U
0 0o
N
O
O
O
W'
U
fk
h
U
m
uJ
W
N
GQ
Qa
C
.r .Z O
.� .0 O
O O
�
'�
w •a
W
�
U G
U U
U �
W U '« w
W U '.G
ra �
W U •�
W U 'a
U '.G
3 o
3 0
3 o Z
g rn
o
3 e
E o
E G
o
v)
x. E.
�.x " O
�x yF
�"'x yo
w
�.�
��'+ m Cx�'
w o•,y7
y
w,o
mH
mo,
w
m y
m
ro�
mH
m
z
�
w
m .c
m
m.� ❑
ro s 'C
m
,rOi
p
O
Ui.
r'Ci
aJ
'G
�
G
O
ti
v,
H
yr
m
E
w
w
w
w
w
x
O
Q
d
F
F
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
w
a
H
A I '
I
\
/
/
IN
/
E
§
qj
�§ \\
--
)2
\ Ĥ
(
2
.
.
\�7
/q
m�$
)m
2
§*�
.
;
/W
VA
_
o«�
�
$
.
\\�
;
;§Q
§
e}
(
;
/
\
}
m
/
§
\
(
\
�
a
)
<
/
\
/
�
. g
Exhibit B
2011
MONROE COUNTY
PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
REPORT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORTATION
POTABLE WATER
EDUCATION
SOLID WASTE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Monroe County
Planning and Environmental Resources Department
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 1 of 56
ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................... 3
I. Growth Management....................................................................................................I I
II. Transportation...............................................................................................................24
III. Potable Water................................................................................................................37
IV. Education......................................................................................................................44
V. Solid Waste...................................................................................................................47
VI. Parks and Recreation.....................................................................................................51
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 2 of 56
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Monroe County Land Development (LDC) Section 114-2 mandates an annual assessment of
the roads, solid waste, potable water, and school facilities serving the unincorporated portion of
Monroe County. In the event that these public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below
the level of service (LOS) required by the 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 annual report, with or without modifications. Any modifications
that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact,
including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity
required to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document becomes the official
report on public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. This
report distinguishes between areas of adequate, inadequate and marginally adequate facility
capacity. Inadequate facility capacity is defined as those areas with capacity below the adopted
LOS standard. Marginally adequate capacity is defined as those areas at the adopted LOS
standard or that are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next twelve months.
2011 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Potable water, roads, solid waste, and schools have adequate capacity to serve the growth
anticipated in 2011 at the adopted level of service standard. The status of each facility is
summarized below.
Potable Water
In March 2009, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKANs 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 8,751 million gallons or 23.98 MGD. The
planned construction of the new water supply wells and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment
facility will provide an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD.
With the construction of the new water supply wells and reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment
facility, the new reclaimed systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants
during emergency situations, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and future
demands, based on current conditions and projections.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 3 of 56
Schools
Enrollment figures for the 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 school years indicate that there is
adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2010-2011 utilization is
66.88% of the school system capacity.
Solid Waste
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract authorizes the
use of in -state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with
approximately five (5) years of guaranteed capacity. There is adequate capacity for solid waste
generation for the next twelve (12) months.
Roads:
Based on the findings of the 2011 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe
County, as prepared by URS Corporation Southern Consultants, U.S. 1 has an overall level of
service (LOS) C.
Compared to last year's (2010) study results, on U. S. 1, there are level of service changes to seven
(7) segments — four (4) resulted in positive level of service changes while three (3) resulted in
negative level of service changes.
• The Big Coppitt segment (3) increased from LOS `D' to LOS `C'
• The Saddlebunch segment (4) increased from LOS `C' to LOS `B'
• The Sugarloaf segment (5) increased from LOS `C' to LOS `B'
• The Grassy Key (Segment 14) increased from LOS `D' to LOS `C'
• The Cudjoe segment (6) decreased from LOS `A' to LOS `B'
• The Summerland segment (11) decreased from LOS `A' to LOS `B'
• The Windley Key (Segment 20) decreased from LOS `A' to LOS `C'
SUMMARY
Public facilities continue to be adequate. Potable water, solid waste, roads, and schools have
sufficient capacity to serve the growth anticipated in 2011 at the adopted level of service.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 4 of 56
The 2011 Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity is mandated by the Monroe County
Land Development Code (LDC) Section 114-2, titled Adequate Facilities and Development
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 contains two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the four
primary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and an annual assessment
process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities.
Section 114-2(3) requires the Director of Planning to prepare an annual 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, 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 states that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is
or will be served by adequate public or private facilities.
Comprehensive Plan Objective 101.1 states:
"Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, adequate
public facilities are available to serve the development at the adopted level of service
standards concurrent with the impacts of such development."
The LDC, Section 114-2, "Adequate Facilities and Development Review Procedures" states:
"Local governments must establish regulations to ensure that public facilities and services
that are needed to support development are available simultaneously with development
impacts."
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 5 of 56
PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS
There are four (4) primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity according
to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code (LDC). These
facilities are roads, solid waste, potable water and schools. 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)b of the LDC states: "The county shall not approve applications for
development in areas of the county which are served by inadequate facilities identified in the
annual adequate facilities (Public Facility Capacity Assessment) 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 LDC goes on to state that "in areas of marginal facility capacity as identified in the
current annual adequate facilities report, the county shall either deny the application or condition
the approval so that the level of service standard is not violated."
The determination of an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas with
marginal or inadequate capacity is determined by a "facilities impact report" which must be
submitted with a development application.
Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.1 establishes that at the time a development permit is issued,
adequate public facilities are available to serve the development at the adopted level of service
standards concurrent with the impacts of such development.
Roads:
The LOS for roads is regulated by Section 3.3 Traffic Circulation 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, based on the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
methodology for determination of LOS, as measured by peak hour traffic volume. 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 based on
the methodology development by the US-1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners in August 1991, for analyzing the LOS on US-1 in Monroe
County. This methodology replaces a peak hour volume standard for US-1. The level of
service on US-1 shall be maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 6 of 56
Section 114-2(a) of the LDC pertains to the minimum standards for public facilities.
1. Roads:
a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) C
on an overall basis as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force
Methodology. In addition, the segment(s) of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of
Service Task Force Methodology, which would be directly impacted by a proposed
development's access to U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at
LOS C as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology.
b. County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development shall
have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS D as measured on an annual
average daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersection and/or roadway segments. All
secondary roads where traffic is entering or leaving a development or have direct
access shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS D as measured on an
annual average daily traffic (AADT) basis.
c. In areas which are served by inadequate transportation facilities on U.S. 1,
development may be approved provided that the development in combination with all
other development will not decrease travel speeds by more than five percent (5%)
below LOS C.
Potable Water:
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan regulates the LOS standards and the LDC regulates the
source of potable water for development or use.
Objective 701.1
Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, adequate potable
water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities are available to support the development at
the adopted level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of such development.
Policy 701.1.1
Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective
701.1 and shall use these standards as the basis for determining facility capacity and the
demand generated by a development.
Level of Service Standards
1. Quantity:
Residential LOS 66.50 gal./capita/day
Non -Residential LOS 0.35 gal./sq. ft./day
Overall LOS 132.00 gal./capita/day (Ord. 021-2009)
Equivalent Residential Unit 149.00 gallons per day
(2.24 average persons per
household x 66.5 gallons/capita/day)
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 7 of 56
2. Minimum Pressure:
20 PSI at customer service
3. Minimum Potable Water Quality:
Shall be as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Part
143-National Secondary Drinking Standards, 40 CFR 143, 44FR 42198)
The LDC Section 114-2(3) does not include a LOS standard but requires sufficient potable water
from an approved and permitted source shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of a
proposed development, or use. Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells,
FKAA distribution systems, individual water condensation systems, and any other system which
complies with the Florida standards for potable water.
Solid Waste:
The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC require that "sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid
waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of at least
three years from the projected date of completion of a proposed development or use" (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, concurrent with the
impacts of such development.
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.
Level of Service Standards:
Disposal Quantity:
5.44 pounds per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per ERU
(Equivalent Residential Unit)
Haul Out Capacity:
95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs.
Duration of Capacity:
Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to
accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of three (3)
years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development or
use.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 8 of 56
Schools:
The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a LOS standard for schools but does include Policy
1301.5.6 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 requires that school
classroom capacity be available to accommodate all school -age children to be generated by the
proposed development or use.
Parks and Recreation:
An annual assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County
Code, Section 114-2, but data for parks and recreational facilities is provided in this document.
Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are not mentioned in the LDC, but
are listed in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Policv 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. 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resource -based neighborhood
and community parks; and
2. 0.82 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.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 9 of 56
PERMITTING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS
LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and Development Review Procedures divides
unincorporated Monroe County into three (3) service areas for the purpose of assessing potential
growth and how public facilities can accommodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the
Monroe County Land Development Code have been revised to account for incorporations of the
Village of Islamorada and the City of Marathon.
Section 114-2(b)(2) defines the county's unincorporated public facilities service areas:
• Upper Keys Service Area: north of the Whale Harbor Bridge;
• Middle Keys Service Area: between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor Bridge;
and
• Lower Keys Service Area: south (west) of the Seven Mile Bridge.
The map shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized.
MONROE COUNTY
MAP
The Upper Keys
MM 112-91
.1
°
The Middle Keys
MM 91-47
a
The Lower Keys
MM 47-4
F1
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 10 of 56
GROWTH ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the projected growth of Monroe County's permanent, seasonal
and functional population, occupied and vacant housing data, Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)
and Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) allocations and Building Department
permit data.
CENSUS DATA
The U.S. Census Bureau released 2010 demographic information related to population, housing on
March 17, 2011. The following tables provide summary information for Monroe County and the
incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been included for comparison
purposes.
The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) declined by 8%
(-6,499 people) from the year 2000 to 2010. Total housing units increased by 1,147 units or 2%.
The number of occupied units decreased by 2,457 units or 7%. Vacant units increased by 3,604
units or 22%.
Census
2000
Census
2010
Change
% 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
-8.300
Total Population (Uninc. Coup & Cities)
79,589 73,090 -6,499 -8.17%
HOUSING UNITS
City of Key West
13,306
14,107
+801
6.01%
City of Marathon
6,791
6,187
-604
-8.89%
City of Key Colony Beach
1,293
1,431
+138
10.67%
City of Layton
165
184
+19
11.15%
Village of Islamorada
5,461
5,692
+231
4.23%
Unincorporated Monroe County
24,601
25,163
+562
2.28%
Total Housing Units (Uninc. County & Cities)
51,617
52,764
+1,147
2.22%
Total housing units (Uninc. County & Cities)
51,617
52,764
+1,147
2.22%
Occupied housing units(Uninc. County & Cities)
35,086
32,629
-2,457
-7.00%
Vacant housing units (Uninc. County & Cities)
16,531
20,135
+3,604
21.80%
% Vacant housing units (Uninc. County & Cities)
32.02%
38.16%
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 11 of 56
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 roads and solid waste.
The 2010 estimated population for unincorporated Monroe County is 70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it
is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an increase of 157.5 persons per year
through the twenty year planning horizon.
Functional Population Estimates and Projections, 2010-2030
Year
Functional Population
Lower Keys
Middle Keys
Upper Keys
Unincorporated
Monroe County
Total
2010
39,645
2,183
28,980
70,808
2015
40,181
2,212
29,370
71,763
2020
40,592
2,234
29,668
72,494
2025
41,003
2,256
29,966
73,225
2030
41,414
2,278
30,265
73,957
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County
Population Projections
BEBR, February 2010, Number of Households and Average Household Size in
Florida: April 1, 2009
The population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a loss of permanent
population. The data suggests the permanent population losses and associate increase in vacant
housing units is being shifted 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.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 12 of 56
HOUSING
According to the U.S. Census, housing units are broken down into occupied and vacant units. The
Census defines housing units as "a house, apartment, group of rooms, or single room occupied or
intended for occupancy as separate living quarters." Occupied housing units are occupied if there
is "at least one person who lives in the unit as a usual resident at the time of the interview, or if the
occupants are only temporarily absent, for example, on vacation. However, if the unit is occupied
entirely by people with a usual residence elsewhere, the unit is classified as vacant, such as
seasonal units. The table below shows the housing units by status and tenure from the 2007-2009
American Communities Survey.
Housing Units by Status and Tenure by Units in
Structure
2007-2009
Monroe County -Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
54,115
Occupied housing units
28,909
53.40%
Vacant housing units
25,206
46.60%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Estimates
Percent
Total housing units
54,115
1-unit, detached
28,671
53.00%
1-unit, attached
5,333
9.90%
2 units
1,751
3.20%
3 or 4 units
2,350
4.30%
5 to 9 units
3,152
5.80%
10 to 19 units
1,603
3.00%
20 or more units
Mobile home
3,420
7,705
6.30%
14.20%
Boat, RV, van, etc.
130
0.20%
HOUSING TENURE
Estimates
Percent
Occupied housing units
28,909
Owner -occupied
19,368
67.00%
Renter -occupied
9,541
33.00%
Average household size of owner -
occupied unit
2.42
Average household size of renter -
occupied unit
2.63
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 13 of 56
RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCES
ROGO
Due to the limitation on the amount of growth the County could absorb, based on the Carrying
Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, on June 23, 1992, the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016-1992, creating the Residential Dwelling Unit
Allocation System, known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO. ROGO was developed as
a response to the inability of the road network to accommodate a large-scale hurricane evacuation
in a timely fashion. 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 been
controlled since July of 1992 (adoption of Ordinance 016-92).
Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.2.3 regulate the number of permits
issued annually for residential development under ROGO. Monroe County can award 197
allocations per year. These allocations are divided up geographically and 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 101.2.3 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(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
two available for Big Pine Key, shall be made available at the beginning of the first
quarter for a ROGO year."
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 14 of 56
HISTORY
Tier System
On September 22, 2005, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 025-2005 which revised ROGO and
NROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the competitive point system. On March 15,
2006, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 009-2006 to implement the Tier System, a Rate of Growth
Ordinance.
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, basis
of scoring applications, and administrative relief.
• During ROGO Year 14 (2004), Ord. 009-2006 was enacted changing the allocation number to
197 (126 market rate 71 affordable) pursuant to Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C. The same rule also
returned 165 allocations to the County to be used for affordable housing.
• By ROGO Year 15 (2005), the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the 197
allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations are 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 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 are 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 (#TE08341 1 -0, ITP) from the U.S. Federal Fish
and Wildlife Commission was issued to three (3) permitees: 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.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 15 of 56
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.
Nonresidential permits include everything that is not residential, such as industrial, commercial,
nonprofit and public buildings, and replacement or remodeling of existing nonresidential
structures and is regulated by the Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO).
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.1 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. On average, the BOCC approves an
annual availability of 35,000fl of NROGO floor area allocations.
Policy 101.3.1 states:
"Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and non-residential growth
by limiting the square footage of non-residential development to maintain a ratio of
approximately 239 square feet of new non-residential development for each new
residential unit permitted through the Residential Permit Allocation System."
Big Pine and No Name Keys
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. The maximum amount of
nonresidential floor area to be allocated is limited to a maximum of 2,500 square feet for any one
site.
Section 138-51 of the LDC establishes the semi-annual award distribution of NROGO allocations
and the annual award allocations on Big Pine Key and No Name Keys.
LDC, Section 138-51:
Annual allocation
The Board of County Commissioners may make available for allocation all or part
of the maximum annual allocation. This annual allocation may be distributed
between the two allocation dates.
First allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key
For the first allocation period (starting ROGO year 15, quarter 1), the maximum
amount of floor area available for allocation shall be based on the number of
permits issued under the 200 allocations authorized by the Big Pine Key and No
Name Key Community Master Plan and the number of ROGO allocations to be
made available in the ROGO year 15, beginning July 14, 2006.
Separate allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key
Allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be administered and awarded
separately from those for the remainder of the unincorporated county.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 16 of 56
RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO) ANALYSIS
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 after issuance of the building
permit, or upon expiration of the permit. The data presented in the table below do not include
allocations issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, Islamorada or Marathon.
ROGO ALLOCATIONS
ROGO Year 14 (July 13, 2005 — July 14, 2006)
One -hundred and twenty-six (126) market rate and seven (7) affordable housing allocations were
approved. On July 19, 2006, the BOCC approved the reservation of forty (40) affordable housing
allocations (Ordinance 273-2006). There were 173 allocations awarded in Year 14.
YEAR 14
ALLOCATIONS
AWARDED
MARKET RATE
126
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
7
AFFORDABLE RESERVATIONS
40
TOTAL
173
ROGO Year 15 (July 15, 2006 — July 13. 2007
Eighty-nine (89) market rate ROGO allocations were awarded. There were thirty-seven (37)
administrative reliefs allocations awarded and twelve (12) affordable housing allocations were
awarded. There were five (5) allocations reserved by County Resolution 273-2006. There were
143 allocations awarded in Year 15.
YEAR 15
ALLOCATIONS
AWARDED
MARKET RATE
89
ADMINSTRATIVE RELIEF
37
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
12
AFFORDABLE RESERVATIONS
5
TOTAL
143
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 17 of 56
ROGO Year 16 (July 14, 2007 — July 14 2008)
Ninety-five (95) market rate ROGO allocations, thirty-one (31) administrative relief allocations
and nine (9) affordable housing allocations were awarded. On July 19, 2006, the BOCC approved
Resolution 273-2006 reserving one -hundred and thirty-three (133) affordable housing allocations.
Two -hundred and sixty-eight (268) allocations were awarded in Year 16.
YEAR 16
ALLOCATIONS
AWARDED
MARKET RATE
95
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
31
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
9
AFFORDABLE RESERVATIONS
133
TOTAL
268
ROGO Year 17 (July 15, 2008 — July 14 2009)
Two -hundred and eight -five (285) market rate allocations, fifty-five (55) administrative relief
allocations and one (1) affordable housing allocation were awarded. Three hundred and forty-one
(341) allocations were awarded in Year 17.
YEAR 17
ALLOCATIONS
AWARDED
MARKET RATE
285
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
55
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1
AFFORDABLE RESERVATIONS
0
TOTAL
341
* Monroe County received 80 additional allocations through agreements.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 18 of 56
ROGO Year 18 (July 14, 2009 — July 12, 2010)
Ninety-three (93) market rate and ten (10) administrative relief allocations were awarded. There
were twenty-five (25) market rate allocations held in abeyance. One hundred and twenty-eight
(128) allocations were awarded in Year 18.
YEAR 18
ALLOCATIONS
AWARDED
MARKET RATE
93
MARKET RATE -HELD IN ABEYANCE
25
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
10
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
0
AFFORDABLE RESERVATIONS
0
TOTAL
128
ROGO Year 19 (July 13, 2010 —April 12 2011) [Quarters 1-31
Seventy-one (71) market rate and three (3) administrative relief allocations were awarded.
Nineteen (19) market rate allocations were held in abeyance. Ninety-three (93) allocations were
awarded in Year 19, Quarters 1, 2, and 3.
. I
• '" 1
� ALLOCATIONS
R'1 1
UV RIM .111 1114 zo 8•.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 19 of 56
11111,711
The "maximum annual allocations" and the distribution between the first and second allocation
dates are determined by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and as recommended by
Growth Management and the Planning Commission. This provides flexibility and assures that
goals are being met.
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 19 (2011) is shown below.
NROGO Allocations for Unincorporated Monroe County
(Excluding Big Pine/No Name Keys)
Year 14 (2006) to Year 19 (2011)
Year
Amount Available
Total Allocations Awarded
Year 14 (2006)
16,000 sq/ft
12,494 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)
22,500 sq/ft
6,350 sq/ft
Year 19
(Period 1, 2011)
22,500 sq/ft
6,116 sq/ft
Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
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. The maximum amount of
nonresidential floor area to be allocated is limited to a maximum of 2,500 square feet for any one
site. A summary of allocations in these environmentally sensitive keys is shown below.
NROGO Allocations for Big Pine/No Name Keys
Year 14 2006 — Year 19 (2011
Year
Number of Applicants
Total Allocations Awarded
Year 15 (2007)
2
5,000 sq/ft
Year 16 (2008)
2
3,809 sq/ft
Year 17 (2009)
0
0 sq/ft
Year 18 (2010)
0
0 sq/ft
Year 19
(Period 1, 2011)
0
0 sq/ft
Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 20 of 56
BUILDING PERMIT DATA
There were 2,067 dwelling units that received a building permit from April 1, 2000 to December
31, 2010. Of these units, approximately 80 percent were single family homes and 16 percent were
mobile homes and recreational vehicles. An average of 190 new and replacement dwelling units
were permitted from 2001 to 2010. Of the 2,067 dwelling unit permits issued, 1,172 were the result
of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the 2,067 dwelling units permits issued, a total of 1,229
dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy.
Residential Building Permit Activity, April 1, 2000 — December 31, 2010
Year
Single
Duplex
Multi
Mobile
Home /
Hotel /
Total
Permits
Permits
Issued
Received
Family
Family
RV
Motel
Issued
Under
CO
ROGO
April 1, 2000-
December 31, 2000
92
0
35
32
7
166
92
165
January 1, 2001-
December 31, 2001
151
0
13
55
1
220
118
157
January 1, 2001-
193
0
25
81
0
299
181
162
December 31, 2002
January 1, 2001-
235
0
0
44
0
279
161
152
December 31, 2003
January 1, 2001-
126
0
0
47
0
173
105
175
December 31, 2004
January 1, 2001-
December 31, 2005
295
0
0
29
0
324
160
111
January 1, 2001-
377
0
2
14
0
393
198
92
December 31, 2006
January 1, 2001-
106
0
0
13
0
119
103
118
December 31, 2007
January 1, 2001-
46
0
3
11
0
60
45
61
December 31, 2008
January 1, 2001-
24
0
0
3
0
27
4
29
December 31, 2009
January 1, 2001-
5
0
0
2
0
7
5
7
December 31, 2010
TOTAL
1,650
0
78 1
331
8
2,067
1,172
1,229
Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
RV -Residential Vehicle CO -Certificate of Occupancy
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 21 of 56
A total of 706 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 Census to 2010. The highest demolition
rate occurred in years 2005 and 2006 with 353 units demolished. This accounts for about 50 percent
of units demolished from 2001 to 2010. An average of 70 dwelling units were demolished per year
between 2001 and 2010. At this time it is not possible to determine, whether a demolition was for a
single family, a mobile home, etc.
Housing Demolition and Replacement
Year
Residential Demolitions
April 1, 2000 - December 31, 2000
2
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2001
17
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2002
24
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2003
32
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2004
80
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2005
169
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2006
184
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2007
79
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2008
52
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2009
40
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2010
22
TOTAL
706
Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 22 of 56
A total of 642 mobile homes were replaced with a single family dwelling unit; 229 single family
homes were replaced with a single family unit; and 294 mobile homes were replaced with a mobile
home. A total of 1,165 replacement units received a certificate of occupancy from April 1, 2000 to
end of 2010.
Replacement Units Receiving Certificate of Occupancy
April 1, 2000 —December 31, 2010
Year
MH to
MH to MH
SFR
to
RV
Park Model
Total Units
Receiving
SFR
SFR
Replacement
Replacement
a CO
April 1, 2000 -
21
55
21
0
0
97
December 31, 2000
January 1, 2001-
11
41
14
0
0
66
December 31, 2001
January 1, 2001-
14
47
18
0
0
79
December 31, 2002
January 1, 2001-
27
34
26
0
0
87
December 31, 2003
January 1, 2001-
85
27
19
0
0
131
December 31, 2004
January 1, 2001-
90
28
19
0
0
137
December 31, 2005
January 1, 2001-
136
22
18
0
0
176
December 31, 2006
January 1, 2001-
143
12
30
0
0
185
December 31, 2007
January 1, 2001-
54
18
23
0
0
95
December 31, 2008
January 1, 2001-
30
7
24
0
0
61
December 31, 2009
January 1, 2001-
31
3
17
0
0
51
December 31, 2010
Total
642
294
229
0
T_ 0
1,165
Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
MH-Mobile Home; SFR-Single Family Residential; CO -Certificate of Occupancy;
RV -Recreational Vehicle
It is important to highlight that in the last ten years (2001-2010) a total of 936 mobile home units
were replaced. Of the 936 mobile home units replaced, 642 were replaced for single family units.
The replacement of mobile home units to single family units represents a 68.5 percent loss of mobile
homes to single family units, in the last ten years.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 23 of 56
II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Roads are one (1) of the four (4) critical public facilities identified for annual 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 annually since 1992. The
primary objective of the U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study is to monitor the level of
service on U.S. 1 for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 301.1.1., and LDC Section 114-2(a). The study
utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume -based capacities and the speed -based level
of service methodology developed by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force.
The U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force is a multi -agency group with members from Monroe
County, the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs. The 1997 adopted methodology considers both the overall level of service from Key West
to the mainland and the level of service on 24 segments. 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 the 1985 Highway
Capacity Manual.
U.S. 1 Segments and Mile Markers
Segment
Number
Mile
Marker
Segment Name
Segment
Number
Mile Marker
Segment
Name
1
4-5
Stock Island
12
40-47
7-Mile Bridge
2
5-9
Boca Chica
13
47-54
Marathon
3
9-10.5
Big Coppitt
14
54-60.5
Grassy
4
10.5-16.5
Saddlebunch
15
60.5-63
Duck
5
16.5-20.5
Sugarloaf
16
63-73
Long
6
20.5-23
Cudjoe
17
73-77.5
L. Matecumbe
7
23-25
Summerland
18
77.5-79.5
Tea Table
8
25-27.5
Ramrod
19
79.5-85.4
U. Matecumbe
9
27.5-29.5
Torch
20
84-86
Windley
10
29.5-33
Big Pine
21
86-91.5
Plantation
11
33-40
Bahia Honda
22
91.5-99.5
Tavernier
This section of the report investigates the current capacity of the transportation network in Monroe
County. The analysis includes changes in traffic volumes, the level of service (LOS) of U.S. 1,
and the reserve capacity of the highway. All data and analysis was obtained from the 2011 U. S. 1
Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS Corporation Southern.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 24 of 56
EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES
There are over 100 miles of islands in Monroe County connected by 42 bridges on one single
highway. This single highway, the Overseas Highway (U.S. 1), functions as a collector, an
arterial, and the "Main Street" for the Keys. U.S. 1 is a lifeline for the Keys from both public
safety and economic perspectives. Each day it carries food, supplies and tourists from the
mainland. In the event of a hurricane, it is the only viable evacuation route to the mainland for
most of Monroe County. U.S. 1 in Monroe County is predominantly a two-lane road. Of its 112
total miles, approximately 80 miles (74%) are two-lane segments that are undivided. The four -
lane sections are located on Key Largo (MM 95 to 108), Tavernier (MM 90 to 95), Marathon (MM
48 to 54), Bahia Honda (MM 35 to 37), and from Key West to Boca Chica (MM 2 to 9).
In addition to U.S. 1, there are 450 miles of county (secondary) roads with 38 bridges. Combined,
U.S. 1 and county (secondary) roads have approximately 340 intersections in the Keys.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ON U.S. 1 SEGMENTS
There are twenty four (24) segments of U.S. 1 from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112. The
segments were defined by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to reflect roadway cross
sections, speed limits, and geographical boundaries.
The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code require each segment of the highway
maintain a LOS of C or better. The LOS criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County
depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. 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. However, the determination of the median speed on a segment is a more
involved process than determining the overall level of service since different segments have
different conditions. Segment conditions depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed
limits within the given segment.
Flow characteristics relate to the ability of a vehicle to travel through a particular segment without
being slowed or stopped by traffic signals or other devices. Segments with a series of permanent
traffic signals or other similar traffic control devices in close proximity to each other are
considered to be "Interrupted Flow Segments" and are expected to have longer travel times due to
the delays caused by these signals or control devices. Roadway segments without a series of
signals or control devices are considered to be "Uninterrupted Flow Segments".
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 25 of 56
FuRy-Signalized
Intersections
Mile Marker
Key
Street
Segment
4.4
Stock Island
College Road
1
4.6
Stock Island
Cross Street
1
4.8
Stock Island
MacDonald Avenue
1
19.5
Upper Sugarloaf
Crane Boulevard
5
30.3
Big Pine Key
Key Deer Boulevard
10
48.5
Marathon
33rd Street/School Crossing
13
50
Marathon
Sombrero Beach Boulevard
13
52.4
Marathon
107th Street
13
52.5
Marathon
109th Street
13
53
Marathon
Pedestrian Crossing
13
53.5
Fat Deer Key
Key Colony Causeway
13
54
Fat Deer Key
Coco Plum Drive
13/14
90
Plantation Key
Woods Avenue/School Crossing
21
90.5
Plantation Key
Sunshine Road
21
91.5
Tavernier
Ocean Boulevard
21/22
99.5
Key Largo
Atlantic Boulevard
22/23
101
Key Largo
Tradewinds
23
105
Key Largo
Pedestrian Crossing
23
Uninterrupted segments may have one or more traffic signals, but they are not in close proximity
to one another as in the interrupted segment case. The methodology used to determine median
speed and level of service on a particular segment is based upon that segment's status as an
interrupted or uninterrupted flow segment. For all "uninterrupted" segments containing isolated
traffic signals, the travel times were reduced by 25 seconds per signal to account for lost time due
to signals. The Marathon and the Stock Island segments are considered "interrupted" flow
facilities. Therefore, no adjustments were made to travel times on these segments.
Uninterrupted Flow
Uninterrupted Flow
LOS A> 35 mph
LOS A 1.5 mph above speed
limit
LOS B> 28 mph
LOS B 1.5 mph below speed
limit
LOS C> 22 mph
LOS C 45 mph below speed
limit
LOS D> 17 mph
LOS D 7.5 mph below speed
limit
LOS F> 13 mph
LOS E 13.5 mph below speed
limit
LOS F< 13 mph
LOS F more than 13.5 mph below speed limit
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 26 of 56
O U
F�
Qs
'
O
Q
O
h
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
i
®C
z'
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Q�
h
z
z
',. z
z
z
z
O
®'
�
a
C
V,
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q,,
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q�
—
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
��
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
n.
Q and
Q
N
� �
�..
00
N
M
M
Vl
Vl
Vt
Ih
Vl
V
V
N
M
M
O
O
N
V
00
00
00
fV
a
O
W
�
m> �
1'"
Q
C�
Ih
Q Q ®
M
09.
Vt.
N
�O
V1
YJ
�D
p.
09
M
Vl
�O
.-.
M
N
O�
O�
ry.,
00
e¢
••
L/]
U
^
W3
[r
O
N
V1
..
W
M
VS
B.
V:
m
OV�
O
O
O.
N
h
�D '
h
V�
O'
O
tl;
Vl
O
Vt
—
ul
V�
O�
V
V
V
1f1
rr
PI
Q V
Q
E
E
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
M
E
.
�
N '.
r+t
Q
M z
z
z
z
z
V
z
z
z
z
M
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
M
N
M
z
N
O
LA
Q
Ai
M
E y
U W.
cr�
r
C
Vt
N
M.
—
N
V
m
O
t-
00
�O.
11
h
V
V1
h
N
O�
O�
r
V'
N.
N,.
.-.
Cl .
OO
Vi
O
W '
�
N
In
J
V'.
VJ
p.
O
V�
h
h
a
a..
al
U
N
N�
h
O
N0
"h
O
y
O
v�
"
rj
v
gylg
o
Gp
O
p�Fa7
�
Ga
CO
c
tom.
R
0.
E°. '....
CO
O
Cl
t�
N
M
C7
V
5....
Vi
.�
VJ
..3
Ih
F
OD
a
O�'',
3
O
N
P.'
'--
F
N
m
V
4
y
OVERALL LEVEL OF SERVICE ON U.S. 1
The overall level of service or capacity of the entire length of U.S. 1 is measured in the average
speed of a vehicle traveling from one end to the other of U.S. 1. Both Monroe County and the
Florida Department of Transportation have adopted a LOS C standard for the overall length of
U.S. 1. In other words, a vehicle traveling from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112 (or vice
versa) must maintain an average speed of at least 45 mph to achieve the LOS C standard.
The median overall speed during the 2011 study was 47.1 mph, which is 0.2 mph higher than the
2010 median speed of 46.9 mph. The mean operating speed was 46.9 mph with a 95%.
Compared to last year's (2010) study results, there is level of service changes to seven (7)
segments — four (4) resulted in positive level of service changes while three (3) resulted in
negative level of service changes.
• The Big Coppitt segment (3) increased from LOS `D' to LOS `C'
• The Saddlebunch segment (4) increased from LOS `C' to LOS `B'
• The Sugarloaf segment (5) increased from LOS `C' to LOS `B'
• The Grassy Key (Segment 14) increased from LOS `D' to LOS `C'
• The Cudjoe segment (6) decreased from LOS `A' to LOS `B'
• The Summerland segment (11) decreased from LOS `A' to LOS `B'
• The Windley Key (Segment 20) decreased from LOS `A' to LOS `C'
Compared to 2010, the median segment speeds increased in thirteen (13) of the 24 segments
ranging between 0.1 mph to 3.4 mph. Eleven (11) segments experienced a decrease in median
speeds, ranging from 0.1 mph to 3.2 mph, compared to last year's data. The biggest difference in
speed change was observed for segment 20, Windley Key. The level of service changed from an
`A' to a `C'.
FACTORS AFFECTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
Speed Limit
The posted speed limits affect both the segment and the overall LOS. For instance, a lower
speed limit could benefit a segment's LOS by reducing the difference between the travel
speed and the posted speed limit. The reduction in the speed limit, however, negatively
impacts the overall LOS because motorists tend to travel at reduced speeds to comply with
the speed limits, whereas the overall LOS C threshold is set at 45 mph regardless of the speed
limit changes. For these reasons, the posted speed limit is an important component in this
study.
A large part of the traffic in Monroe County consists of tourist travelers, who generally tend
to have a leisurely driving style. The traffic also tends to include a large number of
recreational vehicles. Combined with some slow moving heavy vehicles, the travel speeds
tend to go below the speed limits when there are no opportunities for faster moving vehicles
to pass.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 28 of 56
In Big Pine Key, due to the Key Deer habitat and other endangered species, the speed limit is
strictly enforced with additional signs and frequent police presence. The travel speeds in this
segment were observed to be near the posted speed limit, unless impeded by delays created
by the signal.
Delay Events
A delay event occurs whenever the speed of the test vehicle fell below 5 mph. The delay
event continues until the test vehicle's speed rose to 15 mph. During the study, the observers
encountered a total of 141 separate delay events (a 17.5% decrease compared to the 2010
study). Eleven (11) of these delay events totaling 1 hour 17 minutes and 27 seconds were
excluded from the overall travel times and the segment travel times. The excluded delays
were caused by nonrecurring events such as accidents and roadside construction. In addition
to these eleven (11) nonrecurring delay events, 2 drawbridge delay events were also excluded
during this year's travel times (15 minutes and 5 seconds). However, the drawbridge delay
events are accounted in calculating the overall travel speeds.
Signal Delays
The largest single recurring delay source along U.S. 1 in Monroe County is traffic signals.
During the 2011 study, 118 (84%) out of 141 delay events were caused by signals which is
12% higher than the 2010 study. The signal delays accounted for 46 minutes and 14 seconds
(31 % of total delays).
The mean delay per event for signals in segments 10, 13, 14 and 22 are higher than the LOS
C threshold value of 25 seconds, which is the signal impact discounted in the methodology.
The signal on Big Pine Key segment (Segment 10) caused 14 (11%) signal delay events
accounting for 4 minutes and 42 seconds, which is similar to last year's total of 4 minutes
and 57 seconds.
The signals on Marathon segment (Segment 13) were the most significant, causing 47 signal
delay events (6 more than last year) accounting for 20 minutes and 4 seconds (43% of the
total signal delays), which is almost 2.5 minutes more than the 2010 signal delays in this
segment. The mean delay per event at the Marathon signals was higher than the 25 seconds
threshold at 26 seconds. The mean delay per trip was also higher than the 25 seconds
threshold at 43 seconds.
Accident Delay
The accident delays, classified as nonrecurring events were the largest delay events during
the 2011 study. There were 6 accident delays recorded during the 2011 study accounting for
49 minutes and 18 seconds. The accident delays accounted for 33% of the total delays. The
accident delays were excluded from the overall and segment travel time.
Turning Vehicles Delay
There was only 1 left -turn delay amounting to 11 seconds during this year's study; a
significant reduction from last year's 17 delays at 6 minutes and 18 seconds.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 29 of 56
_Draw Bridge Delay
Since the reconstruction of the Jew Fish Creek Bridge, the bridge across the Snake Creek is
the only bridge along the entire length of U.S. 1 in Monroe County that causes drawbridge
delays. The Snake Creek Draw Bridge (between Segments 20 and 21) created 2 drawbridge
related delays during this year's travel time runs, totaling 15 minutes and 05 seconds. The
drawbridge delays were excluded from the segment travel time but included in the overall
travel time.
Congestion Delay
There were nine (9) congestion related delays events this year totaling 8 minutes and 36
seconds. The congestion delay events contributed an average of 57 seconds of delay per trip,
which is similar to last year's average congestion delay per trip of 55 seconds.
Construction Delay
The construction delay was the third largest delay event. During the 2011 study there was on-
going construction at the following segments:
1. Tavernier (Segment 22)
2. Key Largo (Segment 24)
The five (5) construction delay events accounted for 28 minutes and 9 seconds in 2011. This
is a decrease from 2010 construction delays accounting for 57 minutes and 26 seconds. The
construction delay reduction is partly due to the completion of road work along Cross and
Grassy Keys. There was construction at around MM 53 in Marathon; most of the delays in
this area were recorded as either congestion or signal delay due to combined effect of the
delays. The ongoing construction in Big Pine Key did not cause any delays; it may have
caused reduction in travel speeds without causing any delay events.
RESERVE CAPACITIES
The difference between the median speed and the LOS C standard gives the reserve speed, which
in turn can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volume and
corresponding additional development. The median overall speed of 47.1 mph compared to the
LOS C standard of 45 mph leaves an overall reserve speed of 2.1 mph.
County regulations and FDOT 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. This provision will
allow a limited amount of additional land development to continue until traffic speeds are
measured again next year or until remedial actions are implemented. These segments are
candidates for being designated either "backlogged" or "constrained" by Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT).
In 2010, there were 4 segments identified to be functioning below the LOS C threshold. Based
on this year's results, the Lower Matecumbe (Segment 17), and Tea Table (Segment 18)
continue to function below the LOS C threshold; the other two segments - Big Coppitt (Segment
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 30 of 56
3) and Grassy (Segment 14) have improved to LOS C. The Lower Matecumbe (Segment 17) and
Tea Table (Segment 18) however, has reserve capacity within the 5% allocation.
According to the Florida Department of Transportation District (FDOT) Six 2011/2012 —
2015/2016, there is ongoing construction of the Overseas Heritage Trail bike path and vistas
happening at various locations throughout the Florida Keys.
• Big Coppitt, Segment 3 is located at approximate mile marker 9 through 10.5.
Resurfacing and bridge repair/rehabilitation are currently in the preliminary engineering
state. Construction should start in year 2014. This segment has a reserve volume of 522
trips.
• Grassy Key, Segment 14 is located at approximate mile marker 54 through 60.5.
Construction of the bike path/trail starts in 2013. This segment has a maximum reserve
volume of 3,074 trips.
• Lower Matecumbe, Segment 17 is located at approximate mile marker 73 through 77.5.
There are no work projects are cited in this year's FDOT Transportation Plan. This
segment has a LOS D. The maximum reserve volume is -671 trips and falls within the
5% (1,196 trips) allocation criteria.
• Tea Table Relief Bridge, Segment 18 is located at approximate mile marker 77.5 through
79.5. There is preliminary engineering for resurfacing between Old SR 4A/MM77.5 to
Jerome Avenue (mile marker 81.5) which starts in 2012 and construction starting in
2014. This segment has a LOS D. The maximum reserve volume is -328 trips and falls
within the 5% (571) allocation criteria.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic counts can be very useful in assessing the capacity of the road network and help
determine when capacity improvements need to be made. The Average Daily Traffic information
is used in a formula called a "weekly factor" to estimate the annual average daily traffic. This is
an estimated average amount of traffic at a particular location on any given day of the year.
The data were recorded by date, day of the week, time of the day, and direction. The field data
collection took place between February 28, 2011 and March 13, 2011. 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 February 27, 2011 to March 5,
2011, concurrently with the travel time runs.
The two primary measurements for determining traffic volumes are the average daily traffic
(ADT) or weekday count, and the annual average daily traffic (AADT) which includes the
weekend. ADT counts are collected from both directions over seven (7) twenty-four hour
periods which usually include a weekend. The amount of traffic counted over the week is then
divided by five or seven to yield the average daily traffic for a particular location.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 31 of 56
Mechanical traffic counters and hoses were installed on February 27, 2011 at the following
locations:
• Upper Matecumbe, on the south side of the Whale Harbor Bridge (MM 84)
• Marathon, in front of McDonalds (MM 50)
• Big Pine Key, on the south side of the North Pine Channel Bridge (MM 30).
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 and AADT volumes for 2011. These
volumes for 5-day and 7-day are averages of the raw volumes counted. The volumes have been
adjusted using 2010 seasonal and axle factors to estimate the 2011 AADT's. The AADT have
increased (except in Big Pine Key) due to higher seasonal factor recorded by FDOT compared to
previous year.
On Big Pine Key additional traffic volume data were collected, at the request of Monroe County,
for a variety of purposes. The data indicates localized differences in traffic volumes throughout
U.S. 1 in the island of Big Pine Key.
TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR 2010 AND 2011
2010
2011
% Change
Big Pine Key (MM 30)
5 — Day Average
20,651 20,468 -0.89%
7 — Day Average
20,115 20,070 -0.22%
AADT
17,842 17,684 -0.89%
Marathon (MM 50)
5 — Day Average
31,883
32,156
0.85%
7 — Day Average
30,548
31,097 I
1.77%
AADT
27,547
27,782
0.85%
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84)
5 — Day Average
22,588 24,326 7.14%
7 — Day Average
22,634 24,508 7.65%
AADT
19,516 I 21,017 7.14%
Both the average 5-Day ADT and the 7-Day ADT shows a decrease at the Big Pine Key location
and increases at the Marathon and the Upper Matecumbe locations. Overall, the AADT
decreased Big Pine Key while increasing in Big Pine and Upper Matecumbe.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 32 of 56
4
® },'
r'
1 rY
ism
,
r
w
4 r
T = i r I
� w r
■
r,
u
r
r
r
4-4 x
}
l
O
t`
cd
V)
+ i
N
!
p
I
cli
N
CFy
i
O
k'
I�
Go
lilt
♦ �j
3I.
o 0�■
��
-t >,
i
a
�
0
�'
j
��f.
p I
I
pm
N
c"
�1J �
I
a$
N
>
>
c
i.
N
au
N
t,
Cd
to
i'
.r
•.�.n 'L'3 �
0 �
�
I � �
GO v
H Q
y
fNLa
ff
f
3
!f
�i
8N
;.
�y FFCSSCrr
I+��V�
(Dcd
2
L.
I I w I
O I
w m co
m0Or
it
b 9
LLI
M CL Il-
C ago
c
c"
®
'b
{*
w
�q, �o
m0.
r
®
j ej i
i
cD to
P
0 Ii
"y v
i
Ln
�p
�E
�� W
}O�
I
I
^
N
��'nns11
U 0
W
� �
S W �
n
0
U O cd
o
NM M
o a o a
N N CCV N
N
®
CO
O Cd p
(ARPA18A)1OVV
°
�
i�
r f
o
N
t;
''
The median overall speed during the 2011 study was 47.1 mph, which is 0.2 mph higher than the
2010 median speed of 46.9 mph. The mean operating speed was 46.9 mph with a 95%
confidence interval of plus or minus 0.5 mph. The mean and median speeds correspond to LOS
C conditions. The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 48.7 mph (0.3 mph higher
than the 2010 highest overall speed of 48.4 mph), which occurred on Friday, March 11, 2011
between 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., in the northbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded
was 41.9 mph (0.8 mph lower than the 2010 lowest overall speed of 42.7 mph), which occurred
on Monday, March 7, 2011 between 1:45 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. in the southbound direction
SUMMARY
Based on the findings of the 2011 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe
County, as prepared by URS Corporation Southern Consultants, U.S. 1 has an overall level of
service (LOS) C.
The following is a summary of the 2011 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study results:
a) The calculated AADT volumes have increased (except in Big Pine Key) due to higher
seasonal factor recorded by FDOT compared to previous year.
b) The overall travel speed on U.S. 1 for 2011 is 0.2 mph higher compared to the 2010
overall travel speed.
c) Compared to 2010 data, the travel speeds on 11 of the 24 segments have decreased. They
are:
- Stock Island (-0.3 mph)
-Duck (43 mph)
- Sugarloaf (4.3 mph)!
_
- Long Key (0.9 m-
ph)
- Cudjoe (43 mph)
....
-Tea Table (-0.4 mph)
- Big Pine (-1_0)
- Windle 2.9 mph)
.y �- P
- Bahia Honda (-0.4)
- Key Largo (-1.0 mph)
- Marathon (-0.3 mph)
p.
The Windley Key segment experienced a noticeable drop in speed due to residual effect of
the draw bridge operation at the Snake Creek.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 35 of 56
Travel speeds on 13 segments have increased.
- Boca Chica (+1.1 mph)
- Grassy (+4.1 mph)
i - Big Coppitt (+2.1 mph)
- Saddlebunch (+0.5 mph)
- Summerland (+0.1 mph)
- L Matecumbe (+0.4 mph)
- U Matecumbe (+0.5 mph)
- Plantation (+0.2 mph) 1
- RaT rod (+1.0 mph)
-Tavernier (+1.1 mph)
- Torch (+1.5 mph)
- Cross (+1.7 mph)
- 7-Mile Bridge (+1.3 mph)
d) Compared to last year's (2010) study results, there are LOS changes in seven of the 24
segments.
- Big Coppitt segment (3) increased from LOS `D' to LOS `C'
- Saddlebunch segment (4) increased from LOS `C' to LOS `B'
- Sugarloaf segment (5) increased from LOS `C' to LOS `B'
- Grassy Key (Segment 14) increased from LOS `D' to LOS `C'
- Cudjoe segment (6) decreased from LOS `A' to LOS `B'
- Summerland segment (11) decreased from LOS `A' to LOS `B'
- Windley Key (Segment 20) decreased from LOS `A' to LOS `C'
e) Segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given particular
attention when approving development applications. This year, there are seven segments
of U.S. 1 in this category, one less than last year.
- Big Cop (MM 9.0 - MM 10.5) - Tea Table (MM 77.5 - MM 79.5)
- Big Pine (MM 29.5 - MM 33.0)
- U. Matecumbe (MM 79.5 - MM 84.0)
- Grassy (MM 54.0 - MM 60.5)
j -Windley (84.0 - 86.0)
- L Matecumbe (MM 73.0 - MM 77.5)
Two contiguous segments in the lower keys, Saddlebunch (MM 10.5 - M 16.5) and
Sugarloaf (MM 16.5 - MM 20.5) have been removed from this year's list compared to
last year's list. The Windley (MM 84.0 - MM 86.0) is the new segment on this year's
list, which makes up a 13 mile (MM 73.0 - MM 86.0) stretch of U.S. 1 in the upper keys
that is of critical concern.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 36 of 56
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 in a pineland preserve west of Florida City in south
Miami -Dade County. The FKAA's wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater
in the State, meeting all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Laws protect the wellfield from
potential contamination from adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's requirements, FKAA is
committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water quality standards and
requirements.
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 and 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. Including overlapping coverage, the FKAA maintains 187 miles of transmission main at
a maximum pressure of 250 pounds per square inch. The transmission pipeline varies in diameter
from 36 inches to 12 inches. The FKAA distributes the treated water through 690 miles of
distribution piping ranging in size from 4-inch to 12 inches in diameter.
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 of water, 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 various FKAA facilities in the Keys is
shown on the next page.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 37 of 56
FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY
TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
45.2 MG STORAGE CAPACITY
1 YO
1. KEY WEST 25 2 0 HP PUYPs
a,gl�Dx _ s YD
STATI011
5 Yp
2. STOCK ISLAND 1 655 HP PUMP
2 500 HP PUMPS s YO
RAMROD KEY
ATg11 1 1000 HP PUMP 6. BIG PINE KEY
1 SDO HP PUMP 2 75 HP PUMPS
5
5. SUMMERLAND KEY
2 30 HP PUMPS n 1.0 MOD
® R.O. PLANK
H- BIG pOPPITT KEY I MARATHON
0
BAY POINT •DI S4 MO
WW TREATMENT PUNT
SA YOD
R.O. PLANT
DLsv1eDDDIK
STOCK ISLAND
5 YD SERITIOM
MM 3. STOCK ISLAND (DESAL)
1 30 HP TRNCREB PUMP
2 Ib HP PUMPS
Demand for Potable Water
5 YG 15. FLORIDA CITY
1 O
�U® IMc®�
s Yc 1 YD 14. OCEAN REEF•
2'.3 MOD UME soP1ENa6 TRUTYEM PUNT 2 75 HP PUMPS
S MOD R.D. TRUTMEWI PLANT
2 500 RP PUMPS
7 B00 N► PUMPS
7 IDDO HP DIESEL PUMPS
EMERGENCY BACKUP
`T - 6. KEY LARGO
—MARATHON
IC7
p
2 M RP PUMPS ®
STATN)N
'L
1 150 NP PULP
S 7D0 HP PUMPS
-9. VACAgT ® 12•
p
TAVERNIER J�
2 75 HP f''��..,,Ja 2 30
PUMPS
NP PUN
13. ROCK®
"ARBOR
10.E NP WL EYPUMPSN
so HP
PRPuuP
DUCK KEY IBD YD
11. ISLAMORADA s
WW TREATMENT PLANT
2 75 HP PUMP 1 MG
LONG KEY
: pNUYP
_
5 S00 NP PUMPS
7LITTLE VENICE '�'�_—LAYTON
WW TREATMENT PLANT WW TREATMENT PLANT 053 Y
MARATHON�__�s �9NP STPS ARATHON
t-Aj-�2 500 HP PUYP7 5 YO
1 550 HP PUMPS
TRANMISSION BACKPUMPING CAPABILITIES
MARATHON (1)-5 MG TANK
STOCK ISLAND (3)-5 MG TANKS
STOCK ISLAND DESAL (1)-5 MG TANK
The table and graph below provide a historical overview of the water demands in the FKAA
service area, Water Use Permit (WUP) allocation limits, yearly percent change, and water
allocation remaining. In March 2009, 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. The WUP provides an annual allocation of 8,751 Million
Gallons (MG) or 23.98 MGD and a maximum monthly allocation of 809 MG with a limited
annual withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer of 6,492 MG or 17.79 MGD and an average dry
season (December 0-April 30') of 17.0 MGD.
In order to meet the requirements of this limitation, the FKAA constructed a new Floridan
Aquifer Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment system. This RO water treatment system is
designed to withdraw brackish water from the Floridan Aquifer, an alternative water source,
which is approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat to drinking water
standards. The new 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.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 38 of 56
t
I4 f
Along with the new reverse osmosis water treatment plant, compliance with withdrawal limits
can also be accomplished by using other alternative water sources (blending of the Floridan
Aquifer, reclaimed water and operation of the RO desalination plants), pressure reduction, public 1
outreach, and assistance from municipal agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances
(i.e. irrigation ordinance).
Annual Water Withdrawals 2000 to 2010
Year Annual Withdrawal % WUP Limit WUP +/- Annual
(MG) Change (MG) Allocation (MG)
2000 6,228 10.60% 5,778 -450
2001 5,627 -9.70% 5,778 151
2002 6,191 10.03% 7,274 1,083
2003 6,288 1.57% 7,274 986
2004 6,461 2.74% 7,274 813
2005 6,471 0.16% 7,274 803
j,
2006 6,310 -2.49% 7,274 964
2007 5,846 -7.35% 7,274 1,428
2008 5,960 1.95% 8,751 2,791
2009 5,966 0.09% 8,751 2,785
2010 5,917 -0.82% 8,751 2,834 k
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2011
t
` FKAA Annual Water Withdrawal
9,000
j; ,000 -�
7,000 - . -
,0
t
5,O00
4,000
r 3,000
c
2,000
,{0
i
t
s
Annual Withdrawal (MG) Vv-Ilp Limit (MG)
€
t
f
2011 Munroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report page 39 of 56
a
Demand for potable water is influenced by many factors, including the number of permanent
residents, seasonal populations and day visitors, the demand for commercial water use,
landscaping practices, conservation measures, and the weather. In 2010, the FKAA distributed
an annual average day of 15.69 MGD — 16.21 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer plus 0.52 MGD
from Floridan RO Production as shown in the table below. Also, this table provides the water
treatment capacities of the RO plants. The emergency RO plants do not require a WUP because
the water source is seawater.
Projected Water Demand in 2011 (in MG)
Annual Allocation
FKAA Permit
Thresholds
2010 Pumpage
2011 Water
Demand
Projected
Average Daily Withdrawal
23.98
16.21
16.54
Maximum Monthly Withdrawal
809.01
533.26
563.33
Annual Withdrawal
8,751
5,917
6,036
Biscayne Aquifer Annual
Allocation/Limitations
Average Daily Withdrawal
17.79
15.69
15.68
Average Dry Season Withdrawal*
17
16.23
16.33
Annual Withdrawal
6,492
5,727
5,723
Floridan RO Production
Average Daily Withdrawal
6
0.52
1.1
Emergency RO WTP Facilities
Kermit L. Lewin Design Capacity
2.00 (MGD)
0.00 (MGY)
0
Marathon RO Design Capacity
1.00 (MGD)
0.00 (MGY)
0
All figures are in millions of gallons
*Dry Season is defined as December thru April
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2011
The maximum monthly water demand of 533.26 MG, shown in the figure below, occurred in
April of 2010. Preliminary figures and projections for 2011 indicate a slight increase to an annual
average daily demand to 16.54 MGD and an increase in maximum monthly demand to 563.33
MG as compared to 2010 figures
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 40 of 56
The table below provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional
Population and average daily demand, the average and projected water consumption for 2010
and 2011 is approximately 105 and 106 gallons per capita (person), respectively.
Per Capita Water Use
Year
1
Functional Population
Daily Withdrawal
(gallons)2
Average Water
Consumption Per Capita
(gallons)
2000
153,080
17,016,393
111
2001
153,552
15,415,616
100
2002
154,023
16,962,082
110
2003
154,495
17,228,192
112
2004
154,924
17,652,596
114
2005
156,150
17,730,000
114
2006
155,738
17,287,671
111
2007
155,440
16,017,315
103
2008
154,728
16,285,383
105
2009
155,441
16,345,205
105
2010
155,288
16,210,959
104
2011
156,054
16,540,000
106
Source:
1. Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections
- Monroe County Planning Department, 2011
(Population Projections 3-15-2011 document)
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2011
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. The FKAA's Water
Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of approximately 38,240
feet of water main during fiscal year 2011.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 41 of 56
t
00
0
0
0
0
00
~
0
00000Lriu-
O^
00
d
fV
Ln
O
M
001
CIOLC
O
Ln
.4
I-
M
M
p
GO
LM
Ln
�
Cd
LM
„
O
O
O
O
a
v
o
000o
r�o�
"'ooLn
N
W
oo
,3
M
N
N
fV
M
r4
pj
c
i
i/i
i/i
i/i
i/}
El
L
CL
fV
O
Fit
r
N
tj:
N
Ln
T-4
M
O
N.44
kc
co
:
S.
00
f�
• �
cn
L
;��
U }'
O
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
rN-1
W
U
N
'
O
O
00
tD
O
O'
O
O
O
00
�1
y
0 0
O
I�
Lrf
O
u
O
rV
d
0
Ln
W
00
as
U i
L
o
Q
O
.O
+'
O
O
O
O
O
O
rti
w U
Ocn
'C
f"
O
Ln
Ln
r-
r-
O
Ln
w
to
�otw
N
r4
Lr
M
If
O 4.
_I
p
N
d
O
00
•
.O N +�
O
y
•.r
U
"C7 "C7
H
U
Q
r
s••i
•�Q1i 'C
oz
Cd
_O
Q
Ln
E
w
C
7
i..
•� O
=
f0
.O
O
C
C
�
to
�
L
ry
�_
q �{
43
O
0-0
w
0
c
C
•m
Nr_
E
a
Z
M
Ut
S
i,
Li
00C
Ln
s
N q
SUMMARY
In summary, with the construction of the new water supply wells and RO water treatment, the
new reclaimed systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during
emergency situations, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and future demands,
based on current conditions and projections. FKAA will continue 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 supply.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 43 of 56
IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES
The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 13 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 six elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields, computer labs, bus
service and a cafetorium that serves as both a cafeteria and an auditorium. In addition to these
standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums.
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 five elementary schools.
1 OS Miles from; Key Largo to Key West
105 MM
Key Lars
Administration Building Plantation Kerr School
241 Trumbo ko
Iicy West, FI
OMM
Stanley Switlik school
SO MM
Sigsbee Ele Gerald Adams Ele
Glynn Archer
®i
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 44 of 56
M
1
School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in
planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates.
I
The Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate is 11,242 students and the Capital
Outlay of Full -Time Equivalent (COFTE) is 7,518. The actual utilization during 2010 — 2011
was 66.88%. Overall, the projected growth utilization rate is 1.03% for the years 2010-2011
( through 2014-2015.
ACTUAL ACTUAL=2010-2011
LOCATION 2010-2011 2009-2010FISH CAPACITY COFTE
4
CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH 981
746 76.00%
KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH 1,431 1,338 94.00%
HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE 1,038 707 68.00%
MARATHON SENIOR HIGH 1,370
619 45.00%
�E MAY SANDS SCHOOLS s
30 25A8.5,005,1od!`
GERALD ADAMS 652 441
f
PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL 650
I= 433
GLYNN ARCHER ELEMENTARY 598 257
r} POINCIANA ELEMENTARY 641 612
SIGSBEE ELEMENTARY 522 228SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY1,215 745 6.00
STANLEY SWITLIK
ELEMENTARY 871
469 54.00%
KEY LARGO SCHOOL 1,243 897 72.00%
TOTAL 11,242
7,518 68.88%
Annually, prior to the adoption of the district school budget, each school board must prepare a
tentative district facilities work program that includes a major repair and renovation projects
} necessary to maintain the educational and ancillary facilities of the district. Some of the items
listed in the 2010-2011 Monroe County School District Work Plan include HVAC, flooring,
roofing, safety to life, sewers projects, and fencing for various schools. Other items include f
physical education field renovations, concrete repairs, ADA projects and site drainage
maintenance.'
{ The 2010-2011 Monroe County School District 1.50 Mill Revenues Source actual value is J
$7,792,830. The PECO Revenue Source actual budget is $9,965,757, PECO maintenance
revenue is $450,919. The revenue from capital outlay and debt service is $52,683. Additional C, i
revenue sources include proceeds from %2 cent sales surtax at $10,536,621 and funds carried
forward at $59,397,657. The total revenue source for this time period is $69,898,961 and total s
revenue available is $67,814,034.
lfffji 4
4"
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 45 of 56 s
t
The total project costs for maintenance, repair and renovation during 2010-2011 is $21,085,964.
Plans approved by the school board that reduce the need for permanent student stations such as
acceptable school capacity levels, redistricting, busing, year-round schools, charter schools,
magnet schools, public -private partnerships, multi -track scheduling, grade level organization,
block scheduling or other alternatives. The charter school was successfully formed at Sigsbee
School. Glynn Archer School is being moved into the planned Horace O'Bryan replacement.
This will free up the old Glynn Archer campus for other uses. The Monroe County School
District is in compliance with the class size reduction requirement. The Board has approved the
plan to close Glynn Archer Elementary School in the most recent Plant Survey. The property is
being considered for Administrative offices or surplus to the City of Key West.
SUMMARY
Enrollment figures for the 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 school years indicate that there is
adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2010-2011 utilization is
66.88% of the school system capacity.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 46 of 56
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 5.44 pounds
per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU) and establishes a
haul out capacity of 95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs. 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 three 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, require that, "... sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to
accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of at least three years from the
projected date of completion of a proposed development or use" (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).
In 2010, the County provided solid waste service to accommodate 70,808 residents. FDEP
certification of solid waste data for December 31, 2009 is reported to be 71,311 residents in the
County. For the purpose of this document, this data will be used as the most recent certified data.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 47 of 56
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
Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
Data collection calendar year is January 1 to December 31.
These are scale tonnages.
Fluctuations in yearly data may be a result of major storm events, economic conditions,
and other generation factors.
FDEP calendar years do not coincide with Monroe County's calendar years, thus
creating a differential in datum between departments.
The historical solid waste generation values for Monroe County show a steady increase of total
solid waste generation between the years 1998-2001. During the period 2002 - 2006, 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. In 2009 the Monroe County Tourist
Development Council estimated 3.3 million tourist visited the County and future tourism will
continue to rise as general population increases, thus having a serious impact on the 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,
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 48 of 56
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.
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
Source: Monroe County Recommended Functional Population Series,
Fishkind & Associates 2010
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 49 of 56
VI. PARKS AND RECREATION
An annual assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Monroe County
Land Development Code; however, data is provided.
The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities is provided in Policy 1201.1.1
of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service Standard
The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in 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
Functional
Existing
Demand in
Surplus or
Parks and Recreation
Population 2010
Acreage
Acreage
(Deficit) in
Acreage
g
0.82 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, resourced-based
138,803
2,502
113.8
136.2
neighborhood and community parks
0.82 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, activity -based
138,803
4,343
113.8
320.2
neighborhood and community parks
Draft 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.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 51 of 56
Level of Service Analysis For Activity -Based Recreation Areas
The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity -based recreational land found at educational
facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. As of May 2011, a total
of 98.98 acres of developed resourced-based and 118.25 acres of activity -based recreation areas
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 the 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
Name
Location
Mile
Facilities
Classification (Acres)
Marker
Resource
Activity
Sunset Bay Park
Grassy Key
58
Beach
0.6
NA
Yacht Club (1)
Vaca Key
(Marathon)
54
Boat ramp, teen club, 2
tennis courts, basketball
NA
2
court
Beach, picnic pavilions,
Sombrero Beach
ball field, 2 volleyball
(Switlik Park)
Monroe County
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
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 52 of 56
UPPER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 73-112
Name
Location
Mile
Facilities
Classification (Acres)
Marker
Resource
Activity
Hibiscus Park
Key Largo
101.5
Vacant, inaccessible
0.5
NA
(Buttonwood Lane)
waterfront
Riviera Village
Boat basin, four picnic
Park
Key Largo
105.5
pavilions,
1.8
NA
(Bay Drive)
Waterfront, benches
Garden Cove Park
Key Largo
106
Boat ramp
1.5
NA
Ball field, 3 basketball
Friendship Park
Key Largo
101
courts, picnic shelters,
NA
2.38
Play equipment,
restrooms, trail
Key Largo
2 boat ramps, play
Community Park-
Key Largo
99.6
equipment, aquatic
1.5
13.6
Jacob's Aquatic
park, 3 swimming
Center
pools, beach
Varadero Beach
Park
Key Largo
95.5
Beach
2
NA
Beach, two ball fields,
play equipment,
Harry Harris
Key Largo
94
swimming boat ramp,
County Park
(Tavernier)
BBQs, shuffleboard,
2
15.1
beach, picnic tables,
restrooms
Key Largo
Play Equipment, picnic,
Old Settlers Park
(Tavernier)
92.5
shelter, beach, butterfly
NA
3
garden
Sunset Point Park
Key Largo
92
Vacant, waterfront
1.2
0.9
(Tavernier)
access, boat ramp
Burr Beach Park
Key Largo
91
Vacant, waterfront
0.1
NA
(Sunny Haven)
access
Old State Rte. 4A
Upper Matecumbe Key
82.5
Vacant
0.3
NA
Old State Rte. 4A,
Hurricane
Upper
Matecumbe Key
81
Historical marker
1.2
NA
Monument
Anne's Beach,
Lower
Beach, swimming, bike
Lower Matecumbe
Matecumbe Key
73.5
path, picnic pavilions,
6.1
6
Beach (5)
boardwalk
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 53 of 56
LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5
Name
Location
Mile
Facilities
Classification (Acres)
Marker
Resource
Activity
Picnic pavilions, beach,
Veteran's Memorial Park
Little Duck Key
40
BBQs, boat ramp,
0.6
24.9
(Ohio Key)
swimming, beach,
restrooms *
Missouri Key/South side
US I
Missouri Key
39
Roadside pull -off, beach
3.5
NA
Heron Ave./Tarpon St.
Big Pine Key
30
Vacant
0.7
NA
Historic House, 2 tennis
J. Watson Field (Stiglitz
Big Pine Key
30
courts, volleyball, play
1.2
2.4
Property) (2)
equipment, baseball,
picnic
Big Pine Key Park
Big Pine Key
30
Vacant
5.5
4.6
Play equipment, 3
Blue Heron Park
Big Pine Key
30
pavilions, basketball,
NA
5.5
volleyball,
Bob Evans/ Chamber of
Commerce
Big Pine Key
30
Vacant
0.3
NA
Benches, waterfront,
Palm Villa Park
Big Pine Key
30
play equipment,
NA
0.6
basketball
State Road 4
Little Torch Key
28
Boat ramps
0.1
NA
Ramrod Key Park
Ramrod Key
27
Beach*, swimming
1.2
1.2
West Summerland Park
West
Summerland Key
25
2 Boat ramps
31.8
NA
Play equipment,
volleyball, picnic tables,
Bay Point Park
Saddlebunch Key
15
trail, basketball, 2 tennis
NA
1.58
courts, pavilions, soccer
nets
Boca Chica Beach, S R
941(3)
Boca Chica Key
I I
Beach, picnic table
6
NA
Palm Drive cul-de-sac
Big Coppitt Key
11
Vacant
0.1
NA
Big Coppitt Volunteer Fire
Department Park (4)
Big Coppitt Key
10
Play equipment,
benches, skateboard
NA
0.75
Wilhelmina Harvey Park ,
Big Coppitt Key
9.5
Play equipment, path
NA
0�6_5_
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 54 of 56
Gulfview Park, Delmar
Ave.
Big Coppitt Key
10
Boat ramp
0.2
NA
Rockland Hammock
Rockland Key
10
Vacant
2.5
NA
Play equipment,
Bernstein Park
Raccoon Key
4.5
volleyball, baseball,
track, trail, soccer field,
tennis courts, basketball,
NA
11
restrooms
East Martello Park
Key West Island
1.5
Picnic, teen center,
Historic Fort
14.56
NA
1.6 mile beach,
concession area, 2 band
Higgs Beach Park, C.B.
Harvey, Rest Beach
Key West Island
1
shells, pier, picnic
pavilions and grills, 5
tennis courts, playarea,
5
12.1
bike path, volleyball,
swimming, dog park
West Martello Park
Key West Island
1
Historic Fort
0.8
NA
0.8
NA
Whitehead Street
Key y west Island
1
Historic Fort, Museum
Pines Park (S. Roosevelt)
Key West Island
I
Picnic
NA
1.72
(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 of park has public access 2 basketball, volleyball, and bocce courts.
(5) Beach leased to Village of Islamorada
*Denotes approximate acreage; (for beaches the length of the beach x a minimum of 15 ft.)
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report Page 55 of 56
Acquisition of Additional Recreation Areas
The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe
County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of resource -based and
activity -based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level of service
standards." The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be
accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6)
mechanisms that are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as
for providing adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result
from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are:
1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land that is already owned by the
county but that is not being used for park and recreation purposes;
2. Acquisition of new park sites;
3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board that would allow for the
use of existing school -park facilities by county residents;
4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County that would
allow for the use of existing city -owned park facilities by county residents;
5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments that
would allow for the use of existing publicly -owned lands or facilities by county
residents; and
6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities that would
allow for the use of private park facilities by county residents.
To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms — acquisition of new park sites
and interlocal agreements with the School Board.
2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Assessment Report
Page 56 of 56
IJJ 1 I f 1 1 1
IJ / V LIUMINK,
/ :I 1 1
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission makes the following Findings:
1. Pursuant to § 163.3164(7), Florida Statutes, "Capital improvement" means physical assets
constructed or purchased to provide, improve, or replace a public facility and which are
typically large scale and high in cost The cost of a capital improvement is generally
nonrecurring and may require multiyear financing. For the purposes of this part, physical
assets that have been identified as existing or projected needs in the individual
comprehensive plan elements shall be considered capital improvements.
2. Pursuant to §163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statues, the comprehensive plan shall contain a
capital improvements element designed to consider the need for and the location of public
facilities in order to encourage the efficient use of such facilities.
3. Pursuant to § 163.3177(3)(a)l., Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan shall contain a
component that outlines principles for construction, extension, or increase in capacity of
public facilities, as well as outline principles for correcting existing public facility
deficiencies, which are necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. The components
shall cover at least a 5-year period.
4. Pursuant to §163.3177(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan shall contain
estimated public facility costs, including a delineation of when facilities will be needed, the
general location of the facilities, and projected revenue sources to fund the facilities.
5. Pursuant to § 163.3177(3Xa)3., Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan shall contain
standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities to
meet established acceptable levels of service.
6. Pursuant to § 163.3177(3)(a)4., Florida Statutes, a schedule of capital improvements shall
include any publicly funded projects of federal, state, or local government, and may include
Pap I of 3
privately funded projects for which the local government has no fiscal responsibility.
Projects necessary to ensure that any adopted level -of -service standards are achieved and
maintained for the 5-year period must be identified as either funded or unfunded and given
a level of priority for funding.
7. Pursuant to §163.3177(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the capital improvements element must be
reviewed by the local government on an annual basis. Modifications to update the 5-year
capital improvement schedule may be accomplished by ordinance and may not be deemed
to be amendments to the local comprehensive plan.
8. Objective 1401.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandates Monroe County to
provide the capital improvements necessary to correct existing deficiencies, to
accommodate projected future growth, and to replace obsolete and worn-out facilities, in
accordance with an adopted Capital Improvements Program.
9. Policy 1401.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandates Monroe County to
revise the existing County Capital Improvements Program to incorporate the
improvements identified in the Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements included in
Table 4.1 of Capital Improvements Implementation.
10. Policy 1401.1.2 mandates Monroe County to annually update the Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, and further provides
that revisions to the schedule shall be incorporated into the Capital Improvements
Program on an annual basis.
11. Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures 5.0 (1) and (2) of the Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan requires that the Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (CIP) be reviewed
and updated annually, in order to allocate financial resources to implement the Plan.
12. The amendment furthers Principle (a) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Strengthening local government capabilities
for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these
objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation.
13. The amendment furthers Principle (h) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-
effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments,
including: water supply facilities; sewage collection treatment and disposal facilities;
solid waste collection and disposal facilities; transportation facilities; parks, recreation
facilities, and other publicly owned properties.
14. The amendment furthers Principle 6) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Ensuring the improvement of nearshore
water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management
facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable,
and by directing growth to 9-mrs szmue
=_1 di&LBMaj 96
15. The amendment fiwthers Principle (k) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Limiting the adverse impacts of public
investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
16. The amendment furthers Principle (n) of the Principles for Guiding Development in the
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern: Protecting the public health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique
Florida resource.
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on the 18th day of October, 2011, the Monroe
County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter and recommended that
the Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments to Table 4.1 Five -Year
Schedule of Capital Improvements Fiscal Year 2011 through 2016 of the Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan, as shown on the attached Exhibit A and Exhibit Al. Amendments
are presented in underline (Exhibit A) to indicate additions to text and strikethrough
(Exhibit Al) to indicate deletions. All other words, characters, and language of the
comprehensive plan remain unchanged.
V; I D1 Ili M Q1
NOWINAWN aw"WWWWW"n, Wr
ol 9: 1 OT4-tTs
PASSED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION by the Monroe County Planning
Commission at a regular meeting held on the 18'h day of October, 2011.
Chair Werling
Vice -Chair Wall
Commissioner Hale e nt
Commissioner Lustberg
Commissioner Wiatt
e
PLANNING ,COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By_lle
Denise Werling, Chair
Signed this _jZL_ day of 2011
MON
AP
Tate:
Pap 3 of
� . .. .: . . . . . . .
e
)
�
�
QI
L
ILI
I
p;
we
r
r
R
A;
f
4
I
i
m
_fir
i
M
I
' �
A