The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 261-2024 1 2 r,. 3 ( 5 / w n 8 9 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 11 RESOLUTION NO. 261 -2024 12 13 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 14 COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE 2023-2025 BIENNIAL PUBLIC 15 FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT AS SUBMITTED BY 16 THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL 17 RESOURCES DEPARTMENT. 18 19 WHEREAS, Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires Monroe 20 County to provide and maintain, in a timely and efficient manner, adequate public facilities for 21 both existing and future populations, consistent with available financial resources and other 22 elements of the Comprehensive Plan; and 23 24 WHEREAS, the biennial assessment of public facilities capacity is mandated by Chapter 25 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Code ("LDC"), to wit: 26 27 1. LDC Section 114-2("Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures")contains two major 28 sets of requirements: The minimum service standards for the six primary public 29 facilities (roadways, solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer, schools and recreation 30 and open space facilities), and a biennial assessment process to determine the available 31 capacity of these public facilities. LDC Section 114-2 includes an equitable procedure 32 for issuing permits when the rate of growth is likely to outpace the current capacity of 33 these public facilities; and 34 35 2. LDC Section 114-2(b)(3)requires the Planning Director to prepare a biennial report to 36 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") on the capacity of 37 available public facilities to accommodate growth during the next 12 to 24 months; and 38 39 3. LDC Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the Monroe County BOCC to consider this report 40 and approve its findings either with or without modifications. In the event the BOCC 41 acts to increase the development capacity of any service area, the BOCC shall make 42 specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase, including the source of funds 43 to be used to pay for the additional capacity; and 44 45 WHEREAS, once approved by the BOCC, the Public Facilities Capacity Assessment 46 Report becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will 47 be based for the next two (2) years; and 48 1 of 3 I WHEREAS,Monroe County's land development regulations("LDRs")require the BOCC 2 to adopt a biennial assessment of public facilities capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; and 3 4 WHEREAS, at its regular August 21, 2024, the Monroe County BOCC discussed the 5 2023-2025 Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report; and 6 7 WHEREAS,the Monroe County BOCC makes the following determinations: 8 9 1. The 2023-2025 biennial assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for 10 roads, solid waste,potable water, sanitary sewer,parks and recreation, and educational 11 facilities; and 12 13 2. The 2023-2025 Biennial Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report becomes the 14 official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be 15 reviewed and approved for the upcoming two (2)years; and 16 17 3. Section 114-2 of the LDRs provides the minimum standards for level of service for 18 roads, solid waste,potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation and educational 19 facilities; and 20 21 4. Section 114-2 of the LDRs requires the biennial assessment of public facilities capacity 22 to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe County with adequate, 23 inadequate or marginally adequate public facilities; and 24 25 5. Based upon the 2021 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study' U.S. Highway 1 26 has an overall Level of Service of"C" and has an overall travel speed of 45.5 miles- 27 per-hour (MPH); and 28 29 6. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority ("FKAA") water use permit allows an average 30 daily allocation of 23.98 million gallons per day. The County's average daily water 31 demand in 2022 was 20.15 million gallons per day and the projected 2023 average daily 32 water demand is 20.73 million gallons per day ("MGD"),providing 3.25 MGD surplus 33 water allocation based upon projected 2023 demand; and 34 35 7. Enrollment figures for the 2022-2023 through 2025-2026 school years indicate that 36 there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. The overall 2022- 37 2023 utilization is 71.68% of the school system capacity. 38 39 8. Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management, Inc. The contract authorizes 40 the use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2024,thereby providing the County 41 with approximately one (1) more years of guaranteed capacity. The current contract 42 has a 5-year extension, and the County may choose to negotiate a new contract with 43 Waste Management Inc., for continued service. There is adequate capacity for solid 44 waste generation for 2023-2025; and 45 46 9. There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage); and Prepared by AECOM. 2of3 1 10. The 2023-2025.biennial assessment finds that transportation/roadways (subject to - :2 concurrency review at time of :development:permit);, potable:water, :solid waste, 3 schools, parks and recreation, and sanitary sewer all have adequate capacity to serve 4 the growt• anticipate in 2023.-2025 at the adopted leve Of service standard. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, : BE.: IT RESOLVED BY :THE BOARD OF: COUNTY: l : : 7: COMMISSIONERS OF:MONROE COUNTY,-FLORIDA: : . . 9 : Section 1. Recitals arid Legislative Intent. The foregoing recitals, findings of fact; : • 10 and statements of legislative intent are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as if 11 • fully stated herein. : 12 : : 13 : : Section 2. i The• 2023-2025 Monroe. County Public Facilities :Capacity Assessment : . 14 Report("PFCR"),attached hereto as Exhibit"A."and:hereby incorporated as if fully:stated • • 15: : herein,:is approved, ' : • 17 : •PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, : 18 Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on this 21st day of August 2024: • 19 : - : : 20 : : Mayor:Holly Merrill:Raschein : Yes 21 : Mayor Pro Tem James:K. Scholl - :Yes. - : 22 : Commissioner Craig:Cates: Yes 23: Commissioner Michelle:Lincoln Absent ' 24 Commissioner David Rice Yes 25: 26 • : :BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 27 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA : • : : : 28 : 30�� ,(0.: ; B ‘ s 31 '(,SEAL). :k):;.. :: : -:YOR H 4 LY MERRILL RASCHEIN . ‘iitik7t.fig.::,,l''-t42';f7;', I . -j,445:'1 A`T f� T:' IN MADOK,:CLERK : ii ..A.4 1.;:,-A\kai,!-L, )r---7 : . : . : , . : . : : . ATTORNEY i . .'55 _, iISI.T..$;W.4.,- o c aM_ � .47,/' Ot:POV70/10V . . . • ' 1 . DOL.:: --,-, ..'-.1--61'77a . : : :' .1.7" . . . . . : . ' . 37 ` 'i'r_.:`tr-- AS D U.TY CLERK : . ' : " ,„-:t . A - :::2 . : . : ",. ... ii, om m+.i ' -( n1 _ re"? - 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A TO RES.NO. 261 -2024 2023-2025 MONROE COUNTY BIENNIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT r P ;l w $iiju d 211 W „ GROWTH MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION POTABLE WATER SCHOOLS SOLID WASTE PARKS AND RECREATION SANITARY SEWER Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................... 3 I. Growth Management....................................................................................................14 II. Transportation/Roadways.............................................................................................26 III. Potable Water................................................................................................................41 IV. Education/Schools.........................................................................................................48 V. Solid Waste...................................................................................................................51 VI. Parks and Recreation.....................................................................................................55 VII. Sanitary Sewer................................................................................................................61 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires that Monroe County shall provide and maintain, in a timely and efficient manner, adequate public facilities for both existing and future populations, consistent with available financial resources and the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. [§163.3177(3)(a), F.S.] Monroe County coordinates land use decisions and fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements in order to maintain the adopted level of service (LOS) standards for both issued development orders and future development (Objective 1401.4). Further, Monroe County maintains a Concurrency Management System to ensure that facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impact of development. The Concurrency Management System ensures that the County shall issue no development order or permit which results in a reduction in the level of service (LOS) below the adopted LOS standards (Policy 1401.4.5). The Monroe County Land Development (LDC) Section 114-2(b)(3) mandates a biennial assessment of the roadways, solid waste,potable water, sanitary sewer, schools and recreation and open space facilities serving the unincorporated portion of Monroe County. In the event that these public facilities have fallen below or are projected to fall below the level of service(LOS)required by the LDC, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The LDC clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is, or will be, served by adequate public or private facilities. As required by LDC Section 114-2,the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) shall consider and approve the biennial report, with or without modifications. Any modifications that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact, including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity required to serve the additional development. Once approved,this document becomes the official report on public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next two years. This report distinguishes between areas of adequate, inadequate and marginally adequate facility capacity. Areas of inadequate facility capacity are those areas with capacity below the adopted LOS standards. Areas of marginally adequate facility capacity are those areas at the adopted level of service standard or which are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next 12 to 24 months. 2023-2025 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Transportation/Roadways On November 8, 2023, at their regular meeting, the Monroe County BOCC discussed the Draft 2023 US1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study and directed staff to prepare the Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report with the current 2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study and requested additional runs be performed in February or March of 2024 in segments currently undergoing improvement projects. On March 20, 2024, the BOCC voted to delay additional data collection, based on a delay in the FDOT signal retiming project. Based on the findings of the 2021 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County, as prepared by AECOM,U.S. 1 has an overall level of service(LOS) C. The overall median travel speed on US 1 is 45.5 MPH. 3 Traffic volumes have increased in Big Pine(2.00%)and Upper Matecumbe(3.07%)Keys but have decreased in Marathon Key (-6.30%) as compared to 2017. Compared to the study results in 2017, there were level of service changes in nine (9) of the 24 segments of US I; five (5) of which resulted in positive level of service changes and four (4) of which resulted in negative level of service changes. Negative LOS changes are shown in bold text in the table below. Jurisdiction 5% Segment (county or 2017 2021 Reserve Trips Allocation Number Segment municipality) LOS LOS Remaining below LOS C 1 Stock Island County B A 3,279 3,474 8 Ramrod County B A 2,285 3,063 10 Big Pine County C A 4,561 5,511 11 Bahia Honda County B A 7,998 10,730 18 Tea Table Islamorada D A 2,222 2,965 19 Upper Islamorada D E (3,531) (2,187) Matecumbe 20 Windley Islamorada C D 378 271 21 Plantation Islamorada B C 1,921 3,524 24 Cross County B C 2,259 4,618 Compared to 2017 results,the median segment speeds increased in 13 of the 24 segments,ranging between 0.2 mph and 10.6 mph, and decreased in 11 segments,ranging from -0.1 mph to-5.8 mph. The largest increase in speed (+10.6 mph) was recorded in Segment 4 1 (Stock Island—MM 4.0 to MM 5.0); The largest reduction in speed (-5.8 mph) was recorded in Segment 4 21 (Plantation —MM 86.0 to MM 91.5). Potable Water In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKAA's modification of WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This water use permit (WUP) provides an annual allocation of 23.98 MGD. The recently completed water supply wells and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment facility provides an additional capacity of 6.0 MGD. The County's 2022 figures and projections for 2023 indicate a slight increase in annual average daily demand from 20.15 to 20.73 MGD. This provides a 0.58 MGD surplus water allocation based upon the projected 2023 demand. With the construction of the new water supply wells and reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment facility and a projected surplus allocation, there is an adequate supply of water to meet current and future demands, based on current conditions and projections. Schools The overall 2022-2023 utilization is 71.68% of the school system capacity and is projected for 2026-2027 at 72.25 %utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2022-2023 indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system for the next two years. 4 Solid Waste Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The contract authorizes the use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2024, thereby providing the County with approximately one (1) year of guaranteed capacity. The current contract has a 5-year extension, the County may choose to negotiate a new contract with Waste Management for continued service. There is adequate capacity for a solid waste generation for the next 12 to 24 months. Parks and Recreation There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage). Sanitary Sewer The Monroe County Sanitary Sewer Master Plan was part of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. As population and tourism within the Keys had increased over the years,there had been a significant degradation of water quality in canals and nearshore waters surrounding the keys. The creation of a new Sanitary Sewer System to replace the old system consisting mostly of collecting sewage waters by private septic tanks and small water treatment plants was imperative. The new Sanitary Sewer System collects the wastewater mainly by a network of pipelines, force mains, pump stations and sewage treatment plants. The majority of the household units in unincorporated areas of the County have been connected to the system. The sewage collection system operates below the capacity for which it was designed and the quality and disposal of treated waste water is in compliance with requirements established by F.A.C., F.S., and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. There are sufficient wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and capacity available to satisfy the projected needs of development for the next two years. SUMMARY Transportation/roadways (subject to concurrency review at time of development permit), potable water, solid waste, schools,parks and recreation, and sanitary sewer all have adequate capacity to serve the growth anticipated in 2023-2025 at the adopted level of service standard. 5 INTRODUCTION The 2023-2025 Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity is mandated by the Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 114-2, titled Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures. The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensuring "concurrency" or providing public facilities in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standard. In other words, local governments must establish regulations to ensure that public facilities and services that are needed to support development are available simultaneously with development impacts. Section 114-2(a) contains two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the six primary public facilities (roads, potable water, educational facilities, solid waste, parks and recreation, sanitary sewer), and biennial assessment process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. Section 114-2(b)(3)requires the Director of Planning to prepare a biennial report to the BOCC on the capacity of available public facilities. This report must determine the potential amount of residential and nonresidential growth expected in the upcoming year and make an assessment of how well the water supply facilities, solid waste, roads, sanitary sewer, and schools will accommodate that growth. The report considers potential growth and public facility capacity for only the next twelve months. In addition,the report must identify areas of unincorporated Monroe County with only marginal and/or inadequate capacity for public facilities. Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. The BOCC cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report without making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase and identifying the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity. Once approved by the BOCC, this document becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year. In the event public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS) standards required by the Comprehensive Plan or the LDC, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC clearly state that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities. Comprehensive Plan Objective 10 1.1 states: "Monroe County shall ensure that all development and redevelopment taking place within its boundaries does not result in a reduction of the level-of-service requirements established and adopted by this comprehensive plan. Further, Monroe County shall ensure that comprehensive plan amendments include an analysis of the availability of facilities and services or demonstrate that the adopted levels of service can be reasonably met". The LDC, Section 114-2, "Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures" states: Development application shall include a written evaluation (facilities impact report and traffic report) of the impact of the anticipated development on the level of services are available prior to or concurrent with the impacts of development. 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 163.3180,F.S., sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water are the public facilities and services subject to the concurrency requirement on a statewide basis and a local government may extend concurrency requirements so that it applies to additional public facilities within its jurisdiction. If concurrency is applied to other public facilities, including transportation facilities, the local government comprehensive plan must provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service, to guide its application. The premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standard. Accordingly, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.1.1 provides that the County shall maintain level of service (LOS) standards for the following public facility types required by Chapter 163, F.S.: sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water. Policy 101.1.2 also requires the County maintain a Concurrency Management System. Further, the following standards have been adopted in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan: Policy 101.1.3: Facilities for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and drainage shall be in place and available to serve new development no later than the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. If facility improvements are needed to ensure that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained,prior to commencement of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction or improvement of the facility. Policy 101.1.4: Parks and recreation facilities to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction no later than one (1) year after issuance by the County of a building permit. The acreage (land) for such facilities shall be dedicated or be acquired by the County prior to issuance of a building permit, or funds in the amount of the developer's fair share shall be committed no later than the County's approval to commence construction. If park and recreation facility improvements are needed to ensure that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement of construction, the developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction of the facilities. Policy 101.1.5: Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place when the impacts of the development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction or improvement of proportionate share of required improvements, or to assure the provision of the proportionate share contribution of the costs for the necessary transportation facilities. The development of a single family residential unit shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement. Policy 101.1.6: Prior to the approval of a building permit, Monroe County shall consult with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) to determine whether adequate water 7 supplies to serve the new development will be available no later than the anticipated date of issuance by the County of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. There are Six(6)primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity according to both the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code (LDC). These facilities are roads,solid waste,potable water,sanitary sewer and schools(Comp Plan also includes parks & recreation and drainage). The available capacity for each of these facilities may be either sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next year, marginally adequate, or inadequate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are projected to be only marginally adequate or inadequate over the next year, the LDC sets out a review procedure to be followed when issuing development permits in that area. Section 114-2(b)(5)c of the LDC states: "The county shall not approve applications for development in areas of the county that are served by inadequate facilities identified in the biennial assessment of public facility capacity report, except the county may approve development that will have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where the developer agrees to increase the level of service of the facility to the adopted level of service standard." The determination of an additional development's impact on existing public facilities in areas with marginal or inadequate capacity is determined by a "facilities impact report" which must be submitted with a development application. Transportation/Roadways: The LOS for roads is regulated by the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 301.1.1 establishes the LOS for County roads. The policy states: "For all County roads, Monroe County hereby adopts a minimum peak hour level of service (LOS) standard of D,measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, as necessary to determine proposed development impacts. The County shall maintain the level of service on County roads within five percent(5%) of LOS D" Policy 301.1.2 establishes the LOS for U.S. 1. The policy states: "For U.S. 1,Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service(LOS)standard of C,as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in February 2021 (BOCC Resolution 064-2021). The level of service on U.S. 1 shall be maintained within five percent(5%) of LOS C." Section 114-2(a)(1) of the LDC pertains to the minimum LOS standards for Roads: (1) Transportation/Roadways. a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall arterial length and the 24 roadway segments of U.S.1, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway segments. In addition, all segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C. 8 b. Development may be approved, provided that the development in combination with all other permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent(5%) below LOS C, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS C and/or deficiencies. c. All paved County roads shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at or within 5% of a LOS D as measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS D, the development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS D and/or deficiencies. d. The development of one single family residence on a single parcel shall be considered de minimis and shall not be considered to impact road capacity established in this subsection. e. The County shall post on the Monroe County website informing the public of the available transportation capacity for each road segment of U.S. 1 as described in the county's biennial public facilities capacity report. The available capacity shall be expressed in terms of a number of trips remaining until the adequate transportation facilities standard is exceeded. f. The County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic monitoring program to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of the 24 study segments of U.S.1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and through traffic. The County shall coordinate with municipalities in the review of the systematic traffic monitoring program to monitor traffic volumes and travel speeds of U.S.1 as well as on each of the 24 study segments on U.S.1. The County and municipalities shall coordinate with FDOT to evaluate segments with deficiencies of LOS to determine necessary improvements and strategies to address any degradation and/or deficiencies. Potable Water: The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopts the LOS standards and further,the LDC regulates the source of potable water for development or use. Objective 701.1: Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent is issued, adequate potable water supply,treatment,and distribution facilities are available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards. 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: 100 gal./capita/day* *Note Based on historical data through December 2011;provided by FKAA,December 2012. 9 2. Minimum Pressure: 20 PSI at customer service 3. Minimum Potable Water Quality: Shall be as defined by Chapter 62-550 F.A.C. The LDC Section 114-2(a)(3) requires sufficient potable water from an approved and permitted source shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of a proposed development, or use. Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribution systems, individual water condensation systems, and any other system which complies with the Florida standards for potable water. a. Overall LOS: 100 gal./capita/day. b. Minimum pressure: 20 pounds per square inch at customer service point. c. Minimum quality: As defined by Chapter 62-550 F.A.C. Policy 701.1.2: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which provide a Concurrency Management System (See Capital Improvements Policy 1401.4.5). The Concurrency Management System shall ensure that no certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent will be issued for new development unless adequate potable water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities needed to support the development at the adopted level of service standards are available. Solid Waste: The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC require that"sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site at a level of services of 11.41 pounds per capita per day. The county solid waste and resource recovery authority may enter into agreements,including agreements under F.S. Section 163.01,to dispose of solid waste outside of the county. (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)). Objective 801.1: Monroe County shall ensure that solid waste collection service and disposal capacity is available to serve development at the adopted level of service standards. [§163.3180(1)(b)., F.S.], [§163.3180(2)., F.S.] Policy 801.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective 801.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining facility capacity and the demand generated by a development. [§163.3180(2)., F.S.] Level of Service Standards: Disposal Quantity: 11.41 pounds per capita per day Policy 801.1.2: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which provide a Concurrency Management System(See Capital Improvements Policy 1401.4.5). The Concurrency Management System shall ensure that no certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent will be issued for new development unless adequate solid waste collection and disposal facilities needed to support the development at the adopted level of service standards are available concurrent with the impacts of development. Sanitary Sewer: The Comprehensive Plan and LDC establish the capacity LOS and the wastewater treatment level of service standards for sanitary sewers in Policy 901.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 10 Policy 901.1.1: Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a certificate of occupancy, or its functional equivalent is issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards. December 31, 2015, Level of Service Standards (A)The permanent level of service standards for wastewater treatment in Monroe County are as follows: M /L BOD TSS TN TP On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal System 10 10 10 1 Design flows less than 100,000 gpd BAT 10 10 10 1 Design flows greater than orequal to 100,000 gpd(AWT) 5 5 3 1 Source:Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan,2000. BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand TSS: Total Suspended Solids TN: Total Nitrogen TP: Total Phosphorus BAT: Best Available Technology AWT: Advanced Wastewater Technology (B) The County shall support State and Federal educational programs to reduce demand for phosphate products. (C) The capacity level of service standard: 167 gallons per day per EDU. Policy 901.1.2: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which provide a Concurrency Management System(See Capital Improvements Policy 1401.4.5). The Concurrency Management System shall ensure that a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent will not be issued for new development unless adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities needed to support the development at the adopted level of service standards are available. Parks and Recreation: The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are included in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1201.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve Objective 1201.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining recreation land and facility capacity: Level of Service Standards for Neighborhood and Community Parks: 1. 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resource-based neighborhood and community parks; and 2. 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of activity-based neighborhood and community parks within each of the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys subareas. 11 Schools: The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a LOS standard for schools but does include Policy 1301.5.3 which requires the County to coordinate with the District School Board of Monroe County on the siting and expansion of required facilities. LDC Section 114-2(a)(6) requires that sufficient school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school-age children to be generated by the proposed development. 12 PERMITTING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures divides unincorporated Monroe County into three (3) service areas for the purpose of assessing potential growth and how public facilities can accommodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the Monroe County Land Development Code have been revised to account for incorporations of the Village of Islamorada and the City of Marathon. Section 114-2(b)(2) defines the county's unincorporated public facilities service areas: • Upper Keys Service Area: north of the Whale Harbor Bridge; • Middle Keys Service Area: between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor Bridge; and • Lower Keys Service Area: south(west) of the Seven Mile Bridge. The map shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized. MONROE COUNT Y MAP �p The Upper Keys MM 112-91 f. The Middle Keys MM 91-47 A y t h TMm " ..... The Lower Keys MM 47-4 9 9A b T ,. N ' u � ry. 13 I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT GROWTH ANALYSIS This section of the report examines the projected growth of Monroe County's permanent, seasonal and functional population, occupied and vacant housing data, Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) allocations and Building Department permit data. CENSUS DATA The U.S. Census Bureau released 2020 demographic information related to population and housing on August 12, 2021. The following tables provide summary information for Monroe County and the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2010 study has been included for comparison. Census 2010 Census 2020 Change Total Population 73,090 82,874 +9,784 Total Housing Units 52,764 53,892 +1,128 Occupied Housing Unit Rate 61.8% 59.5% Occupied Housing Units calculated 32,629 32,066 -563 Vacant Housing Units calculated 20,135 38.16% 21,826 40.5% +1,691 The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) increased by 13.9% (9,784 people)from the year 2010 to 2020. Total housing units increased by 1,128 units or 2.14%. The number of occupied units decreased by 563 units or 2%. Vacant units increased by 1,691 units or 8.40%. The following tables provide 2020 summary information for Monroe County and the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2010 Census has been included for comparison purposes. Census Census Change % 2010 2020 Change POPULATION City of Key West 24,649 26,444 +1,795 +7.28% City of Marathon 8,297 9,689 +1,392 +16.78% City of Key Colony Beach 797 790 -7 -0.88% City of Layton 184 210 +26 +14.13% Village of Islamorada 6,119 7,107 +988 +16.15% Unincorporated Monroe County 33,044 45,634 +12,590 +38.10% Total Population (Unincorporated County&Cities) 73,090 82,874 1 +9,784 +13.38% HOUSING UNITS City of Key West 14,107 14,426 +319 +2.26% City of Marathon 6,187 6,427 +240 +3.88% City of Key Colony Beach 1,431 1,003 -428 -29.91% City of Layton 184 166 -18 -9.78% Village of Islamorada 5,692 5,630 -62 -1.09% Unincorporated Monroe County 25,163 26,309 +1,146 +4.55% 14 Total Housing Units (Uninc. County&Cities) 52,764 53,961 +1,197 +2.27% Total housing units (Uninc. County&Cities) 52,764 53,961 +1,197 +2.27% Occupied housing units (Uninc. County&Cities) 32,629 36,436 +3,807 +11.67% Vacant housing units (Uninc. County&Cities) 20,135 17,525 -2,610 -12.96% % Vacant housing units (Uninc. County&Cities) 38.16% 1 32.48% -5.68% POPULATION ESTIMATES Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates. Permanent residents are people who spend all or most of the year living in Monroe County, and as such, exert a relatively constant demand on all public facilities. Seasonal population figures are the number of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. They are composed of the tourist population and residents spending less than six months in the Keys. The seasonal population has a higher cyclical demand on public facilities like water, roads and solid waste. The 2020 total population for Monroe County is 82,874 (2020 Census). FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 2020-2030 Year Permanent Seasonal Functional 2020 76,900 82,151 159,051 2025 76,200 84,503 160,703 2030 1 75,500 86,855 1 162,355 Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 2020-2030 Year Permanent Seasonal Functional 2020 35,374 37,120 72,494 2025 35,052 38,173 73,225 2030 1 34,730 39,226 1 73,956 Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS by service area, 2020-2030 Unincorporated Functional Population Year Total Lower Keys Middle Keys Upper Keys Unincorporated Monroe County 2020 40,592 2,234 29,668 72,494 2025 41,003 2,256 29,966 73,225 2030 1 41,414 1 2,278 1 30,265 1 73,957 Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates 15 The Fishkind & Associates population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a loss of permanent population. The data suggests the permanent population losses and associated increase in vacant housing units, shifting into an increase in seasonal population. Fishkind & Associates estimates that while permanent population decreases at an average rate of less than one percent every five years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of 2.57 percent every five years; resulting in a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. Overall, functional population or total population for the unincorporated County will increase at an average rate of less than one percent, every five years, in the twenty year planning period. The Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) projections published in 2024 provide the following estimates: Estimates Projections, April 1 A ril 1, 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 MONROE 84,511 Low 80,300 78,400 76,000 73,300 70,700 Medium 85,400 87,100 88,100 88,600 88,900 High 90,600 95,800 100,200 103,900 107,100 The Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) provides the following estimates: Estimates Projections, April 1 April 1, 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 MONROE 84,511 85,437 87,112 88,103 88,614 88,889 16 HOUSING According to the U.S. Census, housing units are broken down into occupied and vacant units. The Census defines housing units as "a house, apartment, group of rooms, or single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters." Occupied housing units are occupied if there is "at least one person who lives in the unit as a usual resident at the time of the interview, or if the occupants are only temporarily absent, for example, on vacation. However, if the unit is occupied entirely by people with a usual residence elsewhere, the unit is classified as vacant, such as seasonal units. The table below provides total housing units and occupancy based on the 2020 Census: Census 2010 Census 2020 Change Total Housing Units 52,764 53,892 +1,128 Occupied Housing Unit Rate 61.8% 59.5% Occupied Housing Units calculated 32,629 32,066 -563 Vacant Housing Units calculated 20,135 38.16% 21,826 40.5% +1,691 The table below shows the housing units by status and tenure from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey. HOUSING UNITS BY STATUS AND TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE 2018-2022 Monroe County-Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas HOUSING OCCUPANCY Estimates Percent Total housing units 54,034 100.00% Occupied housing units 34,388 63.6% Vacant housing units 19,646 36.4% UNITS IN STRUCTURE Estimates Percent Total housing units 54,034 100.00% 1-unit, detached 30,274 54.3% 1-unit, attached 3,821 7.1% 2 units 2,518 4.7% 3 or 4 units 2,698 5.0% 5 to 9 units 2,665 4.9% 10 to 19 units 1,970 3.6% 20 or more units 5,052 9.3% Mobile home 4,778 8.8% Boat, RV, van, etc. 258 0.5% HOUSING TENURE Estimates Percent Occupied housing units 34,388 100.00% Owner-occupied 21,391 62.2% Renter-occupied 12,997 37.8% Average household size of owner-occupied unit 2.29 Average household size of renter-occupied unit 2.41 Source: US Census 2022 American Community Survey 17 RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO) Based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016-1992 on June 23, 1992, creating the Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation System known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO. ROGO was developed to limit the annual amount and rate of development commensurate with the County's ability to maintain its hurricane evacuation clearance time; and to deter the deterioration of public facility service levels, environmental degradation, and potential land use conflicts. It is used as a tool to equitably distribute the remaining number of permits available both geographically and over time. ROGO allows development subject to the ability to safely evacuate the Florida Keys (the Keys)within 24 hours. The annual allocation period, or ROGO year, is the 12-month period beginning on July 13, 1992, (the effective date of the original dwelling unit allocation ordinance), and subsequent one-year periods. The number of dwelling units which can be permitted in Monroe County has consequently been controlled since July of 1992 (adoption of Ordinance 016-92). Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.2 regulate the number of permits issued annually for residential development under ROGO. Monroe County can award up to 197 allocations per year within the unincorporated area. These allocations are divided between three geographic subareas and are issued quarterly. Each year's ROGO allocation of 197 new units is split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate allocations not to exceed 126 new residential units per year. Rule 28-20.140(b), F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.2.1 state: "The number of permits issued annually for residential development under the Rate of Growth Ordinance shall not exceed a total annual unit cap of 197, plus any available unused ROGO allocations from a previous ROGO year. Each year's ROGO allocation of 197 units shall be split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate allocations not to exceed 126 residential units per year.Unused ROGO allocations may be retained and made available only for affordable housing and Administrative Relief from ROGO year to ROGO year. Unused allocations for market rate shall be available for Administrative Relief. Any unused affordable allocations will roll over to affordable housing.A ROGO year means the twelve- month period beginning on July 13". LDC, Section 138-24(a)(2) establishes that ROGO allocations are to be awarded quarterly. "Each subarea shall have its number of market rate housing residential ROGO allocations available per ROGO quarter determined by the following formula: a. Market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea per quarter is equal to the market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea divided by four. b. Affordable housing residential ROGO for all four ROGO quarters, including the allocations available for Big Pine Key, shall be made available at the beginning of the first quarter for a ROGO year. Beginning July 13, 2016,the balance of all remaining affordable housing residential ROGO allocations shall be made available for award. On January 22, 2020, the BOCC adopted Ordinances 005-2020 and 006-2020, amending Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.2 and Land Development Code Section 138-24 to extend the time period of the ROGO system through 2026 by distributing the final three (3) years of market rate ROGO allocations over a 6-year period. For ROGO Years 29, 30, and 31, (July 13, 2020 — July 12, 2023), the number of market rate allocations is reduced to 64 per year, rather than 126. 18 On April 21, 2021, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 005-2021 amending and clarifying Comprehensive Plan Policies 101.2.2, 101.2.4, 101.3.1, 101.3.2, 101.3.3, and creating new Policy 101.3.12 to establish the specific Workforce Initiative. The Workforce Initiative accepts 300 workforce housing early evacuation building permit allocations pursuant to the Workforce- Affordable Housing Initiative authorized by the Florida Administration Commission and the Florida Department Economic Opportunity. The County shall distribute ROGO allocations by ROGO year, as provided in the table below. For ROGO Years 32, 33, and 34, (July 13,2023 -July 12,2026),the number of market rate allocations will be 62 per year, as follows: Annual Allocation ROGO Year Market Rate Affordable Workforce Initiative Housing July 13, 2013-July 12, 2014 126 71 July 13, 2014-July 12, 2015 126 71 July 13, 2015-July 12, 2016 126 July 13, 2016-July 12, 2017 126 NA July 13, 2017-July 12, 2018 126 July 13, 2018-July 12, 2019 126 July 13, 2019-July 12, 2020 126 568 total AFH July 13, 2020-July 12, 2021 64 (total available July 13, 2021-July 12, 2022 64 immediately) July 13, 2022-July 12, 2023 64 July 13, 2023-July 12, 2024 62 300 July 13, 2024-July 12, 2025 62 July 13, 2025-July 12, 2026 62 TOTAL 1,260 710 300 This change reduces the annual rate of additional new market rate residential development, to address multiple purposes,such as hurricane modeling,land acquisition and so forth. Additionally, this change should reduce the demands on public facilities based on new market rate residential development. TIER SYSTEM On September 22, 2005, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 025-2005 which amended the Comprehensive Plan to revise ROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the competitive point system. On March 15, 2006,the BOCC adopted Ordinance 009-2006 to incorporate the Tier System as a basis for implementing ROGO within the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The Tier System changed the service areas (subareas boundaries) mentioned in the Introduction. It is the basis for the scoring of NROGO and ROGO applications and administrative relief. The new ROGO and NROGO subareas are the Lower Keys(Middle Keys are not included in the Lower 19 Keys), Upper Keys, and Big Pine / No Name Keys. Tier Ordinance 009-2006 provides vesting provisions and allows for allocation of an annual cap of 197 residential dwelling units. The Tier System made changes such as subarea boundary districts for allocation distribution, the basis of scoring applications, and administrative relief. • During ROGO Year 14, Ord. 009-2006 was enacted changing the allocation number to 197 (126 market rate 71 affordable) pursuant to Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C. The same rule also returned 165 allocations to the County to be used for affordable housing. • By ROGO Year 15, the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the 197 annual allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations were assigned to this subarea. BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEYS Efforts to address the development impacts on the habitat of the Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit and the Eastern Indigo Snake on Big Pine Key/No Name Key started in the mid-1980s. In 1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which they committed to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for these two Keys. The HCP was completed in April 2003. The Livable CommuniKeys Program(LCP),Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key was adopted on August 18, 2004, pursuant to Ordinance 029-2004. The LCP envisioned the issuance of 200 residential dwelling units over 20 year horizon at a rate of roughly 10 per year. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the 10 units per year is to be set aside for affordable housing development(e.g. 2 units per year set aside for affordable housing.) On June 9, 2006, a Federal Incidental Take Permit(4TE08341 1-0,ITP)from the U.S. Federal Fish and Wildlife Commission was issued to three (3)permittees: Monroe County, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The ITP ensures that development bears its fair share of required mitigation and that the take of the covered species is minimized and mitigated. RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO)ANALYSIS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE ROGO HISTORICAL DATA YEARS 1-29 Market Rate Market Affordable Affordable ROGO Rate Housing ROGO Housing ROGO Year Allocations ROGO Allocations ROGO Available Awarded Available Awarded* Year 1 (July 14, 1992—July 13, 1993) 204 204 52 11 Year 2(July 14, 1993 —July 13, 1994) 243 231 52 9 Year 3 (July 14, 1994—July 13, 1995) 246 249 52 10 20 Year 4 (July 14, 1995 -July 13, 1996) 245 263 52 40 Year 5 (July 14, 1996-July 13, 1997) 215 218 52 23 Year 6(July 14, 1997-July 13, 1998) 211 197 77 56 Year 7(July 14, 1998 -July 12, 1999) 101 102 30 9 Year 8 (July 13, 1999-July 14, 2000) 127 136 109 66 Year 9 (July 13, 2000-July 14, 2001) 127 129 224 203 Year 10 (July 14, 2001 -July 15, 2002) 102 102 31 58 Year 11 (July 16, 2002-July 14, 2003) 127 127 31 31 Year 12 (July 13, 2003 July 14, 2004) 127 127 31 21 Year 13 (July 14, 2004-July 13, 2005) 96 96 29 16 Year 14 (July 14, 2005-July 13, 2006) 126 126 236 271 Year 15 (July 14, 2006-July 13, 2007) 126 129 49 17 Year 16(July 14, 2007-July 14, 2008) 126 126 68 100 Year 17(July 15, 2008-July 13, 2009) 206 242 67 36 Year 18 (July 14, 2009-July 12, 2010) 126 128 71 0 Year 19 (July 13, 2010-July 12, 2011) 126 119 71 0 Year 20 (July 13, 2011 -July 13, 2012) 126 92 71 4 Year 21 (July 13, 2012-July 13, 2013) 126 43 71 0 Year 22(July 13, 2013 -July 13, 2014) 126 90 71 9 Year 23 (July 13, 2014-July 13, 2015) 126 106 71 1 Year 24 (July 13, 2015-July 13, 2016) 126 126 71 45 Year 25 (July 12, 2016-July 12, 2017) 126 126 742 6 Year 26(July 13, 2017-July 12, 2018) 126 126 587 12 21 Year 27(July 13, 2018—July 12,2019) 126 124 565 1 Year 28 (July 13, 2019—July 12, 2020) 126 111 332 343 Year 29 (July 13, 2020—July 12, 2021) 64 64 63 11 Year 30 (July 13, 2021 —July 12, 2022) 64 64 36 RETURNED 3 TO POOL Totals 4,269 4,123 (not cumulative) 1,412* *Does not include Affordable Housing ROGO allocations reserved by the BOCC. Source:Monroe County 2010-2030 Technical Document&Data fi^om Quarterly ROGO Result Reports for Years 18-30;and ROGO yearly tracking data. There is a time lapse which occurs between the ROGO allocation date and the permit issuance date. An allocation award expires when its corresponding building permit is not picked up after sixty (60) days of notification by certified mail of the award, or upon expiration of the issued permit. The historical data presented in the table above do not include allocations issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, Islamorada, or Marathon. NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO) Monroe County adopted the Non-Residential Rate of Growth(NROGO)in 2001 in order to ensure a reasonable balance between the amount of future non-residential development and the needs of a slower growing residential population. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.4.1 limits the County's availability of nonresidential square footage that may be permitted. This policy assures that the balance of residential to nonresidential development is maintained. Policy 101.4.1 states: "Monroe County shall maintain a Permit Allocation System for new nonresidential floor area, known as the Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) System. Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and nonresidential growth by limiting the floor area of new nonresidential development available within the County to maintain a maximum of 47,083 square feet of floor area per NROGO year. The nonresidential allocation allowed by this policy shall be distributed on an annual basis, pursuant to Policy 101.4.3. The NROGO allocation system shall apply within the unincorporated area of the county, excluding areas within the county mainland and within the Ocean Reef planned development(Future development in the Ocean Reef planned development is based upon the December 2010 Ocean Reef Club Vested Development Rights Letter recognized and issued by the Department of Community Affairs)." Section 138-51 of the LDC establishes the annual award distribution of NROGO allocations. Sec. 138-51 NROGO allocations. Maximum amount of available floor area for the annual nonresidential ROGO allocations. The annual amount of floor area available for allocation under NROGO shall be 47,083 square feet. Beginning NROGO Year 22(July 13,2013),this floor area shall be distributed to each of subareas as provided in the following table: 22 ROGO subarea Annual NROGO allocation Upper 22,944 SF Lower 21,749 SF Big Pine/No Name 2,390 SF Total 47,083 SF NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO)ANALYSIS A summary of square footage of non-residential floor area previously made available and allocated in the unincorporated Keys from Year 14 (2006)to Year 30 (2022) is shown below. NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY YEAR 14 (2006) TO YEAR 30 (2022) E cluding Big Pine & No Name Key) Year Amount Available Total Allocations Awarded Year 14 (2006) 16,000 sq/ft 12,594 sq/ft Year 15 (2007) 18,000 sq/ft 12,500 sq/ft Year 16 2008 35,000 s /ft 17,938 s /ft Year 17 2009 30,000 s /ft 13,056 s /ft Year 18 2010 20,000 s /ft 6,355 s /ft Year 19 2011 20,000 s /ft 6,116 s /ft Year 20 2012 44,700 s /ft 8,234 s ./ft Year 21 2013 44,700 s /ft 2,500 s /ft Year 22 (2014) 47, 083 sq/ft 7,395 sq/ft Year 23 (2015) 47, 083 sq/ft 2,484 sq/ft Year 24 (2016) 47, 083 sq/ft 1,756 sq/ft Year 25 (2017) 47, 083 sq/ft 3,558 sq/ft Year 26 (2018) 47, 083 sq/ft 15,678 sq/ft Year 27 (2019) 47, 083 sq/ft 11,092 sq/ft Year 28 2020 47, 083 s /ft 298 s /ft Year 29 2021 47, 083 s /ft 10,995 s /ft Year 30 2022 47,083 s /ft 985 s /ft NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other protected species and the USFWS issued Incidental Take Permit(ITP). Annually the amount of new nonresidential floor area allocated to the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is 2,390 square feet. A summary of allocations in these environmentally sensitive keys is shown below. 23 NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR BIG PINE/NO NAME KEYS YEAR 15 2007 —YEAR 30 2022 Year Available Number of Total Allocations Applicants Awarded Year 15 (2007) 9,082 sq/ft 2 5,000 sq/ft Year 16 (2008) 0 sq/ft 2 3,809 sq/ft Year 17 (2009) 5,000 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft Year 18 (2010) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft Year 19 2011 2,390 sq/ft 0 384 s /ft Year 20 2012 2,390 sq/ft 4 7,500 s /ft Year 21 2013 6,729 sq/ft 3 5,240 s /ft Year 22 2014 2,390 sq/ft 1 1,011s /ft Year 23 2015 2,390 sq/ft 2 728 s /ft Year 24 2016 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 s /ft Year 25 (2017) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft Year 26 (2018) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft Year 27 (2019) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft Year 28 (2020) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft Year 29 (2021) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft Year 30 (2022) 2,390 sq/ft 0 0 sq/ft BUILDING PERMIT DATA There were 5,830 dwelling units that received a building permit from January 1,2000,to December 31, 2021. Of these units, approximately 86.9 percent were single family homes and 7.5 percent were mobile homes and recreational vehicles (RV). An average of 265 new and replacement dwelling units per year were permitted from 2000 to 2021. Of the 5,830 dwelling unit permits issued, 2,407 were the result of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the 5,830 dwelling units permits issued, a total of 5,452 dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy. RESIDENTIAL/TRANSIENT BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY JANUARY 1, 2000—DECEMBER 31, 2021 Mobile Total Permits Single Multi Hotel/ Issued Received Year Family Duplex Family Home/ Motel Permits Under CO RV Issued ROGO January 1,2000- 169 0 35 49 34 287 92 372 December 31,2000 January 1,2001- 153 0 13 55 1 222 118 261 December 31,2001 January 1,2002- 200 0 16 47 1 264 181 243 December 31,2002 January 1,2003- 228 0 12 38 28 306 161 290 December 31,2003 January 1,2004- 241 0 54 29 0 324 105 288 December 31,2004 January 1,2005- 361 8 2 28 0 399 160 288 December 31,2005 January 1,2006- 376 0 2 14 0 392 198 289 December 31,2006 24 January 1,2007- 380 0 0 13 0 393 103 317 December 31,2007 January 1,2008- 168 1 3 12 0 184 45 236 December 31,2008 January 1,2009- 197 0 0 4 0 201 4 140 December 31,2009 January 1,2010- 222 0 0 5 1 228 5 137 December 31,2010 January 1,2011- 162 0 0 2 0 164 165 202 December 31,2011 January 1,2012- 109 0 12 7 0 128 175 218 December 31,2012 January 1,2013- 174 0 0 25 0 199 103 144 December 31,2013 January 1,2014- 256 0 1 46 0 303 93 195 December 31,2014 January 1,2015- 209 0 44 27 1 281 197 267 December 31,2015 January 1,2016- 252 0 4 12 1 269 165 226 December 31,2016 January 1,2017- 199 0 28 4 1 232 67 232 December 31,2017 January 1,2018- 302 0 9 7 0 318 64 226 December 31,2018 January 1,2019- 293 0 1 5 0 299 70 319 December 31,2019 January 1,2020- 216 0 4 7 0 227 123 317 December 31,2020 January 1,2021- 199 0 10 1 0 210 83 245 December 31,2021 TOTAL 5,066 9 250 437 68 5,830 25407 51452 Source:Monroe County Growth Management,August 2023 A total of 4,264 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 to December 31, 2021. The highest demolition rate occurred in years 2018 and 2019 with 693 units demolished,presumably in response to damage incurred by Hurricane Irma in September, 2017. An average of 194 dwelling units were demolished per year between 2000 and 2021. At this time, it is not possible to determine,whether a demolition was for a single family, a mobile home, etc. HOUSING DEMOLITION PERMITS Year Residential Demolitions January 1, 2000-December 31, 2000 98 January 1, 2001-December 31, 2001 157 January 1, 2002-December 31, 2002 140 January 1, 2003-December 31, 2003 143 January 1, 2004-December 31, 2004 218 January 1, 2005-December 31, 2005 341 January 1, 2006-December 31, 2006 336 January 1, 2007-December 31, 2007 241 January 1, 2008-December 31, 2008 146 25 January 1, 2009-December 31, 2009 129 January 1, 2010-December 31, 2010 239 January 1, 2011-December 31, 2011 96 January 1, 2012-December 31, 2012 106 January 1, 2013-December 31, 2013 120 January 1, 2014-December 31, 2014 132 January 1, 2015-December 31, 2015 140 January 1, 2016- December 31, 2016 152 January 1, 2017- December 31, 2017 262 January 1, 2018- December 31, 2018 348 January 1, 2019- December 31, 2019 345 January 1, 2020- December 31, 2020 180 January 1, 2021- December 31, 2021 212 TOTAL 4,269 Source: Monroe County Growth Management, August 2023 26 IL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Roads are one of the critical public facilities identified for biennial assessment in the Monroe County Land Development(LDC). The Comprehensive Plan and LDC regulations require U.S. 1 to remain at a LOS C or higher and that all county roads to remain at a LOS D or higher. The Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary roads within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1. Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies of U.S. 1 on an annual or biennial basis since 1991. The data collection for years 1991 through 1996 was conducted by the Monroe County Planning Department, with assistance from the Monroe County Engineering Department, and the Florida Department of Transportation. URS has collected the data for years 1997 through 2017, on behalf of the Monroe County Planning Department with assistance from the agencies identified above. Beginning in 2019, data for the biennial US Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study has been collected by AECOM, the County's current transportation consultant. The following are the travel time/delay data and findings from the 2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study. The U.S.1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study's primary objective is to monitor the level of service on U.S. 1 for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Section 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Code. The study utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume-based capacities and the speed-based LOS methodology developed for U.S. 1 in Monroe County, by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force. A county-imposed building moratorium results when the measured speeds of a segment OR the overall travel speeds of the entire U.S. 1 fall below the adopted level of service thresholds; segment level failure results in building moratorium specific to the area served by that particular segment and the overall failure would result in a countywide moratorium. Although there has never been a countywide moratorium, Big Pine Key between 1994 and 2002 experienced a localized development moratorium. Due to the significant role of this study in the County's growth management process, the accuracy of data collection and the results of this study are significant. U.S. 1 (the Overseas Highway)is the only principal arterial serving people and visitors in the Keys. The unique geography, land use patterns and trip making characteristics of the Florida Keys present a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable method to assess LOS. Although U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys is predominantly an uninterrupted-flow, two-lane roadway, its uniqueness warrants an alternative LOS evaluation process than found in the Highway Capacity Manual. A uniform method was developed in 1993 and amended December 1997 and February 2021 by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to assess the level of service on U.S. 1. The adopted method considers both the overall level of service from Key West to the mainland and the level of service on 24 selected segments (See Table 1). The methodology was developed from basic criteria and principles contained in Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two- Lane Highways) and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of Highway Capacity Manual. The methodology establishes a procedure for using travel speeds as a means of assessing the level of service and reserve capacity of U.S. 1 in the unique setting of the Florida Keys. 27 The travel speeds for the entire 108-mile stretch of U.S. 1 and the 24 individual segments are established by conducting travel time runs during the peak season. The peak season, for the purpose of this study, has been established by the task force as the six-week window beginning the second week of February and ending the fourth week of March. Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of the Keys between Key West and Miami-Dade County. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced by long distance trips or traffic traveling the entire length of the Keys. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in unincorporated Monroe County, the movement of long distance traffic is an important consideration. Monroe County has adopted a LOS C Standard for U.S. 1. Further, 45 mph has been adopted as the LOS C Standard for the entire length of U.S. 1 regardless of the posted speed limits. Under the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for U.S. 1 falls below the LOS C Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed in the Florida Keys. Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The segments were defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross-sections, speed limits, and geographical boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S. 1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important consideration on this multi purpose highway. A comparison of average posted speed limits and the average travel speeds for individual segments leads to the level of service on the respective segments along U.S. 1. The difference between the segment travel speeds and the LOS C Standard is called reserve speed. The reserve speed is converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volumes and corresponding additional development. If the travel speed falls below the LOS C Standard, additional trips equivalent to 5% of LOS C capacity are allowed, to accommodate a limited amount of land development to continue until traffic speeds are measured again during the next biennial study or until remedial actions are implemented. Table 1 U.S. 1 Segments and Mile Markers Segment Mile Segment Segment Mile Segment Number Marker Name Number Marker Name 1 4-5 Stock Island 13 47-54 Marathon 2 5-9 Boca Chica 14 54-60.5 Grassy 3 9-10.5 Big Coppitt 15 60.5-63 Duck 4 10.5-16.5 Saddlebunch 16 63-73 Long 5 16.5-20.5 Sugarloaf 17 73-77.5 Lower Matecumbe 6 20.5-23 Cudjoe 18 77.5-79.5 Tea Table 7 23-25 Summerland 19 79.5-84 Upper Matecumbe 8 25-27.5 Ramrod 20 84-86 Windley 9 27.5-29.5 Torch 21 86-91.5 Plantation 10 29.5-33 Big Pine 22 91.5-99.5 Tavernier 11 33-40 Bahia Honda 23 99.5-106 Key Largo 12 40-47 7-Mile Bridge 24 106-112.5 Cross Key 28 The travel time, delay, and distance data were collected by AECOM staff. The data were recorded by date, day of the week, time of the day, and direction. The field data collection took place between March 7, 2021, and March 20, 2021. Fourteen(14)round trips were made to successfully complete the twenty-eight(28)required northbound and southbound runs. These runs represent a sample of two runs of each day of the week. Every one of the twenty-eight travel time run data sheets was quality checked. The seven-day, 24-hour traffic data were collected in Islamorada, Marathon,and Big Pine Key from March 15,2021,to March 21,2021, concurrently with the travel time runs. Traffic Volumes U.S. 1 is predominately a four-lane facility in Marathon and a two-lane facility in Upper Matecumbe and Big Pine Key. Seven-day continuous traffic counts recorded at three locations along U.S. 1 yielded the following average daily traffic (ADT) and annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes for 2021. These volumes for 5-day and 7-day are averages of the raw volumes counted. The volumes have been adjusted using 2019 seasonal and axle factors to estimate the 2021 AADT's. The traffic counts were recorded between March 15, 2021, to March 21, 2021. LOCATION 5-DAY ADT 7-DAY ADT AADT Big Pine Key MM 29 22,799 22,009 19,427 Marathon MM 50 38,262 36,739 32,430 Upper Matecumbe MM 84 26,152 26,908 23,751 The 2021 AADT increased in Bi Pine (1.99%) and Upper Matecumbe (3.07%) Keys but decreased in Marathon Key (-6.300/1� compared to 2017. Similarly, the 2021 AADT increased in Big Pine (3.59%) and Upper Matecumbe (6.48%) Keys but decreased in Marathon Key (-11.67%) as compared to 2019. A detailed historical comparison of the US 1 traffic counts for the period from 1996 to 2021 is presented in Appendix D. A comparison of the most recent data (2009 to 2021) is presented in a Table and graph on pages 29 and 30, respectively. US 1 historical traffic growth is depicted in a regression analysis on page 31. A linear regression analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last 25 years indicates that there is a slight increase in overall traffic growth at the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe count locations, and an overall decreasing trend in traffic volumes for the Big Pine count location (but the last 13-year data shows an increasing trend). 29 o (0 'IT M N (fl Q OM � �- �- M M �- d' (D w U 44 N 00 0) 0 N (NO Cl) OM (N O (n r O rY N r V' O r U N N M M M N N cyi N Q 'Iz z a m o C 0 0 0 0 0 0 o (0 N (n u? N M O O ON UN O O 00 (O �- M a o a N 00 N M O (O m 1- C) " 'IT I- O N 1- ONO OMO OM O U N N Cd cyi V' VN' (d xi xi N N N v] J O � 0) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I1/ o m O M V OHO O 00 � r U o N In 0) r N 0) 0) 00 (O M C CY) O O � N O M N (00 N O U N N M M M LO N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(0 LO C14 0 o (0 000 N ONO M rt N rt -C 00 CY) (0 LO U o E.y N M O M N Vim' It � O O00 00 - N O 00 O U NNO MMM N N LO m N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zo (0 M V' M (O (O �- r UO N O O O O M I- M O M O N 00 O O � O r m 00 N (O (0N ~ U ON ON M M N N N ON 0) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FFF��MII o (0 0000 N ONO - O 0) r- 0 N N -- (O (O N U o C (i o rn oN L G C U N ON coM N N N N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o (L7 0000 00 N 000 (n O (n O I- O 00 r 00 (O N (O 00 r U 0 N 00 O It (O r N (O 00 r V O (O N O M N O O _ U ON ON 4L pCc pCc m pm p Ck:� pM p m L9) I O I O w I O I O Gl I O I O Q GL1 LO rQ LO r-- Q LO Q r-- Q m Ij U W m m� q i S wwaw�www ..�uc�ueuww � h N Cu wouri uv ourorwr ua wv manl uVirV111 VV1 u4�rr�ty wrri wi � MENEM im r nrvNeWrvdBrvrv�eWPo ry e( U Fil rrrrir,�� r r A w w i . „lull „fill „fill�� 1 rn 10 41 C"4 F-4 0 r,-4 00 00 U) tA I El?) r'4 (A Irl y CA c"I J o 0 (Ell 83 8 251 8 8 8 8 8 8 �8 IS 81 8 IR IR, 1? 9 R , 9 0 OD W W, (V %T (4 10 CO WJ. nt V�, lllte) On qP0 (14 CA C"k rAl r�"I (AUPMOA)laYV Overall Speeds Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of US 1 in the Keys between Key West and Miami-Dade County line. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced during long distance or through trips. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in Monroe County, the movement of through traffic is an important consideration. The levels of service (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County, as adopted by the Task Force, are as follows: LOS A 51.0 mph or above LOS B 50.9 mph to 48 mph LOS C 47.9 mph to 45 mph LOS D 44.9 mph to 42 mph LOS E 41.9 mph to 36 mph LOS F below 36 mph The overall median speed during the 2021 ATTDS was 45.5 mph,which is 0.9 mph higher than the 2019 median speed of 44.6 mph, and 0.5 mph lower than the 2017 median speed of 46 mph. The median speed corresponds to LOS C. The highest overall speed recorded during the 14-day ATTDS was 49.6 mph(0.9 mph lower than the 2019 highest overall speed of 50.5 mph), which occurred on Monday, March 15, 2021 in the southbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 35.5 mph(2.3 mph lower than the 2019 lowest overall speed of 37.8 mph), which occurred on Saturday, March 20, 2021 in the southbound direction. Segment Speeds Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The segments were defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross-sections, speed limits, and geographical boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S. 1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important consideration on this multipurpose highway. The level of service criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County depends on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. The criteria, listed by type of flow characteristic, are summarized below. Interrupted Flow LOS AZ 35 mph LOS BZ 28 mph LOS CZ 22 mph LOS DZ 17 mph LOS EZ 13 mph LOS F< 13 mph 33 Uninterrupted Flow LOS A 1.5 mph above speed limit LOS B 1.5 mph below speed limit LOS C 4.5 mph below speed limit LOS D 7.5 mph below speed limit LOS E 13.5 mph below speed limit LOS F more than 13.5 mph below speed limit For all "uninterrupted" segments containing isolated traffic signals, the travel times were reduced by 35 seconds per signalized intersection and 3 seconds per pedestrian signal to account for delay due to signals. The Marathon and the Stock Island segments are considered "interrupted" flow facilities,which are evaluated using the interrupted flow LOS criteria shown above. Therefore,no adjustments (to account for delay at signals)were made to travel times in these segments. The segment limits, median travel speeds, and Level of Service (for 2017 and 2021) for each segment are presented in Figure 3. The median segment speed ranged from 59.9 mph in the Boca Chica segment to 34.7 mph in the Plantation segment. The following is a summary of LOS changes, as compared to 2017: OS A LuceS, B LOS C LOS a LOS E tw* Wand(11) Pllammlatbn( 11) Wndle ( 0) U Malecumbe 1 1) Ramiro (8) Cross ( '4 +) 0a0 Purve 10) aha Ilona(11) Tea 7abie 18) Compared to 2017 results,the median segment speeds increased in 13 of the 24 segments,ranging between 0.2 mph and 10.6 mph, and decreased in 11 segments,ranging from -0.1 mph to-5.8 mph. The largest increase in speed (+10.6 mph) was recorded in Segment 4 1 (Stock Island-MM 4.0 to MM 5.0); The largest reduction in speed (-5.8 mph) was recorded in Segment 4 21 (Plantation -MM 86.0 to MM 91.5). Compared to 2019 results, the LOS increased in seven of the 24 segments, and decreased in two segments. The LOS did not change in the remaining segments. The most significant LOS changes recorded in Segments 4 18 (Tea Table -MM 77.5 to MM 79.5; LOS changed from `D' to LOS `A'),4 20(Windley-MM 84.0 to MM 86.0;LOS changed from `D' to LOS `C'),4 21 (Plantation -MM 86.0 to MM 91.5;LOS changed from `D' to LOS `C'),4 16 (Long-MM 63.0 to MM 73.0; LOS changed from `B' to LOS `C'), and 4 24 (Cross -MM 106.0 to MM 112.5; LOS changed from `B' to LOS `C'). Compared to 2019 results,the median segment speeds increased in 15 of the 24 segments,ranging between 0.3 mph and 7.0 mph, and decreased in nine segments, ranging from -0.1 mph to -2.1 mph. The largest increase in speed (+7.0 mph) was recorded in Segment 4 1 (Stock Island-MM 34 4.0 to MM 5.0); The largest reduction in speed(-2.1 mph)was recorded in Segment 4 16 (Long— MM 63.0 to MM 73.0). Reserve Capacities The difference between the median speed and the LOS C Standard speed gives the reserve speed, which in turn can be converted to an estimated reserve capacity. The overall median speed of 45.5 mph compared to the LOS C standard of 45 mph results in a positive overall reserve speed of 0.5 mph. This reserve speed is converted into an estimated number of reserve trips using the formula below: Reserve Volume = Reserve Speed x K x Overall Length Trip Length Reserve Volume = Reserve speed x 1656 daily trips/mph x 112 miles 10 miles Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of US 1 individually gives maximum reserve volumes for all segments totaling 105,865 trips. These individual reserve volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraint imposed by the overall reserve volume. County regulations and 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. The so-called five percent allocations were calculated for such segments as follows: 5% Allocation = (median speed- 95% of LOS C)x 1656 x Length Trip Length In 2021, there were two (2) segments identified to be functioning below the LOS C threshold - Upper Matecumbe (Segment 419) and Windley (Segment 420). Both segments are in the Village of Islamorada. The two segments identified above have depleted their reserve capacities, leaving -2,187 trips in Upper Matecumbe (Segment 419) and 271 trips in Windley (Segment 420)based on the 5% below LOS C allocation. The table on page 34 details the segment levels of service and reserve capacity values for each segment. 35 Q0 ry) OA '04 AB A 4 w e� r4 �6 C4 C4 al , Le —————————————————————— V 40 — V) 0 M 12, .Z' 1�71 vl, 'P wl pi -Z 3� S 2 A WO m IZ O? e; ens non dr ri �i A, 4N L —---------- -----——----—————————------------------ w > 0 ei 'r *t e0 d M d) M 'At P. ej - an ci ('4 'A 1,0 ou qi 6 o6 mar ri ri a 6 C6 tv m a, eq 0 w w ce z gild o 04 s 4- m� r^ao A "t 4 w w NJ W) V) 0 ao 0) 0 0 0, U) M CA ul U`� W') X) W 0) . .. . . . . . . . 0 F 2 14 It Illy" F]i 4 2 P, A "A 0 ————————— — —i w 4 4 :4 4 r 4 > Ip 9 ka c"A as Q, (P q '1' q, q c) e� c"'). 04 li ul ui ki.� orp w� e, elli W2 ell m, qV UlI 'M t, U) 13 U 14 "1, 411 1 4, ? lwll 0 "1, 141, llql I,, 4t, 14, 'Ao Lr '4, if m, q v, MA, ——————————— U-4 Lo 7m, U "I Ag) U, u� " 91 Tr Nr Nr LU P P P (A cAl rl CA ("I Ir"I (4 N r,1l rA rtiii ni r,G r4 r4 r,4 cq ---- -------- ———— — ---------------- CA w 0 00 ('A —---- ----- ---- ---- ... ........ CFl LA tp 9 lla� All q XA ic, I- do cra rn I -D ra A SUMMARY The following is a summary of the 2021 Travel Time and Delay Study results as compared to the 2017 Travel Time and Delay Study: a) The average traffic volumes have increased in Big Pine (2.00%) and Upper Matecumbe (3.07%) Keys but have decreased in Marathon Key (-6.30%) as compared to 2017. b) The overall travel speed on US 1 based on the 2021 study is 45.5 mph, which is 0.5 mph lower than the 2017 overall travel speed. c) As compared to the 2017 data, the median travel speeds in 13 of the 24 segments have increased. They are: .. Stock Island (+10,6 arm h) -Toir h +1.1 mph) -Boca Chica + . mru h -Big Pine (+ . rm h - Big Coppift (+0,' rm h) -Bahia Hondm a (+1.11 rml h) -S ddllebu nch (+01, mph) _ 1 1 rath m (+1.7 mph) -Sugarloaf(+0. mph) - T v rmi r (+ ,0 mph) uauumm rl and (+1.11 mph) F Key Largo (+0.6 mph) Ramrod (+0.4 mph) M ddllam travel s,pleeds in, 111 segments hiave delcreased. They are, Cu.ud`ua (-0.3, mph) _ L Matecumibe (-1.6 mph) - VdIage Of a Varnorada ` l` -11., sir . -- uuw of�911+on oraru ------- -- Grassy (-0.2 irm h - U Matecuiml -3,9 m h -wliaue of u n rtnor - Duck -01.1 mph) - 'limdle 4.7 mu Ih -viuurr o orusaiamr,-o ada Long (41. mph) - Plantation (-5.8 orm1ph)-wiluv�e of IsIam oradai ruu - .6 mph,) d) As compared to the 2017 study, there are LOS changes in nine of the 24 segments —the LOS for five segments have improved, and the LOS for four segments have degraded. e) Segment 419 (Upper Matecumbe —MM 79.5 —MM 84.0) changed from LOS `D' to `E'. Segment 4 20 (Windley—MM 84.0—MM 86.0)LOS changed from LOS `C' to `D'. These two segments have no reserve capacity and should be given special attention. f) There were two drawbridge delay events during the 2021 study (accounted for 12 minutes, with an average delay of 6 minutes), as compared to no drawbridge delay events during the 2017 study. g) There were 10 construction delay events in 2021 (accounted for 2 hours 14 minutes and 56 seconds), as compared to no construction delay events in 2017. 37 h) There were 124 signal related delay events in 2021, resulting in 1 hour and 8 seconds of delay, as compared to 2 hours 10 minutes and 29 seconds in 2017. The signal delay events contributed to an average of 2 minutes and 9 seconds of delay per trip,which is lower than the 2017 average signal delay per trip of 4 minutes and 30 seconds. 1) Segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given particular attention when approving development applications. Based on the 2021 study,there are six segments in this category (same number of segments as in the 2017 study). .__..©uck_(IMM 60.5 IVIIMI 63.0�_.______....._._.___..._i___..Wind_'Qy..(84Y0_ 86.0) 6 0�___.._.________________ .__....____.__._.___...____- a___.---------------------------___ _ w...___..___.-___-.___._. __._____..___..._-___...________..___.__ __-----.----------------------------------------.__...___...__._.___...__._.� - Long (MM 63.0-- MIM 73.0) •Plantation (86.0--91.5), - L. Matecumbe (MM 73.0- MM 77.5) •Cross (MM 106.0-MM 112.5) U. Matecumbe (MM 79.5_ M MI 84.0)�----------------------------------� Following is a summary of the 2021 Travel Time and Delay Study results compared to the 2019 Travel Time and Delay Study: a) The average traffic volumes have increased in Big Pine (3.59%) and Upper Matecumbe (6.48%) Keys but have decreased in Marathon Key (-11.67%) as compared to 2019. b) The overall travel speed on US 1 based on the 2021 study is 45.5 mph, which is 0.9 mph higher than the 2019 overall travel speed. c) As compared to the 2019 data, the median travel speeds in 15 of the 24 segments have increased. They are: - Stock Island (+7.0 mph) - Big Pine (+0.3 mph) ................................................................................................................................ .......................................................................................................................................................... - Boca Chlca (+4.1 mph) - Bahia Honda (+0.6 mphi) - Bi Co itt +11.4 im h - Marathon +1.7 mph) - Saddlebuunchi +1.5 mph) -Grassy +0.7 mph) - Sugarloaf +0.7 m hi -4''WNinidle +2.3 mph)-Village of Islam orada - Cudjo (+0.7 mph Tavernier (+ 5 mph...... . ....... ......... ......... .. ......... ......... - iummerland +0.9 mph) - Key Largo +0u8 im h Torch (+0.7 mphi) Median travel speeds in 91 segments have decreased. They are: -Ramrod -0.2 mph) - L Matecumbe -1.4 m h) -Village of lslaim oraida -7-Mile Bride -0.2 mph) - Tea Table -0.3 mph) -vlulage of llslammorada -Duck -01.1 mph) U Matecumbe -1."I mph) -wlage of lslarnorada -Lon -2.1 mph) - Plantation - .6 mph)-village of lisl,ammorada -Cross 4.1 mph), d) As compared to the 2019 study, there are LOS changes in nine of the 24 segments -the LOS for seven segments have improved, and the LOS for two segments have degraded. 38 e) Segment 4 20 (Windley —MM 84.0 —MM 86.0) LOS changed from LOS `E' to `D'. The LOS for Segment 419 (Upper Matecumbe—MM 79.5 —MM 84.0)remained at LOS `E'. These two segments have no reserve capacity and should be given special attention. f) There were two drawbridge delay events during the 2021 study, the same as the 2019 study. Drawbridge delays accounted for 12 minutes, with an average delay of 6 minutes. g) There were 10 construction delay events in 2021 (accounted for 2 hours 14 minutes and 56 seconds), as compared to one construction delay event(accounted for 9 minutes and 55 seconds) in 2019. h) There were 124 signal related delay events in 2021, resulting in 1 hour and 8 seconds of delay, as compared to 1 hour 51 minutes and 49 seconds in 2019. The signal delay events contributed to 2 minutes and 9 seconds of delay per trip on an average, which is lower when compared to the 2019 average signal delay per trip of 4 minutes. The following is a list of considerations for review: 1) Under the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for US 1 falls below the LOS C Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed unless mitigation measures are implemented. Roadway widening is a typical mitigation measure (or capacity improvement) used by most agencies. However, in Monroe County, road widening (specifically along US 1) is restricted by the adopted comprehensive plan policies to preserve and protect the fragile ecological conditions. There are other remedies that could be explored and evaluated to improve the traffic flow and capacity along US 1. Some examples include: • Upgrade the traffic signal infrastructure and/or signal timing at signalized intersections along US 1 to enhance traffic flow. • Provide or improve transit service or other multi-modal transportation alternatives. • Implement active traffic management and Transportation System Management & Operation type improvements, which include real-time monitoring of traffic flow and implementing measures to address traffic congestion. • Add turn lanes at strategic locations to improve roadway capacity. • Implement access management improvements (consolidate driveways/access points, modify median openings, etc.)to reduce interruptions to US 1 traffic. • Provide and/or improve frontage roads to reduce the impacts to US 1 traffic flow. Improve local roads to minimize US 1 being used as a local street for short trips. • Do not allow new traffic signals along US 1, if a safe and/or less restrictive alternative (such as indirect left-turns, a roundabout, etc.) can be provided to accommodate traffic movements. 39 • Conduct speed studies on selected segments of US 1 to confirm if the current posted speed limits are correct and modify, if necessary. 2) This is the first Travel Time and Delay Study conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic. The traffic volumes were observed to increase in some areas and decrease in other areas, as compared to 2019 and 2017 studies. Therefore, the travel time impacts due to the pandemic appear to be very minimal. U.S. 1 is a state maintained roadway. Therefore, any modifications/ improvements to U.S. 1 have to be developed in collaboration with the Florida Department of Transportation. CONCURRENCY REVIEW - TRANSPORTATION/ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all development and redevelopment taking place within unincorporated Monroe County do not result in a reduction of the level of service requirements, including transportation facilities. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and LDC have adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roads, particularly US Highway 1, which is part of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) State Highway System. Policy 301.1.2 For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on U.S. 1 shall be maintained within five percent(5%) of LOS C. Sec. 114-2. -Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures. (a) Level of Service Standards (LOS). All development shall be served by adequate public facilities in accordance with the following standards: (1) Transportation/Roadways. a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall arterial length and the 24 roadway segments of U.S. 1, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway segments. In addition, all segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. 1,shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C. b. Development may be approved, provided that the development in combination with all other permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent (5%) below LOS C, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS C and/or deficiencies. 40 This LOS standard is used within the County's Concurrency Management System to review development proposals and ensure that the transportation facilities needed to serve development will be in place when the impacts of the development occur; to evaluate any potential degradation in the adopted LOS; and to determine the need for improvements in order to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standard. Policy 101.1.5 Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place when the impacts of the development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction or improvement of proportionate share of required improvements,or to assure the provision of the proportionate share contribution of the costs for the necessary transportation facilities. The development of a single family residential unit shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement. Policy 301.2.3 Monroe County shall not permit new development which would significantly degrade the LOS below the adopted LOS standards on U.S. 1 (overall) unless the proportionate share of the impact is mitigated. The development of one single family residential unit, on a single parcel, shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement. A five percent projected decrease in travel speeds, below LOS C, is a significant degradation in the level of service on U.S. 1. Traffic volume which exceeds the LOS D standard by more than five percent is a significant degradation in the level of service on any other County road. Although the 2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study shows that overall US 1 and all segments within unincorporated Monroe County are operating at a LOS C or greater, per LDC Section 114-2, concurrency review for proposed development within the unincorporated county takes into account all other permitted development since the time of the 2021 study as well. Development may only be approved if the proposed development in combination with all other permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent(5%)below LOS C for the overall length of US1 or for any individual segment. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Concurrency must be satisfied at the time a development permit is issued; at the time a certificate of occupancy; or through a binding contract or agreement for the necessary facility and/or service improvements or proportionate share contribution. 41 III. POTABLE WATER The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in the Florida Keys. FKAA's primary water supply is the Biscayne Aquifer, a shallow groundwater source. The FKAA's wellfield is located within an environmentally protected pine rockland forest west of Florida City. The location of the wellfield near Everglades National Park, along with restrictions enforced by state and local regulatory agencies, contributes to the unusually high water quality. These wells contain some of the highest quality groundwater in the state, meeting all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Additionally, the FKAA is continually monitoring, assessing, and working to eliminate potential hazards to our water source, including inappropriate aquifer utilization, unsuitable land uses, and the potential for saltwater intrusion. The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the FKAA's Water Treatment Facility in Florida City, which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8 million gallons per day (MGD). The primary water treatment process is a conventional lime softening/filtration water treatment plant and is capable of treating up to 23.8 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer. The secondary water treatment process is the newly constructed Reverse Osmosis water treatment plant which is capable of producing 6 MGD from the brackish Floridan Aquifer. The product water from these treatment processes is then disinfected and fluoridated. The FKAA treated water is pumped 130 miles from Florida City to Key West supplying water to the entire Florida Keys. The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of 45.2 million gallons system wide. The sizes of tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million gallons. These tanks are utilized during periods of peak water demand and serve as an emergency water supply. Since the existing transmission line serves the entire Florida Keys (including Key West), and storage capacity is an integral part of the system, the capacity of the entire system must be considered together, rather than in separate service districts. Also, the two saltwater Reserve Osmosis (RO)plants, located on Stock Island and Marathon, are available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants have design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MGD, respectively. At present, Key West and Ocean Reef are the only areas of the County served by a flow of potable water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of water sources, including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting sites on the open water or from specially constructed fire wells. Although sufficient flow to fight fires is not guaranteed in the County, new hydrants are being installed as water lines are replaced to make water available for fire-fighting purposes and pump station/tank facilities are being upgraded to provide additional fire flow and pressure. A map of the key FKAA transmission and distribution facilities is shown in Figure 3.1. 42 Figure 3.1 FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OVERVIEW 45.2 MG STORAGE CAPACITY STORAGE 5 MG 15. FLORIDA CITY STORAGE I�IMG AMC Tx�n�,1�p MG .S IMG 5 MG 1 MG 14. OCEAN REEF DISTRI9UTION lOMC 29.8 MOD LIME SOFTENING TREATMENT PLANT 2 75 HP PUMPS STATION 1�MG 6 MGD R.O.TREATMENT PLANT 2 500 HP PUMPS r 1. KEY WEST 7 800 HP PUMPS 1 2 250 HP PUMPS 7 1000 HP DIESEL PUMPS EMERGENCY BACKUP 16. KEY LARGO DISTRIAUTION BACKPUMP n 5 pMGHJ BOOSTED PUMP sranoN sTA`ioN 1f MARATHON STATION 1 13D NP PUMP 5 MG I 2 40 HP PUMPS 5 MG 3 700 HP PUMPS 2. STOCK ISLAND I S65 HP PUMP 12. TAVERNIER 2 300 HP PUMPS 3 MG I 9. VACA CUT 5 MG 2 75 HP 2 30 HP PUMPS 1 PUMPs s Mc 13. ROCK B0o5TER PUMP RAMROD KEY I HARBOR •5 MG STATION 1 l000 HP PUMP F6. BIG PINE KEY �10. CRAWL KEY 5 uc 1 sG HP PU M P 1 600 HP PUMP 2 75 HP PUMPS 2 50 HP PUMPS 5 MG 5. SUMMERLAND KEY I I DUCK KEY n90 MCD s u 11. HP PUMP 2 30 HP PUMPS ,21MG� I 1.0 MGO � WW TREATMENT PLANT 2 73 HP PUMP 11MC �� R.O.PUNT 4. BIG COPPITT KEY I MARATHON T eoosrER PUMP z 7s nP PUMPS I I LONG KEY sT ION 1.0 MG O I I e 1 p yy 3 600 HP PUMPS I 1 LITTLE VENICE '160 MGD LAYTON I .066 MGD WW TREATMENT PLANT WW TREATMENT PLANT BAY POINT .Dsa MCD WW TREATMENT PLANT 7. MARATHON _g 69th ST MARATHON 3 MO 2 30 HP PUMPS BOOSTER PUMP 2 500 HP PUMPS 5 MG STATION 1 650 HP PUMPS 2.0 MGD R.G.PI TRANMISSION BACKPUMPING CAPABI ITIES sr ocK ISLAND DISTRIBUTION N STATION 1 STOCK ISLAND (DESAL) MARATHON (1)-5 MG TANK s Mc 31°,.�"HP'PPU- PUMP STOCK ISLAND (3)-5 MG TANKS NK Demand for Potable Water The Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provides an overview of the water demands in the FKAA service area including Water Use Permit(WUP)allocation limits,yearly percent changes, and remaining water allocations. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) approved the FKAA's modification of WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers. As shown in Figure 3.5, the WUP provides an annual allocation of 8,751 Million Gallons (MG) or 23.98 MGD and a maximum monthly allocation of 809.01 MG with a limited annual withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer of 6,492 MG In order to meet the requirements of this limitation,the FKAA constructed a new Floridan Aquifer Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment system. This RO water treatment system is designed to withdraw brackish water from the Floridan Aquifer, an alternative water source approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat the water to drinking water standards. The RO water treatment plant provides added capability to limit Biscayne aquifer withdrawals and is designed to meet current and future water demands. The RO water treatment system provides an additional 6.0 MGD of potable water. 43 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 outreach, and assistance from municipal agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances. Figure 3.2.Annual Water Withdrawals 2002-2022 Annual WUP Limit WUPl-Annual Year WitliArawal %Change' (MG) Allocation(MG) (MG) 2002 6,191 10.03% 7,274 1,083 2003 6,288 1.57% 7,274 986 2004 6,383 2.74% 7,274 813 2005 6,477 0.16% 7,274 803 2006 6,283 -2.49% 7,274 964 2007 5,850 -7.35% 7,274 1,428 2008 5,960 1.89% 8,751 2,791 2009 1 5,966 0.09% 8,751 2,785 2010 5,919 -0.79% 8,751 2,832 2011 6,327 6.89% 8,751 2,424 2012 6,042 -4.50% 8,751 2,709 2013 1 6105 1.04% 8,751 2,646 2014 6,377 4.46% 8,751 2,374 2015 6,530 2.40% 8,751 2,221 2016 1 6,462 -1.04% 8,751 2,289 2017 6,324 -2.13% 8,751 2,427 2018 6,526 3.10% 8,751 2,225 2019 6,809 4.16 8,751 1,942 2020 6,737 -1.06% 8,751 2,014 2021 7,296 8.30% 8,751 1,455 2022 7,358 0.85 8,751 1,393 Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2023 44 Figure 3.3. 2022-2023 Potable Water Demand Summary FLORIDA KEYS AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY Potable Water Demand Summa —New Water Demand,Actual Water Demand, and Ex ected Water Demand Year 2022 Year 2023 New Water Metered Actual Water Munici alit Service Water Demand* Expected Water Demand Unincorporated 2,427,097,553 3,167,278,503 3,258,534,692 City of Key West 1,694,057,733 2,210,686,848 2,274,381,550 City of Marathon 652,040,629 850,890,507 875,406,515 City of Key Colony Beach 119,333,667 155,726,315 160,213,129 City ofIslamorada 745,933,780 973,417,827 1,001,464,114 Entire Florida Keys 5,638,463,362 7,358,000,000 7,570,000,000 SFWMD WUP Annual Allocation 8,751,000,000 8,751,000,000 As shown in Figure 3.3, FKAA expected 2023 water demands for the entire Florida Keys is 7,570 Million Gallons and can be accommodated within the South Florida Water Management WUP annual allocation of 8,751 Million Gallons (MG). For unincorporated Monroe County, the 2022 actual demand was 3,167 MG and this is expected to slightly increase to 3,258 MG for 2023. Figure 3.4. FKAA Water Supply Available vs.Water Demand Projections through 2030 30 25 I II1 r.. 20 � a�Am� ,w Ao�Aw IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Floridan Blend and Bypass(mnigd) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Proposed Redllaimedl Water CL I Reverse-osmosis"w"uaT P(mmgd) 2 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Biscayne Aq Wfe r(m gd) --sm—Adjusted 2020 Avg.Cray Projectli rns uQ 111N'ufyw�-20105 Avg Day Projectlons tlhru 2D26 S all u0 n ry m Ln � r. Do C� ma rti' 14 H rv,.. rvr,. rw ra rtiu rJ ev,.. IN r-a f14 rM^a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ea Ca a 0 0 As shown in Figure 3.4, the FKAA water demand projections through 2030, based on the two projections provided by FKAA, can be fulfilled through the use of the Biscayne permitted water 45 supply of 17.79 MGD, the 6.0 MGD RO water treatment plant, the new reclaimed water systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations. As shown in Figure 3.5, in 2022,the FKAA distributed an annual average of 17.86 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer plus 2.3 MGD from Floridan RO Production. This table also provides the water treatment capacities of the emergency RO plants. Since the emergency RO plants utilize seawater, a WUP is not required for these facilities. Figure 3.5- Projected Water Demand in 2022(in MG) 2023 Water FKAA Permit 2022 Water Demand Threshold Demand , , Projected Annual Allocation (Raw Water) Average Daily Demand 23.98 20.15 20.73 Maximum Monthly Demand 809.01 662 672 Annual Demand 8,751 7,358 7,570 Biscayne Aquifer Annual Allocation/Limitations(Raw Water) Average Daily Demand 17.79 17.86 17.79 Annual Demand 6,492 6,519 6,492 Floridan RO Production Average Daily Demand 6 2.3 2.94 Emergency RO WTP Facilities Kermit L. Lewin Design Capacity 2.00(MGD) 2.00(MGD) 2.00(MGD) Marathon RO Design Capacity 1.00(MGD) 1.00(MGD) 1.00(MGD) All a ures are in millions qfgallons Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2023 Figure 3.6 provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional Population and average daily demand, the average water consumption for 2023 was approximately 127 gallons per capita(person),which reflects the entire FKAA service area, including unincorporated Monroe County, Key West, Marathon, Islamorada, Key Colony Beach, and Layton. 46 Figure 3.6-Per Capita Water Use Year FuHctional Population' Daily Demamf(gallons Average Per Capita Water Consu m ti6n allon s z 2000 153,080 17,016,393 111 2001 153,552 15,415,616 100 2002 154,023 16,962,082 110 2003 154,495 17,228,192 112 2004 154,924 17,652,596 114 2005 156,150 17,730,000 114 2006 155,738 17,287,671 111 2007 155,440 16,017,315 103 2008 154,728 16,285,383 105 2009 155,441 16,345,205 105 2010 155,288 16,210,959 104 2011 156,054 17,334,247 111 2012 156,391 16,508,197 106 2013 156,727 16,836,164 107 2014 157,063 17,472,362 111 2015 157,400 17,890,400 114 2016 157,730 17,704,100 112 2017 158,060 17,632,900 112 2018 158,391 17,643,800 113 2019 158,721 18,070,000 114 2020 159,051 18,213,178 115 2021 159,382 19,811,482 124 2022 159,712 20,314,674 127 2023 160,042 20,256,893 127 Source: 1. Monroe County Population Projections-Monroe County Planning Department,2011 (Table 7) 2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,2023 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. 47 Figure 7 provides the schedule and costs projected for the capital improvements to the potable/alternative water systems planned by the FKAA. The total cost of the scheduled improvements is approximately $ 256,475,000 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to be funded by the water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants. Figure 7 -FKAA Projected 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan Estimated five- year Description 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 expenditures Water Projects Kermit H Lewin Reverse Osmosis Emergency Generator Facility 1,750,000 1,750,000 J.Robert Dean W1 P Painting and Filter Gallery U;:)grade 250,000 250,000 Ramrod Purrs p Station Diesel Storage 200,000 - 200,000 Kermit H Lewin Building Rehabilitation - 500,000 - 500,000 Kermit H Lewin Diesel Tank Re;.')icicerrient 75,000 750,000 - - 825,000 Stock Island Garage Replacement - - - 200,000 2,500,000 2,700,000 J.Robert Dean W1 P Accelator No.1 1,400,000 - - - 1,400,000 J.Robert Dean W1 P Accelator No.3 - 1,400,000 1,400,000 Kermit H Lewin Reverse Osmosis Facility 15,000,000 1,000,000 - - 16,000,000 Crawl Key Reverse Osmosis Facility 4,000,000 16,000,000 25,000,000 23,000,000 68,000,000 J.Robert Dean W1 P Wastewater Forcernain 720,000 - - - 720,000 J.Robert Dean W1 P Diesel Pump U;.')grFAdes 1,500,000 2,500,000 - 4,000,000 J.Robert Dean W1 P Electrical Improvements (Phase 2) 400,000 3,200,000 3,200,000 - 6,800,000 J.Robert Dean W1 P Storage Tank Coatings 650,000 - - 1,350,000 2,000,000 J.Robert Dean W1 P Storage Tank(5 IMG) - - 250,000 6,000,000 6,250,000 Long Key,Marathon,and Ramrod Purrs Station Electrical Upgrades 250,000 2,750,000 - - 3,000,000 Transmission Islamorada(IMIM 79 84) 20,000,000 - 20,000,000 Transmission Windley Key(IMIM 84.86) 15,000,000 - 15,000,000 Transmission Plantation Key(IMIM 86 91) - 26,500,000 26,500,000 53,000,000 Transmission Terminus Re;.'Acicerrient 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 Transmission Marathon (Knights Key) 600,000 3,000,000 3,600,000 Transmission Ocean Reef 6,000,000 1,500,000 7,500,000 Cathodic Protection System Re;.,)FAir and Improvements 200,000 2,000,000 2,200,000 Transmission Snake Creek Crossing(Directional Drill} - 2,000,000 2,000,000 fransmission(MI Crossing(Directional Drill) - 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 Distribution Valve Re;:)icicerrient Program 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Key West Pump Station Electrical upgrades 30,000 400,000 - - - 430,000 Tank 300,000 - - 300,000 Distribution Twin Lakes Key Largo 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 Distribution U;:)grades 900,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 7,100,000 Distribution Replacement Sm,ith Street 600,000 - - - - 600,000 Distribution and Storage Ocean Reef - 500,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 8,500,000 Distribution Storage Tank Replacement Crawl Key 2,500,000 - - - 2,500,000 Distribution Duck Key Inner Island - - - - Distribution Replacement lMiddle Keys - 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 4,500,000 Coco Plum Drive Distribution(Phase 1) 600,000 - - - 600,000 lMeter Gateways(Phase 111) 200,000 200,000 200,000 600,000 Key West Storage Tank 250,000 3,000,000 - 3,250,000 NAS Key West Boca Chica Field East Fire Purrs ping Station - - - NAS Connection A&B Distribution Boca Oita - - - - - Total water projects 78,900,000 70,525,000 59,150,000 32,000,000 15,900,000 256,475,000 48 SUMMARY Based on current conditions and projects, an adequate supply of water to meet current and future demands is provided by the following: The Biscayne permitted water supply of 17.79 MGD, the 6.0 MGD RO water treatment plant, the new reclaimed water systems, and the ability to operate the 3.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations. The FKAA continues to monitor and track conditions and events that could negatively impact the existing water supply. Any such impacts will be evaluated to determine future changes necessary to continue servicing Monroe County with adequate water supply. 49 IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 10 traditional and 6 charter public schools located throughout the Keys. School Board data includes both unincorporated and incorporated Monroe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school,three middle/elementary schools, and four elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields, computer labs, bus service and a cafeteria. Seven (7) cafetoriums serve as both a cafeteria and an auditorium. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums.All three high schools offer a performance auditorium with a working stage. The Monroe County school system is divided into three (3) sub-districts (see map below). School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates. Sub-district 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and includes the islands that make up Islamorada and Fiesta Key and includes one high school and two elementary/middle schools. Sub-district 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven Mile Bridge and includes one high/middle school and one elementary school. Sub-district 3 covers the Lower Keys,from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school, one middle school, one elementary/middle school, and three elementary schools. i,✓SJ✓ox✓dt.•Yc.xi�rr: . x pilli�` 1,��,1� %/� �;: / ',, w. "6,. p !�N" �7 �I II4 K.y g'ILalr o, Vat's . £:IelmenRaryJMlitltlle SGInduY'8I F k,j Rhry Drty - 11 zean a le 5 Monroe County at e, chocl CoralShores Treasure Vi"'.ge III Sch..c al 1015,Miles Yl o m Key Largo to Key WestLJl:ontesson S.I.�,vyw„o µ p.r Plantation,SchoW �to.w�fi Key West Elementary Switlilk m Stanley CCollegiate 'Its I m „ ary Sohool Gerald Adains I�l{II II Pine4 I S;ugar0oa ElemenLa y -,...^ El emelntary School M.udd e Y tll � Marathon High S.I - S!gstaeV •ao ,: - n, Elemeln Lary School 3m^^ Key West IKey^+✓)yiyt 1V �. Montessori School ;�G�,41 IH Ig h,„ p7MM i4 IIP�olncuana V E➢el--nary S.ho.1 GV.,y`n Archer Illorace O'Blryant Elementary School Middle School r, School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates. 50 The Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate is 9,709 students and the Capital Outlay of Full-Time Equivalent (COFTE) is 6,804. The actual utilization during 2021-2022 was 70.08%. ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL LOCATION 2022-2023 2021-2022 2022-2023 FISH CAPACITY COFTE UTILIZATION CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH 991 733 74.00% KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH 1,609 1,258 78.00% HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE 1,202 1,035 86.00% MARATHON SENIOR HIGH 1,399 670 48.00% GERALD ADAMS 631 576 91.00% PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL 647 558 83.00% POINCIANA ELEMENTARY 675 525 74.00% SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY 810 500 75.00% STANLEY SWITLIK ELEMENTARY 736 564 73.00% KEY LARGO SCHOOL 1,284 535 57.00% MAY SANDS SCHOOL 144 78 54.00% GLYNN ARCHER ELEMENTARY' 0 0 0.00% BIG PINE ACADEMY' 0 0 0.00% TOTAL 10,153 7,278 71.68% Data not available in School Work Plan The projected COFTE for 2025-2026 is 7,098 students with 73.11 % of utilization. Annually, prior to the adoption of the district school budget, each school board must prepare a tentative district facility work program that includes a major repair and renovation projects necessary to maintain the educational and ancillary facilities of the district. Some of the items listed in the 2021-2022 Monroe County School District Work Plan include HVAC, flooring,paint, roofing, safety to life, electrical, parking, fencing, maintenance/repair, fire alarms, telephone/intercom systems and closed circuit television for various schools. Other items include concrete repairs, site work and drainage maintenance, plumbing, ADA updates, elevator repair, carpentry and small construction projects and maintenance and repair. The 2021-2022 Monroe County School District expenditures from local funding sources were $28,780,194.Additional revenue sources include proceeds from 1/z cent sales surtax at$19,000,000 and funds carried forward at$18,853,223 were available for this period. The total project costs for construction, maintenance,repair and renovation during 2021-2022 was $55,248,107. The projected revenue/expenditures for new construction and remodeling projects 51 only, for 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 are $21,969,662 and $23,031,584, respectively. SUMMARY The overall 2021-2022 utilization is 70.08% of the school system capacity and is projected for 2025-2026 at 73.11 %utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2021-2022 indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system for the next two years. 52 V. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Solid waste management is a critical issue in the Florida Keys. While problems of landfill sitings, facilities, financing, and hazardous waste disposal have increased throughout Monroe County, the unique setting of the Keys makes waste management even more difficult. The geographic isolation, the limited land area,the environmental constraints,and the presence of nationally significant natural resources adds to the challenge of responsibly and efficiently managing the Keys'solid waste stream. Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 11.41 pounds per capita per day. Policy 801.4.2 establishes within three (3) years after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,Monroe County shall implement a county-wide,mandatory recycling program for residential and commercial locations. The Comprehensive Plan requires sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of five years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development of use. The Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC), in compliance with State concurrency requirements, requires that"Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site at a level of service of 11.41 pounds per capita per day. The county solid waste and resource recovery authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under F.S. Section 163.01,to dispose of solid waste outside of the county" (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)). This regulation went into effect on February 28, 1988 and serves as a level of service (LOS) standard for solid waste disposal. The LDC also requires that solid waste management plans be completed before any proposed development of a Major Conditional Use is reviewed by the Growth Management Department. Solid waste generation rates and capacity assessments must be submitted for review and coordination with the Public Works Division, Department of Solid Waste/Recycling (PWD-DSW/R). The table below summarizes historical solid waste generation for the service area. Solid Waste Generation in Tons per Year FY FDEP Total Recycling Disposal 1998 N/A N/A N/A 1999 N/A N/A N/A 2000 158,327 59,798 131,825 2001 125,893 51,435 96,075 2002 134,950 68,738 113,071 2003 134,734 34,619 113,427 2004 112,102 13,757 110,333 2005 212,470 73,085 212,470 2006 200,338 12,206 200,338 2007 134,467 12,497 134,467 2008 130,245 13,743 130,245 2009 116,884 12,099 95,327 53 2010 156,465 33,071 123,394 2011 125,402 27,808 97,594 2012 145,889 38,985 106,904 2013 173,774 57,272 116,502 2014 177,312 61,421 115,891 2015 276,710 110,140 166,570 2016 353,658 200,845 152,813 2017 656,783 352,156 304,618 2018 441,165 259,322 181,843 2019 302,589 110,372 192,217 2020 266,542 119,029 147,513 2021 287,738 121,075 166,663 2022 322,804 143,149 179,655 Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011; Monroe County Public Works 2013 Florida Department o Environmental Protection 2022 Annual Report Data collection calendar year is January I to December 31. These are scale tonnages. Fluctuations in yearly data may be a result of major storm events, economic conditions, and other generation factors. FDEP calendar years do not coincide with Monroe County's calendar years, thus creating a differential in datum between departments. The historical solid waste generation values for Monroe County show a steady increase of total solid waste generation between the years 1998-2001. During the period 2005-2006 and 2015-2019, the County's solid waste generation was significantly higher. These higher values do not correspond to normal solid waste generation trends within the County and in actuality result from a cluster of outliers. The outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions (greater consumption of goods and services) and storm events that cause a significant amount of over generation due to debris. Furthermore,during the period of 2007-2008,an economic recession affected solid waste generation, significantly reducing standard trends for generation growth. The tourism industry in the Florida Keys is another large factor in solid waste generation that needs to be accounted for in projected demands calculations. The Monroe County Tourist Development Council estimated 4.3 million county-wide tourist visits occurred in 2011. The County and tourist population are expected to continue increasing,which will impact solid waste generation within the County. Solid waste is collected by franchise and taken to the three historic landfill sites, which serve as transfer facilities. At the transfer stations,the waste is compacted and loaded on Waste Management, Inc. (WMI)trucks for haul out. Recyclable materials,including white goods,tires,glass, aluminum, plastic bottles, and newspaper are included as part of the solid waste haul out contract. A recent (2009) amendment to the contract includes WMI and the County's commitment to increase annual 54 recycling rate to 40 percent by 2014. Based on the information obtained by Florida Department of Environmental Protection solid waste management this goal was met. Solid Waste Transfer Facility Sizes and Capacities Transfer Facility Acreage Capacity Cudjoe Key Transfer Station 20.2 acres 200 tons/day Long Key Transfer Station 29.5 acres 400 tons/day Key Largo Transfer Station 15.0 acres 200 tons/day Source: Waste Management Inc., 1991 Any future declines will also reflect the diligent efforts by the citizens of the County to reduce the amount of solid waste they generate, through the conscious consumption of goods, composting, mulching or other sustainability efforts. Additional factors which are less easily quantifiable could also affect solid waste generation. The amount of construction taking place in the County, and thus the amount of construction debris being disposed of, also significantly affects the total amount of solid waste generated. Periods with less construction could have contributed to the decline in total waste generation. Finally,the weather affects the rate of vegetative growth, and therefore affects the amount of yard waste generated. Drier years could result in less total waste generation. The analysis below represents a general trend of solid waste generation with respect to functional population growth. The LOS creates a conservative rate of solid waste generation in comparison to the increasing trend of solid waste generation between the years 1998-2000, thus predicting a comparative or slightly higher annual solid waste production in relation to population. Limitations on future growth should reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris generation. Recycling efforts in Monroe County have increased and should reduce the amount of solid waste generation. Solid Waste Generation Trends GENERATION POPULATION Year (Tons/Yr) Permanent Seasonal Functional (LBS/CAP/DAY) 2000 158,327 36,036 33,241 69,277 12.52 2001 125,893 36,250 33,263 69,513 9.92 2002 134,950 36,452 33,285 69,737 10.6 2003 134,734 36,543 33,307 69,850 10.57 2004 112,102 36,606 33,329 69,935 8.78 2005 212,470 37,164 33,351 70,515 16.51 2006 200,338 36,466 34,019 70,485 15.57 2007 134,467 35,749 34,568 70,317 10.48 2008 130,245 34,788 35,550 70,338 10.15 2009 116,884 36,268 35,043 71,311 8.98 2010 156,465 35,368 35,440 70,808 12.10 2011 125,402 35,917 35,249 71,166 9.7 55 2012 145,889 39,371 35,438 74,089 11.65 2013 173,774 35,806 35,658 71,464 12.94 2014 177,312 35,751 35,862 71,613 13.12 2015 276,710 35,696 36,067 71,763 20.43 2016 353,658 35,632 36,277 71,909 25.48 2017 656,783 35,567 36,488 72,055 49.94 2018 441,165 35,503 36,698 72,201 33.48 2019 302,589 35,438 36,909 72,348 22.92 2020 266,542 35,374 37,120 72,494 20.15 2021 287,738 35,310 37,330 72,640 21.70 2022 322,804 35,245 37,541 72,786 24.30 Sources: 1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2. Monroe County 2012-2030 Monroe County Population Projections, Keith& Schnars, and Fishkind& Associates, 3-15-11 (Unincorporated Population -Table 9) SUMMARY Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management(WMI). The contract authorizes the use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2024; thereby, providing the County with approximately one (1)years of guaranteed capacity. The current contract has a 5-year extension,the County may choose to negotiate a new contract with Waste Management for continued service. There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for 2021-2023. 56 VI. PARKS AND RECREATION The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities is provided in Policy 1201.1.1 and 1201.1.2 of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service Standard The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the provisions of resource- and activity-based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are: 0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population; and 0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population Resource-based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources of significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity-based recreation areas can be established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other athletic events. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan Policy 1201.1.1, Monroe County Existing Demand in Surplus or Parks and Recreation Functional Acreage Acreage (Deficit) in Population 2020 Acreage 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resourced-based 159,051 250 208 42 neighborhood and community parks 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, activity-based 159,051 434 208 226 neighborhood and community parks Source: Monroe County Technical Document, Chapter 13, Recreation and Open Space, May 11, 2011, Section 13.5.1.1.2. There are approximately 10,900 acres of resource-based recreation lands currently available in the County for public use. Removing beaches which are primarily Federal and State owned from the resource-based lands results in approximately 250 acres remaining. Level of Service Analysis for Activity-Based Recreation Areas The Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at educational 57 facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. A total of 108.86 acres of developed resourced-based and 117.23 acres of activity-based recreation areas are either owned or leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board. The activity-based recreational facilities that are inventoried include facilities and activities such as baseball/softball, football/soccer,tennis courts,basketball courts,picnic tables and picnic pavilions, volleyball courts, handball/racquetball courts, equipped play areas,multi-use areas,benches,tracks, piers, bike paths, boat ramps, fishing, swimming, swimming pools, barbeque grills, shuffleboard courts, beaches and restrooms. Additionally, other recreation uses and facilities are indicated such as historic structures, bandshells, dog parks, skateboard facilities, aquatic parks, museums, and concessions. The subareas for park and recreational facilities include the Upper Keys, north of Tavernier; Middle Keys, between Pigeon Key and Long Key; and the Lower Keys, south of the Seven Mile Bridge. The tables below provide resource- and activity-based parks and recreation in acres for the three subarea planning areas. MIDDLE KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING AREA MM 38.5-73 Mile Classification (Acres) Name Location Marker Facilities Resource Activity Sunset Bay Park Grassy Key 58 Beach 0.6 NA Vaca Key Boat ramp, teen club, 2 Yacht Club (1) (Marathon) 54 tennis courts, basketball NA 2 court Beach,picnic pavilions, Sombrero Beach ball field, 2 volleyball (Switlik Park) Marathon 50 courts, equipped play 0.6 8 area, dog park,pier, fishing, BBQ Old 7-Mile Bridge Monroe County 41-47 Fishing, Bicycling, 5 NA Beaches 7-Mile Bridge Pigeon Key 45 Historical structures 5 NA 58 UPPER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING AREA MM 73-112 Mile Classification (Acres) Name Location Mark Facilities er Resource Activity Garden Cove Park Key Largo 106 Boat ramp 1.5 NA Rowell's Waterfront Key Largo 104 Picnic tables benches paddle- 8 NA Park .5 sports launch, swimming area Murray Nelson Boat basin,pier, dock, five Waterfront Park Key Largo 102 pavilions, restrooms,picnic 1.2 NA tables, benches Hibiscus Park Key Largo 101.5 Vacant, inaccessible waterfront 0.5 NA Buttonwood Lane Ball field, 3 basketball courts, Friendship Park Key Largo 101 picnic shelters, Play equipment, NA 2.38 restrooms, trail Key Largo Play equipment, aquatic park, 3 Community Park- 6 swimming pools, ballfields Jacob's Aquatic Key Largo 99. soccer field, tennis,pickleball, 1.5 13.6 Center basketball, restrooms Sunset Point Park Key Largo 95.2 Vacant, waterfr ont access, boat 1.2 0.9 Beach, two ball fields,play Harry Harris County Key Largo equipment, swimming, boat Park (Tavernier) 93 ramp, BBQs, shuffleboard, 2 15.1 beach,picnic tables, restrooms, basketball Key Largo Play Equipment,picnic, shelter Old Settlers Park (Tavernier) 91.9 beach, butterfly garden NA 3 Burr Beach Park Key Largo 91 Vacant, waterfront access 0.1 NA (Sunny Haven) Upper Old State Rte. 4A Matecumbe 82.5 Vacant 0.3 NA Key Old State Rte. 4A, Upper Hurricane Matecumbe 81 Historical Marker 1.2 NA Monument Key Anne's Beach, Lower Beach swimming, bike path, Lower Matecumbe Matecumbe 73.5 6.1 6 Beach 5 Keypicnic pavilions, boardwalk 59 LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5 Mile Classification (Acres) Name Location Mark Facilities er Resource Activity Veteran's Memorial Little Duck Beach, BBQs, swimming Park Key (Ohio 40 temporary port o let restrooms 0.6 24.9 Key) Missouri Key/South Missouri Key 39 Roadside pull-off, beach 3.5 NA side US 1 Pier, Playground, soccer field, baseball, tennis &basketball Big Pine Key Park Big Pine Key 31 courts, skate park, bocce 5.5 4.6 courts, shade structures, restrooms J. Watson Field 2 tennis courts, volleyball, (Stiglitz Property) Big Pine Key 30 play equipment, baseball, 1.2 2.4 (2) picnic, dog park Blue Heron Park Big Pine Key 30 Pickleball NA 5.5 Bob Evans/ Chamber of Big Pine Key 30 Vacant 0.3 NA Commerce Palm Villa Park Big Pine Key 30 Benches, waterfront, NA 0.6 State Road 4 Little Torch 28 Boat ramps 0.1 NA Key Ramrod Key Park Ramrod Key 27 Beach*, swimming 1.2 1.2 West Summerland West Park Summerland 25 2 Boat ramps 31.8 NA Key Saddlebunch Play equipment, volleyball, Bay Point Park Key15 picnic tables, trail, basketball, NA 1.58 2 tennis courts,pavilions, Boca Chica Beach, Boca Chica 11 Beach,picnic table * 6 NA SR 941 (3) Key Wilhelmina Harvey Big Coppitt 10 Play equipment,path, shade Park Keystructure with picnic table NA 0.65 60 Mile Classification (Acres) Name Location Mark Facilities er Resource Activity Volunteer Fireman's Big Coppitt 1 Pavilion,picnic tables, Park Key basketball Gulfview Park, Big Coppitt 9.7 Boat ramp 0.2 NA Delmar Ave. Key Rockland Hammock Roc ke and 9 Vacant 2.5 NA Play equipment, baseball & Bernstein Park Raccoon Key 4.5 soccer fields, basketball,path, NA 11 fitness center, community rooms, picnic tables, restrooms East Martello Park Key West 1.5 Picnic, Historic Fort, museum 14.56 NA Island 1 beach, concession area, 2 band shells,pier,picnic Higgs Beach Park, pavilions and grills,pickleball C.B. Harvey, Rest Key West I courts,tennis courts,play 5 12.1 Beach Island equipment, bike path, volleyball, fitness trail, handball court, horseshoes, swimming, Dog Park West Martello Park Key West 1 Historic Fort 0.8 NA Island Whitehead Street Key West 1 Historic Fort, Museum 0.8 NA Lighthouse Island Pines Park(S. Key West 1 Picnic NA 1.72 Roosevelt) Island (1) The total acreage of the Yacht Club is approximately 6.0 acres. The unique layout of this facility restricts active recreation to approximately 2 acres partially leased to the Marathon Yacht Club by Monroe County. (2) House and yard(1.2 acres) owned by Monroe County.Additional2.4 acres leased by Monroe County from the Big Pine Athletic Association. (3) Lands Leased to Monroe County from U. S. Navy. (4) Church to west ofpark has public access 2 basketball, volleyball, and bocce courts. (S) Beach leased to Village oflslamorada *Denotes approximate acreage; (for beaches the length of the beach x a minimum of I S ft.) Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011 61 Acquisition of Additional Recreation Areas The Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that "Monroe County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development ofresource-based and activity- based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level ofservice standards." The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be accomplished in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6) mechanisms that are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as for providing adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result from additional residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are: 1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land which is already owned by the county but which is not being used for park and recreation purposes; 2. Acquisition of new park sites on a limited basis; 3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board for use of existing school- based park facilities by county residents; 4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County for use of existing city-owned park facilities by county residents; S. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments for use of existing publicly-owned lands or facilities by county residents; and 6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities for use of private parkfacilities by county residents. Objective 1201.2.3 Comprehensive Plan 2030-"Priority shall be given to locating new neighborhood and community parks in communities which demonstrate the greatest deficiencies in parks and recreation". To date,the county has employed two of these six mechanisms—acquisition of new park sites and interlocal agreements with the School Board. SUMMARY The County continues to maintain a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage). 62 VIL SANITARY SEWER Over the years several factors have contributed to the water quality degradation of the Florida Keys, among them are stormwater run-off, changes in flow from Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, but one of the most influential factors is the past wastewater practices. Wastewater from cesspits, septic tanks, injection wells and liveaboard vessels add nitrogen and phosphorus to our waters breaking the ecological balance. The development of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was the BOCC response toward correcting our water quality problems. Their goal was to improve the water quality of canals and confined nearshore waters through a long-term strategy and bring back the clear waters that characterize our coasts and are the source of tourist attraction. The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan adopted by the BOCC on April 1993 mandated nutrient loading levels be reduced in the keys marine ecosystem by the year 2010. In 1998, the Florida Governor issued Executive Order 98-309 which directed relevant agencies and entities to coordinate with Monroe County to implement the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and eliminate cesspits, failing septic tank systems, and revise the existing 246 treatment plants for capacity and quality of treated wastewater. In 1999, the Florida Legislature set statutory effluent standards and associated compliance schedules for wastewater treatment system in Monroe County. These standards address treatment for several water quality constituents and require treatment to achieve advanced wastewater treatment standards for discharge flows in excess of 100,000 gallons per day and best available technology(BAT)standards for flows less than 100,000 gallons per day. Adopted water quality standards are listed below. Water Quality Standards BAT AWT Constituent (mg/L) (mg/L) Biological Oxygen Demand (BODS) 10 5 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 10 5 Total Nitrogen (TN) 10 3 Total Phosphorus (TP) 1 1 Previously in 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Oceans and Coastal Protection Divisions produced a report entitled"Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary". The report provided a list of 84 water quality hot spots with known or suspected water quality degradation. Later in 1999 Monroe County released a new study entitled "Water Quality `Hotspots'in the Florida Keys:Evaluation for Stormwater Contributions", this study identified 88 hotspots. The definition of"Hot Spots" are areas of known or suspected water quality degradation,with known and unknown unsafe sewage disposal practices,that has to be eliminated and would receive a community wastewater collection and treatment system within the next 10 years. In contrast with"Hot Spots", "Cold Spots"were defined as areas where the on- site system would continue operating until the whole new system is established. The Florida Administrative Code created the Rule 28-20.100, which was amended in 1999 to the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by the Governor and his cabinet. This rule provided a 5-Year Work 63 Program to improve water quality emphasizing in the identification and elimination of cesspools required by Objective 901.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Monroe County adopted a new cesspool identification and elimination ordinance, Ordinance 031-1999, which complies with the Work Program. This ordinance establishes an inspection and compliance program for unknown and unpermitted on-site treatment and disposal sewage (OSTDS). The intent of the ordinance is to require operating permits for the (up to) 7,900 existing at that time unpermitted OSTDS. The Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was prepared by a multidisciplinary consultant team, under the direction of the Monroe County Department of Marine Resources to determine the acceptable levels of wastewater treatment and the strategy to follow to change the old wastewater collection system for a new modern system in the County. The goals of the Master Plan was to provide responsive, flexible and cost-effective solutions that improve wastewater management practices throughout the keys and must satisfy environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines. The implementation of the new wastewater system and the elimination of the old sewer practices in Monroe County has taken years. The planning period used for developing this Master Plan is the 20 years interval between 1998 and 2018. The transition process has been under the supervision of Monroe County, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District,the Municiaplities, and special dsitricts established for that purpose.Now the new systems are operating satisfactorily and only a small percentage of households have not been hooked up to the new systems. At this time there are four entities providing sewer services in the unincorporated areas of the County. 1. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) 2. Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District 3. North Key Largo Utilities Corporation 4. Key West Resort Utilities FKAA covers by far more areas of the County than any other operator. The list of their facilities and general services areas are, from south to north: • Key Haven Wastewater System-FKAA acquired this wastewater system in 2009 . By 2018, FKAA replaced most of the collection system and redirect the wastewater flows from the Key Haven wastewater treatment plant(WWTP)to the Big Coppitt WWTP for Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT). The Key Haven Wastewater System has since been decomissioned, all flows were directed to the Big Coppitt WWTP. • Big Coppitt Regional Wastewater System- The construction of this wastewater system, with funding provided by Monroe County, began in January 2007 and included service to Rockland Key, Big Coppitt Key, Geiger Key and Shark Key. Connections to the system began in August 2009. Currently, the Big Coppitt collection system contributes 1,601 of 1,746 EDUs (92%)to the AWT system, with the additional 450 EDUs redirected from the Key Haven Wastewater system and an average daily flow of 0.031 million gallons per day (mgd)redirected from Boca Chica Naval Air Station(NAS). The Big Coppitt WWTP will be expanded to accept flows from a new affordable housing development in the Big Coppitt 64 Key service area and the future capacity needs of the NAS. • Bay Point Wastewater System-The FKAA began construction of the Bay Point Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection system in 2004,to provide central wastewater service to the Bay Point and Blue Water communities (Saddlebunch Keys). The first wastewater connection began in 2005. 424 EDUs of 439 EDUs (97%)have been connected to this Best Available Technology (BAT)treatment plant. • Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System- Construction of this wastewater system began in January 2013, with funding provided by Monroe County. The new WWTP has a capacity of 940,000 gpd, and serves Lower Sugarloaf Key, Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key and Little Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, Big Torch Key, No Name Key and Big Pine Key. Connection to this system was phased over several years and is ongoing. Approximately 9,471 EDUs have been invited to connect and of those 7,469 EDUs have completed their connection (79%). • Duck Key Regional Wastewater System- The FKAA became owner and operator of the Hawk's Cay WWTP in May 2006. The WWTP,with funding provided by Monroe County, underwent an extensive redesign in 2011 and was upgraded to the rigorous AWT standards. Additionally,the collection system was expanded to serve the remaining residents of Duck Key. The last phase of upgrades was completed in September 2013. The WWTP serves Conch Key, Little Conch Key, Waker's Island, Hawk's Cay Resort and Duck Key with a treatment capacity of 275,000 gpd. Currently, 1,445 EDU's of 1,491 EDUs (98%) have connected to the system. • Layton Wastewater System- The FKAA began construction of the Layton Wastewater System in 2005,to provide central wastewater services to the City of Layton and Long Key State Park with a treatment capacity of 66,000 gpd. Connection to the system began in 2006 and all 351 EDUs were connected to the system. Subsequent expansion of the Layton service area to incorporate the remaining east and west ends of Long Key is complete.With the expansion, the service area now includes 444 EDUs, which currently has 397 EDUs connected(89%). In summary, as of August 2021, the following connections have been completed: Yet to be Percent of Connected Connected EDUs in Region Connection Key Haven 450 450 100% Big Coppitt 1,600 147 1,747 92% Bay Point 425 14 439 97% Duck Key 1,455 36 1,491 98% Layton/Long Layton/Long Key 397 47 444 89% Cudjoe Regional 7,469 2,002 9,471 79% Lower Sugarloaf 554 77 631 88% 65 Upper Sugarloaf 266 324 590 45% CudJoe Key 1,803 152 1,955 92% Little Torch Key 678 241 919 74% Ramrod Key 652 74 726 90% Summerland Key 771 240 1,011 76% Big Pine Key 2,655 863 3,518 75% Middle Torch Key 10 5 15 67% Big Torch Key 41 17 58 71% No Name Key 39 8 47 83% System-Wide Connections 11,796 2,245 14,041 84% Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Plant and District- This system serves Islamorada and the territory consisting of the island of Key Largo, including all lands east of Tavernier Creek, including Tavernier,Key Largo all in Monroe County,Florida with the exception of: all areas north of Summerland Road on US-1, and all areas north of Charlemagne Blvd on County Road 905 including Ocean Reef. The plant capacity is 3,450,000 gpd and does meet LOS for wastewater treatment quality. The District began taking flow from Islamorada on June 16, 2014. The 2021 average daily flow from Islamorada increased to 815,000 gpd. As parcels in Islamorada continue to connect, flow will increase.The combined average flows from Islamorada and Key Largo for the last 365 days is 1,970,000 gpd. In the District service area(does not include Islamorada)there are 10,625 EDUs with 10,610 (99%) that have been connected to the system and 15 are not connected. North Key Largo Utilities Corporation- This private utility serves the Ocean Reef Community. This WWTP was constructed with Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) technology with a capacity of 499,000 gpd. The volume of sewage the plant is processing at this time is 250,000 gpd. All dwelling units of the community have been connected to the system with a total of 1,620 EDUs (100%). Key West Resort Utilities- This investor owned utility serves Stock Island. This WWTP was constructed with Advanced Wastewater Treatment(AWT) technology with a capacity of 849,000 gpd. The volume of sewage the plant is processing at this time is 577,000 gpd. There are currently 4,358 EDU's connected to the KWRU system. SUMMARY There is sufficient wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and capacity available to satisfy the projected needs of the development for the next two years. 66