HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem J4 J4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY of MONROE �� i Mayor Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tern James K.Scholl,District 3
Craig Cates,District 1
Michelle Lincoln,District 2
' David Rice,District 4
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
December 11, 2024
Agenda Item Number: J4
2023-3395
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning & Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Staff Update on Future Potential Changes to Rate of Growth
Ordinance (ROGO), including: Presentation of Infrastructure Fiscal Impact Analysis Report by Tischler
Bise, Inc.; Request for Direction Regarding Number of Lanes on Non-Bridge Segments of U.S.1;
Updated ROGO Allocation Inventory and proposed options; and Draft Definition of Workforce Market
Rate Housing. TIME APPROXIMATE 10:30 A.M.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Included in this update on future potential changes to the Rate of Growth Ordinance(ROGO)will be:
Infrastructure Fiscal Impact Analysis Report
As part of the ongoing analysis the County has undertaken regarding the future of the ROGO permit
allocation system, Tischler Bise, Inc., a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm, was contracted
to evaluate the estimated costs of increased infrastructure to serve expansions of residential
development under the following scenarios: 220, 600, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 8000 additional ROGO
allocations. Tischler Bise staff will present their final report findings.
U.S.1 roadway- 4-lane segments
At the November 19, 2024, meeting, the BOCC directed staff to begin Comprehensive Plan
amendments necessary to allow up to 4 lanes on bridges along U.S.1. Staff is asking for direction on
whether to also eliminate the prohibition on additional lanes on the non-bridge roadway segments of
U.S.1 that do not currently have 4 lanes.
• Current Policy 301.7.2 In recognition of the physical and environmental constraints that may
affect the widening of U.S. 1 to four lanes, Monroe County shall coordinate with FDOT on those
portions of U.S. 1 that are shown as two lanes on the Future Traffic Circulation Map (Traffic
Circulation Number of Through Lanes Maps) to maintain them as two lanes for the planning
horizon. This policy shall not be construed so as to prohibit the addition of a third lane to be used
as a continuous two-way turn lane for those segments with a demonstrated public safety risk, if
the third lane has been demonstrated to be the safest alternative. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)l.]
3746
Undated ROGO Allocation Inventory and proposed options
At the November 19, 2024 meeting, the BOCC reviewed a draft ROGO allocation inventory, rates of
current allocation distribution, types of ROGO allocations, and draft options for consideration by the
Board to inform the final request for units to be made on December 19, 2024 at a special meeting.
Since that meeting, staff have refined the options by subtracting the existing number of allocations,
based on allocation type to better describe the options to request additional allocations from the State of
Florida.
Workforce Market Rate Housing Concept
On November 20, 2024, at the Special Workshop of the BOCC regarding ROGO, staff presented a
"Workforce Market Rate Housing" concept and received direction from the BOCC to proceed with
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code amendments as necessary to create the new housing
category. Staff will provide further detail and clarification on the requirements of the proposed housing
category, as well as the draft definition.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
INSURANCE REQUIRED:
No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests direction on U.S.1 number of lanes, and definition of
Workforce Market Rate Housing. No decision on the number of ROGO allocations is being requested
at this time.
DOCUMENTATION:
Number of Through Lanes m Pages from Map Series 4.0 Traffic Circulation Element
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan regarding USml Number of Lanes.pdf
Updated_Timeline
Workforce Market Rate Housing proposed definition.pdf
ROGO UNITS OVERVIEW updated 12-3-24 with III-B.pdf
ROGO UNITS OVERVIEW updated 12-3-24 with III-B.xlsx
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
3747
M zt
w
I r c
� 1 �
I
W Y
oY `
/ m Q Y
e / �
a a
m M,
WO
�j� A� •� N N d' d'
Y N � III
EL
ryry Y m ri A 6 p,
N �
i' d 44 ¢ A L
O`v � r
qY �
N
t
=v
piY
w Y
� N
f/) w
c Y N
y
�N
�Y �Y
a,l
0 ol
� U w
Ic
/Y mY
m
y
C N o_
ILL
�wv
a�r;i m
N�
3748
d O v m zt
_ ♦ ��� U O
IN Y �♦ l m C Z
♦ Ny
c ; ;
I,r l0
V I m E
I
V4 �1
1 A
1
I o Y
s �
I Y
I III nU �
I a
r �
p U
Y,d 5
r��4
o, ,t
W,
_rnY m at9fi
Ila Aso
1
3749
, M
Miami-Dade County r. 4
.2
W
Sy
IN
lllvlll
03
az
a z
20
U
�p
wnu
W
41
z
CL
CL
D
lo
Hill of
Hill
> E
Hill
S
A
3750
� p O
\ O E
U O
a o
o Y O
3>lidNanlvaiaolj
F
v'
2E W _
a p> g
2E a ze
4z c
0
a° i
All
a �
Q
o c o c
ad � nn
U C a
m O C. ` o:
m z > W 44 a.
w d m m
S = z
E 0
w F G
J z
OD
U U
_ Av4
E �aA
5z _
1 AvA
I�
1
3751
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
Policies Related to Number of Lanes on US-1
3.3-TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
GOAL 301 To provide a safe, convenient, efficient, resilient, and environmentally-compatible
motorized and non-motorized transportation system for the movement of people and goods in
Monroe County. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)] (0ird, Ir4o, 013 2022, §2(Exh. 1), 8-17-2022)
Objective 301.1 Monroe County shall establish level of service (LOS) standards for all paved roads
in Monroe County for the purpose of determining existing and future roadway needs. [F.S. §
163.3177(6)(b)]
Policy 301.1.1 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 For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as
measured bythe 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. (Ord, Ir4o 022 2021, § 1, 8-18-2021)
Policy 301.1.3 Monroe 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.
Policy 301.1.4 Monroe County shall update its Long Range Transportation Plan to include roadway
improvements on County owned roads designed to improve the LOS on U.S. 1.
Objective 301.2 Monroe County shall ensure that all paved roads have sufficient capacity to serve
development at the adopted LOS standards concurrent with the impact of said development. [F.S. §
163.3177(6)(b)l.a.]
Policy 301.2.1 Monroe County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic
monitoring program initiated in March 1991, 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 24 study segments of
U.S. 1,and to determine the cumulative impact of development and through h traffic. Monroe County
shall use the methodology developed bythe U.S. 1 LOS Task Force composed of representatives from
Monroe County, FDOT, and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for conducting this
analysis and shall request that the Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on
a periodic basis when new data becomes available. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)l.b.]
3752
Policy 301.2.2 Monroe County shall utilize the results of the systematic traffic monitoring program
for development approval process and to evaluate any potential degradation in LOS and the need for
improvements in order to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standard.
Policy301.2.3 Monroe County shall not permit new development which would significantly degrade
the LOS below the adopted LOS standards on U.S. 1 (overall and segments)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. [F.S.§163.3177(6)(b)1.e.](0ird, Ir4o,013
2112,.2, §2(Exh. 1),8-17-2022)
Policy 301.2.4 As approved by the County Commission on a case by case basis, Monroe County
shall provide funding from gas taxes, impact fees,and any other legally available sources to expedite
local projects.
Policy 301.2.5 In order to proceed with development, a parcel shall have legal access to public or
private roads, rights of way or easements or such access shall be established.
Policy 301.2.6 Monroe County shall continue to review and evaluate FDOT surplus property
opportunities for the implementation of traffic circulation policies and goals.
Objective 301.3 Monroe County shall encourage a multi-modal transportation system that is safe,
convenient, resilient, and efficient, with complementary facilities to support non-motorized users.
[F.S. §163.3177(6)(b)1.] (0ird..lr4o, 013 2022, §2(Exh. 1), 8-17-2022)
Policy 301.3.1 Annually, Monroe County shall update the Capital Improvement Plan to include
coordinated bicycle path and pedestrian way improvements, where appropriate, emphasizing
access to schools, parks, shopping centers,waterfront and tourist attractions, and other significant
features identified in the Livable CommuniKeys Community Master Plan for the area. Coordination
efforts should include affected citizens, local municipalities and the State.
Policy 301.3.2 The County shall require that any development, occurring on or adjacent to the
location of a planned bicycle or pedestrian facility as identified by the County, provide for the
construction of that portion of the facility occurring within or adjacent to the development. If the
facility has already been built,or if itwill be constructed by an external agency,the development shall
be connected to the facility in a safe and convenient manner to ensure that it is part of the
development's overall transportation system. For state owned bicycle or pedestrian facilities a
connection permit shall be required.
Objective 301.4 Monroe County shall plan for an intermodal transportation system that
incorporates vehicles and alternative modes such as mass transit, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
The County shall coordinate with other agencies and entities responsible for mass transit,
bicycle/pedestrian and vehicle transportation improvements occurring County-wide.
Policy301.4.1 Monroe County shall review the recommendations within the completed 2021 U.S. 1
Transportation Master Plan, through its Long Range Transportation Plan, to develop a coordinated
3753
partnership with the Florida Department of Transportation and the municipalities on prioritizing
comprehensive solutions to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, provide for intermodal
transportation facilities, and ensure safety, resiliency and efficient access and travel along U.S. 1
within the Florida Keys. (0ird,.lr4o, 013 2022, §2(Exh. 1), 8-17-2022)
Objective 301.5 In order to coordinate the traffic circulation system with the future land uses shown
on the Future Land Use Map, Monroe County shall implement the following policies. [F.S. §
163.3177(6)(b)1.d.]
Policy301.5.1 The capacity of U.S. 1 in unincorporated Monroe County shall be limited to four lanes.
Densities and intensities on the Future Land Use Map and allowed by the permit allocation system
shall not exceed those that can be accommodated by the four lane limitation on U.S. 1.
Policy 301.5.2 Monroe County shall review the recommendations within the completed 2021
County's U.S. 1 Transportation Master Plan (Long Range Transportation Plan) to develop a
coordinated partnership with the Florida Department of Transportation and the municipalities on
prioritizing comprehensive solutions to improve traffic flow/circulation, reduce congestion, and
ensure safety, resiliency and efficient access and travel along U.S. 1 within the Florida Keys. The
County shall request the support of U.S. 1 improvements that address flood resiliency and also
further County's road elevation and stormwater projects, which incorporate the considerations of
climate change implications to address the Roads Vulnerability Analysis and Capital Plan for County-
maintained roads. (0ird, Ir4o, 013 2022, §2(Exh. 1), 8-17-2022)
Objective 301.6 Monroe County shall provide a transportation system that facilitates scenic
corridor enhancement and beautification within the Florida Keys.
Policy 301.6.1 The Land Development Code shall continue to ensure that development along the
US-1 Florida Keys Scenic Highway Corridor provides the landscaping and setbacks necessary to
minimize impacts on the visual environment.
Policy 301.6.2 The Land Development Code shall continue to include regulations to minimize sign
clutter.
Policy 301.6.3 Monroe County supports the Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies of the Florida
Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan and the recommendations of the Florida Scenic Highway
Interpretive Master Plan in its transportation planning. (Ord. No. 022-2009)
Objective 301.7 Monroe County shall ensure the County's transportation plan are coordinated with
the plans and programs of appropriate State agencies and local governments and are consistentwith
State and federal regulations. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)]
Policy 301.7.1 Each year, prior to the update of the FDOT District Six Five-Year Transportation Plan,
Monroe County staff shall meet with officials from FDOT District 6 to review FDOT proposals for and
recommend additional improvements to U.S. 1 to ensure County priorities are identified and
incorporated.
Policy 301.7.2 In recognition of the physical and environmental constraints that may affect the
widening of U.S. 1 to four lanes, Monroe County shall coordinate with FDOT on those portions of U.S.
1 that are shown as two lanes on the Future Traffic Circulation Map (Traffic Circulation Number of
3754
Through Lanes Maps)to maintain them as two lanes for the planning horizon.This policy shall not be
construed so as to prohibit the addition of a third lane to be used as a continuous two-way turn lane
for those segments with a demonstrated public safety risk, if the third lane has been demonstrated
to be the safest alternative. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)1.]
(0ird, Ir4o,01 3 2022, §2(Exh. 1), 8-17-2022)
Policy 301.7.3 Monroe County shall maintain, as necessary, interlocal agreements with Key West,
Key Colony Beach, Marathon, Islamorada and Layton addressing coordination of concurrency
management with oversight by the South Florida Regional Planning Council.
(0ird, Ir4o,01 3 2022, §2(Exh. 1), 8-17-2022)
Policy 301.7.4 Monroe County supports the recommendations of the Florida Keys Overseas
Heritage Trail Master Plan in its transportation planning. (Ord. No. 022-2009)
Objective 301.8 Monroe County shall provide for the protection of existing and future rights-of-way
(ROW).
Policy 301.8.1 Monroe County staff shall participate in right-of-way planning and preservation
efforts including, but not limited to, participating in updates to the FDOT corridor-wide master plan
for District 6.
Policy 301.8.2 Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which prohibit
unauthorized use of County public ROWs. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)1.]
Objective 301.9 Monroe County shall promote a safe, convenient, resilient, and efficient, multi-
modal transportation system. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)]
(0ird, Ir4o,01 3 2022, §2(Exh. 1), 8-17-2022)
Policy 301.9.1 Monroe County shall maintain revisions to the Land Development Code to include
guidelines and criteria consistent with nationally-recognized standards which provide for safe and
convenient on-site traffic flow, interconnectivity between sites, adequate pedestrian ways and
sidewalks, as well as sufficient on-site parking for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles.
3755
CD
ID
E s Y N Lo
B 4+) N
2 cc c Nv
�r Qa a)C � eyLo i
} u y
as E E 0p
° Q OCEEQ
_ M O O O'O E O Q "�
�v ¢ c o a) ® c®a
w to emu- E
w
� L>l
C,
a% 2 . Y cc
c � E ® a
a) a)
LL ® > �
lu
0 O
® U
o � ® ® �
0cv ° Co0 Co N 0
v° ro O +
O 0 ca = D (N 0 ca
ra w u
J
® o
a)
® o > ® un
�t Q sa Lo ., .l ca :3 N Caas
ca
� O
0 a) Co
v O¢ ca J
O y aS
aS O (D �
N
elm
a) o Y O E
b0 B ` Y by
a) °o In Lo E o bn c
® N / U
Y'a c o
® O by C ccO ®-Ma ba a) '6
0 c N O ca N c c bl o O
® ® a) om �� S2 a)
ca
OVA a) O � ® - E � �O
(2 "0 V) N aS 0 �' o ti c a-+ � dy � a)
as _
a) Z N a® f, a) o 0 ti � U >0 U. Q c
® a) ca � O �............... w
O o N
® a '(D o U)
a) N 4V O o m
ba
U
by Ca a) s` O
Ca o N
N C)
as a%
aS ti Q ° � � Qa by
a-+ a
"tE ,� s U O a) O
ca a N ® ® f)ca ca
J ery ++
5 0 a)
® s E , tico (D U o to N®_
0 a) CS = a+ O NN N 4V r �' N-Q O
ON ON = oaEa a ® Uo / � � oy �3 a
® to > O > N ° -� 3. CS °� ® o c O RS .�-.
fd � � � � z N sa as °0 ° ° a) ' CL a o a� 0 0
4+) lce .� cn " c N c
� ti
bD
(D (D (Dz� dQ ®® U OZZ=> isanba� c O 0D g
® > b°)u
ag 'ON N O 0,2 0
— C
N O a Q U. �
Ea) 3 Eca
� * P *� 0 OZZ< isanbad
EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DEFINITIONS
LDC Section 101-1
Workforce means individuals or families who are gainfully employed supplying goods and/or
services to Monroe County residents or visitors.
Workforce housing means dwelling units for those who derive at least 70 percent of their income
as members of the Workforce in Monroe County and who meet the affordable housing income
categories of the Monroe County Code.Workforce housing shall be interchangeable with the terms
detached or attached dwellings, employee housing or commercial apartments included in the land
use districts and shall be a permitted use in all land use districts where detached dwelling, attached
dwellings, employee housing or commercial apartments are included as a current permitted use.
An applicant choosing to develop workforce housing is subject to the requirements of Chapter 139
and all other requirements included in the land development code, including but not limited to,
density, parking, bufferyards, access, etc.
DRAFT PROPOSED DEFINITON
Workforce market rate housing means dwelling units for those who derive at least 70 percent of
their income as members of the Workforce in Monroe County.Workforce market rate housing shall
be interchangeable with the terms detached or attached dwellings, or commercial apartments
included in the land use districts and shall be a permitted use in all land use districts where detached
dwelling, attached dwellings, or commercial apartments are included as a current permitted use.
An applicant choosing to develop workforce market rate housing shall be subject to a deed
restriction limiting occupancy to members of the workforce for a period of 99 years, and shall
comply with all other requirements included in the land development code, including but not
limited to, density, parking, bufferyards, access, etc.
3757
a
nt ip
_ _ _
E a u�i E ti E co
^ E
a
« a �
o o - E o
0 o E E
UT
a s a a a
a a a a
a
a m
o Y o
Y
i
0
ss
5
o W W z W W
a o o
o m
m
o
m
G h ¢
O v
O 11
m m
m Y o m Y o m Y
f 's a iiiii f ', a f a f a
E E E E
a a a a
a a
E E
E E
E E
9 9
- E E
E � k
E 3 k 3 k k 3
3 = k = 3 =
O O
s o
§
j ] ] ( ice) RG � Q ` A; ° G ` •
Liz Yongue
From: Gomez-Krystal <Gomez-Krystal@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 8:47 AM
To: Ballard-Lindsey; County Commissioners and Aides; Kevin Madok; Pamela Hancock;
Senior Management Team and Aides; Liz Yongue; InternalAudit
Cc: Shillinger-Bob; Williams-Jethon; Cioffari-Cheryl; Livengood-Kristen; Rubio-Suzanne;
Pam Radloff; County-Attorney; Allen-John; Danise Henriquez; Hurley-Christine; Rosch-
Mark; Gambuzza-Dina; Beyers-John; InternalAudit; Kevin Madok; Valcheva-Svilena;
Powell-Barbara; Guerra-Cynthia
Subject: Item J4 BOCC 12/11/2024 REVISED BACKUP
Attachments: Monroe Co-ROGO Infrastructure Study_12.06.24.pdf, AIS J4.pdf
Importance: High
Good Morning,
Please be advised that the agenda item backup has been revised for item J4.
"Staff Update on Future Potential Changes to Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO), including: Presentation of
Infrastructure Fiscal Impact Analysis Report by Tischler Bise, Inc.;Request for Direction Regarding Number of
Lanes on Non-Bridge Segments of U.S.1; Updated ROGO Allocation Inventory and proposed options; and Draft
Definition of Workforce Market Rate Housing. "
Sincerely,
Executive Administrator
Monroe County Administrator's Office
1100 Simonton Street, Suite 2-205
Key West, FL 33040
(305)292-4441 (Office)
(305)850-8694(Cell)
Courier Stop#1
Notary Public
w.r o n r y e c_ u�n1y:�:V_e.gpy
i».c z..- Y .�.. _rn groecou�_n�.Y..-.�..:.i» .Y.
PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE COUNTY REGARDING COUNTY BUSINESS
ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON REQUEST. YOUR EMAIL COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
1
J4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY of MONROE i Mayor Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tern James K.Scholl,District 3
Craig Cates,District 1
Michelle Lincoln,District 2
' David Rice,District 4
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
December 11, 2024
Agenda Item Number: J4
2023-3395
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning & Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Staff Update on Future Potential Changes to Rate of Growth
Ordinance (ROGO), including: Presentation of Infrastructure Fiscal Impact Analysis Report by Tischler
Bise, Inc.; Request for Direction Regarding Number of Lanes on Non-Bridge Segments of U.S.1;
Updated ROGO Allocation Inventory and proposed options; and Draft Definition of Workforce Market
Rate Housing. TIME APPROXIMATE 10:30 A.M.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Included in this update on future potential changes to the Rate of Growth Ordinance(ROGO)will be:
Infrastructure Fiscal Impact Analysis Report
As part of the ongoing analysis the County has undertaken regarding the future of the ROGO permit
allocation system, Tischler Bise, Inc., a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm, was contracted
to evaluate the estimated costs of increased infrastructure to serve expansions of residential
development under the following scenarios: 220, 600, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 8000 additional ROGO
allocations. Tischler Bise staff will present their final report findings.
U.S.1 roadway- 4-lane segments
At the November 19, 2024, meeting, the BOCC directed staff to begin Comprehensive Plan
amendments necessary to allow up to 4 lanes on bridges along U.S.1. Staff is asking for direction on
whether to also eliminate the prohibition on additional lanes on the non-bridge roadway segments of
U.S.1 that do not currently have 4 lanes.
• Current Policy 301.7.2 In recognition of the physical and environmental constraints that may
affect the widening of U.S. 1 to four lanes, Monroe County shall coordinate with FDOT on those
portions of U.S. 1 that are shown as two lanes on the Future Traffic Circulation Map (Traffic
Circulation Number of Through Lanes Maps) to maintain them as two lanes for the planning
horizon. This policy shall not be construed so as to prohibit the addition of a third lane to be used
as a continuous two-way turn lane for those segments with a demonstrated public safety risk, if
the third lane has been demonstrated to be the safest alternative. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)l.]
1
Undated ROGO Allocation Inventory and proposed options
At the November 19, 2024 meeting, the BOCC reviewed a draft ROGO allocation inventory, rates of
current allocation distribution, types of ROGO allocations, and draft options for consideration by the
Board to inform the final request for units to be made on December 19, 2024 at a special meeting.
Since that meeting, staff have refined the options by subtracting the existing number of allocations,
based on allocation type to better describe the options to request additional allocations from the State of
Florida.
Workforce Market Rate Housing Concept
On November 20, 2024, at the Special Workshop of the BOCC regarding ROGO, staff presented a
"Workforce Market Rate Housing" concept and received direction from the BOCC to proceed with
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code amendments as necessary to create the new housing
category. Staff will provide further detail and clarification on the requirements of the proposed housing
category, as well as the draft definition.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
INSURANCE REQUIRED:
No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests direction on U.S.1 number of lanes, and definition of
Workforce Market Rate Housing. No decision on the number of ROGO allocations is being requested
at this time.
DOCUMENTATION:
Number of Through Lanes m Pages from Map Series 4.0 Traffic Circulation Element
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan regarding USml Number of Lanes.pdf
Updated_Timeline
Workforce Market Rate Housing proposed definition.pdf
ROGO UNITS OVERVIEW updated 12-3-24 with III-B.pdf
ROGO UNITS OVERVIEW updated 12-3-24 with III-B.xlsx
Monroe Co—ROGO Infrastructure Study_12.06.24.pdf
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
2
ROGO Infrastructure Study
Monroe County., Florida
Submitted to:
Monroe County, Florida
D I:R,A
December 6, 2024
Prepared by:
Ti'schlerIEB... 'ise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
4701 Sangarnore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
www.tischierbise.com
IROGO A llocalhiion 11irif rastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TischlerRise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
TischlerBise
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
www.tischlerbise.com
rise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGO Aullocalh oin Ilirriffrastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ROGO Allocation Infrastructure Study
Monroe County, Florida
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 1
Scenarios.................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.Summary of Projected Demand under Each Scenario...................................................... 2
Summary of Approach and Key Findings.................................................................................................... 3
Summaryof Findings.................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2.Summary of Infrastructure Analysis Findings................................................................... 6
TRANSPORTATION.............................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3. US 1 Actual Remaining Capacity(2024)........................................................................... 8
Figure 4. US 1 Segments Projected to be Over Capacity under Each Scenario................................ 9
Figure 5. Transportation Capacity Modeling:220 ROGO Units.................................................... 10
Figure 6. Transportation Capacity Modeling:600 ROGO Units.................................................... 10
Figure 7. Transportation Capacity Modeling:1,000 ROGO Units................................................. 11
Figure 8. Transportation Capacity Modeling:2,000 ROGO Units................................................. 11
Figure 9. Transportation Capacity Modeling:3,000 ROGO Units................................................. 12
Figure 10. Transportation Capacity Modeling:8,000 ROGO Units............................................... 12
Costs......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 11. Transportation Capital Improvement Program(All Programs).................................... 13
Figure 12.State-Funded Road Improvement Cost Estimates........................................................ 14
Figure 13. Transportation Infrastructure Analysis Findings.......................................................... 14
WASTEWATER................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 14. Existing Wastewater System Level of Service, Demand, and Capacity........................ 15
Figure 15.Summary of Projected Demand under Each Scenario: Wastewater............................ 16
Figure 16. Wastewater Infrastructure Analysis Findings.............................................................. 16
POTABLEWATER............................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 17. Existing Water System Level of Service, Capacity, and Demand.................................. 17
Figure 18.Summary of Projected Demand under Each Scenario:Potable Water......................... 18
Figure 19. Water Infrastructure Analysis Findings........................................................................ 18
PUBLICSCHOOLS .............................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 20. Monroe County Student Generation Rate(SGR).......................................................... 19
Figure 21. Current Public School Enrollment and Capacity........................................................... 19
Figure 22.Summary of Projected Student Enrollment Demand under Each Scenario:Schools.... 20
Figure 23.School Infrastructure Analysis Findings....................................................................... 20
SOLIDWASTE.................................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 24.Solid Waste Level of Service......................................................................................... 21
Figure 25.Summary of Projected Demand under Each Scenario:Solid Waste............................. 21
Figure 26.Solid Waste Infrastructure Analysis Findings............................................................... 22
PARKS................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 27. Existing Park System Level of Service........................................................................... 23
Figure 28. Parks Current Demand and Capacity........................................................................... 23
Figure 29.Summary of Projected Demand under Each Scenario:Parks....................................... 24
Figure 30. Parks Cost Estimates.................................................................................................... 24
Figure 31. Parks Infrastructure Analysis Findings......................................................................... 25
i0
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGO Aullocalh oin Ilirriffrastiru ctuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ELECTRIC........................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 32. Current Electric Level of Service and Demand.............................................................. 26
Figure 33.Summary of Projected Demand under Each Scenario:Electric.................................... 26
Figure 34. Electric Infrastructure Analysis Findings...................................................................... 27
PUBLIC SAFETY:SHERIFF AND FIRE&RESCUE.................................................................................................. 28
Figure 35.Summary of Projected Demand under Each Scenario:Public Safety........................... 28
Sheriff................................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 36. Existing Sheriff Level of Service and Cost Factors......................................................... 29
Fireand Rescue.................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 37. Existing Fire and Rescue Level of Service and Cost Factors.......................................... 30
Figure 38. Fire Station Construction Cost Estimate....................................................................... 30
Figure 39. Public Safety Infrastructure Analysis Findings............................................................. 31
APPENDIX A: BASE YEAR ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................................... 32
Population, Functional Population,and Housing Unit Estimates............................................................. 32
Figure 40. Base Year Demand....................................................................................................... 32
NonresidentialEstimates......................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 41. Nonresidential Estimates............................................................................................. 33
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
TischlerBise
FISCAL. I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
4701 Sangamore Road I Suite S240 I Bethesda, MD 20816
301.320.6900
www.tischlerbise.com
Overview
TischlerBise' has been retained by Monroe County, Florida, to evaluate the potential infrastructure
impacts of additional Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)Z permit allocations. This report documents the
findings of this evaluation as of December 2024.3
The scope of work and the following report seek to:
■ Identify current levels of service in major County infrastructure (including utilities).
■ Project functional population over multiple potential future growth scenarios assuming the
following ROGO allocations:
o Additional housing units: 220; 600; 1,000; 2,000; 3,000; and 8,000 units (assuming all
single family with an allocation of half each to the Upper and Lower Keys).
■ Project resulting demand from the potential ROGO allocations.
■ Identify and project deficiencies/needs in each infrastructure category.
This is a high-level evaluation of the relative impacts of different amounts of residential development at
buildout. It is an exercise to identify where infrastructure has current documented capacity to potentially
accommodate additional growth and if not, a generalized estimate of costs. In reality, growth will occur
in a phased manner, due to both the regulatory environment and market conditions, and as such,
infrastructure planning and construction of capital improvement projects will need to continue to work in
lockstep with growth to meet those demands over time.
Furthermore,the study is not meant to be a comprehensive evaluation of environmental or social impacts
to the County or community. While these are important issues to be explored, this study is limited to an
evaluation of current infrastructure levels of service, the need for additional infrastructure capacity due
to growth, and the potential costs to provide additional capacity.
1 TischlerBise is a fiscal,economic,and planning consulting firm specializing in fiscal impact analysis and impact fees.During the
firm's almost 50-year history, we have conducted over 1,000 fiscal impact studies and 1,000 impact fees, primarily for local
governments across the United States.
z See Monroe County,Florida,Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.1 and Land Development Code,Chapter 138 RATE OF GROWTH
RESTRICTIONS(ROGO/NROGO).
3 This report is based on estimates,assumptions and other information obtained from sources as cited herein and/or developed
by TischlerBise.Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report is accurate as of the date
of this report; however, factors exist that are outside the control of TischlerBise and that may affect the estimates and/or
projections noted herein. TischlerBise does not guarantee outcomes or take responsibility for their continuing applicability, as
actual outcomes will depend on future events and circumstances beyond TischlerBise's control.
IAullocatilon Illrrifrast:lru ctuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Infrastructure categories included in the analysis are:
■ Transportation
■ Wastewater
■ Potable Water
■ Public Schools
■ Solid Waste
■ Parks
■ Electric
■ Public Safety/First Responders: Sheriff and Fire
Scenarios
The analysis uses a range of growth scenarios to test the impacts of additional residential development
on infrastructure. It is not intended to be a prediction or forecast but rather an examination of a
hypothetical set of what-if future conditions.
Residential development will generate population, public school enrollment, vehicle trips, and demand
on utilities.A summary of projected demand under each scenario is shown in Figure 1. It should be noted
that the study does not assume timing or absorption of growth, rather the analysis is based on the total
demand at buildout from the assumed number of units.
The study also does not assume variety in unit type but instead assumes single family unit development.
Finally,assumptions about specific locations of growth are not made, other than a hypothetical equal split
between Upper and Lower Keys.
ID^Dgure 1.Summary Of Pm°mm'jected Demand under Each Scenario
DEMAND SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
ICI ��� III INI,I
IIJJ fJ,Uf�J -�a .W M M'�IIII L II IIIIII V J'N N11 1 •III III III N N ��� III IIII I.V'II III N".N m o n n n W�
Category U nit i�i IIIIIIIIIi J ou III IIIIIIIIIIIII I illlllllllll�i IIII II IIIII IIII �Vll�liiiui IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I IIIIIIIIIIIIII;II IIIIIIII Illllllllllll�lllllmllllnlll���llllllllllllllllllllll IIII II IIIII I�III
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION Persons 711 1,938 3,230 6,460 9,690 25,840
YEAR ROUND POPULATION Persons 343 936 1,560 3,120 4,680 12,480
TOTAL UNITS Housing Units 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTALEDUS Equivalent Dwelling Unit 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTAL ENROLLMENT Public School Students 30 81 135 271 406 1,083
VEHICLE TRIPS Average Daily Vehicle Trips 1,037 2,829 4,715 9,430 14,145 37,720
WATERUSAGE Gallons per Day 44,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 1,600,000
WASTEWATER USAGE Gallons per Day 15,400 42,000 70,000 140,000 210,000 560,000
SOLID WASTE GENERATION Pounds per Day 8,108 22,113 36,854 73,709 110,563 294,834
ELECTRIC DEMAND Megawatts 1.1 2.9 4.91 9.8 14.6 39.1
2
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IgOGOAillocaUoin Ilinfrrastiructure Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Summary of Approach and Key Findings
A key assumption throughout this study is that improvements identified in this report would not be
necessary but for the additional allocations. Many infrastructure improvements either currently in
process or planned for the near term may provide better/usable capacity in the systems for which they
are made. However, indication from staff is that these improvements would likely be made regardless of
additional ROGO allocations. Further detail is provided below and in the body of the report.
■ Transportation:Transportation monitoring is limited to capacity availability on US 1. The County
conducts an analysis every two years (2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, Monroe
County, FL (AECOM, July 2021)) to identify the amount of "reserve capacity" available on each
segment of US 1, with the last adopted study from 2021.4 Reserve capacity, expressed in average
daily vehicle trips, reflects the amount of capacity remaining on each segment of US 1 to maintain
a minimum level of service (LOS) C, per the adopted LOS methodology.The County monitors and
tracks ongoing reserve capacity by road segment based on actual reserve capacity less projected
vehicle trips from permitted development.
The ROGO Study allocates growth by scenario equally into Lower and Upper Keys, generates
average daily trips from projected hypothetical growth (with a further allocation along US 1
segments for study purposes), and compares projected demand to actual remaining reserve
capacity.The study then identifies whether any segment results in a calculated deficiency due to
the additional ROGO allocation per respective scenario (less the current reserve capacity).
o Findings: Current deficiencies exist on two segments in the Upper Keys: segment 19,
Upper Matecumbe, and segment 20, Windley. Starting at 1,000 additional units, an
additional segment in the Upper Keys (segment 17, Lower Matecumbe) is projected to
exceed capacity. The next growth scenario that reaches a capacity threshold is the
maximum of 8,000 units where segments 16 (Long, Fiesta, Craig) and 21 (Plantation) are
projected to be over capacity. Capacity on US 1 in the Lower Keys is available through all
scenarios except the maximum at 8,000 units where one segment is projected to be over
capacity(segment 3, Big Coppit).
■ Wastewater: Demand from each scenario is compared to existing and available wastewater
(sanitary sewer) capacity. The current system has excess operational capacity of approximately
2.5 million gallons per day.
o Findings: Capacity exists even at the maximum ROGO scenario. It is noted that current
debt for capital improvements that are anticipated to provide reliable capacity are not
included as those costs would have been incurred otherwise. Because wastewater
4 A study update was conducted in 2023 but not adopted by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. Current
monitoring uses the official 2021 figures.
3
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAillocaUoin Ilinfrrastiructure Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
systems operate as enterprise funds, rates and fees are calculated to recover operating,
maintenance, and capital improvement costs that are not covered by grant funding.
■ Potable Water: Projected demand from each scenario is compared to available capacity provided
by Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), supplier of potable water on the Keys. The current
system has excess operational capacity of approximately 3.39 million gallons per day today and
will have a total of 7.39 million gallons per day by March 2025.5 FKAA's Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan includes approximately$307 million in projects to augment water treatment,
improve transmission by replacing segments of the 130-mile water main, upgrade distribution,
improve storage capabilities, and expand supply through reverse osmosis facilities.
o Findings: Given existing operational capacity and projected demand in each scenario,
sufficient potable water capacity is available as of the date of this report to serve growth
under each ROGO allocation.As noted, current and short-term capital improvements are
planned to improve reliability and ensure capacity is available to existing and future
customers. Because the water system operates as an enterprise fund, rates and fees are
calculated to recover operating, maintenance,and capital improvement costs that are not
covered by grant funding.
■ Schools: Enrollment is projected from new housing units based on current ratio of public school
enrollment to housing units and compared to existing capacity in school facilities and the bus
fleet.
o Findings: Capacity exists even at the maximum ROGO scenario. It is noted that
renovation/remodeling costs are not included as these are costs assumed to be incurred
regardless of additional growth. New buses are projected to accommodate additional
student enrollment.
■ Solid Waste: Solid waste generation is projected from new housing units based on the demand
generation factor in the Comprehensive Plan and compared to current capacity at the existing
four transfer stations in the County (three owned and operated by Monroe County and one
owned and operated by the City of Key West).
o Findings: Current Solid Waste Transfer Stations are essentially at capacity and therefore
require system expansions today. Because additional sites are unlikely to be acquired due
to land constraints, it is anticipated that capacity expansions will take the form of
improvements to tipping floors. Again, this is needed regardless of additional growth, so
these costs are not included in the study. In addition, staff indicate that an expansion of
the fleet deployed for illegal dumping cleanup is likely to be needed to continue to provide
the same level of service.This cost is modeled.
s Per FKAA,while there was a decrease in operational system capacity in 2023,full capacity of 23.8 mgd is available to FKAA today
as well as an anticipated 4 mgd from the Stock Island Reverse Osmosis facility scheduled to come online in March 2025.
4
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IgOGOAillocaUoin Ilirrifrrastiructure Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
■ Parks: Additional park infrastructure is modeled based on the number of acres needed to
maintain park levels of service for active and passive parks in excess of current available capacity.
Adopted levels of service of 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population each for passive and active
parks is used to project acres needed from new housing units in each scenario.
o Findings: Currently, passive parks are at capacity while active parks have excess capacity
in the system at adopted levels of service. Therefore, all scenarios project a need for
additional passive acres. Sufficient excess capacity exists in active parks such that no
scenario triggers a need for additional acres.
■ Electric:The study approach is to project increased demand on the electric grid from the growth
scenarios and consult with current providers, Keys Energy Services(KEYS)and Florida Keys Electric
Cooperative (FKEC), regarding capability of the system to accommodate additional demand.
o Findings: Major providers indicate that capital projects for system improvements and
redundancy will continue to be planned and implemented based on current annual
growth' as well as any future additional growth allocations. Similar to the approach
for other infrastructure, these costs are not included in the analysis given that the
improvements need to occur otherwise. As growth continues to occur, both electric
providers indicate a need and likelihood of continued investment in infrastructure to
ensure management of peak load demands and redundancy. While the system has
capacity to address current peak hour demands, current practice is for KEYS to use
local generation. It is noted that additional growth is likely to exacerbate the practice
of local generation unless other system improvements are made; however, according
to KEYS, transmission line upgrades are not necessary but would provide an
alternative to local generation. Additionally,the location and timing of future growth
will affect the need for system improvements.
• Public Safety/First Responders-Sheriff: The study identifies whether new law enforcement
stations and vehicles are needed to serve growth modeled in the scenarios. Monroe County
Sheriff's Office staff have indicated that operational capacity exists to serve additional demand of
approximately 6,000 units, therefore the study assumes that this additional amount of growth
can be absorbed.
o Findings: Per the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, additional stations or expansions will
not be needed regardless of future growth. Vehicle costs are modeled based on
expanding the inventory to serve the maximum growth scenario.
• Public Safety/First Responders-Fire:The study identifies whether new fire stations and apparatus
are needed based on current levels of service, including services provided in municipalities. This
6 Assumed as 1 percent growth by electric providers.
5
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAullocatilonIilrrifrastlruatuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
is a high level examination and not location specific. To capture potential impacts to the County
from additional growth, costs are included for portions of facilities.
o Findings:The maximum growth scenario projects a need for approximately two and a half
new stations based on current levels of service. As noted, locations and timing of growth
are not included in this study, therefore a more refined analysis accounting for specific
geographic locations of growth, capacity of existing stations, and projected calls for
service would need to be conducted if additional growth allocations were pursued.
Summary of Findings
Findings of the analysis are summarized in Figure 2. As noted above, the evaluation is a comparison of
current available capacity and projected demand under each category. In some cases, the analysis
generates a portion of a facility. This is included in the study and the table below (with estimated costs)
to provide an order of magnitude estimate as well as a comparison among scenarios. The label shows
"Partial"to indicate less than a full facility or vehicle.
ID^tgure 2.Summary of Infrastructure A,mnalys s Findings
OUTPUT SU M MARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current
Unit Capacity Demand Demand Demand Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Ca,2city Capacity Cap2city
Ca ac'
Transportation Lower Keys Veh.Trips * 519 Yes $0 1,415 Yes $0 2,358 Yes $0
Transportation Upper Keys Veh.Trips * 519 No $157,000 1,415 No $429,000 2,358 No $714,000
Wastewater GPD 2,509,000 15,400 Yes $0 42,000 Yes $0 70,000 Yes $0
Potable Water GPD 7,390,000 44,000 Yes $0 120,000 Yes $0 200,000 Yes $0
School Facilities Seats 3,473 30 Yes $0 81 Yes $0 135 Yes $0
School Buses Vehicle 0 0.2 Partial $24,000 0.5 Partial $65,000 0.9 Partial $108,000
Solid Waste SitesA Sites 0 0.0 Partial $0 0.0 Partial $0 0.1 Partial $0
Solid Waste Vehicles Vehicle 0 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0
Passive Parks Acre -12 1.1 No $226,000 2.9 No $618,000 4.8 No $1,031,000
Active Parks Acre 172 1.1 Yes $0 2.9 Yes $0 4.8 Yes $0
Electric# Megawatts NA 1.1 Yes $0 2.9 Yes $0 4.9 Yes $0
Sheriff Stations Station NA 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0
Sheriff Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle NA 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0
Fire Stations Station 0 0.1 Partial $665,000 0.2 Partial $1,805,000 0.3 Partial $3,135,000
Fire Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle 0 0.3 Partial $91,000 0.8 Partial $247,000 1.3 No $413,000
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current
Unit Capacity Demand Demand Demand Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Ca aci Ca aci Calacity
Transportation Lower Keys Veh.Trips * 4,715 Yes $0 7,073 Yes $0 18,860 No $5,714,000
Transportation Upper Keys Veh.Trips * 4,715 No $1,428,000 7,073 No $2,143,000 18,860 No $5,714,000
Wastewater GPD 2,509,000 140,000 Yes $0 210,000 Yes $0 560,000 Yes $0
Potable Water GPD 7,390,000 400,000 Yes $0 600,000 Yes $0 1,600,000 Yes $0
School Facilities Seats 3,473 271 Yes $0 406 Yes $0 1,083 Yes $0
School Buses Vehicle 0 1.8 No $217,000 2.7 No $326,000 7.2 No $869,000
Solid Waste SiteSA Sites 0 0.1 Partial $0 0.2 Partial $0 0.6 Partial $0
Solid Waste Vehicles Vehicle 0 0.1 Partial $15,000 0.2 Partial $30,000 0.7 Partial $105,000
Passive Parks Acre -12 9.7 No $2,064,000 14.5 No $3,095,000 38.8 No $8,256,000
Active Parks Acre 172 9.7 Yes $0 14.5 Yes $0 38.8 Yes $0
Electric# Megawatts NA 9.8 Yes $0 14.6 Yes $0 39.1 Yes $0
Sheriff Stations Station NA 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0
Sheriff Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle NA 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0 6.0 No $390,000
Fire Stations Station 0 0.7 Partial $6,270,000 1.0 Partial $9,405,000 2.7 No $25,175,000
Fire Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle 0 2.7 No $829,000 4.0 No $1,246,000 10.6 No $3,327,000
Reserve capacity fortransportation is determined on a segment by segment basis;the"available capacity"determination sh own is based on whether any segment along US 1 is deficient.Costs are generalized based on average cost
pertrip and applied to total trips generated when capacitythresholds aretdggered and do not reflect planned mad improvement projects or County expenditures.
Improvements are ass.med to tA,,theform of improvements to existing sites;costs are unavailable at this time.
N see report narrative.
TischlerBise 6
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IgOGOAillocaUoin Ilinfrrastiructure Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TRAN.STORTATION
Transportation monitoring is limited to capacity availability on US 1. The County conducts an analysis
every two years (2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, Monroe County, FL(AECOM,July 2021))
to identify the amount of "reserve capacity" available on each segment of US 1 with the last adopted
study from 2021.7 Reserve capacity, expressed in average daily vehicle trips, reflects the amount of
capacity remaining on each segment of US 1 to maintain a minimum level of service (LOS) C, per the
adopted LOS methodology.
The County monitors and tracks ongoing reserve capacity generated from permitted development by road
segment. Figure 3 provides a summary of "Actual Remaining Capacity," as of November 2024, reflecting
2021 reserve capacity less the demand from permitted projects on each segment. As of 2024, two
segments (segments 19 and 20) are over capacity.
A study update was conducted in 2023 but not adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.Current monitoring uses the
official 2021 figures.
7
TischilerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IgOGO AlllocaUoin Ilirrifrastructure Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 13.US 1.Actual Remaining Capacity(2024)8
Actual Remaining Capacity=
2021 Reserve Reserve Capacity-Permitted
Capacity' LOS(2021)1 Pro'ects2
1 South Stock Island, Key Haven (4.0-5.0) 3279 A 2,416.00
2 Boca Chica, Rockland (5.0-9.0) 6265 A 5,529.00
3 Big Coppit(9.0-10.5) 1391 B 748.00
4 Shark, Saddlebunch (10.5-16.5) 4130 B 3,604.00
5 Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf(16.5-20.5) 9752 A 9,293.00
6 Cudjoe (20.5-23.0) 3064 A 2,577.00
7 Summerland (23.0-25.0) 2040 B 1,657.00
8 Ramrod (25.0-27.5) 2285 A 1,881.00
9 Torch (27.5-29.5) 2886 A 2,448.00
10 Big Pine (29.5-33.0) 4561 A 3,602.00
11 W Summerland, Bahia Honda, Ohio(33.0-40.0) 7998 A 7,776.00
12 7-Mile Bridge 40.0-47.0 3716 B 3,698.00
13 Marathon, Key Colony Beach (47.0-54.0) 21276 A 21,258.00
14 Fat Deer Crawl, Grassy(54.0-60.5) 3603 C 3,603.00
15 Duck, Conch (60.5-63.0) 1207 C 1,207.00
16 Long, Fiesta, Craig (63.0-73.0) 1639 C 1,623.00
17 Lower Matecumbe (73.0-77.5) 149 C 116.00
18 Tea Table, Fill(77.5-79.5) 2222 A 2,177.00
19 Upper Matecumbe (79.5-84.0) -3531 E ;i 2i 00)
20 Wind ley(84.0-86.0) -378 D %,'llif 69)
21 Plantation (86.5-91.5) 1921 C 1,622.39
22 Tavernier, Key Largo (91.5-99.5) 12983 A 12,500.07
23 Key Largo (99.5-106.0) 11148 A 10,352.46
24 Key Largo, Cross Key 106.0-112.5 2259 C 2,013.00
1. 2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, Monroe County, FL (AECOM, July 2021)
2. Monroe County Planning Department.
To identify potential capacity issues on US 1 under each growth scenario,the analysis:
• Allocates the respective growth by scenario equally into Lower and Upper Keys,
• Generates average daily trips from projected hypothetical growth (with a further allocation
along US 1 segments for study purposes), and
• Compares projected demand to remaining reserve capacity and identifies whether any segment
results in a calculated deficiency due to the additional ROGO allocation per respective scenario
(less the current/real time reserve capacity).
Results for each scenario are summarized below in Figure 4 with further detail provided in a series of
figures beginning with Figure 5.
As shown, six total segments (four in addition to the two that are currently over capacity) are projected
to be over capacity in the maximum growth scenario (8,000 units), given the assumptions and
methodologies described.
8 The analysis is based on actual reserve capacity without assuming a 5 percent allocation below Level of Service C identified in
the"2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study,Monroe County,FL,"(AECOM,July 2021).
8
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAllocatiion Iiirrifrt"astiructure Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• Upper Keys: Two segments in the Upper Keys are currently over capacity. Starting at 1,000
additional units, an additional segment in the Upper Keys (segment 17) is projected to exceed
capacity. The next growth scenario that reaches a capacity threshold is the maximum of 8,000
units where segments 16 and 21 are projected to be over capacity.
• Lower Keys: The maximum growth scenario of 8,000 units propels one segment over capacity
(segment 3).
Figure 4 summarizes the segments projected to be over capacity in each scenario:
Figure�,US t Segments Projected to be Over Capacity under E am;m Scenario
Road Segments Projected to be Over Capacity
Scenario
17 Lower Matecumbe
(73.0-77.5)
17 Lower Matecumbe
-77.5)
17LowerMatecumbe
' 17 Lower Matecumbe 16 Long,Fiesta,Cra ig 21 Plantation(865-
(73.0-77.5) (63.0-73.0) ,91.5j
Detail for each scenario is provided below.
9
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGO A llocalrilon 11irif rastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 5.Transportation Capacity Modefing�:220 ROGO Units
1.220 ROGO Units
Hs .Units Trips/Hs Trips/Hsq Unit Miles w/o 7-mi br
LOWER 1 110 4.72 35.7
UPPER 110 4.72 65.8
Actual Remaining
Segment Lngth %mile ROGO Units ADT
Capacity(2021 Capacity
Reserve Capacity less after ROGO
Permitted Projects)
III �la I': Lower Uninc 1 South Stock Island,Key Haven(4.0-5.0) 1.1 3.08% 3 15.98 2,416.00 2,400.02
2 Boca Chica,Rockland(5.0-9.0) 3.9 10.92% 12 56.66 5,529.00 5,472.34
3 Big Coppit(9.0-10.5) 1.5 4.20% 5 21.79 748.00 726.21
4 Shark,Saddlebunch(10.5-16.5) 5.8 16.25% 18 84.26 3,604.00 3,519.74
5 Lower Sugarloaf,Upper Sugarloaf(16.5-20.5 3.9 10.92% 12 56.66 9,293.00 9,236.34
6 Cudjoe(20.5-23.0) 2.5 7.00% 8 36.32 2,577.00 2,540.68
7 Summerand(23.0-25.0) 2.2 6.16% 7 31.96 1,657.00 1,625.04
8 Ramrod(25.0-27.5) 2.3 6.44% 7 33.41 1,881.00 1,847.59
9 Torch(27.5-29.5) 2.1 5.88% 6 30.51 2,448.00 2,417.49
10 Big Pine(29.533.0) 3.4 9.52% 10 49.40 3,602.00 3,552.60
11 W Summerland,Bahia Honda,Ohio(33.0-40. 7.0 19.61% 22 101.70 7,776.00 7,674.30
7-Mile Bdd e 12 7-Mile Bride 40.0-47.0 6.8 0 3,698.00 3,698.00
Marathon 13 Marathon,Key Colony Beach(47.034.0) 7.3 11.09% 12 57.54 21,258.00 21,200.46
14 Fat Deer Crawl,Grassy.(54.030.5) 6.4 9.73% 11 50.45 3,603.00 3,552.55
Uninc 15 Duck,Conch(60,5-63,0) 2.7 4.10% 5 21.28 1,207.00 1,185.72
16 Long,Fiesta,Craig(63.0-73A) 9.9 15.05% 17 78.03 1,623.00 1,544.97
Islamorada 17 Lower Matecumbe(73.0-77.5) 4.5 6.84% 8 35.47 116.00 80.53
18 Tea Table,Fill(77.5-79,5) 2.2 3.34% 4 17.34 2,177.00 2,159.66
19 Upper Matecumbe(79.5-84.0) 4.1 6.23% 7 32.32 (3,hftd00) r j m,s1)
20 Windley(84.036,1) 1.9 2.89% 3 14.98 (482„69) (L{""J "')
21 Plantation(86.5-91.5) 5.8 8.81% 10 45.72 1,622.39 1,576.67
Uninc 22 Tavernier,Key Largo(91<,5-99.5) 8.0 12.16% 13 63.06 12,500.07 12,437.01
23 Key Largo(99.5-106.0), 6.8 10.33% 11 53.60 10,352.46 10,298.86
24 Key Largo,Gross Key 106.0-11Z5; ', 6.2 9.42% 10 48.87 2,013.00 1,964.13
108.3 220
Sources:2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study,Monroe County,FL (AECOM,July 2021);Monroe County Planning Dept.;TschlerBise analysis.
Figure 6.Transportation Capacity Modeling::600 ROGO Units
2.600 ROGO Units
Hs .Units Trips/Hs Trips/Hsg Unit Miles w/o 7-mi br
LOWER 1 300 4.72 35.7
UPPER 300 4.72 65.8
Actual Remaining
Segment Lngth %mile ROGO Units ADT
Capacity(2021 Capacity
Reserve Capacity less after ROGO
Permitted Projects)
III �la I': Lower Uninc 1 South Stock Island,Key Haven(4.0-5.0) 1.1 3.08% 9 43.58 2,416.00 2,372.42
2 Boca Chica,Rockland(5.0-9.0) 3.9 10.92% 33 154.53 5,529.00 5,374.47
3 Big Coppit(9.0-10.5) 1.5 4.20% 13 59.43 748.00 688.57
4 Shark,Saddlebunch(10.5-16.5) 5.8 16.25% 49 229.81 3,604.00 3,374.19
5 Lower Sugarloaf,Upper Sugarloaf(16.5-20.5 3.9 10.92% 33 154.53 9,293.00 9,138.47
6 Cudjoe(20.5-23.0) 2.5 7.00% 21 99.05 2,577.00 2,477.95
7 Summerand(23.0-25.0) 2.2 6.16% 18 87.17 1,657.00 1,569.83
8 Ramrod(25.0-27.5) 2.3 6.44% 19 91.13 1,881.00 1,789.87
9 Torch(27.5-29.5) 2.1 5.88% 18 83.21 2,448.00 2,364.79
10 Big Pine(29.533.0) 3.4 9.52% 29 134.71 3,602.00 3,467.29
11 W Summerland,Bahia Honda,Ohio(33.0-40. 7.0 1 9.61% 59 277.35 7,776.00 7,498.65
7-Mile Bdd e 12 7-Mile Bridge 40.0-47.0 6.8 0 3,698.00 3,698.00
Marathon 13 Marathon,Key Colony Beach(47.034.0) 7.3 11.09% 33 156.93 21,258.00 21,101.07
14 Fat Deer Crawl,Grassy.(54.030.5)_ 6.4 9.73% 29 137.58 3,603.00 3,465.42
Uninc 15 Duck,Conch(60,5-63A) 2.7 4.10% 12 58.04 1,207.00 1,148.96
16 Long,Fiesta,Craig(63.0-73.0) 9.9 15.05% 45 212.82 1,623.00 1,410.18
Islamorada 17 Lower Matecu mbe(73.0-77.5) 4.5 6.84% 21 96.74 116.00 19.26
18 Tea Table,Fill(77.5-79.5) 2.2 3.34% 10 47.29 2,177.00 2,129.71
19 Upper Matecumbe(79.5-84,0) 4.1 6.23% 19 88.14 (3,hftd 00) ( j "' m)
20 Windley(84,016,0) 1.9 2.89% 9 40.84 (482.69) r>>31,"�,3)
21 Plantation(86.5-91.5) 5.8 8.81% 26 124.68 1,622.39 1,497.71
Uninc 22 Tavernier,Key Largo(91,5-99,5) 8.0 12.16% 36 171.98 12,500.07 12,328.09
23 Key Largo(99.5-106.0) t 6.8 10.33% 31 146.18 10,352.46 10,206.28
24 Key Largo,Gross Key 106.0-112,5s 6.2 9.42% 28 133.28 2,013.00 1,879.72
108.3 600
Sources:2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study,Monroe County,FL (AECOM,July 2021);Monroe County Planning Dept.;TschlerBise analysis.
10
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAllocalhilon 11irif rastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 7.Transportation Capacity Modefimng;: 1,000 ROGO Units
3.1000 ROGO Units
Hs .Units Trips/Hs Trips/Hsq Unit Miles w/o 7-mi br
LOWER 1 500 4.72 35.7
UPPER 500 4.72 65.8
Actual Remaining
Segment Lngth %mile ROGO Units ADT
Capacity(2021 Capacity
Reserve Capacity less after ROGO
Permitted Projects)
III �la I': Lower Uninc 1 South Stock Island,Key Haven(4.0-5.0) 1.1 3.08% 15 72.64 2,416.00 2,343.36
2 Boca Chica,Rockland(5.0-9.0) 3.9 10.92% 55 257.54 5,529.00 5,271.46
3 Big Coppit(9.0-10.5) 1.5 4.20% 21 99.05 748.00 648.95
4 Shark,Saddlebunch(10.5-16.5) 5.8 16.25% 81 383.01 3,604.00 3,220.99
5 Lower Sugarloaf,Upper Sugarloaf(16.5-20.5 3.9 10.92% 55 257.54 9,293.00 9,035.46
6 Cudjoe(20.5-23.0) 2.5 7.00% 35 165.09 2,577.00 2,411.91
7 Summerand(23.0-25.0) 2.2 6.16% 31 145.28 1,657.00 1,511.72
8 Ramrod(25.0-27.5) 2.3 6.44% 32 151.88 1,881.00 1,729.12
9 Torch(27.5-29.5) 2.1 5.88% 29 138.68 2,448.00 2,309.32
10 Big Pine(29.533.0) 3.4 9.52% 48 224.52 3,602.00 3,377.48
11 W Summerland,Bahia Honda,Ohio(33.0-40. 7.0 19.61% 98 462.25 7,776.00 7,313.75
7-Mile Bdd e 12 7-Mile Bride 40.0-47.0 6.8 0 3,698.00 3,698.00
Marathon 13 Marathon,Key Colony Beach(47.034.0) 7.3 11.09% 55 261.55 21,258.00 20,996.45
14 Fat Deer Crawl,Grassy.(54.030.5) 6.4 9.73% 49 229.30 3,603.00 3,373.70
Uninc 15 Duck,Conch(60,5-63,0) 2.7 4.10% 21 96.74 1,207.00 1,110.26
16 Long,Fiesta,Craig(63.0-73A) 9.9 15.05% 75 354.70 1,623.00 1,268.30
Islamorada 17 Lower Matecumbe(73.0'-77.5) 4.5 6.84% 34 161.23 116.00 (,lb,?3)
18 Tea Table,Fill(77.5-79,5) 2.2 3.34% 17 78.82 2,177.00 2,098.18
19 Upper Matecumbe(79.5-84.0) 4.1 6.23% 31 146.90 (3,hftd 00) ( ,"tl10 90)
20 Windley(84.036,1) 1.9 2.89% 14 68.07 (482„69) -",0,'0)
21 Plantation(86.5-91.5) 5.8 8.81% 44 207.80 1,622.39 1,414.59
Uninc 22 Tavernier,Key Largo(91<,5-99.5) 8.0 12.16% 61 286.63 12,500.07 12,213.44
23 Key Largo(99.5-106.0), 6.8 10.33% 52 243.63 10,352.46 10,108.83
24 Key Largo,Gross Key 106.0-11Z5; ', 6.2 9.42% 47 222.14 2,013.00 1,790.86
108.3 1,000
Sources:2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study,Monroe County,FL (AECOM,July 2021);Monroe County Planning Dept.;TschlerBise analysis.
Figure 8.Transportation Capacity Modeling::2,000 ROGO Units
4.2000 ROGO Units
Hs .Units Trips/Hs Trips/Hsg Unit Miles w/o 7-mi br
LOWER 1 1,000 4.72 35.7
UPPER 1,000 4.72 65.8
Actual Remaining
Segment Lngth %mile ROGO Units ADT
Capacity(2021 Capacity
Reserve Capacity less after ROGO
Permitted Projects)
III �la I': Lower Uninc 1 South Stock Island,Key Haven(4.0-5.0) 1.1 3.08% 31 145.28 2,416.00 2,270.72
2 Boca Chica,Rockland(5.0-9.0) 3.9 10.92% 109 515.08 5,529.00 5,013.92
3 Big Coppit(9.0-10.5) 1.5 4.20% 42 198.11 748.00 549.89
4 Shark,Saddlebunch(10.5-16.5) 5.8 16.25% 162 766.02 3,604.00 2,837.98
5 Lower Sugarloaf,Upper Sugarloaf(16.5-20.5 3.9 10.92% 109 515.08 9,293.00 8,777.92
6 Cudjoe(20.5-23.0) 2.5 7.00% 70 330.18 2,577.00 2,246.82
7 Summerand(23.0-25.0) 2.2 6.16% 62 290.56 1,657.00 1,366.44
8 Ramrod(25.0-27.5) 2.3 6.44% 64 303.77 1,881.00 1,577.23
9 Torch(27.5-29.5) 2.1 5.88% 59 277.35 2,448.00 2,170.65
10 Big Pine(29.533.0) 3.4 9.52% 95 449.05 3,602.00 3,152.95
11 W Summerland,Bahia Honda,Ohio(33.0-40. 7.0 1 9.61% 196 924.51 7,776.00 6,851.49
7-Mile Bdd e 12 7-Mile Bridge 40.0-47.0 6.8 0 3,698.00 3,698.00
Marathon 13 Marathon,Key Colony Beach(47.034.0) 7.3 11.09% ill 523.09 21,258.00 20,734.91
14 Fat Deer Crawl,Grassy.(54.030.5)_ 6.4 9.73% 97 458.60 3,603.00 3,144.40
Uninc 15 Duck,Conch(60,5-63A) 2.7 4.10% 41 193.47 1,207.00 1,013.53
16 Long,Fiesta,Craig(63.0-73.0) 9.9 15.05% 150 709.40 1,623.00 913.60
Islamorada 17 Lower Matecumbe(73.0`-77.5) 4.5 6.84% 68 322.45 116.00 (106: db)
18 Tea Table,Fill(77.5-79.5) 2.2 3.34% 33 157.64 2,177.00 2,019.36
19 Upper Matecumbe(79.5-84,0) 4.1 6.23% 62 293.79 (3,hftd 00) P"7',"q)
20 Windley(84,016,0) 1.9 2.89% 29 136.15 (482.69) rIt''1,r9�i4)
21 Plantation(86.5-91.5) 5.8 8.81% 88 415.61 1,622.39 1,206.78
Uninc 22 Tavernier,Key Largo(91,5-99,5) 8.0 12.16% 122 573.25 12,500.07 11,926.82
23 Key Largo(99.5-106.0) t 6.8 10.33% 103 487.26 10,352.46 9,865.20
24 Key Largo,Gross Key 106.0-112,5s 6.2 9.42% 94 444.27 2,013.00 1,568.73
108.3 2,000
Sources:2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study,Monroe County,FL (AECOM,July 2021);Monroe County Planning Dept.;TschlerBise analysis.
11
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGO Aflloca$IIOn IIIY f rastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 9 Transportation Capacity Modefimng;:3,000 ROGO Units
5.3000 ROGO Units
Hs .Units Trips/Hs Trips/Hsq Unit Miles w/o 7-mi br
LOWER 1 1,500 4.72 35.7
UPPER 1,500 4.72 65.8
Actual Remaining
Segment Lngth %mile ROGO Units ADT
Capacity(2021 Capacity
Reserve Capacity less after ROGO
Permitted Projects)
III �la I': Lower Uninc 1 South Stock Island,Key Haven(4.0-5.0) 1.1 3.08% 46 217.92 2,416.00 2,198.08
2 Boca Chica,Rockland(5.0-9.0) 3.9 10.92% 164 772.63 5,529.00 4,756.37
3 Big Coppit(9.0-10.5) 1.5 4.20% 63 297.16 748.00 450.84
4 Shark,Saddlebunch(10.5-16.5) 5.8 16.25% 244 1,149.03 3,604.00 2,454.97
5 Lower Sugarloaf,Upper Sugarloaf(16.5-20.5 3.9 10.92% 164 772.63 9,293.00 8,520.37
6 Cudjoe(20.5-23.0) 2.5 7.00% 105 495.27 2,577.00 2,081.73
7 Summerand(23.0-25.0) 2.2 6.16% 92 435.84 1,657.00 1,221.16
8 Ramrod(25.0-27.5) 2.3 6.44% 97 455.65 1,881.00 1,425.35
9 Torch(27.5-29.5) 2.1 5.88% 88 416.03 2,448.00 2,031.97
10 Big Pine(29.533.0) 3.4 9.52% 143 673.57 3,602.00 2,928.43
11 W Summerland,Bahia Honda,Ohio(33.0-40. 7.0 19.61% 294 1,386.76 7,776.00 6,389.24
7-Mile Bdd e 12 7-Mile Bride 40.0-47.0 6.8 0 3,698.00 3,698.00
Marathon 13 Marathon,Key Colony Beach(47.0-54.0) 7.3 11.09% 166 784.64 21,258.00 20,473.36
14 Fat Deer Crawl,Grassy(54.030.5) 6.4 9.73% 146 687.90 3,603.00 2,915.10
Uninc 15 Duck,Conch(60,5-63,0) 2.7 4.10% 62 290.21 1,207.00 916.79
16 Long,Fiesta,Craig(63.0-73A) 9.9 15.05% 226 1,064.10 1,623.00 558.90
Islamorada 17 Lower Matecumbe(73.0'-77.5) 4.5 6.84% 103 483.68 116.00 (w P`1�I'0)
18 Tea Table,Fill(77.5-79,5) 2.2 3.34% 50 236.47 2,177.00 1,940.53
19 Upper Matecumbe(79.5-84.0) 4.1 6.23% 93 440.69 (3,hftd 00) (L{jI mq q)
20 Windley(84.436,1) 1.9 2.89% 43 204.22 (482„69) (ww 9 1)
21 Plantation(86.5-91.5) 5.8 8.81% 132 623.41 1,622.39 998.98
Uninc 22 Tavernier,Key Largo(91<,5-99.5) 8.0 12.16% 182 859.88 12,500.07 11,640.19
23 Key Largo(99.5-106.0), 6.8 10.33% 155 730.90 10,352.46 9,621.56
24 Key Largo,Gross Key 106.0-11Z5; ', 6.2 9.42% 141 666.41 2,013.00 1,346.59
108.3 3,000
Sources:2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study,Monroe County,FL (AECOM,July 2021);Monroe County Planning Dept.;TschlerBise analysis.
Figure 1.0.Transportation Capacity Modeling::8,000 ROGO Units
6.8000 ROGO Units
Hs .Units Trips/Hs Trips/Hsq Unit Miles w/o 7-mi br
LOWER 1 4,000 4.72 35.7
UPPER 4,000 4.72 65.8
Actual Remaining
Segment Lngth %mile ROGO Units ADT
Capacity(2021 Capacity
Reserve Capacity less after ROGO
Permitted Projects)
III �IIII I': Lower Uninc 1 South Stock Island,Key Haven(4.0-5.0) 1.1 3.08% 123 581.12 2,416.00 1,834.88
2 Boca Chica,Rockland(5.0-9.0) 3.9 10.92% 437 2,060.34 5,529.00 3,468.66
3 Big Coppit(9.0-10.5) 1.5 4.20% 168 792.44 748.00 (i41,1 L4)
4 Shark,Saddlebunch(10.5-16.5) 5.8 16.25% 650 3,064.09 3,604.00 539.91
5 Lower Sugarloaf,Upper Sugarloaf(16.5-20.5 3.9 10.92% 437 2,060.34 9,293.00 7,232.66
6 Cudjoe(20.5-23.0) 2.5 7.00% 280 1,320.73 2,577.00 1,256.27
7 Summerand(23.0-25.0) 2.2 6.16% 246 1,162.24 1,657.00 494.76
8 Ramrod(25.0-27.5) 2.3 6.44% 258 1,215.07 1,881.00 665.93
9 Torch(27.5-29.5) 2.1 5.88% 235 1,109.41 2,448.00 1,338.59
10 Big Pine(29.533.0) 3.4 9.52% 381 1,796.19 3,602.00 1,805.81
11 W Summerland,Bahia Honda,Ohio(33.0-40. 7.0 1 9.61% 784 3,698.04 7,776.00 4,077.96
7-Mile Bdd e 12 7-Mile Bridge 40.0-47.0 6.8 0 3,698.00 3,698.00
Marathon 13 Marathon,Key Colony Beach(47.0-54.0) 7.3 11.09% 444 2,092.37 21,258.00 19,165.63
14 Fat Deer Crawl,Grassy(54.030.5) 6.4 9.73% 389 1,834.41 3,603.00 1,768.59
Uninc 16 Duck,Conch(60.5-63.0) 2.7 4.10% 164 773.89 1,207.00 433.11
16 Long,Fiesta,Craig(63.9-73,0) 9.9 15.05% 602 2,837.60 1,623.00 (1''"IL,0m0)
Islamorada 17 Lower Matecu mbe(73.0-77.5) 4.5 6.84% 274 1,289.82 116.00 (1,l "3,rV)
18 Tea Table,Fill(77.5-79.5) 2.2 3.34% 134 630.58 2,177.00 1,546.42
19 Upper Matecumbe(79.5-84.0) 4.1 6.23% 249 1,175.17 (3,hft4.00) ril,"",Sh,°1")
20 Windley(84,016,1) 1.9 2.89% 116 544.59 (482.69) (I jI�"",r"VJ)
21 Plantation(86.5-91.5) 5.8 8.81% 353 1,662.43 1,622.39 (LmIv)
Uninc 22 Tavernier,Key Largo(91.5-99.5) 8.0 12.16% 486 2,293.01 12,500.07 10,207.06
23 Key Largo(99.5-106.0), 6.8 10.33% 413 1,949.06 10,352.46 8,403.40
24 Key Largo,Gross Key 106.0-11Z5; ', 6.2 9.42% 377 1,777.08 2,013.00 235.92
108.3 8,000
Sources:2021 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study,Monroe County,FL (AECOM,July 2021);Monroe County Planning Dept.;TschlerBise analysis.
12
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAllllocatioin lirrifrastlructure Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Costs
Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan includes a Transportation CIP9 identifying Florida DOT projects at
a cost of $340 million and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Projects estimated at a cost of $890 million and
unfunded.The FY25 Monroe County Budget includes a transportation capital improvement plan with a 5-
year projected cost of approximately $100 million (with an additional $36 million previously
appropriated). Planned total costs are shown below in Figure 11. These are costs and projects that have
been identified and planned to accommodate current development as well as already allocated ROGO
units.These costs are provided for informational purposes.
Figure 1.1,Transportation Capital Improvement Pm°ograin(All Programs)
Source Agency Fund/Funding Source 5-Year Projected Previously Total
Costs Appropriated
Comp Plan FDOT Projects FDOT $340,200,000 n/a $340,200,000
CIP Monroe County 102:Road and Bddge Countywide Capital Projects $54,540,323 $29,269,620 $83,809,943
130:Impact Fees $598,515 $3,041,744 $3,640,259
304:One Cent Infrastructure Surtax $44,088,112 $3,999,380 $48,087,492
Subtotal $99,226,950 $36,310,744 $135,537,694
Comp Plan Sea Level Rise Adaptation Projects Unfunded $890,000,000 n/a $890,000,000
Costs modeled for this analysis assumes an average based on total construction costs regardless of funding
source or whether funding is available. Given that the deficiencies projected are on US 1, a state-owned
and operated facility, the assumption for financial planning is that FDOT will be responsible for funding
the improvements. However, for purposes of this evaluation, an estimate is provided reflecting costs to
increase capacity.
9 Monroe County,Florida—Comprehensive Plan:3.14 Capital Improvements,
htVs:/Library.mu n icode.co /fl/ onroecounty/codes/comprehensiveplan?nodeld=n3.0GCCBPQ_3.14CAIM
13
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGO AlllocaUoin 11irif rastiructuire Study
Monroe nnroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID^pgamm°e 1.2,Stale.-Funded RoIad Improvement Cost Estimates
State Projects Cost Center Line Cost per Linear Mile
S R 5/US 1 M M 108.4 to M M M 112.8 $19,000,000 4.4 $4,318,182
SR5/US 1/Overseas Hwy on Bahia Honda Key
f $4,640,000 1.8 $2,577,778
from M M 36.6 to M M 38.4
SR 5/Frontage at Boca Chica Key $1,577,859 0.5 $3,155,718
SR 5/Whitehead Stfrom Fleming St to W of
$2,600,000 0.2 $13,000,000
Truman Ave
SR 5/Overseas Hwy from M M 97.0 to M M $7,800,000 3 $2,600,000
100.0
SR 5/US 1/Overseas Hwy from M M 19.4 to M M
19.8,M M 20.6 to M M 23.1 a nd M M 26.2 to $17,400,000 4.1 $4,243,902
M M 27.4 Roadway Project
Total $53,017,859 14 $3,786,990
Vehicle trips per Linear M ile 12,500
Cost per Trip $303
Source: FDOT(https://www.fdotmonroe.com/)
The above average cost per vehicle trip is applied to total trips generated in scenarios where one segment
on US 1 is over capacity. It is noted that the cost estimates in Figure 13 do not reflect planned road
improvement projects or County expenditures and may not reflect the true cost for road expansion if
additional lanes are needed on the roadway and/or bridges.
Figure 1.3 t ra nsportaliomn Infrastructure Analysis Findings
OUTPUT SUMMARY
Monroe Caunty,Florida,RO GO Infrastructure Study
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Our rent Available
Unit Capacity Demand Available Cost Demand Available Cost Demand Capacity Cost'
Ca a Capacity Trans portation Lowe r Keys Vier.Trips * 519 Yes $0 1,415 Yes $0 2,358 Yes $0
Trans portation Uppe r Keys Veh.Trips * 519 No $157,000 1,415 No $429,000 2,358 No $714,000
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current Available
Unit Capacity Demand Available Cost Demand Available Cost Demand Capacity cost
Capacity Capacity
Trans portation Lowe r Keys Veh.Trips * 4,715 Yes $0 7,073 Yes $0 18,860 No $5,714,000
Transportation Upper Keys Veh.Trips 4,715 No $1,428,000 7,073 No $2,143,000 18,860 No $5,714,000
*Reserve capacity,for transportation is determined on a segment by segment basis;the"available capacity"determination shown is based on whether,any segment along US 1 is deficient Costs are generalized based on average cost per,trip and
III to total trips generated when capacity,thresholds are triggered and do not reflect planned road improvement projects or County expenditures.
14
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAillocaUoin Ilinfrrastiructure Study
Monroe nroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Wastewater demand is projected based on the current planning level of service of 70 gallons per day per
equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) (per FKAA).10 The analysis assumes growth is in single family units. One
single family unit is one EDU, therefore the ROGO units assumed in each scenario equal that number of
EDUs.The analysis projects demand in each scenario and compares it to existing and available wastewater
(sanitary sewer) capacity.
Four entities provide sewer services in the County: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), Key Largo
Wastewater Treatment District, North Key Largo Utilities Corporation, and Key West Resort Utilities.
Current capacity and demand is shown in Figure 14 with a reserve capacity of approximately 2.5 million
gallons per day.
Figure 1.4.Existing Wastewater r Syst:ein Level oaf Service,Demand,and Capacity
CurrentAvgdaily Current Estd
FKAAfacilities flow(gpd) Capacity(gpd)
Key Haven WW(decommissioned) 0 0
BigCoppitt 295,000 323,000
Bay Point 36,000 54,000
Duck Key 122,000 274,000
Layton/Long Key 29,000 66,000
CudjoeRegional 689,000 940,000
Cross Key 4,000 26,000
Total 1,175,000 1,683,000
Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Plant and District 11970,000 3,450,000
North Key Largo Util ities Corp 250,000 499,000
Key West Resort Utilities 577,000 849,000
Total 2,797,000 4,798,000
GRAND TOTAL 3,972,000 6,481,000
Reserve Capacity 2,509,000
Avg gpd per EDU1 70
1.FKAA
Source:FKAA; 2023-2025 Monroe County Biennial Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report
10 It is noted that the Monroe County Code(Article V,Sec. 20-102) and Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy
901.1.1 identifies required level of service at 167 gallons per day per EDU.At this higher level of service standard,wastewater
capacity exists to serve each allocation scenario.
15
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
II A llocatioill Ilil rastiructuire Study
Monroe nnroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Shown below is wastewater usage projected under each scenario assuming 70 gallons per day per EDU
(housing unit).
ID^Dgure I.S.Suininary o'tProjected Demand under Each Sce narici,Wastewater
DEMAND SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
I ICI ��� III II INI,I
��JJ fJ,Uf�J
iiilCategory U nit JIIII IIIIIII i�I �i � rv.W W .,M M'W IIII L II IoIIIIIu IVII J'N N � •III III III ".N N ��� III IIII p.V'II III N".N m o n n n �W��
IIII II IIIII IIII �Vll�liiiui IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I IIIIIIIIIIIIII;II IIIIIIII Illllllllllll�lllllmllllnlll���llllllllllllllllllllll IIII II IIIII I�III
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION Persons 711 1,938 3,230 6,460 9,690 25,840
YEAR ROUND POPULATION Persons 343 936 1,560 3,120 4,680 12,480
TOTAL UNITS Housing Units 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTALEDUS Equivalent Dwelling Unit 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTAL ENROLLMENT Public School Students 30 81 135 271 406 1,083
VEHICLE TRIPS Average Daily Vehicle Trips 1,037 2,829 4,715 9,430 14,145 37,720
WATERUSAGE Gallons per Day 44,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 1,600,000
WASTEWATER USAGE Gallons per Day 15,400 42,000 70,000 140,000 210,000 560,000
SOLID WASTE GENERATION Pounds per Day 8,108 22,113 36,854 73,709 110,563 294,834
ELECTRIC DEMAND I Megawatts 1 1.11 2.91 4.91 9.81 14.61 39.1
Given existing capacity and projected demand in each scenario, capacity is available to serve growth at
each allocation. However, it should be noted that current debt for wastewater capital improvements
issued to improve and enhance capacity is not included as a cost, as these improvements were assumed
to be needed regardless of new growth.
ID^Dgure 1.6.Wastewater Infrastructure Analysis Findings
OUTPUTSUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current
Unit Capacity Demand Demand Demand Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Ca tic' Ca tic' Ca aci
Wastewater GPD 2,509,000 15,400 Yes $0 42,000 Yes $0 70,000 Yes $0
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current
Unit Capacity Demand Demand Demand Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Capacity Capacity Capacity
Wastewater GPD 2,509,000 140,000 Yes $0 210,000 Yes $0 560,000 Yes $0
16
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAillocaUoin Ilinfrrastiructuire Study
Monroe nroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
POTABLE WATER
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in the Florida Keys. Current
water capacity and demand is shown in Figure 17. Capacity is approximately 27.79 million gallons per day
serving demand of approximately 20.40 million gallons per day resulting in reserve capacity of 7.39 million
gallons per day on average.11 (In addition to the capacity shown, emergency capacity of 3 million gallons
per day is available from desalinization at Stock Island and Marathon.)
ID^Dgure 1.7.Existing Water System Level oaf Service,Capacity,and Demand
Demand per EDU1 200 gpd
FKAA Current Capacity2 27.79 mgd
Current Demand 20.40 mgd
Reserve Capacity 7.39 mgd
1.FKAA.
2.FKAA as of March 2025(23.8 current capacity plus 4 mgd from Stock Island
Reverse Osmosis facility anticipated completion in March 2025).
3.FKAA,Year to Date 2024.
Source:FKAA.
Shown below is the projected demand for water under each scenario assuming FKAA's planning figure of
200 gallons per day per EDU.12 Demand ranges from 44,000 gallons per day for 220 units to a high of
approximately 1.6 million gallons per day for the maximum 8,000 unit scenario.
11 Per FKAA,total annual capacity is 27.79 mgd,comprised of 23.79 mgd(17.79 from Biscayne Aquifer and 6 mgd from a reverse
osmosis plant)plus 4 mgd from the new Stock Island Reverse Osmosis Plant intended to be used as regular supply and scheduled
to be operational by March 2025.A second Reverse Osmosis Plant at Marathon Key providing another 4 mgd is scheduled to be
completed by 2029.
12 Per Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy 701.1.1,adopted level of service is 100 gallons per capita per day.
At this level of service standard,water capacity exists to serve each allocation scenario.
17
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAiioca$Ioin Illrifirastlru tore Study
Monroe nnroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID^Dgure 1.8.Suininary of Projected Demand under Eacli Sce narici,Potable Water
DEMAND SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
��JJ fJ,Uf�J -�a � rv.W W .,M M'W IIII L II IIIIII U J�N N � •III III III ".N N ��� III IIII U.V'II III N".N m o n n n �W��
Category U nit i�i IIIIIIIIIi J ou III IIIIII IIIIIII I illlllllllll�i IIII II IIIII IIII �Vlllliiiui IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I IIIIIIIIIIIIII;II IIIIIIII Illllllllllll�lllllmlllmlll�mllllllllllllllllllllll IIII II(IIII I�III
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION Persons 711 1,938 3,230 6,460 9,690 25,840
YEAR ROUND POPULATION Persons 343 936 1,560 3,120 4,680 12,480
TOTAL UNITS Housing Units 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTALEDUS Equivalent Dwelling Unit 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTAL ENROLLMENT Public School Students 30 81 135 271 406 1,083
VEHICLE TRIPS Average Daily Vehicle Trips 1,037 2,829 4,715 9,430 14,145 37,720
WATERUSAGE Gallons per Day 44,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 1,600,000
WASTEWATER USAGE Gallons per Day 15,400 42,000 70,000 140,000 210,000 560,000
SOLID WASTE GENERATION Pounds per Day 8,108 22,113 36,854 73,709 110,563 294,834
ELECTRIC DEMAND I Megawatts 1 1.11 2.91 4.91 9.81 14.61 39.1
Given documented capacity and projected demand in each scenario, sufficient potable water capacity is
available to serve growth under each ROGO allocation. Results of the ROGO evaluation are provided in
Figure 19.
ID^Dgure 1.9.Water Infrastructure Analysis Findings
OUTPUTSUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current
Unit Capacity Demand Demand Demand Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Ca ac' Ca ac' C'12-city
Potable Water GPD 7,390,000 44,000 Yes $0 120,000 Yes $0 200,000 Yes $0
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current
Capacity Demand Demand Demand
Unit Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Capacity Ca ac' C'12-city
Potable Water GPD 7,390,000 400,000 Yes $0 600,000 Yes $0 1,600,000 Yes $0
The FKAA Five-Year (FY2025-2029) Capital Improvement Plan includes $307.3 million in projects to
augment water treatment, improve transmission by replacing segments of the 130-mile water main,13
upgrade distribution, improve storage capabilities, and expand supply through an additional reverse
osmosis facility at Marathon Key. Because the water system operates as an enterprise fund, rates and fees
are calculated to recover operating, maintenance, and capital improvement costs that are not covered by
grant funding.14 Phasing within scenarios was not considered in this study, however, the timing of
additional development would need to be coordinated with project timelines for certain planned
improvements.As with other infrastructure categories in this study, planned water capital improvements
programmed to occur regardless of additional ROGO allocations are not identified as cost impacts in this
analysis.
13 Islamorada and Windley Key pipeline segments have been completed; Plantation Key pipeline segment is slated to be
constructed by the end of 2026. These planned improvements are expected to address recent water pressure issues. (Water
pressure issues have been documented in the 2023-2025 Monroe County Biennial Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report.)
14 FKAA CIP Project Update,November 2024,identifies grant funding of$95.1 million.
18
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGO Aillocalh oin Ilirrifrastiructuire Study
Monroe nroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC S. C11.001I.S."
Public School infrastructure is based on an evaluation of existing public school capacity compared to
demand from growth calculated using an average public school student generation rate derived from
current enrollment divided by total number of housing units in the County. Figure 20 provides the student
generation rate (SGR) used to project demand from new housing units.
Figure 20.Mol nrom e County Student Generation Rate(SGR)
2023-24 Enrollment 7,330
Total Housing Units 54,146
Total SGR 0.135
Sources:Florida Dept.of Education,Florida Inventory
of School Houses(FISH)data,2023-24 School Year
Current public school enrollment and capacity for Monroe County Public Schools (MCPS) is available from
the Florida Department of Education. Current utilization (enrollment to capacity) is at 71 percent for pre-
Kindergarten through grade 12 indicating excess capacity in the school system today.
Figure 21.Current Public Sclio l Enrollment and Capacity
Capacity Enrollment PK-12 Enrollment K-12 Utilization (PK-12) Excess Capacity
Elementary 2,039 1,647 1,600 81% 392
Combination 5,498 3,572 3,527 65% 1,926
Senior High 21600 2,026 2,026 78% 574
Exceptional 144 85 85 59% 59
Total 10,281 7,330 7,238 71% 2,951
Source:Florida Departmentof Education,FISH Data,January2024
The analysis includes demand on the bus fleet as well. MCPS' current inventory of 49 school buses serves
a total enrollment of 7,330. Additional buses are projected to serve growth at a current cost per bus of
$120,000.
Enrollment projections for each scenario are provided in Figure 22. New enrollment is projected in the
range of 30 for the lowest growth scenario to 1,083 for the highest growth.
19
TischilerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAullocalhilon 11irif rastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 22.Suininary of Projected Student Enrollment Demand under Each Sce nam°mmi,Schools
DEMAND SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
��JJ fJ,Uf�J -�a � rv.W W .,M M'W IIII L II IIIIII U J�4 4 � •III III III ".4 4 ��� III IIII U.V'II III N".4 m o n n n �WI�
Category U nit i�i IIIIIIIIIi J ou III IIIIII IIIIIII I illlllllllll�i IIII II IIIII IIII �Vll�liiiui IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I IIIIIIIIIIIIII;II IIIIIIII Illllllllllll�lllllmlllmlll�mllllllllllllllllllllll IIII II(IIII I�III
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION Persons 711 1,938 3,230 6,460 9,690 25,840
YEAR ROUND POPULATION Persons 343 936 1,560 3,120 4,680 12,480
TOTAL UNITS Housing Units 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTALEDUS Equivalent Dwelling Unit 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTAL ENROLLMENT Public School Students 30 81 135 271 406 1,083
VEHICLE TRIPS Average Daily Vehicle Trips 1,037 2,829 4,715 9,430 14,145 37,720
WATERUSAGE Gallons per Day 44,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 1,600,000
WASTEWATER USAGE Gallons per Day 15,400 42,000 70,000 140,000 210,000 560,000
SOLID WASTE GENERATION Pounds per Day 8,108 22,113 36,854 73,709 110,563 294,834
ELECTRIC DEMAND I Megawatts 1 1.11 2.91 4.91 9.81 14.61 39.1
Figure 23 shows projected enrollment along with available capacity for each ROGO scenario. Even at the
maximum growth scenario, school facility capacity is available. A need for new buses (or fraction of a
vehicle) is projected in each scenario. As noted elsewhere, prorated costs for "partial" buses are shown
to capture impacts in each scenario.
Figure 23,School Infrastructure Analysis Findings
OUTPUT SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
Reserve Scererio Current Scenario Current Scenario CurreMAvailable
Unit Capacity Demand Available Cost Demand Available Cost Demand Capacity Cost
Ca a Ca a
School Facilities Seats 3,473 30 Ves $0 81 Ves $0 135 Yes $0
School Buses Vehide 0 0.20 Partial $24,000 0.54 Partial $65,000 0.90 Partial $108,000
.aaa ,A,, A,, .uuu e�ee�
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current Available
Unit Capacity Demand Available Cost Demand Available Cost Demand Capacity Cost
Ca a Ca a
School Facilities Seats 3,473 271 Yes $0 406 Yes $0 1,083 Yes $0
School Buses Vehide 0 1.8 Nu $217,000 2.7 Nu $326,000 7.2 Nu $869,000
20
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IAullocalhiloin Ili lffrrastlructulre Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Solid waste generation is projected from new housing units based on the average demand generation
factor in the Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report and compared to the current
capacity at four transfer stations in the County (three owned and operated by Monroe County and one
owned and operated by the City of Key West).The current demand factor is shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24,Solid Waste Level Of Service
Level of Service 1 11.41 pounds perfunctional capita per day
Source:Monroe County2023-2025 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report(PFCR)
Solid waste generation is projected for each scenario as shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25.Surulmrnary Of Projected Demand under Each Scenarici':Solid Waste
DEMAND SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
I ICI ��� III II INI,I
JJ fJ,Uf�J -�a W M M'�IIII L II IIIIII V J'N N •III III III N N ��� III IIII p.V'II III N".N m o n n n W�
Category U nit i�i IIIIIIIIIi J ou III IIIIIIIIIIIII I illlllllllll�i IIII II IIIII IIII �Vll�liiiui IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I IIIIIIIIIIIIII;II IIIIIIII Illllllllllll�lllllmllllnlll���llllllllllllllllllllll IIII II IIIII I�III
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION Persons 711 1,938 3,230 6,460 9,690 25,840
YEAR ROUND POPULATION Persons 343 936 1,560 3,120 4,680 12,480
TOTAL UNITS Housing Units 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTALEDUS Equivalent Dwelling Unit 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTAL ENROLLMENT Public School Students 30 81 135 271 406 1,083
VEHICLE TRIPS Average Daily Vehicle Trips 1,037 2,829 4,715 9,430 14,145 37,720
WATERUSAGE Gallons per Day 44,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 1,600,000
WASTEWATER USAGE Gallons per Day 15,400 42,000 70,000 140,000 210,000 560,000
SOLID WASTE GENERATION Pounds per Day 8,108 22,113 36,854 73,709 110,563 294,834
ELECTRIC DEMAND Megawatts 1.1 2.9 4.91 9.8 14.6 39.1
While the projected growth does not trigger a net new facility, current Solid Waste Transfer Stations are
essentially at capacity and therefore need system expansions today according to County staff. Because
additional sites are unlikely to be acquired due to land limitations, it is anticipated that capacity
expansions will take the form of improvements to tipping floors. Again, this is needed regardless of
additional growth, so these costs are not included in the study.
In addition, staff indicate that an expansion of the fleet deployed for illegal dumping cleanup is likely to
be needed to continue to provide the same level of service.This cost is modeled and shown in Figure 26.
21
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOA llocalhiion 11irif rastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 26.SoID d Waste Infrastructure Analysis Findings
OUTPUT SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario CurrentAvailable
Unit Capacity Demand Available Cost Demand Available Cost Demand Capacity Cost
C21
a Ca a
Solid Warte Sites^ Sites 0 0.02 Fartial $0 0.04 Partial $0 0.07 Partial $0
Solid Warte Vehicles Vehide 0 0.00 Yes $0 0.00 Yes $0 0.00 Yes $0
.SM Am.w . .uuu e�ee�
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current Available
Unit Capacity Demand Available Cost Demand Available fast Demand Capacity Cost
[a a [a a
Solid Warte Sites^ Sites 0 0.1 Fartial $0 0.2 Fa rUA $0 0.6 Fartial $0
Solid Waste Vehicles Vehide 0 0.1 Partial $15,000 0.2 Partial $30,000 0.7 Partial $105,000
Improvements are assumed to take the form of improvements to existing sites;costs are unavailable at this time.
It is also noted that contracted haulers should be consulted regarding their capacity to accommodate
increased demand. In other words,will haulers be able to continue to provide the same level of service or
cause a reduction in collection days with additional growth?Will fleet (and staff) need to be expanded to
accommodate additional growth, potentially increasing costs for customers?
Further, Monroe County trash haulers currently use a landfill in Miami-Dade County. In early 2025, they
will move to a landfill in Okeechobee, increasing the distance traveled and presumably increasing costs to
haulers as well as potentially increasing costs for customers (although this change is occurring regardless
of any further growth).
22
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAullocalh oin Ilinfrrastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
P
Additional County park infrastructure is modeled based on the number of acres needed to maintain
current park levels of service for active and passive parks in excess of current available capacity. Adopted
levels of service of 1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population each for passive and active parks are used to
project acres needed from new housing units in each scenario. The level of service summary is shown in
Figure 27.
ID^Dgamre 27.Existing Park System Level oaf Service
LOS
# Unit Type Demand base
1.5 Acres passive/resource based neighborhood and community parks Functional Population
1.5 Acres activity-based neighborhood and community parks Functional Population
Source:Monroe County2023-2025 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report(PFCR)
Current capacity in the park system is shown in Figure 28. As indicated, based on the adopted levels of
service, a deficit exists today in passive parks and a surplus in active parks.
ID^Dgamre 28.Parks Current Demand and Capacity
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION 174,993
ACRES NEEDED TO
SERVECURRENT CURRENT
CURRENTACRES ADOPTED LOS FUNC.POP. SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)
PASSIVE PARKS 250 1.50 262 -12.490
ACTIVE PARKS 4341 1.501 2621 171.511
Source:Monroe County
23
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IrtOGO Aullocalh oin Ilirrifrastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Shown below is projected functional population for each scenario used for parks projections.
ID^Dgure 29.Suininary oaf Projected Demand under Each Sce nano,Parks
DEMAND SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
II 1IIIII 4 !i „WW V,µ M'W IIII L II II IIIIII N N .II II III N N III II II III N NO
Cate or Unrt "' y �
Category ff� I JIIIIIIIIII� IIII IIIII III�IImllull IIIIIiI; IIIII III dVViliu
FUNCTI0NALPOPULATI0N Persons 711 1,938 3,230 6,460 9,690 25,840
YEAR ROUND POPULATION Persons 343 936 1,560 3,120 4,680 12,480
TOTAL UNITS Housing Units 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTALEDUS Equivalent Dwelling Unit 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTAL ENROLLMENT Public School Students 30 81 135 271 406 1,083
VEHICLE TRIPS Average Daily Vehicle Trips 1,037 2,829 4,715 9,430 14,145 37,720
WATERUSAGE Gallons per Day 44,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 1,600,000
WASTEWATER USAGE Gallons per Day 15,400 42,000 70,000 140,000 210000 560,000
SOLID WASTE GENERATION Pounds per Day 8,108 22,113 36,854 73,709 110:563 294,834
ELECTRIC DEMAND I Megawatts 1 1.11 2.91 4.91 9.8 14.61 39.1
Cost estimates for recent County park improvements are shown below in Figure 30. The cost per acre is
used to project the range of cost impacts from the scenarios. It is noted that park costs vary greatly
depending on the types of improvements built, therefore these estimates should be considered
placeholders until further detailed study is done.
ID^Dgure 30.Parks Cost:Estimates
Cost Acres Cost/Acre
Higgs Beach Master Plan $4,682,781 16.5 $283,805
Bernstein Park Renovation $520,050 6.5 $80,008
Rowell's Waterfront Park $1,400,000 8 $175,000
Tota 1 $6,602,831 31 $212,995
ROUNDED PERACRE $213,000
Source:Monroe County
Shown below is the projected demand for parks acres under each scenario using the adopted level of
service of 1.5 acres per 1,000 people (projected on functional population)for each type of park. Demand
ranges from approximately 1 acre of each type of park to almost 39 acres of each.
Currently, passive parks are at the capacity while active parks have excess capacity in the system at
adopted levels of service. Therefore, all scenarios project a need for additional passive acres. Sufficient
excess capacity is available in active parks such that no scenario triggers a need for additional acres.
24
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGO A llocalhiion Ilirriffrrastiru tuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 3 1.Parks Infrastructure Analysis Findings
OUTPUTSUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current Available
Unit Available Cost Available Cost Cost
Capacity Demand Demand Demand Capacity
Ca aci Ca aci
Passive Parks Acre -12 1.07 No $226,000 2.91 No $618,000 4.85 No $1,031,000
Active Parks Acre 172 1.07 Yes $0 2.91 Yes $0 4.85 Yes $0
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current Available
Unit Available Cost Available Cost Cost
Capacity Demand Demand Demand Capacity
Capacity Capacity
Passive Parks Acre -12 9.7 No $2,064,000 14.5 No $3,095,000 38.8 No $8,256,000
Active Parks Acre 172 9.7 Yes $0 14.5 Yes $0 38.8 Yes $0
25
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
II Aillocalhilon Illrifrrast:lructu ire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ELECT. IC
For electric infrastructure, the study approach is to project increased demand on the electric grid from
the growth scenarios and consult with current providers regarding capability of the system to
accommodate additional demand in excess of what is currently planned. Monroe County is served by two
electric providers, Keys Energy Services (KEYS) (serving the Lower Keys) and Florida Keys Electric
Cooperative Association (FKEC) (serving the Upper Keys). Peak demand, current customers, and peak
kilowatts per customer are provided in Figure 32.
Figure 32.Current Electric Level of Service and Demuna nd
Keys Energy Services(KEYS) Florida Keys Electric
Cooperative(FKEC) Total
Lower/South of 7 Mile Bridge Upper/North of 7 Mile Bridge
2023 Annual Peak Demand(Megawatts) 156 167 323
2023 Customers 31,780 34,377 66,157
Peak MW/Customer 0.004909 0.004858 0.004882
Peak kW/Customer(rounded) 4.909 4.858 4.882
Note: Figures include the total system(residential and commercial customers).
Sources:KEYS and FKEC.
Per KEYS, a peak annual demand of 156 MW was reached in 2023, which was not reached in 2024. Using
the demand factor of 4.882 kW per customer(i.e., housing unit or EDU),electric demand can be projected
for each scenario as shown in Figure 33.15
Figure 33.Sunulmnul ary ofProjected Demuna nd under Eacli Sce nlnmio1 :Electric
DEMAND SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
rf ICI ��� III II INI,I vI fJ,if�J -�a .W M M'�IIII L II IIIIII V J'N N •III III III N N ��� III IIII p.V'II III N".N m o n n n W�
Category U nit IIIIIIIIIi J ou III IIIIIIIIIIIII I illlllllllll�i IIII II IIIII IIII �Vlllliiiui IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I IIIIIIIIIIIIII;II IIIIIIII Illllllllllll�lllllmllllnlll���llllllllllllllllllllll IIII II IIIII I�III
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION Persons 711 1,938 3,230 6,460 9,690 25,840
YEAR ROUND POPULATION Persons 343 936 1,560 3,120 4,680 12,480
TOTAL UNITS Housing Units 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTALEDUS Equivalent Dwelling Unit 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTAL ENROLLMENT Public School Students 30 81 135 271 406 1,083
VEHICLE TRIPS Average Daily Vehicle Trips 1,037 2,829 4,715 9,430 14,145 37,720
WATERUSAGE Gallons per Day 44,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 1,600,000
WASTEWATER USAGE Gallons per Day 15,400 42,000 70,000 140,000 210,000 560,000
SOLID WASTE GENERATION Pounds per Day 8,108 22,113 36,854 73,709 110,563 294,834
ELECTRIC DEMAND Megawatts 1.1 2.9 4.91 9.8 14.6 39.1
15 It is noted that providers project growth at 1 percent per year and have indicated that they have ample capacity to serve this
amount of growth.
26
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAiiocatlloin linf rastructure Study
Monroe nnroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Major providers indicate that capital projects for system improvements and redundancy will continue to
be planned and implemented based on current annual growth (assumed at 1 percent), as well as any
future growth allocations. Similar to the approach for other infrastructure,these costs are not included in
the analysis given that the improvements need to occur otherwise. As growth continues to occur, both
electric providers indicate a need and likelihood of continued investment in infrastructure to ensure
management of peak load demands and redundancy. While the system has capacity to address current
peak hour demands, current practice is for KEYS to use local generation, although more expensive to
produce, it has a diminutive impact on customer costs.16 It is noted that additional growth is likely to
exacerbate the practice of local generation unless other system improvements are made; however,
according to KEYS,transmission line upgrades are not necessary but would provide an alternative to local
generation. Additionally, the location and timing of future growth will affect the need for system
improvements.
Figure 34.Electric Infrastructure Analysis Findings
OUTPUTSUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current
Unit Capacity Demand Demand Demand Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Capacity Capacity Capacity
Electric# Megawatts NA 1.1 Yes $0 2.9 Yes $0 4.9 Yes $0
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current
Capacity Demand Demand Demand
Unit Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Capacity Cap2city Ca,2city Ca,2city
Electric# Megawatts NA 9.8 Yes $0 14.6 Yes $0 39.1 Yes $0
#See report narrative.
16 According to KEYS,local generation has been deployed the following amount:
0 2022:6 generation run days,14 hours
0 2023:31 generation run days,176 hours
0 2024:30 generation run days,96 hours
Per KEYS staff, it is noted that local generation does not result in localized price increases. KEYS is one of thirteen cities who
purchase power from the Florida Municipal Power Agency's All Requirements Project with the cost of power production spread
over all member cities.Furthermore,the need for local generation is seasonal and driven by demand in the hottest months during
a roughly four-hour period between 2 and 6 pm.It is anticipated that the number of days and potentially the number of hours is
likely to increase if an additional 8,000 units are added.With the exception of an"EV Charging Rate Class"and a voluntary"Time
of Use Rate Class," KEYS does not vary pricing to customers nor does the power supplier vary the pricing of energy purchased,
rather,the costs are blended into an overall rate.At this time,it is unknown how rates would be affected with either additional
local power generation due to growth or transmission line capital improvement projects.
27
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
I A llocatiion Ilirif rastiructuire Study
Monroe nnroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC
SAFETY: SHERIFF AND FIRE & RESCUE
IW,
The ROGO Infrastructure Study includes an evaluation of Sheriff and Fire& Rescue infrastructure.
Sheriff: The study identifies whether new law enforcement stations and vehicles are needed based on
current levels of service and discussions with Monroe County Sheriff Office staff. Staff have indicated
capacity exists to serve approximately 6,000 additional units, therefore the study assumes that this
amount of growth can be absorbed and scenarios with more than 6,000 units are evaluated for additional
needs.
Fire and Rescue: The study identifies whether new fire stations and apparatus are needed based on
current levels of service, including services provided in municipalities.This is a high level examination and
not location specific. To capture potential impacts to the County from additional growth, costs are
included for portions of facilities.
Both services are projected based on the increase in functional population provided in Figure 35.
ID^tgure 35.Suininary Of Projected Demand under Each Sce narici,Public Safety
DEMAND SUMMARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
��JJJfJ,Uf�J -�a � rv.W W .,W'M M'W IIII L II IIIIII U J�N N � •III IIIIIIII III ".N N ��� III�I�II�II�II�I U.V'II III N".N m o n n n �W��
Category Unit �I�ofll6li�����11����� IIII mu�IllVllldlili IIIIIIII ml dlVlll"iu IIIIIIII yu�lfluu6miii m Ifll Ild
FUNCTI 0 NAL POPULATI ON Persons 711 1,938 3,230 Im16,460 9,690 25,840
YEAR ROUND POPULATION Persons 343 936 1,560 3,120 4,680 12,480
TOTAL UNITS Housing Units 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTALEDUS Equivalent Dwelling Unit 220 600 1,000 2,000 3,000 8,000
TOTAL ENROLLMENT Public School Students 30 81 135 271 406 1,083
VEHICLE TRIPS Average Daily Vehicle Trips 1,037 2,829 4,715 9,430 14,145 37,720
WATERUSAGE Gallons per Day 44,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 1,600,000
WASTEWATER USAGE Gallons per Day 15,400 42,000 70,000 140,000 210,000 560,000
SOLID WASTE GENERATION Pounds per Day 8,108 22,113 36,854 73,709 110,563 294,834
ELECTRIC DEMAND Megawatts 1.1 2.9 4.91 9.8 14.6 39.1
28
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IgOGOAillocaUoin Ilirrifrastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Ilhi'�IIII"Illff
The Monroe County Sheriff's Office has 5 locations and approximately 200 vehicles.This infrastructure is
used to calculate a level of service serving current functional population.
Figure 36.Existing SlieriffLevel o�f Service and Cost Fact:ors
Functional Population 174,993
Existing Level of Service Adjusted Level of Service
Factor(per 1,000) Factor(per 1,000)*
Locations 51 0.031 0.00
Vehicles 2001 1.141 1.03
Fully Loaded Vehicle Cost $65,000
Sheriff Facility Cost per Sq. Ft. $800
*Assumes existing capacity in stations and vehicles.
Sources:Monroe CountyFY25 Budget,Monroe County Sheriff's Office.
Per the Monroe County Sheriff's Office,the Sheriff develops a budget and staffing requirements based on
geography and response times.An increase in population does not necessarily result in an increase in calls
for service as the demand for services is driven more by demographics than number of people. Per the
MCSO, the projected increase in functional population for the scenarios analyzed would not lead to
additional stations or expansions as existing locations are strategically located throughout the County.
Furthermore, vehicles needed for additional staff are also unlikely, except for potentially the maximum
growth scenario of 8,000 units.Vehicle costs under this scenario are modeled based on an assumed level
of service that accounts for capacity of the MCSO to handle additional peak demand today. Results are
shown below in Figure 39.
29
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGIDAillocaUoin Ilinfrrastiructuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Fire alp lln cl Rescim
Fire and Rescue services are provided from 18 stations throughout the County including the
municipalities. Existing levels of service for Fire and Rescue are shown in Figure 37.
Figure 137.Existing Fire and Rescue ID,evel oaf Service and Cost ID^act:ors
Functional Population 174,993
Estimated Replacement
#of Stations #of Apparatus Value*
County' 8 20 $6,269,000
Key West 3 15 $4,702,000
Marathon 2 12 $3,761,000
I sla m ora da 3 15 $4,702,000
Key Largo 2 10 $3,135,000
Tota 1 18 72 $22,569,000
Level of Service per 1,000 Persons 1 0.10 0.41
1.Excludes Airport location.
*Reflects cost to purchase new based on Monroe County vehicle purchase price averages;TlschlerBise
analysis.
Source:Monroe County,municipal websites.
Current fire station construction costs in the County are estimated based on the most recent project at
$950 per square foot.
Figure 38.Fire Station Construction Cost Estimate
cost Sq. Ft. $/Sq. Ft.
Sugarloaf Fire Station Replacement $9,500,000 10000 $950
Source:Monroe County FY25 CIP
The maximum growth scenario projects a need for approximately two and a half new stations based on
current levels of service.As noted, locations and timing of growth are not included in this study,therefore
a more refined analysis accounting for specific geographic locations of growth, capacity of existing
stations, and projected calls for service would need to be conducted with additional growth allocations.
Model results are shown in Figure 39.
30
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGO A llocalhilon Illrriffrast:lru tuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 39.Public Safety Infrastructure Analysis Findings
OUTPUT SU M MARY
Monroe County,Florida,ROGO Infrastructure Study
Reserve Scenario Current Scenario Current Scenario Current
Unit Capacity Demand Demand Demand Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Ca,2city Ca,2city Ca ac'
Sheriff Stations Station NA 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0
Sheriff Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle NA 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0
Fire Stations Station 0 0.1 Partial $665,000 0.2 Partial $1,805,000 0.3 Partial $3,135,000
Fire Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle 0 0.3 Partial $91,000 0.8 Partial $247,000 1.3 No $413,000
u u Current Current u u Current
Reserve Scenario Scenario Scenario
Unit Capacity Demand Demand Demand Available Cost Available Cost Available Cost
Capacity Ca aci Ca ac'
Sheriff Stations Station NA 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0
Sheriff Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle NA 0.0 Yes $0 0.0 Yes $0 6.0 No $390,000
Fire Stations Station 0 0.7 Partial $6,270,000 1.0 Partial $9,405,000 2.7 No $25,175,000
Fire Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle 0 2.7 No $829,000 4.0 No $1,246,000 10.6 No $3,327,000
31
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGO Aullocalh oin Ilirrifrastiructuire Study
Monroe nroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Population, Functional Population, and Housing Unit Estimates
The current countywide population is estimated 84,608,which is the BEBR 2023 population estimate plus
year-round population in 62 ROGO units. Functional population reflects maximum population of year-
round plus seasonal.Current estimated functional population is 174,993,calculated by assuming the same
ratio of permanent to seasonal population from the 2023 Public Facilities Capacity Report (PFCR) and
adding that to the year-round population. (82,151 (2023 seasonal) / 76,900 (2023 permanent) x 84,608
(current year-round)) + 84,608 (current year-round) = 174,993. Current housing unit estimate is 54,146
based on 2020 Census housing unit estimate plus ROGO allocated units. Persons per household(functional
population) and per housing unit (year-round population) are shown. Functional persons per household
is used in the analysis to project population from ROGO units.The average student generation rate (SGR)
is shown as well based on 2023-2024 official enrollment divided by total number of housing units.
Figure 40.Base Year Demand
POPULATION 84,608
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION 174,993
TOTAL UNITS 54,146
Persons per Household(Functional) 3.23
Persons per Housing Unit(Year Round) 1.56
2023-24 Enrollment 7,330
Total Housing Units 54,146
Total SGR 0.135
Sources:Florida Dept.of Education,Florida Inventory of School Houses
(FISH)data,2023-24 School Year
32
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
IROGOAullocalhiion Ilirriffrast:iruntuire Study
Monroe County,Florida
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Nonresidential Estimates
Figure 41.Nonresidential Estimates
RETAI L JO BS 21,381
OFFICE JOBS 14,798
INDUSTRIALJOBS 6,857
I NSTITUTI O NAL JO BS 12,205
TOTA L J O BS 55,241
RETAI L S F 10,070,451
OFFICE SF 4,542,986
I NDUSTRIAL S F 4,367,909
I NSTITUTI O NAL S F 4,027,650
TOTAL NR S F 23,008,996
33
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
pill'
i i� iiiimNlluuu
w
3 �LM
E o ^
« us
H � O
O
� Orq
4.V
O E O T o a
w
O a9 C Eai
e v
� cc, co V 0 a
0 0
OCT U)
C/)
4-
C:
C) 0
CY)
0 QL
C)
0 0
C) C)
U) C) LO
(0
2- o
CN m
0
o
0 E
(n L-
a)
> >
0 cm E
-0 cn
0
0 0 57-
:3 Z-a
0 0
<
of
a) a) a)
IIL
0 0 a) 0
W z
0O
0
-C
u U,
A <�
LL
TO
cc
co
to
CT3 E C5 ...
to C3 cc
to cm 0
V CD (1) _C� 1:
co
to OD
Co OD m
0
E CMI L�__
IIIIII NONE
0000
0 cis >1 an
_f_j m;
IIIIIIIII CIIIIIIIIIII 73 g: 0 Q
z
U
IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I�
III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII III
IIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
z
AW co
I�
LL
O O 0
I� C)
II V
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �
W
Tel
11.0
le Ii IM 1701 iA
14-0 76 4-14 4
...............
ua
17,
!T7
ZL ZL
IUJ W
Lu
0
(D
D 0000i
HIM
u U,
M
u- IIU"J'-
LL
Wi ere ''! "j go p g pf , .
1+ 0 I fC, W, w C CY Cb "I 1C} 1 C) 0 11 ID It
Ilk,
'T g
llr" IF IT
1� IP ll� 1� 0� 0 11 N W
0 0 0 "1 C) 0 Cl 0 Tl
MY
o o o 0 0 o o cw o 0r, 0 0 0 0
All" i'll'!
0 0
a 3 c
m o 0 a
KKf a
ar
v 4 1
14 4c lw �q 0 Z. Z. < <
> > >
> >
Ll
A,
Al
tl
III Imy
(D
II IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII III F3 m
> :2
wTJ
cr
II V
Hill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
cn
0 O
c0
ID
03
IS
L
4—
v
w
® 73
:�
a� 1
CL
CD M
CL
CD
CD
cm W
co
v
`—' O
c
v
L i
O O
oCl
U
fn O ++ D
Hillo000000000 , R O O
f(S M
L C!} M O
In 0 > IDto O O O +�
O i V7 O z
on O U O
o _ wCD
® Q) O O O
n So E
CC za
0 O O O 0 O 0 }
w
iu00000 �
W
0
C:
vi
CD
U)
Uiil, CD
M M d
rw
0
E E
CL)
C:L CC XCo
CD
C 0
)
(3)
0
U)
0
Nt -t ck 'D
0
a)
C:
a) a)
%n rq cu
a)
>
0 a)
n. CU
Amx m _0 C:
M 0
0
M co
E E c:
M C:
. .........................................
U)
E c:
E T
CL) M
q= 0-
L-a a)
) x
0
0 C:
HIM
0
AMEN
3 0
M U) 4—
ouuuui 0
L
0 E z
as <
V
5., z CD� :3
lip
u) (D (D 0
CC
® z
—C 0
CD
<
C) 4—
L
z (3) LL
L—
R R
41 a
Ln
4A
cu
co
ca
(D
m 40
L) (D
4-
0 .2-
CL (D -
o 4-
E cm
Ot
0 E E
L.- 0
a) 4A 5,
E -0
co 76
co
z
(o <
) 0=) 5)
o o
-C
F- u
LL
LL
R R
41 RL PL
E fA �rRl
co
4A AA
co
0
® co
CL
CO X
o
(D
pq
0 co
15
cn
cn
CU
>
0
-1--i
_0 (n
o
co
co .0-
E
0
co cu
cn a)
>
4—
If
cn
cu E E
4A
co a)
(D E
U) (3)4— 0
co
>L-
co
ca
-0
Q
C D
z
<
111111111 011111 1, co 0-
o o C 0
ILL
L121 -A
wo
cu E m Em
a A
Fill
cry a-
17
cu
cu
a)
>
m
.2
0 L-
4-j co
c a)
id U)
go a g
Am
cu
0-
up 6
fn rl
L- 4A ICI 4A
co
0 > M 4n m
m cn
U) C:
> 0
:t..f
0
CU 0
0 C/3
IZ-
E D
0
L- 4—
co C D
.2) o z
0) 2 <
D-
U:D) -<a
0
o o
iiiiiiiii riiiiiiiiiiiii
u U,
LL
LZ
C) j wo
2L
YO v yn
cc D tj
m
E E
a 8?
CL
cu
cu
4—
cu
4— cn 2 v
In
4-
cc
m
mO
Cc
m
a)
0
>
m
4�
cc
RJ,
m
a) CO s
0 4A 4A
0
IV
0
_0 a) 0 (n
C:
m a) 0
0)
a)
cc 0
0-
cn 0) 1—
cm 0
-r— .0—) a)
C-) %--
4-
m 4-
a) 0 0 Q
L—
U) 0 —Q
m 4— -0
z
C: 0) co
D-
m 2 Q-
0000i
E -0 (D x, < (D
(D 0
Hill z
IF-
LL
g
r
u6 G II;'
vi o6;
I �
m
!I V7,
CL
a) CID
cu
U
ul m
y
I� s u v
CL
_ d
U U
� � v
o
U
6+— —
�— O �Co
� � x
C1,3 c� U
2:1
i
rn
X
= z
U
w= U a
o
_
IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII —
C7 O c>
IIIIIIIIIIIII
cum —
V
IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII � � W
_0
>
.0 0
41
_0 'g RL
_0 0 0 a All 131,
0
Cu
0 III
U)
U)
E E
o-0
AA S,
U)
1D
cn Cu 0
L- 0
0
0 C) CM
U)
0
L- C: L) 0
(3) 0 a)
-0
(3)
(D a)
-0
co U) a)
C: _0 E
114
E IM > a)
E o
CD (n
_0
cu _0
C: c IM a) 2
0
cu
co
-0 E
CU
M a) (D
0) a) X
>
CO
C: "Fm E
0 Cu
Cj
U) a)
a
lie A
0
45— E a)
CC 0)
0 0 U) D (n
U) 4- 0
ci) L)
L- D
cu C:
U) E E
0c v1A S,
4-1
L- -0
40 -2
a) CL 4-1
4-
0 lie,
C:
a)
Cu Q)
>
rZ III U)
QL Ag
0
4— E (D a) U)
5
0
4- 0
(n 0
U) >, 0 a)
0) C/) (D U)
HIM a) KS 0 ID
L1, 11IIIIIIIIII E -_j o
CL
(D
cu
LL 0 0 0 0 14
LL
0
_0 0
la) Z3 q) 4-
L) U) CL cu
M C) 0
(D (m -
U) >1
m U) o 4-
0 m co
X 0
0 > - E
L- a) CU R 0
> 0- 2 >� C: 0
CL
mU >1 CL 0
(n 4-
0 4-
(n cu 5
c a) 0 co CL
U) -4
U) a) CU 0)
m 0 r-
4� 0
U) -I.-
(D , 4-
x x 0 U) U)
0 0 co
E 0)
=3 C:> a)
0 c
0 C: -r
0 -0
4- a)
M
C: m 4- L)
a) -0
4- 4�
0
m m CL CL W 4C)-
CL
0 M a)
ai 0
-0 (n L2 0,
a) 4- L-
C: a) a- C LI.-
6 -0
E
4� a) S (1)(3) 0
> a) a) a) a)
a) m L- — x N
4-
C: a)
- co 0 -0
0 > W -5 U)
�p (1) -1.- 12 0 q
4- M to m 0 a) LD
4-
>
'L4— Fn 4m-
0 0 C:
L- -P- 0 U)
m 0 C: co
U) L-
CD CL
a) X a)
U) to cu a) a)
0 0
U)
0 0 0
oi
-r-
0 IM a) a- >%
4.1
U)
cu 0 m
:t--
U) C:
M U) m 76 E m
4- o co
co
0- <
U) CM cn Co �: -j
C)- ,co
m CL 0
:6 2 m u) LO)
0 0 0 o 0
CD -C
��ll r1111111111000000iill u U,
co,
ILL
n rn
yo
t ���
mf;N°rN,
I�IUIIV ef1W efY'i P. P.
IIII:"
27 iz f a .n .,gin. E
H
a
Mill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Ire I
��
IIr
l �� +
o VIUI"
6
I
o 2L TL
4A
;I
w
Ow w w
> >m
n o
53
1446
s
165
1111111111 IIIIIIII III "
cn
co
cn
ouuuuuu�y���� �
� z
a
o
z
w
W
4�'d
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIII
�l
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
V
Z
Q
S
0
V
W
2
V
V7
LL
AN
T-1
in
n
Arn ®
v L '17 T11
Ica r-, Ln
in
AC
fm
.2-
4A
ai
DUI
j
th Lrl Ln
ILLJ LA
:j all,
II
TL TL
to Lei Lell
LL
04
v
G 0 G M_M 0 G M_M 0 G M_M 0 G M_M G G 0 G G m hm 0 G (L)
$ 1 r p cY C: p C� C� c{ cY C: p cY C: M,, CF 's7 Cr
Mo T, M � 0 FM P, M r'N U'a M #I? (n FM 0 M� F, 't 1A r'N 0 r'N f,,
w� Y Y li O N& CIA
&) M I lIq "'Y C" N N
Cad lb Cad u1Y ACM ) t� M M Cad +� wi"5 N w ifY CCS f."+Y `�
w. Cad �+'! Mw= Mww w= Cad M'
rw w. O N
C N
Ty1 J
o 0
p,
U
� s w
�d o
wt o J
� LL
V
MD C
T D
C O
N U
•Q •"L m m •"L d m •"L d •$ +d m •$ CJ 4J u CJ dL ud a 4J d d 4J ay
N O
xw D- O
'V Ln O
r6
CAM IfY ww G Cad "` G IfY w� wIY t•'Y F CNY CYY Cad w� CAM w� C^7 CtCM CAM OD A
0 h wo m 0 0 w] COY w 0 r- 0 0 0 �� [+d 0 t— CA co ^0' Id'M r a
C, rN 114 M
a Cad hd e t- - M hd M CA N °, N in
u T
4� r6 ra
_ v
u E
CC r Q H
IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � �
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � � � � � 'q� cc >
IIIIIIII(IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII e�-V"-a1 "�.�C`q '�AkMY' Y � 0m�
.TH�a
q U, W' c gc QW N- Ly 0 3r, a1 n
L n" `z CL M O
Y D
(III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII = tY m cW �" uLi E E "r*a CDn rV
P< c r'41 `."� . 0 C w
LrM C�.S C L GtM rq c E Lffi [Y [ LL 1S
III IIIIIIIIII t a ,,a p .
� �rM '� tied � a)o , a
rpy k CXY ti"'M ,tea 0 k^�.. CXI A r^. 4. ,tea k^w^, '," a k^ '�,° c w
ro
N 19 It Lo o n op rr rq t c
IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ry Gy ca Gy ev
lot
II a
a
II
C7
w
LL
I
04
w
W
W
1: CS! cNi n R R cNi oct
0 ci
z
0 u
0 oi h tp A a0 M M N M ai 'R m
0
W
>
W
W > 0
> 16 Lt
rs
LU U, X a
>
w
LU 12
IL W m 6 4 6 6 6 'i 'i �i 4 4 �d �d c.i
Lu V) E
'6
uj
U)
0 < < w w < < m < < m Q m Q u m u m m LU LU a < < u a m
z >
z 2
W
IP A h 11 "R r
uj
W
@
>
W
uj IQ U? IT M� p 0 0 M
cn 0 N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 m
L�u 0, . m . 0 CO 1 0 0 0 1 . .0 0 0 0
-j 2 . , S , :'
Se
U- in u
II
LU a o z 7 o
0- E Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZI Z Z Z N Z Z ZI Z Z Z Z
II m 7,
6>
ti
C%l w 2 6
0 w
C14 2
W
V) I. i�,,
0 E
IIIIIIIIII III CL Zi E
iu 0
0 LU
0 0
x
W
'o QY U? N 1'5 7 'T 9 -9 10 V h M 7
zIII IIIIIIIIIIw E 6 2td
E Z
o >
T
rm
Lo 9 16
. -
o 0
o p 0,
E 0 w
z Z
0
0.
0
m -E5 OE 2
w
0 f E E 2 10
w '0 - m U. . - . - m
I 0' 0) w C3 C3 U) U) U) w m :M) a- y C)
LL—ELTI-1-1 1p 1. . .0 �7,
0 7
z
-0
CI L Z ""t
0-
0
z
r4 0
0
u U,
LL
04
04
Ci cam^ ry 1. M 110 0 V) ,t CO M 0 �t 0 r, a, Ln' o. "n P` coo
N "t �t o (n cl) o ai 4
o P. m o Ln �t w 0'�
1� Iq lr� 11� u� W! (c! N lr� lr� In v N �T�
N o M 17, N IN m "I M N 1�1
Pi OR G' ux7—m 11(p Tw' 0
v, ' CR99RO R9 R0108RC"Pr� R10:8
Isawl rP., 'q ga C4
�: OD *D N
0 N C441qq 00 . .'R"R
N w) m m N v4
f4 o are o w N aO o o o wj M r. *ar' NaoNao0rw
fli axe r- N ca m m 't t' o 'r N 0 It m Va 1, e'. c;a 1p c"
v, It u-, av - 't w ca — 'r o m P, CD — M o r, N It o M M CO
41 N to w) 111a 111) 111I M ^at f,CY o o N r4' .r ¢D Irl V
rA
M N lr} N CO P. W N o N w. In P" W t# P, M lip
-------------____-----------_____-----------____--------------___------------____----------------------------------
as AR e as jp a, a, a, ae ae as ap ap Alp 0 0 as
No U) N o ca> v o N
Ca wa 31 Ln cry
M «t 0 W LO M o N m N rj a,:: M Ln
6b 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------j
9 "q N 'n
U� 'N
0 M N N N t• 0 r, w N M v N It wpm In o 'D W a
o
HIM iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
of
cz V'
IIIIIIIIII III
U
C
4-J
-MasC61
v
Ln
eaD_l
(D
0
-C
uu,
U
LL
CY)
04
.I CAC
't 0, z z N co 0 0 'r m N 11 o I r� ry
eq 4 ai 't o h^ m m 't t' cc w 0 m CJ C8 'n C,I w qv a,
N U M 17, N IN M r, "I M w yr N
Al
Ili OR 0 1 7—m 11(p Rho- 0
0 m so it m 0 C4 w 03 Ryat-� m N r.' 'q ga C4
N It m t. 0 0 0 0 OD OD N
f f; o 00 In I R WI)
on (n - - 'j,N W) m m N 04 uti
f4 4LR 7 M M M 0 0 M W, 14 N M, :T 'r 00 �o 00
fli U'? U, *t U, 0 m m 0 CD CO r', N . cp 'p C� N vyJ
V, "I �t M a, M p l! It co P, cn CJ 'o r, W, o 't — °X'l In
It m2 10 N M 0 0 '
rw 04
cs, m*, M a 17, 17, 0 M ol �q It N 0 M 0 14P D lip
M N
CIt,
s
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 Ao 0 0 ip 0 0 0 0, 0 0 ar ar 0 'f 'w'! 40 0 40 ae
It M, IN IC') V +t M M a'o M N
mn 0 a, N N a, C, ^t 131 U) o r, 9 w m N W ;':� m `t
6b
--------------------___----------------_____--------------______----------------- ----------------------___--------------_______-------------------___--II
T air llq Nn
u� 'N
47
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
liz
(III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � �
ev m
et,
1111112111111111111111111111
loII
II CL
UU,
LL
-r
04
'N Ord W, o W) o m
`t In In 't m 't , 0 �t P, N M CN —co� M N Um 't� cc U>'o
m — ai o r) m m t, m w co m o co x cc, o o 't m cp Q
It 11 It 04 M N 0 P, C, M r�� p m m v — — 0 cr,
Ap ", IN 10 IN 0 lll� ll� ll� (C! a� In N C� N IN
N U'1 M 17, N IN M M 0 M m yr oq I-:;
V,
awlm op 3 m rl nl 00 N w 03 07 P- m P. v ga N u 0 0 N �: OD OD N
op. P%0.N.'R teaR In I R WI)f
lk R
N W) M M N N M M M
oa 4n 0 ca V) 0 N W (D 0 N 0 1) r,� rl� N w (n c;a cp p up
V, lt eq P,. In m �,, o o t CV —i r� w m C
P. 41 C, 10 W) 19) It 0 M N 10 ID N IT, 0 (D W C, IZ It
lip
In V rl It
It 0
It,
S
--------1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 Ao 0 0 ip 0 0 0 0, 0 0 ap ap e 0 wl! 40 0 40 ae
m IN 0 U) N 0 1 P,
131
, o N co N o a,
It LO o
®
0 CO LO M t
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------N---
" � T , l - 0� m1 9 llq
II ^gym
u� 'N ' 0 .
2f
14
all
¢JCS Ca
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
(III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � �
2
1111112111111111111111111111 tiltOD 0 A*40 r.40 0
lot.
0
UII CL
U,
LL
11.0
04
r, a, cn C7, C7, w N (o 17, It 0 a, It 0 'o
0 In a, 1,0 ID 0 N aD It 'r 1�2 18 M 11 m �o 0 UM cn
't m P, 't w P, C, m
W, IN M co 0
N U., N W, N IN M 0
N 17,
Al
Ili OR 0 1 7—m 11(p Rho- 0
0 m so it m 0 C4 w Rat- mg r—q ga C4
N v m t. 0 ^* 0 0 0 N OD OD N
ff; ua RhoRa wa Raa00
. ,tRp% . llp"R
on (n - -
f44MCO ac N W, 61C co Irl 17, r, I CI 1r)
0 Lrl M 0 td7 rd co 't 't 't ai7
4.1
P N "I IN It a, W, �t r� M 04 0 It It
lip
0 co M (N 'n M N m I o M N rq M 0 N It IM 0 10 0 P,
w w In m w N W
--------1
------------------------------_____ ____ _ ___ ____ ____ ___-----
40 Ao 0 0 ip 0 0 0 ae a-* a-* 0, 0 0 0, 0, op f 'WR Alp 0 0 ae
w N 0 0 N 0 a �
C, > It 0 N ;
0 a, N N , wt 131 LO o r,
® 0 co LO M t,� :: M 't �o Lo � m o N co N ri m
6 0
N
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------___--------------_______------------------____--
T , 4 - 0� m 9 llq N 'n
u� 'N
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
0 M N N N m t� 0 r, w M N It 10 �o 10 10 .0
l2f
f
CA th
A
IT
me
1111112111111111111111111111
loII
II CL
UU,
LL
(c
04
W 0 17, n "D M I'll
cF m cn cr, m m m 't N 0 m — r, (7, ILI all11) ", In In
rM cc �jo r� t ci v)
0 0 0 N 'o r,4 N m N 0 C, r`w 10 It N :0 01, It N wr
'T u-) q N -4 0 '7s lr Cl M crr ll�
a^v4 o�05 o
N
Ili OR G' ux7—m 11(p Tw, fo
8
' CR9990 �, R9 q0I08qC""pr� Rll*:
0 m so it m 40 C4 w 03 *t-�0 0 m r.' 'q ga C4
Mks 0 f� 0 N, OD N OD
ff; ua N It 0 Nrerra
N W) m m N
a
rl
0 ca N m "D Nor 0 t, co a, "D 't .,o N CY 0, kt
V, It C.. N cr, N In In 0 ID m co 't P, o 't ('7 "o o 't m m o 'D v
m CP l^a 0 ; P, co Iz W M 10 mo ff) ,r C, N 0 M -0 w eq r> v (N 'I N ao co P, W
lip
ID m v v 0 N w M v 0 co co N 10 m Q M M N N 0 C)
N
M
Cl
C ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
--
0 Ap ---
0 0 ip 0 0 0 0, 0 0 ar ar 0 f 0 ap ae
w N 0 0 N 0 Cr> It
0 a, N N Cr, C, +t 131 Ln Ckk o r, w m N W� m `t
®
`t Op co LO M t, n qo N co N rd m
6
-------------------___----------------_____--------------________--------------- ----------------------___---------------______------------------____--
T air llq N n
u� 'N
Cr
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Oi
111111 2111111111111111111111
loII
II CL
UU,
LL
III-
04
0 rvw 0 o I-) a, ao 0 N
ya„ T o v cr, oo N In Lo 0 co 0 a� W, It III C, 0 a,
"t w v cr, rN oo v o oo o QD In m I'll, to
M o I, M uZ
m 44. 0 'n -I o m o In C, c, o 0 'n
oY It u*l IN IN It 0 ll� ar� o. w C, v N
M M
IS
Ili OR 0 M,0 T�, 0
v,vw4umx40 — lqq �
is
0 m op 3 m 00 N w 03 M In P—q ga C4
IN It m t. 0 'It 0 4- u 0 0 N �: 00 NN
o C4 41 kq op It IR�%0 N 1p R 'In I R 0"k R
11 1 11 14 11 1, 1 V1 04
Y.A
f4 It a, -It m m "A 4p ac�
f. �t o m N rd rd In m ID w V) In
.4-j V, 10, n r,I v o o NIn m co co j ,r m r, In 'N m m
co (0 m 10 4o IN I- III M 0 In r, In Q* In r�, v o z 'r
N N
lip
M m o �- 0 110 co In o It m v N tt It M Al In 14P �2 0
iM 1� Q It I* I.e C"), I, ,� V In M "t rl o
In 11 w It In In "o
C) v 't N IN IN 114 P, It In w N N m 't M
S lo
C ——--------1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ao Ao 0 ip 0 0 0 ae a-* a-* 0, 00 0, 0, 0 0 10 Alp 0 ao ae
06 m N t In N 0 to v or, IN - 0) 1,, o Irl 11 v I-) m �,o m N
o a, N N a, c o l - �t 131 Ln ' 0 r, W m N w ;;� m <t
® M `t OD co LO IM t,� :: M It Lo Ip -, o N co N rd a,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
u' 'N n,
m N 14 N N I-) t� w r, w N m N In air to W .0
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
4-a
m
all,
c, m
'al 0
BE LI
1111112111111111111111111111
loII
0
D-
0
z
0
U
uu,
LL
a�)
04
IN 03
Fl- irl
ri r�t r�t I R �R
Im ir� in Im r-I
r-I IF- in V, Im
m n Iq r1t rj iirwt
w "I, N f4i In N V, In
UIV u 'Ull. M UIV UIV Vt
Vt
WL
Z 4
E zq
HIM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ryry
iir-
1
law I Iq Zq zq Iq
a" r-I IN ir� In
v4 ul� ul� V� UIP v4 ITI
Vt
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IVI 1�04
III IIIIIIIIII
4-1 -je
aj
kL
YQJ
L
1111112111111111111111111111
Q) VIP
+J
All'
It
4-4
P5 -�
Ix Ix Ix
II
0 ;,J
u U,
LL
0)
04
4-J
0 0 0 0 0
R, R, C�' R, 0 cs 0 0 0 0
1, C� 0-1,
w m 0 m m
0 0 0 0
4FA Ln rl�l wl q� kv Ch cc
m P4 w -* *r w N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
o
0 Lp IN m m v m 0 0 rl� r%
ry'l m P4 N PIP N r- 0 rl� 0 P%
IN 0 N cm
41 .41
HIM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
em
4-1
CA
Ln
t:,Zip -j
"4
N rl w
m 0
III 1 3
Cid le Z
u U,
LL
u
Q)
0-
LO
C:
0
76
to
0
0
rH
.SQ
aj
o
as T:
Ln
4-
0 Q)
u
Ln
>
E E .0
4-1
aj u
r4
lif".1 11
419
u
Q)
&4 0
ol
mi
X
(31
>.
(L) u
> cc
a ai U
t
ai
LIP)
0
U
rn C:
cqr 4-j
M ,L,
&4 ru a)
Y
o4i
uuuuum CA Q)
IIII &4
"1 0
ill-
CL W U
0) >
QJ
Ld
-3-
N eq
(D 0
z
0
U
u U,
LL
M en oll eh
EL
�w
�w
�a
co � L
IIIIIII
C� ®v
�WIIWI
r- W 0°w
N N 00
HIM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
r.
Lp
� gar° O �L II�pq
V)
IIIIIIIIII II ,r;;�p
�4IN
V
V
.
IN
IIIIIIIIII v�.� m
R Ljj
wir. !JCY m N !V
III IIIIIIIIIIIII
III Mill
'R
rib ...
G
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII " ' r „ �"' .'
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� ��' n � � � � Z
s
c�
IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII Cco
2
V
V
LL
I r,
IR
"
wA 4
u
I�
o�
I�
III
Lw
4A
43 IIIIIIIIIIII � �
IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ll
u
4
u
IIIIIIIIII
c
IIIIIIIIII II
w
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII i. ... _. ....
10L
CD
tm
i z
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ;
~ uj
lluj
cu
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII �
u
cu) 2
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
LL
-M fLn
IR "R
m c) jLn fq m
DO Im IIF-
fq ��in Irl IN IN
ullp VIP ul� ul�
1141 aiml �00 iiiij
IN lir4 g,
m IN 110
tq in iR
ID
IIIIII E I
IEL
ME
cu
U,
c
<(-)
LL
755
ii
Ln
,7
E2
Ln im
m Y-1 Koo
Ln
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
E
LU N. C
KO
ri
CA
cu
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
lio
111111111111111111111111J�l N
(D
0
z
cu 0
u U,
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
LL
in
Cl
V
w rl
10
IL
ICU
I if m
iLn
460
cC
.�
W
Y4Yti I�u"A
L
r�
,12
o
bb
. „,
Y
If,
uuuuuuuuuuuu z
s
0
0
co ctun
V
V7
LL
I
u
4
4A
y
oil
rr�� M1N
�r
LA L—J
two
y
a O
U
O
Y.
e
IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDC
76
CO
wo
O
n
O a
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
� z
a
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
V
CZ
S
C7
U
IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII tj
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
W
c
z
iz
0
2
V
V7
LL
mu�uouu�`�t
vuwuwv" SPW�
i511
O
O
� U
L
_ �0 N
.+ O
W
0 O O
CL
V
m >
w
Q c U
� mN
N
♦"r O N o
CD L r
i.i -C 0 0 L
O co L O Q
OM o I- on
M _ 5 E
to OC w cn 2 o °'
t*d RfY I"
4�5 d2 U
� 7 Ci L2
0CC Z E
d.: �w•y ��4 LS
yp !lM
r Ptl7 ClY G � Sze �
to Pq 4i
CC
7+1
e
a"a cn 00
CD
ju 02,
u
m E rL
L)
m
L 1
0
v
4a I�t 0
.� m 00
CL
cx.
a
4a u
00
a c
D
o 2
ui
qj
c
0
u
O
O
O
O.
0
r
E
EO
In
g m 00 CQ
C3 1 0
cc C-4
O.
0
> X
.i= . 8 0
CL
uy
0
LO 0 OD m
ra
'1 2
-M cn -M to -0 a CD 00
co 14 1�
to
n�
ED C,
ua
a Z�
dL
2 1 9
dL 113 dL
2
mo
CN 0 0 0 0
CN CN
co
rl
0
21
CN
C, C.
rcD- 2 1101 �11 P F.T.1, R COI �11 I�Zlll P,
O
ZN
Ol
:E
OL
E E
Jn
0 0
E
w , cc
LO d
E to E
-2
(D as
O cr Cj 0
z z
m
z co
u �5. CL
m (q 7,
>
1. lz I-
Cc , m 1 1
0. u
> > > >0
0 CL OL CL CL CL m (D rL CL u m
a as
222 0
u 2 2
Z w w w z < z to a) a)> q,0 o > > > 0 > >
Q) Q) Q) 0
F
E m E E t
0 V)- E
�7- �7-
- F- F2
IL
0
4(5 j
u
u
Co
co cu as 2
aj E
U
0 0
0 0-
N 0 aj o
+ 0 -
3 E
E
0
E o
U M
CU �Awm 'o 'D ww
-0 -a o (v m
E +E u -0 E
as c w E
0 '�= E "w-- +M' w w a
z 0 m -a cc N
4--4
03 Cn
En tn
to
tr
4-4
-Z5
:Z
.0 Q
q) 03
00
to
V 45 0,
tb
0
41 � C,
bf)
45
tw
pl)
C)4
to
4.4 cj
cu
4- 1.4 au ces
7s
4 CS th
C.J -�it
�y. r�ayy
AA' 2 2 � �i N}
w w w w
a
L �
O
i as as as
y
�r v
w
u u
00
04
0
a
L a
N 04
t
•� F
Voo
■ K'4
04
`f 7 e
sa'• cj c
LO
,T
04
04 ai
0 0
v
Sr s
� a
S7 m
O
N
N
I
L7 4.
Z
0 '� MH
cli
1✓b
G
f C
V bb P W
(D ar w
0
(]
� w
a 0 u
M M
eF 0 [L 0.
CCS "G5 > > G
E w C7
da
cr
M S1 CL
d
U7 'pty O O
o o
a�
O
o � �
(!)
W �
a �
a) w
O
0
cc E
w
0
t m
*a' cs
� o
m _ N (�D 0)
N (gyp G)
CSY L,f J 'cl' "aa ' bA
ur N N((0 Iq Gi B w
r.7 Gi y-
N m m
it
'c ."..
r 00 u-) cn
b
Z a x a
0 N U
„ 00 LO M U !`
N (D 0)
i 4�7
a
a� cn w 7
m
O ' a
ass" co Ln th �
N (7 0) 4
o
U
Q LLA
rl
W
tt
N
N
o
N (�O 0)
o
w
cc Qj
U N (U (U 0 v
0 RS (C
O 0
0
_ `° a a
ro
° a y
O LU
`a h
7 d (
ro a -es � W
Z v-1 '
co a`r ar
c c c
m u u
ro ro m
ro ro ro
o c o
w ar w
L:] CS C5
a�
O
o � �
f!9
W �
a �
a) w
0
a �
a cr
�`
w
0
,It m
o
N (�D 4)
i..........1 N (gyprn
CA U')
00 ";;, N (0 0) a as
r.7 Gi y-
N ((D 0) E
it
'c ."..
w
r04 00 U) M
a
cc .0 u N CD G> E
0
Z x a
�
„ 00 LO M U !`
'lb
i 4�7
a
a� cn w=70 C�Ci
m
O ' a
ass" co Ln th �
cv co 0) 4
o
U
Q LLA
rl
W
tt
00
N
N
0
N (`Drn
E
w
N (U (U 0 v
0 RS CC
c7 ° O
O '
° a c y
LU
d
7(
ro a -es � W
Z V-1 '
c c c
m u u
ro ro m
ro ro ro
n a ct
o c o
w ar w
L:] CS C5
a�
O
o � �
W �
a �
a) w
O
0
cc E
�- f,
a
M
w
0
> a)
,r m
ac
o
_ N (�D 4)
u„� uuuuu�lll 00000i�' „T �� N CO G?
N la7 t17 F°
CSs u7 ^cY t as ' .,
4aD y
r.7 Gi y-
muu N (D M d
c it
s y
b �
Z 0 x a
�
00 LO M U !`
Oc d c,d a'7 N (D 0) N Li
i 4�7
LO "v a m
O ' cc
ass" co Ln th � c
r4- N (7 0)
`o *t
U
Q 7
rl is
W
tt
N
N
N (�O 0)
E
w
cc
U N (U (U 0 v
2 R C)
0 RS (C
c7 ° O
ro
° a y
= LU
d
7(
ro a -es � W
Z � '
c c c
m u u
ro ro m
ro ro ro
o c o
w ar w
L:] CS C5
aF �
0 0
Li
�n
`m
w
to
0 '1
m
E
aF
o a ° M L
M x p
CO L
m (o wl v
r+ Co Lo a
6 y
�r
q M Id'J
v �
v,
0
w
o
Z = CC +rN Lo c0 a-I U F
o r^4 M 41'1 rn '
MLn S5 m
N �
O *64 C '�C}
7 (0 (D N
N
N
v � C�r7 LNCJ
ca
n
E
w
..................
as v 0)
cj U R Ci .C2
c� L7C O cr. m m
M Q Q en
ro E cr- }
LU
iu v c0 m
LU
v 5
o C)
C °
—
.v
w v CS N N N
Cf c] c ce sa sa
m c
v
v v v v
0 0
`o
Li
�n
w
to
0 -
m -
E
a,
i
o u a M L
C7 x p
a
�+ LO � "
Ln �r _
6 y
�r
q i M Lo
W
c
v �
m
v,
_
w
o
Z = CC +rN Lo (D a-I U F
i t:
MLn S5 m
N �
� W
c-1 M Id1 CN1
a-1 �
N
CV
v � Cr7 LL7
ca
n
E
w
..................
m a) Q) 0)
c� f�C7 i �R .Ci .C2
c� L7C O cr. m m
O Y
M Q Q en
m E cr- }
LU
iu v c0 m
c w ° 7 NJ
v 5
o C)
C °
—
.v
i--
ro o a 5,
6 4F
w CS N N N
Cf c] c ce sa sa
m c
v
v v v v
0 0
a �
n
to
0 -
m
a,
o u a L
C7 x p
a
(Y) LO
LJ
r+ (') Lf) a v
a� iiuuuuuumuuuuuuu �� � 9J
6 y
IN —
4-
U W _
q M Lo E
2 y
v
0 c: m
w
o
Z = w +rN rr7 (C7 LO
4 U F
r^4 M 41'1 rn '
i '=
MS5 to
N �
Tj C�
1CC�7 Co DLO Cc
'C
Ouuuuuuuuumuuuumum (') LO O
W
7 (0 (D N
rH CO Id) CN1
a-1 �
vi
N
v ((Y) u)
ca
n
E
w
..................
c� L7C d pC R7 ¢4
M Q Q en
ro E cLU
}
c w ° 7 NJ
v 5
(N o
—
.v
i--
ro o a 5,
6 O 4F
° CS N N N
Cf c] c ce sa sa
m c v
v
v
W,
v v v
0 0
v
0
0
ui
to
0
0 cu
E
ry,
U') 0
N U')
z
0
>
�F
cu- -0
6 .........................................................
0 ...
04 0 rl%
< 0
C14
Lfl CN (D 00
V4
LO N
C)
-- >�
0 rl
ro N
o Z E
C14
E
C14 M qA
> C)
C) w C14
a LLJ
0 V4 CY) (C) 01
04
r7m
- co- (D —a)
O cq a m F, 0 0
04 u
0 m
(c) —o.)
Z,
N uj
m cCa 0?
E ce) r- 0
C14
av
'2 0
� 2
CC 0
0 0 0
EC
-cc 4
N0 cc >
0
m
'57 ui
m
cc
0
C)
V-1 0
CL
Q)
0 CO.
Z 0
>
> >
w
m
u u > m
m
0 > <L >
4,5
0 = = = = - <
2
0
0 <
0
ui
to
0
0 cu
E
ry,
U') 0
N U')
z
0
>
cu
�F - -0
6 w - -..........................0 .......................
0 r,%
Lfl
<
CN (D 00
CW) m r" 0
0(5 04
C)
C',
o Z E
E
W
Ce) Ce) r- 0 0
0 > E
C) w C4
0
V
0 CY) (C) 01
u
C4
............ .............
0 cy) r, C)
0 co (0 r7m
m
co (D -di- 2
-cq m
1 '"
0
c a
C4 'E 0 um
..
CN (Y)
........rf).......0)
....
co (, 0 Z,
C4 uj
m (D
E CY) r- 0
C4
ro
av
� 2
CSC 0
0 0 0
EC
-cc 4
N0 cc >
0
m
'57 ui
m
cc
0
0
V-1 0
CL
Q)
0 0.
Z 0
>
> >
w
m
u u > m
m
0 > <L >
w w w w4,5
0 p p p p - <
2
0
0 <
0
ui
to
0
0 cu
E
ry,
U') 0
uuu
N �n
z (Y)
0
>
cts
.................................................
Hill mmmmmmlLfl CN (c) 00
uuuuum (Y) rl~ 0
V4
N
C) Kx
ri
. ...............
;F (-j (o co
cn cy) r, o :tar
0 rl :2
o Z E
C14 (D 00
C4 r—
m
cr
> cu
C) C4
0
E
LLJ
0 V4 CY) (C) 01 0
u
C14
0 co
CD r,
0
64 mF, 5
a "
04
0
..................... LLA
>
CV
co (c) m
N uj
E CY)
C14
ro
av
coo U
CSC 0
0 0 0
co > R -cx 4
N0 cc
m
'57 ui
m
cc
0
V-1 0
CL
Q)
0 0.
Z 0
> cr
> >
w
m m
u > m
m
> >
76
0
2 -2
12 12
i�
0
<
OR ?: Z)
0
Li
ui
tLo
c
0
E
w
ry,
<
W Lo
0 LO
.....................
co r- 0
rl
uo 0)
co r, a y 0
cr
< rl (D
wy E
0
w
M CY) rl 0 0 U
C11
o,4
0 W (5M Op PI M
IV
Lon 0,r-0-1 w V4 Mo
r, N I N cy') V m
'1 0
r I
uj
as N
'q 00 C14
ix
as
ss
ea
10
.0
cc f0 >
0
1
Z%
m
LU
m
na
Q) >
>
A i
M U
>
t
2 -2
12 12
-2�
0
<
JR ?: Z)
2 0
Li ~ m
uC ui rf, m
w
RS to
C
CC
0
<
cy') r- a
Lj
UT oo Lf)
0 LO
LO ..................... w
r.4
0
co r, a
as < rl (D 41
E
0 0
L'i
M CY) r" 0 0 U
C11
o,4
0 W (5M Op PI M
IV
o
r, N I N V m
Lo co "1 "0
MCQ
O V4
0
r I
uj
as N
'q 00 C14
ix
as
ss
ea
10
.0
cc f0 >
m
LU
m
na
Q)
>
A i
M U
>
t
2 -2
12 12
i�
0
<
OR ?:
0 2 0
Li rl M
ui rf, m
w
RS C
C
E
0)
ry,
z
0
CY)
Ll co r- C)
Lf5
.....................
co r, 0
P4 1
o w E
uuuuuuuuuuuuuu co r, a
T4 E j-
to
VI
—�5-
cy) 0 0
Lu C11
M Op PI M
IV
rn 1 70-1 rl Mo
cv V m
0 C�4 C�4
OcoCQ —v4— 02
co
LU
00 N
ix
as
ss
ea
10
W
,E cc: f0 Shy
r
Kv
m
LU
m
'D
C)
na
ro -40
> a Cl
A
u 0 1)
>
15
a)
cca U
cq O U O
a ) O
♦V U) 'OJ co
C i) 4-
0
N i co
O N
= a) ca O O m Ca
- i.
U - to O
U can O a) O
U) 4- .o
C) C a C6 0 .�
U O
+� U
u U 0 O Q) Q)
E c V O
a)
a)a) U co Co
i E a bA co O 0
NCo
E O _ +,
O
U a a) o a
O p O 4- >
0 ++ O Q to � a) cn
C cn +� E +. E V O Q O � N co
J cn p O
LPL (n �
O o o C 4 ca
o is E +- o
0 c� O U +
'i O co N > U C I
� a a) >
E (1) C) Q) 0 4-
_ 0 0 +-C-1 O
C� c) O 70 O � Q O
0 a U ca
�,
o c� u O °� o
J 'E c 0 .U)
p o
O O E ca
LL
+.r ca E o o c 0
o � Q c c +Z ° o ns
0 c o o C)D a >. .�
_ co
> a > Q
o L +' C) +,
3 a) c) U
+r
O •• Q Q co O x L o
ON = co o U4-1 caN by Q �C o " 7
CU
cn a o C a)
(a Co co
a) O 0
ca a r i O
CT � > a) cu
-
N —
Q� O cc N CO � U J
i 4-1 E — � O � COi �
0 CD co
o Z cc": -Cc: a) —c;� E _
S O ao a c o -0 D c E
3 U 0 0 ca a) `+� Co L a) o
s N E coca T U
0 LL
� C: + 4 r CO
O A � 4- - Cn rtJ co
= C a) � E t J t0 O
U E o 0 0 0
Cl.
(a a)
co c E
cD
+ E
O 0
r_ ® � > �; o
a� _ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ co
> 1 o
+� a U
U q} co co
U
4-1 a) 4[C4 O N
N (PS
} O w- ....................... Q
a— O O
Q 4- [ O
°0 O '
O Q
Z; Q) i i CA i i i
N
p O d? OC to
O
}+ C Q) a3 > m a)
U ...
a) co U U
O C c a m cn
o c6 U C
N IS O O O
N c O4.1
N ............06 o Q UO
N O€ Q co
U n:
O
14 N �a O O O
V red Q a) o' 1 e a
i i _0C
Q a) 04: Oco
ca Q)
jE
3 co
c O
E _ o o
�- E+01
_ �+
o
Ec� Co a) E n
c� (D 4-
o E .................................
:
4- co a�
o
(n + n3
coo cu
J
4.1
a) n3 Q i C o
+J 4, 4 O
LL
a) p 0a
O -
`a ° L }'
ai ao 0 p n5
> o Cv
m r 0
■� 0 Wit; o to a)
_ °1 o
.. E a) cn
V ...........i...........:...........
n co
O o 4- c
OIL _ cn -
m as cc Q ° A + 0 o
Q
CD
co
0 Cc
cn CC o co
O � c
oas a ..................... _
o - '� E 0)
..........
•- s
c� O n3
�� V o N c a
O
O O p ra 0 a) Q m
BOA e!5 O Q ° a C co
O �C� O
i ....._ i C C
• 0 o cc o (D U
Eo r c� ca 0 E O
O S _V i L m
c (D
.0 c
� v
c
cn 0
rcv
cv
�a �a
00
a
a ee Qi
C
O0
}+ m cu
a
CL
■ 0
>1 >1 i1i
04
Q
�� sr+ aes scs
Q Q
a) 04 a
- C>
L
cc C;
cq
co G1C cr.
t1Y
4 0
0 0 C C
s cr. � E
N
O m
■� — N
N
a
■� o,cNo et
N
N
O � w
N
N (D ..........
� C7
0
■� o (D
N N
A w
cn � e oq
C cND
N
�py ca
IN
O
Q} 4
N N N a o
■� N N
jo
o N a
+� N
a OaC 00 OD rid
ocNn
2 t/1 YA 41 N'
q. c �
o Y � W
G1 CO to °� LU Ct
>l C14a E
y N'',CD
� W
®� '�"� yam'. N ..........
a�
,ss
w
LU r_
� �' Q tl9
NZ O
p >
M 0
E u) i7 4
ON w O c ((� > I
w 0 a) m
CL O 0 >
a) O M Z 0 w
♦�/ a V A
V+
� 0 M E cs
c a) 0 E
O N _� co r 9
U p > w
cc
V
N W �+
in N w a) E 0 C a) ®H
U LU l6 00 a) r Ile 0 LU
O
a LL
O w
cLU c
aa) _
_0 a 1
F-
a) E
a) E 2N
a) U 0
_ r
w� w °) as
y
�.
o•»wl CY �d � �" O
ctyf.7a ctY aW7 u
d -,t'! 0 � awl
[a a c
M LL, n
t7 v
a
all
s:7
ri ej $17
a
h+J
m
�o M C
>
La
,N
f� N
mCL
ca
L
atu tau ma w,r ,. i ua'a (r aka Q) 10 wu.r 0
air uq urw (a u0 U) (AD V) or„ Wu LO ul (4) oD
L �
y
ir
W a
1 a',r � �Ra msry �,� as i Y atu , ^� as°'a as aa'� i�a"b i u g a
...i �� "
w V o Vi uJ4`" �q 1 'u°'b a p u'-! to !4f a prd'� vi U,�,I V u,p,)
O � _r
cc
a In LOB,", 0 0 0 U) U')
to
� p a
N ++ z
FA
31
V i a,� ono- ma � �o a m„a uus aw�:u mai a n a'
fi ufi co, i'i co aa7 �L 4. U"; I p,S�i
. a C"f a 4 „. a a-s. 04 C"a
LU p
' p t 0 a � a » IN 6 4� a 0
•� q � a.r. .
N ...._. ...0
__........ ...
-------
a
C co m
CA, r+
V (� m 0 �
L iN40)
0 0 '
i p0 M 'Lo' u
■ ■ N >, 5r
♦v/,� p p M " ss m a .0� 0
to
♦A N G� 4.A:b C-1 �. ...,, �t " uw eta 4'� �...
Y/ �L •a .. ...,
E p a
CL
N O e a , c
ama aea 2 umb 0
G"1._.Q1':.......... ..._................. .... ::.................. _4'��... '_ ....M
mei
V
O •p 03 V7 in l
N
N �
M •L
N L
O �
N L
f� N
mMID CL
ca
atu tau ma w,r 0ua'a (r aka Q) 10 wu.r 0a,5 a"w u V U) (AD �f) o r b W) LO u l (4 ID
J; s ..
L �
� ..
y
W
...iej
msrvqa Y 1tu , as°'a a„s
prd'J v:P 6 V u,pl)
cc
ix)
I , 0 (a.
C.
fi afi co, iIxi co air 16 4 Ua; I � p,S i
a
4 „. a f 4 C"a
LU p
0 nn m are m an aar m aar
WO w �m 0 � m
N ...._. ....._... . __........ ...
0
co In
� ♦ C C. ��. e
V (� m 0 �
L i Nla qo)
L p Nfir', , at
E
CL 'It
i :S'
00 u
■ ■ Nn 04 5 >, � r
i-+ Ln C$ rr ppf 1+ CGS M
in
4.0
L
N O eZIZ
ram'", 45?" y 'k C> d';�'A E k' 0-3
(� .........................._ _............... ..... ..............._ ... '_
(� im
N
N �
M •L
N L
O �
N L
I ^m
04 �y^
C'Y .
E�,"� a8 I .C1 q i F V c"
�w. % m m m
W A LL
ti] t]ma
m
tC3 Ate? E
0
p 0
y
twmmw
7
.04 ! !�,
W a, z
� u
y I
m
cj
m
_ (°7
room
epo 4 to
o 0
m r
2 ica r r t '
y C) C1
t k: m r% qyqg
04
obi
13
m a c`J C1 Ifs to
( r.Y
04
{ Y U a7
sma mac
a la v
call, ni
m
+tea a ffi m as
sa s T m n 2 m S
� m V O 0 m tom m
awr ca v
12 f", <a ca 0 ua � 0
a 2 nr c
"i dp a, w pin F" � ,� "'
a C7
OL r
0 Cti — � m qr c �a ,/ t 9 a �c r'
i6 ac U F? 1
b 0 j
m� " gr.rx r ��`� r rr qy � c U na m
s a z v,. 0 an � w+
'�wyy+ rw ac sIx
r
* * OZZ< I ainbaH
Q
O
O
o
F
O o
_0 p C
O LL (1)
3: I_- O
_p ._ c
C m
O O
Ca aci
C C
cc
CQa ai
g o E a)
O N a)
N U c co
ca C =
a
cu
O C
C C a)
SEC
c �.
� o CO
0) C
p O ca
O N
ua U) U c
- C:—i W Q
Z♦A ca 0
v+ � c
tw W
c � o
c o c co O
C o 2 'E °
o ~ 0 co � r o � M 't
0
c? ai u) U? � �Ca _� o
J
a C o � w� 0
c C) nc—A z
� ..." c ar
CAE "O CaO .Z CL
C +
c Oco
E
13
o ca i U C E
a _� ) E c.
ca Q co
cn � n
E O a) ss e,s
c
ca
c a) a
Z ? ca
a D a) S
i � �, u ra
ao
cn
0
♦�1 S a� a) U ca E o 2 2
O ca 15
caco Ca
E
+� a) -
Gh w �� as _0 o a�io°'n '� E
c c o O
`ry / o O C c O
cQr-1 raj
C i •� -p U C U �
C a) Cl) O N
a) Q O L
In
K IK6 �
0 CC
V�if� Ipuol�l "' a+ N
O C C0 � i
O ; WI co O C .V
i. m E p
.`x L 7
C �
C C
H p — O O_
r N � N
N U ca n m .0
O
r O r —O
M C M U cn
C
} C Cc:v E V O c O
C E
O a) O O a)
a Q d 0_ O_ -0
9
tl u ,'"� - 1
♦/AAqi F
w N ca �r
rA
x
u
I
L r��
6 x"a
b J
` �cn
p
i
k
r�
a � �
ffl
y�
5
re
� f
O
1
a�
N
IF
cr
CN
(b a) (P
IF -1 12 -1
E E
0
UP
e"u ar
0 1)
WT
cr
CN
1� r,I
E E
0
CL
cr
0
CN
4, V
:E :E
I n J,
0 E E
Sponsored by: Garrett
CITY OF MARATHON, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION 2024-125
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MARATHON,FLORIDA,IDENTIFYING THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER
OF VACANT BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
CITY OF MARATHON; RELATING TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE'S 2023 HURRICANE EVACUATION CLEARANCE TIMES
SUMMARY AND THE BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION SYSTEM
(BPAS); REQUIRING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE PROVIDED TO
APPROPRIATE STAFF OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THEIR
COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING PROCESS ON THE SAME
SUBJECT; AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTIONS
TO PROVIDE THIS RESOLUTION TO THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE
DURING THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature and the Administration Commission have included
the City of Marathon and all other jurisdictions except the City of Key West within the designated
Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern(Section 380.05, 380.0552, Florida Statutes); and
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature and the Administration Commission have included
the City of Key West within the designated Key West Area of Critical State Concern(Rule 28-36,
F.A.C.); and
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature and the Administration Commission have mandated
that the City of Marathon, Florida include within the goals, objectives, and policies of its
Comprehensive Plan measures to protect public safety and welfare in the event of a hurricane,by
maintaining an evacuation clearance time for permanent residents of no more than 24 hours
(Section 380.0552 (9) (a) 2., Florida Statutes; Rule 28-18.400 (5) (a)4. and 5., F.A.C.); and
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature further mandated that the hurricane evacuation
clearance time for Monroe County and other local governments within the Florida Keys Areas of
Critical State Concern (ACSC) and the Key West Area of Critical State Concern shall be
determined by a state-approved hurricane evacuation study, conducted in accordance with a
professionally accepted methodology(Rule 28-18.400(5)(a),F.A.C.and Rule 28-36,F.A.C.);and
WHEREAS, Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Times are the basis for the Florida Keys
Area of Critical State Concern's Building Permit Allocation System (Rate of Growth Ordinance),
and updated data may determine whether additional residential units will be authorized by the State
of Florida beyond the existing allocation; and
WHEREAS,the Florida Department of Commerce has provided different clearance time
and BPAS scenarios, based on its data, input variables, and assumptions as set forth in the
.
Clearance Times Summary, attached as Exhibit A. The Summary depends on several hurricane
evacuation scenarios with future allocations ranging from zero (0) additional units to 7,954
additional units. These include columns where evacuation was modeled both with and without of
Key West residents; and with mobile home residents evacuated in both Phase 1 and in Phase 2;
and
WHEREAS,in order to accurately depict evacuation clearance times for the population of
the Keys ACSCs, City of Key West residents are now included in the model and mobile home
residents in Monroe County are modeled as evacuated in Phase 1 (early phase) of the evacuation
with the tourists due to the less substantial construction and limited elevation of mobile homes,
which the state treats as vehicles; and
WHEREAS,the City of Marathon,Florida acknowledges and accepts the work completed
in 2023 in the hurricane evacuation model whose general results are presented in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS,the City of Marathon supports Monroe County's deliberative approach in not
yet accepting the recent 2023 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for travel times from
Key West to Key Largo; and
WHEREAS, the City of Marathon has clear "takings" liability as BPAS allocations will
have all been distributed during 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City has significant concerns related to "takings" liability in light of
recent decisions rendered by the 3rd District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, the City holds applications for 65 market rate BPAS allocations and 53
affordable BPAS allocations; and
WHEREAS,among the 118 applications for BPAS allocations, 53 have reached a point at
which they could potentially request Administrative Relief BPAS allocations of which there are
only 12; and
WHEREAS, recent estimates of remaining vacant parcels in Marathon, as provided in
Exhibit B, indicate that there are approximately 700 vacant parcels within the City, 560 of which
are estimated as buildable; and
WHEREAS, thirteen (13) RH zoned and 42 RM zoned vacant parcels are large enough
to allow more than one residence per parcel; and
WHEREAS, the thirteen(13) RH zoned parcels are large enough to allow 70 residential
units while the RM zoned parcels would allow up to 149 residential units; and
WHEREAS,based on the analysis above,the City will require 724 allocations; and
WHEREAS,assuming that we will require approximately fifty(50)percent more units for
affordable workforce housing, then the City will require approximately 1,086 residential
allocations, and
WHEREAS,the City is committed to continuing to work with the County and each of the
other municipalities to develop a positive future scenario for BPAS (ROGO); and
WHEREAS, such scenario should seek a minimum 30 year BPAS (ROGO) horizon and
operate within any current and future Level Of Service(LOS) and environmental constraints; and
WHEREAS, the City has also indicated that future allocations should prioritize owner-
occupied residences and workforce housing through strongly worded revisions to each of the Keys
jurisdictions Comprehensive Plans; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has indicated that we must work on this scenario and a
potential Legislative modification this year and during this Legislative Session,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MARATHON,FLORIDA,THAT:
Section 1. The Council urges the Legislature to collectively and collaboratively work
with Monroe County and other municipalities this year and during this Legislative Session to
develop a Legislative solution to the continuation of BPAS (ROGO) and the cessation of the
"takings" dilemma.
Section 2. The City Council requests that language similar to or approximating the
following language be utilized to amend Chapter 380.0552 (9):
1. Amend 380.0552 (9)
(9) MODIFICATION TO PLANS AND REGULATIONS.
(a) Any land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan in the Florida
Keys Area may be enacted, amended, or rescinded by a local government, but the enactment,
amendment,or rescission becomes effective only upon approval by the state land planning agency.
The state land planning agency shall review the proposed change to determine if it is in compliance
with the for guiding development specified in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative
principles
Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, and must approve or reject the requested changes
within 60 days after receipt. Amendments to local comprehensive plans in the Florida Keys Area
must also be reviewed for compliance with the following:
1. Construction schedules and detailed capital financing plans for wastewater management
improvements in the annually adopted capital improvements element, and standards for the
construction of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or collection systems that meet or
exceed the criteria in s. 03.0010) for wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or s.
381.0065(4)(I) for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems.
2. Goals, objectives, and policies to protect public safety and welfare in the event of a natural
disaster by maintaining a hurricane evacuation clearance time for permanent residents of no more
than 24 26 hours. The hurricane evacuation clearance time shall be determined by a hurricane
evacuation study conducted in accordance with a professionally accepted methodology and
approved by the state land planning agency.
2. Amend by adding 380.0552 (9)(a)3.,I 2 -3 . 0 'O F.A.C.
3. Predicated upon a maximum hurricane evacuation time of 26 hours, to include all
jurisdictions within the Florida Keys and Key/West Areas1 of Critical State Concern:
a. Residential allocations are hereby provided to these Areas of Critical State Concern
based upon an assessment that this number approximates the number of vacant
buildable residential lots remaining within the Florida Keys and the understanding
that the development,of this number of additional residential units will not cause
the two Areas of Critical State Concern to exceed the calculated hurricane
evacuation time.
b. Residential allocations provided herein shall be distributed among jurisdictions
within the two Areas of Critical State concern based upon the relative number of
vacant buildable residential lots within each jurisdiction; to be determined by the
jurisdictions.
c. Within each participating jurisdiction, distribution of residential allocations
provided herein shall be accomplished approximately evenly each year and shall
occur over a minimum forty-year(40)horizon.
d. Any individual jurisdiction may borrow residential allocations forward from future
years if those allocations will be utilized for affordable / workforce housing
development which would be deed restricted as affordable/workforce housing for
a minimum period of ninety-nine(99)years.
e. The distribution of residential allocations by any jurisdiction shall be limited by any
adopted Level Of Service (LOS) standard within that jurisdiction which would be
compromised by the issuance of additional allocations.
f Separate consideration shall be made for transportation LOS which may act across
all jurisdictions.
g. The distribution of residential allocations within each jurisdiction shall adhere to
all environmental priorities and limitations in ado ted comprehensive plans relative
to the distribution of residential allocations through respective Building Permit
Allocation Systems or Rate Of Growth Ordinance.
h. Under this provision,buildable lots shall be considered those whose environmental
designation is not characterized exclusively as wetlands (Submerged Lands,
Ma4Yroves, Saltmarsh and Buttonwood, Freshwater Wetlands). With the
residential allocations provided herein, distribution by each jurisdiction shall be
prioritized to buildable lots.
i. Distribution of residential allocations shall be pnoritized to owner occupied
residences and affordable/workforce housing ro'ect ty es.
j. Acquisition of environmentally sensitive workforce and affordable housing, and
necessary infrastructure properties remain a priority for state and local land
acquisition agencies regardless of the residential allocations which the 26-hour
hurricane evacuation time may provide.
k. Authority is herein granted for local iurisdictions to ado t Ordinances to carry out
the intent of this legislation.
Section 3. Directs the City Clerk to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to other
Monroe County local government jurisdictions, the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker,
and members of the Monroe County State Legislative Delegation.
Section 4. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARATHON,
FLORIDA,THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024.
THE CITY OF MARATHON,FLORIDA
Lynn artdry,Mayor
AYES: Smith, Still, Matlock, DelGaizo, Landry
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
•
Diane Clavier,City Clerk
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY FOR THE USE AND RELIANCE OF THE CITY
OF MARATHON,FLORIDA ONLY:
\--) 1
Steve Williams, City Attorney
F
EXHIBIT "A"
0
•
C .
earance Imes ummar
.. , , ..... ..... ____
Florida Keys Florida Keys.
.
- Including Key West Excluding Key:West
Deliverable 5 Baseline Modeling.. Phases Mobile lib Mobile Homes Mobile tomes Mobile Homes
- - is in Phase 2 in Phase 1 in Phase 2 in Phase 1
hoUts. (Dour hours (hours)
Baseline Modeling
Shows baseline- does not include Phase 2 26.0 24.0 15.5 15.5
additional prospective allocations Phase 1 15.5 1111lWIEIIIIII 15.0 15.0
Deliverable 6:Prospecttive Modeling
for Future Allocations
3,550 Distribute based on county/municipality Phase 2 27.5 25.5 15.5 15.5
S Allocations population size
P Phase 1 15.5 15.5 15.E 15.0
=cmDistribute based percentage of vacant Phase 2 28.0 26.0 15.5
3,550S2 P 9
Allocations lands per county/municipality Phase 1 15.5 111103111111 15.0 15.0
Distribute based on current allocations: Phase 2 28.0 26.0 15.5 15.5
3,550 (1,970-Monroe, 300-Marathon,280-
Allocations Islamorada, 910-Key West, 30-Layton.
60-Ke .Colon Beach Phase 1 15.5 15.5 15.0 15.0
v y )
Phase 2(10
26.5 24.0IIMMI 15.5
Minimal Distributes Monroe County(5): Years Growth)
S4 Allocations (11 Marathon (2); Islamorada(2); Key Phase 2B(2D 26.5 24.0
allocations/y r) West(2--affordable only) Years Growth
Phase 1 15.5 15.0 15.0
One
S5 Distributes 7,954 units _
Phase 2 31.0 28.5 17.0 16.5
Unit/Vacant Lot Phase 1 15.5 15.5 15.0 15.0
EXITIT "B"
_4 s ,
cITyr
OF
vAc 1-1 pl • cELs
Monroe County Property Appraiser Office tax roll October2024 data, PC codes vacant residential(0000),
Removed parcels with known projects,Condo association parcels,access easements,docks,conservation easement parcels,and nonzoned
areas,and City of Marathon parcels.
Total Vacant Parcels - 700
Total Buildable Vacant Parcels
140 most likely unbuildable due to habitat including 6 red flag wetlands.
(Source:Marathon habitat layer&KEYWEP).
Zoning l Vacant
Parcek
to'
MU & MU-M 36
FR... 1
RL-C 52
R-MH 41.
RH 35
RL 31
RM 289
RM-1 17
RM-2 3
I-G&I-M 1
C-NA 65
C-ar 4
Total 575
LOTS PURCHASED OR DONATED SINCE JULY 2013: 15 parcels as of Jan2023
Credit:City of Marathon Planning Department,Oct 2024