HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem J5
3765
3766
EXHIBIT A TO RES.NO.____-2025
2025-2027
M ONROE C OUNTY
B IENNIAL P UBLIC F ACILITIES
C APACITY A SSESSMENT
R EPORT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORTATION
POTABLE WATER
SCHOOLS
SOLID WASTE
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER
Monroe County
Planning and Environmental ResourcesDepartment
1
3767
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................3
I. Growth Management ....................................................................................................14
II. Transportation/Roadways .............................................................................................26
III. Potable Water ................................................................................................................41
IV. Education/Schools.........................................................................................................48
V. Solid Waste ...................................................................................................................51
VI. Parks and Recreation.....................................................................................................55
VII. Sanitary Sewer................................................................................................................61
2
3768
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Goal 1401 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires that Monroe County shall provide
and maintain, in a timely and efficient manner, adequate public facilities for both existing and
future populations, consistent with available financial resources and the other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. \[§163.3177(3)(a), F.S.\] Monroe County coordinates land use decisions and
fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements in order to maintain the adopted level of
service (LOS) standards for both issued development orders and future development (Objective
1401.4). Further, Monroe County maintains a Concurrency Management System to ensure that
facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impact of
development. The Concurrency Management System ensures that the County shall issue no
development order or permit which results in a reduction in the level of service (LOS) below the
adopted LOS standards (Policy 1401.4.5).
The Monroe County Land Development (LDC) Section 114-2(b)(3) mandates a biennial
assessment of the roadways, solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer, schools and recreation and
open spacefacilities serving the unincorporated portion of Monroe County. In the event that these
public facilities have fallenbelow or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS) required
by the LDC, development activities must conform to special procedures to ensure that public
facilities are not further burdened. The LDC clearly states that building permits shall not be issued
unless the proposed use is, or will be, served by adequate public or private facilities.
As required by LDC Section 114-2, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
shall consider and approve the biennialreport, with or without modifications. Any modifications
that result in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact,
including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional capacity
required to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document becomes the official
report on public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next two years.
This report distinguishes between areas of adequate, inadequate and marginally adequate facility
capacity. Areas of inadequate facility capacity are those areas with capacitybelow the adopted
LOS standards. Areas of marginally adequate facility capacity are those areas at the adopted level
of service standard or which are projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next 12 to 24
months.
2025-2027 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Transportation/Roadways
On September 10, 2025, at their regular meeting, the Monroe County BOCC discussed the Draft
2025 US1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study and directed staff to prepare the Biennial
Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report with the 2025 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and
Delay Study and requested an additional US1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study be performed
during the six-week window from the second week of February and ending in the fourth week of
March 2026.
Based on the findings of the 2025 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County,
as prepared by AECOM, U.S. 1 has an overall level of service (LOS) C. The overall median travel
speed on US 1 is 45.6 MPH.
3
3769
Traffic volumes have decreased in Big Pine (-20.40%), Marathon Key (-41.00%), and Upper
Matecumbe (-23.25%) Keys compared to 2021.
Compared to thestudy results in 2021, there were level of service changes in eight(8) of the 24
segments of US1; two (2) of which resulted in positive level of service changes and six (6) of
which resulted in negative level of service changes. Negative LOS changes are shown in bold text
in the table below.
5%
Jurisdiction
Segment 2021 2025 Reserve Trips Allocation
(county or
Number SegmentLOS LOS Remaining below LOS C
municipality)
4 Saddlebunch County B C 1,2493,648
6 Cudjoe County A B 1,6562,482
10Big Pine KeyCountyAB 2,9283,905
12 7-Mile Bridge County B C 1,9144,722
17 Lower Islamorada C D (1,267) 560
Matecumbe
18 Tea Table Islamorada A B 1,2021,929
19 Upper Matecumbe IslamoradaED (1,833) (483)
24 Cross County C B 4,7236,878
As compared to the 2021 study, the median segment speeds decreased in 20 of the 24 segments,
ranging between 0.1 mph and 3.5 mph, and increased in 4 segments, ranging from 0.1 mph to 2.5
mph.
The largest increase in speed (+2.5 mph) was recorded in Segment #19 (Upper Matecumbe –
MM 79.5 to 84.0). The largest reduction in speed (-3.5 mph) was recorded in Segment #24
(Cross – MM 106.0 to 112.5).
Potable Water
In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District approved the FKAA’s modification of
WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Florida Aquifers. This water
use permit (WUP) provides an annual allocation of 23.98 MGD. The recently completed water
supply wells and Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment facility provides an additional capacity
of 6.0 MGD.
The County’s 2024 figures and projections for 2025 indicate a slight increase in annual average
daily demand from 20.66 to 21.1 MGD. This provides a 2.88 MGD surplus water allocation based
upon the projected 2025 demand. With the construction of the new water supply wells and reverse
osmosis (RO) water treatment facility and a projected surplus allocation, there is an adequate
supply of water to meet current and future demands, based on current conditions and projections.
Schools
The overall 2024-2025 utilization is 70.29% of the school system capacity and is projected for
2028-2029 at 73.00 % utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2024-2025 indicate
that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system for the next two years.
4
376:
Solid Waste
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management, Inc. (WMI). The contract authorizes the
use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2029, thereby providing the County with
approximately four (4) years of guaranteed capacity. The current contract has a 5-year extension,
the County may choose to negotiate a new contract with Waste Management, Inc. for continued
service. There is adequate capacity for a solid waste generation for the next 12 to 24 months.
Parks and Recreation
There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage).
Sanitary Sewer
The Monroe County Sanitary Sewer Master Plan was part of the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan. As population and tourism within the Keys hadincreased over the years, there
had been a significant degradation of water quality in canals and nearshore waters surrounding the
keys. The creation of a new Sanitary Sewer System to replace the old system consisting mostly of
collecting sewage waters by private septic tanks and small water treatment plants was imperative.
The new Sanitary Sewer System collects the wastewater mainly by a network of pipelines, force
mains, pump stations and sewage treatment plants. The majority of the household units in
unincorporated areas of the County have been connected to the system.
The sewage collection system operates below the capacity for which it was designed and the quality
and disposal of treated waste water is in compliance with requirements established by F.A.C., F.S.,
and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. There are sufficient wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities and capacity available to satisfy the projected needs of development for the next two years.
SUMMARY
Transportation/roadways (subject to concurrency review at time of development permit), potable
water, solid waste, schools, parks and recreation, and sanitary sewer all have adequate capacity to
serve the growth anticipated in 2025-2027 at the adopted level of service standard.
5
3771
INTRODUCTION
The 2025-2027 Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity is mandated by the Monroe
County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 114-2, titled Adequate Facilities and Review
Procedures. The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt regulations ensuring
“concurrency” or providing public facilities in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level of
service standard. In other words, local governments must establish regulations to ensure that public
facilities and services that are needed to support development are available simultaneously with
development impacts.
LDC Section 114-2(a) contains two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for
the six primary public facilities (roads, potable water, educational facilities, solid waste, parks and
recreation, sanitary sewer), and biennialassessment process to determine the available capacity of
these public facilities.
LDC Section 114-2(b)(3) requires the Director of Planning to prepare a biennialreport to the
BOCC on the capacity of available public facilities. This report must determine the potential
amount of residential and nonresidential growth expected in the upcoming year and make an
assessment of how well the water supply facilities, solid waste, roads, sanitary sewer, and schools
will accommodate that growth. The report considers potential growth and public facility capacity
for only the next twelve months. In addition, the report must identify areas of unincorporated
Monroe County with only marginal and/or inadequate capacity for public facilities.
LDC Section 114-2(b)(4) requires the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
to consider this report and approve its findings either with or without modifications. The BOCC
cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report without
making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase and identifying the source of
funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity. Once approved by the BOCC, this document
becomes the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be
based for the next year.
In the event public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service (LOS)
standards required by the Comprehensive Plan or the LDC, development activities must conform
to special procedures to ensure that public facilities are not further burdened. The Comprehensive
Plan and the LDC clearly state that building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is
or will be served by adequate public or private facilities.
Comprehensive Plan Objective 101.1 states:
“Monroe County shall ensure that all development and redevelopment taking place within its
boundaries does not result in a reduction of the level-of-service requirements established and
adopted by this comprehensive plan. Further, Monroe County shall ensure that comprehensive
plan amendments include an analysis of the availability of facilities and services or demonstrate
that the adopted levels of service can be reasonably met”.
LDC, Section 114-2, “Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures” states:
As a condition of approval of a development order, all applicants for development shall file an
application with the county in the form prescribed by the Planning Director, accompanied by a fee
to be set by resolution of the BOCC. The application shall include a written evaluation (facilities
6
3772
impact report and traffic report) of the impact of the anticipated development on the level of
services are available prior to or concurrent with the impacts of development.
7
3773
PUBLIC FACILITIES STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 163.3180, F.S., sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water are the
public facilities and services subject to the concurrency requirement on a statewide basis and a
local government may extend concurrency requirements so that it applies to additional public
facilities within its jurisdiction. If concurrency is applied to other public facilities, including
transportation facilities, the local government comprehensive plan must provide the principles,
guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service, to guide its application.
The premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and
maintain the adopted level of service standard.
Accordingly, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.1.1 provides that the County
shall maintain level of service (LOS) standards for the following public facility types required by
Chapter 163, F.S.: sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water. Policy 101.1.2 also
requires the County maintaina Concurrency Management System.
Further, the following standards have been adopted in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan:
Policy 101.1.3: Facilities for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and drainage shall
be in place and available to serve new development no later than the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. If facility improvements are needed
to ensure that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to
commencement of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally
enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction or improvement of the
facility.
Policy 101.1.4: Parks and recreation facilities to serve new development shall be in place
or under actual construction no later than one (1) year after issuance by the County of a
building permit. The acreage (land) for such facilities shall be dedicated or be acquired by
the County prior to issuance of a building permit, or funds in the amount of the developer's
fair share shall be committed no later than the County's approval to commence
construction. If park and recreation facility improvements are needed to ensure that the
adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement
of construction, the developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable
commitment to the County to assure construction of the facilities.
Policy 101.1.5: Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place
when the impacts of the development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure
that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to
commencement of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally
enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction or improvement of
proportionate share of required improvements, or to assure the provision of the
proportionate share contribution of the costs for the necessary transportation facilities. The
development of a single family residential unit shall be considered de minimis and shall
not be subject to this requirement.
Policy 101.1.6: Prior to the approval of a building permit, Monroe County shall consult
with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) to determine whether adequate water
8
3774
supplies to serve the new development will be available no later than the anticipated date
of issuance by the County of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.
There are six (6) primary public facilities that must be monitored for adequate capacity according
to both the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code (LDC). These
facilities are roads, solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer and schools (Comp. Plan also
includes parks & recreation and drainage). The available capacity for each of these facilities may
be either sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next year, marginally adequate, or
inadequate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are projected to be only marginally
adequate or inadequate over the next year, the LDC sets out a review procedure to be followed
when issuing development permits in that area.
Section 114-2(b)(5)c of the LDCstates: “The county shall not approve applications for
development in areas of the county that are served by inadequate facilities identified in the biennial
assessment of public facility capacity report, except the county may approve development that will
have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where the developer agrees to increase the level
of service of the facility to the adopted level of service standard.”
The determination of an additional development’s impact on existing public facilities in areas with
marginal or inadequate capacity is determined by a “facilities impact report” which must be
submitted with a development application.
Transportation/Roadways:
The LOS for roads is regulated by the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 301.1.1 establishes the LOS for County roads. The policy states:
“For all County roads, Monroe County hereby adopts a minimum peak hour level of service
(LOS) standard of D, measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the
Highway Capacity Manual, as necessary to determine proposed development impacts. The
County shall maintain the level of service on County roads within five percent (5%) of LOS
D”
Policy 301.1.2 establishes the LOS for U.S. 1. The policy states:
“For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as measured
by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners in February 2021 (BOCC Resolution 064-2021). The level of service
on U.S. 1 shall be maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C.”
Section 114-2(a)(1) of the LDC pertains to the minimum LOS standards for Roads:
(1) Transportation/Roadways.
a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall arterial
length and the 24 roadway segments of U.S.1, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service
Task Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway segments. In addition, all
segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology,
which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. 1, shall have
sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C.
9
3775
b. Development may be approved, provided that the development in combination with all
other permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent (5%)
below LOS C, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. While
development may be approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be
considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the
form of specific improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements
and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service
degradation beyond LOS C and/or deficiencies.
c. All paved County roads shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at or within 5%
of a LOSD as measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the
Highway Capacity Manual. While development may be approved within5% of LOS D,
the development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development
mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned shared
contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT
to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS D and/or deficiencies.
d. The development of one single family residence on a single parcel shall be considered de
minimis and shall not be considered to impact road capacity established in this subsection.
e. The County shall post on the Monroe County website informing the public of the available
transportation capacity for each road segment of U.S. 1 as described in the county's biennial
public facilities capacity report. The available capacity shall be expressed in terms of a
number of trips remaining until the adequate transportation facilities standard is exceeded.
f. The County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic
monitoring program to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations
and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of the 24 study segments of
U.S.1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and through traffic. The
County shall coordinate with municipalities in the review of the systematic traffic
monitoring program to monitor traffic volumes and travel speeds of U.S.1 as well as on
each of the 24 study segments on U.S.1. The County and municipalities shall coordinate
with FDOT to evaluate segments with deficiencies of LOS to determine necessary
improvements and strategies to address any degradation and/or deficiencies.
Potable Water:
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopts the LOS standards and further, the LDC regulates
the source of potable water for development or use.
Objective 701.1: Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a certificate of occupancy or its
functional equivalent is issued, adequate potable water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities
are available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards.
Policy 701.1.1:Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve
Objective 701.1 and shall use these standards as the basis for determining facility capacity and the
demand generated by a development.\[
Level of Service Standards
1.Quantity:100 gal./capita/day*
*Note Based on historical data through December 2011; provided by FKAA, December 2012.
10
3776
2. Minimum Pressure: 20 PSI at customer service
3. Minimum PotableWater Quality: Shall be as defined by Chapter 62-550
F.A.C.
LDC Section 114-2(a)(3) requires sufficient potable water from an approved and permitted source
shall be available to satisfy the projected water needs of a proposed development, or use.
Approved and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribution systems,
individual water condensation systems, and any other system which complies with the Florida
standards for potable water.
a. Overall LOS: 100 gal./capita/day.
b. Minimum pressure: 20 pounds per square inch at customer service point.
c. Minimum quality: As defined by Chapter 62-550 F.A.C.
Policy 701.1.2: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which provide a
Concurrency Management System (See Capital Improvements Policy 1401.4.5). The Concurrency
Management System shall ensure that no certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent will
be issued for new development unless adequate potable water supply, treatment, and distribution
facilities needed to support the development at the adopted level of service standards are available.
Solid Waste:
The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC require that "sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid
waste disposal site at a level of services of 11.41 pounds per capita per day. The county solid waste
and resource recovery authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under F.S. Section
163.01, to dispose of solid waste outside of the county. (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)).
Objective 801.1: Monroe County shall ensure that solid waste collection service and disposal
capacity is available to serve development at the adopted level of service standards.
\[§163.3180(1)(b)., F.S.\], \[§163.3180(2)., F.S.\]
Policy 801.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve
Objective 801.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining facility capacity and
the demand generated by a development. \[§163.3180(2)., F.S.\]
Level of Service Standards:
Disposal Quantity: 11.41 pounds per capita per day
Policy 801.1.2: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which provide a
Concurrency Management System (See Capital Improvements Policy 1401.4.5). The Concurrency
Management System shall ensure that no certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent will
be issued for new development unless adequate solid waste collection and disposal facilities
needed to support the development at the adopted level of service standards are available
concurrent with the impacts of development.
Sanitary Sewer:
The Comprehensive Plan and LDC establish the capacity LOS and the wastewater treatment level
of service standards for sanitary sewers in Policy 901.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
11
3777
Policy 901.1.1: Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a certificate of occupancy, or its
functional equivalent is issued, adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are
available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards.
December 31, 2015, Level of Service Standards
(A)The permanent level of service standards for wastewater treatment in Monroe County are
as follows:
Mg/L
BODTSSTNTP
On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal System 10 10 10 1
10
Design flows less than 100,000 gpd (BAT)
10 10 1
Design flows greater than or equal to 100,000 gpd (AWT) 5 5 3 1
Source: Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, 2000.
BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand
TSS: Total Suspended Solids
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
BAT: Best Available Technology
AWT: Advanced Wastewater Technology
(B) The County shall support State and Federal educational programs to reduce
demand for phosphate products.
(C) The capacity level of service standard: 167 gallons per day per EDU.
Policy 901.1.2: Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which provide a
Concurrency Management System (See Capital Improvements Policy 1401.4.5). The Concurrency
Management System shall ensure that a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent will
not be issued for new development unless adequate sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities needed to support the development at the adopted level of service standards are available.
Parks and Recreation:
The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are included in Policy 1201.1.1
of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 1201.1.1: Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards to achieve
Objective 1201.1, and shall use these standards as the basis for determining recreation land and
facility capacity:
Level of Service Standards for Neighborhood and Community Parks:
1.1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of passive, resource-based neighborhood
and community parks; and
2.1.5 acres per 1,000 functional population of activity-basedneighborhood and
community parks within each of the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys
subareas.
12
3778
Schools:
The Comprehensive Plan does not establish a LOSstandard for schools but does include Policy
1301.5.3 which requires the County to coordinate with the District School Board of Monroe
County on the siting and expansion of required facilities. LDC Section 114-2(a)(6) requires that
sufficient school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school-age children to
be generated by the proposed development.
13
3779
PERMITTING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVICE AREAS
LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures divides unincorporated
Monroe County into three (3) service areas for the purpose of assessing potential growth and how
public facilities can accommodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the Monroe County
Land Development Code have been revised to account for incorporations of the Villageof
Islamorada and the City of Marathon.
LDC Section 114-2(b)(2) defines the county’s unincorporated public facilities service areas:
Upper Keys Service Area: north of the Whale Harbor Bridge;
Middle Keys Service Area: between the Seven Mile Bridge and Whale Harbor Bridge;
and
Lower Keys Service Area: south (west) of the Seven Mile Bridge.
The map below shows the three (3) service areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized.
MONROE COUNTY
MAP
14
377:
I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GROWTH ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the projected growth of Monroe County’s permanent, seasonal
and functional population, occupied and vacant housingdata, Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)
and Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) allocations and Building Department
permit data.
CENSUS DATA
The U.S. Census Bureau released 2020 demographic information related to population and housing
on August 12, 2021. The following tables provide summary information for Monroe County and
the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2010 study has been included for
comparison.
Census 2010 Census 2020 Change
Total Population 73,09082,874 +9,784
Total Housing Units 52,76453,892 +1,128
Occupied Housing Unit Rate 61.8% 59.5%-2.3%
Occupied Housing Units (calculated) 32,62932,066 -563
Vacant Housing Units (calculated) 20,135 (38.16%)21,826 (40.5%) +1,691
The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) increased by
13.9% (9,784 people) from the year 2010 to 2020. Total housing units increased by 1,128 units or
2.14%. The number of occupied units decreased by 563 units or 2%. Vacant units increased by
1,691 units or 8.40%.
The following tables provide 2020 summary information for Monroe County and the incorporated
municipalities. Information from the 2010 Census has been included for comparison purposes.
Census Census %
Change
2010 2020 Change
POPULATION
City of Key West 24,649 26,444 +1,795 +7.28%
City of Marathon 8,297 9,689+1,392 +16.78%
City of Key Colony Beach 797 790 -7 -0.88%
City of Layton 184 210 +26+14.13%
Village of Islamorada 6,119 7,107+988 +16.15%
Unincorporated Monroe County 33,044 45,634 +12,590 +38.10%
Total Population (Unincorporated County & Cities) 73,090 82,874 +9,784 +13.38%
HOUSING UNITS
City of Key West 14,107 14,426 +319 +2.26%
City of Marathon 6,187 6,427+240 +3.88%
City of Key Colony Beach 1,431 1,003-428 -29.91%
City of Layton 184 166 -18 -9.78%
Village of Islamorada 5,692 5,630-62 -1.09%
Unincorporated Monroe County 25,163 26,309 +1,146 +4.55%
15
3781
Total Housing Units (Uninc. County & Cities) 52,764 53,961 +1,197 +2.27%
Total housing units (Uninc. County & Cities) 52,764 53,961 +1,197 +2.27%
Occupied housing units(Uninc. County & Cities)32,62936,436+3,807+11.67%
Vacant housing units (Uninc. County & Cities) 20,135 17,525 -2,610 -12.96%
% Vacant housing units(Uninc. County & Cities)38.16%32.48%--5.68%
POPULATION ESTIMATES
Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates. Permanent
residents are people who spend all or most of the year living in Monroe County, and as such, exert
a relatively constant demand on all public facilities. Seasonal population figures are the number of
seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. They are composed of the tourist
population and residents spending less than six months in the Keys. The seasonal population has
a higher cyclical demand on public facilities like water, roads and solid waste.
The 2020 total population for Monroe County is 82,874 (2020 Census).
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 2020-2030
PermanentSeasonalFunctional
Year
202076,900 82,151 159,051
202576,200 84,503 160,703
203075,500 86,855 162,355
Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and
Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates
UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 2020-2030
PermanentSeasonalFunctional
Year
202035,374 37,120 72,494
202535,052 38,173 73,225
203034,730 39,226 73,956
Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and
Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates
UNINCORPORATED FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS by service area,
2020-2030
Unincorporated Functional Population
Total
Year
Lower Keys Middle KeysUpper Keys Unincorporated
Monroe County
2020 40,592 2,234 29,668 72,494
2025 41,003 2,256 29,966 73,225
2030 41,414 2,278 30,265 73,957
Source: Monroe County 2012-2030 Population Projections, March 15, 2011, Keith and
Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind and Associates
16
3782
The Fishkind & Associates population projections for the 2010-2030 planning period indicate a
loss of permanent population. The data suggests the permanent population losses and associated
increase in vacant housing units, shifting into an increase in seasonal population. Fishkind &
Associates estimates that while permanent population decreases at an average rate of less than one
percent every five years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of 2.57 percent every
five years; resulting in a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. Overall, functional
population or total population for the unincorporated County will increase at an average rate of
less than one percent, every five years, in the twenty year planning period.
The Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) projections published in 2025
provide the following estimates:
Projections, April 1
Estimates,
April 1, 2024 2025 20302035 2040 2045
MONROE84,147
Low82,200 81,000 78,900 76,500 73,900
Medium84,700 86,900 88,400 89,400 90,000
High87,300 92,800 97,900 102,300 106,100
The Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) provides the following
estimates:
Projections, April 1
Estimates
April 1, 2023 2025 20302035 2040 2045
MONROE84,511 85,437 87,11288,103 88,614 88,889
17
3783
HOUSING
According to the U.S. Census, housing units are broken down into occupied and vacant units. The
Census defines housing units as “a house, apartment, group of rooms, or single room occupied or
intended for occupancy as separate living quarters.” Occupied housing units are occupied if there
is “at least one person who lives in the unit as a usual resident at the time of the interview, or if the
occupants are only temporarily absent, for example, on vacation. However, if the unit is occupied
entirely by people with a usual residence elsewhere, the unit is classified as vacant, such as
seasonal units.
The table below provides total housing units and occupancy based on the 2020 Census:
Census 2010Census 2020Change
Total Housing Units 52,76453,892+1,128
Occupied Housing Unit Rate 61.8%59.5%
Occupied Housing Units (calculated) 32,62932,066-563
Vacant Housing Units (calculated) 20,135 (38.16%)21,826 (40.5%) +1,691
The table belowshows the housing units by status and tenure from the 2018-2022 American
Community Survey.
HOUSING UNITS BY STATUS AND TENURE BY UNITS IN
STRUCTURE
2019-2023
(Monroe County-Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas)
HOUSING OCCUPANCY Estimates Percent
Total housing units 54,418100.00%
Occupied housing units 34,63063.6%
Vacant housing units 19,78836.4%
UNITS IN STRUCTURE Estimates Percent
Total housing units 54,418100.00%
1-unit, detached 30,94256.9%
1-unit, attached 3,782 6.9%
2 units 2,734 5.0%
3 or 4 units 2,637 4.8%
5 to 9 units 2,482 4.6%
10 to 19 units 1,801 3.3%
20 or more units 5,031 9.2%
Mobile home 4,696 8.6%
Boat, RV, van, etc. 313 0.6%
HOUSING TENURE Estimates Percent
Occupied housing units 34,630100.00%
Owner-occupied 21,95263.4%
Renter-occupied12,67836.6%
Average household size of owner-occupied unit 2.26
Average household size of renter-occupiedunit 2.41
Source: US Census 2023 American Community Survey
18
3784
RESIDENTIALRATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO)
Based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016-1992 on June 23, 1992, creating the Residential
Dwelling Unit Allocation System known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO. ROGO was
developed to limit the annual amount and rate of development commensurate with the County’s
ability to maintain its hurricane evacuation clearance time; and to deter the deterioration of public
facility service levels, environmental degradation, and potential land use conflicts. It is used as a
tool to equitably distribute the remaining number of permits available both geographically and
over time. ROGO allows development subject to the ability to safely evacuate the Florida Keys
(the Keys) within 24 hours.
The annual allocation period, or ROGO year, is the 12-month period beginning on July 13, 1992,
(the effective date of the original dwelling unit allocation ordinance), and subsequent one-year
periods. The number of dwelling units which can be permitted in Monroe County has consequently
been controlled since July of 1992 (adoption of Ordinance 016-92).
Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.2regulate the number of permits
issued annually for residential development under ROGO. Monroe County can award up to 197
allocations per year within the unincorporated area. These allocations are divided between three
geographic subareas and are issued quarterly. Each year’s ROGO allocation of 197 new units is
split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate
allocations not to exceed 126 new residential units per year.
Rule 28-20.140(b), F.A.C., and Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.2.1state:
“The number of permits issued annually for residential development under the Rate of Growth
Ordinance shall not exceed a total annual unit cap of 197, plus any available unused ROGO
allocations from a previous ROGO year. Each year’s ROGO allocation of 197 units shall be split
with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate
allocations not to exceed 126 residential units per year. Unused ROGO allocations may be retained
and made available only for affordable housing and Administrative Relief from ROGO year to
ROGO year. Unused allocations for market rate shall be available for Administrative Relief. Any
unused affordable allocations will roll over to affordable housing. A ROGO year means the twelve-
month period beginning on July 13”.
LDC, Section 138-24(a)(2) establishes that ROGO allocations are to be awarded quarterly.
“Each subarea shall have its number of market rate housing residential ROGO allocations
available per ROGO quarter determined by the following formula:
a. Market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea per quarter is equal to
the market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea divided by four.
b. Affordable housing residential ROGO for all four ROGO quarters, including the
allocations available for Big Pine Key, shall be made available at the beginning of the first
quarter for a ROGO year. Beginning July 13, 2016, the balance of all remaining affordable
housing residential ROGO allocations shall be made available for award.
On January 22, 2020, the BOCC adopted Ordinances 005-2020 and 006-2020, amending
Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.3.2 and Land Development Code Section 138-24 to extend the
time period of the ROGO system through 2026 by distributing the final three (3) years of market
rate ROGO allocations over a 6-year period. For ROGO Years 29, 30, and 31, (July 13, 2020 –
July 12, 2023), the number of market rate allocations is reduced to 64 per year, rather than 126.
19
3785
On April 21, 2021, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 005-2021 amending and clarifying
Comprehensive Plan Policies 101.2.2, 101.2.4, 101.3.1, 101.3.2, 101.3.3, and creating new Policy
101.3.12 to establish the specific Workforce Initiative. The Workforce Initiative accepts 300
workforce housing early evacuation building permit allocations pursuant to the Workforce-
Affordable Housing Initiative authorized by the Florida Administration Commission and the
Florida Department Economic Opportunity.
The County shall distribute ROGO allocations by ROGO year, as provided in the table below. For
ROGO Years 32, 33, and 34, (July 13, 2023 – July 12, 2026), the number of market rate allocations
will be 62 per year, as follows:
Annual Allocation
ROGO Year
Affordable Workforce Initiative
Market Rate
Housing
July 13, 2013—July 12, 2014 126 71
July 13, 2014—July 12, 2015 126 71
July 13, 2015—July 12, 2016 126
July 13, 2016—July 12, 2017 126
NA
July 13, 2017—July 12, 2018 126
July 13, 2018—July 12, 2019 126
July 13, 2019—July 12, 2020 126
568 total AFH
July 13, 2020—July 12, 2021 64 (total available
immediately)
July 13, 2021—July 12, 2022 64
July 13, 2022—July 12, 2023 64
July 13, 2023—July 12, 202462
300
July 13, 2024—July 12, 202562
July 13, 2025—July 12, 202662
TOTAL 1,260 710300
This change reduces the annual rate of additional new market rate residential development, to
address multiple purposes, such as hurricane modeling, land acquisition and so forth. Additionally,
this change should reduce the demands on public facilities based on new market rate residential
development.
TIER SYSTEM
On September 22, 2005, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 025-2005 which amended the
Comprehensive Plan to revise ROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the competitive
point system. On March 15, 2006, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 009-2006 to incorporate the Tier
System as a basis for implementing ROGO within the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
The Tier System changed the service areas (subareas boundaries) mentioned in the Introduction.
It is the basis for the scoring of NROGO and ROGO applications and administrative relief. The
new ROGO and NROGO subareasare the Lower Keys (Middle Keys are not included in the Lower
20
3786
Keys), Upper Keys, and Big Pine / No Name Keys. Tier Ordinance 009-2006 provides vesting
provisions and allows for allocation of an annual cap of 197 residential dwelling units.
The Tier System made changes such as subarea boundary districts for allocation distribution, the
basisof scoring applications, and administrative relief.
During ROGO Year 14, Ord. 009-2006 was enacted changing the allocation number to 197
(126 market rate 71 affordable) pursuant to Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C. The same rule also
returned 165 allocations to the County to be used for affordable housing.
By ROGO Year 15, the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the 197 annual
allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations were assigned to this subarea.
BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEYS
Efforts to address the development impacts on the habitat of the Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh
Rabbit and the Eastern Indigo Snake on Big Pine Key/No Name Key started in the mid-1980s. In
1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which they committed to
develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for these two Keys. The HCP was completed in April
2003.
The Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP), Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key
and No Name Key was adopted on August 18, 2004, pursuant to Ordinance 029-2004. The LCP
envisioned the issuance of 200 residential dwelling units over 20 year horizon at a rate of roughly
10 per year. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the 10 units per year is to be set aside for
affordable housing development (e.g. 2 units per year set aside for affordable housing.)
On June 9, 2006, a Federal Incidental Take Permit (#TE083411-0, ITP) from the U.S. Federal Fish
and Wildlife Commission was issued to three (3) permittees: Monroe County, Florida Department
of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The ITP ensures that
development bears its fair share of required mitigation and that the take of the covered species is
minimized and mitigated.
RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO) ANALYSIS
UNINCORPORATED COUNTY MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE ROGO HISTORICAL
DATA YEARS 1-33
Market Rate Market Affordable Affordable
ROGO Rate Housing ROGO Housing
Allocations ROGO Allocations ROGO
ROGO Year
Available AwardedAvailable Awarded*
Year 1 (July 14, 1992 –July 13, 1993) 204 204 52 11
Year 2 (July 14, 1993 –July 13, 1994) 243 231 52 9
Year 3 (July 14, 1994 –July 13, 1995) 246 249 52 10
21
3787
Year 4 (July 14, 1995 –July 13, 1996) 245 263 52 40
Year 5 (July 14, 1996 –July 13, 1997) 215 218 52 23
Year 6 (July 14, 1997 –July 13, 1998) 211 197 77 56
Year 7 (July 14, 1998 –July 12, 1999) 101 102 30 9
Year 8 (July 13, 1999 –July 14, 2000) 127 136 109 66
Year 9 (July 13, 2000 –July 14, 2001) 127 129 224 203
Year 10 (July 14, 2001 –July 15, 2002) 102 102 31 58
Year 11 (July 16, 2002 –July 14, 2003) 127 127 31 31
Year 12 (July 13, 2003–July 14, 2004) 127 127 31 21
Year 13 (July 14, 2004 –July 13, 2005) 96 96 29 16
Year 14 (July 14, 2005 –July 13, 2006) 126 126 236 271
Year 15 (July 14, 2006 –July 13, 2007) 126 129 49 17
Year 16 (July 14, 2007 –July 14, 2008) 126 126 68 100
Year 17 (July 15, 2008 –July 13, 2009) 206 242 67 36
Year 18 (July 14, 2009 –July 12, 2010) 126 128 71 0
Year 19 (July 13, 2010 –July 12, 2011) 126 119 71 0
Year 20 (July 13, 2011 –July 13, 2012) 126 92 71 4
Year 21 (July 13, 2012 –July 13, 2013) 126 43 71 0
Year 22 (July 13, 2013 –July 13, 2014) 126 90 71 9
Year 23 (July 13, 2014 –July 13, 2015) 126 106 71 1
Year 24 (July 13, 2015 –July 13, 2016) 126 126 71 45
Year 25 (July 12, 2016 –July 12, 2017) 126 126 742 6
Year 26 (July 13, 2017 –July 12, 2018) 126 126 587 12
22
3788
Year 27(July 13, 2018 –July 12, 2019) 126 124 565 1
Year 28 (July 13, 2019 –July 12, 2020) 126 111 332 343
Year 29 (July 13, 2020 –July 12, 2021) 64 64 63 11
36 RETURNED
3
Year 30 (July 13, 2021 –July 12, 2022) 64 64
TO POOL
Year 31 (July 13, 2022 –July 12, 2023) 64 64 38 31
Year 32 (July 13, 2023 –July 12, 2024) 62 62 22 16
Year 33 (July 13, 2024 –July 12, 2025) 62 62 0 22
N/A
Totals 4,457 4,311 1,481*
(not cumulative)
*Does not include Affordable Housing ROGO allocations reserved by the BOCC.
Source: Monroe County 2010-2030 Technical Document & Data from Quarterly ROGO Result Reports for Years 18-30; and
ROGO yearly tracking data.
There is a time lapse which occurs between the ROGO allocation date and the permit issuance
date. An allocation award expires when its corresponding building permit is not picked up after
sixty (60) days of notification by certified mail of the award, or upon expiration of the issued
permit. The historical data presented in the table above do not include allocations issued in Key
West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, Islamorada, or Marathon.
NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO)
Monroe County adopted the Non-Residential Rate of Growth (NROGO) in 2001 in order to ensure
a reasonable balance between the amount of future non-residential development and the needs of
a slower growing residential population.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.4.1 limits the County’s availability of
nonresidential square footage that may be permitted. This policy assures that the balance of
residential to nonresidential development is maintained.
Policy 101.4.1 states:
“Monroe County shall maintain a Permit Allocation System for new nonresidentialfloor area,
known as the Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) System. Monroe County shall
maintain a balance between residential and nonresidential growth by limiting the floor area of new
nonresidential development available within the County to maintain a maximum of 47,083 square
feet of floor area per NROGO year. The nonresidential allocation allowed by this policy shall be
distributed on an annual basis, pursuant to Policy 101.4.3. The NROGO allocation system shall
apply within the unincorporated area of the county, excluding areas within the county mainland
and within the Ocean Reef planned development (Future development in the Ocean Reef planned
development is based upon the December 2010 Ocean Reef Club Vested Development Rights
Letter recognized and issued by the Department of Community Affairs).”
23
3789
Section 138-51 of the LDC establishes the annual award distribution of NROGO allocations.
Sec. 138-51 NROGO allocations.
Maximum amount of available floor area for the annual nonresidential ROGO allocations. The
annual amount of floor area available for allocation under NROGO shall be 47,083 square feet.
Beginning NROGO Year 22 (July 13, 2013), this floor area shall be distributed to each of subareas
as provided inthe following table:
ROGO subarea Annual NROGO allocation
Upper22,944 SF
Lower21,749 SF
Big Pine/No Name2,390 SF
Total47,083 SF
NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (NROGO) ANALYSIS
A summary of square footage of non-residentialfloor area previously made available and allocated
in the unincorporated Keys from Year 14 (2006) to Year 30 (2022) is shown below.
NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR UNINCORPORATED MONROE
COUNTY YEAR 14 (2006) TO YEAR 33 (2025)
(Excluding Big Pine & No Name Key)
Year Amount AvailableTotal Allocations Awarded
Year 14 (2006) 16,000 sq/ft 12,594 sq/ft
Year 15 (2007) 18,000 sq/ft 12,500 sq/ft
Year 16 (2008) 35,000 sq/ft 17,938 sq/ft
Year 17 (2009) 30,000 sq/ft 13,056 sq/ft
Year 18 (2010)20,000 sq/ft6,355sq/ft
Year 19 (2011)20,000 sq/ft6,116sq/ft
Year 20(2012)44,700 sq/ft8,234 sq./ft
Year 21 (2013) 44,700 sq/ft 2,500 sq/ft
Year 22 (2014) 47, 083 sq/ft7,395 sq/ft
Year 23 (2015) 47, 083 sq/ft2,484 sq/ft
Year 24 (2016) 47, 083 sq/ft1,756 sq/ft
Year 25 (2017) 47, 083 sq/ft3,558 sq/ft
Year 26 (2018) 47, 083 sq/ft 15,678 sq/ft
Year 27 (2019) 47, 083 sq/ft11,092 sq/ft
Year 28 (2020) 47, 083 sq/ft298 sq/ft
Year 29 (2021) 47, 083 sq/ft10,995 sq/ft
Year 30 (2022) 47,083 sq/ft 985 sq/ft
Year 31 (2023) 47,083 sq/ft
5,545 sq/ft
Year 32 (2024) 47,083 sq/ft
9,472 sq/ft
Year 33 (2025) 47,083 sq/ft
15,728 sq/ft
24
378:
NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subareais treated differently given the Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other protected species and the USFWS issued
Incidental Take Permit (ITP). Annually the amount of new nonresidential floor area allocated to
the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is 2,390 square feet. A summary of allocations in these
environmentally sensitive keys is shown below.
NROGO ALLOCATIONS FOR BIG PINE/NO NAME KEYS
YEAR 15(2007) –YEAR 33(2025)
Number of Total Allocations
Year Available
ApplicantsAwarded
9,082 sq/ft
Year 15 (2007) 25,000 sq/ft
0 sq/ft
Year 16 (2008) 23,809 sq/ft
5,000 sq/ft
Year 17 (2009) 00 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 18 (2010) 00 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 19 (2011) 0384 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 20 (2012) 47,500 sq/ft
6,729sq/ft
Year 21 (2013) 35,240 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 22 (2014) 11,011sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 23 (2015) 2728 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 24 (2016) 00 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 25 (2017) 00 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 26 (2018) 00 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 27 (2019) 00 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 28 (2020) 00 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 29 (2021) 00 sq/ft
2,390 sq/ft
Year 30 (2022) 00 sq/ft
Year 31 (2023) 2,390 sq/ft 28 sq/ft
1
Year 32 (2024) 2,390 sq/ft 0 sq/ft
0
Year 33 (2025) 2,390 sq/ft 00 sq/ft
BUILDING PERMIT DATA
There were 6,229 dwelling units that received a building permit from January 1, 2000, to December
31, 2024. Of these units, approximately 91 percent were single family homes and 7 percent were
mobile homes and recreational vehicles (RV). An average of 249 new and replacement dwelling
units per year were permitted from 2000 to 2024. Of the 6,229 dwelling unit permits issued, 2,766
were the result of obtaining a ROGO allocation. Of the 6,229 dwelling units permits issued, a total
of 6,166 dwelling units received a certificate of occupancy.
RESIDENTIAL/TRANSIENTBUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
JANUARY 1, 2000 –DECEMBER 31, 2024
Permits
Mobile Total
Single Multi Hotel / Issued Received
Year Duplex Home / Permits
Family Family Motel Under CO
RV Issued
ROGO
25
3791
January1, 2000-
169 0 35 49 34 287 92 372
December 31, 2000
January 1, 2001-
153013551222118261
December 31, 2001
January 1, 2002-
200 0 16 47 1 264 181 243
December 31, 2002
January 1, 2003-
228 0 12 38 28 306 161 290
December 31, 2003
January 1, 2004-
241 0 54 29 0 324 105 288
December 31, 2004
January 1, 2005-
361 8 2 28 0 399 160 288
December 31, 2005
January 1, 2006-
376 0 2 14 0 392 198 289
December 31, 2006
January 1, 2007-
380 0 0 13 0 393 103 317
December 31, 2007
January 1, 2008-
168 1 3 12 0 184 45 236
December 31, 2008
January 1, 2009-
197 0 0 4 0 201 4 140
December 31, 2009
January 1, 2010-
222 0 0 5 1 228 5 137
December 31, 2010
January 1, 2011-
162 0 0 2 0 164 165 202
December 31, 2011
January 1, 2012-
109 0 12 7 0 128 175 218
December 31, 2012
January 1, 2013-
174 0 0 25 0 199 103 144
December 31, 2013
January 1, 2014-
256 0 1 46 0 303 93 195
December 31, 2014
January 1, 2015-
209 0 44 27 1 281 197 267
December31, 2015
January 1, 2016-
252 0 4 12 1 269 165 226
December 31, 2016
January 1, 2017-
199 0 28 4 1 232 67 232
December 31, 2017
January 1, 2018-
302 0 9 7 0 318 64 226
December 31, 2018
January 1, 2019-
293 0 1 5 0 299 70 319
December 31, 2019
January 1, 2020-
2160470227123317
December 31, 2020
January 1, 2021-
199 0 10 1 0 210 83 245
December 31, 2021
January 1, 2022-
256 0 13 1 0 269 120 198
December 31, 2022
January 1, 2023-
210 0 0 7 0 95 99 237
December 31, 2023
January 1, 2024-
151 0 0 6 1 35 70 279
December 31, 2024
TOTAL 5,683 9 263 451 69 6,229 2,766 6,166
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, August 2025
A total of 4,459 dwelling units were demolished from 2000 to December 31, 2024. The highest
demolition rate occurred in years 2018 and 2019 with 693 units demolished, presumably in response
to damage incurred by Hurricane Irma in September, 2017. An average of 179 dwelling units were
26
3792
demolished per year between 2000 and 2024. At this time,it is not possible to determine, whether a
demolition was for a single family, a mobile home, etc.
HOUSING DEMOLITION PERMITS
Residential
Year
Demolitions
January 1, 2000-December 31, 2000 98
January 1, 2001-December 31, 2001 157
January 1, 2002-December 31, 2002 140
January 1, 2003-December 31, 2003143
January 1, 2004-December 31, 2004 218
January 1, 2005-December 31, 2005 341
January 1, 2006-December 31, 2006 336
January 1, 2007-December 31, 2007 241
January 1, 2008-December 31, 2008 146
January 1, 2009-December 31, 2009 129
January 1, 2010-December 31, 2010 239
January 1, 2011-December 31, 2011 96
January 1, 2012-December 31, 2012 106
January 1, 2013-December 31, 2013 120
January 1, 2014-December 31, 2014 132
January 1, 2015-December 31, 2015 140
January 1, 2016- December 31, 2016 152
January 1, 2017- December 31, 2017 262
January 1, 2018- December 31, 2018 348
January 1, 2019- December 31, 2019 345
January 1, 2020- December 31, 2020 180
January 1, 2021- December 31, 2021 212
January 1, 2022-December 31, 2022190
January 1, 2023- December 31, 2023 65
January 1, 2024- December 31, 2024 65
TOTAL4,601
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, August 2025
27
3793
II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Roads are one of the critical public facilities identified for biennial assessment in the Monroe
County Land Development (LDC). The Comprehensive Plan and LDC regulations require U.S. 1
to remain at a LOS C or higher and that all county roads to remain at a LOS D or higher. The
Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary
roads within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for maintaining U.S. 1.
Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies of U.S. 1 on an annual or biennial
basis since 1991. The data collection for years 1991 through 1996 was conducted by the Monroe
County Planning Department, with assistance from the Monroe County Engineering Department,
and the Florida Department of Transportation. URS has collected the data for years 1997 through
2017, on behalf of the Monroe County Planning Department with assistance from the agencies
identified above. Beginning in 2019, data for the biennial US1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay
Study has been collected by AECOM, the County’s current transportation consultant.
The following are the travel time/delay data and findings from the 2025 US1 Arterial Travel Time
and Delay Study.
The U.S.1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study’s primary objective is to monitor the level of
service on U.S. 1 for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes
and Section 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Code. The study utilizes an empirical
relationship between the volume-based capacities and the speed-based LOS methodology
developed for U.S. 1 in Monroe County, by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force.
A county-imposed building moratorium results when the measured speeds of a segment OR the
overall travel speeds of the entire U.S. 1 fall below the adopted level of service thresholds; segment
level failure results in building moratorium specific to the area served by that particular segment
and the overall failure would result in a countywide moratorium. Although there hasnever been a
countywide moratorium, Big Pine Key between 1994 and 2002 experienced a localized
development moratorium. Due to the significant role of this study in the County’s growth
management process, the accuracy of data collection and the results of this study are significant.
U.S. 1 (the Overseas Highway) is the only principal arterial serving people and visitors in the Keys.
The unique geography, land use patterns and trip making characteristics of the Florida Keys
present a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable method to assess LOS.
Although U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys is predominantly an uninterrupted-flow, two-lane roadway,
its uniqueness warrants an alternative LOS evaluation process than found in the Highway Capacity
Manual.
A uniform method was developed in 1993 and amended December 1997 and February 2021 by
the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force to assess the level of service on U.S. 1. The adopted method
considers both the overall level of service from Key West to the mainland and the level of service
on 24 selected segments (See Table 1). The methodology was developed from basic criteria and
principles contained in Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two-Lane
Highways) and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of Highway Capacity Manual. The
methodology establishes a procedure for using travel speeds as a means of assessing the level of
service and reserve capacity of U.S. 1 in the unique setting of the Florida Keys.
28
3794
In accordance with the adopted US 1 LOS Methodology, the travel speeds for the entire 108-mile
stretch of US 1 and the 24 individual segments are measured by conducting travel time runs during
the peak season. FDOT defines the peak season as “the 13 consecutive weeks of the year with the
highest traffic volume” (Source: FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook).
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of the Keys between Key West
and Miami-Dade County. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced by long distance trips
or traffic traveling the entire length of the Keys. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in
unincorporated Monroe County, the movement of long distance traffic is an important
consideration.
Monroe County hasadopted a LOS C Standard for U.S. 1. Further, 45 mph has been adopted as
the LOS C Standard for the entire length of U.S. 1 regardless of the posted speed limits. Under
the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for U.S. 1 falls below the LOS C
Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed in the Florida Keys.
Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The segments were
defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross-sections, speed limits, and geographical
boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S.
1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important
consideration on this multi purpose highway.
A comparison of average posted speed limits and the average travel speeds for individual segments
leads to the level of service on the respective segments along U.S. 1. The difference between the
segment travel speeds and the LOS C Standard is called reserve speed. The reserve speed is
converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volumes and corresponding
additional development. If the travel speed falls below the LOS C Standard, additional trips
equivalent to 5% of LOS C capacity are allowed, to accommodate a limited amount of land
development to continue until traffic speeds are measured again during the next biennial study or
until remedial actions are implemented.
Table 1
U.S. 1 Segments and Mile Markers
Segment Mile Segment Segment Mile Segment
NumberMarker Name NumberMarker Name
1 4-5 Stock Island 13 47-54 Marathon
2 5-9 Boca Chica 14 54-60.5 Grassy
3 9-10.5Big Coppitt 15 60.5-63 Duck
4 10.5-16.5 Saddlebunch 16 63-73 Long
5 16.5-20.5 Sugarloaf 17 73-77.5 Lower Matecumbe
6 20.5-23 Cudjoe 18 77.5-79.5 Tea Table
7 23-25 Summerland 19 79.5-84 UpperMatecumbe
8 25-27.5 Ramrod 20 84-86 Windley
9 27.5-29.5 Torch 21 86-91.5 Plantation
10 29.5-33 Big Pine 22 91.5-99.5 Tavernier
11 33-40 Bahia Honda 23 99.5-106 Key Largo
12 40-47 7-Mile Bridge 24 106-112.5 Cross Key
29
3795
The travel time, delay, and distance data were collected by AECOM staff. The data were recorded
by date, day of the week, time of the day, and direction. The field data collection took place
between March 23, 2025,and April 5, 2025. Fourteen (14) round trips were made to successfully
complete the twenty-eight (28) required northbound and southbound runs. These runs represent a
sample of two runs of each day of the week. Every oneof the twenty-eight travel time run data
sheets was quality checked. The seven-day, 24-hour traffic data were collected in Islamorada,
Marathon, and Big Pine Key from March 30, 2025 to April 14, 2025, concurrently with the travel
time runs.
Traffic Volumes
US 1 is predominately a four-lane facility in Marathon and a two-lane facility in Upper Matecumbe
and Big Pine Key. Seven-day continuous traffic counts collected between March 30 and April 14,
2025 were used to calculate the average daily traffic (ADT) andannual average daily traffic
(AADT). The 7-day average volumes were used along with seasonal and axle factors to estimate
the AADTs.
LOCATION 5-DAY ADT 7-DAY ADT AADT
Big Pine Key (MM 29)18,15217,319 15,463
Marathon (MM 50)22,21521,441 19,134
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84) 19,99520,418 18,229
The2025AADTdecreasedinBigPine(-20.40%), MarathonKey (-41.00%), and Upper
Matecumbe (-23.25%) Keys in compared to 2021.
Similarly,the 2025AADT decreasedinBig Pine (3.59%), Marathon Key (-11.67%) and Upper
Matecumbe (6.48%) Keys as compared to 2023. A detailed historical comparison of the US 1
traffic counts for the period from 2011 to 2025 is presented in a Table on page 30 and a
comparison of the most recent data (2011 to 2025) is presented in a graph on pages 31,
respectively.
US 1 historical traffic growth is depicted in a regression analysis on page 32. A linear regression
analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last 26 years indicates that there is
a slight increase in overall traffic growth at the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe count locations,
and an overall decreasing trend in traffic volumes for the Big Pine count location (but the last
13-year data shows an increasing trend).
30
3796
%
3797
22.52%22.78%21.03%43.60%43.09%41.82%30.12%28.15%26.53%
---------
Change
31
2025
AECOM
-
Count
18,15217,31915,46322,21521,44119,13419,99520,418
18,229
Change
2.75%1.90%0.79%2.94%2.55%1.42%9.42%5.62%4.46%
%
2023
Count
23,42722,42839,38637,67532,89028,61528,419
19,58024,810
%
1.74%1.32%3.59%1.14%4.15%6.48%
11.10%13.62%11.67%
---
Change
U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study
2021
–
5
202
Count
22,79922,00919,42738,26236,73932,43026,15226,90823,751
Source:
%
1.54%1.11%3.20%
2.25%0.59%9.29%8.39%6.09%1.01%
---
Change
2019
Count
22,40821,72243,04142,53036,71625,85625,837
18,75322,305
%
4.02%2.31%5.42%1.84%
1.44%2.87%1.07%1.20%0.18%
----
Change
2017
HISTORICAL COMPARISON
Count 21,91521,59539,38239,23934,60925,59826,126
19,04723,043
–
%
8.80%
10.17%13.86%16.35%17.46%10.24%11.45%
12.24%13.72%
Change
2015
Count
22,83322,10638,82438,14434,24326,07925,817
20,13923,002
%
0.33%2.49%0.38%0.14%0.61%0.19%3.68%7.11%3.73%
---------
Change
2013
Count 20,98620,06617,94334,09732,78329,15323,65623,16420,226
U.S. 1 TRAFFIC COUNTS
%
0.04%
2.87%2.53%1.85%6.19%6.07%5.13%0.97%1.75%
-
Change
2012
Count 21,05620,57934,14532,98529,20824,56124,936
18,01121,009
%
0.88%0.22%0.88%
0.85%1.79%0.85%7.69%8.27%7.69%
---
Change
2011
Count
20,46820,07017,68432,15631,09727,78224,32624,50821,017
Day Day Day Day Day Day
––––––
AADTAADTAADT
Upper
575757
AverageAverageAverageAverageAverageAverage
Big Pine
Marathon
Matecumbe
Overall Speeds
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of US 1 in the Keys between
Key West and Miami-Dade County line. Overall speeds reflect the conditions experienced during
long distance or through trips. Given that U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial in Monroe County,
the movement of through traffic is an important consideration.
The levels of service (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County, as adopted by
the Task Force, are as follows:
LOS A 51.0 mph or above
LOS B 50.9 mph to 48 mph
LOS C 47.9 mph to 45 mph
LOS D 44.9 mph to 42 mph
LOS E41.9 mph to 36 mph
LOS Fbelow 36 mph
The overall median speed during the 2025 ATTDS was 45.6 mph, which is 1.4 mph higher than the
2023medianspeedof44.2mph,and0.1mphlowerthanthe2021medianspeed of 45.5mph.The
median speed corresponds to LOS C. The highest overall speed recorded during the 14-day
ATTDSwas 60.7mph (0.8mph higherthan the 2021highest overall speedof 59.9mph).The
lowest overall speed recorded was 35.8 mph (1.1 mph higher than the 2021 lowest overall speed
of 34.7 mph).
Segment Speeds
Segment speeds are the speeds recorded within individual links of U.S. 1. The segments were
defined by the Task Force to reflect roadway cross-sections, speed limits, and geographical
boundaries. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S.
1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important
consideration on this multipurpose highway.
The level of service criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County depends on the flow
characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. The criteria, listed by type of
flow characteristic, are summarized below.
Interrupted Flow
LOS A 35 mph
LOS B 28 mph
LOS C 22 mph
LOS D 17 mph
LOS E13 mph
LOS F < 13 mph
Uninterrupted Flow
LOS A1.5 mph above speedlimit
LOS B 1.5 mph below speed limit
34
379:
LOS C4.5 mph below speedlimit
LOS D 7.5mph below speed limit
LOS E13.5 mph below speedlimit
LOS F more than 13.5 mph below speed limit
For all “uninterrupted” segments containing isolated traffic signals, the travel times were reduced
by 35 seconds per signalized intersection and 3 seconds per pedestrian signal to account for delay
due to signals. The Marathon and the Stock Island segments are considered “interrupted” flow
facilities, which are evaluated using the interrupted flow LOS criteria shown above. Therefore, no
adjustments (to account for delay at signals) were made to travel times in these segments.
The segment limits, median travel speeds, and Level of Service (for 2021 and 2025) for each
segment are presented in Figure 3. The median segment speed ranged from 60.7 mph in the Boca
Chica segment to 35.8 mph in the Plantation segment. The following is a summary of LOS
changes, as compared to 2021:
• Saddlebunch (4) changed from LOS ‘B’ to LOS ‘C’
• Cudjoe (6) changed from LOS ‘A’ to LOS ‘B’
•Big Pine (10) changed from LOS ‘A’ to LOS ‘B’
• 7-Mile Bridge (12) changed from LOS ‘B’ to LOS ‘C’
• Lower Matecumbe segment (17) changed from LOS ‘C’ to LOS ‘D’
• Tea Table (18) changed from LOS ‘A’ to LOS ‘B’
• Upper Matecumbe (19) changed from LOS ‘E’ to LOS ‘D’
• Cross (24) changed from LOS ‘C’ to LOS ‘B’
As compared to the 2021 study, the median segment speeds decreased in 20 of the 24 segments,
ranging between 0.1 mph and 3.5 mph, and increased in 4 segments, ranging from 0.1 mph to 2.5
mph.
The largest increase in speed (+2.5 mph) was recorded in Segment #19 (Upper Matecumbe – MM
79.5 to 84.0). The largest reduction in speed (-3.5 mph) was recorded in segment #24 (Cross –
MM 106.0 to 112.5).
As compared to the 2021 study, the LOS degraded in five of the 24 segments and improved in two
segments. The LOS did not change for the rest of the segments. The significant LOS changes were
recorded in Segment #17 (L Matecumbe –MM 73.0 to 77.5), where the LOS changed from ‘C’ to
‘D’ and in Segment #19 (Upper Matecumbe – MM 79.5 to MM 84.0), where the LOS changed
from ‘E’ to ‘D’.
As compared to the 2023 study, the median segment speeds decreased in 11 of the 24 segments,
ranging between 0.4 mph and 2.8 mph, and increased in 11 segments, ranging from 0.2 mph to 4.0
mph.
The largest increase in speed (+4.0 mph) was recorded in Segment #1 (Stock Island – MM 4.0 to
5.0) and the largest reduction in speed (-2.8 mph) was recorded in Segment #24 (Cross – MM
106.0 to 112.5).
35
37:1
As compared to the 2023 study, the LOS degraded in five of the 24 segments and improved in five
segments. The LOS did not change for the rest of the segments. Significant LOS changes were
observed in Segment #17 and Segments #19, #20 and #21. The LOS changed from ‘E’ to ‘D’ in
Segments #19 and #20, from ‘D’ to ‘C’ in Segment #21, and from ‘B’ to ‘D’ in Segment #17.
Reserve Capacities
The difference between themedian speedandthe LOS C Standard speed gives the reserve
speed, which in turn can be converted to an estimated reserve capacity. The overall median
speed of 45.5 mph compared to the LOS C standard of 45 mph results in a positive overall
reserve speed of 0.5 mph. This reserve speed is converted into an estimated number of reserve
trips using the formula below:
Reserve Volume = Reserve Speed x K x Overall Length
Trip Length
ReserveVolume = Reservespeed x1656dailytrips/mph x112 miles
10 miles
Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of US 1 individually gives
maximum reserve volumes for all segments totaling 96,991 trips. These individual reserve
volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraint imposed by the overall reserve volume.
County regulationsand FDOT policy allow segments that fail tomeet the LOS C standards
to receive an allocation not to exceed five percent below the LOSC standard. The
so-called five percent allocations were calculated for such segments as follows:
5%Allocation = (median speed - 95% of LOS C) x 1656 x Length
Trip Length
The following three segments were identified to be functioning below the LOS C threshold:
Segment #17 (Lower Matecumbe), Segment #19 (Upper Matecumbe) and Segment #20 (Windley).
These three segments have depleted their reserve capacities. Out of the three segments, two are in
the Village of Islamorada.
The table on page 36 details the segment levels of service and reserve capacity values for each
segment.
36
37:2
37
37:3
AECOM
-
U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study
–
5
202
Source:
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the 2025Travel Time and Delay Study results as compared to the
2021Travel Time and Delay Study:
a)The overall travel speed on US 1 based on the 2025 study is 45.6 mph, which is slightly
higher than the overall travel speed observed in 2021.
b) As compared to the 2021 speed data, the median travel speeds in 20 out of the 24 segments
have decreased and increased in 4 segments, as shown below:
c)As compared to the 2021 study, there are LOS changes in eight of the 24 segments – the
LOS for sixsegments have degraded, and the LOS for two segments have improved.
d) A total of three segments (#17, 19, and 20) are expected to operate at an unacceptable level
of service (LOS D). Segment #17 (Lower Matecumbe -MM73.0-77.5) LOS changed from
LOS C to LOS D, Segment #19 (Upper Matecumbe – 79.5-84.0) LOS changed LOS E to
LOS D. LOS for Segment #20 remains unchanged at LOS D. These three segments (#17,
19, and 20) have no reserve capacity. Therefore, development applications in these
segments should be reviewed closely for potential mitigation measures to avoid further
degradation of LOS and capacity.
e) Segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given particular
attention when reviewing/approving development applications. Based on the 2025 study,
there are eight segments in this category (compared to seven segments in the 2021 study).
38
37:4
f) There were 85 construction delay events in 2025 (accounted for 8 hours and 34 minutes
and 59 seconds), as compared to 10 construction delay events (accounted for 2 hours 14
minutes and 56 seconds) in 2021.
g) There were 115 signal related delay events in 2025, resulting in 1 hour 10 minutes and 29
seconds of delay, as compared to 1 hour and 8 seconds (in 124 signal related events) in
2021.
The following is a list of considerations for review:
1) Under the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for US 1 fallsbelow the
LOS C Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed unless mitigation
measures are implemented. Roadway widening is a typical mitigation measure (or capacity
improvement) used by most agencies. However, in Monroe County, road widening
(specifically along US 1) is restricted by the adopted comprehensive plan policies to preserve
and protect the fragile ecological conditions. There are other remedies that could be explored
and evaluated to improve the traffic flow and capacity along US 1. Some examples include:
Implement Active Traffic Management and Transportation System Management &
Operation type improvements, which include real-time monitoring of traffic flow,
implementing real-time signal timing adjustments and other changes as needed to address
traffic congestion. Video cameras at some intersections have been installed through the
Keys COAST project completed by FDOT. Install additional infrastructure, as needed, to
help monitor traffic flow in real-time.
Add turn lanes at strategic locations to improve roadway capacity and safety.
Provide or improve transit service or other multi-modal transportation alternatives. Monroe
County has initiated studies/projects to improve transit service.
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has completed a signal retiming study
along US 1 in Monroe County for the off-season period and implemented signal timing
changes in October 2024. Similar study for the peak season and associated signal timing
improvements could help enhance traffic flow.
Implement access management improvements (consolidate driveways/access points,
modify median openings, etc.) to reduce interruptions to US 1 traffic flow.
Provide and/or improve frontage roads to reduce the impacts to US 1 traffic flow. Improve
local roads to minimize US 1 being used as a local street for short trips.
Do not install new traffic signals along US 1, if a less restrictive alternative (such as indirect
left-turns, a roundabout, etc.) can be provided to accommodate traffic movements.
39
37:5
Conduct speed studies on selected segments of US 1 to confirm if the current speed limits
are appropriate and modify, if necessary.
2) The US 1 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) has identified several locations for roadway and
multi-modal improvements. It is recommended that follow-up studies be conducted at those
locations to evaluate the feasibility of implementing improvements to enhance traffic flow.
Monroe County has already initiated some follow-up studies based on the TMP.
U.S. 1 is a state maintained roadway. Therefore, any modifications/ improvements to U.S. 1 have
to be developed in collaboration with the Florida Department of Transportation.
CONCURRENCY REVIEW - TRANSPORTATION/ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all
development and redevelopment taking place within unincorporated Monroe County do not result
in a reduction of the level of service requirements, including transportation facilities. The Monroe
County Comprehensive Plan and LDC have adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roads,
particularly US Highway 1, which is part of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
State Highway System.
Policy 301.1.2
For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as
measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on U.S. 1 shall
be maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C.
Sec. 114-2. - Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures.
(a) Level of Service Standards (LOS). All development shall be served by adequate public
facilities in accordance with the following standards:
(1) Transportation/Roadways.
a.U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall
arterial length and the 24 roadway segments of U.S. 1, as measured by the U.S.
1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway
segments. In addition, all segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of
Service Task Force Methodology, which would be impacted by a proposed
development's access to U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate
at LOS C.
b.Development may be approved, provided that the development in combination
with all other permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than
five percent (5%) below LOS C, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service
Task Force Methodology. While development may be approved within 5% of
LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact that
needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the form of specific
improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements and
strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service
degradation beyond LOS C and/or deficiencies.
40
37:6
This LOS standard is used within the County’s Concurrency Management System to review
development proposals and ensure that the transportation facilities needed to serve development
will be in place when the impacts of the development occur; to evaluate any potential degradation
in the adopted LOS; and to determine the need for improvements in order to achieve and maintain
the adopted LOS standard.
Policy 101.1.5
Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place when the
impacts of the development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure that the
adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement
of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable
commitment to the County to assure construction or improvement of proportionate share
of required improvements, or to assure the provision of the proportionateshare contribution
of the costs for the necessary transportation facilities. The development of a single family
residential unit shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement.
Policy 301.2.3
Monroe County shall not permit new development which would significantly degrade the
LOS below the adopted LOS standards on U.S. 1 (overall) unless the proportionate share
of the impact is mitigated. The development of one single family residential unit, on a
single parcel, shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement.
A five percent projected decrease in travel speeds, below LOS C, is a significant
degradation in the level of service on U.S. 1. Traffic volume which exceeds the LOS D
standard by more than five percent is a significant degradation in the level of service on
any other County road.
Although the 2025 US1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study shows that overall US1 and all
segments within unincorporated Monroe County are operating at a LOS C or greater, per LDC
Section 114-2, concurrency review for proposed development within the unincorporated county
takes into account all other permitted development since the time of the 2025 study as well.
Development may only be approved if the proposed development in combination with all other
permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent (5%) below LOS
C for the overall length of US1 or for any individual segment. While development may be
approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact
that needs mitigation. Concurrency must be satisfied at the time a development permit is issued;
at the time a certificate of occupancy; or through a binding contract or agreement for the necessary
facility and/or service improvements or proportionate share contribution.
41
37:7
III. POTABLE WATER
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in the Florida
Keys. FKAA’s primary water supply is the Biscayne Aquifer, a shallow groundwater source. The
FKAA’s wellfield is located within an environmentally protected pine rockland forest west of
Florida City. The location of the wellfield near Everglades National Park, along with restrictions
enforced by state and local regulatory agencies, contributes to the unusually high water quality.
These wells contain some of the highest quality groundwater in the state, meeting all regulatory
standards prior to treatment. Additionally, the FKAA is continually monitoring, assessing, and
working to eliminate potential hazards to our water source, including inappropriate aquifer
utilization, unsuitable land uses, and the potential for saltwater intrusion.
The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the FKAA’s Water Treatment Facility in Florida
City, which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8 million gallons per
day (MGD). The primary water treatment process is a conventional lime softening/filtration water
treatment plant and is capable of treating up to 23.8 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer. The
secondary water treatment process is the newly constructed Reverse Osmosis water treatment plant
which is capable of producing 6 MGD from the brackish Floridan Aquifer. The product water from
these treatment processes is then disinfected and fluoridated. The FKAA treated water is pumped
130 miles from Florida City to Key West supplying water to the entire Florida Keys.
The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity of 45.2
million gallons system wide. The sizes of tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million gallons. These tanks
are utilized during periods of peak water demand and serve as an emergency water supply. Since
the existing transmission line serves the entire Florida Keys (including Key West), and storage
capacity is an integral part of the system, the capacity of the entire system must be considered
together, rather than in separate service districts.
Also, the two saltwater Reserve Osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock Island and Marathon, are
available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants have
design capacities of 4.0 and 1.0 MGD, respectively.
At present, Key West and Ocean Reef are the only areas of the County served by a flow of potable
water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of water sources,
including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting sites on the open water or
from specially constructed fire wells. Although sufficient flow to fight fires is not guaranteed in
the County, new hydrants are being installed as water lines are replaced to make water available
for fire-fighting purposes and pump station/tank facilities are being upgraded to provide additional
fire flow and pressure. A map of the key FKAA transmission and distribution facilities is shown
in Figure 3.1.
42
37:8
Figure 3.1
Demand for Potable Water
Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 3.2 provide an overview of the water demands in the FKAA service
area including Water Use Permit (WUP) allocation limits, yearly percent changes, and remaining
water allocations. In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved
the FKAA’s modification of WUP 13-00005-5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and
Floridan Aquifers. As shown in Figure 3.5, the WUP provides an annual allocation of 8,751
Million Gallons (MG) or 23.98 MGD and a maximum monthly allocation of 809.01 MG with a
limited annual withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer of 6,492 MG
In order to meet the requirements of this limitation, the FKAA constructed a new Floridan Aquifer
Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment system. This RO water treatment system is designed to
withdraw brackish water from the Floridan Aquifer, an alternative water source approximately
1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treat the water to drinking water standards. The RO water
treatment plant provides added capability to limit Biscayne aquifer withdrawals and is designed to
meet current and future water demands. The RO water treatment system provides an additional 6.0
MGD of potable water.
Along with the new reverse osmosis water treatment plant, compliance with withdrawal limits can
also be accomplished by using other alternative water sources (blending of the Floridan Aquifer,
reclaimed water and operation of the RO desalination plants), pressure reduction, public outreach,
and assistance from municipal agencies in enforcing water conservation ordinances.
43
37:9
Table 1 Annual Water Withdrawals 2002-2024
Annual
WUP Limit WUP +/-Annual
Year Withdrawal % Change
(MG) Allocation (MG)
(MG)
20026,19110.03%7,2741,083
20036,2881.57%7,274986
20046,383 2.74% 7,274 813
20056,4770.16%7,274803
20066,283-2.49%7,274964
20075,850 -7.35% 7,274 1,428
20085,9601.89%8,7512,791
20095,966 0.09% 8,751 2,785
20105,919 -0.79% 8,751 2,832
20116,327 6.89% 8,751 2,424
20126,042 -4.50% 8,751 2,709
20136,105 1.04% 8,751 2,646
20146,377 4.46% 8,751 2,374
20156,530 2.40% 8,751 2,221
20166,462 -1.04% 8,751 2,289
20176,324 -2.13% 8,751 2,427
20186,526 3.10% 8,751 2,225
201968094.348,751 1,942
20206737-1.06 8,751 2,014
202172968.308,751 1,455
202275052.868,751 1,246
20237422-1.11 8,751 1,329
202475631.908,751 1,188
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2025
44
37::
Table 22024-2025Potable Water Demand Summary
Florida Keys Aquduct Authority
Potable Water Demand Summary - New Water Demand, Actual Water Demand, and Expected Water Demand
Year 2024Year 2025
Expected Water
New Water ServiceMetered WaterWater DemandDemand
Gal / YearGal / YearGal / YearGal / Year
Unincorporated Monroe County 1,099,8792,388,152,8153,336,986,291 3,415,181,749
City of Key West 2,380,8121,557,579,3002,176,418,837 2,227,418,767
City of Marathon 3186880615,105,664859,492,389 879,632,838
City of Key Colony Beach 52006117,484,794164,162,504 168,009,317
City of Layton 013,407,09118,733,843 19,172,832
Village of Islamorada 1685369693,740,350969,369,306 992,084,496
Entire Florida Keys 8,404,9465,385,470,0147,525,163,170 7,701,500,000
SFWMD WUP Annual Allocation 8,751,000,000 8,751,000,000
As shown in Table 2, FKAA expected 2025water demands for the entire Florida Keys is 7,701
Million Gallons and can be accommodated within the South Florida Water Management WUP
annual allocation of 8,751 Million Gallons (MG). For unincorporated Monroe County, the 2024
actual demand was 3,337MG and this is expected to slightly increase to 3,415MG for 2025.
Figure 3.2. FKAA Water Supply Available vs. Water Demand Projectionsthrough 2045
As shown in Figure 3.2, the FKAA water demand projections through 2045, based on the two
projections providedby FKAA, can be fulfilledthrough the use ofthe Biscayne permitted water
45
3811
supply of 17.79 MGD, the 6.0 MGD RO water treatment plant, the new reclaimed water systems,
and the ability to operate the 4.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations.
As shown in Tabel 3, in 2025, the FKAA distributed an annual average of 17.4 MGD from the
Biscayne Aquifer plus 3.27 MGD from Floridan RO Production. This table also provides the water
treatment capacities of the emergency RO plants. Since the emergency RO plants utilize seawater,
a WUP is not required for these facilities.
Table 3-Projected Water Demand in 2025 (in MG)
FKAA 2025 Water
2024 Water
Permit Demand
Demand
Thresholds Projected
Annual Allocation
Average Daily Demand23.98 20.66 21.1
Maximum Monthly Demand 809.01 686693
Annual Demand 8,751 7,525 7,702
Biscayne Aquifer Annual Allocation/Limitations
Average Daily Demand17.79 17.417.79
Annual Demand 6,492 6,367 6,492
Floridan RO Production
Average Daily Demand6.00 3.272.21
Emergency RO WTP Facilities
Kermit L. Lewin Design Capacity 4.00 (MGD) 21.84 (MGY) 1.00
Marathon RO Design Capacity 1.00 (MGD) 0.00 (MGY) 0.00
All figures are in millions of gallons
Source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2025
Table 4 provides the amount of water used on a per capita basis. Based on Functional Population
and average daily demand, the average water consumption for 2023 was approximately 127
gallons per capita (person), which reflects the entire FKAA service area, including unincorporated
Monroe County, Key West, Marathon, Islamorada, Key Colony Beach, and Layton.
46
3812
Table 4- Per Capita Water Use
Functional Average Per Capita Water
2
Year Daily Demand (gallons)
12
PopulationConsumption (gallons)
2000 153,080 17,016,393111
2001153,55215,415,616100
2002154,02316,962,082110
2003 154,495 17,228,192112
2004 154,924 17,652,596114
2005 156,150 17,730,000114
155,738
2006 17,287,671111
155,440
2007 16,017,315103
154,728
2008 16,285,383105
155,441
2009 16,345,205105
2010 155,288 16,210,959 104
2011 156,054 17,334,247111
2012 156,391 16,508,197106
2013 156,727 16,836,164 107
2014 157,063 17,472,362111
2015 157,400 17,890,400114
2016 157,730 17,704,100112
2017 158,060 17,632,900112
2018 158,391 17,643,800113
2019 158,721 18,076,710114
2020 159,051 18,213,110115
2021 159,382 19,810,960124
2022159,17219,948,230125
2023 160,043 20,086,451126
2024 160,373 20,225,630 126
Source: 1. Monroe County Population Projections - Monroe County Planning Department, 2011
2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 2025
Improvements to Potable Water Facilities
FKAA has a 20-year Water System Capital Improvement Master Plan for water supply, water
treatment, transmission mains and booster pump stations, distribution mains, facilities and
structures, information technology, reclaimed water systems, and Navy water systems.
47
3813
In 2023, FKAA began replacing aging transmission mainsand will continue upgrading the entire
130-mile system over the coming decades. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is
implementing major upgrades to help make its drinking water distribution more resilient against
climate change. The improvements are reflected in the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 5provides the schedule and costs projected for the capital improvements to the
potable/alternative water systems planned by the FKAA. The total cost of the scheduled
improvements is approximately $ 256,475,000 million over the next 5 years. These projects are to
be funded by the water rate structure, long-term bank loans, and grants.
Table 5 – FKAA Projected 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan
SUMMARY
Based on current conditions and projects, an adequate supply of water to meet current and future
demands is provided by the following: The Biscayne permitted water supply of 17.79 MGD, the
6.0 MGD RO water treatment plant, the new reclaimed water systems, and the ability to operate
the 4.0 MGD RO desalination plants during emergency situations. The FKAA continues to monitor
and track conditions and events that could negatively impact the existing water supply. Any such
impacts will be evaluated to determinefuture changes necessary to continue servicing Monroe
County with adequate water supply.
48
3814
IV. EDUCATION FACILITIES
The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 10 traditional and 7 charterpublic
schools located throughout the Keys. School Board data includes both unincorporated and
incorporated Monroe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle/high school,
four middle/elementary schools, and three elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields,
computer labs, bus service and a cafeteria. Seven (7) cafetoriums serve as both a cafeteria and an
auditorium. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer
gymnasiums. All three high schools offer a performance auditorium with a working stage.
The Monroe County school system is divided into five (5) districts. School concurrency ensures
coordination between local governments and school boards in planning and permitting residential
developments that affect school capacity utilization rates.
District 1 covers the westernmost boundary of Key West, moving to the east to include the
downtown area of the City of Key West, to a roughly north-south boundary irregularly drawn
through the center of the island. It includes two high schools and two elementary/middle schools
- two of which are charter schools. District 2 starts from the boundary of District 1, including the
balance of the City of Key West, east to include Boca Chica and the western portion of Big Coppitt
Key (Tamarind Drive). This includes two elementary schools and one elementary/middle school
with one being a charter school. District 3 starts from the boundary of District 2 - Emerald Drive
on Big Coppitt Key, to the east to Sombrero Beach Road -East side. This includes two elementary
schools, one elementary/middle school and one middle/high school, one of which is a charter
school. District 4 extends from the boundary of District 3 to Tavernier Creek MM92 and includes
two elementary schools and one high school – one is a charter school. District 5 begins at the
boundary of District 4 and continues to the Dade County line. This includes one elementary charter
school and one elementary/middle school.
49
3815
School concurrency ensures coordination between local governments and school boards in
planning and permitting residential developments that affect school capacity utilization rates.
The Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate is 10,281students and the Capital
Outlay of Full-Time Equivalent(COFTE) is 7,226. The actual utilization during 2024-2025was
70.29%.
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL
LOCATION2024-20252023-20242024-2025
FISH CAPACITYCOFTEUTILIZATION
CORAL SHORES SENIOR HIGH99174175.00%
KEY WEST SENIOR HIGH1,6091,21776.00%
HORACE O'BRYANT MIDDLE1,20294979.00%
MARATHON SENIOR HIGH1,39974653.00%
GERALD ADAMS63157291.00%
PLANTATION KEY SCHOOL67554180.00%
POINCIANA ELEMENTARY67250575.00%
SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY93864869.00%
STANLEY SWITLIK
ELEMENTARY73654173.00%
KEY LARGO SCHOOL1,28469654.00%
50
3816
MAY SANDS SCHOOL 1447049.00%
GLYNN ARCHER
1
ELEMENTARY 00 0.00%
1
BIG PINE ACADEMY00 0.00%
TOTAL 10,2817,22670.36%
1
Data not available in School Work Plan
The projected COFTE for 2028-2029is 7,505 students with 73.00 % of utilization.
Annually, prior to the adoption of the district school budget, each school board must prepare a
tentative district facilitywork program that includes a major repair and renovation projects
necessary to maintain the educational and ancillary facilities of the district. Some of the items
listed in the 2024-2025 Monroe County School District Work Plan include HVAC, flooring, paint,
roofing, safety to life, electrical, parking, fencing, maintenance/repair, fire alarms,
telephone/intercom systems and closed circuit television for various schools. Other items include
concrete repairs, site work and drainage maintenance, plumbing, ADA updates, elevator repair,
carpentry and small construction projects and maintenance and repair.
The 2024-2025 Monroe County School District expenditures from local funding sources were
$36,577,812. Additional revenue sources include proceeds from ½ cent sales surtax at $25,000,000
and funds carried forward at $24,039,957 were available for this period.
The total project costs for construction, maintenance, repair and renovation during 2024-2025 was
$36,577,812. The projected revenue/expenditures for new construction and remodeling projects
only, for 2025-2026and 2026-2027are $23,434,268 and $24,205,268, respectively.
SUMMARY
The overall 2024-2025utilization is 70.29% of the school system capacity and is projected for
2028-2029 at 73.00% utilization of the school capacity. Enrollment figures for 2024-2025indicate
that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system for the next two years.
51
3817
V. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Solid waste management is a critical issue in the Florida Keys. While problems of landfill sitings,
facilities, financing, and hazardous waste disposal have increased throughout Monroe County, the
unique setting of the Keys makes waste management even more difficult. The geographic isolation,
the limited land area, the environmental constraints, and the presence of nationally significant natural
resources adds to the challenge of responsibly and efficiently managing the Keys' solid waste stream.
Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 11.41 pounds
per capita per day. Policy 801.4.2 establishes within three (3) years after the adoption of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall implement a county-wide, mandatory recycling program
for residential and commercial locations. The Comprehensive Plan requires sufficient capacity shall
be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development
for a period of five years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development of use.
The Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC), in compliance with State concurrency
requirements, requires that “Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site at a
level of service of 11.41 pounds per capita per day. The county solid waste and resource recovery
authority may enter into agreements, including agreements under F.S. Section 163.01, to dispose of
solid waste outside of the county” (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)). This regulation went into effect on
February 28, 1988 and serves as a level of service (LOS) standard for solid waste disposal.
The LDC also requires that solid waste management plans be completed before any proposed
development of a Major Conditional Use is reviewed by the Growth Management Department. Solid
waste generation rates and capacity assessments must be submitted for review and coordination with
the Public Works Division, Department of Solid Waste/Recycling (PWD-DSW/R).
The table below summarizes historical solid waste generation for the service area.
Solid Waste Generation in Tons per Year
FY FDEP Total RecyclingDisposal
1998 N/A N/A N/A
1999 N/A N/A N/A
2000 158,327 59,798 131,825
2001 125,893 51,435 96,075
2002 134,950 68,738 113,071
2003 134,734 34,619 113,427
2004 112,102 13,757 110,333
2005 212,470 73,085 212,470
2006 200,338 12,206 200,338
2007 134,467 12,497 134,467
2008 130,245 13,743 130,245
2009 116,884 12,099 95,327
52
3818
2010 156,465 33,071 123,394
2011125,40227,80897,594
2012 145,889 38,985 106,904
2013 173,774 57,272 116,502
2014 177,312 61,421 115,891
2015 276,710 110,140166,570
2016 353,658 200,845152,813
2017 656,783 352,156304,618
2018 441,165 259,322181,843
2019 302,589 110,372192,217
2020 266,542 119,029147,513
2021 287,738 121,075166,663
2022322,804143,149179,655
2023 351,716 163,343188,373
2024 375,218 206,154169,064
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011; Monroe County Public Works 2013
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2024Annual Report
Data collection calendar year is January 1 to December 31.
These are scale tonnages.
Fluctuations in yearly data may be a result of major storm events, economic conditions, and
other generation factors.
FDEP calendar years do not coincide with Monroe County’s calendar years, thus creating a
differential in datum between departments.
The historical solid waste generation values for Monroe County show a steady increase of total solid
waste generation between the years 1998-2001. During the period 2005-2006 and 2015-2019, the
County’s solid waste generation was significantly higher. These higher values do not correspond to
normal solid waste generation trends within the County and in actuality result from a cluster of
outliers. The outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions (greater consumption of goods
and services) and storm events that cause a significant amount of over generation due to debris.
Furthermore, during the period of 2007-2008, an economic recession affected solid waste generation,
significantly reducing standard trends for generation growth.
The tourism industry in the Florida Keys is another large factor in solid waste generation that needs
to be accounted for in projected demands calculations. The Monroe County Tourist Development
Council estimated 4.3 million county-wide tourist visits occurred in 2011. The County and tourist
population are expected to continue increasing, which will impact solid waste generation within the
County.
Solid waste is collected by franchise and taken to the three historic landfill sites, which serve as
transfer facilities. At the transfer stations, the waste is compacted and loaded on Waste Management,
53
3819
Inc. (WMI) trucks for haul out. Recyclable materials, including white goods, tires, glass, aluminum,
plastic bottles, and newspaper are included as part of the solid waste haul out contract. A 2009
amendment to the contract includes WMI and the County’s commitment to increase annual recycling
rate to 40 percent by 2014. Based on the information obtained by Florida Department of
Environmental Protection solid waste management, this goal was met.
Solid Waste Transfer Facility Sizes and Capacities
Transfer FacilityAcreageCapacity
Cudjoe Key Transfer Station 20.2 acres200 tons/day
Long Key Transfer Station 29.5 acres 400 tons/day
Key Largo Transfer Station15.0 acres200 tons/day
Source: Waste Management Inc., 1991
Any future declines will also reflect the diligent efforts by the citizens of the County to reduce the
amount of solid waste they generate, through the conscious consumption of goods, composting,
mulching or other sustainability efforts. Additional factorswhich are less easily quantifiable could
also affect solid waste generation. The amount of construction taking place in the County, and thus
the amount of construction debris being disposed of, also significantly affects the total amount of
solid waste generated. Periods with less construction could have contributed to the decline in total
waste generation. Finally, the weather affects the rate of vegetative growth, and therefore affects the
amount of yard waste generated. Drier years could result in less total waste generation.
The analysis below represents a general trend of solidwaste generation with respect to functional
population growth. The LOS creates a conservative rate of solid waste generation in comparison to
the increasing trend of solid waste generation between the years 1998-2000, thus predicting a
comparative or slightly higher annual solid waste production in relation to population. Limitations
on future growth should reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris generation.
Recycling efforts in Monroe County have increased and should reduce the amount of solid waste
generation.
Solid Waste Generation Trends
GENERATION POPULATION
Year (Tons/Yr) Permanent Seasonal Functional (LBS/CAP/DAY)
2000 158,327 36,03633,24169,277 12.52
2001 125,893 36,25033,26369,513 9.92
2002 134,950 36,45233,28569,737 10.6
2003 134,734 36,54333,30769,850 10.57
2004 112,102 36,60633,32969,935 8.78
2005 212,470 37,16433,35170,515 16.51
2006 200,338 36,46634,01970,485 15.57
2007 134,467 35,74934,56870,317 10.48
2008 130,245 34,78835,55070,338 10.15
2009 116,884 36,26835,04371,311 8.98
54
381:
2010 156,465 35,36835,44070,808 12.10
2011 125,402 35,91735,24971,166 9.7
2012 145,889 39,37135,43874,089 11.65
2013 173,774 35,80635,65871,464 12.94
2014 177,312 35,75135,86271,613 13.12
2015 276,710 35,69636,06771,763 20.43
2016 353,658 35,63236,27771,909 25.48
2017 656,783 35,56736,48872,055 49.94
2018 441,165 35,50336,69872,201 33.48
2019 302,589 35,43836,90972,348 22.92
2020 35,37437,12072,494 20.15
266,542
2021 35,31037,33072,640 21.70
287,738
2022 322,804 35,24537,54172,786 24.30
35,18137,75272,933 26.42
2023 351,716
35,11637,96273,079 28.13
2024 375,218
Sources:
1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2. Monroe County 2012-2030 Monroe County Population Projections, Keith & Schnars, and Fishkind &
Associates, 3-15-11 (Unincorporated Population -Table 9)
SUMMARY
Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management, Inc. (WMI). The contract authorizes the
use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2029; thereby, providing the County with
approximately four (4) years of guaranteed capacity. The current contract has a 5-year extension,
the County may choose to negotiate a new contract with Waste Management, Inc. for continued
service. There is adequate capacity for solid waste generation for 2025-2027.
55
3821
VI. PARKS AND RECREATION
The Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities is provided in Policy 1201.1.1
and 1201.1.2 of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Parks and Recreational Facilities Level Of Service Standard
The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated
Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To ensure a balance between the
provisions of resource- and activity-based recreation areas the LOS standard has been divided
equally between these two types of recreation areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are:
0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population; and
0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population
Resource-based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources of
significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity-based recreation areas can be
established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, or other
athletic events.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Monroe County Surplus or
Comprehensive Plan Policy 1201.1.1, Existing Demand in
Functional (Deficit) in
Parks and Recreation Acreage Acreage
Population 2020 Acreage
1.5 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, resourced-based 159,051250208 42
neighborhood and community parks
1.5 acres per 1,000 functional
population of passive, activity-based 159,051434208 226
neighborhood and community parks
Source: Monroe County Technical Document, Chapter 13, Recreation and Open Space, May 11, 2011,
Section 13.5.1.1.2.
There are approximately 10,900 acres of resource-based recreation lands currently available in the County
for public use. Removing beaches which are primarily Federal and State owned from the resource-based
lands results in approximately 250 acres remaining.
Level of Service Analysis for Activity-Based Recreation Areas
The Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at educational
56
3822
facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. A total of 108.86 acres of
developed resourced-based and 117.23 acres of activity-based recreation areas are either owned or
leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board.
The activity-based recreational facilities that are inventoried include facilities and activities such as
baseball/softball, football/soccer, tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic tables and picnic pavilions,
volleyball courts, handball/racquetball courts, equipped play areas, multi-use areas, benches, tracks,
piers, bike paths, boat ramps, fishing, swimming, swimming pools, barbeque grills, shuffleboard
courts, beaches and restrooms. Additionally, other recreation uses and facilities are indicated such
as historic structures, bandshells, dog parks, skateboard facilities, aquatic parks, museums, and
concessions.
The subareas for park and recreational facilities include the Upper Keys, north of Tavernier;
Middle Keys, between Pigeon Key and Long Key; and the Lower Keys, south of the Seven Mile
Bridge.
The tables below provide resource- and activity-based parks and recreation in acres for the three
subarea planning areas.
MIDDLE KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 38.5-73
Classification (Acres)
Mile
NameLocation Facilities
Marker
Resource Activity
Sunset Bay Park Grassy Key58 Beach 0.6 NA
Boat ramp, teen club, 2
Vaca Key
Yacht Club (1) 54 tennis courts, basketball NA 2
(Marathon)
court
Beach, picnic pavilions,
ball field, 2 volleyball
Sombrero Beach
courts, equipped play
Marathon 50 0.68
(Switlik Park)
area, dog park, pier,
fishing, BBQ
Fishing, Bicycling,
Old 7-Mile Bridge Monroe County 41-47 5NA
Beaches
7-Mile Bridge Pigeon Key 45 Historical structures 5 NA
57
3823
UPPER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 73-112
Mile
Classification (Acres)
NameLocationMarkFacilities
ResourceActivity
er
Garden Cove ParkKey Largo 106Boat ramp 1.5 NA
Rowell’s Waterfront Picnic tables, benches, paddle-
Key Largo104.58 NA
Parksports launch, swimming area
Boat basin, pier, dock, five
Murray Nelson
Key Largo 102pavilions, restrooms, picnic 1.2 NA
Waterfront Park
tables, benches
Hibiscus Park
Key Largo101.5Vacant, inaccessible waterfront0.5NA
(Buttonwood Lane)
Ball field, 3 basketball courts,
Friendship Park Key Largo 101picnic shelters, Play equipment, NA 2.38
restrooms, trail
Key Largo Play equipment, aquatic park, 3
Community Park-swimming pools, ballfields,
Key Largo 99.6 1.5 13.6
Jacob's Aquatic soccer field, tennis, pickleball,
Centerbasketball, restrooms
Vacant, waterfront access, boat
Sunset Point Park Key Largo 95.2 1.2 0.9
ramp
Beach, two ball fields, play
equipment, swimming, boat
Harry Harris County Key Largo
93 ramp, BBQs, shuffleboard, 2 15.1
Park(Tavernier)
beach, picnic tables, restrooms,
basketball
Key Largo Play Equipment, picnic, shelter,
Old Settlers Park91.9 NA3
(Tavernier) beach, butterfly garden
Burr Beach Park
Key Largo 91 Vacant, waterfront access 0.1 NA
(Sunny Haven)
Upper
Old State Rte. 4A Matecumbe 82.5 Vacant 0.3 NA
Key
Old State Rte. 4A, Upper
Hurricane Matecumbe 81 Historical Marker 1.2 NA
MonumentKey
Anne's Beach, Lower
Beach, swimming, bike path,
Lower Matecumbe Matecumbe 73.5 6.1 6
picnic pavilions, boardwalk
Beach (5) Key
58
3824
LOWER KEYS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AREA MM 0-38.5
Mile
Classification (Acres)
NameLocation MarkFacilities
ResourceActivity
er
Little Duck Beach, BBQs, swimming
Veteran's Memorial
Key (Ohio 40temporary port o let restrooms 0.6 24.9
Park
Key) *
Missouri Key/South
Missouri Key 39Roadside pull-off, beach 3.5 NA
side US 1
Pier, Playground, soccer field,
baseball, tennis & basketball
Big Pine Key Park Big Pine Key31courts, skate park, bocce 5.5 4.6
courts, shade structures,
restrooms
Pine Channel Nature Beach, BBQs, swimming,
Big Pine Key300.39 2.35
ParkShelters, Restrooms
J. Watson Field 2 tennis courts, volleyball,
(Stiglitz Property) Big Pine Key30play equipment, baseball, 1.2 2.4
(2) picnic, dog park
Blue Heron Park Big Pine Key30 Pickleball NA 5.5
Bob Evans/
Chamber of Big Pine Key30Vacant 0.3 NA
Commerce
Palm Villa ParkBig Pine Key30Benches, waterfront, NA0.6
Little Torch
State Road 4 28Boat ramps 0.1 NA
Key
Ramrod Key Park Ramrod Key 27Beach*, swimming 1.21.2
West
West Summerland
Summerland 252 Boat ramps 31.8 NA
Park
Key
Play equipment, volleyball,
Saddlebunch
Bay Point Park 15 picnic tables, trail, basketball, NA 1.58
Key
2 tennis courts, pavilions,
Boca Chica Beach, Boca Chica
11 Beach, picnic table * 6 NA
SR941 (3)Key
59
3825
Wilhelmina Harvey Big Coppitt Play equipment, path, shade
10NA 0.65
ParkKey structure with picnic table
Mile
Classification (Acres)
NameLocation MarkFacilities
ResourceActivity
er
Volunteer Fireman’s Big Coppitt Pavilion, picnic tables,
10
ParkKey basketball
Gulfview Park, Big Coppitt
9.7Boat ramp0.2NA
Delmar Ave. Key
Rockland
Rockland Hammock 9 Vacant 2.5 NA
Key
Play equipment, baseball &
soccer fields, basketball, path,
Bernstein ParkRaccoon Key 4.5 NA 11
fitness center, community
rooms, picnic tables, restrooms
Key West
East Martello Park 1.5 Picnic, Historic Fort, museum 14.56 NA
Island
1 beach, concession area, 2
band shells, pier, picnic
pavilions and grills, pickleball
Higgs Beach Park,
Key West courts, tennis courts, play
C.B. Harvey, Rest 1 5 12.1
Island equipment,bike path,
Beach
volleyball, fitness trail,
handball court, horseshoes,
swimming, Dog Park
Key West
West Martello Park1 Historic Fort 0.8NA
Island
Whitehead Street Key West
1 Historic Fort, Museum 0.8 NA
Lighthouse Island
Pines Park (S. Key West
1 Picnic NA 1.72
Roosevelt) Island
(1)The total acreage of the Yacht Club is approximately 6.0 acres. The unique layout of this facility
restricts active recreation to approximately 2 acres partially leased to the Marathon Yacht Club by
Monroe County.
(2)House and yard (1.2 acres) owned by Monroe County. Additional 2.4 acres leased by Monroe County
from the Big Pine Athletic Association.
(3)Lands Leased to Monroe County from U. S. Navy.
(4)Church to west of park has public access 2 basketball, volleyball, and bocce courts.
(5) Beach leased to Village of Islamorada
*Denotes approximate acreage; (for beaches the length of the beach x a minimum of 15 ft.)
Source: Monroe County Technical Document July 2011
60
3826
Acquisition of Additional Recreation Areas
The Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that “Monroe
County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of resource-based and activity-
based neighborhood and community parks consistent with the adopted level of service standards.”
The elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards for recreation areas can be accomplished in a
number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6) mechanisms that
are acceptable for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as for providing
adequate land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that result from additional
residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are:
1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land which is already owned by the
county but which is not being used for park and recreation purposes;
2. Acquisition of new park siteson a limited basis;
3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board for use of existing school-
based park facilities by county residents;
4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County for use of existing
city-owned park facilities by county residents;
5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments for use of
existing publicly-owned lands or facilities by county residents; and
6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities for use of
private park facilities by county residents.
Objective 1201.2.3 Comprehensive Plan 2030-“Priority shall be given to locating new
neighborhood and community parks in communities which demonstrate the greatest deficiencies
in parks and recreation”.
To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms – acquisition of new park sites and
interlocal agreements with the School Board.
SUMMARY
The County continues to maintain a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage).
61
3827
VII. SANITARY SEWER
Over the yearsseveral factors have contributed to the water quality degradation of the Florida
Keys, among them are stormwaterrun-off, changes in flow from Florida Bay and the Gulf of
Mexico, but one of the most influential factors is the past wastewater practices. Wastewater from
cesspits, septic tanks, injection wells and liveaboard vessels add nitrogen and phosphorus to our
waters breaking the ecological balance.
The development of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was the BOCC response toward
correcting our water quality problems. Their goal was to improve the water quality of canals and
confined nearshore waters through a long-term strategy and bring back the clear waters that
characterize our coasts and are the source of tourist attraction.
The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan adopted by the BOCC on April 1993
mandated nutrient loading levels be reduced in the keys marine ecosystem by the year 2010. In
1998, the Florida Governor issued Executive Order 98-309 which directed relevant agencies and
entities to coordinate with Monroe County to implement the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and
eliminate cesspits, failing septic tank systems, and revise the existing 246 treatment plants for
capacity andquality of treated wastewater. In 1999, the Florida Legislature set statutory effluent
standards and associated compliance schedules for wastewater treatment system in Monroe
County. These standards address treatment for several water quality constituents and require
treatment to achieve advanced wastewater treatment standards for discharge flows in excess of
100,000 gallons per day and best available technology (BAT) standards for flows less than 100,000
gallons per day. Adopted water quality standards are listed below.
Water Quality Standards
BAT AWT
Constituent (mg/L) (mg/L)
Biological Oxygen Demand (BODS) 10 5
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 10 5
Total Nitrogen (TN) 10 3
Total Phosphorus (TP) 1 1
Previously in 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Oceans and Coastal
Protection Divisions produced a report entitled “Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary”. The report provided a list of 84 water quality hot spots with
known or suspected water quality degradation. Later in 1999 Monroe County released a new study
entitled “Water Quality ‘Hotspots’ in the Florida Keys: Evaluation for Stormwater Contributions”,
this study identified 88 hotspots. The definition of “Hot Spots” are areas of known or suspected
water quality degradation, with known and unknown unsafe sewage disposal practices, that has to
be eliminated and would receive a community wastewater collection and treatment system within
the next 10 years.In contrast with “Hot Spots”, “Cold Spots” were defined as areas where the on-
site system would continueoperating until the whole new system is established.
The Florida Administrative Code created the Rule 28-20.100, which was amendedin 1999 to the
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by the Governor and his cabinet. This rule provided a 5-Year Work
62
3828
Program to improve water quality emphasizing in the identification and elimination of cesspools
required by Objective 901.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Monroe County adopted
a new cesspool identification and elimination ordinance, Ordinance 031-1999, which complies
with the Work Program. This ordinance establishes an inspection and compliance program for
unknown and unpermitted on-site treatment and disposal sewage (OSTDS). The intent of the
ordinance is to require operating permits for the (up to) 7,900 existing at that time unpermitted
OSTDS.
The Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was prepared by a multidisciplinary consultant team, under
the direction of the Monroe County Department of Marine Resources to determine the acceptable
levels of wastewater treatment and the strategy to follow to change the old wastewater collection
system for a new modern system in the County. The goals of the Master Plan was to provide
responsive, flexible and cost-effective solutions that improve wastewater management practices
throughout the keys and must satisfy environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines.
The implementation of the new wastewater system and the elimination of the old sewer practices
in Monroe County has taken years. The planning period used for developing this Master Plan is
the 20 years interval between 1998 and 2018. The transition process has been under the supervision
of Monroe County, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Key Largo Wastewater Treatment
District, the Municiaplities, and special dsitricts established for that purpose. Now the new systems
are operating satisfactorily and only a small percentage of households have not been hooked up to
the new systems.
At this time there are four entities providing sewer services in the unincorporated areas of the
County.
1. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA)
2. Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District
3. North Key Largo Utilities Corporation
4. Key West Resort Utilities
FKAA covers by far more areas of the County than any other operator. The list of their facilities
and general services areas are, from south to north:
Key Haven Wastewater System- FKAA acquired this wastewater system in 2009 . By 2018,
FKAA replaced most of the collection system and redirect the wastewater flows from the
Key Haven wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to the Big Coppitt WWTP for Advanced
Wastewater Treatment (AWT). The Key Haven Wastewater System has since been
decomissioned, all flows were directed to the Big Coppitt WWTP.
Big Coppitt Regional Wastewater System- The construction of this wastewater system,
with funding provided by Monroe County, began in January 2007 and included service to
Rockland Key, Big Coppitt Key, Geiger Key and Shark Key. Connections to the system
began in August 2009. Currently, the Big Coppitt collection system contributes 1,601 of
1,746 EDUs (92%) to the AWT system, with the additional 450 EDUs redirected from the
Key Haven Wastewater system and an average daily flow of 0.031 million gallons per day
(mgd) redirected from Boca Chica Naval Air Station (NAS). The Big Coppitt WWTP will
be expanded to accept flows from a new affordable housing development in the Big Coppitt
63
3829
Key service area and the future capactiy needs of the NAS.
Bay Point Wastewater System- The FKAA began construction of the Bay Point Wastewater
Treatment Plant and collection system in 2004, to provide central wastewater service to the
Bay Point and Blue Water communities (Saddlebunch Keys). The first wastewater
connection began in 2005. 351 EDUs of 351 EDUs (100%) have been connected to this
Best Available Technology (BAT) treatment plant. This Treatment Plant is in the process
of being decomissioned, the wastewater from this Service Area will be within the Cudjoe
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Service Area in the future.
Cudjoe Regional Wastewater System- Construction of this wastewater system began in
January 2013, with funding provided by Monroe County. The new WWTP has a capacity
of 940,000 gpd, and serves Lower Sugarloaf Key, Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key,
Summerland Key, Ramrod Key and Little Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, Big Torch Key,
No Name Key and Big Pine Key. Connection to this system was phased over several years
and is ongoing. Approximately 9,470 EDUs have been invited to connect and of those
8,469 EDUs have completed their connection (89.4%).
Duck Key Regional Wastewater System-The FKAA became owner and operator of the
Hawk’s Cay WWTP in May 2006. The WWTP, with funding provided by Monroe County,
underwent an extensive redesign in 2011 and was upgraded to the rigorous AWT standards.
Additionally, the collection system was expanded to serve the remaining residents of Duck
Key. The last phase of upgrades was completed in September 2013. The WWTP serves
Conch Key, Little Conch Key, Waker’s Island, Hawk’s Cay Resort and Duck Key with a
treatment capacity of 275,000 gpd. Currently, 962 EDU’s of 944 EDUs (98.1%) have
connected to the system.
Layton Wastewater System- The FKAA began construction of the Layton Wastewater
System in 2005, to provide central wastewater services to the City of Layton and Long Key
State Park with a treatment capacity of 66,000 gpd. Connection to the system began in
2006 and all 351 EDUs were connected to the system. Subsequent expansion of the Layton
service area to incorporate the remaining east and west ends of Long Key is complete. With
the expansion, the service area now includes 444 EDUs, which currently has 397 EDUs
connected (89%).
In summary, as of July 2025, the following connections have been completed:
*ParcelsParcels yet to be *EDUs in Percent of
Connected ConnectedRegion Connection
Key Haven450 450 100%
Big Coppitt 804 0 1,747 100%
Bay Point351 0 439 100%
Duck Key 944 18 1,491 98.1%
Layton/Long Key 33 2 444 94.3%
64
382:
Cudjoe Regional7,324195 9,470 97.4%
Lower Sugarloaf5796631 99%
Upper Sugarloaf 373 8 590 98.5%
Cudjoe Key1,170 18 1,955 98.5%
Little Torch Key 735 23 919 97%
Ramrod Key 594 13 726 97.9%
Summerland Key810 12 1,011 98.5%
Big Pine Key2,937 111 3,518 96.4%
Middle Torch Key 14 0 15 100%
Big Torch Key 51 2 58 96.2%
No Name Key 40 2 47 95.2%
System-Wide
Connections9,88123214,041 97.7%
*FKAA counts connections to parcels, there may be more than one dwelling unit on a parcel which
causes the EDU count to be larger than the parcel count.
Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Plant andDistrict- This system serves Islamorada and the
territory consisting of the island of Key Largo, including all lands east of Tavernier Creek,
including Tavernier, Key Largo all in Monroe County, Florida with the exception of: all areas north
of Summerland Road on US-1, and all areas north of Charlemagne Blvd on County Road 905
including Ocean Reef. The plant capacity is 3,450,000 gpd and does meet LOS for wastewater
treatment quality. The District began taking flow from Islamorada on June 16, 2014. The 2021
average daily flow from Islamorada increased to 815,000 gpd. As parcels in Islamorada continue
to connect, flow will increase.The combined average flows from Islamorada and Key Largo for
the last 365 days is 1,970,000 gpd. In the District service area (does not include Islamorada) there
are 10,625 EDUs with 10,610 (99%) that havebeen connected to the system and 15are not
connected.
North Key Largo Utilities Corporation- This private utility serves the Ocean Reef Community.
This WWTP was constructed with Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) technology with a
capacity of 499,000 gpd. The volume of sewage the plant is processing at this time is 250,000 gpd.
All dwelling units of the community have been connected to the system witha total of 1,620 EDUs
(100%).
Key West Resort Utilities-This investor owned utility serves Stock Island. This WWTP was
constructed with Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) technology with a capacity of 849,000
gpd. The volume of sewage the plant is processing at this time is 577,000 gpd. There are currently
4,358 EDU’s connected to the KWRU system.
SUMMARY
There is sufficient wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and capacity available to satisfy the
projected needs of the development for the next two years.
65
3831
1
2 RESOLUTION NO. _____-2025
3
4 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2025-2027 MONROE COUNTY
5 BIENNIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT AS
6 SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND
7 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 1.
20
21
22
23
24
25 2.
26
27
28
29
30
31 3.
32
33
34
35 4.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Land Development Code requires the BOCC to adopt a
43 biennial assessment of public facilities capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; and
44
45
46
1 of 4
3832
1 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, at its October 15,
2 2025, regular public meeting, discussed and/or considered the 2025-2027 Biennial Assessment of
3 Public Facilities Capacity Report (PFCR); and
4
5 WHEREAS, the Monroe County BOCC hereby enters the following findings and
6 conclusions:
7
8 1. The 2025-2027 PFCR is used to evaluate the existing level(s) of service(s) for roads,
9 solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation, and educational
10 facilities; and
11
12 2. The 2025-2027 PFCR shall become, upon BOCC approval, the official assessment of
13 public facilities upon which development approvals shall be reviewed and/or approved
14 for the upcoming two (2) years; and
15
16 3. LDC Section 114-2 provides the minimum standards for level of service for roads, solid
17 waste, potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation and educational facilities;
18 and
19
20 4. LDC Section 114-2 requires the biennial assessment of public facilities capacity to
21 clearly state those portions of the unincorporated county with adequate, inadequate or
22 marginally adequate public facilities; and
23
24 5.
25
26
27
28 6. The water use permit of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) allows an
29 average daily allocation of 23.98 MGD. The C
30 2024 was 20.66 MGD and the projected 2025 average daily water demand is 21.1
31 MGD, providing 2.88 MGD surplus water allocation based on the projected 2025
32 demand; and
33
34 7.
35
36
37
38 8.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 9. There is a surplus of parks and recreational facilities (acreage); and
46
47 10. The 2025-2027 biennial assessment finds that transportation/roadways (subject to
48 concurrency review at time of development permit), potable water, solid waste,
49 schools, parks and recreation, and sanitary sewer have adequate capacity to serve the
50 growth anticipated in 2025-2027 at the adopted level of service standard; and
2 of 4
3833
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
2 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
3
4 Section 1. Prefatory Recitals. The foregoing recitals, findings of fact, and
5 conclusions of law are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as if
6 fully stated herein.
7
8 Section 2. The 2025-2027 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment
9 .hereto and hereby incorporated as if fully
10 stated herein, is approved.
11
12 Section 3. The analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions of law included in the
13 presentation and/or feedback of County professional staff to the Board, at
th
14 the October 15, 2025, BOCC meeting in connection with the agenda item
15 for this Resolution to be considered and/or discussed is/are, to the extent not
16 plainly inconsistent with this Resolution, hereby accepted, approved, and
17 hereby adopted as the Boards own analysis, findings of fact, and
18 conclusions of law and incorporated as if fully stated herein.
19
20 Section 4. To the extent of any internal or external conflicts, inconsistencies, and/or
21 ambiguities, within this Resolution or between this Resolution and the
22 Monroe County Code of Ordinances, Florida Building Code, Monroe
23 County Land Development Code, Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, or
24 any other approval of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners,
25 Monroe County Planning Commission, Monroe County Development
26 Review Committee, Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources
27 Department, or other department or office of Monroe County, the more
28 restrictive rule, regulation, law, provision, and text shall always apply.
29
30 Section 5. Subject to Section 4. above, the interpretation of this Resolution and all
31 provisions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Florida Building
32 Code, Monroe County Codes, Florida Statutes, and floodplain management
33 regulations whose interpretation arise out of, relate to, or are interpreted in
34 connection with this Resolution, shall be liberally construed and enforced
35 in favor of Monroe County, and such interpretation shall be entitled to great
36 weight in adversarial administrative proceedings, at trial, in bankruptcy, and
37 on appeal.
38
39 Section 6. This Resolution neither ratifies nor approves, nor shall be interpreted as
40 ratifying or approving, any violation or violations of the Monroe County
41 Code of Ordinances, Monroe County Land Development Code, Monroe
42 County Comprehensive Plan, floodplain management regulations, Florida
43 Building Code, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, or any other
44 law, rule, or regulation, whether Federal or of the State or of Monroe
45 County, and shall not be construed as ratifying or approving of any such
46 violation of law(s), rule(s), or regulation(s).
47
3 of 4
3834
1 Section 7. Approval of this Resolution shall not estop or waive, nor shall be construed
2
3 enforcement of, and require compliance with the Monroe County Codes,
4 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, floodplain management regulations,
5 Florida Building Code, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, or
6 any other law, rule, or regulation, whether at law or in equity.
7
8 Section 8. Inconsistency, Partial Invalidity, Severability, and Survival of
9 Provisions. If any portion of this Resolution, or any part or portion thereof,
10 is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any administrative hearing officer
11 or court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity or unenforceability of such
12 provision, or any part or portion thereof, shall neither limit nor impair the
13 operation, enforceability, or validity of any other provision of this
14 Resolution, or any remaining part(s) or portion(s) thereof. All other
15 provisions of this Resolution, and remaining part(s) or portion(s) thereof,
16 shall continue unimpaired in full force and effect.
17
18 Section 9. Effectiveness. This Resolution shall become effective as provided by law
19 and stated above.
20
21 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
th
22 Florida, at a regularly scheduled public meeting held on the 15 day of October, 2025.
23
24 Mayor James K. Scholl _______
25 Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Lincoln _______
26 Commissioner Craig Cates _______
27 Commissioner David Rice _______
28 Commissioner Holly Merrill Raschein _______
29
30 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
31 COUNTY, FLORIDA
32
33
34 By: ______________________________
35 Mayor James K. Scholl
36 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK
37
38
39 ____________________________________
40 AS DEPUTY CLERK
41
9/29/25
4 of 4
3835