Item V6 �5 Y.6
r`,
County of Monroe
�y,4 ' �, "tr, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County �a� Mayor Michelle Coldiron,District 2
�1 nff `ll Mayor Pro Tem David Rice,District 4
-Ile Florida.Keys Craig Cates,District 1
Eddie Martinez,District 3
w � Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
County Commission Meeting
October 203, 2021
Agenda Item Number: V.6
Agenda Item Summary #9644
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Sustainability
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Rhonda Haag (305)453-8774
11:45 A.M.
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction regarding a potential change to the
formula for determining assessments for the canal restoration projects requiring long term
operations and maintenance.
ITEM BACKGROUND: This item is for discussion and direction regarding the formula to develop
assessments for those canal restoration projects requiring long term operations and maintenance. The
projects requiring operations and maintenance are those that include a weed gate as part of the
overall restoration. Currently the assessment formula includes the cost for repairs, maintenance,
electrical and capital replacement cost of the weed gate. To be discussed is the potential of removing
the capital replacement cost from the formula, whether on a temporary or long term basis.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
04-21-21: Presentation of the updated Canal Management Master Plan (COMP) Guidance Document and
Guidelines to Select Canals for restoration, updated pursuant to the requirements in Administration
Commission Rule 28-20.140,F.A.C. (County's new Area of Critical State Concern Work Program).
06-16-21: Approval of a Resolution adopting the Canal Management Master Plan (CCMP) Guidance
Document and Canal Ranking Criteria pursuant to the requirements in Administration Commission Rule 28-
20.140, F.A.C., (County's new Area of Critical State Concern Canal Work Program) and approve the Canal
Restoration Project Ranking List.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DOCUMENTATION:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Packet Pg. 3756
vs
Effective Date: N/A Expiration Date: None
Total Dollar Value of Contract: N/A Total Cost to County: N/A
Current Year Portion: N/A Budgeted: N/A
Source of Funds: N/A Indirect Costs: N/A
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Staff Time To Administer new
MSBU's
Revenue Producing: N/A If yes, amount:
Grant: No County Match: N/A
Insurance Required: No
Additional Details: N/A
REVIEWED BY:
Rhonda Haag Completed 09/30/2021 4:59 PM
Cynthia Hall Completed 09/30/2021 5:31 PM
Purchasing Completed 09/30/2021 6:32 PM
Budget and Finance Completed 09/30/2021 6:59 PM
Maria Slavik Completed 10/04/2021 8:33 AM
Liz Yongue Completed 10/04/2021 11:00 AM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 10/20/2021 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 3757
Item V-6 Discussion of Assessment Methodology for Weed Gates
1 Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
October 20, 2021
!l°�
ti.
k
Y� i
tJJr � p,
y t
4�
r t
i y
n
Compressor cabinets and control panel on concrete pad
Air Curtain arrnss the mnuth of canal
777
Rhonda Haag
Greg Corning
Monroe County Hanks Stephen Ha s
t
iii MIN
Two Types of Weed Gates
Air Curtain and Physical Weed Gate
OEM
1. Air Curtain - no impediment to navigation but high Ai,t, Mi.......tha-Huth of canal
electrical cost. Price varies from $50,000 to $100,000
2. Physical Gate - an alternative to air curtain system to
reduce electrical cost but boats must slow down to get
through it
a) Swing gate with buoys to allow for ease of operation and
protect manatees —Physical Gate similar or greater than
replacement capital cost of air curtain, cost estimated at ;
$150,000
b) Repair record of Physical Gate to be determined through '
pilot project at canal 259 in Big Pine Key, not sure if boats `
will routinely break the gate
4
Canal Restoration Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
3 Current Method of Assessment
The County pays for the capital costs associated with
the canal restoration project: design, permits, and
construction
• The O&M to be provided by residents surrounding
the canal restoration project through a Municipal
`} Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) and covers:
• Electrical
• Repairs
`s • Quarterly Maintenance Visits
' • Replacement of Equipment when it wears out
• Replacement of Equipment after a storm
• The MSBU assessment needed for all projects that
require an air curtain.
• Not certain yet if assessment needed for physical
weed gate
)N
4
Canal Restoration O eration�
& Maintenance (O&M)
� rr ,
Assessments /MSBU: �
• O&M costs are added together and divided up among the owners, either
4,
by parcel or lot
• Not voluntary-Everyone pays
t A`
• County manages the O&M program for the residents `t
• Funds collected can only be spent on canal O&M costs
• Typical 20-year assessment periods>?i
• At June 2021 BOCC specified that 51%of residents must approve projects (�
• 9 new canals require O&M
• Air Curtains proven effective but expensive O&M
• Demonstration physical weed gate in design and permitting process
—cheaper O&M possible but capital costs higher
Compressor cabinets and control panel on concrete pad
vt
4
is �C t {,:-, t„ ,``•' ;,t r,sa .>-firktgx,ry ft}',t f, >\liF?„tj<< s{(P{tt,ll��s)�, ,y„41i1 ft}��r4 tt,_\ii _k}S sS11 1 4-- µtt }\ -� a1 , 1 s
";��s,S i„1> �,s 1 r,.. t ,,,4;-t,.1,rS ��1)v, ,„{,is�1;P,�;s 1 ,�...1Y;• i. 1C,s.`-A { , ft1 �}S _,s m ,,n.„J, � 14k cw,i:
5 Canal Restoration Projects
'
+� �Jj�tt'',/'7►► �/► �7 +�
Canal TTL�LI Air �L1r�a1n
{S_sN { ,�cc .?U {S r?'•t�)),}a l} \��,j�t-_��tvi({�£, `_�) st(�Sj7` (YSU ),h�i�� ��1����r�:'U'�rl i} tr; � 5iF J l�s st�{r1» {{�,>i41 '�1}ir�U�,,,,,
-p T,rTye
1�1 �1Pinerye
✓
• Homeowners are contributing $10
month/ parcel to pay for O&M <bt
• If replacement capital cost of airy
curtain removed would pays
approximately $50 per month per
parcel
V {
-
t
sip t77
L
6
Question:
• Does the County want to consider removing the capital cost of the air curtain or
physical weed gate from the assessment?
• Might have higher homeowner participation in canal restoration projects
• Might have more restoration projects and therefore improved water quality.
• It is a long-term liability for the County, but could be potentially managed through future
grants. Funds are subject to award of grants.
• There may be periods of time a weed gate may be down for replacement when grant
funds are not yet available.
• Could still give residents the option of paying a full assessment to ensure timely
replacement of equipment and continued enjoyment for 20 years.
)N04, s + 1 1� itlu
77: 777 717
Long Term Canal
➢ RESTORE Gulf Consortium Pot 3 - $19 Million
Restoration
Funding ➢ State Stewardship Act - $6 Million 2021
Availability
77,
Top 11 - Canal Workplan Restoration Projects
9
$11 .3 Million
Canal Restoration Ranking List 7/21/2021
2020-WQ 2020- 2020-Total 2020-Technology 2020 Water Quality
Sort ID Canal Name Community Area Ranking Technology Score Recommendation Restoration Cost Summary
Score Ranking Score
1 105 TAVERNIER TAVERNIER 36 cl"'";II and Culvert and 668,871 Fair
Weedgate
2 28 KEY LARGO KEY LARGO 88 9 of top 11 projects 3ackfill Only 2„128,927 Poor
3 255 BIG PINE KEY BIG PINE KEY 45 require a Weed gate action Well and 300,000 Fair
Weedgate
4 315 BIG PINE KEY BIG PINE KEY 64 It,, &VV Removal, Capping 2,373,982 Poor
and Weedgate
5 402 SUGARLOAF KEY SUGARLOAF 28 80 108 Backfill and Weedgate 210,523 Fair
KEY
6 300 BIG PINE KEY BIG PINE KEY 37 70 107 Organic Removal, Capping 1,490,926 Limited Data-Fair
and Weedgate
7 295 BIG PINE KEY BIG PINE KEY 35 70 105 Organic Removal, Gapping 1,040,727 Limited Data-Fair
and Weedgate
8 474 GEIGER KEY GEIGER KEY 25 80 105 Backfill and Weedgate 222,651 Limited Data-Fair
9 297 BIG PINE KEY BIG PINE KEY 47 55 102 Organic Removal, Capping 1,352,390 Fair
and Weedgate
10 403 SUGARLOAF KEY SUGARLOAF 30 70 100 Backfill and Weedgate 804,157 Fair
KEY
11 90TAVERNIER TAVERNIER 33 65 98 Backfill Only 729,512 Fair
CanalName: Canal #10 a
rfi r �
5 Tavernier
:Technology Selection: Backfill, Culvert, and
�Weedgate
,Conceptual Restoration Cost: $670K
10
p tir �1
AL
tt t gg
t n r 19Y A4 5111��
r t s
Canal Jame: Canal #28 Bich Pine eyr F Te
r.
Technology Selection: Backfill
2 Milli t C ti t l R t Concepuaesoraon Cost: $2. on
11
s
1 ' 'ljji� -4� �'r
�t
k L
35t m E � f
h
�sr �
i
ti
WE
}
5 P4 'd' 0 �
am
Flom
n
iuu 2
� 1
1ttS1� S'rKi'�
mmsmvml�� �t�l�f���>��o
x7
�
� $£� �}; �G� �
.
�
re
i NPit
r i
�WAS''
�U\�t
b��}
yW, Canal dame. Canal #31 5 Big Pine Key
Technology Selection: Organic Removal,
ail" r; Backfill, and Weed gate
Conceptual Restoration Cost; 2.4 Mil13
llan
yr
Y t 4,
r� l� s� � � UI }• } ,�i} � 3}fit � I 1
1 y�
t
i t
7-
+
Canal game: Canal #402 Sugarloaf
k
Technology Selection: Backfill and
Weedgate
Conceptual Restoration Cost: $210 K14
IN
AN
v
Y Y
{ �
YYtl �r t�y�t�
- is e fin., ��".����
�t
a °r
banal Name: Canal #300 Bia Pine Ke
't TechnologySelection: Organic Removal,-
ja Back ill and Weed ate
1
once tual Restoration Cost: 1 .5 Million
a�
t�S „ S-
�
rs
� 4
i
� � t
v t
Canal Name: Canal #295 Big Pine Key
III Technology Selection: Organic Removal,
Backfill, and Weed ate
16 Conceptual Restoration Cost: $1..1 Millman
tl 1 i�
r
s r -� a skx{c. asi
3
fii
s)s'r,`
c
4,f fS ti ,114 ( nt ,p.
1 '
s'� l
t,==
Canal Nam( : Canal Key
Technology Selection: Backfill and
Iweed ate
Conceptual Restoration Cost: $230 K
17 l ,�x
All
14
u'
t
mp'� ' W ;
x 1
t t }y=
s.
� c
Ap"A"
t
r (
( r li isli t t f 7 Al,
�t r rf
ky
f
46 Canal Name- Canal #297 Big Pine Key
Technology Selection: Organic Removal
ackf ll and Deed -ate
18 k Cane+ teal Restoration Cost: $1 .4 Million
IWOW
Vi
At
t,
n
' IF
Iv,
�,,11� i �3{{�4 � »as➢7- t n,:.,:� �iF
,Canal Name: Canal #403 Suciarloaf
Technoloav Selection: 8ackfill and
Weedgate
19 Conceptual Restoration Cast $,800K
Ab
{
a
a
£
� r
£
si
�a
t {{r Canal Blame. Canal #90 Tavernier
S4
s yr
Technology Selection: Backfill
Conceptual Restoration Cast: $730K
20
�S.
I 11 �I
P p�
l �2v opVo,
%v d
,
O � „ a
A 0
buy st
tc
ry
W! �
4 v
e
A tf
Nti its obi fi i, 1\ 4 �-
21
an You