Commission approves equalized cost for Warner

BRADENTON – Residents of the Warner’s Bayou development won a victory at the County Commission on Tuesday as members approved requiring homeowners to pay $1,750.57 per parcel for the dredging of their canals.

Even sweeter for the residents of Warner’s East Bayou was that the commissioners decided after discussion and a presentation from their attorney that they should not have to pay $4,445.21 per parcel but the same cost as the people in Warner’s East Bayou.

The special assessment is to be paid over 10 years.

Residents in identical T-shirts filled two rows of the commission chambers and burst into unauthorized applause after the unanimous vote to approve the changed motion.

However, the approval of the Warner’s West Bayou dredging bill passed on a 4-2 vote, with county commissioners Carol Whitmore and John Chappie dissenting.

The west side residents originally asked for dredging in June 1999.

”We were going to do Warner’s Bayou West first,“ Whitmore said. ”And we applied for the permits and budgeted it.“

The permitting was taking a while, she said, and the West Coast Inland Navigation District came in and said they could do the work because they had the permit. But then the east side got added.

”I could understand where the west were upset because then it limited the amount of dredge material,“ Whitmore said.

The process wasn’t done correctly and the citizens didn’t get what they were told they’d get, she said.

County Commissioner Joe McClash said east got dredged first, and then west, and east was turning up sludge that added to the weight of what could be removed, cutting into the total amount that could be taken.

The original cost per parcel for west was $7,185.33, he said, and that’s what they agreed to pay at the first public hearing. At the second public hearing it’s $1,750.57. ”My concern is the maintenance issues as far as further siltration,“ he said. Originally the county was going to assess a lot more.

Chappie noted that everything changed in regard to what was going to be done after the September 2004 meeting. Within a month, WCIND was to be responsible and it would be part of the Snead Island project, and the district would be managing it.

”One of the reasons we reduced it so much is because I felt the Board of County Commission didn’t follow the adopted procedures with petitions,“ he said. ”There were no petitions ever submitted, from what I understand, for the east. West had petitions in the process.“

There are some commissioners who felt strongly, Whitmore said, that the process wasn't followed and they didn't get what they were told they would get.

Warmer's East discussion

Casey Colburn of Kirk Pinkerton, representing about 25 homeowners in the east side, said he had a personal interest in the outcome.

”I've seen this movie before," he said. "I live in Sarasota County and I live on a canal, with a dredge project in a special taxing district, and we had exactly the same issues that you all are facing here today."

There were issues of scope, expectations and process, he said.

"As a community, some of us didn't get the result that we expected, and we have been able to work with our local government officials and staff in Sarasota County," he said. "It's been extremely complex and time consuming. You're all nodding your heads; you've seen this movie, too."

The owners on the east side feel a strong sense of inequity in this case. "Look at the result. On the east side, the result is not any better than on the west side," Colburn said. "So why should we be paying more for the same result?"

He presented three options. The first would charge the owners $4,445.21 and leave everyone with a sense of inequity and everyone unhappy. They could charge east the same amount as west, which Colburn said would be equitable and satisfy everyone. Or they could fix the problem, then figure out the assessment. It would be long, involved and complex, and would take a lot of staff time.

He advised modifying the resolution to equalize the assessments, and they'd be done with the issue.

"Focus on the outcome, rather than on the process," he said.

Dr. Steve Tinsworth, a homeowner on the east side, said the implication always was that they would have navigable water for bigger boats, but despite the volume of material removed they didn't get that access.

"It was like a bridge to nowhere," he said. "We didn't get what we needed, in effect, in navigable water."

At one point, the assessment dropped to zero before being brought back to the current level, Tinsworth said.

Following a long discussion on dredging, and whether the county should be in the dredging business, the motion to charge the east homneowners the same as the west homeowners passed 5-0.