2006 Copyright Tom Henning
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
ADDRESS
PHONE
FAX
EMAIL
PHONE
FAX
Collier County Commissioner, District 3
Collier County Landscape Beautification Master Plan
By Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3
One of the many features that make Collier County unique is our emphasis on landscaping. At the April 22nd Board of County Commissioner's regular meeting, we took our commitment to beautification one step further: the Board approved a Collier County Landscape Beautification Master Plan. This plan will determine a level of landscaping for future roadway beautification projects on arterial and collector roadways, to maintain a signature streetscape appearance based on established levels of landscaping within the Community.
The signature appearance of Collier County roadway landscaping reflects the character of the Community and the Southwest Florida region. The streetscape landscaping is the most public and visible type of landscape beautification and the most appreciated by the Community. The benefits of landscaping have been directly related to traffic calming, cooling and screening of adjacent properties, and increased property values.
The proposed landscape master plan is a three year landscape beautification program with an estimated capital budget of $2.6 to $3.1 million for the next three years. Based on the level of landscaping selected, the cost of landscape improvements is only 0.5%-1.3% of the roadway construction budget in FY 04; less in FY05 and about the same for FY06. Considering the ratio, beautification costs are low; although when you view them independently, they are costly.
For instance: there are three levels of Median Landscaping, Type A, Type B, and Type C (with two sub-levels: C1 and C2).
Type A includes irrigation, bahia sod, and a canopy of trees and/or palms, example: Radio Road between Airport-Pulling to Santa Barbara Blvd. Installation costs: $152,198.46 per mile; yearly maintenance costs: $59,138.06 per mile.
Type B includes Type A with St. Augustine sod instead of bahia, flowering trees and planting beds. Example: Davis Blvd. from Airport-Pulling to County Barn. Installation costs: $174,841.13 per mile; yearly maintenance costs: $78,272.08 per mile.
Type C includes all of the elements of Type B with additional side road plantings; C1 includes side road plantings of canopy trees and/or palms. Example: US 41 East at the Government Complex entrance to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Installation costs: $174,841.13 (base cost of Type B) plus $135,000.00 per mile; maintenance approximately $85,339.08 per mile. C2 side road plantings include shrubs, flowering trees, planting beds, and/or St. Augustine grass; this is more of a "buffering effect". Installation costs: $174,841.13 (base cost of Type B) plus $148.158.87 per mile; yearly maintenance costs: $109,140.00 per mile.
As you can see, even though the landscape project is only approximately 1% of each individual Transportation Project cost, it's quite alarming when you separate the numbers and show the cost per mile.
Now the hard part: how will we fund this landscape beautification master plan? Not exactly in the manner you may think.
Landscape beautification projects on newly constructed and reconstructed arterials and collectors within the Transportation 5-Year Road Work Program are to be budgeted through Road Construction Fund, Gas Tax Fund and managed through the Landscape Operations Section of Alternative Transportation Modes. The Future Maintenance will be budgeted through MSTD General Fund. The amount depends on the type of landscaping that is selected by the Board. Because we, as Commissioners, have chosen this element of road construction as a high priority, we intend to use the already-existing transportation monies to support this enhancement.
That's all well and good for NEW construction, but what about the EXISTING roadways that are lacking landscaping right now? The same fund that will pay for the maintenance of the new projects will fund the installation of landscaping along the existing roadways; the MSTD General Fund. We have committed NOT to raise your tax rate. This enhanced landscaping schedule will be a challenge for the Commissioners to deliver.
The great news is that the following landscaping projects are proposed for the East Naples area, with their respective due dates: Rattlesnake Hammock, from US41 to County Barn Road in FY2004. US 41 East, from Rattlesnake Road to St. Andrews in FY 2005 and US 41 East, from St. Andrews to Barefoot Williams Road in FY 2006. And again, all will be funded through the MSTD General Fund.
Collier County is well on its way to a planned Community Character design for everyone to be proud of. With patience and time, you will see the uniformity of landscaping and streetscaping throughout our entire community.
The signature appearance of Collier County roadway landscaping reflects the character of the Community and the Southwest Florida region. The streetscape landscaping is the most public and visible type of landscape beautification and the most appreciated by the Community. The benefits of landscaping have been directly related to traffic calming, cooling and screening of adjacent properties, and increased property values.
The proposed landscape master plan is a three year landscape beautification program with an estimated capital budget of $2.6 to $3.1 million for the next three years. Based on the level of landscaping selected, the cost of landscape improvements is only 0.5%-1.3% of the roadway construction budget in FY 04; less in FY05 and about the same for FY06. Considering the ratio, beautification costs are low; although when you view them independently, they are costly.
For instance: there are three levels of Median Landscaping, Type A, Type B, and Type C (with two sub-levels: C1 and C2).
Type A includes irrigation, bahia sod, and a canopy of trees and/or palms, example: Radio Road between Airport-Pulling to Santa Barbara Blvd. Installation costs: $152,198.46 per mile; yearly maintenance costs: $59,138.06 per mile.
Type B includes Type A with St. Augustine sod instead of bahia, flowering trees and planting beds. Example: Davis Blvd. from Airport-Pulling to County Barn. Installation costs: $174,841.13 per mile; yearly maintenance costs: $78,272.08 per mile.
Type C includes all of the elements of Type B with additional side road plantings; C1 includes side road plantings of canopy trees and/or palms. Example: US 41 East at the Government Complex entrance to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Installation costs: $174,841.13 (base cost of Type B) plus $135,000.00 per mile; maintenance approximately $85,339.08 per mile. C2 side road plantings include shrubs, flowering trees, planting beds, and/or St. Augustine grass; this is more of a "buffering effect". Installation costs: $174,841.13 (base cost of Type B) plus $148.158.87 per mile; yearly maintenance costs: $109,140.00 per mile.
As you can see, even though the landscape project is only approximately 1% of each individual Transportation Project cost, it's quite alarming when you separate the numbers and show the cost per mile.
Now the hard part: how will we fund this landscape beautification master plan? Not exactly in the manner you may think.
Landscape beautification projects on newly constructed and reconstructed arterials and collectors within the Transportation 5-Year Road Work Program are to be budgeted through Road Construction Fund, Gas Tax Fund and managed through the Landscape Operations Section of Alternative Transportation Modes. The Future Maintenance will be budgeted through MSTD General Fund. The amount depends on the type of landscaping that is selected by the Board. Because we, as Commissioners, have chosen this element of road construction as a high priority, we intend to use the already-existing transportation monies to support this enhancement.
That's all well and good for NEW construction, but what about the EXISTING roadways that are lacking landscaping right now? The same fund that will pay for the maintenance of the new projects will fund the installation of landscaping along the existing roadways; the MSTD General Fund. We have committed NOT to raise your tax rate. This enhanced landscaping schedule will be a challenge for the Commissioners to deliver.
The great news is that the following landscaping projects are proposed for the East Naples area, with their respective due dates: Rattlesnake Hammock, from US41 to County Barn Road in FY2004. US 41 East, from Rattlesnake Road to St. Andrews in FY 2005 and US 41 East, from St. Andrews to Barefoot Williams Road in FY 2006. And again, all will be funded through the MSTD General Fund.
Collier County is well on its way to a planned Community Character design for everyone to be proud of. With patience and time, you will see the uniformity of landscaping and streetscaping throughout our entire community.
Government's Fuzzy Math
By Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3
By Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3
In a recent published newsletter, it is stated "Collier County government alone will struggle to balance a budget that will have lost just under $85 million in revenue in less than 2 years". This statement is not true and government has lost its way once it believes that your money belongs to them.
The fact is that the County collected $54 million more in property tax in 2007 than it did in 2006. This budget year (2008), the County reduced $44 million in property taxes.
On January 29, 2008, the voters in Florida will be asked if the present form of property taxation shall be changed. Following are brief descriptions of the proposed changes to the State Constitution relating to property taxation.
With respect to homestead property, this revision: (1) increases the homestead exemption except for school district taxes and (2) allows homestead property owners to transfer up to $500,000 of their Save-Our-Homes benefits to their next homestead. With respect to non-homestead property, this revision (3) provides a $25,000 exemption for tangible personal property and (4) limits assessment increases for specified non-homestead real property except for school district taxes.Furthermore, this revision:
(1) Increases the homestead exemption by exempting the assessed value between $50,000 and $75,000. This exemption does not apply to school district taxes. (2) Provides for the transfer of accumulated Save-Our-Homes benefits. Homestead property owners will be able to transfer their Save-Our-Homes benefit to a new homestead within 1 year and not more than 2 years after relinquishing their previous homestead; except, if this revision is approved by the electors in January of 2008 and if the new homestead is established on January 1, 2008, the previous homestead must have been relinquished in 2007. If the new homestead has a higher just value than the previous one, the accumulated benefit can be transferred; if the new homestead has a lower just value, the amount of benefit transferred will be reduced. The transferred benefit may not exceed $500,000. This provision applies to all taxes. (3) Authorizes an exemption from property taxes of $25,000 of assessed value of tangible personal property. This provision applies to all taxes. (4) Limits the assessment increases for specified non-homestead real property to 10 percent each year. Property will be assessed at just value following an improvement, as defined by general law, and may be assessed at just value following a change of ownership or control if provided by general law. This limitation does not apply to school district taxes. This limitation is repealed effective January 1, 2019, unless renewed by a vote of the electors in the general election held in 2018. Additionally, the revision includes:
a. Repeals obsolete language on the homestead exemption when it was less than $25,000 and did not apply uniformly to property taxes levied by all local governments. b. Provides for homestead exemptions to be repealed if a future constitutional amendment provides for assessment of homesteads "at less than just value" rather than as currently provided "at a specified percentage" of just value. c. Schedules the changes to take effect upon approval by the electors and operate retroactively to January 1, 2008, if approved in a special election held on January 29, 2008, or to take effect January 1, 2009, if approved in the general election held in November of 2008. The limitation on annual assessment increases for specified real property shall first apply to the 2009 tax roll if this revision is approved in a special election held on January 29, 2008, or shall first apply to the 2010 tax roll if this revision is approved in the general election held in November of 2008.
It's important you send your message to government on how you want to be taxed and who you trust to spend your money. VOTE!!!!
The fact is that the County collected $54 million more in property tax in 2007 than it did in 2006. This budget year (2008), the County reduced $44 million in property taxes.
On January 29, 2008, the voters in Florida will be asked if the present form of property taxation shall be changed. Following are brief descriptions of the proposed changes to the State Constitution relating to property taxation.
With respect to homestead property, this revision: (1) increases the homestead exemption except for school district taxes and (2) allows homestead property owners to transfer up to $500,000 of their Save-Our-Homes benefits to their next homestead. With respect to non-homestead property, this revision (3) provides a $25,000 exemption for tangible personal property and (4) limits assessment increases for specified non-homestead real property except for school district taxes.Furthermore, this revision:
(1) Increases the homestead exemption by exempting the assessed value between $50,000 and $75,000. This exemption does not apply to school district taxes. (2) Provides for the transfer of accumulated Save-Our-Homes benefits. Homestead property owners will be able to transfer their Save-Our-Homes benefit to a new homestead within 1 year and not more than 2 years after relinquishing their previous homestead; except, if this revision is approved by the electors in January of 2008 and if the new homestead is established on January 1, 2008, the previous homestead must have been relinquished in 2007. If the new homestead has a higher just value than the previous one, the accumulated benefit can be transferred; if the new homestead has a lower just value, the amount of benefit transferred will be reduced. The transferred benefit may not exceed $500,000. This provision applies to all taxes. (3) Authorizes an exemption from property taxes of $25,000 of assessed value of tangible personal property. This provision applies to all taxes. (4) Limits the assessment increases for specified non-homestead real property to 10 percent each year. Property will be assessed at just value following an improvement, as defined by general law, and may be assessed at just value following a change of ownership or control if provided by general law. This limitation does not apply to school district taxes. This limitation is repealed effective January 1, 2019, unless renewed by a vote of the electors in the general election held in 2018. Additionally, the revision includes:
a. Repeals obsolete language on the homestead exemption when it was less than $25,000 and did not apply uniformly to property taxes levied by all local governments. b. Provides for homestead exemptions to be repealed if a future constitutional amendment provides for assessment of homesteads "at less than just value" rather than as currently provided "at a specified percentage" of just value. c. Schedules the changes to take effect upon approval by the electors and operate retroactively to January 1, 2008, if approved in a special election held on January 29, 2008, or to take effect January 1, 2009, if approved in the general election held in November of 2008. The limitation on annual assessment increases for specified real property shall first apply to the 2009 tax roll if this revision is approved in a special election held on January 29, 2008, or shall first apply to the 2010 tax roll if this revision is approved in the general election held in November of 2008.
It's important you send your message to government on how you want to be taxed and who you trust to spend your money. VOTE!!!!
LATEST NEWS
Landscaping Mitigation Bank
Tom Henning, Chairman
County Commissioner, District 3
Tom Henning, Chairman
County Commissioner, District 3
Recognizing that widespread tree trimming practices were harming landscape trees, Collier County passed an ordinance against severe tree trimming in 1991. The purpose of this ordinance was to provide protection for trees that were part of zoning required landscapes.
Various zoning districts, commercial properties, and residential developments have had a minimum of landscaping required since 1974. These requirements reflect urban planning formulas which were derived for the purpose of ensuring that properties are aesthetically pleasing, have shade to cool asphalt parking areas, have stabilized soils which are able to handle calculated amounts of stormwater runoff, and also to replace vegetation removed in the development process. Maintenance of code required landscaping has always been a part of the ordinance, yet damage, in the form of "hatracking", is still routinely done to landscape trees.
"Hatracking" is the unskilled removal of tree limbs by shearing off the tops of trees in the attempt to produce a smaller, more compact canopy. According to tree experts, this practice damages trees by leaving branch stubs open to disease and rot. Once introduced, the rot spreads inside making the tree dangerous, while it still may appear healthy. Additionally, improper pruning of this type encourages sprouts to grow from the tree wounds like branches, but are not strongly attached to the tree. These whip-like branches break off and become liabilities in even moderate storm winds.
It is true that topping was once thought beneficial to trees, in promoting vigorous growth. However, this theory has been long discarded by tree professionals, particularly regarding many of our softer-wooded tropical trees. National Arborist Standards recommend not more that one-third of a tree canopy be removed at any one time, and that pruning be done with specific cuts which protect disease fighting chemicals located in the branch collar, where limbs and trunk are joined.
Urban trees, unlike forest trees, require proper pruning to maintain their health and form. True tree professionals, called arborists, understand that conducting their business by properly caring for trees not only produces healthier trees, but also creates more business opportunity for them. Topping trees may seem like a quick solution for property owners but contracting with a professional arborist to properly prune trees every 2 to 3 years will be less expensive in the long run than replacing damaged trees. Additionally, damaged trees do not provide the services to a property that healthy trees do, therefore, property owners and their neighbors both lose.
Since 1991, Code Enforcement staff has attempted to make property owners and tree trimmers alike aware of the damage "hatracking" causes, by writing letters to tree service business owners, by warning property owners, and finally by requiring the replacement of severely pruned trees, per the ordinance. Yet the practice continues because lack of knowledge among tree trimmers and customers persists.
I will propose to the Board of County Commissioners that a new ordinance called "Landscaping Mitigation Bank" be adopted. How this ordinance will work: instead of imposing a fine that requires the landowner to plant more vegetation on their property (property that will not sustain more vegetation), it will require a monetary payment to the County in a fund ear-marked for plantings for our medians throughout the County. And let's take it one step further; let's require the same for landowners who remove more vegetation then approved under their vegetation permit.
I am looking forward to gaining the support of the Board members to implement this ordinance, for the betterment of our entire community.
Various zoning districts, commercial properties, and residential developments have had a minimum of landscaping required since 1974. These requirements reflect urban planning formulas which were derived for the purpose of ensuring that properties are aesthetically pleasing, have shade to cool asphalt parking areas, have stabilized soils which are able to handle calculated amounts of stormwater runoff, and also to replace vegetation removed in the development process. Maintenance of code required landscaping has always been a part of the ordinance, yet damage, in the form of "hatracking", is still routinely done to landscape trees.
"Hatracking" is the unskilled removal of tree limbs by shearing off the tops of trees in the attempt to produce a smaller, more compact canopy. According to tree experts, this practice damages trees by leaving branch stubs open to disease and rot. Once introduced, the rot spreads inside making the tree dangerous, while it still may appear healthy. Additionally, improper pruning of this type encourages sprouts to grow from the tree wounds like branches, but are not strongly attached to the tree. These whip-like branches break off and become liabilities in even moderate storm winds.
It is true that topping was once thought beneficial to trees, in promoting vigorous growth. However, this theory has been long discarded by tree professionals, particularly regarding many of our softer-wooded tropical trees. National Arborist Standards recommend not more that one-third of a tree canopy be removed at any one time, and that pruning be done with specific cuts which protect disease fighting chemicals located in the branch collar, where limbs and trunk are joined.
Urban trees, unlike forest trees, require proper pruning to maintain their health and form. True tree professionals, called arborists, understand that conducting their business by properly caring for trees not only produces healthier trees, but also creates more business opportunity for them. Topping trees may seem like a quick solution for property owners but contracting with a professional arborist to properly prune trees every 2 to 3 years will be less expensive in the long run than replacing damaged trees. Additionally, damaged trees do not provide the services to a property that healthy trees do, therefore, property owners and their neighbors both lose.
Since 1991, Code Enforcement staff has attempted to make property owners and tree trimmers alike aware of the damage "hatracking" causes, by writing letters to tree service business owners, by warning property owners, and finally by requiring the replacement of severely pruned trees, per the ordinance. Yet the practice continues because lack of knowledge among tree trimmers and customers persists.
I will propose to the Board of County Commissioners that a new ordinance called "Landscaping Mitigation Bank" be adopted. How this ordinance will work: instead of imposing a fine that requires the landowner to plant more vegetation on their property (property that will not sustain more vegetation), it will require a monetary payment to the County in a fund ear-marked for plantings for our medians throughout the County. And let's take it one step further; let's require the same for landowners who remove more vegetation then approved under their vegetation permit.
I am looking forward to gaining the support of the Board members to implement this ordinance, for the betterment of our entire community.