Open mind, open thread

Anita,

Here's the relevant background (at least from the town's perspective) on the Stormwater Utility.

Here's the problematic way we're funding it.

Here's the neat (and required) survey we're making of current mitigation structures.

Our citizen reps (comprised of some of the "usual suspects") that are riding herd on the program.

Unfortunately, their prior agendas and meeting notes seem to have disappeared of the web site (I think I have some of the info at home if it's gone "forever").

Stormwater management is necessary and a utlity is maybe an OK framework to address our needs. My problem? Fee-based programs throughout the country tend to suffer from some common problems: lack of visibility, skewed priorities, mismanagment of programs and funds, misapplication of funds, disproportionate fee increases, corruption, etc.

Requiring Council to pay for this program out of general funds provides a level of oversight I'm comfortable with... It also places the responsibility for mitigating issues before they happen (proactively) with those folks that set development policy.

Stormwater isn't just about drainage. Land use, tree preservation, RCD enforcement, SUPs, etc. make up the milieu contributing to stormwater management.

And now for something completely different....

Ruby presented the Planning Board's recommendations on improving the NCD process at the last Council meeting. It's chock full of ideas - what do folks think?

Somewhat related, one year ago OP was buzzing about Roger Waldon's contract.

We've had problems selecting, using, extending the contract of, consultants in town. We've had about a year's worth of data on Roger's NCD work. Was this a "good buy" for town?