A Tea Party for The Nation's Birthday

This was a great Fourth of July!

The sun was shining and the rain was not falling. We were able to get our horses out for an hour of trail riding along green pathways and mountain vistas.

We went to the first - and thus far, only - Tea Party in Susquehanna County. It was quite an event and we have the photos that show it. Any time you get more people to show up in a field than there are hay bales, it's a success.

I counted over a hundred folks and that's a lot for us. Admittedly, some of us left early - it may be a holiday, but the animals still need to be fed.

The talks at the Tea Party were on target, expressing our feelings about a government that has abandoned those who work hard and save for those who expect a bailout for not working or saving. We had adults discussing that; we had children talking about history and work as the key to success in America. We had some good posters.

None of us want to pass a huge debt on to our children and grandchildren. We want the government to stop the insanity of going deeper into debt to "fix" the economic problems caused by prior unconscionable debt and loan policies.

The "party" location in South Montrose is notable itself. It is a field that was converted into a memorial by the Crisman family for their son, Daniel, who died in the 9/11 attack and then extended for all those who lost their lives in that attack. Their names are engraved on stone tablets in a semi-circle around the area in which the speakers addressed us.

We are rural Americans. We remember the sacrifices that were made and the families that still bear the burdens. Not just our neighbors; but throughout America. We are disappointed in the politicians and leaders who don't share our faith in ourselves to meet the future with our own industry, wisdom , and patriotism.

Some speakers called for leaders, who believe in us, to come forward and identify themselves; feeling that there were no such leaders and we need to find new ones. I agree that there are few, but not none. We need to find each other.

That brings me to my final action this 4th of July. After reading Governor Palin's resignation speech several times at SarahPAC (also on video here ), I have contributed to her PAC and the Alaska Trust Fund that pays her personal legal bills from baseless attacks. Regardless of what some prominent public commentators may say, I believe that she is not running from the fight or abandoning a political career. I believe she is choosing to abandon "politics as usual" to pursue an independent path to break the current political bureaucracy's hold on America.

I hope to see more of her on the political scene as a strong independent voice for bringing us back to the America that we "Tea Party" folks want. Her goals for America are straightforward and match mine : Free Enterprise; Smaller Government; Strong National Security; and Energy Independence. I believe these are the prime priorities for our future.

It's been a great 4th of July. Good weather; good horses; good people seeking a way ahead for America; and a real "Stand-Up" leader making a hard choice for our sake.

Jessup News Post - May 2009

Township Meeting

At a special meeting on 28 April, the township decided to accept a bid for crushing blue stone at the township site and a bid for insurance.

The regular meeting was held on 6 May. There was a brief summary of items from the recent PSATS meeting. Apparently, there is continued pressure from the state to consolidate townships or force more coordination. Most townships officials feel there is good coordination and the state's help is not needed.

Two traffic concerns were discussed. One is a long-standing problem with a resident-business that blocks a local road with stone pallets and trucks. Possible enforcement options were discussed. The second concern was raised by a resident about excessive speeding on a dirt road near homes. Discussion centered on posting a 25 mph limit for that road segment.

The next township meeting will be held on June 3 at 7PM. Additionally, Jessup will host the first quarterly meeting of the NTC on June 18 at 7PM.

Other Meetings

The county gas task force met at 9:30 AM on May28, prior to the economic development board meeting. The meeting centered around items presented by the Central Bradford Progress Authority which supports the task force and the board. Information about the CBPA activities and newsletters can be found at their website.

The discussion continued into the formal board meeting along with a number of other agenda items. The CBPA is gathering information from several sources and direct contacts with gas companies. The material they handed out can be obtained from the Commissioners office. There is a new DEP fact sheet coming out that defines the DEP and Conservation Office roles in monitoring Marcellus wells; for the most part, DEP is in charge of permitting and monitoring.

CBPA is planning to have an "Expo" to foster better understanding of gas company needs and of local sources to supply those needs. A key goal is get more gas related economic activity performed locally by local people. As an example of the problem, some local people obtained water trucks to provide hauling services for well fracing, but their business was not consistent and the gas companies have brought in outfits from other states. The companies have very rigid standards for this and other activities and prefer to deal with a prime supplier who understands the standards and can handle load variations. Hence the need for more specific communications.

A suggestion was made about getting local suppliers to coordinate their activities and offer services through a single Point of Contact to the gas companies to simplify the companies management of suppliers.

There is interest in developing new business opportunities by using some of the gas produced here for local commercial activities. Development of gas-generated electricity is especially attractive and some companies (Claverack was mentioned) are interested in this prospect.

Bob Templeton mentioned that there are two compression sites - one in Springville and one in Rush. It is expected that there will be more activity this year along the route 706 corridor. It also seems that there is no county Geographic Information System (GIS) capability to map well sites, access roads, and pipeline routes, even if provided by the companies. Knowing the location of access roads is important if emergency action is needed; but the planned road routes often change as the well site is developed. Several years ago, the county developed a GIS capability with the help of the Penn State Land Analysis Laboratory. Penn State has a Geospatial Technology program that might be able to help the county .The board asked that the commissioners look into what GIS capability we may still have and what could be obtained.

The CBPA handout included a fact sheet by DEP. There is quite a bit more information from DEP about the Marcellus Shale at this PA DEP website which has a page full of informative links to reports, maps and fact sheets. These range from very brief items to hundred page reports.

Among the better longer items, listed under the FAQs heading, is this new (April 2009) US DOE primer on Marcellus Shale (Gas_Primer_2009.pdf ). I've only skimmed it, but it has a lot of good information.

There are also 1-page maps showing recent well permits and total wells drilled through April 2009. The map of Marcellus wells reveals an interesting line of west-east sites from mid - Tioga County through Bradford County to the heavy heavy concentration of wells in the southwest quarter of Susquehanna County. Through April 2009, there were 497 Marcellus well permits and 1817 non-Marcellus permits issued in the state. That 21% Marcellus permit ratio is quite high and lends credibility to the forecast of substantial activity for the rest of the year into 2010.

Cabot has drilled several horizontal wells which exhibit high pressure and flow. One early well began at 6.4 million cubic feet (mmcf) per day and was producing 4.3 mmcf after 105 days. Two more recent ones showed different decline rates. One well had initial production of 8.3 mmcf and declined to 4.1 mmcf after 60 days; the other began at 8.8 mmcf and declined to 8.0 mmcf after 60 days. More data will be needed to establish confidence in expected decline rates and steady state production; but the initial data is very encouraging.

An interesting observation about the combined gas force - economic board meeting was that there was a good deal of citizen interaction and the focus stayed on useful information. That's a good sign for a starting effort. Currently, the gas force meeting starts at 9:30AM in the small main level conference room. Then the group moves to the large lower conference room for the full economic board meeting at 10AM. Meetings are held on the fourth Thursday of each month.

Jessup News Post - April 2009

Township Meeting

The Township will participate in a county meeting to decide who will be the single income tax collecting agency for the county per Act 32. The State requires us to hire a single agent to collect all school and town income taxes and then allocate the funds to each. An oversight committee or mechanism is also to be determined.

The NTC decision to meet quarterly was discussed; the next meeting will be hosted by Jessup in June. The Township voted to rescind the Intergovernmental Agreement that established a NTC joint planning committee for planning and zoning and to send a letter to the NTC confirming that and stating that it will not adopt zoning. This follows the recommendation from the March NTC meeting.

The Township has informed COG of its decision to use BCI for building code enforcement; COG asked for a more formal notice to close out their efforts and turn over files for the new service provider.

Some gas companies are offering gravel road services and repairs free and are expressing their desire to help maintain roads in good condition when they use them. They prefer to not have a post and bond ordinance. The Township is still addressing the P&B option as a way to assure cooperation on roads.

There are indications that this year will see considerably more gas well drilling activity in the township; particularly along the RT 706 corridor.

Other Meetings

There was no NTC meeting. The County has established an Ad Hoc task force of existing department heads to discuss and coordinate natural gas issues. It may report publicly before the monthly economic development board meetings. Other Jessup Jottings blog posts comment on potential activities for this task force. The April COG meeting should address the planned study of a regional police force; but , per our township representative, Jessup is not participating in that effort.

County Action on the Gas Rush

After reading a newspaper account of the Susquehanna Commissioners' action on a gas committee or task force, I wrote the following letter to the local papers. It summarizes some of my earlier posts and and offers suggestions for the committee or task force.

To address the Gas Rush, the county plans to have monthly meetings of the department heads involved with natural gas industry activities followed by public information sessions during the regular economic development board meetings.

This seems a good start. It focuses on improving coordination and actions by internal resources while both informing the public and getting their input.

The county could use this process to cooperate with the townships on common key areas. Let's consider a few possibilities in three areas.

Public Data Access and Awareness - Some townships get advance notice from engineering companies about planned well pad sites and from gas companies about likely pipeline routes and road crossings. Do all towns? Is this information and usage coordinated across towns and county offices? Could this planning information be aggregated by the county, perhaps on a public website, for use by citizens as well as towns and planning commissions?

Joint Contingency Planning and Reaction - DEP requires gas companies to place their contingency plan and emergency data at each well site. Are these plans provided to and coordinated with town and county Fire and EMA offices? Is or should the county lead in joint contingency planning between towns, fire departments and adjoining districts? Should this be done also for pipeline routes since the Texas experience is that more fires and emergencies arise from the pipelines than from the wells?

Town Road Access Permissions - Who should give approval for thumper trucks to “thump” or gather seismic data along the public roads or for companies to lay pipelines along road right-of-ways? How should landowner safety and property rights be protected in advance of approval? Pipelines create extensive safety setbacks and restrictions on property uses. Seismic exploration can gather data from deep into adjacent properties where landowner permission or contractual agreement may not exist. Should the county facilitate consistent guidelines to protect property rights as well as public safety?

I'm sure there are many other ideas. Hopefully, these will stimulate a discussion. For more, visit my blog at http://JessupJottings.blogspot.com.

Jessup News Post - March 2009

Township Meeting :

The 4 March 2009 meeting dealt mainly with new equipment purchase and rental options, COG services, and SALDO options.

The bids for a new backhoe/loader were opened in the presence of the bidders. A used Case 580M was selected as it was much lower in price and satisfied all requirements.

The advantages of renting a gravel crusher and rental options were discussed.

The town will now conduct it's own building code inspection services under a contract with Building Code Inspectors instead of COG. This action will reduce fees to residents. COG will continue to enforce Sewage codes for the town.

Copies of the county SALDO were obtained last month. A Supervisor met with Bob Templeton to discuss town-county cooperation on use of the county SALDO. The discussion of SALDO options concluded that the town would use the county SALDO rather than form a planning commission and adopt their own. The county planning commission is considering inviting town representatives to working sessions on a quarterly basis.

An engineering company provided their plans for examining potential gas well pad sites in the township along Route 706.

The February NTC meeting was briefly discussed. The NTC was informed of our decision to not zone and interest in withdrawing from the controlling Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement for Multi-Municipal Planning and Implementation (zoning). They indicated they would review the status of the agreement for the next meeting.

NTC Meeting ( at Choconut ) :

The 19 March 2009 NTC meeting was fairly brief. Bill Stewart noted that there was little current activity of interest to most members and suggested meeting bi-monthly instead of monthly. A majority of the township representatives showed a preference for quarterly meetings and that decision was made. The next meeting will be 18 June 2008 in Jessup.

Liberty Township announced that they had voted to not zone. Bruce Griffis confirmed that Jessup had voted to not zone; he also stated that no decision had been taken on SALDO.

The NTC 2008 Audit reports and the March 2009 Treasurer report were provided. The Treasurer report continues to show $59,639 balance in SALDO-Zoning Funds; this is unchanged since Carson Helfrich returned the funds in December 2008. Ms. Kublo asked whether the towns could use those funds for their own SALDO or other uses.

The answer was interesting. The residual funds are being reviewed to determine how much is DCED funding which must be returned to the State Treasury, and how much is from township matching funds. The matching funds would go back to the towns based on their initial contribution. The initial match contributions were set by a formula involving town revenue and size. The basic match was 70% DCED to 30% Town.

So, some funds may be due to Jessup and the NTC – DCED review should be followed.

I asked Bill Stewart what they had decided about changing the NTC Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement, since he had taken that action at the February meeting. He deferred to Bob Templeton who informed us that he had consulted Carson Helfrich. According to Carson, the Agreement had never been signed by all the townships.

In other words, the Agreement had never been properly executed in the first place. Bill Stewart suggested any town that had signed and was concerned should rescind the agreement in a town meeting and inform the NTC. This is good advice, and we should take it.

The revelation that the key intergovernmental agreement was never properly executed is amazing. It is equally amazing that the NTC could not answer the question without recourse to Mr. Helfrich through Mr. Templeton.

It also raises the question whether either the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance were ever legally valid since they were put together under the auspices of a Joint Planning Committee which was not properly formed under the unexecuted (and invalid) Intergovernmental Cooperation Agrreement.

This interpretation of invalidity is consistent with Carson's letter of 13 January 2009, in which he states: “This zoning ordinance as now designed can be adopted by any of the NTC municipalities independent of adoption by the others.” Implicit is the need, under the MPC, for a town to form its own planning commission which then reviews the proposed ordinance as a template and adopts it as their own town ordinance.

I suggest Jessup rescind the “Agreement” and inform the NTC by letter that we rescind it, are not interested in a joint SALDO, and want reimbursement of the funds due us from the residual Zoning – SALDO funds balance.

A citizen suggested the NTC hold a public meeting to discuss gas pipeline routes crossing town borders, safety, and minimal land disruption issues. The ensuing discussion covered pipelines along road right-of-ways and who should be in the approval process since there are safety and setback issues as well as landowner property rights involved.

Some supervisors thought they should have supervisor-only meetings before letting the public in on their thinking. Ironically, it escaped them that a citizen raised the issue and much thoughtful discussion came from the citizens. It seems a missed opportunity to improve citizen-supervisor relations, although a better place for these discussions may be the proposed county gas committee.

Gas Committee Tasks?

The Susquehanna County Commissioners have charged the Economic Development Board with making recommendations for a County Gas Committee. In an earlier post, Here , I offered suggestions and information sources to facilitate discussions about what a county gas committee might do.

This post discusses more specific action areas and tasks for a committee. They are presented in categories of actions, with questions, to stimulate discussions and decisions on priorities and tasks.

Public Data Access and Awareness - Some townships get advance notice from engineering companies about planned well pad sites and from gas companies about likely pipeline routes and road crossings. An engineering company provided their drill pad plans to my town prior to our last meeting. Do all towns get similar advance notice? Is it also the case for planned pipeline routes? Is this information and usage coordinated across towns and county offices? Could well site drilling and pipeline route planning information be aggregated by the County for sharing with towns and citizens, perhaps by a public website? This information could be used by citizens as well as town and county planning commissions.

Joint Contingency Planning and Reaction - DEP requires gas companies to place a plastic cylinder at each well site containing their contingency plan and data in the event of an emergency. Are these plans provided and coordinated with Town and County Fire and EMA offices? Is or should the County lead in joint contingency planning between towns and fire departments and adjoining districts? Should this be done also for pipeline routes since the Texas experience is that more fires and emergencies arise from the pipelines than from the wells?

Town Road Access Permissions - Who should give approval for thumper trucks to “thump” or gather seismic data along the public roads or for companies to lay pipelines along road right-of-ways? Who should be made aware of thumper or pipeline routes in advance of permission? Should landowner permission be a prerequisite to approval since they do own the land under the right-of- ways? Pipelines create extensive safety setbacks and restrictions impacting the landowner use of his property. Seismic exploration data can cover a thousand or more feet from the road and should not be gathered without landowner permission or contractual agreement. New county-wide policies or guidelines may be needed to protect property rights as well as public safety.

Paying for Exploitation Services - Gas companies make extensive use of town roads and require other services as indicated above. These new burdens should be paid for by the companies but there are no tax methods to do so at county/town level. Should the County participate in or form alliances with other counties for legislation to get a substantial portion of gas royalty income tax or severance tax allocated back to the counties and towns that produced the gas? If the gas producing counties and legislative districts combined on this issue, they would be a powerful voice if not a majority in both house.

Of course, it is up to the Commissioners to decide what they want a Gas Committee to do and to select the right mix of talent to accomplish the mission. However, some of the above ideas represent important areas of town and county coordination. If they are not being addressed already by existing offices, the committee may a good focal point for establishing coordination and actions among the towns and the county offices.

Jessup News Post - February 2008

Township Meeting:

The 4 February 2008 meeting had a significant discussion of zoning,the related NTC Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement For Multi-Municipal Planning And Implementation, and the proposed NTC SALDO.

After discussion, a unanimous vote was taken to not zone the township.

It was further decided to seek to withdraw from the Intergovernmental Agreement. It requires the township to seek approval of the other 11 municipalities for any land ordinances we want to enact - a condition that is not relevant if we do not zone.

It was decided to investigate other SALDO options including adopting the County SALDO as our own and establishing a planning commission; or establishing a liaison with the County planning commission to improve coordination and input on their decisions. Copies of the County SALDO will be obtained and reviewed.

There was a discussion of obtaining a replacement for the existing backhoe/loader. The decision was to seek bids to do so.

The option of contracting directly with an engineering organization(s)instead of COG for codes and septic enforcement was discussed again with the intent of taking action in the near future to reduce fees to residents.

NTC Meeting:

The 19February2008 NTC meeting was fairly brief. The key items were a discussion of subdivision activity by Bob Templeton and a discussion of zoning and the intergovernmental agreement. Bill Stewart mentioned that Alta Resources may come to the next meeting to discuss their gas leasing and drilling activities. Dave Darrow said that he would be a "Non-Voting" alternate for Franklin Township.

Bill Stewart said there was no report of any township opposed to zoning and he thought all were just talking and no action was taking place. We informed him about the zoning vote in Jessup and Franklin confirmed they had also voted to not zone.

Gene Famolari and Charles Davis, Jessup Rep, raised and discussed the issues about withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Agreement. There was some confusion about whether we wanted to drop from the NTC or just the agreement. Our position was about only the Agreement and this was clarified in the meeting and in a subsequent discussion with Charles Mead.

This NTC meeting had several positives :

Bob Templeton talked about his subdivision summary handout and really endorsed that there is no need for a NTC SALDO based on the number of lots per year for many towns ( e.g. 3/year over 15 years for Jessup.). He said he liked the approach we had discussed about having a Jessup observer attend County planning commission meetings and act as town liaison. He encouraged other towns to consider that.

Bill Stewart tried to defend the NTC's value to one questioner, but could not really point to anything the NTC had done other than getting grants for composting leaf vacuums and improving supervisor relations by regular get-togethers.

I had a long chat with Charles Mead that went from his being angry and convinced I was "misrepresenting" to his understanding my points about what the Intergovernmental Agreement really said, why it needed change and how to do so. We ended up cordial and, perhaps, he will rethink his position.

The key is that the “Agreement” must be updated to do what he and others want to do for the “zoners”. To Change requires a 100% agreement of 12 towns. To Terminate requires only a 75% vote. It is easier to terminate and redo for the willing than to be hard-nosed and force us to withdraw over a year period - during which we are not likely to vote for their needed change.

The issue of changing the intergovernmental agreement is now on the table and should get follow-up in the next meeting. It's important for non-zoners to drop out of it; and that can be done without leaving the NTC. That action gives us freedom from more regulatory efforts by the "joint planning committee" which has a lot of authority ceded it by the towns in the agreement.

On the not so positive side :

Some of the "inner" clique of NTC supervisors are unhappy and may try to find a way to reverse the events or prevent withdrawal. We should be prepared for more discussion on March 19.

Money may be a factor - the budget shows $59.6K tied to SALDO-ZONING. Perhaps they can only keep it if they spend for those items. That could be a terrible incentive to do "wrong" rather than to return the funds. If so, some open discussions and negotiations with DCED could lead to a win-win if approached correctly.

Jessup News Post - January 2009

Welcome to the first monthly Jessup News Post. The News Post will complement Jessup Jottings blogging by reporting information from township meetings, NTC meetings, and other sources.

Jessup Township Meeting :

The reorganization and monthly meeting was held Monday 5 January 2009. The township officials continue in their same roles.

Township meetings will still be held on the first Wednesday, but the time is changed to 7PM.

The property tax rate will be kept the same as 2009.

The supervisors are exploring options to reduce resident fees by obtaining a new provider for building code and sewage code permitting and enforcement instead of using COG.

The supervisors are considering a Post and Bond Ordinance and an engineering service provider to document the condition of our roads. The goal is to provide some protection from and reimbursement for major damage to roads by gas companies with fleets of water trucks and heavy drilling rigs.

NTC Meeting :

The NTC met 15 January at Silver Lake and installed new officers and committee members. Bill Stewart replaces Dave Darrow as Chairperson; Art Donato is Vice Chair; and Mary Long is Treasurer and Mary Mead is Secretary. Dave Darrow moves to the By Laws Committee. Congratulations to Bruce Griffis who has moved from the By Laws Committee to the Executive Committee.

Zoning issues were discussed with the usual degree of civility on both sides. Information about the recent survey of Franklin Township residents and voters was offered and, initially, strongly resisted by NTC officials and some supervisors. The survey was conducted by citizens mailing to 500 residents/voters and getting a 65% response with an overwhelming majority registering opposition to zoning. The Franklin Township representative expressed his disbelief until he could personally review the signatures, although he seemed already aware of the survey.

A letter by Carson Helfrich was presented which basically read like a farewell. He noted that the new (Oct08) version of the zoning ordinance could be adopted by any township independently of the others depending on their perceived need for zoning at this time, saying that some "may be ready for zoning and some may not". Bill Stewart reinforced the notion that zoning issues were a matter for the individual townships and not for discussion at the NTC. No mention was made of the fate of the Joint Planning Commission and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement set up to administer compliance with the comprehensive plan and zoning and land use ordinances related to it.

The January budget reflected income received from Carson Helfrich (Zoning Funds) of $59,690.74 resulting in a net Balance of $67.722.32 on hand. No mention was made of how the returned funds (originally from a DCED Grant which expired 30June08) would or could be used.

The November budget ( presented here because no meetings were held in November or December) reflected expenditure of $2,434 for Kilmer Insurance for Composting Equipment. It was resolved to pay for this from the funds on hand and not to request reimbursement from the townships.

Bill Stewart mentioned the Penn State Data Center population projection showing Susquehanna County growing to 77,530 by 2030 or almost 90% from 42,238 in 2000 as reported in the Township News magazine. I asked if anyone knew of any data to support this dramatic change from 7 years of constant decline to 41,123 in 2007 per the Census Bureau. No one did and I summarized the pertinent data as discussed in my post ( Susquehanna County Population Explosion - Really ?? ). Bob Templeton said that he thought the projection was too high ( as I recall, he used the term "outlandish"). Without substantial justification, this counter-trend projection for Susquehanna County is not credible.

There was discussion of a PSATS proposal to assess and collect property tax for the value of underlying natural gas based on leases. Pros and Cons were argued with the consensus being that it would be very hard to administer and that the NTC should oppose the proposal.

There was a question raised about getting gas company representatives to come to discuss impacts; I didn't hear the resolution, if any. Bob Templeton provided some copies of a Penn State brochure on impacts of gas drilling on townships.

Go Medieval in Jessup

Getting tired of reading about Zoning and Natural Gas ? Care for something more fanciful?

Then check the Faire Play website and learn about the strange buildings and fence along SR3029 between Fairdale and South Montrose.

Faire Play, Inc., a Pennsylvania company formed by role playing enthusiasts, is transforming an old barn and pasture into a unique recreational site. Their goal "is to create a medieval village that will serve as a venue for historical reenactment organizations, live action roleplaying (LARP) companies, performance groups and community events."

They purchased the property early in 2007 and held some events there in 2008. What kind of events and will they be private or public? Well, as they put it :

"We hope to hold two public events each year. These events will be on one weekend in the spring and one in the fall. One event will be a historically oriented medieval faire. This event will concentrate on displays, demonstrations and performances involving daily life, crafts, trades, military life and general history of the medieval time period. The second event will be a medieval fantasy faire, with emphasis on tales and stories in the tradition of King Arthur, Robin Hood and The Lord of the Rings. This event will include wizards, fairies, monsters and other mythical beings. Depending on how these events are received, we may expand the number of public weekends."

The website shows events planned for 2009 and has links for more information. I doubt that I'll become a medieval reenactor, but at least I'll know why all the cars are there on a nice weekend.

Why The NTC?

My last post discussed Township Alliances from an arm's length viewpoint, recalling experiences with the NTC four years ago and more recently on their zoning proposal. It's good background reading - an even-handed and polite treatment of alliances and the NTC. But the real question is why should we, or any township, be in the NTC?

Four years ago, the NTC spent 9 months developing a cell tower ordinance that was extremely lengthy and faulty. I spent about 9 days making a short effective ordinance incorporating the township preferences into the existing county tower ordinance. Much of what I wrote about my experiences tries to put a bland analytic face on that massive mismatch of effort and effect.

I think the zoning ordinance represents the same kind of massive waste of time (2 years) to produce another extremely lengthy and faulty document that, if enacted, will do more harm than good. And I've had to spend a lot more than 9 days commenting on it.

Because of substantial public outcry, the zoning ordinance was put on hold to be quietly revised and reintroduced later. In the interim, the consultant was kept busy developing a new Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SLADO) based on the county ordinance. If enacted, each town must have a planning commission of at least 3 people. So, the NTC members will need at least 27 new people for their commissions to do what the county commission does now with 9 members.

Is this really necessary? My last post suggested a county-township partnering that needs fewer people, uses existing technical talent, and keeps township decision authority. Why not explore that avenue more aggressively instead?

In fact, why have I not heard these or other strategy options discussed at NTC meetings? The meetings seem to be where a pre-determined action is put to a vote and agreed. The real deliberations appear to be conducted in "working group" or "executive" meetings - both of which exclude public presence or notice. Perhaps that is felt to be an efficient way to avoid messy public opinion; but it can lead to public outrage as occurred with zoning.

More importantly, the NTC by its actions and proceedings appears to be an obscure unaccountable layer of government between the towns and the county. It creates citizen distrust of local government. Do we really need a "layer" between town and county?

The NTC is supposed to facilitate getting state funding grants and more advantageous terms for multi-town purchases of equipment and services. That may be true; but can those advantages be obtained by other more flexible partnering arrangements as discussed in my earlier post?

Is the NTC willing or interested in addressing these questions? Can they offer good answers? Can they show clearly why a town should stay in the NTC?

If not, then township officials should put the questions to their residents and decide what is in their best interest.