To me any new revenues from the landowner to the city are a tax in plain language.
As climate change is happening, I really don’t understand how the city has enough revenue (another tax) to do a study on this, as various countries and institutions around the world have been and still are studying this problem.
As far as studying/funding (another tax) storm water infrastructure, there seem to be various solutions:
• Green roofs – as taxpayers already know, this can be an expensive option (city hall) for new buildings, but for existing homes, I believe the cost will be prohibitive. Rebuilding our homes to support such a project will not be very cost-effective, let alone green (used building materials would have to be disposed of!).
• Permeable paving, although new (expensive), seems to be a good choice when first installed, even though the jury is still out on this option due to our weather. But to an existing home, the cost would be prohibitive, especially when dealing with the disposal of existing paving products (if it wasn’t I’m sure our current council would have had various infrastructure redone; i.e., sidewalks).
• If there is such a problem with our storm water infrastructure, how come it seems with any redevelopment/rebuilding that smaller storm water drain pipes have been installed?
• With our roads being rebuilt a lot flatter (no crown), storm water cannot vacate fast enough. This is particularly evident in downpours and in the winter time (more sanding material and de-icer needed with less effect).
Talking about winter, another study is being done – why? How much snow fell in the 1960s-70s? Because the past decade has been relatively easy on our taxes doesn’t mean that we will not be getting any winter weather, as the past winter has proven! Be prepared for the worse, and when this doesn’t happen – smile!
By the way, congratulations to our council on voting the new council a very modest raise! Must be nice!