Residents want to preserve Stonington Borough government
Stonington — Don’t dissolve the borough.
That was the message sent by the 70 people who attended an Aug. 24 forum on the future of the borough and then filled out a survey about how they should address the shortage of residents to run borough government.
About 70 percent suggested the borough instead look to make its government more efficient and sustainable.
That means the borough will now consider forming a charter revision commission to suggest changes to the way the borough operates.
“As I explained at the meeting, undertaking charter revision is serious business and not to be undertaken lightly. The process is dictated by state statutes and can take well over a year. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the time has come to give charter revision serious consideration. In the next few months, the Board of Warden & Burgesses will discuss this option and reach a decision,” borough Warden Jeff Callahan wrote in the announcement of the survey results.
While forming a charter revision commission allows members to look at all aspects of the charter and make recommended changes, in the end the Board of Warden and Burgesses would decide which ones would be presented to voters for a decision.
Callahan said further input from borough residents on the issue, either in writing or in person at board meetings, is encouraged.
At the Aug. 24 forum Callahan said the borough’s declining and aging population, combined with increasing number of state and federal requirements, has made it difficult to find the 30 people needed to staff boards and commissions and run for elected positions.
He predicted that if nothing is done and the population continues to decline, it will become more difficult to fill positions, which would lead to lawsuits against the borough because of a lack of action by groups such as the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Nine potential options for the borough’s future, developed by Glen Chalder, the Planimetrics consultant hired by the borough to develop them, were presented at the forum.
The nine options were as follows:
[naviga:ul]
[naviga:li]The borough would continue operating as it does now.[/naviga:li]
[naviga:li]Allow nonresidents who own property in the borough to hold office, and allow remote participation in meetings.[/naviga:li]
[naviga:li]Reduce the number of members on the Board of Warden and Burgesses and Planning and Zoning Commission.[/naviga:li]
[naviga:li]Hire a professional borough manager to take over operational duties of the warden and burgesses, who could then just focus on policy issues.[/naviga:li]
[naviga:li]Eliminate or reduce borough services such as planning and zoning and parks and road maintenance and let the town take over those responsibilities.[/naviga:li]
[naviga:li]Dissolve the borough and convert to a special services district to provide services such as fire protection, planning and street maintenance, eliminating the cost of general government.[/naviga:li]
[naviga:li]Dissolve the borough and consolidate with the town. It would then be called a village. It might retain some land use and historic district authority to control aesthetics.[/naviga:li]
[naviga:li]Disincorporate with services being provided by the town, including planning and zoning.[/naviga:li]
[naviga:li]Become a city or town.[/naviga:li]
[/naviga:ul]
Comment threads are monitored for 48 hours after publication and then closed.
