Report from the Summit Group on Infrastructure
Participants in the Infrastructure Group agreed on three/four points that they would like the Mayor-elect to hear. These were:
Newton’s public infrastructure is in poor shape. Whether one considers schools, roads, or parks and open spaces, there was virtually unanimous agreement that these assets have been allowed to deteriorate.
There is no clearly identified vision or plan that guides Newton’s infrastructure planning. There is no well-understood prioritization of Newton’s Infrastructure needs.
Closely related to Point 2, there was broad consensus that a good plan must be open and transparent and that there must be a means of holding elected officials and employees responsible for its implementation.
In creating and communicating a vision for the city and its infrastructure development, elected officials need to recognize and make clear the tradeoffs that emerge between servicing capital expenditures and meeting current operating program needs with existing budgetary resources. In this regard, city officials were urged to consider finding more funds either by performing current tasks more cheaply, turning to enterprise funds and fees, or pursuing debt exclusion overrides.
Other recommendations related to concerns that were raised related to the condition of the current physical capital:
The roads are poorly lit and hazardous both for cars and especially for cyclists. Trees branches are poorly trimmed and create risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and auto passengers.
Trash collection at parks has become woefully inadequate and recycling should be available everywhere.
Disability access is very inadequate. The closing of the library branches was especially hurtful in this regard.
Related to the absence of a clear and reasoned vision and the public input that should inform such a vision:
Do not defer maintenance. This only leads to faster deterioration and costs more eventually than the money saved by putting off the needed maintenance expenditures.
Openness needs to be formalized. A formal process for seeking public input must be established that still permits the resolution of a decision in a manner consistent with timely plan implementation.
Accountability is critical. Establishing an asset manager or similar position within City Hall may be helpful, especially in removing recommendations from the political realm.
Related to the Funding:
Come up with realistic cost estimates of capital projects from the beginning. Communicate these to the public and solicit feedback so that community will “buy into” the project.
Make sure that work is done efficiently and at lowest cost; use life-cycle costing. Both help gain community support.
Seek out public/private partnerships that may offer ways to finance projects. Recognize “hidden” resources such as assets no longer needed that can be sold for needed funds.
Click here to read comments posted by residents before the Summit on Infrastructure
blog comments powered by Disqus
Participants in the Infrastructure Group agreed on three/four points that they would like the Mayor-elect to hear. These were:
Newton’s public infrastructure is in poor shape. Whether one considers schools, roads, or parks and open spaces, there was virtually unanimous agreement that these assets have been allowed to deteriorate.
There is no clearly identified vision or plan that guides Newton’s infrastructure planning. There is no well-understood prioritization of Newton’s Infrastructure needs.
Closely related to Point 2, there was broad consensus that a good plan must be open and transparent and that there must be a means of holding elected officials and employees responsible for its implementation.
In creating and communicating a vision for the city and its infrastructure development, elected officials need to recognize and make clear the tradeoffs that emerge between servicing capital expenditures and meeting current operating program needs with existing budgetary resources. In this regard, city officials were urged to consider finding more funds either by performing current tasks more cheaply, turning to enterprise funds and fees, or pursuing debt exclusion overrides.
Other recommendations related to concerns that were raised related to the condition of the current physical capital:
The roads are poorly lit and hazardous both for cars and especially for cyclists. Trees branches are poorly trimmed and create risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and auto passengers.
Trash collection at parks has become woefully inadequate and recycling should be available everywhere.
Disability access is very inadequate. The closing of the library branches was especially hurtful in this regard.
Related to the absence of a clear and reasoned vision and the public input that should inform such a vision:
Do not defer maintenance. This only leads to faster deterioration and costs more eventually than the money saved by putting off the needed maintenance expenditures.
Openness needs to be formalized. A formal process for seeking public input must be established that still permits the resolution of a decision in a manner consistent with timely plan implementation.
Accountability is critical. Establishing an asset manager or similar position within City Hall may be helpful, especially in removing recommendations from the political realm.
Related to the Funding:
Come up with realistic cost estimates of capital projects from the beginning. Communicate these to the public and solicit feedback so that community will “buy into” the project.
Make sure that work is done efficiently and at lowest cost; use life-cycle costing. Both help gain community support.
Seek out public/private partnerships that may offer ways to finance projects. Recognize “hidden” resources such as assets no longer needed that can be sold for needed funds.
Click here to read comments posted by residents before the Summit on Infrastructure
blog comments powered by Disqus
