[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Once officials in Sarasota County accepted that responsibility, theymoved with admirable firmness to put their house in order.Led bycounty officials armed with firm plans, citizens voted one bond issueafter another to retrofit existing development with new sewer, water, androad systems capable of extensions to serve new development.The com-missioners reorganized county government to systematically plan anddeliver public services.They made the capital facilities program, basedon the comprehensive plan, the keystone of the county s budgeting forcapital investments.Within a decade, they brought order to chaos andestablished a management process capable of supporting developmentwell into the next century.A COMPLEXITY OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SERVICE DELIVERY 119It is fair to say that infrastructure issues lie at the heart of most localgovernments growth management programs.Concerns about efficientprovision of costly public facilities provoke local officials to considergrowth limits, growth boundaries, restrictions on rural development, andother management techniques.Community growth problems most oftensurface in the public consciousness as shortfalls in public facilities con-gested streets and highways, overcrowded schools, deficient water sup-plies, and failing sewage treatment plants.These problems directly affectthe daily lives of citizens, who clamor for instant solutions that fre-quently are impossible to deliver.Infrastructure issues loom large on thepublic agendas of most communities.A Complexity of Responsibilities for Service DeliveryOver centuries, public officials invented a host of approaches to supply-ing public facilities.Based on the varied locational demands and physi-cal character of the facilities themselves, and the funding and opera-tional options for delivering their services, officials are offered manychoices for determining specific responsibilities for planning, financing,and managing fundamental public services.Their decisions reflect sev-eral considerations:" The significance of the facility for sustaining the health, safety, and wel-fare of community residents and workers; public education is usuallyviewed as a fundamental necessity, for example, while public golf coursesmay be considered an optional amenity." The efficiency of service delivery through large linked systems (e.g., sewerand water systems) common to all or through individual facilities (e.g., li-braries, airports) more customized for individual needs." The ability to assign service costs incrementally to users, such as throughmetered water use, or as a common financial responsibility, such as a cityhall building or a zoo." The size and complexity of the facility or system, which may requirelengthy periods for design and construction (e.g., a sewage treatmentplant) or be readily available (e.g., a police car).The entities given responsibility for delivering specific services maybe local public-works agencies (that build and maintain roads, for exam-ple), authorities functioning as arms of local governments (that managewater and sewer systems, for example), independent authorities or dis-tricts operating within one jurisdiction or across many (such as airportand transit authorities and commissions), and state agencies (such as120 5.MANAGING DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTUREtransportation and health departments) that plan, fund, or regulate fa-cility development.Depending on the choices made, community residents may obtainwater through individual wells, small community-scale treatment anddistribution systems, or regional systems encompassing remote damsand reservoirs and lengthy pipelines.Citizens may drive on local roadsbuilt almost entirely by developers, higher-volume highways built bystate and local governments, high-speed highways financed mostly by thefederal government, or toll roads constructed and managed by public au-thorities or even private companies.Residents may send their childrento nearby public schools or have them bussed long distances to consoli-dated schools, enroll them in private schools, or send them away to pub-lic or private institutions.Each of these modes may involve different assignments for planning tomeet future needs, securing financing, facility construction, and opera-tional management.Responsibilities may be split among local, state, andfederal governments, special authorities, and private companies; the rel-ative sharing of responsibilities is constantly shifting.The roles of public and private sectors in providing infrastructure, forexample, have changed considerably over the years.At one time, it wasnot unusual for private companies to build toll roads and bridges or op-erate water-supply systems.Now major road systems are almost entirelya governmental responsibility.Before World War II, many local govern-ments assumed responsibility for financing roads, sidewalks, and otherfacilities in new subdivisions.Since the war, developers are increasinglyrequired to provide basic facilities in new subdivisions and often specialamenities as well.Water and sewer authorities that once readily ex-tended service to developing areas as an opportunity to broaden theirmarkets now charge fees to pay for construction.As these relationships evolve over time, every community acquires adistinctive approach to providing services that affects its ability to man-age growth [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]