PL PACKET 05171983 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

142 -The Practice of Local Government Planning ' cess with public and private, interests'that want improvements or that oppose . certain improvements. The continuing bargaining process makes the elected of- ficial reluctant'to commit himself or herself for too many years in advance: Therefore, programs for future years are not as firm as they appear. In fact,one I of the bargaining devices that is frequently resorted to is to program a particular improvement for a particular future year. As the next budget cycle comes around the project may "move up"a year,and sometimes can be moved back a year.It should be understood that many projects bounce from year to year in the capital program but never arrive in the capital budget. Because elected offi- cials.are involved in this negotiating process, they also have some reluctance to explicitly identify and publicly announce all capital investment policies and priorities. They want to maintain flexibility and the opportunity to change their minds. There are certain investment decisions and styles of decision making that are irresistible to elected officials and, therefore. are inevitable. These are: a desire to keep tax rates down: a desire to spread capital improvements throughout the city so that each neighborhood "gets something": a tendency to "give in" to vocal community and neighborhood groups—and sometimes ignore such opin- ion:a tendency to balance,expend itures and allocate cuts and additions "across the board" among all city departments: a tendency at times to avoid seeking certain federal or state grants if there are too many strings attached,and a strong tendency to jealously guard the capital investment decision-making process to the point where technicians do not really participate and often do not know why certain decisions are made. The relationship of the CIP to other planning tools • Comprehensive planning At one time "master" plans were so specific that par- ticular facilities were identified.Now,as plans become more policy-oriented they may provide only a very general guide to investment decisions. On the other hand, community or neighborhood level plans and plans for small communities 4 may still contain a degree of specificity that makes it easy to know whether a particular improvement does or does not conform to policy. Plans prepared for particular functional elements—the park plan and the pub- lic library plan,for example—can also be quite specific as to improvements. In fact, some plans go so far as to make broad cost estimates as to implementa- tion of proposals. This practice is to be recommended because it gives elected officials a far better idea of what it might cost to follow a planner's recommendations. jWhat may be the beginning of some new trends is illustrated by recent de- velopments concerning the relationship of the CIP to comprehensive,planning. I j At the suburban fringe a growing number of communities are constructing so- called growth management systems in which the CIP is an important compo- nent. Thus, communities such as Ramapo, New York, carefully try to relate this comprehensive plan to the CIP and to zoning and subdivision regulation. Permits for development are based on whether or not certain community facili- ties either are in place or are programmed in the CIP. 'I It is also interesting to note that in several older central cities(as in Philadel- phia, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh) the CIP is the "centerpiece" of the planning j 'M program. In these cities the CIP is a very important activity and annual and mul- tiyear development programs and policies are developed so as to be interrelated I with annual capital budget decisions. 'f The relationship between the planning function and the budgeting function • has been taken a step further in Atlanta. A department of planning and budget was created that is responsible for both urban planning and financial planning.