|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Editorials
Oswego needs an infrastructure fund : Editorials : Oswego Ledger-Sentinel : Hometown Newspaper for Oswego and Montgomery, IllinoisOswego needs an infrastructure fund
| 11/29/2012
|
Imagine counting on annual raises in your pay to provide the money you'll most certainly need one day to replace the roof on your home. Essentially, that's the approach some Oswego Village Board members have advocated to provide funding for capital improvements and maintenance to the village's water system.
Instead of identifying a certain funding source such as an additional users' fee or tax, they would prefer the village rely on connection fees paid by new homebuilders. Until the 2008 recession, connection fees were indeed a significant source of revenue for the village. However, those revenues quickly fell when new home construction slowed from a sprint to a crawl in the village.
As we reported last week, Mark Horton, the village's finance director, recently told board members that the village's water and sewer fund currently operates "just fine" and "revenues are enough for existing expenditure levels." However, he said there are no funds designated for infrastructure improvements beyond $300,000 over the next five fiscal years.
"My opinion is the capital outlay is way lower than it needs to be," Horton said, "We should be spending a lot more on capital improvements on an annual basis-that is my opinion."
Village Administrator Steve Jones suggested the board could begin setting aside "a little bit of money-a rainy day fund" to pay for capital improvements. Jones acknowledged the board has been able to make necessary repairs and even pay out of pocket (thanks in part to a $500,000 grant secured for the village by State. Rep. Tom Cross) to relocate a water main along Ill. Route 71. But by setting aside funds for capital improvements, Jones said the board would be taking a proactive approach to maintaining its infrastructure "as opposed to hoping for the best."
Board members Jeff Lawson and Scott Volpe, however, are wary of the recommendation to raise revenues.
"I guess I'm skeptical," Volpe said, adding, "Government doesn't have a good history of building up funds and staying out of them. Government tends to build up funds and then spend the money."
Lawson commented, the "suggestion is that the current taxpayers will pay for the future taxpayers. That's a flawed philosophy because we owe them a working system with no debt. We don't owe them to save for repairs in the future. You are suggesting the current taxpayers have the responsibility to replace everything now for the future. We fix things as we go."
We agree with the recommendation from Horton and Jones.
The current board owes future taxpayers not only a working water system, but also to spare them from extra costs that will certainly result if today's smaller maintenance projects are delayed until they become bigger and significantly more costly.
While the idea of raising water rates or imposing a new fee or tax to pay for infrastructure needs is no doubt abhorrent to board members, they do have an obligation to maintain and even improve the village's water system for use by current and future generations of village residents.
If they do not trust future boards to manage a capital improvement fund, the voters in the village will always withhold the right to vote out the fund raiders-just as they have done in recent board elections. "Voting the rascals out" hasn't worked real well in Washington, D.C. or in Springfield, but we've seen it work time and again here at the local level.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
