A Different Way to Run the CITF?
Continued from "Where has the CITF Money Gone?"
Going forward, the public policy decisions made in the past few years regarding this stream of money will certainly manifest themselves in one way or another. There have already been questions regarding the County’s decision to allow the Redevelopment Authority to administer the money. That’s something that was not mentioned in Act 53. In so doing we have to wonder if the County has ceded too much control over the funding.
By pure coincidence, the County Council deliberated on two CITF matters at their November 16th meeting: first, to accept the next disbursement of money from the state, and second, whether to change the amount of control the Redevelopment Authority has over the money.
After all, once the pot of revenue was put into the statute the Authority created the fund and even took action to add the aspect of "tourism" to it. What does that mean for projects in future years in terms of purpose and location? Will cultural amenities funded by RAD look the CITF as another place to explore?
Then too, what effects will the County’s (or the Authority’s) decision to make this program a block grant type arrangement where money would be handed out to municipalities and authorities instead of using it for the infrastructure it oversees itself have? According to the County’s most recent Comprehensive Financial Report, it has over 500 bridges, 12,000 acres of parks, 8 maintenance garages, and close to 400 miles of paved roads. As capital needs for these and other assets increase there might be a debate over whether the infrastructure fund should have been kept "in house".