|
|
|
Over the years, the various local government bodies have done a pretty good job of cooperating on projects. Completion of the swimming pool is a recent example between the Village and the Park Board, and the Park Board cooperation with the School district on the new ball fields is another. The municipality and the township work together on various needs and tasks, and virtually everybody supports the library board.
However, most of those efforts and projects are ad hoc – addressed as matters of need as they come up. At the strategic level, we tend to work in silos except for the 10-year update of the Comprehensive Plan and the annual joint board meeting. That meeting is useful, but tends to dwell on results of the past year and/or addresses future needs and plans in only very broad terms.
This year’s joint board meeting of a couple of weeks ago was another satisfying confirmation of everyone’s commitment to our community. In addition to the five government entities, the Community Foundation and the Chamber / MEDC reported; as usual, we were all pretty much in accord. This is a highly worthwhile meeting, and an excellent example of intergovernmental consultation and cooperation (curiously, I don’t remember anyone from the public ever attending).
However, I think there’s a case to be made for some closer work on our various long-term interests, and I challenged the assembled representatives to consider forming a committee that would meet two – four times a year and look at converging interests, potential problems, and long-term goals. I think this kind of planning would help reduce cost over time by helping ensure assets are in place where needed and when needed, and in dodging the inevitable conflicts and budgetary problems that occur between governmental bodies when there is less communication. That premise is supported by the Oregon School Siting Handbook, a planning guide that encompasses a number of successful case histories, and documents some very attractive outcomes from joint municipal, school board and park board planning.
We don’t have a crisis, and there is no great project or urgent situation on the horizon that would compel such a committee. At the same time, I think we could do some good work for the individual government bodies and the community as a whole with a small group looking out 10-15 years at the 50,000-foot level. Where do we think residential growth will go? Future schools? Parks and recreational facilities? Roads and infrastructure? What amenities do our citizens want or need? Funding mechanisms in place?
Over the years, the various local government bodies have done a pretty good job of cooperating on projects. Completion of the swimming pool is a recent example between the Village and the Park Board, and the Park Board cooperation with the School district on the new ball fields is another. The municipality and the township work together on various needs and tasks, and virtually everybody supports the library board.
However, most of those efforts and projects are ad hoc – addressed as matters of need as they come up. At the strategic level, we tend to work in silos except for the 10-year update of the Comprehensive Plan and the annual joint board meeting. That meeting is useful, but tends to dwell on results of the past year and/or addresses future needs and plans in only very broad terms.
This year’s joint board meeting of a couple of weeks ago was another satisfying confirmation of everyone’s commitment to our community. In addition to the five government entities, the Community Foundation and the Chamber / MEDC reported; as usual, we were all pretty much in accord. This is a highly worthwhile meeting, and an excellent example of intergovernmental consultation and cooperation (curiously, I don’t remember anyone from the public ever attending).
However, I think there’s a case to be made for some closer work on our various long-term interests, and I challenged the assembled representatives to consider forming a committee that would meet two – four times a year and look at converging interests, potential problems, and long-term goals. I think this kind of planning would help reduce cost over time by helping ensure assets are in place where needed and when needed, and in dodging the inevitable conflicts and budgetary problems that occur between governmental bodies when there is less communication. That premise is supported by the Oregon School Siting Handbook, a planning guide that encompasses a number of successful case histories, and documents some very attractive outcomes from joint municipal, school board and park board planning.
We don’t have a crisis, and there is no great project or urgent situation on the horizon that would compel such a committee. At the same time, I think we could do some good work for the individual government bodies and the community as a whole with a small group looking out 10-15 years at the 50,000-foot level. Where do we think residential growth will go? Future schools? Parks and recreational facilities? Roads and infrastructure? What amenities do our citizens want or need? Funding mechanisms in place?
We all do this to one degree or another as individual bodies, but do little of it together until some question arises. It’s great that we are always able to work together to solve problems, but I guarantee that preventing a problem is far more efficient than solving it once it arrives, no matter how good we are at the latter.
So I’m thinking of a committee of one representative from each body that would meet a few times a year and report at the annual joint meeting. I’ll bet that 10 years down the road, we all benefit.
Stephen Newhouse is a Morton Village Board trustee with planning and zoning responsibilities. He agreed to write a column for the Morton Times-News to offer his perspective about village happenings.
