WESTFIELD – The Government Relations Committee interviewed City Engineer Mark Cressotti last night seeking input to increase efficiency in all aspects of improving the city’s infrastructure and to establish a “long-term vision” for projects
The hour-long discussion between Cressotti and the committee members, Chairwoman Ann Callahan and Ward 6 Councilor Christopher Crean, spanned from how the Engineering Department fits into the structure of city government, to how projects, and financing, are prioritized.
“My job is to improve the infrastructure of the city,” Cressotti said, “other departments then have the job of maintaining that infrastructure.”
“We only have a few department that attack problems and we work together cooperatively,” Cressotti said.
Cressotti said the biggest challenge the city faces in establish priorities and financing projects is time and the fact that that process is political. Different people serving as mayor and on the City Council have different priorities.
“We look at projects and try to determine which are the most beneficial to the city,” Cressotti said.
“The biggest problem with affording a long-term vision is that projects take a long time, sometimes 10 or 20 years and that it takes people time to come to grips with change,” Cressotti said. “We need consistency of financing so we can do a five-year program, but there is always something that comes up, something that rises as a priority and something gets bumped down the list. But how long it gets bumped, next year, the year after, 10 years, depends on the level of financing available next year or the year after or for the next 10 years.”
Crean asked what the council can do to make the picture of future projects clearer.
‘”What focus do we need to look at funding sources? What can we do to improve the funding for these projects?” Crean asked.
Cressotti said that the funding stream is complicated because it involves federal, state and local money.
“We all have limited resources for transportation improvements. We all have trouble funding these projects,” Cressotti said.
The most practical approach is to divide a project into funding sources, with state and federal funding available for “above ground” improvements and city funding for below ground utility improvements. That approach allows the city to make its improvements while it secures the state and federal dollars to complete the project, typically the following construction season. One advantage of investing city money is that it gives the city greater control of aspects of the project that would be dictated if the work was entirely funded through state and federal financing.
“I like to take a comprehensive approach to projects,” Cressotti said. “Something, typically the deterioration of pavement, triggers a project and everything, drainage, sewers, underground utilities, sidewalks, all get done as part of that project.”
The funding for those broad-ranging improvements comes from a number of different pockets. One of the city’s deeper pockets is its annual bonding capacity.
“Bonding is just one (ingredient) of the cocktail of project financing,” Cressotti said. “We have city, state and federal funding components and we’re (collectively) not putting enough money out there.”
“Infrastructure gets some portion of that (bonding) capacity, but year-to-year what can I count on for a projected amount of time,” Cressotti said.
“More is better. I consider it part of my job to be the box you councilors stand on when we raise fees,” he said. “There is so much to do. We need to keep going.”
