Skip to main content
Asked a question 4 months ago

Should Strong Towns push credit rating agencies to include capability to maintain infrastructure in their evaluation of a city's financial health?

Where am I?

In Strong Towns you can ask and answer questions and share your experience with others!

I've been finding in conversations with the staff of my city that the capability to even capture all of those long term liabilities doesn't exist. They are working on some new systems to do so, but I would not be surprised if many other municipalities are in a similar condition.
To your question though, I think it absolutely should be considered. I recall reading a few times on Strong Towns that essentially any past due maintenance is a default. I am unable to remember exactly what articles though.

I work for a County DOT in the Chicago Metropolitan Area (suburban/rural geographic mix). I spoke with our finance director about regulations for auditing public agencies, to which they responded that only the asset value is kept on record for the year-end audit for the purposes of getting more money or support for more money for roads. I believe they can be either a liability or asset depending, and believe that they should be treated as such. It would be in my personal interest that ability to maintain infrastructure is considered as a part of the ratings process, although understand how politically challenging this is.