Decisions, Decisions

Budget workshops are done. 

Thank God. 

It was a marathon session:  0800 – 2230.  With a few minutes break for lunch, dinner, and smoke break.  The taxpayers got their money’s worth from the Council, at least as far as effort is concerned.

Despite the effort, I am not certain that I like the fruits of our deliberations.  Although I voted with the rest of the bunch to send the budget back to the City Manager for some changes prior to bringing it back to Council for final hearings and vote, I am not satisfied with the budget for a couple of reasons.  I think the budget we sent back lacked clear priorities and lacked forethought and discipline with respect to capital infrastructure.  If the budget comes back clearly prioritized and tailored to address utility capacity improvements for growth, I could happily vote for the budget.  If I vote for the budget I would have to vote for the ad valorem millage, because legally I cannot vote for a budget that isn’t balanced. 

At the end of the budget day, I told my colleagues I would vote in favor of a $2.600 millage depending on how the administration revised the capital improvement budget.  If I don’t like what I see, then I can’t vote for the budget.   This creates a quandary in my mind because, by law, Council has to pass a budget.   It also creates quandary in the minds of the finance director and her staff as they try to hammer together a budget with an uncertain revenue figure on the other side of the equation sign.  I feel bad that I had something to do with that uncertainty.  Nobody needs that headache 45 days before the end of the budget year.  I apologize to everyone on staff who is dealing with this.

My quandary is real.  On the one hand, I like municipal budgets that provide for expansion of recreational opportunities and that improve the curb appeal of the community.  On the other hand, I have an obligation as an engineer to make decisions and to prioritize in favor of the safety, health and well-being of the public.  I have the same obligation as a public official.  Here is how I see the public sector’s responsibility with respect to utility infrastructure:

Governments provide utilities (water, sewer, electric, etc) to ensure reliable delivery of life-safety services.  You can’t live without water; you can live better with electricity; and you don’t want to live in your own sewage.  Governments can and do provide these services very well when they pay attention to ensuring that you have plenty of water, you have no interruption to the power, and you don’t have to think about what happens after you flush the toilet.

The problem happens when the public officials start getting behind in providing capacity in the utility systems as the area grows and new homes and businesses hook onto the service.   As an engineer, I see this happening all around us as Florida grows.  Well-meaning public officials put off capital improvements because they are really expensive.  They get a little bit behind in their responsibility to provide adequate infrastructure and belatedly discover that it is way more difficult to try to catch up with improvements once growth occurs. 

It’s bad news every time.  Nobody is ever happy, in 20/20 hindsight, when funds aren’t allocated to fix the shortfalls before they become real problems.  They end up having to spend more money in the long run.  You can’t hide the ugly problem when you get behind in infrastructure improvements.  All the bills for construction pile up at the same time and government staff is stretched thin to do the job right.  Bad news.

At best it’s a rolling blackout or a traffic jam.  At worse it’s a bridge collapse or a steam tunnel explosion.   Nothing good comes from using anything mechanical or electrical beyond its rated capacity.  People can get hurt.

Good engineers are trained to recognize capacity limitations.  Good engineers and good leaders don’t walk past capacity limitations that are directly observed or that have been pointed out by other experts in the field.  I am not going to walk past what I am seeing in my City’s infrastructure.

What I am seeing is real.  We are drawing too much water from wells too few in number and too small in size.  We are risking well failure or contamination.

We are pumping so much water that we are using our back-up high-service water pumps as our primary pumps.  Where’s water going to come from if the back-up pumps fail?

Our water treatment system cannot be taken down for maintenance because we have insufficient backup capacity.

We have so many electric customers plugged into our system that voltages are dropping in some areas, resulting in damage to appliances and electrical equipment.  Loss of air conditioning in the kind of heat we’ve been having can be deadly.

Our wastewater and drainage systems face the same problems:  Not enough capacity to support the growth.

In itself, voting against a millage does not improve utility capacity.  The millage is low and the citizens of the City will see a much lower tax bill this year.  The millage helps to support good things like improved recreational opportunities and curb appeal.  We need those things in the City.  It’s a quandary to propose voting against a millage that does good things.

Economic growth helps to provide those good things.  You can’t get sound economic growth without sound infrastructure.  My proposed vote against the millage is intended to highlight the need for a long-term commitment to infrastructure improvements that will support economic development of the community for decades to come. 

If the budget comes back with a clear commitment to infrastructure improvements over the entire capital improvement plan, my quandary is solved and I will vote for the $2.600 millage.