What about this idea of “doing more with less”? Municipal managers have heard it for years, and it’s now perhaps more in vogue than ever.
Can you really “do more with less” — be so efficient and so good at finding better ways that a smaller staff with a reduced budget can accomplish more than last year? Or are you in fact being asked to “put 10 pounds in a 5-pound bag” — that is, do the impossible? I ask in all seriousness and would love to hear responses from the ranks of infrastructure managers.
I ask because I keep seeing municipal budgets get cut, or capped at very small increases. And while I don’t necessarily see streets in my hometown crumbling and water mains breaking and sewers leaking, I see EPA estimates of the shortfall in infrastructure spending going up or staying the same. And I see the grades on various infrastructure report cards holding steady or getting a little worse year to year.
Of course, those are macro views of the world. What’s the micro view — from where you sit today? In these austere times, is your water and sewer infrastructure getting better? Getting worse? Staying the same?
Notable successes
We tend to report on successful infrastructure programs, and some of the stories are inspiring. Last December we wrote about the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department and how it has reinvigorated pipe maintenance, using everything from advanced GIS technology to systematic upgrades to the fleet of sewer cleaning trucks.
If great strides can be made in Detroit, one of the most economically distressed big cities in the nation, then why not anywhere? (It must be said that Detroit wasn’t “doing more with less” — there was an infusion of money from sewer and water rate increases.)
In a future issue we’ll describe how five small Wisconsin villages inspect their sewer systems cost-effectively by sharing one camera system. There’s an innovation that surely saves money.
We also report fairly often on communities assigning more infrastructure repair functions — grouting, cured-in-place pipe lining, pipe bursting — to in-house crews to reduce reliance on contractors and cut expenses. One example of an agency relying more on in-house crews is Pinellas County (Fla.) Utilities, profiled in this issue.
Fees vs. taxes
Arguably it’s a bit easier for utilities to keep up than for school systems or city street departments because utilities rely on user fees, and it’s easier to raise those when needed than to raise property or other taxes. Still, these days no one likes to pay more for any public purpose, and no entity can be accused of having a blank check.
So, for the benefit of your peers in the infrastructure business, tell us what it’s like in your world. Share stories of how you do more with less, or do more with the same. Tell what grade you would give your own storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water piping systems — and which way that grade is trending.
If you want, talk about the stresses of keeping your systems in top shape and what you would do — if you were in sole charge — to make them better for today and the future.
Whatever stories, opinions or ideas you share, we’ll pass them along to 36,000 readers in jobs similar to yours. To share information, just send a note to editor@mswmag.com, and I promise to respond. The issues are critical. This is your forum, and now is the time.
