August 5, 2009

 

 

The Honorable Paula Prentice

Summit County Council

175 South Main Street, 7th Floor

Akron, OH 44308

 

 

Dear Councilwoman Prentice,

 

As I am sure you have heard I do not support the proposal to eliminate the position of the elected Engineer and merge the office with the Department of Environmental Services.  Prior to your vote, I wanted to clearly explain my position to the members of the Council.  I hope that this information will be of use to you. 

 

I have 32 years of experience working in government at all levels as a professional engineer.  I have worked under a city charter and at the county level under the charter structure and the Board of Commissioner structure.  My background includes experience in all aspects of civil engineering including roads, bridges, stormwater, building, zoning and subdivision code enforcement, wastewater collection and treatment, water distribution and airport engineering.  My experience and background provide unique qualifications and insight for our discussion currently before the Council and I am eager to talk with you about any questions you may have in any of these areas.

 

Responsiveness to townships is the one of the biggest complaints I have been hearing so far about this proposal.  The advent and acceptance of JEDD agreements within the county assures the long-term viability of the Township system in Summit County.  There are currently 9 townships with a total population of 72,856 residents per the 2000 census.  If combined, townships represent the second largest city in Summit County.  Our Township residents deserve the same rights afforded township residents throughout the State – electing the person responsible for improving and maintaining the infrastructure in their communities.

 

Each time the Charter is reviewed, the incumbent Engineer has come before the Review Commission to show why the current system works.  The elected Engineers have consistently responded with more efficient government.  I believe that one of the uncelebrated consequences of reviewing the charter every 5 years is that it has prompted the elected officers to improve efficiency.

 

According to testimony provided to the Charter Review Commission in 1994, the EngineerŐs operating budget was approximately $12.2 million at that time which is equivalent to $17.7 million in todayŐs dollars when adjusted for inflation.  The EngineerŐs 2009 operating budget is approximately $14.1 million.  ThatŐs $3.6 million dollars or 20% less than the inflation adjusted operating budget from 1994.  My administration has proposed and is proposing additional cost savings that will bring further reductions in our operating costs.  Lowering operational expenses releases additional money for construction, repair and maintenance of our county roads and bridges.  The proposal before the Council is highly suspect in its expectation of administrative savings for roads and bridges.  It is the general fund that is in critical condition, not the MVGT fund.  The more likely scenario is that MVGT funds would be diverted to aid the ailing general fund.

 

Our actual savings have exceeded the savings from consolidation projected by prior Charter Commissions.  In 1994, the Charter Commission projected operational consolidation would save approximately $500,000 to $750,000 annually.  In addition, the projected personnel consolidation would result in another $500,000 to $1 million in annual savings.  That would be a maximum annual savings projected at $1.75 million annually.  In todayŐs dollars that would be $2.5 million dollars per year.  However, even the adjusted figure pales in comparison to the actual annual savings we have achieved of $3.6 million per year.  Our elected Engineers responded to the challenge and surpassed all expectations.

 

The $3.6 million savings in operational expenses is a result of implementing administrative efficiencies proposed during the charter review process without changing the Charter.  The total number of employees has been reduced dramatically since the 1994 review.  In 1994, the EngineerŐs office was staffed by approximately 180 full-time employees.  Today, the office employs 128 full-time employees and we expect the number to reduce to less than 125 by the end of the year.  That will be a staff reduction of over 30% since 1994.  Clearly, elected Engineers have responded to the call for more efficient administration.  What information has been presented to indicate that the departments administered by the Executive have implemented such savings?

 

Table:  Cost comparison between 1994 budget, 2009 budget and Summit 2000 study predictions

 

 

1994

1994 amount adjusted for inflation

2009

Reduction since 1994 (%)

Budget

$12.2 million

$17.7 million

$14.1 million

20%

Number of full time employees

180

180

125

30%

Operational and Personnel Savings if offices were merged

$1.75 million maximum (according to Summit 2000 Study)

$2.5 million

$3.6 million actual savings without merger

 

 

 

Summit County Council members know first hand that the EngineerŐs office is funded through the Motor Vehicle and Gas Tax (MVGT).  Under Ohio law, these funds can only go towards the maintenance and construction of roads and bridges.  Consolidation of functions will not change this and therefore, certain combinations of functions will not be achievable because the County cannot use road and bridge money for functions unrelated to road and bridge maintenance or construction. 

 

If the Executive is serious about the efficiencies that can be achieved by consolidating our sewer operations with our road and bridge operations, we should look to solutions that can be implemented without the elimination of an effective elected position.  The Summit County Engineer could provide management to the operations currently under control of DOES by agreement with the Executive.  Twenty-seven Ohio County Engineers already provide this service.  This agreement would only require Council approval and could be fully implemented without taking away votersŐ right to elect their Engineer.

 

A contractual consolidation is reversible.  If we find that the consolidation is not working as anticipated; that it is unable to achieve cost savings and lower sewer rates we all want, the Council can change the system back to its current status through legislation.  Amending the Charter to reach the same eventual result will not be easily revoked if we find the efficiencies are not forthcoming or unforeseen problems arise.

 

Finally, I am aware of misinformation that is in need of clarification.  I was not aware the Executive had planned to introduce this proposal when I ran for this office.   I believe you know how long and hard I have tried to be the elected Engineer of Summit County.  I did not do that because I believed the system requires a complete overhaul.  I continued to run because I can improve the efficiency of our office, the quality of our roads, and the safety of our bridges.

 

Therefore, I do not think it would be prudent to support this proposal.  Your vote in favor of placing this issue on the ballot would be an endorsement of the elimination of an effective Elective Office.  The "engineer" would no longer be accountable to the voters and instead be beholden to the politicians who appoint him or her.  The democratic process is all about responsibility and accountability to the people who elect them. There is plenty more to discuss about this topic.  If you have any questions or concerns for me, please give me a call at 330.861.6388 and I will be happy to meet or talk with you at any time.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

Alan Brubaker, P.E., P.S.

Summit County Engineer