Editor:

There is no doubt that, with careful review, Fairhope can save money. But, after siphoning off some 80 percent of utility profits, the city has put itself in the difficult position of having to make draconian cost cuts or raise its income. There are no other silver economic bullets. Tweaking the status quo is not sustainable nor physically responsible. The basic truth is that Fairhope can’t even afford to become efficient.

In brief reviews of some of Fairhope’s buildings, it is clear the city is extremely energy inefficient. But Fairhope can’t afford an energy audit of its buildings. And, if it could, it couldn’t afford to even correct the worst of its energy-wasting problems.

Fairhope has allowed some of its infrastructure to deteriorate and/or become obsolete to a point it needs replacement But, the city can’t afford to make these necessary replacements so the costs for their upkeep will continue to escalate.

Corporate America discovered some 35 to 45 years ago that a planned maintenance program can save 25 percent to 45 percent of maintenance costs over the costs of crisis maintenance. But, Fairhope can’t afford to implement such a program so your tax dollars continue to pay for the cost excesses of crisis maintenance. The water pump and PCB issue are just recent examples. There are obviously many more.

Some in Fairhope are upset about the proposed 2 percent sales tax. However, unless this new income source is approved, Fairhope can’t become the cost-efficient operation that everyone wants and expects.

Fairhope