Editor’s note: This opinion piece was submitted to The Permian Press for publication. Readers interested in submitting an opinion on this or another local issue can visit our Submit a Story page.

The city council recently implemented an increased drainage fee to help pay for infrastructure, including roads required for Midland’s two new high schools. The infrastructure needs to be built, and taxpayers need to pay for it, so I am not too upset about the decision. However, I might have approached this differently.

First, I would have conditionally funded this using MISD funds approved under the 2023 bond. Currently, MISD estimates that they will execute all of the bond projects for around $13 million less than the approved bond amount. Coincidentally, that is about what it would take to build the infrastructure for the new high schools.

The conditional part of this equation would be that if MISD doesn’t come in under their approved bond amount, then the city would agree to fund the difference, if any, when final bond costs are tallied. That way, MISD would not be at risk of exceeding its approved bond amount due to the cost of the infrastructure.

Second, the average taxpayer in the City of Midland would prefer MISD to pay for the infrastructure rather than the City of Midland. An ordinary taxpayer in Midland would pay almost 60% less if MISD funded the infrastructure rather than the city. Who would pay the rest? Minerals and commercial interests that are in Midland County but outside of the city limits. Would that be fair to those interests? I think so.

We need larger schools to accommodate the students whose parents have come to Midland to help drill and produce those minerals, so it only seems fair that those interests should help pay for the infrastructure associated with the new high schools. Those interests are already paying their share of the schools themselves, so it would seem to make sense they should pay their share of the infrastructure costs. A 60% difference in taxes to a City of Midland taxpayer seems significant.

Finally, if MISD would not agree to pay for the infrastructure for whatever reason, then I would put a sunset on the new drainage fee once the infrastructure was paid for.

Regardless, I have moved past this issue. MISD and the city are on the same team. They represent taxpaying constituents recognizing their taxpayers overlap although not completely. It is hard to be mad at one and not the other and there doesn’t feel like a need to be mad at both. Maybe the perspective of our elected officials is broader than my own on this issue. Hard to admit, but probably true.

With all of that said, given the information I have, I would have handled the issue of the high school infrastructure differently. I can live with the outcome while encouraging MISD and the city to continue to find ways to work together in the interest of the taxpaying public.