Aesthetic upgrades don’t fix roads: Santa Rosa’s misplaced priorities
Editor’s note: The vote on this issue took place Thursday, Feb. 26, after this was published. Commissioner Bobby Burkett made a motion to deny the request to upgrade the board room. Commissioners Ray Eddington and Rhett Rowell followed with a “yes to deny” vote. The budgeted item failed on a 3-2 vote with Commissioners Colten Wright and Kerry Smith voting “no.” We are supportive of the vote to deny. This is one example of the tone-deafness of some of the commissioners. We heard Wright opine quite a bit in the meeting Thursday – and perhaps even promising a little retribution saying something to the effect of…”Get ready. I’m going to start digging into the budget even deeper and make the proposals that there are other things we start cutting. If we want to start looking at things – we can start cutting serious costs if that is really where we want to go.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When elected officials tell residents the county is facing hard budgeting decisions, most people assume it means every available dollar should be directed toward the most urgent needs: roads, drainage, traffic management. The basic infrastructure that keeps a community functioning. Yet in Santa Rosa County, the same commission that insists expenses are outpacing revenues is preparing to discuss a $200,000 renovation of the commission chambers — a project that, by any reasonable measure, falls squarely into the category of “nice to have,” not “need to have.”
This contradiction is more than a matter of optics. It speaks to priorities, credibility, and the trust between taxpayers and their government.
For months, Santa Rosa County leaders have warned residents that the county is financially strained. District 5 Commissioner Colten Wright recently stated, “Our expenses are out‑pacing our revenues,” a phrase that has become a familiar refrain. The county is now asking voters to consider a new half‑cent sales tax to help fund infrastructure improvements. The message is clear: without new revenue, the county cannot keep up with its growing needs.
But if the situation is truly that dire, why is a $200,000 aesthetic renovation even on the agenda?
This is not a minor expense. Two hundred thousand dollars could repair sections of failing roadway, improve stormwater drainage in flood‑prone neighborhoods, or help fund long‑delayed capital projects. Instead, the proposal is to spend it on upgrading the room where commissioners hold their meetings.
There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting a modern, polished meeting space. But timing matters. Priorities matter. And when a county government claims it cannot afford to meet basic infrastructure needs, spending six figures on cosmetic improvements sends a message that leadership is out of touch with the daily realities residents face.
Santa Rosa County is not struggling because its meeting room is outdated. It is struggling because growth has outpaced planning, infrastructure has lagged behind development, and long‑term investments have been deferred for years. Residents sit in traffic on roads that were never designed for today’s population. Neighborhoods flood after routine rainstorms. Public safety agencies stretch their resources to cover expanding service areas. These are the problems that demand attention — and funding.
When commissioners choose to prioritize aesthetics over essentials, it undermines the argument that the county needs more tax revenue. If leaders want residents to support a new sales tax, they must demonstrate that every existing dollar is being spent wisely. A $200,000 renovation of the commission chambers does not inspire confidence. It raises questions about whether the county’s financial challenges stem from a lack of revenue or a lack of discipline.
Taxpayers are not unreasonable. They understand that government buildings require maintenance. They understand that technology needs updating. But they also expect their leaders to distinguish between what is necessary and what is merely desirable. At a time when the county is asking residents to pay more, the commission should be modeling fiscal restraint — not indulging in projects that can easily wait.
The commission chambers are not collapsing. They are not unsafe. They are not preventing the county from conducting business. Meanwhile, residents drive on crumbling roads, navigate inadequate intersections, and endure drainage failures that damage property and disrupt daily life. These are the issues that should be at the top of every agenda.
Leadership is about choices. And choices reveal priorities.
If Santa Rosa County truly believes it is “broke,” then every dollar should be treated as precious. Every expenditure should be weighed against the county’s most pressing needs. And every decision should reflect a commitment to responsible stewardship of taxpayer money.
A $200,000 renovation of the commission chambers may make the room look nicer. But it does nothing to fix the roads, improve drainage, or strengthen public safety. It does nothing to address the infrastructure challenges that residents face every day. And it does nothing to build trust with voters who are being asked to pay more.
If the county wants the public to believe its warnings about financial strain, it must act like a government that is truly focused on essentials. That starts with saying no to “feel‑good” projects — and yes to the infrastructure improvements Santa Rosa County desperately needs.