2007 Campaign Archive

2007 Candidate Elect Archive

2008 January-March

2008 April-June

2008 July-December

2009 January-March

As soon as I receive a corrected copy of the ordinance, I will post it here and you can e-mail me with additional comments.  We still have time to make changes before it goes into effect.  You can read about the news stories here and here.  

When the others motioned to approve the whole budget, I had to vote against it because the revenue component on the enterprise fund is supported by unfair rates.  Mayor Pro Tem, Allen Bryans, said that “There are residents in the city who have been paying for the system for 20 years (click here for the reference)” and I guess he feels that the new people need to pay for all the infrastructure.  The problem is that the old infrastructure is what is in the most dire need of repair.  Because of these rates, we are not maintaining our capital improvement funds at a safe level.  

Congratulations to everyone.  It was a very successful weekend. 

I think there were only two main issues that need to be explained.  As you may have seen from the paper, there was another split vote concerning the purchase of a couple of buildings.  My comments can be read here.  While I am disappointed that the council did not take the time to ensure that the move was completely legal, I am more disappointed at the total disregard of our comprehensive plan.  The comprehensive plan is at times used in court to justify a city's actions if/when they do not approve a variance or development.  

A good example of a potential problem has to do with the conditional use permit that was not acted on during the meeting (click here and scroll all the way down).  If it were denied using the comprehensive plan as the excuse, it could be argued that the city doesn't follow it anyway.  To paraphrase Councilman Fetterman, the comprehensive plan might as well have been drawn with crayons on construction paper for all that it is worth.  

It was unfair that Mr. Roberts did not get a decision on his conditional use permit.  The other 3 have made it clear who runs this town (for now) and I did not want to make a motion that could have been defeated without letting the staff figure out what the other 3 had in mind.  If the permit would have failed, our zoning codes would have prevented Mr. Roberts from reapplying for a year and he would have had to come up with another fee.  

The fact is while we all have our own beliefs and should be afforded the opportunity to voice them, we should not judge people based on their personal belief system.  This is the hypocrisy I have seen coming from the left; while I do not believe in gay marriage, I do not condemn people for choosing that lifestyle.  I celebrate the fact that this country allows for a diverse population.  However, when a conservative expresses their opinion, the left goes crazy.   

On another note, happy earth day!  

Getting beyond the fact that Georgia does not exactly boast the highest standards of education, why wouldn't the party do everything they can to support and recruit our teachers into the Republican Party?  These are the people that teach economics and social studies to our kids.  They have the best chance to shape conservative minds.  By driving them to the democratic party, we lose the ability to instill republican values in the most influential people in our children's lives out side of the home.  We are sending our kids to school to learn liberal principles because there are people in this party who choose to fight against teachers and not to embrace them.  

Representative Neal stated that 60% of our teachers with leadership degrees are not in leadership positions.  In order to receive the additional salary treatment for leadership, the educator must be in a leadership position as defined by the Professional Standards Commission, which is to say that they must be in administration, not education.   

I remember a line from We Were Soldiers when Lt. Col. Moore instructed his officers to ensure that everyone learned the job of the person above them in the chain of command.  I believe that having teachers with leadership training are leaders in the pipeline ready to step in when vacancies open.  Perhaps the bigger problem is that we are looking outside our teaching community for people to put in administrative positions.  Awesome administrators start as awesome teachers.  State House, enable our teachers, don't abandon them!

I have to be careful because the subject of the specific property is still proprietary and can not be discussed until after the city closes on the deal.  I can tell you that we voted on a bid for a Tax Anticipation Note (TAN) to make a real estate acquisition.  The note is being secured by SPLOST dollars that were voted on back on March 17.  

The ballot for SPLOST directed $500,000 to "acquiring, constructing, and equipping administration buildings and real estate" for Flowery Branch.  If you wanted to be an informed voter, then you might pick up the Flowery Branch Comprehensive Plan to see what the $500k investment might look like.  In fact, if you are like my friend at Poultry Capitol Politics, you might think that this would be great for job creation.  Well, let me place the over/under on jobs at 1; you can take the over.  

The point is the TAN is directed for something other than what a reasonable voter would have thought based on the available information provided to the voters for the SPLOST.  In my opinion, it is a loose application of the dollars.  Unfortunately, by spending this money, the city might as well change the comprehensive plan to the 2045 plan instead of the 2025 plan because this acquisition could but us another 20 years behind.     

Like I said to the reporter from the Times and what Councilman Fetterman said during the meeting, I am in complete support of the development and I feel that this is a good use of public/private funds.  However, this agreement is far too one sided and will bind the city in several ways.  

First, section 9.1 defines the term of the agreement to end when the Hortman/Dobbs project has ended.  This could be in 5 years, 20 years, or never.  It does not give the city flexibility to move on to another project in the area since we are committed to this project first.  O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3(a) says; "One council may not, by an ordinance, bind itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government."  In other words, the city can not enter into an agreement that future councils can not rescind or change.  There are exceptions to this law, but they are for cities over 350,000 people.  Flowery Branch, however, does not meet the population criteria.  There have been a few court cases (i.e. Unified Government of Athens-Clark County v. North et al.) that have allowed for contracts in smaller cities beyond the term of the council, however, they nature of the contract to continue was limited to a reasonable time beyond the official term of the officers entering into the contract.  I can not see how section 9.1 could be considered reasonable when the end date is undetermined.  

Second, section 4.1(b) says; "Notwithstanding anything herein contained the contrary, the approval by the City of any such item may not be unreasonably withheld."  So.... can someone define what is reasonable vs. unreasonable?  The contract does not define reasonableness.  That means that any item Hortman and Dobbs Developers LLC would like funding for can end up with the developers claiming breach of contract by the city per section 8.3 which says; "Any material breach by it (City) of any representation made in this Agreement or any material failure by it (City) to observe and perform any covenant, condition or agreement...." 

Finally, if the city lost the case (and with this contract I cant see the City winning) the city would be obligated to pay all the court costs and attorney's fees per section 8.3.  

That was a lot to digest.  I think you can now see why I asked for a delay (unsuccessfully) and then ultimately voted against the agreement.  It was painful to vote against something that will enable development in an area that desperately needs it; however, the future of the city should not be held hostage by an agreement with any developer.  

Following up on yesterday's council meeting, the next item I voted against was the contract for $5,762 to perform interior demolition on 5509 and 5511 Main Street buildings.  You may recall way back from the February 6, 2008 blog when I posted these comments.   Since investing $300,000 in the two buildings, we have never leased one and the other tenant moved out awhile ago.  Now, we are spending money to gut the buildings, which means that before we can lease them or resell them, we will need to spend more money to put them back together.  We are now in the mode of throwing good money after bad.  

I have had a preliminary look at the budget for next fiscal year and it does not look hopeful.  The  $305,762 (and counting) squandering of taxpayer dollars on 5509 and 5511 Main Street has placed the head of the city in the guillotine.  One more false move could cause the blade to drop.  

Today I proposed the adoption of the ethics ordinance to include prohibiting any member of the governing authority along with another elected or appointed official from jointly holding more than 10% ownership in any partnership or corporation that conducts business either for profit or not within the city limits of Flowery Branch.  

After seeing the issues that have been going on at our county government and considering how small our government is and thinking about how two people could control up to 40% of the vote, I felt that it would be best if our members of government avoided partnerships within the city limits.  After all the intent of the Ethics ordinance is to "give the appearance of being independent and impartial; that the public office not be used for private gain; and that the public interest requires that we protect against such conflicts of interest."  When two or more officials become business partners considering the small form of government we have in Flowery Branch, there is no way that the "appearance" of impropriety can be avoided.

As to why the others voted no, 1 member mentioned that our city was too small and we would have a hard time filling appointments with this requirement.  After losing my original motion, I restated the motion to only include the 6 elected members, but it still failed with another member saying it would add too much red tape. 

It is funny how the vote ended up the same at the city and county level.  I wonder is there are any intergovernmental politics at play.   

If the Fair Tax every made sense, it most certainly does now.  The tax code is over complicated and punitive.  It is time to put the I.R.S. to bed.  

I see on the Hall County agenda for this Thursday, where the commissioners plan to discuss the proposed annexation of a piece of I-985 by the city of Gainesville.  This is just plain old political pandering (click here and here for some of the press).  This is the letter that got this started.

My guess is that they will try to take the approach that by annexing the area, there will now duplication of services because there will be 3 groups responsible for safety on the road:  the Georgia State Patrol, the Hall County Sheriff and the Gainesville Police Department.  

Annexation is governed by O.C.G.A. Title 36, Chapter 36 (§ 36-36-1 et seq.).  The only time the county can object to the annexation is when there is a material increase in burden upon the county directly related to any one or more of the following: (1) The proposed change in zoning or land use; (2) Proposed increase in density; and (3) Infrastructure demands related to the proposed change in zoning or land use."  "Delivery of services may not be a basis for a valid objection but may be used in support of a valid objection if directly related to one or more of the subjects" listed above. (O.C.G.A. § 36-36-113).  

This is doing nothing to help the relationships between the cities and the county.  

It looks like a lot is going on at the county level.  They have shelved the sewer plans.  Maybe they will now look at using the SPLOST funds to pay down the debt.  As Ken Rearden noted, the sewer system has "$46 million worth of debt and $1.3 million in operating costs".  Unfortunately, there are only 1500 customers on the system.  Just to cover operating costs, the per customer charge would be $72 per month.  Currently I am paying a flat rate of $42 per month.  I think they have a lot of work to do if they want to make the rate competitive.  If they do not have competitive rates, then we will actually deter growth in the area, which was the goal of purchasing the system.  

Today we had the first reading of the Ethics ordinance.  The previous ordinance was set to expire and we felt that we needed to make a few tweaks.  Unlike the swing vote on the Hall County Commission that I wrote about in yesterday's blog, you will not find a press statement clarifying my vote like the one that was referred to on Access North Georgia last week.   We had a 5-0 vote down here in little old Flowery Branch.  The swing vote said of the Hall County ethics motion that, "Bell’s motion calling for a request for proposals from attorneys was based on supposition about what could happen, not what has happened."  That is the point!  When there is a potential conflict of interest, people should know about it.  When the motion was made, it was all about "what could happen".  The people of Hall County deserve the knowledge that you all are working in OUR best interest, not in their best interest.  We deserve transparency and openness.  

Unfortunately, for this to be reconsidered it must come from the swing vote.  Roberts Rules of Order say, "a motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation (RONR pp 331)."  In other words, the Commission has spoken and technically while Commissioners Steve Gailey and Ashley Bell can re-propose the motion in a later setting, the Chairman can view this as dilatory and as the presiding officer, refuse to recognize the motion (RONR pp. 434).  

So swing vote, it is up to you.  You are the only one that can legitimately fix this wrong.