Snellville – Time for a new Charter?

Since its’ adoption by the legislature in 2001, Snellville City Council Members have amended the City Charter through a sometimes questionable tactic called “Home Rule Ordinance” no less than a dozen times. Each modification appears to be little more than an attempt to gain political advantage. So, is the City Charter of Snellville the problem?

Depends. Do you believe the malfunction, bickering, lack of progress and accomplishment, and failure to lead by our Federally elected representatives is the result of a poorly written, ambiguous, outdated, and in need of replacing U.S. Constitution? After all, the U.S. Constitution is arguably the most litigated document ever written.  Is the problem the U.S. Constitution or those we elect that attempt to manipulate and interpret every word to their own political advantage?

As the primary author of the 2001 City of Snellville Charter, I am understandably concerned when elected officials suggest modifications to a document thoughtfully and deliberately crafted to serve the entire community to serve a particular purpose or person. The Charter is not and should not be about a particular person, party or faction. The City Charter is the guiding document serving all of Snellville and it should remain so.

You may recall a few years ago an outcry to change the Charter to prevent 3-3 tie votes. Some failed to recognize the value of tie votes and sought to gain a short-term advantage for one side of the divide by removing the Mayor’s vote (SB 258 – 2009). Fortunately, that effort failed and we hear nothing of that issue today as the community elected a solid majority. Had we (wrongly) changed the Charter, the minority opinion on Council today would have no voice at all.

The City Charter contains appropriate checks and balances. Unfortunately, elected have often failed to recognize or accept those provisions and have sought to exploit or ignore various sections for their own reasons and benefit. This tendency by elected results in nothing more than an added burden of legal costs, inefficient government, and poor publicity for those they represent.

So, is the City Charter of Snellville the problem? No. It’s the people not the paper – that’s the problem.

The elected in Snellville are good people, they have simply lost focus on what is important to those they represent and focus all too often on issues and positions that the vast majority of Snellville citizens and businesses care little about. Recently, the word I hear most often associated with the Snellville City Charter is “revoke”. If Council will turn their attention to providing a safe community, with employment opportunities and efficient delivery of limited government services, I suspect no one would mention the word “Charter” again. At least, as one citizen, that is my hope.

Brett Harrell is a former Mayor of Snellville and currently serves many Snellville citizens as the state Representative for the 106^th District.

An old penny for transportation

In my district, as in many, transportation remains an issue of importance in search of innovative and efficient solutions and funding. 

So, why did last year’s proposed one-cent regional sales tax for transportation (TIA) fail in most regions? For some, there is a credibility gap in the “ask” for an additional penny for transportation when we are not spending the penny we already have.

In addition to the Federal Excise Tax of 7.5 cents per gallon of gasoline, Georgia imposes a 4-cent state sales tax (In Gwinnett County an additional 1-cent SPLOST and 1-cent E-SPLOST sales tax brings the total to 6-cents on the dollar). Of the 4-cent state sales tax, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) reinvests 3-cents into transportation projects. The Georgia General Assembly invests the final 1-cent into other General Fund non-transportation projects. Counties, cities, and school systems invest much of the local sales taxes collected on gasoline into non-transportation projects.

     

              Credit: Baruch Feigenbaum, Transportation Policy Analyst, Reason Foundation

While many of the projects funded with the diverted 1-cent state sales tax on gasoline may be worthy of investment, robbing Peter to pay Paul has rarely proven a successful long-term financing strategy. Sound public policy would suggest investing those funds generated through transportation spending back into transportation system maintenance and improvements a better choice.

Baruch Feigenbaum, Transportation Policy Analyst with the Reason Foundation recently recommended to attendees at a Georgia Public Policy Foundation transportation luncheon that Georgia do just that by reclaiming the fourth cent of state sales taxes collected on gasoline. Mr. Feigenbaum’s presentation is available here. 

Although unaware of HB 648, I was pleased to hear Mr. Feigenbaum’s arguments in favor of reclaiming that old penny as I introduced legislation last session (HB 648 co-sponsored by House Transportation Committee Chair Jay Roberts) to begin reinvesting those funds into transportation. HB 648 would return ¼ of a cent each year beginning in fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2020 to GDOT. Initially about $40 million a year and once GDOT reclaims the full one-cent approaching $200 million a year in additional transportation dollars.

Can we afford it? I believe so. In my three years as a member of the Georgia House, our state budget has grown from $18.3 to $19.9 billion (remaining well below the pre-recession peak of approximately $23 billion). Recent revenue numbers exceed the Governor’s projections and indications are our state economy is slowly strengthening. Rather than allow new spending to consume revenue growth or battle over cuts to programs currently funded by the diverted penny, allocating a small percentage of returning revenue growth to reclaiming that old penny may go a long way toward improving our mobility, reducing congestion, encouraging business growth, and providing the quality of life all Georgians desire.

Brett Harrell represents the 106th House District in the Georgia General Assembly that includes portions of Grayson, Lawrenceville, Loganville, and Snellville. He is the former Mayor of Snellville and former Executive Director of the Evermore Community Improvement District. Mr. Harrell serves as Vice Chair of the House Budget and Fiscal Affairs Oversight Committee and as a Member of the Regulated Industries, Transportation, and Ways and Means Committees.

Stormwater schemes appetite outpaces revenue

Regrettably, my February 2008 comedic blog on Snellville’s implementation of a Stormwater Utility has come true and more horrific than I had anticipated. This horror story became worse at 7 p.m. on Friday night, June 29, when the City met to adopt a new budget fueling the monster’s appetite to greater heights of taxpayer carnage.

With the news from the U.S. Supreme Court this week that mandated health care coverage is indeed a tax, not a penalty or fee, we readily understand, as we always have, that mandated stormwater is also a tax, not a fee. So, the politicians that set up this segregated fund, established the tax, while promising not to raise your taxes treated you little better than the Feds. At least the Feds don’t threaten to lien your home, as the city does, if you fail to buy health insurance – at least not yet.

As anticipated at inception and suggested in my prior article on this subject, administrative costs are excessive, yet the City bureaucracy fails to efficiently execute the improvement program presented to justify the tax in the first place. The scare tactics used to justify this monstrosity packaged as an immediate need for $1.9 million in repairs have not been completed, nor has the City crumbled as a result. As feared, the program is growing as evident by the City's planned transfer of nearly $100,000 more from the General Fund in addition to the $530,000+ per year collected in the Stormwater Utility fund this year to feed the growing monster. [More reasonable heads prevailed and prevented the transfer, not the growth.]

Even more frightening is my prediction for where this monster will feed four years from now. I firmly believe the next sequel to this horror story will be a stand-alone Stormwater Department in the City with a Director level bureaucrat and full-time staff focused solely on spending those tax dollars funneled needlessly into their department. The Department will require more people, more benefits, more equipment, more fuel [Interestingly, staff nearly failed to budget fuel for the growth in equipment acquired this year.], more overhead, more office space, more tools, and much, much more of your money. Unfortunately, you’ll realize little difference in benefit as the result.

February 2008 article reprinted below:

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2008

Stormwater scheme spreads to Snellville

Our city fathers (and mothers) are set to adopt a Stormwater Utility Ordinance on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. The consultant that prepared the research in support of the tax [I apologize, it is a fee. Well that certainly feels much better to my wallet.], will make a presentation at 5:30 p.m. in advance of the meeting.

I have many issues with these so-called stormwater fees and I've voiced my concerns to elected, staff, and consultants. Rather than rant on my philosophical objections to such a revenue scheme, I'll address a few issues specific to Snellville's proposal. My comments are in response to details contained in three documents available at the City of Snellville website titled Stormwater part 1, Stormwater part 2, and Stormwater part 3. They're quite similar to a horror movie with increasingly frightening sequels.

In Stormwater part 1, the monster first appears in the grotesque form of stormwater runoff. Our hero, the City responds, however, not by attacking runoff, rather by taxing [darn it, sorry again, levying a fee on] impervious surface (that's the roof above your head). What is really scary is that the fee is determined by adding up staff time (the City Manager will spend three times as much time on stormwater issues than the Public Works Director if you believe the research - I don't), administration and regulatory costs, operations and maintenance, and capital investment (that doesn't increase a cent from existing investment according to the initial proposal). Stormwater part 1 concludes with a most frightening scene claiming 55% of fees go to capital investment, operations and maintenance. The remaining 45% of fees going to overhead, regulatory compliance, and bureaucracy that sustains the creature to terrorize again.

And terrorize he does. In Stormwater part 2, we are frantically attempting to escape failing pipes, damaged catch basin lids, sinkholes, and illegal dumping. This monster we've created requires an estimated$1.9 million in immediate repair or replacement. See, isn't it getting scarier?

As our terrorizing trilogy ends, Stormwater part 3, scares the beejeebees out of me and I haven't gotten beyond the title yet, "Future SWMP Funding Strategy". This monster is planning future expenditures that will mandate future fee increases [I did not say tax increases - I'm catching on to the lingo now]. Most horrific is that the scheme raises only $271,000 more than current revenues to address the immediate needs as it dangerously replaces existing general fund investment in public works with the new stormwater utility fund thereby increasing the monster's appetite by over$400,000 for new general fund spending on as yet unaware victims.

One thing is for sure, this Stormwater Utility Ordinance is scary stuff and not for the "little ones."

My home is my castle and I need a wider moat because government is scaling the walls.

Increasing burdens of taxation and dramatic expansion in regulation have become the most common tool of government to restrict, and in some cases eliminate, our Constitutional Rights to Liberty and Private Property. More recently, governments have expanded into areas of storm water and solid waste regulation and instituted fees [read taxes] as the means to restrict those rights. Most egregiously, these fees are levied via our property tax bill thus creating a situation that, at the extreme, may result in the forcible taking of one’s home and property.

Some politicians will tell you they’ve never raised taxes, yet these same politicians instituted a new “fee” system that resulted in a single-year, non-deductible 15% increase in the average Snellville property tax bill [see illustrative tax bill below]. Additionally, by including the non-deductible fee, without explanation, on the property tax bill, they have increased the possibility of the filing of thousands of incorrect income tax returns – an IRS auditor’s dream – that, although rarely, may result in significant fines and forfeitures. Further, they did so without consideration of the potential impact to your mortgage payment and escrow account.

Some of these same politicians claim to be defenders of your private property rights, yet by including these new regulatory fees on your property tax bill they have, in actuality, expanded the ability of the government to seize your home and property. Again, at the extreme, should you own your home free and clear, yet fail to make full payment – including amounts for disputed storm water and/or solid waste services – the local Tax Commissioner will consider your entire property tax bill delinquent and subject to foreclosure, forfeiture, and forcible government taking.

That’s why we need to build a wider moat around our castles. While I favor a wholesale and comprehensive review of all taxes in Georgia, in the meantime, I propose that property taxes and only property taxes be included on my property tax bill. Radical, I know, but, if government is to attempt to storm my castle, at least attack during the light of day, rather than tunneling under in the cover of darkness by attaching non-tax fees to my tax bill.

Click to view a 2009 Snellville Property Tax bill

Less Talk, More Action Leadership Team

Brett Harrell (R-Snellville) candidate for State Representative, District 106 announced today the initial members of his “Less Talk, More Action Leadership Team”. The list of supporters, volunteers, endorsers, and contributors includes over 100 community leaders and elected officials from all over House District 106, Gwinnett County and Georgia.

Harrell said, “I am gratified and honored to have the support of so many respected elected officials and community leaders from across HD 106, Gwinnett County and Georgia who have joined in support of my candidacy. It is a clear statement of the growing strength and momentum for our effort to continue providing solid, conservative leadership at the state Capitol. This early support also demonstrates that people trust my proven conservative record of cutting taxes and spending and reducing the size of government and that they also trust my ability to deliver at the State Capitol. These supporters are ready to stop the talk and political spin of those simply seeking power. They want a leader who will actually deliver. That is why I am running and that is why we are asking you to join in support too. ”

Harrell served as mayor of Snellville from 2000 until 2003. During his tenure he cut property taxes every year and reduced the overall burden of government by 52 percent while expanding the police force, preserving over 100 acres of permanent green space, and establishing the vision that led to a new Recycling Center, Senior Center, and City Hall.

Most recently, Harrell served as the executive director of the Evermore Community Improvement District (CID) where he managed the day-to-day operations of a self-taxing business district comprised of 469 commercial property owners and 1,585 businesses providing over 16,000 jobs. While managing the CID, Harrell successfully advanced over $130 million in projects including vital transportation improvements like the Hwy. 78 improvements.

District 106 includes the City of Snellville and parts of unincorporated Grayson and Lilburn in Gwinnett County.

Harrell for House Less Talk, More Action Leadership Team:

Our leadership team consists of supporters, volunteers, endorsers, and contributors.

Joe Allen, Executive Director, Gwinnett Place CID

State Representative Stephen Allison

Former Council Member Joe and Sydney Anderson, Snellville

Commissioner Mike and Tegwen Beaudreau

Mayor Pro Tem Barbara and Greg Bender, Snellville

Valerie Blalock, Former Evermore CID Executive Assistant

Ken Bleakly

Ossie Brewer

Don Britt

Former Mayor Stacey Britt, Grayson

Former GOP Chair Buzz Brockway

Council Member Jace Brooks, Suwanee

Ruth and Bob Bruhns

Former State Representative Don Butler

State Representative Charlice Byrd

Former City Attorney Mike and Lynda Byrne, Snellville

Former State Representative Eugene Callaway

Gwinnett Y.R. Chair Rich Carithers

Carla Carraway

Brad and Michelle Carver

State Representative David and Ann Casas

State Representative Mike Coan

Michelle Couch, Blitz Communications

Ann and Len Coverdale

State Representative Clay Cox

Cathryn Creasy

Becky and Gary Custar, Evermore CID Board Member

Brian Donegan, Founder, Can-Do Conservatives

Brandon Doty

Rich Edinger, P.E.

Council Member Steve Edwards, Sugar Hill

Dave Emanuel

Jim Estlund, Plaza Security

State Representative Melvin and Geri Everson

Mary Fergus

Former Council Member John Ferrara, Loganville

Commissioner Tim Fleming, Newton

Council Member Dan Foster, Suwanee

Gordon Getty

Joe Gilkey

Jackie Ginn

Alice Green

Dr. James Haddad

Bob Hamilton, CPA

Diane Harrell

Vivian and Bobby Harrell, RPh

Sharon and Marvin Harris

Council Member Katie Hart-Smith, Lawrenceville

Jonathan Hawkins

State Representative Billy Horne

State Representative Mike Jacobs

Mayor Bucky Johnson, Norcross

Gaye and Gerald Johnson

Terri Jondahl

Lawrence Kaiser, P.E.

State Representative Jerry Keen, Majority Leader

Michele and Michael Leach

Brenda and Harold Lee

Bruce LeVell, Gwinnett Village CID Board Member

Vickie and Dennis Malone

Laurie McClain, CPA

Council Member Kevin McOmber, Suwanee

Linda and Marty Merkler

Steven Miles

Joan Miller

Former City Attorney Thomas Mitchell, Snellville

Gail Moore, Tri-City Times

Bartow Morgan

Council Member Craig Newton, Norcross

Melisa and Jimmy Norton, Chair, Snellville DDA and CID Board Member

Mayor Jerry and Roxann Oberholtzer, Snellville

Chairman Sam Olens, Cobb County

Dr. Prahlad Pant

Vipul Patel

Marcy Pharris

Mayor Gary Pirkle, Sugar Hill

Leo & Zart Portnell

State Representative Tom Rice

Harry Rice

Jon Richards

Joyce and Dean Robinson, Former Evermore CID Board Member

Former GOP Chair Mike Royal

Rockie and Thomas Sapp, Former Evermore CID Executive Assistant

Regina and Sid Sartor

Former Council Member Kurt and Gretchen Schulz Snellville

Dr. Jane Scott and Quincy Jones

Fred Sealy

Nancy Sellers

Diann and Ken Shiver, Former Evermore CID Chairman

Council Member Tammy Shumate, Grayson

Greg Shumate

Ajay Singadia

Former Council Member Mike Smith, Snellville

Captain Jeff Smith, Lawrenceville Police Department

John D. Stephens

Tom and Lynn Studer

Marilyn Swinney

Former City Manager Jeff Timler, Snellville

State Representative Len Walker

Former Council Member James Walters, Snellville

Chuck Warbington, Executive Director, Gwinnett Village CID

Council Member Tod Warner, Snellville

Former Mayor Lillian Webb, Norcross

James Whitaker, CPA

Council Member Allison Wilkerson-Rooks, Grayson

Former Mayor Doug Wilkerson, Grayson

State Representative Wendell Willard, Chair, House Judiciary

State Representative Mark Williams

Yvonne Williams, Executive Director, Perimeter CID

Mark Williams, Chair, Gwinnett Place CID

Doris Wilmer P.E.

Council Member Tom and Carol Witts, Snellville

Faye and Larry Woodruff, RPh

100 Contributors in 100 Days to the Harrell for House Campaign

Brett Harrell (R-Snellville), candidate for State Representative, District 106, announced today that his campaign as of October 11th had received contributions from 100 supporters in the first 100 days of his campaign—a clear sign of the strength and growing momentum of his campaign for State House.

Harrell said, “It is an honor to have such tremendous support from people all over District 106, Gwinnett County and Georgia. In the tough economic times we are in, it is a true testament of support to have so many people invest in me in the first 100 days of the campaign. These supporters know that I have a long record of taking action and delivering on vital issues, and they know I will continue that record at the State Capitol. They are tired of promises from career politicians. They are ready for a leader who will stop the talk and deliver.”

Harrell served as mayor of Snellville from 2000 until 2003. During his tenure he cut property taxes every year and reduced the overall burden of government by 52 percent while expanding the police force, preserving over 100 acres of permanent green space, and establishing the vision that led to a new Recycling Center, Senior Center, and City Hall.

Most recently, Harrell served as the executive director of the Evermore Community Improvement District (CID), where he managed the day-to-day operations of a self-taxing business district comprised of 469 commercial property owners and 1,585 businesses providing over 16,000 jobs. While managing the CID, Harrell successfully advanced over $130 million in projects, including vital transportation improvements like the Hwy. 78 improvements.

Harrell is running for state representative for District 106 to succeed Melvin Everson, who is running for Labor Commissioner. District 106 includes the City of Snellville and parts of unincorporated Grayson and Lilburn in Gwinnett County.

Former council members Smith and Anderson endorse former Mayor Harrell for State House

Two former Snellville City Council members, Mike Smith and Joe Anderson, who served with former Mayor Brett Harrell, have endorsed his campaign for State Representative for District 106.

Smith says, “As I reflect on my service in Snellville and what we accomplished during my term, my appreciation for Brett Harrell’s leadership continues to grow. He has truly remarkable vision, builds coalitions, and delivers for those he represents.” Smith concluded saying, “Brett is well-known at the state capitol and he is without doubt, the best candidate to represent Snellville and southern Gwinnett as our next State Representative.”

Anderson added, “Brett respects both homeowners and business owners. He is a man of action, principle and passion that has and will represent our community well. I am honored to join in support of Brett Harrell for State Representative and I encourage our community to rally behind Brett who will continue to deliver for us.”

Harrell said, “Council Members Smith’s and Anderson’s contributions to our community are immense and the successes we enjoy today would not be possible without their participation. I am honored and welcome their endorsement for my candidacy to represent south Gwinnett at the State House of Representatives.”

Harrell served as mayor of Snellville from 2000 until 2003. During his tenure he cut property taxes every year and reduced the overall burden of government by 52 percent while expanding the police force, preserving over 100 acres of permanent green space, and establishing the vision that led to a new Recycling Center, Senior Center, and City Hall.

Most recently, Harrell served as the executive director of the Evermore Community Improvement District (CID), where he managed the day-to-day operations of a self-taxing business district comprised of 469 commercial property owners and 1,585 businesses providing over 16,000 jobs. While managing the CID, Harrell successfully advanced over $130 million in projects, including vital transportation improvements like the Hwy. 78 improvements.

Harrell is running for state representative for District 106 to succeed Melvin Everson, who is running for Labor Commissioner. District 106 includes the City of Snellville and parts of unincorporated Grayson and Lilburn in Gwinnett County.

Former Chief and former Manager endorse former Mayor for State House

Snellville’s former Chief of Police Jimmy Davis and former City Manager Jeff Timler today announced their endorsement of former Mayor Brett Harrell for State Representative for District 106.

Chief Davis (retired) said, “Harrell and I were change agents for the City of Snellville. We modernized internal systems, made the tough decisions, and set the city on a path for future progress. I was proud to serve with Brett. He is not afraid to fight for what is right and he delivers for his constituents.”

Timler added, “Brett is a visionary leader that inspires others to reach new heights. His collaborative working attitude resulted in significant improvements within his four short years as mayor. He challenged staff to deliver more for less and to always keep our citizens and business owners at the forefront of whatever task we engaged in as he always reminded us our position was one of service. Simply put, Brett always rolled up his sleeves and delivered for Snellville, and I know he will do the same in the State House.”

Harrell said, “I am sincerely gratified to have the support and endorsement of those that I’ve worked with so closely in the past. Personally, the greatest rewards I have ever received for my prior service is the continuing relationship I maintain with so many staff and citizen’s I’ve had the honor to serve.”

Harrell served as mayor of Snellville from 2000 until 2003. During his tenure he cut property taxes every year and reduced the overall burden of government by 52 percent while expanding the police force, preserving over 100 acres of permanent green space, and establishing the vision that led to a new Recycling Center, Senior Center, and City Hall.

Most recently, Harrell served as the executive director of the Evermore Community Improvement District (CID), where he managed the day-to-day operations of a self-taxing business district comprised of 469 commercial property owners and 1,585 businesses providing over 16,000 jobs. While managing the CID, Harrell successfully advanced over $130 million in projects, including vital transportation improvements like the Hwy. 78 improvements.

Harrell is running for state representative for District 106 to succeed Melvin Everson, who is running for Labor Commissioner. District 106 includes the City of Snellville and parts of unincorporated Grayson and Lilburn in Gwinnett County.

Thank you Susan

I am exercising a point of personal privilege today and posting a message that may mean little to many, but means much to me and those that have had the privilege of learning from Susan Weiner. Susan has led the Coverdell Leadership Institute since its' founding in 1995.

Dearest Susan:

I apologize for not standing and delivering these comments last evening. I was too concerned that I would not complete my thoughts, facing you, without losing composure. That would surely have disappointed you and that is something no Coverdell graduate would ever knowingly do.

That said; this is what I should have said:

Good evening.

My name is Brett Harrell, Class of 1999, Gwinnett County.

A decade ago, I walked into a classroom at Callaway Gardens and met a white, Yankee woman, from New York City no less, who spent a career in performing arts, and also happened to be Jewish. She said she was a Republican.

She told our class an incredible story. A story of stereotypical contradictions no fiction writer could imagine. A story of this foreign woman, a woman of sincere conviction, beliefs, and values that traveled to the most Southern of cities – Savannah, Georgia.

Savannah was a city steeped in Southern tradition, none too welcoming of any Yankee, especially not a New Yorker, most especially not a woman, and most certainly not a Jew. She told a story of persistence, outreach, determination, and steadfast reliance on core values that she knew would resonate with all people of goodwill.

She told a story of constant outreach and absolute transparency to all interested individuals regardless of creed, color, or ideology. She told a story of a “good ole boy”, male-dominated, Bible-belt community comprised of significant Democrat and minority populations and strength.

Her story ended after battle, after battle, after battle, with her successful election. A white, New York, Jewish, female, artistic, Republican elected Mayor of the most Southern of southern cities – Savannah, Georgia.

But, as we all know, that wasn’t the end of her story, rather the beginning of ours. We all know how Susan infects our minds, she gets under our skin, but most importantly, she is infused into our hearts.

As she concluded her story in Callaway Gardens, she said she would teach us how to do the same. How to change our communities for the better – no matter the obstacles before us – maintaining a steadfast adherence to core beliefs and principles, armed with the tools necessary to persuade and communicate, we too, could change our communities.

I was inspired. So, in 1999, a decade ago, based on the principles and guidance provided by Susan Weiner, I assembled a team and set out to change my community. Future CLI graduates including current City of Snellville Mayor Jerry Oberholtzer and current State Representative and soon to be Georgia’s first Republican Labor Commissioner Melvin Everson joined me in a campaign to oust a 28-year incumbent Democrat administration and set our City on a path of positive future progress.

We succeeded. Based on Susan’s tutelage, we captured four of six seats on City Council including my election as Snellville’s first Republican Mayor. We set out a bold vision and agenda that positively changed our community for generations to come. Five successive property tax millage rate cuts – beyond the roll-back rate – expanded Police Personnel, improved pay and benefits for all City employees, expanded Park services and over 100 acres of permanent greenspace, a new City Hall, new Senior Center, and state-of-the-art Recycling Center. All of these improvements with improved efficiency and lower cost to our taxpaying citizens and businesses. None of these successes would have been possible without Susan Weiner.

So, on behalf of the twenty-thousand citizens of Snellville, that today enjoy an improved quality of life, improved City services, and lower burden of government, and will never know your name; but, most especially, on behalf of Jerry, Melvin, and me, that will never forget your name – thank you Susan, for none of this would be possible without you, we love you.

Brett Harrell
CLI Class of 1999

Remembering America's Heroes

I delivered the following remarks, while Mayor of Snellville, on May 5, 2000 at T.W. Briscoe Park at the Opening Ceremony of the Commemoration of the 25th Anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War.

Opening Ceremony Vietnam Experience Wall

Good morning.

I’ll be brief because I know you didn’t come today to hear politicians speak.

On behalf of the CITIZENS of Snellville, WELCOME.

Thank for coming and allowing us – in some small way – to say “Thank You” and “Salute America’s Heroes.”

You are truly America’s Heroes.

And though I know only a very few of you . . . you have changed my life.
You’ve risked losing your family and friends – so I could be with mine.

You’ve risked losing your jobs and businesses – so I could have mine.

You’ve missed once in a lifetime events – childbirth, birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, and funerals – so I wouldn’t miss those events in my life.

You’ve done all these things and more for me – and I’ve done so little for you.

You have lived our Declaration of Independence, which says, “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

The men and women represented on the wall behind you have given the ultimate sacrifice and have fulfilled the biblical truism –
There is no greater love than to give your life for another.

We will never experience here on earth, the joy and peace they share today. We can only aspire to one day join them.

Again, thank you for coming and allowing us to Salute America’s Heroes.

May God Bless you and your families.

It’s a tie vote – you win!

Much discussion, deliberation, and unusual interest of late on the issue of tie votes by various governing bodies and boards. Largely, a tie vote is a non-issue, the system works, and generally the governed win in a tie. Certainly, tie votes by local boards are not comparable to issues of national significance such as those pending before the U.S. Supreme Court or other courts of law. Regardless, the local community is most often the best determinant if tie votes are negatively affecting the community.

So, my first thought is why is a State Senator who professes a governmental philosophy of local control and personal responsibility inciting the issue? Should tie votes rise to the level of negatively affecting a community, the voters will most assuredly rectify the situation. Our Declaration of Independence establishes that the people, “will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.” It is the community of people, subject to the board casting tie votes, which should originate change, if change is necessary, not the lofty elected further removed from the citizenry in the governance food chain.

One “solution” proposed is to remove the vote from the presiding officer; thereby, reducing the likelihood of ties votes and eliminating personal responsibility and accountability for the non-voter. At the recent town meeting the newspapers quoted a former mayor proudly stating, “I had the job for 26 years, and I voted twice and got in trouble both times.” The mayor, chairman, or whatever title assigned to a governing body or board should hold that position as a leader, establishing vision and direction for the body, and he should lead by example, that example is his vote. The leader must also be accountable to those that chose him to lead and his voting record provides that accountability. I assure you, in the present form of government in my community where the mayor votes, that position has much, much less power and influence than our previous form of government when the mayor did not vote.

I served with the former mayor quoted in the newspapers and the media made much of our great battles and disagreements. Truthfully and factually, however, I voted 92% of the time in agreement with that mayor’s position. As I understand it, the current number of tie votes in my local community remains at nearly the same percentage – 8%. To the best of my ability to discern, the vast majority of those tie votes are on issues of little import to daily lives of citizens and businesses.

Yes, sometimes governance is ugly and divisive, but over time, it generally works. Our nation’s founding was an ugly time in our history. Were it not for the personal integrity of General Washington our nation today may be a monarchy rather than a democratic republic. My community endured one form of government for over a quarter of a century then deliberately, systematically, and cautiously made change. Our new form of government is youthful and while locally driven improvements continue, should be free from usurpations of the powerful.

What does it really mean when a governing body or board casts a tie vote? It means the issue was not compelling enough to gain a majority and therefore, you win. It does not mean the issue is dead. The advocate must simply go back to work, improve the proposal, and present it again – you win again.

Finally, if tie votes rise to the level of impeding the successful operation of an organization, without prodding, those governed will become well aware of the divide and will certainly rectify the situation at the ballot box as our forefathers intended.

Cost of City Life - part deux

Last October, on the eve of a City election, I wrote how changes over the past decade in Snellville had impacted me personally. My cost to live in Snellville had declined 42% while services had improved. [http://brettharrell.blogspot.com/2007/10/cost-of-city-life.html]

Today, after agreeing to adopt an increased millage rate and on the eve of the City's adoption of a new budget and stormwater utility fee, I reflect again on the tremendous improvements over the past decade as well as the negative trend over the past year. The numbers below are real, they are the actual taxes and fees I personally pay to live in the City of Snellville.

A decade of accomplishment

Beginning with 1998, as my baseline, and comparing those costs and values to 2008, my home in Snellville has increased in appraised value by 48% while my property taxes paid to the City, including the 1/2 mil increase proposed for 2008, have decreased by 5%. The tax millage rate over that time is down by 31%, again, including the proposed increase in 2008.

In 1998, I paid an additional $148 fee for trash collection - that fee was eliminated fully in 2001. The new stormwater utility fee, as proposed, will add $94.50 per year to my cost of living in Snellville. So, over the decade, fees have been reduced from $148 to $94.50 - a 36% reduction.

Including the 2008 millage rate increase and new stormwater fees, my after tax cost of living in Snellville remains 13% less than in 1998 while my home is valued at 48% more. Great job Mayor, Council, and City of Snellville!

A disturbing trend more recently

Let's hope the cliche "all good things must come to an end" isn't true for Snellville, however, recent decisions have me increasingly concerned.

Beginning in 2005, the Council returned to the age old practice of fixing the millage rate and holding it constant, year after year, without regard for actual need for adjustment - up or down. While politically expedient, it isn't the best way to govern a City. [By adjusting the millage rate annually, in support of an adopted City plan, large swings may be minimized.]

With the proposed 1/2 mil tax increase in 2008, the millage rate is increasing 14% in a single year while my home's reappraisal is up only 13%. Taxes rising faster than values is never a good sign most especially in the current economic environment.

Add to the rising tax rate, the imposition of a new stormwater utility fee and my cost of living in Snellville will increase by 50% in 2008 versus 2007. By addressing stormwater via a fee system rather than including the cost in the property tax digest, my after tax cost of living in Snellville is increasing even more - up 58%. On an after tax basis, I paid $332.81 to live in Snellville in 2007, I'll pay $525.84 for the same pleasure in 2008. [By including the stormwater fee in the tax digest and increasing the millage rate further, most would actually pay less on an after tax basis.]

Before you recall the tremendous improvements in Snellville - new City Hall, Senior Center, Recycling Center, additional Police Officers, pay increases, etc. - and suggest the reason for tax increases, know that the proposed budget has no new hires, below inflation employee raises, and benefits tremendously from SPLOST capital investments not available at the beginning of the decade.

Any way you cut it, it's been a great decade, but it appears the party's over - unless . . . our new City Manager, Dr. Treadway, gets the party started again!

Stormwater scheme spreads to Snellville

Our city fathers (and mothers) are set to adopt a Stormwater Utility Ordinance on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. The consultant that prepared the research in support of the tax [I apologize, it is a fee. Well, that certainly feels much better to my wallet.], will make a presentation at 5:30 p.m. in advance of the meeting.

I have many issues with these so-called stormwater fees and I've voiced my concerns to elected, staff, and consultants. Rather than rant on my philosophical objections to such a revenue scheme, I'll address a few issues specific to Snellville's proposal. My comments are in response to details contained in three documents available at the City of Snellville website titled Stormwater part 1, Stormwater part 2, and Stormwater part 3. They're quite similar to a horror movie with increasingly frightening sequels.

In Stormwater part 1, the monster first appears in the grotesque form of stormwater runoff. Our hero, the City responds, however, not by attacking runoff, rather by taxing [darn it, sorry again, levying a fee on] impervious surface (that's the roof above your head). What is really scary is that the fee is determined by adding up staff time (the City Manager will spend three times as much time on stormwater issues than the Public Works Director if you believe the research - I don't), administration and regulatory costs, operations and maintenance, and capital investment (that doesn't increase a cent from existing investment according to the initial proposal). Stormwater part 1 concludes with a most frightening scene claiming 55% of fees go to capital investment, operations and maintenance. The remaining 45% of fees going to overhead, regulatory compliance, and bureaucracy that sustains the creature to terrorize again.

And terrorize he does. In Stormwater part 2, we are frantically attempting to escape failing pipes, damaged catch basin lids, sinkholes, and illegal dumping. This monster we've created requires an estimated $1.9 million in immediate repair or replacement. See, isn't it getting scarier?

As our terrorizing trilogy ends, Stormwater part 3, scares the beejeebees out of me and I haven't gotten beyond the title yet, "Future SWMP Funding Strategy". This monster is planning future expenditures that will mandate future fee increases [I did not say tax increases - I'm catching on to the lingo now]. Most horrific is that the scheme raises only $271,000 more than current revenues to address the immediate needs as it dangerously replaces existing general fund investment in public works with the new stormwater utility fund thereby increasing the monster's appetite by over $400,000 for new general fund spending on as yet unaware victims.

One thing is for sure, this Stormwater Utility Ordinance is scary stuff and not for the "little ones."

Is he or isn't he?

Snellville's Interim (finally achieving the title) City Manager departed last week leaving the position unfilled pending completion of the search currently underway with a national firm. The Mayor, as the City's Chief Executive, will fulfill any requirements until the Council confirms a permanent City Manager. Some oppose the Mayor honoring his commitment to the City by exercising the duties and responsibilities charged him.

In the words of Tertullian, "Thus [the opposition] has seized upon the opportunity provided by certain words, in accord with the usual practice of heretics, of twisting the simplest things." Against Hermogenes, AD 206

The opposition is "researching" whether the Mayor may hold two positions; serve in two capacities, and on, and on. So, is he or isn't he? Jerry, I mean . . .

Is he or isn't he the Mayor? Why yes, of course, we all recognize he is the Mayor and the City Code reads, "The mayor shall be the chief executive officer of the city government, shall enforce the laws of the city and shall require the faithful performance of all administrative duties." Pt II Code, Ch. 2 Admin, Art. III Officers and Employees, Div 2 Mayor, Sect. 2-171 Gen. Authority

Is he or isn't he the City Manager? No, he is not. The Mayor is not the acting, interim or any other kind of City Manager. He is the Mayor. He is not holding two positions; he is doing what he is required to do. The City Manager's duties as provided in the City Code are, "Except as otherwise provided by general or local state law, he shall be the chief administrative officer of the city, and shall exercise executive supervision over all city employees and departments." Pt II Code, Ch. 2 Admin, Art. III Officers and Employees, Div 2.5 City Manager, Sect. 2-191 Office created, appointment

The language of the City Code is clear. Shall is mandatory. The Mayor shall require the faithful performance of all administrative duties. In as much as the City Manager shall be the chief administrative officer, it is clear the position of City Manager has always been subordinate to that of the position of Mayor.

Is he or isn't he holding two offices? He is not. He is holding the office of Mayor and no other.

Is he or isn't he appointed to two offices? He is not. No one has appointed him to any office.

Is he or isn't he compensated for two offices? He is not. He continues to receive the handsome sum of $6,000 per year as Mayor. He receives nothing more as he is serving only as Mayor.

Over 100 capable, dedicated employees, led by an outstanding team of Department Directors, serve our City daily. While the political winds may be rough, left to perform their jobs without interference, it's smooth sailing with Snellville's staff.

What a difference

At the outset, let me state that I share in the responsibility and blame for the mayoral transition in Snellville in 2000 that was less than the City deserved. Norcross, however, is setting the example for future transitions from long-serving administrations to newly elected and much of the credit goes to Mayor Lillian Webb.

Mayor Webb, a classy lady by any measure, has served her community and Gwinnett County for some 37 years. By all accounts the mayoral race in Norcross was respectful. When the votes were counted in the mayoral run-off, Mayor Webb lost to first time candidate Bucky Johnson. Mayor-elect Johnson is also deserving of praise for his campaign and gratious public comments about Miss Lillian.

Mayor Webb arrived at City Hall with the news of her defeat, congratulated Mayor-elect Johnson, and offered her continued support and assistance to her City in any capacity desired.

Mayor-elect Johnson will benefit from Mayor Webb's experience and love of her community. Believe me, elected office is tough and Mayor Webb, now 79 years young, has proven herself equal to the task and an outstanding public servant. If Mayor-elect Johnson's campaign night statements are an indication of his future leadership, the City Miss Lillian led so well for so long will continue to thrive and these two candidates have provided all a model for future service.

Photos by Jason Braverman, Gwinnett Daily Post

The Cost of City Life

On the eve of an election in my city, I decided to review how changes over the past ten years have impacted me personally.

1998
City property taxes on my residence = $629.28
Appraised value = $262,200
Number of City Police Officers = 33
Annual cost of trash collection = $159.00
Active transportation projects = $30,000
[city street resurfacing through LARP funding]

2007
City property taxes on my residence = $462.24 [down 27%]
Appraised value = $344,100 [up 31%]
Number of City Police Officers = 50 [up 50%]
Annual cost of trash collection = $0.00 [down 100%]
Active transportation projects = $70+ million [up 2,333%]
[U.S. 78 safety project, 78/124 intersection, SPLOST, Signature Community $, LARP, ATMS signalization, sidewalks, McGee intersection, turn lanes, and more]

Additional City benefits now available:
New City Hall
New Senior Center [12,000 visitors a year]
New Recycling Center
New Oak Road Park
New Police Services
[Citizen's Academy, K-9 Unit, Commercial Vehicle Unit, Bike Patrols]

Awards recognizing our City's progress over the past ten years:
Park Department of the Year
Tree City USA [several years running]
Signature Community [statewide recognition]
Numerous Awards for our Police Department [Governor's Office of Highway Safety and others]

I know I'm being selfish, but I like spending 42% less to live in the City while enjoying a huge increase in services. I sincerely appreciate the work our Mayor, Jerry Oberholtzer, and the City staff have done to generate these results and I very much would like to see this trend continue.

Ministry misstatements

It happens across all faiths - none are exempt. Members of a particular faith-based organization stray into politics for political purposes in support of their own ministry. It is happening now in my hometown on two issues with two groups.

The first is on the issue of Sunday sales of alcohol and a prominent, conservative protestant church is opposed. No surprise there. I'd very much expect this active, valuable, and important member of our community to voice their opposition - as they did with a letter.

What I didn't expect and what is less than consistent with their professed teaching is that this church included in the letter a statement critical of other members of the community that happen to also be members of the church.

We have, within our community, an organization charged with downtown development and business building activities. This is a quasi-governmental authority composed of business people with an interest in the downtown area. Two members of this authority are also members of the aforementioned church. The authority issued a letter, consistent with their mission, in support of alcohol sales.

When the church responded, they went beyond their opposition to alcohol to call out, though not by name, these two members of their own congregation to say they did not speak for the church. Of course they didn't, they wrote under a different banner. There was simply no need for the church to go beyond their opposition to the issue and bring negative attention among the congregation focused on two members.

The second involves a faith-based food ministry. In years past, this food ministry was supported by local churches. By coincidence, the church mentioned in the first example also provided operating space for the food co-op for some time. For various reasons, the church was unable to continue providing that space and the food ministry was forced to relocate.

The food co-op approached another local church for support. This church was in the midst of a real estate transaction with the city and had space available, but for a limited time. The church discussed with the city the relocation of the co-op ministry and the new space was provided for the food ministry to continue their operations.

Some time later, the church and the city concluded the real estate transaction and the food ministry became a tenant of the city until such time as the agreement reached with the church expired. Upon expiration, as had been contemplated from the outset with full knowledge of all parties, the city took possession of the building and the food ministry was forced to relocate yet again.

The food ministry is another wonderful, positive, and valuable organization within our community and everything appeared straight forward and understandable until the co-op decided to use public pressure and the media in an attempt to gain ongoing financial support from the city. The food ministry has been critical of the city - suggesting they're being forced out of the community [a day they knew would come years ago]. The food ministry approached our Mayor and Council recently at a public meeting requesting city funding to replenish reserves depleted because of the cost of relocating as if that cost was a responsibility of the city's.

The city has supported and made accommodations to benefit the food ministry through various means for many years - some perhaps that the co-op is even unaware of. It is disappointing that another positive, faith-based organization would resort to less than positive means to meet their needs.