$50,000,000 for a new Sandy Springs’ City Hall?

The down payment is $8,000,000
Decision time is November 18, 2008!

(See other posts in this blog on this subject dated July 26 and August 23)

Link to www.SandySpringsAdvocate.com
Email the Sandy Springs City Council

The Sandy Springs City Council has just decided to have one (that’s ONE) public hearing before they vote to spend $8,000,000 for a downpayment on what will become tens of millions of dollars ($50,000,000+?) for a new City Hall for Sandy Springs. The citizens of Sandy Springs are being given only 12 days with virtually no advertising or public notice that a final vote is being taken on November 18, 2008. Do you think the city should spend this money on this project?

The Council may say there is no discussion of raising taxes to pay for this expenditure since they already have an overcollection of taxes in the bank. Instead of spending this money on infrastructure improvements (or refunding it to the taxpayers) they feel the need to purchase an $8,000,000 building and let it sit empty until they figure out how to collect even more unbudgeted taxes for improvements.

My personal position is that there is no argument good enough to spend this money on this purchase. The vote should be NO! Hands down.

The vote should be NO. Not just because we are in a significantly tumultuous period of economic uncertainty, but because it’s a bad idea. It’s what “old government” would do. Sandy Springs’ residents were promised a “new government” paradigm. What has happened to this promise in such a short period of time? The overwhelming majority of the Council is poised immediately to spend this money. Perhaps, with your quickly communicated and strong personal “encouragement” the Council can be convinced to vote NO to this waste of taxpayer money.

In order to acquire, plan, and build a new City Hall at the Target Store site some one or combination of the items listed below will be REQUIRED:

• a redirection of available capital funds ($8,000,000 now + future money for building, etc.) AWAY FROM roads, parks, sewers, storm water drainage, police and fire department equipment and personnel, and other important Sandy Springs’ infrastructure needs. The money can't be spent on a new City Hall AND these needed items.
  
• a bond issue or some other type of LOAN may be required to fund planning, construction, and operation. If that's a chosen option it's important to understand that borrowed money needs to be paid back . . . Guess from what source of funds . . . Your future tax payments.
• an almost certain SUBSTANTIAL and PERMANENT TAX INCREASE!
  

Here are some elementary reasons every Council Member, including the Mayor, should vote NO to acquiring a building for a Sandy Springs’ City Hall. There are many more, but this is a start.

• This old Target Store location is prime Sandy Springs commercial real estate. If the City owns it then it is permanently removed from the tax digest and the residential property owners will not benefit from what would be substantial commercial property tax revenues ever again. By permanently reducing commercial property tax income here the Council MUST collect MORE TAXES from residential property owners.
• The current City Hall strategy is for the city to rent existing and available commercial property. This is a GOOD IDEA and should be continued. The private property owner of the offices currently rented by the City pays taxes to the city – property taxes and business license taxes! So however much the “rent” is . . . the city gets a reasonable portion back as a “discount” by collecting taxes from the property owner they actually pay!
• By renting space for City Hall the city supports that local business and helps keep area commercial occupancies high.
• The $8,000,000 is from a “Slush Fund” created by the city collecting more tax money than they budgeted. The position that should have been adopted regarding this over collection is that the City Council should have REDUCED TAXES and/or RETURNED the over collection. Unfortunately they are rushing to SPEND this money for something that is totally unnecessary and where the money being spent is only the “down payment!”
• The $8,000,000 is just a drop in the bucket relative to what a City Hall construction project will cost (forgetting that this prime commercial property will never again be a revenue generator for the city). There has been NO planning, NO architectural drawings, NO needs assessment, NO external advisory committee study or recommendations (like were commissioned for Hammond Park), NO financial impact study, etc. The $8,000,000 is to purchase the building shell and allocated parking lot. Remember this is just for the Target Store, not the contiguous part of the building and parking area containing the Goodwill drop off center.
• Future costs to plan, demolish, construct, outfit, and maintain this and surrounding property to build a City Hall could easily exceed $50,000,000 over the next several years. Where is that money coming from?
• Any money spent on City Hall will reduce the amount of money available for NEEDED Capital Projects and will certainly require INCREASED TAXES.
• The city needs to be focused on many other infrastructure and capital projects. This does not include acquiring and building a City Hall.
• The city needs a permanent Police Station, but the old Target Store location is not the place for this! That is a subject for a different time and it needs to be placed in a different location (maybe a renegotiated effort for the city to use or build onto the Fulton County Annex?). One proposal by the Council was for the Police Station to be the first user of this prime commercial property location.
  

The Council’s quick turnaround for a public hearing almost guarantees no substantive public debate and virtually no opposition. Most of the City Council is representing that their constituents almost universally want them to spend this money on acquiring this property using arguments like . . .

• It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity
• If we don’t do this right now someone else will buy it
• The price will never be available again
• The location is “perfect”
• We can’t let this chance pass us by
• It’s what “the people” want
  

Do “the people” want this or does a misdirected City Council want this? Here are some ALTERNATIVES FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER on Tuesday, November 18. It’s clear that I want a definitive NO vote, but . . .

• at the very least the Council should delay the definitive vote, schedule a series of public hearings and create a Citizen’s Advisory Council that is charged with presenting a Citizen’s Recommendation in addition to a professional review and recommendation.
• Since this is such a large purchase with such long lasting cost implications my ultimate preference is for the City Council to call a special election and to put this on the ballot for the voters and taxpayers to decide instead of leaving this important decision only to the discernment skills of the six Council Members and the Mayor.
  

WHAT CAN YOU DO? . . . .

1) Send every Council Member and the Mayor an email letting them know your personal position (easy to do if you go to www.sandyspringsadvocate.com – one form to complete and they all get notified)

2) Attend the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 2008!!!

3) Don’t be bashful. Speak up! It's YOUR MONEY and YOUR FUTURE TAXES.

Link to www.SandySpringsAdvocate.com

Email the Sandy Springs City Council



jim.buckler@sandyspringsadvocate.com

Irreconcilable Differences?

Link me to www.SandySpringsAdvocate.com

so I can email the Sandy Springs City Council

Irreconcilable Differences?
Galambos and DeJulio still don't get it . . .

Read their attempts to justify higher taxes carefully (published in the Sandy Springs Reporter on Septmeber 19, 2008).

[Please be in touch with the City Council today! Let them know how you feel. My thoughts are detailed below if you are interested in reading them. An easy way to communicate your thoughts to the entire City Council is to go to www.sandyspringsadvocate.com and complete the online form. It is sent to all the Council members with a single click.]

Tibby DeJulio:
Mr. DeJulio spends much of his effort in the article by painting his personal recollection of history. He then states what I will call The DeJulio Mission - "It was not a financial mission; it was one of accountability and spending!" I couldn't have said it any better myself, Mr. DeJulio. He spends the rest of the article talking about "this year's budget and tax increase" like we citizens of Sandy Springs are virtually demanding he lead the charge to higher taxes and more spending. It's like the words "budget" and "tax increase" are meant to go with each other.

He said the feedback from "our residents" was to raise taxes. Are you the "resident" who asked him to raise your taxes? It wasn't me.

Mr. DeJulio has made his case. He will never roll back taxes as long as he is in office. He has said the only way he would vote for a "possible" tax rollback in 2009 was if it were a "non-binding resolution." That's like having a non-binding marriage, or a non-binding mortgage, or a non-binding tax bill from the city. What the heck is a "non-binding resolution?"

Mr. DeJulio himself wrote a paper making a case for the City of Sandy Springs being efficiently operated on $76,000,000 in 2007. We have skyrocketed to a $90,000,000 city. Mr DeJulio, why are you spending 100% of the $90,000,000 and looking for more? When is enough actually enough?

I have to give him partial credit for his fleeting thoughts of a roll back. He stated his "fist inclination was to roll back the rate and save our homeowners" from a tax increase. How long did that thought last, Mr. DeJulio? If that thought was a seed it must have been quickly choked out by surrounding weeds because DeJulio changed his mind in a virtual nanosecond.

What I want, as a citizen of Sandy Springs, is strong leadership from within the City Council. Someone who holds the line on taxes, has a goal to roll them back, and considers this a responsibility of office. My observations confirm the only Council member providing that level of leadership is Doug MacGinnitie. Karen Meizen-McEnerny could step up, but needs a little encouragement. Mayor Galambos also needs a little encouragement to stand firm on this issue. She seems to be pulled in the other direction. The Mayor, of course, does not have a vote unless there is a voting tie by the other Council members. Is there hope from another City Council member stepping forward in a positive way on this issue? Only time and their individual voting records will tell.

At least DeJulio "thought about" a roll back in a year when there were operational efficiencies and the predictably efficient collection of taxes by our Tax Commissioner (99%+, not the City's budgeted 92%). What is DeJulio going to do when there is a hiccup in operational efficiencies? Or if Mr. Ferdinand falls to the City's budgeted 92% collection rate instead of the Tax Commissioner's historically repetitive 99%, which is highly unlikely? I'll give you a hint . . . I predict DeJulio will be the first one calling for and voting for a millage rate increase. Hold onto your hats, folks!

Mr. DeJulio has clearly identified the two things he focuses on . . . "accountability and responsible spending." Thank goodness for the capable leadership provided by CH2MHill taking care of the "accountability" part. We can be confident of their performance. Unfortunately Mr. DeJulio seems to be convinced the people of Sandy Springs are virtually demanding that he lead the charge to spend, spend, spend.

He (with other City Council members' approval) hasn't yet bought the private jet flashing the Sandy Springs' logo that someone in office after his term will have to sell on Ebay. But be wary . . that "jet" could be spelled "new City Hall" or "Hammond Park." We need both a city hall and nice parks in some form, but in upcoming Council decisions Mr. DeJulio will be asked to decide whether those specific projects take on the characteristics of a wasteful and resource burning private jet or a vehicle that burns alternative fuels. Guess which one he is likely to choose.

Mayor Eva Galambos:
Madam Mayor, I and at least 96% of the rest of Sandy Springs love you for bringing us out of the belly of the Fulton County Government and promising us (along with Oliver Porter) a new government. Thank you. With all due and deserved respect I am concerned that your recent rhetoric seems to be an exercise in justification for higher taxes which is nothing but "old" government.

You seem to me to be confused about how "new government" should define and put limits on taxes, budgets, spending, and their resultant roll backs or increases. I'd like to hear you standing firm on the side of proper budgeting and spending up to, but not exceeding, the limits set in that budget. Encourage operating efficiencies and roll back the taxes every chance you get. That level of leadership on the Council is coming only from Councilman Doug MacGinnitie.

What happened to the contention before election that we could efficiently run our city on expected revenues of $76,000,000 or less? We are now a $90,000,000 city. Who is going to stand up and say "Enough is enough?"

There will always be something to spend the money on that a Mr. DeJulio will call "responsible" spending. You've been around long enough to know that spending is spending, no matter what you call it. I'd like you to consider replacing the word "responsible" with the word "necessary" since the word "responsible" seems to encourage others on the the City Council to emphasize and fall prey to the word "spending."

It seems to me as though there is a growing Council attitude (except for Doug MacGinnitie and perhaps Karen Meinzen-McEnerny) that increasing taxes on businesses is okay. It is NOT okay. Businesses must pass those taxes on to their customers (if their nearby competitors allow them) or the business will die. If their customers are in Sandy Springs then every Sandy Springs resident who is a patron is directly affected. Every apartment dweller, every retail shopper, every restaurant patron, everyone will be affected. I believe you should foster the currently unrealized reality that Sandy Springs is the place to do business. Businesses will want to relocate here if our taxes are low. By their increased presence in Sandy Springs the commercial tax digest will increase. I would encourage you to fight against increases to the commercial tax digest that are due to reassessments on existing businesses and fight for business growth in our community which will have the desired effect - more taxes paid by business with a lower tax burden on residents. If we raise taxes on commercial entities and those businesses relocate to another municipality the residential tax burden will become much greater.

Please lead the way to Responsible Government - Necessary Spending - and Lower Taxes.

[Jim Buckler, jim.buckler@sandyspringsadvocate.com, www.sandyspringsadvocate.com, 404-408-9723]

NO to Target as City Hall - Choose Fiscal Conservatism

Below is correspondence I sent to City Council members regarding the proposed purchase of the Target store site. If you feel similarly (or even if you want them to spend your money for this purpose) you should communicate your feelings to the whole City Council and Mayor. Go to http://www.sandyspringsadvocate.com/ for an easy way to let them know how you think they should vote on this matter.

"Looking forward . . . YOU now have the chance to stand up for fiscal conservatism, smaller government, lower taxes, and demonstrate that you support responsible local business development. You have the chance to lead others on the City Council to better decision making.

Regardless of your previous position on the issue, I encourage you to vote NO to buying the Target store and converting it to the Police Station, Jail, and City Hall.

If you feel City Government can't stay in rented facilities at Morgan Falls or work harder to find a way to share the Fulton County Annex property, then propose something new . . . maybe a private/public partnership that can develop the Target property into taxpaying retail, office, and/or residential space with a small portion of the space being reserved for a small City Government. Sandy Springs needs you to vote NO to the current purchase plan for the Target property. Sandy Springs needs you to lead the way to better and smaller government.

Can you be counted on to lead the way to better and innovative local government for Sandy Springs or to lead us down the well trodden path to higher taxes, frivolous spending, and disrespect for property owners' desires to maintain their neighborhoods?

Responsible participation in this new City of Sandy Springs' government is important. You are attempting to serve as an elected official. I am attempting to serve by engaging you in civic conversation and encouraging you to follow a course of better decision making and better leadership."

Jim Buckler
jim.buckler@sandyspringsadvocate.com
404-408-9723

How the City Raises Your Taxes . . . Simplified!

I recently received the following comment from a concerned Sandy Springs' Advocate, "I have a question. How and when did the City Council increase our taxes?" Below is my explanation as to the "How." The "When" answer is this year - 2008!

After receiving my response (below) the same person wrote back, "Thanks Jim. I can understand that. You should post this to your blog -- I'm sure most people (like me) have no clue that this is going on. I will share this with my neighbors whose email addresses I have, but how can we get the word out to the rest of the city?"

Sooooo . . . here's my attempt at describing the Increase Tax Scenario for Sandy Springs (as simply as I can) . . .

Year one . . .
1) City sets a budget
2) City establishes a millage rate that is applied against the assessed value of property in the City plus an expected collection rate of taxes billed at that millage rate (4.731 mills (a percentage applied to the assessed property values) per the postcard you included in your previous email). The millage rate has a maximum that cannot be raised without a referendum, but the expected "collection rate" is set low (like 8% lower than the tax collector's historical collection rates).
3) City confirms the budget
4) Arthur Ferdinand (Tax Collector) exceeds the City's budgeted collection rate.
5) The collection of taxes over the budgeted amount goes into a "general fund."
6) The City now has a surplus (even over the amount budgeted as a surplus). Our City Council members decided their constituents wanted them to spend this "extra" money (many millions of dollars) on non-budgeted items.
7) Here's a formula that may be helpful: [A] Assessed Property Value x Millage Rate x Expected Collection Rate = Budget; [B]Assessed Property Value x Millage Rate x ACTUAL Collection Rate = Tax Money Collected; [B]-[A]= Overcollection of budgeted expenditures (aka "Slush Fund").

Year two . . .
1) County Tax Assessor's office reassesses the property in the City (Sandy Springs' property tax digest went up significantly year over year). Home assessments went up moderately from year to year, but the business assessments went up dramatically year to year . . . big problem for business - a potential windfall in taxes for the City Council.
2) City sets a new budget with the same millage rate and collection percentages that produced the overcollection in Year One, but now applied to the higher property tax digest amount. If either (not both) the property valuations or millage rate increases then State lawmakers require the City to disclose this as a Tax Increase because it IS a tax increase. However the City Council only refers to their decision to keep the millage rate the same as though they didn't increase taxes. What should have been done was for the Council to reduce the millage rate to a level that, when applied to the new tax digest, covers the budgeted amount, not the budgeted amount PLUS the overcollection. This would reduce and keep taxes low.
3) Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, from Year One and Items 1 and 2 from Year Two are repeated.

Years three, four, five, etc . . .
Taxes keep going up, up, up. Unless the constituency requires the City Council to adhere to strict fiscal policies of spending for necessary services only, refunding amounts collected over the budget, lowering the millage rate for the next year to offset any increased property valuations plus proper/better budgeting which definitely includes setting the expected collections at the Tax Collector's historical rates, not some arbitrarily low number. I'm okay with being conservative on collection rates if they refund any over collection and don't act like a bunch of kids and find something to spend it on.

Okay . . . sorry about my continued rant. If this didn't make sense to you I'll be happy to explain it further. Because this process is complicated to explain and understand is exactly the reason the City Council can easily trap the taxpayers into a cycle of never ending tax increases.

Hope this helps.

NO to Target as the new Sandy Springs City Hall

Link to www.SandySpringsAdvocate.com

Email the Sandy Springs City Council

The City Council is preparing to purchase the soon to be vacated Target retail location for $8,000,000 in the heart of Sandy Springs on Mt. Vernon and convert it to City Hall.

Why?

I've heard we must have a place to house our police department. Does that include our own detention center? What better place than in the heart of the city?

We certainly must have a new building that befits the new image the City Council has imagined. Construction may not start today, but certainly tomorrow. How could we even consider staying in rented offices that support an existing tax paying property owner? We should have our own property, with fine architecture, properly styled interior, and the grounds must be beautiful and immaculate. It will need to emulate the finest Sandy Springs' residence, maybe even something in Rome . . . Italy, not Georgia. We wouldn't want the City of Atlanta or maybe the new City of Dunwoody to have a prettier building than we do. Let's make sure we budget enough to lead the way in style. Let's make sure we are all proud to call this building "Ours."

What hogwash!

Fulton County Government is shrinking, thank goodness. As taxpayers we have already paid for the Fulton County Annex on Roswell Road. Why not work hard (or harder as the case may be) to share this taxpayer owned property with county government? If we must have our own building to house this new and, unfortunately, growing city government, let us spend our money to create more space at this existing site (if needed), not on acquiring new property. Keep government small.

If we let these City Council members create more space for city government they will fill it . . . and then want more.

Don't do it. Stop it before it starts. Encourage new business use of the Target property, not government use. Put a new tax paying business entity on this real estate, not something that will be a reason to increase taxes further.

That's my opinion!

Link to www.SandySpringsAdvocate.com

Email the Sandy Springs City Council

Really Simple Syllabus - Sandy Springs' Tax Policy 101

Link me to www.SandySpringsAdvocate.com

so I can email the Sandy Springs City Council

The comments below are intended as a simple outline to encourage discussion regarding Sandy Springs City Council's "tax and spend / tax some more" policy. This council is very young. Our city is brand new and already it seems to be adopting old style tax/spend habits. There even seems to be a "misunderstanding" among these folks about what constitutes an official tax increase. In my opinion this is not exactly what we voted for when we voted to get relief from Fulton County government's "tax Sandy Springs / spend the money elsewhere / don't listen to their needs" policy. Our new city officials seem to feel their constituents are demanding higher taxes and more spending. Is that a correct assessment on their part?

Here are some thoughts on what a "tax class" for new City Council members might discuss.

Really Simple Syllabus
Responsible City of Sandy Springs' Tax Policy - 101


1) Setting a policy

• Define the responsibilities of City Government and stay within those boundaries. Make this definition as narrow as possible not as wide as possible. Wide is the easy way out and eliminates accountability to the taxpayers. Always be accountable to the taxpayers.
  
• Remember always that the money you are spending isn't "Your Money." (I mean by this that you should be much more conservative, frugal, and purposeful than when actually spending your own money. This rule should be applied even if you personally are the most conservative, frugal, and purposeful spender.)
  
• Always, always, always seek permission to spend. Never over spend. You can't spend what you don't have permission to spend.
  
• Any money collected over the budgeted amount is to be refunded to the taxpayers - without delay.
• Any additional expenditures need to be part of next year's budget, not added to or carried over from the current year's budget/collections.
• Always keep in mind that low tax rates make the city business "friendly" and helps keep real estate prices higher and sales vibrant.
• Less government spending is healthy. More government spending requires even more spending the next year and the next year and the next year.
• Ask the voters' permission for special assessments (in a special election) and collect the assessments only until the needed project is completed and then stop funding it. Most governments keep collecting money after the initial need is satisfied and then apply these funds to another new-found project. Don't do it!
• Remember that apartment dwellers and retail/office tenants are taxpayers, too, even though they aren't shown individually on the tax rolls.
  

2) Determining, Prioritizing, and Quantifying Needs

• Refer to #1 above. Keep it simple and narrow.
• Promote public private partnerships in everything the city does . . . Rent, don't own. Outsource, don't employ. Partner with responsible organizations.
• Don't provide services that a private organization could provide.
• Don't build and manage a gym - Partner with the YMCA
• Don't build a jail - outsource it
• Look for every opportunity
• Always ask, "Do we "really" need to supply this as a city service? Does this fit the narrow definition of what the city government must provide [emphasis on "must"]?
  

3) Determining Available Funds

• Current budget needs?
• Current millage rate?
• Current tax digest?
• Recent (10 year) history of tax collector's rate of collection vs assessments?
• Hold the tax collector to a high standard. Higher collection percentages mean lower taxes.
  

4) Setting the Budget

• Budget expenses for the defined "needs" only plus a reasonable reserve for unexpected expenses.
• "Unexpected Expenses" must be from the "needs" category, not an end of the year, we have to spend it because it's there type of spending. The "unexpected expenses" are to be carried over, not spent . . . just held. This practice keeps ensuing years' taxes lower since that line item will already be funded.
• Budget income/receipts on expected tax collector performance, not some artificially low percentage that builds in an "over collection." Budgeting the income percentage lower than anticipated collections is a tax increase unless this over collection amount is refunded to the taxpayers.
  

5) Collections and Refunds

• If collections exceed the budgeted expenses, the over collection amount is to be refunded to the taxpayers immediately.

Link me to www.SandySpringsAdvocate.com

so I can email the Sandy Springs City Council

Tax Education Needed? - Sandy Springs City Council Missed an Opportunity

Link me to www.SandySpringsAdvocate.com

so I can email the Sandy Springs City Council

My rant posted previously about the Sandy Springs City Council making, in my opinion, a bad decision to raise our taxes was fueled by my visit to a Council meeting. There I discovered some of our Council members were in denial that their actions were even deemed a tax increase. Even though our state government required them to advertise their actions as a tax increase at least one Council member made statements of denial in the official Council meeting and another communicated after voting "For" the tax increase saying ". . . we didn't increase your taxes. The tax rate stayed the same . . ."

Wow! Now that's pretty bold . . . or naive. I am beginning to think it may actually be more naive . . . uneducated . . . being influenced by a select few . . . etcetera. Our City Council seems to have convinced themselves that they must increase taxes as opposed to taking the bold stand of refunding over-collections and seeking voter validation that taxes should be increased. Now that would be a BOLD DECISION on the part of our City Council. Just imagine what type of City of Sandy Springs we would have if these tax increase decisions were actually put to a vote. I'm not suggesting tax increases are never valid to fund specific projects, but in today's environment . . . once general taxes are increased, they continue to increase, and are virtually never reduced or refunded. The appetite for more money and more things is insatiable.

This feeling that the decisions were naive came like a lightning bolt during a conversation with a long time friend who has owned a home and paid taxes in Cobb county for many years. When I was describing the actions of our new Sandy Springs City Council he asked, "What's a millage rate?"

I paused. Then said,"That was a brilliant question. I'm surprised by the question, but it is very telling since you are a very smart person."

Now, I don't pay much attention to what goes on in Cobb County, but I have heard they have worked hard at keeping their taxes lower than in other counties. I've also heard that they have paid particularly good attention to the quality of education available and continue to receive kudos regionally and nationally for their great schools. Lower taxes and good schools definitely attract home buyers . . . and businesses. Probably keeps most taxpayers happy, too.

If the above is true, then it's no wonder my friend hasn't paid much attention to things like "millage rates," "city/county budget practices," "under/over budgeting tax collection rates," "slush funds," etc. My thoughts went to how easy it must be for a naive group of City Council Members, coupled with an electorate that doesn't know what a millage rate is or how it relates to the tax assessor's job versus the tax collectors job to inadvertently confuse the hell out of each other. They seem to start out confused, take guidance from folks who are confused, and end up making poor decisions. Even though the poor decisions may be cloaked with good intentions.

Sooooooo . . . Job One is to educate our City Council on what a tax increase is and how to recognize it, so they can make better decisions. Part of Job One is to help the City Council understand fully the consequences their "tax and spend" decisions have on business and residential growth. It seems like we need to help these public servants understand the basics so they can better fulfill the obligations of their elected office

Job Two is to assist the voting taxpayers in learning the basics of how their taxes are calculated, what is and isn't a tax increase, and what type of constraints should be placed on their elected officials. The electorate needs to know what input and/or control they have or don't have on how much money is being budgeted, collected, and spent as well as on what services are needed and which ones are unnecessary luxuries. Encouraging alternative funding methods through public/private partnerships seems to me to be a reasonable alternative to pursue.

These topics probably make most folk's eyes glaze over. You can tell when they either start dozing or looking at their watches. I think this probably takes place within about 120 seconds. It's hard to hold someone's attention - especially when the taxpayers are sucked in initially with little increases for the residents (aka voters) and big increases for businesses (aka non-voters). This puts a lot of responsibility on those folks who may not know what a millage rate is or how it is applied to their taxes, or what the overall consequences may be.

Is there hope for the City of Sandy Springs to set a new course for City Government? Can what started out as a mandate for more responsive and more responsible local government actually be fulfilled? Can the promise once offered by this city's early public/private partnerships be embraced or will they be discarded? Are the citizens of the City of Sandy Springs going to be led down this emerging path of old time local government and old time "tax - spend - collect - spend - tax more" cycles that will ultimately crash and burn?

I have great hope for this experiment we started called the City of Sandy Springs. There is great promise. Let's not let it slip through our fingers. Call your Councilperson, email them, go to a City Council meeting. No need to rant like I did in my post below or even how I delivered my message at the City Council meeting. Just educate them constantly. Help them make good decisions. Let them know how a responsible government must keep taxes low to encourage business, increase home values, look for new ways to finance improvements without raising taxes. You are the most important part of this equation. If you don't know what a millage rate is or what a tax increase is or what decisions you want brought to the voters, then make it a priority to find out. I'll be happy to give you my opinions . . . just stay tuned. It's probably more important to start with Job Two (above) instead of Job One.

Above all . . . communicate your opinions and well thought out views to the Mayor and City Council. Here's the link to a page that sends all of them your thoughts with one "click."

Link me to www.SandySpringsAdvocate.com

so I can email the Sandy Springs City Council