Gwinnett government wants you to provide free labor

I could not help but chuckle at this one.  On the other hand, maybe I should just be shaking my head.  The Gwinnett County Commission has recently set a goal to obtain 1,000,000 volunteer hours per year from citizens through the Volunteer Gwinnett program..  These hours would be spent assisting the government in performing functions that it apparently doesn't have the funds to do itself.  Commission Chairwoman Charlotte Nash said that the program would allow citizens to "give back" to our community.  

I always find that phrase - "give back" - a little misleading.  Perhaps I take it too literally, but to "give back" implies that something has been given to me.  What exactly has the Gwinnett County government given me?  Sure, they provide a variety of services, some of which I don't need nor want, but I pay for those services via my property tax payment each fall or by my tax payment on my car at my birthday.  The Gwinnett government doesn't "give" me anything anymore than Best Buy "gives" me a Blu-ray when I purchase a disc at the store.

Don't misunderstand me.  I am not suggesting that volunteering is not a worthy thing to do with your time.  However, there are many organizations for whom you can provide the limited hours you have available to volunteer.  You could volunteer at your church or with many community non-profits that rely on volunteers to survive.  One excellent option for professionals is CCT Atlanta.  While such opportunities may not technically meet the definition above of "giving back," they sure come a lot closer than a government that has the legal right to simply take money from you.

I know that Gwinnett's tax revenues have been hit by the economic downturn as well as the housing crunch.  However, one cannot discount the role of the failed leadership from the Bannister commission in the financial condition of the Gwinnett County government.  Tell you what.  I will be happy to volunteer a few hours cleaning up my local park when I see the County Commission sell Gwinnett Taxpayers Stadium, aka Coolray Field, and recover all the taxpayer dollars that were sunk into what is essentially a business facility for a multi-million dollar private enterprise.

Peachtree Corners residents split on incorporation

The United Peachtree Corners Civic Association held a meeting last night in which the proposed incorporation of the Peachtree Corners community was discussed.  Approximately 80 people showed up and sentiment over making Peachtree Corners a "city lite" was divided.  Association president Mike Mason said that feedback he has received "has been running about 4-to-1 in favor" in favor of the idea.  However, some residents voiced concerns about increased property taxes as well as whether the drive to incorporate is including the voices of minority residents of the area.

I did find this argument in favor of incorporation a bit curious:

Such a government, Mason said, would protect residents from encroachment by municipalities and allow residents to decide on future development.

Isn't making Peachtree Corners a city, in fact, encroachment by a municipality?

This story is likely to get more interesting as we move forward.

County misses deadline to sell stadium naming rights

The deadline for Gwinnett County to sell naming rights to Gwinnett Taxpayers' Stadium (aka Gwinnett Stadium) has come and gone.  As a result, the county will lose out on a greater share of the proceeds when naming rights are eventually sold.  Fortunately, for Gwinnett property owners, the car rental tax that went into effect last year has been generating higher than projected revenues, enough to allow the county make payments on the outstanding bonds.  Even still, as I outlined in a post here on the Buzz in April, 2008, the car rental tax comes out of the pockets of the Gwinnett taxpayer, meaning that Gwinnettians are still paying for the stadium.

To be honest, the Gwinnett County Commission is very lucky in that the car rental tax projections understated the true revenue.  If the board were in danger of defaulting on debt service payments, could commissioners really risk the ignominy of a major county government defaulting on its loan?  Given that the board has already cut the budget to the bone, would there be any choice but to move forward with the highly controversial property tax increase?  So long as the naming rights are eventually sold and other income sources hold up, Gwinnett property owners should be spared yet another demand to provide funding for yet another government undertaking.

The real question is should the commission be let off the hook because they have managed to take more tax dollars than expected from Gwinnett residents via the car rental tax?  They have still raised your taxes, just not property taxes.  They have dodged a bullet thusfar, but here we have more evidece of the poor management of taxpayer dollars by this commission.  They gambled with our money to build a stadium for a professional sports team that expects average Americans, during hard economic times, to underwrite a stadium while the team pays enormous sums of money to men to play a game.  I do not think they should be applauded for good fortune masking  poor management.  Do you?

Commission approves more than $200 million in budget cuts

The Gwinnett County Commission voted last week to approve over $225 million in budget cuts.  As I wrote earlier last week, some residents were unhappy with some of the cuts, especially those targeting the budgets for the police and fire departments.  While automatically opposing budget cuts for public safety is understandable, the key here is at what are these cuts targeted?

First, let's be absolutely clear: deeps cuts were in order. Cuts are more palatable than a tax increase. Where I take issue is where these cuts were targeted.  Prior to the meeting, there was speculation that the Gwinnett "Quality of Life" unit could be on the chopping block.  Given this unit's focus of fighting property rights more so than real crime, I was completely in favor of such a cut.  However, rather than ax the Quality of Life unit, the board opted to cut the DUI task force.  I do not understand this move! One fights property rights - the other fights criminals that could kill you on our highways! The Quality of Life unit should have be at the top of the cuts for the police department.  Of course, I am hardly surprised that retaining funding for the Quality of Life unit was proposed by Mike Beaudreau whose commission track record is hardly one of championing property rights.

Regarding police department funding in general, when I stop seeing police officers parked along the road running radar/laser equipment to catch speeders as opposed to fighting real crime, I might get a little more upset about budget cuts for the department. In the last couple of weeks, I have seen three cops parked along Ronald Reagan Parkway doing speed enforcement. I see others near the Park Place Bridge on US 78. Coupling this with funding Quality of Life to go out worrying about how how far nails protrude and other victimless crimes, I cannot get too upset at at the cuts. When all police department funds are used to fight real, serious crime and not harass property owners or man radar guns, I will get upset at the cuts.

I would like to note, however, that, as critical as I often am of Comissioner Beaudreau, I do find myself in total agreement with one of his proposals.  Beaudreau offered an excellent idea to charge non-county residents for using Gwinnett County parks.  In fact, as a daily user of my local park, I would support a user fee for all those who actually use the parks, whether resident or not. The community does benefit from the parks so a county-funded system is appropriate. However, because those of us who actually go to the park and use the amenities benefit more, we should pay more than someone who does not. A user fee could be a nominal amount, perhaps $25 per year, just to ensure that the cost burden of these facilities is born more by those who use the system. A user fee would also capture direct contribution from those who use the facilities but are not property owners and, as such, do pay not the property taxes that fund the bulk of county government.

One other suggestion for revenue that I have not seen discussed is ads on Gwinentt transit buses.  (I read this suggestion from a Buzz reader, I believe, but I cannot find the reference.  I apologize that I cannot properly credit you for bringing this idea to my attention.)  When the county is in need of every drop of revenue it can get, why has the transit system not exploring selling ads?  MARTA does this, why not Gwinnett?  I do not know how much money this would raise, but whatever it raises would be some decrease in the severity of the county budget cuts.

The fiscal situation that Gwinnett County faces is very serious.  No one said any of the paths that could be taken through the woods would be easy, but I must commend the commissioners for choosing the right path - reigning in the size and cost of government as opposed to siphoning even more dollars out of our pockets.  I would much rather be bickering over what to cut than a tax increase.

Citizens oppose spending cuts

As the Gwinnett County Commission prepares to "vote on $225 million in proposed cuts to the operating budget through 2014," some county residents are opposing proposed law enforcement funding cuts.  I would ask them, what else is the commission supposed to do?  While I have been very critical of this board, they did the right thing by refusing to raise property taxes.  Given that a nontrivial reason we are in this fiscal mess is that monument to government mismanagement, Gwinnett (Taxpayers) Stadium, I absolutely oppose a tax increase.  Had our commissioners kept Gwinnett County focused on the core, limited responsibilities of government, I would be more open to recognizing the need for, and possibly supporting, a tax increase.  However, the commissioners made some very poor decisions in building that unneeded baseball stadium and now they should have to make the hard decisions of finding places to cut spending.

While I do not want to see police funding cut in general, I would be more concerned about these cuts if I did not see police officers parked alongside Gwinnett roads running radar/laser speed detection equipment.  I understand the need for traffic enforcement, but why not redeploy these officers to fighting real crime and let them do traffic stops while engaged in their normal patrols?  I would note that if the cuts are used on Gwinnett's so-called "Quality of Life" unit, then the negative impact to enforcing important laws is lessened.  The Quality of Life unit spends a lot of taxpayer dollars fighting property rights rather than the crime that is all too common in Gwinnett.

Thus, while we may feel some pain in the cuts that are eventually made, they are much easier to swallow than a tax increase in the aftermath of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on the Government-funded Gwinnett Braves new baseball stadium.

Gwinnett libraries to cut hours

Last week, Gwinnett County announced a reduction in the operating hours for county library branches.  The cutbacks are the result of the recent county budget shortfall.  Effective August 9, branches will close on Sunday and Monday and will open for shorter hours the remainder of the week.  While I can appreciate the inconvenience to regular library patrons, such cost savings are unavoidable as the county struggles to balance its budget.  This solution is certainly more palatable than a property tax increase, especially given that part of the funding woes stems from the profligate spending of our county commission on an unnecessary minor league baseball stadium.  Hopefully, those citizens who are upset with this change will channel their frustration into being more aware of the actions of their government officials.  Greater citizen awareness of how these officials spend our tax dollars is necessary so as to minimize future instances such as this.

Comparison of Gwinnett and Atlanta reactions to tax increases

While I have been largely out of the loop recently, I did follow the Gwinnett property tax hike battle.  I want to take a moment to note how pleased I am that my fellow Gwinnett residents were so upset over this proposal.  In this new era of big government, big spending, and likely higher taxes, it was refreshing to see that Washington's line of thinking won't fly in Gwinnett.

On this topic, I found this article in the AJC comparing the reaction of City of Atlanta residents to Gwinnett County residents over similar property tax increase proposals to be very telling.

Kudos, Gwinnett!  Remain vigilant and keep our elected officials accountable!

Hearings on Gwinnett schools budget

The Gwinnett County School Board has scheduled two public hearings for its 2010 budget.  The first meeting is tonight at the Instructional Support Center on Old Peachtree Road in Suwanee.  The second meeting will be May 14 before the board meeting where a vote will be taken on the budget.

The big point of emphasis here is that, despite growth in the budget of 5.4 percent, the board managed to avoid raising property taxes.  With the county portion of Gwinnett property tax bills expected to increase, this is good news.  In an ideal world, newcomers to Gwinnett who are driving the need for nine new schools should have to shoulder the bulk of the cost to build these facilities.  Furthermore, families with children enrolled in a Gwinnett school should pay a nominal tax surcharge to reflect the greater value they receive from the school system.  Nevertheless, holding the line on tax rates is the most we can realisticly expect, so kudos to the school board for not dipping further into taxpayer wallets.

For Gwinnett, it's back to the minors

I am a Gwinnettian.  Though technically not a native (I lived in Dekalb County for my first four years), I have lived in Gwinnett virtually my entire life.  If I did not have a soft spot for my county, I would not have bought my first home here nor would I invest my time in publishing the Buzz.  That being said, once I step foot outside of Georgia, I am an Atlantan.  Someone in Alabama or Florida neither knows nor cares where Gwinnett is but they sure know Atlanta.  In fact, even here in our own city, the concept of "Atlanta native" is far more commonly heard than "<insert county> native."  The point is this: as much as I care about Gwinnett County, Gwinnett is simply a part of the whole that is Atlanta, which is a top tier U.S. and - and by virtue of the 1996 Olympics - international city.  However, last night, with the first home game of the Gwinnett Braves, our county symbolically took a step back from this illustrious association.

For my entire life, Atlanta has been a major league city, home to a minimum of three major professional sports teams at any given time.  Unfortunately, Gwinnett apparently thought being part of such a city was not sufficient and, as such, decided to hitch its wagon to a minor league horse.  In doing so, Gwinnett has attempted to more closely identify itself with second-tier cities such as Durham, NC, Louisville, KY, Norfolk, VA, and Syracuse, NY.  For these cities, a AAA minor league baseball team is a big deal for they do not have the luxury of being home to a major league franchise and all that brings.  So, what can a minor league baseball team bring to Gwinnett County?  Do our county commissioners, who crammed the stadium through, fancy themselves as "mayors" of a twin "city" to Atlanta?  Surely not!  Gwinnett is hardly Ft. Worth to Atlanta's Dallas.  Gwinnett has many positive aspects, but it is merely a suburban county whose identity is largely tied to being a part of the Atlanta metro area.  Unlike a city seeking a major league sports franchise, a minor league team can bring little cachet to Gwinnett County.  Thus, the only significant benefit that the Gwinnett Braves can bring to our county is simply that of another entertainment option.

While being an entertainment outlet is not a wholly unworthy cause for an organization's existence, this benefit is significantly degraded when one recalls how the team's stadium was shoved down Gwinnett taxpayers' throats.  Gwinnett County cannot build a police precinct or a school without a referendum on the tax initiative funding such a project.  However, Gwinnett commissioners committed the taxpayer to an excessive investment for Gwinnett Stadium with a mere commission vote.  This expenditure looks all the more foolhardy in light of a looming tax increase due to the inability of the commission to balance the county budget.  This is precisely the kind of fiscal irresponsibility by elected officials that tea parties across the country are protesting.  Maybe the next Atlanta Tea Party should be in the parking lot of the Gwinnett Justice and Administration Center!

So when the G(overnment-funded) Braves took the field last night at the sparkling Gwinnett (Taxpayers') Stadium, rather than being a great moment for Gwinnett, it was a moment to memorialize government excess and to lament the symbolic downgrade of our county from part of a world class city to a second-tier minor league community.  For Gwinnett, April 17, 2009 will be the day that Gwinnett County was sent back to the minors.

Here comes a property tax increase

Think you pay enough of your hard earned money to Gwinnett County?  Well get ready to pony up more.  The Gwinnett County Commission has passed the 2009 budget and there is a gaping $62 million hole to plug.  To its credit, the board has already cut many expenses such as the Gwinnett Glows Fourth of July fireworks display and turning off the underpass lights at I-85 and Sugarloaf Parkway.  But the gap remains and with commissioners refusing to use the "rainy day fund," the only option to balance the budget is to raise your taxes.

Apparently, Tuesday's meeting was rather contentious with Commissioner Mike Beaudreau and Commission Chairman Charles Bannister verbally sparring.  Gwinnett Views reports that the video of the meeting is worth watching.  I have not done so yet, so I can only go by news reports.  Though I have been very critical of Beaudreau, the commissioner did claim that his alternate proposal would have balanced the budget without the need for a tax increase.  While I cannot speak to the accuracy of this claim, Beaudreau is to be commended for his fiscal conservatism with regards to the budget.  Of course Chairman Bannister had a valid point about the timing of Beaudreau's 11th-hour proposal being too late.  Who is right?  Who knows, but ultimately Beaudreau claimed that three capital project cut from his district were politically motivated.  Makes you want to go and check out that video for sure!

The main takeaway is that the budget as passed is still in search of $62 million and that is going to hit you right in your wallet.  Bob Griggs at TalkGwinnett.com has posted an in-depth budget analysis and concludes that an increase of 2.06 mills will be necessary.  This translates into $144 more in property tax for a $200,000 home.  To a degree, I can accept that an increase is necessary when county revenues are down due to a weak economy.  However, when there is wasteful government spending that results in taxpayers having to dip a little further into their pocketbooks to cover the excesses of politicians, a tax increase is a much more bitter pill to swallow.  

Bob lists several examples of expenditures that could have been eliminated from the budget and apparently were not.  While I do not agree that all of the items are pork - an efficiency study could have a positive return down the road and software licenses may be critical to a certaindepartment, for example, - when the county is spending over a million dollars on a "green" initiative and $300,000 on a tennis center, supporting our officials on this vote is difficult.  This fails to even mention the $31 million the commission wasted on a minor league baseball stadium last year.  The total pledged to the Gwinnett Braves stadium amounts to half of the 2009 budget deficit.  If those funds had not been spend on an unneeded minor league baseball team and were available to offset decreased county revenue, your tax increase would be only $72.  I wonder if Commissioner Bert Nasuti would like to justify that cost to his constituents today?