Mayor: Outsourcing cost effective for PTC

Now that the bond and veto right issues with WASA have been resolved, I have called for advertising and interviews to fill two vacant board seats (resigned), one alternate (resigned) and one expiring term.

This is a time to consider who you want on the WASA board. As the recent issues have shown, it does matter, a great deal.

Now, regarding Mr. Bradshaw. He should really fact-check before he submits opinion pieces to The Citizen.

A reminder to all that Mr. Bradshaw is a real estate broker and developer. He owns property he wants annexed into Peachtree City, zoned for housing and for the city to build the main road for him.

Outsourcing has, in fact, proven very cost effective to Peachtree City.

Does anyone have any complaint about my pushing to go public/private on the Tennis Center to Cannongate? Has it not reduced expenses over $200K a year to the city?

How about pushing to get The Fred out of the traditional city government structure and hire an actual skilled amphitheater manager? That has saved over $300K a year.

Or, ending the Tourism Association and creating the independent Convention and Visitors Bureau to partner with for promotion of the city? The city cannot legally do that function on its own.

The CVB pays for the fireworks. It also provides a way for the hotel-motel tax to be collected, contributes over $100K to the city coffers a year and promotes functions and events to be held in Peachtree City. These activities generate income to local businesses and sales tax revenues.

Contrary to what Mr. Bradshaw says on landscaping, we received a lot of complaints when Peachtree City employed its own landscaping crew.

The annuals, etc., were discontinued in 2008 while they were still employed. The cost of annuals was far to high to justify continuing the practice. They looked pretty, but we could not afford them.

Nor could we keep paying to create fancy entries for individual developments. Especially when many were willingly taking care of their own.

We switched mowing of Ga. Highway 74 in 2008. No complaints.

Another simple fact is grass just does not grow as much during drought years. We cannot force grass to look better when brown, dry and wilted. Plain and simple.

The mowing cycle was reduced when we still employed our own. So, when more rain came along, of course the grass grew more while being mowed less. So we increased the number of mowings, but still had to do so within budget constraints.

We also found areas were being mowed that we should have never been mowing. In example, we don’t mow private property, but had been, at taxpayer expense. That stopped.

So, many of the issues were never about who was doing the mowing, but came from management errors, budget constraints, the amount of rain, etc.

That is one of those priority areas the Needs Assessment Committee will be asking your opinion.

As for the increase in the Public Works budget, that is easy to explain. We merged much of the grounds, building and other work being done under Recreation into Public Works. That saved money by decreasing management and streamlining work.

Regarding the eliminating of some personnel from Recreation, it has resulted in more efficiency, fewer complaints and less cost. The real issue here, for Mr. Bradshaw, is who was dismissed.

Now, for the true meat and potatoes of his article’s intention.

Scott Bradshaw definitely has a self interest, conflict of interest and financial motivation in this arena. Remember he is a real estate broker and developer with land.

Yep, outsourcing the Building Department inspections did save money. It stopped paying health, retirement and other benefits, long term.

As for SAFEbuilt getting 90 percent, that is very misleading. They received 90 percent for commercial and 80 percent for residential.

If you Internet search SAFEbuilt, you will see the 80/20 split is the norm across the nation.

On the city percentage, we still have city expenses in the Community Development Department relating to inspections, permits, etc.

Also not said was there was a year review time period placed on the agreement.

The year passed, it was reviewed, the old contract was canceled, a new one bid and SAFEbuilt won the contract, yet again, but this time with 70 percent across the board due to the review.

There was no foot dragging by City Council on following the law, as no law was broken. In fact, I never heard a word from Home Builders Association attorney.

So there was no pressure, caving or any other claimed reaction or reasoning by us in the new contract.

As for a cozy relationship between SAFEbuilt and me. Really? Since when? Who said that, Mr. Bradshaw? Was it because during the joint meeting of city and association (you sat next to me) where a certain council member accused SAFEbuilt of stealing windfall profit and was going to get it overturned?

Am I being accused because I intervened, saying there was no evidence of any such stealing, but would follow up and look into it?

I informed the rest of council of what was said, handled it, then we moved on because nothing was found amiss.

Are these the reasons I am being falsely accused, as in politically, yet again?

Cozy is a false accusation, period. This year, outside of SAFEbuilt showing up at random council meetings, I have been around them two times, total. Neither were private and both had other elected, city workers and others in attendance.

Staff researched and brought SAFEbuilt forward to us. There was no contact with them in any way until they did so.

Stooping low, there, Mr. Bradshaw.

Council spit in the face of local builders and their clients by the higher fees? Again, really?

As a councilman, when we revised the impact fees, Scott Bradshaw and others cried foul.

When reminded the fees were way too low and the property owners were absorbing the costs, the argument was it increased what they had to charge the homebuyer.

He didn’t really care about the property tax impact. It was all about building more homes and making money.

Same here with the inspection fees. The old structure didn’t cover the costs, but it was okay to come out of the taxpayer pockets.

So, when he notes they have increased and are more in line with other cities, that is correct. They are based on a nationally used formula that calculates a proper fee structure.

No, Mr. Bradshaw, we did not privatize Senior Services nor did Debbie Britt leaving Fayette Senior Services nullify the agreement. It is a public/private relationship.

Yes, we are updating the buildings, since we still own them. The need was already known and on the books for years. We first had to determine the end results before proceeding.

Mr. Bradshaw neglected to mention serious repairs and renovations are also occurring at the neighboring Fred box office and cast house.

You cannot name a single privatization that has occurred. Nothing has been sold to a private concern.

I also note you make the blanket statement council has again raised taxes.

Fact is it was a 3-2 both in 2010 and 2012 to raise taxes. In both cases Fleisch, Learnard and Imker voted in the increase.

Where is your comment about my objections and forming the Needs Assessment Committee because of how the majority has been doing millage and budgets? Why the blanket condemnation?

Simple, because you want people elected who will go back to the failed “Build it and they will come” mode of thinking and voting. Building so developers can make money.

Well, that thinking has given us over 1,400 new homes on the books already. Phase III of Cedarcroft is underway. I just signed the revised plat for the next set of homes to be built in Centennial. From the 2007 West Village Annexation we have about 1,400 homes already approved.

Now, we have another developer wanting to add 90 more homes near Wilshire.

You know I am for planned growth, meaning growth that actually fits a community’s needs and desires. So, we have very different outlooks on how to do development.

As for the statement we have an effective and efficient county government. Once more, really? Did you fail to note the five commissioners you just praised have all lost reelection bids by sizable margins? That they were extremely developer friendly?

Ah, yes, you did admit it by criticizing the new commissioners coming on board, who are not.

Your bias and agenda is showing.

Indeed, enough said!

Don Haddix, mayor

Peachtree City, Ga.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Just one more year of this.......

...going to be a long year until the November 2013 PTC election.

Husband and Fat...
Husband and Father of 2's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/23/2012
I have a suggestion

Lets see how "part drunk" we can get over the next year

Every time he writes a stupid letter like this, we all need to take a shot of our favorite adult beverage. It just might help us cope, lol.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Husband: We would all need new livers in a year

I don't know if any human body could withstand that much. You know those letters will be coming fast and furious next year as the election gets closer and Don feels compelled to criticize everyone and everything in his endless blame-game.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr Haddix and Gibberish

Gibberish is a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but carries no actual meaning. This meaning has also been extended to meaningless text or gobbledygook. The common theme in gibberish statements is a lack of literal sense, which can be described as a presence of nonsense.

Congratulations on your excellent example, but you never disappoint in your literary skills.

It must have been that excellent training you received in military "intelligence".

Husband and Fat...
Husband and Father of 2's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/23/2012
Mr. Mayor, Please print this out before your next letter

Please tell me that you accidently hit the send button before you had someone proofread your letter.

Please use this format, next time you issue a letter to the editor. I can't take this ..... any more.

The Introductory Paragraph
The first paragraph and will generally outline the purpose for the letter and the reason that the letter is being sent. This can address any issues that are outstanding and is used to set the tone for the entire rest of the letter. In this first paragraph, the summary of the letter can be found and the intentions which will be displayed through the rest of the letter should be outlined. From the first paragraph of the letter, the introductory paragraph, the individual should be able to note the tone of the letter.

The Body
The body of the letter will expand upon the introductory paragraph and the individual can extend their thoughts and feelings further when it comes to the letter. The body of the letter can be anywhere from multiple pages for personal letters, to one page or two pages for most business letters and other types of proposals.

The Closing
In the closing of the letter, the individual will close the letter and finish any thoughts that have been mentioned. The closing of the letter comes in various forms from yours truly, for those individuals that are familiar with one another, to a traditional sincerely which is a versatile closing that can be used in a variety of letters detailing many situations.

Oh, My favorite paragraph:
"Also not said was there was a year review time period placed on the agreement"

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Your favorite is pretty good, Husband - and another-Wed PM

but this one here is a close second:
"So there was no pressure, caving or any other claimed reaction or reasoning by us in the new contract."

I fear these things actually have meaning for the writer. We are treated to a window into his mind. A window that needs some heavy curtains.

Nice try on your formatting lesson, but how do you expect him to get past step #1 - namely the purpose and reason for the letter? What possible reason or justification can there be for something like this?

Even if pumpkin proofreads and edits out the useless stuff, we are not left with much.

Wed. PM - updated - another Haddix gem.

"Regarding the eliminating of some personnel from Recreation, it has resulted in more efficiency, fewer complaints and less cost. The real issue here, is for Mr. Bradshaw, who was dismissed"

You dope - read what you write.

Well bucko, I don't think it was Mr. Bradshaw that was dismissed, but instead Randy Gaddo who may and should run against you and kick your little, evil, low-hanging butt out of office. Or Bradshaw can do it. Either way, things get better.

pumpkin
pumpkin's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/19/2009
MUDCAT

You truly are a sad person.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Ummmm, Cal, I usually like freedom of speech, Butttttttttt

this Butt is embarrassing beyond belief. Please don't let him post anything on here longer than 50 words. Please Cal, this is serious. Normal everyday people read this stuff and when they then realize this dip is actually our mayor - they gonna judge us as being a town of fools. Pleaase Cal, stop letting this silly little man express his views. Once in a while you can suppress freedom of speech if it serves a greater cause.

Please?

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
The "no complaints" claim is bovine excrement

I know that for a fact.

Now, how much have you repaid our fair City for your $10,000 debacle?

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Nice try Mayor

A very recent article by Mr Bradshaw explicitly stated that he was not in favor of Peachtree City annexing his property on the east side of town beyond Lexington Park, but somehow our addled Mayor has to establish the fact that as a developer Mr Bradshaw's concerns are totally personal. Anyone who has known Scott knows that nothing could be further from the truth.

In rereading Scott's article I simply did not see where our Mayor was mentioned, but for whatever reason Mr Haddix seems to feel slighted. His diatribe is pretty much like the ones he submitted after his censure, his being tossed off the ARC, and his use of public funds to pay for his loss of a personal lawsuit against the city he is supposed to represent. Don, we understand that all of this can not be your fault simply because if we had listened to you Peachtree City would be a total utopia. Fat chance!

The facts Mr Mayor are simple: The city under your term has remained in decline; Your cat fights with fellow Council Members have been an embarrassment for the five plus years you've held public office; Morale throughout the city staff continues to decline; Spending and budgeting for the city continues to rise above all time highs; and your credibility speaks for itself.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Mr. Mayor-more proof you are just not qualified

I read Mr. Bradshaw's letter to the editor which was well written and addressed selected issues. Mr. Bradshaw was professional and respectful but laid out serious concerns.

If you disagree with Mr. Bradshaw's facts, you should address those facts.

Instead you launched into a personal attack on him with inaccurate information about his "personal interest" to some how attempt to discredit him. You continue to play political games and use these pitiful tactics over and over again.

Sorry, but you are just not qualified for this job. It's clear you lack leadership skills as shown by your inability to build consensus with city council and exhibited by your continued attacks on citizens such as Mr. Bradshaw who raise concerns and issues.

I love the anti-developer rhetoric too...NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER DEVELOPER WANTING TO PUT 90 HOMES NEAR WILSHIRE...

Mr. Mayor, you wanted to put Low Temp, a factory there! INDUSTRIAL! not INSTITUTIONAL! And, now, thanks to you we have a Racetrack where a Kohls should have gone. All of this is compounded by the 2+ year war you led on DAPTC that dragged on instead of working with council to find a solution. You dug in and tried to replace council and the city suffered due to your political games and 0 leadership skills. Valuable time lost on economic development.

Your anti-developer rhetoric, lack of leadership skills, political games on economic development are slowly killing Peachtree City. This city can not take 4 more years of this!

Recent Comments