Ed Robinson

Red Petrovs

Ed Robinson is our choice for District 6.  Ed has been involved in local environmental protection efforts for many years, serving on the Community Tree Council and promoting the protection of the ACC greenbelt.  Environmental issues are a prominent aspect of his platform, including a stronger tree protection ordinance, expanded controls on mass grading, strengthening the transit system, reducing emissions from the ACC government’s vehicle fleet and facilities, and improving water conservation rates.  We believe that Ed’s strong and demonstrated commitment to protecting our environment will benefit all Athenians.

Elton Dodson

Mike Hamby

Commissioner Elton Dodson has decided not to run for re-election. Grow Green wants to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to Elton for his service to our community. He has been a dedicated and reliable supporter of environmental protection for Athens, and we wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

1. If future local budget cuts become necessary, given the direction of the economy, where would you suggest such cuts be made?

1.  We need to make ACC a zero emissions government by using  capital funds to reduce recurring revenue costs associated with fuel and utilities.

2. prioritized hiring on a 2 loss for 1 hire basies.

3.  Means testing of facilites and combining redundant facilities.

4.  Decreases in some services such as frequency of road re-paving.

The first place I would start is by looking at expenditures for consultants.  Although it is difficult to determine how much is actually spent by A-CC on consultants, because some public works projects routinely include engineering consulting fees as part of the project, I do know that we spend plenty of money on them.  For example, Leisure Services spent $50,000 (I was given that number by a sitting commissioner, by the way) on a consultant to get citizen input on their long-range plan.  I attended one of those meetings, and frankly, I couldn’t understand why Leisure Services was incapable of receiving input without such high-priced help.  Another example:  We are now spending consulting fees to determine the size and scope required for a new jail, and I wonder how much of that is being spent more for political cover than for true consulting work.  (Do we really need some outsider to tell us that we should consider preventing people from having to go to jail in the first place?)  Also, assuming that the use of a consultant is absolutely imperative, we should put all consulting contracts out for competitive bid and, when possible, and if they are competitive, source the work locally.  This practice, which should be routine, is not always followed.

Second, I would ask each department head for budget cuts of no less than 5% (more, if economic circumstances so dictate.)  I have found in my business career that making such a demand creates initial resistance and symptoms of denial (“You’re asking us to cut muscle, not fat!”), but when push comes to shove most people can find quite creative ways to find those types of cuts without significantly affecting their departmental performance adversely.

Finally, if circumstances were to deteriorate beyond this level, I would ask for citizen input on what services they consider necessary, as opposed to “nice to have.”  Then, using that input as a guide, ask the Manager’s Office to cut services in those “nice to have” areas until the budget has been balanced.

The budgeting process should look at the efficiency of government to determine costs that can be eliminated.  Our budget should be built around what is needed for the upcoming period, regardless of whether the budget is higher or lower than the previous one.  The Commission should decide if budget and operating goals are reflected in the document and they and the Manager should be held accountable for meeting these goals.  Moreover, the Commission should be involved in departmental budget reviews so that proficiency for service and a demand for service is examined and met.

The process should encourage departments to develop a complete picture of what their program actually needs to cost and not just what it has been costing.  By approaching the budget based on needs and benefits, departments have a greater responsibility to determine cost-effective ways to improve their own operations, and doing this may help them identify cost cutting measures.

This new type of process may also create a more efficient allocation of resources and perhaps open up a budgeting collaboration effort between departments to identify areas where sharing of equipment or personnel is possible. 

We should fully explore the benefits of a new budgeting system aimed at lowering costs by avoiding blanket increases or even decreases to a prior period's budget.   If implemented this type of system--one that justifies expenditures—will certainly be time consuming to put together for departments, but it is worth taking a look at if it helps identify ways to save money.   We could possibly do this type of budget inventory, or looking at and justifying each expense from the bottom up on a two year rotating basis for each department.  The in between years could be used to identify adjustments needed.  

Until we can fully identify a new approach to the budgeting process, we can work within our existing structure to develop ways that save money and create efficiency.  For example, it might be worth having a policy whereby all non-public safety and non-essential positions undergo a 60-day hiring freeze when jobs become open.  We should look to see if the short-term costs of offering an early retirement package helps create any long-term savings.  We should take a look at our overall consulting fees to justify having that added cost.  And, we should look for more ways that offer lease-to-own options with regards to equipment purchasing and even government buildings such as jails.

The budget should also reflect our commitment to fighting poverty here in Athens, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it will help increase our revenue by having more people with more resources to invest in our community.  If successful investments are made in creating jobs, improving transportation, and having a safe and healthy community, then we will have earned a return on this investment by improving lives and our local economy.        

Actually, they are completely related.  Poor environmental stadards raise costs elsewhere, for instance, the Storm Water bill is needed to offset poor storm water management in earlier developments.  Someone has to pay for the runoff.  All development must be done with a close eye to the environmental costs because it is the taxpayers that will ultimately have to pay for it.

I'm really not ready to make any environmental "concessions" to support local growth in the sense that this implies that dollars trump everything.

But all development does involve some consessions.  Even  recycling facilities concentrate waste and produce toxic run-off.  However, I will not support industrial or other development that produces an undue degredation of our environmental quality here in Athens.

Fundamentally, I don’t think that environmental and economic concerns need to be in opposition to one another.  Responsible people (and businesses) will make responsible decisions, particularly if there are sound reasons (such as a drought) and/or financial incentives to do so.  For example, look at the way our citizens and the business community have responded during the water crisis.  Yes, there was some original complaining about water restrictions, but once it became clear that the crisis was real and not contrived, we were able to conserve water better than almost all communities in the state.  For a business, conserving water and energy, especially in periods of rising prices, simply makes sense, and most responsible businesses will do so in their own best interests.

As far as environmental concessions go, I don’t think we need to be thinking in those terms.  We, as a community, need to decide what kinds of businesses and industries are going to be acceptable to us, including any environmental issues that any new companies may bring with them.  If we can convene the various disparate elements in our community and get them to logically discuss the options in front of us – the need for new, good-paying jobs (what happens, for example, if we all of a sudden start graduating 90% of our high school seniors, instead of 65%?); water restrictions; air quality issues, such as being part of the Atlanta area smog restrictions; safety considerations, etc., then I believe we can use a “getting to yes” negotiating strategy to determine what types of businesses and industries we should be trying to attract to Athens.  If we did that, it would help our economic development folks narrow down the scope of the businesses they would be trying to attract, which I believe would increase our chances of success.

This is an unfortunate misconception that must be put to rest once and for all.  Not only are there numerous viable environmental industries which have the very real potential to spur our local economy, there is also significant evidence available to point out that investments in the local environment can produce long-term economic success. 

The investments our community has made in preserving green space, protecting our historical structures, encouraging alternative transportation, and detailing a plan to conserve water usage and protect our tree canopy have resulted in a more livable and healthy community.  These investments have begun to pay off, and that’s evident by our community receiving high marks as one that is friendly to entrepreneurs and small businesses.  Environmental protection is also good long term planning for public health related to air and water quality.

No one says they want to live in a city packed with wall-to-wall strip malls.  No one says they want to be in a place where they’re stuck in traffic for an hour or so each day.  No one says they want to live in a community where they can’t walk their children to school.  But they often do because, in Georgia at least, that is typically the only option they’ve got.

That’s not the case in Athens.  We’ve worked on laying the groundwork for a community that is different from others by protecting our resources, conserving our water, and balancing our needs with our vision of Athens as a healthy, livable community.

There is no need to assume that the environment can’t become the economy either.  The emerging green economy and resulting research in alternative energy, biofuels and renewable products has opened a door to where our community could – and should – go.  Athens-Clarke County should generate economic projects that offer competitive and fair wages to address its pressing poverty problem.  We also have the opportunity to partner with our neighbors and position ourselves at the forefront of this new economy, which will create new jobs in our backyard.

We’ll create those jobs on our terms by identifying the type of new businesses we want to attract and by showing them what Athens offers. 

Will some concessions have to be made?  In some areas with regard to some projects, arguably so.  But those concessions must be balanced between evaluating the health and welfare of the community as a whole and the immediate and long-term benefits with the proposed projects.  A development that violates our tree ordinance and wipes out wetland space without a plan to adequately mitigate those credits in the immediate geographic area is unacceptable, but one that acts in good faith to operate within the existing framework of our environmental standards and respects our community values is one that should be discussed and evaluated.

Government’s job is to act as an honest broker between the green and business communities and to find solutions that allow these two interests to work as partners, not opponents, in bringing more prosperity and a better quality of life to our community.

Make a usable transit system with loop buses.  Continue focusing development inwards.  Follow through on promises to complete a usable bike commuting system.

First, we should consider ways to increase revenue for the transit system.  I believe that the proposal on the table to use “wrap” advertising is a good one.  We might actually be able to use this to our advantage, because bus wrap ads need not be tacky – they can also be attractive and creative.  There are plenty of examples on the Internet for our city administrators to peruse that show some quirky, funky, and humorous examples that would actually add to the personality of Athens, not detract from it.

Second, we should continue what has already been started, with the Transit Director, Butch McDuffie, approaching local industry (especially those in the Athens Industrial Park) for input as to their ridership needs.  To the extent that industry might be willing to subsidize their workers’ transportation needs by providing reduced cost bus passes or getting their workers to take advantage of tax breaks for purchasing those passes on a pre-tax basis, we might be able to make routes to the industrial park more viable.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing auto commuting miles, which would be helpful toward reducing emissions and making us more compliant to the anticipated smog restrictions we may be facing.

Third, we must do everything we can to run the fleet as effectively as possible.  This should include everything from routine preventive maintenance to exploring new (but proven) technologies to run the fleet more efficiently.

Finally, we should, of course, consider fare increases.  Transit systems, while not expected to break even on fare revenues, certainly must be fiscally responsible and be aware of the fact that not all operating costs can be absorbed, but some must inevitably be passed on to the users of the service.

I think the consideration of selling advertisements on our buses, with that revenue being dedicated toward public transit, is a very smart first step, and the commission should be applauded.  I do wish they had pursued the wrap-around advertisements that had the potential to bring in larger amounts of revenue, and I’m optimistic that’s a next step that can be incorporated into our long-term plans. 

Of course, it also must be noted that even with rising fuel costs, increased ridership will bring in additional revenues as well.

Likewise, it might be worth taking a look at ways to increase ridership that will bring in this additional revenue.  If ridership is more convenient for people and by attracting people to move out of their cars by having more bus stops, increasing service, adding and linking more bike lanes, and creating more park-and-ride options- then riding the bus will be a working alternative for more people.       

A possible option on the table would also be to consider phasing out existing vehicles and replacing them with more fuel-efficient ones.  Several school systems and urban centers have switched to using diesel-electric hybrid buses which often get more than 50 percent better mileage per gallon, and this is an option that should be evaluated as a long-term solution, as well as other fuel efficient transportation options.  And, a plan that hopefully will be coming before the Georgia State Legislature again this year is for local communities to vote on a TSPLOST that will allow for resources to help with local transportation needs.     

Having alternative ways to move about in Athens is not only good for our environment, but it of course provides a resource to people who are working to get out of poverty and improve their own lives.  We should aggressively pursue getting the necessary resources—via grants, advertising, and TSPLSOST—that will make this vital service more available to our citizens.

1. Public - as part of my fiscal plan, I am proposing a a 4 year plan to make ACC a zero emissions government.  By using capital funds (especiall SPLOST money) to reduce energy use, we reduce the fiscal demand on recurring revenues.

2.  Make the transit system cheaper and easier to use.

As mentioned above, the government can explore the use of alternative energy sources, as long as they remain fiscally sound solutions and use proven technologies.   Since the University of Georgia’s Complex Carbohydrate group is one of the lead agencies in the country pursuing the generation of fuels from switchgrass, we need to keep in close touch with them, perhaps to the point of volunteering some of our vehicles for their test fleet, once that comes to pass.  Appropriate uses of solar arrays to heat water should be high on the priority list, as should the use of sustainable building practices when considering new construction (such as the jail, for example.)  I make the distinction of using proven technologies only – except in small-scale pilot or experimental applications – quite advisedly, since I don’t believe the county government should be experimenting with untried technologies using the public purse.

As to the private sector – probably the best thing that the government can do is to act as a sales and marketing “agency” to tout the need and viability of energy conservation, and, of course to lead by example, as I have suggested above.  Our local citizens have shown they can be quite responsible (see the water crisis, for example) if they are convinced that the need is real and that there are practical solutions that can also help them save money.

Finally, and this is a pet peeve of mine, I will admit, I would try and do something to better synchronize the traffic lights on our main streets.  I hate to think of all the energy wasted, and emissions created, by the cars idling at our stoplights.  I’m told that our lights are synchronized to the one-way north/south routes in Athens’ downtown area (Lumpkin and Hull Sts.)  Unless I see a traffic study that would prove me wrong, I think we would be better served to synchronize the main east/west traffic artery (Atlanta Highway/Broad/Oak/Lexington) lights, because I believe those roads carry far more traffic, and their synchronization would result in a much greater energy savings and reduction in emissions.  If you synchronized them to a known speed – such as a steady state pace of 35 mph – you might actually reduce the speeding that is quite common on those streets.  I would think that people would soon figure out that proceeding at a steady 35 mph and catching all of the lights from GA Square Mall all the way to downtown would be far preferable to speeding at 50-55 mph in 40-45 mph zones just to try and catch the next light.

One of the primary ways we burn so much energy comes from the lighting and heating of our buildings, and we should take a bold step by reevaluating when our public offices are open for business.  Much of the energy usage stems from the start-up of those facilities each morning, and we might be able to reduce energy consumption – and increase worker productivity – by keeping some offices closed an additional day per week, while extending those offices’ hours during the four days they’d remain open.   Our Tax Commissioner has already started this in that office, and we should study the effectiveness of it and see how we can apply it to other areas of government.

Another government action that I hope will be considered strongly is the lighting ordinance that will be coming before the commission at the end of the year.  This is a good step in not only impacting the appearance of Athens, but should have a direct impact on the energy usage by our community.

I alluded to this point on an earlier question, but I’d like to see Athens-Clarke County make a concerted push to replace all of its vehicles with either hybrid vehicles or other types of alternative fuel vehicles.

And, I also think that we should look into how other governments around the country are saving money by analyzing energy costs.   Many have looked at the kind of light bulbs they’re using, to more forward-looking avenues such as solar panels and wind turbines.  As a matter of fact, a recent USA Today article spotlighted how Boston Logan International Airport is using wind turbines as a way to save money and energy (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-09-16-green-airports_N.htm).   

1. A graded pricing system on water usage.  (The more you use, the higher the price gets).

2.  Set a profit cap on the Water and Sewer fund so that the city pays refunds if the water and sewer system makes too much money.  (presently, it makes money, so the reward is to push more water use, not lower it)

3.  Adopt policies that do not punish water conservation..  The present late stage drought policies require absolute percentage cuts, so wasters during regular water usage periods have plenty to save but savers have to make real cuts.

I don’t consider myself to be an expert at water usage reduction, so I’m not sure I’m qualified to pontificate on this subject.  However, I believe that smart people, working together for a common goal, and understanding the needs of others and taking them into account, can accomplish some pretty incredible feats.  I would propose almost a OneAthens approach to the subject - that we engage in a community brainstorming activity to share creative ways in which water usage can be reduced.  I would include everyone in the process – large and small business, the universities and colleges, the hospitals, the industries, private citizens, anyone who wishes to participate.  The ideas generated by this community conversation can then be championed by the organizing agencies, and incentives put in place to encourage their implementation in the community.  My fundamental belief is that the proper use of incentives to achieve a stated goal trumps almost any mandated solutions that you can try to impose on people.

The sacrifice made by our citizens during that time of crisis was one we can all be proud of, and it helped start a new dialogue about how we can be good stewards of our most precious resource.  We need to protect the quantity and quality of our water resources.

I know our government is checking on water lines that may be leaking or on the verge of it, and we must make a stronger effort to stop any leaks as water travels to the consumers.

Now, I also know our Commission worked hard on developing the Conservation Pricing that is now in place.  However, the punitive costs residents are facing with this new system may not create the type of willing conservation that is desired.   Perhaps we need to reexamine a pricing measure that would look more closely at tying the price of this resource to the availability of our water resources to attain the type of conservation efforts that might be more effective. 

Conservation efforts are key to making sure we have an adequate water supply, and steps to require or, in some cases, incentivize the installation of low-flow faucets, toilets and showerheads in new construction and remodels can reduce our consumption as well. 

In addition, one of the more difficult discussions we’ll have to have will require us taking a long, hard look at our existing infrastructure and construction.  The more developments we approve, the greater a strain we will place on our water resources.  Coupled with the fact that we have an abundance of vacant housing units during these uncertain economic times, we cannot continue to approve large-scale, multi-family developments without taking into account their impact on water quantity and quality, water usage, as well as land use.