The Vote That Failed...
Tuesday night's Macon City Council meeting may have exposed a much larger problem than a disagreement over an ordinance.
Former Mayor Tony Petre addressed the council and challenged the decision to combine Macon's proposed new fresh-water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant into a single question on the November ballot. Petre told the council that, based on his reading of the Macon City Code, combining the two projects would deprive citizens of the right to vote on each project individually.
The council then considered a newly drafted ordinance addressing the combination. The vote was three in favor, three opposed and two members absent. The ordinance failed.
That leaves an important question for Macon voters: What does the failed ordinance mean for the November ballot?
Making an $80 Million Dollar Decision
Macon is considering an infrastructure program involving up to $80 million in revenue bonds. Approximately $50 million has been associated with the proposed new water treatment facility and approximately $30 million with wastewater improvements.
This is a major financial commitment involving long-term debt, construction, engineering, contracts and higher utility rates. That is why strong administrative oversight is so important.
Yet Macon continues without a permanent City Administrator.
The Empty Chair at City Hall
Macon's former City Administrator was removed from office last year. Although the city has used interim administrative leadership, the position has not been permanently filled. The city's website currently lists the position as “TBD.”
That matters because the City Administrator is far more than another employee at City Hall. Macon's official job description assigns the position responsibility for protecting the City's financial interests, ensuring fiscal solvency and security, complying with legal and procedural requirements, administering the budget, preparing financial reports, providing information to the City Council and participating in risk-management activities.
With Macon considering an $80 million infrastructure program, those responsibilities take on considerable importance.
I am not suggesting that having a permanent City Administrator would have prevented Tuesday night's controversy. There is no way to know that. But I believe Macon should have strong permanent administrative leadership in place before making a financial commitment of this magnitude.
What I Have Witnessed
I have attended the last three City Council meetings, and what I have witnessed concerns me.
There has been confusion surrounding ordinances and the process by which they are being considered. I have also seen questions arise about information concerning the proposed utility-rate increase of approximately $52 per month for a residential customer using 4,000 gallons of water.
How was that number calculated? What financing assumptions were used? What happens if the eventual interest rate or construction cost is higher than projected?
Those are basic questions that taxpayers should be able to answer before voting on an $80 million proposal.
One Ballot Question or Two?
Petre's argument deserves a clear response from the city.
If Macon's City Code requires citizens to vote on these projects separately, then combining them changes the choice being presented to voters. Someone could support the new water plant while opposing the wastewater project, or the reverse, but a combined question would not allow that distinction.
The answer should come directly from the City Code, the ordinances already adopted, the ordinance that failed Tuesday night and the actual ballot language. Macon voters should not have to guess.
Why Not April 2027?
There may be another option.
Macon could use the additional months between now and April 2027 to hire a qualified permanent City Administrator, review the financing assumptions, examine the engineering and contracts, settle the ballot question and clearly explain the proposed rate increases.
If that process results in two separate ballot questions in April 2027, I don't believe that should automatically be viewed as failure.
Sometimes slowing down is responsible government.
The need to replace Macon's aging water and wastewater facilities isn't going to disappear because the city takes several additional months to make sure the process is correct.
Get It Right
Macon is facing an important decision, but urgency should not replace due diligence.
The City Council should aggressively pursue a qualified permanent City Administrator and give that person the responsibility of helping ensure that the city's financial and administrative interests are protected.
The citizens deserve to understand how the proposed $52 monthly increase was calculated. They deserve a clear explanation of the legal questions surrounding the combined ballot proposal. And they deserve confidence that the city has followed its own rules before asking them to approve up to $80 million in bonds. Tuesday night's ordinance failed.
Now the city needs to explain what that failure means and what happens next.
Perhaps the best course is not to rush toward November, but to take the time necessary to get the administration, the numbers and the legal questions in order — then let the citizens decide.
Regards Maconites,
R.Dominique - Editor
Facing an issue of this importance requires well thought out and full disclosure. Unfortunately, the process is revealing confusion and a lack of understanding as they try to shoehorn their desires into the citizens future. It's time to back up and restart consideration.
Thank you for what you do