I think you meant a Baby Ruth bar. "...it's in the hole" (C. Spackler)

"Your, yore, you're all idiots." (T.Floyd)

And the fact that when you go for a swim there, you dont even get wet, with all the oil, sheen, butter, juice, floating on top of the water. You get automatic scotch guard when you dive in, dip and flip..Your tax dollars at work...PEACE

Actually the Kedron pool complex is owned and operated by PTC. So we have the great pleasure of subsidizing recreation for both the city and the county. I see nothing wrong with "pay for play". Enjoy your swim.

That makes sense. I have my own pool, so it was really a non-issue and I never bothered to find out what the deal was. Sometimes it's just easier to work on badge requirements at a location other than your own home. If you have kids I'm sure you know exactly what I mean!

I don't know if they are part of the county rec dept or not...about 5 years ago I took my Webelos there to work on a pin and it cost $1 per kid. No problem at all. Two years ago I wanted to take my girl scouts, but was informed that they each would have to join (about $40 per person) if we wanted to use the facility. Whatever.

PTC should not reduce hours at the Library or the Kedron Recreation Center.

PTC is an affluent community by almost any standard. Its citizens can afford to fully support its library and recreational programs. These are two of the very few public facilities in PTC.

And a community that prides itself on its educational system should be embarrassed by the idea of making its library less accessible to its students and other citizens.

Just boggling.

Municipalities don't work like corporations as to budget preparation!

They can claim savings in one department and spend it all in another---yet, still claim the savings.

You can't even tell by looking at the bottom line of expenditures as compared to last year----they have methods of covering it up such as "authorities," reserves, shuffling, overtime pay, donations, drug money, fines, state grants, federal grants, use of attrition, revision of values, changing the mil rates, and of course contract work.

August 2007 is ancient history! If they did this in August of 2008, I would be just as angry about it but things were different in August of 2007.

Is this true?

PTC Council raises approved
Thu, 08/16/2007 - 6:45pmBy: John Munford
Council also votes to avoid appeal of GRTA suit

The Peachtree City Council tonight narrowly approved doubling the salaries of the mayor from $9,000 to $18,000 a year and of council members from $6,000 to $12,000 a year.

And after an executive (closed) session, council voted 4-0-1 to decline filing an appeal of the city's lawsuit against the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, according to city spokesperson Betsy Tyler. A Fulton County Superior Court judge had ruled against the city, which sought to overturn a GRTA requirement to make the bridge over Line Creek for the extension of TDK Boulevard four lanes instead of two.

Council has since voted to abandon the road extension project, which would have linked the city to unincorporated Coweta County and ultimately to a 3,100 home subdivision Coweta has approved.

Councilwoman Cyndi Plunkett abstained from the vote, which was approved by the rest of council.

The raises, approved in a 3-1-1 vote, will not take effect until 2010, which means that none of the current council members will get that raise unless they are re-elected to office. It does mean, however, that anyone elected to council this November would get the raise in the middle of their term.

Council members Stuart Kourajian, Cyndi Plunkett and Steve Boone voted in favor of the raises and new councilman Mike Harman, in his first meeting, voted against the measure. Mayor Harold Logsdon abstained from the vote, saying he was willing to go along with the wishes of the rest of council.

The salary increase will cost an additional $33,000 a year compared to the current amount budgeted for city council and mayor salaries, officials have said.

Only four citizens spoke on the issue: two in favor and two against. Resident Robert Brown said he thought the raises resulted in too large an increase.

Brown also noted that the unintended consequence of raising the salaries is that it will also double the qualifying fee which each candidate must file in order to run for office. Plunkett has said she wanted the salary increases to encourage a wider variety of citizens to run for office because it will make it easier for them to afford working in the part-time position.

Another resident, Beth Pullias, told council that after attending a number of council meetings, she thinks council is “worth every penny” of the raise.

Logsdon noted that he has been silent on the issue because he has been focusing on finding new revenue streams for the city in the past 10-11 months, and he appreciated Plunkett taking charge of the issue and doing all the research.

The city had not changed the salary of mayor and council since 1985.

The motion approved by council included a provision to allow city council members to participate in the city’s tax deferred 457 retirement plan, which will cost the city nothing because the city does not match contributions to that plan. Harman tried to convince council to forget about raising the salaries and only allow council members to join the 457 program, but his effort fell on deaf ears.

Harman noted that having served as a volunteer on the city’s Water and Sewer Authority for some time, he felt uncomfortable voting for a raise of the mayor and council salaries even though he felt it might be the right thing to do.

So, Council raised their own salaries?

Nooooo......no one who voted for the salary increases would get the salary increase unless they get re-elected.

So, who benefits? The double-D's (Don and Doug). Let's see if they raise the issue to have the raise rescinded.

Way to yell fire in a theater, flip!