By D. Jefferson Bean / Staff

Despite earlier predictions of depleted reserves, and mayoral vetoes, the Roswell City Council voted unanimously to pass its proposed fiscal year (FY) 2010-11 budget, cutting only $113,000 out of its second budget reading expense base. Mayor Jere Wood, a bitter critic the city council's "lack of political will" to downsize government, went along with the accounting maneuver to shift $113,000 out of fuel costs.

The decision elicited little public discussion from the near-capacity crowd at City Hall, with Roswell resident Lee Fleck voicing the only objection. Fleck, who unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Jerry Orlans for the Post 5 council seat during the city's 2009 election, reminded the council that cutting $113,000 was little more than an empty gesture.

"Mayor, it was noted that an email was sent by you to the local media, and advised them: 'including the cost to maintain our roads, the deficit for the fiscal year 2011 will exceed $1.9 million.' Is that a correct statement?" Fleck asked. When Mayor Wood confirmed that it was, Fleck requested an explanation.

"I wouldn't use the term deficit, because that has a legal meaning," Wood replied. "But to the extent that projected expenses exceeded projected revenues: that would be a correct statement.  The numbers haven't changed, but the basic principle I was trying to enforce was that I wanted to make sure that our revenues were greater than our expenditures."

"I'm just flabbergasted that this council thinks it's acceptable to spend this amount of reserves," said Fleck. "Anyone in this room who thinks the City of Roswell can function independently from the State of Georgia or the country -- all I can say to them is that a lot of villages must be missing their idiots. It's obvious that when we're using this kind of reserves in such a short period of time, we're not protecting ourselves from the inevitable."  He then pointed out that the state had lost 21 percent of its revenues in the last three years. "I think that should give you great concern about the way you're burning off reserves. You're going to make me look clairvoyant. The taxpayers of this city will be faced with a tax increase or a major cut in services by fiscal year 2013," he said at the conclusion of his statement. Despite his warning, the council approved the budget unanimously.

SMOKERS BEWARE OF THE NEW NANNY CITY: ROSWELL

Having solved the city's financial problems to its satisfaction, the council addressed the problem of smokers besieging local parks. Citing numerous complaints from residents, Councilman Kent Igleheart and Councilwoman Nancy Diamond, the new ordinance's most outspoken proponents, led the charge against the use of tobacco in the city's pristine parks.

According to Igleheart, the city's Recreation Commission found an earlier proposal to establish designated smoking areas too difficult to implement, and recommended an outright ban on the use of all tobacco products in the city's 22 wide park system.

Unlike the budget reading, the ban inspired some public comment -- four against, one in favor -- as well as questions from Wood and Councilwoman Betty Price. The ordinance does not legally require the city to post "No Smoking" signs; and in some cases, park boundaries include sidewalks surrounding the grounds.  Wood noted that a visitor to the city, unaware of the ordinance, might inadvertently violate it. The offense carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail, provisions Wood described as "a problem." 

KENT TO SMOKERS: BUTT OUT

Igleheart dismissed the concern, mentioning that consumption of alcohol is also prohibited in city parks, but few people are cited for the offense -- lack of signage notwithstanding. At present, city policy is for a police officer to warn each perpetrator verbally in such cases, making an arrest only if he/she refuses to comply.

Public comment treated the new ordinance less as a health issue than as a matter of government attempting to legislate lifestyle choices.

"If I were a tourist, and I got fined $1,000 for smoking, I probably wouldn't come back to this town," said David Mastro.  "Think about what it might do to local businesses."

"I find myself in the uncomfortable situation of defending cigarette smokers," said local resident Will Largin. "In a hypothetical situation, what about a parent who's there with their kids at a practice for several hours at a time? If this ordinance passes, you're going to force them to get in their car, leave their children unsupervised, drive off the property to smoke a cigarette, and come back. I think this ordinance is going to be much more far-reaching than what you envision."

In response, Igleheart said he failed to "see the issue as an overriding concern." Although he didn't explicitly equate the physiological and behavioral effects of drunkenness with those of smoking cigarettes, he cited the existing ban on consumption of alcohol within city parks, stating that the principle was the same.

Undeterred by the three-term veteran councilman's rebuttal, Largin continued: "I think the council is taking a step and focusing a law on certain individuals. I'm very uncomfortable with that."

Jim Taudte went further, saying he considered the new ordinance "an abridgement and a removal of our freedom."

"If I'm standing out back of Arts Center West, there's a huge field," he said. "If a person is standing there at 7 a.m. and there's no one else around, why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Smokers are taxpayers, too. 'The Star Spangled Banner' says that we're the land of the free and the home of the brave. Each time government takes away a little more freedom, it threatens other freedoms we have."

Diamond then explained her position: "In the last year I've been following this issue, plenty of people have spent plenty of time trying to find a solution that will work for everybody. And if everybody was responsible, we certainly wouldn't have gone looking for a dog ordinance or a chicken ordinance. Unfortunately, not everyone operates that way."

"I understand about the life liberties and all that," added Councilwoman Becky Wynn, up for re-election to a second term in 2011. "But I also know the side effects of second-hand smoke and smoking. If we're going be the healthy city we would like to be, I don't see where cannot enforce this. I think this is going to be a trend around the country, and I'm supporting this ban."

The No-smoking in the parks or go to jail ordinance passed 5-1.

PRICE: DON'T TREAD ON ME

Councilwoman Betty Price, a physician, cast the sole "nay" vote. "There should be plenty of room in those large parks for smokers and non-smokers alike. This is a clash between the legal rights of adult smokers to smoke outdoors, and the desire of non-smokers to breathe clean air. But it's going beyond that these days. Establishing a smoke-free society may be a very noble, goal, but there are plenty of smokers out there who will resist the attempt to control their actions. I believe everyone enjoys the right to choose between the healthier route of not smoking or the seriously damaging and danger of smoking. I want to discourage the tendency of government to try to control every aspect of our lives, to control the foods we eat, the doctors we see, or the businesses we engage in. As government gets bigger, we, as individuals get smaller. Why perpetuate a 'nanny state' in which someone has to tell someone else how to make personal decisions? Tolerance would go a long way. The Declaration of Independence showed that the American spirit respects the pursuit of happiness. If a person wants to smoke, he should be allowed, unless he's infringing on the happiness of someone else. But the smoker should not defer to those for whom happiness includes the banning of the rights of others," she said.

"I feel like I represent 100 percent of this city, and I don't want to turn my back on one out of five."