DEAR EDITOR:

Mayoral candidate Steve Tumlin wrote a letter to the MDJ regarding the City Council being asked to approve the restructuring of debt on the city's hotel and conference center.

It is understandable that in this troubled economy the city of Marietta wants to decrease the annual cost of payments on the bonds used to finance the Conference Center and Resort. But the proposal to extend and increase, once again, the city's long-term indebtedness in whatever form for the Conference Center facility would be a penny wise but pound foolish decision.

I'm pretty sure there aren't many, if any, Marietta homeowners who would immediately with limited contemplation be willing to pay a $40,000 up front penalty with a $3,500.00 broker's fee in order to save $250 a month on their mortgage payment on a $295,000.00 principal and less than 20 years remaining on the mortgage. With the penalty and costs in this example, it would take over 13 years until the break even point of paying the penalty was reached.

But multiply the above offer times 100 and that's what our city council is being asked to approve. A $4 million fee to save $25,000 a month in Conference Center bond payments.

The underlying facts in connection with this latest bond proposal are far too complicated to explain in this letter. But one fact is unmistakably clear: the taxpayers are being left out of the process.

That's exactly what happens when the city uses the DMDA to issue bonds like those for the Conference Center in 1996. It's a legal process, but it denies the citizens their right to vote on the matter, and that's just simply not right. Given the financial woes associated with that 1996 non taxpayer approved bond, it would have been prudent to learn from our past and go back to the taxpayer for approval. However, the same scenario is back and "here we go again".

At one time the Council had a policy of engaging a bond consultant who was not permitted to underwrite or participate in the issuance of the bond. This allowed for complete independence and an unbiased second opinion. Further, if not independent consultation, then as other governments have done on procedural matters, out of an abundance of caution seek an advisory opinion from the Attorney General's office for the protection of our City, DMDA, BLW and its Citizens, some yet unborn.

In these times of a "financial melt down", it would serve the city well to slow down and listen to all options from its own independent bond expert with no skin in the game and from concerned citizens as well. There are major dollars and considerations at risk and it would be prudent for the Council to seek more time and written presentations or analysis and "pro formas".

And that's when the best long term decision can be made to solve a short term problem.

- R. Steve Tumlin, Jr.