Tag Archives: Johns Creek

Are We Going To Stand By While Our City Charter is Violated?

Posted on by
1

There are a small but growing group of residents like myself who have been trying to hold our government accountable. We do not look the other way. We insist that our Charter be followed and not circumvented for the convenience of the Mayor or any other elected officials. The rules need to be followed otherwise they will be exploited by one or more individuals.

We are small in number. But we are growing. And we are not going away. What follows below is the result of residents such as myself that are not afraid to hold our government to a higher standard. A standard that should be the starting point and not the Exception.

Why Were Craig Kidd’s Records Requested In The First Place?

A Bit of Background

In the fall of 2015, I worked on campaigns for Coughlin and Endres. While I was at Wilson Road Elementary School, waving signs with Mark Endres for these candidates in font of the school, someone drove past and gave us the finger. All the other voters who we waved to were friendly and polite. Not this one.

“Who was that?” I asked.

“Craig Kidd”, Mark Endres replied. “He is a leader in the Republican Party.”

“No wonder I am not a Republican”, I responded.

Four Years Later

Four years later and Kidd is the Mayor’s assistant. And for several years there have been plenty of rumors about Mr. Kidd and what was going on locally. To summarize it briefly, candidates that could not be considered conservative in the least were being recruited by Kidd(A member of Republican Leadership in Fulton County) to seek office against candidates for City Council that were undeniably conservative, especially on fiscal matters.

Why would Republican leadership be recruiting candidates that were liberal? Rationally that makes no sense to someone like me, who is principled in their beliefs.

Johns Creek is small and rumors travel fast. Rumors that opponents of candidates Endres and Bradberry and Coughlin from years past were being coached by Bodker and Kidd were frequent. And as we know those candidates lost.

Time To Prove Or Dismiss The Rumors

In the spring of 2019, several things happened that heightened the awareness of what was going on to those residents that wanted to hold our government accountable.

The pursuit of Gateway Markers by the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, led by Lynda Smith, contained threats that were not so veiled against Coughlin, who dared to challenge the return on investment Gateway Markers would provide. Coughlin was told that there would be candidates in the fall to run against him because he was not supporting the CVB.

Lynda Smith’s Text Message Regarding Candidates to Oppose Coughlin

Endres was also at the same time catching hell for daring to report to Council what she had heard at CVB meetings.

There were rumors that the Mayor and Kidd were working to turn Johns Creek “blue” after McBath and Kausche both won in 2018.

Many of us debated why so called “Republicans” would do that. The answer is simple. They want to maintain their hold on power as long as they can. And if they have to compromise in certain areas then they will do so as long as they can maintain their control.

The FOIA Request

Most of us call it a FOIA request(Freedom of Information Act). But for local governments it is a GORA(Georgia Open Records Act). In order to get to the truth as to whether candidates were being recruited by Kidd and Bodker to run against duly elected candidates(Chris Coughlin), the activities of Kidd would need to be reviewed.

Records Requested *For Craig Kidd I seek these public records.1. Text messages on city phone including phone number/contact from January 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019
2. Telephone log of all incoming and outgoing calls on city phone from January 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019
3. Copies of all emails to and from @FultonGOP.org,
4. Audit of website activity for city phone and city computer assigned to Craig Kidd April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019 (what websites has he visited and for how long)

As you can see, the only materials requested were from City devices. The search was limited to the issues stated above. This was not a wild goose chase but a specific and narrow search.

Five Minutes

Within five minutes of reviewing the information I had picked up from City Hall, it became very clear that the rumors were not just rumors but facts. These are not alleged, made up, contrived or fake news. The information was pulled by City Officials who are required by State Law to do just that.

The Mayor is an elected official. His assistant is an employee of the City. Here is the text exchange they had on March 2, 2019(I have bolded the crucial messages in the thread below-the “Me” in the thread below is the Mayor’s assistant as it was his text records I requested):

[3/2/19, 10:43 AM] Mike Bodker : Did you see the news about Sharon
[3/2/19, 10:43 AM] Me: No
[3/2/19, 10:46 AM] Mike Bodker : She resigned
[3/2/19, 10:46 AM] Mike Bodker : Effective late March
[3/2/19, 10:47 AM] Me: She was getting quite frustrated with the city’s lack of development desire.
[3/2/19, 10:48 AM] Me: Do we know where she’s going?
[3/2/19, 10:51 AM] Mike Bodker : Yep as am I
[3/2/19, 10:55 AM] Me: Things will get once city hall and linear open. People need to see it.
[3/2/19, 11:03 AM] Me: I spoke with Kausche’s aide. I think she and I will have a meeting this week to discuss November. I imagine I will blow her mind.
[3/2/19, 11:50 AM] Mike Bodker : She said to Warren back to NY to be with family
[3/2/19, 11:51 AM] Mike Bodker : Talked to Angelika Friday about the same topic she keeps getting no way from folks
[3/2/19, 11:52 AM] Mike Bodker : I hope we can trust her given that Stephanie was already telling people I want dems to run
[3/2/19, 11:53 AM] Me: I presume that was a leftover from the Bradberry Horton race. For the time being we will have to ignore the raw partisan talk. It will be tough but long term it’s best.
[3/2/19, 11:53 AM] Me: If we can bring the chamber in on three November talks then Angelica will see how strong our intent is.
[3/2/19, 11:55 AM] Mike Bodker : Arts and chamber
[3/2/19, 11:56 AM] Mike Bodker : We need various Constituencies to align
[3/2/19, 11:56 AM] Me: Already on that. The arts community is looking for a candidate. I told them more than one. Sadly they put all their energy into Horton so when she passed, they were left flat footed.
[3/2/19, 11:57 AM] Me: I’m trying to get Baughman and Lynda Smith flaking. Somehow, they don’t know each other

  • Me: Craig Kidd- Mayor’s Assistant
  • Sharon: Sharon Ebert (Community Development)
  • Kausche: Agelika Kausche-Democrat who won Georgia’s District 50 Race
  • Stephanie: Council Member Stephanie Endres
  • Bradberry: Council Member John Bradberry
  • Horton: Vicki Horton, who ran for the same seat as Bradberry and lost in a runoff
  • Baughman: Maestro for JC Symphony and lead on the Legacy Center (new name for Performing Arts Center
  • Lynda Smith: Head of Johns Creek Convention & Visitor’s Bureau
  • Arts: Art Community who is pursuing a Performing Arts Center and Gateway Markers(one of the constituencies)
  • Chamber: Johns Creek Chamber of Commerce(another of the constituencies

Reviewing the results from a request under the Georgia Open Records Act I filed with the City of Johns Creek, it became obvious that resources(staff and equipment) were being used to engage in political activities that should have been done outside of the office and not using City equipment(cell phones, computers, etc).

You can read all the messages between the two using the link below:

https://ejmoosa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Messages-with-Mike-Bodker.txt

What Is The City Charter?

The Johns Creek City Charter is similar to the US Constitution. It is a framework for the rules under which our City operates and what is allowed and not allowed. Elected officials swear an oath that they will faithfully execute the City Charter of Johns Creek.

What Does The City Charter Say About This Behavior?

Section 2.15 of the City Charter Section C states the following:

No elected official, appointed officer, or employee of the city or any agency or entity to which this Charter applies shall use property owned by such governmental entity for personal benefit, convenience, or profit, except in accordance with policies promulgated by the city council or the governing body of such agency or entity.

The replacement of Council Member Chris Coughlin from the Johns Creek City Council would have  made it much easier for the Mayor to proceed with his agendas.

In the text messages using City issued cellphones and during normal business hours, we see a conversation that describes the Mayor’s frustration with the lack of development desire.

Next, we see the assistant discuss contacting the aide of Angelika Kause(D-50), our state representative. Rumors were circulating around Johns Creek that the Major and his assistant wanted to turn Johns Creek blue. These text messages confirm that there indeed was a strategy to do this.

We also see that the Mayor confirms that he has also contacted Kausche on the same topic and the answer from folks is no way.

It also makes it clear that the Mayor and the assistant were reaching out to other constituencies in an effort to field opponents for Council Member Chris Coughlin, who was going to run for re-election to the Johns Creek City Council. We also know that they were successful as Coughlin had three opponents during the race. Two of the opponents were both connected to the constituencies mentioned in the text messages above, and spent more than $100 thousand dollars in this effort.

What Needs to Happen Next?

When a resident wins election to the City Council they take an Oath to uphold three very important documents. Here are a few portions of that Oath:

I, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of Council Member of the City of Johns Creek, and will, to the best of my ability support and defend the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Charter, Ordinances and Regulations of the City of Johns Creek.

I will truthfully, honestly and faithfully discharge the duties of my office.

PORTIONS OF THE CEREMONIAL OATH OF OFFICE FOR THE CITY OF JOHNS CREEK

The second line I have included above is also critically important. To me this line means that you will do what is right, and not just what is in your own best interest.

The issue was taken up at the last City Council work session on December 9th, 2019. And it seems that this Council up to this point is delegate their responsibility to resolve this issue to the City Manager and an independent investigator.

The facts seem undeniable. City Property was used to achieve specific objectives that would benefit the Mayor for personal benefit and convenience. The Mayor directs the Assistant that he needs multiple constituencies to align. The Assistant responds that he has told them he needs more than one candidate.

We know this to be true as Council Member Chris Coughlin had candidates from the constituencies mentioned. We know that these constituencies did try to align to defeat Coughlin, although they failed.

And unless there is a policy that has been approved that states City Resources can be used for campaign purposes, recruitment of candidates, and for the personal benefit and convenience of the Mayor and his assistant, then the Charter has been clearly violated.

Residents of Johns Creek do not vote for the City Manager. While the Police Chief has the utmost respect, this is not a criminal matter. The outcomes for violating the City Charter are not necessarily criminal matters and those that violate the Charter do not necessarily go to prison.

What they did vote for are the seven bodies that serve as the Johns Creek City Council. And like it or not they have a job that they have sworn an oath to perform.

What Is Their Duty?

The City Council is required to enforce the City Charter. And they are required to enforce it for violating even one provision of the Charter. If they do not then they themselves are violating the City Charter according to Section 2.16 (a) (1) & (5) and also should be removed accordingly.

Section 2.16 of the City Charter states the following:

Sec. 2.16. – Removal of officers.

(a)The mayor, a council member, or other appointed officers provided for in this Charter shall be removed from office for any one or more of the following causes:

(1)Incompetence, misfeasance, or malfeasance in office;

(2)Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;

(3)Failure at any time to possess any qualifications of office as provided by this Charter or by law;

(4)Knowingly violating Section 2.15 or any other express prohibition of this Charter;

(5)Abandonment of office or neglect to perform the duties thereof; or

(6)Failure for any other cause to perform the duties of office as required by this Charter or by state law.

Can This Behavior Be Defended?

Would the Mayor argue that he does not know the Charter? He shouldn’t. Otherwise that would then confirm incompetence. Another reason to be removed from office according to the City Charter.

Could the Mayor have his assistant do whatever he desires? No. The assistant is a City employee and is also bound by the City Charter.

In Conclusion

The action of the Mayor’s assistant to knowingly pursue candidates to run against sitting Council Members, at the Mayor’s direction, in an effort to change the political makeup of the Johns Creek City Council, using City Equipment, during working hours being paid a taxpayer-funded salary and benefits, is clearly a violation of the Johns Creek City Charter.

For an individual in the Fulton County Republican machine to be recruiting democrats to run for City Council? That’s up to those that call themselves Republicans. That’s one of the reason many of us are no longer republicans. We will see if they police themselves or not.

The assistant to the Mayor reports directly and only to the Mayor. Who should have been making sure that this was not happening as a function of their daily job, rather than giving the guidance to pursue the objectives we saw stated above? Only one person: Mayor Bodker.

Where Does That Leave Us?

One or more of the Council Members need to take action and take action soon.  If you are not going to enforce the Charter, I’d encourage you to resign. We can find residents who are willing to enforce the Charter on behalf of all residents, and not just when it is convenient.

It is past time to lead by example and address what we know has been going on and put an end to such behavior.

“You will earn the respect of all if you begin by earning the respect of yourself. Don’t expect to encourage good deeds in people conscious of your own misdeeds.”

Gaius Musonius Rufus- Roman Stoic philosopher

Johns Creek City Council and Post 4

Posted on by
8

Friends,
Adam Thomas seems to find it necessary to suggest things about Chris Coughlin that simply do not hold up under scrutiny.  Even though the “tax promise” mentioned was made during a campaign that was NOT for the seat Chris currently holds, he still has not broken that tax promise.

The above states that Chris Coughlin pushed for a millage rate of 4.3. That was lower than the millage rate in the motion that was being debated. That would have been a tax cut.


How often does one see a incumbent chastised for offering an amendment to lower tax rates and then have that used against him?  This could be a first.  But it gets better.  


Chris never voted for a millage rate over 4 to be implemented in Johns Creek.  He did support an amendment to the motion to lower the rate from the roll back rate.  But if that passed, that did not mean that Chris would have then voted to set the millage rate at that level.  


His flyer is deceptive at the very least.  Council Members should offer amendments to motions to drive the conversation, even if ultimately they will not support it.  That is how you hear the debate on the principles and positions. 

 
It’s a shame he has to try and paint a picture that suggests something that is simply not true about Coughlin. 

 
So, are the statements made on Mr. Thomas’ flyer campaign flyer promises he will live up to?


Do you really think Thomas will have a budget where every expenditure will be justified?   Prior to implementation of this budget?  Has he actually watched the budget process?


Unless he redefines what audit means, the answer would be no.  

Let’s combine that with his argument that critical projects have been delayed and defunded.  We know that many of these projects have shown little to no value to Johns Creek. 

But they were “promised”  with TSPLOST.  Should not an elected official challenge wasteful spending on behalf of the residents?  Absolutely.


And to answer his question?


Yes Chris Coughlin represents me. And I will be voting for him because he has represented me, challenged bad ideas pushed by the majority, improved our traffic flow on 141, and worked on many other issues to improved our quality of life.

Vaping Crisis? Or Common Sense Crisis?

Posted on by
1

Photo Courtesy of https://vaping360.com/

Nothing gets politicians or wanna be politicians more excited than a new crisis. And fortunately, as we head into the fall election cycle, we have one in Johns Creek.

Vaping is a choice, made by individuals, whom we give the right to drive vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds at high speeds that can kill instantly. We also give those individuals the right to terminate a pregnancy, go swimming, ride bicycles, and choose the foods that they consume.

The scope of this vaping “crisis” pales in comparison to a real crisis. First and foremost, the individuals can manage their own risk by stopping. As a parent, you can help by informing your children of their risks.

In 2017, 2,734 teenagers were killed in traffic accidents. That is 7.5 per day.

In 2019, there have been 26 vaping deaths reported(adults and teenagers). That works out to 0.09 deaths per day.

The death rate for traffic accidents for teens is 83 times higher than the death rate for all vaping deaths over the last twelve months.

One would think if the media and the politicians were interested in saving lives, then focus on that item which could save the most lives. However they never seem able to do that.

It’s about sensationalism and emotionalism.

We do not need sensationalism and emotionalism in elected officials. It generates knee jerk reactions to situations we would not even need to address if the individuals affected just took responsibility for their own actions.

And in this instance, it’s the same individuals we are willing to give a driver’s license to.

Logic needs to rule the day when it comes to public policy making and not emotion.

Gateway Marker Designs Speak For Themselves

Posted on by
5

On Friday September 27th, the City Council received the preliminary drawings for proposed Gateway Markers for the City of Johns Creek. The City Council was getting an early peak for the drawing and voting was to start this week from the residents. In less than 91 minutes from receiving the drawings forwarded by the Mayor, Council Members began to react.

Last April I wrote about how this effort was a complete waste of taxpayer monies. I also wrote the following(was I wrong?):

A government cannot define us. An artist will not define us. Gateway Markers will not define us. We do not need outsiders to come in and tell us who we are.
Government can identify us but it will never define us. The moment we let government define us is the moment we have lost who we are. We should be defining government instead.

Gateway Markers, The CVB, Volunteers and Tax Payers: What a Waste of Money

Is this a good use of taxpayer dollars? I’ll let you decide for yourself.

The Council reacted negatively and these drawings were withdrawn from Public View. While they were supposed to be presented and voting begin on September 30,2019, it appears that changes will now be made before presenting to the public for consideration.

How much this will cost or what the revisions are remains to be seen.

Johns Creek City Council Approves CVB Request for Gateway Markers

In Pursuit of Safety, Are There Any Limits In Johns Creek?

Posted on by
1

Safety Used To Justify Solutions

Johns Creek has used the “safety” for the pursuit of many solutions in Johns Creek in search of justifications. But should there be a litmus test when using these claims as justification in the implementation of policy changes, decisions and home inspections.

Residents have seen expensive traffic circles implemented at intersections that have functioned for decades as two or four way stops. The reason cited? Safety.

Residents replacing a hot water heater in their homes now need an inspection. Safety again.

The fourth fire station was justified as a safety issue, despite questions and observations that a Fast Response Unit might actually provide better outcomes for residents of Johns Creek.

Traffic intersections where you used to be able to turn left when there was a safe opportunity to do so now prohibit you from making a left turn unless you have a flashing yellow or green arrow. The reason cited? Safety.

Green Dot: U-Turns Allowed Red Dot: No U-Turn

We have U-Turns being eliminated at 141 and State Bridge southbound citing safety, while the other three legs of the intersection all still allow U-Turns. And a crossover just north of that intersection? U-Turns are allowed and despite the safety issue, will continue to be allowed for the benefit of the businesses.

The U-Turn crossover as you head south on 141 to make the U-Turn to head north is clearly more dangerous for drivers, especially young drivers as they leave the school in the afternoons. However, for the benefit of the businesses this is apparently a risk we can tolerate.

Somehow, at 141 and State Bridge, with a traffic light giving the drivers the right of way, the failure to yield the right of way by State Bridge Westbound drivers taking a right, is enough to get that U-Turn eliminated. Does that make sense?

I Can’t Drive 55

Now we have the lanes on 141 being narrowed from 12 feet to 11 feet AND the speed limit being lowered from 55 to 45 all in the name of safety.

This leads me to the following question:

What Can’t The City Of Johns Creek Do For Safety?

That’s not really the question to be honest. We would ask that if our duly elected officials were action the ones with oversight in making these decisions. But they are not. So here is the question we need to ask:

Are There Limits to What A Staff Member Can Do Using Safety As A Justification?

What’s process anyway? The residents here have elected a City Council to represent them. Can the City Council change this decision? If so how?

For starters, I’d demand actual data on 141 with traffic accidents to determine if we are actually implementing a solution solving a problem.

  1. How many rear end collisions on 141 were reported for the last 36 months?
  2. How many annual miles were driven on 141 for the last 36 months?
  3. What is the ratio of rear end collisions to miles driven?
  4. Is this higher or lower than the national average?
  5. Is this higher or lower than the average for surrounding areas?
  6. How many of the rear end collisions on 141 were in areas where the posted speed limit was 55 and how many were in areas where the posted speed limit was 45?
  7. How many additional minutes of travel will be added daily to commuters traveling the 141 corridor in Johns Creek by lowering the speed limit? (if just 4 miles of 55 MPH road is reduced to 45 MPH, each vehicle will have one extra minute of travel or 24% longer)

During non-rush hours, adding 1 minute of travel to 15,000 vehicles daily equals 15,000 minutes of time. That is 250 hours per day lost. That is 1250 hours per week lost. Or 65,000 hours per year.

You can read about the high cost of traffic here: https://ejmoosa.com/the-high-cost-of-traffic-dollar-and-sense/

This decision could cost more than $650,000 per year of lost time for drivers in Johns Creek if your time is worth $10 per hour. I bet your time is worth more.

If this is a $650,000 per year decision, don’t you think your City Council should have had the opportunity to weigh in knowing the actual facts and costs of the decision?

I certainly do.

Johns Creek: Foolin’ Ourselves

Posted on by
8

The residents of Johns Creek, Georgia have lots of things going for it.  Excellent housing, many of the best schools in the state for kids, and income levels that surpass nearly every other community.

Those positive attributes, however, have led to a flow of tax dollars into the City’s Coffers that is now doing more harm than good.

Since 2006, the year the city formed, the City has amassed $54,348,545 at the end of the fiscal year 2014, according to the City’s Certified Audited Financial Report.  That represents an increase of almost $7,000,000 per year of revenue over expenses.  With a population of around 80,000, that works out to more than $670 per every man, woman and child.

That’s an astonishing amount of money to be held per capita, and it’s growing.  Last evening, the City Council, under the lead of Mayor Mike Bodker voted to maintain the City’s millage rate at it’s current level, despite the property valuations rising sharply over the last year.  More money will be flowing into the City’s coffers again in 2016 coming directly out of the pockets of the residents.  And while it may not seem like a big deal to many outside of Johns Creek(after all, they can afford it), it is creating problems that will soon become more and more apparent as time passes.

[read more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]Incredibly, the Reserve Growth has grown at an annualized rate of 27.35%.  Mayor Bodker and the rest of the City Council have been asked numerous times why are our reserves growing so rapidly?  What will this money be used for?  From listening to dialogue at the City Council’s work session, the perception is that the public just doesn’t understand.   I think we do. I think we also know that other cities, operating under the same general rules as Johns Creek, are not rolling up such large sums of money.

Of course, some of this money is used for day to day operations as a float for paying bills and salaries as funds come and go.  But if we did not have such a large reserve fund, there would be some other financial tool to deal with  cash flow, for instance.  There would be a cost to that technique, of course.  And there are the recommendations of how much to set aside, just in case.  But it seems to me that we have more than enough set aside for a city like Johns Creek that is collecting 10 % more than they are spending year in and year out.  In fact, we have a greater margin of error than a city that barely collects enough revenue to cover expenses.

So there is absolutely no reason that the reserve funds continue to grow at such an astonishing rate without a clear explanation.  And I firmly believe that this Reserve Fund’s size is doing much more harm than good.

The size of this Reserve Fund has not kept Mayor Bodker or the City Manager, Warren Hutmacher, from speculating that one of the wealthiest cities in Georgia has a sustainability issue (despite the rapid growth of the reserve fund).  A wish list of projects was created that totals more than $180 million dollars,which would indeed suggest there is a problem.  There would be if all of these wished for items were approved.  But they haven’t been.  And like a cloud hanging over the City, this wish list is negatively influencing the decisions of the City Council.

First, there is no sustainability issue if the City of Johns Creek sticks to what it is supposed to be doing, rather than dreaming of exceptional projects that have not been proven to be desired by the majority of residents.

Second, the Reserve Fund allows for the perception that we can afford lots of lower cost projects, regardless of the return on the investment(something cities apparently are not as concerned about as the private sector).  Consequently we see 100’s of thousands of dollars allocated for purposes that might not otherwise be approved if we had a lower reserve fund and managed our decisions much more wisely.

Many residents have attempted to point out the lopsided salary structure of the City’s Employees.  They have been met with dismissive attitudes(I am being polite) and promises that this will be looked into.

Residents have pointed out that we are overpaying for certain services, and that we are wasting funds on various projects that benefit only a handful of residents or that the residents already have access to via other means.

Residents have scrutinized the City’s financial results, offering observations and asking questions that go largely unanswered.

As the monies continue to roll into Johns Creek’s coffers, there is simply no pressure to address these concerns.  The residents and the business community are both left paying for this malinvestment.

In an effort to “move the needle” on the City’s revenue sources (too much of the load is on property owners and not enough on business), the concept of a Central Business District was launched.  Several hundred thousand dollars was voted on an approved to explore this “idea”. An outside firm, Urban Design Associates, was hired to bring the concept closer to reality.

The Central Business District has morphed from a :hypothesis” that was going to generate enough revenue to help offset the $180 million in projects on the wish list to being financially accretive.

DEFINITION of ‘Accretive’

The process of accretion, which is the growth or increase by gradual addition, in finance and general nomenclature. An acquisition is considered accretive if it adds to earnings per share.

Applying this word to our situation, if it costs us $10,000,000, and we generate $10,100,000, then it was accretive.  However, that is a very low bar for performance and a horrible return on investment.

This City Council needs to apply the brakes, and hard.  The hard earned money that they are collecting from residents at these levels, which are not being spent on services deemed needs by the residents, and is inducing the Council to approve projects that offer little return on investment, needs to be returned to its rightful owners.

That means cutting the tax rates for both businesses and residents.

One of the Council Members spoke of his concern for residents where even $30 a year makes a big difference.  He voted for a rollback.

I suggest he think about the $670 already collected from those very same residents.

Johns Creek has been a city too long now to keep finding excuses as to why we do not have the budget tools in place to have a firm and clear grip on our fiscal health.

Johns Creek pays the professionals too well to expect anything less than the best analysis from the beginning.  A 10 year financial forecast that would have landed you a D in your college finance course should not be acceptable to anyone, even as a “draft”.

The performance bar must be raised.  We have too much at stake to have sub-par performance from the very same people we are paying top dollars for in compensation.

Below is a chart I adapted from their ten year financial forecast.  I have included some crucial elements that needed to be included, for context.  Prior year data is from the Johns Creek CAFR report, 2015 data comes from the Mid Year Budget Report and years 2016-2025 are from the 10 year financial forecast.

Click on it and have a look.

Reserve Growth, Expense, Revenues, and Capital Expenses

Reserve Growth, Expense, Revenues, and Capital Expenses

These are my opinions.  I’d love to hear yours.
[/read]

[thumbs-rating-buttons]