Update: Traffic Lighting Dysfunction Discussion
At the May 8th meeting, staff was directed to return in 6 weeks with plans for improvements.
It will be 11 weeks, and the agenda item is given a WHOPPING 20 minutes, for tonights meeting.
Arts and Culture Board is allocated 45 minutes.
Screen grab of agenda items
It is low on the prioritization for the meeting, and doubtful the Council will get to it unless it is shifted up during the meeting.
City Staff is recommending MORE Money to be spent on the traffic light intelligent system, pucks, fibers, cables, etc, to the tune of $1,521,500.
The recommendations are to improve the uptime of lights…not the performance of the lights themselves.
No metrics or data are included in the documents provided to City Council.
Despite the millions of dollars that have already been spent on this intelligent lighting system, the staff has not documented the (ROI) Return on Investment, or before/after performance data.
City Staff has admitted in the previous meeting they do not have the needed expertise to improve the performance.
The Traffic light management/Public Works has been outsourced to CH2M Hill, since the City’s inception. The contract has never been put out to bid. City Council is on track to renew the CH2 contract(which expires in Dec), without competition or comparison of the bid process.
Months ago, Councilwoman Stephanie Endres & former Councilman Bob Gray advocated to send the contract out to bid. They were outnumbered with starch resistance by Mayor Bodker and Councilpersons Broadbent, Lin, & Davenport.
Mayor Bodker tapped Councilman Jay Lin to oversee the contract renewal negotiations with Ch2. When asked during a May meeting how those negotiations were going, Jay Lin stated: “I am happy where we are.” He also stated his focus was on the outsourced employees continuing the work with the City, undisrupted. Interestingly, he did NOT discuss negotiating the best contract for the City or improving the services.
It is highly controversial and many would interpret the City Charter is violated by Elected Officials participating in negotiating contracts for the City. This issue was previously highlighted during the billboard debacle, with Mayor Bodker & Councilwoman Cori Davenport negotiating the Billboard settlement with her good friend, lake house neighbor, and owner of Action Outdoor Advertising.
One of the most important roles an elected city official is to make sure that everything appears and is above reproach. Just because somethings isn’t illegal, does it make it appropriate or the best thing to be done?
The situation becomes muddy water when Elected Officials negotiate contracts, they will vote on. The process lacks impartiality.
How critically will the Council review the contract in the best interest of the residents? Rather than judging the quality of the contract, they defend it.
Alas, back to the traffic intelligent light systems. What do you think needs to be improved, and is staff addressing that?
Read the recommendations here…
Source: City of Johns Creek
How Close is TOO Close? Proposed Subdivision Next to Water Towers
A developer is proposing to build a subdivision adjacent to the 2 water towers on Morton Rd.
There is no city ordinance for fall zones regarding water towers, and thus developer is requesting to build houses 25 feet away from the proposed houses property line. The homes would be 50 feet away from the water towers.
This infill development will squeeze 17 houses, with 7-foot side setbacks, creating a burden to the community.
The local schools will be negatively impacted, as Autry Mills Middle school, and Johns Creek High School are already over-capacity. Only Dolvin Elementary can accommodate the additional students.
Council Zoning hearing is TONIGHT, Monday, July 24th, 7 pm.
Read the Official zoning case file here…
Source: City of Johns Creek
City Hall OMITS the Most important Dates of the Year: Election Qualification!
As always, you can count on the Johns Creek Post to keep you updated.
We wish City Hall was as forthcoming about pertinent information.
It begs the question, who’s working for who?
With 5 Full-Time Communications Employees, you’d think they’d get the calendar updated, or at least do a PR blitz about the upcoming election.
But NO! Not a peep about the opening of the Mayor & 3 Council seats, not even a mention on the city calendar.
Click to enlarge
The City Website was also absent of information. As required by law, a legal notice was submitted to the Johns Creek Herald, way back in January, 6 months ago.
Here are the details:
Qualifying will be Monday, August 21st; Tuesday, August 22nd; & Wednesday, August 23rd
8:30 am to 12:30 pm and 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Fee: $450 Council Seat / $750 Mayor Seat
Clerk’s office @ City Hall
12000 Findley Rd, 4th Floor
District Comes Alive… in Duluth!
Apartment Towers Rise in Duluth.
What Johns Creek elected officials sought, and residents rebuffed, Duluth got.
Studio apartments start at $945
$300 deposit
https://www.districtatduluth.com/
Recommended Reading on how our Elected officials hired an Urban Consultant and wasted our tax dollars on planning an urban district!
Photo Source: TRG Atlanta
To inquire:
The Property Tax Model is Broken Beyond Repair
Let’s be honest. The system of collecting taxes for county, city, and school taxes is broken. And the larger the area dependent on funding from property taxes, the more broken it becomes. North Fulton County residents pay tremendously more for the same county services than South Fulton residents. Why?
Here are three reasons it needs to be scrapped:
- There is no correlation between the amount of taxes you pay and the amount of “services” you receive.
A family of six living in a $500,000 home and a family of two living in a $500,000 home, pay the same property taxes if they live in the same community. Why? What makes us feel its fair to collect three times as much tax on a per capita basis from one family than another? What if the family of two lives in a home worth one million? What makes it right to collect six times as much for the very same levels of services? Should I mention that the family of six likely creates more demand for services than the family of two as well?
When property values are high, and tax rates are high, this can have the effect of driving out empty nester residents to avoid the high levels of taxes relative to the services they receive for those tax dollars.
2. Property values rising(and falling) should have no impact on how much tax revenue is needed to run your county, cities, and schools.
We’ve seen property values fall during recessions and rise during better times. This should have nothing to do with how many dollars are needed to provide services in your community. Yet we have made the tax digest the first step in the taxation process, followed by each government agency voting on the millage rate to be applied to that tax digest. Elected officials vote far more often on how much they will tax you than you have a chance to vote on whether or not they should remain in office.
Let’s add to that the huge infrastructure we now have in place at the Tax Assessor’s office to track every piece of property, every structure, and every improvement you make to your home, all in the effort to make sure every $ of real estate(real or imagined) is taxed.
Why on earth should you owe the government more dollars because you decided to finish your basement or add a deck?
The perverseness of this likely discourages residents from making improvements to their properties.
How much time and energy is used by the Tax Assessor’s office to gather all of this information? How accurate is it? Is it worth it? Who is really benefitting?
3. How many hours of effort will the Public spend appealing these assessments?
If 1/4 of the households in Johns Creek appeal, that could be as high as 7,000 homes. Spend five hours on this process, and cumulatively we will have spent 35,000 hours fighting our high assessments.
Instead, why don’t we take a moment and consider a different system? We do not tax each resident within an HOA a variable amount do we? It’s a flat rate per household. While not necessarily the same on a per capita basis, it is a fairer system than taxing each household based upon the value of their property.
What would a fixed property tax collected per residence look like? First, it would treat all of us as equally as possible.
We would not need an army of government employees tracking our properties, needing to know everything about the inside and outside of our homes.
We would never have to appeal property taxes in the future.
Our governments would be accountable to us directly for the rate of taxation we face, and there would be no finger-pointing as to who is to blame.
The current system of taxation has more expensive property owners subsidizing the less expensive property owners. In a society where wealth redistribution is frowned upon by most of us, it is curious to me why we are so willing to allow tax redistribution with property taxes, where the level of services received are so far removed from what the property owner pays in taxes.
Johns Creek could lead the way to a better model of taxation for its residents. It’s time we slay the beast that taxation based on property values has become. Taxation should not be unfair or onerous.
It’s time for a change. Contact your locally elected officials and tell them you want a different system. Tell them you want a better, more equitable system.
Fulton County Assessor Meeting – Location Changed to JCHS
District 1 Tax Assessment Meeting with Commissioner Liz Hausmann and Chief Appraiser Dwight Robinson
June 14, 2017 @ 7:00 pm
Johns Creek High School Auditorium
5575 State Bridge Road
Johns Creek, GA
Johns Creek: Second Best Suburb(and Now City) in Georgia(And Here’s Why)
Recently, Johns Creek was named the second best suburb(and Now City) in Georgia to live. Coming in second to Decatur, I was curious as to what makes up that ranking (and what role might our local government take in that ranking. Interestingly enough, other communities are omitted from the suburb category, but are some of the best cities in Georgia to live in. (It seems that given enough rankings, we can all be winners)
The largest contributor to our ranking is the educational level of adults living in Johns Creek, of course. We know we are well educated, and that category is 15% of the weighting.
Now which factors are because of our local government?
Property taxes show up in the Housing Grade category, with a ten % weighting. The effect of Johns Creek on this category might be 1-2% points of that category.
Crime and safety is another category. With a 5% rating, we will give ½ the credit to the police and fire, and ½ credit to the well-educated public, who should know better than to misbehave. That brings us up to 3 ½ to 4 ½ %.
The last category Johns Creek contributes to is Outdoor. One-third of that 5% is from having access to parks. Since this is not limited to parks within your city limits, but all parks including National Parks within a large distance, we will score this category as a 1% contribution from the City of Johns Creek.
In total, that would suggest that 4 ½ to 5 ½ % of our overall score our City Government could take credit for.
The majority of the success for Johns Creek belongs to you. Yes you.
Well educated, high income earners demanding great homes, working to keep the schools great through property and sales taxes, welcoming to people of all diversities, behaving in the eyes of the law, taking care of your health and the health of your families contributed the most to Johns Creek’s selection as the Second Best Suburb in Georgia.
Go ahead and pat yourself on the back. You deserve it!
Factors Considered
| Factor | Description | Source | Weight |
| Higher Education Rate | Percentage of residents who have received a bachelor’s degree or higher. | U.S. Census | 15.0% |
| Cost of Living Grade | Based on the consumer price index and access to affordable housing. | Niche | 10.0% |
| Housing Grade | Based on home values, property taxes, housing costs, local schools, and more. | Niche | 10.0% |
| Public Schools Grade | Based on the average Niche K-12 Overall Grade for every public school serving the area, where each school is weighted by the number of students it serves. | Niche | 10.0% |
| Diversity Grade | Based on ethnic, generational and economic diversity. | Niche | 7.5% |
| Shortest Commute Grade | Based on typical commute times and methods. | Niche | 7.5% |
| Composite Overall Score | Niche survey responses scored on a 1-5 scale regarding the overall experience of the place. | Self-reported by Niche users | 5.0% |
| Crime & Safety Grade | Based on violent and property crime rates. | Niche | 5.0% |
| Family Grade | Based on school quality, safety, and family-friendly living. | Niche | 5.0% |
| Health & Fitness Grade | Based on community health statistics and access to healthcare. | Niche | 5.0% |
| Jobs Grade | Based on employment rates, job and economic growth, and cost of living. | Niche | 5.0% |
| Nightlife Grade | Based on access to bars, restaurants, theaters, and other attractions. | Niche | 5.0% |
| Outdoor Activities Grade | Based on weather, air quality, and access to parks and other recreational opportunities. | Niche | 5.0% |
| Weather Grade | Based on number of sunny days, precipitation, and average temperatures in an area. | Niche | 5.0% |
https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/rankings/suburbs/best-suburbs/methodology/
How to Appeal Your Property Taxes
10 Steps to REDUCE your Tax Bill
1) File an online appeal here. This will schedule your appointment with the Board of Assessors. It will be some time before you hear back from them
1a) Contact County Appraiser, Dwight Robinson and request the comps they are using for your assessment.
2) Review your Property Records to ensure it is accurate, (fireplaces, beds, bathrooms, sq ft, etc)
3) Check for homestead deductions (homeowners & mostly for seniors)
4) Research recent sales in the Property Records of your neighborhood to find comparable homes
5) Review property assessments with the public records for comparables
6) Create a spreadsheet of comparables (3-5 Properties), and breakdown each property
- – same exterior facade
- – square foot comparison
- – land value/ lot size comparison
- – compare homes with more/less beds & baths, etc
7) Take pictures of the comparable homes
8) Set a reasonable value amount for your property
9) Prepare presentation: Create an easy to read packet to bring to your hearing
Front page – Picture of your house & the value “think” it is worth
Second Page – Spreadsheet with the breakdown of comparables
Next 5 pages – Pictures and info of each comparable property
Optional info:
Include pictures of the inside of your house, if it’s not upgraded
Pictures & details of backyard if it is sloped or devalued in some way
10) Attend your scheduled Hearing
*Have 7 packet copies to pass out to each board member!*
Be non-emotional and factual during the hearing
Present the data in a calm, logical manner
Good Luck!
—
Neighbors, do you have any suggestions?
Return to Sender: Federal HUD $$$
Federal HUD money to build an ADA Fishing dock & viewing platform in Shakerag Park is in the process of being returned.
This discussion didn’t go without a fight from Councilman Lenny Zaprowski, who stated within the Work Session meeting, ” I am a Big Proponent of these funds”. He strongly advocated for the City to keep the funds, regardless of the strings attached or qualification requirements.
Councilwoman Stephanie Endres stated the grant has stipulations and rules in which the City would have to meet to qualify for the funds, and the City doesn’t qualify.
City attorney chimed in that it would be “most prudent” to release(return) what funds we have left, back.
After discussion in the Work Session and 7 pm meeting, the Council voted 5-2, to return the HUD money. Councilman Lenny Zaprowski & Councilwoman Cori Davenport voted to keep the funds.
A public hearing will take place on the issue and then 2014 funds would go back to Federal HUD office.
Johns Creek Comprehensive Plan Observations: What Johns Creek DOESN’T Want or Need
The City of Johns Creek held a workshop intended to review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) on Thursday, June 1st, 2017. The workshop began with an opportunity to review boards with information and depictions of several options under consideration for zoning, development, and redevelopment, then followed up with a presentation by the two consulting organizations with whom the city has contracted to lead and facilitate this work, and finally opened the floor to questions from the workshop attendees.
The Comprehensive Plan is still a work in process, and this final workshop was meant to provide residents with a preview of the materials prior to presentation to City Council on June 19th.
The importance of these plans and the direction they propose for Johns Creek over the next 20 years cannot be overstated. The plan that is ultimately approved by City Council will dictate the character of our city beginning almost immediately upon adoption.
Those who attended the meeting will recognize the visual representations provided by the consultants, both on the boards that were set up throughout the meeting room, as well as from the Powerpoint presentation that was reviewed with attendees. It’s important to understand where the emphasis was placed as it is indicative of those proposals that are receiving the highest priority from the consultants. It’s equally important to understand that these same consultants were hired with a distinct objective in mind, and have certainly been given guidance from city staff with whom they work most closely.
The staff position with the greatest interaction with these consultants would be our Director of Community Development, Ms. Sharon Ebert. Ms. Ebert is an employee of CH2M Hill, the company to which Johns Creek has outsourced many administrative functions. Her previous experience includes a role as Interim Executive Director & Director of Planning and Development for the Housing Authority of Bridgeport, Connecticut (distinguished as one of the large American cities that had declared bankruptcy), Director of Planning and Development for the Housing Authority of New Haven, Connecticut, and Deputy Commissioner Planning & Development for the city of Yonkers, New York.
I highlight these previous roles to bring to light the vast difference of community character between those locations, and the historic character of Johns Creek: the former represents high density, urban communities while Johns Creek has traditionally been suburban and residential. Keep that in mind as you review the recommendations that appear to be forthcoming in the Comprehensive Plan.
The majority of the boards and presentation material focused on mixed use (read: high density, urbanization), and various “nodes”. The Transportation plan has closely aligned with the various T-SPLOST projects, and was heavily weighted toward road widening efforts (capacity), the development of inter-neighborhood travel options, and introducing a grid system for certain nodes (primarily around Technology Park, and the area formerly proposed to become “The District”).
Some may recall that the Comprehensive Plan sought input through the distribution of an online survey available at the ConnectJohnsCreek.com website. Those who participated in the survey may also recall that the survey was structured such that it was clearly driving to a foregone conclusion: increased urbanization, higher density, and wider roads.
After some vocal feedback from residents who recognized that the survey was constructed with a lack of options that would support the opportunity to preserve the suburban residential character of the city, the survey was changed to provide the option of selecting “None” from among the presented high-density options. At no time did the survey present a set of options that would retain the current character of the city. The results of this survey were cited as representing the desires of residents, and as a key input to the Comprehensive Plan.
What can be concluded from this workshop? First and foremost, the Comprehensive Plan presents a vision of a very different Johns Creek than what we have today. Another conclusion is that proposals that have come up in the past, but were roundly opposed by residents, are back.
Attendees of the workshop likely experienced a strong case of déjà vu. The District was proposed as a new City Center, located within Technology Park, representing a city-funded redevelopment effort. That plan was roundly opposed by city residents. Well, it’s back. The city has already purchased a building for a consolidated City Hall in the area. A linear park is proposed in the Comprehensive Plan as well as a project funded by the Parks Bonds. Proposed redevelopment of the surrounding area effectively resurrects The District without calling it by name.
Mixed Use is prominently represented in the Comprehensive Plan materials. That means density and urbanization. Mixed use also means provision for retail. Anyone paying attention recognizes that the retail industry, at least in its brick-and-mortar form, is collapsing. Does Johns Creek really need more nail salons, dry cleaners, and empty storefronts?
The Comprehensive Plan proposes to redevelop several existing retail zones. If existing retail is struggling, why does the plan include allowances for more retail?
The Transportation Master Plan includes a many road widening projects throughout the city. For those residents who thought that their voices were heard when they appeared in great numbers to express their opposition, and who were told that road widening proposals would see full consideration in front of the City Council with an up-or-down vote, recognize that this plan is going to approve those plans without the promised hearing. These plans are targeted to increase capacity – meaning accommodating more traffic – but without any required coordination with adjacent jurisdictions. Consider that the recently held traffic planning session in Peachtree Corners immediately south of Johns Creek revealed no plans to widen State Road 141 through their city. That means that we are bypassing other less intrusive options in the rush to widen roads that will meet an immediate bottleneck at Peachtree Corners. To what effect does this proposal benefit Johns Creek residents, and what damage will be done to the residential character of our city through these routes?
Make no mistake: the Comprehensive Plan is clearly advancing Johns Creek to a highly urbanized future marked by high density, increased traffic volume, and a drastically different character than what exists today. Nothing that was presented in the Comprehensive Plan spoke to retaining our residential character, or how we might improve our property values for existing residential properties.
I urge all interested parties to review the presentation material for yourselves and determine whether the plans as presented represent a future for Johns Creek that you personally desire for yourself and your family. We are at a critical juncture, with a vision for the city that does not seek to preserve Johns Creek, but instead, imposes a very different future. We need to decide whether that vision deserves our support, or whether we stand up and fight to preserve and improve the city we call home.
Review for yourself. The Comprehensive Plan presentation can be found at:
https://connectjohnscreek.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/johns-creek-workshop4_draftv3.pdf
Fulton County Tax Appraiser Town Hall
Property taxes go up?
Fulton County Commissioner, Liz Hausmann is holding a Town Hall with Fulton County’s Chief Tax Appraiser Dwight Robinson.
Both will answers questions and discuss the Property Tax Appeal process.
June 14, Wednesday, 7 p.m.
Johns Creek Environmental Campus
8100 Holcomb Bridge Road.
Op-Ed: What is Free Speech, Really?
By: Stephanie Endres
Quoting Wikipedia, “freedom of speech is the right to articulate one’s opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.”
The Johns Creek City Council established an ordinance when the city was formed to limit free speech at city council meetings to 30 minutes at the beginning and end of each meeting with each individual only being allowed to speak for 3 minutes.
Since I was elected, I have supported allowing any individual who wants to speak to the council the ability to do so without placing an arbitrary 3-minute limit on their opportunity to address the Council.
A proposal is being made to lock down the rules with council members going on the record to continue the 30 minutes maximum time limit, but permit individuals 5 minutes each.
In my experience, residents come to the council meetings to give public comment for 3 reasons: sharing information, looking for support, or expressing frustration. Ninety percent (90%) of the public comments can be categorized as expressions of frustration, and folks come to council meetings to share their frustration because they don’t feel like their views were heard through the normal channels of phone calls or emails.
The public comments provided at the council meeting held on May 22, 2017, lasted for 80 minutes and were comprised of 19 individuals speaking on topics ranging from Taylor Road Middle School students winning the robotics award, concerns regarding the perceived over-development of Cauley Creek, issues with voting in the last election, history of the Rogers Family, purchasing the former Dean Gardens property, ICC Permissive Codes, Linear Park development, Pocket Park development, and recommendations for traffic relief on Medlock Bridge.
If only 6 individuals spoke, who would win the ability to share their information and who would lose the right to speak? What direct, public venue will residents have to get the attention of the elected representatives that sought their vote?
Why would council members wish to restrict public comment? The reasons shared by council members are: “There is business that must be conducted and we need to spend time on the actual business”. ” We have families at home and don’t want to be here all night”. “Why should the individuals who are here to participate in zoning hearings or presentations of awards have to be subjected to all this negativity?”.
My belief is the city council meeting is the meeting of the people. It is housed in a building that was paid for by the residents, and lead by the individuals that were duly elected to represent the people’s interests. No matter how long it takes, all individuals should be able to speak and be heard as these comments directly relate to the decisions the council is being asked to make.
The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The Johns Creek City Council is our Congress and when an ordinance is passed to restrict public comment, it is directly prohibiting free speech and restricting the ability of citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances publicly.
So if this restrictive ordinance is passed, do we have free speech in Johns Creek at City Council Meetings, really?
Letter to the Editor: Johns Creek is at a Crossroads
Part 2: Comp Plan Progress?
Given recent events with the city looking at controversial road widening projects, the Comprehensive Plan update project has taken on renewed public attention. This attention is a good thing. The Comp Plan is a very critical document for the city’s future with zoning, transportation, and more. Let’s continue with our analysis of the progress. This is Part-2 of a 2-part series.
For those citizens who attended or watched the videos, many public meetings associated with the Comp Plan update project featured outside speakers and consultants that most certainly promoted high density. One guy from North Carolina spent over an hour presenting busy 3D graphs to convey that high density means higher city tax revenue. Why is the premier residential community in Georgia persistently being subjected to this type of consultant bias? The 3-day workshop presentation document2 mentions high density on page 37. Here is a quote from that document. “Additional traffic generated by increased density is not significant”. The meeting videos showed that some CAC members were definitely swayed by this type of general consultant advice, especially the Business Community members. I do appreciate the tough job the CAC members had to recognize and sort through all the bias they were being exposed to.
Next, exactly how did the dense development proposal for the AAC property come about from the Comp Plan work? A city leader is on record saying it resulted from the CAC meetings with public input3. Yet the development rendering was never created in any CAC meeting that was made available to the public. The completed drawing first appeared in the 3-day workshop presentation document2 that was given to the CAC. In that presentation, the speaking consultant said “the city does think this (the AAC property) should be developed as one cohesive master plan area”4. So someone from “the city” had definitely given direction to the consultants. But not the CAC, and not the public. So the consultants went off and unwittingly stepped on a historic Johns Creek zoning case landmine which then triggered a written rebuke from the current AAC management. Why was the Comp Plan project proposing dense developments on private property?
Bottom line, we should all be quite concerned about the Comp Plan update. Skewed CAC representation, misdirected questions to the public, misleading public surveys, consultants advocating high density, chaotic CAC meetings expressing widespread opinions all over the place – that’s the progress we saw in the meetings. And at one point we learned there were “private draft” CAC surveys that were not intended for the public. According to the Director of Community Development, one of 12 CAC members apparently leaked some information about the McGinnis Ferry road widening from a “private draft” survey, and this type of public disclosure is not allowed5.
So with this backdrop, we all await the new draft Comprehensive Plan which is due to be released real soon. All we can do at this point is hope the outcome of this convoluted and chaotic project preserves and protects the exceptional residential community that is Johns Creek for the next 10-years.
Sources:
(1) Resident Zones & CAC Member Residential Locations (city document showing demographic data and actual CAC membership)
(2) Connect Johns Creek, shape an exceptional future, Three Day Workshop
(3) City Manager at approximately 01:21:10 in the video from the Town Hall, Feb 22: johnscreekga_a664dcf1-48af-4571-8cab-19738f47768a.mp4
(4) Consultant at 43:22 into 3-day workshop presentation video: johnscreekga_89be1d3f-27a1-458d-82db-a528f03fe528.mp4
(5) Johns Creek Herald, March 8th “False alarm emails upset McGinnis residents”
Medlock Bridge Rd Congestion Relief: Proposal
Here is a concept for the City Council to consider that will provide a direct and exclusive use and traffic relief for residents.
Bury the power the lines and create a multi-use path for golf cart use on both sides of Medlock Bridge Rd. A wide path will allow for local residents to traverse to nearby areas, shops, and amenities etc. High School Students can go to school safely, by taking a golf cart on a dedicated path. Walkers, strollers & bicyclists can utilize these paths as well.
What Medlock Bridge Rd would look like with No Power Lines
A tree lined golf cart path will bring an aesthetic appeal to the community, and can improve our property values.
Burying the utility lines will bring reliability as storms disrupt service. Line Maintenance is easier and less frequent as well. This will also reduce the negative health impacts of overhead line (EMFs) electromagnetic fields.
The trees on Medlock Bridge Rd can grow, and will not need to be hacked every year.
So how can we do this?
It will cost approximately $7 million to bury 1 mile of distribution line and 3 miles of the high-powered transmission line from JCUMC to the river.
We have $18 million that has been allocated through TSPLOST for Medlock Bridge Rd.
Within the TSPLOST legislation, burying power lines is an approved authorized expense.
Code Section 48-8-121(b)(1)(D) Relocation of utilities for roads, streets, bridges, sidewalks, and bicycle paths;
A few months ago, hundreds of residents attended Town halls and Council Meetings to oppose Medlock Bridge Rd widening to 6 lanes. Why? Because non-resident would primary benefit.
This is the one proposal that will be directly and exclusively for Johns Creek Residents.
If Medlock Bridge Rd is to be our “Premier Boulevard” as our Community Director has stated, let’s have that begin, by burying the power lines and making it a scenic road, that we can be proud of.
We have the money through TSPLOST. State Law will allow the City to utilize it in this manner, the time has never been better.
Atlanta Audubon Letter to City Council: Reject the Current Plan for Cauley Creek Park
Dear Mayor Bodker, Councilor Zabrowski, Councilor Lin, Councilor Davenport, Councilor Coughlin, Councilor Endres, and Councilor Broadbent,
I am writing to you on behalf of the board of directors, staff, and constituents of Atlanta Audubon Society to express our concerns about the proposed Cauley Creek Park Master Plan. We would like to encourage the Council to reject the current proposed master plan for Cauley Creek Park.
Atlanta Audubon Society believes that where birds thrive, people thrive. With nearly 1,000 chapter members and more than 3,500 National Audubon Society members, Atlanta Audubon represents a broad constituency united by a desire to protect birds and other wildlife through education, conservation, and advocacy. Our constituency includes residents of Johns Creek and birders that frequent its parks and greenspaces, including the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CRNRA) park units.
The Cauley Creek Park Master Plan concerns us because of (1) the sheer destruction of habitat that would occur with the creation of the park, (2) human disturbance to remaining habitat, and (3) the increased erosion and pollution entering the watershed from new development.
Currently, the Cauley Creek property, adjacent CRNRA property to the west, and the river area of that borders these properties supports more than 135 species of birds. We know this because our constituency walks Roger’s Bridge Road south from Bell Road for bird watching and data has been recorded in the worldwide database, eBird. These bird species use the area for foraging, nesting, and protection. Some species come in the spring and summer to breed; some come in the fall and winter to pass the cold months where there are good sources of food and shelter; and some are year-round residents that call this area home.
American Kestrel may have to find a new home
Within this list of 135 are rare and threatened species, including the state-listed “threatened” Bald Eagle and state-listed “rare” Henslow’s Sparrow. These two species have been significantly impacted by pollution and habitat destruction over many years. Although the Bald Eagle is recovering in Georgia, this is due to active conservation efforts. Additionally, 38 of these species are considered climate-threatened or climate-endangered by the National Audubon Society. This means that local populations of these birds’ habitats will likely be affected negatively by the predicted changes to the Earth’s climate. You can imagine our concern when 30% of the species that this area supports are already threatened by larger factors out of our local control. If Cauley Creek Park is developed based on the proposed master plan, most of the birds inhabiting the area will be forced to find new homes.
It is important to note that the large, open, and undisturbed meadow habitat on the Cauley Creek property is much of the reason that the area supports so many different types of birds and wildlife. Grasslands have been one of the fastest declining habitats in the state of Georgia for decades. Species such as Northern Harrier, Eastern Meadowlark, American Kestrel, Bobolinks, Sedge Wren, and a handful of sparrow species depend on these habitats and have experienced declining populations in Georgia. Johns Creek is lucky to have such a habitat along the Chattahoochee River migratory corridor—it is special and unique, and it should be preserved as much as possible.
A secondary impact to the surrounding habitat of the proposed Cauley Creek Park is disturbance. While some area will be maintained as natural vegetative buffers, the vast increase in human use, vehicular traffic, light, and noise will impact the wildlife that lives in these small buffer areas and in the adjacent CRNRA property. Combined with the additional numbers of people utilizing the future greenway path along Rogers Bridge Road extending across the River from Duluth, there will be little opportunity for nesting birds and other wildlife to succeed. So in addition to direct loss of habitat, what will be left for birds and other wildlife will be of diminished value.
Eastern Meadowlark resides in the Cauley Creek Meadows
Our third concern is for water quality and the Chattahoochee River corridor. In 1973, the state of Georgia passed the Metropolitan River Protection Act, a forward-thinking piece of legislation for its time to help communities along the Chattahoochee River protect their drinking water supply. This Act protects land and floodplain within 2,000 feet of the River from land-disturbing activity, and gave authority to a regional development center (Atlanta Regional Commission, ARC) to create and adopt the Chattahoochee Corridor Plan.
