$54 MILLION Cauley Creek Park: How Much is TOO Much

Although the City has earmarked $16million of the Park Bond to build out Cauley Creek Park, with the 30 year bond with approx 3.5% current rate, it will cost about $34 million with fees, interest, and principal.

This is on top of the purchase price of  $20.3 million.

Proposed Cost Breakdown

Purchase Price: $20.3 Million

Build out Price: $16 Million

Bond Costs: $18 Million

Total Proposed Costs: $54.3 Million

 

According to Councilman Chris Coughlin, the City could have saved $16 million in 3 or 4 years with current millage and appropriated to build out, rather than borrowing money.

Residents, would you rather see some of this money reallocated for other Parkland acquisition in Johns Creek?

18 Responses to $54 MILLION Cauley Creek Park: How Much is TOO Much

  1. Anonymous says:

    They are nuts !!!!!!

  2. Anonymous says:

    No park is worth $54MM.

  3. Tom Tracy says:

    Too much money on one facility. Environmental impact, traffic impact, etc. are needed. Phased development needed. Money needed elsewhere to really help the city. No sports complex too much money and will raise the ongoing support costs.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Are you out of your freaking minds? Why don’t you try to get the abandoned buildings in the tech park occupied rather than dumping more money into another money pit?

  5. Tim says:

    they are crazy

  6. Jaa says:

    Just keep shoving those crazy bills to us John creek citizens. We do not need to spend this type of money on one park

  7. cathyreads says:

    It costs Alpharetta $78,000 annually *just* in operation and maintenance costs to fund North Park, which is a fraction of the size of this proposed development in Cauley Creek park. That figure doesn’t even include any capital improvements and the price tag increases annually as salaries and operational costs increase.

  8. EJ Moosa says:

    While we are all focused on Park Spending and TSPLOST spending, which are dollars coming from “NEW” revenue sources, have you stopped and asked where all the dollars that were going to be going for parks and transportation will be going?

    The money now available for the City of Johns Creek to spend on other items has now increased drastically. What exactly are the plans for all the transportation projects that will no longer be funded out of our traditional City Budget? Will we be getting a serious tax cut?

    Or is there someone at City Hall with some even bigger spending plans coming towards us that we are unaware of?

    What could be done with the millions and millions of dollars that have been freed up by having the voters pass bigger tax increases on themselves than big spending politicians could have hoped for, despite our ability to amass major budget surpluses each and every year?

  9. Anonymous says:

    I bet the consultants and construction contractors are licking their chops for this project to happen given their fees are based on a percentage of the total project cost. Unless I’m missing something, this looks like a lavish investment that will become a living nightmare for the residents, schools, church, and Fire Station that relies on this beautiful 2-lane road.

    Given the excessive traffic this complex will create, the Fire Department will probably demand a bigger road given the public safety/increased response time issues with the current road.

    Also, expanding this road will be costly, complicated, time consuming, and negatively impact the quality of life for everyone that utilizes this road. The newly reconstructed bridge will have to be reconstructed again. There’s above ground utility poles on one side of this road that will have to be relocated in addition to underground utilities. The expanded road will also severely encroach some subdivisions, residences, Woodward Academy, and the church’s driveways.

    I hope the merits of this project at this location are thoroughly reassessed.

  10. SmartAlex says:

    I am always amazed at our city leaders seem to focus on new ways to spend money.
    They appear to feel quite confident that existing operations are run efficiently and do not need oversight. NOT SO!
    Johns Creek’s personnel and compensation costs are some of the highest in the entire state–comparing only to the city of Atlanta that is as bloated as you could imagine.
    Build in annual raises are wildly extreme compared to private enterprise and comparable cities.

    Why isn’t the city council and mayor focusing on out-of-control personnel costs?

  11. GHL says:

    Let the City Council members who voted for this PAY for it!! They must be living in LaLa Land!!

  12. Anonymous says:

    We need the park. Whining about traffic congestion and cost. What about the People who enjoy this type of facilities?

    • Sick & Tired says:

      @ Anonymous- Whaaat? You must be on the council or one of Bodker’s cronies. Idiotic what you say here!

  13. Proponent says:

    This city has a total lack of athletic fields for the children and families in this community. It’s unacceptable. I’m glad they are doing something about it. Citizens pay huge fees to Fulton County to use barely maintained grassy areas as “playing fields” like the back of schools. There are NO restrooms available, no water fountains, just a hunk of hideous ground. Each of us is paying for something in this city that we have no interest in and don’t personally need but we support it because it’s for the greater good of the community. Look at programs and support costs associated with our retired and/or elderly community. A young family doesn’t need that pay for it none the less. It’s a shame the price tag is high on this long overdue park but it could also bring revenues to the city in the form of tournaments. It’s a quality of life issue for all the families with kids up to high school age. I want this park even though the City dragged their feet and did nothing for so many years that my own family will not see any benefit from it as they are grown now.

  14. cathyreads says:

    My boys were soccer, football and lacrosse players throughout their elementary, middle and high school years. Our family knows what it’s like to use inadequate field space for practice and have to share field space and juggle schedules with the band or other teams.

    Having some fields on the Cauley Creek property is not the issue that most folks are concerned about, it’s the unreasonable amount of overdevelopment of that park land suggested in the preliminary Cauley Creek plan that does not follow the city’s own Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Such a facility does not fit with the surrounding pastoral residential neighborhoods.

    Tournament size facilities have a place, such as near industrial parks or major roadways where they are easy to access for the 1000s of trips made in and out and they don’t disturb residential neighborhoods.

    The scope of this project can be adjusted to make it a better fit for this park land and for all the citizens of Johns Creek.

  15. Proponent says:

    I have seen tournament fields in all kinds of locations throughout the Southeast, including residential areas. They bring substantial amounts of money into local businesses and generate new business opportunities. It’s not just a convenience issue with the field space either. We struggle to compete due to the lack of practice/field time compared to our other teams. This matters to many talented young athletes. We can’t support youth summer teams/programs causing JC residents to travel to other cities to receive recreational opportunities that should be available in our own town. JC will wither away if the citizens reject all opportunities to progress based on complaints about traffic, this area, that area, etc. The park will be a positive for the overall appeal and property values in JC, not a negative. The cost IS ridiculous. This will be another thing I have to pay for even though I personally get nothing out of it. I still think it’s in the best interest. It is far more useful and justifiable than most the “district” related plans (like the new City Hall/Safety Bldg (totally unnecessary luxury). So much waste in the City operations, payrolls, expenses, and benefits that cost us much more over the long run than this park. If we didn’t spend so much money indulging our city government, perhaps there would be ample money for actual taxpayer amenities. Just one persons opinions.

  16. Marsh says:

    EVERYTHING that concerns our city needs to be approved by its residents. We are the ones paying for everything. We don’t have a monarchy or do we?

  17. Anonymous says:

    Hey! You people voted for TSPLOST so what do you expect? Hand politicians a wad of money and they will find ways to spend it. Then, they will come with another tax “for the kids or for old people or for infrastructure” and you will vote for it. Vote no on new taxes and force these legal thieves to learn to manage costs!

Comments