Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Facilities Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Johns Creek council debates public facilities authority after social media backlash; item removed as moot
Summary
Council members debated a local public facilities authority (PFA) after social‑media claims about unchecked spending. Members and the city attorney said enabling legislation exists (2007) and described oversight and open‑meetings requirements; the council voted to remove the PFA agenda item as moot.
The Johns Creek City Council discussed a resolution asking the General Assembly for local authority related to a public facilities authority (PFA) and then voted to remove the agenda item as moot.
Council member Chris Elwood said research showed the state’s enabling legislation for a PFA already passed in 2007 and that much of the social‑media alarm about the measure rested on inaccurate information. "I saw information floating around that was not accurate and wanted to correct the record," Elwood said during the meeting, adding that citizens’ concerns about oversight and fiscal transparency are legitimate.
Council member Chris Coughlin, who supported having the option available, described the request as a home‑rule measure that would let the city consider a PFA in the future rather than requiring immediate use. "I'd rather have the ability to use something and not need it than need it and not have it at my disposal," Coughlin said. The city attorney reviewed the charter language and described the authority's enumerated powers, including the ability to issue revenue bonds and enter contracts to acquire and operate property.
Multiple council members and the attorney emphasized that PFAs are subject to Georgia's Open Meetings Act, public records laws and state auditing requirements. The attorney read provisions in the charter specifying a five‑member appointive board and a 2007 effective date for the enabling act. At least one council member raised questions about potential liability if a PFA took on debt, and the attorney said he would need to review the act in depth to answer that legal question.
After discussion and requests for additional guardrails and public scrutiny, Council member Elwood moved to amend the agenda and remove the PFA action item as moot; the motion was seconded by Council member Coughlin and approved by voice vote.
The council did not adopt governance changes for a PFA or authorize financing measures at the Dec. 9 meeting; members said further study of the charter language and public outreach would be appropriate before any future action.
