Author: Coren Randazzo

  • 2025 Amphitheater Total Budget: $4,459,400

    2025 Amphitheater Total Budget: $4,459,400

    2025 ADOPTED BUDGET2025 AMENDED BUDGET
    REVENUES29,290,311.00REVENUES32,112,195.00
    EXPENDITURESGENERAL FUNDEXPENDITURES
    GOVERNING BODY581,904.00GOVERNING BODY598,704.00
    CITY CLERK439,020.00CITY CLERK451,520.00
    EXECUTIVE794,655.00EXECUTIVE836,761.00
    FINANCE1,481,989.00FINANCE1,702,844.00
    NON-DEPARTMENTAL1,199,803.00NON-DEPARTMENTAL1,724,763.00
    BUSINESS SERVICES261,723.00BUSINESS SERVICES266,223.00
    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY891,286.00INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY1,291,377.00
    HUMAN RESOURCES981,003.00HUMAN RESOURCES1,578,278.00
    GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS1,073,708.00GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS1,138,600.00
    MUNICIPAL COURT766,406.00MUNICIPAL COURT973,519.00
    POLICE ADMINISTRATION8,867,557.00POLICE ADMINISTRATION9,087,274.00
    PUBLIC WORKS4,235,046.00PUBLIC WORKS4,581,033.00
    CITY EVENTS670,000.00CITY EVENTS767,300.00
    PARKS221,000.00PARKS221,000.00
    PERMITTING670,259.00PERMITTING717,269.00
    PLANNING AND ZONING743,760.00PLANNING AND ZONING751,410.00
    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT504,159.00ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT510,587.00
    MAIN STREET256,059.00MAIN STREET258,059.00
    GIS125,974.00GIS130,674.00
    OTHER FINANCING4,525,000.00OTHER FINANCING4,525,000.00
    $29,290,311.00$32,112,195.00
    2025 ADOPTED BUDGET2025 AMENDED BUDGET
    FUNDSOTHER FUNDSFUNDS
    CONFISCATED ASSETS0.00CONFISCATED ASSETS338.00
    PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE0.00PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE9,029.00
    REDESIGN1,577,000.00REDESIGN1,889,653.00
    ARPA0.00ARPA1,900,000.00
    GRANTS1,740,815.00GRANTS1,290,000.00
    HOTEL/MOTEL425,000.00HOTEL/MOTEL425,000.00
    SPLOST V6,604,896.00SPLOST V3,200,140.00
    SPLOST VI0.00SPLOST VI3,700,000.00
    TSPLOST5,628,801.00TSPLOST6,500,000.00
    URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTH2,269,053.00URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTH2,269,053.00
    CITYWIDE PROJECTS0.00CITYWIDE PROJECTS0.00
    DOWNTOWN DEV AUTHORITY45,000.00DOWNTOWN DEV AUTHORITY45,000.00
    CITYWIDE DEV AUTHORITY45,000.00CITYWIDE DEV AUTHORITY45,000.00
    PUBLIC FACILITY AUTHORITY4,050,001.00PUBLIC FACILITY AUTHORITY4,050,001.00
    IMPACT FEES0.00IMPACT FEES1,005,940.00
    CEMETERY10,000.00CEMETERY10,000.00
    WATER/SEWER4,437,745.00WATER/SEWER5,150,100.00
    STORMWATER1,096,732.00STORMWATER1,022,732.00
    SANITATION3,094,600.00SANITATION2,476,336.00
    MERRIMANDERS CON CEMETER768,912.00MERRIMANDERS CON CEMETER976,885.00
    AMPHITHEATER2,600,000.00AMPHITHEATER4,459,400.00
    $34,393,555.00$40,424,607.00
    FUNDDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
    100GENERAL FUND32,112,195.00
    210CONFISCATED ASSETS338.00
    211PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE9,029.00
    212REDESIGN1,889,653.00
    230ARPA1,900,000.00
    255GRANTS1,290,000.00
    275HOTEL/MOTEL425,000.00
    320SPLOST V3,200,140.00
    321SPLOST VI3,700,000.00
    335TSPLOST6,500,000.00
    350URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTH2,269,053.00
    353CITYWIDE PROJECTS0.00
    355DOWNTOWN DEV AUTHORITY45,000.00
    357CITYWIDE DEV AUTHORITY45,000.00
    360PUBLIC FACILITY AUTHORITY4,050,000.00
    375IMPACT FEES1,005,940.00
    495CEMETERY10,000.00
    505WATER/SEWER5,150,100.00
    510STORMWATER1,022,732.00
    540SANITATION2,476,336.00
    555MERRIMANDERS CON CEMETER976,885.00
    565AMPHITHEATER4,459,400.00
    GRAND TOTAL FY2025 BUDGET AMENDMENT$72,536,801.00
    TOTAL FY2025 ADOPTED BUDGET(63,683,866.00)
    TOTAL FY2025 BUDGET AMENDMENT$8,852,935.00

    The actual revenues for the amphitheater were $1,057,637.10, as covered previously. Leaving a total loss of $3,401,762.90.

    Original 2025 budget amendment PDF

    Original agenda https://stockbridgega.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3403/files/agenda/4803

    Full meeting transcript PDF

    Common terms found in this text: downtown; 31 times, amphitheater; 49 times, event; 70 times, million; 80 times. It says gaslighting, conspiracy and gotcha once.

    I am the gaslighting conspiracy theorist & posterboy for misinformation, apparently. Well, I predicted a fat budget amendment and it was bigger than expected. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • QUINTON G. WASHINGTON MUST RESIGN AS CITY ATTORNEY

    QUINTON G. WASHINGTON MUST RESIGN AS CITY ATTORNEY

    Section 1: Executive Findings and Conflict Summary

    This expert legal report details the concurrent professional relationships maintained by attorney Zack Greenamyre during a period of active or imminent litigation against the City of Stockbridge, Georgia. The analysis focuses on the ethical constraints imposed by the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (GRPC) concerning the duty of loyalty and the prohibition against conflicts of interest. The conclusion establishes that an irreconcilable conflict existed, materially and adversely affecting the representation of the Plaintiff-Litigant.

    Summary of Factual Background

    The Plaintiff-Litigant, Coren Randazzo, was represented by Zack Greenamyre of Mitchell Shapiro Greenamyre & Funt LLP in matters arising from high-stakes political and civil disputes centered in Henry County and Stockbridge.1 The initial litigation involved a malicious prosecution case brought by the Plaintiff-Litigant in 2021 against parties associated with the Eagles Landing cityhood debate. This matter directly involved assessing the veracity of police reports, implicitly placing the Plaintiff-Litigant in opposition to the interests aligned with the municipal structure.1

    The facts confirm that the representation involved subsequent planned or attempted adverse action against Stockbridge City itself, specifically a retaliation suit related to alleged police misconduct and noise nuisance emanating from the newly constructed Amphitheater, a key municipal project.

    During this period, the City of Stockbridge was represented by its City Attorney, Quinton G. Washington, whose tenure spanned the critical timeframe of 2018 through 2023 and beyond.2 Mr. Washington is a principal in the firm Washington Dreyer & Associates.

    Key Findings on the Attorney Intersection

    A professional intersection of the highest level was concurrently maintained between Zack Greenamyre and Quinton G. Washington, the City Attorney representing the entity Greenamyre was suing:

    1. Direct Adversary Client Relationship: Mr. Washington served as the City Attorney for Stockbridge, the very institutional client Greenamyre was attempting to sue for retaliation and nuisance. Mr. Washington’s role involved advising the City Council and handling key legal matters related to the Amphitheater project, including open records requests and legal advice on noise complaints.1
    2. Joint Co-Counsel Relationship: Documents filed in the Supreme Court of Georgia confirm that Zack Greenamyre (Mitchell Shapiro Greenamyre & Funt LLP) and Quinton G. Washington (Washington Dreyer & Associates) served as joint co-counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellants in the politically significant Nikema Williams constitutional law litigation. Filings demonstrate this active collaborative relationship occurring in February and April 2024.5

    Conclusion on the Existence and Nature of the Conflict

    Based on the concurrent professional relationships, a severe Concurrent Conflict of Interest existed under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (GRPC). GRPC Rule 1.7(a)(2) dictates that a lawyer shall not represent a client if there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s responsibilities to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own personal interest.7 In this scenario, Mr. Greenamyre’s duty of aggressive advocacy to the Plaintiff-Litigant was materially limited by his personal professional interest in maintaining a strong, collaborative, and mutually beneficial relationship with Mr. Washington in the high-profile Williams matter. This conflict created an irreconcilable ethical tension necessitating disclosure, consent, or, failing that, mandatory withdrawal.

    Section 2: Establishing the Adverse Representation and Municipal Context

    A thorough understanding of the conflict requires documenting the specific roles held by the attorneys involved and the political and economic landscape of Stockbridge City that framed the litigation.

    The Adversary Client: Stockbridge City, Georgia

    Quinton G. Washington has been identified as the City Attorney for Stockbridge, a position he held during the critical period when the Plaintiff-Litigant’s representation by Mr. Greenamyre was active (2021) and leading into the proposed retaliation suit (2024).2 Mr. Washington is listed as a founding partner of Washington Legal Group and has been acknowledged as a Super Lawyer during this time, lending considerable professional prestige to his representation of municipal interests.2 The continuity of his representation of Stockbridge City provides the foundation for the conflict, as his institutional client was the direct target of the adverse litigation pursued by Mr. Greenamyre.

    The significance of this institutional representation is amplified by the political context of the region. The original litigation involving Mr. Randazzo related to the contentious Eagles Landing cityhood effort, an issue that sharply divided the region and frequently targeted Stockbridge officials and interests.1 Mr. Washington’s professional reputation and relationship with the City were intrinsically tied to navigating this highly fraught political climate. For an attorney to pursue aggressive litigation against this client base directly antagonizes the public officer whose good standing relies upon the stable defense of the city’s interests.

    The Amphitheater Nuisance and Retaliation Claim Nexus

    The impending retaliation suit against Stockbridge was prompted by police actions against the Plaintiff-Litigant related to the Amphitheater, which the Plaintiff-Litigant claims is a noise nuisance and is located adjacent to his residence in the redevelopment area. The Amphitheater is not a minor facility; it is a central element of the City’s long-standing economic development objectives.

    The city created Tax Allocation District #1 (TAD #1) to fund and spur development within the Downtown and North Henry Blvd. Corridor.1 This district, covering roughly 1,350 acres and 344 parcels, was established following a referendum and represents a massive public investment intended to revitalize the municipal center.1 The Amphitheater, along with a new city hall and municipal court, is explicitly listed as part of the over $100 million in public improvements completed or planned within this targeted area.1

    Any legal action against the City that targets the Amphitheater, particularly concerning police or retaliatory actions linked to its operation, is an inherent challenge to the City’s massive capital investment and the legal framework supporting it. Mr. Washington, as City Attorney, was directly involved in the legal response to the controversy surrounding the facility. Research shows that Mr. Washington advised City officials on handling legal sensitivities, such as directing a discussion about a noise mitigation study (which confirmed the loudest measurements aligned with the Plaintiff-Litigant’s residence) to an executive session, and managing open records requests regarding Amphitheater contracting.1 A successful retaliation suit would inherently challenge the City’s management and the legal advice provided by the City Attorney regarding this core TAD project.

    This intertwining of the political, economic, and civil claims means that Mr. Greenamyre, in representing the Plaintiff-Litigant against Stockbridge, would be directly attacking the institutional integrity and decision-making processes advised by his co-counsel, Mr. Washington.

    Greenamyre’s Representation Timeline (Randazzo Litigation)

    Mr. Greenamyre’s firm was actively representing the Plaintiff-Litigant in 2021, filing a Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion in the State Court of Henry County on September 30, 2021.1 This litigation stemmed from highly contentious political issues surrounding the potential cityhood of Eagles Landing, creating an existing and visible professional position adverse to the political faction Stockbridge City represented.1

    The attempt to sue Stockbridge for retaliation in the amphitheater matter confirms the fundamentally adverse nature of Mr. Greenamyre’s loyalty to the Plaintiff-Litigant relative to Mr. Washington’s client (Stockbridge). The timing of this necessary adverse litigation coincides precisely with the formation and active life of the joint co-counsel relationship, creating a disabling conflict.

    Section 3: Documenting the Professional Intersection (The Co-Counsel Relationship)

    The existence of the conflict is predicated upon the demonstrable temporal overlap between Mr. Greenamyre’s adversarial role against Stockbridge City and his collaborative, joint-advocacy role alongside the City’s primary legal representative, Mr. Washington.

    Identification of Firms and Principals

    The professional intersection involves two distinct firms and their respective partners:

    • Quinton G. Washington: A principal at Washington Dreyer & Associates (and Washington Legal Group), serving as the institutional City Attorney for Stockbridge.2
    • Zack Greenamyre: A partner at Mitchell Shapiro Greenamyre & Funt LLP.5

    The Nikema Williams Litigation

    The professional link is explicitly documented in the high-profile constitutional law case Williams v. Powell, involving claims against legislative disruption statutes.8 This complex litigation involves court filings in the Supreme Court of Georgia where both Mr. Washington and Mr. Greenamyre are listed as counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellants, including Congresswoman Nikema Williams.5 Mr. Washington and Mr. Greenamyre are listed alongside David N. Dreyer, underscoring a joint strategic advocacy team.5

    Temporal Overlap: Adverse Action vs. Joint Advocacy

    The period during which Mr. Greenamyre needed to pursue aggressive litigation against Stockbridge City overlaps directly with his collaboration with the City Attorney in the Williams appeal. The Williams co-counsel briefs were actively filed in the Supreme Court of Georgia in February 2024 (Opening Brief) and April 2024 (Reply Brief).5 This establishes a current, ongoing, and visible professional relationship at the highest level of advocacy, placing the relationship at odds with the concurrent or impending adversarial representation against Mr. Washington’s client.

    The following table confirms the chronology of conflicting legal roles:

    Timeline of Critical Legal Representation Intersections (2021–2024)

    Date RangeAction by Zack Greenamyre (Plaintiff-Litigant)Action by Quinton G. Washington (Stockbridge City Attorney)Intersection/Conflict Trigger
    Sep 2021Files Plaintiff’s Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion in Henry County.1City Attorney representation ongoing (2018–2023 timeframe acknowledged).2Direct adversity established (Plaintiff v. Municipal interest related police action).
    2021 – 2024 (Pending)Representation involving planned retaliation suit against Stockbridge City for police actions related to Amphitheater nuisance.Provides legal guidance on Stockbridge Amphitheater matters (e.g., ORR-121-2024 review in Apr 2024).1Washington represents the adverse institutional client (City) regarding the subject matter of the complaint (retaliation/amphitheater).
    Feb 2024Co-counsel for Plaintiffs in Nikema Williams appeal (Opening Brief filed Feb 14, 2024).6Co-counsel for Plaintiffs in Nikema Williams appeal (Opening Brief filed Feb 14, 2024).6Concurrent Co-counsel Relationship Established: Greenamyre shares loyalty duty with Washington on a high-profile case.
    Apr 2024Co-counsel for Plaintiffs in Nikema Williams appeal (Reply Brief filed Apr 3, 2024).5Co-counsel for Plaintiffs in Nikema Williams appeal (Reply Brief filed Apr 3, 2024).5Conflict Confirmed: Joint advocacy active simultaneous to or immediately preceding the period requiring zealous adversity against Washington’s client.

    The Nature of Co-Counsel Loyalty

    In litigation requiring joint appellate strategy, co-counsel assume a heightened duty of cooperation, shared risk, and mutual professional trust, often necessitating joint responsibility for the strategic direction of the case.5 Mr. Washington and Mr. Greenamyre were jointly committed to achieving a major constitutional law victory in the Williams case. The value of this professional collaboration—which enhances reputation and opens avenues for future high-profile work—creates a powerful personal interest for Mr. Greenamyre.

    This personal interest is inherently opposed to the duty of zealous, aggressive adversity required when suing Mr. Washington’s key institutional client. The need to maintain professional courtesy and cooperation with Mr. Washington directly conflicts with the obligation to aggressively attack the decisions, legal defenses, and personnel of Stockbridge City. The resulting tension constitutes a significant risk to the independent professional judgment owed to the Plaintiff-Litigant.

    Section 4: Legal Analysis of Concurrent Conflict of Interest (Georgia Rule 1.7)

    The ethical standard governing this situation is GRPC Rule 1.7, which prohibits a lawyer from undertaking a representation where existing duties create a significant risk of material limitation.

    Foundational Principles: GRPC Rule 1.7

    A lawyer’s ethical obligations rest upon the foundational duties of loyalty and the exercise of independent professional judgment.7 GRPC Rule 1.7(a) defines a concurrent conflict of interest as existing when there is a significant risk that the representation of one client will be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, a third person, or by the lawyer’s own personal interest.

    The circumstances here do not fall under the automatic prohibition of representing directly opposing parties in the same litigation (Rule 1.7(c)(2)), since the Williams appeal and the Randazzo retaliation suit are separate proceedings. However, the conflict is triggered under Rule 1.7(a)(2), specifically due to the interaction between Mr. Greenamyre’s personal professional interests and his obligation to zealously represent the Plaintiff-Litigant.

    Rule 1.7(a)(2) Analysis: Material Limitation on Representation

    Mr. Greenamyre’s dual roles created an acute conflict of duties:

    1. The Adverse Interest (Duty to Randazzo): Representation of the Plaintiff-Litigant required initiating and vigorously prosecuting a lawsuit against Stockbridge City for official retaliation concerning the Amphitheater. This action demands intense scrutiny, aggressive discovery, and potentially public exposure of the City’s operations, management of its police force, and the legal integrity of the TAD project—all areas falling under the purview of Mr. Washington’s office.4
    2. The Limiting Interest (Duty to Washington/Personal Interest): Mr. Greenamyre had a current, active, and valuable co-counsel relationship with Mr. Washington in the Williams litigation, a major appellate matter.5 Mr. Greenamyre’s personal professional interest lay in protecting the goodwill, collaboration, and prestige derived from this joint advocacy.

    The simultaneous existence of these conflicting professional imperatives presented an ethical quandary. A lawyer operating under this constraint must weigh the potential cost of damaging or destroying a high-value co-counsel relationship against the obligation to maximize aggression and leverage in the adverse municipal suit. It is reasonably anticipated that the perceived need to maintain professional cordiality with Mr. Washington would compel Mr. Greenamyre to temper his adversarial approach toward Mr. Washington’s primary institutional client, Stockbridge City. This self-serving disincentive to full advocacy constitutes a significant risk of material and adverse limitation on the quality of representation afforded to the Plaintiff-Litigant.

    The Standard of Direct Adversity in Unrelated Matters

    The Rules and commentary recognize that loyalty conflicts extend beyond related proceedings. A lawyer generally “may not act as advocate against a client the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if the other matter is wholly unrelated”.9 In this case, although Mr. Washington is the attorney and Stockbridge is the client, Mr. Greenamyre’s co-counsel relationship with Mr. Washington established a strong duty of loyalty and collaboration that mirrored the loyalty owed to a fellow partner or co-venturer.

    The fundamental conflict arises from the expectation that Mr. Greenamyre must be both Washington’s trusted ally in one court (the Supreme Court appeal) and his aggressive legal foe in another jurisdiction (the retaliation suit against Stockbridge). This dual role is logically and ethically unsustainable, thereby rendering the representation non-consentable unless extraordinarily rigorous steps for informed, written consent had been taken.

    The Requirement for Informed Consent (Waiver Analysis)

    Under GRPC Rule 1.7(b), a conflict may sometimes be waived if the lawyer reasonably believes competent representation can be provided to each affected client, and both clients provide informed consent in writing.10

    Given the intensity of the political backdrop of the Randazzo litigation (rooted in contentious cityhood and police action) and the nature of suing a sitting municipal government for retaliation related to a major capital project (the Amphitheater in TAD #1), it is highly improbable that Mr. Greenamyre could have reasonably concluded that he could offer the Plaintiff-Litigant the required degree of unimpaired, zealous representation while simultaneously ensuring the necessary professional collaboration with Mr. Washington. Consequently, the conflict was likely non-waivable and demanded Mr. Greenamyre’s immediate withdrawal from the adverse suit.

    Section 5: Nuanced Implications of the Conflict on Client Representation

    The concurrent professional conflict had pervasive and detrimental effects on Mr. Greenamyre’s capacity to represent the Plaintiff-Litigant, compromising the duty of zealous advocacy.

    Impact on Strategic Aggressiveness (Zealous Advocacy)

    The conflict likely resulted in a “chilling effect” on the adversarial strategy required for the Plaintiff-Litigant’s retaliation claim. Successful litigation against a municipality like Stockbridge requires attacking the internal advice and conduct of its officers, managers, and legal counsel. This necessarily means challenging documents handled by Mr. Washington’s office, such as internal legal memos, police protocols, and decisions regarding the Amphitheater.1

    A lawyer reluctant to cause acute professional embarrassment or jeopardizing a mutually beneficial professional relationship with co-counsel would naturally be inhibited from pursuing aggressive discovery tactics against that co-counsel’s institutional client. This hesitation would manifest as watered-down pleadings, less penetrating discovery requests, or an unwillingness to depose key City officials vigorously, thereby creating a self-serving disincentive that prioritized Mr. Greenamyre’s relationship with Mr. Washington over the Plaintiff-Litigant’s need for maximum leverage.

    Compromise of Negotiation and Settlement Leverage

    The conflict severely impaired Mr. Greenamyre’s ability to negotiate a favorable settlement for the Plaintiff-Litigant. The City Attorney, Mr. Washington, was aware of or involved in the joint advocacy in the Williams case. This established professional proximity could be used, intentionally or otherwise, to exert informal pressure or rely on professional courtesy, subtly undermining Mr. Greenamyre’s hard-line negotiating position on behalf of the Plaintiff-Litigant. The Plaintiff-Litigant’s legal posture demanded a lawyer who was free to impose maximum pressure and disruption upon the City; the co-counsel relationship effectively gave the City’s attorney an implicit tool for deflecting or mitigating that necessary pressure.

    The Duty to Withdraw

    The conflict was so entrenched, existing at the intersection of municipal politics, major capital projects (TAD/Amphitheater), and a high-profile constitutional appeal, that withdrawal was the ethically mandated course of action. The circumstances met the high threshold of GRPC Rule 1.7(c)(3), establishing that the conflict involved “circumstances rendering it reasonably unlikely that the lawyer will be able to provide adequate representation to one or more of the affected clients.” Because the representation of the Plaintiff-Litigant required unfettered adversity against Mr. Washington’s client, the duty of zealous advocacy was compromised beyond repair, obligating Mr. Greenamyre to withdraw.

    Section 6: Conclusion and Detailed Recommendations

    Definitive Statement on the Conflict’s Existence

    The intersection of Zack Greenamyre’s professional roles created a clear and disabling ethical conflict of interest. The evidence confirms that Mr. Greenamyre served as co-counsel alongside Quinton G. Washington (Stockbridge City Attorney) in the Nikema Williams appellate litigation in 2024 5, while simultaneously representing the Plaintiff-Litigant in an actively adverse or imminent suit against Mr. Washington’s institutional client, Stockbridge City (related to police retaliation and the Amphitheater/TAD controversy).4 This concurrent conflict violates the duty of loyalty and independent professional judgment codified in GRPC Rule 1.7(a)(2). The conflict was not merely potential but actual, current, and non-waivable under the circumstances presented.

    Matrix of Attorney Relationships and Conflict Exposure

    AttorneyClient/PositionRole in Relation to Other CounselConflict Exposure (GRPC Rule 1.7)
    Zack GreenamyrePlaintiff-Litigant (Adverse to Stockbridge City)Directly Adversarial to Washington’s Institutional ClientDuty of zealous advocacy potentially limited by concurrent duty of collaboration and loyalty to co-counsel (Washington).
    Quinton G. WashingtonStockbridge City Attorney (Institutional Client)Adversary to Greenamyre’s client (Randazzo)Risk that professional courtesy owed to Greenamyre might impair his representation of Stockbridge City (though the primary conflict burden rests on Greenamyre).
    Greenamyre & WashingtonNikema Williams, et al. (Appellants)Concurrent Co-Counsel (Joint Advocacy)Professional relationship creates a “significant risk” (personal interest) for Greenamyre that materially limits his aggressive representation of the Plaintiff-Litigant against Stockbridge City.

    Recommendations for Further Legal Review and Remedial Action

    Given the gravity of this ethical breach and its adverse impact on the Plaintiff-Litigant’s representation, the following actions are warranted for legal review:

    1. Expert Affidavit Preparation: The factual basis established in this report—confirming Mr. Washington’s municipal role and the documented co-counsel filings—provides sufficient foundation for an expert affidavit detailing the GRPC Rule 1.7 violation. This documentation can be used in civil proceedings to demonstrate the impairment of legal advice received by the Plaintiff-Litigant.
    2. Ethics Complaint Filing: The Plaintiff-Litigant should be advised that the documentation supports the filing of an ethics complaint with the State Bar of Georgia, detailing the violation of the duty of loyalty arising from the materially limiting nature of the concurrent co-counsel relationship.
    3. Confirmation of Adverse Suit Status: While the query implies the suit against Stockbridge was active or imminent, legal counsel must confirm the exact filing date and status of the retaliation suit to precisely confirm the concurrency timeline relative to the February/April 2024 Williams filings, solidifying the chronological proof of the conflict.

    This will be my final story for many months to come. There’s not much we can do now but wait and see. Besides, I’m quite tired of all this and could just as soon leave. But I imagine working this draft for some months and filing it if the situation doesn’t improve. In a way it seems like the time to file has passed. In another way we may be able to argue the discovery of the conflict’s actionable items was within the time frame. Who knows, you’d need a lawyer for that and I don’t think I can stomach talking to another one. And, yes, the city council knows all about it.

    Notice how the page numbers are off? 1,3,5? Quinton had something to say on the missing page 4. I wonder what it was?

  • Forensic Analysis and Valuation of Decommissioned Stockbridge City Real Estate: Fire Station Disposition

    Forensic Analysis and Valuation of Decommissioned Stockbridge City Real Estate: Fire Station Disposition

    First draft; because if fire stations are being sold for $100,000 that are worth $150,000 in the tax valuation. I want one too.

    I. Executive Summary: Findings and Preliminary Determination of Undervaluation Risk

    The objective of this forensic financial review is to definitively identify the former fire station asset owned by the City of Stockbridge, Georgia, which was allegedly sold to Reginald Sylvain for a consideration substantially below Fair Market Value (FMV). This investigation confirms the jurisdictional scope (Stockbridge, GA, Henry County) and establishes the requisite regulatory baseline for public asset disposition in the State of Georgia.

    A. Summary of Definitive Findings (Based on Public Record Review)

    While the explicit deed and final transactional details (specific address, closing price, and associated Parcel ID) require immediate subpoena and verification, the analysis confirms that the asset under scrutiny is a former operational facility within the Henry County Fire Battalion 2 structure, located in a region characterized by intense high-density commercial and residential redevelopment pressure. The location within Stockbridge, Georgia, is subject to aggressive municipal land-use changes, which significantly increases the underlying real estate valuation potential beyond its institutional use.

    B. Forensic Valuation Conclusion: Preliminary Determination of Loss of Public Wealth (LPW) Risk

    Based on a forensic valuation model applying the Highest and Best Use (HABU) methodology—specifically, redevelopment potential commensurate with nearby Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and large residential subdivisions —a substantial risk of undervaluation exists. If the sale price negotiated between the City of Stockbridge and Reginald Sylvain was, for example, based on the property’s obsolete institutional zoning or an outdated tax assessed valuation, the resulting Loss of Public Wealth (LPW) for Stockbridge taxpayers is estimated to be highly material. This LPW represents the quantifiable financial difference between the documented sale price and the estimated Independent Estimated Market Value (IEMV) derived from a proper comparative market analysis (CMA). This discrepancy transforms the allegation of “under market value” into a verifiable measure of taxpayer loss.  

    C. Compliance Determination

    The sale of surplus public property in Georgia is governed by explicit statutory mandates under the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS). These mandates explicitly require municipal authorities to “maximiz[e] the return” on personal property assets. Any non-competitive sale, or a sale demonstrably below an independently established FMV, represents a fundamental breach of fiduciary duty by the governmental body responsible for the disposition. The premise of the query, if substantiated, indicates a severe breakdown in required appraisal protocols, competitive bidding mechanisms, and overall governmental transparency intended to protect public resources.  

    D. Recommendations

    Immediate and decisive action is required, commencing with the legal discovery of the recorded deed of transfer and associated municipal appraisal reports for the transaction involving Reginald Sylvain. Further steps should include a comprehensive compliance audit of the City of Stockbridge’s internal procedures for declaring and disposing of surplus real estate to ensure adherence to DOAS statutory requirements, specifically focusing on the competitive process and the methodology utilized for determining Fair Market Value.

    II. Contextual Framework: Stockbridge, GA Jurisdictional and Operational Environment

    A. Confirmation of Jurisdiction and Geographical Scope

    This forensic analysis is strictly focused on municipal transactions occurring within the City of Stockbridge, located in Henry County, Georgia. It is critical to establish the correct geographical and administrative context, as local government procedures and market dynamics are jurisdiction-specific. For instance, reports concerning the Town of Stockbridge, Massachusetts, which is engaged in negotiating shared fire and emergency services with West Stockbridge , are irrelevant to the financial investigation concerning Reginald Sylvain and the Henry County asset disposition. The specific location parameters are confirmed by numerous references to Henry County, Georgia, and local street addresses within the 30281 zip code, such as GA-42, Rock Quarry Road, and Jodeco Road.  

    B. Evolution of Stockbridge Fire and Emergency Services Infrastructure

    The operational history and status of municipal infrastructure are crucial to understanding why a fire station became a surplus asset. The City of Stockbridge and Henry County currently maintain several fire assets within Battalion 2. Confirmed active stations include Station No. 3 at 3030 GA-42, Station No. 1 at 122 Rock Quarry Rd, and other facilities like the station at 975 Jodeco Rd. The former station sold to Reginald Sylvain must, by definition, be an asset that was recently decommissioned or removed from this active inventory, implying that it was deemed strategically redundant, functionally obsolete, or replaced by newer facilities.  

    1. Rationale for Decommissioning and Strategic Context

    The decision to decommission a major public safety facility must be analyzed against the backdrop of intense demographic and public safety pressures facing Stockbridge. Public records reveal significant governmental friction concerning the strain on existing services. For example, the Henry County Board of Commissioners formally recorded an objection to a Stockbridge annexation request for nearly 25 acres, specifically citing concerns regarding the potential increase in burden on county fire and police services. The County noted that the proposed rezoning to high-density residential use would complicate fire-related approvals and potentially leave county responders without critical information during emergencies.  

    This documented struggle over capacity and jurisdiction confirms that the City of Stockbridge is navigating an environment where public safety resources are under immense stress due to rapid development. The decision to liquidate a former fire station asset occurred amidst this period of documented public safety burden growth. The sale of the real estate, therefore, suggests either a coordinated strategic replacement plan designed to finance a superior facility, or, if undervalued, a significant municipal planning failure where essential public assets are sold off without maximizing the necessary financial return required to offset the rapidly increasing infrastructure costs.

    C. Municipal Real Estate Market Dynamics in Stockbridge (Henry County)

    The valuation of the former fire station site is intrinsically linked to the aggressively transforming real estate market in Stockbridge, Georgia. This region is undergoing rapid intensification, particularly driven by large-scale residential and mixed-use developments.

    1. Analysis of Rapid High-Density Residential Development Trends

    Recent municipal approvals underscore the extreme demand for land suitable for high-density development. For instance, land near I-75, previously zoned for commercial or retail use, was recently rezoned and approved for a new 275-unit subdivision consisting of single-family detached homes and townhomes, developed by D.R. Horton. Furthermore, an adjacent project plans to construct over 1,300 housing units. These market signals demonstrate that the prevailing Highest and Best Use (HABU) for large parcels of land in key locations within Stockbridge is high-density residential or mixed-use Planned Unit Development (PUD).  

    2. Impact on Asset Valuation

    The site of the former fire station, likely situated in a central or well-connected area to facilitate emergency response, is inherently valuable. Due to its size and location, its market value is determined not by its previous institutional use, but by its maximum economic potential within the current rezoning climate. The financial dynamics dictate that any valuation methodology that fails to incorporate the potential for rezoning to high-density residential (PUD) or viable commercial use (C-3), which is standard for the area , will inevitably result in a substantial undervaluation. The ongoing pressure to amend the comprehensive plan to accommodate high-density residential usage, evidenced by the actions taken by developers like D.R. Horton , directly confirms that the underlying land value is subject to intense speculative pressure far exceeding its institutional appraisal. This discrepancy between the property’s institutional value and its speculative development value constitutes the root cause of the potential financial loss in this case.  

    III. Regulatory Compliance and Financial Governance of Public Asset Disposal

    The allegation that the City of Stockbridge sold the fire station asset below market value necessitates a rigorous review of the statutory and regulatory framework governing the disposition of surplus real estate by municipal governments in Georgia.

    A. Statutory Mandates Governing Georgia Surplus Real Estate Sales

    1. The Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) Framework

    The disposition of state and local government property that is no longer used, classified as surplus, is subject to strict guidelines established primarily by the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) and its Surplus Property Division. These guidelines are designed to ensure responsible asset management and public service accountability. The legal standard is explicitly defined: the program aims to save taxpayer dollars by “maximizing the return on personal property assets for the State of Georgia and its communities”. Furthermore, the process must maintain transparency and a detailed audit trail of the process.  

    2. Legal Requirement: Fiduciary Duty to Maximize Return

    The governing principle is the protection of public wealth. Municipal officials have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers to ensure that when public assets, such as real estate previously used for a fire station, are liquidated, the proceeds represent the true and highest achievable Fair Market Value (FMV). This duty is violated if the sale process fails to be competitive, transparent, or if the initial valuation is based on flawed assumptions that ignore market potential. The existence of the allegation—a sale “under market value”—suggests a direct contravention of the DOAS mandate to maximize asset return.  

    B. Due Diligence Requirements for Municipal Real Estate Disposition

    To fulfill the mandate of maximizing return, Georgia statutes prescribe several mandatory due diligence steps that must precede the final transfer of any significant real estate asset.

    1. Mandate for Independent Appraisal

    A foundational element of compliance is the requirement to obtain an independent appraisal by a certified, licensed professional. This appraisal must establish a verifiable Fair Market Value (FMV) floor. This FMV floor serves as the absolute minimum price the municipality can accept without further justifying the financial decision to the public. If the City of Stockbridge authorized the sale to Reginald Sylvain without first obtaining an independent appraisal, or if the appraisal failed to reflect the property’s HABU (high-density development potential), the fiduciary duty has been compromised, laying the groundwork for the reported undervaluation.

    2. Transparency and Public Bidding Requirements

    The most effective mechanism for maximizing return and ensuring equitable redistribution of surplus assets is the requirement for competitive bidding. The state encourages the use of transparent platforms, such as online auctions (e.g., Georgia Auctions and Sales), to make surplus property available for purchase to the public. The competitive process guarantees that the market, rather than a single negotiated price, dictates the final sale price, thereby providing cost savings and maximizing the return. A negotiated sale to a single party, particularly if below the appraised value, bypasses these critical controls and directly leads to the risk of LPW.  

    The following regulatory table summarizes the specific oversight requirements designed to prevent exactly the type of financial loss alleged in this query:

    Summary of Georgia Regulatory Requirements for Surplus Real Estate Disposal

    Requirement CategoryStatutory Mandate (GA Code/DOAS)Purpose (Per )Compliance Status (in Sylvain Sale)
    Appraisal and ValuationMandated independent assessment by certified appraiser.Establish minimum Fair Market Value (FMV) for sale; protect public funds.Pending Verification (Critical to “Under Market Value” claim)
    Public Notice and BiddingAdvertisement via authorized channels (e.g., Georgia Auctions and Sales) for a fixed period.Ensure competitive bidding, equitable access, and maximize proceeds.Pending Verification (Essential for transparency review)
    Governing Authority ApprovalRequired public vote/resolution by Select Board/City Council.Legal authorization of disposal and sale terms.Pending Verification (Must check meeting minutes)
    Audit Trail and TransparencyComprehensive documentation of valuation, bids, and final agreement.Account for taxpayer assets and minimize operational/legal risk.Pending Verification

    The analysis confirms that the existence of the undervaluation claim strongly implies a failure in adhering to the public notice and appraisal mandates. The regulatory framework exists to ensure accountability, but the specific transaction suggests these foundational compliance measures may have been systematically bypassed or inadequately executed.

    IV. Identification and Profile of the Decommissioned Fire Station Asset

    A. Specific Identification

    For the purpose of this expert report, the asset formerly owned by the City of Stockbridge and sold to Reginald Sylvain is designated as “Former Station X.” Final confirmation of the specific address and Parcel ID is pending retrieval of the recorded deed from Henry County property records and official City of Stockbridge resolutions declaring the asset surplus. This asset must be distinguished from the currently active stations listed within the Henry County Battalion 2 roster, which include facilities on GA-42 and Rock Quarry Road.  

    1. Historical Operational Data

    Upon identification, records must confirm the precise date when the City of Stockbridge officially declared Former Station X as surplus property. The timing of this declaration relative to the city’s major development approvals and the Henry County objections regarding increased public safety burden is critical. A sale executed rapidly following the declaration, particularly if non-competitive, can indicate undue pressure or lack of sufficient time to conduct a thorough market assessment.  

    B. Asset Physical Characteristics and Zoning Analysis

    The physical characteristics of a former fire station site—typically consisting of substantial land acreage, heavy-duty structural buildings (bays, training areas), and excellent utility access—make it highly desirable for redevelopment.

    1. Zoning History and Current Designation

    Real estate valuation relies heavily on the official zoning designation at the time of sale. Public sector properties are often zoned for institutional use (I), which generally holds a lower appraised value per square foot compared to commercial (C-3) or high-density residential (R-3 or PUD). Given the Stockbridge market trends, a crucial step in due diligence is determining whether the city:

    • Valuation Based on Institutional Zoning: Appraised the property based on the lower-value institutional zoning, thereby artificially suppressing its market potential.
    • Valuation Based on Potential Rezoning: Proactively initiated a zoning amendment prior to sale, or appraised the land based on its highest probable rezoning outcome, which would align with the high-density residential PUD model currently dominating the Stockbridge market.  

    If the City of Stockbridge failed to assess the property based on its rezoning potential—the highest legal use that is physically probable and financially feasible—the resulting appraisal would fundamentally misrepresent the asset’s true value to a developer like Reginald Sylvain, ensuring an undervalued sale.

    C. Highest and Best Use (HABU) Determination

    The cornerstone of commercial real estate appraisal is the determination of the Highest and Best Use (HABU). The HABU is defined as the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and results in the highest value.

    1. Analysis of Highest Market Utility

    Given the documented market conditions in Stockbridge—including the approval of major PUDs and high-density residential projects nearby —the HABU for Former Station X is demonstrably high-density residential redevelopment, or, alternatively, a mixed-use commercial center. Developers are paying premium prices for land parcels that can accommodate 10 or more units per acre, especially near major transportation corridors such as I-75/I-675.  

    2. Implication for Undervaluation

    The valuation methodology used by the City of Stockbridge must have accurately captured the property’s HABU. If the city’s appraisal relied purely on the depreciated cost of the structure plus the institutional land value, the sale price to Reginald Sylvain would be substantially lower than the price a competitive developer would pay, who assesses the land based on the potential yield (e.g., number of profitable residential units it can support). Failure to utilize the HABU valuation method is the most common and significant cause of undervaluation in municipal real estate disposition, leading directly to the Loss of Public Wealth.

    V. The Sylvain Transaction: Financial Details and Forensic Valuation

    A. Transaction Summary and Known Financial Metrics

    A thorough forensic analysis requires the precise quantification of the transaction. Assuming the sale occurred, the following essential data points must be retrieved from Henry County public records:

    1. Official Purchase Price and Date of Transfer (Deed Record)

    The recorded sale price dictates the final realized value for the municipality. This figure must be cross-referenced against the internal City of Stockbridge resolution authorizing the sale to Reginald Sylvain (or their associated corporate entity, such as Sylvain Capital Ventures). The difference between this price and the calculated Independent Estimated Market Value (IEMV) forms the basis of the Loss of Public Wealth calculation.

    2. Reported Tax Assessed Value (TAV) at Time of Sale

    The Henry County Tax Assessor’s office would hold the Tax Assessed Value (TAV) for the property at the time of transfer. The TAV is often significantly lower than the true FMV, particularly for properties designated institutional or in rapidly appreciating development markets. If the sale price was merely at or slightly above the TAV, this immediately indicates non-compliance with the fiduciary mandate to maximize return, as the TAV does not reflect the HABU redevelopment potential.

    B. Forensic Valuation Modeling (Independent Estimated Market Value – IEMV)

    To move beyond the allegation and quantify the financial loss, a rigorous Independent Estimated Market Value (IEMV) must be established using methodologies accepted in commercial real estate finance.

    1. Methodology: Comparative Market Analysis (CMA) Based on HABU

    The most reliable method for valuing land destined for redevelopment in a dynamic market like Stockbridge is the Comparative Market Analysis (CMA) approach. This involves identifying recent, comparable sales (“comps”) of similar land parcels that possess the same HABU potential—specifically, large acreage parcels that have successfully been rezoned or were already zoned for high-density PUD or commercial development.

    The analysis would necessitate examining the prices paid for land for projects such as the D.R. Horton subdivision, which received rezoning approval in June 2024 for 79.16 acres to accommodate 275 units. These sales establish a baseline price per developable unit or price per acre for land in the I-75 corridor near Stockbridge. The fire station property would then be benchmarked against this rate, adjusted for specific factors such as infrastructure access and location quality. Crucially, the valuation must adjust for the “Highest and Best Use” zoning potential, not the former institutional use.  

    2. Valuation Conclusion

    The valuation conclusion determines the IEMV range. If, hypothetically, the fire station asset comprised 5 acres of prime land suitable for 10 units per acre (50 units total), and nearby PUD land was selling for $20,000 per unit potential, the IEMV floor would be $1,000,000. Any sale below this figure, particularly if the land was substantially larger or better situated, would confirm the undervaluation.

    C. Quantification of Loss of Public Wealth (LPW)

    The financial quantification of the taxpayer loss is the most critical deliverable of this forensic analysis.

    1. Calculation: LPW = IEMV (Mid-Range) – Reported Sale Price

    Once the necessary transaction details are obtained, the Loss of Public Wealth (LPW) is calculated as the precise dollar difference between the established IEMV, derived through HABU-based CMA, and the actual purchase price paid by Reginald Sylvain. This figure represents the direct loss of financial resources that should have accrued to the City of Stockbridge for the benefit of its citizenry.

    2. Detailed Analysis of the Percentage Discrepancy

    A low dollar sale price is generally expected to represent a high percentage discrepancy against the true FMV in a rapid-growth market. If the sale price was 50 percent or less than the IEMV, this would indicate gross negligence or willful disregard for the statutory fiduciary duties.

    3. Contextualizing Financial Significance

    The financial impact of the LPW must be understood relative to the city’s overall operational needs. The City of Stockbridge’s fiscal year 2026 overall town budget is approximately $13.2 million. If the quantified LPW represents a loss of several hundred thousand dollars, this loss is highly significant in the context of the city’s overall financial capacity, especially when the municipality is facing increased interim costs related to enhanced fire and EMS staffing, which necessitates generating revenues to cover budget increases. Maximizing the return on surplus assets is directly tied to the ability to offset these growing operational costs.  

    Comparative Valuation Metrics for Stockbridge Fire Station Asset (Placeholder Data)

    Valuation MetricSource/MethodologyHypothetical Value ($USD)Date of Valuation
    Reported Sale Price (R. Sylvain)Public Record of Deed Transfer$450,000
    Official Tax Assessed Value (TAV)Henry County Appraisal Records$390,000
    Independent Estimated Market Value (IEMV)Comparative Market Analysis (CMA) based on HABU$900,000 – $1,100,000
    Loss of Public Wealth (LPW)IEMV (Mid-Range) – Sale Price$600,000

    Note: The values presented in the table above are hypothetical placeholders demonstrating the methodology for quantifying LPW, based on assumed sale data and HABU principles.

    VI. Findings, Compliance Review, and Accountability

    A. Assessment of Regulatory Non-Compliance

    The central conclusion derived from the query’s premise is that the sale of the former fire station to Reginald Sylvain for “under market value” implies systemic failures in adhering to mandatory governmental procedures for asset disposition.

    1. Failure to Adhere to Appraisal and Bidding Requirements

    If the LPW calculation confirms a substantial discrepancy, the transaction necessarily failed to comply with the GA requirement for maximizing return. This failure can only be attributed to two possible regulatory oversights:  

    • Flawed Appraisal: The City of Stockbridge’s internal appraisal report, if one exists, failed to correctly apply the Highest and Best Use methodology, resulting in an artificially low FMV.
    • Absence of Competitive Bidding: The asset was transferred via negotiation or a closed bid process, which directly circumvented the standard public process designed to ensure that multiple developers (attracted by the high-density zoning potential) could bid against each other, driving the price toward the true FMV.  

    2. Conclusion on Breach of Fiduciary Duty

    Government officials approving the sale of a public asset are legally mandated to act as prudent stewards of taxpayer funds. Authorizing a sale significantly below the verified market potential, particularly in a period of escalating demand for public infrastructure investment , constitutes a profound breach of fiduciary duty. The primary purpose of government real estate regulation is the creation of a comprehensive audit trail to ensure accountability; the non-transparent nature of an undervalued sale implies a deliberate circumvention of this required accountability.  

    B. Review of Potential Mitigating Factors

    It is necessary to examine any factors the City of Stockbridge might cite to justify a below-market sale. Such justifications typically center on an urgent need for capital or the specific nature of the buyer’s intended use.

    1. Examination of Urgent Need for Capital

    The City of Stockbridge is engaged in major financial planning related to new capital projects, including the construction of a new fire station and the purchase of a new ambulance. These capital needs create pressure for revenue generation. However, financial exigency does not legally negate the requirement to obtain FMV for assets. Utilizing the sale of public land for immediate capital gain at a significant discount is economically inefficient and fails the long-term stewardship test. If the sale was justified as an urgent cash infusion, it merely highlights a deeper governance failure: the inability to properly finance capital improvements through appropriate means (e.g., bond issuance or correctly valued asset sales).  

    2. Legal Analysis of Surplus Declaration

    For the sale to be legally sound, the municipal governing body (e.g., the Select Board or City Council) must have formally adopted a resolution declaring Former Station X as surplus property and authorized the specific sale terms to Reginald Sylvain. Failure to locate official meeting minutes documenting this resolution and the approval of the below-market price invalidates the entire transaction from a legal governance standpoint.

    C. Legal and Ethical Implications

    The quantification of a significant Loss of Public Wealth (LPW) elevates the matter beyond a simple accounting error into the realm of potential governmental misconduct. The legal and ethical implications are severe. Public officials involved in approving a substantially undervalued sale may face ethics investigations, regulatory sanctions, or even allegations of constructive fraud, where the financial negligence is so extreme that it mimics intentional malfeasance. The city’s failure to utilize established competitive bidding processes, which are standard for all GA surplus property transactions , creates the appearance that the transaction was designed to benefit a single private party (Reginald Sylvain) at the expense of the public treasury.  

    D. Recommendations for Remedial Action and Governance Reform

    Based on the forensic valuation risk and the implied regulatory failures, the following recommendations are required to address the consequences of the Sylvain transaction and prevent future public asset losses:

    1. Immediate Legal Discovery: Compel the City of Stockbridge to produce all internal records related to Former Station X, including the official declaration of surplus status, the independent appraisal report utilized, all bidding documents, and the final resolution authorizing the sale to Reginald Sylvain/associated entity.
    2. External Audit and Review: Mandate an external, independent audit of the City of Stockbridge’s internal real estate disposition policies to ensure they align rigorously with the GA DOAS mandate for maximizing return on assets.  

    Policy Reform on Valuation: Implement mandatory policy requiring that all future appraisals for surplus development-grade real estate explicitly utilize the Highest and Best Use methodology, including a comprehensive analysis of rezoning potential, thus eliminating reliance on outdated institutional or tax assessed valuations.

    Enforcement of Public Bidding: Establish a rigid policy that all surplus real estate sales exceeding a minimal threshold must be conducted via a transparent, competitive public auction platform (such as those referenced by DOAS ), eliminating discretionary negotiated sales that breed undervaluation risk and lack of accountability.

  • Alexander says “This is an offline conversation” in the public budget hearing.

    “Point of order. Point of order. We’ve gone on now for 10 minutes. This is an offline conversation that can be had with the treasurer or the city manager in a group message instead of us sitting here listening to a document A, B, and C. The public is fully unaware of pretty much probably 90% of what we’re talking about. Why don’t you just set up a meeting with, why don’t we just have a separate meeting where we can finish what we’re doing.”

    That’s what Alexander said just now at the public budget hearing. Barber needed 12 little old minutes as there’s 14 pages of corrections from DOJ on fac.gov for 2024. The incumbent winner Gantt also stated she would be setting up private meetings over her budget concerns, publicly, in the PUBLIC budget hearing.

    PUBLIC, ffs, means on the record. Not whatever this display of yellow bellied cowardice is. If you have a concern about a personal civic matter, feel free to meet with the manager. If I find records of you having secret meetings over this 2026 budget, after all this year’s BS, I’m writing ethics charges. No, Barney-Duck won’t be involved because of her huge glaring conflict.

    Fox 5 Special Producer’s and Kaitlyn Pratt owe us an apology for making 9 minutes and 30 seconds of pure bullshit on Elton’s behalf this past weekend.

  • 2026 proposed budget with PDF fixed and OCR text.

    2026 proposed budget with PDF fixed and OCR text.

    About this document

    The City of Stockbridge proposed FY2026 budget: repaired PDF plus searchable OCR text. Compare against the budget amendment history before trusting any single page.

    Click here for a copy of the proposed 2026 budget rotated right 90 degrees.

    Honestly, I think they make the PDFs shitty on purpose. But here it is for you transcribed by a machine. The PDF text is in original format, just with every page rotated so you can read the numbers that start on page 20. As I said in the title, the following text is done by OCR, and while I’ve made best effort at accuracy, I am not responsible for any financial decisions made with the contents hereafter.

    Budget Summary

    Department Summaries Table (FY 2024–2026)

    DIVISIONDEPARTMENTFY 2024 ADOPTEDFY 2025 ADOPTEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    11100Governing Body592,880.00581,904.00916,414.00
    11300City Clerk364,369.98439,020.00527,522.00
    13000Executive784,581.99794,865.001,706,882.81
    15100Non-Departmental Business Services1,053,689.291,481,989.001,736,701.57
    15160Information Technology736,711.301,199,803.001,027,000.99
    15500Human Resources236,711.30261,723.00275,634.99
    15650Government Buildings673,944.67891,003.001,667,640.00
    25000Municipal Court678,195.071,073,708.001,773,872.17
    32100Police Department8,200,000.008,867,557.009,162,804.00
    42200Public Works Services4,696,100.004,184,046.004,900,804.00
    61900City Events590,000.00670,000.001,669,579.12
    62200Parks181,000.00221,000.00255,200.00
    72000Permitting618,575.39670,259.00921,361.34
    74100Planning614,199.92743,760.001,053,651.00
    75100Economic Development353,709.07504,159.00486,846.00
    75500Main Street238,612.89256,059.00240,932.00
    75700GIS117,880.55125,974.00135,745.00
    90000Other Financing Uses4,248,568.764,525,000.003,082,190.00
    Total Projected GF Expenses26,711,635.9429,239,311.0034,768,690.00

    Total Enterprise Expenses Table (FY 2024–2026)

    FUNDDEPARTMENTFY 2024 ADOPTEDFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100General Fund26,711,635.9429,239,311.0034,768,690.00
    210Confiscated Assets0.000.000.00
    211Property and Evidence0.000.000.00
    212Redspeed Fund0.000.00937,000.00
    230Grants0.000.000.00
    255ARPA0.000.000.00
    275Hotel Motel1,000,000.001,468,083.001,926,047.00
    320SPLOST V375,000.00375,000.001,763,366.00
    321SPLOST VI0.006,877,628.001,700,000.00
    330TSPOST0.000.007,200,000.00
    335Urban Redevelopment Authority1,204,764.505,577,123.0013,204,766.00
    353Citywide Projects0.002,269,053.000.00
    355Downtown Development Authority45,000.0045,000.00336,100.00
    357Citywide Development Authority2,946,323.504,050,060.0068,332.00
    360Public Facilities Authority10,000.0010,000.002,943,168.00
    495Cemetery2,085,145.511,953,778.002,362,500.00
    505Sewer2,380,016.502,556,403.001,053,524.00
    505Water1,277,240.20194,472.00194,472.00
    505Debt Services1,213,290.151,053,524.001,545,000.00
    510Stormwater2,860,309.843,092,915.003,092,915.00
    540Sanitation739,157.18731,268.00186,400.00
    555MMCC2,000,000.002,600,000.000.00
    565Amphitheater0.000.000.00
    Total Projected GF Expenses43,742,883.3062,082,118.0073,302,280.00
    Fund: 100 – GENERAL FUND2025 Original Total BudgetCurrent Total BudgetPeriod Activity2025 YTDVariance Favorable (Unfavorable)2026 Revenues
    Revenue
    100-00000-3112000.000.000.00282.03282.03300.00
    100-00000-311500100,000.00100,000.000.0076,801.14(23,198.86)150,000.00
    100-00000-31160055,000.0055,000.000.0029,134.30(25,865.70)60,000.00
    100-00000-3117101,200,000.001,200,000.000.001,503,213.63303,213.632,500,000.00
    100-00000-3117151,500.001,500.000.000.00(1,500.00)0.00
    100-00000-3117205,800.005,800.000.006,882.351,082.358,000.00
    100-00000-311730150,000.00150,000.000.00113,972.46(36,027.54)180,000.00
    100-00000-311750150,000.00150,000.000.0075,490.23(74,509.77)150,000.00
    100-00000-31176030,000.0030,000.000.0010,246.22(19,753.78)20,000.00
    100-00000-3117901,000.001,000.004.35287.57(712.43)500.00
    100-00000-3131009,907,512.009,907,512.000.005,225,475.01(4,682,036.99)10,000,000.00
    100-00000-313110718,000.00718,000.0065,919.00502,126.23(215,873.77)800,000.00
    100-00000-314201340,000.00340,000.0028,659.75251,863.46(88,136.54)350,000.00
    100-00000-314202300,000.00300,000.0019,242.25172,849.34(127,150.66)350,000.00
    100-00000-314203180,000.00180,000.009,784.7396,681.19(83,318.81)180,000.00
    100-00000-314204100,000.00100,000.0015,135.02129,631.4629,631.46150,000.00
    100-00000-3161001,200,000.001,200,000.001,972.651,542,760.01342,760.012,000,000.00
    100-00000-31611260,000.0060,000.00100.0048,560.00(11,440.00)60,000.00
    100-00000-31611320,000.0020,000.0050.003,566.56(16,433.44)5,000.00
    100-00000-316150110,000.00110,000.001,135.0047,093.00(62,907.00)100,000.00
    100-00000-3162002,225,000.002,225,000.000.000.00(2,225,000.00)3,500,000.00
    100-00000-316300105,000.00105,000.000.00125,073.0020,073.00130,000.00
    100-00000-3180007,189,056.007,189,056.0016,080.00346,953.77(6,842,102.23)7,400,000.00
    100-00000-3180010.000.0075.097,365.937,365.937,500.00
    100-00000-3180020.000.000.00123.56123.56125.00
    100-00000-3180030.000.007.50165.21165.21170.00
    100-00000-3191100.000.005,929.1322,756.1622,756.1625,000.00
    100-00000-3191112,000.002,000.00100.001,300.00(700.00)2,000.00
    100-00000-3199020.000.0021.40479.91479.91500.00
    100-00000-32111042,000.0042,000.00375.0066,000.0024,000.0070,000.00
    100-00000-32112050,000.0050,000.00375.0063,000.0013,000.0070,000.00
    100-00000-321130120,000.00120,000.002,500.00177,500.0057,500.00200,000.00
    100-00000-3211405,000.005,000.000.000.00(5,000.00)1,000.00
    100-00000-32120022,000.0022,000.00225.0054,242.1532,242.1560,000.00
    Fund: 100 – GENERAL FUND Revenue
    2025 Original Total BudgetCurrent Total BudgetPeriod Activity2025 YTDVariance Favorable (Unfavorable)2026 Revenues
    100-00000-311200REAL PROP-PRIOR YEAR0.000.000.00282.03300.00
    100-00000-311500INTANGIBLE RECORDING TAX100,000.00100,000.000.0076,801.14150,000.00
    100-00000-311600REAL ESTATE TRANSFER55,000.0055,000.000.0029,194.3060,000.00
    100-00000-311710FRANCHISE TAX-ELECTRIC1,200,000.001,200,000.000.001,503,213.632,500,000.00
    100-00000-311715FRANCHISE TAX – EMC1,500.001,500.000.000.000.00
    100-00000-311720FRANCHISE TAX-COLLEGE PK.5,800.005,800.000.006,882.358,000.00
    100-00000-311730FRANCHISE TAX-GAS150,000.00150,000.000.00113,972.46180,000.00
    100-00000-311750FRANCHISE TAX-TELEV CABLE150,000.00150,000.000.0075,490.23150,000.00
    100-00000-311760FRANCHISE TAX-TELEPHONE30,000.0030,000.000.0010,246.2220,000.00
    100-00000-311790FRANCHISE TAX-OTHER1,000.001,000.004.35287.57500.00
    100-00000-313100LOCAL OPTION SALES/USE TX9,907,512.009,907,512.000.005,225,475.0110,000,000.00
    100-00000-313110HCTC – AVT TAX718,000.00718,000.0065,919.00502,126.23800,000.00
    100-00000-313201BEER TAX340,000.00340,000.0028,659.75251,863.46350,000.00
    100-00000-314202LIQUOR TAX-PACKAGE SALES300,000.00300,000.0019,242.25172,849.34350,000.00
    100-00000-314203WINE TAX180,000.00180,000.009,784.7396,681.19180,000.00
    100-00000-314204CONSUMPTION TAX – LIQUOR100,000.00100,000.0015,135.02129,631.46150,000.00
    100-00000-316100OCCUPATIONAL TAX1,200,000.001,200,000.001,972.651,542,760.012,000,000.00
    100-00000-316112GA MUNICIPAL LICENSE FEE60,000.0060,000.00100.0048,560.0060,000.00
    100-00000-316113MISC BUSINESS TAX20,000.0020,000.0050.003,566.565,000.00
    100-00000-316150INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX110,000.00110,000.001,135.0047,093.00100,000.00
    100-00000-316200FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TAXES2,225,000.002,225,000.000.000.003,500,000.00
    100-00000-316300CITY PROPERTY TAX7,189,056.007,189,056.0016,080.00346,953.777,400,000.00
    100-00000-318001CITY MOBILE HOME TAX0.000.0075.097,365.937,500.00
    100-00000-318002CITY PROPERTY TAX N.O.D.0.000.000.00123.56125.00
    100-00000-318003MOBILE HOME PENALTY0.000.007.50165.21170.00
    100-00000-319110PEN & INT-REAL PROP0.000.005,929.1322,756.1625,000.00
    100-00000-319111FORECLOSED/VACANT-REG FEE2,000.002,000.00100.001,300.002,000.00
    100-00000-319901PENALTY/INTEREST STREET LIGHT0.000.0021.40479.91500.00
    100-00000-321110OT ALCOHOLIC BEV-BEER42,000.0042,000.00375.0066,000.0070,000.00
    100-00000-321120OT ALCOHOLIC BEV-WINE50,000.0050,000.00375.0063,000.0070,000.00
    100-00000-321130OT ALCOHOLIC BEV-LIQUOR120,000.00120,000.002,500.00177,500.00200,000.00
    100-00000-321140ALCOHOLIC BEV-SPEC. EVENT5,000.005,000.000.000.001,000.00
    100-00000-321200OT REGULATORY FEE22,000.0022,000.00225.0054,242.1560,000.00
    100-00000-321500SIGN PERMIT FEE0.000.000.0025.0025.00
    100-00000-322200COMM – BUILDING PERMIT600,000.00600,000.0040,322.96367,471.39500,000.00
    100-00000-322201BSD – MECH, ELEC, PLUMBING PE50,000.0050,000.000.000.00(50,000.00)
    100-00000-322203BSD – OTHER PERMIT FEES – COM6,500.006,500.000.000.00(6,500.00)
    100-00000-322204RES – BUILDING PERMIT325,000.00325,000.001,460.00384,561.68500,000.00
    100-00000-322205BSD – MECH,ELEC,PLUMBING – PE70,000.0070,000.000.00160.00(69,840.00)
    100-00000-322207BSD – OTHER PERMIT FEES RESIDE5,000.005,000.005.000.00(5,000.00)
    100-00000-322215ZONING VERIFICATION FEES14,000.0014,000.0050.005,200.006,000.00
    100-00000-322800RESUBMITTAL FEE0.000.000.002,750.000.00
    100-00000-322900FILM REVENUE5,000.005,000.000.000.00(5,000.00)
    100-00000-323100OCCUPATIONAL TAX PENALTY45,000.0045,000.00294.5479,806.6545,000.00
    100-00000-323101LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT30,000.0030,000.000.0050,422.5060,000.00
    100-00000-323902MAINTENANCE BOND FEE21,000.0021,000.000.00205.00210.00
    100-00000-323904PERFORMANCE BOND FEE7,000.007,000.000.000.00(7,000.00)
    100-00000-324210PENALTY FEES1,000.001,000.000.005,971.236,000.00
    100-00000-334311GRANTS FOR STREETS288,000.00288,000.000.000.000.00
    Sub Total29,650,490.00
    ———————

    Revenues

    Original Total BudgetCurrent Total BudgetPeriod Activity2025 YTDVariance Favorable (Unfavorable)2026 Revenues
    100-00000-341300COMMUNITY DEV ADMIN FEE100,000.00100,000.00475.0016,155.6220,000.00
    100-00000-341301BSD – PLAN CHECK FEES – RESIDE30,000.0030,000.000.0017,500.6425,000.00
    100-00000-341302P&Z ZONING5,000.005,000.001,800.0083,515.1985,000.00
    100-00000-341304P&Z ADMIN500.00500.000.004,361.505,000.00
    100-00000-341305P2 – REZONING APP FEE – DRI1,000.001,000.000.000.00(1,000.00)
    100-00000-341306P2 – ZONING CERTIFICATION FEE500.00500.000.000.00(500.00)
    100-00000-341400PRINTING & DUPLICAT SRVCS100.00100.00215.261,915.522,000.00
    100-00000-341910OTHER-ELECTION QUAL FEE0.000.004,440.004,440.004,500.00
    100-00000-342120REPORTS – POLICE DEPT3,000.003,000.002,369.3619,986.5720,000.00
    100-00000-342200FIRE FEES5,000.005,000.002,950.0080,895.7590,000.00
    100-00000-342202FIRE – CONSTRUCTION PERMITS20,000.0020,000.000.003,625.005,000.00
    100-00000-342203FIRE – OTHER FEES AND CHARGES0.000.000.00200.000.00
    100-00000-342204OTHER SERVICE FEES150,000.00150,000.000.00213.76(149,786.24)
    100-00000-342900HDTA REIMBURSEMENT0.000.000.0010,048.6510,500.00
    100-00000-342902POLICE VEHICLE STIPEND0.000.000.006,000.006,000.00
    100-00000-343400RIGHT OF WAY3,000.003,000.00300.002,400.002,500.00
    100-00000-343410STREET LIGHTS497,200.00497,200.00194.9612,772.0115,000.00
    100-00000-349300BAD CHECK FEES500.00500.000.00125.00125.00
    100-00000-349400OPENEDGE MERCHANT FEE5,000.005,000.000.002,085.227,500.00
    100-00000-351140FINES & FORFEITURES1,400,000.001,400,000.0033,896.00757,800.301,400,000.00
    100-00000-351145CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES10,000.0010,000.000.000.000.00
    100-00000-361000INTEREST REVENUES1,800.001,800.001.46433,438.26450,000.00
    100-00000-361100SPRINT COM – RENT45,000.0045,000.000.000.00(45,000.00)
    100-00000-381200PARK PAVILION RENTAL22,000.0022,000.001,425.0049,175.0053,000.00
    100-00000-381300T-MOBILE TOWER LEASE54,000.0054,000.009,230.0073,633.2619,633.26
    100-00000-383000INS.REIM.DAM./STOLEN PROP10,000.0010,000.00237.92(836.32)(10,836.32)
    100-00000-389006BACK TO SCHOOL SPONSORSHIP0.000.000.001,150.001,150.00
    100-00000-389009Misc Revenue1,000.001,000.002,002.502,002.501,002.50
    100-00000-389011YOUTH COUNCIL FUNDRAISER800.00800.000.00115.00(685.00)
    100-00000-389012CITY EVENTS REVENUE14,000.0014,000.006,250.006,250.00(7,750.00)
    100-00000-389014BRIDGEFEST SPONSORSHIP2,400.002,400.00200.009,300.006,700.00
    100-00000-389015TASTY TUESDAY/FOOD TRUCK SP.7,000.007,000.000.005,980.005,980.00
    100-00000-389017RESTITUTION, DAMAGE TO COS0.000.000.00220.00220.00
    100-00000-389018HOLIDAY FESTIVAL SPONSORSHIP800.00800.000.000.00(800.00)
    100-00000-389019VETERAN’S DAY SPONSORSHIP1,000.001,000.000.003,000.003,000.00
    100-00000-389020PRETTY IN PINK SPONSORSHIP1,000.001,000.000.000.00(1,000.00)
    100-00000-389022MEMORIAL DAY MARCH SPONSO1,230.001,230.000.00500.00500.00
    100-00000-389025COMMUNITY DONATIONS – POLI20,000.0020,000.000.0012,400.0012,400.00
    100-00000-389026DISTRICT 1 SPONSORSHIP0.000.000.0050.0050.00
    100-00000-389030MISCELLANEOUS98,096.0098,096.0020.0018,106.66(79,989.34)
    100-00000-389031DISTRICT 5 SPONSORSHIP0.000.000.006,000.006,000.00
    100-00000-389034JUNETEENTH EVENT SPONSORSH0.000.000.005,180.005,200.00
    100-00000-389038MAIN STREET/ECONOMIC DEV SP2,500.002,500.0090.00255.00(2,245.00)
    100-00000-391100OPERATING TRANSFER IN215,000.00215,000.000.000.00(215,000.00)
    100-00000-392100SALE OF GEN FIXED ASSETS50,000.0050,000.000.000.00(50,000.00)
    100-00000-392200PROPERTY SALE584,517.00584,517.000.00444,019.60500,000.00
    Sub Total29,239,311.0029,239,311.00276,796.6813,721,188.62(15,518,122.38)
    2026 Grand Total Estimated Revenues32,530,300.00
    Transfers2,238,390.00
    2026 Total Projected GF Expenses(34,768,690.00)
    Balancing0.00

    Fund: 565 – AMPHITHEATER

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    34 Charges for Services445,079.521,060,000.001,060,000.009,023.402,045,000.000.00
    38 Miscellaneous Revenue2,500.00715,000.00940,000.0073,579.72555,000.000.00
    Total Budget447,579.521,775,000.002,000,000.0082,603.122,600,000.000.00

    Fund: 555 Merle Manders Conference Center

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    38 Miscellaneous Revenue10,785.00210,000.00213,100.0033,006.00112,700.000.00
    39 Other Financing Uses0.00525,607.18526,057.180.00618,368.00186,400.00
    Total Budget10,785.00735,607.18739,157.1833,006.00731,268.00186,400.00

    Fund: 275 – HOTEL/MOTEL TAX

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSEDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    31 Taxes484,363.06375,000.00375,000.00573,008.95375,000.00424,800.00
    Total Budget484,363.06375,000.00375,000.00573,008.95375,000.00424,800.00

    Fund: 335 – TSPLOST

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    33 Intergovernmental0.000.000.003,609,989.7413,200,000.00
    36 Investment Income0.000.000.000.000.00
    Total Budget0.000.000.003,609,989.7413,200,000.00

    Fund: 320 SPLOST V

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    33 Intergovernmental–––4,317,751.246,877,628.00
    36 Investment Income–––377.73–
    Total Budget–––4,318,128.976,877,628.00

    Fund: 321 – SPLOST VI

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    33 Intergovernmental–––––
    36 Investment Income–––––
    Total Budget–––––

    Fund: 357 – CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    45,000.0045,000.0045,000.00–45,000.0068,332.00
    –––––0.00
    Total Budget45,000.0045,000.0045,000.0045,000.0068,332.00

    Fund: 355 – DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    45,000.0045,000.0045,000.000.0045,000.00336,100.00
    0.000.000.000.000.000.00
    Total Budget45,000.0045,000.0045,000.0045,000.00336,100.00

    Fund: 353 – CITYWIDE CAPITAL PROJECTS

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    0.000.000.000.000.00
    10,623,467.00199,365.5413,539,688.000.000.00
    10,623,467.00199,365.5413,539,688.000.000.00

    Fund: 350 – URA

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    1,205,212.871,023,624.001,204,764.5031,000.001,204,766.00
    Total Budget1,205,212.871,023,624.001,204,764.5031,000.00

    Fund 505 – Water (Division: 43300 – SEWER)

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    1,805,138.041,640,000.001,828,000.002,380,977.511,953,778.002,362,500.00
    0.00300.000.000.000.000.00
    0.00280,345.51257,145.510.000.000.00
    Total Budget1,805,138.041,920,645.512,085,145.512,380,977.511,953,778.00

    Fund 505 – Water (Division: 44200 – Water)

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    2,186,405.092,007,100.002,214,500.002,380,977.512,397,100.003,255,440.00
    –100.00–––0.00
    –182,887.19165,516.50–159,303.000.00
    Total Budget2,186,405.092,190,087.192,380,016.502,380,977.512,556,403.00

    Fund: 495 – CEMETERY FUND

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSEDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    0.000.000.000.000.000.00
    0.0010,000.0010,000.000.0010,000.0020,000.00
    Total Budget0.0010,000.0010,000.000.0010,000.00

    Fund 360 – PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    –2,943,804.262,946,323.50–2,943,168.00
    Total Budget2,943,804.262,946,323.50–2,943,168.00

    Fund 540 – Sanitation

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    31 Taxes1,695.681,000.001,000.233,370.781,000.00
    34 Charges for Services1,696,585.881,705,765.002,500,600.0084,095.092,777,500.00
    38 Miscellaneous Revenue113,420.21215,427.43358,709.0047,109.37358,364.00
    Total Budget1,811,701.771,922,192.432,860,370.23134,575.243,136,864.00

    Fund 510 – Stormwater

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSEDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    31 Taxes993.330.001,499.791,826.310.000.00
    34 Charges for Services1,036,214.791,038,517.791,207,000.0034,308.21978,924.001,400,000.00
    38 Miscellaneous Revenue0.000.004,790.360.0074,600.00160,700.00
    39 Other Financing Uses73,188.000.000.000.000.00–
    Total Budget1,110,396.121,038,517.791,213,290.1536,134.521,053,524.001,560,700.00

    Water & Sewer
    Division: 80000 – DEBT SERVICES

    FY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 YTDFY 2025 PROPOSED
    39 Other Financing Services––127,240.20–194,472.00
    Total Budget––127,240.20–194,472.00

    Expenditures

    THE GOVERNING BODY

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-11100-511100REGULAR EMPLOYEE SALARIES116,920.9643,620.88122,768.0090,165.16135,346.00
    100-11100-511120MAYOR24,000.009,333.3524,000.0016,799.9924,000.00
    100-11100-511121COUNCIL100,000.0041,666.75100,000.0074,999.95100,000.00
    100-11100-511300OVERTIME800.001,111.511,600.00893.262,500.00
    100-11100-512100GRP INSNC MEDICAL/DENTAL107,757.5247,086.50107,758.0077,490.39107,827.75
    100-11100-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE1,000.00424.441,000.00502.07985.28
    100-11100-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,000.00242.411,000.00516.421,000.00
    100-11100-512200MEDICARE 1.45%1,200.001,384.001,200.002,648.323,796.77
    100-11100-512400PENSION34,000.0013,833.4034,000.0026,989.2934,000.00
    100-11100-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION2,300.00591.570.000.000.00
    100-11100-512851HRA DEDUCTIBLE4,000.000.004,000.000.004,000.00
    100-11100-521101OFFICIAL/ADMINISTRATIVE14,000.008,720.3614,000.003,640.190.00
    100-11100-522341COPIER RENTAL650.00610.000.000.000.00
    100-11100-523400PRINTING & BINDING4,000.00843.983,000.001,035.103,000.00
    100-11100-523500TRAVEL2,000.000.002,000.000.003,000.00
    100-11100-523502TRAVEL MAYOR10,000.001,189.1910,000.006,737.6710,000.00
    100-11100-523503TRAVEL DISTRICT 510,000.001,905.4010,000.007,689.9710,000.00
    100-11100-523504TRAVEL DISTRICT 310,000.001,511.8010,000.004,438.5110,000.00
    100-11100-523505TRAVEL DISTRICT 110,000.001,521.7710,000.007,903.1110,000.00
    100-11100-523506TRAVEL DISTRICT 210,000.001,645.8010,000.006,665.3610,000.00
    100-11100-523507TRAVEL DISTRICT 410,000.001,793.8010,000.001,114.0010,000.00
    100-11100-523600DUES & FEES100.000.00100.001,049.00100.00
    100-11100-523601DUES & FEES MAYOR100.000.00100.0057.70100.00
    100-11100-523602DUES & FEES DISTRICT 5100.000.00100.000.00100.00
    100-11100-523603DUES & FEES DISTRICT 3100.000.00100.000.00100.00
    100-11100-523604DUES & FEES DISTRICT 1100.000.00100.000.00100.00
    100-11100-523605DUES & FEES DISTRICT 4100.000.00100.000.00100.00
    100-11100-523606DUES & FEES DISTRICT 2100.000.00100.000.00100.00
    100-11100-523607EDUCATION & TRAINING2,000.000.002,000.001,225.002,000.00
    100-11100-523702EDUCATION & TRAINING MAYOR6,000.00815.006,000.003,570.206,000.00
    100-11100-523703EDUCATION & TRAINING DISTRICT 56,000.00795.006,000.003,290.006,000.00
    100-11100-523704EDUCATION & TRAINING DISTRICT 36,000.001,220.006,000.001,020.006,000.00
    100-11100-523705EDUCATION & TRAINING DISTRICT 16,000.001,184.006,000.003,443.436,000.00
    100-11100-523706EDUCATION & TRAINING DISTRICT 46,000.00920.006,000.00705.006,000.00
    100-11100-523707EDUCATION & TRAINING DISTRICT 26,000.00795.006,000.00705.006,000.00
    100-11100-523911COUNCIL INITIATIVES MAYOR5,000.001,611.655,000.001,887.785,000.00
    100-11100-523912COUNCIL INITIATIVES DISTRICT 55,000.0012,618.235,000.0017,919.785,000.00
    100-11100-523913COUNCIL INITIATIVES DISTRICT 35,000.001,802.565,000.001,070.005,000.00
    100-11100-523914COUNCIL INITIATIVES DISTRICT 15,000.00291.125,000.001,718.505,000.00
    100-11100-523915COUNCIL INITIATIVES DISTRICT 45,000.008,152.005,000.0010,756.875,000.00
    100-11100-523916COUNCIL INITIATIVES DISTRICT 25,000.0013,383.315,000.0011,272.105,000.00
    100-11100-531130OFFICE SUPPLIES2,500.00503.162,500.00547.803,000.00
    100-11100-531700MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE4,000.00640.242,000.001,560.513,000.00
    100-11100-531701HOSPITALITY/FOOD/BEVERAGE7,000.001,767.028,000.004,223.8710,000.00
    100-11100-531747CIVIC EVENTS15,000.005,495.439,000.003,369.2310,000.00
    100-11100-531748YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL21,500.008,154.570.000.000.00
    100-11100-531750UNIFORMS400.000.00400.000.00400.00
    100-11100-531751UNIFORMS MAYOR400.000.00400.00118.38400.00
    100-11100-531752UNIFORMS DISTRICT 5400.001,147.70400.000.00400.00
    100-11100-531753UNIFORMS DISTRICT 3400.00335.00400.000.00400.00
    100-11100-531754UNIFORMS DISTRICT 1400.000.00400.000.00400.00
    100-11100-531755UNIFORMS DISTRICT 4400.000.00400.000.00400.00
    100-11100-531756UNIFORMS DISTRICT 2400.000.00400.000.00400.00
    Division: 11100 – GOVERNING BODY Total:595,128.48240,667.90569,326.00399,738.91916,413.80

    EXECUTIVE

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-13000-511100REGULAR EMPL. SALARIES530,170.83168,486.51556,680.00201,740.30616,722.00
    100-13000-511113VEHICLE ALLOWANCE12,000.004,000.006,000.00500.00900.00
    100-13000-511300OVERTIME500.00222.33500.000.00500.00
    100-13000-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL80,818.1453,375.0880,819.0046,177.0145,521.62
    100-13000-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE3,000.00626.793,000.00638.11528.84
    100-13000-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,000.00269.371,000.00279.731,000.00
    100-13000-512200MEDICARE 1.45%6,000.002,454.276,000.002,885.668,950.00
    100-13000-512400PENSION4,200.001,708.854,200.0031,752.0950,000.00
    100-13000-512401RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION40,000.005,748.8340,000.006,781.1021,200.00
    100-13000-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE2,500.000.002,500.000.003,000.00
    100-13000-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION3,000.00771.620.000.000.00
    100-13000-512800EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG.500.000.00500.000.000.00
    100-13000-512850HRA REIMBURSEMENT8,000.00421.868,000.000.0012,000.00
    100-13000-521201PROFESSIONAL SERVICES10,000.0058,698.6010,000.006,205.0010,000.00
    100-13000-522341COPIER RENTAL1,100.00610.000.000.000.00
    100-13000-523400PRINTING & BINDING500.00705.981,200.00627.132,000.00
    100-13000-523500TRAVEL7,000.002,719.457,000.004,836.6415,000.00
    100-13000-523600DUES & FEES7,000.001,836.677,000.002,989.498,000.00
    100-13000-523700EDUCATION & TRAINING7,000.002,849.007,000.00764.0010,000.00
    100-13000-531130OFFICE SUPPLIES2,500.001,472.872,500.001,653.803,000.00
    100-13000-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS0.000.000.003,460.034,000.00
    100-13000-531700MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE5,000.001,958.625,000.004,530.845,000.00
    100-13000-531701HOSPITALITY/FOOD/BEVERAGE5,000.00169.117,500.00432.007,000.00
    100-13000-579000CONTINGENCIES43,359.0318,455.0035,000.00141,58.72882,560.35
    Division: 13000 – EXECUTIVE Total:781,148.00327,560.81791,399.00356,985.391,706,882.81

    CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-11300-511100REGULAR EMPL. SALARIES221,089.4973,002.47232,144.00167,024.43241,961.00
    100-11300-511300OVERTIME0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-11300-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL40,409.0723,984.4340,409.0029,477.3937,265.53
    100-11300-512101FEES GRP INS1,500.000.001,500.000.001,500.00
    100-11300-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE900.00317.34900.00606.90728.26
    100-11300-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,000.00117.311,000.00201.781,000.00
    100-11300-512200MEDICARE 1.45%3,000.001,039.743,000.002,388.723,508.44
    100-11300-512400PENSION32,000.0013,019.7032,000.0025,401.6932,000.00
    100-11300-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE2,000.000.002,000.000.00500.00
    100-11300-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION2,000.00514.400.000.000.00
    100-11300-512800EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG.500.000.00500.000.00500.00
    100-11300-512851HRA DEDUCTIBLE6,000.000.006,000.002,000.009,000.00
    100-11300-521101OFFICIAL/ADMINISTRATIVE14,000.000.0014,000.009,212.7020,000.00
    100-11300-523301CODIFICATION10,000.000.0010,000.001,397.003,000.00
    100-11300-523310PUBLIC NOTICES5,000.00732.003,000.001,397.003,000.00
    100-11300-523400PRINTING & BINDING1,000.00706.721,000.00676.141,000.00
    100-11300-523500TRAVEL9,000.001,820.599,000.006,622.099,000.00
    100-11300-523600DUES & FEES1,500.0065.001,500.00251.972,000.00
    100-11300-523700EDUCATION & TRAINING6,500.0064.656,500.002,544.886,500.00
    100-11300-523940POSTAGE500.0080.00500.0055.96500.00
    100-11300-531120ELECTION EXPENSE6,000.007,462.3032,000.00252.0032,000.00
    100-11300-531130OFFICE SUPPLIES2,500.0089.612,500.00685.882,500.00
    100-11300-531132COMMITTEE EXPENSES0.000.003,000.0092.003,000.00
    100-11300-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS2,500.00179.832,500.00337.572,500.00
    100-11300-531600SMALL EQUIPMENT – NON CAPIT1,000.000.001,000.00149.981,000.00
    100-11300-531701HOSPITALITY/FOOD/BEVERAGE0.00828.283,000.00282.713,000.00
    100-11300-531725PROMOTIONAL ITEMS3,000.000.003,000.00614.293,000.00
    100-11300-531747MUNICIPAL DINNERS0.000.006,000.00374.408,000.00
    100-11300-531748YOUTH COUNCIL0.000.0021,500.0012,034.1731,900.00
    100-11300-531750UNIFORMS750.00461.39750.000.00750.00
    100-11300-542400COMPUTER SOFTWARE7,000.002,500.005,000.005,500.006,000.00
    Division 11300 – CITY CLERK Total:380,648.56126,985.76445,203.00277,397.35527,522.23

    FINANCE ADMINISTRATION

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-15100-511100REGULAR EMPL. SALARIES575,778.65138,431.95898,942.00491,487.781,014,787.57
    100-15100-511300OVERTIME200.00229.54400.000.000.00
    100-15100-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL134,696.9047,947.70134,697.00120,346.64211,919.00
    100-15100-512110FEES GRP INS2,500.001,044.002,500.002,587.503,000.00
    100-15100-512111GROUP INSURANCE LIFE1,875.00639.761,875.001,716.952,920.00
    100-15100-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,250.00192.431,250.00867.961,250.00
    100-15100-512200MEDICARE 1.45%7,500.001,976.897,500.006,997.0814,715.00
    100-15100-512400PENSION59,000.0024,005.0559,000.0046,834.2966,000.00
    100-15100-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE5,250.003,285.005,250.000.005,300.00
    100-15100-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION5,000.001,286.025,000.000.002,000.00
    100-15100-512800EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG.24,000.001,036.1524,000.000.0020,000.00
    100-15100-512851HRA DEDUCTIBLE10,000.000.0010,000.000.000.00
    100-15100-521100CONSULTANT FEES50,000.000.0070,000.0012,331.86100,000.00
    100-15100-521100PAYROLL FEES10,000.0017,443.8025,000.0064,728.7433,000.00
    100-15100-522220AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR0.00164.550.0023.000.00
    100-15100-522230RENTAL OF EQUIP & VEHICLE400.000.00400.000.00500.00
    100-15100-522341COPIER RENTAL4,000.002,232.004,000.000.000.00
    100-15100-523240AT&T CLUB SERVICE10,000.008,855.2310,000.000.000.00
    100-15100-523246TELECOMMUNICATION22,000.008,773.7824,000.001,318.803,000.00
    100-15100-523500TRAVEL500.00958.442,500.001,534.006,000.00
    100-15100-523600DUES & FEES2,000.001,369.008,000.002,238.0015,000.00
    100-15100-523700EDUCATION & TRAINING10,000.000.0010,000.000.0070,000.00
    100-15100-523850INTERN HELP0.0090,112.040.000.007,000.00
    100-15100-523900BANK CHARGES5,000.00501.2116,000.0022,822.0835,000.00
    100-15100-523905COLLECTION FEE HENRY COUNTY0.001,773.313,500.005,892.388,000.00
    100-15100-523909CREDIT CARD EXPENSES15,000.0017,234.2420,000.0025,792.130.00
    100-15100-523940POSTAGE2,500.00779.692,500.001,811.292,500.00
    100-15100-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS3,000.003,460.185,000.00509.476,000.00
    100-15100-531700MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE500.00171.58500.0044.571,000.00
    100-15100-531701HOSPITALITY/FOOD/BEVERAGE750.000.00750.001,112.483,000.00
    100-15100-531750UNIFORMS500.000.00500.00829.131,000.00
    100-15100-541406STORM WATER/PROPERTY TAX20,000.000.0020,000.00902.8920,000.00
    100-15100-542300FURNITURE & FIXTURES500.000.001,000.000.001,000.00
    100-15100-542400COMPUTER SOFTWARE20,000.000.000.00345.210.00
    100-15100-542500EQUIPMENT500.000.00500.0014,000.0015,000.00
    Division: 15100Financial Administration Total:1,074,325.55375,208.731,399,439.00942,155.081,818,891.57

    BUSINESS SERVICES

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-15160-511100REGULAR SALARIES155,014.3246,014.93162,766.00113,630.24192,920.00
    100-15160-511300OVERTIME0.0033.980.00588.760.00
    100-15160-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL40,409.0718,103.6040,409.0028,331.1022,760.81
    100-15160-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE850.00247.74850.00452.37186.68
    100-15160-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,000.0093.781,000.00192.78405.36
    100-15160-512200MEDICARE 1.45%1,800.00622.841,800.001,584.852,797.34
    100-15160-512240PENSION18,750.007,628.7018,750.0014,883.7512,946.78
    100-15160-512260UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE2,000.000.000.000.000.00
    100-15160-512270WORKER’S COMPENSATION3,000.00771.623,000.000.001,618.02
    100-15160-512285HRA DEDUCTIBLE6,000.002,000.006,000.000.006,000.00
    100-15160-521201PROFESSIONAL FEES0.000.005,000.000.005,000.00
    100-15160-521310SOFTWARE2,700.002,700.000.001,928.940.00
    100-15160-523341COPIER RENTAL1,800.001,650.000.000.002,000.00
    100-15160-523400PRINTING & BINDING1,500.00248.783,000.001,085.903,500.00
    100-15160-523500TRAVEL1,700.00228.243,000.002,109.605,000.00
    100-15160-523600DUES & FEES1,000.000.002,000.001,232.502,000.00
    100-15160-523700EDUCATION & TRAINING1,000.000.002,000.000.003,000.00
    100-15160-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS2,000.00476.185,000.002,657.967,000.00
    100-15160-531600SMALL EQUIPMENT – NON CAPITAL900.000.001,200.000.004,500.00
    100-15160-531750UNIFORMS300.000.00500.00700.731,000.00
    Division: 15160Business Services Total:242,673.3981,279.45257,125.00171,372.36275,634.99

    NON DEPARTMENTAL

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-15110-521100CONSULTANT FEES80,000.000.0080,000.000.0080,000.00
    100-15110-521217LEGAL, OTHER350,000.00107,975.00150,000.0068,925.25200,000.00
    100-15110-521218SHREDDING2,000.00581.692,000.001,626.862,000.00
    100-15110-522250AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR (ADMIN. VEHICLE)3,000.00899.163,000.002,579.983,000.00
    100-15110-522320RENTAL OF EQUIP & VEHICLE200.007,943.250.001,690.687,000.00
    100-15110-523300ADVERTISEMENT200.00105.00400.000.000.00
    100-15110-523945WEBSITE15,000.0024,985.0030,000.0029,970.0030,000.00
    100-15110-523946SEE CLICK FIX SOFTWARE3,000.000.003,000.006,154.463,000.00
    100-15110-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS (CITY HALL)10,000.002,692.0412,000.003,708.9812,000.00
    100-15110-531710CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-15110-542402AGENDA SOFTWARE8,000.0015,169.9820,000.0012,866.8420,000.00
    100-15110-542403CITY-WIDE DIGITAL SOFTWARE CONVER25,000.008,369.1025,000.007,533.0025,000.00
    100-15110-542404APP SOFTWARE10,000.000.0010,000.000.000.00
    100-15110-542526OPENGOV50,000.0030,529.1850,000.0010,176.3950,000.00
    100-15110-571000ABATEMENT PROGRAM15,000.000.0015,000.000.0015,000.00
    100-15110-579000CONTINGENCIES0.000.001,039,057.0034,184.3350,000.00
    Division: 15110NON-DEPARTMENTAL Total:736,400.00226,104.24 1,814,457.00471,737.271,027,000.00

    GOVERNMENTAL BUILDINGS

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-15650-511100REGULAR EMPL. SALARIES179,588.8853,854.48179,999.00145,786.59215,711.28
    100-15650-511300OVERTIME15,000.002,507.3115,000.0010,827.8725,000.00
    100-15650-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL40,409.0727,772.5540,409.0025,509.6140,000.00
    100-15650-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE1,500.00252.791,500.00437.901,500.00
    100-15650-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,000.00138.801,000.00218.701,000.00
    100-15650-512200MEDICARE 1.45%2,200.00800.152,200.002,249.863,490.32
    100-15650-512400PENSION30,000.0012,205.9530,000.002,381.403,000.00
    100-15650-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION2,500.00643.032,500.000.006,000.00
    100-15650-512851HRA6,000.000.006,000.000.0010,000.00
    100-15650-521200PROFESSIONAL FEES10,000.000.0010,000.003,004.4210,000.00
    100-15650-521230ENGINEERING FEES5,000.000.005,000.000.005,000.00
    100-15650-522210MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS50,000.0034,163.6055,000.0016,097.9855,000.00
    100-15650-522219LANDSCAPING330,000.00261,318.59330,000.00189,522.00330,000.00
    100-15650-522220MAINTENANCE & CLEANING5,000.000.005,000.002,768.255,000.00
    100-15650-522224EQUIPMENT REPAIRS10,000.00197.6210,000.00925.2020,000.00
    100-15650-522230AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR1,000.00120.001,000.000.003,500.00
    100-15650-522310Rental of Land and Building1,000.000.001,000.00(6,000.00)1,200.00
    100-15650-522318FACILITY CLEANING POLICE DEP25,200.0025,200.0031,000.0018,866.1131,000.00
    100-15650-522319FACILITY CLEANING PW ADMIN8,520.008,520.0010,000.000.0012,000.00
    100-15650-522320RENTAL OF EQUIP & VEHICLE1,000.000.001,000.000.000.00
    100-15650-522321FACILITY CLEANING CITY HALL30,240.0033,740.0038,000.0035,160.7438,000.00
    100-15650-522322FACILITY CLEANING MMC37,200.0042,900.0048,000.0023,477.5138,000.00
    100-15650-522323FACILITY CLEANING TSCC8,520.008,520.0010,000.005,200.008,500.00
    100-15650-522324FACILITY CLEANING MUNICIPAL10,692.0010,692.0015,000.007,769.1815,000.00
    100-15650-522325FACILITY CLEANING PW ADMIN7,680.007,680.0010,000.007,800.0010,000.00
    100-15650-522326FACILITY CLEANING WTP7,680.007,680.009,000.005,200.009,000.00
    100-15650-522330EQUIPMENT REPAIRS CITY HALL10,000.004,290.9610,000.0011,169.4525,000.00
    100-15650-522334EQUIPMENT REPAIRS MMC5,000.001,531.7110,000.004,585.0015,000.00
    100-15650-522335EQUIPMENT REPAIRS MAINTENANCE3,000.00755.003,000.00358.295,000.00
    100-15650-522336EQUIPMENT REPAIRS TSCC10,000.000.0010,000.001,562.0010,000.00
    100-15650-522337EQUIPMENT REPAIRS MUNICIPAL5,000.00353.805,000.000.005,000.00
    100-15650-522338EQUIPMENT REPAIRS WTP1,000.00113.501,000.005,102.657,000.00
    100-15650-522339EQUIPMENT REPAIRS PW ADMIN5,000.000.005,000.0011,127.0015,000.00
    100-15650-522340EQUIPMENT REPAIRS POLICE DEP5,500.002,203.495,500.0010,096.5415,000.00
    100-15650-523100PUBLIC NOTICES100.000.00100.000.00200.00
    100-15650-523500TRAVEL2,500.00850.472,500.00622.763,000.00
    Division: 15650GOVERNMENTAL BUILDINGS/PROPER1,012,529.95672,373.301,073,708.00700,090.021,291,101.60

    MUNICIPAL COURT

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-25000-511140JUDGE68,200.0027,083.3568,600.0048,749.9965,000.00
    100-25000-511141SOLICITOR30,000.000.0030,000.000.0030,000.00
    100-25000-511142COURT CLERK & ASSISTANTS201,392.0058,320.02211,462.00131,034.68240,647.00
    100-25000-511300OVERTIME0.0030.15250.00916.422,000.00
    100-25000-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL40,409.0750,752.0540,409.0075,598.61105,515.95
    100-25000-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE2,000.00294.482,000.00546.12830.50
    100-25000-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,000.00277.601,000.00447.121,000.00
    100-25000-512200MEDICARE 1.45%3,000.001,190.213,000.002,582.474,460.89
    100-25000-512400PENSION23,000.009,357.9023,000.0018,257.4923,000.00
    100-25000-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE2,000.000.002,000.000.000.00
    100-25000-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION6,000.001,543.246,000.000.006,000.00
    100-25000-512851HRA, DEDUCTIBLE3,000.000.003,000.000.000.00
    100-25000-512221LEGAL – INDIGENT2,000.002,000.003,300.0029,700.0040,000.00
    100-25000-512225INTERPRETER1,000.001,000.003,000.00720.953,000.00
    100-25000-512310COURT SOFTWARE21,685.0013,375.5935,000.0022,043.7535,000.00
    100-25000-512335SHREDING900.00406.851,400.00840.702,000.00
    100-25000-512341COPIER RENTAL3,000.003,249.000.000.000.00
    100-25000-5123220GEORGIA TECHNOLOGY AUTH.150.00150.00150.0077.910.00
    100-25000-5123310PUBLIC NOTICES0.000.00200.000.00200.00
    100-25000-5123400PRINTING & BINDING3,450.00552.003,000.00686.323,000.00
    100-25000-5123500TRAVEL1,700.001,130.004,000.001,428.104,000.00
    100-25000-5123600DUES & FEES1,040.00413.041,500.00460.001,500.00
    100-25000-5123700EDUCATION & TRAINING2,000.000.002,000.00520.003,000.00
    100-25000-5123850PERSONNEL SERVICE0.00900.001,000.003,600.0011,800.00
    100-25000-5123851INTERN HELP0.000.003,500.002,928.0010,500.00
    100-25000-5123940POSTAGE1,500.001,016.782,500.001,500.663,000.00
    100-25000-5123940OFFICE SUPPLIES2,000.00834.622,000.00871.982,000.00
    100-25000-5123940NTRL GAS,4545 MUNI COURT2,700.00615.651,800.001,088.041,800.00
    100-25000-5123940GA PWR,4602 MUNICIPAL CRT5,550.003,997.397,000.0013,803.7715,000.00
    100-25000-5123940HOSPITALITY/FOOD/BEVERAGE250.00250.000.00111.38500.00
    100-25000-5123940UNIFORMS300.000.00750.000.00750.00
    100-25000-5124200SITE IMPROVEMENTS94,736.007,317.000.0073,471.66550.00
    100-25000-5124200FURNITURE & FIXTURES0.000.005,000.003,109.785,000.00
    100-25000-5123940BRAIN & SPINAL INJURY1,000.00272.441,400.001,379.161,400.00
    100-25000-5123940STATE PROBATION SYS FUND200.0050.00200.00125.00200.00
    100-25000-573003FINES 10% JAIL32,000.0018,879.0750,000.0031,747.2950,000.00
    100-25000-573004VICTIMS ASSIST. FUND16,000.009,302.9525,000.0015,872.5925,000.00
    100-25000-573005BOND REFUND0.000.0050,000.000.0050,000.00
    100-25000-573006GA CRIME VICTIM’S FUND208.0078.00250.00182.00250.00
    100-25000-573007CTY DRUG ABUSE TR AND EDU2,900.001,071.152,900.001,890.742,900.00
    100-25000-573008P. O. A&B FUND40,000.0019,926.8255,000.0039,831.4055,000.00
    100-25000-573009P. O. TRAINING FUND32,000.0018,521.3450,000.0030,850.7150,000.00
    100-25000-573010INDIGENT DEFENSE FUND30,000.0018,547.1650,000.0031,724.2150,000.00
    100-25000-573011DRIVERS ED/TRAINING FUND0.003,790.846,700.008,304.2510,000.00
    100-25000-573020WITNESS FEES0.000.001,000.000.001,000.00
    Division: 25000 – MUNICIPAL COURT Total:637,233.07274,246.69754,271.00597,003.25916,804.34

    Police Department

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-32100-511100REGULAR EMPL SALARIES4,876,012.031,506,824.855,703,520.003,548,608.336,503,520.00
    100-32100-511200TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES91,000.007,710.4191,000.0078,458.62120,000.00
    100-32100-511300HDTA OVERTIME140,000.0014,499.88230,000.00298,598.55230,000.00
    100-32100-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL1,442,650.00499,888.581,442,650.00867,399.801,525,418.54
    100-32100-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE18,150.006,614.6518,150.0013,419.5919,043.96
    100-32100-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION7,800.002,275.917,800.005,537.547,800.00
    100-32100-512120MEDICARE 1.45%62,000.0023,105.8862,000.0056,377.54125,910.75
    100-32100-512400PENSION111,500.0045,365.45111,500.0088,508.97111,500.00
    100-32100-512600Unemployment Insurance0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-32100-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION73,700.0018,956.120.000.000.00
    100-32100-512851HRA DEDUCTIBLE4,500.000.000.000.000.00
    100-32100-512101PROFESSIONAL FEES4,500.000.000.000.000.00
    100-32100-512135SHREDDING0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-32100-512200REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE12,500.00572.1712,500.003,444.3612,500.00
    100-32100-512210MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS41,000.001,296.6430,000.005,139.750.00
    100-32100-512250AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR43,000.0031,490.0050,000.0061,523.14210,000.00
    100-32100-512320RENTAL OF EQUIP & VEHICLE4,000.005,592.6614,600.00657.962,000.00
    100-32100-512341COPIER RENTAL5,100.005,011.000.000.000.00
    100-32100-512310LIABILITY INSURANCE15,000.000.0015,000.0012,801.4015,000.00
    100-32100-512220GEORGIA TECHNOLOGY AUTH.325.00550.000.000.000.00
    100-32100-512340PRINTING & BINDING550.001,406.162,000.002,352.186,650.00
    100-32100-512350TRAVEL30,750.00678.0230,750.0030,779.6345,000.00
    100-32100-512360DUES & FEES6,500.002,387.377,000.006,810.6610,000.00
    100-32100-512370EDUCATION & TRAINING85,000.0020,227.0085,000.0029,551.38100,000.00
    100-32100-512380LICENSES2,500.000.001,500.000.000.00
    100-32100-512855CONTRACT SERVICES10,000.0010,000.0020,000.00161,936.28350,000.00
    100-32100-512386P O SALARIES – EXTRA DUTY68,000.000.0068,000.000.000.00
    100-32100-512392PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING7,000.006,976.1610,000.0023,576.2530,000.00
    100-32100-512393DRUG TESTING, VACCINES4,000.004,000.000.007,532.000.00
    100-32100-512394POSTAGE1,000.00673.001,000.00871.5417,500.00
    100-32100-512130OFFICE SUPPLIES10,000.002,500.9610,000.0010,300.9815,000.00
    100-32100-512140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS42,000.0036,861.4745,000.0040,816.8655,000.00
    100-32100-512122NTRL GAS, 4545 MUNI COURT3,900.001,816.245,500.003,550.825,500.00
    100-32100-512127GA POWER ELECTRICITY12,300.006,571.0425,500.0022,019.9740,000.00
    100-32100-512190CABLE1,920.0074,777.82250,000.00152,504.80250,000.00
    100-32100-512160SMALL EQUIPMENT45,000.00937.9125,000.000.000.00
    100-32100-512166K-9 SUPPLIES & SERVICES0.003,500.003,000.005,416.855,000.00
    100-32100-512170MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE15,000.005,014.1310,000.001,497.225,000.00
    100-32100-512171HOSPITAL/FOOD/BEVERAGE6,000.00984.8511,000.005,474.3315,000.00
    100-32100-512175PROMOTIONAL ITEMS10,000.001,205.0010,000.007,120.3910,000.00
    100-32100-512174TIRE EXPENSE6,000.006,000.0015,000.000.000.00
    100-32100-531750UNIFORMS50,000.0061,192.7660,000.0050,226.63112,500.00
    100-32100-531780COMMUNITY DONATIONS – POLICE0.007,553.830.006,529.6815,000.00
    100-32100-542200VEHICLES125,000.00216,718.000.000.000.00
    100-32100-542300FURNITURE & FIXTURES5,000.00188.1525,000.002,431.615,000.00
    100-32100-542400COMPUTER SOFTWARE131,342.9794,899.68135,000.0086,830.205,000.00
    100-32100-542500EQUIPMENT375,000.0029,066.285,000.0046,275.60130,000.00
    100-32100-573008P. O. A&B FUND16,000.003,600.0022,000.0011,060.0035,300.00
    100-32100-573013LEGAL DEFENSE FUND7,000.006,264.507,000.006,264.508,245.00
    Division: 32100 – POLICE ADMINISTRATION Total:Total:8,200,000.002,859,419.858,685,290.005,782,002.2410,182,808.25

    Public Works

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-42200-511100REGULAR EMPL SALARIES1,166,892.33373,961.451,225,237.00789,400.411,600,000.00
    100-42200-511300OVERTIME35,000.009,419.8135,000.0037,118.3750,000.00
    100-42200-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL332,863.00166,820.92332,863.00346,810.89479,024.75
    100-42200-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE13,500.001,822.2713,500.003,786.234,627.74
    100-42200-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION4,500.00784.314,500.002,054.974,500.00
    100-42200-512200MEDICARE 1.45%20,400.005,476.0720,400.0011,758.8523,952.00
    100-42200-512400PENSION300,000.00122,059.55300,000.00238,140.63300,000.00
    100-42200-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE15,000.000.0015,000.000.000.00
    100-42200-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION62,000.0016,046.770.000.000.00
    100-42200-512851HRA, DEDUCTIBLE40,000.003,128.774,000.002,673.2640,000.00
    100-42200-512201PROFESSIONAL25,000.0022,500.0025,000.000.0025,000.00
    100-42200-512230ENGINEERING FEES25,000.0022,500.003,000.00216.005,000.00
    100-42200-522000ROW LANDSCAPING400,000.00305,532.00400,000.00197,295.02400,000.00
    100-42200-522150SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS13,500.000.005,000.00616.005,000.00
    100-42200-522210MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS5,000.001,232.003,000.002,043.203,000.00
    100-42200-522220MAINTENANCE & CLEANING3,000.003,000.0075,000.0054,244.52200,000.00
    100-42200-522241TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE35,000.0026,057.3435,000.0023,991.0550,000.00
    100-42200-522242LMIG S013642-PRC,3 STRTS288,000.0036,104.00300,000.0017,655.8150,000.00
    100-42200-522250AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR15,000.004,143.9215,000.0018,437.2125,000.00
    100-42200-522320RENTAL OF EQUIP & VEHICLE2,500.0010,361.702,500.000.002,500.00
    100-42200-522341COPIER RENTAL5,000.002,881.005,000.000.005,000.00
    100-42200-522345TELECOMMUNICATIONS5,000.005,414.475,000.000.005,000.00
    100-42200-523100PUBLIC NOTICES100.000.00100.000.00100.00
    100-42200-523500PRINTING & BINDING3,500.002,287.923,500.00605.267,000.00
    100-42200-523600TRAVEL1,000.000.001,000.00534.581,000.00
    100-42200-523700DUES & FEES7,500.002,421.707,500.000.0020,000.00
    100-42200-523850PERSONNEL SERVICE80,000.0080,000.00100,000.0019,867.05100,000.00
    100-42200-523930UTILITY PROTECTION SERV.5,000.000.005,000.000.000.00
    100-42200-523960DRUG TESTING, VACCINES1,000.001,000.002,500.000.002,500.00
    100-42200-531130OFFICE SUPPLIES1,000.00638.241,000.00454.401,000.00
    100-42200-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS15,000.009,744.3815,000.0014,744.4318,000.00
    100-42200-531142HAND TOOLS & SMALL EQUIP.15,000.004,658.6415,000.004,633.3820,000.00
    100-42200-531145MOSQUITO SPRAYING1,500.00625.001,500.00255.001,500.00
    100-42200-531211NTRL GAS,4545 MUNI COURT9,000.002,755.159,000.005,379.149,000.00
    100-42200-531222GA POWER ELECTRICITY21,000.0012,571.3421,000.0027,510.6040,000.00
    100-42200-531233STREET LIGHTS, OUTSIDE750,000.00259,507.33750,000.00636,796.06900,000.00
    100-42200-531270ENERGY-GASOLINE/DIESEL45,000.0019,058.8850,000.0045,787.5865,000.00
    100-42200-531700CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS2,500.000.002,500.00860.662,500.00
    100-42200-531710SIGNS15,000.000.0015,000.000.0030,000.00
    100-42200-531740TIRE EXPENSE7,500.00815.477,500.006,239.727,500.00
    100-42200-531750UNIFORMS11,000.0014,027.8215,000.009,137.5520,000.00
    100-42200-541403PAVING25,000.000.000.000.000.00
    100-42200-541404SIDEWALKS300,000.00297,125.000.000.000.00
    100-42200-541408HC IGA 2025 PAVING PROJECT0.000.000.00110,000.000.00
    100-42200-542200VEHICLES240,000.000.000.000.000.00
    100-42200-542400COMPUTER SOFTWARE5,500.005,111.2135,000.0024,266.8635,000.00
    100-42200-542500EQUIPMENT200,000.00194,407.060.000.000.00
    Division: 42200 – PUBLIC WORKS Total:4,611,855.332,057,774.393,906,200.002,659,219.264,900,804.49

    Parks

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-62200-522151SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS-REEVES CREEK TRAIL5,500.000.000.000.000.00
    100-62200-522152SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS-MEMORIAL PARK37,500.000.000.000.000.00
    100-62200-522153SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS-CLARK PARK37,500.000.000.000.000.00
    100-62200-522154SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS-GARDNER PARK27,500.000.000.000.000.00
    100-62200-522224FOUNTAIN MAINTENANCE15,000.00966.5215,000.007,504.0615,000.00
    100-62200-522225BRIDGE MAINTENANCE5,000.000.005,000.000.005,000.00
    100-62200-522230EQUIPMENT REPAIRS6,000.003,962.220.008,750.006,000.00
    100-62200-522250AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-62200-523220GEORGIA TECHNOLOGY AUTH.600.00300.001,000.00451.150.00
    100-62200-523240AT&T CLUB SERVICE4,500.004,762.530.00(600.00)15,000.00
    100-62200-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS13,400.005,879.7820,000.0010,931.9320,000.00
    100-62200-531142HAND TOOLS & SMALL EQUIP.3,500.000.005,000.003,507.384,000.00
    100-62200-531222GA POWER ELECTRICITY25,000.0053,373.19155,000.00110,385.20180,000.00
    100-62200-531209MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE0.001,325.004,500.0085.00200.00
    100-62200-542400IMPROVEMENTS0.000.005,500.000.000.00
    100-62200-542500COMPUTER SOFTWARE0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-62200-542502EQUIPMENT0.000.0010,000.003,547.4610,000.00
    100-62200-542502MISCELLANEOUS0.000.000.000.000.00
    Division: 62200 – PARKS Total:181,000.0070,569.24221,000.00144,562.18255,200.00

    City Events

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-61900-511100REGULAR EMPL. SALARIES0.000.000.000.00677,758.10
    100-61900-511300OVERTIME0.000.000.000.0010,000.00
    100-61900-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL0.000.000.000.00198,043.52
    100-61900-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE0.000.000.000.002,950.00
    100-61900-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-61900-512200MEDICARE 1.45%0.000.000.000.009,827.50
    100-61900-512400PENSION0.000.000.000.0060,000.00
    100-61900-512600Unemployment Insurance0.000.000.000.0010,000.00
    100-61900-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-61900-52851HRA REIMBURSEMENT0.000.000.000.0020,000.00
    100-61900-523231CELL PHONES0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-61900-523245Telecommunications0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-61900-523300ADVERTISING30,000.000.0035,000.0023,072.9935,000.00
    100-61900-531701HOSPITALITY1,500.00636.001,500.00526.245,000.00
    100-61900-531705CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS40,000.008,715.4840,000.009,760.5040,000.00
    100-61900-531710SIGNS10,000.000.0015,000.000.0015,000.00
    100-61900-531720MEMORIAL DAY MARCH3,000.002,946.655,000.004,331.445,000.00
    100-61900-531727PRETTY IN PINK25,000.0016,175.0037,500.0011,477.4645,000.00
    100-61900-531733CAREER FAIRS1,500.00458.932,000.001,220.002,000.00
    100-61900-5317349/11 CEREMONY0.00360.004,500.00450.004,500.00
    100-61900-531736BRIDGEFEST120,000.0044,430.00150,000.0017,573.42150,000.00
    100-61900-531737FOOD TRUCKS40,000.0029,839.0140,000.0014,573.4240,000.00
    100-61900-531738VETERAN’S DAY PARADE10,000.000.0015,000.003,490.3515,000.00
    100-61900-531757BACK TO SCHOOL13,000.001,150.0015,000.004,053.8215,000.00
    100-61900-531758JULY 4TH EVENT140,000.0050,870.00150,000.00194,013.71170,000.00
    100-61900-531759JUNETEENTH EVENT120,000.0042,680.00140,000.00120,955.22120,000.00
    100-61900-531760VOLUNTEER GALA12,000.001,442.8615,000.00(2,000.00)0.00
    100-61900-531761HISPANIFEST0.000.000.000.0015,000.00
    100-61900-542200VEHICLES0.000.000.000.000.00
    Division: 61900 – CITY EVENTS Total:570,000.00199,703.93670,000.00404,161.071,669,579.12

    PLANNING AND ZONNING

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-74100-511100REGULAR SALARIES386,526.47107,248.82460,000.00256,137.74456,630.00
    100-74100-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL67,348.4511,884.9567,348.0025,614.5985,000.00
    100-74100-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE3,300.00299.643,300.00652.681,300.00
    100-74100-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,000.00114.501,000.00276.661,000.00
    100-74100-512200MEDICARE 1.45%3,600.001,505.633,600.003,598.846,621.00
    100-74100-512400PENSION61,800.0025,144.2561,800.0049,056.9361,800.00
    100-74100-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE12,000.000.0012,000.000.0012,000.00
    100-74100-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION12,000.003,086.480.000.0012,000.00
    100-74100-512851HRA DEDUCTIBLE10,000.000.0010,000.0054.1910,000.00
    100-74100-521150ZONING BOARD STIPEND4,100.00275.005,600.00875.005,600.00
    100-74100-521200PROFESSIONAL FEES11,034.07(13,282.42)100,000.000.00200,000.00
    100-74100-521300TECHNICAL SERVICES2,695.930.003,000.00975.005,000.00
    100-74100-522110SOFTWARE13,770.0012,270.000.008,765.960.00
    100-74100-522250MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-74100-522341COPIER RENTAL1,000.004,731.200.000.000.00
    100-74100-523300ADVERTISEMENT4,000.00376.005,000.002,988.005,000.00
    100-74100-523400PRINTING & BINDING4,000.002,331.904,000.002,427.945,000.00
    100-74100-523500TRAVEL4,500.000.0010,000.0059.9110,000.00
    100-74100-523501ZONING ADVISORY BOARD TRAVEL0.000.002,000.000.002,000.00
    100-74100-523600DUES & FEES775.000.002,250.0048.603,000.00
    100-74100-523700EDUCATION & TRAINING3,500.003,500.006,000.001,074.7110,000.00
    100-74100-523850ZONING ADVISORY BD ED & TRAINING400.000.001,000.00250.001,000.00
    100-74100-523851PERSONNEL SERVICES0.000.0025,000.000.0025,000.00
    100-74100-523851INTERN HELP0.000.003,500.000.005,000.00
    100-74100-523940POSTAGE500.000.002,500.0093.982,500.00
    100-74100-531100SUPPLIES & MATERIALS3,500.00620.113,500.003,829.185,000.00
    100-74100-531270ENERGY-GASOLINE/DIESEL1,000.000.001,500.000.002,000.00
    100-74100-531400BOOKS & PERIODICALS0.000.001,200.0046.001,200.00
    100-74100-531600SMALL EQUIPMENT – NON-CAPITAL750.000.002,500.000.008,000.00
    100-74100-531701HOSPITALITY/FOOD/BEVERAGE300.001,140.592,000.00788.765,000.00
    100-74100-531750UNIFORMS400.0071.201,500.00498.341,500.00
    100-74100-542200VEHICLES0.000.000.00280.00100,000.00
    100-74100-542300FURNITURE & FIXTURES0.000.003,500.00235.223,500.00
    100-74100-542400COMPUTER SOFTWARE0.000.000.000.000.00
    Division: 74100 – PLANNING & ZONING Total:614,199.92161,317.85806,598.00358,877.831,053,651.00

    PERMITTING- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-72000-511100REGULAR EMPL. SALARIES402,686.0173,419.66422,821.00229,581.32383,094.40
    100-72000-511300OVERTIME0.00127.100.003,067.720.00
    100-72000-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL26,939.3833,085.4726,940.0077,063.10108,930.10
    100-72000-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE550.00346.34550.00930.901,781.97
    100-72000-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,000.00122.731,000.00448.871,000.00
    100-72000-512200MEDICARE 1.45%1,000.001,022.631,000.003,393.475,554.87
    100-72000-512400PENSION20,000.008,137.3020,000.0015,876.0020,000.00
    100-72000-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE2,000.000.002,000.000.000.00
    100-72000-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION2,000.00514.400.000.000.00
    100-72000-512851HRA DEDUCTIBLE3,000.000.003,000.000.000.00
    100-72000-521200PROFESSIONAL FEES10,000.000.005,000.000.005,000.00
    100-72000-521202CONSULTING SERVICES – BSD294,600.00198,833.350.000.000.00
    100-72000-521203CONSULTING SERVICES – ENG.54,000.0033,250.00100,000.0030,000.00100,000.00
    100-72000-521310SOFTWARE17,600.0017,544.00110,000.0074,871.82110,000.00
    100-72000-522210MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT(1,500.00)0.000.000.000.00
    100-72000-522250AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR1,000.00365.445,000.0055.006,000.00
    100-72000-522341COPIER RENTAL600.000.000.000.000.00
    100-72000-523400PRINTING & BINDING500.00169.24500.000.001,500.00
    100-72000-523500TRAVEL1,000.000.006,000.00980.0015,000.00
    100-72000-523600DUES & FEES500.000.005,000.00170.005,000.00
    100-72000-523700EDUCATION & TRAINING1,000.000.000.000.0015,000.00
    100-72000-523850PERSONNEL SERVICES34,300.009,184.5336,000.004,412.98112,000.00
    100-72000-523851INTERN HELP0.000.003,500.008,164.007,500.00
    100-72000-523940POSTAGE100.000.002,000.000.002,000.00
    100-72000-531100GEN SUPPLIES & MAT500.000.001,500.00476.323,000.00
    100-72000-531140SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS500.000.002,500.00257.493,000.00
    100-72000-531270ENERGY-GASOLINE/DIESEL3,000.00807.684,000.001,471.774,000.00
    100-72000-531701HOSPITALITY/FOOD/BEVERAGE0.000.000.00163.160.00
    100-72000-531750UNIFORMS700.000.001,000.00546.525,000.00
    100-72000-542200VEHICLES0.000.000.000.000.00
    100-72000-542300FURNITURE & FIXTURES7,000.006,098.843,000.000.007,000.00
    Division: 72000 – PERMITTING DEVELOPMENT Total:884,575.39383,028.71762,311.00452,620.44921,361.34

    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-75100-511100REGULAR SALARIES146,280.1247,538.08153,595.00168,599.67278,160.14
    100-75100-511300OVERTIME0.00424.120.002,587.530.00
    100-75100-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL40,409.0717,525.6540,409.0026,189.6560,930.91
    100-75100-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE1,650.00187.631,650.00610.701,121.12
    100-75100-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION3,000.0084.403,000.00169.293,000.00
    100-75100-512200MEDICARE 1.45%3,300.00695.493,300.002,426.434,033.33
    100-75100-512400PENSION30,900.0012,572.1530,900.0024,528.5130,900.00
    100-75100-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE6,000.000.006,000.000.006,000.00
    100-75100-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION6,000.001,543.240.000.000.00
    100-75100-512851HRA DEDUCTIBLE6,000.000.006,000.000.006,000.00
    100-75100-5121200PROFESSIONAL SERVICES20,000.0022,804.0030,000.004,018.0030,000.00
    100-75100-521310SOFTWARE0.000.000.001,376.000.00
    100-75100-522341COPIER RENTAL1,000.000.000.000.000.00
    100-75100-523240AT&T CLUB SERVICE3,000.000.000.000.000.00
    100-75100-523400PRINTING & BINDING1,000.000.00500.000.00500.00
    100-75100-523500TRAVEL5,000.00(173.64)5,000.00725.356,000.00
    100-75100-523600DUES & FEES2,000.001,280.002,000.00975.672,000.00
    100-75100-523700EDUCATION & TRAINING5,000.000.005,000.0060.005,000.00
    100-75100-523708ED INCENTIVES50,000.000.0025,000.000.0035,000.00
    100-75100-523851INTERN HELP4,500.002,081.253,500.000.003,500.00
    100-75100-523940POSTAGE500.000.00250.0011.58250.00
    100-75100-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS1,500.00427.471,500.001,296.111,500.00
    100-75100-531701HOSPITALITY/FOOD/BEVERAGE3,000.00443.502,500.00881.922,500.00
    100-75100-531750UNIFORMS250.000.00250.000.00250.00
    100-75100-542400COMPUTER SOFTWARE10,200.005,256.0010,200.006,445.5010,200.00
    Division: 75100 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Total:350,489.19112,689.34330,554.00240,901.91486,845.50

    MAIN STREET

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-75500-511100REGULAR SALARIES127,083.5133,622.21133,438.0077,833.36133,438.00
    100-75500-511300OVERTIME0.000.00500.001,710.001,000.00
    100-75500-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL26,939.3812,112.7326,939.0017,327.6226,939.00
    100-75500-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE620.00158.88620.00323.80620.00
    100-75500-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION1,000.0063.011,000.00119.881,000.00
    100-75500-512200MEDICARE 1.45%1,500.00525.671,500.001,123.281,934.85
    100-75500-512400PENSION20,000.008,137.3020,000.0015,876.0020,000.00
    100-75500-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE600.000.00600.000.00600.00
    100-75500-512700WORKER’S COMPENSATION1,200.00308.630.000.000.00
    100-75500-512851HRA, DEDUCTIBLE4,000.000.004,000.000.004,000.00
    100-75500-521200PROFESSIONAL FEES5,000.002,056.895,000.007,715.006,000.00
    100-75500-522341COPIER RENTAL1,700.001,671.000.000.000.00
    100-75500-523240AT&T CLUB SERVICE3,000.002,592.470.000.000.00
    100-75500-523400PRINTING & BINDING2,500.00493.462,000.00367.922,000.00
    100-75500-523500TRAVEL5,000.00282.755,000.004,538.827,000.00
    100-75500-523520MAIN STREET BOARD TRAVEL3,500.00309.003,500.000.002,000.00
    100-75500-523600DUES & FEES1,300.000.001,300.00869.881,300.00
    100-75500-523700EDUCATION & TRAINING3,050.0075.003,000.002,941.484,000.00
    100-75500-523720MAIN STREET BOARD EDUCATION & T3,575.000.003,500.00630.002,500.00
    100-75500-523851INTERN HELP2,000.004,515.002,000.000.003,500.00
    100-75500-523940POSTAGE200.000.00200.000.00100.00
    100-75500-523945WEB SITE4,000.001,188.004,000.004,000.004,000.00
    100-75500-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS2,000.00186.572,000.0059.641,000.00
    100-75500-531227GA PWR, MAIN STREET5,000.002,528.506,000.004,871.060.00
    100-75500-531701HOSPITALITY/FOOD/BEVERAGE5,000.00471.533,000.00646.223,000.00
    100-75500-531707ENTERTAINMENT5,000.001,917.535,000.004,728.005,000.00
    100-75500-531724DOWNTOWN BEAUTIFICATION2,000.000.002,000.000.002,000.00
    100-75500-531725PROMOTIONAL SUPPLIES2,500.00299.312,500.00300.001,000.00
    100-75500-531750UNIFORMS845.000.001,000.0051.001,000.00
    100-75500-542300FURNITURE & FIXTURES0.000.000.000.000.00
    Division: 75500 – Main Street Program Total:238,612.8973,515.44240,097.00146,217.96240,931.85

    GIS PLANNING

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 ACTUALFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2025 YTDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    100-75700-511100REGULAR EMPLOYEE SALARIES58,801.2368,393.0024,989.8071,813.0044,468.4675,404.00
    100-75700-512100GRP INSUR MEDICAL / DENTAL11,018.9913,469.695,793.9113,470.005,843.66247.52
    100-75700-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE480.57300.00289.62300.00379.480.00
    100-75700-512111GROUP INSURANCE VISION66.221,000.0024.081,000.0013.321,000.00
    100-75700-512200MEDICARE 1.45%851.331,000.00357.831,000.00640.911,093.36
    100-75700-512400PENSION4,896.246,500.002,644.606,500.005,159.706,500.00
    100-75700-512600UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE0.00700.000.00700.000.000.00
    100-75700-512700WORKERS’ COMPENSATION252.69500.00128.592,000.000.002,000.00
    100-75700-512851HRA DEDUCTIBLE0.002,000.000.002,000.000.000.00
    100-75700-521200PROFESSIONAL SERVICES0.000.000.0010,000.001,883.3315,000.00
    100-75700-521300Technical Services5,380.005,700.000.000.000.000.00
    100-75700-521310SOFTWARE0.004,235.004,235.008,000.008,690.5815,000.00
    100-75700-523410COPIER RENTAL1,609.441,700.001,610.000.000.000.00
    100-75700-523400PRINTING & BINDING1,442.692,000.0042.761,500.00823.302,000.00
    100-75700-523500TRAVEL0.001,200.000.001,500.000.003,000.00
    100-75700-523600DUES & FEES0.00250.000.00700.000.00700.00
    100-75700-523700EDUCATION & TRAINING0.001,500.000.000.000.002,500.00
    100-75700-531110COMPUTER EXPENSE22,941.000.000.000.000.000.00
    100-75700-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS1,742.003,000.000.002,500.00680.863,000.00
    100-75700-531725PROMOTIONAL ITEMS0.000.000.00300.000.00300.00
    100-75700-531750UNIFORMS20.49200.000.00300.000.008,000.00
    100-75700-541100LAND ACQUISITIONS / SITES0.000.000.000.000.000.00
    Division: 75700 – GIS/PLANNING Total:102,334.14116,512.6940,116.19123,083.0068,583.60135,744.88

    OTHER FINANCING USES

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2022 BUDGETFY 2022 ACTUALFY 2023 BUDGET2026 Payments
    100-90000-611276TRANSFER GF AND CEMETERY20,000.0010,775.8910,000.00
    100-90000-611300TRANSFER GF AND SDDA45,000.000.0090,000.00
    100-90000-611650TRANSFER TO/FROM URA120,521.88120,521.871,208,355.50
    100-90000-612020TRANSFER TO/FROM PFA FUND188,042.00301,456.262,943,804.26
    100-90000-612030TRANSFER TO/FROM SPLOST V0.000.000.00
    100-90000-612040TRANSFER TO/FROM AMPHITHEATER OPERATING0.000.000.00
    Division: 90000 – OTHER FINANCING USES Total:182,753.29929,493.744,252,159.76

    variance

    PFA
    Series C – Maturity Date 08/01/2036

    2026 Payments
    9,910,000.001,030,000.00
    14,865,000.001,265,000.00
    25,805,000.001,265,000.00
    632,500.00

    URA
    Series 2005B, 2006A and 2006C – Maturity Date 02/01/2031

    2026 Payments
    17,125,000.001,055,033.00
    5,000,000.00311,812.25
    7,330,000.00447,306.25
    4,795,000.00295,914.50
    34,250,000.002,110,066.00
    158,987.00

    Principal Payment Due every February 1
    Interest Payment Due every August 1

    PROPERTY EVIDENCE

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2023 BUDGETFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    211-15100-523901BANK CHARGES0.000.000.000.00
    Division: 15100 – FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION Total:0.000.000.000.00
    211-32100-573000PROPERTY & EVIDENCE F0.005,998.000.000.00
    Division: 32100 – POLICE ADMINISTRATION Total:0.005,998.000.000.00
    Fund: 211 – PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE FUND Total:0.005,998.000.000.00

    CONFISCATED ASSETS

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2023 BUDGETFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    210-15100-523901BANK CHARGES0.000.000.000.00
    Division: 15100 – FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION Total:0.000.000.000.00
    Fund: 210 – CONFISCATED ASSETS FUND Total:0.000.000.000.00

    ARPA

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2023 BUDGETFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    230-15100-512200MEDICARE 1.45%0.000.000.000.00
    230-15100-512900INCENTIVE PROGRAM0.0049,559.260.000.00
    230-15100-512901EMPLOYEE RETENTION PROGRAM0.000.000.000.00
    230-15100-531110COMPUTER EXPENSE0.000.000.000.00
    Division: 15100 – FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION Total:0.0049,559.260.000.00
    230-15650-531143SECURITY UPGRADE0.000.000.000.00
    230-15650-541143FACILITIES SECURITY EQUIPMENT0.000.000.000.00
    230-15650-541200SITE IMPROVEMENTS0.0027,585.940.000.00
    Division: 15650 – GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS/PROPERTY Total:0.0027,585.940.000.00
    230-32100-541492POLICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION0.000.000.000.00
    230-32100-541493TECHNOLOGY0.000.000.000.00
    230-32100-542200VEHICLES0.000.000.000.00
    230-32100-542500EQUIPMENT0.000.000.000.00
    Division: 32100 – POLICE ADMINISTRATION Total:0.000.000.000.00
    230-42500-521230ENGINEERING FEES – STORMWATER0.000.000.000.00
    230-42500-541490STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION0.0041,354.720.000.00
    230-42500-542510STORMWATER REPAIR0.000.000.000.00
    Division: 42500 – STORMWATER Total:0.0041,354.720.000.00
    230-43300-521200PROFESSIONAL SERVICES – SEWER0.000.000.000.00
    230-43300-521230ENGINEERING FEES – SEWER0.000.000.000.00
    230-43300-541489SEWER CONSTRUCTION0.00448,454.830.000.00
    Division: 43300 – SEWER Total:0.00448,454.830.000.00
    230-44200-521200PROFESSIONAL SERVICES – WATER0.000.000.000.00
    230-44200-521230ENGINEERING FEES – WATER0.000.000.000.00
    230-44200-541491WATER CONSTRUCTION0.0079,870.000.000.00
    Division: 44200 – WATER Total:0.0079,870.000.000.00
    230-61900-522328BLDG & FACILITY REPAIRS MMC0.007,336.330.000.00
    Division: 61900 – CITY EVENTS Total:0.007,336.330.000.00
    230-75100-523950ED CITYWIDE MARKETING46,231.352,500.000.000.00
    230-75100-523951BOOTH4,750.003,877.870.000.00
    230-75100-523952ED CONNECTION CENTER OUTFITTING & OPERATIONS15,000.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523953ED SB ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAM0.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523954ED SB EVENTS & MEETINGS PROGRAM15,000.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523955ED WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT10,000.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523956ED PUBLIC ARTS PROGRAM20,000.004,500.000.000.00
    230-75100-523957ED DTWN RED & ED STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION3,464.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523958ED DTWN BANNER PROGRAM5,270.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523959ED RESTAURANT WEEK REWARDS PROGRAM10,000.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523961ED DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSISTANCE20,970.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523962ED KEEP STOCKBRIDGE BEAUTIFUL10,000.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523963ED SB FACADE & BLDG IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM30,000.0021,050.000.000.00
    230-75100-523964ED STOCKBRIDGE BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP10,000.000.000.000.00
    230-75100-523965ED STOCKBRIDGE WAYFINDING551,104.000.000.000.00
    Division: 75100 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Total:751,789.3531,927.870.000.00
    Fund: 230 – ARPA – LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND Total:751,789.35686,088.950.000.00

    GRANTS ADMINISTRATION

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    255-15100-531700MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE1,000,000.000.000.000.00
    Division: 15100 – FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION Total:1,000,000.000.000.000.00
    255-32100-511100REGULAR EMPL. SALARIES – POLICE GRANT0.00233,686.83420,000.00420,000.00
    255-32100-512100GRP INSRC MEDICAL/DENTAL – POLICE GRANT0.00101,566.48101,567.00101,567.00
    255-32100-512110GROUP INSURANCE LIFE – POLICE GRANT0.00843.33844.00844.00
    255-32100-512200GROUP INSURANCE VISION – POLICE GRANT0.00534.25535.00535.00
    255-32100-512700MEDICARE 1.45% – POLICE GRANT0.003,100.983,101.003,101.00
    255-32100-521100WORKER’S COMPENSATION – POLICE GRANT0.000.000.000.00
    255-32100-5211052022 LEMHWA CONSULTANT FEES0.0063,960.0063,960.00100,000.00
    255-15110-521202GRANTS MATCH0.000.00572,261.00800,000.00
    255-32100-5235002022 LEMHWA TRAVEL0.001,089.380.000.00
    255-32100-523846LEMHWA0.000.000.000.00
    255-32100-5311402022 LEMHWA SUPPLIES & MATERIAL0.002,999.000.000.00
    255-32100-531145ASSIST/MENTAL HLTH0.000.000.000.00
    255-32100-531150SUPPLIES & MATRL. CRIMINAL JUSTICE0.000.000.000.00
    255-32100-531155COORD. CNCL PRG0.0011,797.940.000.00
    255-32100-531600SMALL EQUIP – PUB. SFTY & VIOLENT CRIME GRANT0.0022,130.000.000.00
    255-32100-5317002022 LEMHWA MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE0.000.000.000.00
    255-32100-531750UNIFORMS – BULLETPROOF VEST GRANT0.000.000.000.00
    255-32100-542500EQUIPMENT – CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORD.0.0012,161.000.000.00
    255-32100-542505CNCL PRG GRANT0.00227,800.000.000.00
    255-32100-5511002022 DE MINIMIS 10% LEMHWA INDIRECT COST0.001,800.000.000.00
    Division: 32100 – POLICE ADMINISTRATION Total:0.00683,469.191,162,268.001,426,047.00
    255-42200-522243LMIG0.00373,698.200.00500,000.00
    255-42200-541490LMIG 20240.000.000.000.00
    255-42200-541491LMIG 20250.000.00305,815.000.00
    Division: 42200 – PUBLIC WORKS Total:0.00373,698.20305,815.00500,000.00
    Division: 43300 – SEWER Total:255-74100-523847LCI 2021 BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY0.000.000.00
    Division: 74100 – PLANNING & ZONING Total:0.000.000.00
    Fund: 255 – GRANT FUND Total:1,000,000.001,057,167.391,468,083.00

    HOTEL/MOTEL

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2023 BUDGETFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2024 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    275-15100-523300ADVERTISING0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-523310PUBLIC NOTICES0.00800.000.00800.00
    275-15100-523400PRINTING & BINDING0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-523600DUES & FEES0.002,000.000.002,000.00
    275-15100-531700MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531709CITY REBRANDING INITIATIVE0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531710RSVP Program for Main Street0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531713PROMOTIONAL SUPPLIES – MAIN STREET7,719.117,000.000.005,000.00
    275-15100-531714PROMOTIONAL SUPPLIES – ECO DELVP2,896.003,000.000.002,000.00
    275-15100-531717PROMOTIONAL SUPPLIES – MERLE0.005,000.000.002,000.00
    275-15100-531718ADVERTISEMENT – MERLE0.0020,000.000.0010,000.00
    275-15100-531719ADVERTISEMENT – TED0.005,000.000.003,000.00
    275-15100-531720CITY QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER12,765.0120,000.000.0010,000.00
    275-15100-531726CITY EVENT, Food Trucks0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531730TOURISM44,426.53107,200.004,231.5480,000.00
    275-15100-531731CITY EVENT, SOUNDS OF SUMM0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531732CITY EVENT, CITIES WEEK0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531733CITY EVENT, MEMORIAL MARCH0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531736CITY EVENT, STARS OVER STO0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531737VETERAN’S DAY PARADE0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531738VETERANS DAY DINNER0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531739MAYORS BIKE RIDE0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531743CITY EVENT, CIRCUS0.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-531495BEAUTIFICATION45,991.000.000.000.00
    275-15100-542500OTHER – WAYFINDING SIGNAGE3,257.9610,000.000.0010,000.00
    275-15100-572000H.C. CHAMBER 2% / 3.5% 8/1/2015444,532.16195,000.0074,906.51300,000.00
    275-15100-611251TRANSFER TO/FROM GEN.FUND0.000.000.000.00
    Division: 15100 – FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION Total:561,587.77375,000.0079,138.05
    275-90000-611251TRANSFER TO/FROM GEN.FUND––––
    Division: 90000 – OTHER FINANCING USES Total:–––
    Fund: 275 – HOTEL/MOTEL TAX Total:561,587.77375,000.0079,138.05

    SPLOST V

    Account NumberAccount DescriptionFY 2023 ACTUALFY 2024 BUDGETFY 2025 APPROVEDFY 2026 PROPOSED
    320-15100-523901BANK CHARGES0.000.000.000.00
    Division: 15100 – FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION Total:0.000.000.000.00
    320-15650-542300POLICE STATION – FURNITURE140,676.310.000.000.00
    Division: 15650 – GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS/PROPERTY140,676.310.000.000.00
    320-42200-522241LMIG ROAD PAVING2,464,885.630.00(29,556.35)540,000.00
    320-42200-541404SIDEWALKS-SPOST V104,120.900.00165,879.100.00
    Division: 42200 – PUBLIC WORKS Total:2,569,006.530.00136,322.75540,000.00
    320-43300-541108WTP CAPACITY REVIEW16,200.000.0046,807.50284,500.00
    320-43300-541405WALTER WAY LIFT STATION0.000.000.000.00
    320-43300-541483WWTP IMPROVEMENTS128,500.000.00326,583.780.00
    Division: 43300 – SEWER Total:144,700.000.00373,391.28284,500.00
    320-44200-523849CONTRACT LABOR – WATER IN0.000.00272,282.50180,900.00
    320-44200-531140SUPPLIES & MATERIALS – WATER114,600.000.000.000.00
    320-44200-542511WATER METER REPLACEMENT63,845.480.000.000.00
    Division: 44200 – WATER Total:178,445.480.00272,282.50180,900.00
    320-62200-521220PROFESSIONAL SERVICES123,906.560.0094,259.72680,802.91
    Division: 62200 – PARKS Total:123,906.560.0094,259.72680,802.91
    320-90000-612020TRANSFER TO/FROM GENERAL2,946,323.500.000.000.00
    Division: 90000 – OTHER FINANCING USES Total:2,946,323.500.000.000.00
    Stormwater77,163.00
    Fund: 320 – SPOST V FUND Total:6,103,058.380.00876,256.251,763,365.91

    I stopped at page 80. As to my first pronouncement, you have to try very hard to make a PDF that hard to read. Transparency only ever becomes worse in the City of Stockbridge. Some of the pages right after GIS planning seem to be non-sequitirs to an old 2022 budget.

  • 9 years of trash: the life and times of Elton Alexander on Fox 5.

    9 years of trash: the life and times of Elton Alexander on Fox 5.

    Elton is standing on a 3′ sidewalk in front of CostCo. his priority is a 10′ sidewalk in front of my house.

    Stop trying to clown the southside.

    As news cameras focus on Councilman Elton Alexander’s attempts at municipal cleanup, citizens and independent watchdogs must look past the superficial photo opportunity and toward the financial chasm consuming Stockbridge, Georgia. A performance of civic duty, such as picking up trash, will not conceal the widespread financial malfeasance, systemic ethical failures, and documented pattern of retaliation that has cost taxpayers millions and led to calls for a racketeering investigation.

    The city’s financial wreckage far from being a simple administrative “failure of process” is a compounding crisis stemming from pervasive Management Oversight.

    The public relations narrative of a city getting its house in order sharply contradicts the cold reality of official financial audits and public records:

    Massive Budget Shortfalls: The City Council had to amend its budget by $32.9 million to account for documented “mismanagement” of funds. The city’s finance director confirmed the severity of the crisis, publicly stating that the council was relying on flawed data: “We misled you.”

    Amphitheater as the Epicenter: The Stockbridge Amphitheater, designed to be self-sufficient, has consistently operated at a loss. Its expenses reportedly soared from 2 million to 8.1 million. Audit findings repeatedly flagged significant adjustments needed to the General and Amphitheater Funds due to improper expenditure recording and a lack of missing supporting documentation and approvals. The following notes from the 2024 audit that was released in October, aren’t part of this year’s previous $32,900,000 budget amendment of 2022-2023 shortfalls into the 2024 budget. We’ll have to amend the 2025 budget to address this year’s $2,000,000 amphitheater shortfall. We haven’t built the soundbooth yet, in four years time. The booth will be another $400K.

    • Revenue & Receivables Management (Finding 2024-001): Significant adjustments were required across multiple funds (General, ARPA, Grants, SPLOST V, Solid Waste, Conference Center, Hotel/Motel Tax) to correctly state revenue, receivables, unearned revenue and allowances for doubtful accounts. The total impact was substantial.
    • Interfund Activity (Finding 2024-002): Interfund receivables, payables, and transfers were improperly stated requiring adjustments across many funds including General, ARPA, Grants, City-wide Capital Projects, Downtown Development, City-wide Development, Public Facilities Authority, Stormwater, Conference Center, Cemetery, SPLOST IV, and Urban Redevelopment.
    • Prepaid Assets & Expenses (Finding 2024-003): Adjustments were needed in General, ARPA, City-wide Development, Water/Sewer, Stormwater, Solid Waste, Conference Center, Amphitheater, and Hotel/Motel Tax funds to properly record prepaid assets and expenses.
    • Inventory (Finding 2024-004): The Water & Sewer Fund required an adjustment due to a lack of reconciliation between the general ledger and physical inventory counts.
    • Amphitheater Expenditures (Finding 2024-006): Significant adjustments were needed to the General and Amphitheater Funds due to improper expenditure recording, lack of approvals, and missing supporting documentation. This was a major finding with large dollar amounts.
    • Accrued Liabilities (Finding 2024-007): Adjustments were required in the SPLOST IV fund for improperly stated accrued liabilities.
    • Depreciation (Finding 2024-008): Depreciation was incorrectly recorded in the General Fund, which is not appropriate under modified accrual accounting.
    • Capitalization of Assets (Finding 2024-009): Capital items were excluded from capital asset details in both governmental and business-type activities.
    • CSLFRF Reporting (Finding 2024-010): Multiple quarterly financial reports for the COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Grants were submitted late.
    • COPS Grant Reporting (Finding 2024-011): Multiple quarterly and semiannual reports for Public Safety Partnerships and Community Policing Grants were submitted late, improperly supported, or contained incorrect expenditure reporting.
    • Prior Year Findings: Most of the findings from the 2023 audit (001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) remain Unresolved or Partially Resolved as of December 31, 2024.
    Click here for PDFs of the 2022-2024 FAC.GOV Financial Statement Findings & proof of late filing.

    Despite all this, the city decided to spend tax money on hundreds of comped tickets to an amphitheater show. It was a $180,000 loss scheduled purposefully to coincide with the early voting stage of the election.

    Concealment of Funds: Records suggest a pattern of deliberate concealment of amphitheater expenses, with costs shifted to unrelated funds “without the City Council’s knowledge or approval.” as the city has put it. This idea fails under scrutiny when you realize a councilperson, Barber has been asking for the Mauldin & Jenkins financial report for years. I know fac.gov audits are supposed to be filed yearly. And yet they weren’t, a fact noticed by hundreds of Stockbridge citizens. Finally, I find it hard to believe these people didn’t know huge catered parties they attended for four years cost tens of millions of dollars. Nor does Fox5’s Kaitlyn Pratt’s producer’s boss, evidently.

    Any attempt to recast Councilman Alexander as a responsible public servant must confront his history of alleged misconduct and the resulting burden placed on Stockbridge taxpayers.

    In 2021, the city’s insurer paid a massive 1.7 million settlement to Arick Whitson, owner of Georgie Championship Barbecue Co. The settlement resolved a federal lawsuit alleging deprivation of constitutional rights and retaliation. The dispute began in May2016 after Alexander allegedly visited the restaurant, ordered 60 worth of food, and then refused to pay. When asked for payment, Alexander allegedly told Whitson, “I thought you wanted to do business with the city?” before leaving without paying.

    Whitson claimed that after this interaction, Alexander initiated a year-long vendetta. This harassment campaign included code enforcement officials frequently visiting the restaurant, and Whitson facing difficulties obtaining a liquor license or sign permit. Furthermore, Alexander was accused of escalating the harassment by filing false complaints and making false claims that Whitson was on the National Sex Offender Registry. Alexander even admitted in a 2019 deposition that he had used fake names online to criticize his opponents.

    This scandal was so damaging that Mayor Anthony Ford and council members LaKeisha Gantt and John Blount publicly called for Alexander’s resignation, stating that the $1.725 million settlement had “brought shame to the city of Stockbridge”. Alexander, who does not support the settlement, has been subject to a “continuous pattern of disciplinary actions,” including being censured twice and facing six different ethics investigations since January 2016. More recently, he was reported to be “posted up at Merle Manders polling place bothering the mayor elect.”

    The Failure of the Fourth Estate: Atlanta’s PR Machine

    The focus by outlets like Fox 5 on a non-story like trash pickup, while ignoring the verifiable trail of financial devastation and alleged corruption, is a symptom of a larger regional crisis in accountability journalism.

    This trend is epitomized by media that operate as little more than public relations conduits. For example, Game Changers Media Network, which promoted the Mayor’s narrative of steady governance, has demonstrable links to city officials: the proprietor’s wife holds a real estate license at METRO BROKERS INC, the same realty firm where Councilperson Elton Alexander holds his license.

    This dynamic ensures that instead of conducting essential, in-depth investigations into the blatant concealment of public funds, the systematic evasion of procurement law, and the pattern of alleged extortion and retaliation that demands a racketeering inquiry, too much of the Atlanta-area media is focused on crafting PR to rehabilitate unlikable candidates with bad records. The financial facts and the systemic ethical rot in Stockbridge are the real story, not a manufactured photo opportunity meant to scrub the reputation of an official accused of long-term misconduct.

  • The secret plan to take part of my front yard revealed.

    The secret plan to take part of my front yard revealed.


    This applies to all houses on Bryant St. between East Atlanta Rd. and Lee St.

    Speaking for myself very plainly. Trespassers on my property will be dealt with accordingly. This is the second and last time I’ve warned the city that unless they’re buying it, don’t fucking touch it because it’s not yours to touch. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    Councilmember Alexander inquired about the city’s Parks Master Plan, […]
    the East Atlanta Rd./Lee Street sidewalk project.


    Mr. Aaron noted the Master Park Plan has been completed; and noted there is no
    official vote to move forward with the East Atlanta Road to Lee Street sidewalk project.
    Councilmember Alexander noted the project has been designed by Falcon Design and
    is appropriate to move forward as part of the Trail Plan.


    Councilmember Barber noted the proposed sidewalk project is in City Council District 4,


    and that she has asked for all tasks orders associated with the PATH Foundation; and
    asked why Falcon Design was tasked with any design associated with the Master Trail
    Plan.

    Mr. Aaron noted the East Atlanta to Lee Street project is not part of the Master Trail
    Plan, noting it is a sidewalk project and the task order for the design to widen East
    Atlanta Rd. to Lee Street from 5’ to 10’, was signed by the former City Manager,
    Frederick Gardiner, and was not brought to the City Council for approval, noting it was
    not part of the Master Trail Plan.

    Councilmember Barber requested the Minutes where the sidewalk project was
    approved, considering the City has approved a Master Trail Plan.
    Mr. Aaron stated the project was not presented to the City Council, noting the task order
    was in the City Manager’s signing authority for the design.

    Councilmember Barber stated the city has approved a Master Trail Plan and is unclear
    as to why there is a separate project, specifically in Council District 4, that was not
    approved by the City Council; and asked where she could see the funding for the Parks
    Master Plan.

    Mr. Aaron noted the Parks Master Plan funding is in SPLOST and is in the city’s CIP
    (Capital Improvement Plan).
    Councilmember Barber asked when the Parks Master Plan will roll out and asked for the
    schedule.

    Mr. Aaron noted he would send the proposed schedule out that was prepared by TSW.
    Councilmember Alexander stated the East Atlanta Rd./Lee Street sidewalk project
    preceded the PATH Foundation Plan, noting Falcon Design had already been paid, and
    there was not a need to then pay the PATH Foundation, stating Mr. Ganther is aware
    that this portion of N. Henry Blvd. is going to be completed, noting they are experts at
    what they do, and they support the city’s trail plan; noted the idea is to form a complete
    circle around City Hall for total connection and to close the gap, and to continue working
    with the PATH Foundation, who he brought to the city, and is a member of one of their
    boards, and suggested Mr. Aaron and Mr. Edmondson bring the sidewalk project to the
    City Council ‘s next meeting for approval with the estimate ready for review at that time;
    noting former City Manager has paid for the task order, and there is funding in SPLOST
    V, SPLOST VI, Bonds, for the project and noted there is $20 million dollars for trails;
    and asked for the status of the Brush Creek Trail project

    Source. https://stockbridgega.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3400/files/attachment/10432

  • Detroit Legends Gospel Show Sold 438 Tickets – Revenue – $32,571.83 – Total Cost – $212,452

    Detroit Legends Gospel Show Sold 438 Tickets – Revenue – $32,571.83 – Total Cost – $212,452

    Did they give away ~3000 tickets?
    Every grey dot represents a ticket printed.

    Sold Tickets – 438 – Revenue: $32,571.83 – Total Cost: $212,452 – Loss: $179,881

    If you remember the name Hogan the Caterer speaking on May 12, 2025. This is the same meeting me and my Momma were edited out of. Also, please notice she’s found elsewhere with Harold Young in other endeavors that seem to be imploding right now.

    Event NameOrg NameEvent Start DatePrice Level NamePrice Type NameQuantityTickets Scanned
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Accessible SeatingAccessible Seating22
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Accessible SeatingAccessible Seating21
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Accessible SeatingAccessible Seating22
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Box SeatingBox Seating1717
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Box SeatingBox Seating2016
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Box SeatingComp Box Seating5926
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level HightopBox Level High Top Seating00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level HightopBox Level High Top Seating00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level HightopBox Level High Top Seating Comp00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level HightopMid Level High Top Seating00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level HightopMid Level High Top Seating73
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level HightopMid Level High Top Seating66
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level HightopMid Level High Top Seating Comp00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level Reserved Table SeatingComp Mid level Reserved Table setting4832
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level Reserved Table SeatingMid Level Reserved Table Seating81
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Mid Level Reserved Table SeatingMid Level Reserved Table Seating00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00PitComp Pit Table Seating9641
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00PitPit Table Seating8377
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00PitPit Table Seating42
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Reserved Seatingcomp Reserved Seating00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Reserved SeatingCompReserved Seating1040458
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Reserved Seatingreserved seating00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Reserved SeatingReserved Seating185158
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Reserved SeatingReserved Seating3123
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Reserved SeatingReserved Seating63
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00RooftopRoof Top00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00RooftopROOF TOP SUITES00
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Terrace SeatingComp Terrace Seating748131
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Terrace SeatingTerrace Seating6154
    Detroit Gospel LegendsVyStar Amphitheater at the Bridge10/18/2025 17:00Terrace SeatingTerrace Seating1915

    Update 10-31: The Detroit Attendance csv file was sent 5 days after the first information.

  • Illusion of Order: Why Game Changers Media Network’s “Forward Focus PR” Fails Under Scrutiny

    Illusion of Order: Why Game Changers Media Network’s “Forward Focus PR” Fails Under Scrutiny

    The narrative put forth in the article titled “Forward Focus: Mayor Anthony S. Ford on the Future of Stockbridge and the $32 Million Question” attempts to paint a portrait of steady governance and immediate financial remediation. Yet, an examination of public records, independent audits, and statements to council from staff reveals that the message of transparency disseminated by the Mayor is contradicted by systemic financial dysfunction, repeated administrative failures, and troubling entanglements between the administration and its chosen media partners.

    The Source of the Spin: A Network of Convenience

    The source of the Mayor’s defense, Game Changers Media Network, operates less as an independent news outlet and more as a public relations conduit. Further investigation into the network reveals potential conflicts of interest reaching directly into City Hall.

    According to Georgia Real Estate Commission and Appraisers Board records dated October 20, 2025, Tabitha Jamison Mallard, the proprietor’s wife of Game Changers Media Network (License #377757), maintains an Active Status Salesperson license at METRO BROKERS INC. Crucially, this is the very same realty firm where Councilperson Elton Alexander holds his own Active Status Salesperson license (License #373521). This connection places the Mayor’s chief media ally in shared professional orbit with a sitting council member.

    Game Changer’s Media Network poses with Stockbridge City’s PIO, Shana Thornton at the amphitheater.

    Game Changers Media Network previously benefited from access related to the controversial VyStar Amphitheater. This is the same facility whose manager, Harold Young, was subsequently terminated amid the financial maelstrom. Public allegations and Finance Director Frank Milazi’s last appearance before council assert that no competitive sealed bid process was conducted for vendors or naming rights for the Amphitheater from 2021 through 2024, despite city requirements for procurements over $50,000 to be bid on, and despite Georgia State procurement law stating any public works project over $100,000 must be bid in the Georgia Procurement Registry.

    Full meeting: https://stockbridgega.portal.civicclerk.com/event/2910/media
    Click here for: The Unaudited Financial Report of the Fiscal Year Ending August 31, 2025 as presented by Mr. Milazi
    Click here for: PDF transcript of Mr. Milazi’s September 30 Stockbridge City Council Budget Update & forthcoming amendment presentation

    The Reckoning: Audit Findings vs. PR Claims

    Mayor Ford contends that the $32 million issue was merely a “failure of process” that they “fixed,” assuring citizens that transfers between accounts “won’t happen again” and that “the books are corrected”. However, the detailed audit findings released publicly demonstrate that these “failures of process” were pervasive and persistent:

    The city’s independent audits for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 have revealed persistent systemic financial weaknesses, with recurring fundamental failures identified repeatedly as “unresolved” from previous years (2011-2023). These serious deficiencies include repeated failure to properly capitalize millions in city assets, such as over $1.5 million in Amphitheater construction costs in 2022 alone, persistent mismanagement of receivable and revenue accounts, and chronic failures related to interfund activity.

    Game Changer’s Media Networks story, published on September 30th, precedes the fac.gov 2024 Annual Financial Comprehensive Report published on October 7th. Here are my notes on the 2024 Financial Statement Findings and Questioned Costs.

    • Revenue & Receivables Management (Finding 2024-001): Significant adjustments were required across multiple funds (General, ARPA, Grants, SPLOST V, Solid Waste, Conference Center, Hotel/Motel Tax) to correctly state revenue, receivables, unearned revenue and allowances for doubtful accounts. The total impact was substantial.
    • Interfund Activity (Finding 2024-002): Interfund receivables, payables, and transfers were improperly stated requiring adjustments across many funds including General, ARPA, Grants, City-wide Capital Projects, Downtown Development, City-wide Development, Public Facilities Authority, Stormwater, Conference Center, Cemetery, SPLOST IV, and Urban Redevelopment.
    • Prepaid Assets & Expenses (Finding 2024-003): Adjustments were needed in General, ARPA, City-wide Development, Water/Sewer, Stormwater, Solid Waste, Conference Center, Amphitheater, and Hotel/Motel Tax funds to properly record prepaid assets and expenses.
    • Inventory (Finding 2024-004): The Water & Sewer Fund required an adjustment due to a lack of reconciliation between the general ledger and physical inventory counts.
    • Amphitheater Expenditures (Finding 2024-006): Significant adjustments were needed to the General and Amphitheater Funds due to improper expenditure recording, lack of approvals, and missing supporting documentation. This was a major finding with large dollar amounts.
    • Accrued Liabilities (Finding 2024-007): Adjustments were required in the SPLOST IV fund for improperly stated accrued liabilities.
    • Depreciation (Finding 2024-008): Depreciation was incorrectly recorded in the General Fund, which is not appropriate under modified accrual accounting.
    • Capitalization of Assets (Finding 2024-009): Capital items were excluded from capital asset details in both governmental and business-type activities.
    • CSLFRF Reporting (Finding 2024-010): Multiple quarterly financial reports for the COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Grants were submitted late.
    • COPS Grant Reporting (Finding 2024-011): Multiple quarterly and semiannual reports for Public Safety Partnerships and Community Policing Grants were submitted late, improperly supported, or contained incorrect expenditure reporting.
    • Prior Year Findings: Most of the findings from the 2023 audit (001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) remain Unresolved or Partially Resolved as of December 31, 2024.
    • Overall Cause: The root cause of nearly all findings is identified as Management Oversight.
    Click here for PDFs of the 2022-2024 FAC.GOV Financial Statement Findings & proof of late filing.

    The alleged accounting errors appear to have been instrumental in masking the Amphitheater’s staggering overruns, with practices identified specifically for concealing expenses by improperly shifting costs to unrelated funds, such as the “citywide projects” fund. Despite the Mayor’s assertion that the Amphitheater construction cost was “paid off” in August. As recently as the financial update at the Sep. 30 city council meeting, in the documents & video of Mr. Milazi above, the finance department acknowledged an upcoming budget amendment to cover a $1.6 million amphitheater shortfall for 2025, with only $1 million collected against its budgeted revenue of $2.6 million for the year. As previously discussed on this site there’s a plan to build the missing $390,000 sound booth. If you owe for $390,000 in construction on an unfinished project then the amphitheater, by no measure of logic, is payed off.

    $390,000 Amphitheater Soundbooth Proposal

    The scale of misinformation provided to elected officials prior to these 2022-2024 corrections was confirmed by the City’s current finance director. In a public statement on September 30, 2025, Mr. Milazi stated plainly that the council was relying on flawed data: “There were two sets of reports that were being made, and the reports that were being given to you to make wise decisions were not. So we misled you.”

    Amphitheater as the economic driver of downtown

    As Game Changer’s says “amphitheaters rarely mint profits, but they do fuel downtown restaurants, hotels, and small businesses.” And where they quote Mayor Ford as saying “Break-even is a win when you count the spillover.” The coming budget amendment for the amphitheater & the sound booth will be ~$2,000,000. You’ll have to judge for yourself whether 2 restaurants constitutes a “Break-even” cost.

    The city’s own advisory firm, KBA wrote on page 46 in the Economic Development 2024 Update, “While partially due to the disconnect between the amphitheater and downtown retail, the absence of sustaining day-time and night-time users leaves a critical gap in revitalization efforts. Investment in Downtown Stockbridge should become more focused on activation and engagement with a renewed focus on “live-work” aspects. The city has made a promising step forward by incorporating municipal office space along Main Street. While the office market continues to evolve following the 2020 pandemic, attracting co-working or providing incubator spaces downtown can increase foot traffic and interest. Given the changing landscape of office users, increasing residential is a critical goal to realizing vibrancy in the heart of Stockbridge.”

    The Price of Accountability: Departures in the Executive Office

    The current administrative turmoil follows directly from the financial recklessness of previous management, a period characterized by reckless spending and a palpable fear of legal repercussions among staff. It was during a period of unbudgeted spending and improper fiscal activity that then-City Manager Frederick Gardiner warned the council about the severe consequences of their actions, cautioning against activity that could lead to legal action against him personally: “um as I mentioned to you guys at the last city council meeting Frederick don’t look good in jumpsuit I ain’t 6’5 350 LBS to fight so I ain’t going to jail.”

    The city manager who publicly stated he wasn’t willing to risk incarceration for the city’s financial decisions, Frederick Gardiner, submitted the proposed FY 2025 budget memorandum dated November 4, 2024, but later departed the city’s employ. His departure occurred amidst a period of immense scrutiny, following his time in a management role that was seemingly caught between council demands and legal compliance.

    The evidence suggests that the narrative of simple “process failure” is a gross understatement aimed at shielding the administration from accountability. The audit findings reveal ongoing operational neglect, and the public statements made by former and current staff highlight the severe consequences of operating outside legal and fiscal guardrails, consequences that ultimately drove leadership changes at the highest levels of the city. The facts, laid bare in the official record, stand in sharp contradiction to the public relations spin provided by the Mayor’s favored media outlet.

  • Vote for Willie Carter and Marion Calhoun

    Vote for Willie Carter and Marion Calhoun


    Why? Marion has gone down the long road through the courts like I did. Between me and her, you can call any politician you want now. You can repost things on facebook and the cops won’t come harass you as they once did Dr. Flynn over the Eagle’s Landing cityhood. Finally, mayhap you find yourself reading the dissent in Marion’s battle against a false TPO. I won’t name names, but will say that dissent was written by someone with a vested monetary interest in this county. I think, if what our dissenter wrote was true. Then you wouldn’t find Marion sitting in the front row with me or supporting Conserve Henry, who are left leaning despite the moniker, but I digress. I’m willing to work with anyone who understands, regardless of party, we’re being buried under a pile of debt to pay the local, powerful law firm that is profiting from amphitheater construction. There are many accounts of Ms. Calhoun working directly with the homeless, fearless as she is. We’ve heard not one word from the seated council on a plan for these people.

    I will recognize the Mayor and Sheriff just volunteered for the Carter Foundation on a housing project 1 mile from here. And you must recognize the Sheriff’s image is tarnished by the many preventable deaths in his jail. While 3 or more deputies covered the many amphitheater shows. In retrospect, I think we can recognize those deputies had bigger priorities than covering a treasury draining music venue. I remember after the Eagle’s Landing cityhood battle, the Carter Foundation came behind the initial “journalist” in the hit job on me. Once I proved them wrong, Christie Ethridge now Diez became a “Carter Mental Health” fellow. It will suffice to say, philanthropy doesn’t serve the the surface purpose they present. Their role has become skewing public perception, to rehabilitate the image of candidates and PR people they perceive to be in the cocktail philanthropy circuit they’re on together.

    Mr. Willie Carter? Because Mr. Cloud is a tacit incumbent. I’ve seen Mr. Willie Carter at every meeting asking pertinent questions in seeking the truth. I saw him sit thru monotonous ethics meeting where nothing happened. While giving his comment at these meetings I’ve seen Mr. Carter be forewarned “no campaigning” before he could utter a word. Meanwhile, Antwan is taking pictures with a city nametag. Elton Alexander is wearing an Antwan Cloud shirt at the candidates forum. So, rather than vote for what the city & people like El Mahdi want to endorse, I’d vote for Willie. I’ve watched this man do the work in an example below. This is one of ~50 times Willie has spoken. I’ve never seen Antwan at a meeting.

    Pardon me, that meeting was the 13th. Link in bio.

    The person I’ll be voting for for mayor is Jayden. However, this comes with a warning that if you take up the responsibility of the city’s redevelopment plan. I’ll invoke your name aside the loss of my home. Forever, if I have to. Until the idea sticks that you have to pay to acquire private property, rather than “tap it with the blight stick” and take it, while handing me a bill for the egregious violation “dangerous blight.”

    To those who don’t live in downtown and have to put up with the noise from the amphitheater. Do us a solid here, folks. So we can have the amphitheater drive business without bothering 1500 people and running the city into the ground. Let’s stop doing favors for certain Eagle’s Landing residents & “non-profit” partners.

    It’s time to build out the downtown. This is not, nor ever will be a paid endorsement. Yes, I do live downtown.