Johns Creek City Council Work Session - May 19, 2025
Johns Creek City Council Work Session - May 19, 2025
The Johns Creek City Council held a work session on Monday, May 19, 2025, starting at 5:05 PM and concluding around 7:00 PM. The meeting covered several ongoing projects and council initiatives, with a major focus on the proposed Performing Arts Center, tree ordinance amendments, and various policy updates.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar items were discussed as part of the work session; routine business items were slated for non-discussion but some were pulled for future consideration (Annual Resurfacing Bids and Lakefield Drive Streetscape Engineering Contract).
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were made during the work session.
Discussion Items
- Performing Arts Center - Staffing and Operations (60 min): Assistant City Manager Greer presented a pro forma showing year one expenditures of $1.64 million and revenues of $1.33 million, requiring an annual investment of approximately $254,000. Council members debated the policy question of whether such an annual investment is appropriate. Some expressed support for a bond referendum in November 2025, while others called for more community input. Financing options discussed included general obligation bonds, GMA lease purchases, and public-private partnerships. The council generally agreed to bring the matter to the June 9th work session for further discussion on a potential referendum.
- Tree Ordinance Amendment Options (15 min): Community Development Director Solan presented options to reduce regulatory burden on homeowners for tree removal. Council members provided direction: A3 (permit only for trees in protected areas), B1 (recompense of one 15-gallon tree for trees removed in permit-required areas), C2 (trees within 25 feet or threatening a primary dwelling can be removed without permit), D1 (increase specimen tree threshold from 24 to 32 inches), and D2 (also modify classification). Staff will draft amendments for a July meeting.
- HB 92 - Certification of Property Tax Rate (15 min): Finance Director Campbell explained that a resolution was needed to certify the estimated rollback rate per revised guidance from the Tax Commissioner's office. Council agreed to pass the resolution at the regular meeting.
- Cemetery Text Amendment (15 min): The proposal allows small burial plots (up to 1,000 sq ft or 4 plots) on religious properties with a visual barrier. Council moved to forward the amendment with Bob's suggestion to require a visual barrier.
- Bicycle Friendly Community Designation (15 min): Councilmember Larry DiBiase introduced the initiative; staff is already working on an application due June 25. No formal council action was required at this time.
- Park Programming - Resident Fees for City Staff (15 min): Mayor Bradbury proposed allowing city staff and their families to pay resident fees for recreation programs. Consensus was to support, and the item will go to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee and then to council.
- Volunteer Led Special Event Policy (15 min): Councilmembers Stacy Skinner and Larry DiBiase asked staff to create a uniform policy for volunteer-led events to clarify roles and decision-making. The ACE committee had previously discussed this; staff will distribute existing materials and bring back a proposal.
Key Outcomes
- Performing Arts Center: Council consensus to continue discussions on a bond referendum at the June 9th work session; staff to provide additional information on financing mechanisms (CID, TAD, P3) and a comprehensive presentation for public education.
- Tree Ordinance: Staff directed to draft amendments based on the consensus (A3, B1 with 15-gallon recompense, C2 with modification, D1 and D2) and return for a public hearing in July.
- HB 92: Resolution to certify rollback rate will be voted on at the regular council meeting.
- Cemetery Text Amendment: Forwarded with an added visual barrier requirement.
- Bicycle Friendly: Application to proceed administratively.
- Park Staff Fees: To be reviewed by RPAC and brought back to council.
- Volunteer Event Policy: Staff to compile existing ACE committee materials and develop a draft policy for future discussion.
- Routine Business: Annual Resurfacing Bids and Lakefield Drive Streetscape Contract pulled from consent for future work session discussion.
Meeting Transcript
Start until we're recording. All right. Welcome everybody. I'd like to call this meeting of the Johns Creek City Council work session order this Monday, May 19th at 5.05 p.m. Thank you. At this time will you lead the pledge? You glad to pledge allegiance to why of the United States? Liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Mayor's remarks? None at this time, thank you. I'm not aware of anything under strategic priorities, which leads to the first item under ongoing projects. It is the performing arts center staffing and operations. We have assistant city manager Greer. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Picking up our conversation from the last work session, the agenda report in your packet reviews the anticipated revenues and expenditures for staffing and operations for a potential performing arts center. Each assumption is noted in case you'd like to review it further. But given the executive level decision-making lens of the council, I want to keep my remarks at the big picture. The anticipated revenues and expenditures would put Johns Creek's performing arts center in line with the regional and local trend of requiring an annual investment to cover the operational cost. The preliminary pro forma anticipates year one expenditures of roughly 1.64 million and revenues of 1.33 million, which would require some combination of an operating endowment, naming rights, grants, or other investment from the city totaling approximately 254,000. Rather than debate the individual assumptions, my big ask of council is a policy question. Do you think an annual investment in a performing arts center is an appropriate to add to our facility for recreational offerings? In addition to my policy question, I'm interested to hear whatever feedback you'd like to share on the information provided. But your consensus will really guide the next steps. As noted in the agenda report, the one hard deadline we're working with is that if council has an interest in advancing the conversation to a potential bond referendum for this year, Fulton County Board of Elections has indicated they need to know the bond question in July for it to appear on a November ballot. So absent further direction, that will be our focus for the June work session, but I am confident you all have thoughts to share. All right. All right, thank you, uh City Manager Greer. And first off, I just appreciate uh I thought it was a strong thorough memo and I appreciate it. Uh council, before we go into anyone's comments, including my own. Uh I know that last time maybe we got a little off track with the schedule, and I think we went almost maybe a full two hours just on the performance hall. Um I don't think everyone got a full fair shake at speaking. Uh would it be in agreement with you that we self-impose an hour for this topic? I think that maybe that's about what it's already uh planned for, and maybe we'll try to do a better job of we'll each go around, say our two or three minute intro, whatever you know your pieces, and then we can just have a full mealy debate, whatever you want. Would that be acceptable to everybody? And then we'll hold each other to that. All right. So at about uh six o'clock, I'll be like, okay, we got about seven minutes left. So just so that we get to other things as well. So uh all right. With that, uh I will I'll tell you what, let's let's Bob, why don't you lead us off? Thank you. Uh I feel at this point we are more or less agreed that there is a bond needed for this. Uh some of the parameters which are needed for the bond is how much money will be raised by the public versus how much it'll be going to be the raised by the private citizens of private entities. At this point, I believe, since you just told us about Fulton County saying that they needed this information in a very short period of time. We may not be giving adequate time for the people to raise the the money or to get some kind of promise. I believe that at this point the bond aspect of this whole does not have adequate runway to meet that goal of fundraising. So maybe it may be moving to a slightly further date. But that's how I look at it. I feel we we shouldn't be setting them some setting them up for failure by giving them a very short period of time and say raise this money.
openpublica.com