Johns Creek City Council Work Session - July 28, 2025
Johns Creek City Council Work Session - July 28, 2025
The City Council of Johns Creek held a work session on July 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM at 11360 Lakefield Drive. The meeting focused on the Fiscal Year 2026 budget, proposed bathroom additions at the Boardwalk at Town Center, next steps for the Cauley Creek Makerspace, and a new Multi-Modal Policy. No formal votes were taken; the council provided direction for staff to refine proposals.
Discussion Items
FY26 Budget Discussion
- Assistant City Manager Kay Love presented a proposed budget built on a $70 million growth assumption. Councilmember Daleep recommended increasing the growth assumption to $200 million based on a five-year average, which would generate an additional $440,000 in revenue. He suggested allocating $300,000 of that to Newton Park pickleball court lighting (project #13) and the remainder to update the Cauley Creek Master Plan (project #29). Councilmember Skinner agreed with the recommendation but needed more time to decide on reallocation.
- Councilmember Daleep also questioned the high overtime line item for police ($500,000) and the building inspection services budget. He expressed concern about inconsistent revenue forecasting, noting that the city fell short by $250,000 in other revenues for FY2025 yet budgeted a $720,000 increase for FY2026. Staff explained that each revenue line is based on historical trends and specific project expectations (e.g., Medley permitting).
- Councilmember Skinner requested greater transparency in the budget presentation, including adding unassigned fund balance projections, breaking down salary and benefit increases, and clarifying line items such as the board and commissions appreciation dinner ($5,000) and the International City/County Management Association membership in the communications budget.
- Councilmember Chris Biaggi presented an AI-driven analysis of the budget using reasoning models, identifying potential cost savings and innovations (e.g., dynamic HVAC optimization). He offered to share the results.
- Councilmember Daleep also discussed the stormwater grant program, noting that $422,000 was allocated for FY2025 but zero for FY2026. Staff responded that the program would be replenished as needed and that the timeline for the 42 applications is on schedule.
Boardwalk at Town Center – Bathroom Addition
- Assistant City Manager Chris Haggard proposed repurposing $1 million of unused construction contingency from the boardwalk project to begin engineering and land acquisition for additional bathrooms. The estimated total cost for permanent bathrooms is $2 million.
- Councilmembers expressed strong concerns about the cost. Councilmember Skinner questioned why bathrooms were not included originally and noted that parking remains unfunded. Councilmember Chris Coughlin suggested using luxury restroom trailers instead of permanent construction, which could be purchased or rented for events. Councilmember Daleep agreed that $2 million is too high and emphasized exploring all options, including temporary solutions.
- The council directed staff to analyze alternatives (e.g., luxury trailers, partnerships) and return with a cost-benefit analysis before spending any funds on engineering.
Makerspace Next Steps
- Staff presented two options for the Cauley Creek Makerspace: renovate the existing water reclamation building ($2 million) or construct a new building ($2.1 million), with an additional $300,000 required for air conditioning in either option. The new building offers better efficiency and lower long-term maintenance.
- Councilmembers were divided. Councilmember Daleep and Councilmember Chris Biaggi supported the new building, noting lower HVAC costs and future flexibility. Councilmember Skinner called for a pause, citing the project's changing direction over nine months and the need for a comprehensive plan including parking. Councilmember Aramelli also advocated for a pause to reassess goals and costs.
- Councilmember Chris Coughlin supported moving forward with exploring the new building but wanted to simultaneously consider uses for the existing building (e.g., parking or indoor recreation). The council did not reach a consensus; staff will bring additional information on locations, parking, and total cost to a future meeting.
Multi-Modal Policy
- Director Chris Haggard presented a proposed policy for multimodal trails, recommending an 8-foot minimum trail width to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, and personal transportation vehicles (e.g., golf carts, e-scooters). A 100-point scoring matrix was proposed to prioritize projects based on proximity to parks, schools, activity centers, roadway classification, and gaps in the system.
- Councilmember Larry DiBiasi preferred a 10-foot default width with discretion for 8 feet where needed, and suggested prioritizing areas with no sidewalks first. Councilmember Daleep supported 8 feet but wanted to increase points for proximity to schools to encourage cycling. Councilmember Skinner agreed with the staff recommendation but noted that 10 feet should be the default when possible.
- The council provided feedback for staff to refine the policy and return with a final draft.
Key Outcomes
- Budget: Council directed staff to adjust the FY2026 growth assumption from $70 million to $200 million, adding $440,000 in revenue. Staff will incorporate council feedback on transparency and forecasting and bring a revised budget to future meetings.
- Boardwalk Bathrooms: Staff will explore alternative bathroom options, including luxury trailers, and return with cost estimates before proceeding with any expenditure.
- Makerspace: Staff will provide additional information on the new building option, including location, parking, and total cost, for a future council decision. No contract amendment was authorized.
- Multi-Modal Policy: Staff will refine the minimum trail width (likely 8 feet, with 10 feet preferred) and scoring matrix based on council feedback and present a final policy for adoption.
No formal motions or votes were taken during this work session.
Meeting Transcript
Thank you, Mayor recording. Thank you. Would you lead the pledge? Mayor Shermarks. Thank you. Nothing under strategic priorities. The first item under ongoing projects is fiscal year 26 budget discussion. We have assistant City Manager Love here. Not sure what your format will be, Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. Earlier today, you should have gotten an email from me that consolidated some of the initial questions that we've received from the council about the FY26 proposed budget. We're prepared to take additional questions, um, provide clarification on some of those answers, or if there's a particular area of the budget we would like to focus on. And then the goal would be um by the end of the week to turn that back around to you, unless it's something that would cost some additional research, and we would let you know that time frame. Uh Mr. Mayor, I don't know if we want to open it up to any specific questions or thank you, Kay. You pretty much answered all the questions and putting it in the document and sending it out to everyone. Great work. So going back to that uh the growth. We are going on a 70 million growth. So if I was looking at the last five or six year average, it's almost it's way more than 200 million. So for last year, even when we went with the 200 million growth, looks like we'll still end up with some surplus. So for this year, would you be comfortable going with uh 200 million growth assumption? I would. Based on the five-year history that was a part of the email that you received today. Um our growth is well over that on an average basis. So 200 would still be conservative, assuming the same collection rates. Okay. And that would uh give us an additional probably 400 plus. About 440, yes, sir. Yes, 440. Okay, that's what I have. Yes, sir. Um I'm gonna I'll come back to that uh how to split that. The couple of other uh uh questions and discussion items that we went on was uh the community development uh building inspection services. I know that's a big uh line item, but looks like we did try to in-source it and uh so can we keep looking at that option? It's fine to have it on the on the budget, but still keep looking at uh certainly it's a it's an ongoing conversation and discussion uh that Mr. Song and I and the city manager have related to uh what that right mix is, and right now in that particular field, it is just extremely difficult not only for local governments but also those third-party contracting uh firms to attract and retain qualified uh inspectors specifically. I can't. But we will continue to look at it and see where it makes sense for us to do that. We absolutely will. It doesn't have to be the the complete one, but at least partially if we can in source that would really uh the software license. We did put the payroll software license under finance, but it I thought it should go either under the payroll or IT services, but it doesn't matter. It's an expense of just being on the line item, but I thought payroll software should go more into the either payroll or IT. So the rationale on that, and you're absolutely right, it is a software license. It could certainly be housed in IT. The reason that it was uh put in finance is because payroll is in finance, that function is actually in finance. It's split between HR has the preliminary onboarding, the true HRIS components of that, but payroll processing and the payment to payroll that happens out of the finance department. The implementation team for the new software, we actually had that debate or discussion to your point.
openpublica.com