Johns Creek City Council Work Session – September 8, 2025
Johns Creek City Council Work Session – September 8, 2025
A work session of the Johns Creek City Council was held on September 8, 2025, at 5:00 PM. The council discussed the FY26 budget, construction bids for the Barnwell Road corridor improvements, and a parking lot expansion at Cauley Creek Park. No public comments were received. The meeting adjourned to executive session.
Consent Calendar
- Budget Amendment – Grant Acceptance (FY2025 Budget Amendment Ordinance #8): This item was listed as routine business (non-discussion) and was not discussed during the work session. It was presumably approved without debate.
Discussion Items
FY26 Budget Discussion (60 minutes)
- Assistant City Manager Kay Love presented a proposed budget that is balanced, with a $4 million placeholder for allocation of the projected FY2025 surplus. Council debated whether to allocate the surplus now or park it in capital projects contingency until the actual surplus amount is known (expected in November).
- Councilmember Chris suggested parking the $4 million in the capital projects contingency, allowing interest earnings (~$100,000) and revisiting allocation at the January strategic retreat. Several council members agreed, including Councilmember D.B., who noted that the exact surplus number is still uncertain.
- Councilmember Bob favored funding two police officer positions and two vehicles ($362,000) immediately, citing the long lead time for hiring and equipment. City Manager noted that the Police Chief’s priority was funding four cadet positions for FY26, not the officer positions, and that current response times are excellent (average <1 minute for emergencies).
- Councilmember Stacey raised concerns about the 9% growth assumption for Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) revenue, arguing it is too aggressive compared to neighboring cities. She preferred a more conservative budget. Staff explained their methodology (4 scenarios, range $28.75M–$30.5M) and noted that the city budgets conservatively on other revenues and expenditures, providing a cushion.
- Councilmember Aaron supported parking the surplus, but suggested that if revenues exceed projections, the excess could be returned to taxpayers via a lower millage rate.
- Consensus was reached to keep the $4 million placeholder as a capital projects contingency, not to allocate it now, and to finalize the budget for the October adoption.
Barnwell Trail and Barnwell at Niblick Construction Bids (15 minutes)
- Director of Public Works Brett O’Connor recommended approval of a construction contract with Summit Construction for Barnwell Road corridor improvements: an intersection improvement at Barnwell/Niblick Drive and a multimodal trail from Niblick to North Peak Drive. Total project cost: $10.2 million (construction, CEI, 10% contingency), funded through TSPLOST 2, 2025 LMIG, and a Fulton County IGA.
- Council discussed the inclusion of a 4-foot bike lane on the west side of the road, per the adopted bicycle policy. Councilmember Bob questioned the cost-effectiveness and safety of both a trail and a bike lane, suggesting a compromise. Councilmember Larry noted that the road is narrow (10-foot lanes) and cyclists often ride northbound, making a southbound-only bike lane less useful.
- After debate, a consensus emerged to modify the design: replace the 4-foot bike lane with a 2-foot shared shoulder on each side of the road (total 4 feet split), achieved through striping changes without affecting the curb/gutter or trail width. This increases safety for both northbound and southbound cyclists and drivers. Staff will revise the plan and confirm with the contractor.
- Councilmember Aaron expressed a desire to revisit the city’s bike policy once the multimodal policy is finalized, to ensure a more deliberate approach to bike infrastructure.
Cauley Creek Parking Lot – Council Initiative (15 minutes)
- Councilmember Larry DiBiasi proposed using $768,900 in savings from a recent paving project to expand the parking lot at Cauley Creek Park. The original bid for 89 paved spots was $628,000, but the council had previously balked at the cost (~$7,000 per space).
- Councilmembers raised concerns about the high cost per space, the need for parking (especially with the upcoming makerspace), and safety in the park after dark. Some suggested alternative locations or materials (e.g., gravel). Others noted that the parking shortage is acute, with anecdotal reports of cars circling and illegal parking.
- Councilmember Chris suggested exploring options to reduce costs, such as a different location or use of gravel. Councilmember Stacey proposed moving the volleyball courts to break up demand, but staff noted that building a volleyball court is also expensive.
- City Manager Kimberly will work with staff to develop options considering both current use and the future makerspace, and report back to council. The council also asked staff to evaluate lighting on the trail to improve safety.
Key Outcomes
- FY26 Budget: Council agreed to keep the $4 million surplus placeholder as a capital projects contingency, not to allocate it until the actual surplus is known (expected November). The budget will be adopted in October.
- Barnwell Road Project: Consensus to modify the bike lane to a 2-foot shared shoulder on each side via striping. Staff will adjust the contract and bring it back for a vote. The project is expected to take 18 months from notice to proceed.
- Cauley Creek Parking: Referred to staff to explore cost-effective options for additional parking, considering location, materials, and the pending makerspace. No decision made.
- Executive Session: The council voted to adjourn to executive session to discuss land, legal, and/or personnel matters.
Meeting Transcript
Mayor, we're recording. Okay. I would like to recall this meeting of the Johns Creek City Council to order the September 8th, 2025 at 5 p.m. Would you lead us in the pledge? Happy to pledge allegiance. Under God. Next time. Mayor's remarks. Without any strategic priorities, we're moving to ongoing projects with the fiscal year 26 budget discussion with Assistant City Manager Love for discussion. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. The memo for this afternoon's work session regarding the proposed budget is allocation of projected FY 2025 surplus. In the memo, it lays out uh how we got here with some of the adjustments that have been made to the proposed budget leading up to this, the most recent one from the August 25th work session related to the assumption of the property tax uh digest growth. So the budget document that you received is balanced. And then there is a placeholder there for there's a $4 million placeholder, and it is just that a placeholder. Um should the council decide to allocate some of the projected FY 2025 surplus in as part of the FY26 budget. In your memo, there are several projects or initiatives that have been mentioned in previous work sessions by one or more council members. That is a suggestion for consideration of that funding. Mr. Mayor, I don't know if you want us to go down through that list or just uh around the table for um the input from council, however you would like us to proceed. Can I ask someone? So I was looking at the list. I was really considering it in this may be a interesting idea. So uh you can surely say it's a bad one if you want to. Um but I think um, you know, we it's not a requirement that we have to spend the surplus. And right rather than try to divvy up uh these projects now. We could put it to unassigned uh reserves and then uh have that as something that we look at the retreat um and make you know six figures on the interest from that surplus until then to uh let staff uh make sure they can implement all the projects and and things like that. So it's not a requirement that we expend it. We could push it to the investment policy, keep it there for five, six months uh through the investment policy, make a hundred grand on it, and then figure how to expend it. So just the thought. But I think it's a good one. But Chris, that's I think that's what the staff is suggesting, right? Yeah. Put it in the contingency. So not like last year, like we come back and assign it and if the number changes. We still got two more months to get that real actual number. So I would rather just park it in that contingency like the staff is suggesting. When we wrote know the exact like real number, probably that's when or like you said. That's a good place. When strategic like meeting in uh January, that's when we can come back and say, okay, here is what we need to assign it. So I like that approach. Yeah, and then we at that point we'll know uh either moving forward with the PAC or not, and then we can really decide some of those big dollars. And also we will know the exact dollar amount in stuff like last year they had to come back and make another amendment to adjust it. So I would rather just not assign it and just put it in the projects capital projects contingency and then. So let me but one project for sure I want to we don't need to assign a dollar amount, but uh strongwater grant, because it's pretty successful this year, so we should definitely have some assigned to it. Probably like we can talk about it back when we allocate to the project. So right now I want like staff that you said put under capital projects contingency. And we know the exact dollar amount. That's not what Chris was recommending, right? You were saying putting it in the general. So is there any any particular item here on this list that have critical dates that we either have to fund or we miss?
openpublica.com