OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Johns Creek City Council Work Session - February 9, 2026

City Council — Monday, February 9, 2026
BodyJohns Creek, Georgia
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, February 9, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:37:26

Transcript — Verbatim
0:04

Thank you, Mayor River.

0:09

All this mean to order is February 9, 26, 501 view.

0:14

Thank you.

0:16

Sure.

0:20

I like believe that this is a patient.

0:39

None.

0:40

Thank you.

0:48

Thank you.

0:48

The first item under the case.

0:50

Our ongoing projects not nothing under strategic priorities tonight is boards and commissions.

0:55

And I can talk to you about that.

0:57

This is just the annual check-in that we try to do prior to our appointment period in February.

1:14

So if you have any questions that we've not outlined, now is the time.

1:19

But I have posed before you three questions that have kind of come up.

1:23

And the first one is related to size and scope.

1:26

I didn't know, Mayor, if you want to take these one at a time or how you want to do that.

1:30

I I think let's just go through and everyone can just do their thoughts.

1:34

Perfect.

1:34

Right now, um, are you happy with the charge, the size of the scope of all of the boards and commissions before you?

1:41

The second item is related to the construction board of appeals.

1:45

Historically, we've had trouble um getting volunteers for this board, and it could be because they've never met, so we appoint people and then we never seat them, and that or we seat them and they never get called, so they just don't apply.

1:59

So we have tr we've had trouble.

2:00

So there we have suggested an option of combining those with possibly the Board of Zoning Appeals.

2:06

I didn't know if that was something you wanted to consider.

2:08

And the third item on the list is um not a staff question, but rather something that's come up from your members of those committees and commissions.

2:17

It's related to the attendance.

2:19

Several of them have mentioned your attendance role of missing three meetings in a calendar year.

2:24

Two meetings, and then the third would require removal.

2:27

Is tough tough on them.

2:29

So I told them I would bring that forward.

2:31

I don't staff doesn't really have an opinion on that, but I did tell them that that would present that before you thank you.

2:38

And I appreciate you bringing this and good job of the memo.

2:42

I'll say this regarding the size.

2:45

I think RPAC is too large.

2:48

I think that that's hard to get a meaningful conversation with everyone involved.

2:54

Uh I think eventually it would be good for us to get down to nine members.

3:00

But in this first cycle, I don't think we should probably go beyond 11 because then we'll start eating into the people that are wanting to stay that are still in good stead.

3:10

Um the CBA, I very much agree.

3:17

However, I want to make sure as part of this that we do, I don't know if it requires an ordinance change or if it's simply something that staff can carry through.

3:30

There has got to be something, and I think this goes for you know our existing BZA process as well.

3:36

We need to have as a mandatory requirement that any time there is a decision that's handed down by the city that the uh property owner be advised of their rights to appeal, kind of almost like a Miranda rights, uh, if you think of it that way.

3:54

Uh, and that that document may spells out what their right to appeal is.

4:00

Uh I don't think that that's being done right now.

4:04

And then on the issue of excuses, I would agree that there should be we need to relax that, and my sweet spot I think is that if the meeting is moved, if there's a hospitalization of the person or family members, or if they have a you know death in the family funeral.

4:25

And to uh just to add a little context on that, we were also having uh um at that time when those um were passed, um there was some attendance issues that were out.

4:37

Um, and so I wouldn't say it it could be valuable because we don't see that uh having some adjustment uh um to a degree.

5:00

So as to numbers, I think what we have currently is good, except for I do agree RPAC is too large and it seems like 11 is the number to maintain to not um remove anybody that currently wants to serve.

5:10

But is there a way that we could write the policy or is it just something we implement where we agree we want it to be nine so that when if any of those if two people decide decide to resign or they move away or whatever that we just don't refill them to go down to nine?

5:25

Yeah, I think that we would be able to write that into the code.

5:28

I mean it that type of change to the number is gonna have to come back before you anyway.

5:33

So I can talk to um staff and try to figure out what that looks like.

5:37

But I think that's possible.

5:38

Yeah.

5:39

Okay.

5:40

And then about the um construction board of appeals.

5:44

I agree.

5:45

But so I didn't get a chance to ask you before to look it up.

5:49

It's in the code, but not in the charter.

5:51

It's just a code change, it's not a charter change.

5:54

The charter does mention the construction board.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Community Engagement███████████████████████████████31%
Active Transportation███████████████████19%
Parks and Recreation█████████████████17%
Tourism Development█████████████████17%
Procedural████████████12%
Economic Development████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Johns Creek City Council Work Session - February 9, 2026

This work session, held on February 9, 2026, at 5:00 PM, covered four main topics: review of boards and commissions, bike rental program options, World Cup event options, and boardwalk activation options. The council reached consensus on several items and directed staff to return with detailed proposals and policy recommendations for future action.

Discussion Items

Boards and Commissions

  • RPAC Size: Council agreed to reduce the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee (RPAC) from 15 to 9 members, initially stepping down to 11. Mayor and council members expressed that 15 members hindered productive discussion. Staff will draft code changes to allow gradual reduction.
  • Construction Board of Appeals (CBA): Council supported exploring the combination of the CBA with the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). This would require a charter change. Staff will research and present options for merging the boards.
  • Attendance Policy: Council discussed the current rule that three unexcused absences in a calendar year results in removal. There was broad support for adding exceptions for emergencies such as hospitalization, death in the family, or meeting rescheduling. Staff will develop a revised policy with defined excuses for council approval.
  • Term Limits: Council member Collins raised the possibility of revisiting term limits, but no consensus was reached to change the two-year term limit.

Bike Rental Program Options

  • Models Presented: Three options were discussed: fully city-owned and operated, city-owned with a partner operator, and fully partner-owned and operated. Estimated upfront cost for 10 bikes and docking stations was $25,000.
  • Council Positions: Most members opposed the city managing the program. There was interest in a partnership model where a vendor operates the system, possibly with initial city subsidy. Some favored a free rental amenity for residents for the first few hours, while others supported a paid model. The goal is to activate the Town Center area with potential expansion to Cauley Creek Park.
  • Next Steps: Staff will issue an RFP to find a turnkey bike share vendor, allowing the partner to determine the number of stations and bikes. The city may use tourism product development funds for initial capital costs.

World Cup Event Options

  • Three Options Presented: (1) Promote local business watch parties via chamber partnership, (2) Combine a soccer-themed movie with the US vs. Paraguay match on June 12 at 9 PM, (3) Host a dedicated watch party for the semifinals or finals at a city park.
  • Council Consensus: Support for options 1 and 2. Option 3 gained traction for a larger event at Cauley Creek Park (or Newtown Park) for the finals weekend (July 18-19). Council emphasized not competing with local businesses. Staff will bring back a detailed proposal for multiple events, including activation activities like penalty shootouts.
  • Location Discussion: Cauley Creek was favored for its soccer fields and passive lawn space, though Newtown and the Boardwalk were also considered for specific events.

Boardwalk Activation Options

  • Options: (1) City-managed events only, (2) Allow private/nonprofit rentals of designated areas like the band shell, (3) Frequent external programming partnerships.
  • Council Consensus: Option 2 was supported as a starting point. Members want to allow limited rentals (e.g., weddings, yoga) while keeping the park generally open. Some advocated a three-month moratorium on rentals after opening to let the public enjoy the space first. Staff will develop a rental policy and fee schedule for council approval, with options for partial and full-park closures considered on a case-by-case basis.
  • Capacity: Staff estimated comfortable capacity at 4,000 for large events, depending on setup and surrounding property usage.

Key Outcomes

  • Consensus reached on reducing RPAC size, exploring CBA/BZA merger, and revising attendance policy with exceptions. Staff to bring back code amendments.
  • Consensus to issue RFP for a bike share vendor, with city potentially subsidizing initial costs. No decision on whether rental will be free or paid.
  • Consensus to proceed with options 1 and 2 for World Cup, plus a larger finals event. Staff to return with a comprehensive plan.
  • Consensus to adopt option 2 for boardwalk rentals, with staff developing policies and fee structure. Council will set effective date later.
  • No action on routine business (Nesbit Ferry Road roundabout contract) during work session; it was listed for non-discussion approval at the regular meeting.

Meeting Transcript

Thank you, Mayor River. All this mean to order is February 9, 26, 501 view. Thank you. Sure. I like believe that this is a patient. None. Thank you. Thank you. The first item under the case. Our ongoing projects not nothing under strategic priorities tonight is boards and commissions. And I can talk to you about that. This is just the annual check-in that we try to do prior to our appointment period in February. So if you have any questions that we've not outlined, now is the time. But I have posed before you three questions that have kind of come up. And the first one is related to size and scope. I didn't know, Mayor, if you want to take these one at a time or how you want to do that. I I think let's just go through and everyone can just do their thoughts. Perfect. Right now, um, are you happy with the charge, the size of the scope of all of the boards and commissions before you? The second item is related to the construction board of appeals. Historically, we've had trouble um getting volunteers for this board, and it could be because they've never met, so we appoint people and then we never seat them, and that or we seat them and they never get called, so they just don't apply. So we have tr we've had trouble. So there we have suggested an option of combining those with possibly the Board of Zoning Appeals. I didn't know if that was something you wanted to consider. And the third item on the list is um not a staff question, but rather something that's come up from your members of those committees and commissions. It's related to the attendance. Several of them have mentioned your attendance role of missing three meetings in a calendar year. Two meetings, and then the third would require removal. Is tough tough on them. So I told them I would bring that forward. I don't staff doesn't really have an opinion on that, but I did tell them that that would present that before you thank you. And I appreciate you bringing this and good job of the memo. I'll say this regarding the size. I think RPAC is too large. I think that that's hard to get a meaningful conversation with everyone involved. Uh I think eventually it would be good for us to get down to nine members. But in this first cycle, I don't think we should probably go beyond 11 because then we'll start eating into the people that are wanting to stay that are still in good stead. Um the CBA, I very much agree. However, I want to make sure as part of this that we do, I don't know if it requires an ordinance change or if it's simply something that staff can carry through. There has got to be something, and I think this goes for you know our existing BZA process as well. We need to have as a mandatory requirement that any time there is a decision that's handed down by the city that the uh property owner be advised of their rights to appeal, kind of almost like a Miranda rights, uh, if you think of it that way. Uh, and that that document may spells out what their right to appeal is. Uh I don't think that that's being done right now. And then on the issue of excuses, I would agree that there should be we need to relax that, and my sweet spot I think is that if the meeting is moved, if there's a hospitalization of the person or family members, or if they have a you know death in the family funeral. And to uh just to add a little context on that, we were also having uh um at that time when those um were passed, um there was some attendance issues that were out. Um, and so I wouldn't say it it could be valuable because we don't see that uh having some adjustment uh um to a degree. So as to numbers, I think what we have currently is good, except for I do agree RPAC is too large and it seems like 11 is the number to maintain to not um remove anybody that currently wants to serve. But is there a way that we could write the policy or is it just something we implement where we agree we want it to be nine so that when if any of those if two people decide decide to resign or they move away or whatever that we just don't refill them to go down to nine? Yeah, I think that we would be able to write that into the code. I mean it that type of change to the number is gonna have to come back before you anyway.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com