The Johns Creek City Council held a work session on May 11, 2026, beginning at 5:02 PM. The meeting covered several ongoing projects, council initiatives, and routine business. Key discussions included updates to the ethics ordinance, special events planning, trail width options for Nesbit Ferry, an appeals notification process, and street lighting at major intersections. The council reached consensus on several items and referred others to staff or advisory committees for further refinement.
Note: The meeting concluded with an executive session to discuss a land matter, after which the council adjourned.
Yes, sir. We're recording. Okay. I'd like to open the meeting. John Screek City Council work session, May 11th at 5.02 p.m. Thank you. Would you lead the pledge? Sure. Which stands one nation. Mayor Sharmarks? None, thank you. Thank you. We have nothing under strategic priorities. The first item of business under ongoing projects is the ethics ordinance update. And I think we're down to kind of the final round before you. Are is everyone having trouble getting online? Okay. Just making sure. Thank you. So you have before you the items. We've summarized last work session, we made consensus on limitations regarding when someone is aware of, affidavit and verification language, the role of the hearing officer, the role of mayor and council, guidelines for action of mayor and council. We're down to two points of that we need decisions on. The first one is frivolity review. Exactly who will conduct that. And the next one is the frivolity penalty. And as I wanted to point out that the legal department has done a little bit of extra research, so you should have had that in your inbox if there's any questions on frivolity review penalties. So just from memory, I'll just say that uh I thought that it was good the first option where it was the clerk making a kind of the perfunctory format review, and then it going to the review officer. And I think I was the one driving, or at least I instigated this idea of there being a penalty for a frivolous complaint, and I'm abandoning that idea just based on what I've read. Thank you. Aaron Yes, I agree. Uh option one for the frivolity review and no penalty fee charge for number two. Thank you. Option one for both. Thank you. Do you remember? Um right. Yes. Option one and for number one, option one and option two. Uh you know, I don't want issue 50. I don't want to be zero. Would would the council consider having a like a fifty dollar administrative penalty if there is uh if it's if if it's uh not doesn't work out basically. Frivolous if it's frivolous, a fifty dollar administrative fee versus two fifty. Yeah. Well, I mean I think based on what we've been reading that if it's frivolous, it gets stopped at the clerk level, and it pretty much has to go to a hearing officer. Um it sounds like there are some legal issues. Yeah, I mean I I was driving that, so I mean I was kind of hoping that maybe if I abandon it, maybe that goes. I lean more towards zero, but I'm like there is time involved with staff, so I was like, if we are reviewing a bunch of frivolous uh complaints, there should be but then we could carry that to BZA and every other thing where we do a review. But anyway. All right, so I appreciate that. Um Bob.