Johns Creek council signals support for Creekside Park alternates but asks for more budget review

Councilors in Johns Creek on Wednesday directed staff to bring back formal approvals for selected bid alternates on the Creekside Park construction project after receiving a staff update on cost, schedule and funding.

City staff told the council that the total project, with all alternates included, would be “39 or $40,000,000,” and recommended funding alternates 3, 5 and 7 now while holding alternates 4, 6 and 8 for later financial review. Staff said alternates 1 and 2 are transportation-related and could be paid from available T Splas interest/unprogrammed funds if council agrees.

The recommendation prompted questions from multiple councilors about timing and the budget. A council member said, “I think we need more time before we vote on elements of the project,” arguing the city should digest the recently delivered budget before committing to costly, multi-year work. That member urged tabling further action until a future work session with budget context.

Staff described sequencing and schedule: the baseline project is on an 18-month timeline, with an anticipated completion in early 2026, and the general contractor — which staff said bid the entire project and will manage subcontractor coordination — indicated a willingness to hold pricing for alternates if those alternates are added during the contractor’s work window. Staff cautioned that if alternates are delayed beyond roughly 18 months they may need to be rebid.

On contingency, staff defended lowering the construction contingency from a typical 10% to 5% for this contract, saying large, multimillion-dollar change orders are uncommon and that 5% is reasonable for projects in the $20–$30 million range. The project manager explained, “We feel 5% is a fair number as you get to those twenties and $30,000,000 kind of contracts.”

Councilors also pressed staff on material choices after a contractor-suggested substitution. A contractor representative described the two options: Ipe, a naturally rot-resistant wood used in other high-exposure installations, and Kebony, a manufactured product that carries a warranty. The representative said Kebony “carries a warranty” while Ipe is “a naturally occurring wood” often used for decks and boardwalks; councilors asked staff to return with references and warranty details before a final decision.

By the end of the discussion councilors signaled consensus to proceed with alternates 3, 5 and 7 and gave direction that alternates 1 and 2 be funded from the available T Splas interest/unprogrammed balance if appropriate; staff agreed to present the wood-material feedback and bring formal votes to the next council meeting for final approval. No final vote on the full package was recorded in the discussion.

What’s next: Staff will provide a follow-up memo on the wood-material question and return the project for formal vote at a future council meeting; councilors asked for further budget context before finalizing additional alternates or contingency decisions.