Johns Creek council questions FY26 budget assumptions, reserves and major line items

The Johns Creek City Council spent the work session probing the proposed FY26 budget, asking staff for clearer revenue assumptions and more detail on large accruals and capital lines.

Assistant City Manager Kaye Love told the council staff had sent a consolidated email of the council’s initial questions and "we're prepared to take additional questions, provide clarification on some of those answers" and aimed to return answers by the end of the week. That exchange framed a series of follow‑up requests by council members about growth assumptions, forecast methodology and specific line items.

Why it matters: councilmembers said forecast accuracy matters to avoid unexpected shortfalls or large unassigned fund balances. One member asked whether staff could use a $200 million growth assumption instead of the $70 million planning baseline; Love said $200 million would be conservative relative to five‑year trends but that staff began budget development from a $70 million starting point because that was the working assumption when development began.

Among the items discussed in detail were: - A $19.75 million infrastructure maintenance accrual that staff described as a multi‑year saving strategy for parks refreshes and long‑life assets such as bridges. Staff flagged that resurfacing funding has a $1,000,000 placeholder for FY26 that could change if the council reprioritizes projects. - A projected police overtime line of roughly $500,000. Love said departments have begun biweekly overtime reviews and the new HRIS/payroll implementation will help managers monitor and reduce unnecessary overtime. - Interest income that fell in FY25 because idle cash was invested later in Q1; Love said Georgia Fund 1 and the city’s other portfolio were yielding about 4.36% and that the finance director will develop a strategy to put idle cash to work earlier.

Council members asked for more granular reporting, including department‑level residuals on equipment disposals, a clearer historic run‑rate for categories that have large year‑to‑year variance, and a slide showing the projected unassigned fund balance as of Sept. 30, 2026. Staff agreed to return the requested data and to revisit revenue projection methods (annualized vs. projected) to reduce the gap between budgeted and projected totals.

The session did not record any formal votes on the FY26 budget; staff said more work sessions are planned and that staff will provide refined materials at future meetings.