Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Programming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates program/project-management approach for recreation projects and SPLOST funds
Summary
Commissioners discussed whether to assign an external program/project manager (referred to in discussion as Threadcraft) or to use architects to manage recreation projects funded by SPLOST/T-SPLOST; the meeting covered scope, fee structure, contracts and which recreation projects should be put under program management.
City officials and commissioners revisited the question of program-level project management for a set of recreation projects funded by local sales-tax programs (SPLOST and T-SPLOST) on April 7, 2025. The commission discussed whether to include recreation projects in a broader program-management contract or to rely on architects to manage individual building projects.
Staff said the city is assembling a list of recreation projects (the staff list totaled roughly $17 million in conceptual project cost at the time of the meeting) and recommended routing some of those projects into program management so a single manager can sequence design, bidding and construction and provide centralized reporting to the commission. Staff reported having preliminary site-control work under way for gym-site acquisitions and engagement with several property owners.
Commissioners debated contract structure and fees. Several commissioners questioned a percentage-based fee model for a program manager and suggested hybrid or hourly arrangements might better match the city27s needs and provide more control when projects are at different readiness levels. One commissioner urged that program-management services be focused first on less-visible or stalled projects that have not moved off the shelf. Others favored starting with a small set of recreation projects (Carver Gym and Tift Park were mentioned) as an initial scope to establish performance and then expanding the manager27s role if results are satisfactory.
Staff said the proposed program manager would build a team and work closely with departments and architects to bring projects to shovel-ready status and to track schedule and budgets. Commissioners asked for a written list of recreation projects to confirm which projects would be included in any program-management scope and asked staff to return with a clarified recommendation on fee structure and which projects should be in the program manager27s initial scope.
Ending: The commission asked staff to finalize and distribute a list of recreation projects and to bring back options for program management—specifically, a recommended scope (which projects), contract structure and an estimated budget or fee approach. Several commissioners indicated support for a phased engagement to allow evaluation of the program manager on a smaller set of projects first.
