Athens-Clarke County proposes tailored engagement and faster project delivery with oversight dashboard

Athens-Clarke County staff presented a proposed capital project service-delivery plan on Nov. 12 that would accelerate project timelines by matching public-engagement techniques to project type, shifting administrative milestones to management/staff and an expanded oversight committee, and building more in‑house project-management capacity.

"For each project… we should select the level of public impact that we think is appropriate," Josh Hawkins said, describing a three-tier engagement framework (inform; inform+consult; involve/empower) intended to avoid applying the same, time‑consuming engagement model to every project.

Staff said the model would let commissioners assign an engagement category when projects are approved or when referendum program plans are presented, and then use targeted techniques — from informational postcards and dashboards for category‑1 projects to in‑depth stakeholder involvement for category‑3 projects. Josh Hawkins and the county manager stressed that some phases (right‑of‑way acquisition, bid/award/construction) have limited compressibility and will still require statutory actions by the commission.

The proposal includes expanding the oversight committee’s scope beyond SPLOST/TSPLOST projects, more frequent quarterly reporting, and a public‑facing dashboard showing milestones and projected dates so oversight and the public can monitor progress and trigger escalation if projects ‘‘go off the rails.’’ Staff said the first formal change likely to require commission action would be an ordinance amendment relating to the Athens Cultural Affairs Commission’s role in public‑art approvals; that amendment and a fuller project manual are expected to be provided to the commission in December, with limited formal actions in January.

Commissioners asked for follow-up materials: a five‑year lookback of capital projects, consultant contract costs and percent‑of‑project metrics, contingency/fund‑balance figures, and a timeline and budget for hiring additional in‑house project managers. Several commissioners urged clearer charters and training for advisory/oversight body members so volunteers can provide substantive oversight rather than simply be "aware." Commissioners also discussed alternative delivery methods such as construction‑manager‑at‑risk (CMR) to reduce change orders and speed delivery; staff said CMR has been evaluated previously and will be part of future delivery‑method analysis.

Staff will return with a December package including a project manual, details on oversight responsibilities, recommended ordinance language and budget/timeline proposals for in‑house capacity building; commissioners requested that staff also propose notification options (mailers, dashboard alerts, text notifications) to keep communities informed of upcoming construction.