[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6315420,"mediaKeyId","2379219-f7bbeb9de44df0f7800d3d62597368bc","parentId",2379219,"title","Transit plan outlines microtransit zones, two mobility hubs and phased service options; public comment open through March 4","audioSeconds",2750,"startMs",274000,"endMs",3024000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2379219-f7bbeb9de44df0f7800d3d62597368bc&start=274&end=3024","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2379219-f7bbeb9de44df0f7800d3d62597368bc/thumbnail_274000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6315420/Athens/Clarke-County/Georgia/Transit-plan-outlines-microtransit-zones-two-mobility-hubs-and-phased-service-options-public-comment-open-through-March-4","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315420-0ef8add94c3d3226feee32f93e28f8e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770806234&Signature=TmQo87iw9AnaAlzMuk3CmnqH7JueJ40I26rCRafs9ZYEsgHSBLfU4jSFDyEBisEOuhktrCGAtsui1SSjCDtaBX5UitOwzOBOpeEs~w0RVuVVkrTMhdCItaTzCYPj4LIKDVGm3bDosZl~CQhOHWsF1GID1UpI2mrASreacM-QEN2Mg9SNDDe-rvi3hlQkcUKXlOJEbhhzCdqZz60jDlZnc~xvmNDh9qZwzFB-wPowZZS0hK1hR15NzU2DDgQRWuTY8Xu1gLM-9e5nvk04UMwzrmtz~h0RbQeoK8ytQNhyJz3qicYaAaeJYd9yGBNrAjzW4FxAfo5791WfMY8geefE7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-12T07:03:04Z","article","Victor Pope, director of transit planning, and Beth Hoffman of the transit planning team presented the draft 2025\revelopment Plan (TDP) at the February work session, saying the plan is a federally required, high-level guide for transit goals and service options for 2025
nd beyond.

\"Please encourage your constituents to review the plan and comment,\" Pope said; the public comment period for the final draft was opened Feb. 4 and is scheduled to remain open through March 4.

Pope and Hoffman said the TDP reflects three years of analysis and engagement (public surveys, stakeholder meetings and commission input) and received more than 450 public comments. The plan's needs analysis combined a \"transit propensity\" measure (demographics associated with transit need) with population density and land-use trends; the consultants reported shifting concentrations of transit-propensity populations northward and toward the county border and emphasized that denser areas support higher-frequency fixed-route service while lower-density areas may be better served by on-demand microtransit.

Key recommendations in the draft plan include: a bus-network redesign to improve frequency and efficiency; a fare-policy review; coordination with the University of Georgia
nd other providers to reduce overlap; a zero-emission vehicle fleet transition pathway; transit-oriented development planning; a first/last-mile study; and a multimodal corridor-protection study.

Capital strategies highlighted in the plan include two mobility hubs (one at Georgia Square Mall and one at Southeast Park), supportive sidewalk and ADA connections, and a new operations/maintenance/training facility. Pope said the transit department has secured property at Olympic Way for a future maintenance site but cautioned that construction cost estimates have risen: \"construction cost have gone up considerably,\" he said, and staff cited a planning-range figure of roughly $45\u00050 million for a fully outfitted modern facility capable of supporting zero-emission technology.

The plan proposes phased operational scenarios. Hoffman explained the trade-offs modeled: a high-coverage fixed-route network extends routes to more geography with longer headways; a high-frequency approach shortens routes to sustain 30-minute headways more widely; and a hybrid model combines shorter fixed routes with microtransit zones that use smaller, on-demand vehicles to serve lower-density neighborhoods. The draft contains illustrative cost estimates for each approach (fixed-route investments in the mid-single-digit millions and phased microtransit costs added cumulatively across phases); the consultants recommended an approach between high-coverage and high-frequency to preserve coverage while improving reliability on core corridors.

Microtransit zones are described as smaller vehicles operating on an on-demand model with a mix of virtual and prioritized physical stops. Hoffman said the zones are illustrative and can be adjusted: \"This is how we set it up here, but you could have, for example, prioritized stops within each\" zone and the commission retains discretion over final boundaries and stop placement.

The plan also models targeted employment shuttles and regional connections. As examples presented in the meeting: an employment shuttle to Bogart (serving manufacturing employers) was estimated at about $75,000 annually for the shuttle service illustrated; a regional coach-style connection from a Georgia Square hub to the Doraville MARTA station was presented as an example at roughly $300,000 annually in operating cost for the service shown.

Pope and Hoffman emphasized that the TDP is guidance, not a binding implementation plan. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires an unconstrained project list for planning purposes but does not bar communities from adjusting projects during implementation. Pope said federal formula (Section 5307) and discretionary grants (Section 5339), state funds such as the GDOT Transit Trust Fund, local sources including TSPLOST/general fund, and modest local revenues (advertising currently brings roughly $70\u00075,000 annually) are all part of the funding mix considered in the plan.

In Q&A commissioners pressed on operational details: transit staff reported the current fleet includes 32 heavy-duty buses, six paratransit/cutaway-type vans and about 11 support vehicles; staff said they have one full-time operator vacancy and are recruiting aggressively, and that hybrid buses purchased in 2018 are at midlife with some engine and battery maintenance issues prompting an upcoming engine-replacement item. Staff said the transition to full battery-electric buses depends on having a maintenance facility and charging infrastructure capable of supporting high-voltage DC charging.

Commissioners discussed regional coordination and intergovernmental agreements (IGAs). Staff encouraged the commission to direct them to pursue conversations with neighboring counties and regional partners if the commission wants to explore cross-jurisdictional service; staff noted the Northeast Georgia regional planning process informed the timing of the TDP and that any service crossing county lines would require an IGA.

Ending: The draft TDP now enters the public comment period through March 4; staff recommended the commission review the plan, consider priorities (coverage versus frequency, capital priorities such as the mobility hubs and maintenance facility), and decide whether to direct staff to begin follow-up work including more detailed planning, coordination with the University of Georgia and other providers, sidewalk/ADA gap remediation with Public Works, and outreach to neighboring jurisdictions about possible intergovernmental service arrangements.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","02-11-2025 Mayor & Commission Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","Victor Pope of the transit department and planner Beth Hoffman presented the draft 2025\revelopment Plan to the commission on Feb. 4, recommending a bus-network redesign, two mobility hubs, phased microtransit zones and an operations facility while opening the draft for public comment through Mar. 4.","taxTitle","Athens, Clarke County, Georgia","taxId",9780,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6315425,"External auditor issues unmodified opinion for Athens-Clarke County, flags declining general fund balance and control weaknesses to address",471,35000,506000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2379219-f7bbeb9de44df0f7800d3d62597368bc&start=35&end=506","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2379219-f7bbeb9de44df0f7800d3d62597368bc/thumbnail_35000.jpg","/articles/6315425/Athens/Clarke-County/Georgia/External-auditor-issues-unmodified-opinion-for-Athens-Clarke-County-flags-declining-general-fund-balance-and-control-weaknesses-to-address","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315425-f4a7da8c7dba673b1ae43016e0509973/orig.mp4?Expires=1770806234&Signature=fttWM0WvfEfuD8~6tIKD-XKD46nwqanAM3kJb6rufqUQxAn6OB5sFy~a0WSiuiFOLlWbKD1NdT03jkDTr5XybXHIsiXamCp1YuSpP9AVUInzusb-Soxpc3ZP92tRrEpjhllnfABG-UVo-fbU0s~jGX1az9PQMA~PToXyNSIsg1Xik3tK2hn30JPU5V15nIznBny7nryFNG1mctct76en~g9SzjTLcANg9XUYUGojJeLViNukUA4J2qmzFRqZowF7bQNNfjsuhBnBCy5HGZYBzM1jiqkn0mFEub9oPEgTmiQSraPVXWvzycTgosBUVL7y3tMmnGhoHCZ03sVkZX5wTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sam Latimer, the audit partner on Athens-Clarke County's engagement, told the commission at its February work session that the county's external audit resulted in an unmodified opinion on the financial statements and an unmodified report on federal expenditures.

\"We issued the report before Christmas,\" Latimer said, and added that auditors found \"no material weaknesses, no significant deficiencies\" and no material noncompliance in the reports issued under Government Auditing Standards and the Uniform Guidance.

The audit presentation also flagged a downward trend in the county's general fund balance. Latimer said the ratio of fund balance to expenditures and transfers fell from about 32% in the prior year to about 22% in the most recent year. He noted the county's fiscal policy target of 16.67% (two months) remains met but pointed out that roughly 8 percentage points of the fund balance are already assigned to next year
nd therefore effectively committed for projected FY2025 spending.

Latimer and finance staff discussed the drivers of the change. The audit showed large transfers out of the general fund for capital projects: transfers totaled roughly $7.5 million in 2022, about $14 million in 2023 and about $26 million in 2024, with prior-year transfers near $10 million and the most recent year about $21 million. Latimer and Mr. Holden of the finance department identified specific transfers, including a $4,000,000 transfer from the general fund to the capital projects fund for the purchase referenced in the presentation as \"440 College F\" and about $3,000,000 for fire equipment.

The auditors also reported positive budget-to-actual performance: general fund revenues were higher than budgeted (budgeted about $168,000,000 versus actual about $181,000,000) and general fund expenditures were about $163,000,000 (about 99.6% of budget). Latimer noted a roughly $2,300,000 increase in personal services driven by filling vacancies and overtime in public safety.

On internal controls the audit found no matters reaching the level of reportable findings, but Latimer listed a set of repeat comments and opportunities for improvement. The recurring issue most emphasized was segregation of duties in several constitutional offices: the tax commission/probate function and some court offices have the same individual handling custody of assets, cash disbursement or receipt transactions and bank reconciliations. Latimer said such patterns are common in smaller jurisdictions but recommended management perform a cost-benefit analysis and, where feasible, add mitigating controls or staff support.

Other auditor recommendations and test results cited in the presentation included: delays in depositing receipts (auditor suggests weekly deposits and a seven-day target during normal operations); missing activity in an online cash bond account after an employee departed in April 2024; inventory-count discrepancies (12 of 100 items counted had quantity discrepancies and one had a price discrepancy); and documentation gaps for manual journal entries (3 of 30 lacked supporting documentation) and for evidence of approval (14 entries lacked approval evidence, distributed across municipal court (4), the tax commission (4), sheriff's office (3), property tax area (2) and probate court (1)).

Latimer also reported that customer-account adjustments lacked complete supporting paperwork in testing: 6 of 30 adjustments had no customer request on file and 5 of 30 lacked a confirmation letter from the customer. He recommended a formal documented approval process for water-account adjustments and similar customer-facing changes.

Commissioners asked several follow-up questions during the presentation. One request from the commission was for staff to provide a longer historical trend of fund balances (back to about 2015) so the body can better assess multi-year patterns; the finance team agreed to supply that information. Commissioners also raised the recurring concern that reimbursements to nonprofits have at times been delayed; Latimer said that while his team's audit did not find clear evidence of systemic delayed payments beyond cases where the nonprofit lacked required documentation, the Housing and Community Development (HCD) audit scheduled in the next audit cycle will look specifically at that department and should provide more detail.

Latimer closed by reminding the commission that GASB accounting changes will affect future financial statements: finance staff implemented GASB 100 this year and the auditor highlighted that GASB reporting changes (for example, future compensated-absence guidance) may require retroactive restatements and changes to liability reporting.

The auditors said they will follow up on the items discussed when they return for the next audit cycle and will report on the status of the comments.

Ending: The audit presentation left the county with an unmodified opinion and several action items for management: evaluate and document segregation-of-duties risk and mitigations, tighten documentation and approval processes for manual entries and account adjustments, improve timeliness of cash deposits, and provide the commission with a multi-year fund-balance trend and updates from the upcoming HCD audit.","At a February work session the county\nuditor reported an unmodified audit opinion and no reportable findings but highlighted a fall in the general fund balance to about 22%, rising transfers to capital projects, and repeat internal-control recommendations on segregation of duties and documentation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Transit plan outlines microtransit zones, two mobility hubs and phased service options; public comment open through March 4

External auditor issues unmodified opinion for Athens-Clarke County, flags declining general fund balance and control weaknesses to address