Habersham safety plan raises question of how county will measure results and cover its share

Habersham County commissioners on Feb. 17, 2025, discussed how future updates to a county Safety Action Plan should quantify progress, while questioning what the plan could cost taxpayers. At a Board of Commissioners work session, Commissioner Harkness asked about the expense of moving forward; staff said a grant would pay Kimley-Horn to draft the plan and that the county’s 20% match would be provided in kind through staff time.

The discussion matters because the plan could shape how Habersham identifies and tracks safety priorities while committing county staff resources to its development. The proposed emphasis on quantitative measures would make future plan updates a test not only of whether the county adopts safety goals, but whether it can show progress against them. The minutes do not state a final dollar value for the county’s contribution or identify the metrics that would be used.

The Feb. 17 work-session discussion centered on a stated goal to measure progress and report quantitative metrics in future Safety Action Plan updates. Questions about cost followed because the county was considering how to proceed with the grant-supported planning work. Staff responded that Kimley-Horn’s drafting work would be grant-funded, while the county’s required 20% match could be credited through staff time rather than described as a separate cash payment.

Harkness pressed for clarity on the taxpayer cost and also asked whether Kimley-Horn was preparing Safety Action Plans for surrounding counties. Ms. Lehman explained the grant funding for the consultant, and Mr. Baggett described the local match as in-kind staff time. Their exchange reflects two linked concerns: whether the county can pursue the plan without a new direct outlay, and how the resulting work will be measured and reported.

What is documented is a discussion, not a recorded approval, contract award, or completed Safety Action Plan. The grant funding and in-kind-match explanation were presented during the work session, but the minutes cited here do not establish the final scope of Kimley-Horn’s work, any amendments, the county’s total costs, or measurable results. They also do not record what action, if any, commissioners took after the exchange.

The next public sign of progress would be a later county agenda, vote, agreement or set of minutes showing whether Habersham formally advanced the Safety Action Plan and how it will report metrics. Until then, residents cannot tell from the documented record what implementation followed, whether the proposal changed, what costs were ultimately incurred, or what safety outcomes the county expects to measure.