Athens-Clarke County staff lay out 20-year capital-project process as commissioners press for faster delivery

Josh Hawkins, a staff member leading the county's project delivery review, told the Athens-Clarke County mayor and commission on Aug. 12 that the county follows a long-established, multi-phase project-delivery process and that many of the steps that make projects take years are the parts residents expect: public engagement, intergovernmental agreements, grant compliance and site selection.

The presentation and ensuing discussion focused on why projects often take several years from concept to completion, how staff and commissioners might speed delivery, and what changes—if any—should be implemented for projects already underway.

Hawkins said the county's baseline process dates to roughly 2004 and is structured around predesign, design, bidding/award and construction. He explained that those base phases are often overlaid by additional layers—user groups, grant requirements, public art reviews, intergovernmental agreements and site-selection steps—that add time and staff workload. "I want you to know we have been paying attention, and we understand that there may be a desire to do probably two things. Number 1 is, have a process that's faster, and number 2, that's easier to understand," Hawkins said.

Commissioners and managers discussed specific time sinks. Commissioners raised repeated concerns about user groups and public engagement windows as major schedule drivers; several said user groups sometimes are staff-heavy and do not always improve outcomes. One commissioner urged that public engagement be tailored to the scale of the project and suggested a shorter engagement window for routine items. Another said site selection should be completed earlier in the planning sequence so work does not begin without key property or easement rights in hand.

Several commissioners compared Athens' process to other jurisdictions and the University of Georgia, noting private projects and university projects often proceed on faster timetables because they avoid many of the public touchpoints the county requires. At least one commissioner recommended increasing in-house project-management capacity; another warned that simply adding staff is not a panacea and urged fewer projects or clearer prioritization instead.

Hawkins cited current program data to illustrate workload: staff are tracking more than 100 active subprojects in the project-management system, each requiring its own scope, timeline, budget and meetings. He also described an operational analysis review already under way and said staff plan to use that review and peer comparisons to identify possible reforms.

County Manager Bob (newly on the job) said he expected to bring a recommended process redesign back to the commission and to coordinate with the operational analysis. Several commissioners asked for a short timeline for the staff proposals; one suggested returning with concrete options by November. Hawkins and the manager said they would use peer-city models, the operational analysis and commissioner direction to craft a revised process.

The meeting did not include any formal votes on policy changes. Instead, commissioners gave directional guidance: reduce unnecessary touchpoints, consider dialing down user-group requirements on lower-risk projects, and build a public-facing dashboard so commissioners and residents can track project status without repeated agenda items.

Next steps: staff will review peer practices and the operational analysis, model proposed alternatives (including changes to user-group composition and public-engagement timing), and return to the mayor and commission with a recommended process and implementation plan. The commission asked staff to consider applying new rules to future projects while exploring pilot changes on active efforts.