Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears judicial‑center concept; staff say $148 million financing gap remains
Summary
Architects presented a six‑story concept plan for a new Athens‑Clarke County judicial center at the Doherty site while county staff outlined a roughly $148 million shortfall and recommended using the urban redevelopment agency and bond financing to fill the gap. Commissioners asked for multiple payback scenarios ahead of a likely June vote.
Architects and county staff presented a concept plan for a new judicial center on May 14, laying out a six‑story building with secure below‑grade parking and separate circulation for the public, staff and in‑custody movements. County Manager Bob Cowell opened the session by telling the commission the meeting was intended to gather feedback, not to produce a vote: “Nobody’s going to be asked to make any decisions today,” he said.
The design team said the program has been refined from earlier studies and now anticipates about 179,000–218,000 gross square feet depending on secure parking and sallyport needs. Architect Todd of DR Group described a stacking strategy that places high‑volume public services—clerk of court, municipal court and sheriff operations—on lower floors for easier public access, with a single floor collocated for superior‑court functions to improve operational efficiency.
The financial presentation identified a large funding gap. County finance staff said the county has committed funds on hand but must cover roughly $148 million more to reach the expected project cost after applying contingencies and escalation. “The difference there is $148 million,” finance staff said, summarizing the shortfall that staff propose to solve through a redevelopment‑agency bond structure.
Staff recommended amending the county’s existing urban redevelopment plan to include the Doherty site and using an urban redevelopment agency to issue bonds, backed by an intergovernmental agreement under which the unified government would make capital outlay payments to the agency to service the debt. Presenters framed that mechanism as commonly used in Georgia and as building on an action the commission took in 2023 to enable similar activity.
Commissioners pressed staff for clear, comparable scenarios showing the cost and tax impacts of alternative financing strategies—especially how much of any upcoming local sales‑tax program (SPLoST) the project would consume versus a property‑tax (millage) approach. Staff agreed to present multiple payback options (for example 10‑ and 20‑year debt schedules) and the millage‑equivalent impacts before the June agenda vote.
The team also recommended a construction manager‑at‑risk delivery method to engage a builder earlier in the design process, pursue a guaranteed maximum price in late fall, and target schematic design completion in third quarter 2027 to allow demolition or site work in 2027 and construction to begin in 2028–2029. Staff emphasized that schematic details, off‑site parking, and final design choices will be refined through a public engagement plan and subsequent agenda cycles.
Next steps: staff said they will return with financing scenarios (SPLoST vs. property tax equivalents, various amortization periods) and formal agenda attachments for possible action on June 2 to proceed with the redevelopment plan amendment and related resolutions. If the commission approves the concept and framework in June, staff expect to move quickly to schematic design and procurement activities this summer and fall.
