Audit committee recommends acceptance of Clarke County capital projects department audit

The Clarke County Audit Committee voted to recommend acceptance of a periodic audit of the county’s capital projects department after staff outlined five findings and related recommendations.

County Manager Gavin Cowell introduced the item and said the organizational‑structure audit had already been accepted by the mayor and commission, and that the capital projects audit was intended to accompany proposed management changes. "We have the director, you have the accountant, and you have this admin support specialist essentially," audit staff said when describing current in‑house roles.

Audit staff reported the department currently operates with three ACCgov employees overseeing about 209 projects and subprojects. "The staff that's currently of three in‑house ACCgov employees ... are currently working with 209 projects and sub projects," Katie, the in‑house project manager for the audit, said.

Auditors presented the audit’s four standard components—performance, compliance, financial review and internal controls—and said management either agreed or partially agreed with all five recommendations. Key recommendations highlighted by staff included strengthening accounting capacity, integrating project accounting with the county finance department to provide redundancy and career paths, and evaluating a phased shift of some project‑management duties to county employees while keeping design work with contracted partners.

Commissioners debated trade‑offs between consultant and in‑house project management. One member cautioned against replacing "high quality management with lower quality management just simply because it saved us money," while others argued that some functions—meeting setup, outreach and routine coordination—could be done more cost‑effectively in house.

The committee also discussed SPLAST and TPLAST programs, which audit staff described as "unique" within the state because the county runs both programs alongside general capital coordination and because of heavy resident participation in project selection. Commissioners raised concerns about long‑term operating and maintenance costs for projects approved through referendum and about whether some items funded through those referenda should instead come from the general fund.

Carol moved to accept the capital projects department and audit committee report and recommend it to the mayor and commission; Dr. Higgins seconded. The motion carried with no opposition recorded. The committee asked staff to bring the report forward to the mayor and commission for consideration and noted the audit’s recommendations will be integrated into upcoming budget discussions.

The committee’s next meeting is scheduled for March, when staff said they will present final FY26 audit work‑plan options.