There are six candidates for three seats on the Lee County Board of Commissioners in the 2024 election. The top three candidates will win seats on the board, and the election will decide partisan control of the board. Republicans currently hold a 4-3 majority.
These questions, asked of the candidates in August and September 2024, are printed without edits and as the candidates submitted them. Early voting – at the Hales Center at 147 McIver St. and the McSwain Extension Center at 2420 Tramway Road – begins Thursday and runs through November 2. Election Day is November 5.
1. Introduce yourself, describe your professional background and tell us what you think makes you qualified for a seat on the Board of Commissioners.
Democrat Bob Joyce: I’m Bob Joyce, a life-long resident of Lee County. I recently retired as Economic Development Director for Sanford, Broadway and Lee County. During my career, I worked in the private sector (banking, real estate and insurance). I served in positions in local and state government. For eight years, I served as President of the Sanford Area Chamber of Commerce.
I believe my work experience, community service, plus service to my church and volunteer civic roles, gives me a broad knowledge of our community and will be a benefit as a member of the Board of Commissioners.
(*) Democrat Mark Lovick: My name is Mark Lovick and I was born and raised in Lee County. I am blessed to call Melissa Lovick my wife. We have five sons and one grandchild. I attend Eastside Pentecostal Holiness Church where I teach Sunday School and sing in the choir. I am a proud member of the Gideons. I own Lovick and Sons Carpet Cleaning. I served the citizens of Sanford for 17 years as a firefighter making the rank of Captain. I am a current member of the commission. I feel having been born and raised here I have a historical knowledge of Lee County. That, along with my experience as a small business owner and public servant gives me a solid background to make informed decisions on the board.
Republican Samantha Martin: I am Samantha Martin – mom of three adult children, and grandmother of two boys. I am happily married to Mike Guajardo, who is retired from the US Army. We love living in Tramway, have great neighbors, a wonderful church, and a very loved Labradoodle! For the past 5 and a half years, I have been a Senior Regional Development Manager with a national military nonprofit managing eight states, budgets, staff, and volunteers. I have owned two businesses and can deep-dive into the “why” of spending and budgets. I approach decisions with a “big picture” perspective and ask questions like Where are we going? Will this decision move us toward that point? What are the future implications of the decision? To honorably serve as a Lee County commissioner, one must be committed to spending the time required to understand the history and future implications of budget approvals. If elected, I will do my best to preserve the life we enjoy here in Lee County.
Republican Bob Quilty: My name is Robert (Bob) Quilty. Married to my wife Jan of 47 yrs. We have 4 children, 9 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren. I am a bible believer, and my priorities are God, family and then everything else, in that order. I retired a few years ago with 25+ years at executive levels in business operations and development.
The county for all intents and purposes should be run like a business. The days of “good old boys” being a deciding voting factor are long gone. The ability to make decisions based on financials, needs not wants and future growth is what I will bring as a county commissioner.
(*)Democrat Cameron Sharpe: Hello, I’m Cameron Sharpe, a lifelong resident of Lee County with a deep commitment to our community. I retired after 30 years with the North Carolina Department of Probation and Parole and currently work in the City of Sanford’s Planning and Development Department, focusing on Code Enforcement.
I have previously served two terms on the Board of Commissioners, where I contributed to several key projects, including the sports complex and library. My motivation for running again is to see these projects through to completion and continue my work for the betterment of Lee County.
With my extensive experience in both state and local government, coupled with my personal dedication to our community, I believe I am well-qualified to serve on the Board of Commissioners. I hope to be recognized for my contributions and earn the trust of Lee County residents to continue working towards making our county a better place to live, work, and play.
Republican David Smoak: My name is David Z. Smoak, I am 55 years old, retired (21 years) Army Master Sergeant, I have lived in Lee County since retiring in 2010. As an advocate for citizen government, I know for a fact and will inform all of you fellow citizens who I also encourage to consider running for public office that I am “qualified” to run for Commissioner because I am at least 21, a registered voter and qualified to vote for this position in November, that’s the law. I will explain why I think I am best qualified to earn your vote in a second, but I am fixating on the word “qualified” a little bit because of how it has been used across the nation to dissuade voters that other citizens are not even good enough to run for certain public offices. I find that an incredibly dangerous slippery slope whereby common citizens are labeled “unqualified” or ineligible for public offices unless they meet criteria usually created by the government, thus promoting the ever-growing size, complexity, and cost of that government. Anyways, I am “best qualified” for your vote because I do have a career in a bureaucracy, the military bureaucracy; I have been trained multiple times over my career in leadership and problem-solving principles; and I am a very cheap/frugal person who will fight and dig into the county finances as much as possible to limit the growth in spending which does have a direct effect on taxes that you pay.
2. The Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education have been at odds, specifically over funding, in each of the past two years. What would you do as a commissioner to help improve this relationship and ensure both bodies are able to address their priorities?
Joyce: Consistent and frequent data driven meetings between county staff and school staff is most important. Because school revenues come from many different sources with various special conditions attached, it is important that professional staff and policy decision makers understand the details. An example of something that sounds straightforward but is apparently really complicated: which specific positions are paid with local funding and which are paid with federal and state funds. Further, when priorities are clearly identified and understood, both boards make better decisions – a good example is the cooperative use of the school bus garage and other school facilities. In short, good communication at all levels.
Additionally, when we have involved the private sector in major community decisions, the results have been phenomenal. We should use that resource in our approach to strategic planning for local schools.
It is clear that the NC General Assembly has for years reduced the state’s investment in public education. By some research estimates, North Carolina ranks dead last in school funding efforts and 48th in per pupil expenditures. Lee County does not have the resources to make up this difference….and we should not. Both boards must make the strong case to Raleigh that adequate funding for schools is a requirement written in our state constitution.
(*)Lovick: Improving the relationship between the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education, especially when it comes to funding, involves a combination of communication, collaboration, strategic planning and trust.
First I think open communication is important. We should schedule regular joint meetings between the county and school administrative staff. This ensures continuous dialogue and helps both sides stay informed about each other’s priorities and constraints. Furthermore, finding overlap in priorities can help align our efforts and foster cooperation.
The bus garage is a prime example of this as well as sharing sports fields. The administrative staff of both entities are the ones who can best find ways to identify these overlaps.
Secondly, we should form a committee with representatives from both boards. This group can work on developing a mutually acceptable funding plan and address issues in a more focused manner. The county manager, county finance director, school board finance director, and superintendent need to be a part of these meetings. Roles and responsibilities need to be defined to ensure effective problem solving. Both boards should have a clear visibility into how funds are allocated and spent. For example, knowing exactly how many employees are funded with local county funds versus those funded with state and federal funds would help the commission outline how funding will be allocated over time to ensure sustainability. I want to do our part as a commissioner but supplementing a lack of funding at the state level should not fall on the back of Lee County tax payers. I think being transparent with each other and with both boards understanding the needs of the other, good will will be fostered. I would love to meet every funding need of the school board. Educating our children is vital and important as are other services the county is responsible for such as fire and public safety. It is a delicate line to walk to do right by our citizens with properly funding county services while trying to keep taxes reasonable. I truly believe by taking these steps, we can help bridge the gap between the two boards, ensuring that both can effectively address their priorities, and build a more cooperative and productive working relationship. Whether you are the County of Lee or the Lee County Board of Education we are all Team Lee County.
Martin: I recognize and appreciate the respective roles of these two boards: The School Board advises the commissioners and manages the school budget process; the Commissioners help fund public education, supplementing the state and federal funding for a sound basic education. Nearly 50% of county tax dollars are used to fund county education. Therefore, these two boards must confer closely and harmoniously to ensure taxpayer dollars are appropriately expended and to achieve a solid return on investment. The two boards should meet quarterly to review and discuss school performance. All members from both boards should be present. Both finance officers should also attend to update and explain expenditures. More frequent meetings aimed at objective measures and performance will stimulate mutual confidence and respect.
Quilty: Yes, the commissioners and school board members seem to be at odds with each other. The biggest challenge seems to be communications. Both boards need to meet with each other on a schedule as full boards. This should be on a quarterly basis where current issues, needs, and accomplishments can be discussed proactively and not reactively.
Another problem and probably the biggest one is financing. In the past, the school board has come to the commissioners with their budget as a lump sum each fiscal year. Yes, there are some generic heading breakout sums but no real details, no business case. They have not objectively cited why their specific requests are needed and what we (the people of the county) are going to get in return.
One of the things I am going to push for is that the Board of Education start coming to the County with a “Purpose & Function” budget. School budget line items must be broken out with tight spending targets. Each item should be presented along with how it approves achievement and growth.
If the School Board can’t make a case for it, we won’t fund it. And, if we do fund it, we want metrics included so we can measure success. If the metric goals aren’t met, funding stops.
I don’t think this type of budgeting has occurred in the past and believe that both sides once knowing where the money is going, what it will accomplish and what the success goals are, they can feel more comfortable with whatever budget is presented to be passed.
(*)Sharpe: Improving the relationship between the Lee County Board of Commissioners and the Lee County Board of Education requires a blend of effective communication and trust-building. We have already started scheduling joint meetings to foster better dialogue. Currently, the chairman of the commission and the county manager are meeting with the school superintendent and the chair of the school board. These ongoing meetings should enhance communication, transparency, and trust over time.
I am committed to fulfilling the county’s obligations to the board of education. However, it is crucial to clarify the exact responsibilities and what constitutes fair funding. We need to examine which positions and programs are funded locally, which are supplemented due to insufficient state funding, and whether there are additional revenue sources or cost-saving measures to explore. These issues should be addressed in our joint meetings.
With my eight years of experience on the Board of Education, I am familiar with the challenges, such as retaining teachers in a competitive job market. I understand these issues from both sides—having been part of the Board of Education and now serving on the County Commission.
I am committed to supporting strong public schools while also ensuring that other county services are adequately funded without increasing taxes.
Smoak: I respect the Board of Education’s responsibilities and independence to manage the county’s traditional education system, and improving any relationship must be based on respect for both sides. The BOE members manage a budget almost as large as the county, they are independently elected by our citizens and I do advocate for them to be paid as much as the County Commissioners. If I am elected by the people fully knowing that I am representing fiscal discipline, then the position of the citizens of Lee County that I intend to convey must be respected also. The root cause of the problems between these two elected bodies goes back in time much more than two years and is a direct example of the slippery slope paradigm that I have already expressed my concern about. Lee County taxpayers have been pressured to pay more and more in supplemental funding for responsibilities that by statute belong to the State. What began as one state funding model has devolved into 100 counties being pitted against each other to compensate and retain their staff. If I am approached to solve any issue, the first step from my training is to properly identify/define the problem, simply coming to me and declaring that the problem is lack of money, well I would say welcome to the real world that most government agencies need to face ASAP. Does this “improve” our relationship? Maybe not at first, but there will eventually be respect on both sides.
3. The county received two studies this year about pressing future needs. One shows the cost of a new or expanded jail facility costing between $50 million and $80 million, and a study on the needs of Lee County’s fire services could cost many millions of dollars more to implement. How will you go about prioritizing these pressing needs alongside other county priorities?
Joyce: Over the past decade or more, Lee County government has done a great job of managing the Capital Improvement Plan process to prioritize major projects like a jail facility and fire services. This methodical approach to tough, expensive decisions makes us carefully consider financing plans so the impact to the tax rate is moderated. The downside is that we sometimes wait for years for improvements (like the new library that we’ve been discussing for over 15 years). Our county finances are in much better shape than many of our peers because of this process.
As a commissioner, I would favor that methodical approach, especially for these very large capital projects – with plenty of input and support from law enforcement. (In the early 1990s, we did not build enough capacity when we expanded the courthouse complex. And, we failed to adequately consider operation and maintenance costs.) A diligent, cautious process, including private sector options and advice from subject matter experts will benefit us in the long run.
I would also favor putting this decision to the voters, like other projects that have such a major impact on county finances.
(*)Lovick: Prioritizing major projects like a new or expanded jail facility and significant improvements to fire services requires a careful, structured approach. Tough decisions have to be made. For the jail facility, we must consider current overcrowding issues, safety concerns, and legal liabilities. For fire services, we must assess the state of existing infrastructure, response times, and safety risks. There may be some immediate needs we can fund to give relief to each agency while we evaluate the urgency of each of these projects. I am open to addressing some of the needs in phases since each is not immediately affordable. We must remember the new detention facility is not just a price of 50 to 80 million. There are long term operational and maintenance expenses. I would like to get more data on that from the sheriff as well as other possible return on investment such as would the improved fire services result in reduced insurance costs. These are such high dollar commitments I firmly believe the public should give input. I am for putting it on the ballot.
Martin: Lee County residents are finding it more challenging than ever to pay bills and save for the future, yet we need to ensure our families are protected. As a county commissioner, one of my chief objectives will be to lower the tax burden on our citizens. Another top objective is to protect our county from natural and man-made threats. These two objectives need not be mutually exclusive. We simply need to better prioritize spending on the needs of the county, with emphasis on the matters we are statutorily required to fund (like education and safety). Our jail is out of compliance with state and federal guidelines and is undersized for a county of our size. It must be a priority to construct a new jail as soon as possible. We also need to expand the capabilities of our district fire services. Given the county’s present tax base and anticipated near-term growth, we can afford to do both as priority projects. However, we will not be able to afford these needs if we continue spending precious tax dollars on projects that are not statutorily mandated or that do not serve the needs of the majority of our citizens.
Quilty: Well, the key word here is prioritizing. Kind of defines itself. As commissioners that is what we are there for. To make decisions based on what is the current pressing need that can’t be ignored and must be acted on. It’s like triage in medical emergencies, the “might die” patients go first and so on. For instance, our jail facility is subject to state and federal guidelines, and at present, we are falling short on compliance with those guidelines.
We need a new jail. The need for a new public library for instance, was not a dire situation and as such should have been a lower priority than the jail.
The Fire Dept. must also follow prioritizing metrics.
Lower on the list isn’t ignoring the issue, it’s just prioritizing.
(*)Sharpe: Prioritizing these pressing needs requires a balanced approach, given the scale of the costs involved. The Board of Commission has long managed to prioritize and address various needs, and we will continue this practice.
For the detention facility, I believe the significant cost and long-term financial impact warrant a direct decision from the public. Given my experience in law enforcement, I understand the need for such a facility and deeply value guidance from the sheriff. However, due to the substantial financial implications, I recommend placing this decision on the ballot for citizen input much like we did with the sports complex. By allowing voters to decide, we give citizens a direct say in financial matters that impact their lives. Major expenditures that could affect taxes benefit from broad community support. Meanwhile, we should explore more cost-effective interim solutions to address some of the immediate issues until a permanent solution can be implemented.
Regarding fire services, I propose a phased approach to funding and implementation. This will help spread the financial impact over time and allow us to manage costs more effectively while still addressing the critical needs of our fire services. Balancing these priorities with other county needs will require careful planning and ongoing community engagement.
Smoak: Once again, let’s be clear, the county did not just “receive” two studies this year, we taxpayers paid for those studies because the existing Commissioners requested them because they do recognize some serious financial issues are on our horizon. I have watched the presentations on both topics and I am slowly digesting the latest study on best practices for our fire services. The new jail is probably the biggest bogey on our financial horizon, we are far, far from the days of the simple barred cells portrayed on The Andy Griffith Show. There are legal and humanitarian standards that must be met while our citizens (and non-citizens) are being detained and the existing jail must be either upgraded, replaced or some hybrid combination of both. The current jail feasibility study is not one of my favorite documents, some options were dismissed without much consideration and a lot of costs under the proposed options were not thoroughly researched, in my opinion. I believe most cost estimates are actually very under-estimated which begs the question of how much and how many people we should plan on detaining, especially considering how this new facility will inevitably be considered outdated and decrepit in about 35-50 years. In general, due to a lack of response space, I am already on record for recommending that we move towards a regional fire district operation but allowing the existing independent fire districts the right to vote on joining this new regional service or remaining independent.
4. A decrease in the tax rate for fiscal year 2023-24 still caused most county residents to pay an increased amount in property taxes due to revaluation. Should county residents continue to bear these increased costs, or do you see a way to further reduce the tax rate so total bills are closer to what they were prior to 2023-24?
(*)Lovick: I am proud we were able to lower the tax rate. Lee County is such a great place to live as I personally know, having been born and raised here. Others have discovered Lee County and now our homes are much more valuable causing our taxes to go up even with the rate reduction. Balancing the need for adequate funding for all the services we provide with the impact on residents’ property taxes requires a nuanced approach.
As we always do I would continue to ask our county manager to evaluate if there are any budgetary adjustments that can be made without compromising critical services. I would like to continue to explore other revenue streams to lessen the reliance on property taxes. Some include grants and public-private partnerships. I definitely want to look into tax relief programs for those disproportionately affected by the tax increase. This would need the support of our representatives in the General Assembly. There are some current tax relief programs for low-income seniors and the disabled. I would like to see these programs reevaluated to reflect the rise in property values. Again this would need the support of our representatives in the General Assembly. Lastly, continuing investing in economic development initiatives to increase the tax base will help provide additional revenue and allow the tax rate to not increase.
Providing the current level of county services with the potential additional project of a new detention center, additional fire services, and supplementing the school system for the failure of the General Assembly to do so, would make it difficult in my opinion to lower the tax rate to get bills down to pre 23-24 levels. But transparency and clearly communicating the reasons behind the property tax changes and how the funds are being used helps build trust with citizens. This is why I am open to putting the new detention center, being the project with the most financial impact, on the ballot to let the people decide.
Martin: As I stated earlier, I intend to lower the tax burden on our citizens. We can do that in the same way we did 11 years ago, by conducting a thorough performance audit and by zero-base budgeting, similar to what the School Board recently did. I believe the current commissioner board let our citizens down in 2023 by setting the county’s ad valorem tax rate above the revenue-neutral level. As a result, many citizens suffered unprecedented property tax increases at a time when inflation was out of control and taxpayers needed some relief. As a commissioner, I will continually seek ways to reduce taxes and to prioritize spending on county necessities. I also plan to work with SAGA and state authorities to sustain our rapid growth as one of the top micropolitan areas in the state. By continuing to grow our tax base, we will be able to bring taxes down while funding our priority projects and enjoying a high quality of life.
Joyce: The best way for us to reduce the County tax bills of the average homeowner is to maximize our economic development efforts. Here’s a quick example: a new subdivision of 500 new homes with a tax value of $150,000,000 ($300,000 per house) will pay a total of $975,000 in County taxes. Hopefully, these 500 new families will also shop here, which gives us some sales tax revenue too. And, let’s say they have 500 school-aged children. So, the County will have to provide those additional education funds, as well as a few other services, so the net effect is about even. But, if we recruit one industry that invests $150 million in a building and equipment, the tax bill for that single industry helps us pay for the services of 500 families (plus, the company would have a sizable payroll, which circulates in our economy). In short: we need to maintain a healthy balance of residential and commercial and industrial properties so that homeowners do not bear the whole burden of paying for government services.
As a commissioner, it’s important to make sure that local government is running as efficiently as humanly possible. That definitely means as economically as possible but also providing the best service as possible. I will always be an advocate for the lowest possible tax rate.
I’ve mentioned public-private partnerships a couple of times, and I think we can and should involve the private sector as we look for ways to save tax dollars now and in the future.
One positive note: I don’t like paying higher taxes but it is really good news that property values are going up, which is not the case in all communities.
Another quick note: North Carolina state law allows property tax relief for low-income seniors and disabled homeowners, as well as disabled veterans or their unmarried surviving spouse. The details are available from the Lee County tax office.
Quilty: While the current Board of Commissioners can technically say they reduced the tax rate it’s empty rhetoric because as noted, county homeowners taxes went way up over the past year.
Why, because the current board decided they wanted more money to spend. They failed to sustain a revenue-neutral budget by setting the property tax rate several pennies higher than needed to achieve that goal.
Right now, of course, residents must bear the increase set by the current board. However, if elected, I will work to lower those tax rates to the minimum required for the county to function and grow.
One of the ways I plan on doing this is by calling for an immediate full-line-item budget audit, which hasn’t been done in about 10 years. Based on the results of the budget audit 10 years ago, I’m confident we can find enough savings to reduce the tax rate by several percentage points, perhaps gradually over the next several years.
As mentioned above, putting the Board of Education on a Purpose & Function budget and doing a full county budget audit will help reign in and control spending.
I believe that getting away from a laissez-faire attitude when approving budgets will save money and reduce taxes.
(*)Sharpe: Since joining the Board of Commissioners in 2016, we have successfully reduced the property tax rate from 78.5 cents to 65 cents per $100 of value. Despite our efforts, increased home values have led to higher property tax bills for many residents. As a taxpayer myself, I understand the frustration of seeing higher taxes even with a reduced rate.
Moving forward, I am committed to exploring ways to further lower the tax rate without compromising essential services. I will continue to work with staff and the county manager to identify cost-saving measures and efficiencies. Additionally, investing in economic development projects to expand the county’s tax base can help generate more revenue, potentially allowing us to lower the tax rate further or at the very least to maintain the rate we have worked to get to while maintaining the quality of services and supporting our employees.
Smoak: Should taxpayers “continue to bear these increased costs” by paying taxes to support the government spending being passed every June with the County budget? Yes. Over the past two years, I was about the only citizen trying to convince the Commissioners to restrain spending, there are usually only a few other public comments including from the media but those are urging greater spending towards the Board of Education. Only the federal government can get away with endless spending without fiscal accountability, beyond the devaluation of our currency that we are all experiencing. There are ways to reduce the property tax burden that most of us have felt over the past two years, and I prefer to focus on the tax burden instead of a “tax rate” which as we learned can be so easily gimmicked with property valuations. We must either limit/decrease government spending or grow the county faster than the government spending increases. What I advocate is obviously a combination of both, Lee County is on a solid growth trajectory, even if a global debt recession hits our nation hard, there will be short-term pain but longer-term we have a bright future of residential, industrial, and commercial growth. The trajectory for government spending must be constrained though, and that is easier said than done. Immense pressure is put on the County Commissioners at every meeting to increase spending. Vote for Smoak, Quilty, and Martin if you want Commissioners who will push back against the perpetual growth of government spending.
5. The County’s relationship with the Board of Elections has made news recently because of a request to ban concealed carry at polling stations. Commissioners’ Chairman Kirk Smith elected not to bring the request before the board, ending discussion on the matter. Thinking more broadly about relationships between the board of commissioners and other elected and/or appointed county officials, what should be the role of a commissioner in learning about issues or problems those other officials or departments have? Do you feel it’s important for the entire board to hear about those issues?
Democrat Bob Joyce: Yes, it is important for the entire board to hear about issues of importance involving any agency or department of county government. Thorough discussion with input from each commissioner, representing the different viewpoints of citizens, makes better, more responsive government policy.
(*) Democrat Mark Lovick: No response.
Republican Samantha Martin: The article by Richard Sullins in the September issue of The Rant titled “Guns allowed at voting site” quoted Kirk Smith stating, “After polling six members of the Lee County Board of Commissioners, all six said ‘no’ to modifying the Concealed Carry Ordinance.” That six commissioners said no, indicates that the six commissioners did hear about the concern of the BOE but did not agree with the need for a change. Asking a county commissioner to place an item before the board is not the only way to bring a topic of concern before the commissioners. The public, county citizens, and other officials and departments, have channels to bring their concerns before the board of commissioners. I expect the Board of Elections will utilize one of the options to bring their request before the commissioners.
Republican Bob Quilty: First let me address some misinformation in the opening to your question.
To insinuate that the answer given by the BOC to the request from the BOE is “relationship” related is somewhat disingenuous. Is “relationship” suddenly news every time someone doesn’t get what they want? Of course not, that would be childish or thin-skinned to say the least.
Chairman Smith brought the request to the Commissioner’s, who as a majority did not want to make the change to the legal concealed carry status of the building in question. He was under no legal obligation to present it at an open board meeting. However, any current Commissioner could have brought it up at the next regular board meeting, should they have so desired, so the “ending discussion on the matter” statement is misinformation.
As to the actual question, all elected and/or appointed county officials should be working together for the betterment of the county. But let’s clarify some differences. An elected county official oversees the office they are elected to. Appointed officials are under the board and the whole board should be involved in the resolution of any issues or problems therein.
In the case of the sheriff who is elected, he solves his own problems. He may reach out to a commissioner for advice, but whole board wouldn’t necessarily be involved. If a decision he is thinking about making is going Impact the county in any way, then the whole board of commissioners should be involved.
(*)Democrat Cameron Sharpe: I feel my role as a commissioner in understanding issues faced by other elected or appointed county officials is crucial for effective governance. As a commissioner I proactively engage with department heads and officials to learn about their challenges, priorities, and the impact of their work on the community. This fosters collaboration, informs decision-making, and helps identify areas for support or improvement.
Having the entire board hear about controversial issues is also important. It ensures transparency and builds consensus on addressing problems. I know there are those who do not want to discuss tough and controversial subjects publicly for fear of losing support from some voters but I feel it is part of the job. I do feel like there is no need to discuss issues beyond the scope of our board. That just wastes everyone’s time and takes away from the issues we can affect. Being an elected official is like being an umpire. You are always going to have someone not like the call you made. I just count on the voters of Lee County to know me well enough to know I made the best call I could at the time.
Republican David Smoak: I have concerns about how this question is presented, but I will answer the broader issue first. As an elected representative for Lee County, I will be empowered to bring up any issue I have for discussion during the public county meetings unless otherwise advised by our county attorney. I want the private citizens, other government officials, or employees to bring up their issues of concern to me. Since this specific issue touches on 2d Amendment principles and rights, I would also share my belief that the history of establishing “gun-free zones” across the nation has been a spectacular failure unless there are active and expensive security measures to enforce them. There are numerous ways to present motions or discuss topics during every meeting and it is extremely unfair to the current Chair to say that he has solely ended the discussion on the matter regarding the Board of Elections. This situation is NOT like the US Senate Leader Chuck Schumer refusing to even bring Republican spending or border control bills up for a vote, our local system does not work that way thankfully. I will continue to express my willingness to be the lone dissenting vote on issues or spending ordinances that I disagree with, but in general, every Commissioner needs to build a consensus of the majority to move things forward. It is my understanding that six Commissioners were informally polled about the topic which seems to demonstrate that awareness of the BOE concerns has been communicated.
6. Housing development has been a big topic lately, with the combined Sanford-Lee County Planning Department considering multiple proposals for new housing every single month. Housing will naturally be more dense inside the city limits, but this growth will undoubtedly impact the entire county. What role, if any, does the board of commissioners have to play with regards to new development?
Joyce: Commissioners have an extremely vital role because growth, whether in the city or county, causes ripple effects across all government services – schools, social services, law enforcement, just to name three. Both governments have worked to make communication better. There is a Unified Development Ordinance. There is a Joint Planning Committee. Going forward, we should prioritize open communication and collaboration. In other words, we have the mechanisms in place, we just need to talk more about what we want this community to look like in 30 or 40 years, make some tough policy decisions and then let our planning professionals implement those policies. I think my experience at SAGA will be a benefit here because this is exactly how we built our top notch economic development organization.
*Lovick: No response.
Martin: County Commissioners and the City of Sanford are jointly responsible for setting policies regarding zoning, incentives, and infrastructure development. Their decisions play a major role in the county’s economic development and they have a responsibility to taxpayers to keep taxes low. Lee County has challenges with access to critical infrastructure needed for development, some of which stem from the city’s insistence that developers seek annexation in order to receive water and sewer. As a new commissioner, I will be committed to pro-growth policies that make critical infrastructure available for development without compelling annexation into subordinate jurisdictions with unjustified taxation. The city and county have been very generous in providing low cost housing for those citizens who need it. Going forward, we need to be judicious in parsing out more of our rural area for annexation and high density development, always mindful of the need for our small county to stay balanced in urban and rural features. This will help ensure Lee County remains an inviting destination location to raise a family.
Quilty: One of the biggest issues in the county is the predatory annexation of development properties by the City of Sanford. By using their control of the water and sewer in Lee County, new businesses are being forced to be annexed into the city to receive the water & sewer support needed for their business development. After some areas are annexed, they often are rezoned by the city into a higher housing density than would have been allowed if they had remained in the county. This, in turn, strains resources that the county is obligated to provide (schools, health services, social services, the jail facility, etc.) – resources the city isn’t responsible for.
A Regional Water & Sewer Authority is needed to provide equitable infrastructure treatment for all county residents, at affordable rates, without requiring annexation into the city.
I also think the commissioners can do a better job of strategic planning for future growth. We fail to adequately survey existing businesses and investors to determine their needs to grow and prosper locally.
I am committed to fostering sustained growth in Lee County. I believe that with thoughtful strategic planning and investment, Lee County will grow responsibly, balancing development and population growth with the preservation of our unique local character.
*Sharpe: The county has an immense role to play with regards to new development. We have to fund roads, schools, and utilities, to accommodate the increased population and prevent strain on existing resources. Handling the strains of rapid growth effectively is complex especially when the city has a big role in the decision-making process for housing projects. I believe if we foster strong partnerships with city officials and planning departments and jointly develop a comprehensive growth plan that addresses housing, infrastructure, and services across both the city and county we can do this the right way.
Smoak: As it stands right now, the county has little influence on larger housing projects because developers are incentivized to request annexation into the Sanford municipality to access TriRiver water and sewage services at the most favorable rates to them, not simply because of higher residential densities. As a private citizen, I have spoken about this at a Sanford public comment period in the past year, as an elected Commissioner I will attempt to resolve this issue at the lowest possible level, which could be a simple MOA between the county and city. I want to preserve a mutually beneficial relationship instead of creating an adversarial one between the city and county. Still, this issue is fundamental to one of my goals to retain the rural nature of this county while enabling the growth in population, opportunities, and wealth, I want to live in Lee County, not Sanford County which is the direction we are heading towards. Within the county zoning authority, I would encourage creative solutions that add value for prospective homeowners and at the same time are favorable to neighbors seeking to preserve a rural community. I am opposed to allowing a flood of cheaply built homes to flood our county simply because developers and property owners want to make a quick buck. Six years ago the Lee County master plan was published and I would commission an updated master plan based on the numerous growth factors that were not considered when the current plan was created.
7. Efforts have been made to schedule multiple large ticket capital improvement projects, but in some cases they are repeatedly pushed out for a number of years with the result effectively being that they may never come to pass. How would you address those projects?
Joyce: Project delays are partly unavoidable because our free market economy has its ups and downs, so tax revenues change year to year…and so do community priorities. The current annual capital project review process works well because it prioritizes health and safety needs and asset preservation. Where we can improve is more public input and increased public information. When an energized public knows about a need and advocates for it, like the Athletic Complex project, we make progress!
*Lovick: No response.
Martin: Commissioners must be prudent and responsible when planning our capital improvement projects, looking for ways to collaborate and keep costs down while providing the necessary improvements to our county. It is the responsibility of the commissioners to say “no” to burdening taxpayers with non-essential spending when we have much-needed capital improvement projects on the horizon. We must keep an eye on the future needs of the county (like building a new jail, new schools, etc.) and we need to limit our debt accumulation so it doesn’t outpace our ability to service that debt. I intend to focus a lot of attention on our county’s Capital Improvement Plan to ensure the project priorities match the needs of the community.
Quilty: What we need is methodical strategic planning that focuses on our statutory requirements as a county and quit putting emphasizes the things that are nice to do, but not statutorily required.
As an example, we are responsible for having a county jail that complies with both state and federal guidelines. Our current jail is not in compliance to many of those regulations and subject to lawsuits resulting from those violations.
This is not something that just popped up. It has been known for years that we need a new jail which will be in the $100 million dollar range. Yet this board has chosen to fund an elite athletic complex, new library and other non mandated niceties’ that added together would almost fund that jail. Instead, they are using those tax monies for payment of the bonds, etc. for those projects and in doing so will necessitate our taxes going up more when we are forced to build the facilities we are obligated to.
Also, the Board of Commissioners should be the ones who are making the decisions as to what capital improvements are vital and statutory and those that are not and can be pushed out. They should not be leaving it to any one person to make those decisions and then just rubber stamping them.
*Sharpe: Managing multiple large capital improvement projects in a small county facing rapid growth requires strategic planning and effective resource allocation. Even with that, we are going to have to delay some things. There are things we can do to minimize the delays. One thing is the phase implementation. This way those affected will get some of their needs met while funding and resources are secured for the next phases. Also, keeping the current projects on track will help. Following up to keep everyone accountable and identify potential delays early so we can minimize the delays as much as possible. Lastly, unfortunately some projects will have to be delayed but not necessarily denied. We need to regularly reassess the community needs as far as the project is concerned since we are growing and those needs will change over time. By keeping the community engaged, when time comes, we will be ready.
Smoak: I am on record at the June public hearing for speaking against the current CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) and have also recommended that cost estimates be adjusted upwards due to inflation when projects are deferred. There are three courses of action that I envision to address our capital spending plan: 1. Take an axe to this list, focus on the essential needs first and be prepared for vigorous pushback as some projects are reduced or eliminated. 2. As insinuated in the question, stand firm with the CIP project list and original timelines and vote to support the borrowing and tax increases required to support this spending. 3. Budget the projects that can be financed under current tax rates and put the most expensive and politically sensitive projects up for a public referendum, similar to what happened with the sports multiplex/athletic park. As a fiscal conservative who wants to minimize the growth of government spending, #1 is my first choice, but I also see the value of letting the citizens decide with option #3. As a general spending priority and influenced by my own Army career in maintenance, I prefer to concentrate tax dollars on maintaining and preserving our current assets vs building new or expanded facilities. As always there are exceptions and sometimes new construction is smarter than remodeling old buildings, but I do challenge some comments about “outdated” facilities that are actually quite a bit newer than many homes that we citizens are living in!
8. Lisa Minter has been the county manager for more than 18 months now. County manager is one of the single most important hires the board of commissioners makes. How would you rate her performance so far? Is there anything you would like to see be done differently?
Joyce: While I am not a current commissioner, I have worked with Lisa Minter for many years on various economic development projects. She is a consummate professional, solutions oriented and a stickler for detail. Her years of experience in county government finance have paid dividends for us. Lee County is in great financial condition. My view is that she has done a good job.
*Lovick: No response.
Martin: Lisa Minter has a history of serving Lee County well and is a highly capable professional. She leads an excellent team and works diligently for Lee County citizens. I look forward to working with Lisa and her team.
Quilty: As I am not currently a commissioner, and not intimately involved in the goings on of county management, it would be pretentious of me to rate her performance at this time.
However, there are things that I would like to see done and/or done differently.
I indicated last month in answering one of the questions, we need an immediate full-line-item budget audit, which hasn’t been done in about 10 years.
We need Commissioners to due more due diligence on budget recommendations and as mentioned above not just rubber stamping a submitted budget. Commissioners need to be more informed on budget requests. They need ground level understanding of operations to be able to discern the validity of those requests. As a senior executive I’ve never signed off on a budget until I had done some due diligence at the local level, like the manufacturing floor, warehouse, IT, sales etc. Just a quick tour, a question or two.
Also, sporadically doing that during the year. Surprising what insight you gain into true needs and not “like to have” wants. This practice needs to be cultivated between the commissioners and the county staff without a stigma of meddling.
I also believe that if the same scrutiny was given to all portions of the county budget as is given to the School Boards portion of the budget, we would find tax reducing savings to pass onto the residents of the county.
*Sharpe: Lisa Minter has been serving as our County Manager for the past 18 months, and her performance has been commendable. She has worked tirelessly to streamline departments and make us more efficient. She has demonstrated strong fiscal responsibility and makes sure we do not overextend our financial resources. I look forward to her continued success and the positive changes she will bring in the coming years.
Smoak: The County manager is one of the few positions within our government directly supervised by the Commissioners, I think it is inappropriate to discuss any subordinate individual’s performance in this type of forum, especially when I am applying to be one of her supervisors. Ms. Minter has a history of successful performance with our Finance Department and my ability to rate her performance right now as County Manager is based only on the public meetings that I have attended. As I understand it, the County Manager provides the day-to-day management and we elected officials need to provide oversight and strategic guidance for her to implement, it is very reminiscent to me of the classic officer/NCO relationship in the military. Ms Minter has my full faith and confidence in her competence until proven otherwise, and if concerns do arise, then proper HR procedures need to be followed to allow any employee to improve their performance, barring serious legal issues such as the recent suspension of the Durham County Manager which required immediate action pending an investigation. To revisit another old military aphorism, if I am pointing my finger of blame at any one person, then four of my fingers are pointing back at myself. Has the Commissioner leadership team provided the proper guidance, tools, and empowerment for our employees to accomplish the tasks we are demanding? If not, then that is our failure and not the employee’s.