Demolition, site work, renovation and addition to a municipal facility in Graham, North Carolina. Completed plans call for the addition of a 38,000-square-foot, three-story above grade municipal facility; for the demolition of a municipal facility; for the renovation of a 35,000-square-foot municipal facility; and for site work for a municipal facility.

https://alamancenews.com/commissioners-eschew-tax-hike-while-contemplating-capital-spending/ Alamance County’s commissioners didn’t have much to show for a special-called meeting that they held on Monday to delve into a proposed capital improvement budget which the county manager unfurled in April. The members of the county’s governing board spent part of this hourlong symposium spinning their wheels over the county’s vehicle replacement policy. They devoted most of the rest to deconstructing a proposed courthouse expansion – a project which isn’t even slated to appear in the county’s next annual budget. But one thing that did come out of this confab is a clear consensus among the five-member board that it won’t countenance any increase in property taxes during the upcoming financial cycle. “I’m against increasing [property] taxes. Period,” declared commissioner Kelly Allen as she summed up the prevailing mood of the group. “We are elected as stewards of the taxpayer’s money. . . Everybody lives within a budget, and we need to be really good about staying within our budget.” Going in circles on vehicle replacement Allen and her colleagues took this firm stance on the tax rate even as they continue to founder over other aspects of the county government’s finances. Monday’s meeting had been intended to give the commissioners a more solid financial footing – at least with respect to the capital improvement budget that county manager Heidi York had unveiled on April 7. A prelude to York’s forthcoming budget for the next fiscal year, this mini spending plan contains nearly $30.4 million in proposed allocations for Alamance County and the Alamance-Burlington school system. In her introduction to that morning’s proceedings, York acknowledged that her hope had been to use Monday’s meeting to answer any questions the commissioners have about her recommended capital outlays for both the schools and the county. She went on to acknowledge that one of the two inquires she received ahead of the meeting concerned the county’s vehicle replacement policy, which does have some bearing on a chunk of the nearly $19 million that she has proposed for the county’s own capital needs. Included in York’s proposed capital improvement budget is about $4.5 million to replace some of the county’s vehicles and equipment. Although $2 million of these funds are earmarked for the county’s landfill, which covers its own expenses with revenues that are kept separate from the county’s general fund, much of the remainder has been allocated to upgrade some of the higher mileage vehicles in the county’s own motor fleet. York added that most of her proposed vehicle replacements are based on a policy that the commissioners adopted in 2023 to set specific mileage thresholds for decommissioning of different county-owned vehicles. Under this policy, the sheriff’s patrol cruisers are deemed ready to retire when they reach 125,000 miles – as are trucks, vans, and utility vehicles assigned to other county departments. Meanwhile, the policy sets the ceiling at 250,000 miles for the county’s ambulances and at 150,000 for all other county-owned vehicles. York went on to present the mileage figures for the new vehicles she’s recommending in her capital improvement budget. These 18 vehicles included 9 requested by the sheriff’s office as well as two ambulances, two medic trucks, two vehicles used in parks and recreation, one from facilities maintenance and two assigned to the fire marshal or emergency management. York noted that, with one exception, all of these vehicles have odometer readings at or above the aforementioned thresholds and are a deemed to be in “poor condition.” She added that the one exception is an eight-year-old Nissan Pathfinder that’s assigned to emergency management – and whose replacement costs are covered by “restricted funds” in the county’s savings rather than the county’s general fund. The county manager’s conclusion that these vehicles have more or less outlived their usefulness nevertheless drew some pushback from commissioner Ed Priola, who had apparently been the source of the inquiry which York had tried to address with this data. Priola insisted that his own conversations with the sheriff have led him to believe that the county’s rigorous maintenance procedures ensure that even high mileage vehicles tend to be in good working order. “We’re not talking about keeping rattle buckets on the road,” he insisted. “We’re talking about fundamentally new vehicles. They may not look pretty on the outside. But the mechanics are solid.” Priola went on to suggest a possible “adjustment” in the county’s mileage thresholds – an idea that seemed to get some traction with commissioner Pam Thompson. Allen argued, however, that the county must have “dependable” emergency vehicles on the road, while York observed that raising the threshold from 125,000 to 150,000 miles would rule out all of the proposed vehicle replacements for the sheriff’s office. John Paisley, Jr., the chairman of Alamance County’s commissioners, insisted that the county’s governing board ought to trust the county’s administrators to handle things like vehicle replacement without constant intrusions. “We, county commissioners, should set policy but not micromanage so much that we’re determining mileage,” he assured the county manager. “I trust you personally to make the right decision.” Priola seized on Paisley’s rationale to propose that the commissioners strike the vehicle replacement policy from 2023, which he assumed a previous board had foisted on the county’s administrators. “We need to undo that policy handcuff,” he added, “so we’re not in the middle micromanaging.” York was nevertheless quick to disabuse Priola of his misconceptions about the mileage thresholds. “I actually brought it to the board for discussion, and we made some tweaks to it,” she conceded. “I would not ask you to rescind that. We need a policy in place to make those decisions.” Growing concerns about courthouse expansion Another item that came up for discussion on Monday was the proposed expansion of the Judge J.B. Allen Jr. Court House in Graham. Although this $37 million project won’t appear in York’s recommended budget for the upcoming fiscal year, it does make an appearance in the county’s current spending plan. The courthouse expansion is also expected to have an impact on the future budgets due to the debt payments on an installment loan that the commissioners have given the county’s administrators the green light to pursue. York reminded the county’s governing board that a majority of its members had previously signed off on a budget for the courthouse expansion that calls for loan proceeds to cover $22 million of this project’s expense. This revenue would augment $5 million that the commissioners had previously set aside from a special capital fund and another $10 million that was freed up thanks to federal pandemic relief funds. According to York, the debt payments on a $22 million loan are predicted to cost the county $2.2 million a year to repay – a sum that’s tantamount to .84 of a cent on the county’s property tax rate. The commissioners, for their part, haven’t approved a tax increase to cover these payments – nor, according to York, will they need to in the fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2025. “This would not be in the upcoming fiscal year,” the county manager went on to emphasize. “But it would possibly be in fiscal year 26/27, when we would be borrowing for the remaining balance of this project.” This potential tax hike didn’t sit well with commissioner Ed Priola, who conceded as much at Monday’s retreat. “At some point,” he added, “I would like to see offsets in other areas of county government rather than a .84 cent tax increase.” Priola went on to ask the county’s administrators for some more details about the courthouse expansion in light of the possible fiscal ramifications. Brian Baker, one of the county’s assistant managers, recalled that this project is meant to refurbish the existing Allen Court House and tack on a three-story annex, adding two to four courtrooms and 9,000 square feet of office space in the process. Baker also stressed that this project will create separate passageways for judges, defendants, jurors and others to avoid potentially dangerous confrontations in the halls of the courthouse. Commissioner Kelly Allen concurred with the need for these segregated passages based on her own experience as a four-time juror in Alamance County. Commissioner Pam Thompson, a consistent opponent of the courthouse expansion, argued that unpleasant encounters like are simply a fact of life that the county’s bailiffs are on hand to address. Thompson also pressed Baker to admit whether the additional two to four courtrooms he mentioned are a net gain or if they would simply offset the county’s proposed requisition of courtrooms in the civil court building next door to Alamance County’s headquarters. Baker admitted that there was something to Thompson’s inference about the county’s intentions toward the three civil courtrooms. “At a minimum we would like to get one of them back,” he told the commissioners. “We are totally out of room for county functions in this building.” Meanwhile, Baker was hard put to give Priola any particulars on how the $37 million budget for the courthouse expansion is meant to be parceled out among different parts of this project. “I still think it’s a little early to have a detailed breakdown where the money’s going,” Baker insisted. “We’re a long way away from having a final design and that’s going to take the majority of 2025. We are, however, currently looking for a general contractor to be our construction manager at risk on this project. We want to bring them in early so they can help us dial in the numbers and make sure what we’re designing is something that we can afford.” Taxing dilemmas In the end, Thompson said she would be surprised if the county is able to stick to its budget for the courthouse expansion. “I just know how government works. We say 37 [million dollars] but it never ends up being 37 [million dollars].” Priola insisted that, regardless of what the future may hold, he has no intention of supporting a property tax hike to cover the cost of the courthouse expansion – or anything else for that matter. “As a general statement about county government, we keep going up and up because that’s the norm,” the commissioner said. “But the benchmark should be cutting expenses so we can afford new construction and the like.” Priola’s objection to a property tax increase was echoed by Allen, who nevertheless went on to argue in favor of a sales tax increase as “the only fair tax” that the county has within its wheelhouse. Paisley, likewise, stated his opposition to higher property taxes. “The taxpayers cannot afford another 8 cent tax increase like we had in 2019,” he said. “We need to be judicious with the court system and we need to be affordable with the taxpayers.” The board’s chairman nevertheless took issue with the murmurs that he said he has been hearing from some of his constituents who he said suspect the county management of lobbying the commissioners for a property tax increase. “I’m sick and tired of receiving phone calls from uninformed voters saying that you – the county manager – are creating a tax increase. You simply have not done that. You’re doing what we’ve asked you to do.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to N.C. Stat. Sec. G.S. 143-128.1A, Alamance County, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" or "County," will undertake the design and construction of the Courthouse Expansion Project to be located at 212 W. Elm Street, Graham NC. Alamance County is proceeding with this project with a qualification process (this RFQ) to determine and approve interested and competent construction managers. The intent of this project is to construct a (3) story addition of approximately 38,000 square feet and a renovation of the existing J.B. Allen Building of approximately 35,000 square feet. Overview of the Requested Scope of Work The selected Construction Manager at Risk will be required to provide services including, but not limited to: • Pre-construction services, including cost estimation, scheduling, constructability review, and value engineering. • Development of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the construction phase. • Management and coordination of trade contractors to ensure high-quality construction. • Risk mitigation, safety planning, and quality control throughout the project lifecycle. • Adherence to local, state, and federal regulations applicable to courthouse construction. • Close collaboration with the County, design team, and stakeholders to meet project goals. Provide preconstruction services including cost estimating, life-cycle cost analysis, value-engineering, constructability reviews, scheduling, phasing plans, etc. The review of RFQ submittals will be by a Review Committee comprising representatives of the Owner. Questions should be submitted in writing via email to Brian Baker, Assistant County Manager, Brian.Baker@alamancecountync.gov no later than March 21st, 2025. Selection of firm, negotiation, etc. May 2025 Master agreement signed by County and returned to selected firm June 2025 The construction for the Owner's project shall be developed having a substantial completion date no later than October 1, 2027 or as otherwise agreed to by the Owner.