Johnston County commissioners prioritize capital projects, direct staff to model financing

The Johnston County Board of Commissioners reviewed and prioritized a list of county capital projects at an offsite retreat and directed staff to model financing options and bring results back to the board.

The board placed major projects — courthouse work and other court-related projects — among the higher priorities, debated the timing and need for a parking deck at a proposed JCC West campus, and agreed to move the proposed park in Cleveland to a lower priority because funding sources were not yet identified.

The board’s direction matters because several items discussed would require multi‑million‑dollar funding decisions and long lead times for design and site acquisition. Commissioners said staff should return with cost estimates and tax-rate modeling so the board can choose which projects to fund and when.

Discussion and key points

Commissioners debated a potential parking deck for the JCC West campus, with some members saying the county’s available acreage makes a deck unnecessary now and others saying a deck could concentrate parking near future buildings. One commissioner summarized the split: while there is “plenty of land to avoid a parking deck,” another said the county will likely need a deck once several large buildings are complete because “that’s a lot of employees right there.” The board did not direct immediate construction of a parking deck; the topic remained a planning consideration.

The proposed park in Cleveland was moved to the bottom of the priority list. Commissioners cited uncertainty about how to pay for the park and the need to decide what amenities the county would place on the property before committing funds.

Relocation of the county’s livestock arena drew support because moving it could free nearby land currently used by public utilities and the landfill, allowing utilities expansion. Commissioners noted outside users pay rent to use the livestock facilities, which generates some revenue for the county.

A consolidated fueling facility was discussed as a countywide backup for vehicle fueling; commissioners said the county presently relies on a single fueling site and that adding a second site at the landfill or the new master plan location would provide redundancy. Commissioners said if the county keeps the existing Shelterway property for fueling, building a second site elsewhere could be wasteful; they asked staff to evaluate options.

Other items discussed included a shooting range (described by some as lower-cost, but with site and neighborhood concerns), animal control and fleet services, wastewater treatment expansion encroaching on existing county sites, and the potential to sell or repurpose property (for example, land now used by animal control) to offset debt service on capital projects.

Cost and modeling needs

Commissioners asked staff and consultants for reasonably detailed cost estimates for high-priority items to support financial modeling. The board singled out courthouse projects as needing professional cost estimates: commissioners asked the county’s consultants (identified in discussion as Mosley) to produce estimates the county can use in tax-rate and debt-service models. During the discussion the board referenced a rough range for a large complex and renovation scenarios — one speaker cited figures of “$30 million to $50 million” and later mentioned “$60,000,000” when discussing a larger complex — but commissioners asked for formal estimates rather than relying on back‑of‑the‑envelope numbers.

Board direction

Commissioners directed staff to take the prioritized project list and run financial modeling, including tax-rate scenarios and project phasing, and to return to the board with options. County staff and the facilitator team were thanked for organizing the two‑day session.

Quotes

“This has been a great 2 days. It's been nice being able to work together as a board,” Commissioner Davis said, praising the retreat format.

“I'll echo what everyone else said … collaboration … compromise,” Commissioner Stevens said, describing the board’s approach to prioritizing projects.

“Yes, sir. Thank you. It's been a long 2 days, but it's been very worthwhile,” Chairman Harris said, thanking facilitators and staff.

Actions and formal outcome

The only formal recorded motion at the meeting’s close was to adjourn. A commissioner moved to adjourn and the motion was seconded; the board voted in favor.

Ending

Staff will return to the board with professional cost estimates and financing models for the prioritized projects so the commissioners can consider timing and funding sources during the next budget discussions. No project-specific contracts, bond issuances or formal approvals occurred at the retreat.