Commissioners decline first right on 4-acre parcel and debate $500,000 purchase for new elementary school site

Beaufort County commissioners considered two options to secure a roughly 4‑acre area needed for a new elementary school site and voted to decline their first right of refusal so the City of Washington and the Board of Education may proceed with a proposed land swap.

The school system and the city had signed a memorandum of agreement that presented two paths: the city and school board could complete a transfer or the county could purchase the 4 acres for $500,000. Matthew Cheeseman, superintendent, told the board the school team had believed it owned the 4 acres until a professional survey this spring showed otherwise. “We felt as though that we own the 4 acres of land…we learned that we did not own the land,” Cheeseman said.

County manager Brian summarized the city’s proposal: the city wants to subdivide a portion of a larger park parcel that includes a graveled area between the park and a gym and to pave and stripe it for parking. That gravel area would be included in the 4‑acre parcel if the swap occurs; the city manager, Jonathan Russell, told county staff earlier that the city anticipated paving and installing gates to control through-traffic.

The county attorney explained state law requirements governing school real property: if the school system declares property surplus, the county board of commissioners has a statutory right of first refusal and, if the county accepts, must pay fair market value. The county attorney and county manager referenced a North Carolina Supreme Court case involving Kinston and Granger Stadium as precedent for limits on intergovernmental transfers in some circumstances.

At the meeting one commissioner moved that the board “decline the offer of the property” (effectively relinquishing the county’s right of first refusal so the city and school board can complete a swap). The motion was clarified by staff and passed by a raised‑hand voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally. A second motion — to purchase the 4 acres for $500,000 as an alternative — was then introduced, seconded and discussed by several commissioners; the motion was taken to a voice vote later in the meeting (vote result recorded by voice; roll‑call tally not specified in the transcript).

Commissioners debated the merits of a swap versus purchase. Supporters of the swap said it avoided an immediate $500,000 cash outlay by county taxpayers and would preserve park and parking improvements handled by the city. Commissioner supporters of the $500,000 purchase said the parcel offered for swap included wetlands and sections they characterized as low‑value or flood‑prone and that paying the $500,000 was preferable to accepting a swap they viewed as unequal. Superintendent Cheeseman said the Board of Education had set aside $250,000 from unbudgeted sales tax reserve to help fund a purchase if necessary; he said that $250,000 figure came from available school unbudgeted sales tax revenue.

Several commissioners raised process concerns: one commissioner said they were “completely bewildered” that the county would spend $500,000 when a swap could provide the acreage, and another accused staff and colleagues of conducting backroom negotiations and disenfranchising other commissioners. County officials replied that county involvement had been limited to attendance by the county manager, the chairman and the vice chairman at some city–school meetings, and emphasized that any final transfer or sale must comply with state statutes and requires board action.

Board members were told the city estimates $100,000–$150,000 per acre in market terms; the Board of Education’s superintendent said the school board and city had negotiated options and that the swap or purchase would require subdivision of the larger parcel so the 4‑acre piece could be conveyed. The record shows discussion of title and GIS records; Cheeseman said a survey, not county GIS, revealed the discrepancy about ownership.

The meeting material and discussion made clear next steps: if the commissioners decline the county’s right of first refusal, the city and board of education may complete a swap; if the county accepts, the county must pay fair market value. Commissioners asked that any appraisal, subdivision, gating, paving or other conditions be confirmed by the city, school board and their counsel before final action. The transcript does not record further implementation dates or an appraisal result.