Buncombe elections staff seeks clearer municipal billing, board weighs outside counsel

BUNCOMBE COUNTY — Buncombe County Board of Elections staff presented a new billing model and draft memorandum of understanding designed to clarify how municipalities will be charged for registration and election services, prompting board members to debate legal review and the possibility of hiring outside counsel.

The issue matters because state law requires municipalities to reimburse boards of elections for the cost of conducting municipal elections, and changes in some municipalities’ primary years have complicated how those costs are identified and billed, Corinne Duncan, executive director of the Buncombe County Board of Elections, told the board.

Duncan said the county’s shift of some municipal primaries into years shared with partisan primaries has made it difficult for staff to separate municipal-only costs from countywide election costs. The new model aims to produce regular estimates, incorporate registration work into municipal billing, and create a clearer agreement so municipalities know when to notify the elections office about annexations, vacancies and other items that affect costs.

Board members discussed how to proceed with legal review. Some members said the county attorney’s office has been supportive but that, because the Board of Elections and municipalities are separate legal parties, it would be appropriate to consider outside counsel who would represent the board’s independent interests.

"Sometimes it's just better to have an attorney write out the details about how you're going to proceed and that sort of gives you a really good guideline," said a board member during the discussion. Several members suggested having a local attorney available as "someone in the wings" rather than immediately engaging counsel for every step.

Board members named two possible outside-law options for initial outreach: the Charlotte firm Tharrington Smith (represented previously to the board) and a local attorney, Beau Carpenter, who formerly served on the board; staff said they would reach out and circulate engagement letters or letters of interest for board review.

Duncan said the elections office had provided the draft MOU and billing model to the county attorney for review and recommended the board consider scheduling a public presentation of the proposal with municipal officials present. Several board members supported that approach: they asked staff to invite municipal leaders and to present the draft to the full board in September so municipalities would understand the timeline and have an opportunity to give feedback before any billing is finalized.

Board members also questioned whether the board must use the county attorney for this work and whether the board’s limited budget could support outside counsel. One board member said a small retainer or having counsel on call would provide flexibility; another member urged caution because the board has other spending priorities.

Next steps the board directed staff to take: finalize the draft MOU and billing presentation, invite municipal officials to a public meeting in September for the full presentation, and circulate information about potential outside attorneys (including any engagement letters) ahead of a separate board discussion about retaining outside counsel.

The board did not take a final vote on billing policy or hire counsel during the meeting; members set follow-up meetings in September to review the MOU, potential counsel, and municipal feedback.

Ending: Staff said they will bring the revised MOU and billing presentation to a September meeting and circulate materials about outside counsel before the board votes on any legal engagement.