Mooresville public commenters press mayor, call for disclosures over $15 million Timber Road funding

Dozens of residents attending the Nov. 3 Mooresville Board of Commissioners meeting used the public-comment period to raise allegations about transparency, campaign donations and apparent conflicts connected to a $15 million state allocation for the Timber Road connector project.

The public comments focused on the same central claim: that the developer known in meeting remarks as “M Group” had agreed to pay for the Timber Road connector as a condition of a rezoning and that state funds were routed in a way that effectively benefitted that developer. “No one at any of these 700 doors indicated we needed more development or to hand $15,000,000 of taxpayer money to a developer who said they would pay for a road,” said Dana Tucker during the comment period, citing an October 22 news article and a Centralina Council meeting recording.

Those remarks were echoed by Richard Beck, who invoked the town’s stated commitment to transparency and urged the board to consider formal responses, including motions to censure the town manager and to express no confidence in the mayor. “The facts are the facts. What Mr. Tucker spoke are the facts. What has been published are the facts,” Beck said, pointing the board to campaign finance filings he said are on record with Iredell County.

Mayor Kearney responded during public comment that he took office in December 2023 and said the Timber Road project had been approved earlier; he said he learned about the COG (Council of Governments) item only a few hours before attending and that he traveled to thank officials there for the project’s inclusion. “I went down to say thank you,” the mayor said, adding that he had no role in approving the project or directing its funding. He disputed suggestions that donations to his campaign influenced state action and noted that some contributors are local developers he has known for decades.

Speakers and supporting slides questioned whether appropriate conflict-of-interest disclosures and legal or ethics reviews occurred prior to the mayor’s advocacy on behalf of the project at a regional board meeting. Tucker said he has evidence of campaign contributions from developers and certain state legislators that he said create the appearance of a closed loop of influence; he repeatedly asked what the town board would do in response.

The record of the meeting shows the comments were made during the public-comment period; no formal board action or investigation into those allegations was taken at the Nov. 3 meeting. Staff and the mayor indicated the project’s approvals predated the current administration and that some campaign donors have longstanding ties to the town. Several commenters urged the board to consider next steps under new business, but the agenda for Nov. 3 did not include an item initiating a formal inquiry.

The town has not posted any formal findings or a staff ethics review in the meeting record. Following the meeting, commissioners did not take motions on censure or other disciplinary measures related to the allegations; public commenters said they planned further public follow-up.

Context and next steps: The public-record filings cited by speakers are maintained by Iredell County election officials and campaign-finance records referenced at the meeting. Any formal complaint, ethics review or legal referral would appear on a future town agenda; residents at the meeting said they will monitor that process.