Rutherford County

Meeting Minutes - Final

Board of Commissioners

Thursday, April 16, 2026

5:00 PM

289 N. Main St. Rutherfordton NC 28139 Commission

Chambers

Call to Order

Chairman King called the May 16, 2026 special meeting of the Rutherford County Board

of Commissioners to order.

Members of the Rutherford County Board of Education were also present and

were welcomed by the Board of Commissioners.

5 -

Present:

Commissioner Bryan King, Commissioner Alan Toney, Commissioner

Michael Benfield, Commissioner Hunter Haynes and Commissioner

Donnie Haulk

A. Agenda Approval

Vice Chairman Toney moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Benfield

seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was:

5 -

Aye:

Commissioner King, Commissioner Toney, Commissioner

Benfield, Commissioner Haynes and Commissioner Haulk

Nay:

II. New Business

ID 26-4448

Budget Meeting with Rutherford County Board of Commissioners and

Rutherford County Board of Education

Attachments:

Board of Education FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget (Funds 2 4) FINAL

04142026.pdf

Chairman Morrow thanked the Board of Commissioners for meeting with the Board of

Education to discuss budget needs. He recognized Superintendent David Sutton who

told those present that the recommended 2026-2027 Board of Education’s

Recommended Local Current Expense Fund and Capital Outlay Fund budgets for the

upcoming fiscal year were presented to the Board of Education at their meeting on April

14, 2026. Also presented at that same meeting was the Ten-year Enrollment Forecast

Report, and the Long-Range Facilities Planning Committee Report.

Dr. Sutton recognized Finance Director John Morris.

Director Morris told the Board that the proposed Local Current Expense Fund budget

reflects revenues and expenditures totaling $19,746,252, including an appropriation in the

amount of $19,199,252 by the Rutherford County Board of Commissioners; an estimated

$350,000 in fines and forfeitures collected and remitted pursuant to state law; and an

estimated $197,000 in ancillary local revenues. The North Carolina General Assembly

has not yet adopted a state budget for the 2025–2027 biennium, which commenced on

July 1, 2025. In the absence of an enacted state budget, key components of state

funding—most notably salary schedules, employer benefit rates, and allotment

adjustments—remain unknown.

Accordingly, the FY 2026–2027 Local Current Expense Fund budget has been developed

using a set of reasonable planning assumptions grounded in recent legislative actions,

current economic conditions, and known cost drivers affecting school system operations.

Those planning assumptions include:

• An estimated salary increase of 2% for school system employees

• An estimated retirement contribution rate increase of approximately 0.60 percentage

points

• An estimated health insurance premium increase of 5%

• An estimated increase of 12.5% in business insurance premiums

• An estimated increase of 8% in public utilities

• An estimated increase of 3% in general purchasing

Chairman King and Commissioner Haulk asked questions regarding a grant which the

Board of Education received during the current fiscal year and how this was budgeted.

Director Morris responded that grants such as the one described are not included in the

Current Expense budget (Fund 2) but are budgeted in a separate fund (Fund 8). State

law requires that grant funds must be spent according to the way the grant is written and

cannot be co-mingled with Fund 2 funds. If the grant funds supplant budgeted funds, the

fund budgeted will revert to fund balance or be re-purposed.

Commissioner Haulk had received information that ADM funds would be significantly

higher in the forthcoming fiscal year while the planning allotment estimate received by the

Board of Education had shown a $2,000,000 potential reduction.

Salaries for teachers and other employees of the Board of Education were discussed

along with the date any potential salary increases would become effective. Two

scenarios were mentioned which were July 1, 2026 or a retroactive pay increase

beginning July 1, 2025.

The Board of Education’s fund balance as of June 30, 2025 was $4,700,000. This

amount is expected to remain the same on June 30, 2026 or be slightly lower.

Chief Operations’ Officer Kevin Bradley presented the proposed FY 2026-2027 Capital

Outlay Fund budget which targets the completion of nineteen (19) priority projects across

four (4) categories at an estimated cost of $1,121,000: He stated that this was just a

fraction of the capital needs but are considered the highest priority.

Project Category

Project Count

Estimated Cost

Environmental Quality

$531,000

Safety

$305,000

Safety / Accessibility

School / Student Services

$ 25,000

3 $260,000

Rutherford County Board of Education Vice Chairman Angel King presented the

Rutherford County Board of Education’s Facilities Planning Report concerning the

long-term organization and use of facilities within Rutherford County schools.

The committee’s work occurred in the context of significant long-term changes in the

district’s enrollment patterns. During the 1990s and early 2000s, Rutherford County

Schools served more than 10,000 students, reaching a peak Allotted Average Daily

Membership of 10,178 during the 1998–99 school year. Enrollment has gradually declined

since that time and is approximately 6,900 students today. Demographic

conditions—including declining birth cohorts, limited population growth, and broader

school choice patterns—suggest that, under current conditions, enrollment is likely to

continue declining gradually over the coming decade. The district is already operating

with a facilities footprint that exceeds current enrollment needs. As enrollment declines,

maintaining the same number of campuses places increasing pressure on operational

and capital resources while making it more difficult to sustain robust academic

programming and extracurricular opportunities at every school.

To evaluate potential responses to these conditions, the committee examined three

structural planning scenarios. The first scenario involved maintaining the district’s current

sixteen-campus system and existing feeder patterns. The second scenario involved

transitioning to a two-feeder-pattern system with two high schools and two middle schools

serving larger enrollment bases. The third scenario explored reorganizing the district into

a system of K–8 schools feeding into three high schools. Each scenario presented

certain advantages and challenges related to educational programming, community

impact, operational efficiency, and long-term sustainability.

An overview of four inactive school facilities included:

Former School Facility

Former Ellenboro School

center.

Recommendations

Retain ownership because the building is a community

Former Mt. Vernon-Ruth Elementary School

Proceed to repurpose to a pre-kindergarten

site presently located at the Carver Center. Some renovations will be needed at a

possible cost of $800,000. This funding will be coordinated with Rutherford County’s

funding.

R-S Middle School

Rutherford Opportunity Center

Declare the remaining portion of this site as surplus

Already declared it as surplus

School -Level Enrollment Comparisons, 2006 and 2025 were:

HIGH SCHOOLS

Chase High School 910 594 (316)

(34.7%)

613

709

East Rutherford High School

R-S Central High School

914

(301)

(483)

(32.9%)

(40.5%)

1192

184.0%

REaCH 75 213

Rutherford Opportunity Center

Subtotal 3,148 2,129

138

(57)

(100.0%)

(1,019) (32.4%)

MIDDLE SCHOOLS

CHASE Middle School

East Rutherford Middle School

R-S Middle School

Subtotal 2,238

722

469

708

(253)

528

(231) (28.6%)

(35.0%)

(180)

(25.4%)

808

577

1,574

(664)

(29.7%)

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Cliffside Elementary School

Ellenboro Elementary School

Forest City-Dunbar Elementary School

Forrest W. Hunt Elementary School

Harris Elementary School

Mt. Vernon-Ruth Elementary School

Pinnacle Elementary School 456

Rutherfordton Elementary School

Spindale Elementary School

Sunshine Elementary School

480

191

534

525

457

413

323

345

420

323

240

(289)

(70)

389

(60.2%)

604

(11.6%)

(136)

(25.9%)

(13.6%)

395

(218)

(62)

(34.6%)

(323) (100.0%)

631

(111)

362

(153)

(24.3%)

(58)

(32.1%)

(13.8%)

476

293

(53)

(18.1%)

Subtotal

4,665

3,192

(1,473) (31.6%)

TOTAL 10,051 6,895

(3,156) (31.4)

Recess

6:00 P.M.

6:01 P.M.

Chairman King recessed the meeting.

The meeting was reconvened.

After careful review, the committee concluded that transitioning the organization of

Rutherford County Schools from a three-feeder-pattern system to a two-feeder-pattern

system represents the most sustainable long-term framework for aligning the district’s

facilities with projected enrollment levels while supporting strong academic programming

and responsible stewardship of public resources.

To support thoughtful implementation of this planning direction, the committee

recommends a series of next steps for consideration by the Rutherford County Board of

Education. These include issuing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to obtain

professional architectural and engineering analysis of potential facility scenarios

necessary to support a two-feeder-pattern system; coordinating capital planning and

funding strategies, including potential participation in the North Carolina Needs-Based

Public School Capital Fund; directing the administration to develop new school

assignment boundaries following final site determinations; and developing a publicly

communicated timetable outlining key milestones in a multi-year transition process. The

committee also recommends that the Board review updated ten-year enrollment forecasts

annually to ensure that long-range planning remains responsive to any meaningful

changes in enrollment trends or demographic conditions.

Following review of the professional facilities analysis and determination of specific

project priorities, the committee recommends that the Board of Education pursue

available state capital funding through the Needs-Based Public School Capital Fund and

Public School Building Capital Fund, both administered by the North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction.

The committee further recommends that the Board of Education coordinate this effort

with the Rutherford County Board of Commissioners to align local and state funding

strategies in support of selected facility investments.

Mr. Bradley provided a possible timeline which included dates for grant applications that

would be a joint venture with the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education.

Chairman King pointed out that a match for the grants would still involve debt service but

the County has other needs that will require debt service. He suggested that a meeting

be held of all entities that are requesting funding from the County.

Commissioner Haulk questioned why Scenario #3 was not chosen as the preferred plan

as it appeared to require less travel time. It was advised by the Board of Education that

solid numbers for transportation costs and time would be hard to extrapolate until sites

were selected. Vice Chairman King said middle school’s delivery of programs,

extracurricular activities, electives, and sports were a major part of the selection process.

Option 3 seemed to walk back what the schools are striving to accomplish and what the

County has become accustomed to in education, according to Superintendent Sutton.

Commissioner Haynes asked if there would be a public meeting to inform citizens

about the proposal as he has reservations about changing what has in place for so many

years. Dr. Sutton responded that he understood and realized there will be conflicting

views about the path forward for the county but the context is urgent and non-negotiable

for the County as there has been a loss of 31.4% of students and should lose another

1,300 students over the next ten years. Assuming there are no increases in the next ten

years, a 75% increase in the County’s appropriation would be required to meet unfilled

financial needs. This would be $14,500,000 in additional funding. There are

consequences of inaction that would be untenable.