News

VERDICT: DIVIDED BOARD OKs $100M COURTHOUSE ANNEX

By Bill Moss, Published: March 16, 2026

The verdict is in.

Henderson County is getting a new $100 million courthouse. County commissioners on Monday night voted 3-2 to authorize the much-debated and much scrutinized judicial center — but not before the two dissenters warned that a property tax may be in county residents' future and other projects have to be jettisoned. 

The two most senior commissioners — Chair Bill Lapsley, Vice Chair Michael Edney and Rebecca McCall — voted yes while the newest members, Sheila Franklin and Jay Egolf, voted no.

Lapsley, Edney and McCall mounted a strong defense of the project, which combined with the jail expansion totals around $170 million, while Frankin and Egolf warned that the debt service could require a hefty tax increase, cause other priorities to fall away or cut into the county’s annual appropriation for school maintenance, repair and security.

Assistant County Manager Christopher Todd announced the guaranteed maximum price — adding that "this county has never blown a guaranteed maximum price" — as the commissioners began the discussion: “A couple-hundred thousand under $100 million is the total all-in number that would open your doors and there would be toilet paper in the toilet paper roll holders in the bathrooms. You’d have a turn-key, finished building. That includes the architect fee.”

Borrowing for the courthouse would drive the county's debt service up by $10 million a year — for a total of $32.2 million — starting in the 2026-27 fiscal year. Options for covering that, County Manager John Mitchell said, include a 5-cent property tax increase, using fund balance, using the county's K-12 school and community college MRTS fund — it stands for maintenance, repairs, technology and security — or a sales tax increase or bond issue, both of which must be approved by voters.

Edney said there are other ways to make the numbers work.

“We refinance at least once in every couple of years when interest rates work and they’ve saved us millions of dollars over the years,” he said. “We’re in great shape financially. We have tons of money in the bank, even though the federal government owes us a ton. We’ve got options. This county continues to grow, whether we like it or not. Our people are good. They’re better than anybody in the state, and they know what they’re doing. If they didn’t think we could do it, then they would tell us. So I’m not worried about the finances at all.”

Franklin rebutted that.

“I hear Commissioner Edney saying he’s not really worried about the money, but I think it’s a cold, hard fact, when you’re looking at $100 million, that it’s nothing to sneeze at," she said. "If we do this project, it will probably narrow the other projects that we could possibly do for the next 10 years. The bus garage might be put on hold, the Clear Creek sewer for Edneyville, Etowah sewer, the ag services building, possible (Fletcher) library that’s been talked about for about 20 years."

She said she still has doubts about the plans for parking and fears the new debt will hamstring the board as other priorities come up.

"I have concerns about taking MRT money, being able to give COLA raises for county employees," she said. "I worry about the state Legislature,” which is said to be eyeing a moratorium on county property tax increases. “And then there’s the age-old problem — the chicken or the egg. If you build the annex, is the state going to give you the staff and the judges that you have to have?”

Franklin, who said she opposed raising taxes for the project, also pitched a major renovation instead that would move several departments out of the 1995 courthouse and renovate the space for new courtrooms. “You could take some county departments out and you could place them somewhere else for a whole lot cheaper than $100 million,” she said.

McCall countered that.

“We’re not looking at what we need now," she said. "We’re looking at what we need in 2050. I feel good about everything we’ve done to get this project where it is. ... Yes, it’s a scary number, but I come from a business where those numbers aren’t scary, so it’s not as scary to me.

"The money has come for everything that we’ve done, and I have faith that the money will come without jeopardizing other things," she continued. "There’s ways to do some of those other projects with grant money, and other ways to look at saving on the bottom line. If we wait, it’ll just be higher.”

Egolf said it's too high now.

“I do the math and I get $1,100 a square foot," he said. "I know it is needed and I know we should do it. But it should be my job to question anything taxpayers pay for. I question $1,100 a square foot. I see an increase tax rate of 5 cents, about $10 million a year in debt service. I’ve heard it would be a challenge to do anything big for 10 years. We’ve got to find a better way to do this. How does it cost $1,100 a square foot?”

But Lapsley, a retired civil engineer, said that over the past five years other options had been examined and discarded, and every effort had been made to trim costs.

“We’ve butchered this project as much as we can without lowering in my opinion the quality of the building,” he said. “There aren’t gold fixtures in the restrooms. I can assure you that there are no huge chandeliers in there to brag about. We’ve tried to be as cost efficient as we can during the period I mentioned, fall of 2023 early ’24.”

Commissioners, architects, engineers and construction managers after much debate had cut $20 million from a 2023 sticker-shock cost projection of more than $200 million.

“There is no way, in my opinion, that we can cut from this building anything substantial,” he said. “If the board wants to get the price down to $75 million, it ain’t gonna happen. We’ve done all the value engineering, we’ve done all the economies that that I can see.”

And then, after Edney's motion to authorize a guaranteed maximum construction price of $84,214,579.92 (soft cost and closing cost raises it to $101 million) and a rollcall vote, Lapsley said: "We look forward to a groundbreaking and eventually a ribbon-cutting on this new facility."

THIS IS A DEVELOPING STORY. RETURN TO THE LIGHTNING FOR MORE COVERAGE.

EARLIER COVERAGE:

After years of studies, reports, forecasts on jail and courthouse needs, discussion and debate, the final vote triggering the costliest capital project in Henderson County history is at hand.

Work on a major jail expansion is already under way. If commissioners say yes to a guaranteed maximum price for a four-story courthouse expansion, the Judicial Complex Addition and Renovation, JCAR, will total around $170 million, almost triple the current record holder for a major building — the Hendersonville High School renovation and addition.

In a special called meeting at 5:30 Monday evening, commissioners will see the guaranteed maximum price that construction managers have calculated for the courthouse. Project cost for the courthouse in early January stood at $92,951,987. After solicting bids for major contractors, subcontractors, materials and supplies, the construction management team of Haskell-Cooper — made of the global Haskell company and Hendersonville-based Cooper Construction — will present the GMP at Monday's meeting and ask the question, Go or no.

Barring an unexpected increase in the cost from January, the project would appear to have the support of at least three commissioners. The county commission chair and vice chair — Bill Lapsley and Michael Edney — have been on board for virtually the entire history of the project. Rebecca McCall, who won a third term in the March 3 primary, mentioned completing the JCAR as one of her priorities for her next four years of service. While they have questioned the cost, the two commissioners elected in 2024 — Sheila Franklin and Jay Egolf — have never voiced outright opposition to it.

An attorney who is in his sixth term as a commissioner, Edney has been the board's strongest advocate for the jail-courthouse expansion.

“Is there any practical reason not to go ahead and start with the groundwork?” Edney asked Shaun Bowman, the senior project manager from Haskell, in the Jan. 5 board of commissioners meeting.

“No sir,” Bowman responded.

“And every day we don’t start costs us more money,” Edney added. “Have we seen any red flags or even yellow flags in the market to make us feel uncomfortable about (guaranteed maximum price) 2 and 3 coming up — anything from Venezuela, stuff like that?”

“Not at this time,” Bowman said. “Generally it’s the first quarter where subcontractors and vendors will start sending out notices of material escalation or tariffs. No red flags right now so far.”

Edney said, “So I see no reason why we don’t just keep moving forward.”

One potential red flag has ascended since January. The U.S. was not at war with Iran then, and the main channel through which a fifth of the global oil supply moves was not blocked by the conflict. But the war was also not foreseen in mid-February when contractors and suppliers submitted their bids for the work.