Citizens Share Multiple Opinions At Elections Building Hearing
By LYDIA BERGLAR
News Editor
The Dade County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing at 5 p.m. on Sept. 2 about the proposed elections building. The Board of Elections and Lowanna Vaughan (elections supervisor) also sat in front of the commission facing the audience. About 35 citizens attended along with county employees, and close to 8,000 citizens tuned in online.
Don Townsend (county executive) gave a summary of the elections building discussion timeline starting in 2005. In 2020, the need for more space became apparent, and in 2021, discussions began in earnest about how to address the issue.
At the end of 2022 and into 2023, the previous county commission assessed other county buildings and properties before determining that none would suffice. (The current commission has also determined that no other properties will suffice, as several commissioners explained during the hearing.) Size, ADA compliance, and climate control are the main problems the commission ran into with other sites.
Before opening the stand to citizens, the Board of Elections and Vaughan did not have any input, so Townsend asked the commissioners for their input.
Bill Pullen (North Dade commissioner) did not initially have any input, so Phillip Hartline (Sand Mountain commissioner) began by explaining that the idea of adding a basement to the building came from him because an unfinished basement would only cost about $50 per square foot.
“That was for future use. It was going to be unfinished…When the plans got back, they had heating and air, plumbing finished, electrical finished, so that rose that cost…Now, since we’re looking at finishing that out, we can do away with the basement for all I care because it’s run the price way up. But when you can build $50 per square foot for future use, I think that’s a win for the county and a better way of using our money.”
He added that per his estimates a year or two ago, the building would cost $1.2 million without a basement and $1.5 million with a basement.
Bob Woods (South Dade commissioner) said the elections office/storage does need more room, and he agreed that the Georgia Avenue site is the best option, but he doesn’t like the price tag of the proposed building. His recommendation, therefore, is to build a one-floor metal building on the Georgia Avenue site.
Melissa Bradford (Lookout Mountain commissioner) said that she has been involved in the push for an elections building because when she first came into office, election integrity was a hot topic. Citizens called her with concerns about elections. She agreed that the commission needs to find a way to bring down the price of the building.
At the end of the meeting, Pullen shared his thoughts, noting that the old school buildings in North Dade and Rising Fawn are in bad shape so “there’s a reason they’re empty.” He added that the county has already invested money into the Georgia Avenue lot and the architect and engineering work, but he thinks the square footage could be narrowed down.
A number of citizens then spoke, some in favor of the building (basement, brick exterior, and all), others in favor of reducing the scope of the project, and some simply asking questions.
Jon Shadrick began, saying he sees the need for a solution, he appreciates the information the county has shared, but he thinks that two floors at around $3 million is extreme. “The building does not have to be anything special…The people I’ve spoken to about this, we do not care what it looks like.”
He asked what the minimum square footage needed is, but neither the Board of Elections nor the commission answered. He asked how many offices would be in the building, but there was no answer to this question either.
Bradford said that the commission has not talked about anything in the building being special, and Woods said Vaughan has told him that she doesn’t want anything fancy.
Steve Thomas asked if a metal building could be used instead of brick. Townsend said, “If the Secretary of State is okay with it, I’m okay with it.”
Thomas asked what wording in the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax referendum allows SPLOST to fund this building project. Townsend pointed to the following portion: “…facilities for various county departments which may include…various administration offices.” He explained that elections fall under administration.
Debbie Gardner asked if the historic courthouse could be used for elections, saying that nothing happens inside the courthouse, but this isn’t true. The top floor is used for events and meetings, and the bottom offices are filled by the Industrial Development Authority, the Alliance for Dade/visitor’s center, Cornerstone Gallery and Gifts, and the Dade County Historical Society.
The Sentinel has also been in the basement of the courthouse and can confirm that it is not suitable for storing the voting machines.
Gardner asked if the current administrative building could be added onto for storage, but Townsend and Bradford listed a couple of objections to that idea, including that it would still cost quite a lot to do.
Ann Brown shared that she is in favor of the building and does not like the idea of a metal building. She likes the idea of building an unfinished basement.
Susie Talbott noted that she, like many others, sees the need for a solution. She again asked how much space is needed and waited for an answer. Townsend said he’s calculated that between 5,000-5,500 square feet would suffice.
Noting that SPLOST is also funding the animal shelter, Talbott asked which project takes priority. Townsend and Bradford answered that both projects will move forward simultaneously, and both are fully funded. Townsend estimated that $16 million more will come in under the current SPLOST.
Regarding both new buildings, Talbott noted that they will need to be furnished and there will be a long-term impact on the maintenance and operation budget. “I see our budget just screaming upwards. How do we minimize that?”
Hartline answered that to move forward, the commission plans to sit down with the contractor they think is best for the job and ask how the cost can be reduced.
Joanna Reynolds also agreed that there is a need for more space and a new building seems to be the only option. She said Hartline’s basement idea made sense, but it seems like the idea was “blown out of proportion.”
Referencing the county’s talks about coming growth, Reynolds said, “I remember back many years ago when the new courthouse was built, and we built for growth.” She cited the U.S. Census numbers which show Dade’s population as declining.
“There’s more buildings going up. There’s more people buying property, but they don’t live in Dade County. They live elsewhere and use Dade County to make money.”
She noted the court facility’s large but often empty parking lot, high ceilings, wide hallways, and large offices. “The courthouse is, in my mind, astronomical…I hope that this building does not follow that at all.”
She continued, “SPLOST will handle the building. Who’s going to handle the maintenance? A new building is not just the cost of building. A new building is maintenance, people to staff it, people to take care of it, equipment that has to be maintained…I wish there was another way that [Lowanna] could have more room to do what she needs to do.”
She asked about the city precinct. Townsend explained that the county is not required to provide the city with a precinct, but the city has chosen to contract with the county to handle its elections. (The county has its own Trenton precinct, but as the Sentinel reported two weeks ago, that can be outside the city limits. If the county chose to build outside city limits, the city would have to find another place to have its elections inside the city limits.)
Hartline explained that the size of the proposed building isn’t determined by the city’s precinct but by the county’s needs
A couple other citizens spoke briefly as well.
Going back to the question of growth, Townsend reported that in 2008, Dade had 10,471 registered voters which jumped to 13,758 in 2025 (after the state cleaned up the voter rolls). He thinks the census is wrong. The Sentinel dug into this topic last year, (see the Feb. 21, 2024, issue) and found data indicating that the census is, indeed, inaccurate.
Many citizens comment on increased traffic and construction, but numerous factors could impact this, such as Southeast Lineman Training Center (SLTC), the industrial park and manufacturing growth, and tourism. Also, keep in mind that the registered voter numbers are inflated somewhat by students at SLTC. (See the July 2 Sentinel for one recent situation in which this may have impacted an election.)
Jamey Blevins of Blevins Construction Management noted that his company bid on the elections building, so he shared his insight into the proposed building. “To put your mind at ease, the low bidder on this project was around $240 a square foot which is really, really competitive in today’s market.”
Cautioning against the metal building route, he said, “A lot of us don’t think about how long government is going to exist…You look at your Dollar Generals or strip malls; they’re 20-year lifespans, but municipal entities have to build for generations…If we build something that has a 20- or 30-year life expectancy now, then before I die here in Dade, we’re going to be doing this all over again which I think is terrible because the cost in 30 years will far exceed what it will be right now.”
He said the building is not fancy. “I can tell you from pricing it. There’s nothing in this building over the top. It’s as basic finishes as you can put in a building. The mechanical system is not designed over the top. The electrical system is not. Everything is in line with a standard commercial building.”
He said he wouldn’t be too worried about maintenance costs in the long run, because he expects annual maintenance costs to be two or three percent of the construction costs. This means that on the low end (a $1.2 million building at two percent), we’re looking at a $24,000 increase in the budget. On the high end, (a $3 million building at three percent), we’re looking at a $90,000 increase.
Blevins voiced respect for the commissioners, saying, “None of them are out here trying to rip you off. It’s their money too. They all pay taxes.”
When Townsend again asked the Board of Elections and Vaughan if they had anything to add, Carolyn Hixson (Board of Elections member) was the only one who spoke. She thanked everyone for their interest in the elections process. (This might be interpreted as a somewhat sarcastic comment given that the citizens present seemed much more concerned about budgets and building costs than the elections process.)
Hixson highlighted the seriousness of the laws the board follows and the trainings poll workers receive. She noted that she recruits poll workers every year, indicating that she would be delighted to see the same interest from the public in becoming poll workers as was shown at this hearing
Wrapping up the meeting, Bradford asked Townsend about next steps. Townsend said the commissioners will think on the feedback and figure out if they all agree on one general contractor. Then, they will meet with the contractor to negotiate price and figure out ways to decrease the cost.
In response to a recent open records request, the county sent the Sentinel the link to Subject 183-1-12 in the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia (available online). The lengthy chapter covers all of the rules the elections office must follow.
No particular section indicates that a building must be built. Rather, this chapter includes all of the details the elections office and county must take into account when planning a new building or making adjustments to the current system. These regulations are multi-faceted and complex, so it makes sense why attempts to find a solution have taken years and have not allowed for a more economic option using already-owned county property.
Some citizens have said that the state should pay for the building, but the chapter reads, “The expenses for the implementation of the storage and security requirements of this rule shall be the responsibility of the county or municipal governing authority, as applicable, unless such security features are provided by the State.”
