By Ed Figueroa, Guest Columnist
Since 2010, Cherokee County has invested more than $2 million in a legacy radio network.
These expenditures could have been more effectively applied by leveraging North Carolina’s statewide P25 VIPER system, which provides modern, interoperable communications
while reducing infrastructure ownership costs. Evidence indicates that hundreds of thousands
of taxpayer dollars were spent without proper due diligence or adherence to standard procurement practices.
The current sheriff has publicly stated that, since taking office in 2023, the department has obtained “modern equipment secured without burdening taxpayers.” Modernization of public safety equipment is important, and no reasonable person disputes the need for effective tools for first responders.
The question for taxpayers, however, is not whether equipment is modern, but whether it was truly secured without unnecessary financial burden.
County fixed-asset records show that since 2023, more than $745,000 has been spent on radio communications infrastructure, including tower work, simulcast systems, generators and related equipment. These expenditures commit taxpayers not only to the initial purchase, but to ongoing maintenance, upgrades and future replacement costs.
What is notably absent from the available records is documentation showing:
- Competitive bidding among multiple vendors.
- Use of statewide or cooperative purchasing contract.
- Independent technical or subject-matter expert review prior to purchase.
These steps are standard best practices in public procurement. They are the mechanisms by which governments demonstrate that taxpayer burden has been minimized and that purchases reflect fair market pricing and long-term cost efficiency.
There is also a broader strategic consideration. North Carolina already operates a statewide P25 public-safety radio system (VIPER) that allows counties to modernize communications while avoiding ownership of expensive local infrastructure, remaining interoperable statewide and qualifying for federal grant funding. Neighboring counties have successfully adopted this model, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars by shifting infrastructure responsibility to the state.
Cherokee County instead continued investing in locally owned systems that are largely ineligible for grant funding and require perpetual county support. Records do not show that a full cost comparison or independent evaluation of these alternatives was conducted prior to approving the current expenditures.
This is not an accusation against any individual. It is a request for transparency and accountability. Voters deserve to know not just whether equipment is new, but whether:
- Taxpayer funds were spent at market-reasonable prices.
- Lower-cost, widely used alternatives were fairly evaluated.
- Procurement decisions followed accepted public-sector standards.
For these reasons, a formal review by the state auditor has been requested. Public oversight
of major spending decisions is essential – especially when those decisions affect taxes, public safety and long-term county obligations.
The writer is a resident of Cherokee County.