Matt Buchanan

Questionnaire from The Gaston Business Association

The next property revaluation is expected to take effect in 2027. What will drive your decision in setting the annual property tax rate for residential and commercial properties?

My first priority is efficiency. Before any conversation about rates, I'd want a hard look at county overhead: contracts, administrative costs, and spending that doesn't directly serve residents. If there's room to do more with less without cutting the services people depend on, we should find it first.

But efficiency alone won't close every gap. Where savings aren't enough, I'd want a clear eyed risk-benefit analysis: how much revenue is actually needed, and which parts of our tax base are best positioned to absorb a change without real harm. That means looking closely at commercial property, not just its assessed value, but who owns it, whether that ownership is local or out of county, how much revenue those properties generate, and where that revenue ultimately goes. A locally owned business that reinvests in Gaston County is in a different position than an out-of-area investment property, and our approach should reflect that difference.

I'd apply the same care on the residential side, especially for homeowners and seniors on fixed incomes who have the least room to absorb an increase.

The goal is a rate that is fair, sustainable, and tied to real need, not a rate set by default. I'll always look for savings first, and I'll never ask a family or a small business to pay more than the moment requires.

The County has identified the need for long-term capital and infrastructure needs. How will you approach providing the necessary capital project funds to help prepare our community for the future?

I'd approach capital planning as an investment in the people and businesses who make this county work, not just a list of projects to check off.

That starts with a clear, public capital improvement plan that prioritizes what strengthens our workforce and our local economy: water and sewer capacity that lets businesses expand, school facilities that keep families here, and infrastructure that supports better-paying jobs. Investing in our community's labor productivity, from workforce training tied to these projects to infrastructure that helps local employers grow, is how capital spending pays for itself over time.

I'd also look regionally before assuming Gaston County has to carry every cost alone. Many of our infrastructure needs, water systems, roads, broadband, are shared with neighboring counties, and I'd pursue joint negotiations with the state and regional partners to offset upfront costs and avoid duplicating projects that could be built once and shared.

And I'd look at these projects not just as expenses but as potential revenue sources. Infrastructure that opens land for development, supports new business investment, or can generate user fees or partnership revenue should be evaluated that way from the start, so it strengthens the county's finances rather than only straining them.

Finally, I'd insist on transparency: clear reporting on cost, timeline, and results, so taxpayers and local businesses can see the return on every dollar invested.

Given this year’s unplanned $10 million emergency payment to Gaston County Schools, what is your position on the County’s future financial support for the school system?

Our schools are one of the county's most important investments: in students, in our future workforce, and in the businesses that need an educated, trained local workforce to grow. I believe the commissioners were right to step in this year. Letting hundreds of layoffs hit our largest local workforce would have hurt students, families, and every business that depends on a stable community. But a $10 million emergency shouldn't have been a surprise. If reporting and financial planning were already in place, they clearly weren't effective early enough to prevent a crisis of this size. That tells me the process needs to change, not just continue.

Here's where I'd differ in approach:

1. Earlier, more rigorous financial review. Instead of standard reporting cycles, I'd push for the county to build its own independent capacity to review school finances on an ongoing basis, not just accept summary reports after problems have already compounded. A nurse learns to catch a patient's condition changing before it becomes an emergency; county government should apply the same discipline to its budget partners.

2. A joint task force, not a one-time fix. Rather than treating this as a single emergency payment to close out, I'd establish an ongoing county-school working group with real authority to flag risk, so this becomes a standing practice rather than a reaction.

3. Accountability tied to the recovery plan. I'd want a public, written plan for how these funds get recovered or offset going forward, with specific milestones the board can track, not a general assurance that things will improve.

4. State advocacy that actually changes the underlying formula. This shortfall wasn't only a local planning failure. It's a symptom of a state funding formula that doesn't reflect what a county like Gaston actually needs. I'd push our state legislators to revise how funding is calculated for lower-income counties, and to fix programs like Exceptional Children funding, which hasn't kept pace with the actual number of students requiring services. Counties shouldn't have to backfill state responsibilities with emergency local dollars because a formula written years ago doesn't match today's enrollment or need. I'd want Gaston County and our school system advocating for this together, with real specifics, not general requests for more money.

I'm not interested in assigning blame for what already happened. I'm interested in making sure the next warning sign doesn't take a $10 million bill to reach the Board of Commissioners' attention, and that Raleigh is doing its part so a shortfall like this doesn't happen again. That's the difference I'd bring: less trust in the process as it stands, more built-in scrutiny before the next crisis, and more pressure on the state to fix a funding formula that's failing counties like ours.

What is your position on providing incentive dollars for the recruitment of new businesses?

My starting point is Gaston County's own businesses, the ones already investing here, hiring here, and building here. Any incentive dollars I support have to serve that goal first: strengthening what we have, not just chasing what we don't.

Before recruiting a new employer with public dollars, I'd ask whether that same investment could grow an existing Gaston County business instead, through expansion grants, workforce training support, and access to county resources that are at least as available to local employers as recruitment incentives are to outside companies. Any company receiving incentive dollars should be required to show real, verifiable commitment: capital actually spent, jobs actually created at real wages, and a lasting presence in the county, with claw-back provisions so a company that doesn't follow through returns what it received. Land, infrastructure, and workforce partnerships with Gaston College are real leverage, and I'd use them to negotiate terms that serve our residents, including local hiring commitments and wages that let people build a life here.

Growth on paper doesn't mean much if local residents aren't the ones hired, trained, and promoted, so I'd prioritize deals with direct pathways for Gaston County residents into these jobs. And I'd stay alert to companies that chase incentives with no intention of staying. I'd want to know who's actually behind a project and whether it's structured to build roots here or extract value and move on.

Done right, incentives are a tool to build up the businesses and people already here, not a giveaway to whoever asks the loudest.