Orange County Board of County Commissioners, At-Large: Adam Beeman

Name: Adam Beeman

Age: 46

Party affiliation: Democrat

Campaign website: beemanforocbocc.com

Occupation and employer: Owner operator of Beeman Electric Company

1. In your view, what are the three most pressing issues facing Orange County and—if you are running for a district seat—your district in particular? If elected, what will you do to address these issues?

1. Housing affordability and access for the workforce
Orange County is increasingly unaffordable for many of the people who make our community work — teachers, first responders, healthcare workers, service employees, young families, and seniors. This is a countywide issue, not limited to any one town or area.

If elected to an at-large seat, I will advocate for a countywide strategy that focuses new housing in existing towns and growth corridors where infrastructure already exists, allows a broader range of housing types and appropriate building heights, and pairs growth with permanent affordability tools such as community land trusts and value-capture mechanisms. The goal is to slow rising costs and maintain a diverse, livable county.

2. Infrastructure planning, especially water and wastewater capacity
Infrastructure decisions shape growth outcomes. When infrastructure lags behind development, or when we rely on stopgap solutions like community septic systems, we increase long-term costs, encourage sprawl, and miss opportunities to support affordability.

If elected, I will support using infrastructure investment deliberately — particularly water and wastewater — to guide growth to appropriate locations across the county. Infrastructure should be planned proactively and used as a tool to support compact, efficient development, not treated as an afterthought.

3. Long-term fiscal sustainability and protection of rural land
Orange County must ensure that growth strengthens, rather than strains, our ability to provide services. Dispersed development raises per-household service costs and increases pressure on property taxes, while also threatening farmland and rural character.

As an at-large commissioner, I will support clear growth boundaries, strong rural protections, and development patterns that improve the county’s tax base without increasing long-term service obligations. Protecting rural areas, managing growth responsibly, and maintaining fiscal health are countywide priorities that must be addressed together.

As an at-large representative, my focus will be on policies that serve the entire county — reducing conflict through clear rules, planning for growth rather than reacting to it, and making decisions that balance affordability, infrastructure, and land preservation for the long term.

2. How would your experience―in politics or otherwise in your career―make you an asset to the county’s decision-making process? 

My experience on the Orange County Planning Board and in the private sector would make me a strong asset to the county’s decision-making process.

I served eight years on the Planning Board, including four years as chair and two as vice chair, which gave me a deep understanding of how Orange County approaches zoning, land use, and growth. Through that work, I’ve learned not only the policy goals the county sets, but also the legal and procedural limits within which decisions must be made. That experience has helped me recognize where existing approaches fall short and where alternative, more effective solutions are needed.

In addition, my career as an electrical contractor and small business owner gives me a practical perspective that is often missing from government decision-making. I understand how contracts are priced, how maintenance and replacement decisions affect long-term costs, and when it makes sense to repair versus replace aging infrastructure. I can bring a real-world cost and accountability lens to county contracts, capital projects, and facilities maintenance.

Together, this combination of public-sector planning experience and private-sector technical expertise allows me to ask better questions, challenge assumptions when appropriate, and help prioritize investments that deliver the most value to taxpayers while keeping county operations safe, reliable, and efficient.

3. What’s the best or most important thing the Orange County Board of County Commissioners has done in the past year? Additionally, name a decision you believe the board should have handled differently. Please explain your answers.

The most important decision the Board of County Commissioners made in the past year was placing the school bond on the ballot and securing voter approval for critical school funding.

Although the bond fell approximately $200 million short of what the school system identified as its most urgent needs, it was a necessary and overdue step. Orange County schools required roughly $500 million to address facility needs, and the board demonstrated leadership by putting a substantial portion of that funding before voters. That investment was both needed and welcomed. The next challenge will be ensuring those funds are directed toward the highest priorities and identifying responsible ways to address the remaining gap.

One area where I believe the board should reconsider its approach is its growing reliance on community septic systems as part of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan.
Leaning on community septic as a development solution avoids the harder work of investing in long-term wastewater infrastructure. It encourages dispersed growth, limits oversight, and does little to improve housing affordability. In practice, it tends to support higher-cost development while increasing long-term environmental and fiscal risks.

I believe Orange County would be better served by investing in and expanding existing wastewater treatment capacity and directing growth to areas near established services. That approach supports more compact development, strengthens affordability over time, and aligns infrastructure investment with long-term planning goals rather than short-term development pressures.

4. Property valuations have risen significantly in recent years, and many Orange County residents are worried about their ability to continue to afford to pay taxes on their homes. What do you believe the county commission should do to make living here more affordable? If you support cutting taxes, where would you reduce government spending?

Rising property valuations and tax bills are a real concern for many Orange County residents, especially those on fixed or moderate incomes. Making the county more affordable requires addressing the underlying cost drivers rather than relying solely on tax cuts.

First, I believe investment in wastewater treatment infrastructure is paramount. Without adequate wastewater capacity in the right places, housing supply remains constrained, growth becomes scattered, and costs continue to outpace incomes. Strategic investment in wastewater allows the county to expand mixed-use districts and commercial development, which broadens the tax base and helps reduce overreliance on residential property taxes. A stronger commercial tax base is one of the most effective long-term ways to ease pressure on homeowners.

Second, I believe the county should take a closer look at how property tax revaluations are conducted. Revaluations should reflect real-world conditions, not blanket assumptions. Two homes may have the same square footage and number of bedrooms, but if one is brand new and the other is 60 years old and in poor condition, they should not be taxed as if they are equal in value. Current valuation software places heavy emphasis on size and amenities, and does not always adequately account for age, condition, or deferred maintenance. Improving this process would make the system fairer and more accurate.

As for cutting taxes, I do not believe broad cuts are realistic or responsible without identifying sustainable alternatives. Instead, I support smarter investments, better valuation practices, and growth patterns that strengthen the tax base so the county can maintain services while reducing the financial burden on individual homeowners over time.

The goal should be affordability through better planning and fairer taxation, not short-term fixes that create long-term problems.

5. In 2025, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners fell short of funding the stated budget needs of both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. Did those budgets meet the needs of students and the districts? Describe something you think the school board should have prioritized differently in the current budgets. 

No, I do not believe the 2025 budgets fully met the needs of either Orange County Schools or Chapel Hill–Carrboro City Schools. Both districts are operating under significant financial strain, and the gap between stated needs and available funding continues to grow.

One area where I believe the school boards should take a harder look is long-term operational efficiency, particularly the number and distribution of school facilities. Orange County operates too many small, geographically dispersed buildings, which drives up costs in ways that directly compete with classroom needs. Each additional building carries ongoing expenses — utilities, maintenance, staffing, transportation, and administration — that add up quickly.

I believe the county should seriously evaluate consolidation opportunities and plan for at least one new K–8 school designed to serve a broader population efficiently. Fewer, well-designed schools can reduce duplicated administrative roles, streamline transportation routes, and lower per-student operating costs for electricity, water, sewer, and maintenance. Those savings can then be redirected toward instructional support and student services.

Additionally, as funding pressures increase — particularly with the expansion of charter schools and the broader challenges facing public education funding in North Carolina — school boards must be more deliberate about administrative growth and compensation structures. Advanced degrees and professional expertise are valuable, but staffing decisions should be clearly aligned with student outcomes and fiscal realities. In tight budget environments, every dollar spent on overhead is a dollar not available for classrooms.

The difficult reality is that without addressing structural cost drivers, school budgets will continue to fall short regardless of how hard commissioners work to close funding gaps. Long-term sustainability requires both adequate funding and careful prioritization of how those funds are used.

6. Federal funding cuts this year have hit the Triangle particularly hard, and state funding for things like schools is declining. What are your ideas for how the county can prioritize competing funding needs, close funding gaps, and balance the financial burden on residents?

With declining federal and state support, Orange County must be more deliberate about how it prioritizes spending, closes funding gaps, and protects residents from additional financial strain. That starts with addressing long-term structural costs, not just filling short-term holes.

One of the most important steps is improving operational efficiency within our school systems. Consolidating underutilized or redundant facilities can generate meaningful savings in a relatively short period of time by reducing duplicated administrative roles, transportation inefficiencies, and ongoing building operating costs. Those savings should be redirected toward classroom instruction and student support rather than overhead.

At the same time, public schools must remain competitive. Families are increasingly choosing charter schools because they believe their children are not getting the attention, opportunities, or preparation they need for the future. If we focus on delivering a stronger educational product — particularly one that emphasizes relevance and outcomes — we can win back enrollment and the funding that follows those students.

A key part of that strategy should be robust Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs. High-quality CTE offerings prepare students for well-paying careers, improve graduation rates, and meet real workforce needs. They also create opportunities for partnerships with local businesses, which can help offset costs through donations of equipment, materials, tools, and expertise. That kind of collaboration reduces the financial burden on taxpayers while delivering tangible benefits to students.

By combining facility consolidation, stronger CTE pathways, and a renewed focus on student outcomes, Orange County can begin to reverse enrollment losses, stabilize school funding, and make better use of limited resources. This approach prioritizes long-term sustainability over short-term fixes and helps ensure that public dollars are spent where they have the greatest impact — in preparing students for successful futures.

7. What is your vision for how Orange County should grow economically? What policies would you like to see implemented to enhance economic development in Orange County?

My vision for Orange County’s economic growth is one that is intentional, balanced, and focused on strengthening the county’s long-term tax base while maintaining quality of life. Economic development should support existing communities, reduce pressure on homeowners, and create places where people can live, work, and shop locally.

A key part of that vision is expanding well-planned mixed-use districts, similar in concept to places like Southern Village. Mixed-use development allows businesses, housing, and services to coexist, creating walkable areas that support local commerce and reduce long commutes. These districts are more resilient economically and generate ongoing activity rather than single-use development that goes quiet after business hours.

To make this possible, Orange County must address one of its biggest constraints: wastewater treatment capacity. The lack of widely available wastewater infrastructure severely limits our ability to attract and retain businesses. Without adequate capacity, we miss opportunities for employers to locate here and are forced into less efficient development patterns. Strategic investment in wastewater infrastructure is essential to unlocking economic growth in the right places.

I would also like to see policies that encourage businesses that generate both sales tax and payroll, not just residential growth. A broader commercial tax base helps offset property tax pressure on homeowners and provides more stable revenue for county services.

Specifically, I support allowing by-right development of 4–5 story buildings in appropriate locations, with commercial or office space on the ground floor and housing above. This approach allows us to achieve two goals at once: growing the commercial tax base and increasing housing supply without spreading development outward. When done intentionally and paired with infrastructure investment, mixed-use development can be a powerful tool for sustainable economic growth.

In short, Orange County should grow economically by investing in infrastructure, enabling mixed-use development, and focusing on long-term fiscal health, rather than relying on scattered or single-use growth that increases costs over time.

8. With Orange County’s growth come challenges related to suburban sprawl, transportation, and affordable housing. What have been the county’s successes in managing this growth in recent years? What about its failures? What would you do differently?

Orange County has had some real successes in managing growth, but it has also missed important opportunities, and those choices have had consequences.

One of the county’s most significant successes has been the use of the rural buffer to limit sprawl and protect farmland and open space. That framework helped Orange County avoid the worst forms of unchecked suburban expansion seen elsewhere in the region. However, over time, those boundaries have blurred, and pressure has steadily crept outward as growth continues across the Triangle.

At the same time, the county’s long-standing reluctance to invest in wastewater treatment capacity has functioned as a de facto growth control. While this has slowed development within Orange County, it has also meant that businesses and investment increasingly bypass us in favor of neighboring counties like Alamance, which are willing to make infrastructure investments. As a result, Orange County is growing more slowly than its neighbors, yet housing and land costs remain among the highest in the region.

A clear example of this dynamic is the Buckhorn area, where the county effectively ceded development authority to the City of Mebane because Mebane was willing to invest in wastewater infrastructure. Since then, Mebane has steadily expanded into Orange County, not because of better planning, but because it has the infrastructure Orange County has chosen not to build.

As a local electrical contractor, I see development patterns across surrounding counties firsthand. What stands out is that Orange County’s slow growth has not translated into affordability. Instead, it has driven up construction and land costs while shifting growth — and the tax base that comes with it — elsewhere.

What I would do differently is plan for growth rather than continue to deflect it. I would prioritize investing in wastewater treatment capacity in Hillsborough and Chapel Hill first, and expand capacity where it makes sense to support compact, efficient development. At the same time, I would clearly define and enforce hard growth boundaries to permanently protect rural and natural areas.

Within those growth boundaries, I would support growing up instead of out — allowing by-right 4–5 story buildings in appropriate districts with the infrastructure to support them, rather than requiring special zoning approvals. This approach would help address housing needs, reduce sprawl, support transportation efficiency, and strengthen the county’s tax base without sacrificing rural character.

In short, Orange County’s challenge is not growth itself, but how and where growth happens. With clearer boundaries, intentional infrastructure investment, and more predictable development rules, we can manage growth in a way that is more affordable, sustainable, and equitable.

9. Is the county doing enough to protect, preserve, and maintain its natural resources, including parks, waterways, and green spaces? What would you continue to do or do differently?

Overall, I believe Orange County is on the right track when it comes to protecting, preserving, and maintaining its natural resources. Historically, the county has been a leader in conservation, parks, waterways, and green space protection, and those efforts have helped define Orange County’s character and quality of life.

Going forward, I would continue to support strong land-conservation policies while also being intentional about how growth is shaped. Well-planned mixed-use development can actually strengthen environmental outcomes when done correctly. By concentrating growth in appropriate areas, we reduce pressure on rural land, waterways, and sensitive natural areas elsewhere in the county.

I also believe the county should make better use of density bonuses and development incentives to require or encourage higher-quality outcomes. By tying additional density to meaningful open space, green infrastructure, and connected greenways, the county can guide development toward better site design rather than simply allowing more building area. This approach gives the county leverage to shape how land is used while still protecting environmental resources.

In short, protecting natural resources and planning for growth are not opposing goals. With clear rules, strong conservation standards, and thoughtful incentives, Orange County can continue to lead in environmental stewardship while accommodating change in a responsible way.

10. North Carolina is a “Dillon Rule” state, meaning that the only powers municipal and county governments have are the ones granted to them by the legislature. Would you like to see this changed? How would you work with state legislators from Orange County, as well as mayors and council members to ensure that Orange County, its municipalities, and the state are on the same page regarding policies that affect residents of Orange?

North Carolina’s status as a Dillon Rule state presents real limitations for counties and municipalities, and in principle I would support giving local governments more authority to address local challenges. Communities know their needs best, and greater local flexibility would allow counties and towns to respond more effectively to issues like growth management, infrastructure, and housing.

That said, changing the Dillon Rule would be a significant lift given the current makeup of the state legislature, and any effort to do so would require sustained collaboration and realistic expectations. I believe it’s important to be honest with residents about what is achievable in the near term while still advocating for long-term structural improvements.

If elected, I would work with state legislators representing Orange County, as well as mayors and town councils, to identify specific areas where additional local authority would make the biggest difference — and to build a unified case for targeted changes rather than broad, abstract reforms. Speaking with a coordinated county–municipal voice is essential when engaging the General Assembly.

At the same time, I think it’s important to acknowledge the tradeoffs that come with expanded local authority. Granting each municipality greater control over boundaries and growth could fundamentally change the role of county government and require a careful rethinking of how countywide services are planned and delivered. Any shift away from the current model would need to be approached deliberately, with a clear understanding of the long-term governance implications.

In short, I support greater local control, but I also believe it must be pursued thoughtfully, collaboratively, and with a clear-eyed view of both the opportunities and the responsibilities it would create.

11. Give an example of an opinion, policy, vote, or action you changed based on constituent feedback. If you have not yet held elected office, describe a time when you changed your position on an issue after listening to those affected by it.

While serving on the Orange County Planning Board, I had an experience that clearly changed my perspective based on constituent feedback. The case involved a rezoning request that included a proposed charter school. I was initially opposed to the project, and while state law did not allow me to deny the rezoning based solely on the school itself, I had serious reservations about the overall proposal.

Ultimately, the rezoning related to the charter school did not move forward. However, the broader property was later proposed for recreational uses, including baseball fields and tennis and pickleball courts. That proposal generated strong and sometimes contentious public input.

After listening carefully to residents — particularly families, youth sports advocates, and others who spoke about the lack of recreational facilities and the benefits these amenities would provide — I reassessed my position. Hearing directly from the people who would use and benefit from the facilities changed my view of the project’s value to the community. In the end, I chose to support the recreational component of the rezoning.

That experience reinforced for me that listening matters, even when an issue is controversial or when I initially hold a different opinion. Being willing to reconsider a position based on community input is essential to good governance, and it’s an approach I would continue to bring to elected office.

12. Are there any issues not included in this questionnaire that you would like to address?

One issue I believe deserves more public attention is the growing consideration of community septic systems as a development strategy in Orange County. Many residents are not fully aware of what these systems are, how they operate, or the long-term implications they have for growth, affordability, environmental protection, and public oversight.

Community septic systems are increasingly being discussed as an alternative to investing in traditional wastewater infrastructure. I believe this approach raises important questions that have not yet been adequately addressed in a public and transparent way. In particular, I would like to see clearer explanations of why this path is being considered, what long-term responsibilities it creates for the county, and how it aligns with our stated goals around affordability and sustainable growth.

From my perspective, community septic systems do not meaningfully address housing affordability. Instead, they tend to facilitate higher-cost, dispersed development while avoiding the harder — but necessary — investments in centralized wastewater infrastructure that support compact, efficient, and more affordable growth patterns. They also reduce the county’s ability to oversee and manage growth over time.

I believe residents deserve a clearer understanding of the tradeoffs involved before Orange County commits to this strategy, especially as it relates to the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. Greater transparency and public discussion are essential so that long-term decisions are made with full awareness of their consequences.