Minutes of January 21, 2025 Regular meeting BWM approved finalUnion County, NC Board of Commissioners
Meeting Minutes
Union County Government Center
500 North Main Street Monroe, North Carolina
www.unioncountync.gov
Monday, January 21, 20256:00 PMBoard Room, First Floor
____________________________________________________________
25-032Closed Session
There was no closed session.
Opening of Meeting - 6:00 PM
The Chair convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Invocation –Commissioner Gary Sides introduced Pastor Chris Justice, Lee Park Baptist Church, Monroe, NC, who offered the Invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance – Chair Melissa M. Merrell led the body and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Informal Comments
Chair Merrell announced that no one had signed up to speak during the Informal Comments.
She stated that there were no public hearings on tonight’s agenda and called the next item, which was the Consent Agenda.
Public Hearings(s)
None
Consent Agenda
Commissioner Christina B. Helms moved to approve the items listed on the Consent Agenda, as submitted and recommended.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Commissioner HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye25-023TaskOrder-TwelveMileCreekWRFChemicalSamplingandEvaluation
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item; 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth
in the Agreement; and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager's discretion.
Union County Water owns and operates the Twelve Mile Creek WRF. Thisfacilityhasastrictphosphoruslimitationwhichrequireschemical addition to aid in meeting this requirement. This task
order is intended to facilitate a study to determine the best chemicals to use to optimize treatment plant operations during and after the 9.0 MGD expansion.
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. has been selected to provide engineering services for task order #7364-5. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. was chosen from a list of vendors previously selected from 2022-008
Engineering Services for Twelve Mile Creek WRF Expansion to 9.0 MGD to provide these services for Union County projects.
The total cost of the contract with Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. is $68,140.00. SufficientfundsareavailableinCapitalAccountWRFOperationsBudget-60026710-5381.25-014Contract-TransportationPropanePumpandFueling
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item; 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth
in the Agreement; and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
On October 21, 2024, the Procurement Department partnered with The Human Services Transportation Department to issue an Invitation for Bid 2025-012 Transportation Propane Pump and Fueling
System. On November 12, 2024, four bids for the title project were received and processed. After review, three (3) bids were deemed non-responsive and not subject to award. Blossman
Gas of North Carolina’s bid, in the amount of $35,976.00, was tabulated and certified by the Transportation Department. Staff recommends that the project be awarded to the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder, Blossman Gas of North Carolina, Inc.
The anticipated annual cost for the service is $35,976.00. Since this contract has an initial term of two (2) years, with three one-year renewal options, a total of $179,880.00 is estimated
to be spent. Funding is available in the FY2025 budget, with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.25-013November2024NCVTSMotorVehicleTaxReport
ACTION:Approved theNovember2024NCVTSMotorVehicleTaxRefundReport.
The refunds included in this report represent adjustments made to tax bills resulted in refunds of motor vehicle taxes paid under the Tax and Tag Together program operated jointly between
the counties and the state.25-017FY2024-25TaxBillCorrectionReportforDecember 2024
ACTION:Approved FY2024-25TaxBillCorrectionReportsforDecember2024.
InaccordancewithNorthCarolinaGeneralStatutes102-312and
105-325, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to make and approve certain changes to property tax records. Approval of such changes may result in either a release, refund,
or discovery of ad valorem taxes. The attached report provides detailed information on all tax billsthat were modified. Included in the report for each correction is the parcel number
or property key, owner name, reason for the change, original value, original tax, corrected value, corrected tax, and refund, ifapplicable. (DecemberRefundamount=$398.07).ContractAmendment-AdditionalDesignServicesforBARNACTION:Authorized
theCountyManagerto1)negotiateandexecuteanagreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth in the Agreement, and 3)
terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
CPL Architects & Engineers, P.C. has been delivering design services for the BARN project since March 2024. During the design process, several changes in original scope have occurred
that warrant consideration of a design fee adjustment. The additional scope includes a change from a pre-engineered structure to typical steel and masonrystructure, additional food service
programming and space planning, more extensive food equipment pricing efforts, additional conceptual design options and site development items like loading docks, gray water stations
and screen walls. The original design fee was $600,250.00. The cost of this amendment is $185,070.00 bringing the revised total fee to $785,320.00. Staff recommends approval of this
contract amendment to provide additional design services as needed for the project.
The cost for this amendment is $185,070.00. There are sufficient funds in the BARN Project capital account, 40080187, to cover this expense.TaskOrder-ArchitecturalServicesforGovernment/JudicialCenterBuildingEnvelopeRepairsProject
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
This request is to approve Task Order #2023-070-01 for Gensler Architecture, Design & Planning, P.C. to provide architectural services for the Government/Judicial Center Building Envelope
Repairs project. The project is anticipated to include exterior building envelope repairs at the Government Center including caulking, glazing, tuck-pointing, sealing, partial window
or glass replacement, flashing and other waterproofingitems. The scope of work was determined through a study conducted in 2022 that identified the highest priority items, some of which
have been completed previously. This scope will address the next highest priority level items identified for the Government Center in the exterior envelope study. The architect will
provide all construction documents, bidding assistance and construction administration. The projected construction budget for the project is $650,000.00.
Gensler Architecture, Design & Planning, P.C. was selected as one of the County’s On-Call Architectural Design teams for various capital projects. Staff has negotiated a scope and fee
for the services for this project and recommends approval of task order 2023-070-02 in the amount of$71,082.00.
The cost of the services provided within this task order is $71,082.00 and there are sufficient funds in the Government/Judicial Center Building Envelope Repairs capital account, 40080123,
to cover the expense.
25-024AmendmenttotheUnionCountyPayandClassificationPlan
ACTION:Approved a revision of the Union County Pay Plan to include new job classification titles and pay grades.Add thefollowing classificationsandassociatedpaygrades:ApplicationsSupervisor-paygradeOApplicationsAdministrator-paygradeN
Updates to the Union County Pay Plan are necessary to add, update, and remove job classification titles to align with current and future organizational needs.
24-885MinutesforApproval
ACTION:ApprovedminutesofregularmeetingofJanuary6,2025
InformationOnly25-007FY2024PopularAnnualFinancial
ACTION:No action was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
The Popular Annual Financial Reports provides a condensed version of the County's financial statements and represents the highlights of the financial status of the County.
The FY 2024 Popular Annual Financial Report will be available on the County’s website on the Finance Department’s webpage at the following link:
<https://www.unioncountync.gov/government/departments-f-p/finance/popular-annual-financial-reports>25-010TaxRefunds,ReleasesandProrationsApprovedbyFinance
ACTION:No action was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
On September 8, 2020, the Board of Commissioners adopted a
Resolution Delegating Authority for Tax Releases and Refunds of less than $100 to Union County's Finance Officer. The resolution and NC GS 105-381(b) require such refunds to be reported
to the Board regarding actions taken on requests for releases or refunds. All such actions shall be recorded in the Board's minutes. NC GS 105-330.6 authorizes the tax collector to direct
an order for a tax refund of prorated taxes to the county finance officer related to surrendering of registered motor vehicle plates.
The finance officer shall issue a refund to the vehicle owner. The attached report is for November 2024 NCVTS releases and refunds less than $100 and prorations approved by the finance
officer.
See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.25-012TaxCollector’sDepartmentalReportfor
ACTION:No action was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
This report reflects the totals of all tax transactions within the Tax Collector’s Office for the month of November 2025 as required by NCGS 105-350(7).25-016FY2025BudgetTransfersReporting-2nd
ACTION:No action was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
Per section XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, and XX of the FY2025 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget Ordinance, management reports the following County Manager Budget Amendments (CMBA)
made by the County Manager for the second quarter of fiscal year 2025.
CMBA 10: To recognize, receive, and appropriate state allocation of StRAP (StreamflowRehabilitation Assistance Program) funds to conduct vegetative debris removal activities.
CMBA 11: To appropriate revenue and fund balance/retained earnings for outstanding contracts, purchase orders and available project/program balances for expenditures, projects and programs.
CMBA 12: Correction to Transfer balance on the expense side of the ARPA funds using the Fund balance appropriation.
CMBA 13: Transfer funds from the FY 2025 Longevity budget to the individual departments in the General Fund, Water and Sewer and Solid Waste.25-028MonthlyUpdate-WastewaterTreatment
ACTION:No action was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
Union County Water is closely monitoring the wastewater treatment capacities at our Water Reclamation Facilities. Permitting Capacity is evaluated using the Actual Plant Flows plus the
Permitted/ObligatedFlows (unconnected). Union County Water was asked to provide regular updates. Plant flow information through December 2024 is summarized in the attached table.
TwelveMileCreekPercentofActualFlows=72.0%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=91.9%Actual Flows(MGD)=5.403Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD)= 6.891 Crooked CreekPercentofActualFlows=59.6%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=89.9%Actual
Flows(MGD)=1.133Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD)= 1.709 Olde SycamorePercentofActualFlows=30.0%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=30.0%Actual Flows(MGD)=0.045Actual + Permitted Obligated
Flows (MGD)= 0.045 TallwoodPercentofActualFlows=44.0%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=44.0%Actual Flows(MGD)=0.022Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD)= 0.022 Grassy BranchPercentofActualFlows=92.0%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=94.0%Actual
Flows(MGD)=0.046Actual+PermittedObligatedFlows(MGD)=0.047
In addition to the wastewater treatment capacities, flow volumes associated with development projects that are in the planning and review process within the Twelve Mile Creek and Crooked
Creek WRF service areas are provided for information as well. Development flow volumes through December 2024 are summarized in the tables below.
Business
25-008FY2024AnnualComprehensiveFinancialReport
Chair Merrell recognized Beverly Liles, Finance Director, for this item.
Beverly Liles stated they were at the finale of the audit and that it was a great day, as this was the last step to finalize the FY24 audit. She shared her appreciation for several members
of her staff who were present, noting that the audit would not be possible without the entire Finance team and the County. She acknowledged Ebru Cukro of the Finance staff, who was in
the audience. She explained that Ms. Cukro is the senior accountant and CPA on staff, and she does a lot of heavy lifting on the audit.
Ms. Liles also extended her thanks to all the departments across the County, stating that the audit would not be possible without their collaboration. She noted that the County administers
many grants that must be monitored to ensure compliance, and much of that heavy lifting is handled by the Human Services team. She thanked them for the time and effort they contribute
to the audit process. She also thanked the management team for their continued support in helping the audit process go smoothly.
Ms. Liles explained that the first presentation of the evening would come from the County’s auditor, Dan Gougherty, an audit director with Cherry Bekaert. She said Mr. Gougherty would
present the required presentation as required with the Local Government Commission. After his presentation, Ms. Liles said she would provide a very high-level presentation of the actual
financial statement results, noting that she would not go into detail, as the full set of financial statements had been provided to the Board in a book for review.
Ms. Liles pointed out that included in the agenda was the PAFR (the Popular Annual Financial Report) which she had also printed for the Board. She explained that the PAFR is a condensed
version of the County’s financial statements, designed to be easier to read and for individuals who may not be familiar with reading full financial statements. She noted that any citizens
who wanted a copy of the PAFR could view it online. She recognized Mr. Gougherty for his presentation.
Mr. Gougherty expressed appreciation and said it is always a good part of the audit process to speak about the overall results. He said it was his intention to not cover every financial
aspect but rather to provide highlights from the audit perspective: how the audit was conducted, what they saw during the audit, and the final results.
Mr. Gougherty began by recognizing the audit team for their work in completing the engagement. He explained that he served as the engagement director, along with Scott Anderson, who
was the second reviewer for quality purposes; Stephanie Rosensky, Manager, and Jayce McDaniel and Robert Jones, who served as the senior and associate on this engagement. He shared that
they audit the financial statements based on generally accepted auditing standards, as well as in accordance with government auditing standards, in order to form an opinion and provide
reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
Mr. Gougherty stated thatthe audit looked at federal and state grant spending. He said they reviewed compliance over those grants to make sure the County was in compliance with how the
grants were spent in accordance with the grant agreements and that the County had controls in place over compliance. He reported that they issued unmodified opinions in all cases, explaining
that an unmodified opinion also known as a clean opinion is the highest level opinion they can give under their auditing standards.
He stated they do look at internal controls over compliance, but they do not test the effectiveness of those internal controls. He said if they did find a control issue, it would be
reported if it rose to the level of material weakness or a significant deficiency. He said he was happy to report that there were no material weaknesses and no report of significant
deficiencies in this year’s audit.
Mr. Gougherty discussed the number of grant programs reviewed during the year. He mentioned that many of these programs are from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department
of Public Health. He noted that the only program thatdoes not falling under those departments is the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, also known as ARPA funds. He
stated that these funds must be audited as required by the federal government every yearannually if more than $750,000 is spent.
Mr. Gougherty stated that one of the new state programs audited this year was the opioid settlement funds, which had not been audited before. He said thatas the County began to spend
those monies, no issues were found with compliance related to that program.
Mr. Gougherty stated that if they become aware of any audit adjustments during testing where an account needs to be adjusted to fairly present the financial statements, they are required
to make the Board aware of the adjustments. He added that even lower-level adjustments can still require disclosure. He stated that this year’s auditdid not have either, meaning there
were no corrected or passed adjustments. He said that the financial statements for the opiodfundswere based uponthe same ones provided by management at the beginning of the audit and
are what is in the final issued Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.
He stated there were no new accounting pronouncements adopted this year, so no change in accounting principles.
Mr. Gougherty stated that if they find anything significant or unusual outside the normal extent of the County’s operations, whether due to timing, nature, or size of a transaction,
they are required to report it. He noted there were no such transactions in this year’s audit.
He explained that the County uses various estimates to develop financial statement line items, most notably pension and other post-employment benefit obligations,which are reported as
liabilities in the financial statements. He stated that these rely on actuarial assumptions and key metrics to calculate the liabilities. He said theythe firm found no issues with incorrect
assumptions or anything that would outlie what they would expect from similar governments.
Mr. Gougherty stated that the financial statement disclosures are neutral, clear, and consistent, and there were no particular disclosures in particularthat were required to be brought
to the Board’s attention. . needed to be brought to the Board's attention.
He statedreportedthat the only non-audit service was helping complete fill outthe data collection form. He stated this form is required to be completed and summarizes their federal audits,
which isare then transmitted to the federal government so each department can see the findings and what was audited in a clear, concise manner from all over the United States. He added
there were no issues with anything in terms ofindependence, and emphasized that the cornerstone of their profession is to be independent of the County in doingconducting their testing,
and that they are independent of Union County.
Mr. Gougherty stated they had no difficulties during the audit, no disagreements with management, and no consultations within their own firm regarding this audit or any accounting matters.
He noted they received the management representation letter dated October 31st for the financial statements issued as of that date, and another dated November 26th for the compliance
report.
Mr. Gougherty said there were no management consultations, meaning no shopping for an opinion or second opinion outside of their firm. He reported no other findings or issues, no fraud,
illegal acts, or violations of laws or regulations as of the date of the presentation, and no events or conditions that raised any growingconcern matters.
Mr. Gougherty explained that the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report is a 200-page document with the majority consisting of the financial statements and notes, on which the audit firm
provides its opinion.
He explained that there are four standards coming that will apply to the County in the next few years. He said the first two standards will be effective next year, and the last two standards
will come in 2026. He said Standard 101 deals with the possibility of further accrual of sick leave that wasnot accrued in the past to account for potential use of sick leave even though
it’s not paid out upon termination. Standard 102 involves certain disclosures, which he said he does not believe will affect the County’s financial statements.
Mr. Gougherty explained that the Local Government Commission has certain financial performance indicators itwants auditors to review during the audit. He said itthe LGC also wants
these indicators presented each year to those in charge of governance to show where things stand and whether there are any issues. He stated that for the General Fund, the performance
indicator is fund balance available as a percentage of expenditures. He stated that the County is required to have at least a 16 percent threshold, and Union County is well over the
percentage that is required.
Mr. Gougherty noted that the fund balance is typically viewed from the unassigned level. However, the percentage shown includes committed and restricted balances. He explained that this
is probably why the percentage appears higher than what management usually provides throughout the year. He added that this is the way the Local Government Commission requires the calculation
for this purpose.
Mr. Gougherty explained that the quick ratio measures current assets against current liabilities essentially, what is available to pay thecurrent liabilities. He stated that the County
is currently at a ratio of five, which exceeds the minimum requirement of one. He added that, in comparison to other governments with water and sewer systems, the County’s ratio is consistent
with the norm, as most fall between three and seven.
Mr. Gougherty stated that one new item from last year was the water - condition of assets, which is a rating based on the inverse relationship of accumulated depreciation to gross asset
value. He explained that the target is to be above 0.50. He then pointed out that, with the investments made in water and sewer over the last year, the County improved from a 0.51 in
2023 to a 0.67 in the current year.
Mr. Gougherty stated that the last item was the budgeted tax levy of the General Fund, noting the importance of collecting at least more than 3 percent. He explained that collections
were greater than what was budgeted, resulting in a positive General Fund total balance as of the pre-audit process. He emphasized the need to approve expenditures only after confirming
that funds are available, and to ensure the money is available before paying invoices or entering into contracts. He added that there were no late debt service payments, no debt covenant
compliance issues, no statutory violations, and no budgets were being overspent.
Mr. Gougherty added his thanks to the Finance Department for its help in completing the financial statements. He acknowledged that the Department of Social Services and the Department
of Public Health had a heavy lift. He noted that this year, more grants were tested than in recent years due to how the thresholds worked and the required rotational testing. He stated
it was a joint effort by everyone and expressed appreciation for their time and effort in getting everything submitted on time.
Commissioner Sides asked Mr. Gougherty approximately how many counties are in his client base.
Mr. Gougherty responded that in North Carolina, theytheir firm works with approximately 15 counties.
Commissioner Sides asked Mr. Gougherty, based on his experience with both his clients and the broader group of counties, what percentage typically have no findings in their annual audit,
noting that this year the County had no findings.
Mr. Gougherty responded that it is hard to say for certain, but he would be comfortable estimating that about half of them likely have no findings.
Commissioner Sides remarked that it is a fairly significant achievement.
Mr. Gougherty agreed stating that was a fair statement.
Chair Merrell asked Mr. Gougherty to return to the water and sewer slides, noting that there were two slides to review.
Mr. Gougherty clarified that the current slide being discussed is the General Fund.
Chair Merrell said she hated to put the County Manager on the spot but wanted to ask, since water and sewer is a very huge topic around the county, if the Manager could speak to the
increases and explain to the public what has changed from 2022 to 2023 and 2024.
County Manager Brian Matthews stated he would be honest and admitted that quick ratios are not his expertise. He asked Mr. Gougherty if he could maybe expand on it a little bit.
Mr. Gougherty responded that the quick ratio reflects unrestricted cash available for operations, though some of that unrestricted cash might also be used for capital purposes and may
not be restricted by impact fees or other collections. He said he couldnot speak exactly to why the ratio went up or down but believed the improvement from a four to a five was due to
assets increasing and liabilities decreasing.
County Manager Brian Matthews stated that the takeaway is that a lower quick ratio is worse, and a higher ratio is better.
Chair Merrell explained that she wanted to revisit this topic because there is a lot of misinformation around the county about the water and sewer situation. She noted it is very encouraging
to see that year over year, since 2022, the ratio has improved from 2.9 to 5.14.
County Manager Brian Matthews said he thought the next slide was a little bit more telling. In his opinion, it shows the investment made in the system. He explained that the goal for
the condition assessment is to be at least 0.50, which was raised from 0.51 last year to 0.67. He said that, in his opinion, the increase is because the Board has given approval to invest
in the utility.
Chair Merrell asked if increasing the connection fee, which was addressed last year, had helped at all.
Ms. Liles explained that this refers to the actual fixed assets in infrastructure. She noted that some of the increase can be attributed to the Yadkin Plant fully coming online and being
added as 100 percent of a fixed asset as of June 30th, which she would discuss further in her presentation about major year-over-year changes in assets.
Chair Merrell said she thought this was great information and expressed happiness to see it in the report. She said she hoped the public recognizes that the decisions made in recent
years and the investments in water and sewer improvements are clearly making a difference and thanked everyone.
Commissioner Sides asked if it was fair to assume that when the 12-Mile Creek expansion comes online, it would continue to improve that figure in the future.
Ms. Liles agreed, stating that any investment in infrastructure adds new assets with a greater useful life of new assets to depreciate over 30 or even 40 years, as with Yadkin, which
is depreciated over 40 years. She said this adds value over the useful life of the assets held.
Commissioner Sides summarized that a higher figure means, in theory, there is less equipment or infrastructure approaching the end of its useful life.
Ms. Liles confirmed with an “absolutely.”
Mr. Gougherty explained that in years with less investment in water and sewer, the ratio will decrease, but that is part of the normal cycle and not a warning sign. However, he noted
the Local Government Commission monitors for deteriorating systems where the ratio falls below half the useful life, as that can indicate something could be going wrong. He added that
several smaller municipalities in North Carolina have faced significant water system troubles recently, so it is important for those in governance to stay informed about where their
systems stand.
Ms. Liles stated she would provide a very high-level presentation of the 2024 financial results. She invited anyone unfamiliar with the terminology to stop her and ask for an explanation,
noting that much of the finance work involves accounting terms the general public may not know.
She explained they would review the government-wide statements, which represent the full accrual statement including all county assets and liabilities. She clarified that booking these
requires full GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and governmental accounting, meaning not everything is budgeted or visible during the budget process. She stated that the
government-wide statements reflect items due in the future or assets already paid for, which are not seen in the budget process.
Ms. Liles said she would review the General Fund, covering where revenues come from and where expenditures occur, followed by a very high-level overview of the Water and Sewer Fund.
She explained they do not review all funds because going through every fund would take too long, but encouraged everyone to read the full report at their convenience and ask any questions
they may have.
Ms. Liles explained that the first slide is the government-wide net position statement. She said it takes all the county’s assets and liabilities and breaks them down into governmental
activities versus business activities. She clarified that governmental activities include everything for the county except water and sewer and solid waste, which are reflected as business-type
activities.
Ms. Liles stated that for FY24, the county’s assets and deferred outflows exceeded liabilities and deferred inflows, resulting in a net position of $421 million for all funds and departments.
She noted there was a decrease of about $11 million from the prior year. She explained that in North Carolina, governments carry all the long-term debt for school capital projects funded
by bonds but are not allowed to carry those assets on their books; the schools carry the assets. She said it is normal for county governments in the state to show a negative net position
in governmental activities, meaning the balance sheet appears upside down compared to the private sector.
Ms. Liles explained that the major changes in assets from FY23 to FY24 were seen in cash and investments, which decreased by $76 million. She said this was expected because cash and
investments include bond proceeds, and as money is spent on bond projects likesuch as Forest Hills High School, East Elementary School, and the Yadkin Plant, cash from the prior year
goes down as those assets are brought in. She noted that capital assets increased by $25 million. She explained that the majority of that increase was bringingbroughton by the Southwest
Regional Library, which opened this past year, and the completion of the Yadkin Regional Water plant and intake.
She further explained that the reason only $25 million was added is because, as the county worked on those projects, such as Yadkin, which took about two and a half to three years to
complete, construction work in progress is added overtime into fixed or capital assets. The $25 million reflects just the portion recognized in FY24 for Yadkin.
She said deferred outflows of resources, usually related to the OPEB pension and separation allowance actuarial study results, saw a net increase of $19.8 million. These are resources
going out in the future that must be recorded for the government-wide statement.
Ms. Liles stated that for liability changes, there was a net increase in the OPEB liability. She explained this was due to the change in assumptions year-over-year based on the actuarial
study results that Mr. Gougherty mentioned. She noted that many assumptions goare factored into those calculations, including economic factors like inflation, interest rates, and expectations
for where interest rates are going. She said being in a lowering interest rate environment impacts those calculations and contributes to the net changes year-over-year.
Ms. Liles stated that the County’s share of the statewide local government retirement system saw anincreasedofby $9 million in the retirement pension liability. She noted that the long-term
debt liability decreased by $47 million, because in FY24 no additional debt was added and only principal payments were made to pay down existing debt.
Ms. Liles stated there was a decrease in the deferred inflow of resources related to OPEB, pension, and separation allowances.
Commissioner Sides commented that it was interesting that the County could count an asset like the Yadkin plant before it was actually completed.
Ms. Liles explained that fixed asset accounting uses a method called construction work in progress, where the asset value is added, but depreciation does not begincommence until the
asset is fully completed.
Commissioner Sides asked if the process involved figuringcalculating the total cost and then determining where the project stands at the end of the year.
Ms. Liles clarified that it is based on actual dollars spent, and whatever is spent on the construction project gets added into construction work in progress assets. She added that during
the water and sewer presentation, there will be an increase in overall operating expenditures, which is related to Yadkin coming fully online and recognizing depreciation expense for
the first year.
Ms. Liles said they would now switch to discussing General Funds and clarified that, based on financial statement results, this includes all General Funds combined. She noted that the
Board has chosen to bifurcate these into education funds and separate debt funds, but this presentation reflects all five funds added together.
She stated that actual revenues for the General Fund exceeded the budget by $3.9 million, and actual expenditures totaled $355 million. She pointed out that expenditures were under budget
by $16.3 million. She explained that whether revenues or expenditures exceed the budget either over or under is how variances are determined, which show whether money is being added
to fund balance or being spent.
Ms. Liles stated that other financing sources and expenses for the General Funds in FY24 were approximately $62 million. She explained this represents transfers out of the General Fund
into CIP funds, Volunteer Fire Districts for the County’s share, and any new leases and subscriptions entered into through contracts during the year. She said there was an overall decrease
in fund balance of approximately $16 million for FY24. She reminded the Board that during the FY24 budget process, approximately $15 million of fund balance was appropriated to spend
on one-time expenditures, so a decrease would be expected in the following year’s audit results.
She provided a high-level overview of where revenue comes from, stating that 61 percent of General Fund revenue comes from property taxes, followed by 18 percent from sales tax, and
12 percent from intergovernmental sources. She explained that intergovernmental revenue includes federal and state grants and any interlocal agreements with towns, municipalities, or
other governments. She noted that revenue from town contracts for the sheriff’s office is included in intergovernmental revenue.
Ms. Liles explained that the largest expense category is education for the County’s education partners, followed by public safety, debt, leases, and subscription-based IT arrangements,
then human services. She noted that 11 percent of expenses are for general government costs, which cover the administration of the county.
She explained the different categories of fund balance and what each one means. She said it starts at the highest level of restriction and goes down. She stated that the non-spendable
category includes items that cannot be turned into cash or spent, such as inventory on hand at Cane Creek Park’s camp store, prepaid postage, and inventory held at the garage for the
County’s fleet.
She explained that restricted fund balance includes amounts restricted by external parties, policies, laws, and regulations. She shared that state statutes require the county to restrict
the fund balance for any accounts receivable balance.
Ms. Liles explained that the large-restricted fund balance is due to the three-month lag after the fiscal year-end to receive all sales tax for the prior year. She noted this is the
first year with all funds bifurcated, so in prior years, those three months of sales tax that werefor the articles of sales tax that are restricted for schools, their capital, and debt
were included in the General Fund. She said those sales tax dollars are now placed into the Education Debt Fund. She pointed out that the $6 million restricted fund balance under the
Education Debt Fund represents that three-month sales tax lag and said that would be discussed further in the presentation along with recommendations on how to address it in the future.
She explained that thecommitted fund balance is policy as adopted by the Board’s policy adoptedannually each yearin the budget ordinance. She said for FY24, this was approximately $72
million, which is 20 percent of the next year’s adopted budget operating expenditures.
Ms. Liles explained that the assigned fund balance category consists of funding that the Board has already approved for future expenditures. to spend in the future. She reminded that
during the FY25 budget process, the BoardCommissioners elected to spend aroundapproximately$14 million in fund balance on one-time items. She added that any amounts rolled from the prior
year during the budget roll encumbrance process are also included in the assigned fund balance.
She described the last category of unassigned fund balance as any amounts available for any purpose that the Board can take action on in the future to spend on one-time items or to pay
down debt service, based onoutlined in the fund balance policy.
Ms. Liles noted some recommendations for the General Fund unassigned fund balance. She said there is around $15 million available, but explained that before the funds were bifurcated,
all sales tax revenue went into the General Fund. She said that now the sales tax is used to pay debt service costs for schools, based on the restricted sales tax articles.
Ms. Liles pointed out that the Education Debt Fund shows a negative unassigned fund balance due to the restricted fund balance related to the sales tax lag. She recommended that during
the Manager’s budget process, the Board should not spend all of the General Fund fundbalance on one-time items as done in the past. She suggested instead holding it back because the
three-month sales tax lag will continue every year. She emphasized the importance of maintaining having enough cash in the fund to cover the full year’s debt service costs and avoid
a negative cash balance.
Ms. Liles stated that the only changes made to any fund balance since the audit was completed were from the November 4th meeting, where the Board adopted a budget amendment to appropriate
funds from the Economic Development Fund for hiring economic development staff. She noted there have been no other changes since then.She explained that going forward, if there are any
budget amendments appropriating fund balance from the General Fund, those amounts will be taken from the available fund balance. She added that any actions taken between now and the
budget cycle will be broken out for the Board to see.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification, summarizing that the recommendation is to hold in the unassigned fund balance an approximate amount to the estimated last three months of
sales tax revenue, recognizingthat there will be a lag before it is received, comes in, allowing the unassigned fund balance to be replenished later.
Ms. Liles confirmed that the statement was correct. She explained that in the Education Debt Fund, the debt premiums from the 2023 bond issuance were placed into this debt fund to pay
down a couple of the first years of debt, so they didnot have to increase the tax rate. She noted that the $9.4 million in the assigned fund balance is the only reason the total fund
balance for the fund this year does not show a negative unassigned $6 million fund balance. She said without that $9 million, the unassigned fund balance would have shown at a much higher
rate.
Ms. Liles provided a quick overview of the Water and Sewer Fund. She reported operating revenues of $77.4 million and operating expenses of $72 million, which includes about $30 million
in depreciation. She noted this depreciation amount is higher than in past years because Yadkin plant came fully online and was recognized as a total asset. She added that non-operating
revenues and expenses totaled $4.3 million, and the fund showed a net increase in net position of $17 million.
She referred to the net position statementcomparing itwith a comparisonover time, and pointed out that in FY23, the total operating expenses were $55 million, compared to $72 million
in FY24. She emphasized that the $72 million includes depreciation expense now that Yadkin plant is fully online and said that this level of expense should be expected as the new norm
year-over-year.
Ms. Liles stated that outside of operating income, they recognized investment earnings of about $8.1 million. She said interest and fees on debt or debt-like agreements weretotaled around
$13 million. She explained that the County has a joint venture with Catawba River and each year must book the value of its share of that venture. She said this year, a loss was recognized,
which was attributable to depreciation of the Catawba River assets, including the plant, reservoirs, and other assets year-over-year.
She noted that contributions of $17.2 million included system development fees received from developers and donated assets. Ms. Liles explained that when the County takes over a completed
subdivision or development, any water and sewer lines installed by the developer become part of the County’s system and are recognized as asset contributions.
She added that transfers in from other funds were from funding the Board had approved through ARPA or ARPA investment dollars for certain water and sewer projects. She concluded that
the total net position ended at around $435 million.
Commissioner Sides asked Ms. Liles to go back and noted a significant increase in investment income over the past two years. He mentioned it wasnot really a question but more of a note
or possibly a question about how it happened. He pointed out the negative figure from 2021–2022 during the COVID years and said that might explain the change, but stated that $8 million
in investment income is a significant amount to bolster the system.
Ms. Liles responded that part of the increase over the past couple of years was attributable to having bond proceeds in a bank account earning interest.and theThe market overall was
at a very high level during the past fiscal year, leading to significant investment earnings compared to the past.
Commissioner Sides asked whether the investment account is directed by the state treasurer’s office or who actually directs those investments.
Ms. Liles answered that she directs those investments and,in doing sothat she has to follow state statutes.
Mr. Matthews emphasized that all investments must follow state rules.
Ms. Liles clarified that she cannot just pick stocks, and that the investments must be very safe, secure, and liquid, based on the General Statutes.
Commissioner Sides asked if the investments are mainly bonds.
Ms. Liles said they are mainly federal agencies, commercial papers, and money market accounts.
Commissioner Sides asked if any of the investments are in Union County bonds.
Ms. Liles answered that the County does not buy its own bonds.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Ms. Liles to confirm whether the contributions shown on the slide were mainly from system development fees.
Ms. Liles responded that the contributions included system development fees and donated capital from developers. She explained that when developersfinishcomplete a project, the water
and sewer lines based on linear footage are added into the County’s assets that the County owns as part of the water and sewer system.
Mr. Matthews said that of the $17 million, most of the dollarswere was not from system development fees. He estimated the County collects about $6 to $9 million in those fees, so most
of the amount is likely the value of the water and sewer infrastructure.
Ms. Liles clarified that the breakdown was about $6.5 million in system development fees and about $10.3 million in contributions of assets from developers.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms clarified for anyone attending the meeting or watching at home that system development fees are not an arbitrary number set by the Board. He explained there
is a formula involved in determining how much can be charged, and part of that is based offon the depreciation of infrastructure and assets. He asked Ms. Liles if that was correct.
Ms. Liles confirmed that it was.
Vice Chair Helms then pointed out that the contributions row for 2022 stood out on the slide and asked if Ms. Liles could provide context for why that number was so much higher, acknowledging
she may not have the numbers in front of her.
Ms. Liles said she did not have that information with her but could get the breakdown for all the years showing contributions from system development fee cash versus acquired assets.
Mr. Matthews recalled that in that particular year, over $10 million in system development fees were received. He stated he believed there was one year with a large amount of system
development fees collected, and then it returned to the usual range of $6 to $8 million.
Ms. Liles said it was a great opportunity to say that the County had no audit findings. She said she was very proud of the County, the organization, and the work that goes into achieving
that result.
Vice Chair Helms added a comment,saying it wasn’t a question but a recognition of the staff. He said the fact thatthere were no findings in the audit speaks volumesto their work, and
he expressed appreciation to them for the presentation and their continued efforts.25-027EconomicDevelopmentPresentation
Chair Merrell recognized Deputy County Manager Patrick Niland for the presentation.
Mr. Niland noted that in November 2024, Union County started its own Economic Development Department. He shared that Ron Mahl and Rachel Holzman had joined the team and would speak about
their recent work, market conditions, and economic development. He said that there would be a few requested action items for the Board at the end of the presentation. He recognized
Ron Mahl for his comments.
Mr. Mahl expressed sincere gratitude for the confidence placed in him, Ms. Holzman,as well as Ms. Holzman, and Ms. Gibson in allowing them to help create the new Department of Economic
Development in Union County.
Mr. Mahl stated he would cover a few main points: the mission of the office, the team, the main functions of the office, some tools they use, and their near-term and long-term goals.
He said he would conclude by asking for direction on specific action items.
He described the mission of Economic Development as a cohesive strategy to increase the tax base and create jobs that improve the quality of life for all Union County residents. He emphasized
that creating jobs and increasing the tax base are ways to positively impact the quality of life, noting that every project landed and every job created supports families with well-paying
wages.
Mr. Mahl stated that he is servingserves as director and shared that he has been in Union County for almost 20 years, focusing mainly on existing industry, and said he enjoys the process,
especially winning projects and seeing jobs created. He introduced Assistant Director Rachel Holzman, noting they have been colleagues for about three and a half years and that she was
hired even before graduating from NC State, having known her as an intern at the Union County Cooperative Extension. He introduced Business Manager Megan Gibson. He saidstated that
Ms. Gibson has been with the team for approximately one year and brings a unique combination of municipal government experience through Mecklenburg County’s court system and private-sector
manufacturing, accounting, and HR experience with a company in Union County.
Mr. Mahl explained that what enables their work is the Economic Development Law in North Carolina, which has been aroundin effect for about 100 years andwasfirst drafted in 1925. He
said the law specifically describes the tools that they can be used to achieve economic development.
He highlighted that the department can purchase or option land or buildings, develop speculative buildings, establish industrial parks, extend or upgrade utilities, and sell or lease
land or buildings. He noted they do a mix of all those activities.
He added that one of the main tools they use, and the one most familiar to everyone, is economic incentive grants, which they can offer under specific conditions.
Mr. Mahl explained that a project must be competitive in its site selection and must produce capital investment in personal and/or real property. He clarified that real property means
land and buildings constructed, while personal property refers to manufacturing or process equipment installed in those structures.
He said the project must either create or retain jobs. He emphasized that the incentive grants they issue are performance-based and are contracts between the municipality and companies,
meaning companies must meet certain investment and job creation thresholds before applying for grant payments.
He explained that he avoids the term tax rebates, because in North Carolina that can cause issues; instead, incentive grants are contractual agreements between the municipality and the
company not rebates.
He added that a main function of the office is supporting existing companies and stated that approximately 75 percent of all new jobs and capital investment come from existing industry
projects. Mr. Mahl emphasized the importance to keepof keeping tabs on existing industries and helping them grow.
Mr. Mahl explained that the best way to support existing companies is through on-site, face-to-face visits. He said there is no better way to keep a finger on the pulse of what is going
on or to identify potential projects for expansion and job creation.
He added that they also offer seminars on various topics, but the topics are always chosen by the companies based on what is currently important to them.
He emphasized the importance of workforce development, noting it is always a priority for companies lookingseeking to improve the skills and talents of their current employees. He said
that when a company expands or a new one arrives, workforce development becomes a front-burner issue.
He shared that they are pleased to work with Union County Public Schools, specifically referencing the Job Ready program and Career and Technical Education (CTE). He added that CTE extends
into middle schools and believes presentations are even starting in upper elementary grades to help young students understand that careers in manufacturing and other commercial fields
are goodand viable careers.
Mr. Mahl stated that about every other year, they conduct a comprehensive wage survey among local companies to gather information on current wage levels and the levels of benefits being
offered.
He introduced Assistant Director Rachel Holzman and asked her to speak about industrial recruitment.
Ms. Holzman explained that while Mr. Mahl works across the county with existing industries, her role involves a lot of travel both domestic and international, primarily in Europe. She
attends various trade shows in which they have different focus areas for recruitment, with aerospace being a major recruitment focus within manufacturing.
She said they attend these shows to meet with companies, share information about Union County, and promote the benefits offered by the County. She expressed that she enjoys spending
time talking about Union County and values the opportunity.
When not attending trade shows, she attends conferences and site selector summits, which allows her to network with partners who know aboutthese projectshave firsthandknowledge of these
projects. Ms. Holzman explained that before projects reach their office, they go through site selectors, who act like brokers receiving projects directly from companies and help to find
the best locations. She shared that she also attends conferences to network with partners who help make the transition to Union County easier, such as general contractors or grading
companies. Additionally, she said she works on marketing by promoting to international and domestic clients, and working with the Communications Department to share why Union County
is a great place. She stated that she submits requests for information and proposals through the state system or directly from companies, matching specific sites or buildings to their
requirements.
Ms. Holzman said that hopefully a site visit will results from the proposals they submit, and she helps facilitate those visits by coordinating meetings with the people specific to the
company's interests. She explained that she also helps with all of their site readiness programs. She stated that one of her key partners is the Economic Development Partnership for
North Carolina (EDPNC), which isa 501c(3) arm of the Department of Commerce. She noted they are linked but have private funding. She added that all projects primarily go to the state
first, and then EDPNC disseminates them to the counties with which it believes are a good fit. She said she works very closely with them, travels with them to trade shows, and always
calls on them. She added that they also work with utilities and different co-ops across statewide programs, as well as programs within Union County and private industries.
Ms. Holzman said some of their key targets have expanded from the former four tenants to now five focus areas. She stated that retail is being added, which was a component on which they
had focused previously. She said that Retail Strategies is a third party they had contracted with for the City of Monroe, and that group had worked with Monroe for about nine years
under a couple of different contracts. Ms. Holzman shared that over the years, they brought in a couple of other municipalities. She shared that Indian Trail had participated, and
most recently, Wingate had been brought on to the contract.
Ms. Holzman explained that Retail Strategies operates using a regional concept, and looking at a county is easier than looking at a specific municipality with unique boundaries. She
said they are proposing to bring Retail Strategies back for a countywide offering, which would help with recruitment efforts and allow for creating afirmer boundary to the Targets,Wegmans,
or other interested businesses.
Ms. Holzman added that she is also dedicated to food systems and is glad that Mr. Mahl had assigned her back to that focus. She mentioned re-engaging with the project currently known
as “the BARN” project,which she said may be undergoing a name change, noting it was previously referred to as the Union County Food Innovation Center in TheEnquirer-Journal.earlier.
Ms. Holzman said the food industrial program expands beyond just the BARN project and includes industrial components of the agriculture system. She explained that once crops are harvested,
Economic Development can support value-added processing in Union County to keep dollars local before products go back out into the market.
Mr. Mahl said it is clear why he is glad that Ms. Holzman is part of the team. In addition to retail and food systems, he stated the other three sector targets include precision manufacturing,
which he noted has paid the freight for many decades and still holds a lot of great opportunities that they will continue to pursue.
Mr. Mahl reminded the Board that in November it supported and issued an economic development incentive grant to Sell Ethics for its office headquarters, a $17 million project bringing
85 jobs. He noted the site is now being cleared in Stallings and said that project opened his eyes to the idea that there have to be other opportunities to land, since they brought that
one from Mecklenburg to Union County. He expressed excitement about exploring that further.
Mr. Mahl said Union County has two very significant hospitals. He stated they have to consider what ancillary services those hospitals attract, like professional and medical offices,
and that they are continuing to pursue those ideas. He added that this setup has really blossomed in their minds and strategies since being under the County’s direction.
He also reviewed typical incentives they use, many of which are familiar from the state level. He highlighted the One North Carolina Fund (OneNC), a discretionary grant administered
through the governor’s office that is based on job creation, whether from a new company or an expansion.
Mr. Mahl said building reuse is another interesting tool offered through the North Carolina Rural Center. He explained they have used this incentive three or four times over the last
10 years. He explained that the program provides a direct grant to refurbish or retrofit an older industrial building, specifically and it istargeted at manufacturing. He cited Hamilton
Drywall as an example, where they received approximately a quarter million dollars to help with a $10 million upfit.
Mr. Mahl said customized training is provided through their resource partners via the community college system. He then mentioned the local standard grant, which is based on capital
investment and paid out over five years. He noted the Magnet program is a bit different, expanding on that theme. He explained that traditionally, the incentive program required projects
to be at least $2 million for existing or $3 million for new, but they are realizing some projects may be half that amount yet still create 10 or a dozen good jobs.
Mr. Mahl said that looking forward, it is important to have a plan, and for over the next two years, there are seven key objectives. He said that three of those objectives are near-term
priorities. He emphasized that municipal engagement is very important.
Mr. Mahl said they are looking to hold an Economic Development Municipal Summit in March. He stated that he does not have the specific date yet, but plans to invite the municipalities,
have it facilitated, ask questions, record responses, and take that information back to create a plan.
Mr. Mahl said they are excited about developing a Union County Economic Development Advisory Board with many sectors represented, which is a front-burner itemtop priority.
He said they need Board direction on the following items:
return with specific recommendations on the Advisory Board, including board makeup and meeting schedule;
develop standard language for the contract with Retail Strategies to deliver specialized retail marketing expertise on a countywide basis;
come back with a specific date and agenda for the municipal Economic Development Summit.
Mr. Niland followed up on the name change, explaining that BARN stands for Building and Agricultural Resources and Nutrition, which has been the working concept since the beginning of
the project. He stated that now that the project has moved from concept to an actual facility, it has become hardermore challenging to explain what that acronym means in terms of an
actual location. He said that the state grant from the General Assembly for $5 million refers to it as the Union County Food Innovation Center, which they believe now makes more sense
since it is a real building. He said the Board would receive a comprehensive update on the BARN project at its Retreat, and tonight’s presentation served as a sneak preview.
Mr. Niland said that with Mr. Mahl and Ms. Holzman now working on a countywide level, part of their role is both listening but alsoand educating. He noted many municipalities are dealing
with a residential-to-industrial tax base split of 90/10. He stated there are opportunities to help municipalities address that imbalance. He explained thatone of the points of the
summit would be to present strategies municipalities can use to diversify their tax base, since residential development is heavy on service requirements.
Commissioner Sides asked if the BARN project is now being proposed as the Union County Food Innovation Center (UCFIC).
Mr. Niland clarified that it is a proposal and will be presented to the Board for support.
Commissioner Sides requested an update on where the current status of UCFIC currently standstoday.
Mr. Niland responded that they are still in the development design phase and that a comprehensive update will be provided at the upcoming retreat in two weeks.
Commissioner Sides asked for confirmation that the next step would be the permit process after finalizing the design.
Mr. Niland explained that they will reach a guaranteed maximum price with a contractor, and once all the numbers align, they will move forward with permitting the project.
Commissioner Sides asked forrequested clarification on the chain of command for the Food Innovation Center, specifically how responsibilities are shared between Ms. Holzman and Mr. Niland,
and how responsibilities are shared in the project.
Mr. Niland explained that Jessica King, formerly the Local Foods Coordinator, has been moved into the role of facility manager and will oversee day-to-day operations once the Food Innovation
Center opens. He stated that Ms. Holzman, in her Economic Development role,shewill focus on marketing the facility and using it to attract businesses tied to the food systems development,
similar to how clusters form around aerospace.
Commissioner Sides stated that the project is essentially Mr. Niland’s responsibility until the facility is built and ready to operate, and then it becomes Ms. Holzman’s job to fill
it.
Mr. Niland said Ms. King’s job is to fill it up, and Ms. Holzman’s job is to use the facility to promote, hopefully.
Commissioner Sides clarified that both Ms. King and Ms. Holzman are working to fill the facility with clients, but during the pre-design and construction phase, Mr. Niland is the mainprimary
contact.
Mr. Niland stated he has been involved in all of the design meetings, along with Cooperative Extension’s Andrew Baucom and Jessica King. He said Ms. King was involved early on and is
now involved again. He emphasized that it is a team effort and not anyone’s individual project. He added that the reason he is more involved in this particular project is that both Cooperative
Extension and Economic Development fall under his area of supervision.
Chair Merrell asked to move on with the agenda items explaining that there would be a deeper dive into the BARN project during the Board’s retreat.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to staff for the update and said it had been great, especially because the Board had talkeddiscussed numerous times about the need for
additional commercial and industrial development because of the 90/10 split that the County sees in regards toregarding residential versus everything else.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if a motion was needed for the items discussed.
Mr. Niland responded that everything would come back to the Board except for the municipal Economic Development Summit. He said they just wanted to know they had the Board’s support
to move forward with planning that event. He explained that the other two items involving the Advisory Group and the contract would come back to the Board, with the group proposal showing
whatoutlining which organizations should be represented, notrather than specific people. He saidstated that the contract would come back as a consent item like any other county contract.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the three action items requested:
Return with Advisory Board recommendations including board makeup and meeting schedule.
Develop astandard language for acontract with Retail Strategies that would offer specialized countywide retail marketing expertise.
Plan Municipal Economic Development Summit.
Chair Merrell commented that the 90/10 percent split ofwith 90 percent residential and 10 percent commercial/industrial is a major concern for Union County in terms of the tax base.
She expressed appreciation for the presentation and expressed how happy they are to have them on board with the County, and acknowledged the amazing work they do., noting,and commented
that the Board gets to see them often with projects coming to the County.
She encouraged making sureensuring the Advisory Board has an odd number of members, noting they have run into that issue before. She said she loves the idea of working with each municipality,
whether or not they have a seat at the table on the Advisory Board, and suggested including a certain percentage of industry leaders.
Commissioner Sides said he is also excited about this opportunity as well. He offered asuggested ion that the food innovation center be green on the circle chart since it is in the
design process.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Commissioner HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye25-029SeniorNutritionUpdate
Chair Merrell recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, to address this item.
Mr. Niland said this item was to provide a brief update from the Board’s discussion in December. He noted there were a number of questions asked at that time, and there are still some
unknowns, but he wanted to giveprovide a quick update tonight.
Mr. Niland said there was a lot of discussion last time about Union County Public Schools, churches, and community partners. He explained they found there is no simple answer. He stated
that much of what the schools do falls under federal regulations and much of what the County does falls under federal regulations, and they do not always match. from time to time.
Mr. Niland stated they have had numerous discussions with the schools about opportunities, and the schools have requirements about who they can donate to:, and Union County Senior Nutrition
is not one of those. He noted it will take follow-up conversations to determine if there is a path to work together to try to solve the problem.
Mr. Niland explained that churches and community partners run into the same problem. He said many churches have their own programs, so they need to better understand what is currently
being offered in the community to determine if there are waysmeans for them to they cansupport what the County is doing or if there is a way the County can support what they are doing.
He stated that will take some time and effort.
Mr. Niland said sponsorship opportunities are something they have actually been working on for a couple of months. He gave credit to Janet Payne and her staff, explaining that a lot
ofmanyindividuals want to donate to the senior nutrition program, but there has not been a mechanism for allowing them to do so, whether it is people from the public or staff.
Mr. Niland said there isthat a fundraising campaign every year, and there are a number of organizations where donations can be made. He stated that Senior Nutrition will now be one of
those options if people want to support it. He said staff believes that is something that can be put in place quickly. He stated that while it is not known how much revenue, it will
generate from a revenue standpoint, it is another option that will be available.
Mr. Niland provided a chart that showedthe locations of where some of the people currently receiving meals reside. He stated the chart included congregate sites, where clients come
to a central location to receive a meal, waiting list clients, and a combination of the two.
Mr. Niland shared a chart showing that was representative of the County’s population.
Mr. Niland said they considered short-term program expansion options, which Ms. Payne had previously discussed last time, many of which required additional staff or contracting. He
said instead they evaluated what could be done quickly with existing staff. He stated they can add 110 warm meal clients with existing staff to verify and deliver meals from a congregate
site, all within a certain radius of warm meal sites. He said this is all the staff believes can be done with the current staff. He pointed out that the remainder of FY25 cost would
be $68,000, and on an annual basisfor FY26, it would be $254,000annually. He emphasized this is not something the County would want to implement and then take away on July 1.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the $254,000 is in addition to what they already pay.
Mr. Niland confirmed this was correct.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked what is currently being paid.
Mr. Niland said it is a little over a$1 million dollars. He explained they started FY25 with a deficit, and the way they have been dealing with it is by not adding new people when others
come off the program due to reasons such as death or moving, which is helping close the gap. He shared thatthey expect to be at budget by the end of the current fiscal year. He said
if they plan to add the new clients, they would need to plan for both the shortfall and the additional 110.
Mr. Niland said that was a quick update, and that is what they believe they could do in a short period of time with the funding available for this year. He noted that next year it is
a bigger ask, and the Board would have to make a decision.
Chair Merrell stated that they had identified the potential to take on 110 more people from the waitlist, which was 572.
Mr. Niland clarified that thenumber was from December 2024, so it may have changed since that time.
Chair Merrell reiterated that, without needing to hire more staff, they could potentially begin identifying 110 people who, for the cost of $68,000 for the remainder of the year, could
be moved off the waitlist.
Mr. Niland said staff initially have to verify eligibility and then do it verify every six months from that initial eligibility. He noted that with the 110 and 326 clients combined,
aboutapproximately 450 people can be handled on an annual basis with verification by existing staff. He added that anything higher would require contracting for the service or hiring
additional personnel.
Chair Merrell saidconfirmed they currently have 326 clients and with thecurrent staff, could possibly take care of 110 more residents. She confirmed that staff havenot identified who
those 110 would be and would have to begin that process, including completing home visits and determining eligibility.
Mr. Niland said they have identified110 people who staff believe could be added if they qualify.
Mr. Niland stated if those people did not qualify, there are additional people in that radius that can be served. He added that if only 95 qualified, they could find an additional 15
within a certain distance of a congregate site to be added.
Mr. Niland said they have talked aboutdiscussed prioritizing the 110 and would probably serve the neediest first and then work their way down.
Chair Merrell asked if those people have been prioritized as of tonight or if they would have to begin that work.
Mr. Niland replied that they would have to begin that work, but thestaff can get it done pretty quickly, about five weeks. He added they would assign another staff member to help with
the initial verification, knowing they would have to come back in six months, but they believe they can get everyone off the wait list if the Board decided to move forward with it in
the March timeframe.
Chair Merrell asked if the 326 people who arecurrently being served haveneed to be re-evaluated every six months.
Mr. Niland confirmed that everyone in the program does have tomustbe re-evaluated every six months.
Chair Merrell asked how long it would take to vet the 110 names and move them through theeligibility process and home visits.
Mr. Niland said thatwith the current staff,he estimated they could move ten people through the eligibility process. He said they believe another staff member could be allocated for
the first five weeks, so between five and six weeks at 20 people per week, they could get everyone in on the 110peoplenumberoff the wait list and receiving meals.
Chair Merrell confirmed this could be done without disrupting the 326 currently served.
Mr. Niland confirmed that was correct.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to Mr. Niland and staff for preparing the slide regarding clients served and waiting by municipality. He noted that when the Board initially
looked at the map in the presentation, the first thing he noticed was the potential for a municipal partnership with the program. He observed from the numbers, the need is certainly
spread out throughout the county.
He pointed out a couple of numbers from the slide. He noted that the number of activecumulative clients active and those on the wait list for the City of Monroe totals 205, which he
calculates as about 20 percent of the overall number. He said the other number is 130 people inIndian Trail with 130, which he estimatedto be approximately 13.3 percent of the overall
number. He acknowledged this might be a stretch, but said this shows there could be an opportunity to at least have conversations with those municipalities to determine if a partnership
is feasible for the foreseeable future.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he would be in favor of first looking at a partnership to see if anything could be agreed upon. He then referred back to the final slide with the numbers,
acknowledging the proposal that if an investment of $68,000 is made, then 110 more meals could be added for the duration of the fiscal year.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that through June 30,th and then with the new fiscal year starting July 1, they are essentially looking at a $68,000 commitment. He emphasized that, as
previously discussed,in the past, this is a long-term commitment. He described the $68,000 as a band-aid that fixes a short-term problem but does not stop the bleeding. He added that
it creates a long-term expectation, so he believes they need to carefully consider it.
He stated that he does not know that it is fair to make a decision, push forward with thisthe program, and create that expectation if theythe County may not be able to fund it later.
He said this is going to merit some additional conversation amongst the Board. He expressed appreciation for the information, and agreed that said it gives the Board something to consider,
but stated he is personally not comfortable taking action on it tonight.
Chair Merrell said she wanted to go back to the UCPS conversation because whenit was discussed last time. She stated her thoughts were that there are 53 commercial-grade cafeterias
preparing meals throughout the county, where all these pockets are. She asked for examples of what restrictions UCPS would have, and to whom who they can donate leftover food to, because
it is her understanding that most of itthe food goes in the trashcan at the end of the day.
Mr. Niland said that from their initial discussions with UCPS, they have to donate to what is calleda food distribution organization (FDO). He said currently they donate to the Community
Shelter, Ground 40, and Turning Point. He said Union County Senior Nutrition is not considered an FDO,so thatwhich is why they cannot receive food. He said there are probably other community
partners that could be considered an FDO, but it has something to do with proximity to the location of the schools, how quickly the meal can be picked up, and the kindtype of food.
He said that is some of what they run into and that UCPS has restrictions on who they can donate to.
Chair Merrell said it was very interesting and that she was happy to hear that there aresome organizations are receiving that food.
Commissioner Sides expressed appreciation to staff for the information. He shared that he has had the opportunity to volunteer as a deliverer, with his wife doing thechauffeuring and
him handling the deliveries. doing the delivering.He said it has been quite an eye-opening experience. He has seven people on his route, stretching from Monroe to farther out.
Commissioner Sides said that inuponseeing and meeting these folks, it is very obvious, particularly acute among older citizens, that this is a lifeline that keeps them in their homes.
He said, as others may have experienced with an older family member, one of their biggest fears is having to leave their home and go into some kind of institution.
He said, as Vice Chair Brian Helms mentioned, not only are they looking at $68,000 to make inroadsin the waiting list this year, but they are de facto committing at least $254,000 to
continue next year for these folks.individuals. He said, putting aside the numbers, in his mind there is more of a moral question: what does this county do for its older citizens who
have paid their taxes, raised their families, y, worked a long life, and are now in the twilight, doing the best they can to continue in their homes and apartments before other arrangements
have to be made.
Commissioner Sides said it was more than just the funding; it was about what the county was going to do, whether it was going towould take care of these people and then decide to devote
the resources necessary to do so. He said he wanted to share some other numbers to consider because it was relatively the sameas they are in a relatively similar context. He pointed
out that the County has a jail and guests in that jail. He saidthat the current county budget,which includes three square meals, a cot, somewhere to sleep, and freeand unlimited healthcare
was $3,776,689.
Commissioner Sides said there is no waiting list for meals at the jail and no waiting list for health services,becausethat isthose services are mandated by law. He said this was a matter
of the character of the County government in deciding that this was a priority that deserves the resources accordingly. He stated this was a personal statement, and he had determined
that, personally, on anext year’s budget that does not devote sufficient resources to eliminate the waiting list for senior meal deliveries and in-home services, he cannot and will not
support that budget.
Commissioner Sides said he was going to go out on a limb,but for him personally, that was how seriously he took this issue as an elected representative of County government.
Commissioner Sides moved to follow through with diverting $68,000 from the current fiscal year budget for no more, no less than 110 warm mealsfor new clients from the waiting list, as
determined through proper vetting.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms commended Commissioner Sides for delivering meals and taking an active stance on the issue. He said the topic had been discussed since December and was important
to all of them because the County’s seniors matter as doesdo all of the residents. matter. He said Commissioner Baucom had, at a previous meeting, hit the nail on the head at a previous
meetingby saying government cannot be all things to all folks, and there is a limitation on what government can do. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he was not saying they should not consider
the item or have more discussion, but at least for tonight, he could not support the motion.
Commissioner Baucom said no member of the Board wants to see anyone hungry. He said the question is the meanshow to get to a place where everyone is well-fed, and he just does not think
local government is the end-all solution. He said if the County commits $68,000, it iswill be reciprocal and will continue. keeps coming. He said they are in a position with $800 million
indebt and possibly looking at $400 million in expenditures, with major decisions looming.
Commissioner Baucom said, “haste makes waste” and he believed this should be a budgetary item that the Board takes time to consider. He questioned the legalities of sharing the list
with church hospitality committees, which he said seem to fulfill this need better than local government. He said he could not support the amendment and did not believe this was the
answer.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she agreed with Commissioner Baucom and thought the Board wasjumping at this very quicklymoving too quickly on this item. She said, as Vice Chair Brian
W. Helms had mentioned, a big concern of hers was what is coming next for the County as a whole,and is it sustainable. She said she could not see giving someone food, them relying on
it, and then taking it away. She stated she would rather somebody wait for a meal than be told they were going to be supplied with all their food and then be told, “sorry, you’re not
getting anything from us.” She said everyone on the Board agrees seniors deserve to be taken care of, but the Board needs to approach this logically and strategically to make sure that
the ones that are being provided for have this resource available down the road, not just six months, but years to come, because people can be on this list for years. She said the Board
needs to make sure there is sustainability, and she believes the best option is for the Board is to wait until February at the retreat to dive in a little bit deeper.
Chair Merrell said she agreed and noted that while the Commissioners were making their comments, it occurred to her that it would be around April, plus or minus, by the time they were
able to vet the 110 names and begin delivering those meals. She added that by then, theyBoard would be in budget season and preparing for the next budget.
Chair Merrell said she absolutely agreed that seniors are important and a priority, and that it made her very sad to think there are 572 seniors in the community, possibly qualified
for senior nutrition and need meals delivered. She said she also recognized that part of that number might not qualify for those meals. She noted the budget was set six or seven months
ago, and she was not comfortable altering the current budget with one-time money to get started. She said the Board needs to go toattend the retreat, hear from every department, and
seedetermine whereif it can make this a priority in the next budget. She said she definitely did not feel comfortable starting with one-time funds.
Commissioner Christina Helms said, by the time the retreat rolls around, hopefully,staff can reach out to the municipalities and local churches to see what they can help with to reduce
that number. She said staff definitely needs to reach out again to municipalities like Monroe, Indian Trail, Stallings, and Waxhaw, those with higher numbers, and get in contact with
them immediately. She said hopefully they will have an answer by the retreat and that those municipalities will “put some skin in the game” because those are their citizens too.
Mr. Niland assured that regardless of what happens tonight, staff will communicate with the community partners, churches, and municipalities. He noted thatthose partners follow the same
budget cycle as the County, so he thought it was unlikely they would be able to commit anything by February. However, he said they can at least communicate the need to those partners.
Chair Merrell said most municipalities would want to know how many seniors areliving in their community are on the wait list. She said Stallings, as an example, has 32 seniors on the
wait list there. She said she did not expect an answer tonight, but would defer to Jason Kay to work with staff to determine what information can legally be shared with municipalities
or faith-based organizations, or if that information is completely confidential. She said those partners need to know that information.
Commissioner Christina Helms said making those partners aware and the partners helping contribute to the program would be beneficial. She said if everybody has a little bit of skin in
the game, it does not hurt as much.
Chair Merrell said having partnerships and liaisons with each municipality and sharing that information is very important, because she feels like the Board is trying to eat an elephant.
She said when Commissioner Baucom said "haste makes waste," she wanted to do this right, with the right partners. She said she does not feel comfortable supporting one-time dollars tonight
not knowing how to carry this over July 1. She said this needs to be a big conversation during budget planning for the next fiscal year, as the budget cycle is literally right around
the corner, and she knows UCPS is already working on its budget. She reminded the Board that there was a motion on the floor.
Commissioner Sides asked wherewhat the funding source would be for the $68,000.
Mr. Niland said it would come from lapsed salaries that come from resignations and retirements, where some salary expenses havenot been fully expended. He said they would use that for
the current fiscal year. He stated that for the next year, starting July 1, those dollars are 100 percent allocated, so those funds would have to be another source of revenue.
Commissioner Sides asked if staff is anticipating asking the municipalities to include the funds in their next budget or if it is hopedthe municipalities will have the funding prior
to the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Niland said he believes it could be either. He stated if some municipalities are willing to contribute this year, the County can certainly consider those contributions.
Chair Merrell said she wanted to clarify that when she spoke about sharing information with municipalities, it was not to ask forrequest money out of their budget. Her thought was that
there are organizations within their community that theycould be contacted for help to provide meals. might know of that would be willing to help get meals.
Chair Merrell said her intention was more ofto take a step up to find people to help feed the citizens in their community. She apologized if she misled Board members and said she absolutely
had no intention of asking the municipalities to alter their budgets. She said if they choose to pitch in from their budget, that is their decision, but it had not honestly had notcrossed
her mind. She said she was looking for people in those communities who would want to help provide meals.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms clarified that he was thinking the same:thatit is not right now to ask their municipal partners for money. He said it would be completely unfair to ask other
municipalities at this time, because they too are in the budgeting process, focusing on the end of this fiscal year and the beginning of the next fiscal year with budget adoption.
He said his thought process was to reach out to Monroe, Indian Trail, and Weddington even if it is a small contribution of $20,000, $10,000, or $2,000 would represent a community partnership
that may be sustainable for the future. He added that the $68,000 in unassigned salaries could not be counted on, as was previously mentioned.
Chair Merrell added thatsalaries could not be considered, especially if they fillthe positionis filled.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said the $68,000 is 100 percent allocated in the next fiscal year, so any decision made tonight or for a future budget comes with the expectation of long-term
funding it long-term. He said thatalthough they might have $68,000 today, the Countydoes not have it tomorrow, so the funding has to come from somewhere.
He asked if Commissioner Sides would be prepared to raise property taxes to sustain the program long term.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said they would potentially raise taxes on 260,000 people in the county, and potentially hurt seniors who do not currently qualify for meal assistance, with
an increased tax rate to help about 500 people. He acknowledged that everyone wants to do something for seniors, but emphasized they have to act in the best interest of the whole.
Commissioner Sides questioned how it could be said that addressing the waiting list would require a tax increase when others are saying they need to wait and see and address it in the
next budget. He said you cannot make the statement that addressing the waiting list would automatically lead to a tax increase and it was unfair.
Chair Merrell responded that Commissioner Sides’ statement was not fair. She said she did not hear Vice Chair Brian W. Helms say that helping seniors would cause a tax increase. She
added it would be uncomfortable to add something to the budget now that was not included at the beginning of the year and to fund an ongoing program without knowing fully each departmentis
going to have. Chair Merrell said she did not want to speak for Vice Chair Brian W. Helms but believed he meant the tax increase would be cumulative due to many needs facing the county.
Commissioner Sides asked if the question was whether he would support a tax increase to address the waiting list.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he proposed a hypothetical situation because the County has many needs and that money has to come from somewhere. He said if there is a willingness to
move forward with full funding, the question iswhere willthe money comehow will the County fund it. He acknowledged they were not discussing full funding specifically tonight, but believed
that is the direction it would head. He asked if that is the case, would Commissioner Sides support a tax increase?
Commissioner Sides stated that he already supports adequate funding to eliminate the senior meals waiting list in the next fiscal year. He acknowledged the financial implications in
the overall budget withwhich has many moving parts, and said it is not fair to say what tax impact fully funding senior meals would have at this point until the specific needs are known
during the budget process. He made his personal commitment that his wish is to see adequate resources in the next fiscal year’s budget to eliminate the waiting list.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to call the question.
Chair Merrell asked if Commissioner Sides would like to clarify his motion.
Commissioner Sides clarified thathis motion was to direct staff to divert $68,000 in orderto begin the vetting process and delivery of meals to no less than 110 people on the current
waiting list.
The motion failed with the following vote:
Chair MerrellOpposed
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsOpposed
Commissioner HelmsOpposed
Commissioner BaucomOpposed
Commissioner SidesAye
Chair Merrell emphasized to staff that this is important, and they do not want to see people who want to have meals needing meals. She said departments need to start getting their numbers
together to bring to the County Manager's Office for the next budget.
25-033RequestforProposals-LegislativeLobbyingServicesChair Merrell recognized Deputy County Manager Patrick Niland for this item.
Mr. Niland said the County has utilized its existing state lobbyist, Navigator LLC, since August of 2020. He said there has been some discussion with the Board about possibly looking
at otherswho may be interested in representing Union County. He said this is the Board's opportunity to discuss it, and if the Board wants to move forward with a request for qualifications,
a motion to direct staff to issue a request for qualifications would be needed.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said it has been quite some time since the County has looked at lobbying services, and the Board should recognize that the landscape in Raleigh today may be
very different thanfrom what it was two to five years ago. He said there havebeen numerous state bills that have either negated or stood against the Board’s stance on issues like growth,
alternate wastewater systems, building code changes, and more recently, zoning and the ability to downzone.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he realizes lobbying services only go so far, but he believesit is at a point where the Board should consider putting proposals together to determinewhat
other services are available. He said itdoes not mean Navigator cannot submit a proposal as well, but he believes the Board needs to do due diligence.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the request for proposals for lobbying services.
Commissioner Sides asked for the approximate amount budgeted this current year for the lobbying services.
Mr. Niland statedthat the amount budgeted for lobbying services this current year for lobbying servicesis $60,000.
Commissioner Sides asked what accomplishments could be listed from the lobbying efforts. He noted that the Board meets with its delegation and communicateson a regular basisregularly,
and that the County Commission Association also lobbies on behalf of all the bodies in the state. He questioned what the County is getting for its $60,000 a year.
Mr. Niland said it is the Board’s prerogative to decide what the County has received for its money. He stated from a staff standpoint, there have been a number of state grants over
the last four or five years, including projects like theBARN, 12-Mile Creek, and other water and sewer projects, with direct allocations from Raleigh. He said the hard part is determining
if the lobbying services were directly responsible for those grants. He acknowledged that many organizations work on the County’s behalf, so ultimately it is a question for the Board
if it ishappysatisfied with the lobbying services the County is receiving, since the lobbyists work for the Board, not staff.
Chair Merrell asked if the current lobbyist assisted with projects like the BARN project.
Mr. Niland said staff communicates with the current lobbyist about all the County’s needs, and the lobbyist communicates those needs to the delegation. He said it is hard to say who
is directly responsible for all the state grants the County has received, but the County’s needs have been communicated to the lobbyist, who has passed those needs on to the delegation.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the lobbyist reports back to the County Manager or to Mr. Niland or Mr. Voignier on a monthly or quarterly basis, so they know what the County is
getting for its money.
Mr. Niland said that before Michelle Lancaster left employment with Union County government, she was the point of contact, and since then,it has been Brian Matthews. He said the lobbyists
provide a general report that they share with all their clients, usually on a weekly basis when the General Assembly is in session. He added that when there are specific issues or bills
in Raleigh that directly affect the County, there is more communication focused on those items.
Chair Merrell explained part of her concern is that she hasnot seen the lobbyist since she was elected in 2022. She said that is part of her concern, given that the Board is talking
about $60,000 versus $68,000 to get started on senior nutrition. She said she hopedthe County is getting its money’s worth, but she definitely supports the motion to start vetting what
is out there to find a good match for Union County’s needs. She added it has been disheartening to see bills in Raleigh that were directly opposed to what Union County was trying to
do.
County Manager Brian Matthews said this is an opportunity for the Board to assess the available see whatservices are availableand decide if it wants to continue with lobbying services.
He said the Board may decide not to continue with lobbying services for some period of time, and this is really a chance to reset and determine what is going on.
Commissioner Sides said he was thinking the Board should hold off on getting other proposals until it decides if a lobbyist is needed, rather than letting everyone make their pitch and
then making a decision based on what they say they can do and cutting them a check. He asked if the other approach of letting everyone make their pitch is better.
Mr. Matthews said he believes it is important for the Board to know what is available first, and then make thatan informed decision. He added that isjustonly his opinion.
Chair Merrell said if the Manager and his staff are the ones receiving those weekly updates, the Board will depend on them to let the Board know if the lobbying services are worth it
or if it is something theythat could be done in-house. She said the Board is going to need to depend on the management team to keep it informed because it sounds likeappears the management
team is getting weekly or monthly updates that the Board was not aware. did not know about.
Mr. Matthews said it is helpful for the Board to give staff direction on how muchthe level of detail it wantsbecauseas the Board has never been this engaged, which is good. He said it
is important for staff to know how much detail the Board wants, whether it wants the lobbyist to come quarterly or provide other updates, so staff can understand what information the
Board is seeking. trying to get.
Commissioner Sides said to him, a lobbyist does for the Board what the Boardcannot do for itself because they have special inroads or can sit down with other legislators not our delegation,
since they believe they can communicate with their delegation on their own. He said if the lobbyist cannot do anything different than what the Board can do for itself or just discover
grant opportunities, then he challenges the need.
Chair Merrell asked if anyone on staff knews when Union County first started using a lobbyist, saying she thought the lobbying budget was $100,000, but was not sure when it started.
Mr. Niland said that they entered the current contract on August 1st, 2020.
Chair Merrell clarified she was not asking about the current contract, but when the County started using a lobbyist.
Mr. Niland said they can find that information, noting that at one point they had a federal lobbyist as well, which ended when some earmarks went awaywere eliminated, but they will research
it and find out.
Chair Merrell said it would be helpful to know because, if her memory is correct, the lobbying budget started around an education issue between UCPS and the Board of County Commissioners.
She said if the County and UCPS aremaintaining having good communication and relationships with their partners now, maybe that need is no longer there. She added she would like someone
to get back to her about when the County started budgeting for a lobbyist, since she thought it was tied to that education issue.
Commissioner Sides said he wants to hear success stories, like the lobbyist securing a $5 million grant for the BARN that the County did not even know existed.he noted. He said $5 million
would pay for a lobbyist for a couple of years, but if the results are more nebulous and they cannot track it to specific successes, deals, or money directly to the lobbyist’s efforts,
then he believes the County should handle it themselves.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, said the Countyengaged a lobbyist in the past on a more sporadic basis, and then in 2020 it became more regular with a new and different lobbyist. He said
staffcould research and find out the history of working with lobbyists in the past as well as and for what purposes, within a certain timeframe.
Chair Merrell stated she believed it was approximately eight years ago. She requested that when this information is available that it be sent to all Commissioners by email.
She stated there is a motion on the floor to approve the request for proposals for lobbying services and called for a vote.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye25-034Resolution-ResolutioninSupportofLocalLegislationforUnionCountyConcerningLocalGovernmentZoningControlandSessionLaw2024-57(S.B.382)
Chair Merrell recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, for this item.
Mr. Niland explained that on December 11, 2024, the General Assembly adopted Session Law 2024-57, also known as Senate Bill 382. He stated that Section 3K.1 of that bill had provisions
affecting local governments’ ability to carry out certain downzonings. On December 16th, the Board adopted a resolution supporting the repeal of that section. He said the resolution
before the Board tonight is another option that would ask for a local bill to exempt Union County from those provisions.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he was in favor of adopting the resolution. He said this is not just a Union County problem or just an unincorporated Union County issue. He said
the bill, and specifically the last provision, affects every municipality and local government in the state that handles zoning or planning. He shared that he has personally had discussions
with leaders in municipalities within Union County, and they share the same concerns. He said there is astrong consensus among various municipalities and the Board that they should petition
the local delegation for a local bill or exemption.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted that this resolution differs issomewhat differentfrom the one adopted in December because it asks for specific action. He emphasized that the last provision
of Senate Bill 382 does not just limit the authority of local governments, it also limits the voice of the people to express their preferences and shape policy through their elected
officials.
He added that at a very basic level, some sort of action has to take place, whether it is a local exemption or a local bill, not only for the county but also for every municipal partner.
He encouraged municipalities to adopt similar resolutions. He emphasized again that this is a community and statewide issue.
Commissioner Baucom said he wanted to echo what Commissioner Helms stated, emphasizing that decisions should be made as close to the citizens as possible and not mandated from the state.
He added that it is disrespectful to citizens to mandate this sort ofsuch action. He asked, if, in the case of an exemption, it would itbe something the General Assemblywould have to
vote on under the 50 percent rule and how that would work.
Jason Kay explained that all local laws, even though they have specific local effects, are still voted on by the entirety of the General Assembly. He said some bills are public bills,
which apply statewide everywhere, such as this one. He added that local bills also must be voted on by the state General Assembly, both House and Senate. He explained that in those instances,
the local delegation typically has more flexibility and authority to craft the bill and seek support from colleagues, though a majority vote is still required.
Chair Merrell clarified that the local bill would need to be sponsored by one of Union County’s representatives, one in the House and one in the Senate.
Mr. Kay explained that local bills generally occur through sponsorship by members of the legislature, often from the House, Senate, or the entire local delegation. However, he noted
that local delegations are not always unanimous on local bills, though they usually tend to agree on what they want to do.
Commissioner Sides asked if a single member of the delegation opposes the local legislation, does that mean the bill is gone?
Mr. Kay explained that if one member of the local delegation opposes the legislation, it is up to the rest of the delegation to decide how to handle that dissent. He noted it is not
uncommon for a delegation to have mostly one party with a single dissenting member, and different delegations handle that differently.
Commissioner Sides asked if local legislation is subject to the governor’s veto.
Mr. Kay responded that generally, local bills are a carve-out from the governor’s veto that was part of the compromise. He said that came about when North Carolina got a Governor's veto,
one of the last states in the country back in the early 90s to get that veto, local bills are exempted.
Chair Merrell reminded Commissioner Sides that in 2020, when DPI (Department of Public Instruction) was not allowing seniors access to their numerical grades, Union County’s local representatives
wrote a local bill to allow UCPS to offer that option to Union County seniors.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to adopt the requested action and adopt the resolution supporting local legislation for Union County regarding local government zoning control and Session
Law 2024-57 (SB 382). He also directed the County Manager or his designee to distribute the resolution to all municipalities within the county.
Chair Merrell called for a vote.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
CountyManager'sComments
Mr. Matthews informed the Board that a joint meeting with the City of Monroe is scheduled for January 30th at 6:00 p.m. at the Bazemore Active Adult Center in Monroe.
Commissioners'Comments
Commissioner Sides said, “God bless our President Donald J. Trump.”
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked his colleagues for the spirited debate and discussion during the meeting, expressing appreciation for everyone’s opinions. He also thanked the staff
foritstheir hard work, especially given the treacherous weather. He encouraged everyone to drive safely and wished everyone a good night.
Chair Merrell extended thanks to thestaff and Commissioners who attended the Martin Luther King dinner on Saturday. She praised Bishop Gardine as a wonderful asset to the Board and an
active community member. She noted the dinner included church representatives from across Union County, good food, and a wonderful guest speaker who honored honoring Dr. Martin Luther
King. She thanked Bishop Gardine for the invitation and thanked County Manager, Brian Matthews, Commissioner Baucom, and Vice Chair Brian Helms for joining the dinner and remembering
Dr. King.
Commissioner Christina Helms recognized Beverly Liles and her department, congratulating them on a clean audit and praising their dedication to the county. She also acknowledged Ron
Mahl, Rachel Holzman, and Megan Gibsonof the Economic Development Department for their important work in correcting issues related to 90/10 residents to industry in Union County, appreciating
their diligence.
She encouraged Union County citizens to reach outtocontact their state representatives to support legislation reversing State Bill 382 and to advocate for local government control. She
said that citizens have spoken that they want controlled growth in Union County.
Commissioner Helms asked residents to urge their state representatives to pass single-item bills, saying one of them could be the hero in North Carolina. She said that provisions such
as this do not get shoved into relief for Western Union County. She shared that at a recent Republican event, tensions got heated at representatives and how frustrated they were that
this had passed. She stated,“Let us start with single-item bills in North Carolina so things like this cannot be snuck in and do what is right for Union County.”
Commissioner Baucom encouraged everyone to stay warm over the next few days and to have a good night.
Chair Merrell reminded everyone to drive home safely.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 8:26 p.m., Chair Merrell moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Union County, NC Board of Commissioners
Meeting Minutes
Union County Government Center
500 North Main Street Monroe, North Carolina
www.unioncountync.gov
Monday, January 21, 20256:00 PMBoard Room, First Floor
____________________________________________________________
25-032Closed Session
There was no closed session.
Opening of Meeting - 6:00 PM
Invocation –Commissioner Gary Sides introduced Pastor Chris Justice, Lee Park Baptist Church, Monroe, NC, who offered the Invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance – Chair Melissa M. Merrell led the body and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Informal Comments
Chair Merrell announced that no one had signed up to speak during the Informal Comments.
She stated that there were no public hearings on tonight’s agenda and called the next item, which was the Consent Agenda.
Public Hearings(s)
None
Consent Agenda
Commissioner Christina B. Helms moved to approve the items listed on the Consent Agenda, as submitted and recommended.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Commissioner HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye25-023TaskOrder-TwelveMileCreekWRFChemicalSamplingandEvaluation
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item; 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth
in the Agreement; and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager's discretion.
Union County Water owns and operates the Twelve Mile Creek WRF. Thisfacilityhasastrictphosphoruslimitationwhichrequireschemical addition to aid in meeting this requirement. This task
order is intended to facilitate a study to determine the best chemicals to use to optimize treatment plant operations during and after the 9.0 MGD expansion.
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. has been selected to provide engineering services for task order #7364-5. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. was chosen from a list of vendors previously selected from 2022-008
Engineering Services for Twelve Mile Creek WRF Expansion to 9.0 MGD to provide these services for Union County projects.
The total cost of the contract with Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. is $68,140.00. SufficientfundsareavailableinCapitalAccountWRFOperationsBudget-60026710-5381.25-014Contract-TransportationPropanePumpandFueling
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item; 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth
in the Agreement; and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
On October 21, 2024, the Procurement Department partnered with The Human Services Transportation Department to issue an Invitation for Bid 2025-012 Transportation Propane Pump and Fueling
System. On November 12, 2024, four bids for the title project were received and processed. After review, three (3) bids were deemed non-responsive and not subject to award. Blossman
Gas of North Carolina’s bid, in the amount of $35,976.00, was tabulated and certified by the Transportation Department. Staff recommends that the project be awarded to the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder, Blossman Gas of North Carolina, Inc.
The anticipated annual cost for the service is $35,976.00. Since this contract has an initial term of two (2) years, with three one-year renewal options, a total of $179,880.00 is estimated
to be spent. Funding is available in the FY2025 budget, with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.25-013November2024NCVTSMotorVehicleTaxReport
ACTION:ApprovedtheNovember2024NCVTSMotorVehicleTaxRefundReport.
The refunds included in this report represent adjustments made to tax bills resulted in refunds of motor vehicle taxes paid under the Tax and Tag Together program operated jointly between
the counties and the state.25-017FY2024-25TaxBillCorrectionReportforDecember 2024
ACTION:Approved FY2024-25TaxBillCorrectionReportsforDecember2024.
InaccordancewithNorthCarolinaGeneralStatutes102-312and
105-325, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to make and approve certain changes to property tax records. Approval of such changes may result in either a release, refund,
or discovery of ad valorem taxes. The attached report provides detailed information on all tax billsthat were modified. Included in the report for each correction is the parcel number
or property key, owner name, reason for the change, original value, original tax, corrected value, corrected tax, and refund, ifapplicable. (DecemberRefundamount=$398.07).ContractAmendment-AdditionalDesignServicesforBARNACTION:Authorized
theCountyManagerto1)negotiateandexecuteanagreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth in the Agreement, and 3)
terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
CPL Architects & Engineers, PC has been delivering design services for the BARN project since March 2024. During the design process, several changes in original scope have occurred that
warrant consideration of a design fee adjustment. The additional scope includes a change from a pre-engineered structure to typical steel and masonrystructure, additional food service
programming and space planning, more extensive food equipment pricing efforts, additional conceptual design options and site development items like loading docks, gray water stations
and screen walls. The original design fee was $600,250.00. The cost of this amendment is $185,070.00 bringing the revised total fee to $785,320.00. Staff recommends approval of this
contract amendment to provide additional design services as needed for the project.
The cost for this amendment is $185,070.00. There are sufficient funds in the BARN Project capital account, 40080187, to cover this expense.TaskOrder-ArchitecturalServicesforGovernment/JudicialCenterBuildingEnvelopeRepairsProject
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
This request is to approve Task Order #2023-070-01 for Gensler Architecture, Design & Planning, P.C. to provide architectural services for the Government/Judicial Center Building Envelope
Repairs project. The project is anticipated to include exterior building envelope repairs at the Government Center including caulking, glazing, tuck-pointing, sealing, partial window
or glass replacement, flashing and other waterproofingitems. The scope of work was determined through a study conducted in 2022 that identified the highest priority items, some of which
have been completed previously. This scope will address the next highest priority level items identified for the Government Center in the exterior envelope study. The architect will
provide all construction documents, bidding assistance and construction administration. The projected construction budget for the project is $650,000.00.
Gensler Architecture, Design & Planning, P.C. was selected as one of the County’s On-Call Architectural Design teams for various capital projects. Staff has negotiated a scope and fee
for the services for this project and recommends approval of task order 2023-070-02 in the amount of$71,082.00.
The cost of the services provided within this task order is $71,082.00 and there are sufficient funds in the Government/Judicial Center Building Envelope Repairs capital account, 40080123,
to cover the expense.
25-024AmendmenttotheUnionCountyPayandClassificationPlan
ACTION:Approved a revision of the Union County Pay Plan to include new job classification titles and pay grades.Add thefollowing classificationsandassociatedpaygrades:ApplicationsSupervisor-paygradeOApplicationsAdministrator-paygradeN
Updates to the Union County Pay Plan are necessary to add, update, and remove job classification titles to align with current and future organizational needs.
24-885MinutesforApproval
ACTION:ApprovedminutesofregularmeetingofJanuary6,2025
InformationOnly25-007FY2024PopularAnnualFinancial
ACTION:No action was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
The Popular Annual Financial Reports provides a condensed version of the County's financial statements and represents the highlights of the financial status of the County.
The FY 2024 Popular Annual Financial Report will be available on the County’s website on the Finance Department’s webpage at the following link:
<https://www.unioncountync.gov/government/departments-f-p/finance/popular-annual-financial-reports>25-010TaxRefunds,ReleasesandProrationsApprovedbyFinance
ACTION:No action was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
On September 8, 2020, the Board of Commissioners adopted a
Resolution Delegating Authority for Tax Releases and Refunds of less than $100 to Union County's Finance Officer. The resolution and NC GS 105-381(b) require such refunds to be reported
to the Board regarding actions taken on requests for releases or refunds. All such actions shall be recorded in the Board's minutes. NC GS 105-330.6 authorizes the tax collector to direct
an order for a tax refund of prorated taxes to the county finance officer related to surrendering of registered motor vehicle plates.
The finance officer shall issue a refund to the vehicle owner. The attached report is for November 2024 NCVTS releases and refunds less than $100 and prorations approved by the finance
officer.
See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.25-012TaxCollector’sDepartmentalReportfor
ACTION:No action was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
This report reflects the totals of all tax transactions within the Tax Collector’s Office for the month of November 2025 as required by NCGS 105-350(7).25-016FY2025BudgetTransfersReporting-2nd
ACTION:Noaction was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
Per section XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, and XX of the FY2025 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget Ordinance, management reports the following County Manager Budget Amendments (CMBA)
made by the County Manager for the second quarter of fiscal year 2025.
CMBA 10: To recognize, receive, and appropriate state allocation of StRAP (StreamflowRehabilitation Assistance Program) funds to conduct vegetative debris removal activities.
CMBA 11: To appropriate revenue and fund balance/retained earnings for outstanding contracts, purchase orders and available project/program balances for expenditures, projects and programs.
CMBA 12: Correction to Transfer balance on the expense side of the ARPA funds using the Fund balance appropriation.
CMBA 13: Transfer funds from the FY 2025 Longevity budget to the individual departments in the General Fund, Water and Sewer and Solid Waste.25-028MonthlyUpdate-WastewaterTreatment
ACTION:No action was requested. This item is for information only purposes.
Union County Water is closely monitoring the wastewater treatment capacities at our Water Reclamation Facilities. Permitting Capacity is evaluated using the Actual Plant Flows plus the
Permitted/ObligatedFlows (unconnected). Union County Water was asked to provide regular updates. Plant flow information through December 2024 is summarized in the attached table.
TwelveMileCreekPercentofActualFlows=72.0%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=91.9%Actual Flows(MGD)=5.403Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD)= 6.891 Crooked CreekPercentofActualFlows=59.6%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=89.9%Actual
Flows(MGD)=1.133Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD)= 1.709 Olde SycamorePercentofActualFlows=30.0%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=30.0%Actual Flows(MGD)=0.045Actual + Permitted Obligated
Flows (MGD)= 0.045 TallwoodPercentofActualFlows=44.0%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=44.0%Actual Flows(MGD)=0.022Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD)= 0.022 Grassy BranchPercentofActualFlows=92.0%PercentofActual+PermittedFlows=94.0%Actual
Flows(MGD)=0.046Actual+PermittedObligatedFlows(MGD)=0.047
In addition to the wastewater treatment capacities, flow volumes associated with development projects that are in the planning and review process within the Twelve Mile Creek and Crooked
Creek WRF service areas are provided for information as well. Development flow volumes through December 2024 are summarized in the tables below.
Business
25-008FY2024AnnualComprehensiveFinancialReport
Chair Merrell recognized Beverly Liles, Finance Director, for this item.
Beverly Liles stated they were at the finale of the audit and that it was a great day, as this was the last step to finalize the FY24 audit. She shared her appreciation for several members
of her staff who were present, noting that the audit would not be possible without the entire Finance team and the County. She acknowledged Ebru Cukroof the Finance staff, who was in
the audience. She explained that Ms. Cukro is the senior accountant and CPA on staff, and she does a lot of heavy lifting on the audit.
Ms. Liles also extended her thanks to all the departments across the County, stating that the audit would not be possible without their collaboration. She noted that the County administers
many grants that must be monitored to ensure compliance, and much of that heavy lifting is handled by the Human Services team. She thanked them for the time and effort they contribute
to the audit process. She also thanked the management team for their continued support in helping the audit process go smoothly.
Ms. Liles explained that the first presentation of the evening would come from the County’s auditor, Dan Gougherty, an audit director with Cherry Bekaert. She said Mr. Gougherty would
present the required presentation as required with the Local Government Commission. After his presentation, Ms. Liles said she would provide a very high-level presentation of the actual
financial statement results, noting that she would not go into detail, as the full set of financial statements had been provided to the Board in a book for review.
Ms. Liles pointed out that included in the agenda was the PAFR (the Popular Annual Financial Report) which she had also printed for the Board. She explained that the PAFR is a condensed
version of the County’s financial statements, designed to be easier to read and for individuals who may not be familiar with reading full financial statements. She noted that any citizens
who wanted a copy of the PAFR could view it online. She recognized Mr. Gougherty for his presentation.
Mr.Gougherty expressed appreciation and said it is always a good part of the audit process to speak about the overall results. He said it was his intention to notcover every financial
aspect but rather to provide highlights from the audit perspective: how the audit was conducted, what they saw during the audit, and the final results.
Mr. Gougherty began by recognizing the audit team for their work in completing the engagement. He explained that he served as the engagement director, along with Scott Anderson, who
was the second reviewer for quality purposes; Stephanie Rosensky, Manager, and Jayce McDaniel and Robert Jones, who served as the senior and associate on this engagement. He shared that
they audit the financial statements based on generally accepted auditing standards, as well as in accordance with government auditing standards, in order to form an opinion and provide
reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
Mr.Gougherty stated thatthe audit looked at federal and state grant spending. He said they reviewed compliance over those grants to make sure the County was in compliance with how the
grants were spent in accordance with the grant agreements and that the County had controls in place over compliance. He reported that they issued unmodified opinions in all cases, explaining
that an unmodified opinion also known as a clean opinion is the highest level opinion they can give under their auditing standards.
He stated they do look at internal controls over compliance, but they do not test the effectiveness of those internal controls. He said if they did find a control issue, it would be
reported if it rose to the level of material weakness or a significant deficiency. He said he was happy to report that there were no material weaknesses and no report of significant
deficiencies in this year’s audit.
Mr. Gougherty discussed the number of grant programs reviewed during the year. He mentioned that many of these programs are from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department
of Public Health. He noted that the only program that does not fall under those departments is the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, also known as ARPA funds. He stated
that these funds must be audited as required by the federal government every year if more than $750,000 is spent.
Mr.Goughertystated that one of the new state programs audited this year was the opioid settlement funds, which had not been audited before. He said as the County began to spend those
monies, no issues were found with compliance related to that program.
Mr. Gougherty stated that if they become aware of any audit adjustments during testing where an account needs to be adjusted to fairly present the financial statements, they are required
to make the Board aware of the adjustments. He added that even lower-level adjustments can still require disclosure. He stated that this year’s auditdid not have either, meaning there
were no corrected or passed adjustments. He said that the financial statements opinedupon were the same ones provided by management at the beginning of the audit and are what is in the
final issued Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.
He stated there were no new accounting pronouncements adopted this year, so no change in accounting principles.
Mr. Gougherty stated that if they find anything significant or unusual outside the normal extent of the County’s operations, whether due to timing, nature, or size of a transaction,
they are required to report it. He noted there were no such transactions in this year’s audit.
He explained that the County uses various estimates to develop financial statement line items, most notably pension and other post-employment benefit obligations reported as liabilities
in the financial statements. He stated that these rely on actuarial assumptions and key metrics to calculate the liabilities. He said they found no issues with incorrect assumptions
or anything that would outliewhat they would expect from similar governments.
Mr. Gougherty stated that the financial statement disclosures are neutral, clear, and consistent, and there were no disclosures in particular that needed to be brought to the Board's
attention.
He explained that the only non-audit service was helping fill out the data collection form. He stated this form is required to be completed and summarizes their federal audits, which
is then transmitted to the federal government so each department can see the findings and what was audited in a clear, concise manner from all over the United States. He added there
were no issues with anything in terms of independence, and emphasized that the cornerstone of their profession is to be independent of the County in doing their testing, and that they
are independent of Union County.
Mr. Gougherty stated they had no difficulties during the audit, no disagreements with management, and no consultations within their own firm regarding this audit or any accounting matters.
He noted they received the management representation letter dated October 31st for the financial statements issued as of that date, and another dated November 26th for the compliance
report.
Mr. Gougherty said there were no management consultations, meaning no shopping for an opinion or second opinion outside of their firm. He reported no other findings or issues, no fraud,
illegal acts, or violations of laws or regulations as of the date of the presentation, and no events or conditions that raised any going concern matters.
Mr. Gougherty explained that the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report is a 200-page document with the majority consisting of the financial statements and notes, on which the audit firm
provides its opinion.
He explained that there are four standards coming that will apply to the County in the next few years. He said the first two standards will be effective next year, and the last two standards
will come in 2026. He said Standard 101 deals with the possibility of further accrual of sick leave that wasnot accrued in the past to account for potential use of sick leave even though
it’s not paid out upon termination. Standard 102 involves certain disclosures, which he said he does not believe will affect the County’s financial statements.
Mr. Gougherty explained that the Local Government Commission has certain financial performance indicators itwants auditors to review during the audit. He said it also wants these indicators
presented each year to those in charge of governance to show where things stand and whether there are any issues. He stated that for the General Fund, the performance indicator is fund
balance available as a percentage of expenditures. He stated that the County is required to have at least a 16 percent threshold, and Union County is well over the percentage that is
required.
Mr. Gougherty noted that the fund balance is typically viewed from the unassigned level. However, the percentage shown includes committed and restricted balances. He explained that this
is probably why the percentage appears higher than what management usually provides throughout the year. He added that this is the way the Local Government Commission requires the calculation
for this purpose.
Mr. Gougherty explained that the quick ratio measures current assets against current liabilities essentially, what is available to pay thecurrent liabilities. He stated that the County
is currently at a ratio of five, which exceeds the minimum requirement of one. He added that, in comparison to other governments with water and sewer systems, the County’s ratio is consistent
with the norm, as most fall between three and seven.
Mr. Gougherty stated that one new item from last year was the water - condition of assets, which is a rating based on the inverse relationship of accumulated depreciation to gross asset
value. He explained that the target is to be above 0.50. He then pointed out that, with the investments made in water and sewer over the last year, the County improved from a 0.51 in
2023 to a 0.67 in the current year.
Mr. Gougherty stated that the last item was the budgeted tax levy of the General Fund, noting the importance of collecting at least more than 3 percent. He explained that collections
were greater than what was budgeted, resulting in a positive General Fund total balance as of the pre-audit process. He emphasized the need to approve expenditures only after confirming
that funds are available, and to ensure the money is available before paying invoices or entering into contracts. He added that there were no late debt service payments, no debt covenant
compliance issues, no statutory violations, and no budgets were being overspent.
Mr. Gougherty added his thanks to the Finance Department for its help in completing the financial statements. He acknowledged that the Department of Social Services and the Department
of Public Health had a heavy lift. He noted that this year, more grants were tested than in recent years due to how the thresholds worked and the required rotational testing. He stated
it was a joint effort by everyone and expressed appreciation for their time and effort in getting everything submitted on time.
Commissioner Sides asked Mr. Gougherty approximately how many countiesare in his client base.
Mr. Gougherty responded that in North Carolina, they work with approximately 15 counties.
Commissioner Sides asked Mr. Gougherty, based on his experience with both his clients and the broader group of counties, what percentage typically have no findings in their annual audit,
noting that this year the County had no findings.
Mr. Gougherty responded that it is hard to say for certain, but he would be comfortable estimating that about half of them likely have no findings.
Commissioner Sides remarked that it is a fairly significant achievement.
Mr. Goughertyagreed stating that was a fair statement.
Chair Merrell asked Mr. Goughertyto return to the water and sewer slides, noting that there were two slides to review.
Mr. Gougherty clarified that the current slide being discussed is the General Fund.
Chair Merrell said she hated to put the county manager on the spot but wanted to ask, since water and sewer is a very huge topic around the county, if the manager could speak to the
increases and explain to the public what has changed from 2022 to 2023 and 2024.
County Manager Brian Matthews stated he would be honest and admitted that quick ratios are not his expertise. He asked Mr. Goughertyif he could maybe expand on it a little bit.
Mr. Gougherty responded that the quick ratio reflects unrestricted cash available for operations, though some of that unrestricted cash might also be used for capital purposes and may
not be restricted by impact fees or other collections. He said he couldnot speak exactly to why the ratio went up or down but believed the improvement from a four to a five was due to
assets increasing and liabilities decreasing.
County Manager Brian Matthews stated that the takeaway is that a lower quick ratio is worse, and a higher ratio is better.
Chair Merrell explained that she wanted to revisit this topic because there is a lot of misinformation around the county about the water and sewer situation. She noted it is very encouraging
to see that year over year, since 2022, the ratio has improved from 2.9 to 5.14.
County Manager Brian Matthews said he thought the next slide was a little bit more telling. In his opinion, it shows the investment made in the system. He explained that the goal for
the condition assessment is to be at least 0.50, which was raised from 0.51 last year to 0.67. He said that, in his opinion, is because the Board has given approval to invest in the
utility.
Chair Merrell asked if increasing the connection fee, which was addressed last year, had helped at all.
Ms. Liles explained that this refers to the actual fixed assets in infrastructure. She noted that some of the increase can be attributed to the Yadkin Plant fully coming online and being
added as 100 percent of a fixed asset as of June 30th, which she would discuss further in her presentation about major year-over-year changes in assets.
Chair Merrell said she thought this was great information and expressed happiness to see it in the report. She said she hoped the public recognizes that the decisions made in recent
years and the investments in water and sewer improvements are clearly making a difference and thanked everyone.
Commissioner Sides asked if it was fair to assume that when the 12-Mile Creek expansion comes online, it would continue to improve that figure in the future.
Ms. Liles agreed, stating that any investment in infrastructure adds new assets with a greater useful life of new assets to depreciate over 30 or even 40 years, as with Yadkin, which
is depreciated over 40 years. She said this adds value over the useful life of the assets held.
Commissioner Sides summarized that a higher figure means, in theory, there is less equipment or infrastructure approaching the end of its useful life.
Ms. Liles confirmed with an “absolutely.”
Mr. Gougherty explained that in years with less investment in water and sewer, the ratio will decrease, but that is part of the normal cycle and not a warning sign. However, he noted
the Local Government Commission monitors for deteriorating systems where the ratio falls below half the useful life, as that can indicate something could be going wrong. He added that
several smaller municipalities in North Carolina have faced significant water system troubles recently, so it is important for those in governance to stay informed about where their
systems stand.
Ms. Liles stated she would provide a very high-level presentation of the 2024 financial results. She invited anyone unfamiliar with the terminology to stop her and ask for an explanation,
noting that much of the finance work involves accounting terms the general public may not know.
She explained they would review the government-wide statements, which represent the full accrual statement including all county assets and liabilities. She clarified that booking these
requires full GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and governmental accounting, meaning not everything is budgeted or visible during the budget process. She stated that the
government-wide statements reflect items due in the future or assets already paid for, which are not seen in the budget process.
Ms. Liles said she would review the General Fund, covering where revenues come from and where expenditures occur, followed by a very high-level overview of the Water and Sewer Fund.
She explained they do not review all funds because going through every fund would take too long, but encouraged everyone to read the full report at their convenience and ask any questions
they may have.
Ms. Liles explained that the first slide is the government-wide net position statement. She said it takes all the county’s assets and liabilities and breaks them down into governmental
activities versus business activities. She clarified that governmental activities include everything for the county except water and sewer and solid waste, which are reflected as business-type
activities.
Ms. Liles stated that for FY24, the county’s assets and deferred outflows exceeded liabilities and deferred inflows, resulting in a net position of $421 million for all funds and departments.
She noted there was a decrease of about $11 million from the prior year. She explained that in North Carolina, governments carry all the long-term debt for school capital projects funded
by bonds but are not allowed to carry those assets on their books; the schools carry the assets. She said it is normal for county governments in the state to show a negative net position
in governmental activities, meaning the balance sheet appears upside down compared to the private sector.
Ms. Liles explained that the major changes in assets from FY23 to FY24 were seen in cash and investments, which decreased by $76 million. She said this was expected because cash and
investments include bond proceeds, and as money is spent on bond projects like Forest Hills High School, East Elementary School, and the Yadkin Plant, cash from the prior year goes down
as those assets are brought in. She noted that capital assets increased by $25 million. She explained that the majority of that increase was bringingon the Southwest Regional Library,
which opened this past year, and the completion of the Yadkin Regional Water plant and intake.
She further explained that the reason only $25 million was added is because, as the county worked on those projects such as Yadkin, which took about two and a half to three years to
complete, construction work in progress is added overtime into fixed or capital assets. The $25 million reflects just the portion recognized in FY24 for Yadkin.
She said deferred outflows of resources, usually related to the OPEB pension and separation allowance actuarial study results, saw a net increase of $19.8 million. These are resources
going out in the future that must be recorded for the government-wide statement.
Ms. Liles stated that for liability changes, there was a net increase in the OPEB liability. She explained this was due to the change in assumptions year-over-year based on the actuarial
study results that Mr. Goughertymentioned. She noted that many assumptions go into those calculations, including economic factors like inflation, interest rates, and expectations for
where interest rates are going. She said being in a lowering interest rate environment impacts those calculations and contributes to the net changes year-over-year.
Ms. Liles stated that the County’s share of the statewide local government retirement system saw an increase of $9 million in the retirement pension liability. She noted that the long-term
debt liability decreased by $47 million, because in FY24 no additional debt was added and only principal payments were made to pay down existing debt.
Ms. Liles stated there was a decrease in the deferred inflow of resources related to OPEB, pension, and separation allowance.
Commissioner Sides commented that it was interesting that the County could count an asset like the Yadkin plant before it was actually completed.
Ms. Liles explained that fixed asset accounting uses a method called construction work in progress, where the asset value is added, but depreciation does not begin until the asset is
fully completed.
Commissioner Sides asked if the process involved figuring the total cost and then determining where the project stands at the end of the year.
Ms. Liles clarified that it is based on actual dollars spent, and whatever is spent on the construction project gets added into construction work in progress assets. She added that during
the water and sewer presentation, there will be an increase in overall operating expenditures, which is related to Yadkin coming fully online and recognizing depreciation expense for
the first year.
Ms. Liles said they would now switch to discussing General Funds and clarified that, based on financial statement results, this includes all General Funds combined. She noted that the
Board has chosen to bifurcate these into education funds and separate debt funds, but this presentation reflects all five funds added together.
She stated that actual revenues for the General Fund exceeded the budget by $3.9 million, and actual expenditures totaled $355 million. She pointed out that expenditures were under budget
by $16.3 million. She explained that whether revenues or expenditures exceed the budget either over or under is how variances are determined, which show whether money is being added
to fund balance or being spent.
Ms. Liles stated that other financing sources and expenses for the General Funds in FY24 were approximately $62 million. She explained this represents transfers out of the General Fund
into CIP funds, Volunteer Fire Districts for the County’s share, and any new leases and subscriptions entered into through contracts during the year. She said there was an overall decrease
in fund balance of approximately $16 million for FY24. She reminded the Board that during the FY24 budget process, approximately $15 million of fund balance was appropriated to spend
on one-time expenditures, so a decrease would be expected in the following year’s audit results.
She provided a high-level overview of where revenue comes from, stating that 61 percent of General Fund revenue comes from property taxes, followed by 18 percent from sales tax, and
12 percent from intergovernmental sources. She explained that intergovernmental revenue includes federal and state grants and any interlocal agreements with towns, municipalities, or
other governments. She noted that revenue from town contracts for the sheriff’s office is included in intergovernmental revenue.
Ms. Liles explained that the largest expense category is education for the County’s education partners, followed by public safety, debt, leases, and subscription-based IT arrangements,
then human services. She noted that 11 percent of expenses are for general government costs, which cover administration of the county.
She explained the different categories of fund balance and what each one means. She said it starts at the highest level of restriction and goes down. She stated that the nonspendable
category includes items that cannot be turned into cash or spent, such as inventory on hand at Cane Creek Park’s camp store, prepaid postage, and inventory held at the garage for the
County’s fleet.
She explained that restricted fund balance includes amounts restricted by external parties, policies, laws, and regulations. She shared that state statutes require the county to restrict
fund balance for any accounts receivable balance.
Ms. Liles explained that the large-restricted fund balance is due to the three-month lag after the fiscal year-end to receive all sales tax for the prior year. She noted this is the
first year with all funds bifurcated, so in prior years those three months of sales tax that were for the articles of sales tax that are restricted for schools, their capital, and debt
were included in the General Fund. She said those sales tax dollars are now placed into the Education Debt Fund. She pointed out that the $6 million restricted fund balance under the
Education Debt Fund represents that three-month sales tax lag and said that would be discussed further in the presentation along with recommendations on how to address it in the future.
She explained that committed fund balance is the Board’s policy adopted each year in the budget ordinance. She said for FY24, this was approximately $72 million, which is 20 percent
of the next year’s adopted budget operating expenditures.
Ms. Liles explained that the assigned fund balance category consists of funding the Board has already approved to spend in the future. She reminded that during the FY25 budget process,
the Board elected to spend around $14 million in fund balance on one-time items. She added that any amounts rolled from the prior year during the budget roll encumbrance process are
also included in the assigned fund balance.
She described the last category of unassigned fund balance as any amounts available for any purpose that the Board can take action on in the future to spend on one-time items or to pay
down debt service, based on the fund balance policy.
Ms. Liles noted some recommendations for the General Fund unassigned fund balance. She said there is around $15 million available, but explained that before the funds were bifurcated,
all sales tax revenue went into the General Fund. She said that now the sales tax is used to pay debt service costs for schools, based on the restricted sales tax articles.
Ms. Liles pointed out that the Education Debt Fund shows a negative unassigned fund balance due to the restricted fund balance related to the sales tax lag. She recommended that during
the manager’s budget process, the Board should not spend all of the General Fund fundbalance on one-time items as done in the past. She suggested instead holding it back because the
three-month sales tax lag will continue every year. She emphasized the importance of having enough cash in the fund to cover the full year’s debt service costs and avoid a negative cash
balance.
Ms. Liles stated that the only changes made to any fund balance since the audit was completed were from the November 4th meeting, where the Board adopted a budget amendment to appropriate
funds from the Economic Development Fund for hiring economic development staff. She noted there have been no other changes since then.She explained that going forward, if there are any
budget amendments appropriating fund balance from the General Fund, those amounts will be taken from the available fund balance. She added that any actions taken between now and the
budget cycle will be broken out for the Board to see.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification, summarizing that the recommendation is to hold in the unassigned fund balance an approximate amount to the estimated last three months of
sales tax revenue, recognizing there will be a lag before it comes in, allowing the unassigned fund balance to be replenished later.
Ms. Liles confirmed that was correct. She explained that in the Education Debt Fund, the debt premiums from the 2023 bond issuance were placed into this debt fund to pay down a couple
of the first years of debt, so they didnot have to increase the tax rate. She noted that the $9.4 million in the assigned fund balance is the only reason the total fund balance for the
fund this year does not show a negative unassigned $6 million fund balance. She said without that $9 million, the unassigned fund balance would have shown at a much higher rate.
Ms. Liles provided a quick overview of the Water and Sewer Fund. She reported operating revenues of $77.4 million and operating expenses of $72 million, which includes about $30 million
in depreciation. She noted this depreciation amount is higher than in past years because Yadkin came fully online and was recognized as a total asset. She added that non-operating revenues
and expenses totaled $4.3 million, and the fund showed a net increase in net position of $17 million.
She referred to the net position statement with a comparison over time and pointed out that in FY23, total operating expenses were $55 million, compared to $72 million in FY24. She emphasized
that the $72 million includes depreciation expense now that Yadkin is fully online and said that level of expense should be expected as the new norm year-over-year.
Ms. Liles stated that outside of operating income, they recognized investment earnings of about $8.1 million. She said interest and fees on debt or debt-like agreements were around $13
million. She explained that the County has a joint venture with Catawba River and each year must book the value of its share of that venture. She said this year, a loss was recognized,
which was attributable to depreciation of the Catawba River assets including the plant, reservoirs, and other assets year-over-year.
She noted that contributions of $17.2 million included system development fees received from developers and donated assets. Ms. Liles explained that when the County takes over a completed
subdivision or development, any water and sewer lines installed by the developer become part of the County’s system and are recognized as asset contributions.
She added that transfers in from other funds were from funding the Board had approved through ARPA or ARPA investment dollars for certain water and sewer projects. She concluded that
the total net position ended at around $435 million.
Commissioner Sides asked Ms. Liles to go back and noted a significant increase in investment income over the past two years. He mentioned it wasnot really a question but more of a note
or possibly a question about how it happened. He pointed out the negative figure from 2021–2022 during the COVID years and said that might explain the change, but stated that $8 million
in investment income is a significant amount to bolster the system.
Ms. Liles responded that part of the increase over the past couple of years was attributable to having bond proceeds in a bank account earning interest, and the market overall was at
a very high level during the past fiscal year, leading to significant investment earnings compared to the past.
Commissioner Sides asked whether the investment account is directed by the state treasurer’s office or who actually directs those investments.
Ms. Liles answered that she directs those investments and that she has to follow state statutes.
Mr. Matthews emphasized that all investments must follow state rules.
Ms. Liles clarified she cannot just pick stocks, and that the investments must be very safe, secure, and liquid, based on the General Statutes.
Commissioner Sides asked if the investments are mainly bonds.
Ms. Liles said they are mainly federal agencies, commercial papers, and money market accounts.
Commissioner Sides asked if any of the investments are in Union County bonds.
Ms. Liles answered that the County does not buy its own bonds.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Ms. Liles to confirm whether the contributions shown on the slide were mainly from system development fees.
Ms. Liles responded that the contributions included system development fees and donated capital from developers. She explained that when developers finish a project, the water and sewer
lines based on linear footage are added into the County’s assets that the County owns as part of the water and sewer system.
Mr. Matthews said that of the $17 million, most was not from system development fees. He estimated the County collects about $6 to $9 million in those fees, so most of the amount is
likely the value of the water and sewer infrastructure.
Ms. Liles clarified that the breakdown was about $6.5 million in system development fees and about $10.3 million in contributions of assets from developers.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms clarified for anyone attending the meeting or watching at home that system development fees are not an arbitrary number set by the Board. He explained there
is a formula involved in determining how much can be charged, and part of that is based off depreciation of infrastructure and assets. He asked Ms. Liles if that was correct.
Ms. Liles confirmed that it was.
Vice Chair Helms then pointed out that the contributions row for 2022 stood out on the slide and asked if Ms. Liles could provide context for why that number was so much higher, acknowledging
she may not have the numbers in front of her.
Ms. Liles said she did not have that information with her but could get the breakdown for all the years showing contributions from system development fee cash versus acquired assets.
Mr. Matthews recalled that in that particular year, over $10 million in system development fees were received. He stated he believed there was one year with a large amount of system
development fees collected, and then it returned to the usual range of $6 to $8 million.
Ms. Liles said it was a great opportunity to say that the County had no audit findings. She said she was very proud of the County, the organization, and the work that goes into achieving
that result.
Vice Chair Helms added a comment,saying it wasn’t a question but a recognition of the staff. He said the fact there were no findings in the audit speaks volumesto their work, and he
expressed appreciation to them for the presentation and their continued efforts.25-027EconomicDevelopmentPresentation
Chair Merrell recognized Deputy County Manager Patrick Niland for the presentation.
Mr. Niland noted that in November 2024, Union County started its own Economic Development Department. He shared that Ron Mahl and Rachel Holzman had joined the team and would speak about
their recent work, market conditions, and economic development. He said that there would be a few requested action items for the Board at the end of the presentation. He recognized
Ron Mahl for comments.
Mr. Mahl expressed sincere gratitude for the confidence placed in him, Ms. Holzman, and Ms. Gibson in allowing them to help create the new Department of Economic Development in Union
County.
Mr. Mahl stated he would cover a few main points: the mission of the office, the team, the main functions of the office, some tools they use, and their near-term and long-term goals.
He said he would conclude by asking for direction on specific action items.
He described the mission of Economic Development as a cohesive strategy to increase the tax base and create jobs that improve the quality of life for all Union County residents. He emphasizedthat
creating jobs and increasing the tax base are ways to positively impact the quality of life, noting that every project landed and every job created supports families with well-paying
wages.
Mr. Mahl stated that he is serving as director and shared that he has been in Union County for almost 20 years focusing mainly on existing industry and said he enjoys the process, especially
winning projects and seeing jobs created. He introduced Assistant Director Rachel Holzman, noting they have been colleagues for about three and a half years and that she was hired even
before graduating from NC State, having known her as an intern at the Union County Cooperative Extension. He introduced Business Manager Megan Gibson. He said that Ms. Gibson has been
with the team for approximately one year and brings a unique combination of municipal government experience through Mecklenburg County’s court system and private-sector manufacturing,
accounting, and HR experience with a company in Union County.
Mr. Mahl explained that what enables their work is economic development law in North Carolina, which has been around for about 100 years and first drafted in 1925. He said the law specifically
describes the tools they can use to achieve economic development.
He highlighted that the department can purchase or option land or buildings, develop speculative buildings, establish industrial parks, extend or upgrade utilities, and sell or lease
land or buildings. He noted they do a mix of all those activities.
He added that one of the main tools they use, and the one most familiar to everyone, is economic incentive grants, which they can offer under specific conditions.
Mr. Mahl explained that a project must be competitive in its site selection and must produce capital investment in personal and/or real property. He clarified that real property means
land and buildings constructed, while personal property refers to manufacturing or process equipment installed in those structures.
He said the project must either create or retain jobs. He emphasized that the incentive grants they issue are performance-based and are contracts between the municipality and companies,
meaning companies must meet certain investment and job creation thresholds before applying for grant payments.
He explained that he avoids the term tax rebates, because in North Carolina that can cause issues; instead, incentive grants are contractual agreements between the municipality and the
company not rebates.
He added a main function of the office is supporting existing companies and stated that approximately 75 percent of all new jobs and capital investment come from existing industry projects.
Mr. Mahl emphasized the importance to keeptabs on existing industries and help them grow.
Mr. Mahl explained that the best way to support existing companies is through onsite, face-to-face visits. He said there is no better way to keep a finger on the pulse of what is going
on or to identify potential projects for expansion and job creation.
He added that they also offer seminars on various topics, but the topics are always chosen by the companies based on what is currently important to them.
He emphasized the importance of workforce development, noting it is always a priority for companies looking to improve the skills and talents of their current employees. He said that
when a company expands or a new one arrives, workforce development becomes a front-burner issue.
He shared that they are pleased to work with Union County Public Schools, referencing the Job Ready program and Career and Technical Education (CTE). He added that CTE extends into middle
schools and believes presentations are even starting in upper elementary grades to help young students understand that careers in manufacturing and other commercial fields are good careers.
Mr. Mahl stated that about every other year, they conduct a comprehensive wage survey among local companies to gather information on current wage levels and the levels of benefits being
offered.
He introduced Assistant Director Rachel Holzman and asked her to speak about industrial recruitment.
Ms. Holzman explained that while Mr. Mahl works across the county with existing industries, her role involves a lot of travel both domestic and international, primarily in Europe. She
attends various trade shows in which they have different focus areas for recruitment, with aerospace being a major recruitment focus within manufacturing.
She said they attend these shows to meet with companies, share information about Union County, and promote the benefits offered by the County. She expressed that she enjoys spending
time talking about Union County and values the opportunity.
When not attending trade shows, she attends conferences and site selector summits, which allow her to network with partners who know about these projects firsthand. Ms. Holzman explained
that before projects reach their office, they go through site selectors, who act like brokers receiving projects directly from companies and help to find the best locations. She shared
that she also attends conferences to network with partners who help make the transition to Union County easier, such as general contractors or grading companies. Additionally, she said
she works on marketing by promoting to international and domestic clients, and working with the Communications Department to share why Union County is a great place. She stated that
she submits requests for information and proposals through the state system or directly from companies, matching specific sites or buildings to their requirements.
Ms. Holzman said that hopefully a site visit results from the proposals they submit, and she helps facilitate those visits by coordinating meetings with the people specific to the company's
interests. She explained that she also helps with all of their site readiness programs. She stated that one of her key partners is the Economic Development Partnership for North Carolina
(EDPNC), which is a 501c(3) arm of the Department of Commerce. She noted they are linked but have private funding. She added that all projects primarily go to the state first, and then
EDPNC disseminates them to the counties with which it believes are a good fit. She said she works very closely with them, travels with them to trade shows, and always calls on them.
She added that they also work with utilities and different co-ops across statewide programs, as well as programs within Union County and private industries.
Ms. Holzman said some of their key targets have expanded from the former four tenants to now five focus areas. She stated that retail is being added, which was a component on which they
had focused previously. She said that Retail Strategies is a third party they had contracted with for the City of Monroe and that group had worked with Monroe for about nine years under
a couple of different contracts. Ms. Holzman shared that over the years, they brought in a couple of other municipalities. She shared that Indian Trail had participated, and most recently,
Wingate had been brought on to the contract.
Ms. Holzman explained that Retail Strategies operates using a regional concept, and looking at a county is easier than looking at a specific municipality with unique boundaries. She
said they are proposing to bring Retail Strategies back for a countywide offering, which would help with recruitment efforts and allow creating a more firm boundary to the Targets,Wegmans
or other interested businesses.
Ms. Holzman added that she is also dedicated to food systems and is glad that Mr. Mahl had assigned her back to that focus. She mentioned re-engaging with the project currently known
as “the BARN” project which she said may be undergoing a name change, noting it was referred to as the Union County Food Innovation Center in the Enquirer-Journal earlier.
Ms. Holzman said the food industrial program expands beyond just the BARN project and includes industrial components of the agriculture system. She explained that once crops are harvested,
Economic Development can support value-added processing in Union County to keep dollars local before products go back out into the market.
Mr. Mahl said it is clear why he is glad that Ms. Holzman is part of the team. In addition to retail and food systems, he stated the other three sector targets include precision manufacturing,
which he noted has paid the freight for many decades and still holds a lot of great opportunities that they will continue to pursue.
Mr. Mahl reminded the Board that in November it supported and issued an economic development incentive grant to Sell Ethics for its office headquarters, a $17 million project bringing
85 jobs. He noted the site is now being cleared in Stallings and said that project opened his eyes to the idea that there have to be other opportunities to land, since they brought that
one from Mecklenburg to Union County. He expressed excitement about exploring that further.
Mr. Mahl said Union County has two very significant hospitals. He stated they have to consider what ancillary services those hospitals attract, like professional and medical offices,
and that they are continuing to pursue those ideas. He added that this setup has really blossomed in their minds and strategies since being under the County’s direction.
He also reviewed typical incentives they use, many of which are familiar from the state level. He highlighted the One North Carolina Fund (OneNC), a discretionary grant administered
through the governor’s office that is based on job creation, whether from a new company or an expansion.
Mr. Mahl said building reuse is another interesting tool offered through the North Carolina Rural Center. He explained they have used this incentive three or four times over the last
10 years. He explained that the program provides a direct grant to refurbish or retrofit an older industrial building, and it is targeted at manufacturing. He cited Hamilton Drywall
as an example, where they received approximately a quarter million dollars to help with a $10 million upfit.
Mr. Mahl said customized training is provided through their resource partners via the community college system. He then mentioned the local standard grant, which is based on capital
investment and paid out over five years. He noted the Magnet program is a bit different, expanding on that theme. He explained that traditionally the incentive program required projects
to be at least $2 million for existing or $3 million for new, but they are realizing some projects may be half that amount yet still create 10 or a dozen good jobs.
Mr. Mahl said looking forward, it is important to have a plan, and for over the next two years there are seven key objectives. He said that three of those objectives are near-term priorities.
He emphasized that municipal engagement is very important.
Mr. Mahl said they are looking to hold an Economic Development Municipal Summit in March. He stated that he does not have the specific date yet but plans to invite the municipalities,
have it facilitated, ask questions, record responses, and take that information back to create a plan.
Mr. Mahl said they are excited about developing a Union County Economic Development Advisory Board with many sectors represented which is a front burner item.
He said they need Board direction on the following items:
return with specific recommendations on the Advisory Board, including board makeup and meeting schedule.
develop standard language for the contract with Retail Strategies to deliver specialized retail marketing expertise on a countywide basis.
come back with a specific date and agenda for the municipal Economic Development Summit.
Mr. Niland followed up on the name change, explaining that BARN stands for Building and Agricultural Resources and Nutrition, which has been the working concept since the beginning of
the project. He stated that now that the project has moved from concept to an actual facility, it has become harder to explain what that acronym means in terms of an actual location.
He said that the state grant from the General Assembly for $5 million refers to it as the Union County Food Innovation Center, which they believe now makes more sense since it is a real
building. He said the Board would receive a comprehensive update on the BARN project at its Retreat, and tonight’s presentation served as a sneak preview.
Mr. Niland said with Mr. Mahl and Ms. Holzman now working on a countywide level, part of their role is listening but also educating. He noted many municipalities are dealing with a residential-to-industrial
tax base split of 90/10. He stated there are opportunities to help municipalities address that imbalance. He explained one of the points of the summit would be to present strategies
municipalities can use to diversify their tax base, since residential development is heavy on service requirements.
Commissioner Sides asked if the BARN project is now being proposed as the Union County Food Innovation Center (UCFIC).
Mr. Niland clarified that it is a proposal and will be presented to the Board for support.
Commissioner Sides requested an update on where the UCFIC currently stands today.
Mr. Niland responded that they are still in the development design phase and that a comprehensive update will be provided at the upcoming retreat in two weeks.
Commissioner Sides asked for confirmation that the next step would be the permit process after finalizing the design.
Mr. Niland explained that they will reach a guaranteed maximum price with a contractor, and once all the numbers align, they will move forward with permitting the project.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification on the chain of command for the Food Innovation Center, specifically how responsibilities are shared between Ms. Holzman and Mr. Niland, and
how responsibilities are shared in the project.
Mr. Niland explained that Jessica King, formerly the Local Foods Coordinator, has been moved into the role of facility manager and will oversee day-to-day operations once the Food Innovation
Center opens. He stated that Ms. Holzman, in her Economic Development role,shewill focus on marketing the facility and using it to attract businesses tied to the food systems development,
similar to how clusters form around aerospace.
Commissioner Sides stated that the project is essentially Mr. Niland’s responsibility until the facility is built and ready to operate, and then it becomes Ms. Holzman’s job to fill
it.
Mr. Niland said Ms. King’s job is to fill it up, and Ms. Holzman’s job is to use the facility to promote, hopefully.
Commissioner Sides clarified that both Ms. King and Ms. Holzman are working to fill the facility with clients, but during the pre-design and construction phase, Mr. Niland is the main
contact.
Mr. Niland stated he has been involved in all of the design meetings, along with Cooperative Extension’s Andrew Baucom and Jessica King. He said Ms. King was involved early on and is
now involved again. He emphasized that it is a team effort and not anyone’s individual project. He added that the reason he is more involved in this particular project is both Cooperative
Extension and Economic Development fall under his area of supervision.
Chair Merrell asked to move on with the agenda items explaining that there would be a deeper dive into the BARN project during the Board’s retreat.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to staff for the update and said it had been great, especially because the Board had talked numerous times about the need for additional
commercial and industrial development because of the 90/10 split that the County sees in regards to residential versus everything else.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if a motion was needed for the items discussed.
Mr. Niland responded that everything would come back to the Board except for the municipal Economic Development Summit. He said they just wanted to know they had the Board’s support
to move forward with planning that event. He explained that the other two items involving the Advisory Group and the contract would come back to the Board, with the group proposal showing
what organizations should be represented, not specific people. He said that the contract would come back as a consent item like any other county contract.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the three action items requested:
Return with Advisory Board recommendations including board makeup and meeting schedule.
Develop standard language for contract with Retail Strategies that would offer specialized countywide retail marketing expertise.
Plan Municipal Economic Development Summit.
Chair Merrell commented that the 90/10 percent split of 90 percent residential and 10 percent commercial/industrial is a major concern for Union County in terms of the tax base. She
expressed appreciation for the presentation and expressed how happy they are to have them on Board with the County, and acknowledged the amazing work they do, noting that the Board gets
to see them often with projects coming to the County.
She encouraged making sure the Advisory Board has an odd number of members, noting they have run into that issue before. She said she loves the idea of working with each municipality,
whether or not they have a seat at the table on the Advisory Board, and suggested including a certain percentage of industry leaders.
Commissioner Sides said he is excited about this opportunity as well. He offered a suggestion that the food innovation center be green on the circle chart since it is in the design
process.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Commissioner HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye25-029SeniorNutritionUpdate
Chair Merrell recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, to address this item.
Mr. Niland said this item was to provide a brief update from the Board’s discussion in December. He noted there were a number of questions asked at that time and there are still some
unknowns, but he wanted to give a quick update tonight.
Mr. Niland said there was a lot of discussion last time about Union County Public Schools, churches, and community partners. He explained they found there is no simple answer. He stated
much of what the schools do falls under federal regulations and much of what the County does falls under federal regulations, and they do not match from time to time.
Mr. Niland stated they have had numerous discussions with the schools about opportunities, and the schools have requirements about who they can donate to, and Union County Senior Nutrition
is not one of those. He noted it will take follow-up conversations to determine if there is a path to work together to try to solve the problem.
Mr. Niland explained that churches and community partners run into the same problem. He said many churches have their own programs, so they need to better understand what is currently
being offered in the community to determine if there are ways they can support what the County is doing or if there is a way the County can support what they are doing. He stated that
will take some time and effort.
Mr. Niland said sponsorship opportunities are something they have actually been working on for a couple of months. He gave credit to Janet Payne and her staff, explaining that a lot
of individuals want to donate to the senior nutrition program, but there has not been a mechanism for them to do so, whether it is people from the public or staff.
Mr. Niland said there is a fundraising campaign every year, and there are a number of organizations where donations can be made. He stated that Senior Nutrition will now be one of those
options if people want to support it. He said staff believesthat is something that can be put in place quickly. He stated that while it is not known how much it will generate from a
revenue standpoint, it is another option that will be available.
Mr. Niland provided a chart that showed where some of the people currently receiving meals reside. He stated the chart included congregate sites, where clients come to a central location
to receive a meal, waiting list clients, and a combination of the two.
Mr. Niland shared a chart showing that was representative of the County’s population.
Mr. Niland said they considered short-term program expansion options, which Ms. Payne discussed last time, many of which required additional staff or contracting. He said instead they
evaluated what could be done quickly with existing staff. He stated they can add 110 warm meal clients with existing staff to verify and deliver meals from a congregate site, all within
a certain radius of warm meal sites. He said this is all staff believes can be done with current staff. He pointed out the FY25 cost would be $68,000, and on an annual basis for FY26,
it would be $254,000. He emphasized this is not something the County would want to implement and then take away on July 1.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the $254,000 is in addition to what they already pay.
Mr. Niland confirmed this was correct.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked what is currently being paid.
Mr. Niland said it is a little over a million dollars. He explained they started FY25 with a deficit, and the way they have been dealing with it is by not adding new people when others
come off the program due to reasons such as death or moving which is helping close the gap. He shared they expect to be at budget by the end of the current fiscal year. He said if
they plan to add the new clients, they would need to plan for both the shortfall and the additional 110.
Mr. Niland said that was a quick update, and that is what they believe they could do in a short period of time with the funding available for this year. He noted that next year it is
a bigger ask, and the Board would have to make a decision.
Chair Merrell stated that they had identified the potential to take on 110 more people from the waitlist, which was 572.
Mr. Niland clarified that number was from December 2024, so it may have changed since that time.
Chair Merrell reiterated that, without needing to hire more staff, they could potentially begin identifying 110 people who for the cost of $68,000 for the remainder of the year could
be moved off the waitlist.
Mr. Niland said staff initially has to verify eligibility and then do it every six months from that initial eligibility. He noted that with the 110 and 326 clients combined, about 450
people can be handled on an annual basis with verification by existing staff. He added that anything higher would require contracting for the service or hiring additional personnel.
Chair Merrell said they currently have 326 clients and with current staff could possibly take care of 110 more residents. She confirmed that staff hasnot identified who those 110 would
be and would have to begin that process, including completing home visits and determining eligibility.
Mr. Niland said they have identified110 people who staff believe could be added if they qualify.
Mr. Niland stated if those people did not qualify, there are additional people in that radius that can be served. He added that if only 95 qualified, they could find an additional 15
within a certain distance of a congregate site to be added.
Mr. Niland said they have talked about prioritizing the 110 and would probably serve the neediest first and then work their way down.
Chair Merrell asked if those people have been prioritized as of tonight or if they would have to begin that work.
Mr. Niland replied they would have to begin that work but staff can get it done pretty quickly, about five weeks. He added they would assign another staff member to help with the initial
verification, knowing they would have to come back in six months, but they believe theycan get everyone off the wait list if the Board decided to move forward with it in the March timeframe.
Chair Merrell asked if the 326 people who are currently being served have to be re-evaluated every six months.
Mr. Niland confirmed that everyone in the program does have to be re-evaluated every six months.
Chair Merrell asked how long it would take to vet the 110 names and move them through eligibility process and home visits.
Mr. Niland said with the current staff,he estimated they could move ten people through the eligibility process. He said they believe another staff member could be allocated for the
first five weeks, so between five and six weeks at 20 people per week, they could get everyone in the 110 numberoff the wait list receiving meals.
Chair Merrell confirmed this could be done without disrupting the 326 currently served.
Mr. Niland confirmed that was correct.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to Mr. Niland and staff for preparing the slide regarding clients served and waiting by municipality. He noted that when the Board initially
looked at the map in the presentation, the first thing he noticed was the potential for a municipal partnership with the program. He observed from the numbers, the need is certainly
spread out throughout the county.
He pointed out a couple of numbers from the slide. He noted that the number of cumulative clients active and on the wait list for the City of Monroe totals 205, which he calculates
as about 20 percent of the overall number. He said the other number is Indian Trail with 130, which he estimatedto be approximately 13.3 percent of the overall number. He acknowledged
this might be a stretch but said this shows there could be an opportunity to at least have conversations with those municipalities to determine if a partnership is feasible for the foreseeable
future.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he would be in favor of first looking at a partnership to see if anything could be agreed upon. He then referred back to the final slide with the numbers,
acknowledging the proposal that if an investment of $68,000 is made, then 110 more meals could be added for the duration of the fiscal year.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that through June 30th and then with the new fiscal year starting July 1, they are essentially looking at a $68,000 commitment. He emphasized that, as
discussed in the past, this is a long-term commitment. He described the $68,000 as a band-aid that fixes a short-term problem but does not stop the bleeding. He added that it creates
a long-term expectation, so he believes they need to carefully consider it.
He stated that he does not know that it is fair to make a decision, push forward with this, and create that expectation if they may not be able to fund it later. He said this is going
to merit some additional conversation amongst the Board. He expressed appreciation for the information, said it gives the Board something to consider, but stated he is personally not
comfortable taking action on it tonight.
Chair Merrell said she wanted to go back to the UCPS conversation because when it was discussed last time. She stated her thoughts were there are 53 commercial-grade cafeterias preparing
meals throughout the county where all these pockets are. She asked for examples of what restrictions UCPS would have, and who they can donate leftover food to, because it is her understanding
that most of it goes in the trashcan at the end of the day.
Mr. Niland said that from their initial discussions with UCPS, they have to donate to what is called a food distribution organization (FDO). He said currently they donate to the Community
Shelter, Ground 40, and Turning Point. He said Union County Senior Nutrition is not considered an FDO, so that is why they cannot receive food. He said there are probably other community
partners that could be considered an FDO, but it has something to do with proximity to the location of the schools, how quickly the meal can be picked up, and the kind of food. He said
that is some of what they run into and that UCPS has restrictions on who they can donate to.
Chair Merrell said it was very interesting and that she was happy to hear there are some organizations receiving that food.
Commissioner Sides expressed appreciation to staff for the information. He shared that he has had the opportunity to volunteer as a deliverer, with his wife doing the chauffeuring and
him doing the delivering. He said it has been quite an eye-opening experience. He has seven people on his route, stretching from Monroe to farther out.
Commissioner Sides said that in seeing and meeting these folks, it is very obvious particularly acute among older citizens, that this is a lifeline that keeps them in their homes. He
said, as others may have experienced with an older family member, one of their biggest fears is having to leave their home and go into some kind of institution.
He said, as Vice Chair Brian Helms mentioned, not only are they looking at $68,000 to make inroadsin the waiting list this year, but they are de facto committing at least $254,000 to
continue next year for these folks. He said, putting aside the numbers, in his mind there is more of a moral question what does this county do for its older citizens who have paid their
taxes, raised their family, worked a long life, and are now in the twilight, doing the best they can to continue in their homes and apartments before other arrangements have to be made.
Commissioner Sides said it was more than just the funding; it was about what the county was going to do whether it was going to take care of these people and then decide to devote the
resources necessary to do so. He said he wanted to share some other numbers to consider because it was relatively the same context. He pointed out that the County has a jail and guests
in that jail. He said, the current county budget which includes three square meals, a cot, somewhere to sleep, and freeand unlimited healthcare was $3,776,689.
Commissioner Sides said there is no waiting list for meals at the jail and no waiting list for health services but that is mandated by law. He said this was a matter of the character
of the County government in deciding that this was a priority that deserves the resources accordingly. He stated this was a personal statement, and he had determined that personally,
on a next year’s budget that does not devote sufficient resources to eliminate the waiting list for senior meal deliveries and in-home services, he cannot and will not support that budget.
Commissioner Sides said he was going to go out on a limb that for him personally, that was how serious he took this issue as an elected representative of County government.
Commissioner Sides moved to follow through with diverting $68,000 from the current fiscal year budget for no more, no less than 110 warm mealfor new clients from the waiting list, as
determined through proper vetting.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms commended Commissioner Sides for delivering meals and taking an active stance on the issue. He said the topic had been discussed since December and was important
to all of them because the County’s seniors matter as does all of the residents matter. He said Commissioner Baucom had hit the nail on the head at a previous meeting by saying government
cannot be all things to all folks, and there is a limitation on what government can do. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he was not saying they should not consider the item or have more
discussion, but at least for tonight, he could not support the motion.
Commissioner Baucom said no member of the Board wants to see anyone hungry. He said the question is the means how to get to a place where everyone is well fed, and he just does not think
local government is the end-all solution. He said if the County commits $68,000, it is reciprocal and keeps coming. He said they are in a position with $800 million debt and possibly
looking at $400 million in expenditures, with major decisions coming.
Commissioner Baucom said “haste makes waste” and he believed this should be a budgetary item the Board takes time to consider. He questioned the legalities of sharing the list with church
hospitality committees, which he said seem to fulfill this need better than local government. He said he could not support the amendment and did not believe this was the answer.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she agreed with Commissioner Baucom and thought the Board was jumping at this very quickly. She said, as Vice Chair Brian W. Helms mentioned, a big
concern of hers was what is coming next for the County as a whole, is it sustainable. She said she could not see giving someone food, them relying on it, and then taking it away. She
stated she would rather somebody wait for a meal than be told they were going to be supplied with all their food and then be told, “sorry, you’re not getting anything from us.” She said
everyone on the Board agreed seniors deserve to be taken care of, but the Board needs to approach this logically and strategically to make sure that the ones that are being provided
for have this resource available down the road, not just six months but years to come, because people can be on this list for years. She said the Board needs to make sure there is sustainability,
and she believes the best option is for the Board to wait until February at the retreat to dive in a little bit deeper.
Chair Merrell said she agreed and noted that while the Commissioners were making their comments, it occurred to her that it would be around April plus or minus by the time they were
able to vet the 110 names and begin delivering those meals. She added that by then, they would be in budget season and preparing for the next budget.
Chair Merrell said she absolutely agreed that seniors are important and a priority and that it made her very sad to think there are 572 seniors in the community possibly qualified for
senior nutrition and need meals delivered. She said she also recognized that part of that number might not qualify for those meals. She noted the budget was set six or seven months ago,
and she was not comfortable altering the current budget with one-time money to get started. She said the Board needs to go to the retreat, hear from every department, and see where it
can make this a priority in the next budget. She said she definitely did not feel comfortable starting with one-time funds.
Commissioner Christina Helms said, by the time the retreat rolls around, hopefully staff can reach out to the municipalities and local churches to see what they can help with to reduce
that number. She said staff definitely needs to reach out again to municipalities like Monroe, Indian Trail, Stallings, and Waxhaw, those with higher numbers and get in contact with
them immediately. She said hopefully they will have an answer by the retreat and that those municipalities will “put some skin in the game” because those are their citizens too.
Mr. Niland assured that regardless of what happens tonight, staff will communicate with the community partners, churches, and municipalities. He noted those partners follow the same
budget cycle as the County, so he thought it was unlikely they would be able to commit anything by February. However, he said they can at least communicate the need to those partners.
Chair Merrell said most municipalities would want to know how many seniors are in their community on the wait list. She said Stallings as an example has 32 seniors on the wait list there.
She said she did not expect an answer tonight but would defer to Jason Kay to work with staff to determine what information can legally be shared with municipalities or faith-based organizations
or if that information is completely confidential. She said those partners need to know that information.
Commissioner Christina Helms said making those partners aware and helping contribute to the program would be beneficial. She said if everybody has a little bit of skin in the game, it
does not hurt as much.
Chair Merrell said having partnerships and liaisons with each municipality and sharing that information is very important, because she feels like the Board is trying to eat an elephant.
She said when Commissioner Baucom said "haste makes waste," she wanted to do this right, with the right partners. She said she does not feel comfortable supporting one-time dollars tonight
not knowing how to carry this over July 1. She said this needs to be a big conversation during budget planning for the next fiscal year, as the budget cycle is literally right around
the corner, and she knows UCPS is already working on its budget. She reminded the Board that there was a motion on the floor.
Commissioner Sides asked where the funding source would be for the $68,000.
Mr. Niland said it would come from lapsed salaries that come from resignations and retirements where some salary expenses havenot been fully expended. He said they would use that for
the current fiscal year. He stated that for the next year, starting July 1, those dollars are 100 percent allocated, so it would have to be another source of revenue.
Commissioner Sides asked if staff is anticipating asking the municipalities to include the funds in their next budget or if it is hopedthe municipalities will have the funding prior
to the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Niland said he believes it could be either. He stated if some municipalities are willing to contribute this year, the County can certainly consider those contributions.
Chair Merrell said she wanted to clarify that when she spoke about sharing information with municipalities, it was not to ask for money out of their budget. Her thought was that there
are organizations within their community they might know of that would be willing to help get meals.
Chair Merrell said her intention was more of a step up to find people to help feed the citizens in their community. She apologized if she misled Board members and said she absolutely
had no intention of asking the municipalities to alter their budgets. She said if they choose to pitch in from their budget, that is their decision, but it honestly had not crossed her
mind. She said she was looking for people in those communities who would want to help provide meals.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms clarified that he was thinking the same that it is not right now to ask their municipal partners for money. He said it would be completely unfair to ask other
municipalities at this time because they are in the budgeting process, focusing on the end of this fiscal year and the beginning of the next fiscal year with budget adoption.
He said his thought process was to reach out to Monroe, Indian Trail, and Weddington even if it is a small contribution of $20,000, $10,000, or $2,000 would represent a community partnership
that may be sustainable for the future. He added that the $68,000 in unassigned salaries could not be counted on, as was previously mentioned.
Chair Merrell added that especially if they fill the position.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said the $68,000 is 100 percent allocated in the next fiscal year, so any decision made tonight or for a future budget comes with the expectation of funding
it long-term. He said although they might have $68,000 today, the Countydoes not have it tomorrow, so the funding has to come from somewhere.
He asked if Commissioner Sides would be prepared to raise property taxes to sustain the program long term.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said they would potentially raise taxes on 260,000 people in the county and hurt seniors who do not currently qualify for meal assistance with an increased
tax rate to help about 500 people. He acknowledged that everyone wants to do something for seniors but emphasized they have to act in the best interest of the whole.
Commissioner Sides questioned how it could be said that addressing the waiting list would require a tax increase when others are saying they need to wait and see and address it in the
next budget. He said you cannot make the statement that addressing the waiting list would automatically lead to a tax increase and it was unfair.
Chair Merrell responded that Commissioner Sides’ statement was not fair. She said she did not hear Vice Chair Brian W. Helms say that helping seniors would cause a tax increase. She
added it would be uncomfortable to add something to the budget now that was not included at the beginning of the year and to fund an ongoing program without knowing fully each departmentis
going to have. Chair Merrell said she did not want to speak for Vice Chair Brian W. Helms but believed he meant the tax increase would be cumulative due to many needs facing the county.
Commissioner Sides asked if the question was whether he would support a tax increase to address the waiting list.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he proposed a hypothetical situation because the County has many needs and that money has to come from somewhere. He said if there is a willingness to
move forward with full funding, the question is wherewillthe moneycome. He acknowledged they were not discussing full funding specifically that night but believed that is the direction
it would head. He asked if that is the case, would Commissioner Sides support a tax increase.
Commissioner Sides stated that he already supports adequate funding to eliminate the senior meals waiting list in the next fiscal year. He acknowledged the financial implications in
the overall budget with many moving parts and said it is not fair to say what tax impact fully funding senior meals would have at this point until the specific needs are known during
the budget process. He made his personal commitment that his wish is to see adequate resources in the next fiscal year’s budget to eliminate the waiting list.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to call the question.
Chair Merrell asked if Commissioner Sides would like to clarify his motion.
Commissioner Sides clarified his motion was to direct staff to divert $68,000 in order to begin the vetting process and delivery of meals to no less than 110 people on the current waiting
list.
The motion failed with the following vote:
Chair MerrellOpposed
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsOpposed
Commissioner HelmsOpposed
Commissioner BaucomOpposed
Commissioner SidesAye
Chair Merrell emphasized to staffthis is important, and they do not want to see people who want to have meals need meals. She said departments need to start getting their numbers together
to bring to the County Manager's Office for the next budget.
25-033RequestforProposals-LegislativeLobbyingServicesChair Merrell recognized Deputy County Manager Patrick Niland for this item.
Mr. Niland said the County has utilized its existing state lobbyist, Navigator LLC, since August of 2020. He said there has been some discussion with the Board about possibly looking
at otherswho may be interested in representing Union County. He said this is the Board's opportunity to discuss it, and if the Board wants to move forward with a request for qualifications,
a motion to direct staff to issue a request for qualifications would be needed.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said it has been quite some time since the County has looked at lobbying services, and the Board should recognize that the landscape in Raleigh today may be
very different than it was two to five years ago. He said there haveseen numerous state bills that have either negated or stood against the Board’s stance on issues like growth, alternate
wastewater systems, building code changes, and more recently, zoning and the ability to downzone.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he realizes lobbying services only go so far, but he believesit is at a point where the Board should consider putting proposals together todetermine what
other services are available. He said itdoes not mean Navigator cannot submit a proposal as well, but he believes the Board needs to do diligence.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the request for proposals for lobbying services.
Commissioner Sides asked the approximate amount budgeted this current year for the lobbying services.
Mr. Niland said the amount budgeted this current year for lobbying services is $60,000.
Commissioner Sides asked what accomplishments could be listed from the lobbying efforts. He noted that the Board meets with its delegation and communicate on a regular basis, and that
the County Commission Association also lobbies on behalf of all the bodies in the state. He questioned what the County is getting for its $60,000 a year.
Mr. Niland said it is the Board’s prerogative to decide what the County has received for its money. He stated from a staff standpoint, there have been a number of state grants over
the last four or five years, including projects like theBARN, 12-Mile Creek, and other water and sewer projects, with direct allocations from Raleigh. He said the hard part is determining
if the lobbying services were directly responsible for those grants. He acknowledged that many organizations work on the County’s behalf, so ultimately it is a question for the Board
ifit is happy with the lobbying services the County is receiving, since the lobbyists work for the Board, not staff.
Chair Merrell asked if the current lobbyist assisted with projects like the BARN project.
Mr. Niland said staff communicates with the current lobbyist about all the County’s needs, and the lobbyist communicates those needs to the delegation. He said it is hard to say who
is directly responsible for all the state grants the County has received, but the County’s needs have been communicated to the lobbyist, who has passed those needs on to the delegation.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the lobbyist reports back to the County Manager or to Mr. Niland or Mr. Voignier on a monthly or quarterly basis, so they know what the County is
getting for its money.
Mr. Niland said that before Michelle Lancaster left employment with Union County government, she was the point of contact, and since then it has been Brian Matthews. He said the lobbyists
provide a general report that they share with all their clients, usually on a weekly basis when the General Assembly is in session. He added that when there are specific issues or bills
in Raleigh that directly affect the County, there is more communication focused on those items.
Chair Merrell explained part of her concern is that she hasnot seen the lobbyist since she was elected in 2022. She said that is part of her concern given the Board is talking about
$60,000 versus $68,000 to get started on senior nutrition. She said she hopedthe County is getting its money’sworth but she definitely supports the motion to start vetting what is out
there to find a good match for Union County’s needs. She added it has been disheartening to see bills in Raleigh that were directly opposed to what Union County was trying to do.
County Manager Brian Matthews said this is an opportunity for the Board to see what services are available and decide if it wants to continue with lobbying services. He said the Board
may decide not to continue with lobbying services for some period of time, and this is really a chance to reset and determine what is going on.
Commissioner Sides said he was thinking the Board should hold off on getting other proposals until it decides if a lobbyist is needed, rather than letting everyone make their pitch and
then making a decision based on what they say they can do and cutting them a check. He asked if the other approach of letting everyone make their pitch is better.
Mr. Matthews said he believes it is important for the Board to know what is availabe first, and then make that decision. He added that is just his opinion.
Chair Merrell said if the Manager and his staff are the ones receiving those weekly updates, the Board will depend on them to let the Board know if the lobbying services are worth it
or if it is something they could be done in-house. She said the Board is going to need to depend on the management team to keep it informed because it sounds like the management team
is getting weekly or monthly updates that the Board did not know about.
Mr. Matthews said it is helpful for the Board to give staff direction on how much detail it wants because the Board has never been this engaged, which is good. He said it is important
for staff to know how much detail the Board wants whether it wants the lobbyist to come quarterly or provide other updates so staff can understand what information the Board is trying
to get.
Commissioner Sides said to him, a lobbyist does for the Board what the Boardcannot do for itself because they have special inroads or can sit down with other legislators not our delegation,
since they believe they can communicate with their delegation on their own. He said if the lobbyist cannot do anything different than what the Board can do itself or just discover grant
opportunities, then he challenges the need.
Chair Merrell asked if anyone on staff knows when Union County first started using a lobbyist, saying she thought the lobbying budget was $100,000, but was not sure when it started.
Mr. Niland said they entered the current contract on August 1st, 2020.
Chair Merrell clarified she was not asking about the current contract but when the County started using a lobbyist.
Mr. Niland said they can find that information, noting that at one point they had a federal lobbyist as well, which ended when some earmarks went away, but they will research it and
find out.
Chair Merrell said it would be helpful to know because if her memory is correct, the lobbying budget started around an education issue between UCPS and the Board of County Commissioners.
She said if the County and UCPS are having good communication and relationships with their partners now, maybe that need is no longer there. She added she would like someone to get back
to her about when the County started budgeting for a lobbyist, since she thoughtit was tied to that education issue.
Commissioner Sides said he wants to hear success stories, like the lobbyist securing a $5 million grant for the BARN that the County did not even know existed he noted. He said $5 million
would pay for a lobbyist for a couple of years, but if the results are more nebulous and they cannot track it to specific successes, deals, or money directly to the lobbyist’s efforts,
then he believes theCounty should handle it themselves.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, said the Countyengaged a lobbyist in the past on a more sporadic basis, and then in 2020 it became more regular with a new and different lobbyist. He said
staffcould research and find out the history of working with lobbyists in the past and for what purposes within a certain timeframe.
Chair Merrell stated she believed it was approximately eight years ago. She requested that when this information is available that it be sent to all Commissioners by email.
She stated there is a motion on the floor to approve the request for proposals for lobbying services and called for a vote.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye25-034Resolution-ResolutioninSupportofLocalLegislationforUnionCountyConcerningLocalGovernmentZoningControlandSessionLaw2024-57(S.B.382)
Chair Merrell recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, for this item.
Mr. Niland explained that on December 11, 2024, the General Assembly adopted Session Law 2024-57, also known as Senate Bill 382. He stated that Section 3K.1 of that bill had provisions
affecting local governments’ ability to carry out certain down zonings. On December 16th, the Board adopted a resolution supporting the repeal of that section. He said the resolution
before the Board tonight is another option that would ask for a local bill to exempt Union County from those provisions.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he was in favor of adopting the resolution. He said this is not just a Union County problem or just an unincorporated Union County issue. He said
the bill, and specifically the last provision, affects every municipality and local government in the state that handles zoning or planning. He shared that he has personally had discussions
with leaders in municipalities within Union County, and they share the same concerns. He said there is strong consensus among various municipalities and the Board that they should petition
the local delegation for a local bill or exemption.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted that this resolution is somewhat different from the one adopted in December because it asks for specific action. He emphasized that the last provision
of Senate Bill 382 does not just limit the authority of local governments, it also limits the voice of the people to express their preferences and shape policy through their elected
officials.
He added that at a very basic level, some sort of action has to take place whether it is a local exemption or a local bill not only for the county but also for every municipal partner.
He encouraged municipalities to adopt similar resolutions. He emphasized again that this is a community and statewide issue.
Commissioner Baucom said he wanted to echo what Commissioner Helms stated, emphasizing that decisions should be made as close to the citizens as possible and not mandated from the state.
He added that it is very disrespectful to citizens to mandate this sort of action. He asked, if, in the case of an exemption, it would be something the General Assemblywould have to
vote on under the 50 percent rule and how that would work.
Jason Kay explained that all local laws, even though they have specific local effects, are still voted on by the entirety of the General Assembly. He said some bills are public bills,
which apply statewide everywhere, such as this one. He added that local bills also must be voted on by the state General Assembly, both House and Senate. He explained that in those instances,
the local delegation typically has more flexibility and authority to craft the bill and seek support from colleagues, though a majority vote is still required.
Chair Merrell clarified that the local bill would need to be sponsored by one of Union County’s representatives, one in the House and one in the Senate.
Mr. Kay explained that local bills generally occur through sponsorship by members of the legislature, often from the House, Senate, or the entire local delegation. However, he noted
that local delegations are not always unanimous on local bills, though they usually tend to agree on what they want to do.
Commissioner Sides asked if a single member of the delegation opposes the local legislation, does that mean the bill is gone.
Mr. Kay explained that if one member of the local delegation opposes the legislation, it is up to the rest of the delegation to decide how to handle that dissent. He noted it is not
uncommon for a delegation to have mostly one party with a single dissenting member, and different delegations handle that differently.
Commissioner Sides asked if local legislation is subject to the governor’s veto.
Mr. Kay responded that generally local bills are a carve out from the governor’s veto that was part of the compromise. He said that came about when North Carolina got a Governor's veto,
one of the last states in the country back in the early 90s to get that veto, local bills are exempted.
Chair Merrell reminded Commissioner Sides that in 2020, when DPI (Department of Public Instruction) was not allowing seniors access to their numerical grades, Union County’s local representatives
wrote a local bill to allow UCPS to offer that option to Union County seniors.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to adopt the requested action and adopt the resolution supporting local legislation for Union County regarding local government zoning control and Session
Law 2024-57 (SB 382). He also directed the county manager or his designee to distribute the resolution to all municipalities within the county.
Chair Merrell called for a vote.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
CountyManager'sComments
Mr. Matthews informed the Board that a joint meeting with the City of Monroe is scheduled for January 30th at 6:00 p.m. at the Bazemore Active Adult Center in Monroe.
Commissioners'Comments
Commissioner Sides said, “God bless our President Donald J. Trump.”
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked his colleagues for the spirited debate and discussion during the meeting, expressing appreciation for everyone’s opinions. He also thanked the staff
for its hard work, especially given the treacherous weather. He encouraged everyone to drive safely and wished everyone a good night.
Chair Merrell extended thanks to staff and Commissioners who attended the Martin Luther King dinner on Saturday. She praised Bishop Gardine as a wonderful asset to the Board and active
community member. She noted the dinner included church representatives from across Union County, good food, and a wonderful guest speaker honoring Dr. Martin Luther King. She thanked
Bishop Gardine for the invitation and thanked County Manager, Brian Matthews, Commissioner Baucom, and Vice Chair Brian Helms for joining the dinner and remembering Dr. King.
Commissioner Christina Helms recognized Beverly Liles and her department, congratulating them on a clean audit and praising their dedication to the county. She also acknowledged Ron
Mahl, Rachel Holzman, and Megan Gibsonof the Economic Development for their important work in correcting issues related to 90/10 residents to industry in Union County, appreciating their
diligence.
She encouraged Union County citizens to reach out to their state representatives to support legislation reversing State Bill 382 and to advocate for local government control. She said
that citizens have spoken that they want controlled growth in Union County.
Commissioner Helms asked residents to urge their state representatives to pass single-item bills, saying one of them could be the hero in North Carolina. She said that provisions such
as this do not get shoved into relief for Western Union County. She shared that at a recent Republican event, tensions got heated at representatives and how frustrated they were that
this had passed. She stated let us Start single item bills in North Carolina so things like this cannot be snuck in and do what is right for Union County.
Commissioner Baucom encouraged everyone to stay warm over the next few days and to have a good night.
Chair Merrell reminded everyone to drive home safely.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 8:26 p.m., Chair Merrell moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye