April 7, 2025, Minutes BWM approved (1)UnionCounty,NCBoardofCommissionersMeetingMinutes
UnionCountyGovernment Center
500NorthMainStreet
Monroe,NorthCarolina
www.unioncountync.gov
______________________________________________________________________
Monday, April07, 20256:00 PM Board Room, First Floor
______________________________________________________________________
Closed Session – 5:15
25-214Closed Session
Chair Melissa M. Merrell, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, Commissioner Clancy Baucom, Commissioner Christina B. Helms; and Commissioner Gary Sides
At approximately 5:15 p.m., in open session, in the first floor Conference Room, Union County Government Center, 500 North Main Street, Monroe, North Carolina Chair Melissa Merrell called
the April 7, 2025, regular meeting to order and moved that the Board enter into closed session pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11:
1) (a)(1), to prevent the disclosure ofinformation that is privileged or confidential; and
2) (a)(3), to consult with an attorney in orderto preserve the attorney-client privilege; and
3) (a)(4), to discuss matter relating to thelocation or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area servedby the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economicdevelopment
incentives that may be offered by the public body in
negotiations.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair Melissa M. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Opening of Meeting - 6:00 PM
At approximately 6:00 p.m., in open session, in the Board’s meeting chamber on the first floor, Union County Government Center, 500 North Main Street, Monroe, North Carolina, Chair Merrell
called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order.
PRESENT:Chair Melissa M. Merrell, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, Commissioner Clancy Baucom, Commissioner Christina B. Helms, and Commissioner Gary Sides
NONE:None
ALSO PRESENT:Brian E. Matthews, County Manager; Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager; Clayton Voignier, Assistant County Manager; Lynn G. West, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners;
Jason Kay, County Attorney; and other interested residents
Chairman Merrell called the meeting to order and recognized Commissioner Gary Sides to present the invocation.
Invocation – Commissioner Gary sides offered the invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance – Chair 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 recognized Martha Grise-Haney as the first speaker for informal comments.
Ms. Grise-Haney shared that she has lived in Union County for 35 years, in downtown Monroe, North Carolina. She explained that she has been a Union County school teacher for over 26
years. She added that she is a daughter, a mom, and that her most loved role is being a grandma.
Ms. Grise-Haney spoke about an incident that she had with the Department of Social Services involving her having been denied custody of her grandson.
Chair Merrell introduced the next speaker Robbie Cohen, a Commissioner from the Town of Norwood, North Carolina. She also acknowledged the presence of Police Chief James Wilson and
thanked them for attending tonight’s meeting.
Commissioner Cohen spoke regarding housing a police boat in an existing structure to police Lake Tillery on the Norwood property on the Norwood side. He noted that he had provided pictures
of the structure. Commissioner Cohen said he had spoken with aDuke Energy representative, including the regional director, during a contractors’ meeting the previous week and had explained
his intentions to them in person.
Commissioner Cohen explained that because this was a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permit obtained by the Union County water department and the County, it will have to
be brought up to Union County. He noted that a permit may or may not be obtained, and if one is required, it would be the sole responsibility of the town of Norwood. He stated that there
would be no changes to the structure other than the touchless cover, which he indicated is towards the back and is intended to protect the boat and prevent the public from knowing whether
the boat is in or out of the structure.
Commissioner Cohen stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. He noted that he has personally written four FERC permits on Lake Tillery and has been a developer of Lake Tillery
for 30 years. He added that he has lived there for all of his 55 years. He acknowledged that engineers may be required if drawings or surveys are needed, but he does not foresee that,
and emphasized that any such costs would be at their sole expense.
Mr. Cohen stated that he has read the agreement between Union County and Norwood as well as the lease with Duke Energy and has not found anything that would speak for or against the
request, or that would allow or disallow it. He described the situation as somewhat uncharted waters and requested a letter of support from the Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Cohen explained that there have been instances where people were tied up to the structures shown in the pictures, and when the police were called to have them removed, they had to
yell at them from the bank. He noted that if the police could easily access the boat, they could go out and ask people to leave.
Mr. Cohen stated that he would like Chief Wilson to share additional information, highlighting some positive aspects, and recognized Chief Wilson.
Chief Wilson explained that they simply need access for their boat and that there are no other reasons for being at the boathouse. He said it provides quick access to the water. He explained
that currently they have to hook up the boat, which is stored behind one of their buildings behind the museum in Norwood, and this process takes about 30 minutes to hook up the boat,
trailer it to the ramp, unload, park, and so forth.
Chief Wilson stated that having access to this location would allow them to be on the water within five minutes. He emphasized that this quick access is very important for emergencies
such as boat wrecks and drownings.
He said their wildlife officers are ecstatic about the help they are getting. He stated that it is also needed because of the heavy traffic on Lake Tillery, especially during the summertime.
He reiterated that the only reason they need access is to get onto the water quickly and safely to provide service for citizens.
Public Hearing (s) - None
Staff Recognition
25-199Sustained Professional Purchasing Award
Chair Merrell recognized Cheryl Wright, Procurement Director, to present this item.
Ms. Wright introduced the procurement team present that evening: Vicky Watts, Senior Procurement Specialist; Corey Brooks, Senior Procurement Specialist; David Sifford, Procurement and
Contract Coordinator; and Kyle Hodge, Procurement Specialist. She expressed gratitude to the team and to the departments for collaborating all year to ensure they provide great purchasing
services to the county.
Ms. Wright announced that the Procurement and Contract Management Department met rigorous requirements to receive the North Carolina Governmental Association Purchasing Award (NCAGP),
also known as the 2024 Sustained Professional Purchasing Award (SPPA). She noted that this marked the department's ninth year receiving the award. She emphasized that it is not an easy
feat, and stated that it takes a lot of work, but they received the award as a team.
Ms. Wright stated that the SPPA award was presented during the March 19th NCAGP Association banquet and awards presentation ceremony. She explained that the department answered questions
and requirements by providing extensive documentation to qualify for the award. She noted that they are one of 17 organizations in North Carolina to receive the award and that it was
earned by demonstrating excellence in providing purchasing services to the County.
Members of the Procurement Team were photographed with the members of the Board of Commissioners.
25-166Annual Caught in the Act Award
Chair Merrell recognized Deputy County Manager Patrick Niland for this item.
Mr. Niland said that every day employees go above and beyond what is required of them. He explained that the Caught in the Act Award was developed to recognize some of those employees
for their actions, and this item is to recognize the recipient of the annual Caught in the Act Award recipient.
Mr. Niland shared that every quarter one employee is selected as a recipient of the Caught in the Act Award, and from those four quarterly recipients, an annual winner is chosen. He
said it was hoped that it would be a surprise to the recipient, but he had received a small bonus in his last paycheck which ended up spoiling the surprise.
Mr. Niland said they were there to recognize School Resource Officer Deputy Jonathan Carter, who serves at Prospect Elementary. He stated Deputy Carter was nominated for demonstrating
exceptional commitment to school safety and engagement, and his innovative efforts to involve staff and teachers in proactive and comprehensive safety discussions have strengthened the
partnership between law enforcement and the school community.
Mr. Niland said that through his leadership, Deputy Carter has initiated engaging programs that promote awareness, preparedness, and collaboration, ensuring schools remain safe and supportive
for both students and staff. He stated that the award was not for a single instance but for the body of work Deputy Carter does each day, and that he was overwhelmingly chosen as the
annual Caught in the Act Award recipient.
Mr. Niland invited Sheriff Eddie Cathy to offer his comments.
Sheriff Eddie Cathy stated that he knows this is an award that is important to the citizens and the County. He shared that he had coached Deputy Carter in middle school football; he
is a Shriner; he works in the Prospect community and was raised in that area; and he now gives back to the community.
Sheriff Cathey stated that Deputy Carter is probably the best T-ball coach in the southeast region. He noted that Deputy Carter cares deeply about the community; the community thinks
a lot of him; and he works to give back to the Prospect Community, which entitles himto being honored by the citizens of Union County.
Deputy Carter was invited to come to the podium, and he was presented with a Certificate of Recognition and was photographed with the Commissioners and Sheriff Cathey.
25-202Annual Caught in the Act Team Awards
Chair Merrell recognized Deputy County Manager Patrick Niland for this item.
Mr. Niland explained that many of these awards involve multiple employees. He said the team award was created to recognize groups that went above and beyond in supporting the community
and to acknowledge their efforts. He stated he would read through the two annual Caught in the Act Team Award winners and then invite them forward for a picture.
Mr. Niland stated that Justin Lesperance, Becky Hatley, Casey Deese, Mary Chickoree, and Susie Caukins were recognized with one of the Annual Caught in the Act Team Awards for their
efforts in organizing a fundraiser to benefit the Behavioral Health Collaborative, a partnership between Union County Social Services and Union County Public Schools, that supports the
social, emotional, and mental health well-being of students across Union County.
He explained that School Resource Officer Lesperance led the effort in developing and marketing a disc golf event that successfully raised nearly $1,000 to support mental health services
for local students. Mr. Niland noted that the event highlighted the importance of suicide awareness and mental health resources and would not have been possible without the dedication
and collaboration of Human Services, Business Operations, and Building Code Enforcement.
Mr. Niland stated that their innovative problem-solving ensured the proper handling of registration fees and internal fund transfers, which contributed to mademaking the event a resounding
success. He expressed gratitude for their efforts.
Mr. Niland introduced the second Annual Caught in the Act Team Award to the Child Health Support Team. He stated that Dorothy Tran, Cara Keith, Jackie Deakin, Cindy Spratt, and Alexis
Sabul were honored for their compassionate response to a critical family need. He explained that after a mother reached out for help following her son’s hospital discharge due to a severe
motor vehicle accident, Dr. Dorothy Tran assembled a team to address the immediate medical and supply needs.
Mr. Niland stated that the group ensured the patient received essential medication, medical supplies, and fresh food. He explained that Dr. DorothyTran and Jackie Deakin went beyond
their professional duties by personally purchasing supplies during their lunch breaks. He added that Cara Keith adjusted schedules to allow for a same-day home visit, while Cindy Spratt
and Alexis Sabul delivered food, medical items, and school supplies to the family’s home.
Mr. Niland stated that their quick and coordinated actions provided vital relief to the family, which was facing immense challenges. He said it was an honor to recognize these employees,
noting that one of the best aspects of public service is acknowledging employees who go above and beyond.The recipients of the Caught in the Act Team Awards were invited to come forward
to receive Certificates of Recognition and were photographed with members of the Board of Commissioners.
Consent AgendaCommissioner Gary Sides requested that item 25-205 - Authorized Expenditures for Autopsy Services be removed from the consent agenda to be added to the business agenda.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the items listed on the consent agenda as amended.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christinia HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-177Resolution - Approve Invoice From and Payment to Hux Contracting,
LLC
ACTION:Adopted resolution approving invoice from and payment to Hux Contracting,LLC, in the amount of Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars($62,500.00) for emergency asphalt compacting,
milling, and paving forUnion County Water.
Union County Water authorized Hux Contracting, LLC, to conduct
emergency asphalt compacting, milling, and paving following the repair of
a water main break. This action item requests the Board to approve
invoice payments in the amount of $62,500.
The total cost of the contract with Hux Contracting is $62,500.00.
Sufficient funds are available in the Water and Wastewater Operations
Budget - 60026514-5381.
25-180City of Monroe Request to Provide Water Service
ACTION:Approved the request from the City of Monroe to provide water service toParcel 09-125-061 located at 2208 White Store Road.
The City of Monroe recently received a request for outside city service locatedat 2208 White Store Road. The City of Monroe has a water main located along WhiteStore Road tothat could
serve the property. The closest County water main islocated approximately 2.0 miles away along Summerlin Dairy Road.The City of Monroe has indicated that it is prepared to serve theproperty
with water, as outside City customers, if approval is granted fromby Union County. The County’s water and sewer service agreement with the City ofMonroe prohibits the City from providing
service outside the City limitswithout the expressed, written approval of the Board of CountyCommissioners.
Union County Water has no objection to the City providing water service
to this property.
25-189Contract - 30” Parallel East Fork Interceptor Preliminary Engineering
Report
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager’s discretion.
Union County Water’s (UCW) Master Plan identified the need for the East
Fork Interceptor Improvements project consisting of 30,000 LF of 30-inch
gravity sewer interceptor from New Town Road to Providence Road to
provide sufficient conveyance capacity to relieve the excessive surcharge ofthe existing sewer interceptor during peak flow conditions. This task orderwill provide engineering services
to complete a Preliminary EngineeringReport (PER) that will validate the proposed sewer interceptor size,determine the preliminary alignment, and outline permitting and easementrequirements.
This PER will be the basis of the final design, permitting,and bidding phases for the project, which will be contracted under afuture task order requiring Board approval, that will be
needed to prepareconstruction documents for construction ofthe projectconstruction.
GHD Consulting Services, Inc., has been selected to provide preliminary
engineering services for Task Order 8677-02 - 30” Parallel East Fork
Interceptor PER. GHD Consulting Service, Inc. was chosen from a list of
vendors previously selected from RFQ 2024-021 - Engineering Services
for Water and Wastewater System Improvements to provide these
services for Union County projects.
25-190Contract - 853 West Zone Water Transmission Main Phase 3
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute agreementssubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the agreements, and 3) terminate theagreements if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion
The Union County Water Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes an
allocation for the design and construction of the 853 West Zone Water
Transmission, Main Phase 3 project, that consists of approximately 16,000
feet of 16-inch piping along Waxhaw Indian Trail Road from Potter Road
to Glenn Valley Drive near Old Monroe Road to improve fire flow and
pressure in the water distribution system.
The project was initiated in March 2022 and progressed to approximately
90% design before being placed on hold in early 2023 due to funding
constraints of the CIP related to rate reductions approved in December
2022. This project has been restarted with the FY2025 CIP, and
additional engineering services are required, as outlined in thetask order amendments, to complete the permitting and easementacquisition for the project and advance the design documents
to the bidphase.
Hazen and Sawyer has been selected to provide engineering services for
Task Order 2020-03 Amendment 1 and Task Order 2020-05 Amendment
1 - 853 West Zone Water Transmission Main Phase 3. Hazen and
Sawyer was chosen from a list of vendors previously selected from RFQ
2021-018 - Engineering Services for Water and Wastewater System
Improvements to provide these services for Union County Projects.
The total cost of the Task Order 2020-03 contract with Amendment 1 with
Hazen and Sawyer is $871,768.00, and the total cost of the Task Order
2020-05 contract with Amendment 1 with Hazen and Sawyer is
$383,880.00. Sufficient funds are available in Capital Account Program
60185526 - 853 West Zone Water Transmission Main Phase 3.
25-191Conservation Easement Conveyance - Catawba River Water
Treatment Plant
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute agreementssubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the agreements, and 3) terminate theagreements if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
As part of the reservoir expansion project completed at the Catawba
River Water Treatment Plant (CRWTP), United States Army Corps of
Engineers 401/404 permits were obtained. As a condition of closing these
permits, conservation easements are required to be dedicated covering
an unnamed tributary and the perimeter of the reservoir protecting these
areas from disruption in perpetuity.
To facilitate the preparation of the conservation easements, Lancaster
County Water and Sewer District (LCWSD) has incurred approximately
$50,000 in fees related to survey costs, development of baseline
condition documentation, legal fees, and stewardship fees. Union County
is responsible for 50% of these costs and will provide reimbursement to
LCWSD upon approval. The reimbursement is within the County
Manager’s authority and will be finalized with the approval and recordation
of the conservation easements.
Lancaster County Water and Sewer District approved the conservation
easements on March 11, 2025, contingent upon Union County’s approval.
25-197Contract - Water Meters, Transceivers & Pit Lid Adapters
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager’s discretion.
Union County Water maintains and reads almost 64,000 water meters in
our utility system. The County has an active program to replace aging,
inaccurate water meters with newer equipment and deploy new meters as
development continues. The County estimates setting approximately 2,100 newmeters each year related to New Development as well as a one percent replacement rate due to meter failure
or damaged replacement.
Transceivers are necessary for each meter that is set to communicate in
our Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) system. Pit lid adapters are used
to hold the transceiver in place underneath the meter lid. New meters
come with these; however, they can be damaged typically by
lawnmowers. It is estimated that there isa replacement need of approximately five percent per year for the pit lid adapters.
On November 8, 2024, the Procurement Department partnered with UC
Water Business Operations (Meter Services) to issue Invitation for Bid
2025-016 Meters and Transceiver Units. On November 26,2024, one bid
for the title project was received and processed. The bid was reviewed
and certified by UC Water Business Operations (Meter Services). The bid
amount was $1,244,000 per year. Staff recommended that the project be
awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Ferguson
Enterprises, LLC.
25-146Road Naming for Unincorporated Portion of Segments C and E,
located between Tory Path and the existing Helms Road
ACTION:Approved name for segments C and E.
Several roads west of downtown Waxhaw are being modified or built as
part of project P-5748, which will build a new bridge over NC 75 and the
CSX railroad line in order to close railroad crossings at Helms Road and
Tory Path Road. This project is currently underway, and one new road
has already been completed, connecting Tory Path and Helms Road.
Waxhaw and Union County are responsible for naming the roads in this
area. They conducted a public input period between November 7 and
December 15, 2024. Based on the submitted names, staff has made
recommendations for each of the proposed or recently completed
segments. A public hearing was conducted March 17, 2025, where a
resident requested that Helms Road keep its current name. Staff
coordinated with Waxhaw staff, who agreed with the revision. The Town
took action on its portions at its March 25, 2025, regular meeting. The
new recommended name for these segments is Helms Road.
25-149Road Naming for Unincorporated Portion of Segment D, located
between Waxhaw-Marvin Road and NC 75
ACTION:Approved name for segment D.
Several roads west of downtown Waxhaw are being modified or built as
part of project P-5748, which will build a new bridge over NC 75 and the
CSX railroad line in order to close railroad crossings at Helms Road and
Tory Path Road. This project is currently underway, and one new road
has already been completed, connecting Tory Path and Helms Road.
Waxhaw and Union County are responsible for naming the roads in this
area. They conducted a public input period between November 7 and
December 15, 2024. Based on the submitted names, staff have made
recommendations for each of the proposed or recently completed
segments. At the March 17, 2025, public hearing, a resident requested
that the name remains Helms Road. Staff coordinated with Waxhaw, who
agreed that switching the recommended names of Helms and King Hagler Roadnamings would also work. The Town of Waxhaw took action on its
portions at its March 25, 2025, regular meeting. The recommended
name for this segment is King Hagler Road.
25-151Road Naming for theUnincorporated Portion of Segment G, located
between Segment C and the CSX Railroad
ACTION:Approved name for segment D.
Several roads west of downtown Waxhaw are being modified or built as
part of project P-5748, which will build a new bridge over NC 75 and the
CSX railroad line in order to close railroad crossings at Helms Road and
Tory Path Road. This project is currently underway, and one new road
has already been completed, connecting Tory Path and Helms Road.
Waxhaw and Union County are responsible for naming the roads in this
area. They conducted a public input period between November 7 and
December 15, 2024. Based on the submitted names, staff have made
recommendations for each of the proposed or recently completed
segments. The Town of Waxhaw took action on its portions at its
February 25, 2025, regular meeting. The recommended name for this
segment is Sabinske Way.
25-152Road Naming for Unincorporated Portion of Segment F, located
between Waxhaw-Marvin and the CSX Railroad
ACTION:Approved name for segment F.
Several roads west of downtown Waxhaw are being modified or built as
part of project P-5748, which will build a new bridge over NC 75 and the
CSX railroad line in order to close railroad crossings at Helms Road and
Tory Path Road. This project is currently underway, and one new road
has already been completed, connecting Tory Path and Helms Road.
Waxhaw and Union County are responsible for naming the roads in this
area. They conducted a public input period between November 7 and
December 15, 2024. Based on the submitted names, staff have made
recommendations for each of the proposed or recently completed
segments. The Town of Waxhaw took action on its portions at its
February 25, 2025, regular meeting. The recommended name for this
segment is Ernest Way.
25-162Grant Application - Duke EnergyStorm Preparedness
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to submit the associated grant applicationand make necessary assurances and certifications associated with thegrant application as substantially
consistent with this agenda item, whichincludes the authorization to execute documents related to the award of thegrant and budget funds as appropriate.
Duke Energy plays a vital role in storm readiness, response, recovery,and
resilience throughout the region. The Duke Energy Foundation Grant
supports storm preparedness and natural disaster readiness at the local
level. The proposed grant funding request ($25,000) will be used to support forsupportingUnion County Emergency Management’s ability to providespecialized training for first responders
for natural disaster scenarios.
25-193FY23 5307 Capital Grant - Budget Amendment, Special Revenue
Ordinance and Capital Project Ordinance - Transportation
ACTION:Adopted 1) Budget Amendment #28, 2) Special Revenue OrdinanceAmendment #100 and 3) Capital Project Ordinance #346A.
At the April 15, 2024, regular meeting, the Board approved
Transportation’s application for the FFY21/FY23 5307 Urbanized Area
Grant Application. The grant funds cover transit capital and operating
assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning.
The Board also approved the local match and, upon receipt of the grant
Award, that itthe funds would be recognized, received and appropriated in theTransportation budget. The capital portion of the budget will be accounted for in the Special Revenue Fund.
Budget Amendment #28 transfers the available budget of $28,060 from theGeneral Fund to the Special Revenue Fund for additional local match
needs. CPO #346A transfers thelocal match of $100,000 from Capital
Projects Fund to the Special Revenue Fund. Special Revenue Ordinance
#100 appropriates the capital grant funding of $512,233 and the local
match of $128,060.
25-198Contract Renewal -Bayada In-Home Aide Services
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theagreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
The Human Services Agency’s Division of Social Services operates the
In-Home Aide Program, which is intended to assist eligible Union County
residents. In-Home Aide Services provide home management and
personal care to older adults (age 60+) and adults with disabilities (age
18+) in order to help individuals maximize their independence and remain
safely in their own homes as long as possible. The In-Home Aide
Program contracts with external providers to deliver direct care for eligible
Union County residents by performing organized household duties and
personal care services during the day in the individual’s home. This
service helps prevent premature institutional care, adult abuse, neglect
and/or exploitation, helps individuals to be independent and self-sufficient
as long as possible, and delivers assistance with essential health and
personal tasks for the recipient’s continued safety and well-being. Union
County Social Workers provide monitoring and compliance for the clients
served by the In-Home Aide program.
The Human Services Agency's Division of Social Services has utilized the
contractual services of Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. for In-Home Aide
Services since February 2022. The vendor has been effective and
efficient in meeting the service needs, and the request is to continue
this service for an additional one-year.
25-200Contract Renewal - Neighborhood Nurses In-Home Aide Services
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.
The Human Services Agency’s Division of Social Services operates the
In-Home Aide Program,which is intended to assist eligible Union County
residents. In-Home Aide Services provide home management and
personal care to older adults (age 60+) and adults with disabilities (age
18+) in order to help individuals maximize their independence and remain
safely in their own homes as long as possible. The In-Home Aide
Program contracts with external providers to deliver direct care for eligible
Union County residents by performing organized household duties and
personal care services during the day in the individual’s home. This
service helps prevent premature institutional care, adult abuse, neglect
and/or exploitation, helps individuals to be independent and self-sufficient
as long as possible, and delivers assistance with essential health and
personal tasks for the recipient’s continued safety and well-being. Union
County Social Workers provide monitoring and compliance for its clients
served by the In-Home Aide program.
The Human Services Agency's Division of Social Services has utilized
the contractual services of Neighborhood Nurses Health Care Services
Inc.,for In-Home Aide Services since 2022. Neighborhood Nurses Health
Care Services Inc., has been effective and efficient in meeting the service
needs, and the request is to continue this service for an additional
one-year.
25-160FY2024-25 Tax Bill Correction Report for February 2025
ACTION: Approved FY 2024-25 Tax Bill Correction Reports for February 2025.
In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes 102-312 and
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 bills
that 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, if
applicable. (February Refund Amount = $840.70).
25-176February 2025 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Report
ACTION: Approved the February 2025 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Refund Report.
The refunds included in this report represent adjustments made to tax
bills that resulted in refunds of motor vehicle taxes paid under the Tax
and Tag Together program operated jointly between the counties and the
state. (Refund Amount = $1,270.68).
25-161Appointment of Deputy Finance Officer
ACTION: Appointed Amber Daniels, Senior Accountant, to serve as a “Deputy Finance Officer” in order to pre-audit obligations.
G.S. 159-8 directs that no county "may expend any moneys…except in
accordance with a budget ordinance or project ordinance."
The pre-auditing of obligations, required by G.S. 159-28(a), is a principal
legal mechanism for assuring compliance with the budget ordinance and
each project ordinance. The pre-audit rule provides that no obligation may
be incurred in an activity accounted for in a fund project ordinance unless
two requirements are met. First, the obligation must be authorized; that is,
one of the ordinances must contain an appropriation to cover it. Second,
the authorization must not be exhausted; sufficient unspent and
unencumbered funds must remain in the appropriation to meet the
obligation when it comes due. Only if both requirements are met is the
obligation validly incurred.
Completion of this two-stage review is evidenced by placing the finance
officer's certificate on the obligations. Having the deputy finance officer
authorized to pre-audit obligations is important, and such adelegation will
occur only with the approval of the County's finance officer and only when
adequate internal controls are built into the payment procedures that are
used.
25-179Bid Award and Construction Contract - Government Center First
ACTION:1) Awarded contract to Heartland Construction, LLC., in the amount of $424,630.00; 2) authorized the County Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent
with this agenda item, exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth in the agreement, and terminate the agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County,
each in the County Manager’s discretion; and 3) adopted Resolution ProvidingNotice of Construction of the Government Center First Floor Finishes andLobby Renovation project.
This project scope includes changes to the lobby floor plan, replacement
of flooring, paint, lighting, and ceiling tiles in the lobby and main hallway.
Carpet and paint will also be replaced in the Board Meetings Rooms. The
new lobby layout will improve overall circulation and security, including
placement of new automatic sliding main entrance doors, card-activated
entrance and exit gates, and a new security counter.
On January 29, 2025, The Procurement and Contract Management
Department partnered with the Facilities and Fleet Management
Department to issue IFB 2025-029. On February 27, 2025, five (5)
responsive bids for the titled project were received and processed. All
bids were tabulated, reviewed, and certified by Gensler Architects. Bids
ranged from $424,630.00 to $567,216.00. Staff recommends the project
be awarded to Heartland Construction, LLC., in the amount of
$424,630.00.
Bids received are recorded below:
25-186Authorization of Land Purchase - Union County Tax Parcel
08-189-030
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion, and 4) authorize the County Manager toexecute all
necessary documentation to effectuate said purchase.
The land purchase agreement is for the purchase of approximately 1.386
acres in Fairview, identified as tax parcel number 08-189-030, currently
owned by Fairview Fire and Rescue Association.
Land purchase price of $300,000, associated closing and survey fees.
25-188Authorization of Land Purchase and Sale
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion, and 4) authorized the County Manager toexecute all
necessary documentation to effectuate said land transfers.
Union County is purchasing approximately 1.386 acres of real property
located in Fairview, currently owned by Fairview Fire and Rescue
Association (the “Fire Department”), and identified as tax parcel number
08-189-030. The Town of Fairview has a reverter interest in an
approximate 0.614-acre portion of the 1.386 acres, which states that in
the event the property ceases to be used by the Fire Department, then
the property shall revert to the Town of Fairview (“Reverter”). Contingent
upon the conveyance of the 1.386 acres to the County by the Fire
Department, the Town of Fairview will convey to the County 0.107 acres,
which is currently subject to the Reverter, free and clear of the Town of
Fairview’s Reverter. As a result, the County will own 0.801 acres, more or
less, free and clear of the Town of Fairview’s Reverter. The County will
convey to the Town of Fairview 0.077 acres to be combined with the
remaining 0.508 acres of property that is subject to the Town of Fairview’s
Reverter. As a result, the Town of Fairview will own 0.585 acres, more or
less, to be combined with tax parcel number 08-189-031C.
The Town of Fairview will be paying the County $30,000 for the land
purchase.
25-196Contract Renewal - Employee Service Awards
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.
Human Resources has utilized the contractual services of The Tharpe
Company, Inc., d/b/a Engage2Excel to support the service award
recognition program for county employees. This program recognizes
employees for their continuous years of service with certificates and an
opportunity to select a gift to commemorate the service milestone. The
vendor has been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs for
the program, and therefore it is requested to continue this service
relationship for an additional one-year term.
25-205Authorize Expenditures for Autopsy Services (This item was moved to the Business Agenda during the meeting at the request of Commissioner Sides.)
Information Only
25-1712024 Annual Reports for Child Fatality Prevention & Community
Child Protection Team
ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for information only.
The NC Child Fatality Prevention System is a statewide multi-disciplinary, multiagency system that was developed in the 1990s, consisting of the North Carolina Child Fatality Prevention
Team, North Carolina Child Fatality Task Force, and the Local Child Fatality Prevention Team (CFPT) and Community Child Protection Team (CCPT). N.C. G.S. 7B Article 14 defines the duties
and membership composition of CCPTs and CFPTs which are statutorily required to represent various human services and public service disciplines in the community such as law enforcement,
mental health, school system, health care, etc.
The purpose of the local CFPT is to review Union County child fatalities, assess potential gaps in systems and policies that may have contributed to the deaths, and make recommendations
to policymakers to improve local and statewide systems to better protect children and prevent future deaths.
CCPTs were established to review selected active cases of child abuse/neglect and cases in which a child died as aresult of suspected abuse/neglect. The purpose of the local CCPT is
to improve the social services/child protective services system and other community systems that protect children from abuse and neglect.
In Union County, the local CFPT and local CCPT are a combined team whichthat meets quarterly and is co-chaired by the Social Services Director and Public Health Director. The CFPT/CCPT
team submits annual reports annuallyto the State that must also be reviewed by the Consolidated Human Services Agency Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The Consolidated Human
Services Agency Board reviewed these reports on March 10, 2025.
25-173Tax Refunds, Releases and Prorations Approved by Finance Officer
ACTION: 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 thesurrendering of registered motor vehicle plates.The finance officer shall issue a refund to the vehicle owner. The
attached report is for February 2025 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.
25-174Human Resources Reports for February 2025
ACTION: No action was requested. This item was for information purposes only.
These reports include all new hires, separations from service, and
retirements for Union County Local Government for the month of
February 2025.
25-175Tax Collector’s Departmental Report for December 2025
ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for information purposes only.
This report reflects the totals of all tax transactions within the Tax
Collector’s Office for the month of December 2025 as required by NCGS
105-350(7).
Business
25-205Authorize Expenditures for Autopsy Services (This item was moved from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda during the meeting at the request of Commissioner Sides.)Chair Merrell
recognized Commissioner Sides for his comments regarding this item.
Commissioner Sides said he had some questions about this item, but in general, he wanted an update on the (SPRAC) Southern Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center. He explained that the County
is being asked to start paying, and he wanted to know the current status of providing autopsy services, toxicology services, and construction of the new facility
Commissioner Sides asked if autopsies were currently being performed under the auspices of the hospital.
Clayton Voignier, Assistant Manager, confirmed that his they are.
was correct.
Commissioner Sides asked the number of autopsies that had been performed to date.
Mr. Voignier responded that over 15 autopsies have been performed, noting that this is the reason the contract is on the agenda, as that number has been reached.
Commissioner Sides asked which counties are currently being served, noting that he understands that several counties will be includedin those being servedbe served, but he wanted to
know the current status.
Mr. Voignier said he did not recall the number of autopsies performed for each county off the top of his head.
Commissioner Sides asked, in general, which counties are currently served.
Mr. Voignier stated that currently,Cabarrus and Stanly Counties are being served, but itthe programis planned to expand to the full nine-county region as development progresses, and
they are able to move into the new facility wheremore autopsies can be performed.
Commissioner Sides asked whether the toxicology portion of the autopsies is still being sent to Raleigh or if it can now be handled locally.
Mr. Voignier said he was not sure which toxicology testing had been done on the particular autopsies. He explained that he does not believe there has been any need to send any, as these
have not been law enforcement-related autopsies, but he would need to confirm that information.
Commissioner Sides asked if there was a need for toxicology testing, whether the Mecklenburg facilities could be utilized, or if it would have to be sent to Raleigh.
Mr. Voignier confirmed that, if needed, toxicology testing would have to be sent to Raleigh.
Commissioner Sides asked for a status update and timeline for the construction of the standalone facility.
Mr. Voignier stated that the County is currently negotiating contracts for design as well as the CMat Risk. He estimated that design would take approximately nine to fifteen months,
followed by about two years for construction.
Commissioner Sides noted that this timeline would put the project a little overapproximately three years away.
Mr. Voignier indicated that the project timeline is approximately three years.
Commissioner Sides asked if the new facility, once constructed, would also handle toxicology needs, confirming that a laboratory would be included.
Mr. Voignier stated that there will be some labs in the new facility.
Commissioner Sides asked whether a site plan is available, noting that work will soon begin on the design, and the facility is expected to be in the general proximity of the potential
new jail. He asked if there is a feel for the site plan and where everything is going to fit together at this point.
Mr. Voignier stated that, because it was known this would be a consideration, initial work is being done with a civil engineer to develop a better site plandeveloped before entering
the design phase. He explained that some initial site planning is necessary due to the proximity tothe potentially anew jail, should the Board decide to pursue one. a new jail.
Commissioner Sides asked, since this involves law enforcement, who within the Sheriff’s Office is serving as liaison or working with staff in the process.
Mr. Voignier explained that those details are still being worked out as they move toward a more regional approach. He said it will be necessary to address this with each of the counties
involved to determine who the liaisons will be, but that issue has not been discussed. He shared that a new staff person, anew business manager, has been hired for the autopsy center
to assist in developing those plans and relationships.
Commissioner Sides asked forrequested clarification on where the responsibilities end and begin, specifically in relation to operations up until that point.
Mr. Voignier stated that Michelle Lancaster remains on contract and continues to manage is still managingsome state relationships. She is working with the new business manager to bring
her up to speed withthese relationships, as well as with the plans and procedures for the new autopsy center. He noted that these actions have occurred recently, as the business manager
was hired within the last few weeks, and they are still working through some of the details.
Commissioner Sides stated that he knows theyarethe county is not in the design phase yet, but noted that there is a fixed amount of funding provided by the state. He asked if there is
confidence that a facility can be built that will meet the needs of all the counties that willtobe served by the facility and stay within that budget.
Mr. Voignier confirmed that they are confident that the needs can be met and stay within the budget.
Commissioner Sides asked, considering the extended timeframe of at least a year and a half to two or three years, before construction begins, whether any price increases can be factored
in from the initial estimates.
Mr. Voignier stated that the comparable ones they have seen in other states and counties are actually under the current budgeted amounts. He indicated that it is believed they would
be able to handle any cost increases that might result from inflation.
Commissioner Sides asked if there are other similar facilities elsewhere in North Carolina aside from Raleigh and Mecklenburg County.
Mr. Voignier responded that he believed Winston-Salem has a facility, as does Asheville. He added that they have looked at southeastern centers as well, including ones in Jacksonville
and Georgia.
Commissioner Sides stated that itwas beneficial was goodthatfor staffwasto be able to see actual facilities in operation, which helpedto understand what to do or avoid.
County Manager Brian Matthews explained to the Commissioners that there is an item for authorized expenditures for the autopsy service.
Commissioner Sides moved to: 1) authorize continued expenditures for an additional 50 autopsies; and 2) authorized the County Manager to i) negotiate and execute an Agreement substantially
consistent with this agenda item; ii) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth in the Agreement; and iii) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the
County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
Chair Merrell called for a vote.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christinia HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-182Presentation -Union County Water New Development Website
Chair Merrell recognized County Manager Brian Matthews to introduce the item.
County Manager Brian Matthewsstated that last fall, the County completed website updates and added a website for Union County Water, unioncountywater.org.Mr. Matthews said that the website
includes a component specifically designedtofor New Development, and the process works.for New Development. He shared that Union County receives a number of phone calls and requests
for information on how the process works, what arethe formsare, and the timelines. He said staff worked diligently to develop a comprehensive website with that information so builders
and developers would have available resources.
He stated that Chair Merrell learned about the website and said she wouldexplained that she would love to be able to talk more about it in public and share the website with the public.
Mr. Matthews said that Crystal Panico, the New DevelopmentProgram Manager, and her team handle the whole process. He recognized Ms. Panico to explain the website and answer any questions
of the Board members. He said they are very pleased with this resource and believes it will help developers and builders move more quickly through the process.
Ms. Panico expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak about the website and the online resources available for developers and builders.
She provided a brief overview of the New Development Program.
She stated that New Development is one of two programs ofthe engineering division of Union County Water, with the other being capital improvement projects. She said the capital improvement
projects division oversees publicly built infrastructure and reinvestment in the system, while the New Development program handles privately installed infrastructure, sometimes known
as donated projects. She noted that New Development reviews the plans for new development throughout the Union County Water service areaand also inspects the water and sewer infrastructure
installed as part of new development.
She said they are a small team but accomplish a lot, and described the group as doing great work. She explained that the team includes four professional engineers who review plans, an
inspection supervisor, four inspectors, a data analyst, and an administrative assistant. She stated that they complete a significant amount of work with a limited number of people.
Ms. Panico stated that the team’s current workload averages about 120 to 130 plan reviews per month. She explained that these reviews can include new submittals, resubmittals, single-family
homes, 500-lot subdivisions, school campuses, and medical facilities. She stated that the reviews do not include septic systems, wells, or private treatment systems.
She explained thatthe purpose of the New Development team’s work is to protect the water and sewer infrastructure. She said the goal is to continue providing reliable service to customers
while protecting infrastructure as new development occurs. She emphasized the importance of being good stewards of the infrastructure, preventing future mistakes, and ensuring a high-quality
product that will last for generations.
Ms. Panico said they also want to ensure that each project is treated fairly. She explained that all regulations in new development are under the Water and Sewer Extension Ordinance,
so each project, whether it is a single-family home,or a 500-lot subdivision,ora commercial projects,all have the same rules and regulations, and everyone is treated the same.
Ms. Panico stated that before discussing the website, she wanted to point out what has not changed. She explained that the Evolve portal remains on the county’s website, and has been
in place for years, streamlining the permitting process. She said this portal is where projects submit their plans for review, as well as building permit applications, zoning permits,
and fire permits. She described it as a one-stop shop where review fees are processed and all submissions go through the system.
She introduced the new website, UnionCountyWater.org, noting that previously water information was housed under the Union County website and was difficult to find because it was grouped
with other departments and somewhat hidden. She explained that the homepage now shares a lot of information, and it made sense to create a separate page for the water information. She
said they worked with the public communications team to create the website, which they believe is easier to navigate, and noted that they have received a lot ofinput and compliments
on the website.
Ms. Panico said she wanted to focus on the development and builder section during her presentation. She shared a snapshot of the development review process that was linked. She stated
they want to make sureensure the development community understands that links are provided to the ordinance where all the regulations are housed, along with their specifications, details,
and the Evolve portal. She noted they also highlight will serve letters, which Union County does not provide. She said they want to be transparent and upfront in their process. She explained
that other jurisdictions provide these letters, which act as a capacity commitment upfront and allow allocation earlier, but Union County is unable to provide this until further along
in the process. She said it is important that the development community understands that it is something they do not provide.
Ms. Panico explained that there is a 10-step process whichthat was derived from the ordinance but designed to be easier to navigate and more helpful for the community. She said the first
step is submitting the sketch plan.submittal She noted that they list helpful tools such as the Evolve portal, the ordinance, and checklists for each phase. She said the sketch plan
checklist is used by plan reviewers in their review, and it is also given to applicants to help them submit a project.
Ms. Panico highlighted the construction plan submittal. She explained that applicants are instructed not to submit their construction plans until the sketch plan has been approved in
step one, so they understand that approval of the sketch plan must come first.
Ms. Panico said that over the past several years, they started implementing a plan review meeting after the first construction plan review. She explained that they meet with the developer
and their engineer to go overconsidercomments, allow them to ask questions of staff, and let staff to ask questions of them so that everyone is underhas the same understanding and the
project can move forward in the same direction.
Ms. Panico explained that step five is capacity allocation, which is the most asked question when capacity can be allocated for a project and how to obtain it. She said this step outlines
what is needed for a capacity reservation, what happens, when it happens, and how the information is sent to them.
Ms. Panico said they have taken a lot of time creating these resources for the developers and builders with whom they do business.with. She acknowledged that the County’s process is
different than other jurisdictions. She said they hope that the website and the steps outlined will help facilitate navigation and answer questions, while being transparent about what
is required for their development.
Ms. Panico stated that the public communications team tracks the website, and noted that this particular page has had approximately a thousand views since October. She said they have
received positive feedback on the website.
Chair Merrell stated that she frequently receives calls from people asking about capacity and why a sketch plan must be submitted if the answer is going to be no. She asked how the new
website has been advertised so that builders and developers know how to access it if it is not listed on the Union County government website.
Ms. Panico asked Liz Cooper, Public Communications Director, to address the question regarding how the new website has been communicated to builders and developers.
Ms. Cooper explained that anyone who previously visited the Union County website and navigated to the water page will still access it the same way, but now when they click on water content,
it redirects them to the new site. She said the user experience has only improved because customers, developers, and other audiences looking for water content can find it much easier
on the water website. She noted that search engine optimization has vastly improved, and as Ms. Panico said, they can track analytics to know the site traffic and the information needed.
She explained that this helps staff to bettercommunicate more efficiently directly with water customers and developers. She stated that, typically, the audience, in terms of developers,
either already knows where to access the information, which is now easier to find, or it serves as a tool for Ms. Panico and her team to let people know that all of this information
is right there and is laid out much better than it used to be.
Chair Merrell asked Ms. Panico if she knew approximately how much time it takes to move through all 10 steps to obtain approval.
Ms. Panico said that going through the process as quickly as possible typically takes about eight months, assuming everything is correct on the first submittals, including the sketch
plan, construction plan, and permitting. She added that, on average, it could take larger developments muchlonger to move throught the process, and could be 12 to 18 months.
Mr. Matthews interjected that he wanted to clarify, as Ms. Panico mentioned, that fromthe sketch plan through the development agreement, many people complain about being in the second
phase, the engineering review, without considering that part of that time was accounted for in the sketch plan. He said the sketch plan is the preliminary work before the full engineering
design and the actual agreement, and stated thatsignificant time is spent on the sketch plan, which is often forgottenoverlooked as part of the process time.that it takes in.
Commissioner Sides said that Ms. Panico may be way ahead of him, but suggested, if no one has thought of it already, that staff could add a link to the website page in their email signature
so that if people in the department are contacted and ask where to go, they have the information readily available. He asked if a link is already in the email signature.
Ms. Panico said that the link is not in the email signature, but theyit is includedit with each piece of correspondence.
Commissioner Sides responded, acknowledging Ms. Panico's explanation and added that even someone without a construction background could navigate the website.
Chair Merrell said that she thinks this is a wonderful process and a great website that can be used to direct callers, builders, and developers. She thanked Ms. Panico and her team for
providing such a great tool.
Mr. Matthews acknowledged Ms. Panico and her team for their hard work on this project. He said the County makes changes to the process based on feedback from the engineering and building
community, which helps improve processes. He noted that time is always a concern, and the County is constantly looking for ways to trim the process and make it easier. butHowever, some
delays are also due to the development community needing time to resubmit and go through the process. He emphasized that the goal is to help the development community as much as possible
and expressed appreciation to the Chair for bringing up this topic to letallowing people to know this resource is available.
Chair Merrell said that another resource she sends out regularly addresses community’s impression that the County has no sewer capacity. She explained that the Board receives a water
and sewer capacity report in the agenda packet each month, and depending on rainfall, the numbers may fluctuate slightly. She noted that this past month’s capacity was around 70 to 72
percent capacity with actual flow at 12 Mile, for example. She said it is a really great report for people in the construction industry who are concerned about water and sewer, and that
it is readily and easily available.
She said that one of the conversations over the past month has not only has been about water capacity but also about conveyance, depending on where a project is or is not in the county.
She explained that the County has to verify if the pipes will be sufficient in that particular location and whether or notif there will be flow. She said this is more information they
are learning while answering questions from people in the building industry who are trying to understand if Union County is still building, and she confirmed that yes, the County is
still building. She said she thinks this website is a wonderful tool and referenced a great meeting with the Town of Stallings in December or January when she saw the website. She then
asked if there were any other comments or questions tonight.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Ms. Panico for presenting the information and expressed appreciation for her attending tonight’s meeting. He said he believes this is a good tool for
the building community in the county. He asked how many projects have been turned down to date due to lack of sewer capacity.
Ms. Panico responded that none of the projects have been turned down due to lack of sewer capacity.
Chair Merrell said it was a great question and thanked Ms. Panico again for attending tonight’s meeting.
25-194System Development Fee Study
Chair Merrell recognized Amy McCaskill, Union County Water Business Operations Director.
Ms. McCaskill reminded the Board that in 2024 staff received direction to conduct an updated system development fee study based on additional capital projects that the Board approved
following the master plan presentation.
Ms. McCaskill stated that Andrew Burnham, Vice President of the Management and Technology Consulting Group at Stantec, and Kevin Cook, Manager, to present the information.
Mr. Burnham noted that both he and Mr. Cook were involved extensively
in updating the system development fees as outlined by Ms. McCaskill, and they would present a brief overview to provide orientation, highlight outcomes, and ultimately seek the board’s
direction.
He explained that although the agenda appeared robust, there were only a couple slides for each item, and the presentation would move quickly. He said he would provide background on
the County’s system development fees, review the last study conducted in 2013, and discuss key legal foundations, particularly the Public Water and Sewer System Development Fee Act.
Mr. Burnham stated that the law is rather prescriptive regarding system development fees, givingproviding substantial guidance to conduct the studies on the Board’s behalf. He said they
would cover methodologies and practices being used in North Carolina, provide full information and context as they get into the 2025 update and updated calculations, show the results,
provide benchmarking against other agencies, and ultimately seek direction from the Board.
He explained that his team conducts this work extensively not only throughout North Carolina but across the country. He stated that they focus on utility rates, fees, and charges. He
noted that their database includes over 600 utilities, and they work with more than 400 communities across the country, representing about one-third of the U.S. population.
Mr. Burnham emphasized that he and Mr. Cook have been working with the County for the past ten years, doingconducting bond feasibility reports to support issuance of debt, cost of service
rate studies, and now their third system development fee study, along with other projects. He stated that their work helps the county be proactive and balanced by providing the highest
level of service at the lowest possible cost for its water and sewer system.
Mr. Burnham then moved into the discussion of system development charges, noting some legal items to consider. He explained that in North Carolina these fees are governed by state statutes,
specifically the Water and Sewer Development Fee Act, which was enacted several years ago and has been amended a couple times.
Mr. Burnham explained that, among the notable requirements, the fee must include a credit of at least 25 percent of the capital improvements they include, recognizing grants, developer
contributions, and items funded through other sources or debt-financed.
Mr. Burnham stated that in conducting the study of these fees and looking forward, it is necessary to ensurethat the reviewcovers a period of no less than five years but no more than
twenty years in terms of the types of capital improvements and growth they are reviewingbeing reviewed.
Mr. Burnham explained that toward the end of the study, a public notice or comment period will be held, during which 45 days of public comments will be received and considered, and that
this must be done before any public hearing or formal action. He noted that the state statute also requires that the fees arebe updated at least every five years.
Mr. Burnham stated that in Union County, the last update was done in 2023, about two years ago, and at that time, the studies were still governed by the same state statutes. He explained
that for the water system, the system development fee (SDF) was based on existing system costs, which included the new Yadkin plant recently invested in, but also included a significant
deduction for the offsetting principal amount since much of it was debt-financed.
Mr. Burnham explained that on the sewer side, the fee was based on incremental cost or the additional capacity being added. He noted that the fee analyzed at that time was based entirely
on the Twelve0MileTwelve-Mile Creek Plant Expansion from 7.5 to 9 MGD (million gallons per day), a 1.5 million gallon per day expansion. He stated that this study resulted in the current
fees, which, for a new ¾-inch meter, are one-time fees for New Development, with the water fee at $1,678 and the sewer fee at $6,412.
Mr. Burnham explained that the way these fees are calculated is pretty straightforward algebra. He stated that it requires taking the value of the system or improvements, deducting any
credits for outstanding debt, grants, and developer contributions, while ensuring the minimum credit requirements in the state statutes are met, and then dividing that number by capacity
expressed in a number of equivalent residential units.
Mr. Burnham explained that the methodology comes down to consideringselecting the right methodology that would be used. He stated that there are three different types of methodologies
generally accepted and outlined in the state statutes. He commented that the first methodology is the buy-in method, which looks atexaminescosts already incurred, and it makes sense
when the system has a significant amount of additional capacity that capacity will be used to serve growth over the next five, ten, or even twenty-year time period.
Mr. Burnham explained that some utility systems are not in that situation, and for thosesystems there is an alternative approach called the incremental cost method. He stated that this
looks at capital costs that will be incurred in the future to provide capacity for new growth, and it is often used for systems with limited capacity to sell or where they are incurring
significantly higher costs for capacity expansions to serve growth than what they currently have today.
He explained that the third approach is really a hybrid that combines existing costs with planned improvements in the capital improvement program, becauseas it relies on a combination
of capacity from existing assets and new ones that are built to serve growth over the next five-to ten-year horizon.
Mr. Burnham explained that,upon reviewing the methods in looking around the state atthe methodsbeing used across the Stateto calculateused for calculatingfees across North Carolina,
a good number of systems use the buy-in method, a fair number use the combined or hybrid approach, and some use the incremental method, for both water and wastewater. He noted that this
information is a bit dated, and although they looked atconsulted the Environmental Finance Center to see if there was an updated survey across the state, none was available.butHowever,
he expects an update iswill probably be coming soon.
Mr. Burnham explained that in Union County,the buy-in method was used in the 2023 study of water because the Yadkin plant was included. He added that for the wastewater side, the incremental
method was used, accounting for the expansion of the Twelve-Mile Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Mr. Burnham pointed out that with system development fees, the Board does not have to adopt the full cost results from the studies, but it cannot adopt fees higher than those amounts.
He noted that in the Environmental Finance Center survey, approximately two-thirds of the systems adopted fees at the maximum level, while about a third of utilities chose not to go
all the way up to their full cost recovery.
Mr. Burnham explained that once the Board has received the information, it can exercise policy considerationsimplications, and look at less than full cost recovery, but it cannot adopt
fees higher than the amountscalculated in the study.
Mr. Burnham stated that for the updates, they used the most current information about existing assets plus construction work in progress. He explained that they worked with the county
water team to identify the expansion-related capital projects over the next seven-year time period, gathered information on outstanding debt, and made sureensured proper credits were
included in all the calculation methodologies for the three approaches he described. He noted that for the divisor, they included the different capacities for existing assets for the
Catawba River and Yadkin treatment plants, aboutapproximately 32 million gallons a day, and also looked toward the future expansion of the Catawba River plant for an additional 8 million
gallons of capacity in the capital improvement program.
Mr. Burnham stated that for the sewer system, the study recognized the existing water reclamation facilities atTwelve-Mile Creek, which handles a little over 11.2 million gallons per
day, and noted that an incremental expansion is in progress at Twelve-Mile Creek for an additional 1.5 million gallons per day.
Mr. Burnham referred to the System Development Fee Calculation: Summary and Recommendation below:
He stated that the water fee today is $1,678. He explained that under the buy-in method with the updated information, the fee would increase to a little over $2,000. Using the hybrid
approach, which recognizes existing assets plus planned growth in the capital improvement program, the fee would be a little over $2,400. He added that if the fee were based solely on
the expansion-related projects (Incremental Method) in the capital improvement program over the next seven years, it would be $4,669.
Mr. Burnham explained that the current sewer fee of $6,412 was set a couple of years ago using the incremental approach. He noted that if the buy-in approach were used, the fee would
actually be lower than today because existing assets have a lower unit cost than the 1.5 MGD expansion. Under the hybrid, the fee would be aboutapproximately $4,936.It would still be
a reduction to the current fee, but slightly higher than the buy-in results. He stated that under the incremental approach, factoring in the 1.5 MGD expansion currently in progress plus
some additional costs for conveyance infrastructure for force mains and large gravity interceptors, the sewer fee would be $10,800. He mentioned the interceptors in particular for sewer,
noting that the current incremental fee had only been based only on treatment costs only for the 1.5 MGD expansion. He noted that if expansion of force mains and upsizing of mains and
interceptors are included, the fee is $10,800 in today’s costs.
Mr. Burnham said that to help giveprovide context, they did a local system development fee survey. He explained that the blue bar showed the water fee for a three-quarter inch meter,
and the green bar showed resulting fee for the sewer system for many entities. He pointed out that the first orange box highlighted where Union County is today, and noted that the County
falls toward the higher end of the list.
Mr. Burnham stated that if the County used the incremental method for both water and sewer, it would move Union County toward the top of the chart for combined water and sewer development
fees. He added that there are several points to keep in mind when looking at the charts. As he mentioned earlier, some communities do not adopt full cost recovery, some have not updated
their fees recently, and others may not be looking at the order of magnitude of expansion costs for growth that they are looking at inthat is associated with growth for Union County.
Mr. Burnham added that they may have different types of facilities for serving their customers than what Union County needs to meet environmental requirements for wastewater treatment
and discharge, as well as drinking water standards. He noted that several factors should be kept in mind while studying the charts. there are a number of factors to keep in mind when
looking at the charts. He said it is common to see a fairly large range on system development fee charts when reviewing them.
Mr. Burnham stated that, to summarize and answer any questions, the current fees updated in 2023 are consistent with the state statutes, the three methodologies reflected therein, and
the County’s current data. He said that all three methods were reviewed, but based on what they are seeing for the system in terms of the need for additional capacity as identified in
the capital improvement program and what is in progress, the incremental method seems to be where they would focus for recommendation if asked for a methodology based on the County’s
current circumstances.
Mr. Burnham stated that the County really needs the additional capacity, what is in progress, and what is in the CIP to serve growth over the next several years. He said that at this
point, they are seeking Board approval and a recommended methodology to determine the final calculations, which would then be included in the report. He added that the report would be
published for 45 days forto allow for public comments and would be brought back as part of a public hearing after that time period for formal adoption.
Mr. Burnham explained that no specific action is needed today to adopt new fees. He stated that the Board’s direction is requested on which methodologies and what level of cost recovery
should be reflected in the report, which would then be published for public comment.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that a variety of jurisdictions, including Shelby, Fayetteville, Wilmington, and some neighboring areas, were included in the local System Development
Fees survey. He asked Mr. Burnham if there was any particular reason these jurisdictions were chosen for reference.
Mr. Burnham responded that they were trying to provide as broad a snapshot as they could to showthe range of fees they were seeing in the state. He noted that their dataset is not as
extensive as the Environmental Finance Center’s, and the selection of jurisdictions was not necessarily based on consistency of treatment technologies, size, or location.Mr. Burnham
added that they tried to factor in as many local agencies as possible, since that might be relevant for development siting considerations. He noted that they attempted to select some
jurisdictions of somewhat similar size, but achieving a true apples-to-apples comparison would be very hard to do. He said that they were more inclusive than exclusive, trying to show
as bigbroada section as they could of the range of current fees across the landscape.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that his next question might be better addressed by staff. He explained that Commissioners frequently receive questions from residents, many of whom
want the Board to adopt impact fees. He asked if staff could address the question about the differences between system development fees and impact fees, where a governmental organization
might charge for school improvements.
Mr. Matthews explained that impact fees, or the imposition of them, are governed by the General Assembly. He said local governments do not have the authority to implement an impact fee
unless it is specifically stated in the General Statutes that they are allowed to collect it. He said that, to his knowledge, there are really only two system development fees. He said
one is essentially like an impact fee, which the state allows by statute. He stated that the other is a fee-in-lieu of parklands, where local jurisdictions can require residential developments
for land or for payment to go toward park improvements or park purchases. He said those are the only two of which he is aware.
He said that if any jurisdiction wanted an actual impact fee, it would have to go to the General Assembly and request it, and the General Assembly would have to vote on it. He stated
if it passed, it would have to be put into the general statutes, and then all jurisdictions would be allowed to collect it. He said that is not something the General Assembly has been
very interested in approving, so Union County is not allowed to actually implement impact fees.
He saidexplainedthat in other states, local jurisdictions have the authority to implement impact fees as they wishsee fit. He noted that South Carolina is one of those states that has
the authority to implement local impact fees without requiring any state approvals.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that it is helpful for people to understand that even though impact fees might be beneficial, it is not within the control of the Board to do.He questioned
whether the funds collected from system development fees would essentially be put backreinvested into water and sewer projects, including infrastructure projects such as capital costs
for water and sewer or R & R (repair and replacement) work for existing utilities or facilities.
Mr. Matthews asked Mr. Burnham if he would respond to the Vice Chair’s question.
Mr. Barnham stated that it really depends on the methodology selected in terms of how the fees can be used. He said that under the incremental methodology, the revenues from those fees
can cover the cost of new capital, meaning projects that are going to be constructed. He explained that the funds could either cash fund those projects or, if debt is issued to finance
the expansion projects, the revenues can be used to pay for that debt.
He explained that if there are no new expansion-related projects or new debt on expansion projects in the next five years, the incremental cost-based fees under that method could be
used to pay for debt service on other expansion projects already incurred. He said that under the incremental method, the focus is on forward-looking capital projects or debt for those
projects, but in the absence of those, the fees could also be applied to existing debt for expansion-related projects.
He said that if the buy-in methodology were used, that method would allow the funds to be used for almost all types of capital projects because it effectively reimburses for assets that
have already been paid for and constructed. He explained that the revenues could then be used for rehabilitation projects or new capital improvements.
He said that similarly, under the hybrid method, if that approach were used, the funds could be expended for new projects,but alsoas well as for previously completed projects that have
capacity and for rehabilitation projects. He explained that under the buy-in and hybrid methods, if fees were based on those, some of the revenues could be used for future projects and/or
for renewal, replacement, or rehabilitation.
He stated that under the incremental method, the focus is really on expansion-related projects going forward or any existing debt service for expansion projects. He explained that under
all of these methods, given the public utility and water system cost requirements, the entity would derive significant benefits because there is a substantial amount of expansion-related
debt and manynumerous expansion-related capital projects in the CIP.
He said that he believes the highest and best use of these fees is likely to address expansion-related costs, while continuing to use rates and other mechanisms to cover renewal and
replacement costs.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms commented to put it in perspective regardingthe methodologiesinto prospective, Union County is currently in a situation with approximately $420 million in debt
service, for example, for the Yadkin project.
Beverly Liles, Finance Director, stated that $420 million was for all outstanding debt and not just for the Yadkin project.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said the bottom line is that those fees could be used to pay down the debt service, and as the County looks forward to planning a Catawba expansion, these fees
would be useful for projects where additional water capacity is needed, not only to serve customers but alsofor basic pressures for fire suppression.He added that, in his opinion, at
this point, the county is probably better served by looking at the incremental cost method.
He asked Mr. Matthews if a formal vote is needed tonight to adopt the public comment period.
Mr. Matthews said that the Board first needs to give a recommendation on the methodology, whether it is incremental or involves buy-in on one and incremental on the other. He added that
the Board also needs to recognize that the 45-day public comment period will begin after the rest of the document is completed, as the team will take the Board’s input from tonight,
finish the document, and then release it for the 45-day comment period.
Commissioner Sides referred to the slide showing the actual results of the three different methods. He noted that if someone builds a house with a well and septic tank, basically no
fee would apply. He said that the incremental methodology appears to give the greatest flexibility. He stated that, according to Mr. Burnham’s comments, the County does not have to
charge the full amount shown on the chart.
Mr. Burnham confirmed that the statement was correct.
Commissioner Sides asked if the fees collected must be segregated for specific purposes, such as debt service,and whether the water amounts collected under the incremental fee structure
must go only toward debt service on water projects or if they can go into one fund.
Ms. McCaskill said that the fees are separate. She said they have to be separated by water and sewer and used on the projects. She explained that if the projects are in the Twelve-Mile
Creek Basin, the funds would be used in the Twelve-Mile Creek Basin.
Commissioner Sides agreed with Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, saying the incremental method gives the greatest flexibility. He noted that the amounts could be discussed further, but he believes
that methodology gives them the greatest flexibility to move forward.
Ms. McCaskill said that with the Board’s direction, the plan is to have the final draft ready by April 14, post it on the County’s website for the 45-day public comment period, and bring
it to the Board in June for the public hearing and rate adoption.
.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to adopt the incremental methodology and also open the 45-day public comment period.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair Melissa M. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms Aye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
25-203Presentation – Solid Waste
Chair Merrell recognized Caleb Sinclair, Solid Waste Director, to explain the next agenda item.
Mr. Sinclair said he would share insights about solid waste management in Union County and expressed his hope that the Board would consider these insights when evaluating the management
team’s budget recommendations for FY26.
Mr. Sinclair provided an overview of the solid waste programs. He explained that Union County’s solid waste management is comprised of the municipal solid waste transfer station, which
receives garbage collected throughout the county. He said most of that material goes to the transfer station on Austin Chaney Road, where it is loaded and transported to Anson County’s
landfill for disposal. He added that the County operates a construction and demolition landfill at the same facility. He stated this site is a permitted landfill for construction and
demolition materials only, with waste deposited on-site. He explained that both this operation and the transfer station are funded through the landfill enterprise fund and have no impact
on the general fund.
Mr. Sinclair explained the residential waste and recycling centers, which is the third element of the solid waste program. He noted that there are five satellite centers across the county,
along within addition to the primary facility that also serves as a public drop-off. He stated that the five satellite facilities accept only bagged household waste and recycling materials.
Mr. Sinclair stated that it has traditionally been funded through the enterprise fund, using tipping fees collected from commercial customers at the landfill. He noted that with the
implementation of the Trash Pass program, which provides residents with a free trash allowance, the County now supplements a portion of the program’scost from the general fund.
Mr. Sinclair spoke about other programs, describing them as ancillary programs of whichthat the department is very proud. He said that without dedicated staff they still try to provide
as much education and outreach as possible. He noted that this year they have completed six outreach engagements where they described solid waste management with civic groups, schools,
and other audiences.
Mr. Sinclair explained that the department has also launched a litter mitigation program. He said the programutilizes part-time staff when available and aims to dedicate at least a few
hours each week to removing litter from roadsides in Union County. He emphasized that the idea is to send a message that the Solid Waste Division cares about this issue and wants to
contribute, and he expressed pride in the effort staff provides along the roads to litter mitigation.
Mr. Sinclair described the household hazardous waste disposal program, noting that it is typically an annual event. He highlighted that last September the county collected over 40,000
pounds of mixed household hazardous waste, explaining that this includes items residents should not place in regular garbage, such as liquid waste, pesticides, herbicides, and chemicals.
Mr. Sinclair shared a map showing the locations of the County’s facilities, emphasizing convenience for residents. He mentioned the litter mitigation efforts and explained the new program
launched this year, where the department loans gear and provides disposal for anyone willing to organize a volunteer litter pickup. He said volunteers simply call the office, and the
department supplies litter grabbers, bags, vests, and disposal to facilitate volunteer efforts.
Mr. Sinclair added that the department recently shared this program with the Library Friends, who suggested packaging the kits so residents could check them out at any of the five library
branches. He said they plan to launch this initiative in FY26.
Mr. Sinclair presented the next slide, showing the newest page for Union County Solid Waste on the County’s website. He explained that this page was created following the formation of
a temporary litter task force by the Board earlier this year. He explained that he has been meeting monthly with the litter task force and planning staff. He stated that through these
discussions, it was communicated that the litter issue is so dynamic and involves many stakeholders, creating a need for a single resource page. He credited the Public Communications
team with helping put the page together and encouraged the Board to explore the site to review the available resources.
Mr. Sinclair stated thatthe Public Communications team has produced several public service announcements.
Mr. Sinclair discussed the trend in solid waste since 2018, noting that the average daily tonnage has increased by 167 percent. He explained that construction thatconstructionand demolition
waste has grown from 102 to 343 daily tons, and garbage has increased from 243 to 578 daily tons. He highlighted that this has been managed with the same number of operators as in 2018.
He shared a slide highlighting commercial garbage at the transfer station. He noted that the 23-24 bar might be a little misleading, but observed that tonnage appears to have plateaued.
He explained that the green bars represent the tonnage received.He explained that the implementation of the Trash Pass program caused a dip in 2024. He said it does not mean the waste
was not received, but that it simply did not come in on the garbage trucks because enough citizens gavehad given up their curbside service for the free program. He emphasized again that
this highlights the program's popularity.
Mr. Sinclair addressed the inflationary impacts on the solid waste program. He explained that the trend had been up to this year and that the costs were about to surpass what the County
could pay. He added that last year’s significant rate adjustment put the program in a much better position moving forward.
Mr. Sinclair shared a snapshot of the overall budget, saying that to date, it looks to be on track to meet its benchmarks. He noted that revenues are expected to exceed $13 million and
expenses are inline, indicating they are doing what they need to do.
Mr. Sinclair briefly discussed the capital improvement plan, highlighting a recently completed project that has received rave reviews from citizens. He noted that people frequently comment
on what a pleasant experience they had at the facility.
Mr. Sinclair said the improvements make it easier for residents to enter and exit the Austin Cheney facility, and it is working out very well for them. He thanked the Board for their
support on the project.
Mr. Sinclair said the next projects include building an operations center, which is already underway, and a second scale house to split traffic, making things safer, quicker, faster,and
better. He discussed the landfill phased expansion and emphasized that expansion does not mean increasing the footprint, but rather using the permitted space, which provides roughly
20 years of future for the facility.
Mr. Sinclair described the solid waste operations center as a 6,000-square-foot facility intended to consolidate administrative staff with the boots-on-the-ground team. He said the goal
is to give everyone the space they need to work safely and efficiently. He emphasized that they are not planning anything fancy, envisioning a simple, utilitarian building made of engineered
metal on a slab.
Mr. Sinclair discussed the Trash Pass program, noting it is a very successful program. He said the public is embracing it and it has made operations at the five satellite convenience
centers much easier for staff, with very little cash handling required. He reported that overall trash tonnage has increased by 13 percent, which is attributed to the popularity of the
free trash disposal program. He also noted that operating costs for the five satellite centers exceed one$1 million dollars, with the general fund contributing $650,000, leaving a deficit
of approximately $400,000. He indicated a desire to find ways to bridge that funding gap.
Mr. Sinclair outlined a strategy for consideration by eliminating all cash handling from the five satellite centers by setting the volume limits per visitor to the trash pass parameters,
which allow each visitor up to ten 13-gallon bags per visit. He explained that currently, if someone has more than the limit, such as twelve bags, they are charged a dollar per bag for
the overage.
Mr. Sinclair stated that the centers take in very little cash, and he believes they could cap the limit at ten bags. He said that visitors typically determine how to fit their waste
into ten bags. He added that anyone with more than ten bags would have the option of taking the excess to the Austin Chaney facility, which is open six days a week.
Mr. Sinclair added that they could also eliminate the $10 fee for television recycling. He explained that in 2016, the State of North Carolina prohibited televisions from being disposed
of in landfills, which bolstered electronics recycling programs across the state. He stated that while this was beneficial for capturing that material, the cost of processing CRT televisions,
which are large and heavy, was astronomical. He said as a result, programs across the state had to begin charging for them.
Mr. Sinclair stated that CRT televisions are pretty much out of the waste stream. He said that the current currently,thecharge is ten dollars for similar items, but it does not seem
fair and equitable to the public. He stated that he feels very confident they could do awaywitheliminate that charge and make all recycling free. He added that putting a cap on the limit
of garbage people can bring to the satellite centers will help make those facilities successful moving forward, because as more people visit the centers, the popularity of the program
could overwhelm their capacity to handle the material.
Mr. Sinclair recommended incrementally increasing the general fund contribution to the trash pass program to fully fund it. He also noted that eliminating cash at the centers will help
eliminate administrative costs.
Mr. Niland emphasized that there has always been a security concern with staff handling cash at the convenience sites, especially since many of them are in rural areas. He stated that
if cash handling is eliminated, a big component of the security risk assessment that they did in the past would also be eliminated. Mr. Niland pointed out that anyone looking to do harm
would know there is no longer cash at the facility, noting this as another significant aspect they are considering.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked withabout the 10-bag limit for the Trash Pass Program. If someone has 12 bags of trash, and they would be charged for the overage, what would prevent
a person from returning a few hours later with an additional two bags.
Mr. Sinclair responded that, practically speaking, they have not seen that behavior. He acknowledged that someone could return the next day or go to another center, but noted it is difficult
to policeenforce. He emphasized that convenience is king, and most people will fitadjusttheir waste into the 10-bag limit. He added that very few exceed the trash-pass program.
Mr. Niland said that Mr. Sinclair and his staff do a great job working with customers who come in for the first time to a convenience site or who have lived in the county but never used
a convenience site before. He explained that they will not turn those people away but will work with them and educate them. He noted that if something like the 10-bag limit is put in
place, it would not be that on July 1, people are simply prohibited from bringing more than 10 bags while instead staff would keep working with them, and over time residents would learn
what they are supposed to do. Mr. Niland added that he wanted to give Mr. Sinclair’s staff a shout out because they are very customer-focused onin how they handle these situations.
Mr. Sinclair addressed the current rates and reminded the Board that rates were adjusted last year, putting the program in a much better position to meet its needs.
He said they will propose a slight increase, pointing out that they give discounts to larger-volume customers.
He explained that they will only ask for an increase onfor the tier one customers, which will target the small dump trailer operations. He stated that they see so many dump trailers
coming in that the county needs to manage that traffic.
Mr. Sinclair said the adjustment would bring the county more in line with other landfills. He explained they are asking for a slight increase on tier one only for MSW (municipal solid
waste).
He said that for C&D (construction and demolition waste), they are looking at a slight increase in both tiers one and two, but will keep tier three unchanged for the larger volume customers.
Mr. Sinclair said yard waste will see the most significant increase, with the $60 per ton bringing them in line with some private entities.
He explained that by yard waste, he is talking aboutmeans land-clearing debris, not just sticks and limbs. He said they are inundated with yard waste,and it is an expensive operation,
so they need to make more progress with that material.
Mr. Niland addressed the C&D (construction and demolition). He recalled that during one of the past retreats, a similar presentation was given to the Board. He said there was concern
then about how much C&D was coming in and that the rates were fairly low at the time.Mr. Niland said the county raised those rates, and part of the strategy was to stay fair but not
be the cheapest option. He said they do not want to be the highest or the lowest, and that is part of the strategy continuingthat will continue this year.
Mr. Sinclair reviewed the efficiency goals:
Mr. Sinclair said he thinks that eliminating cash could lead to some significant efficiency gains on the administrative side. He noted that they only take in in about $20,000 to $26,000
annually at the centers.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarificationas to whether or not that the proposed rate increases are not expected to cover the deficit.
Mr. Sinclair said they are projecting about a $700,000 move forward, but said there are many other costs associated with running the landfill business. He said yes, they could apply
it there. He said if they are an enterprise fund operating responsibly, they want to cash flow all their business and have been able to do so. He said in his opinion now that they are
giving away some of the store, it only seems reasonable to think about the five satellite sites as infrastructure for the free trash program.
Mr. Niland clarified that the deficit is only on the convenience sites, not on solid waste overall. He said that solid waste as a whole doesgenerates enough revenue to cover its expenses.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms remarked that the convenience sites serve as the loss leader since they are free. He added that the overall program will still be able to carrystand on its
own.
Mr. Niland confirmed that was correct.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, shared a positive personal experience that he had when disposing trash of trashfrom a project that he had worked on at his home.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he also had a great experience at the landfill. He explained that he recently visited the center. He stated he got to see the improvements that weremadeto
the facility.
Mr. Matthews clarified for the record that, as Mr. Sinclair mentioned, the County does not operate a municipal solid waste landfill. He explained that the County operates a construction
and demolition debris landfill, while municipal solid waste is transferred out of the county to another facility. He said that when Mr. Sinclair talks about expansion, he means the construction
and demolition portion of the landfill. He emphasized that the County does not operate a landfill, which has been closed for a long time, and he did not want the public to think they
are now taking in household garbage. He noted that while they do take in plenty of household garbage, it is just transferred out of the county, and he wanted to make that clear.
25-217Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee
Chair Merrell recognized Vice Chair Brian Helms to speak on this item.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Chair Merrell and said he wanted to bring this item forward. He noted that the County has a great committee of volunteers serving on the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Committee, but it has also come to his attention that perhaps the purpose of that committee has changed from what was originally planned in itsservingservice to the county.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he believes it behooves the Board to discuss this and maybe seek some additional information from staff regarding the formation and current purpose of
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. He added that if the committee is providing efficiency, it should support what the county needs to further the mission of parks and recreation.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he wanted to bring this up for discussion by the Board of Commissioners,but with the understanding that maybe it is time to look at potentially revising
the charter for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee and providing additional direction to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee in order to get the most out of the beautiful
County parks.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he was not unsure if staff wanted to provide input on the history of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, and he saidstated he would welcome comments
from his colleagues.
Mr. Matthews said he would giveprovided a little background on the committee, noting that it has been in existence for a long time. He said that staff has notresearched atexactly how
long it has been in existence, but he knows that when Jim Chaffin, the current Parks and Recreation Director, began his employment with the Parks and Recreation, that the committee existed,
which he believes was back in 2005.
Mr. Matthews said that during that period, the committee’s primary responsibility was to help helping todetermine a local grant program. He said the County had set aside dollars for
local municipalities to apply for parks and recreation grants, and that group evaluated the applications and decided which ones to recommend. He stated that the Board of Commissioners
ultimately approved the grant recipients, but the advisory committee was responsible for thatthe grant application process, which was a large task that took a good bitsignificant portion
of the year evaluatingto evaluate all of the applications.
Mr. Matthews said that grant program went away around 2012 or 2013, so most of the advisory committee’s duties and responsibilities went away also. He explained that the advisory committee
is involved whenever the Parks and Recreation group updates or works on a new master plan. He stated the advisory committee gives recommendations to this Board about the master plan,
but since those only happen every five years or more, it is not common or often that the advisory committee has a true defined purpose.
Mr. Matthews stated that it is his understanding that the advisory committee had some difficulty during the COVID years and actually discontinued meeting during that time. He explained
that after COVID, there was also some difficulty in filling vacancies on the advisory committee, so there was a period when the committee did not meet.He added that it hasonly been recently
that vacancies have been filled, and the committee has started meeting again. He emphasized that these challenges over the years were not the fault of the committee members, just circumstances.
Mr. Niland added some additional historical context, noting that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee was formed in March of 1988.
Commissioner Sides asked if anyone could think of any serious consequences that would come from dissolving the advisory committee.
Mr. Matthews said that obviously,the County wants its volunteers to feel engaged, but it does not want the members to feel like they do not have a purpose. He explained that if the Board
were to dissolve the advisory committee, it might be telling volunteersimplying that their expertise is not really needed, which is not what the Board of Commissioners is trying to say.
He said that what the Board is trying to determine is how their expertise can be used, because right nowcurrently there is not a real good purpose for the committee to meet regularly
and give advice and recommendations.
Mr. Matthews said that when the County applies for federal and state grants, it is good to have a Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee because it counts as points toward the application.
He added,in his opinion, he believesthatit is really more about whether this Board can define the purpose of that committee and give the members a challenge, so they feel like they are
contributing.
Commissioner Sides asked how engaged the advisory committee is in the budget request of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. Niland said that the advisory committee is made aware of the budget, but is not very involved. He added that during and after COVID, there were very few meetings, so for several
budget years there was no input simply because the advisory committee did not meet.
He said that for some of the grants whichthat Parks and Recreation has recently submitted applicationsrecently, they were not awarded the grants. He explained that one of the main reasons
that Parks and Recreation did not receive those grants is that most of the facilities are not new. He added that the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, through the State of North Carolina,
gives priority to building new facilities rather than enhancing existing ones.
Mr. Niland saidstatedthat in the past, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee has assisted with the parks master plans, but those have not necessarily materialized into additional
grant money at this time. He added that if there were grants, they wanted to go after or a master plan they wanted to do in the future, this could always be reformulated into a working
group or task force for that specific purpose, or it could be for other purposes that the board deems reasonable.
Mr. Matthews said that the County Clerk, Lynn West, reminded him that whenever the Parks and Recreation Department is seeking accreditation, the advisory committee is also part of the
review as well.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that she sits on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committtee, and in speaking with members of the Parks and Recreation staff, who oversee parks and
recreation, she wanted to be the first to say what a fabulous job they do. She emphasized that this is absolutely no reflection on them at all, noting that they are incredible at what
they do.
Commissioner Helms said that at the March meeting, which she attended along with Reverend Jimmy Bention from the Board of Education and six community volunteers, all six members were
present along with Mr. Bention and herself. She noted that the Parks and Recreation Board had not met for quite some time due to COVID, but this last meetingpart of their every-other-month
schedule was more of an introduction type, especially since there are so many new board members.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that during the March meeting, information was discussed about Jesse Helms Park, including the new additions, as well as updates at Cane Creek and the
general store. She noted that there was not a lot of substantive discussion at this particular meeting beyond theinformation the advisory committee needed to consider.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that she previously sat on that advisory committeepreviouslyas a member of the Board of Education, there were items that were decided, so it is a useful
committee. She added that many times it is informational, giving the advisory committee a chance to provide thoughts and feedback, which gives staff a different perspective to present
to Mr. Matthews and his staff on the ninth floor. She said it does serve a purpose, even though the committee only meets every other month.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that one subject that she and Vice Chair Brian Helms have discussed is making sure that the advisory committee is being used at full capacity as often
as possible. She noted that she personally did not knowthat there was going to be an event at the Simpson Event Center behind the Ag Center in Monroe, and there is not a lot of information
reaching the public about what is happening at the parks on a given weekend. She said that is where communication seems to be lacking.She suggested that improving communication about
park events would be of a tremendous help tremendously. She added that, echoing points discussed earlier that the advisory committee is not being used to its full advantage.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that he would agree with that and added that the County Manager made a great comment. He said he believes everyone wants to get as much as is possible
from the park facilities. He said that the County has a wonderful park at Cane Creek and a great facility at Jesse Helms, but events are constantly happening at municipal parks, whether
it is concerts or Lake Park’s annual balloon festival.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that the advisory committee was originally developed or founded to work on the grant side, which is great, but the County’s needs are changing. He said
that what is needed is anadvisory committee to focus on community engagement, community engagement events, and other events that can attract people to the County’s parks.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that Cane Creek is a hidden gem in the county. He shared that he and Chair Merrell spent time there a little over a year ago with Mr. Chaffin, and agreed
that the Parks and Recreation staff does a great job.
He said that he believes that the charter for the advisory committee needs to change with the needs of the county. He added that just having an advisory committee to have a committee
is not what is wanted. He stated some efficiencies are needed out of the advisory committee and make some positive changes that are going to attract people and let people enjoy the
County’s parks.
Commissioner Baucom said that he believes the Parks and Recreation Department would benefit from having a good advisory committee with a well-defined purpose.He added that perhaps what
is lacking is a well-defined purpose. He said that when he visits Cane Creek Park, he sees a beautiful facility and wonderful amphitheater but wonders if it is being used to its full
potential, and he dares to say that he does not believe it is being used to its full potential.
Commissioner Baucom said he believes the advisory committeehas value, but the County needs to be respectful of those who are volunteering to serve and giveof their time. He said if someone
is going to invest that time in this advisory committee and in the community, then they ought to be given a well-defined purpose so they can help make Parks and Recreation as good as
it can be.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she had spoken with Mr. Chaffin, the Parks and Recreation Director, earlier about the amphitheater and whether they had considered doing concerts in
the park or even fireworks for the Fourth of July. She added that the Union County Symphony would be a great fit for the amphitheater, but the issue is the lack of parking.
She said that in order for the County to havehost large big events at Cane Creek Park, the structure will have to change to ensure there is adequate parking. She noted that the City
of Monroe pulls in five thousand plus people for its fireworks, and said that if Waxhaw did that, there is no way they could fit a couple hundred cars along with all of the campsites,
which are always booked, especially during the summer. She said if the County wants to really utilize the park, it is going to havewill need to possiblyadd parking.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that he believes the onus comes back to the Board of Commissioners to give a charge to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee to change its charter.
He noted that there are very smart and capable people serving on that committeewho have the ability to navigate these challenges or at least provide suggestions, but it starts with changing
the scope and direction.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that she is in favor of that and believes every committee/board should have a purpose. She added that no committee should meet just to have a meeting.
She said she believes this should be a challenge for all of the committees to redefine what each one is doing. She added that if a committee/board is not coming in with a purpose and
coming up withdeveloping good solutions to the issues it faces, then there is no point in having that committee/board at all.She said that she believes this needs to go beyond the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Committee and possibly look at every single County committee/board.
Commissioner Sides asked whether the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee is meeting in April or if itthisis the off month for its meetingschedule.
Commissioner Christina Helms responded that the committee’s next meeting will be in May.
Commissioner Sides suggested puttingonadding to the May agenda a charge for the advisory committee to recommend to the Board of Commissioners how to change its charter, define the committee’s
charge, or consider dissolving it, and ask for comments from the advisory committee.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that she would like staff to also be a part of this discussion, because she believes that some staff also attend these meetings and gives directionsprovides
guidance to all the committees.
Commissioner Christina Helms added that she believes that should be a charge to every County committee/board moving forward to define theitspurpose and to determine if they areifit is
fulfilling that purpose.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that hethoughttheysuggested the Board should probably start by making a motion, and suggested that it might be better directed with staff present to help
solicit some input.
Mr. Niland said that hearing what is being discussed, he believes they can start by compiling a list of all the boards and committees the county has and then determine what the charge
is for each of the committees/boards.
Mr. Niland said that specifically for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, staff can approach it two ways: request feedback from the committee about what it believes its charge
should be, or the Board of Commissioners can come up withits own ideas for what the charge should be for that committee.
Mr. Niland said that it would give staff some time to do someresearch, and come back with what all the committees/boards do and what their charges are, and then decide what the next
steps should be.
Commissioner Sides asked whether some of the advisory boards are required or mandated.
Mr. Matthews responded that some of the committees/boards are statutorily mandated. He added that, to piggyback on what Mr. Niland was saying, he believes it is a good idea, specifically
for Parks and Recreation,to request feedback from the advisory committee. For the other committees/boards, staff will get all the information it can, but he noted that some of them do
not necessarily have a true definition of what they need to be working on. He said that he believes it would actually be a good idea for an exercise for the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Committee to discuss what the committee believesit should be doing, as well as having staff give some input, and then bring the information to the Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Matthews said that he believes that was a good idea by Commissioner Sides and added that staff will develop a list of all the County boards and committees, their purposes, and provide
that information to the Board of Commissioners at a future date. Mr. Matthews said that in the meantime, Parks and Recreation could maybe move in the direction,providing the Board of
Commissioners with suggestions on activities they believe would be good for it to work onthatthey think would be good for them to work on, noting that this is just a suggestion.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Kay whether an official motion is needed.
Mr. Kay said that it is within the Board’s discretion. He noted that staff has offered some action items, and if the board wants to clarify and give direction to staff, they can do so,
but if they are satisfied with what they have heard, that is fine as well.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to direct staff to bring information to the Board of Commissioners on all advisory boards and committees, including the existing scope of those boards
and committees, as well as general information about them.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms added to the motion that more specifically for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, to direct staff to communicate with the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Committee regarding a potential change to the committee’s charter, solicit feedback from both the advisory committee and the Parks and Recreation staff members on a potential scope change,
and that staff report back to the Board of Commissioners within 30 to 60 days.
Mr. Matthews suggested allowing60 days, which would givesufficient time.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms suggested extending the timeline to 90 days.
Mr. Matthews said that 90 days would be great.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms confirmed, stating that the motion would be completed within 90 days, and asked if everything was included.
Mr. Kay confirmed that it had been so recorded in the minutes.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms Aye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner ChristinaHelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
25-170Appointment to Board and Committees
Chair Merrell stated there are two boards with vacancies for consideration of appointments, which have been advertised in accordance with the board’s rules and procedures. She said
applications have been received, and information on the vacant positions was provided in the background for this item. She identified the first boards as the Child Fatality Prevention
Team and the Community Child Protection Team and invited a motion for nominations to these teams.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to appoint Eric J. Claflin, with EMS to the Child Fatality Prevention Team and the Community Child Protection Team.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms Aye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Chair Merrell stated that the second board with a vacancy for consideration is the Transportation Advisory Board, which has two vacancies.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to appointTraci Colley to serve on the Transportation Advisory Board.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms Aye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
County Manager’s Comments
Brian Matthews, County Manager, had no closing comments.
Commissioner’s Comments
Commissioner Sides had no comments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed his gratitude to Deputy Carter, saying he is another fine example of the School Resource Officers (SROs) in Union County, and the County is fortunate
to have these officers. He stated that he has said numerous times that SROs are an asset to the County, and they make a difference. He said he appreciates the efforts of Deputy Carter
at Prospect Elementary as well as all of the SROs and deputies.
He extended his thoughts, prayers, and condolences to the family of the child who passed in the Fairview community this past weekand said his heart is broken for the family, the Fairview
community, and the County.
Chair Merrell offered her condolences to the Fairview family as well,who lost a child last week, noting that Fairview is part of her family and that her children grew up and attended
Fairview Elementary. She extended her thoughts and prayers to Principal Kelly Thomas, all of the beloved teachers and staff, everyone at Fairview Elementary, the family, and the students
who had to witness so much law enforcement and EMS coming into their school.
Chair Merrell thanked the Union County Sheriff’s Office and county management for sending chaplains to the school to meet with the children, staff, and families to help de-escalate what
they were experiencing. She reiterated that her thoughts and prayers were with Fairview and expressed affection for Principal Kelly Thomas.
Chair Merrell said that she wants to again recognize that the SROs, whether with the local police departments or the sheriff’s department, are the best of the best in Union County. She
noted that between the Board of Education and Union County government, being able to bring the sixth largest school district in North Carolina to a one-to-one ratio with SROs is something
worked on very hard by the Board of Education, and it took many years to get to that point. She added that they love their SROs, and it was so nice to be able to honor one tonight from
Prospect Elementary, calling them heroes.She emphasized that, as she has said many times, when students graduate and cross the stage, the first person they want to hug is their SRO.
She noted that sometimes they may not hug their parents first, but they will hug their SRO.
Commissioner Christina Helms offered her condolences again to the Fairview community, saying no parent should ever have to bury a child.
Chair Merrell offered on a brighter note congratulations to Chief Brian Gillard on his retirement, noting that even though he is a city employee, he is still very much part of Union
County. She recounted that he started serving in 1993 as a dispatcher and worked his way up to chief. She said that Chief Gillard has been such an asset to Union County, and she is very
proud of all the work he and his department have done. She mentioned hearing Sheriff Cathey talk about all the work they did together and how it was such a great collaboration between
the two departments. She concluded by again congratulating Chief Gillard on his retirement and hoping he enjoys all the golf he is going to play.
Chair Merrell noted Chief Gillard’s 32 years of service, noting that he worked his way up through the ranks, including the last 11 years as chief of police. She shared that she saw a
photo today of the day he got his badge, with his grandmother placing it on his uniform, and remarked that she thought that was extremely special.
Commissioner Baucom offered his condolences to the Fairview family and community.
He expressed his appreciation for the efforts of the staff and his fellow commissioners, and concluded by wishing everyone a good night.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 8:17 p.m., Commissioner Christina Helms 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 B. HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye