12-16-24 - Meeting MinutesUnionCounty,NCBoardofCommissionersMeetingMinutes
UnionCountyGovernment Center
500NorthMainStreet
Monroe,NorthCarolina
www.unioncountync.gov
______________________________________________________________________
Monday, December 16, 20246:00 PM Board Room, First Floor
______________________________________________________________________
Closed Session – 5:15
24-864Closed Session
Present: Chair Melissa M. Merrell, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, Commissioner Clancy Baucom, Commissioner Christina B. Helms, and Commissioner Gary Sides
At approximately 5:20 p.m., in the open session, in the Stony D. Rushing Conference Meeting Room, Chair Merrell called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order.
Chair Merrell moved that the Board enter closed session pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11:
(a)1), to prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to G.S. section 132-1.1(a) and
(a)(3), for attorney-client privilege.
As such, the purposes are fully stated in the agenda for this meeting, which has been made publicly available.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair Melissa B. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
At the conclusion of the closed session, at approximately 6:05 p.m., Chair Merrell moved that the Board endconclude the closedsessionandreturn to the open session. The motion passed
by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Opening of Meeting - 6:00 PM
Present: Chair Melissa M. Merrell, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, Commissioner Clancy Baucom, Commissioner Christina B.Helms; and Commissioner Gary Sides
Absent:None
Also Present: Brian W. Matthews, County Manager; Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager; Clayton Voignier, Assistant Manager; Lynn G. West, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners; Jason
Kay, County Attorney; and other interested residents
At approximately 6:05p.m., in open session, Chair Melissa Merrell called the regular meeting of Monday, December 16, 2024, to order.
Invocation - Commissioner Clancy C. Baucom offered the invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance – Chair Melissa M. Merrell led the body and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Informal Comments
Chair Merrell reviewed the guidelines for speakers makingwho wish to make comments during the informal comments. She recognized Steve Worgan as the first speaker.
Mr. Worgan stated that he is a resident of Union County and resides in the Heritage South Subdivision of Indian Trail. He spoke regarding the sewer smell in his neighborhood.
Mr. Worgan said that residents of Heritage South Subdivision had been attending meetings periodically over the last couple of years, talking about what he described asa severe problem
in the Heritage South Subdivision. He stated the reason the residents had stopped attending the meetings was becausethat the Board had shown good faith.
Mr. Worgan recalled that at the Board’s last meeting, Chair Merrell put forth a vote that initiated the pilot program. He stated that residents left that meeting pleased.
He stated that he serves on the neighborhood boardin his neighborhood,and they were very adamant that residents should leave the Board of Commissioners alone. He noted that they feltthoughtit
was unnecessary to continue occupying meetings or inundating the Board with numbers of 50 to 70 people as they had done in the past.
Mr. Worgan said the neighborhood had encouraged allowing the pilot program to move forward and see where it goes. He stated that John Shutak from the County’s Water Department has been
outstanding, working closely with the residents and staying in maintaining constant communication. He shared that the infrastructure has been put in place for the pilot program,and although
there have been a number of steps, albeit they have been delayed on multiple occasions, it is moving forward, and the residents are appreciative.
Mr. Worgan stated that they understood that the pilot program is scheduled going to conclude in the next three to four months, at which point there should be strong evidence on whether
the water treatment solution is effective.
Mr. Worgan stated that, unfortunately, that is when the hard work starts. He said once it has been clearly determined that the solution works,assuming it does,the Board of Commissioners
will need to make a decision and vote on it. He mentioned that budgets are coming up, and he knows those conversations are about to begin. gearing up.He said theythe area residents hope
this issue will be part of those budget conversations.
He added that the residents wanted the Board to know they havenot gone anywhere, andbut out of respect for the BoardCommissioners, the residents have not inundated the Board, and they
look forward to the spring once they get the solutions.
Mr. Worgan stated they were going to email all the Commissioners and ask if theycancould have an audience with a few of the residentsto give them an opportunity to bring the Commissioners
up to speed on everything that has happened prior to this point.
Ed Greene stated that he lives in Union County on the border of Monroe and Indian Trail. Mr. Greene spoke regarding the senior nutrition program and its waiting list problem. He said
that he has been involved with the program for two and a half years and has seen the joy and happiness the clients experience have when he brings them meals.to them. He noted that his
primary route is in the rural area in Unionville, where many farms are trying to survive. He also delivers meals to routes in Indian Trail, a different demographic, but the problems
are still there as well.
Mr. Greenesaid it is a struggle for the drivers who go out and make it their mission to serve others, yet they feel the irony of saying they can no longer serve. cannot serve anymore.
He stated that he was made aware that some of the issuesare is regarding funding, and he emphasized the need to find a way to set aside more funds for these people who need it.
Mr. Greene added that the program is almost 100 percent volunteerprogramoperated. He shared that one of his tasks is being involvedinvolves being a part of a with thefocus group, made
up of volunteer drivers, to find ways to generate more interest and get more people involved to serve. He acknowledged that it is difficult to find people to volunteer, especially induring
the middle of the day or morning. However, he noted that in the past year, they have made a strong effort to reach out to the Rotary Club, Kiwanis Club, and churches, and are currently
working on a program to notify churches about the need. He mentioned that churches want to serve people in their community. Mr. Greene stated thatduefir because oftothese efforts, the
long list of looking for drivers each day has decreased dramatically. He noted that the volunteers want to be involved, but the number of meals they deliver are delivering has dwindleddwindling
from six or seven or eight to three or four due to a lack of funding to provide more meals.
Mr. Greene said that they have done their part to provide the support for the program and hope that the County can find a way to set aside moreadditionalfunds to help more people. He
emphasized that it is not only about senior nutrition and food, but also about senior wellness and well-being. He said that if seniors are mentally healthy and happy because they see
people coming to their door to say hello and bring food, then everyone benefits.
Mr. Greene thanked the board for their understanding andexpressed hope that said he hopedthe Board would consider the request.
Chair Merrell expressed appreciation to Mr. Greene for his volunteer work.
Carolyn Burroughs stated that she lives in the Altan community and offered congratulations to the new members and all of theofficers.
Ms. Burroughs said she had been athad attended previous Board meetings and continues to ask for the reopening of the Shortline Water Program. She noted that since 2022, there hasnot
been any progress anything doneon the Shortline Water Program, and no applications have beenacceptedsince 2022.She said that is why she was she attending tonight’s meeting. She said
she would be glad to provide information to the Board members.
Public Hearing (s)
24-824Public Hearing Conditional Rezoning Petition (PUD Amendment) CZ-2024-008 Dormie
At approximately 6:20 p.m., Chair Merrell opened the public hearing and recognized Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner, for staff comments.
Mr. Hansen explained that this is a conditional rezoning, sothere isa site plan is associated with the application. He clarified that it is not a rezoning but rather implementingthe
PUD-6 rezoning, which encompasses much of the area along Rea Road near the intersection of Tom Short Road. He noted that the subject property is an undeveloped commercial portion located
in front of a self-storage facility opposite Kohl’s.
Mr. Hansen explained that the proposal is to develop a 12,000 square foot office building, more specifically a medical office. He stated that the site plan includes all office uses,
including medical offices.
Mr. Hansen added that the applicant has also proposed to build a natural surface pedestrian trail within a portion of the floodplain. He stated this would be allowed as long as the
trail remains a natural surface and is committed to meet the County’s Unified Development Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Hansen referred to the site plan and explained that Rea Road is shown along with the entrance to the self-storage facility located behind it. He stated that the building would be
closer to Rea Road with parking to the rear. He noted that the area to the north on the map is within the floodplain. He also noted that a small amount of on-street parking would be
located along the driveway with the remainder to the west of the site.
Mr. Hansen described the existing conditions of the property. He explained that it is a large undeveloped piece of land. He stated that looking north on Rea Road, he notedthat sidewalks,
curbing, and gutter are already installed. He stated that immediately to the south there is a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Hansen pointed out the environmental features of the property and noted that there is a large floodplain on the site, which he described as a 500-year floodplain, which is larger
than what is regulated, but it is illustrative in showing that there is a lot offloodplain going through the area. He also noted the presence of a creek.
He explained that stormwater events will be detained as prescribed in the County’s recently amended development standards. He stated that these standards are more stringent than what
was previously required, with detention based on a 50-year storm event instead of a 25-year event. He clarified that this does not mean the intensity is doubled, but itis bigger than
what previously would have been previously required.
Mr. Hansen stated that in terms of zoning for the area, the map shows “6,” which, according to the legend on the left side, is PUD-6. He noted that this area is already zoned for business
to allowallowing for office use. He said this is just an implementation requirement to actually show the site plan associated with it. He added that this is the same zoning designation
that applies to the undeveloped commercial property to the north, as well as the Kohl’s property to the south of Tom Short Road.
He said in terms of transportation, there are no funded improvements in the immediate area. Mr. Hansen said this is expected to have a fairly low amount ofimpact on traffic impact—a
few hundred vehicles per day. He also noted that another way of looking at it is that it provides medical services in closer proximity to residents in the area, so they could bemakingcan
make shorter trips to accomplish the same purposes.
Mr. Hansen stated that Rea Road has approximately 22,000 cars a day, and Tom Short has approximately 7,000 cars a day. He said there are no funded improvements in the immediate area.
He stated the Land Use Plan calls for this area to be a commercial node.
Bottom of Form
He stated that because the project is commercial in nature, the school system was not consulted for comments, and public water and sewer are available to the site.
He explained that public feedback at a community meeting was required as part of the process and was held in early October. Mr. Hansen shared that three residents attended and asked
questions about the process forthe rezoning process and parking requirements. He noted that no changes were made as a result of that meeting, and no additional comments from the public
have been received since that time.
He added that they always reach out to municipalities if the rezoning is very close to their boundaries. He said this site is located close to the Village of Marvin, which responded
that they do not have any comments about the site plan or the proposed use.
Mr. Hansen reviewed the negatives of the request:
it would increase the impervious area immediately adjacent to a flood plain
would add additional activity in the area, increasing the number of cars, especially turning movements.
Mr. Hansen stated that the use is consistent with the Land Use Plan, and it is in an urbanized part of the county where these types ofsuch uses are expected. He said having uses such
as these in proximity to residential areas could make it more convenient because it is a shorter drive. He stated that the development of the specific site shares access with an existing
commercial use, which reduces the impact on Rea Road.
Mr. Hansen stated thatthe Planning staff recommended approval. He further stated that the Land Use Board, acting as the Planning Board, reviewed the proposal in November and unanimously
recommended approval, citing the consistency with the adopted plan and the limited traffic impacts of the proposed use.
Mr. Hansen stated that the applicant was present tonight to provide any additional information the Board may wish to hear.
Chair Merrell asked if anyone had any questions.
Vice Chair Brian Helms asked Mr. Hansen to return to the map showingwhich showed the proximity of the property to the residential area. He expressed a concern,which was also noted as
one of the negatives in the staff report, that the proposed use would increase impervious area immediately adjacent to a flood plain, increasing the potential for flooding in the area.
He asked for confirmation that the current plan includes mitigation for a 50-year storm.
Mr. Hansen confirmed that this was correct.
Vice Chair Brian Helms stated he would be curious to know if the applicant would be amenable to increasing the stormwater mitigation due to the proximity of the residential area to the
parcel.
Mr. Hansen replied that this would be a question for the applicant and suggested asking the applicant to come to the podium.
Aaron Houck introduced himself on behalf of Dormie Equity Partners and also introduced Rob Taylor also with Dormie Equity Partners.
Mr. Houck stated that asa part of this development, the Morning Star development hasconstructed a retaining wall that wasdesigned to help address the stormwater issues, and thatit is
already in place.
Rob Taylor stated that when Morning Star Storage was built behind this area, itaccounted for the floodplain and built a retaining wall and elevated the land. He stated that the site
is already a pre-grated pad-level site. He said itensures that there is proper drop off in between this site down into the flood plain to then account for some of that additionalrunoff,making
sureassuring that it is not going into the residential areaor then also having this being a medical site in terms of addressing that and ensuring that it all flows properly.
He added thatthe floodplain is a heavily dense wooded area, and they wanted to make the area a little nicer with natural walking trailsfor the residents,as well asand the employees of
the medical center who would be utilizing it.andMr. Taylor stated they wanted to help “clean up”thatthe site into the flood plainarea to help promote drainage, and also to clear out
the that intersection if you are familiar with that Tom Short Rea Road intersection iswhich has a lot of densely wooded overgrown shrub brush and so foron the site that we control we
want to help alleviate thatthose problems from this area and make the site a lotcleaner and more natural type of site.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, inquired about the storm event capacity related to the retaining wall near the storage unit facility. He askedfor what type of storm event wouldthis would
this be appropriatefor. He emphasized that his concern was not opposition to the proposed project, but he did not want it to have a negative impact of flooding for on the current residents
with flooding. Mr. Hansen stated that the area flows northward to the north towardMecklenburg County. He noted that the project is designed to handle a 50-year storm event. He also mentioned
that last fall in the Wesley Chapel area, certain areas experienced a 1,000-year storm event.Mr. Hansen said what he is talking about is how long the water will stay on-site, as the
project will include detention for stormwater that accumulates, which will be released. He noted that the floodway had a wall was built to create more developable land, which is why
the floodway now goes around the building.He stated that the fact that it is doing a 50-year storm there, just between a 50 and 100, in an instance like this, the fact that they are
retaining it I what matters, no so much that they are staying away from it. Replace this above statement in blue with the following one in red.He stated that, in an instance like this,
where it is experiencing a 50-year storm, just between 50 and 100, the fact that they are retaining it is what matters, not so much that they are staying away from it. He said there
really isnot a significant difference beyond what the 50-year storm is going to provide. He stated beyond that, it is so large, and in looking at examining the overall area that ishas
been developed, and the fact that there really arenot any ponds anywhere else in this picture shows that it is pretty much already set in stone how this area is going to behave.Chair
Merrell asked if anyone had registered to comment during the public hearing. Brian Matthews, County Manager, stated that no one hadregistered to speak.Mr. Hansen stated that the team
has some additional slides to present that may help.Mr. Houck presented a slide showing the site’s location on the west side of Rea Road, just south of the intersection with Tom Short
Road. He noted nearby landmarks included the Morning Star Self-Storage facility to the west of the site, and the MSA Swim Center. He also pointed out the residential neighborhood.He
continued with an aerial shot of the Morning Star facility andnotedthat it is built up above the floodplain. He highlighted a private road that runs along the south side of the site,which
runs intoconnects to Rea Road.Mr. Houckshared several visuals of the site, starting with a view from Rea Road toward the intersection with Tom Short Road. He pointed out the six-foot
privacy fence, the residential neighborhood to the south, and the undeveloped area on the site. Mr. Houck also mentioned the brush area that Mr. Taylor referenced earlier.Mr. Houck
clarified where the building’s proposed location would be locatedof the building and concluded with a view from the private road across the site toward Rea Road, where the self-storage
facility can be seen on the left.He explainingexplained that the current zoning for the site is PUD-6 B2 and clarified that this is not a rezoning request but a request for site plan
and building elevation approval. He stated that the applicant is seeking a PUD amendment.Mr. Houck described the project as a one-story,12,000 sq. ft. medical office and office building.
He pointed out that the site plan shows Rea Road running along one side, with a private road and a fence separating it from the residential neighborhood. He also highlighted the Morning
Star Self-Storage facility near the site. He said parking would be situated near the building, and there would bea natural surface walking trail would be included in the development.Mr.
Houck shared building elevations that were 2D images from Rea Road and the parking lot. He mentioned that they also had renderings to give a better perspective. He explained the visuals,
noting, an aerial view from Rea Road, and pointed pointing out the privacy fence and the private road. He noted that while the Morning Star Self-Storage facility was not pictured, it
would be located toat the back of the medical building.He shared additional visuals of the site from various angles: from the bottom of the private road where it meets Rea Road, along
the private road itself, and from the parking lot with the Morning Star to the left. He also highlighted the area where the natural surface walking trail would be, with Rea Road on the
left. Commissioner Sides asked if he had saidthere would be on-street parking on the private road.Mr. Houck confirmed that there will be a couple of parking spots next to the building.
He pointed out the parking spots on a previous slide and mentioned that oak trees would be added along the private road and in the parking lot. Commissioner Sides inquired about the
approximate building cost or taxable value of the building.Mr. Taylor respondedthat it would be approximately three to four milliondollars.Commissioner Sides asked for an estimate of
the construction time once the project is approved.Mr. Taylor responded that it would take less than 12 months.Chair Merrell asked if they have tenants already lined up to occupy the
building or if they willtheybe seeking medical tenants. Mr. Taylor responded that it would be both. He said they do not currently have any formal commitments and explained that it is
difficult to secure commitments before the known pending outcomes of this public hearing. He said, as was indicated at the community meeting,thisit is likely goingthat the tenants
will to be an already existing medical service in the community that has outgrown its location and has long wait times. He shared that he is also a resident of this community and lives
a mile from this proposed project,so this has a very personal component to him. He added, unfortunately, this area is, in his opinion,isextremely light on medical services to serve the
existing community, and there isare not a lot of expansion opportunities. He stated they are talking with several groups that are located more in the Blakney market up the street, and
they are in 3,000 square feet facilities and need 5,000 or 6,000 square feet, so it is likely the applicant will take this 12,000 square foot facility and probably split it into two
facilities and have two 6,000 square foot tenants of existing medical already in the community to help further serve the residents of the community.Chair Merrell noted that no one had
signed up to speak forduring the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak. With there being no one wishingregistered to comment during the public hearing, Chair Merrell
asked if anyone who was present but had not signed to speak wanted to do so. closed the public hearing at approximately but had not signed up. Hearing none, the Chair closed the public
hearing at approximately 6:39 p.m.24-862Proclamation for Cervical Cancer Awareness Month (January 2025)Chair Merrell recognized County Manager Brian Matthews to address the item. County
Manager Brian Matthews said the Board adopteda proclamation for Cervical Cancer Awareness Month for the month of January. He said that last year Ms. Christy Chambers provided a presentation
and actually brought thatit to the Board. She was unable to attend tonight.He said Ms. Chambers is asking for the Board to adopt a proclamation for the January 2025 Cervical Cancer Awareness
Month. Commissioner Christina Helms moved to adopt adoption ofthe proclamation proclaiming January 2025 to be Cervical Cancer Awareness Month in Union County.The motion passed by a unanimous
vote as follows:Chair MerrellAyeVice Chair Brian W. HelmsAyeCommissioner BaucomAyeCommissioner Christina B. HelmsAyeCommissioner Gary SidesAye24-843Service Award Recognition Chair Merrell
recognized Julie Broome, Human Resources Director, for this itemMs. Broome addressed the Commissioners and shared an update on the County’s fourth quarter Service Award Program.She reported
that the program had recently taken took place and recognized several employees who reached service award milestones. Ms. Broome stated that there were approximately 61 recipients for
the quarter, and about half of those employees were recognized during the ceremony.Ms. Broome explained that the County’s Service Award Program begins at five years of service and progresses
in five-year increments. For this quarter, 33 employees were recognized withfor five years of service, 11 employees were recognized withfor ten years, four employees were recognizedwithfor
fifteen years, ten employees were recognizedwithfor twenty years, one employee was recognized withfor twenty-five years, and two employees were recognized withfor thirty years of service.She
noted that this was a large group, and said there were a lot of smiles and appreciation for all of the dedication and commitment that these employees have shown to Union County.Ms. Broomeshared
a short video capturing some of thehighlights of the recognition service. She emphasized that since not all employees can attend the Board meetings, the video provides an opportunity
for Commissioners, friends, and family members of the participants to see this information and, of course, their colleagues to join in celebrating with them.Ms. Broomeexpressed appreciation
to the Commissioners who were able to attend the awards ceremony and extended an open invitation anytime they want to attend these quarterly recognition services. In closing, she expressed
appreciation to all the employees for their service and dedication to the community and thanked the Public Communications team for coordinating the video.Commissioner Sides asked Ms.
Broome or Mr. Matthews whether the Commissioners would be invited by email or notified of the quarterly meetings to make sure they could attend. Mr. Matthews responded that they would
send invites and add the events to the Commissioners’ Calendar if they would like.Chair Merrell recognized Jason Kay, County Attorney, who received his five-year service award. She
congratulated Mr. Kay foron his service with Union County. Chair Merrell asked if there were any motions regarding requested revisions or amendments to either the consent agenda or the
business agenda. Commissioner Sides addressed Chair Merrell, stating that he had at least one and a question for the Chair. He said he had a question about an item on the Consent Agenda,
whichhe clarified was not pertaining to the actual item, and he asked if he could mention it rather than pull it from the Consent Agenda, if that was acceptable. He said it was specifically
Item 24-825 Budget Amendment for County Manager’s Office. He requested that the County Manager arrange for a future presentation by the Strategy and Innovation team so that the Board
could learn more about their work, the individuals involved, and the metrics.Commissioner Sides stated that he had an addition to the business section of the agenda. He requested that
the Board consider including an item concerning the dissolution of the Monroe-Union County Economic Development Commission. Chair Merrell said that the item would be added before the
appointments of Commissioners to boards and committees. Vice Chairman Brian W. Helms moved to add consideration of a resolution in support of repeal or amendment of section 3K.1 of Session
Law 2024-57 in reference to Senate Bill 382 to the business portion of the agenda. WHO MADE THE MOTION?Chair Merrell called for a vote on the motion to approve the items listed on the
Consent Agenda, as submitted and recommended, and to approve theAgenda as amended.Good question. I am assuming that when VC moved to consider a resolution,and the Chairman assumed that
his motion included all aspects.Do you want to add a statement after this vote – something like, “By agreement, the Board proceeded with the Consent Agenda and Regular Agenda as amended.
No vote.The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows: Chair MerrellAyeVice Chair Brian W. HelmsAyeCommissioner BaucomAyeCommissioner Christina HelmsAyeCommissioner SidesAye
Consent Agenda
24-793Deed Transfer - Union County Public Schools
ACTION:Approved deed transfers to Union County Public Schools, as constructionhas been completed.
When Union County Public Schools conducts major capital projects, they
it transfers the deed to Union County. The reason for this process is that UnionCounty benefits from its eligibility for North Carolina State sales tax reimbursement able to benefit
from state sales tax reimbursement, and UCPSis not. At the end of the capital projects, the land is then deeded back toUCPS. This deed transfer will deed the following properties back
toUCPS: Tax Parcel Nos. Monroe High School (09194029), Porter Ridge
Middle School (08267003), Porter Ridge High School (08267003), Sun
Valley High School (07072002), Western Union Elementary School
(05033053), Piedmont High School (08129031), Transportation Facility
(09372003F)
24-845Contract Renewal - Custom Mobile App
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 Union County Sheriff's Office (UCSO) smartphone application hasproven to be an invaluable tool in our agency’s commitment to enhancing
public safety and keeping the community informed. With over 22,000
dedicated users, the app plays a critical role in our communication
strategy, allowing us to disseminate essential information quickly and
effectively to a broad audience. Our current reach extends to an average
of 150,000-250,000 individuals weekly, enabling the UCSO to connect
with our community on an unprecedented scale and ensuring that urgent
updates and resources are accessible to all residents. The UCSO app
facilitates a wide range of services and provides essential information in
one easy-to-navigate platform. App users can access real-time traffic
updates, locate registered sex offenders, find inmate information, browse
adoptable animals, and access rehabilitation and domestic violence
resources. Additionally, the app provides timely news releases,
emergency notifications, and employment opportunities within the
Sheriff’s Office, offering a comprehensive suite of services that meet the
diverse needs of our residents. Our app is continuously updated and
refined based on user feedback, and we have received overwhelmingly
positive responses from the community. This adaptability ensures that the
app remains relevant, responsive, and highly effective as a tool for public
engagement and safety. Maintaining funding for the UCSO mobile
application is essential to uphold the level of service that Union County
residents have come to expect. Continued support will enable us to
expand features, improve user experience, and further strengthen our
communication with the community. By investing in this proven resource,
the UCSO can continue to provide an accessible and effective platform
that enhances public safety, empowers residents, and builds trust in law
enforcement. The Sheriff’s Office will collaborate with Procurement to
explore solicitation options near the end of the renewal term.
The Union County Sheriff's Office has utilized the contractual services of
OCV, LLC for Sheriff Smartphone Application since 2023. OCV, LLC has
been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs, and we are
requesting to continue this service for an additional three years.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $15,782. Since this contract
contains a three-year term, a total of $47,346 is estimated to be spent.
Funding is available in the adopted FY2025 budget with future
expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.
24-861Purchase - Body Armor from Lawmen’s Distribution, LLC
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 Sheriff’s Office would like to purchase Safariland body
armor from Lawmen’s Distribution, LLC. The body armor purchase
replaces old worn existing body armor and new hires. Purchasing from
Lawmen’s Distribution, LLC ensures body armor conformity throughout
the agency. N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(3) and N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(9) allow
local governments to make purchases through a competitively bid North
Carolina Statewide Term Contract or a Group Purchasing Program. The
purchase of the Body Armor will be made using North Carolina Statewide
Term Contract 680C quoted by Lawmen’s Distribution, LLC.
The anticipated cost for the Body Armor is $99,524.95 and is budgeted
accordingly for FY 2025.
24-834NC Department of Public Safety - Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Funding FY 2025
ACTION:1) Approved revised County Funding Allocation Plan FY 2024-2025, 2)authorized the Finance Director to approve the funding plan, grantagreements and documents related to such grant
agreements during theirterms, and 3) approved Budget Amendment 16.
The Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) is a Board appointed by
Commissioners, as defined by State Statutes. The JCPC provides
funding and monitors Community-Based alternatives to juvenile
incarceration and provides funding for substance abuse prevention
strategies and programs.
Funding for JCPC programs is generally adopted in the State Budget and
assigned to County programs by a formula grant. Normally, a county
JCPC approves a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, which is then
submitted to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (the DJJ). The attached funding plan
was developed and approved by the JCPC Board and represents the
Board's plan for how the funds will be spent for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.
This request will be included in the State's DJJ budget, which is beingplanned for 2024-2025.
The JCPC Board approved $476,439 for County programs for the
2024-2025 fiscal year. The Revised Funding Plan allocates funding from
the State to the following programs: Life Connections D-A-S-H
Counseling Services $146,593, Transforming Youth Movement Get
Hired-Youth Employability $40,000, Transforming Youth Movement
SHIFT Restitution/CS $45,000, Aspire Youth and Family Kids at Work
$70,312, JCPC Administration $9,534, Arts Related Innovative Student
Empowerment (ARISE) Union-KRE8IVU $60,000, Union County
Community Service's and Outreach Parenting Support $17,000 (increase
by $6,250), and $0 (decrease of 6,250) of unallocated funds that will be
reassigned later in the fiscal year as needed.
The JCPC budget is normally approved as a "pass through" line item in
the County budget, meaning that the amount approved by the State is
received by the County and then used for the JCPC program.
Union County has not approved JCPC programs in line-item detail in the
past; rather, the JCPC Board normally negotiates, approves, and
monitors line-item detail within the amount of funds allocated to the
program, and provides a recommended budget to Commissioners.
The County will provide $6,738 in local in-kind match for the Union
County Parenting Support Program. No other County funding is required
for local funding or the local in-kind match for all other JCPC Programs.
24-835Budget Amendment - WIC Program, Community Support and
Outreach
ACTION:1) Recognized, received, and appropriated $47,250 of additional AgreementAddendum funding for WIC Client Services to the Community Supportand Outreach Division’s operating budget
and 2) approved BudgetAmendment #13.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) is part of the Union County Human Services Agency’s
Community Support and Outreach Division. WIC serves to safeguard the
health of low-to-moderate income pregnant, postpartum, and
breastfeeding women, infants and children up to age five (5) who are at
nutritional risk. The WIC program provides nutritious foods to supplement
diets, referrals to health care and education on healthy eating from
specially trained WIC nutritionists. As a result of COVID-19 and other
current events, many families have been faced with economic hardships,
leading to a significant sustained increase in the need for WIC services.
In FY2020, our clinic served an average caseload of 2,909 clients per
month. Year-to-date in FY2025, our monthly average increased to 4,260
clients, representing a growth of over 46%. To ensure that clients and
new applicants are served in accordance with Federal regulations, we
have contracted with Nutrition Plus, who provides us with one FTE of a
WIC Nutritionist. Our original contract with Nutrition Plus, Contract #7982,
was executed on December 1, 2022 with a not to exceed amount of
$25,000; an amendment was approved on April 13, 2023 adding $24,500
to the not to exceed amount of $25,000, for a total of $49,500. Neither of
these required board action. On July 17, 2023, the BOCC approved a
contract amendment, which increased the not to exceed amount on the
contract from $49,500 to $107,500 and extended the contract end date to
June 30, 2024. An amendment was approved on January 25, 2024
adding $31,040, which did not require board action and increased the not
to exceed amount to $138,540. On June 17, 2024, the BOCC approved a
contract amendment, which increased the not to exceed amount on the
contract from $138,540 to $163,540 and extended the term through
September 30, 2024. To address the sustained high need, the North
Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS) has
continually adjusted the allocation of funds to WIC clinics that serve more
than 100% of the caseload assigned by the state. Consequently, Union
County WIC received an overall funding boost for FY2025. As a result,
$17,349 was utilized from the initial AA increase to increase the not to
exceed on the Nutrition Plus of Greenville, Inc. contract from $163,540 to
$180,889 and extended the contract expiration date with Nutrition Plus
from September 30, 2024 to June 30, 2025. This did not require board
action. An additional WIC AA increase of $47,250 was announced on
September 30, 2024 and the total not to exceed amount was increased
from $180,889 to $228,139 at the last board meeting. The request is for
the Board’s approval of Budget Amendment #13 for the additional $47,250.
The Human Services Agency Community Support and Outreach Division
has utilized the contractual services of Nutrition Plus for WIC Program
Nutritionist since December 2022. Nutrition Plus of Greenville, Inc hasbeen effective and efficient in meeting our service needs.
Additional funding of $47,250 is awarded at 100% with no required
County match.
24-839Budget Amendment - Child Fatality Prevention Team
ACTION:1) Recognized, received, and appropriated $2,400 in additional state fundingfrom the NC Division of Public Health for the Union County Child FatalityPrevention Team (Agreement
Addendum 701) and 2) approve BudgetAmendment 17.
North Carolina Session Law (NCSL) 2023-134 enacted changes to
strengthen the state’s child fatality prevention system which included the
establishment of a State Office of Child Fatality Prevention within the
Division of Public Health (DPH), Department of Health and Human
Services (the Department), made changes to the Child Fatality Prevention
System, and made it mandatory to report child fatalities into the National
Fatality Review Case Reporting System (NFR-CRS).
The NFR-CRS is a web-based system hosted by the National Center for
Fatality Review and Prevention within the Center for National Prevention
Initiatives of the Michigan Public Health Institute (MPHI) and is used by
many states to provide child death review teams with a data system for
capturing, analyzing, and reporting of information shared at a child death
or serious injury review.
Per NCSL 2023-134: “Not later than July 1, 2025, the Department shall
ensure through its State Office of Child Fatality Prevention that all Local
Teams [including Local Health Departments/Districts] have been provided
guidelines and training addressing their participation in the NFR-CRS,
and Local Teams shall begin utilizing the System for case reporting as
specified in G.S. 7B-1413.5.” The Union County Human Services Agency
coordinates our single county, multidisciplinary child death review team
pursuant to Article 14 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes.
This Agreement Addendum provides funding for the Local Health
Department to prepare and begin using the NFR-CRS. Funds were
appropriated by the North Carolina General Assembly to support
implementation of the changes authorized by NCSL 2023-134 torestructure child death reviews by Local Teams and to offset the costs
associated with Local Team participation in NFR-CRS.
The County will receive $2,400 in FY2025 funding from the NC Division of
Public Health. No County match is required.
24-846Contract Renewal - Dental Laboratory 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 Union County Human Services Agency’s Public Health Department
provides various dental clinic services for patients that must be processed
by an “outside” laboratory, such as dentures. Brantley Dental Laboratory
currently processes lab services for the Public Health Department through
contract #8619. A requested third amendment for $25,000 will cover a
one-year term and will result in a cumulative spend with the vendor that
exceeds the County Manager’s $50,000 allowable signing authority,
therefore, BOCC approval of Contract Amendment #3 is required.
The Public Health Department has utilized the contractual services of
Brantley Dental Laboratory for services since November 2020. The
contractor has been effective and efficient in meeting our service &
patient care needs, and we are requesting to continue this service for an
additional one-year term. The Department will collaborate with
Procurement for solicitation options in the future.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $25,000.00 and is budgeted
accordingly, for FY2025, with future expenditures subject to annual BOCCbudget appropriation.
24-852Grant Application - Transportation FY2026 Section 5310 Enhanced
Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager: to 1) submit the 5310 Urbanized AreaGrant application and make necessary assurances and certificationsassociated with the grant application, 2)
upon award of the grant, tonegotiate and execute an agreement, and 3) upon receipt of the grantfunds, to recognize, receive, and appropriate the awarded amount to theTransportation budget,
all as substantially consistent with this agenda
item.
The Section 5310 program (49 U.S.C. 5310) provides formula funding to
states to assist private nonprofit groups in meeting the transportation needs ofolder adults and people with disabilities when transportation service isunavailable, insufficient, or
inappropriate to meet the needs of theseresidents. The 5310 program aims to remove barriers to transportationservices and expand mobility options for seniors and individuals withdisabilities
by supporting services planned, designed, and carried out tomeet the unique transportation needs of these residents in all areas -large urbanized (over 200,000), small urbanized (50,000-200,000),
andrural (under 50,000). Funds are apportioned based on each state's shareof the population, then direct recipients manage and distribute funds tosub-recipient projects.
The Human Services Agency Transportation Department will submit the
grant application as a sub-recipient through the Charlotte Area Transit
System (CATS), and our local agreement will be with the City of
Charlotte. Union County’s grant application will leverage our Home and
Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) funding to serve as the local
match required to enable us to obtain the additional 5310 grant funding,
thereby ensuring more seniors can access needed services by utilizing
our transportation system. Transportation staff have the capability to
manage this grant and have been receiving and managing this 5310
funding since January 2016. FY2026 grant funding will allow us to
continue meeting the needs of current and future residents who are
eligible for services under this funding structure. Our goal is to serve 200+
seniors age 65+ and/or age 50+ disabled individuals currently being
served by our system under this funding.
The 5310 grant requires a 50% Federal/ 50% Local cost split for demand
response service operations. The performance period is for two funding
years, meaning funds awarded during a given fiscal year can be drawn
down for two years after the start of the award's fiscal year.The total 5310 Grant operating request of $400,000 for the two-year
period from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028, is 50% Federal Grant ($200,000) and 50% Local Match ($200,000).
24-847Contract - Architectural Services for UC Water Operations Center
Expansion
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.
This request is to approve a contract with Progressive Architecture
Engineering, P.C. to complete the building and site design for the new UC
Water Operations Center Expansion and Renovation project. The scope
of work will include the design of a building addition, or stand-alone
building, of approximately 30,000 gsf and renovate close to 3,000 gsf of
space in the existing Operations Center.
The designer will be responsible for theverification of the previously
conducted space needs analysis, development of the building program
requirements, full architectural and engineering design and construction
administration. The designer will also be tasked with coordination and
teaming with the Construction Manager at Risk to be selected by the
County.
The Facilities and Fleet Management Department partnered with the
Procurement Department to issue Request for Qualifications No.
2025-005, Architectural Services, Union County Water Operations Center
Expansion and Renovation Project. On September 10, 2024, eleven (11)
qualifications packages were received and reviewed by an evaluation
team in accordance with applicable evaluation criteria for this project. The
top four (4) firms were invited to shortlist interview/presentations. As a
result, the team requests approval to enter into a contract with
Progressive Architecture Engineering, P.C. staff recommends thatthe Boardapprove the contract with Progressive Architecture Engineering, P.C. in theamount of $870,260.00 to complete
the building design and constructionadministration.The cost of this contract is $870,260.00. There are sufficient funds in the
UC Water Ops Center Expansion capital account, 60186019, to cover this expense.
24-813Allocate Additional FTE to Information Technology
ACTION:Authorized an additional 0.46 FTE to create a full-time position inInformation Technology.
Currently, the Union County Information Technology Department includes
two part-time vacant positions, one as an intern (position 422999 at 0.06
FTE) and the other administrative support (position 421098 at 0.48 FTE).
Both positions are helpful to the department's operations but are limited
by their part-time status, resulting in inefficiencies and less focus on
serving our customers. With the county’s expanded dependence on
information technology, the department is seeking an additional 0.46 FTE
to consolidate the two part-time positions into one full-time IT Systems
Specialist position that will provide entry-level technical support. This
change will improve the availability of technical support for our growing
user base. IT has had an ongoing relationship with South Piedmont
Community College and will continue to work with them to feed our
remaining internship position and possibly look to SPCC graduates to fill
this potential position.
No additional funding required. Funding exists in the current FY2025Information Technology budget.
24-830October 2024 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Report
ACTION:Approved the October 2024 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 Taxand Tag Together program operated jointly between the counties and the
State.
24-825Budget Amendment - County Manager’s Office
ACTION:Adopted Budget Amendment #6.
The Strategy & Innovation team within the County Manager’s office is
comprised of staff who were reclassified from other County Departments
including Human Services (4 staff members) and the Budget Office (1
staff member). This budget amendment will move the salaries and
benefits of those staff to the County Manager’s Office budget.
24-840Amendment to the Union County Pay and Classification Plan
ACTION:Approved revision of the Union County Pay Plan to include new jobclassification titles, pay grades, and one new position.
Add the following classification and associated pay grade:
a. Environmental Health Division Manager - pay grade Q
b. Sheriff’s Office Legal Counsel - pay grade S
2) Remove the following classification and associated pay grade:
a. Director, Environmental Health - pay grade Q
b. Training Supervisor - pay grade L
c. Trainer - pay grade J
3) Add one (1) Assistant County Attorney full-time equivalent (FTE)
positionUpdates to the Union County Pay Plan are necessary to add, update, and
remove job classification titles to align with current and future
organizational needs.
For certain property acquisition and condemnation pre-litigation services
related to Union County Water, the County has historically contracted with
outside counsel to provide such services. However, due to the volume of
this work and time needed to address these issues, bringing these legal
services in-house will provide overall benefit to the County and reduce
costs. With the addition of one (1) Assistant County Attorney position in
the County Attorney’s Office, this change will provide improved budget
stability, increased efficiency, and strengthened communication and
collaboration opportunities. The monetary savings yielded by shifting
away from the contract legal services model will fully fund the new
position, allow for significantly decreased hourly legal service costs, and
increase the County’s ability to meet the requirements of this work in a
cost-effective manner. The position will be funded through the Water and
Sewer Public Enterprise fund. The position will be filled, trained, and
deployed as soon as practicable while taking into account department
and service transition needs. No new funding is required for the position,
and it is projected to reduce overall expenses.
24-856Contract Amendment - Audit Services
ACTION:Authorize the Board Chair 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 the BoardChair’s discretion.
Through Request for Proposals (RFP) 2022-039, Cherry Bekaert, LLP
was awarded the financial audit contract to provide auditing services for
Union County. As required by the North Carolina Local Government
Commission (LGC), the auditing contract must be awarded on an annual
basis with approval from the Board of Commissioners. This request is toaward a contract to Cherry Bekaert to perform the financial audit of the
County's accounting records for FY2024.
The contract terms for auditing services include fees for testing of five
major grant programs for single audit testing. During FY2024, the County
saw an increase in major grant programs, resulting in a total of eleven
programs tested. The original contract approved by the BOCC in April
estimated there would be an additional four programs tested, resulting in a
contract amount not to exceed an amount of $146,000. The additional major programstested resulted in a not-to-exceed $156,000, requiring an
amendment to the FY2024 audit contract. The contract amendment
requires the Chair’s signature based on the audit contract regulations of the Local GovernmentCommission.audit contract regulations.
The total cost will be $156,000: $126,000 to perform the financial audit
and which includes testing for five Single Audit grant programs, as well as
$5,000 for each Single Audit program over five. The total not-to-exceed amount is increasing overall by $10,000.
24-848Resolution - Adopt Board of Commissioners’ 2025 Regular Meeting
Schedule
ACTION:Adopted the Resolution for the Regular Meeting Schedule of the UnionCounty Board of Commissioners for 2025.
This resolution is for the adoption of the Board of Commissioners’
meeting schedule for 2025, which includes its regular meetings as shown
on Attachment “A” to the resolution.
24-853Minutes for Approval
ACTION:Approved minutes of theregular meeting of December 2, 2024.
Information Only
24-828Tax Refunds, Releases and Prorations Approved by Finance Officer
ACTION:None - Information Only.
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 tothe surrendering of registered motor vehicle plates.The finance officer shall issue a refund to the vehicle owner. This report is forcovers October 2024 NCVTS
releases and refunds oflessthan $100 and prorations approved by the finance officer.
See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
24-857Monthly Update - Wastewater Treatment Capacity
ACTION:Receive status update on wastewater treatment capacity for the TwelveMile Creek, Crooked Creek, Olde Sycamore, Tallwood, and GrassyBranch facilities.
Union County Water is closely monitoring the wastewater treatment
capacities at our Water Reclamation Facilities. Permitting Capacity is
evaluated using the Actual Plant Flows plus the Permitted/ObligatedFlows (unconnected). Union County Water was asked to provide regular
updates. Plant flow information through November 2024 is summarized in
the attached table.
Twelve Mile Creek
· Percent of Actual Flows = 72.4%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 92.3%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 5.427
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 6.926
Crooked Creek
· Percent of Actual Flows = 60.0%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 90.6%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 1.140
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 1.722
Olde Sycamore
· Percent of Actual Flows = 30.7%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 30.7%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.046
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.046
Tallwood
· Percent of Actual Flows = 46.0%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 46.0%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.023
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.023
Grassy Branch
· Percent of Actual Flows = 96.0%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 98.0%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.048
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.049
In addition to the wastewater treatment capacities, flow volumes
associated with development projects that are in the planning and review
process within the Twelve Mile Creek and Crooked Creek WRF service
areas are provided for information as well. Development flow volumes
through November 2024 are summarized in the tables.Business24-762Opioid Settlement Funding Plan UpdateChair Merrell recognized Michelle Lancaster, Consultant, for an update to the Board
concerning this item.Ms. Lancaster stated that she would be covering three items during the meeting. She explained that two of those items would involve shifting her engagement to staff
or other individuals and one item that she planned to continue working on.Ms. Lancaster explained that the County became engaged in the Opioid Settlement Funding Plan in 2022.She explained
that North Carolina entered into a settlement with several other states. She shared that North Carolina, in total, is receiving a little more than $1.4 billion over the next 18 years
to tackle the opioid crisis from those settlements.She shared that Union County will be receivingreceive more than $17.7 million over that same time. She noted that this has a very long
runway, starting in 2022 and expected to continue through 2038.She added that many of these funds were front-loaded, so counties are receiving a little more fundingupfront on the front
end, and then it tapers to a more steady stream in the later years. She stated that the information she was sharing pertained to was throughthe end of the fiscal year for the reporting
that was due to the Attorney General's Office in October.Ms. Lancaster said the North Carolina County Commissioners Association played a large role in the settlements, specifically working
for counties to ensure that they receive the funds directly.She stated that 80 percent of the funds were coming backbeing returned to counties so that they could use them in the communities
that were most affected by the opioid crisis, counties whothat are responsible for law enforcement, and in many places, health and human services, and the families that are impacted
the most.Ms. Lancaster said there have been several different settlements, with the largest occurring in 2022,followed by withadditional smaller settlements.following. She noted that
they have all followed the same principles that were agreed to in the original work.She added that this was very unusual and unique for counties. She stated that counties had never
been given an 18-year runway with money coming year over year andwith very specific expectations.She explained that this was not an area thatwhere counties had typically worked in. She
stated that while there may have been partnerships, they were usuallytypically for outside agency funding or some human services relationships. She stated that the county itself does
not have staff who have been working in the opioid space. She said they had done a lot of work to build the program that exists today.Ms. Lancaster explained that a group of community
partners came together and spent several weeks working on a recommendation for the program. She noted that there is a lot of guidance, which continues to grow, on how these funds should
need tobe used, and there is also a lot of expectation regarding their use. on how they are used.She stated that this group, along with county staff, developed put togetherrecommendations
that then came to the Board of Commissioners for ultimate action on what should be funded. Ms. Lancaster provided the following breakdown on the approved programs/funding:Ms. Lancaster
said the recommendation for program funding was for a three-year funding cycle, which is slightly unique tofrom what counties typically do with an annual budget cycle.She explained that
these funds are allocated to go intospecial revenue funds, allowing them to be used year after year in a slightly different manner. a little bit differently. She stated that it was
theastrong recommendation from the advisory groupthat provided the basis for the recommendation that the county invest in things over a longer period of time to determine where the investment
made a difference.She said the idea was that when making future decisions about funding, those decisions would be based on data. Ms. Lancaster said Wingate University is providingsome
oversight through Dr. Shanta Dube, a public health professor with 25 years of experience in the substance use area. Dr. Dube is leading the work group and the data collection. She is
working with the logic models with all of the programs and partnering with staff.Ms. Lancaster reviewed the various programs in Union County that were approved for funding. There was
a discussion regarding the partnership with Union County Public Schools. Chair Merrell asked, “What are the two clusters for Union County Public Schools?”Ms. Lancaster stated that it
was Porter Ridge and Sun Valley, and that it included the middle and high schools, so four schools in total.Ms. Lancaster confirmed that it is a harm reduction programthat includes whichincludedvaping
and drug use, and it isa wholean evidence-based program that they are implementing in those four schools.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Ms. Lancaster if the concentration in those schools
was on vaping and how did that pertained to opioid abuse. Ms. Lancaster said there were some gateway activities for students and that the goal was to stop those behaviors before they
led to the use of other substances.She explained that the program being used in the schools was evidence-based and had been used in other parts of the country, and was being offered
in those clusters as a pilot program. She said her understanding from Jarod McCraw at UCPS was that the school leaders were anxious to get something in place. She stated they thought
they had some issues,particularly with vaping,that they were having a hard time in terms of discipline in the schools. She said they are working with Dr. Dube and the team to develop
performance measures that couldcan be reviewed to determine if the program was having the impact they hopedittowould have. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked ifthere was any data available
about how many folks wereon the number of individuals enrolled.Ms. Lancaster responded that no, they had just started the program. She reminded the Board that this was a later addition
to the program. She said they have been meeting with Dr. Dube and the team.She explained that they were starting the data collection now, and by this time next year, the Board of Commissioners
should be able to review the data that has been collected. have started to collect.She stated they were using REDCap, which is their data collection system. Ms. Lancaster explained
that it is a HIPAA-compliant research electronic data capture system,through which they were collecting the data. and they were collecting the data through this system.She said data
from two quarters' worth of datahad been collected from everyone except UCPS.She said the team had started their initial data visualizations, and there would bea dashboard that folkswould
be able to access. Ms. Lancaster also said they had completed the state-required reporting that was required. She added that there were fairly extensive expectations from the Attorney
General’s Office on the reporting.She noted that the funding was captured byin the single audit, and they had gone through the audit with the County’s auditors, providing quite a bit
of information as the auditors did their work.Commissioner Christina Helms asked Ms. Lancaster if the state report information had been sent to the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Lancaster
stated that she did not believe it was sent to the Board of Commissioners.Commissioner ChristiniaChristina Helms asked that the information be provided to the Board. Ms. Lancaster displayed
a slide which she described as an illustrationof one of the socio-demographic slides they had begun putting together. She mentioned that this work was being completed and that they would
make sure the Board of Commissioners received a link to the website so they could view the dashboard data. She noted that the data was there, so they would have access to it along with
additional information.She stated that she thought what they were putting together was really well done, and it was impressive to see the work that had been put into the program. She
added that the partner agencies had embraced this and wanted to ensure make surethey were receiving good measures and putting together informationtogether that made sense for the work
they were doing and for the investment the County was making with these funds in the community.Ms. Lancaster said that tonight she had mentioned there were a few matters that she was
transitioning to others, and this was one matter she was working to transition to thestaff. She explained that the recommendation from both the staff and her was to add an opioid settlement
program coordinator/strategy analyst to the County Strategy and Innovation team. She explained that this person would manage the work group, work on the reporting requirements, and handle
the community engagement needed in this area.She said this would allow the County to develop some in-house expertise in this area, which would continue to be funded through settlement
funds throughl 2038. Ms. Lancaster mentioned that, as she had said earlier, this was not work that counties had traditionally done, so there are no notpeople on staff who have worked
in this space as their primary function. She thoughtthat since Commissioner Sides had asked for to geta report from the Strategy and Innovation Team, she thought this would be the right
team. Ms. Lancaster explained that the action the Board would be asked to consider was to receive the information on the opioid settlement plan, update the pay and classification plan
to include a new job classification of opioid settlement program coordinator/strategy analyst, pay grade M, authorize the addition of one FTE in the county manager's office for the job
classification of program coordinator/strategy analyst, and also adopt budget amendment number 18.Ms. Lancaster explained that, as she had mentioned at the beginning, there were some
smaller settlements that would continue to come through, and one was coming through for FY25 in the amount of $86,677.12. She stated that the fourth action, which was budget amendment
18, and the planis to utilize those funds for the new FTE and the additional audit testing that was required, which cost $5,000 to do thatthe single-audit work.Ms. Lancaster said that
in the next year, the Board should expect to see, the additional reporting after the requested position is on staff. She said they would also make sureensure that the Board is provided
the reporting that ishas already been completed, the finalization of the dashboard info, additional engagement with the funded partners, and the development of recommendations for the
next allocation of funds that should be coming in 2025 and 2026.Commissioner Sides asked if the opioid settlement coordinator position would be funded from the proceeds of the settlement.Ms.
Lancaster confirmed that it would be.was correct.Chair Merrell asked if that position is not aforever position, and if the expense of the position it would eventually have to be picked
up by the County when the opioid funds run out, or if that position would end alsoalso end.County Manager Brian Matthews stated that this is certainly what is anticipated. He explained
that the Board could always decide to continue a program if they wanted to, but in thestaff’s opinion, when the program and the funding end, the position would also end and go away.
He added that the Board could choose not to do that in the future.Ms. Lancaster said that this has such a long runway until 2038. She stated that she agreed with Mr. Matthews and said
that what could also be expected is that the folks working on thisif there arethings that are working,the people who are working on this they may look for additional funding sources
over that period of time to backfill. She noted that the County does have funding through 2038, which she described as a long time for what one would typically think of as a grant funding
source.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the auditing cost was required as part of with the settlement.Ms. Lancaster responded that it reached a dollar threshold that made it a requirement
of the single audit. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked who makes the requirement and whether it is part of the settlement.Ms. Lancaster responded that she believes it is actually the Local
Government Commission that makes that requirement.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked what the plan is and wouldwhether this full-time employee would report to the Assistant County Manager,
the Deputy, or fall under someone else. Mr. Matthews stated that the position would be under the County Manager's Office and would report to one of the Assistant County Managers, and
then ultimately to him.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the expectation of this individual would be to pick upassumethe management of the program, facilitate the expenditures of the money being received
from the settlement, and look for other opportunities with other settlements.
Ms. Lancaster saidstated thatsomeone would need to facilitate the meetings of thework group’s meetingson an ongoing basis. She stated that the Board would decide whether to fund ifit
every three years or every year. will fund it every three years or fund it every year, but that would be the Board’s decision.
She further explained that the person would be expected to manage all of those pieces: the relationship with the community, the state, so the North Carolina StateAssociation of County
Commissioners receives some funding in this area to provide guidance and support for reporting and all the required things that are expected after receiving the settlements.
Ms. Lancaster said she had received a modest amountnumber of inquiries from several folks asking why this did not fund all the nonprofits that are working inon opioid use and all the
programs. She noted there are probably some other good ones that could be funded, and having somebodysomeone who can engage,and vet, and get more involved in that part of the community
workcould be an advantage.
She emphasized that this was just not something that county staff had been immersed in. She explained that substance abuse and behavioral health have not been managed across the state,
as those have been managed differently and outside of local government. She said bringing this staff member in now, with the expectation that for 18 years the Board would be asked to
make decisions about how to spend this money,in this space,would provide an expert on staff and provide confidence having somebody who can be an expert and provide confidence in what
the Board is doing as it spends those dollars.
Chair Merrell asked where this person would be located.
Mr. Matthews stated that at this point in time, he believed that person would be located at the Patton Avenue office, which is where the Strategy and Innovation group is located.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the County does not believe it currently has in-house resources to doperform this function. currently.
Mr. Matthews responded that would be his opinion.
Commissioner Sides stated he wanted more information on the specific programs receiving the funding onand how they intend to use the money.He added that he also wanted to know the timeframe
in which the Board will be updated on the status, rather than just once a year. He said he would also like to know the metrics that will be used to measure the effectiveness of how each
group is using that funding, maybe in year three, if they found one approach was not effective, they could make the decision to divert those funds somewhere else or add it to an existing
organization getting funding because that organization seems to have the biggest bang for the buck.He concluded by saying he is interested in knowing how and over what time period the
Board is going towill receive informationover what periods on the effectiveness of the program, and how the money is actually being spent.
Ms. Lancaster said they can make sure that the Board receives the information. She clarified that the Board had already approved funding had already been approved by the Boardfor allocations.
She stated that the work began about a year ago, starting with two quarters of data collection, as she mentioned earlier under the key metrics.
She said she will provide the initial reports, which should help inform the Board about the decisions made in 2022 and 2023 that led the County to this point. She noted that in 2025
and 2026, the Board should expect to be asked to make additional decisions about how the funds are to be used.
Commissioner Sides requested additional asked for moreinformation about how each group that is receiving funding is using it.
Chair Merrell noted that there was an action had been requested.
Chair Merrell moved the following:
1) Receive information on the County’s Opioid Settlement Plan,
2) Update the Pay and Classification plan to include a new job classification as follows:
•Opioid Settlement Program Coordinator / Strategy Analyst – Pay Grade M
Authorize the addition of one FTE (full-time equivalency) in the County Manager’s Office for the following job classification:
•1 Opioid Settlement Program Coordinator / Strategy Analyst
4) Adopt Budget Amendment #18
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed that his only concern with the requested action was the hiring of a new full-time employee. He said that was his reservation withabout the requested
action. matter.He noted that he was on the Board when decisions were made about where to allocate the money andthat he understood why the funds were being used as proposed. However,
he stated his concern with this request was that they were hiring someone to do something he believed could be handled in-house. He said he believed the County has a fully staffed management
team.
He also suggested that responsibilities could be divided among multiple people rather than adding a full-time employee. He concluded that if the motion included hiring for this position,
he would have to vote no.
Chair Merrell asked the County Manager if there were staff available who could divvy up the responsibilities to oversee this program. She asked about the amount that the County had
received.
Ms. Lancaster stated that Union County had received a little less than $4 million in total to date. She noted that the County would continue receiving funds annually until reaching the
$17 million total, which could increase if additional settlements are reached.
Chair Merrell clarified that the funds for the motion would not come from Union County taxpayer dollars. She said instead the position would be funded through the money the County receives
from the opioid settlement. She asked the County Manager whether there were current employees who could divide up the responsibilities to oversee the opioid settlement funds and whether
there was someone on staff who could manage the settlement.
Commissioner Sides asked if the County Manager could take it one step further by providing more specific functions for the position. He suggested that outlining the job responsibilities
as specifically as possible might help clarify whether the role justifies having a dedicated individual.
Assistant Manager Clayton Voignier stated that multiple jurisdictions handled this by adding a position specifically to oversee the opioid settlement program. He said they looked atreviewed
multiple counties’ programs and built the County’s job description based on the job descriptions that were obtained from those other counties.
He reviewed some of the duties for the position: develops, monitors, and reports on the opioid settlement program’s budget, expenditures, and compliance with state and federal guidelines;
monitors and reports on the impact of opioid settlement program initiatives to ensure alignment with community needs and goals; continuously audits and evaluates opioid settlement program
and other program metrics, outcomes, and recommends improvements based on data and stakeholder feedback; oversees contracts with opioid provider agencies to ensure proper use of funds
and evaluating program effectiveness; facilitates community engagement to encourage public education and support by answering questions, connecting individuals, and shares resources
and information regarding opioid funding; and coordinates the County’s opioid settlement work group, including scheduling meetings, developing agendas, and maintaining meeting summaries.
He noted that those are some of the specific job duties this individual will be doingperforming and reiterated that they mirrored those from what other counties are doing.
Mr. Matthews emphasized that the initial request for Wingate University was to assist with data acquisition. He said it is not expected that those services will continue permanently.
He stated that ultimately, the County will own the entire program and will not continue to outsource those responsibilities over time.
Commissioner Sides asked if the funding for Wingate University would eventually go away.
Mr. Matthews stated that the County will not continue funding Wingate University. He said that money will come back into whatever is being funded in the program.
Commissioner Sides asked what specific skill sets are being sought in the individual to fill the new position. He inquired whether the ideal candidate should have an accounting background
or experience working with similar settlements.
Mr. Voignier explained that the ideal candidate would be someone who understands grants management, even though the settlement is not technically a grant, it functions like one. He
said that aperson should have skills in reporting, connecting with the state, and understanding those systems. He further said that the candidate also should possesshave strengths in
data analysis and trend analysis. He noted this is why the position is a natural fit within the Strategy and Innovation group, since their analysts already perform similar work for internal
departments.
Chair Merrell stated that a motion was on the floor and asked if there were any further questions from the Board.
Commissioner Baucom asked forthe salary for pay grade M.
Mr. Voignier responded that themidpoint is about $91,000
Commissioner Baucom stated that the County receives $86,000 from the settlement in the first year.
Mr. Matthews explained that the County has received over $4 million to date, and the $86 million is being added to that total. He emphasized that the County is not behind andthere ishas
more than enough to cover the program, with additional funds remaining.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if last year, Wingate University received over $500,000 last year to collect data.
Ms. Lancaster clarified thatall those programs are funded for three years.
Commissioner Christina Helms remarked that Wingate University has been paid over half a million dollars.
Ms. Lancaster clarified that the money wasnot only to collect data but also was to build the entire system from the ground up. She noted that there wasnot a system in place before, so
Wingate is both building the system and collecting the data.
Chair Merrell clarifiedemphasized that Union County is not funding the program. She explained that the County received these dollars through the opioid settlement due to its opioid problem.
She said the funding is to help remediate the consequences of adult behaviors by providing treatment for the adults and taketaking care of the children while the adults are being helped.
Mr. Matthews explained that Counties do not typically handle this type of work,as it isnotnormally in their purview, typically handled by counties, so Union County is starting from scratch
in establishing a program. on howto put a program in place. He said the goal is to eventually move away from relying on outside entities and bring the work in-house. He said the County
ultimately will ultimately be responsible for reporting and managing all aspects of the program. He stated that the County did not know how to startinitiate a program, and that is why
it is working with Wingate University and other partners.
Chair Merrell shared that the current situation reminds her of when Union County Public Schools received $27 million in grant funding. She said at that time, positions had to be created
to oversee the grant, and when that grant ended, that positions ended as well. She explained that this past experience is why she asked earlier whether the current position would also
end when the funding ends.
Following the discussion, Chair Merrell called for a vote on the motion, which failed by a vote of two votesfor to three votes against as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsNay
Commissioner BaucomNay
Commissioner Christina HelmsNay
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Mr. Matthews said it should be kept in mind that the budget amendment is related to thefunds the County is receiving. He added that whether the Board approves the position or not,there
is at minimum athen are at a minimum thebudget amendment that needs to be approved to receive those grant funds. He asked the Board to consider accepting the funds through the budget
amendment.
Commissioner Sides suggested that the Commissioners who voted no consider recommending a motion they would feel comfortable supporting so the County can accept the funds, and any objections
they might have could be addressed through an alternative motion.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, asked Mr. Matthews if he was suggesting that the Board needs a motion to accept the funds.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that itwas his understanding regarding thethat the recommended budget amendmentneeds to be adopted.
Jason Kay acknowledged and confirmed that the discussion was about Budget Amendment 18.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct.
Vice Chair Brian Helms expressed that his main concern was the addition of the full-time employee, but said he had no issue with adopting Budget Amendment 18. He moved to adoptBudget
Amendment 18.
Commissioner Sides asked if the motion to adopt the Budget Amendment also covers the allocation for the position in question.
Mr. Matthews explained that his understanding is thatthe Board has already said no to establishing the position and stated that this motion is to receive the funds. He added that the
money will go into the opioid program, and they will need to figure out how to manage it.
Mr. Kay asked if the Commissioners had a copy of Budget Amendment 18 available to read. He suggested they might want to review it and explained that the version he was referencing allocates
$86,677 and produces operating revenue of $86,677, all of which is connected to the position.
Mr. Matthews stated that if the budget amendment was specific to the position,then staff wouldwill bring back a different budget amendment.
Mr. Kay said that, based on what the Manager needed,theythe Board may want to tailor a budget amendment to that request.
Commissioner Sides asked, from a mechanical standpoint, what happens if the budget amendment isnot adopted. He questioned if the money would just be sitting somewhere and if they would
not be able to fund the organizations until they have a new budget amendment.
Mr. Matthews explained that they had already received a large amount of funding, and this was just additional funding; therefore,it would delayanything.up.
Commissioner Sides asked if the distribution was already in place and if the funding was already going out.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct.
Vice Chair BrainBrian W. Helms stated, for the record, he would rescind his motion.
24-823South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center Update
Chair Merrell recognized Michelle Lancaster, Consultant, to provide the Board with an update on this item.
Ms. Lancaster stated that she was not requesting any action at this time. She explained that her purpose was to provide information about a significant project for the County, the South
Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center, or SPRAC.
She offeredprovided background information regarding the regional autopsy center stating by sayingthat the State has provided funding for a capital expenditure for a new regional autopsy
center in Union County, along with some operational funds. Ms. Lancaster described medical examiner services in North Carolina as incredibly complex and a pretty complicated operation.
She added that the State has a Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Michelle Aurelus, who works within the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health. She said there
are also other locations across the state that provide assistance to the state in ensuring medical examiner services are carried out throughout the state.
Ms. Lancaster shared that she was very familiar with the Mecklenburg office, having worked thereprior to her move before comingto Union County. She explained that, for a period in her
career, overseeing that function was part of her responsibilities. She said that for approximately 20 years, the Mecklenburg office served as a regional facility throughundera contract
with the state, providing regional autopsy services, including to Union Countyuntil 2023. She noted that, along with Union, the Mecklenburg office also served Anson and Cabarrus Counties,
as well as Gaston and Cleveland Counties, which still receive services from Mecklenburg.
Ms. Lancaster explained that not all deaths in the state result in an autopsy. She stated that suspicious deaths, especially those involving children, require autopsies. She also noted
that investigations sometimes occur to determine which bodies need autopsies, even with the new regional center in place.
She stated that in 2022, when Mecklenburg made the decision to cut Anson, Union, and Cabarrus, she was still working with theUnion County. At that time, there were a few thingsthey found
outdiscovered a few things about the situationthat were problematic from the County’s perspective. She said that the change was not known until about three weeks before it was going
to occur. She said the move meant that bodies to be autopsied for Union, Anson, and Cabarrus would be relocated to Raleigh for that function.
She said that when they learned about this, they expressed their concerns, specifically for law enforcement. She stated that whilealthough they are not the majority of cases, many of
the autopsies are for law enforcement. She said many times, detectives or officers want to witness the autopsy as it is happening, so moving from Mecklenburg County to Raleigh, and
they knew that scheduling the autopsies for the right time was going to be a problem.
Ms. Lancaster said they knew the State had a waiting list for autopsies and had problems in the past, and continues to have hiring issues for forensic pathologists. She stated that
timeliness was a concern, not just for law enforcement, but also for community members who might have a death that needs an autopsy.
Ms. Lancaster explained that after reaching out to the State, they did notget muchreceive a significant of aresponse. She said the only reply they really received was that bodies would
now be taken to Raleigh. She stated that staff asked the Board to include a legislative item in that year’s legislative agenda from the delegation to support a regional or local solution
to the problem.
Ms. Lancaster said she believed the delegation was very supportive, although not very promising. She thought they saw it as a pretty big mountain to climb because the medical examiner
system in North Carolina is pretty entrenched. She stated the Board made a request and the law enforcement partners helped plead the case. She said the County was successful and received
$20 million in capital funding from the state to build a facility, along with $2 million in recurring operational funds.
Ms. Lancaster said that the original askrequest was to take care of Union, Anson, and Cabarrus, since those were the three counties immediately impacted, but the request was tweaked.
She stated what came out of the request was the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center, which now includes nine counties: Union, Anson, Cabarrus, Montgomery, Rowan, Stanly, Moore, Richmond,
and Gaston.
Ms. Lancaster explained that the State had interpreted the original language in the legislation to mean the facility would not open untilit thefacility was ready to serve all nine counties.
Ms. Lancaster said they believed that doing a phased approach made sense and that they could potentially find a short-term solution before the long-term facility was built. She stated
that they began working on that strategy and gotreceived support to give that flexibility. She said that the dates were estimates, as shown below,that the County provided, buthowever,
there is also language that gives flexibility if the facility is not ready to take those counties on those dates provided.
Ms. Lancaster stated that on Tuesday, December 17, at 5:00 p.m., they will be able to start taking Union County autopsies. She explained that the current fee for an autopsy is $5,800,
the county of residence pays $3,625, and the state pays the remaining $2,175 to the placefacility that doesperforms the autopsies.
She described the temporary location they found at theUnion County Atrium at the Monroe facility. She said the hospital has a morgue that hasnot been used for many years except for
body storage, but it is in good condition for their needs. She stated that a forensic pathologist has been identifiedwho is ready to begin workhas been identified.
She also thanked the hospital staff, specifically Denise White and Michael Jordan, for their commitment to finding a short-term solution, which they expect to use for a few years, and
for partnering with them for something that is important to the community.
Ms. Lancaster said the death data she was able to get has a lag, which is why it is from 2022, but it still gives an idea of the magnitude of cases. She stated that for Union County,
while there were about 1,800 deaths in 2022, only around 70 of those wererequired autopsies—so roughly one every couple of weeks.She said they are ready to get this operation underway
up and started,and really learn from those cases with the physician, Dr. Privette.
Ms. Lancaster said one of the issues they were concerned about with Raleigh was that forensic pathologists are incredibly difficult to find and recruit. She said they are fortunate to
have Dr. Privette, who currently lives in Charlotte and works in Mecklenburg County. He actually grew up in Union County, has done worked for the state office and at ECU’s (East Carolina
University) facility, and is really excited about the opportunity to build this facility and work with Union County, and buildinga regional presence that is unique compared to the rest
of the state.
Ms. Lancaster said the funding model is unique, reflecting both what the State is providing and the nine-county region that has come together as prescribed by law. She stated that Dr.
Privette is a forensic pathologist with extensive experience.
Ms. Lancaster explained that they willbegin taking Union County cases and they believe they have a good process and everyonein place, and everyone has been informed. She said the chief
medical examiner and forensic pathologists handle the autopsy work, but every county has local medical examiners appointed by the state. She stated those include nurses, nurse practitioners,
dentists, and EMTs.
She said they are very fortunate because many of the local medical examiners have been doing this for a long time, and they know Union County well and are excited and ready to get started.
Ms. Lancaster said that over the next year, they will bestarting Union County cases, then working with Anson and Cabarrus counties. She stated they will be reaching out to their law
enforcement, body transport providers, and local medical examiners. She noted they do not have all those relationships yet,but will begin building them, learning how each county currently
operates, and how to replicate that as close as possible to fit with what they believe will work with the Regional Center.
Ms. Lancaster said she thought the long-term location willwould be on 74 by the sheriff’s office. She added that there is a lot of required reporting. Since this is still a state function,
and everything they do operates under the jurisdiction of the chief medical examiner, they have to make suremust ensure they are meeting those reporting requirements for all the work
they are doing in that space.
Chair Merrell asked if Dr. Privette was present.
Ms. Lancaster noted that Dr. Privette was not present at the meeting, but assured that theythe staffwould arrange for him to be brought in at a later time since he was unable to attend
today’s meeting.
Chair Merrell added that Union County previously had a contract with a local funeral home to transport and store bodies for autopsies of Union County residents. She stated that someone
from that funeral home would go to Mecklenburg and take care of the bodies, but then they were asked to transport the bodies three hours to Raleigh, which affected local business.
Ms. Lancaster said that Holland Funeral Service in Monroe has a facility that is across from the hospital, where they provide and he providesstorage and transportation of the bodies.
She stated that while they partner with other funeral homes as well, Holland does the majority of that work and has really been committed to it. She added that the money for the funeral
serviceis paid as prescribed by statute and is not a large sum.
Chair Merrell thanked Sheriff Cathy, Chief Deputy Tony UnderhillUnderwood, Ms. Lancaster, and staff. She said that when they went to the state representatives about an autopsy center,
they did notreceive hopeful information. She stated that because Ms. Lancaster had contacts in Mecklenburg County and knew Dr. Privette, whose expertise and licenses were exactly what
was needed to make this work in Union County,She expressed that she was glad they werethis project was able to be accomplishedit in two years instead of five or ten years. She expressed
gratitude to Ms. Lancaster and others who worked to bring this project to fruition.
Commissioner Sides asked, based on the timeline, would it be possible they be ableto handle any counties beyond Union at the existing Atrium facility.
Ms. Lancaster said Dr. Privette believes they can handle autopsies for other counties at the Atrium facility. She explained they want to focus on the Union County cases first, because
the volume data has some age onto it, and they want to make sure they are not getting in over their heads. She mentioned that as of last week, they expect to start taking cases from
Anson and Cabarrus Counties soon.
Ms. Lancaster said Gaston is the outlier for a couple of reasons. She stated that the number of cases that Gaston County has is huge. She stated that Gaston County is continuing to receive
services at Mecklenburg, which is currently a more convenient location. She said they have been intentional and have letnotified the Gaston County Manager’s office know a couple of times
while working through this process that Gaston County would be expected to come on board when the new facility is open.reasons.
Commissioner Sides asked Ms. Lancaster if she could provide give the Board with an update on the status of the new facility and the timeline for its completion and activation.
Mr. Voignier explained that currently, both the design and the construction manager-at-risk contracts or scopes are currently out to bid. He noted that submissions are due in January,
and they expect to make selections sometime in February. He indicated the timeline is roughly a year or so for design and a couple of years for construction.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked forrequested clarification on whether or not the required reporting mentioned refers to medical reporting to the state.
Ms. Lancaster explained that Dr. Privette will have certain reports that are required for each autopsy. She saidthere will be monthly, quarterly, and annual reporting requirements.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms inquired whether askedifthere is a possibility that Mecklenburg cannotcould handle the caseload from Gaston County,and there could be some spillover from Gaston
County.
Ms. Lancaster said Gaston is part of the nine-county region and eventually will be part of the Regional Center. She added that Gaston County requested to be part of the regional center.
She also mentioned that Mecklenburg is aware of this request.
Ms. Lancaster said that Mecklenburg County’s chief medical examiner has shared with her that at some point, Mecklenburg County alone will have a case number that is all its center can
handle. She explained that while Mecklenburg could serve this regional field for some period of time, eventually other counties,such as Cleveland and Gaston, are probably going to receive
the same notification that Mecklenburg County cannot accommodate the caseload.
Ms. Lancaster said in conversations with State DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services), she has tried to impress on it isthat the desire is for the whole system to function well.
She said whatever the Regional Center does to help the entire system function,it wants to articulate that and help the community be better. She said this is only good for the community;
it is not about doing something different in Union County to be unique. She said maybe the state can learn some lessons from what Union County is doing, and she thinks the State is becoming
more open to that idea.
She added that over the next year, it is expected to bring a staff person on board for the Regional Center. She noted the business manager position has been approved and will work alongside
her during herthetransition. She said additional staff will be built out over time.
Ms. Lancaster said Dr. Privette will start as a contractor but plans to join full-time depending on the caseloads. She said the Board will be providedwith regular updates.She said the
Regional Center will be ready to take cases soon, but she does not expect cases every day. She stated she plans to send an update within a month and then provide another update after
three months to review volume and any unanticipated issues.
24-826Legislative and State Budget Updates
Chair Merrell recognized Michelle Lancaster, Consultant, to provide an update to the Board on this item.
Ms. Lancaster stated she would provide a brief overview of the most recent legislative session and turn over the presentation to Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, to discuss the
County’s plan for the long session beginning in January. She noted that this is another area she will not continue to work on in the coming year, as County staff will take on more of
that role. She reminded the Board that the County has a state lobbyist, Daniel Baum, whois the County’s lobbyist in Raleigh and has donebeen doing this work for many years.
Ms. Lancaster explained that the County has typically had guiding principles in place during legislative sessions, and these are the two guiding principles the County follows: to support
legislative efforts that protect or enhance local government revenues or increase local funding flexibility, and to oppose any unfunded mandates and any initiatives that fail to fully
fund services shifted to the County. She said there are reasons behind these guiding principles. She stated someone of the reasons of itisto have general messaging to share with the
delegation members, butand also to give staff and Mr. Baum some guidance when matters come up as the session moves along. She noted that sometimes quick decisions have to be made on
whether to support or not support an item, so they wanted to have some guidelines for those matters. She added that they have always brought items to the Board for input and guidance
if they thought those items were sensitive, and she expects that will continue.
Ms. Lancaster provided a recap of the recent legislative session, saying it was a short session that wasnot so short,” which began in April and ended the previous Friday, making it a
rather long session. She said there was not a lot of activitythat local governments have typically come to expect. She reviewed the priority items for the County, acknowledging there
was a longer list of issues the County supported or was interested in, but focused her summary on the key priorities.
She noted that among the priorities were EMS base funding and flexibility for the regional Medical Examiner’s office, which she had mentioned in a previous presentation and said they
had successfully secured. She highlighted that the General Assembly acted quickly early in the session, including the delegation’s support in passing a technical corrections bill to
address this item.
Ms. Lancaster said the third priority was seekingto seek additional clarifying language for budgetlanguage fromthe 2022 budget regardingthe $8 million the County had been provided for
land acquisition, design, permitting, and construction. She said they sought clarifying language, which was included in the hurricane bill, which ended up containing a lot of things,
but they did get the languagewhich thatwasrequested.
She said the last two items thatwere prioritypriorities being sought and supported for were seeking and supportingstate funding to allow continuation of UCPS daily, in-school tutoring
program. She stated the other itemwas seekingsought legislation that would allow Union County Water to sell water from the Yadkin Regional Water Project to the City of Monroe and others.
She statedreported these two items were not successful.
Ms. Lancaster said that there was limited budget action, and no individual projects were included as allowed to bepart of the budget. She added that no capital projects were allowed
in this form of the budget either.
She referred to opportunity scholarships and the funding that was included in the budget. She said she found the most recent data, updated December 2, showing that in Union County, 1,052
students are receiving opportunity scholarships, totaling approximately a little more than$3.5 million from that fund. She noted there has been a lot of conversation about it, both around
the region and across the state.
Ms. Lancaster addressed some of the other items, such as a tax notification provision. She explained that the County gave a lot of feedback on this item. She stated it would have required
the tax collector to physically put notifications on properties owned by delinquent taxpayers. She said thestaff worked with the State Association, but it was put into law. However,
it was reversed last week as part of the hurricane bill.
She added that the mini budget adopted late in the session had no member projects and no capital projects. She stated that it did include funding for additional students in public schools
and community colleges, which she said the County supports and considers important. Ms. Lancaster noted that the election and the hurricane consumed much of the energy and focus in Raleigh
during the end of the session.
She shared that the long session will start in January for organizational meetings on January 8. She said legislators will be there for the day, then break and return later in January,
with work expected to begin around January 25. She pointed out thatUnion County has members of the delegation who are inhold leadershippositions, including Representative Dean Arp, who
has been one of the budget drafters for some time and is expected to continue in that role, and Senator Todd Johnson, who was elected Majority Whip in the Senate. She said this is great
for Union County. She recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, for the remainder of the presentation.
Mr. Niland stated that the goal for the evening was to seek consensus on the County’s 2025 legislative priorities. He reported explained that some of the priorities presented came from
staff, Board members, and others were carryovers from previous sessions. He said he would review those priorities quickly but invited Board members to ask questions or to request more
details, as needed:
Mr. Niland explained the requestedappropriate funding required for placements and treatment options as are required by EPSDT, the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment
program. He said essentially the request is for the State to provide adequate funding for in-treatment facilities around the state, highlighting the extreme shortage of mental health
and in-treatment options for youth. He emphasized that they are pushing the State to provide adequate funding.
He addressed supporting the North Carolina Farmland Military Protection Act, noting that the Board took action on this at the December 2 meeting. He explained that this legislation is
intended to prevent foreign governments from buying land in and around military bases and certain other facilities.
Mr. Niland said one of the priorities is to seek legislation that allows for theconsistent application of the Homestead Exemption Act. He explained that the homestead exemption provides
tax relief for aging seniors at a certain income level and is applied equally across the state. He compared the median household income in Union County versus Anson County as and stated
that the incomes are drastically different. He said this request would encourage flexibility for additional tax relief in higher-income, high-growth counties, such aslike Union, helping
seniors stay in their homes longer with a reduced tax bill.
He said another priority would seek to repeal provisions of Senate Bill 382 that restrict the County’s downzoning options, and another priority is seeking to restore allocated funds
to the North Carolina Scrap Tire Program in an amount sufficient to cover all disposal costs. He explained that the County receives some reimbursement now, but it does not cover the
total cost. As an alternative, he said the County would ask to eliminate the provision that requires the County landfill to accept scrap tires. He noted that the landfill is currently
required to accept tires, but if that requirement were removed, the County would no longer have to accept certain scrap tires.
Mr. Niland said the next item is shown as a requested item but is actually a carryover, to allow local governments to prioritize wastewater capacity based on commercial and industrial,as
opposed to residential. He noted that there was not much traction on this request last year, but it remains a priority that the Board had shown interest in continuing to pursue.
He spoke aboutdetailedlong-term concerns with wastewater alternatives. He explained that if a public sewer isnot available in a certain area, individuals can install certain types of
septic systems that are self-permitted and do not require approval from the never come beforeEnvironmental Health or Building Code. He added thatthere are newer technologies exist out
there that will bypass local review altogether, and the County would ask for local input on some of the decisions being made in Raleigh.
Mr. Niland stated that an increase in state funding for senior nutrition is requested. He said the Board would hear more about senior nutrition needs in Union County later in tonight’s
meeting and reminded that this had been a Board priority in the past.
He said there was a carryover item that seeks to establish drag queen performances as adult entertainment at adult establishments.
Mr. Niland said they are seeking and supporting state funding to allow continuation of the UCPS daily in-school tutoring program. He noted that Ms. Lancaster had mentioned this earlier
and that they hadasked forrequested it last year, but it did not get much traction. He said it is a program the schools want to continue funding. He said it has been proven successful,
and the County will ask for funding to continue.
Mr. Niland said another carryover item is to request support for state funding for treatment courts. He explained that Union County currently funds its treatment courts using some of
the opioid settlement money. He noted that previously, the State had funded treatment courts werepreviously funded by the State, but that support was taken awaywithdrawnat some point
based on the success seen with treatment courts.
Mr. Niland said other carryover items are seeking funding for Union County jail construction,and also as well asfunding for EMS base stations. He noted that in January the Board willwould
receive a presentation from EMS Director David Hyatt about the base staging plan. He said there are about six base stations being proposed for the rural parts of the County, and this
funding would help support some of those stations.
Mr. Niland presented the current legislative list, noting the session starts late January and items can be added throughout the session, and as items come up,staff will inform the Board.
He requested that the Board approve the list presented as the current legislative agenda working agenda sayingacknowledging that it can be amended moving forward.
Commissioner Gary Sides asked the staff’s thoughts on adding another Superior Court Judge. He asked if there wasiscourtroom space available that could be utilized for an additional Superior
Court Judge.
Mr. Niland said they can reach out to the courts to inquire about theits space requirements, whether for a district court judge or a superior court judge.
Commissioner Sides said he is more concerned about the Superior Court Judge because the longer trials take due to a heavy caseload, the longer people who are innocent until proven guilty
stay in jail, especially violent criminals. He said he is not an expert on the bottleneck and isnot trying to throw anyone under the bus, but since all areas under that jurisdiction
are growing, he thinks it might be time for another judge to help clear some of the cases.
He suggested that District Attorney Trey Robinson could be a good reference to ask, along with the Chief Superior Court Judge Erin Hucks, to find out their thoughts.
Commissioner Sides asked if staff waswere seeking a motion to move forward with the matter.
Mr. Niland confirmed that a motion to adopt the 2025 legislative priority list is needed.
Commissioner Sides moved to adopt the 2025 Legislative Priorities as presented,with the inclusion of a superior court judge.
The motion passed by unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
24-850Senior Nutrition Home Delivery Waitlist
Chair Merrellrecognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, to present this item.
Mr. Niland explained that this item came as a request from Commissioner Sides at the last meeting, asking and the Board would be presented options tonight on how to eliminate the current
waiting list for meals through senior nutrition. He said the presentation would include background from the past few years and an overview of the criteria used to qualify people. He
said that during COVID, a lot of money came from state and federalgovernments to address these needs, but much of that funding has gone away, and they have seen the effects of that decline.
He said Janet Payne would provide details in her presentation. He expressed appreciation to Stephanie Starr, Director of Community Support and Outreach, as well as Andrew Friend, Executive
Director of Council on Aging, for attending tonight’s meeting. He recognized Ms. Payne for her presentation.
Ms. Payne thanked Commissioner Sides for his inquiry into the program and expressed her excitement saying she was excitedto share information with the Board.
Ms. Payne said there were four main components she wanted to sharepresent to with the Board. She statedshe would provide an overview of the program services, followed by a summary of
the eligibility and intake process for clients. She stated shealsowould also present participation data and two options with estimated costs to address the goals Commissioner Sides had
asked staff to review specifically, eliminating the waiting list of 586 people and adding weekend meals for home-delivered clients.
Ms. Payne sharedthat the goal of the senior nutrition program is to help senior adults maintain or improve their physical, social, emotional, and mental health, and to be ableenable
them to live independently in their homes as long as possible. She said that this goal is achieved through two components:providing nutritious in-person meals in a congregate dining
setting, and providing home-delivered meals for homebound residents. She added that the program ultimately offers more than a meal because it includes opportunities for social interaction
and education, which are extremely important for the senior adult population.
Ms. Payne said the meals are currently provided currentlyMonday through Friday. She explained that in order to be eligible for federal and state funding, the program has to meet two
guidelines: each meal must provide at least 700 calories and one-third of the daily recommended dietary allowances.
Ms. Payne saidsenior nutrition services offer more than just a meal. She explained that the program provides opportunities for social interaction, even if it is just a brief conversation
when a homebound client receives their meal, whether that delivery comes from a volunteer, one of the frozen meal vendors, or Union County transportation staff.
Ms. Payne said the interaction also includes educational opportunities and activities in the congregate setting, which are more robust and in-depth. She said both components are valuable
to the seniors they serve. She emphasized that engagement in this space helps reduce the impacts of loneliness and isolation, which are often factors in the lives of older adults, and
contributes positively to their mental health and overall well-being.
The next component that Ms. Payne discussed was service delivery. She said these services are provided by County employees along with an amazing group of volunteers. She expressed appreciation
to Ed Greene for attending tonight’s meeting and for his participation in leading that volunteer effort. She explained that each day, the part-time site managers coordinate the packing
of warm meals at one of four congregate meal sites, both for on-site dining and for homebound delivery. Ms. Payne shared that they also serve the meals and lead interactive opportunities
at these sites, which include Indian Trail United Methodist, Mineral Springs United Methodist, the Bazemore Active Adult Center in Monroe, and Wingate Baptist Church. She said they are
very appreciative of each of these partners, as their support helps to provide better service to the residents.
Ms. Payne explained that home-delivered meals are provided in two ways. She stated that warm meals are delivered on 29 routes each month by about 220 volunteers. She said warm meal recipients
must live near a meal site to ensure meals can be delivered safely within an appropriate timeframe in order to meet health regulations. She added that frozen meals are delivered to recipients
who live outside the warm meal area, and those meals are provided byTrio, a vendor, as well as by Union County Transportation staff using a County pool vehicle.
Ms. Payne explained that the funding for Union County Transportation deliveries has been enabled through one-time COVID pandemic funding, which will soon come to an end. be ending.She
stated that moving forward, the deliveries will transition to using only Trio,since the Countywill not have additional non-county funds to supplement it after this year. She added that
Union County Transportation will continue to support the senior nutrition program and noted that approximately 50 percent of participants at the congregate sites use Union County Transportation
to travel from their homes to the meal sites.
Ms. Payne shared that there are two foundational components for eligibility for the program: an individual must be a Union County resident and over the age of 60. She said that for
homebound participants, there are four additional criteria:1) must be physically or mentally unable to obtain food or prepare meals; 2) no responsible person available to assist daily;2)
must be physically or mentally unable to participate at a congregate nutrition site; and 4) must be unable to leave their home at will, preventing them from getting to the meal site
daily.
Ms. Payne explained that all participants were transitioned to receiving home-delivered meals during the pandemic. She said that once someone becomes a client, assessments are completed
for all participants: congregate participants are assessed once a year, while homebound participants are assessed twice a year, with one of those assessments required to be done in the
client’s home.
Ms. Payne provided an overview of the intake and screening process. She explained that after receiving a referral, County staff must meets with the client to verify that the individual
meets the minimum requirements for the program of being a County resident and over age 60. She said the applicants are asked the seven questions, which are listed below.
She pointed out that although the question of whether the applicant is able to leave home at will is listed as number six on the official screening from the Area Agency on Aging, that
is actually the first question. She said that if the client can leave home at will, they are not added to the home-delivered waiting list; instead, they are provided information about
congregate meal site services, Union County Transportation, and the opportunity to participateatthe congregate sites.
Ms. Payne explained that if a client is unable to leave their home, at will, the remaining six screening questions are asked during the initial screening. She said they prioritize clients
based on their responses and needs. She stated that when a slot opens on a home-delivered meal route, staff reviews a map of clients in the service area and moves only those who are
eligible within the hot meal route area from the waiting list to active service. She said that clients are sorted by their assigned priority level, from one being the highest to four,
and also by the length of time that how longthey have been on the waiting list. She stated that staff will contacts the client to schedule a home visit and completes the required state
forms, including the DOS 101, which takes about 10 to 20 minutes per client.
Ms. Payne gave an overview of service volume, noting that in 2025, an average of 100 seniors per day were served in the congregate setting and 226 per day on home-delivered meal routes.
She explained that through the self-reported screening allowed during intake, 85 percent of congregate clients and 76 percent of home-delivered clients reported being at or below the
poverty level. She said 73 percent of congregate clients and 60 percent of home-delivered clients indicated they live alone.
Ms. Payne said they do not cap the number of congregate participants,due to the goal is to enable of enablingsocialization, and in-person socialization is much more effective. She noted
that participation at congregate sites this year is getting closer toapproaching pre-COVID levels. She said that beforeprior to COVID, the average number of clients served per month
was 1,300, and over 16,000 congregate meals were served annually. She stated this year it is on track to serve 15,072 meals, which isapproximately 1,256 per month.
Ms. Payne said the increase is likely due to a couple ofseveral reasons, one of which is the move last year to the Monroe Bazemore Senior Center, which provides additional opportunities
and easier access for residents in that area. She also noted an increased need for socialization, with seniors reporting loneliness and a wantdesire to re-engage. She said they anticipate
more congregate participants following the move from Marshville to Wingate.
Ms. Payne said that the number of home-delivered mealshas been steadily decreasing,and that this is not becausedue to of a reduction in demand but rather due to the rising food and labor
prices and limited funding. She noted that there has been a recent drop in COVID pandemic funds, and,therefore, theanincrease in the waitlist.
Ms. Payne shared a slide depicting the home-delivered meals waiting list. She stated that as of the end of November, 586 residents had requested to participate and completed the initial-intake
screening process and the seven questions.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification that 586 people are on the waiting list who have been vetted.
Ms. Payne responded yes, through the initial seven (7) question vetting process.She explained that those on the list have completed the first step of the approvalprocess. She said when
a slot opens, they must complete the full 101 form to verify their answers are the same as they were at the time of the initial seven-question screening process. She confirmed that understanding
was correct.
Ms. Payne stated that since January 2023, there have been an average of 35 referrals apermonth for people asking for service. Ms. Payne said that out of that number, about 10 are screened
out, and around 25 are substantiated and added to the waiting list. She said unless something changes, such as the person is no longer islivinghes in their home or there is another situation,
they would very likely remain eligible.
Ms. Payne said staff was asked to address the projected annual increase, and this is a guesstimaterough estimate based on current intake. She said that Andrew Friend mentioned in a presentation
a couple of meetings ago that the 60-plus population in both North Carolina and Union County is increasing and has been increasing at a rate of more than 5 percent per year since 2000.
She said that seniors currently make upcomprise about 20 percent of the population and that number is expected to rise to 26 percent by 2040.
Ms. Payne said that maintaining nutrition enhances an individual’s physical well-being. She explained that if people can stay in their homes rather than spending time in a hospital or
nursing home, not only is their quality of life better, but the total cost is much lower. She shared that based on Meals on Wheels data, the annual cost for a meal recipient is about
$2,765 for 250 days of service. She said that Union County currently serves meals 260 days out of the year, and the County’s cost is about $1,400 for warm meals and $1,900 for frozen
meals.
Ms. Payneprovided operational scenarios for the Board to consider in addressing the 586 people currently on the home-delivered meals Waiting
List and also to enable continued service of the congregate residents whosewhich thatnumber is anticipated to increase slightly.
Ms. Payne said that in both scenarios, additional County staff would be needed to support the administrative work required to manage the increased number of clients, including completing
intake and mandatory annual assessments. She explained the main difference between the two options is that option one adds all remaining clients to the frozen meal program with delivery
by their contractor. Option two also adds all remaining clients to the frozen meal program but expands County staff positions and requires purchasing storage equipment and refrigerated
delivery vehicles so staff can deliver frozen meals themselves, rather than relying on an outside vendor. She noted there is some uncertainty with option one about whether the vendorhasmay
havethe capacity to cover all additional frozen meal recipients, but said both options are good.
Ms. Payne presented the final slide for consideration, showing the cost to serve current County residents and those on the waiting list.
She saidstated that in FY23, total expenses were $895,000, and in FY24, expenses were $875,000 due to a reduction in service from the limited availability of one-time funding. She noted
that the one-time funding was expended as of the end of November. She said FY25 costs are estimated at $955,000, which includes a 34 percent increase in food expenses and about a 3 percent
increase in staff expenses. She added that they have been serving fewer homebound clients each year. Ms. Payne stated that in FY23; they served 445meals versus 336 inFY24. She explained
to To manage fiscal resources this year, they are removing clients who no longer qualify for the homebound program and not filling spots when seniors leave the program, trying to manage
and balance the budget. She said they believe they will be able to do that based on the current trajectory.
Ms. Payne said that this year, 289 unique seniors have been served through the Homebound Program. For FY26, she said they are presenting three scenarios. The first one, she explained,
is mainly for reference;it is not the option Commissioner Sides had specifically requested, but she wanted to include it. She stated that it represents maintaining current clients,
due to the loss of one-time funding, there would be approximately a $100,000 deficit in revenue to cover expenses.
She explained that option one, which would eliminate the waitlist and add weekend meals by providing frozen meals through a vendor, is estimated to cost just over $2.5 million, representing
a deficit of approximately $1,560,000.
She said option two also eliminates the wait list and adds weekend meals for home-delivered clients, with frozen meals delivered by new County staff using County equipment. She estimated
the cost at $2.8 million, representing a deficit of $1,846,000. Option two does include a one-time cost of $190,000 for purchasing a refrigerated storage unit and two delivery vehicles,
so the ongoing operational need would be around $1,656,000. She emphasized that these are estimates based on the research completed since the request and couldmay fluctuate due to inflation
and other costs.
Mr. Niland asked Ms. Payne to return to the previous slide. He asked for more details on option one, specifically about addingregarding staff. He inquired about the current staffing
roles, and why there is a need to add an additional 1.5 FTE.
Ms. Payne explained that currently, there is a program manager who works with Stephane Starr. She stated that this program manager oversees both the Senior Nutrition Program and the
WIC program, which stands for Women, Infants, and Children, a nutrition program aimed at children and their mothers. Sheadded that there is also a full-time senior coordinator responsible
for meal planning and managing staffing and related tasks.
She said they have a social worker who engages with all existing clients and also engages with volunteers to coordinate meal deliveries and all of those components. Ms. Payne stated
they have four benefited part-time site managers, one for each site, and two part-time site managers who are solely admin-related.
She explained that the two operational scenarios would involve adding a full-time social worker and transitioning the part-time administrative staff to full-time administrative staff.
She noted that Option two also adds one and a half drivers FTE.
She explained that the work those people would be doing is simply managing the 586 additional clients, including two assessments a year for each, along with any other ongoing activities
that have to be completed.
Mr. Niland asked Ms. Payne if the assessments they conduct each year are required in order to receive some of the funding provided through both state and federal programs.
Ms. Payne confirmed that it was correct.
Mr. Niland said if, for example, they wanted to eliminate some of those requirements, they would lose additional funding, and some of those, which would be additional funding, the County
would have to cover. He said he just wanted everyone to understand that even if they had the funding today to handle the meals, it would take over a year to get through the waitlist
with current staffing to do the assessments.
Commissioner Sides asked what is the item adds NSIP Revenue?
Ms. Payne explained that for every meal they provide that meets the calorie and nutritional requirements, the USDA provides 80 cents per meal. She explained that this revenue would increase
even if they kept their current projected clients, because when they receive federal revenue like the one-time COVID funding, that isnot ongoing revenue,such as the Home and Community
Care Block Grant Older Americans Act funding. She added that those meals are not eligible for that NSIP reimbursement.
Mr. Niland said there is nothing requiring action tonight. He acknowledged that Commissioner Sides requested this and noted the numbers are quite large. He said that currently currently
there is no funding for thisexcept fromoutside one-time fund balance, which is one-time money. He added that the County would not be able to continue the program beyond the current fiscal
year unless there is a change in revenue to the program.
Commissioner Sides clarified that one of his questions was for the remainder of the current fiscal year:what would it take to start implementing Option 1 beginning in January for the
rest of the current fiscal year. He acknowledged the waitlist could not be eliminated overnight, but wanted to know the anticipated cost for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Ms. Payne apologized for not having a specific number available. She explained that, as Mr. Niland had mentioned earlier, they would need the staffing in place to begin completing assessments
and removing people from the waitlist. She said she was unsure of the monthly number but promised to provide that information the nextfollowing day. She said they could start incrementally
adding clients offfromthe waitlist each month, likely beginning in February if they were to hire people, and from that point, the only added cost would be for the meals.
Commissioner Sides said he did not want to wait until February.
County Manager Brian Matthews explained that the issue is thatthey cannot add people to the program without first completing the evaluation process.
Commissioner Sides said they can start, and that is the number he wants. He asked about beginning January 1st with what they have for the remainder of the fiscal year,He saidunless someone
preferred Option 2.He asked if it would be fair to take the $1.5 million deficit and cut it inbyhalf for the remainder of the fiscal year, just for thesake of ease.
Mr. Matthews said he wanted to ensure make surethathe understood the question, clarifying that there are 586 people on the waiting list who would not start receiving meals.
Commissioner Sides confirmed that the 586 individuals on the waitlist have had an initial vetting, but they still need to complete the final vetting before meals can be delivered.
Mr. Matthews said that going through the process for the 586 people would probably take a couple of months, which is why Ms. Payne saidsuggested February to be able to go through those
586 and get them available.
Commissioner Sides said they would start the final vetting, and as individuals are vetted, they would begin receiving meals.
Mr. Matthews agreed.
Commissioner Sides said he understood they willwould not be able to get through the list with the current staff, and that there is a timeline for adding staff. He asked if they started
today with the current staff, how many people could be vetted, and how quickly meals could additional meals be provided. start He also asked what funding would be needed through the
remainder of the current fiscal year. He said Option 1 or 2 for fiscal year 2026 is aare budget discussions for next year, buthe is focused on what can be done now.
Ms. Payne asked if she could bring that information to Commissioner Sides at the Board’s next meeting.
Mr. Niland said the worst-case scenario would be to clear about half of the people off the waiting list, explaining that they might be able to clear 10 to 15 people from the waiting
list every week. He pointed out that as those people are added, they also have to be included in the twice-a-year evaluations.
Commissioner Sides saidagreed it is going to take time, but if they can serve 10 additional people the week of January 1st, that is 10 more people who will be receiving meals.Ms. Payne
suggested that the warm meal routes could be adjusted that arecurrently being handled by volunteer staffcould be adjusted. She said if they increased the number of warm meal homes
included on the routes to around 10 to 12, that is an amount that could reasonably be delivered within a timeframe that keeps meals at the right temperature,thatwhich is something they
could do. She said they would still need to complete the assessments, but she would probably recommend starting with that process.
Commissioner Sides said they might not have a final number to finish the fiscal year, but he wants to know what it will take to get started tonight.
Commissioner Sides asked for a number reflecting the first quarter of 2025.
Mr. Matthews said the minimum cost would be $500,000. half a million dollars.
Chair Merrell commented that obviously this is a crisis. She reminded that at the last meeting the Board requested that Michelle Lancasterto include the need for senior nutrition in
the legislative update to be presented to state legislators to make them aware that Union County is number two in the state for the fastest-growing population needing senior nutrition.
She agreed completely with Commissioner Sides,completely saying they needed to get started immediately. She emphasized the importance of getting state legislators on board to understand
that their helpis needed to secure funds for this growing aging population needing meals. She said the legislators can advocate for state dollars and grant money to help getthis expanded
program started as soon as possible.
Chair Merrell said they have put this on the legislative agenda. She noted that staff hears that the Board recognizes the population of Union County citizens who helped to make the county
now need support. She agreed with Commissioner Sides that they need to work with staff and with Andrew Friend, Executive Director for the Council on Aging, to determine what can be done
to get started.
She said they need to allow staff time to determine what can be done right away and how much funding is required to move people off the waitlist. She said they need the requested that
information back andtimely to give the County Manager and staff the opportunity to determine how to start moving forward with the Board’s goal as soon as possible. She added that without
giving thestaff that chance, she doesnot know thatif anything can be done tonight.
Commissioner Sides said they would find out quickly. He noted the presentation was made back in October and clarified he was not blaming anyone. He added that the numbers have increased
since that time. He asked Mr. Matthews for the approximate county budget for this fiscal year.
Mr. Matthews responded that it is over $500 million.
Commissioner Sides asked if there are available funds in the fund balance for $500,000.
Mr. Matthews responded that theamount was available.
Commissioner Sides said feeding seniors is a basic service to keep citizens safe. He said he cannot wait for more information and moved to appropriate $500,000 from the fund balance
to begin working on the waiting list immediately.
Chair Merrell inquired of Ms. Payne and Mr. Matthews whether meals could be distributed as early as the next day if the motion were to pass tonight. passed.
County Manager Mr.Matthews responded that they would not be able to begin distribution immediately. He noted that while home meal clients might be reached more quickly, in general, it
would take at least 30 days to begin serving new clients.
Chair Merrell then asked if the necessary employees are staff isavailable to begin addressing these needs.
Mr. Niland responded that staffing capacity does exist, but the extent is uncertain. While additional individuals can be moved off the waiting list, the current staffing level will not
be the full 586. He said staff can begin working through the list, but only up to the capacity of the available personnel to verify both new recipients and existing clients.
Ms. Payne stated that in the short term, if the motion were to pass without including the requested staffing adjustments in terms of changing the administrative position from part-time
to full-time, she would consult with the manager. She said she thought the best option,in order to take action as quickly as possible, would be in order to take action as quickly as
possible, which would beto work with a contract agency,short term,to bring in contract staff that would help ramp up efforts. However, she emphasized that this would only serve as a
short-term solution.
Mr. Matthews expressed appreciation for the point raised and stated that he would not support moving forward with hiring employees without a long-term commitment to the program being
long-term. He noted that utilizing contract staff while the long-term direction is determined could be an option, but emphasized that hiring full-time staff should not occur without
thata clear commitment.
Commissioner Sides sought clarification on the process, summarizing that final vetting must occur before anybody receives a meal. He noted that if funds were appropriated this evening,
itthe program could be expedited, or continue the vetting processcould be continued. He inquired how quickly aftersomeone is vetted, theycould begin receiving mealsafter they are vetted.
Ms. Payne said it comes down to whether there is funding for the food—if so, they just need to order the extra meals and add themto either to the warm meal route or to the vendor’s frozen
meal program.
Commissioner Baucom acknowledged the importance of feeding, but said he sometimes questions whether this is truly the role of government. He noted that churches and goodwill organizations
in the community may be better equipped for this job and asked if there has been any effort to partner with such groups whothat are already doing good work.
Ms. Payne explained that while churches provide volunteers to deliver the meal routes, the idea of them providing the service themselves is not something that has occurred or has been
discussed.
Vice Chair Brian Helms said that he wants ed to confirm thatif the numbers being presented were for the county.
Ms. Payne confirmed he was correct.
Vice Chair Brian Helms clarified that this covers the entirety of the county’s borders,questioning if thatit is everywhere, not just focused on rural areas.He also asked if there had
been any discussionsaboutregarding partnerships with the municipalities for this program.
Ms. Payne responded that there hasnot been nothing anything official, but after Andrew Friend’s presentation on the Home and Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) funding, Indian Trail
expressed interest in learning more. She noted that no presentation had taken place, and the intent seemed broader, but said it could be an opportunity if the Board wanted to engage
and provide further education for municipalities.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, referring to the map, said there are a number of flags in areas likesuch as Weddington, Stallings, Waxhaw, and even Marshville, suggesting there maycould be
opportunities to partner with some of the municipalities. He said he would personally be open to exploring those partnerships and asked whether that is something staff could take on
and communicate with the municipal staff.
Mr. Matthews said,“certainly,”and explained that it would be a matter of the management team and himself contacting the town managers or the elected officials in towns without managers
and having those discussions.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said the example he looks to is the partnership with Indian Trail on 74 Express.He described ing it as a great partnership. He said Indian Trail has been a
fantastic partner, helping reduce costs and making the whole program more effective. He addedthat if the County can get some partnerships with some of the larger municipalities, maybe
some strides cancould be made with this program.
Chair Merrell said she did not know if it would be an option or not, but noted there are 53 schools across the county with commercial-grade kitchens. She said she is not exactly sure
where the extra food from the school cafeterias goes each day. She mentioned that there are a lot of federal dollars allocated to with the Child Nutrition.
She added that there are culinary academies in multiple high schools acrossin the Union County Public Schools, where theystudents have commercial-grade kitchens to cook food and earn
culinary certifications. She asked Mr. Matthews if he could have a discussion with the superintendent and the CTE director to determine if this is an opportunity to help with some of
the requests in these communities. She noted she isnot sure if there is extra food available or if it is even allowed due to federal Child Nutrition funding, but asked Mr. Matthews to
inquire about the possibility, emphasizing again that the county has 53 commercial-grade kitchens.
She said that she thought that every resource should be taken advantage of,citing how the county was able to establish a medical examiner’s office when they thought it was going to be
impossible, and then two years laterit is being done. She suggested similarly exploring the resources already in the county, including Union County Public Schools, charter schools, and
houses of faith, as Commissioner Baucom mentioned, emphasizing thatthey need to look at everythingconsider all options.
Commissioner Sides said he wanted to make a closing argument before moving on. He pointed out that the number was 586 people on the waiting list around Thanksgiving, and with it now
being close to Christmas, that number is likely higher. He noted the County Manager had confirmed that funds are available to get started and acknowledged they will not eliminate the
waiting list overnight. He said, however, they can start with what they have by appropriating $500,000 from the fund balance.to start. He said they could begin final vetting anddeliver
meals within days. He stated that even if they are only able to serve 20 or 25 people in the next month, that is still 20 to 25 more people gettingwho will be receiving a decent meal.
He asked why they would not start, questioning whether they are going to wait six more months for the new fiscal year to determine if it can be included in the budget. He urged his colleagues
to vote yes so theprocess y can start tomorrow.
Chair Merrell said she wasnot sure if it was a fair request or not but noted that Beverly Liles, Finance Director, was present and said she would personally like some feedback on the
pros and cons of taking money out of the fund balance without proper planning or discussion. She said she believes the Commissioners need to understand what it means to remove half a
million dollars from the fund balance and asked if Ms. Liles would be willing to share whether they are in a position to make that decision tonight.
Ms. Liles said the audit has been finalized and confirmed that funding is available if the Board chooses to appropriate money from fund balance for this purpose. However, she emphasized
that she would not be doing her job if she did not point out that the fund balance is intended for one-time use. She explained that if the Board wants to continue the funding in future
years, fund balance would not be available, and it would need to be incorporated into the ongoing operating budget year after year.
Chair Merrell responded that it was a very good point and thanked Ms. Liles for the reminder.
Mr. Matthews said he appreciated Ms. Liles making that point and said it was one he wanted to make as well. He said if the Board wants to move forward, that is fine, but pointed out
that once people are being served, it will be difficult you are not goingto tell them in July that service will stop. He said the Countywould need to find funding to continue the program,
but as long as the Board understands and accepts that, then that is fine. However, he doubts that the Board will want to turn people away after they have been brought into the program.
Commissioner Sides said he could only speak for himself,but that he does not see this as a one-time deal, but rather he sees it as a start.
Chair Merrell commented that, if her memory was correct from the October presentation, she believed it was $800,000 needed to meet the needs of the waitlist at that time, and there was
another figure of $1 million. She asked if he remembered what she was referring to and if he could speak to it.
Ms. Payne responded that, at a high level, the initial current deficit for this year was close to $100,000. She said, as mentioned earlier, people are not being added back, so that deficit
has been reduced. She stated that the approximately $1 million figure that was presented was largely based on food expenses and did not include additional weekend meals, since that
wasnot a component at the time. She said the additional cost for staffing was not included at that time, who would be needed to support the additional clients that would be served.
Chair Merrell asked Commissioner Sides, as they head into budget season over the next few months and knowing that a $1.8 million needs request was presented to them in October, if he
still feels comfortable with the $500,000 amount being proposed tonight.
Commissioner Sides said the $500,000 should be considered seed money since theythe Board does not yet have a dollar amount numberfor what it will take to finish outcomplete the fiscal
year. He emphasized that this amount gets the process moving, allowing the vetting process to be finalized and for people to start receiving meals.
Commissioner Christina Helms agreed with Commissioner Sides that everyone deserves food. She suggested possibly reducing the amount somewhat to get the ball rolling, allowing staff to
contact UCPS, churches, and other municipalities to find out what they can contribute so that everyone has a little skin in the game.
Commissioner Sides asked if Commissioner Christina Helms had a number in mind.
Commissioner Christina Helms said, since the question was about what is available in the fund balance, even starting smaller between $100,000 to $200,000 could work. She suggested allowing
staff to begin reaching out to municipalities, UCPS, the Union Baptist Association, and other churches in the area to see if they can contribute to helpingto seniors in their care, church-wise,
to help alleviate the issue.
She said she prefers to start smaller because she doesnot want to come to thebudget session and say they cannot come up with the extra $2 million with everything else coming down the
pipe. She said she would rather start out smaller and build up. She stated that she understands those 500-plus people deserve to have meals, and nobody is arguing that, but said she
believes they need to take a little bit smaller bite out of the numbers before moving on to the whole plate.
Commissioner Sides said if starting with $200,000 is more agreeable to his colleagues and still gets the ball rolling, he is willing to go along with that.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she is comfortable with $200,000.
Commissioner Sides said wouldhe amended his motion to appropriate $200,000 from the fund balance to begin work on the waiting list.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that they all need to remember this is one-time money and effectively it is a Band-Aid. He emphasized that there is not any Commissioner who does not want
to take care of the seniors and expressed appreciation for Commissioner Sides’ heart and passion on the issue, acknowledging the importance of taking care of seniors.Vice Chair Brian
W. Helms said fund balance is typically used for capital projects with set costs, not operating expenses. He explained that once they start down this road with $500,000, $200,000, or
even a smaller amount, there will be an expectation from those being served that funding will continue. He clarified that he is not saying they should not continue funding, but emphasized
that “theywe do not yet know what we theydo not know” as they approach budget season.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained that by choosing to move forward tonight, the Board is effectively saying that it will be funding the program itfor the longterm, which means a recurring
cost every budget cycle that will likely get larger.He stressed that he is not against exploring ways to serve seniors with meals, but emphasized that municipal partners could be a validsource
of help. He also agreed that the idea oftoincorporateingthis need into the Board’s legislative agenda was a great suggestion.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said ultimately the County cannot fund this alone and will need help. He agreed that this is a crisis and expressed that he wanted to do everything possible
to help, but emphasized that support will be needed from a variety of sources, including the state delegation, municipal partners, and any others willing to volunteer.
Chair Merrell agreed and asked if the map that was shared could be broken down by municipality. She said having that breakdown would help when coordinating or communicating with municipalities,
so they understand what is happening in their communities. She added that this will help to narrow it down to specific elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, churches, or
organizations.
Ms. Payne said they can do that by ZIP code, which will be close without getting too specific.
Commissioner ChristinaHelms said that this would be iskinda little of hard to do because, for example, she has a Monroe ZIP code but lives out in New Salem.
Chair Merrell added that Wesley Chapel also has a Monroe ZIP code.
Ms. Payne said they will work with GIS to make the breakdown as accurate as possible and should be able to make that happenaccomplish this relatively easily.
Commissioner Sides said he understands his colleagues’ concerns about using fund balance, but pointed out that the alternative is not doing anything doing nothinguntil the next budget
year. He noted that you can ask municipalities to help, but their budgets are already setunless they also dip into their fund balances, nothing would happen until next July. He repeated
that while he understands the concerns, the alternative is to do nothing.
Chair Merrell responded that doing nothing wasnot spoken about.
Commissioner Sides said that if they are not going to use the fund balance, then where would the money come from to get started assisting those on the Waiting List? He asked if there
was any other alternative.
Mr. Matthews said there is no quick alternative. He explained that the only other options would involve working with other jurisdictions to help fundthe program, which would take time.
Commissioner Sides asked to call the question (NOTE TO BARBARA: no vote).Not acknowledged by chair.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she would like to see staff initiate discussions. She emphasized wanting to protect the budget while helping seniors, but she thought thatjumping the
gun andacting immediately willwould not benefit them. She said tonight is a very good step, but she wants to see what the staff can do before pulling any triggers.
Chair Merrell offered a friendly amendment to Commissioner Sides’ motion thatthe $200,000 from the fund balance is to address the waitlist and food only and that none of the funds can
be used toward administration, hiring, etc.
Mr. Matthews explained that with theexisting staff, there is a limit to the number of how manypeople who can be vetted. He said if the Board wants additional people vetted, the County
would need to contract for those services, which would be counted as administrative funds. He said if the Board does not to contract, but the vetting process will be slower and fewer
people will be served. He emphasized that this is okay as long as everyone understands the implications.
Chair Merrell withdrew her friendly amendment.
Mr. Matthews acknowledgedthat there is a need, but saidexplained there are future costs and the question of how to pay forthose costs. He explained that some of the expenses associated
with the increase is are going up because the program is expanding from five to seven days a week. He suggested the Board consider authorizing staff to startbegin the vetting process
now without serving meals immediately, while staff works with municipalities and UCPS to determine how to fund the program.
He said he understands that people willmay not get meals, but this approach gets them to the point where, as soon as the decision is madeand funding becomes available, they can start
receiving meals. He clarified thatthis is just a suggestion and that it will not provide meals immediately; right away;it only starts the vetting process to have people readyapproved.
He said it isan option something for the Board to consider.
Chair Merrell noted that Mr. Matthews’ suggestion is different from the motion currently on the floor.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Baucom said he understands the enthusiasm and would love to feed everyone tonight, but acknowledged it is tough. He agreed with Mr. Matthews’ point that they do not want
to set a precedent where the program starts and then suddenly stops, which would create an issue.
He expressed concern about starting the program and then stopping it. He said problems are not fixed by simply throwing money at them. He supports incorporating different municipalities,
starting the vetting process, and exploring potential solutions for what can be done. He also likes the idea of involving churches, Hometown Heroes, and others who do good work, emphasizing
doing this as a community effort rather than just a county responsibility.
Commissioner Christina Helms agreed with Mr. Matthews that starting the vetting process is the right step. She emphasized the importance of involving others rather than jumping in headfirst
without a full understanding. She said she wanted to offer a motion but asked if the first motion needed to be voted on before making another motion.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, confirmed that the first motion needed to be voted on first.
Chair Merrell restated thatthe motion on the floor is to allocate $200,000 from the fund balance to begin addressing the waitlist and providing meals to feeding people starting tomorrow.
The motion failed by a vote of onevote in favor and four votes against the motion as follows:
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Chair MerrellNay
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsNay
Commissioner HelmsNay
Commissioner BaucomNay
Commissioner Helms moved to instruct staff to work with municipalities, UCPS, and local churches once they get the districtmap of those persons who are needs for citizensin need of foodmeals.
Commissioner Sides asked how the 586 people got on the waiting list and what vetting process they went throughunderwent.
Ms. Payne responded to Mr. Sides’ question that there is an initial seven-question screening and a required form that has tomust be completed (Form DOS 101), which has a short form and
a long form.
Commissioner Sides asked if the motion meant going to step two vetting and if moneyfunding would be needed.
Ms. Payne said vetting takes time and, depending on how quickly the Board wants vetting done, money would be needed for contract staffing,if the Board wants more people vetted than thecurrent
staff can vet. She estimated that staff can vet about 10 people, and if they start removing those and putting them actively on the program, that will add to the number of recurring reviews
that have to be done twice per year.
Top of Form
Commissioner Sides asked if that would be feeding anybody.
Ms. Payne said if they can complete the initial full vetting, they could do that.
Commissioner Sides questioned how they would be feeding anyone if no money is being appropriated for meals. He added that means it would be 0 waiting until July of 2025 before actually
starting to fund meals.
Ms. Payne said they would be eligible for meals at that point if the Board wants to invest additional funding.
Chair Merrell said no one can get meals until staff calls the 586 people back, which will take time to ask the 586 people the remainder of the questions that have not been asked,and
the required form completed.the form.
Ms. Payne said those have to be home visits.
Commissioner Sides saidreiterated that without putting in money for meals, that means waiting until July 2025 before actually starting to fund meals.
Chair Merrell replied that she is not saying July.
Commissioner Sides said thenext budget.
Commissioner Christina Helms said the county manager will ask municipalities how much they can contribute out of pocket starting in January to help feed people in their communities.
Commissioner Sides asked if money is being allocatedmoney for contracting to expedite the vetting.
Chair Merrell said they will allocate money once staff comes back and says they have called the 586 people, and those individuals have completed the unanswered questions, the form, and
the home visit.
Commissioner Sides stated his understanding is that staff will start going through the second phase of vetting for all 586 people, and then once that is done, funding will be determined
for meals. He said he is not sure he understands the endgame.
Mr. Niland clarified that they will not be able to go through review all 586 people with current resources. He said they will go through as many as they can, but it will not be all 586.
Chair Merrell stated that the only way people currently receiving meals are on the program is because they followed the procedures: they answered the questions, filled out the form,
and had a home visit. She emphasized that these steps must be done to get on the list to receive meals, and be placed on the route.
Commissioner Sides said that starting the second vetting process was part of his original motion, and once people are vetted and approved, andtothey get them a meal. He expressed uncertainty
about how the current motion expedites anything beyond other thangoing through the list.
Chair Merrell said staff will be able to come back to the Board at the next meeting and report how many people can be taken off the waitlist.
Mr. Matthews said they have determined they can add approximately 10 people to the list per week with current staffing. He said during that period staff will be meeting with municipalities
and other partners to find out if they are willing to fund anythingportion. He said staff would then bring that information to the Board at a future meetingalong with the number of people
staff have been able to vet and information regarding funding from other agencies, and ask what isthe Board’s pleasuredirection is at that point.
Chair Merrell said she would also like staff to begin seeking the cost for contract help to get this done. She stated the Board wants staff to start gathering information on numbers,
costs, and who the contractor would be, including the cost to remove 20, 30, 40, or 50 people from the waitlist in the meantime.
Commissioner Sides stated that, if he understands correctly, there is no money involved with this motion. He said it is just asking to start the second phase of vetting with current
staff and then come back in about a month with a number, such as 40, and ask whether money will be appropriated from the fund balance to support those 40 people.
Chair Merrell stated that in two weeks, they will not only have that information but also hopefully a price from a contract vendor. She added that if thecurrent staff can add 10 cases
per week, they will need to know how many more cases could be handled with a vendor.
Ms. Payne added that regarding the cost for contract staff and the estimated number of cases they could complete per month, staff can obtain that costinformation. However, due to the
Christmas and New Year's holidays and the need to schedule home visits with clients on the waiting list, there may be delays. Therefore, it might be more prudent to return with that
information at the second meeting in January to provide meaningful data.
Chair Merrell agreed to get started and acknowledged that more information would be available by the second January meetingin January. She confirmed her agreement with that timeline.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked, since there ishas been a lot of discussion on the topic, hewants to make sure that when it goes to the second stage of vetting,is there an expectation
from the folks being vetted that they will start receiving meals.
Ms. Payne stated that they would need to very clearly communicate what is occurring.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said his concern is that if staff presses forward with the second stage of vetting, it may be creating an expectation that the Board might or might not be able
to fund.
As a point of clarification, Chair Merrell said she believed she heard earlier that once a client has completed the questions, filled out the form, and had the home visit, meals could
begin within a few days, two to three days.
Ms. Payne responded by saying a week for good measure.
Chair Merrell stated that once all the boxes have been checked, meals can start going to those people. She noted that there are funds available to get started, although these are one-time
funds, which is why they are proceeding cautiously with a smaller number rather than a larger one.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms reminded that the motion had failed.
Chair Merrell said that regarding the $200,000,but what she is saying is that when staff comes back with the number to work with, the funds are available if the Board chooses to do so.
Ms. Payne said she wanted to make one other point and apologized for not being certain, but noted that the title of the form is actually a registration form—the DOS 101 form. She requested
the chance, whether or not action is taken tonight, to verify that the information she provided is correct—that they can complete the form without actively placing clients on the program.
She said she does not want to misspeak on that point. She asked that if a motion is made, that this verification be included as part of it, in case there is a restriction that precludes
precludingstaff from completing the form without actively enrolling qualified clients.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he is fine with reaching out to municipal partners and contacting state officials to gain support for the program. However, he emphasized the need to be
careful with the vetting process because, as previously mentioned, it could create an expectation that Board action will be required to provide services, which may or may not pass.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the Vice Chair would prefer to wait and letask staff go to contact municipalities, UCPS, churches, Union Baptist Association, even the Diocese for
the Catholic Church first before moving forward with the vetting process for these citizens.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms responded that he believes it would be best to determine what support staff can get from municipalities and other partners, and at that point, they can proceed
with additional vetting. He emphasized that he doesnot want to create an expectation and then face costs of $100,000, $200,000, or $300,000 from the fund balance that could become recurring
costs that would need to be budgetedannually. He clarified that he is not againstopposed to taking action but prefers to take it one step at a time.
Chair Merrell asked if that would mean Commissioner Christina Helms would be withdrawing her motion.
Commissioner Christina Helms amended her motion to wait for staff to visit citizens to complete the vetting process until after the staff comes back to the Board withcommitments from
municipalities, UCPS, and area churches.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms,said he wanted to clarify that what the Board is asking is to direct staff to reach out to municipal partners and other potential partners in the area to determine
who might be interested in funding the program.
Commissioner Christina Helms said they just have to come up with new, creative ways to get the program funded and stated that she believes this is a really a goodway to get this started.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on the motion as amended.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the amended motion could be restated.
Commissioner Christina Helms restated the motion, as amended, to direct staff to reach out to municipalities, UCPS, churches, and other funding sources to determine what those sources
can contribute, and once that information is received.Staff will begin the vetting processonly after that information is backhas been received.
Commissioner Baucom asked staff if this is feasible.
Commissioner Christina Helms responded that staff can ask. She asked if that clarified the motion.
Chair Merrell called for the vote on the motion, as amended.
The motion passed by afour votes in favor of the motion and to one vote againstas follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesNay
24-858Consider Accepting theOffer to Purchase County Owned Property
Chair Merrell recognized County Manager Brian Matthews, for his comments on this item.
Mr. Matthews explained that the County owns areverter interest in the Old Shiloh School on Monroe Road. He said the County received an offer to purchase the reverter interest from Union
Academy, which currently uses the facility and holds some ownership rights to the property. He said the County conducted an upset bid process, but did not receive any upset bids. He
stated that the Board now needs to decide whether to accept, reject, or allow additional offers, and requested direction on how to proceed with the current offer.
Commissioner Sides moved to reject the offer.
Mr. Matthews asked for clarification, whether rejecting the offer would also mean not entertaining an additional offer unless it were for the actual cost of the land and building.
Commissioner Sides confirmed thatit was included in his motion.
Chair Merrell added that she will go a step further by stating the property is not for sale.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Commissioner HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
At approximately 9:20 p.m., Chair Merrell announced that the Board would take a recess.
At approximately 9:46 p.m., Chair Merrell reconvened the regular meeting.
24-868Contract Amendment - MRL Consulting, LLC
Chair Merrell said that Vice Chair Brian Helms had requestedthat this item be moved from the Consent Agenda to the BusinessAgenda. She recognized Vice Chair Brian W. Helms for his comments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained that he had requested this item be placed on the business agenda because he believes it may generate discussion. He expressed appreciation to Michelle
Lancaster for her service to the County, noting her time as Deputy County Manager and the consulting work she has done over the last couple of years.
He said that in his experience in the private sectionsector, contracts with consultants are short-term contractsand do not last for years at a time. He said he believes everyone should
be thankful for Ms. Lancaster’s service and what she ishas done. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that the County management staff has a County Manager, a Deputy County Manager, an Assistant
County Manager, a Strategy and Innovation Director, the newly formed Economic Development Department, and facilities staff. He said the County has resources, and he firmly believes the
County has the resources it needs in-house to proceed with these projects.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to deny the amendment with MRL Consulting and to allow the current contract to expire at the end of its term.
Chair Merrell said that while she appreciates and values the perspective Vice Chair Brian W. Helms brings from Corporate America, as she also has a long resume in Corporate America,but
having served Union County for ten plus years, she has to respectfully disagree with the motion. She said Ms. Lancaster has been a very valuable liaison to the Board. She added that
the opioid crisis is not just a local problem but a national and world problem, and she hopes it will be addressed in the next presidential administration with the border and what is
coming in. She stated that until then, there is an opioid crisis, and Union County has been identified as an area with a very high concentration of opioid deaths and near deaths.
She stated that she believes the County is fortunate to have a resource in local and state government like Ms. Lancaster, who has spent her adult career building liaisons, contacts,
and relationships with people across North Carolina who have benefited Union County. She gave the example of opening a medical examiner's office after Mecklenburg dropped the County.
Chair Merrell said she agrees that consultants are not meant to be carried over like a full-time employee. However, she noted that the County has a legislative agenda and Ms. Lancaster
has the relationships. She spoke about the medical examiner initiative that is about to launch just for Union County, with hopes of adding a handful of other counties in the coming year.
She said the County will needMs. Lancaster’s expertise for that project, and for that reasons, she will not be able to support the motion to terminate her contract.
Commissioner Sides said that if he understood correctly, and asked Mr. Matthews to correct him if he is wrong, this proposes proposal would narrow Ms. Lancaster’s focus justsolely to
the Regional Autopsy Center.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that is correct, stating Ms. Lancaster has taken on a number of projects over the past couple of years. He explained thatshe will be stepping away from the opioid
project and the legislative project where she served as a liaison, and her focus will be only on the medical examiner’s office.
Commissioner Sides said his concern is that it will be at least three years before the Autopsy Center is fully operational and implemented. He likened the project to the BARN project,
where there will be an executive director who will not really market the autopsy center but will maintain relationships with counties and coordinate with various interests. He said it
is essential that, as the project gets off the ground, there is a staff employee responsible not just for the next year but on an ongoing basis to ensure its success.
Mr. Matthews said he completely agrees and noted that, as part of Ms. Lancaster’s presentation tonight, she indicated that, within the next few months, the Board will receive a request
to add a position to manage and oversee how the project operates. He explained that a medical examiner’s office or autopsy center cannot be run with just a pathologist; additional staff
is needed. He said staff will have to be hired, and Ms. Lancaster’s role will decrease. He said Ms. Lancaster anticipates it will probably take less than a full year before she is
no longer involved. He added that Ms. Lancaster has expertise and contacts with the state, which is why staff recommended continuing her role, although they understand the Board may
choose to not do so.
Clayton Voignier, Assistant Manager, said staff anticipated this and, as part of the FY25 budget, a business manager position was already approved to take on the duties Ms. Lancaster
had been doingperforming. He explained that the position is funded through the medical examiner’s office budget. He added that Ms. Lancaster’s contract, if approved, would be funded
by a state grant, because that is the anticipated transition. He noted that while the position is already budgeted, they have not yet recruited for it because, as Ms. Lancaster mentioned,
progress has been slow and they havenotyet had to expend those funds.yet.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she has multiple questions but would ask them one at a time. She asked to whom Ms. Lancaster reports.
Mr. Voignier responded that technically,she reports to the County Manager, and her contract is withheld by the County Manager’s office.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how often Ms. Lancaster reports to the Manager.
Mr. Matthews said it depends on the circumstances, but typically she reports at least once a month and sometimes more often.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how the Board is being informed about whatMs. Lancaster’s activitiesis doingfor the County, noting her understanding that she has multiple contracts.
Mr. Matthews clarified that Ms. Lancaster has one contract covering multiple items.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she was under the impression that Michelle had contracts with other entities.
Mr. Matthews responded that he did not know.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how that information is reported to the Board so the Board understands what the County is getting for what it is paying.
Mr. Matthews said that essentially Ms. Lancasterprovides these updates periodically to the Board, and that is the only way that she has been communicating other than to him or, in his
absence,, to Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager.
Commissioner Christina Helms said her understanding is that Ms. Lancaster also contracts with Wingate University and asked if that is correct.
Mr. Matthews responded that Ms. Lancaster is actually a full-time employee with Wingate University.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked, since Ms. Lancaster is a full-time employee with Wingate University and also contracts with Union County, how many hours per week or per month does
she works for the County.
Mr. Matthews said it varies, but on a monthly basis, Ms. Lancaster probably works somewhere in the 30-hour range for the County.
Commissioner Helms asked if Ms. Lancaster is working 70 hours a week between Wingate and Union County.
Mr. Matthews responded that it depends.
Commissioner Helms asked who Ms. Lancaster is representing regarding the BARN position, whether she is representing Wingate’s vision for the BARN, or if she is looking out for Union
County.
Mr. Matthews responded that Ms. Lancaster is not currently working on the BARN project for the County. He said she may be working on that project on behalf of Wingate University, but
she is not working for Union County on it. He clarified that her current role for the County is only the opioid liaison work and the medical examiner’s office.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that the County has a lobbyist who works for Union County, and Ms. Lancaster also performs similar lobbyist duties.sothey areCommissioner Helms asked
if the County is basically double-funding one position.
Mr. Matthews said the lobbyist is actually in Raleigh and is the one hearing the bills being introduced. He said Ms. Lancaster is not in Raleigh and is not hearing the bills or dealing
with those people directly. He said he understood the point, but explained Ms. Lancaster’s role is a little different, in that she manages the lobbyist and that position.
Mr. Niland said that as of January 1, this is one of the items that istransitioning from Ms. Lancaster to him. He said Ms. Lancaster would communicate with the lobbyist about what is
happening, then bring that back to the Management Team,who would bring it to the Board. He noted the last six months have been unique in Raleigh with the short session. He said that
going forward, he will communicate with the lobbyist in Raleigh and bring that information back to the Board, and it will not be Ms. Lancaster.
Chair Merrell said Ms. Lancasterwas going towould continuewith the County temporarily to see the medical examiner’s office through and to help with the transition of opening the office
and bringing on the medical examiner. She noted that Ms. Lancaster was transitioning away from the legislative agenda and opioid funds, which will now be managed in-house.
Mr. Niland said that regarding the length of the contract, none of them anticipated how difficult it would be to get through the bureaucracy in Raleigh with these contracts and agreements.
He said it has taken a very long time and a lot of back and forth with state staff because this wasnot their idea—it was a legislative priority to come to Union County. He noted there
have been many meetings, and that he, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Voigner have all spoken with Ms. Lancaster probably on a weekly basis. He said there areshe provides formal updates,she provides,
but they are in constant communication with her. He added that Ms. Lancaster often has to have the same meeting three times before making progress. He acknowledged it is possible they
havenot communicated that information back to the Board as well as they should, but said she does communicate with them pretty consistently.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said, to touch on what Commissioner Christina Helms was getting at, that there is a question of accountability, and maybe theythe Commissioners are not getting
receiving that from staff. He said consulting is very different from a full-time employee, so there is no clock punching. He noted thatthe only information they have is what Ms. Lancaster
tells them and what thestaff communicates. He questioned why the Manager’s office could not communicate directly with the lobbyist. He said maybe he is looking at it simply, but he
believes long-term consulting contracts are problematic for the County and stated he stands by his motion.
Chair Merrell asked if the motion were to pass, who would be able to step in and oversee the medical examiner’s office and the new medical examiner,who is beginning autopsies this week.
Mr. Matthews responded that one of the management team memberswould,and they would have to get up to speed and learn how an autopsy center operates. He said that one of the three of
them would take on that role.
Commissioner Christina Helms sought clarificationifon whether Ms. Lancaster has never opened a medical examiner’s office before.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that,by explaining Michelle oversaw the process in Mecklenburg County, but the office was already in place in Mecklenburg Countywhen she was placed in charge of
the process.
Commissioner Christina Helms noted that Ms. Lancaster oversaw that office’s functionality.
Mr. Matthews confirmed thatherstatement was correct.
Commissioner Christina Helms said Ms. Lancaster was involved at the tail end with daily operations and that this is a new situation for her as well. She acknowledged Ms. Lancaster had
background information that helped, but noted they are now beyond that initial point.
Mr. Matthews responded that was correct.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how the Health Department could assist if the motion passes and whether itcancould provide help.
Mr. Matthews responded that he doesnot know that itthere is a role the Health Department could play, noting it is not a Health Department function.
Chair Merrell said that if the County does not procure Ms. Lancaster’s expertise and experience, the position will have to be posted sooner rather than later. She referenced Mr. Voignier’s
point that if Ms. Lancaster is not retained, the County will need to hire someone with a salary and benefits to independently do the work that Ms. Lancaster has been doing.
Mr. Voignier said they would seek to immediately post the position,immediately.
Mr. Matthews stated that, regardless of the Board’s decision, the plan is to use the funding set aside by the state for the autopsy center for this position. He added that they also
intend to use it for Ms. Lancaster’s contract if the Board approves it, but either way, the funding will come from those state funds.
Commissioner Sides said that if the plan is to have an executive director,although he is not sure if that is the correct term, then if the motion passes, he thinks they could expedite
the process and start posting the position.
Mr. Niland said they would have to, and with two weeks left in the year, the concern is what gets lost in that transition. He understands the concern with long-term consulting contracts
and the level of involvement that howinvolvedMs. Lancaster has had on a been dailybasis. He asked from a staff standpoint,that if the Board is not comfortable with a full year, at least
allow a period of time for transition. He noted thecontract with Ms. Lancaster endsexpires at the end of the calendar year, and while County staff is capable and would figure it out,
they are on the doorstep of starting autopsies and he would not want something to initially go wrong. initially. He personallywould asked for a little bit of transition time if the Board
is not open to not supporting a full yearextension.
Commissioner Sides asked what timeframe Mr. Niland had in mind.
Mr. Niland responded that he would ask for six months, noting they might not need the full time butand would post the position immediately. He explained that hiring typically takes about
three months, andwith it isnow being the holiday season,now,so the position probably would not be posted until the beginning of the year. He saidexplained that six months would at least
give them comfort that they could hire get someone hired, and get that person up to speed, and allow Ms. Lancaster to transition her knowledge to that person.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he is not willing to amend the motion to six months but is willing to amend it to continue the contract until the last day of February 2025 for two months.
The Vice Chair amended his motion to 1) approve the amendment with MRL Consulting, LLC, until the final day of February 2025, at which point the contract would end; and 2) authorize
the County Manager to terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she believes everyone appreciates what Ms. Lancaster has done, but her biggest concern is the length of the contract. She acknowledged that Ms. Lancaster
has great resources and is not taking that away from her. She shared herconcernis that the Board only hears from Ms. Lancaster at the legislative breakfast and contract renewals, and
she doesnot know what Ms. Lancaster is doing or what the taxpayer money is being spent on. She stated the Board hasto be good stewards of taxpayer money and said she doesnot see the
value, although she is sure Ms. Lancaster is doing a great job. She said she has asked other Board members and staff to whomMs. Lancaster reports about what she does and when she shows
up. and when does she show up.She emphasized that nobody is diminishing what Ms. Lancaster has done in the past or what she is currently doing, but her concern remains the length of
the contract and Ms. Lancaster’s reporting to staff who then report to the Board.
Chair Merrell said there may have been a breakdown in communication because Ms. Lancasteris workingworks with staff often, monthly, if not weekly or bi-weekly. She added that it is a
fact honestly the chair and vice chair who set the agenda and askedMs. Lancaster to come provide presentations and updates. Chair Merrell suggested that perhaps the fault lies with the
chair and vice chair for not putting Ms. Lancaster on the agenda more often.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she would personally be okay with extending the contract three to six months, but not for another full year. She emphasized wantingthe need for a shorter-term,
because she understands they are in government business, and they need to move away from that mindset and start being financially responsible to taxpayers.
Chair Merrell said she absolutely agrees with what Commissioner Christina Helms is saying, but noted that for the last two years that Ms. Lancaster has been working with state legislators,
staff, and the Board to open a medical examiner’s office in Union County, which has been a monumental effort.
Commissioner Christina Helms responded that no one was taking that away from Ms. Lancaster.
Chair Merrell said that, yes, they are taking that away from her, because they did not ask for quarterly updates or more frequent updates. She noted it took a lot of work to be able
to doperform the first autopsy in 2024, which is happening this week. She said that families will not be on a backlog in Raleigh waiting to get their family member laid to rest. She
said that is the only disagreement she has, and while the Board must be fiscally responsible, it also must be responsible to Union County taxpayers who have lost loved ones without knowing
why.
She emphasized that Union County would not have a medical examiner’s office or a licensed medical examiner if Ms. Lancaster had not worked tirelessly every week to make that autopsy
centerhappen. She added that other counties dropped by Mecklenburg Countylike Anson and Cabarruswill be able to use Union County’s services once it is up and running. She said she works
with eight other sheriff’s offices in the Eighth Congressional District, and they cannot believe Union County succeeded in this project.
She said “Bravo, Bravo” Union County and Ms. Lancaster for getting it done, and said she doesnot know how they will proceed without Ms. Lancaster after the contract ends. She expressed
concern for the families who needing autopsies and said if Ms. Lancaster is not here to see it through the next three, six, or twelve months, the County will be in trouble.
Commissioner Sides asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms if he would accept a friendly amendment to extend the contract for six months allowing for toallow a smooth transition to an executive
director as a full-time employee, and if he would accept that amendment to his motion.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms responded to Commissioner Sides, noting that discussions had begun began over a year ago to set a pathway to move on from the contract. He was anxious for the
County to take on the responsibility and acknowledged the thought process about needing some time. He then asked the Deputy County Manager if he was informed about the projects, assuming
that since Ms. Lancaster has been communicating with county staff, they are somewhat up to speed.
Mr. Niland confirmedsaid it is accuratethat they are up to speed, explaining Ms. Lancaster has been in all the meetings, knows the doctor, and has the Atrium contacts. He said it would
take some time to transition those relationships and contracts. He statedthat they will do whatever the Board wants, but emphasized they do not want the department to suffer during the
transition. He said his concern is to not rushing this transition from what Ms. Lancaster has been doing to what thestaff will be doing, so hedoes not miss something in the meantime.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms acknowledged the concern as valid but noted that both the County Manager and Deputy County Manager have assured the County will proceed and make it work. He
stated that giving a six-month extension would be a luxury and that he still prefers the contract to end at the end of February. He emphasized the need for a firm decision and expressed
his preference to stay with his original motion.
Commissioner Sides confirmed his understanding that autopsies for Union County would begin, effective tomorrow.He then acknowledged that services will be available as needed and that
all is in place to assume responsibility, noting Anson County is next in line.
Chair Merrell then called for a vote on Vice Chair Brian W. Helms’ motion, as amended.
The motion failed with the following votetwo votes in favor and three votes against as follows:
Chair MerrellNay
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsNay
Commissioner Gary SidesNay
Chair Merrell stated that the previous motion failed and then made a motion to approve an 11-month extension of the agreement. She specified that the County would be MRL Consulting’s
primary client, any additional clients must be disclosed and approved by the County, and that any future contract renewals, extensions, or term options require Board approval. She further
authorized the County Manager to terminate the agreement if deemed in the county’s best interest.
The motion failed by a vote of one vote in favor and four votes against one to fouras follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsNay
Commissioner SidesNay
Commissioner HelmsNay
Commissioner BaucomNay
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to approve a six-month extension of the contract with MRL Consulting, with Union County being the primary clientand with any additional clients being
disclosed and approved by the County, and that any future contract renewals or extensions would require board approval. The motion also included that the County Manager would be authorized
to terminate the agreement if deemed to be in the best interest of the County.
The motion passed by a three votes in favor and to two votesagainst as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsNay
Commissioner BaucomNay
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
24-883:Dissolution of the Monroe-Union County Economic Development Committee (This item was added to the agenda during the meeting at the request of Commissioner Sides.)
Chair Merrell noted there were two amendments to the agenda. She recognized Commissioner Gary Sides for his comments on the item for the dissolution of the Monroe-Union County Economic
Development Commission.
Commissioner Sides moved to authorize the County Attorney to send a letter to the City of Monroe regarding the following actions: 1) the Board agrees with the City of Monroe to move
forward with the dissolution of the Monroe-Union County Economic Development Commission as soon as reasonably possible; 2) the Board agrees with the City that the County and City should
jointly work on a plan for dissolution of the EDC; 3) the Board agrees that the following should be included in the plan of dissolution of the EDC that the county and City of Monroe
have mutual access to EDC records pursuant to applicable law, and that the County and City work together to itemize a list of assets for distribution to the parties as county-owned,
city-owned, or EDC-owned in accordance with the interlocal agreement; and 4) the Board calls for a meeting of the EDC Board of Directors to be held in the near future for the limited
purpose of authorizing a person to pay necessary current and valid invoices and obligations of the EDC, authorizing a person to oversee dissemination of EDC records to Union County and
the City of Monroe pursuant to applicable law, and authorizing an inventory of assets and property to be ultimately distributed to Union County and the City of Monroe pursuant to the
interlocal agreement.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Charistina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
24-884:Resolution in Support of Repeal or Amendment of Section 3K.1 of Session Law 2024-57 (This item was added to the agenda during the meeting.)
Chair Merrell recognized Vice Chair Brian W. Helms regarding this item.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained the resolution, noting familiarity with Senate Bill 382. He stated the resolution expresses the County’s support for repealing Section 3K.1 of Session
Law 2024-57, which prohibited counties from down zoning without they receive certain express written permission from property owners. He said in his opinion this is governmental overreach
and moved adoption of the Resolution Supporting Repeal or Amendment of Section 3K.1 of Session Law 2024-57.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
24-851Appointment of Commissioners to Board and Committees
Chair Merrell introduced agenda item 24-851, Appointment of Commissioners to Boards and Committees. She stated the Board would review the boards and committees one by one, voting on
appointments. For boards or committees with a current Commissioner appointed, the appointment can remain the same or the Board may select a different Commissioner.
Agricultural Advisory Board:
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to appoint Commissioner Clancy Baucom to serve on the Agricultural Advisory Board.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Catawba River Water Supply Project Governing Board
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he currently serves on the Catawba River Water Supply Project Governing Board, as did former Commissioner David Williams. He noted that there are
two openings on that board and expressed his preference to remain on it, if the Board sees fit. SheThe Chair stated that one additional appointment was needed.
Chair Merrell asked if any other Commissioner was interested in serving with Vice Chair Brian W. Helms on the Catawba River Water Supply Project.
Commissioner Baucom stated that he was interested in serving on the Catawba River Water Supply Project Governing Board.
Chair Merrell called for a vote of those in favor of Vice Chair Brian W. Helms and Commissioner Baucom serving on the Catawba River Water Supply Project Governing Board.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Centralina Council of Governments
Chair Merrell noted that Vice Chair Brian W. Helms currently holds the position on the Centralina Council of Governments and confirmed there is just one seat available.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms confirmed that there was just one seat.
Chair Merrell asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms if he would like to continue serving in that capacity.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he would be open to another commissioner taking on that role. He noted some difficulty with CRTPO and Centralina and expressed that the County might be
better served if another Board member volunteered for the position.
Chair Merrell stated she was willing to serve on the Centralina Council of Governments.
Chair Merrell volunteered to serve on the Centralina Council of Government, and the vote for her appointment was unanimous as recorded below.
or
By unanimous vote, the Board approved Chair Mellisa Merrill’s term on the Centralina Council of Governments. The vote was as follows:
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:(NOTE TO BARBARA – IS IT MOTION)no- but they voted for her to serve.
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Centralina Economic Development Commission
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms questioned whether the Board was required to appoint someone to this committee.
Chair Merrell expressed the same concern.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted he believed the Centralina Economic Development Commission might be included under the Centralina Council of Governments, but said he would defer to staff
for clarification.
Mr. Matthews said he was unsure about this appointment and asked if the Board could revisit this appointment at a later date.
Chair Merrell stated that the Board would table the Centralina Economic Development Commission appointment, especially considering the current economic development situation.
Monroe-Union County Economic Development Commission
Chair Merrell stated that the Economic Development Board of Advisors is currently on hold and confirmed that the Board would table that item for now.
Fire Commission
Brian Matthews, County Manager, stated that the Fire Commission has not met in quite some time and recommended not appointing anyone to serve on it. He suggested working on dissolving
the commission.
Human Services Board
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve on the Human Services Board.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Sides serving on the Human Services Board.
The vote was unanimous as follows: motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Job Ready Partnership
Chair Merrell asked the County Manager if he had any input on an appointment to the Partnership.
Chair Merrell asked the Commissioners if anyone was interested in serving on the Job Ready Partnership Council.
County Clerk Lynn West added that the Job Ready Partnership Council typically meets around lunchtime.
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve on the Partnership.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Gary Sides serving on the Job Ready Partnership Council.
Themotionvote was unanimous as follows: passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked the Clerk Lynn West, how often the council meets, and she confirmed it is monthly.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed interest in serving on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council but said he might not be able to attend every meeting.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if it is possible to have an alternate.
Mr. Niland responded that alternates are not typical but noted the Council struggles with a quorum, so even occasional attendance is better than none.
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve as the Commissioner-appointee to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Gary Sides serving on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council.
The motion passed byaThe vote was unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
10. Library Board of Trustees
Commissioner Christina Helms volunteered to serve on the Library Board of Trustees.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Christina Helms’ serving on the Library Board of Trustees.
The motion passed by aThe vote was unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeLocal Emergency Planning Committee
Brian Matthews, County Manager, noted that this committee meets during lunch hours.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed interest in serving on the committee if no other commissioner wished to take the position.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Vice Chair Brian W. Helms serving on the Local Emergency Planning Committee.
The motion passed by aunanimous vote passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeCharlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization
Chair Merrell stated that Vice Chair Brian W. Helms serves on the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization and noted the need for an alternate.
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve as the alternate.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed a preference to remain on the committee.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Vice Chair Brian W. Helms continuing his service on the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization, with Commissioner Gary Sides serving
as the alternate.
The motion passed by a unanimousvote passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
Chair Merrell stated that she currently serves on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Christina Helms volunteered to serve on the Committee.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Christina Helms serving on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.
The motion passed by avote passed unanimouslyvote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee
Chair Merrell stated that she currently serves on this advisory committee. She asked if any Commissioner was interested in serving as the alternate.
She added that the committee usually meets in Stanly County and often has dinner during meetings.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms inquired about the frequency of the meetings of asked how oftenthe Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee meets.
Chair Merrell asked Clerk Lynn West how often the Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee is supposed to meets.
Ms. West replied that it will bethe next meeting will be held at the Government Center in Union County in September.
Commissioner Baucom volunteered to serve as the alternate.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on the Chair continuing to serve on the Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee with Commissioner Baucom as the alternate.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
The vote passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeSouth Piedmont Community College
Chair Merrell reported that Jerry Simpson was reappointed to South Piedmont Community College on June 3, 2024, with his term expiring in 2028, so no new appointment is needed.
School Liaison
Chair Merrell stated that the school liaison positions will be held by the Chair and Vice Chairand asked if a vote wasis necessary since these appointments are automatic.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, noted that there have been questions about this in the past and suggested it would be wise to proceed with a vote.
Chair Merrell explained that until about four years ago, the chair and vice chair did not automatically serve as the school liaisons. She then called for a vote on the Chair and Vice
Chair serving as the school liaisons.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote asvote passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeTransportation Advisory Board (Transit System)
Chair Merrell noted that no appointment was made to the Transportation Advisory Board for the Local Transit System in 2023 and asked if anyone was interested in serving.
Lynn West, Clerk to the Board, clarified that this board is for the Local Transit System and mentioned that meetings include lunch.
Chair Merrell inquired about the frequency of the meetings.
Ms. West responded that the board meets quarterly.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification on the board’s specific responsibilities.
Brian Matthews, County Manager, clarified that the Transportation Advisory Board is associated with the County’s own Transportation Department.
Chair Merrell expressed interest in serving and stated she would put her name in for the position.
She then called for a vote on her serving on the Transportation Advisory Board.
The motionvote passed by a unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Yadkin River Water Supply Project Advisory Board
Chair Merrell stated that two Commissioners were needed to serve on this board. She stated she had previously served on that board and asked if there were two Commissioners currently
interested in serving on it.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked forrequested clarification on the board needing two appointments to the Yadkin River Water Supply Project Advisory Board and remarked that it was essentially
the same type of advisory board as the one for Catawba.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the Yadkin River Water Supply Project Advisory Board meets in the evening.
Brian Matthews, County Manager, responded that he believed it meets during the day.
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve in one of the positions and asked the Chair if she intended to continue serving.
Chair Merrell said she would continue to serve along with Commissioner Sides. She asked for a vote on the Chair’scontinued serviceon this board along with the appointment of Commissioner
Gary Sidesto serve on this Board.
The motion vote passedby aunanimouslyvoteas follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyePartners Board of Directors
Chair Merrell stated that the last board was the Partners Board of Directors, and no appointment was needed.
She asked the Clerk,whenever invitations are received,to add invitations to their calendars and to the Commissioners' calendars and to help keep them aware of when and where they need
to be, andas well as what will be served that day.
County Manager’s Comments
Brian Matthews, County Manager, had no comments.
Commissioners’ Comments
Commissioner Gary Sides wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms remarked that it had been a long night and added no additional comments other than echoing “Merry Christmas” and wishing everyone a Happy New Year as well.
Chair Merrell expressed holiday wishes to everyone, offering a very Merry Christmas and a healthy, happy, and prosperous New Year. She encouraged everyone to make safe decisions while
traveling and celebrating during the holiday season.
Commissioner Christina Helms commented that they had been there long enough and added her own “Merry Christmas” and “Happy New Year,” also reminding everyone to be safe.
Commissioner Clancy Baucom shared that he had enjoyed spending the evening with everyone and wished everyonea Merry Christmas.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 10:40 p.m.,Chair Merrell moved to adjourn the regular meeting.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
UnionCounty,NCBoardofCommissionersMeetingMinutes
UnionCountyGovernment Center
500NorthMainStreet
Monroe,NorthCarolina
www.unioncountync.gov
______________________________________________________________________
Monday, December 16, 20246:00 PM Board Room, First Floor
______________________________________________________________________
Closed Session – 5:15
24-864Closed Session
Present: Chair Melissa M. Merrell, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, Commissioner Clancy Baucom, Commissioner Christina B. Helms; and Commissioner Gary Sides
At approximately 5:20 p.m., in the open session, in the Stony D. Rushing Conference Meeting Room, Chair Merrell called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order.
Chair Merrell moved that the Board enter closed session pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11:
(a)1), to prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to G.S. section 132-1.1(a) and
(a)(3), for attorney-client privilege:
as such purposes are fully stated in the agenda for this meeting, which has been made publicly available.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair Melissa B. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
At the conclusion of the closed session, at approximately 6:05 p.m., Chair Merrell moved that the Board end the closed session and return to the open session. The motion passed by a
unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Opening of Meeting - 6:00 PM
Present: Chair Melissa M. Merrell, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, Commissioner Clancy Baucom, Commissioner Christina B. Helms; and Commissioner Gary Sides
Absent:None
Also Present: Brian W. Matthews, County Manager; Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager; Clayton Voignier, Assistant Manager; Lynn G. West, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners; Jason
Kay, County Attorney; and other interested residents
At approximately 6:05p.m., in open session, Chair Melissa Merrell called the regular meeting of Monday, December 16, 2024, to order.
Invocation - Commissioner Clancy C. Baucom offered the invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance – Chair Melissa M. Merrell led the body and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Informal Comments
Chair Merrell reviewed the guidelines for speakers making comments during the informal comments. She recognized Steve Worgan as the first speaker.
Mr. Worgan stated that he is a resident of Union County and resides in the Heritage South Subdivision of Indian Trail. He spoke regarding the sewer smell in his neighborhood.
Mr. Worgan said that residents of Heritage South Subdivision had been attending meetings periodically over the last couple of years talking about what he described as a severe problem
in the Heritage South subdivision. He stated the reason the residents had stopped attending the meetings was because the Board had shown good faith.
Mr. Worgan recalled that at the Board’s last meeting, Chair Merrell put forth a vote that initiated the pilot program. He stated that residents left that meeting pleased.
He stated that he serves on the Board in his neighborhood and they were very adamant that residents should leave the Board of Commissioners alone. He noted that they felt it was unnecessary
to continue occupying meetings or inundating the Board with numbers of 50 to 70 people as they had done in the past.
Mr. Worgan said the neighborhood had encouraged allowing the pilot program to move forward and see where it goes. He stated that John Shutak from the County’s Water Department has been
outstanding, working with the residents and staying in constant communication. He shared that the infrastructure has been put in place for the pilot program,and although there have been
a number of steps albeit they have been delayed on multiple occasions, it is moving forward, and the residents are appreciative.
Mr. Worgan stated that they understood that the pilot program is going to conclude in the next three to four months, at which point there should be strong evidence on whether the water
treatment solution is effective.
Mr. Worgan stated that unfortunately, that is when the hard work starts. He said once it has been clearly determined that the solution works assuming it does the Board of Commissioners
will need to make a decision and vote on it. He mentioned that budgets are coming up, and he knows those conversations are gearing up.He said they hope this issue will be part of those
budget conversations.
He added that the residents wanted the Board to know they havenot gone anywhere, and out of respect for the Board, the residents have not inundated the Board, and they look forward to
the spring once they get the solutions.
Mr. Worgan stated they were going to email all the Commissioners and ask if they can have an audience with a few of the residents to bring the Commissioners up to speed on everything
that has happened prior to this point.
Ed Greene stated that he lives in Union County on the border of Monroe and Indian Trail. Mr. Greene spoke regarding the senior nutrition program and its waiting list problem. He said
that he has been involved with the program for two and a half years and has seen the joy and happiness the clients have when he brings the meals to them. He noted that his primary route
is in the rural area in Unionville, where many farms are trying to survive. He also delivers meals to routes in Indian Trail, a different demographic, but the problems are still there
as well.
Mr. Greenesaid it is a struggle for the drivers who go out and make it their mission to serve others, yet they feel the irony of saying they cannot serve anymore. He stated that he
was made aware that some of the issue is regarding funding, and he emphasized the need to find a way to set aside more funds for these people who need it.
Mr. Greene added that the program is almost 100 percent volunteer program. He shared that one of his tasks is being involved with the focus group, made up of volunteer drivers, to find
ways to generate more interest and get more people involved to serve. He acknowledged that it is difficult to find people to volunteer, especially in the middle of the day or morning.
However, he noted that in the past year, they have made a strong effort to reach out to the Rotary Club, Kiwanis Club, and churches, and are currently working on a program to notify
churches about the need. He mentioned that churches want to serve people in their community.
Mr. Greene stated that because of these efforts, the long list of looking for drivers each day has decreased dramatically. He noted that the volunteers want to be involved, but the number
of meals they are delivering has dwindled from six or seven or eight to three or four due to a lack of funding to provide more meals.
Mr. Greene said that they have done their part to provide the support for the program and hope that the County can find a way to set aside more funds to help more people. He emphasized
that it is not only about senior nutrition and food, but also about senior wellness and well-being. He said that if seniors are mentally healthy and happy because they see people coming
to their door to say hello and bring food, then everyone benefits.
Mr. Greene thanked the board for their understanding and said he hoped the Board would consider the request.
Chair Merrell expressed appreciation to Mr. Greene for his volunteer work.
Carolyn Burroughs stated that she lives in the Altan community and offered congratulations to the new members and all of theofficers.
Ms. Burroughs said she had been at previous Board meetings and continues to ask for the re-opening of the Shortline Water Program. She noted that since 2022, there hasnot been anything
done on the Shortline Water Program, and no applications have beenacceptedsince 2022.She said that is why she was she attending tonight’s meeting. She said she would be glad to provide
information to the Board members.
Public Hearing (s)
24-824Public Hearing Conditional Rezoning Petition (PUD Amendment) CZ-2024-008 Dormie
At approximately 6:20 p.m., Chair Merrell opened the public hearing and recognizedBjorn Hansen, Senior Planner, for staff comments.
Mr. Hansen explained that this is a conditional rezoning, sothere is a site plan associated with the application. He clarified that it is not a rezoning but rather implementingthe PUD
6 rezoning, which encompasses much of the area along Rea Road near the intersection of Tom Short Road. He noted that the subject property is an undeveloped commercial portion located
in front of a self-storage facility opposite Kohl’s.
Mr. Hansen explained that the proposal is to develop a 12,000 square foot office building, more specifically a medical office. He stated that the site plan includes all office uses,
including medical offices.
Mr. Hansen added that the applicant has also proposed to build a natural surface pedestrian trail within a portion of the floodplain. He stated this would be allowed as long as the
trail remains a natural surface and is committed to meet the County’s Unified Development Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Hansen referred to the site plan and explained that Rea Road is shown along with the entrance to the self-storage facility located behind it. He stated that the building would be
closer to Rea Road with parking to the rear. He noted that the area to the north on the map is within the floodplain. He also noted that a small amount of on-street parking would be
located along the driveway with the remainder to the west of the site.
Mr. Hansen described the existing conditions of the property. He explained that it is a large undeveloped piece of land. He stated that looking north on Rea Road, he noted that sidewalks,
curbing, and gutter are already installed. He stated that immediately to the south there is a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Hansen pointed out the environmental features of the property and noted that there is a large floodplain on the site, which he described as a 500-year floodplain, which is larger
than what is regulated, but it is illustrative in showing that there is a lot of floodplain going through the area. He also noted the presence of a creek.
He explained that stormwater events will be detained as prescribed in the County’s recently amended development standards. He stated that these standards are more stringent than what
was previously required, with detention based on a 50-year storm event instead of a 25-year event. He clarified that this does not mean the intensity is doubled, but itis bigger than
what previously would have been required.
Mr. Hansen stated that in terms of zoning for the area, the map shows “6,” which, according to the legend on the left side, is PUD 6. He noted that this is already zoned for business
to allow for office use. He said this is just an implementation requirement to actually show the site plan associated with it. He added that this is the same zoning designation that
applies to the undeveloped commercial property to the north, as well as the Kohl’s property to the south of Tom Short Road.
He said in terms of transportation, there are no funded improvements in the immediate area. Mr. Hansen said this is expected to have a fairly low amount of traffic impact—a few hundred
vehicles per day. He also noted that another way of looking at it is that it provides medical services in closer proximity to residents in the area, so they could be making shorter trips
to accomplish the same purposes.
Mr. Hansen stated that Rea Road has approximately 22,000 cars a day and Tom Short has approximately 7,000 cars a day. He said there are no funded improvements in the immediate area.
He stated the Land Use Plan calls for this area to be a commercial node.
Bottom of Form
He stated that because the project is commercial in nature, the school system was not consulted for comments, and public water and sewer are available to the site.
He explained that public feedback at a community meeting was required as part of the process and was held in early October. Mr. Hansen shared that three residents attended and asked
questions about the process for the rezoning and parking requirements. He noted that no changes were made as a result of that meeting, and no additional comments from the public have
been received since that time.
He added that they always reach out to municipalities if the rezoning is very close to their boundaries. He said this site is located close to the Village of Marvin, which responded
that they do not have any comments about the site plan or the proposed use.
Mr. Hansen reviewed the negatives of the request:
it would increase impervious area immediately adjacent to a flood plain
would add additional activity in the area, increasing the number of cars, especially turning movements.
Mr. Hansen stated that the use is consistent with the Land Use Plan, and it is in an urbanized part of the county where these types of uses are expected. He said having uses such as
these in proximity to residential areas could make it more convenient because it is a shorter drive. He stated the development of the specific site shares access with an existing commercial
use, which reduces the impact on Rea Road.
Mr. Hansen stated that Planning staff recommended approval. He further stated that the Land Use Board, acting as the Planning Board, reviewed the proposal in November and unanimously
recommended approval, citing the consistency with the adopted plan and the limited traffic impacts of the proposed use.
Mr. Hansen stated that the applicant was present to provide any additional information the Board may wish to hear.
Chair Merrell asked if anyone had any questions.
Vice Chair Brian Helms asked Mr. Hansen to return to the map showing the proximity of the property to the residential area. He expressed a concernwhich was also noted as one of the negatives
in the staff report that the proposed use would increase impervious area immediately adjacent to a flood plain, increasing the potential for flooding in the area. He asked for confirmation
that the current plan includes mitigation for a 50-year storm.
Mr. Hansen confirmed that this was correct.
Vice Chair Brian Helms stated he would be curious to know if the applicant would be amenable to increasing the stormwater mitigation due to the proximity of the residential area to the
parcel.
Mr. Hansen replied that this would be a question for the applicant and suggested asking the applicant to come to the podium.
Aaron Houck introduced himself on behalf of Dormie Equity Partners and also introduced Rob Taylor also with Dormie Equity Partners.
Mr. Houck stated that as a part of this development, the Morning Star development has a retaining wall that was designed to help address the storm water issues and that is already in
place.
Rob Taylor stated that when Morning Star Storage was built behind this area, it accounted for the flood plain and built a retaining wall and elevated the land. He stated that the site
is already a pre-grated pad-level site. He said itensures that there is proper drop off in between this site down into the flood plain to then account for some of that additionalrunoff
making sure that it is not going into the residential area or then also having this being a medical site in terms of addressing that and ensuring that it all flows properly.
He added thatthe flood plain is a heavily dense wooded area and they wanted to make a little nicer nature for walking trails for the residents as well as the employees of the medical
who would be utilizing it, and they wanted to help “clean up” that site into the flood plain to help promote drainage and also that intersection if you are familiar with that Tom Short
Rea Road intersection is a lot of densely wooded overgrown shrub brush and so for the site that we control we want to help alleviate that and make a lot cleaner more natural type of
site.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, inquired about the storm event capacity related to the retaining wall near the storage unit facility. He asked forwhat type of storm event would this be appropriate.
He emphasized that his concern was not opposition to the proposed project, but he did not want to have a negative impact on the current residents with flooding. Mr. Hansen stated that
the area flows to the north toward Mecklenburg County. He noted that the project is designed to handle a 50-year storm event. He also mentioned that last fall in the Wesley Chapel area,
certain areas experienced a 1,000-year storm event.Mr. Hansen said what is talking about is how long the water will stay on-site, as the project will include detention for stormwater
that accumulates, which will be released. He noted that the floodway had a wall was built to create more developable land, which is why the floodway now goes around the building.He stated
that the fact that it is doing a 50-year storm there, just between a 50 and 100, in an instance like this, the fact that they are retaining it is what matters, not so much that they
are staying away from it. He said there really isnot a significant difference beyond what the 50-year storm is going to provide. He stated beyond that, it is so large, and in looking
at the overall area that is been developed, and the fact that there really arenot any ponds anywhere else on this picture shows that it is pretty much already set in stone how this area
is going to behave.Chair Merrell asked if anyone had registered to comment during the public hearing. Brian Matthews, County Manager, stated that no one hadregistered to speak.Mr. Hansen
stated that the team has some additional slides to present that may help.Mr. Houck presented a slide showing the site’s location on the west side of Rea Road, just south of the intersection
with Tom Short Road. He noted nearby landmarks included the Morning Star Self-Storage facility to the west of the site, and the MSA Swim Center. He also pointed out the residential neighborhood.He
continued with an aerial shot of the Morning Star facility andnoted that it is built up above the floodplain. He highlighted a private road that runs along the south side of the site
which runs into Rea Road.Mr. Houckshared several visuals of the site, starting with a view from Rea Road toward the intersection with Tom Short Road. He pointed out the six-foot privacy
fence, the residential neighborhood to the south, and the undeveloped area on the site. Mr. Houck also mentioned the brush area that Mr. Taylor referenced earlier.Mr. Houck clarified
where the building would be located and concluded with a view from the private road across the site toward Rea Road, where the self-storage facility can be seen on the left.He explaining
that the current zoning for the site is PUD-6 B2 and clarified that this is not a rezoning request but a request for site plan and building elevation approval. He stated that the applicant
is seeking a PUD amendment.Mr. Houck described the project as a one-story,12,000 sq. ft. medical office and office building. He pointed out that the site plan shows Rea Road running
along one side, with a private road and a fence separating it from the residential neighborhood. He also highlighted the Morning Star Self-Storage facility near the site. He said parking
would be situated near the building, and there would be a natural surface walking trail included in the development.Mr. Houck shared building elevations that were 2D images from Rea
Road and the parking lot. He mentioned that they also had renderings to give a better perspective. He explained the visuals, noting, an aerial view from Rea Road, pointing out the privacy
fence and the private road. He noted that while the Morning Star Self-Storage facility was not pictured, it would be located to the back of the medical building.He shared additional
visuals of the site from various angles: from the bottom of the private road where it meets Rea Road, along the private road itself, and from the parking lot with the Morning Star to
the left. He also highlighted the area where the natural surface walking trail would be, with Rea Road on the left. Commissioner Sides asked if he had said there would be on-street parking
on the private road.Mr. Houck confirmed that that there will be a couple of parking spots next to the building. He pointed out the spots on a previous slide and mentioned that oak trees
would be added along the private road and in the parking lot. Commissioner Sides inquired about the approximate building cost or taxable value of the building.Mr. Taylor responded it
would be approximately three to four millionCommissioner Sides asked for an estimate of the construction time once the project is approved.Mr. Taylor responded that it would take less
than 12 months.Chair Merrell asked if they have tenants already lined up to occupy the building or will they be seeking medical tenants. Mr. Taylor responded that it would be both. He
said they do not have any formal commitments and explained that it is difficult to secure commitments pending outcomes of this public hearing. He said as was indicated at the community
meeting, this is likely going to be an already existing medical service in the community that has outgrown its location and has long wait times. He shared that he is also a resident
of this community and lives a mile from this project,so this has a very personal component to him. He added, unfortunately, this area is, in his opinion, is extremely light on medical
services to serve the existing community, and there is not a lot of expansion opportunities. He stated they are talking with several groups that are more in the Blakney market up the
street, and they are in 3,000 square feet facilities and need 5,000 or 6,000 square feet, so it is likely the applicant will take this 12,000 square foot facility and probably split
it into two facilities and have two 6,000 square foot tenants of existing medical already in the community to help further serve the residents of the community.Chair Merrell noted that
no one had signed up to speak for the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak. With there being no one wishing to comment during the public hearing, Chair Merrell
closed the public hearing at approximately but had not signed up. Hearing none, the Chair closed the public hearing at approximately 6:39 p.m.24-862Proclamation for Cervical Cancer Awareness
Month (January 2025)Chair Merrell recognized County Manager Brian Matthews to address the item. County Manager Brian Matthews said the Board adopteda proclamation for Cervical Cancer
Awareness Month for the month of January. He said last year Ms. Christy Chambers provided a presentation and actually brought that to the Board. She was unable to attend tonight.He
said Ms. Chambers is asking for the Board to adopt a proclamation for the January 2025 Cervical Cancer Awareness Month. Commissioner Christina Helms moved adoption of the proclamation
proclaiming January 2025 to be Cervical Cancer Awareness Month in Union County.The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:Chair MerrellAyeVice Chair Brian W. HelmsAyeCommissioner
BaucomAyeCommissioner Christina B. HelmsAyeCommissioner Gary SidesAye24-843Service Award Recognition Chair Merrell recognized Julie Broome, Human Resources Director, for this itemMs.
Broome addressed the Commissioners and shared an update on the County’s fourth quarter Service Award Program.She reported that the program recently took place and recognized several
employees who reached service award milestones. Ms. Broome said there were approximately 61 recipients for the quarter and approximately half of those employees were recognized during
that ceremony.Ms. Broome explained that the County’s Service Award Program begins at five years of service and progresses in five-year increments. For this quarter, 33 employees were
recognized with five years of service, 11 employees were recognized with ten years, four employees were recognized with fifteen years, ten employees were recognized with twenty years,
one employee was recognized with twenty-five years, and two employees were recognized with thirty years of service.She noted that this was a large group, and said there were a lot of
smiles and appreciation for all of dedication and commitment that these employees have shown to Union County.Ms. Broomeshared a short video capturing some of thehighlights of the recognition
service. She emphasized that since not all employees can attend the Board meetings, the video provides an opportunity for Commissioners, friends, and family members of the participants
to see this information and of course their colleagues to join in celebrating with them.Ms. Broomeexpressed appreciation to the Commissioners who were able to attend the awards ceremony
and extended an open invitation anytime they want to attend these quarterly recognition services. In closing, she expressed appreciation to all the employees for their service and dedication
to the community and thanked the Public Communications team for coordinating the video.Commissioner Sides asked Ms. Broome or Mr. Matthews whether Commissioners would be invited by email
or notified of the quarterly meetings to make sure they could attend. Mr. Matthews responded that they would send invites and add the events to the Commissioners’ Calendar if they would
like.Chair Merrell recognized Jason Kay, County Attorney, who received his five year service award. She congratulated Mr. Kay for his service with Union County. Chair Merrell asked
if there were any motions regarding requested revisions or amendments to either the consent agenda or the business agenda. Commissioner Sides addressed Chair Merrell, stating that he
had at least one and a question for the Chair. He said he had a question about an item on the Consent Agenda, whichhe clarified was not pertaining to the actual item, and he asked if
he could mention it rather than pull it from the Consent Agenda, if that was acceptable. He said it was specifically Item 24-825 Budget Amendment County Managers Office. He requested
that the County Manager arrange for a future presentation by the Strategy and Innovation team so that the Board could learn more about their work, the individuals involved, and the metrics.Commissioner
Sides stated that he had an addition to the business section of the agenda. He requested that the Board consider including an item concerning the dissolution of the Monroe-Union County
Economic Development Commission. Chair Merrell said that the item would be added before the appointments of Commissioners to boards and committees. Vice Chairman Brian W. Helms moved
to add consideration of a resolution in support of repeal or amendment of section 3K.1 of Session Law 2024-57 in reference to Senate Bill 382 to the business portion of the agenda. WHO
MADE THE MOTION?Chair Merrell called for a vote on the motion to approve the items listed on the Consent Agenda, as submitted and recommended, and to approve the Agenda as amended.The
motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows: Chair MerrellAyeVice Chair Brian W. HelmsAyeCommissioner BaucomAyeCommissioner Christina HelmsAyeCommissioner SidesAye
Consent Agenda
24-793Deed Transfer - Union County Public Schools
ACTION:Approved deed transfers to Union County Public Schools as constructionhas been completed.
When Union County Public Schools conducts major capital projects, they
transfer the deed to Union County. The reason for this is that Union
County is able to benefit from state sales tax reimbursement, and UCPS
is not. At the end of the capital projects, the land is then deeded back to
UCPS. This deed transfer will deed the following properties back to
UCPS: Tax Parcel Nos. Monroe High School (09194029), Porter Ridge
Middle School (08267003), Porter Ridge High School (08267003), Sun
Valley High School (07072002), Western Union Elementary School
(05033053), Piedmont High School (08129031), Transportation Facility
(09372003F)
24-845Contract Renewal - Custom Mobile App
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 Union County Sheriff's Office (UCSO) smartphone application hasproven to be an invaluable tool in our agency’s commitment to enhancing
public safety and keeping the community informed. With over 22,000
dedicated users, the app plays a critical role in our communication
strategy, allowing us to disseminate essential information quickly and
effectively to a broad audience. Our current reach extends to an average
of 150,000-250,000 individuals weekly, enabling the UCSO to connect
with our community on an unprecedented scale and ensuring that urgent
updates and resources are accessible to all residents. The UCSO app
facilitates a wide range of services and provides essential information in
one easy-to-navigate platform. App users can access real-time traffic
updates, locate registered sex offenders, find inmate information, browse
adoptable animals, and access rehabilitation and domestic violence
resources. Additionally, the app provides timely news releases,
emergency notifications, and employment opportunities within the
Sheriff’s Office, offering a comprehensive suite of services that meet the
diverse needs of our residents. Our app is continuously updated and
refined based on user feedback, and we have received overwhelmingly
positive responses from the community. This adaptability ensures that the
app remains relevant, responsive, and highly effective as a tool for public
engagement and safety. Maintaining funding for the UCSO mobile
application is essential to uphold the level of service that Union County
residents have come to expect. Continued support will enable us to
expand features, improve user experience, and further strengthen our
communication with the community. By investing in this proven resource,
the UCSO can continue to provide an accessible and effective platform
that enhances public safety, empowers residents, and builds trust in law
enforcement. The Sheriff’s Office will collaborate with Procurement to
explore solicitation options near the end of the renewal term.
The Union County Sheriff's Office has utilized the contractual services of
OCV, LLC for Sheriff Smartphone Application since 2023. OCV, LLC has
been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs, and we are
requesting to continue this service for an additional three years.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $15,782. Since this contract
contains a three-year term, a total of $47,346 is estimated to be spent.
Funding is available in the adopted FY2025 budget with future
expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.
24-861Purchase - Body Armor from Lawmen’s Distribution, LLC
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 Sheriff’s Office would like to purchase Safariland body
armor from Lawmen’s Distribution, LLC. The body armor purchase
replaces old worn existing body armor and new hires. Purchasing from
Lawmen’s Distribution, LLC ensures body armor conformity throughout
the agency. N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(3) and N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(9) allow
local governments to make purchases through a competitively bid North
Carolina Statewide Term Contract or a Group Purchasing Program. The
purchase of the Body Armor will be made using North Carolina Statewide
Term Contract 680C quoted by Lawmen’s Distribution, LLC.
The anticipated cost for the Body Armor is $99,524.95 and is budgeted
accordingly for FY 2025.
24-834NC Department of Public Safety - Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Funding FY 2025
ACTION:1) Approved revised County Funding Allocation Plan FY 2024-2025, 2)authorized the Finance Director to approve the funding plan, grantagreements and documents related to such grant
agreements during theirterms, and 3) approved Budget Amendment 16.
The Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) is a Board appointed by
Commissioners, as defined by State Statutes. The JCPC provides
funding and monitors Community Based alternatives to juvenile
incarceration and provides funding for substance abuse prevention
strategies and programs.
Funding for JCPC programs is generally adopted in the State Budget and
assigned to County programs by a formula grant. Normally, a county
JCPC approves a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, which is then
submitted to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (the DJJ). The attached funding plan
was developed and approved by the JCPC Board and represents the
Board's plan for how the funds will be spent for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.
This request will be included in the State's DJJ budget which is beingplanned for 2024-2025.
The JCPC Board approved $476,439 for County programs for the
2024-2025 fiscal year. The Revised Funding Plan allocates funding from
the State to the following programs: Life Connections D-A-S-H
Counseling Services $146,593, Transforming Youth Movement Get
Hired-Youth Employability $40,000, Transforming Youth Movement
SHIFT Restitution/CS $45,000, Aspire Youth and Family Kids at Work
$70,312, JCPC Administration $9,534, Arts Related Innovative Student
Empowerment (ARISE) Union-KRE8IVU $60,000, Union County
Community Service's and Outreach Parenting Support $17,000 (increase
by $6,250), and $0 (decrease of 6,250) of unallocated funds that will be
reassigned later in the fiscal year as needed.
The JCPC budget is normally approved as a "pass through" line item in
the County budget, meaning that the amount approved by the State is
received by the County and then used for the JCPC program.
Union County has not approved JCPC programs in line-item detail in the
past; rather, the JCPC Board normally negotiates, approves, and
monitors line-item detail within the amount of funds allocated to the
program, and provides a recommended budget to Commissioners.
The County will provide $6,738 in local in-kind match for the Union
County Parenting Support Program. No other County funding is required
for local funding or the local in-kind match for all other JCPC Programs.
24-835Budget Amendment - WIC Program, Community Support and
Outreach
ACTION:1) Recognized, received, and appropriated $47,250 of additional AgreementAddendum funding for WIC Client Services to the Community Supportand Outreach Division’s operating budget
and 2) approve Budget
Amendment #13.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) is part of the Union County Human Services Agency’s
Community Support and Outreach Division. WIC serves to safeguard the
health of low-to-moderate income pregnant, postpartum, and
breastfeeding women, infants and children up to age five (5) who are at
nutritional risk. The WIC program provides nutritious foods to supplement
diets, referrals to health care and education on healthy eating from
specially trained WIC nutritionists. As a result of COVID-19 and other
current events, many families have been faced with economic hardships,
leading to a significant sustained increase in the need for WIC services.
In FY2020, our clinic served an average caseload of 2,909 clients per
month. Year-to-date in FY2025, our monthly average increased to 4,260
clients, representing a growth of over 46%. To ensure that clients and
new applicants are served in accordance with Federal regulations, we
have contracted with Nutrition Plus, who provides us with one FTE of a
WIC Nutritionist. Our original contract with Nutrition Plus, Contract #7982,
was executed on December 1, 2022 with a not to exceed amount of
$25,000; an amendment was approved on April 13, 2023 adding $24,500
to the not to exceed amount of $25,000, for a total of $49,500. Neither of
these required board action. On July 17, 2023, the BOCC approved a
contract amendment, which increased the not to exceed amount on the
contract from $49,500 to $107,500 and extended the contract end date to
June 30, 2024. An amendment was approved on January 25, 2024
adding $31,040, which did not require board action and increased the not
to exceed amount to $138,540. On June 17, 2024, the BOCC approved a
contract amendment, which increased the not to exceed amount on the
contract from $138,540 to $163,540 and extended the term through
September 30, 2024. To address the sustained high need, the North
Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS) has
continually adjusted the allocation of funds to WIC clinics that serve more
than 100% of the caseload assigned by the state. Consequently, Union
County WIC received an overall funding boost for FY2025. As a result,
$17,349 was utilized from the initial AA increase to increase the not to
exceed on the Nutrition Plus of Greenville, Inc. contract from $163,540 to
$180,889 and extended the contract expiration date with Nutrition Plus
from September 30, 2024 to June 30, 2025. This did not require board
action. An additional WIC AA increase of $47,250 was announced on
September 30, 2024 and the total not to exceed amount was increased
from $180,889 to $228,139 at the last board meeting. The request is for
the Board’s approval of Budget Amendment #13 for the additional $47,250.
The Human Services Agency Community Support and Outreach Division
has utilized the contractual services of Nutrition Plus for WIC Program
Nutritionist since December 2022. Nutrition Plus of Greenville, Inc hasbeen effective and efficient in meeting our service needs.
Additional funding of $47,250 is awarded at 100% with no required
County match.
24-839Budget Amendment - Child Fatality Prevention Team
ACTION:1) Recognized, received, and appropriated $2,400 in additional state fundingfrom the NC Division of Public Health for the Union County Child FatalityPrevention Team (Agreement
Addendum 701) and 2) approve BudgetAmendment 17.
North Carolina Session Law (NCSL) 2023-134 enacted changes to
strengthen the state’s child fatality prevention system which included the
establishment of a State Office of Child Fatality Prevention within the
Division of Public Health (DPH), Department of Health and Human
Services (the Department), made changes to the Child Fatality Prevention
System, and made it mandatory to report child fatalities into the National
Fatality Review Case Reporting System (NFR-CRS).
The NFR-CRS is a web-based system hosted by the National Center for
Fatality Review and Prevention within the Center for National Prevention
Initiatives of the Michigan Public Health Institute (MPHI) and is used by
many states to provide child death review teams with a data system for
capturing, analyzing, and reporting of information shared at a child death
or serious injury review.
Per NCSL 2023-134: “Not later than July 1, 2025, the Department shall
ensure through its State Office of Child Fatality Prevention that all Local
Teams [including Local Health Departments/Districts] have been provided
guidelines and training addressing their participation in the NFR-CRS,
and Local Teams shall begin utilizing the System for case reporting as
specified in G.S. 7B-1413.5.” The Union County Human Services Agency
coordinates our single county, multidisciplinary child death review team
pursuant to Article 14 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes.
This Agreement Addendum provides funding for the Local Health
Department to prepare and begin using the NFR-CRS. Funds were
appropriated by the North Carolina General Assembly to support
implementation of the changes authorized by NCSL 2023-134 torestructure child death reviews by Local Teams and to offset the costs
associated with Local Team participation in NFR-CRS.
The County will receive $2,400 in FY2025 funding from the NC Division of
Public Health. No County match is required.
24-846Contract Renewal - Dental Laboratory 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 Union County Human Services Agency’s Public Health Department
provides various dental clinic services for patients that must be processed
by an “outside” laboratory such as dentures. Brantley Dental Laboratory
currently processes lab services for the Public Health Department through
contract #8619. A requested third amendment for $25,000 will cover a
one-year term and will result in a cumulative spend with the vendor that
exceeds the County Manager’s $50,000 allowable signing authority,
therefore, BOCC approval of Contract Amendment #3 is required.
The Public Health Department has utilized the contractual services of
Brantley Dental Laboratory for services since November 2020. The
contractor has been effective and efficient in meeting our service &
patient care needs, and we are requesting to continue this service for an
additional one-year term. The Department will collaborate with
Procurement for solicitation options in the future.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $25,000.00 and is budgeted
accordingly for FY2025, with future expenditures subject to annual BOCCbudget appropriation.
24-852Grant Application - Transportation FY2026 Section 5310 Enhanced
Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program
ACTION:Authorize the County Manager: to 1) submit the 5310 Urbanized AreaGrant application and make necessary assurances and certifications
associated with the grant application, 2) upon award of the grant, to
negotiate and execute an agreement, and 3) upon receipt of the grant
funds, to recognize, receive, and appropriate the awarded amount to the
Transportation budget, all as substantially consistent with this agenda
item.
The Section 5310 program (49 U.S.C. 5310) provides formula funding to
states to assist private nonprofit groups meet the transportation needs of
older adults and people with disabilities when transportation service is
unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate to meet the needs of these
residents. The 5310 program aims to remove barriers to transportation
services and expand mobility options for seniors and individuals with
disabilities by supporting services planned, designed, and carried out to
meet the unique transportation needs of these residents in all areas -
large urbanized (over 200,000), small urbanized (50,000-200,000), and
rural (under 50,000). Funds are apportioned based on each state's share
of the population, then direct recipients manage and distribute funds to
sub-recipient projects.
The Human Services Agency Transportation Department will submit the
grant application as a sub-recipient through the Charlotte Area Transit
System (CATS), and our local agreement will be with the City of
Charlotte. Union County’s grant application will leverage our Home and
Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) funding to serve as the local
match required to enable us to obtain the additional 5310 grant funding,
thereby ensuring more seniors can access needed services by utilizing
our transportation system. Transportation staff has the capability to
manage this grant and has been receiving and managing this 5310
funding since January 2016. FY2026 grant funding will allow us to
continue meeting the needs of current and future residents who are
eligible for services under this funding structure. Our goal is to serve 200+
seniors age 65+ and/or age 50+ disabled individuals currently being
served by our system under this funding.
The 5310 grant requires a 50% Federal/ 50% Local cost split for demand
response service operations. The performance period is for two funding
years, meaning funds awarded during a given fiscal year can be drawn
down for two years after the start of the award's fiscal year.The total 5310 Grant operating request of $400,000 for the two-year
period from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028, is 50% Federal Grant ($200,000) and 50% Local Match ($200,000).
24-847Contract - Architectural Services for UC Water Operations Center
Expansion
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.
This request is to approve a contract with Progressive Architecture
Engineering, P.C. to complete the building and site design for the new UC
Water Operations Center Expansion and Renovation project. The scope
of work will include the design of a building addition, or stand-alone
building, of approximately 30,000 gsf and renovate close to 3,000 gsf of
space in the existing Operations Center.
The designer will be responsible for verification of the previously
conducted space needs analysis, development of the building program
requirements, full architectural and engineering design and construction
administration. The designer will also be tasked with coordination and
teaming with the Construction Manager at Risk to be selected by the
County.
The Facilities and Fleet Management Department partnered with the
Procurement Department to issue Request for Qualifications No.
2025-005, Architectural Services, Union County Water Operations Center
Expansion and Renovation Project. On September 10, 2024, eleven (11)
qualifications packages were received and reviewed by an evaluation
team in accordance with applicable evaluation criteria for this project. The
top four (4) firms were invited to shortlist interview/presentations. As a
result, the team requests approval to enter into a contract with
Progressive Architecture Engineering, P.C. Staff recommends the Board
approve the contract with Progressive Architecture Engineering, P.C. the
amount of $870,260.00 to complete the building design and construction
administration.The cost of this contract is $870,260.00. There are sufficient funds in the
UC Water Ops Center Expansion capital account, 60186019, to cover this expense.
24-813Allocate Additional FTE to Information Technology
ACTION:Authorized an additional 0.46 FTE to create a full-time position inInformation Technology.
Currently, the Union County Information Technology Department includes
two part-time vacant positions, one as an intern (position 422999 at 0.06
FTE) and the other administrative support (position 421098 at 0.48 FTE).
Both positions are helpful to the department's operations but are limited
by their part-time status, resulting in inefficiencies and less focus on
serving our customers. With the county’s expanded dependence on
information technology, the department is seeking an additional 0.46 FTE
to consolidate the two part-time positions into one full-time IT Systems
Specialist position that will provide entry-level technical support. This
change will improve the availability of technical support for our growing
user base. IT has had an ongoing relationship with South Piedmont
Community College and will continue to work with them to feed our
remaining internship position and possibly look to SPCC graduates to fill
this potential position.
No additional funding required. Funding exists in the current FY2025Information Technology budget.
24-830October 2024 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Report
ACTION:Approvedthe October 2024 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 Taxand Tag Together program operated jointly between the counties and the
State.
24-825Budget Amendment - County Manager’s Office
ACTION:Adopted Budget Amendment #6.
The Strategy & Innovation team within the County Manager’s office is
comprised of staff who were reclassified from other County Departments
including Human Services (4 staff members) and the Budget Office (1
staff member). This budget amendment will move the salaries and
benefits of those staff to the County Manager’s Office budget.
24-840Amendment to the Union County Pay and Classification Plan
ACTION:Approved revision of the Union County Pay Plan to include new jobclassification titles, pay grades, and one new position.
Add the following classification and associated pay grade:
a. Environmental Health Division Manager - pay grade Q
b. Sheriff’s Office Legal Counsel - pay grade S
2) Remove the following classification and associated pay grade:
a. Director, Environmental Health - pay grade Q
b. Training Supervisor - pay grade L
c. Trainer - pay grade J
3) Add one (1) Assistant County Attorney full-time equivalent (FTE)
positionUpdates to the Union County Pay Plan are necessary to add, update, and
remove job classification titles to align with current and future
organizational needs.
For certain property acquisition and condemnation pre-litigation services
related to Union County Water, the County has historically contracted with
outside counsel to provide such services. However, due to the volume of
this work and time needed to address these issues, bringing these legal
services in-house will provide overall benefit to the County and reduce
costs. With the addition of one (1) Assistant County Attorney position in
the County Attorney’s Office, this change will provide improved budget
stability, increased efficiency, and strengthened communication and
collaboration opportunities. The monetary savings yielded by shifting
away from the contract legal services model will fully fund the new
position, allow for significantly decreased hourly legal service costs, and
increase the County’s ability to meet the requirements of this work in a
cost-effective manner. The position will be funded through the Water and
Sewer Public Enterprise fund. The position will be filled, trained, and
deployed as soon as practicable while taking into account department
and service transition needs. No new funding is required for the position,
and it is projected to reduce overall expenses.
24-856Contract Amendment - Audit Services
ACTION:Authorize the Board Chair 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 the BoardChair’s discretion.
Through Request for Proposals (RFP) 2022-039, Cherry Bekaert, LLP
was awarded the financial audit contract to provide auditing services for
Union County. As required by the North Carolina Local Government
Commission (LGC), the auditing contract must be awarded on an annual
basis with approval from the Board of Commissioners. This request is toaward a contract to Cherry Bekaert to perform the financial audit of the
County's accounting records for FY2024.
The contract terms for auditing services includes fee for testing of five
major grant programs for single audit testing. During FY2024, the County
saw an increase in major grant programs resulting in a total of eleven
programs tested. The original contract approved by the BOCC in April
estimated there would be an additional four programs tested resulting in a
contract amount not to exceed $146,000. The additional major programs
tested resulted in not to exceed amount of $156,000 requiring an
amendment to the FY2024 audit contract. The contract amendment
requires the Chair’s signature based on the Local Government
Commission audit contract regulations.
The total cost will be $156,000: $126,000 to perform the financial audit
and which includes testing for five Single Audit grant programs, as well as
$5,000 for each Single Audit program over five. The total not to exceedamount is increasing overall by $10,000.
24-848Resolution - Adopt Board of Commissioners’ 2025 Regular Meeting
Schedule
ACTION:Adopted the Resolution for the Regular Meeting Schedule of the UnionCounty Board of Commissioners for 2025.
This resolution is for the adoption of the Board of Commissioners’
meeting schedule for 2025, which includes its regular meetings as shown
on Attachment “A” to the resolution.
24-853Minutes for Approval
ACTION:Approved minutes of regular meeting of December 2, 2024.
Information Only
24-828Tax Refunds, Releases and Prorations Approved by Finance Officer
ACTION:None - Information Only.
On September 8, 2020, the Board of Commissioners adopted a
Resolution Delegating Authority for Tax Releases and Refunds of less
than $100 to Union County's Finance Officer. The resolution and NC GS
105-381(b) require such refunds to be reported to the Board regarding
actions taken on requests for releases or refunds. All such actions shall
be recorded in the Board's minutes. NC GS 105-330.6 authorizes the tax
collector to direct an order for a tax refund of prorated taxes to the county
finance officer related to surrendering of registered motor vehicle plates.
The finance officer shall issue a refund to the vehicle owner. This report
is for October 2024 NCVTS releases and refunds lessthan $100 and prorations approved by the finance officer.
See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
24-857Monthly Update - Wastewater Treatment Capacity
ACTION:Receive status update on wastewater treatment capacity for the TwelveMile Creek, Crooked Creek, Olde Sycamore, Tallwood, and GrassyBranch facilities.
Union County Water is closely monitoring the wastewater treatment
capacities at our Water Reclamation Facilities. Permitting Capacity is
evaluated using the Actual Plant Flows plus the Permitted/ObligatedFlows (unconnected). Union County Water was asked to provide regular
updates. Plant flow information through November 2024 is summarized in
the attached table.
Twelve Mile Creek
· Percent of Actual Flows = 72.4%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 92.3%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 5.427
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 6.926
Crooked Creek
· Percent of Actual Flows = 60.0%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 90.6%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 1.140
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 1.722
Olde Sycamore
· Percent of Actual Flows = 30.7%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 30.7%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.046
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.046
Tallwood
· Percent of Actual Flows = 46.0%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 46.0%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.023
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.023
Grassy Branch
· Percent of Actual Flows = 96.0%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 98.0%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.048
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.049
In addition to the wastewater treatment capacities, flow volumes
associated with development projects that are in the planning and review
process within the Twelve Mile Creek and Crooked Creek WRF service
areas are provided for information as well. Development flow volumes
through November 2024 are summarized in the tables.Business24-762Opioid Settlement Funding Plan UpdateChair Merrell recognized Michelle Lancaster, Consultant, for an update to the Board
concerning this item.Ms. Lancaster stated that she would be covering three items during the meeting. She explained that two of those items would involve shifting her engagement to staff
or other individuals and one item that she planned to continue working on.Ms. Lancaster explained that the County became engaged in the Opioid Settlement Funding Plan in 2022.She explained
that North Carolina entered into a settlement with several other states. She shared that North Carolina, in total, is receiving a little more than $1.4 billion over the next 18 years
to tackle the opioid crisis from those settlements.She shared that Union County will be receiving more than $17.7 million over that same time. She noted that this has a very long runway,
starting in 2022 and expected to continue through 2038.She added that many of these funds were front-loaded, so counties are receiving a little more funding on the front end, and then
it tapers to a more steady stream in the later years. She stated that the information she was sharing was through the end of the fiscal year for the reporting that was due to the Attorney
General's Office in October.Ms. Lancaster said the North Carolina County Commissioners Association played a large role in the settlements, specifically working for counties to ensure
that they receive the funds directly.She stated that 80 percent of the funds were coming back to counties so that they could use them in the communities that were most affected by the
opioid crisis, counties who are responsible for law enforcement, and in many places, health and human services, and the families that are impacted the most.Ms. Lancaster said there have
been several different settlements with the largest occurring in 2022 with additional smaller settlements following. She noted that they have all followed the same principles that were
agreed to in the original work.She added that this was very unusual and unique for counties. She stated that counties had never been given an 18-year runway with money coming year over
year and very specific expectations.She explained that this was not an area that counties had typically worked in. She stated that while there may have been partnerships, they were usually
for outside agency funding or some human services relationships. She stated that the county itself does not have staff who had been working in the opioid space. She said they had done
a lot of work to build the program that exists today.Ms. Lancaster explained that a group of community partners came together and spent several weeks working on a recommendation for
the program. She noted there is a lot of guidance, which continues to grow, on how these funds need to be used, and there is also a lot of expectation on how they are used.She stated
that this group, along with county staff, put together recommendations that then came to the Board of Commissioners for ultimate action on what should be funded. Ms. Lancaster provided
the following breakdown on the approved programs/funding:Ms. Lancaster said the recommendation for program funding was for a three-year funding cycle, which is slightly unique to what
counties typically do with an annual budget cycle.She explained that these funds go into special revenue funds, allowing them to be used year after year a little bit differently. She
stated that it was the strong recommendation from the advisory groupthat provided the recommendation that the county invest in things over a longer period of time to determine where
the investment made a difference.She said the idea was that when making future decisions about funding, those decisions would be based on data. Ms. Lancaster said Wingate University
is providing some oversight through Dr. Shanta Dube, a public health professor with 25 years of experience in the substance use area. Dr. Dube is leading the work group and the data
collection. She is working with the logic models with all of the programs and partnering with staff.Ms. Lancaster reviewed the various programs in Union County that were approved for
funding. There was discussion regarding the partnership with Union County Public Schools. Chair Merrell asked, what are the two clusters for Union County Public Schools. Ms. Lancaster
stated that it was Porter Ridge and Sun Valley, and that it included the middle and high schools so four schools in total.Ms. Lancaster confirmed that it is a harm reduction program
whichincluded vaping and drug use, and it is a whole evidence-based program that they are implementing in those four schools.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Ms. Lancaster if the concentration
in those schools was on vaping and how that pertained to opioid abuse. Ms. Lancaster said there were some gateway activities for students and that the goal was to stop those behaviors
before they led to the use of other substances.She explained that the program being used in the schools was evidence-based and had been used in other parts of the country and was being
offered in those clusters as a pilot program. She said her understanding from Jarod McCraw at UCPS was that the school leaders were anxious to get something in place. She stated they
thought they had some issuesparticularly with vapingthat they were having a hard time in terms of discipline in the schools. She said they are working with Dr. Dube and the team to
develop performance measures that could be reviewed to determine if the program was having the impact they hoped to have. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked ifthere was any data available
about how many folks were enrolled.Ms. Lancaster responded that no, they had just started the program. She reminded the Board that this was a later addition to the program. She said
they have been meeting with Dr. Dube and the team.She explained that they were starting the data collection now, and by this time next year, the Board of Commissioners should be able
to review the data that have started to collect.She stated they were using REDCap, which is their data collection system. Ms. Lancaster explained that it is a HIPAA-compliant research
electronic data capture system, and they were collecting the data through this system. She said two quarters' worth of data had been collected from everyone except UCPS.She said the
team had started their initial data visualizations, and there would be a dashboard that folks would be able to access. Ms. Lancaster also said they had completed the state reporting
that was required. She added that there were fairly extensive expectations from the Attorney General’s Office on the reporting.She noted that the funding was captured by the single audit,
and they had gone through the audit with the County’s auditors, providing quite a bit of information as the auditors did their work.Commissioner Christina Helms asked Ms. Lancaster if
the state report information had been sent to the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Lancaster stated that she did not believe it was sent to the Board of Commissioners.Commissioner Christinia
Helms asked that the information be provided to the Board. Ms. Lancaster displayed a slide which she described as an illustrationof one of the socio-demographic slides they had begun
putting together. She mentioned that this work was being completed and that they would make sure the Board of Commissioners received a link to the website so they could view the dashboard
data. She noted that the data was there, so they would have access to it along with additional information.She stated that she thought what they were putting together was really well
done, and it was impressive to see the work that had been put into the program. She added that the partner agencies had embraced this and wanted to make sure they were receiving good
measures and putting information together that made sense for the work they were doing and for the investment the County was making with these funds in the community.Ms. Lancaster said
that tonight she had mentioned there were a few matters that she was transitioning to others, and this was one she was working to transition to staff. She explained that the recommendation
from both staff and her was to add an opioid settlement program coordinator/strategy analyst to the County Strategy and Innovation team. She explained that this person would manage the
work group, work on the reporting requirements, and handle the community engagement needed in this area.She said this would allow the County to develop some in-house expertise in this
area, which would continue to be funded through settlement funds throughl 2038. Ms. Lancaster mentioned that, as she had said earlier, this was not work that counties had traditionally
done, so there are notpeople on staff who have worked in this space as their primary function. She thought since Commissioner Sides asked to get a report from the Strategy and Innovation
Team, she thought this would be the right team. Ms. Lancaster explained that the action the Board would be asked to consider was to receive the information on the opioid settlement plan,
update the pay and classification plan to include a new job classification of opioid settlement program coordinator/strategy analyst, pay grade M, authorize the addition of one FTE in
the county manager's office for the job classification of program coordinator/strategy analyst, and also adopt budget amendment number 18.Ms. Lancaster explained that, as she had mentioned
at the beginning, there were some smaller settlements that continue to come through, and one was coming through for FY25 in the amount of $86,677.12. She stated that the fourth action,
which was budget amendment 18, and the plan is to utilize those funds for the new FTE and the additional audit testing that was required, which cost $5,000 to do that single-audit work.Ms.
Lancaster said that in the next year, the Board should expect to see, the additional reporting after the requested position is on staff. She said they would also make sure that the Board
is providedthe reporting that is already been completed, the finalization of the dashboard info, additional engagement with the funded partners, and the development of recommendations
for the next allocation of funds that should be coming in 25 and 26.Commissioner Sides asked if the opioid settlement coordinator position would be funded from the proceeds of the settlement.Ms.
Lancaster confirmed that was correct.Chair Merrell asked if that position is not a forever position, and if it would eventually have to be picked up by the County when the opioid funds
run out, or if that position would end also.County Manager Brian Matthews stated that this is certainly what is anticipated. He explained that the Board could always decide to continue
a program if they wanted to, but in staff’s opinion, when the program and the funding end, the position would also end and go away. He added that the Board could choose not to do that
in the future.Ms. Lancaster said that this has such a long runway until 2038. She stated that she agreed with Mr. Matthews and said that what could also be expected is that the folks
working on this if there are things that are working, they may look for additional funding sources over that period of time to backfill. She noted that the County does have funding
through 2038, which she described as a long time for what one would typically think of as a grant funding source.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the auditing cost was required with
the settlement.Ms. Lancaster responded that it reached a dollar threshold that made it a requirement of the single audit. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked who makes the requirement and
whether it is part of the settlement.Ms. Lancaster responded that she believed it is actually the Local Government Commission that makes that requirement.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked
what the plan is and would this full-time employee report to the Assistant County Manager, the Deputy, or fall under someone else.Mr. Matthews stated that the position would be under
the Manager's Office would report to one of the Assistant County Managers and then ultimately to him.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the expectation of this individual would be to pick up the management of the program, facilitate the expenditures of the money being received from
the settlement, and look for other opportunities with other settlements.
Ms. Lancaster said thatsomeone would need to facilitate the meetings of the work group on an ongoing basis. She stated that the Board could decide if will fund it every three years
or fund it every year, but that would be the Board’s decision.
She further explained that the person would be expected to manage all of those pieces: the relationship with the community, the state, so the State Association of County Commissioners
receives some funding in this area to provide guidance and support for reporting and all the required things that are expected after receiving the settlements.
Ms. Lancaster said she had received a modest amount of inquiries from several folks asking why this did not fund all the nonprofits that are working in opioid use and all the programs.
She noted there are probably some other good ones that could be funded, and having somebody who can engage and vet and get more involved in that part of the community work.
She emphasized that this was just not something that county staff had been immersed in. She explained that substance use and behavioral health have not been managed across the state,
as those have been managed differently and outside of local government. She said bringing this in now with the expectation that for 18 years the Board would be asked to make decisions
about how to spend this money in this space, having somebody who can be an expert and provide confidence in what the Board is doing as it spends those dollars.
Chair Merrell asked where this person would be located.
Mr. Matthews stated that at this point in time, he believed that person would be located at the Patton Avenue office, which is where the Strategy and Innovation group is located.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the County does not believe it has in-house resources to do this function currently.
Mr. Matthews responded that would be his opinion.
Commissioner Sides stated he wanted more information on the specific programsreceiving the funding on how they intend to use the money.He added that he also wanted to know the timeframe
in which the Board will be updated on the status, rather than just once a year. He said he would also like to know the metrics that will be used to measure the effectiveness of how each
group is using that funding, maybe in year three, if they found one approach was not effective, they could make the decision to divert those funds somewhere else or add it to an existing
organization getting funding because that seems to have the biggest bang for the buck.He concluded by saying he is interested in knowing how the Board is going to receive information
over what periods on the effectiveness of the program and how the money is actually being spent.
Ms. Lancaster said they can make sure that the Board receives the information. She clarified that the funding had already been approved by the Board for allocations. She stated that
the work began about a year ago, starting with two quarters of data collection, as she mentioned earlier under the key metrics.
She said she will provide the initial reports, which should help inform the Board about the decisions made in 2022 and 2023 that led to this point. She noted that in 2025 and 2026, the
Board should expect to be asked to make additional decisions about how the funds are used.
Commissioner Sides asked for more information about how each group receiving funding is using it.
Chair Merrell noted that there was an action requested.
Chair Merrell moved the following:
1) Receive information on the County’s Opioid Settlement Plan,
2) Update the Pay and Classification plan to include a new job classification as follows:
•Opioid Settlement Program Coordinator / Strategy Analyst – Pay Grade M
Authorize the addition of one FTE (full-time equivalency) in the County Manager’s Office for the following job classification:
•1 Opioid Settlement Program Coordinator / Strategy Analyst
4) Adopt Budget Amendment #18
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed that his only concern with the requested action was the hiring of a new full-time employee. He said that was his reservation with the matter.He noted
that he was on the Board when decisions were made about where to allocate the money and that he understood why the funds were being used as proposed. However, he stated his concern was
that they were hiring someone to do something he believed could be handled in-house. He said he believed the County has a fully staffed management team.
He also suggested that responsibilities could be divided among multiple people rather than adding a full-time employee. He concluded that if the motion included hiring this position,
he would have to vote no.
Chair Merrell asked the County Manager if there were staff available who could divvy up the responsibilities to oversee this program. She asked about the amount that the County had
received.
Ms. Lancaster stated that Union County had received a little less than $4 million in total to date. She noted that the County would continue receiving funds annually until reaching the
$17 million total, which could increase if additional settlements are reached.
Chair Merrell clarified that the funds for the motion would not come from Union County taxpayer dollars. She said instead the position would be funded through the money the County receives
from the opioid settlement. She asked the County Manager whether there were current employees who could divide up the responsibilities to oversee the opioid settlement funds and whether
there was someone on staff who could manage the settlement.
Commissioner Sides asked if the County Manager could take it one step further by providing more specific functions for the position. He suggested that outlining the job responsibilities
as specifically as possible might help clarify whether the role justifies having a dedicated individual.
Assistant Manager Clayton Voignier stated that multiple jurisdictions handled this by adding a position specifically to oversee the opioid settlement program. He said they looked at
multiple counties and built the County’s job description based on the job descriptions that were obtained from those other counties.
He reviewed some of the duties for the position: develops, monitors, and reports on the opioid settlement program’s budget, expenditures, and compliance with state and federal guidelines;
monitors and reports on the impact of opioid settlement program initiatives to ensure alignment with community needs and goals; continuously audits and evaluates opioid settlement program
and other program metrics, outcomes, and recommends improvements based on data and stakeholder feedback; oversees contracts with opioid provider agencies to ensure proper use of funds
and evaluating program effectiveness; facilitates community engagement to encourage public education and support by answering questions, connecting individuals, and shares resources
and information regarding opioid funding; and coordinates the County’s opioid settlement work group, including scheduling meetings, developing agendas, and maintaining meeting summaries.
He noted that those are some of the specific job duties this individual will be doing and reiterated that they mirrored those from what other counties are doing.
Mr. Matthews emphasized that the initial request for Wingate University was to assist with data acquisition. He said it is not expected that those services will continue permanently.
He stated that ultimately, the County will own the entire program and will not continue to outsource those responsibilities over time.
Commissioner Sides asked if the funding for Wingate University would eventually go away.
Mr. Matthews stated that the County will not continue funding Wingate University. He said that money will come back into whatever is being funded in the program.
Commissioner Sides asked what specific skill sets are being sought in the individual to fill the new position. He inquired whether the ideal candidate should have an accounting background
or experience working with similar settlements.
Mr. Voignier explained that the ideal candidate would be someone who understands grants management even though the settlement is not technically a grant, it functions like one. He said
that person should have skills in reporting, connecting with the state, and understanding those systems. He further said the candidate also should have strengths in data analysis and
trend analysis. He noted this is why the position is a natural fit within the Strategy and Innovation group, since their analysts already perform similar work for internal departments.
Chair Merrell stated that a motion was on the floor and asked if there were any further questions from the Board.
Commissioner Baucom asked the salary for pay grade M.
Mr. Voignier responded that midpoint is about $91,000
Commissioner Baucom stated that the County receives $86,000 from the settlement in the first year.
Mr. Matthews explained that the County has received over $4 million to date, and the $86 million is being added to that total. He emphasized that the County is not behind and there is
more than enough to cover the program, with additional funds remaining.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if last year, Wingate University received over $500,000 to collect data.
Ms. Lancaster clarified all those programs are funded for three years.
Commissioner Christina Helms remarked that Wingate University has been paid over half a million dollars.
Ms. Lancaster clarified that the money wasnot only to collect data but also was to build the entire system from the ground up. She noted that there wasnot a system in place before, so
Wingate is both building the system and collecting the data.
Chair Merrell clarified that Union County is not funding the program. She explained that the County received these dollars through the opioid settlement due to its opioid problem. She
said the funding is to help remediate the consequences of adult behaviors by providing treatment for the adults and take care of the children while the adults are being helped.
Mr. Matthews explained that this type of work isnot typically handled by counties, so Union County is starting from scratch on howto put a program in place. He said the goal is to eventually
move away from relying on outside entities and bring the work in-house. He said the County will ultimately be responsible for reporting and managing all aspects of the program. He stated
that the County did not know how to start a program and that is why it is working with Wingate University and other partners.
Chair Merrell shared that the current situation reminds her of when Union County Public Schools received $27 million in grant funding. She said at that time, positions had to be created
to oversee the grant, and when that grant ended, that position ended as well. She explained that this past experience is why she asked earlier whether the current position would also
end when the funding ends.
Following the discussion, Chair Merrell called for a vote on the motion which failed by a vote of two to three as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsNay
Commissioner BaucomNay
Commissioner Christina HelmsNay
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Mr. Matthews said it should be kept in mind that the budget amendment is related to funds the County is receiving. He added that whether the Board approves the position or not, then
are at a minimum the budget amendment needs to be approved to receive those funds. He asked the Board to consider accepting the funds through the budget amendment.
Commissioner Sides suggested that the Commissioners who voted no consider recommending a motion they would feel comfortable supporting so the County can accept the funds, and any objections
they might have could be addressed through an alternative motion.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, asked Mr. Matthews if he was suggesting that the Board needs a motion to accept the funds.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was his understanding regarding the budget amendment.
Jason Kay acknowledged and confirmed that the discussion was about Budget Amendment 18.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct.
Vice Chair Brian Helms expressed that his main concern was the addition of the full-time employee but said he had no issue with adopting Budget Amendment 18. He moved to adoptBudget
Amendment 18.
Commissioner Sides asked if the motion to adopt the Budget Amendment also covers the allocation for the position in question.
Mr. Matthews explained that his understanding is the Board has already said no to the position and stated that this motion is to receive the funds. He added that the money will go into
the opioid program, and they will need to figure out how to manage it.
Mr. Kay asked if the Commissioners had a copy of Budget Amendment 18 available to read. He suggested they might want to review it and explained that the version he was referencing allocates
$86,677 and produces operating revenue of $86,677, all of which is connected to the position.
Mr. Matthews stated that if the budget amendment was specific to the position,then staff would bring back a different budget amendment.
Mr. Kay said that based on what the Manager needed they may want to tailor a budget amendment to that request.
Commissioner Sides asked from a mechanical standpoint, what happens if the budget amendment isnot adopted. He questioned if the money would just be sitting somewhere and if they would
not be able to fund the organizations until they have a new budget amendment.
Mr. Matthews explained that they already received a large amount of funding, and this was just additional funding and because of that it would not hold anything up.
Commissioner Sides asked if the distribution was already in place and if the funding was already going out.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct.
Vice Chair Brain W. Helms stated, for the record, he would rescind his motion.
24-823South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center Update
Chair Merrell recognized Michelle Lancaster, Consultant, to provide the Board with an update on this item.
Ms. Lancaster stated that she was not requesting any action at this time. She explained that her purpose was to provide information about a significant project for the County, the South
Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center, or SPRAC.
She offered background information regarding the regional autopsy center by saying the State has provided funding for a capital expenditure for a new regional autopsy center in Union
County, along with some operational funds. Ms. Lancaster described medical examiner services in North Carolina as incredibly complex and a pretty complicated operation.
She added that the State has a Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Michelle Aurelus, who works within the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health. She said there
are also other locations across the state thatprovide assistance to the state in ensuring medical examiner services are carried out throughout the state.
Ms. Lancaster shared that she was very familiar with the Mecklenburg office, having worked there before coming to Union County. She explained that, for a period in her career, overseeing
that function was part of her responsibilities. She said for approximately 20 years, the Mecklenburg office served as a regional facility through a contract with the state, providing
regional autopsy services including to Union County until 2023. She noted that, along with Union, the Mecklenburg office also served Anson and Cabarrus Counties, as well as Gaston and
Cleveland Counties, which still receive services from Mecklenburg.
Ms. Lancaster explained that not all deaths in the state result in an autopsy. She stated that suspicious deaths, especially those involving children, require autopsies. She also noted
that investigations sometimes occur to determine which bodies need autopsies, even with the new regional center in place.
She stated that in 2022, when Mecklenburg made the decision to cut Anson, Union, and Cabarrus, she was still working with the County. At that time, there were a few things they found
out about the situation that were problematic from the County’s perspective. She said that the change was not known until about three weeks before it was going to occur. She said the
move meant that bodies to be autopsied for Union, Anson, and Cabarrus would be relocated to Raleigh for that function.
She said that when they learned about this, they expressed their concerns, specifically for law enforcement. She stated that while they are not the majority of cases, many of the autopsies
are for law enforcement. She said many times, detectives or officers want to witness the autopsy as it is happening so moving from Mecklenburg County to Raleigh and they knew that scheduling
the autopsies for the right time was going to be a problem.
Ms. Lancaster said they knew the State had a waiting list for autopsies and had problems in the past and continue to have hiring issues for forensic pathologists. She stated that timeliness
was a concern, not just for law enforcement, but also for community members who might have a death that needs an autopsy.
Ms. Lancaster explained that after reaching out to the State, they did not get much of a response. She said the only reply they really received was that bodies would now be taken to
Raleigh. She stated that staff asked the Board to include a legislative item in that year’s legislative agenda from the delegation to support a regional or local solution to the problem.
Ms. Lancaster said she believed the delegation was very supportive, although not very promising. She thought they saw it as a pretty big mountain to climb because the medical examiner
system in North Carolina is pretty entrenched. She stated the Board made a request and the law enforcement partners helped plead the case. She said the County was successful and
received $20 million in capital funding from the state to build a facility, along with $2 million in recurring operational funds.
Ms. Lancaster said that the original ask was to take care of Union, Anson, and Cabarrus, since those were the three counties immediately impacted, but the request was tweaked. She stated
what came out of the request was the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center, which now includes nine counties: Union, Anson, Cabarrus, Montgomery, Rowan, Stanly, Moore, Richmond, and
Gaston.
Ms. Lancaster explained that the State had interpreted the original language in the legislation to mean the facility would not open until the facility was ready to serve all nine counties.
Ms. Lancaster said they believed that doing a phased approach made sense and that they could potentially find a short-term solution before the long-term facility was built. She stated
they began working on that and got support to give that flexibility. She said the dates were estimates, as shown below, that the County provided, but there is also language that gives
flexibility if the facility is not ready to take those counties on those dates provided.
Ms. Lancaster stated that on Tuesday, December 17, at 5:00 p.m., they will be able to start taking Union County autopsies. She explained that the current fee for an autopsy is $5,800,
the county of residence pays $3,625 and the state pays the remaining $2,175 to the place that does the autopsies.
She described the temporary location they found at Union County Atrium at the Monroe facility. She said the hospital has a morgue that hasnot been used for many years except for body
storage, but it is in good condition for their needs. She stated that a forensic pathologist who is ready to begin work has been identified.
She also thanked the hospital staff, specifically Denise White and Michael Jordan, for their commitment to finding a short-term solution, which they expect to use for a few years and
partner with them for something that is important to the community.
Ms. Lancaster said the death data she was able to get has a lag, which is why it is from 2022, but it still gives an idea of the magnitude of cases. She stated that for Union County,
while there were about 1,800 deaths in 2022, only around 70 of those were autopsies—so roughly one every couple of weeks.She said they are ready to get this operation up and started
and really learn from those cases with the physician, Dr. Privette.
Ms. Lancaster said one of the issues they were concerned about with Raleigh was that forensic pathologists are incredibly difficult to find and recruit. She said they are fortunate to
have Dr. Privette, who currently lives in Charlotte and works in Mecklenburg County. He actually grew up in Union County, has done work for the state office and at ECU’s (East Carolina
University) facility, and is really excited about the opportunity to build this facility and work with Union County, and building a regional presence that is unique compared to the rest
of the state.
Ms. Lancaster said the funding model is unique, reflecting both what the State is providing and the nine-county region that has come together as prescribed by law. She stated that Dr.
Privette is a forensic pathologist with extensive experience.
Ms. Lancaster explained that they willbegin taking Union County cases and believe they have a good process and everyone has been informed. She said the chief medical examiner and forensic
pathologists handle the autopsy work, but every county has local medical examiners appointed by the state. She stated those include nurses, nurse practitioners, dentists, and EMTs.
She said they are very fortunate because many of the local medical examiners have been doing this for a long time, and they know Union County well and are excited and ready to get started.
Ms. Lancaster said that over the next year, they will be starting Union County cases, then working with Anson and Cabarrus counties. She stated they will be reaching out to their law
enforcement, body transport providers, and local medical examiners. She noted they do not have all those relationships yet but will begin building them, learning how each county currently
operates, and how to replicate that as close as possible to fit with what they believe will work with the Regional Center.
Ms. Lancaster said she thought the long-term location willbe on 74 by the sheriff’s office. She added there is a lot of required reporting. Since this is still a state function, and
everything they do operates under the jurisdiction of the chief medical examiner, they have to make sure they are meeting those reporting requirements for all the work they are doing
in that space.
Chair Merrell asked if Dr. Privette was present.
Ms. Lancaster noted that Dr. Privette was not present at the meeting but assured that they would arrange for him to be brought in at a later time since he was unable to attend today’s
meeting.
Chair Merrell added that Union County previously had a contract with a local funeral home to transport and store bodies for autopsies of Union County residents. She stated that someone
from that funeral home would go to Mecklenburg and take care of the bodies, but then they were asked to transport the bodies three hours to Raleigh, which affected local business.
Ms. Lancaster said that Holland Funeral Service in Monroe has a facility that is across from the hospital, and he provides storage and transportation of the bodies. She stated that while
they partner with other funeral homes as well, Holland does the majority of that work and has really been committed to it. She added that the money the funeral serviceis paid is prescribed
by statute and is not a large sum.
Chair Merrell thanked Sheriff Cathy, Chief Deputy Tony Underhill, Ms. Lancaster, and staff. She said that when they went to the state representatives about an autopsy center, they did
notreceive hopeful information. She stated that because Ms. Lancaster had contacts in Mecklenburg County and knew Dr. Privette whose expertise and licenses were exactly what was needed
to make this work in Union County. She expressed that she was glad they were able to accomplish it in two years instead of five or ten years.
Commissioner Sides asked, based on the timeline, would they be able to handle any counties beyond Union at the existing Atrium facility.
Ms. Lancaster said Dr. Privette believes they can handle autopsies for other counties at the Atrium facility. She explained they want to focus on the Union County cases first, because
the volume data has some age on it and they want to make sure they are not getting in over their heads. She mentioned that as of last week, they expect to start taking cases from Anson
and Cabarrus Counties soon.
Ms. Lancaster said Gaston is the outlier for a couple of reasons. She stated the number of cases that Gaston County has is huge. She stated that Gaston County is continuing to receive
services at Mecklenburg, which is currentlya more convenient location. She said they have been intentional and have let the Gaston County Manager’s office know a couple of times while
working through this process that Gaston County would be expected to come on board when the new facility is open. reasons.
Commissioner Sides asked Ms. Lancaster if she could give the Board an update on the status of the new facility and the timeline for its completion and activation.
Mr. Voignier explained that currently both the design and the construction manager at-risk contracts or scopes are out to bid. He noted that submissions are due in January, and they
expect to make selections sometime in February. He indicated the timeline is roughly a year or so for design and a couple of years for construction.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked for clarification on whether the required reporting mentioned refers to medical reporting to the state.
Ms. Lancaster explained that Dr. Privette will have certain reports that are required for each autopsy. She saidthere will be monthly, quarterly, and annual reporting requirements.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if there is a possibility that Mecklenburg cannot handle the caseload from Gaston County and there could be some spillover from Gaston County.
Ms. Lancaster said Gaston is part of the nine-county region and eventually will be part of the Regional Center. She added that Gaston County requested to be part of the regional center.
She also mentioned that Mecklenburg is aware of this request.
Ms. Lancaster said that Mecklenburg County’s chief medical examiner has shared with her that at some point Mecklenburg County alone will have a case number that is all its center can
handle. She explained that while Mecklenburg could serve this regional field for some period of time, eventually other counties such as Cleveland and Gaston are probably going to receive
the same notification that Mecklenburg County cannot accommodate the caseload.
Ms. Lancaster said in conversations with State DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services), she has tried to impress on it isthat the desire is for the whole system to function well.
She said whatever the Regional Center does to help the entire system function,it wants to articulate that and help the community be better. She said this is only good for the community;
it is not about doing something different in Union County to be unique. She said maybe the state can learn some lessons from what Union County is doing, and she thinks the State is becoming
more open to that idea.
She added that over the next year, it is expected to bring a staff person on board for the Regional Center. She noted the business manager position has been approved and will work alongside
her during her transition. She said additional staff will be built out over time.
Ms. Lancaster said Dr. Privette will start as a contractor but plans to join full-time depending on caseloads. She said the Board will be providedwith regular updates.She said the Regional
Center will be ready to take cases soon, but she does not expect cases every day. She stated she plans to send an update within a month and then provide another update after three months
to review volume and any unanticipated issues.
24-826Legislative and State Budget Updates
Chair Merrell recognized Michelle Lancaster, Consultant, to provide an update to the Board on this item.
Ms. Lancaster stated she would provide a brief overview of the most recent legislative session and turn over the presentation to Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, to discuss the
County’s plan for the long session beginning in January. She noted that this is another area she will not continue to workon in the coming year, as County staff will take on more of
that role. She reminded the Board that the County has a state lobbyist, Daniel Baum, whois the County’s lobbyist in Raleigh and has done that work for many years.
Ms. Lancaster explained that the County has typically had guiding principles in place during legislative sessions, and these are the two guiding principles the County follows: to support
legislative efforts that protect or enhance local government revenues or increase local funding flexibility, and to oppose any unfunded mandates and any initiatives that fail to fully
fund services shifted to the County. She said there are reasons behind these guiding principles. She stated some of it is to have general messaging to share with the delegation members,
but also to give staff and Mr. Baum some guidance when matters come up as the session moves along. She noted that sometimes quick decisions have to be made on whether to support or not
support an item, so they wanted to have some guidelines for those matters. She added that they have always brought items to the Board for input and guidance if they thought those items
were sensitive, and she expectsthat will continue.
Ms. Lancaster provided a recap of the recent legislative session, saying it was a short session that wasnot so short,”which began in April and ended the previous Friday, making it a
rather long session. She said there was not a lot of activitythat local governments have typically come to expect. She reviewed the priority items for the County, acknowledging there
was a longer list of issues the County supported or was interested in but focused her summary on the key priorities.
She noted that among the priorities were EMS base funding and flexibility for the regional Medical Examiner’s office, which she had mentioned in a previous presentation and said they
successfully secured. She highlighted that the General Assembly acted quickly early in the session, including the delegation’s support in passing a technical corrections bill to address
this item.
Ms. Lancaster said the third priority was seeking additional clarifying language for budget language from 2022 regarding $8 million the County had been provided for land acquisition,
design, permitting, and construction. She said they sought clarifying language, which was included in the hurricane bill, which ended up containing a lot of things, but they did get
the language which was requested.
She said last two items that were priority were seeking and supporting state funding to allow continuation of UCPS daily, in-school tutoring program. She stated the other item was seeking
legislation that would allow Union County Water to sell water from the Yadkin Regional Water Project to the City of Monroe and others. She stated these two items were not successful.
Ms. Lancaster said there was limited budget action, and no individual projects were allowed to be part of the budget. She added that no capital projects were allowed in this form of
the budget either.
She referred to opportunity scholarships and the funding that was included in the budget. She said she found the most recent data, updated December 2, showing that in Union County, 1,052
students are receiving opportunity scholarships, totaling a little more than $3.5 million from that fund. She noted there has been a lot of conversation about it, both around the region
and across the state.
Ms. Lancaster addressed some of the other items such as a tax notification provision. She explained that the County gave a lot of feedback on this item. She stated it would have required
the tax collector to physically put notifications on properties owned by delinquent taxpayers. She said staff worked with the State Association, but it was put into law. However, it
was reversed last week as part of the hurricane bill.
She added that the mini budget adopted late in the session had no member projects and no capital projects. She stated It did include funding for additional students in public schools
and community colleges, which she said the County supports and considers important. Ms. Lancaster noted that the election and the hurricane consumed much of the energy and focus in Raleigh
during the end of the session.
She shared that the long session will start in January for organizational meetings on January 8. She said legislators will be there for the day, then break and return later in January,
with work expected to begin around January 25. She pointed out thatUnion County has members of the delegation who are in leadership, including Representative Dean Arp, who has been one
of the budget drafter for some time and is expected to continue in that role, and Senator Todd Johnson, who was elected Majority Whip in the Senate. She said this is great for Union
County. She recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, for the remainder of the presentation.
Mr. Niland stated that the goal for the evening was to seek consensus on the County’s 2025 legislative priorities. He explained that some of the priorities presented came from staff,
Board members, and others were carryovers from previous sessions. He said he would review those priorities quickly but invited Board members to ask questions or request more detail as
needed:
Mr. Niland explained the requested appropriate funding for placements and treatment options required by EPSDT, the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment program. He
said essentially the request is for the State to provide adequate funding for in-treatment facilities around the state, highlighting the extreme shortage of mental health and in-treatment
options for youth. He emphasized that they are pushing the State to provide adequate funding.
He addressed supporting the North Carolina Farmland Military Protection Act, noting that the Board took action on this at the December 2 meeting. He explained this legislation is intended
to prevent foreign governments from buying land in and around military bases and certain other facilities.
Mr. Niland said one of the priorities is to seek legislation that allows for consistent application of the Homestead Exemption Act. He explained that the homestead exemption provides
tax relief for aging seniors at a certain income level and is applied equally across the state. He compared the median household income in Union County versus Anson County as stated
that the incomes are drastically different. He said this request would encourage flexibility for additional tax relief in higher-income, high-growth counties like Union, helping seniors
stay in their homes longer with a reduced tax bill.
He said another priority would seek to repeal provisions of Senate Bill 382 that restrict the County’s downzoning options and another priority is seeking to restore allocated funds to
the North Carolina Scrap Tire Program in an amount sufficient to cover all disposal costs. He explained that the County receives some reimbursement now, but it does not cover the total
cost. As an alternative, he said the County would ask to eliminate the provision that requires the County landfill to accept scrap tires. He noted that the landfill is currently required
to accept tires, but if that requirement were removed, the County would no longer have to accept certain scrap tires.
Mr. Niland said the next item is shown as a requested item but is actually a carryover, to allow local governments to prioritize wastewater capacity based on commercial and industrial
as opposed to residential. He noted that there was not much traction on this request last year, but it remains a priority the Board had shown interest in continuing to pursue.
He spoke about long-term concerns with wastewater alternatives. He explained that if public sewer isnot available in a certain area, individuals can install certain types of septic systems
that are self-permitted and never come before Environmental Health or Building Code. He added there are newer technologies out there that bypass local review altogether, and the County
would ask for local input on some of the decisions being made in Raleigh.
Mr. Niland stated that an increase in state funding for senior nutrition is requested. He said the Board would hear more about senior nutrition needs in Union County later in tonight’s
meeting and reminded that this had been a Board priority in the past.
He said there was a carryover item that seeks to establish drag queen performances as adult entertainment at adult establishments.
Mr. Niland said they are seeking and supporting state funding to allow continuation of the UCPS daily in-school tutoring program. He noted that Ms. Lancaster had mentioned this earlier
and that they asked for it last year but did not get much traction. He said it is a program the schools want to continue funding. He said it has been proven successful, and the County
will ask for funding to continue.
Mr. Niland said another carryover item is to request support for state funding for treatment courts. He explained that Union County currently funds its treatment courts using some of
the opioid settlement money. He noted that treatment courts were previously funded by the State but that support was taken away at some point based on the success seen with treatment
courts.
Mr. Niland said other carryover items are seeking funding for Union County jail construction as well as funding for EMS base stations. He noted that in January the Board would receive
a presentation from EMS Director David Hyatt about the base staging plan He said there are about six base stations being proposed for the rural parts of the County, and this funding
would help support some of those stations.
Mr. Niland presented the current legislative list, noting the session starts late January and items can be added throughout the session, and as items come up staff will inform the Board.
He requested that the Board approve the list as the current legislative agenda working agenda saying it can be amended moving forward.
Commissioner Gary Sides asked staff’s thoughts on adding another Superior Court Judge. He asked if there was courtroom space available that could be utilized for an additional Superior
Court Judge.
Mr. Niland said they can reach out to the courts to ask about the spaceneeds, whether it is for a district court judge or a superior court judge.
Commissioner Sides said he is more concerned about the Superior Court Judge because the longer trials take due to a heavy caseload, the longer people who are innocent until proven guilty
stay in jail, especially violent criminals. He said he is not an expert on the bottleneck and isnot trying to throw anyone under the bus, but since all areas under that jurisdiction
are growing, he thinks it might be time for another judge to help clear some of the cases.
He suggested that District Attorney Trey Robinson could be a good reference to ask, along with the Chief Superior Court Judge Erin Hucks, to find out their thoughts.
Commissioner Sides asked if staff was seeking a motion to move forward with the matter.
Mr. Niland confirmed that a motion to adopt the 2025 legislative priority list is needed.
Commissioner Sides moved to adopt the 2025 Legislative Priorities as presented with the inclusion of a superior court judge.
The motion passed by unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
24-850Senior Nutrition Home Delivery Waitlist
Chair Merrellrecognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, to present this item.
Mr. Niland explained this item came as a request from Commissioner Sides at the last meeting, and the Board would be presented options tonight on how to eliminate the current waiting
list for senior nutrition. He said the presentation would include background from the past few years and an overview of the criteria used to qualify people. He said that during COVID,
a lot of money came from state and federal to address these needs, but much of that funding has gone away, and they have seen the effects of that decline. He said Janet Payne would
provide details in her presentation. He expressed appreciation to Stephanie Starr, Director of Community Support and Outreach, as well as Andrew Friend, Executive Director of Council
on Aging, for attending tonight’s meeting. He recognized Ms. Payne for her presentation.
Ms. Payne thanked Commissioner Sides for his inquiry into the program and said she was excited to share information with the Board.
Ms. Payne said there were four main components she wanted to share with the Board. She statedshe would provide an overview of the program services, followed by a summary of the eligibility
and intake process for clients. She stated shealso would present participation data and two options with estimated costs to address the goals Commissioner Sides had asked staff to review
specifically, eliminating the waiting list of 586 people and adding weekend meals for home-delivered clients.
Ms. Payne sharedthat the goal of the senior nutrition program is to help senior adults maintain or improve their physical, social, emotional, and mental health, and to be able to live
independently in their homes as long as possible. She said that goal is achieved through two components:providing nutritious in-person meals in a congregate dining setting, and providing
home-delivered meals for homebound residents. She added that the program ultimately offers more than a meal because it includes opportunities for social interaction and education, which
are extremely important for the senior adult population.
Ms. Payne said the meals are provided currently Monday through Friday. She explained that in order to be eligible for federal and state funding, the program has to meet two guidelines:
each meal must provide at least 700 calories and one-third of the daily recommended dietary allowances.
Ms. Payne saidsenior nutrition services offer more than just a meal. She explained that the program provides opportunities for social interaction, even if it is just a brief conversation
when a homebound client receives their meal, whether that delivery comes from a volunteer, one of the frozen meal vendors, or Union County transportation staff.
Ms. Payne said the interaction also includes educational opportunities and activities in the congregate setting, which are more robust and in-depth. She said both components are valuable
to the seniors they serve. She emphasized that engagement in this space helps reduce the impacts of loneliness and isolation, which are often factors in the lives of older adults, and
contributes positively to their mental health and overall well-being.
The next component that Ms. Payne discussed was service delivery. She said these services are provided by County employees along with an amazing group of volunteers. She expressed appreciation
to Ed Greene for attending tonight’s meeting and for his participation in leading that volunteer effort. She explained that each day, the part-time site managers coordinate the packing
of warm meals at one of four congregate meal sites, both for on-site dining and for homebound delivery. Ms. Payne shared that they also serve the meals and lead interactive opportunities
at these sites, which include Indian Trail United Methodist, Mineral Springs United Methodist, the Bazemore Active Adult Center in Monroe, and Wingate Baptist Church. She said they are
very appreciative of each of these partners, as their support helps to provide better service to the residents.
Ms. Payne explained that home-delivered meals are provided in two ways. She stated that warm meals are delivered on 29 routes each month by about 220 volunteers. She said warm meal recipients
must live near a meal site to ensure meals can be delivered safely within an appropriate timeframein order to meet health regulations. She added that frozen meals are delivered to recipients
who live outside the warm meal area, and those meals are provided byTrio, a vendor, as well as by Union County Transportation staff using a County pool vehicle.
Ms. Payne explained that the funding for Union County Transportation deliveries has been enabled through one-time COVID pandemic funding, which will be ending. She stated moving forward
the deliveries will transition to using only Trio,since the Countywill not have additional non-county funds to supplement it after this year. She added that Union County Transportation
will continue to support the senior nutrition program and noted that approximately 50 percent of participants at the congregate sites use Union County Transportation to travel from their
homes to the meal sites.
Ms. Payne shared that there are two foundational components for eligibility for the program: an individual must be a Union County resident and over the age of 60. She said that for
homebound participants, there are four additional criteria:1) must be physically or mentally unable to obtain food or prepare meals; 2) no responsible person available to assist daily;2)
must be physically or mentally unable to participate at a congregate nutrition site; and 4) must be unable to leave their home at will, preventing them from getting to the meal site
daily.
Ms. Payne explained that all participants were transitioned to receiving home-delivered meals during the pandemic. She said that once someone becomes a client, assessments are completed
for all participants: congregate participants are assessed once a year, while homebound participants are assessed twice a year, with one of those assessments required to be done in the
client’s home.
Ms. Payne provided an overview of the intake and screening process. She explained that after receiving a referral, County staff meets with the client to verify the individual meets the
minimum requirements for the program of being a County resident and over age 60. She said the applicants are asked the seven questions which are listed below.
She pointed out that although the question of whether the applicant is able to leave home at will is listed as number six on the official screening from the Area Agency on Aging, that
is actually the first question. She said if the client can leave home at will, they are not added to the home-delivered waiting list; instead, they are provided information about congregate
meal site services, Union County Transportation, and the opportunity to participate at the congregate sites.
Ms. Payne explained that if a client is unable to leave their home at will, the remaining six screening questions are asked during the initial screening. She said they prioritize clients
based on their responses and need. She stated when a slot opens on a home-delivered meal route, staff reviews a map of clients in the service area and moves only those who are eligible
within the hot meal route area from the waiting list to active service. She said that clients are sorted by their assigned priority level, from one being the highest to four, and also
by how long they have been on the waiting list. She stated that staff contacts the client to schedule a home visit and completes the required state forms, including the DOS 101, which
takes about 10 to 20 minutes per client.
Ms. Payne gave an overview of service volume, noting that in 2025, an average of 100 seniors per day were served in the congregate setting and 226 per day on home-delivered meal routes.
She explained that through the self-reported screening allowed during intake, 85 percent of congregate clients and 76 percent of home-delivered clients reported being at or below the
poverty level. She said 73 percent of congregate clients and 60 percent of home-delivered clients indicated they live alone.
Ms. Payne said they do not cap the number of congregate participants,due to the goal of enabling socialization and in-person socialization is much more effective. She noted that participation
at congregate sites this year is getting closer to pre-COVID levels. She said that before COVID, the average number of clients served per month was 1,300 and over 16,000 congregate meals
were served annually. She stated this year it is on track to serve 15,072 meals, which isapproximately 1,256 per month.
Ms. Payne said the increase is likely due to a couple of reasons, one of which is the move last year to the Monroe Bazemore Senior Center, which provides additional opportunities and
easier access for residents in that area. She also noted an increased need for socialization, with seniors reporting loneliness and a want to re-engage. She said they anticipate more
congregate participants following the move from Marshville to Wingate.
Ms. Payne said that the number of home-delivered meals have been steadily decreasingand that is not because of a reduction in demand but rather to rising food and labor prices and limited
funding. She noted that there has been a recent drop in COVID pandemic funds, and the increase in the wait list.
Ms. Payne shared a slide depicting the home-delivered meals waiting list. She stated that as of the end of November, 586 residents had requested to participate and completed the initial-intake
screening process and the seven questions.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification that 586 people are on the waiting list who have been vetted.
Ms. Payne responded yes, through the initial seven (7) question vetting process.She explained that those on the list have completed the first step of approval. She said when a slot opens,
they must complete the full 101 form to verify their answers are the same as they were at the time of the initial seven-question screening process. She confirmed that understanding was
correct.
Ms. Payne stated that since January 2023, there have been an average of 35 referrals a month for people asking for service. Ms. Payne said that out of that number, about 10 are screened
out and around 25 are substantiated and added to the waiting list. She said unless something changes, such as the person no longer lives in their home or there is another situation,
they would very likely remain eligible.
Ms. Payne said staff was asked to address the projected annual increase, and this is a guesstimate based on current intake. She said that Andrew Friend mentioned in a presentation a
couple of meetings ago, that the 60-plus population in both North Carolina and Union County is increasing and has been increasing at a rate of more than 5 percent per year since 2000.
She said that seniors currently make up about 20 percent of the population and that number is expected to rise to 26 percent by 2040.
Ms. Payne said that maintaining nutrition enhances an individual’s physical well-being. She explained that if people can stay in their homes rather than spending time in a hospital or
nursing home, not only is their quality of life better, but the total cost is much lower. She shared that based on Meals on Wheels data, the annual cost for a meal recipient is about
$2,765 for 250 days of service. She said that Union County currently serves meals 260 days out of the year, and the County’s cost is about $1,400 for warm meals and $1,900 for frozen
meals.
Ms. Payneprovided operational scenarios for the Board to consider in addressing the 586 people currently on the home-delivered meals waiting
List and also to enable continued service of the congregate residents which that number is anticipated to increase slightly.
Ms. Payne said that in both scenarios, additional County staff would be needed to support the administrative work required to manage the increased number of clients, including completing
intake and mandatory annual assessments. She explained the main difference between the two options is that option one adds all remaining clients to the frozen meal program with delivery
by their contractor. Option two also adds all remaining clients to the frozen meal program but expands County staff positions and requires purchasing storage equipment and refrigerated
delivery vehicles so staff can deliver frozen meals themselves, rather than relying on an outside vendor. She noted there is some uncertainty with option one about whether the vendor
may have capacity to cover all additional frozen meal recipients but said both options are good.
Ms. Payne presented the final slide for consideration, showing the cost to serve current County residents and those on the waiting list.
She said that in FY23, total expenses were $895,000, and in FY24, expenses were $875,000 due to a reduction in service from the limited availability of one-time funding. She noted that
the one-time funding was expended as of the end of November. She said FY25 costs are estimated at $955,000, which includes a 34 percent increase in food expenses and about a 3 percent
increase in staff expenses. She added that they have been serving fewer homebound clients each year. Ms. Payne stated that in FY23 they served 445verses 336 inFY24. To manage fiscal
resources this year, they are removing clients who no longer qualify for the homebound program and not filling spots when seniors leave the program, trying to manage and balance the
budget. She said they believe they will be able to do that based on the current trajectory.
Ms. Payne said that this year, 289 unique seniors have been served through the Homebound Program. For FY26, she said they are presenting three scenarios. The first one, she explained,
is mainly for referenceit is not the option Commissioner Sides had specifically requested, but she wanted to include it. She stated that it represents maintaining current clients, due
to the loss of one-time funding, there would be approximately a $100,000 deficit in revenue to cover expenses.
She explained that option one, which would eliminate the waitlist and add weekend meals by providing frozen meals through a vendor, is estimated to cost just over $2.5 million, representing
a deficit of approximately $1,560,000.
She said option two also eliminates the wait list and adds weekend meals for home-delivered clients, with frozen meals delivered by new County staff using County equipment. She estimated
the cost at $2.8 million, representing a deficit of $1,846,000. Option two does include a one-time cost of $190,000 for purchasing a refrigerated storage unit and two delivery vehicles,
so the ongoing operational need would be around $1,656,000. She emphasized that these are estimates based on the research completed since the request and could fluctuate due to inflation
and other costs.
Mr. Niland asked Ms. Payne to return to the previous slide. He asked for more detail on option one, specifically about adding staff. He inquired about the current staffing roles, and
why there is a need to add an additional 1.5 FTE.
Ms. Payne explained that currently there is a program manager who works with Stephane Starr. She stated that this program manager oversees both the senior nutrition program and the
WIC program, which stands for Women, Infants, and Children a nutrition program aimed at children and their mothers. She added that there is also a full-time senior coordinator responsible
for meal planning and managing staffing and related tasks.
She said they have a social worker who engages with all existing clients and also engages with volunteers to coordinate meal deliveries and all of those components. Ms. Payne stated
they have four benefited part-time site managers, one for each site, and two part-time site managers who are solely admin related.
She explained that the two operational scenarios would be adding a full-time social worker and transitioning the part-time admin to a full-time admin. She noted that Option two also
adds one and a half drivers FTE.
She explained that the work those people would be doing is simply managing the 586 additional clients, including two assessments a year for each, along with any other ongoing activity
that has to be completed.
Mr. Niland asked Ms. Payne if the assessments they conduct each year are required in order to receive some of the funding provided through both state and federal programs.
Ms. Payne confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Niland said if, for example, they wanted to eliminate some of those requirements, they would lose additional funding, and some of those, which would be additional funding, the County
would have to cover. He said he just wanted everyone to understand that even if they had the funding today to handle the meals, it would take over a year to get through the waitlist
with current staffing to do the assessments.
Commissioner Sides asked what is the item add NSIP Revenue?
Ms. Payne explained that for every meal they provide that meets the calorie and nutritional requirements, the USDA provides 80 cents per meal. She explained that this revenue would increase
even if they kept their current projected clients because when they receive federal revenue like the one-time COVID funding, that isnot ongoing revenue such as the Home and Community
Care Block Grant Older Americans Act funding. She added that those meals are not eligible for that NSIP reimbursement.
Mr. Niland said there is nothing requiring action tonight. He acknowledged that Commissioner Sides requested this and noted the numbers are quite large. He said currently there is no
funding for this outside one-time fund balance, which is one-time money. He added the County would not be able to continue the program beyond the current fiscal year unless there is
a change in revenue to the program.
Commissioner Sides clarified that one of his questions was for the remainder of the current fiscal year, what would it take to start implementing Option 1 beginning in January for the
rest of the current fiscal year. He acknowledged the waitlist could not be eliminated overnightbut wanted to know the anticipated cost for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Ms. Payne apologized for not having a specific number available. She explained that, as Mr. Niland had mentioned earlier, they would need the staffing in place to begin completing assessments
and removing people from the waitlist. She said she was unsure of the monthly number but promised to provide that information the next day. She said they could start incrementally adding
clients off the waitlist each month, likely beginning in February if they were to hire people, and from that point, the only added cost would be for the meals.
Commissioner Sides said he did not want to wait until February.
County Manager Brian Matthews explained that the issue is they cannot add people to the program without first completing the evaluation process.
Commissioner Sides said they can start and that is the number he wants. He asked about beginning January 1st with what they have for the remainder of the fiscal year. He said unless
someone preferred Option 2, he asked if it would be fair to take the $1.5 million deficit and cut it in half for the remainder of the fiscal year just for sake of ease.
Mr. Matthews said he wanted to make sure he understood the question, clarifying that there are 586 people on the waiting list who would not start receiving meals.
Commissioner Sides confirmed that the 586 individuals on the waitlist have had an initial vetting, but they still need to complete the final vetting before meals can be delivered.
Mr. Matthews said that going through the process for the 586 people would probably take a couple of months, which is why Ms. Payne said February to be able to go through those 586 and
get them available.
Commissioner Sides said they would start the final vetting, and as individuals are vetted, they would begin receiving meals.
Mr. Matthews agreed.
Commissioner Sides said he understood they will not be able to get through the list with the current staff and that there is a timeline for adding staff. He asked if they started today
with the current staff, how many people could be vetted and how quickly meals could start. He also asked what funding would be needed through the remainder of the current fiscal year.
He said Option 1 or 2 for fiscal year 26 is a budget discussion for next year, buthe is focused on what can be done now.
Ms. Payne asked if she could bring that information to Commissioner Sides at the Board’s next meeting.
Mr. Niland said the worst case scenario would be to clear about half of the people off the waiting list, explaining that they might be able to clear 10 to 15 people from the waitlist
every week. He pointed out as those people are added, they also have to be included in the twice-a-year evaluations.
Commissioner Sides said it is going to take time, but if they can serve 10 people the week of January 1st, that is 10 more people receiving meals.
Ms. Payne suggested that the warm meal routes could be adjusted that are currently being handled by volunteer staff. She said if they increased the number of warm meal homes included
on the routes to around 10 to 12, that is an amount that could reasonably be delivered within a timeframe that keeps meals at the right temperature that is something they could do. She
said they would still need to complete the assessments but would probably recommend starting with that process.
Commissioner Sides said they might not have a final number to finish the fiscal year, but he wants to know what it will take to get started tonight.
Commissioner Sides asked for a number reflecting the first quarter of 2025.
Mr. Matthews said the minimum cost would be half a million dollars.
Chair Merrell commented that obviously this is a crisis. She reminded that at the last meeting the Board requested that Michelle Lancasterto include the need for senior nutrition in
the legislative update to state legislators to make them aware that Union County is number two in the state for the fastest-growing population needing senior nutrition.
She agreed with Commissioner Sides completely, saying they needed to get started immediately. She emphasized the importance of getting state legislators on board to understand their
helpis needed to secure funds for this growing aging population needing meals. She said the legislators can advocate for state dollars and grant money to help get started as soon as
possible.
Chair Merrell said they have put this on the legislative agenda. She noted that staff hears that the Board recognizes the population of Union County citizens who helped make the county
now need support. She agreed with Commissioner Sides that they need to work with staff and with Andrew Friend, Executive Director for the Council on Aging, to determine what can be done
to get started.
She said they need to allow staff time to determine what can be done right away and how much funding is required to move people off the waitlist. She said they need that information
back and to give the county manager and staff the opportunity to determine how to start moving forward as soon as possible. She added that without giving staff that chance, she doesnot
know that anything can be done tonight.
Commissioner Sides said they would find out quickly. He noted the presentation was made back in October and clarified he was not blaming anyone. He added that the numbers have increased
since that time. He asked Mr. Matthews for the approximate county budget for this fiscal year.
Mr. Matthews responded that it is over $500 million.
Commissioner Sides asked if there are available funds in the fund balance for $500,000.
Mr. Matthews responded that amount was available.
Commissioner Sides said feeding seniors is a basic service to keep citizens safe. He said he cannot wait for more information and moved to appropriate $500,000 from the fund balance
to begin working on the waitlist immediately.
Chair Merrell inquired of Ms. Payne and Mr. Matthews whether meals could be distributed as early as the next day if the motion passed.
County Manager Mr. Matthews responded that they would not be able to begin distribution immediately. He noted that while home meal clients might be reached more quickly, in general,
it would take at least 30 days to begin serving new clients.
Chair Merrell then asked if the necessary staff isavailable to begin addressing these needs.
Mr. Niland responded that staffing capacity does exist, but the extent is uncertain. While additional individuals can be moved off the waiting list, the current staffing level will not
be the full 586. He said staff can begin working through the list but only up to the capacity of the available personnel to verify both new recipients and existing clients.
Ms. Payne stated that in the short term if the motion were to pass without including the requested staffing adjustments in terms of changing the administrative position from part-time
to full-time she would consult with the manager. She said she thought the best option would be in order to take action as quickly as possible, wouldbe to work with a contract agency
short termto bring in contract staff that would help ramp up efforts. However, she emphasized that this would only serve as a short-term solution.
Mr. Matthews expressed appreciation for the point raised and stated that he would not support moving forward with hiring employees without a commitment to the program being long-term.
He noted that utilizing contract staff while the long-term direction is determined could be an option but emphasized that hiring full-time staff should not occur without that commitment.
Commissioner Sides sought clarification on the process, summarizing that final vetting must occur before anybody receives a meal. He noted that if funds were appropriated this evening,
it could be expedited or continue the vetting process. He inquired how quickly after someone is vetted, they could begin receiving meals.
Ms. Payne said it comes down to whether there is funding for the food—if so, they just need to order the extra meals and add them either to the warm meal route or to the vendor’s frozen
meal program.
Commissioner Baucom acknowledged the importance of feeding but he sometimes questions whether this is truly the role of government. He noted that churches and goodwill organizations
in the community may be better equipped for this job and asked if there has been any effort to partner with such groups who are already doing good work.
Ms. Payne explained that while churches provide volunteers to deliver the meal routes, the idea of them providing the service themselves is not something that has occurred or has been
discussed.
Vice Chair Brian Helms said he wanted to confirm that the numbers being presented were for the county.
Ms. Payne confirmed he was correct.
Vice Chair Brian Helms clarified that this covers the entirety of the county’s borders that it is everywhere, not just focused on rural areas.He also asked if there has been any discussion
about partnerships with the municipalities for this program.
Ms. Payne responded that there hasnot been anything official, but after Andrew Friend’s presentation on the Home and Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) funding, Indian Trail expressed
interest in learning more. She noted that no presentation has taken place, and the intent seemed broader, but said it could be an opportunity if the Board wanted to engage and provide
further education for municipalities.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, referring to the map, said there are a number of flags in areas like Weddington, Stallings, Waxhaw, and even Marshville, suggesting there may be opportunities
to partner with some of the municipalities. He said he would personally be open to exploring those partnerships and asked whether that is something staff could take on and communicate
with the municipal staff.
Mr. Matthews said certainly and explained that it would be a matter of the management team and himself contacting the town managers or the elected officials in towns without managers
and having those discussions.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said the example he looks to is the partnership with Indian Trail on 74 Express, describing it a great partnership. He said Indian Trail has been a fantastic
partner, helping reduce costs and making the whole program more effective. He added if the County can get some partnerships with some of the larger municipalities, maybe some strides
can be made with this program.
Chair Merrell said she did not know if it would be an option or not, but noted there are 53 schools across the county with commercial-grade kitchens. She said she is not exactly sure
where the extra food from the school cafeterias goes each day. She mentioned there are a lot of federal dollars with the Child Nutrition.
She added that there are culinary academies in multiple high schools across Union County Public Schools, where they have commercial-grade kitchens to cook food and earn culinary certifications.
She asked Mr. Matthews if he could have a discussion with the superintendent and the CTE director to determine if this is an opportunity to help with some of the requests in these communities.
She noted she isnot sure if there is extra food available or if it is even allowed due to federal Child Nutrition funding, but asked Mr. Matthews to inquire about the possibility, emphasizing
again that the county has 53 commercial-grade kitchens.
She said that she thought that every resource should be taken advantage of citing how the county was able to establish a medical examiner’s office when they thought it was going to be
impossible and then two yearslaterit is being done. She suggested similarly exploring the resources already in the county, including Union County Public Schools, charter schools, and
houses of faith as Commissioner Baucom mentioned, emphasizing they need to look at everything.
Commissioner Sides said he wanted to make a closing argument before moving on. He pointed out that the number was 586 people on the waiting list around Thanksgiving, and with it now
being close to Christmas, that number is likely higher. He noted the County Manager had confirmed that funds are available to get started and acknowledged they will not eliminate the
waiting list overnight. He said, however, they can start with what they have by appropriating $500,000 from the fund balance to start. He said they could begin final vetting anddeliver
meals within days. He stated that even if they are only able to serve 20 or 25 people in the next month, that is still 20 to 25 more people getting a decent meal. He asked why they
would not start, questioning whether they are going to wait six more months for the new fiscal year to determine if it can be included in the budget. He urged his colleagues to vote
yes so they can start tomorrow.
Chair Merrell said she wasnot sure if it was a fair request or not but noted that Beverly Liles, Finance Director, was present and said she would personally like some feedback on the
pros and cons of taking money out of the fund balance without proper planning or discussion. She said she believes the Commissioners need to understand what it means to remove half a
million dollars from the fund balance and asked if Ms. Liles would be willing to share whether they are in a position to make that decision tonight.
Ms. Liles said the audit has been finalized and confirmed that funding is available if the Board chooses to appropriate fund balance for this purpose. However, she emphasized that she
would not be doing her job if she did not point out that fund balance is intended for one-time use. She explained that if the Board wants to continue the funding in future years, fund
balance would not be available, and it would need to be incorporated into the ongoing operating budget year after year.
Chair Merrell responded that it was a very good point and thanked Ms. Liles for the reminder.
Mr. Matthews said he appreciated Ms. Liles making that point and said it was one he wanted to make as well. He said if the Board wants to move forward, that is fine, but pointed out
that once people are being served, you are not going to tell them in July that service will stop. He said the Countywould need to find the funding to continue the program, but as long
as the Board understands and accepts that, then that isfine but he doubts that the Board will want to tell people no after they have been brought onto the program.
Commissioner Sides said he could only speak for himself that he does not see this as a one-time deal, but rather as a start.
Chair Merrell commented that, if her memory was correct from the October presentation she believed it was $800,000 needed to meet the needs of the waitlist at that time, and there was
another figure of $1 million. She asked if he remembered what she was referring to and if he could speak to it.
Ms. Payne responded that, at a high level, the initial current deficit for this year was close to $100,000. She said, as mentioned earlier, people are not being added back, so that deficit
has been reduced. She stated the approximately $1 million figure that was presented was largely based on food expenses and did not include additional weekend meals, since that wasnot
a component at the time. She said the additional cost for staffing was not included at that time who would be needed to support the additional clients that would be served.
Chair Merrell asked Commissioner Sides, as they head into budget season over the next few months and knowing that a $1.8 million needs request was presented to them in October, if he
still feels comfortable with the $500,000 amount being proposed tonight.
Commissioner Sides said the $500,000 should be considered seed money since they do not yet have a number for what it will take to finish out the fiscal year. He emphasized that this
amount gets the process moving, allowing the vetting process to be finalized and for people to start receiving meals.
Commissioner Christina Helms agreed with Commissioner Sides that everyone deserves food. She suggested possibly reducing the amount somewhat to get the ball rolling, allowing staff to
contact UCPS, churches, and other municipalities to find out what they can contribute so that everyone has a little skin in the game.
Commissioner Sides asked if Commissioner Christina Helms had a number in mind.
Commissioner Christina Helms said, since the question was about what is available in the fund balance, even starting smaller between $100,000 to $200,000 could work. She suggested allowing
staff to begin reaching out to municipalities, UCPS, the Union Baptist Association, and other churches in the area to see if they can contribute to helping seniors in their care, church-wise,
to help alleviate the issue.
She said she prefers to start smaller because she doesnot want to come to budget session and say they cannot come up with the extra $2 million with everything else coming down the pipe.
She said she would rather start out smaller and build up. She stated that she understands those 500-plus people deserve to have meals and nobody is arguing that, but said she believes
they need to take a little bit smaller bite out of the numbers before moving on to the whole plate.
Commissioner Sides said if starting with $200,000 is more agreeable to his colleagues and still gets the ball rolling, he is willing to go along with that.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she is comfortable with $200,000.
Commissioner Sides said he would amend his motion to appropriate $200,000 from the fund balance to begin work on the waiting list.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said they all need to remember this is one-time money and effectively a Band-Aid. He emphasized that not any Commissioner who does not want to take care of
the seniors and expressed appreciation for Commissioner Sides’ heart and passion on the issue, acknowledging the importance of taking care of seniors.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said fund balance is typically used for capital projects with set costs, not operating expenses. He explained that once they start down this road with $500,000,
$200,000, or even a smaller amount, there will be an expectation from those being served that funding will continue. He clarified he is not saying they should not continue funding but
emphasized they do not yet know what they do not know as they approach budget season.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained that by choosing to move forward tonight, the Board is effectively saying that it will be funding it for the long-term, which means a recurring cost
every budget cycle that will likely get larger.He stressed that he is not against exploring ways to serve seniors with meals but emphasized that municipal partners could be a valid source
of help. He also agreed that the idea of incorporating this need into the Board’s legislative agenda was a great suggestion.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said ultimately the County cannot fund this alone and will need help. He agreed this is a crisis and expressed that he wanted to do everything possible to help
but emphasized that support will be needed from a variety of sources including the state delegation, municipal partners, and any others willing to volunteer.
Chair Merrell agreed and asked if the map that was shared could be broken down by municipality. She said having that breakdown would help when coordinating or communicating with municipalities,
so they understand what is happening in their communities. She added that this will help to narrow it down to specific elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, churches, or
organizations.
Ms. Payne said they can do that by ZIP code, which will be close without getting to specific.
Commissioner Helms said that is kind of hard to do because, for example, she has a Monroe ZIP code but lives out in New Salem.
Chair Merrell added that Wesley Chapel also has a Monroe ZIP code.
Ms. Payne said they will work with GIS to make the breakdown as accurate as possible and should be able to make that happen relatively easily.
Commissioner Sides said he understands his colleagues’ concerns about using fund balance but pointed out that the alternative is doing nothing until the next budget year. He noted that
you can ask municipalities to help, but their budgets are already setunless they also dip into their fund balances, nothing would happen until next July. He repeated that while he understands
the concerns, the alternative is to do nothing.
Chair Merrell responded that doing nothing wasnot spoken about.
Commissioner Sides said that if they are not going to use the fund balance, then where would the money come from to get started. He asked if there was any other alternative.
Mr. Matthews said there is no quick alternative. He explained that the only other options involve working with other jurisdictions to help fund, which would take time.
Commissioner Sides asked to call the question (NOTE TO BARBARA: no vote).
Commissioner Christina Helms said she would like to see staff initiate discussions. She emphasized wanting to protect the budget while helping seniors, but she thought that jumping
the gun and acting immediately will not benefit them. She said tonight is a very good step, but she wants to see what staff can do before pulling any triggers.
Chair Merrell offered a friendly amendment to Commissioner Sides’ motion thatthe $200,000 from the fund balance is to address the waitlist and food only that none of the funds can be
used toward administration, hiring, etc.
Mr. Matthews explained that with existing staff, there is a limit to how many people can be vetted. He said if the Board wants additional people vetted, the County would need to contract
for those services, which would count as administrative funds. He said if the Board does not to contract, but the vetting process will be slower and fewer people will be served. He emphasized
that this is okay as long as everyone understands the implications.
Chair Merrell withdrew her friendly amendment.
Mr. Matthews acknowledgedthat there is a need but said there are future costs and the question of how to pay forthose costs. He explained that some of the expenses are going up because
the program is expanding from five to seven days a week. He suggested the Board consider authorizing staff to start the vetting process now without serving meals immediately, while staff
works with municipalities and UCPS to determine how to fund the program.
He said he understands that people will not get meals, but this approach gets them to the point where, as soon as the decision is made, they can start receiving meals. He clarified this
is just a suggestion and that it will not provide meals right away; it only starts the vetting process to have people ready. He said it is something for the Board to consider.
Chair Merrell noted that Mr. Matthews’ suggestion is different from the motion currently on the floor.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Baucom said he understands the enthusiasm and would love to feed everyone tonight, but acknowledged it is tough. He agreed with Mr. Matthews’ point that they do not want
to set a precedent where the program starts and then suddenly stops, which would create an issue.
He expressed concern about starting the program and then stopping it. He said problems are not fixed by simply throwing money at them. He supports incorporating different municipalities,
starting the vetting process, and exploring what can be done. He also likes the idea of involving churches, Hometown Heroes, and others who do good work, emphasizing doing this as a
community effort rather than just a county responsibility.
Commissioner Christina Helms agreed with Mr. Matthews that starting the vetting process is the right step. She emphasized the importance of involving others rather than jumping in headfirst
without full understanding. She said she wanted to offer a motion but asked if the first motion needed to be voted on before making another motion.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, confirmed that the first motion needed to be voted on first.
Chair Merrell restated the motion on the floor is to allocate $200,000 from the fund balance to begin addressing the waitlist and feeding people starting tomorrow.
The motion failed by a vote of one to four as follows:
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Chair MerrellNay
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsNay
Commissioner HelmsNay
Commissioner BaucomNay
Commissioner Helms moved to instruct staff to work with municipalities, UCPS, and local churches once they get district needs for citizens in need of food.
Commissioner Sides asked how the 586 people got on the waiting list and what vetting they went through.
Ms. Payne responded that there is an initial seven-question screening and a required form that has to be completed (Form DOS 101), which has a short form and a long form.
Commissioner Sides asked if the motion meant going to step two vetting and if money would be needed.
Ms. Payne said vetting takes time and, depending on how quickly the Board wants vetting done, money would be needed for contract staffing if the Board wants more people vetted than current
staff can vet. She estimated that staff can vet about 10 people, and if they start removing those and putting them actively on the program, that will add to the number of recurring reviews
that have to be done twice per year.
Top of Form
Commissioner Sides asked if that would be feeding anybody.
Ms. Payne said if they can complete the initial full vetting, they could do that.
Commissioner Sides questioned how that would be feeding anyone if no money is being appropriatedfor meals. He added that means it would be 0 waiting until July of 2025 before actually
starting to fund meals.
Ms. Payne said they would be eligible for meals at that point if the Board wants to invest additional funding.
Chair Merrell said no one can get meals until staffcalls the 586 people back, which will take time to ask the 586 people the remainder of the questions that have not been asked and complete
the form.
Ms. Payne said those have to be home visits.
Commissioner Sides said that without putting in money for meals, that means waiting until July 2025 before actually starting to fund meals.
Chair Merrell replied that she is not saying July.
Commissioner Sides said next budget.
Commissioner Christina Helms said the county manager will ask municipalities how much they can contribute out of pocket starting in January to help feed people in their community.
Commissioner Sides asked if money is being allocated money for contracting to expedite the vetting.
Chair Merrell said they will allocate money once staff comes back and says they have called the 586 people, and those individuals have completed the unanswered questions, the form, and
the home visit.
Commissioner Sides stated his understanding that staff will start going through the second phase of vetting for all 586 people, and then once that is done, funding will be determined
for meals. He said he is not sure he understands the end game.
Mr. Niland clarified that they will not be able to go through all 586 people with current resources. He said they will go through as many as they can, but it will not be all 586.
Chair Merrell stated that the only way people currently receiving meals are on the program is because they followed the procedures: they answered the questions, filled out the form,
and had a home visit. She emphasized that these steps must be done to get on the list to receive meals, and be placed on the route.
Commissioner Sides said that starting the second vetting process was part of his original motion, and once people are vetted and approved, and to get them a meal. He expressed uncertainty
about how the current motion expedites other than going through the list.
Chair Merrell said staff will be able to come back to the Board at the next meeting and report how many people can be taken off the waitlist.
Mr. Matthews said they have determined they can add approximately 10 people to the list per week with current staffing. He said during that period staff will be meeting with municipalities
and other partners to find out if they are willing to fund anything. He said staff would then bring that information to the Board at a future meeting with the number of people staff
has been able to vet and information regarding funding from other agencies, and ask what is the Board’s pleasure at that point.
Chair Merrell said she would also like staff to begin seeking the cost for contracthelp to get this done. She stated the Board wants staff to start gathering information on numbers,
costs, and who the contractor would be, including the cost to remove 20, 30, 40, or 50 people from the waitlist in the meantime.
Commissioner Sides stated that, if he understands correctly, there is no money involved with this motion. He said it is just asking to start the second phase of vetting with current
staff and then come back in about a month with a number such as 40 and ask whether money will be appropriated from the fund balance to support those 40.
Chair Merrell stated that in two weeks they will not only have that information but also hopefully a price from a contract vendor. She added that if current staff can add 10 cases per
week, they will need to know how many more cases could be handled with a vendor.
Ms. Payne added that regarding the cost for contract staff and the estimated number of cases they could complete per month, staff can obtain that cost. However, due to the Christmas
and New Year's holidays and the need to schedule home visits with clients on the waiting list, there may be delays. Therefore, it might be more prudent to return with that information
at the second meeting in January to provide meaningful data.
Chair Merrell agreed to get started and acknowledged that more information would be available by the second January meeting. She confirmed her agreement with that timeline.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked since there is been a lot of discussion on the topic, hewant to make sure that when it goes to the second stage of vetting, is there an expectation from
the folks being vetted that they will start receiving meals.
Ms. Payne stated that they would need to very clearly communicate what is occurring.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said his concern is that if staff presses forward with the second stage of vetting, it may be creating an expectation that the Board might or might not be able
to fund.
As a point of clarification, Chair Merrell said she believed she heard earlier that once a client has completed the questions, filled out the form, and had the home visit, meals could
begin within a few days, two to three days.
Ms. Payne responded by saying a week for good measure.
Chair Merrell stated that once all the boxes have been checked, meals can start going to those people. She noted that there are funds available to get started, although these are one-time
funds, which is why they are proceeding cautiously with a smaller number rather than a larger one.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms reminded that the motion had failed.
Chair Merrell said that regarding the 200, what she is saying is that when staff comes back with the number to work with, the funds are available if the Board chooses to do so.
Ms. Payne said she wanted to make one other point and apologized for not being certain, but noted that the title of the form is actually a registration form—the DOS 101 form. She requested
the chance, whether or not action is taken tonight, to verify that the information she provided is correct—that they can complete the form without actively placing clients on the program.
She said she does not want to misspeak on that point. She asked that if a motion is made, that this verification be included as part of it, in case there is a restriction precludingstaff
from completing the form without actively enrolling qualified clients.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he is fine with reaching out to municipal partners and contacting state officials to gain support for the program. However, he emphasized the need to be
careful with the vetting process because, as previously mentioned, it could create an expectation that Board action will be required to provide services, which may or may not pass.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the Vice Chair would prefer to wait and let staff go to municipalities, UCPS, churches, Union Baptist Association, even the Diocese for the Catholic
Church first before moving forward with the vetting process for these citizens.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms responded that he believes it would be best to determine what support staff can get from municipalities and other partners, and at that point, they can proceed
with additional vetting. He emphasized that he doesnot want to create an expectation and then face costs of $100,000, $200,000, or $300,000 from the fund balance that could become recurring
costs that would need to be budgeted. He clarified that he is not against taking action but prefers to take it one step at a time.
Chair Merrell asked if that would mean Commissioner Christina Helms would be withdrawing her motion.
Commissioner Christina Helms amened her motion to wait for staff to visit citizens to complete the vetting process until after staff comes back to the Board withcommitments from municipalities,
UCPS, and area churches.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms,said he wanted to clarify that what the Board is asking is to direct staff to reach out to municipal partners and other potential partners in the area to determine
who might be interested in funding the program.
Commissioner Christina Helms said they just have to come up with new, creative ways to get the program funded and stated that she believes this is a really good start.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on the motion as amended.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the amended motion could be restated.
Commissioner Christina Helms restated the motion, as amended, to direct staff to reach out to municipalities, UCPS, churches, and other funding sources to determine what those sources
can contribute, and once that information is received, staff will begin the vetting processonly after that information is back.
Commissioner Baucom asked staff if this is feasible.
Commissioner Christina Helms responded that staffcan ask. She asked if that clarifies the motion.
Chair Merrell called for the vote on the motion, as amended.
The motion passed by a four to one vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesNay
24-858Consider Accepting theOffer to Purchase County Owned Property
Chair Merrell recognized County Manager Brian Matthews, for his comments on this item.
Mr. Matthews explained that the County ownsareverter interest in the Old Shiloh School on Monroe Road. He said the County received an offer to purchase the reverter interest from Union
Academy, which currently uses the facility and holds some ownership rights to the property. He said the County conducted an upset bid process but did not receive any upset bids. He
stated that the Board now needs to decide whether to accept, reject, or allow additional offers, and requested direction on how to proceed with the current offer.
Commissioner Sides moved to reject the offer.
Mr. Matthews asked for clarification, whether rejecting the offer would also mean not entertaining an additional offer unless it were for the actual cost of the land and building.
Commissioner Sides confirmed that was included in his motion.
Chair Merrell added that she will go a step further by stating the property is not for sale.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Commissioner HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
At approximately 9:20 p.m., Chair Merrell announced that the Board would take a recess.
At approximately 9:46 p.m., Chair Merrell reconvened the regular meeting.
24-868Contract Amendment - MRL Consulting, LLC
Chair Merrell said that Vice Chair Brian Helms had requested this item be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Business agenda. She recognized Vice Chair Brian W. Helms for his comments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained that he had requested this item be placed on the business agenda because he believes it may generate discussion. He expressed appreciation to Michelle
Lancaster for her service to the County, noting her time as Deputy County Manager and the consulting work she has done over the last couple of years.
He said that in his experience in the private section, contracts with consultants are short-term contractsand do not last years at a time. He said he believes everyone should be thankful
for Ms. Lancaster’s service and what she is done. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that the County management staff has a County Manager, a Deputy County Manager, an Assistant County Manager,
Strategy and Innovation Director, the newly formed Economic Development Department, and facilities staff. He said the County has resources, and he firmly believes the County has the
resources it needs in-house to proceed with these projects.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to deny the amendment with MRL Consulting and to allow the current contract to expire at the end of its term.
Chair Merrell said that while she appreciates and values the perspective Vice Chair Brian W. Helms brings from Corporate America, as she also has a long resume in Corporate America,but
having served Union County for ten plus years, she has to respectfully disagree with the motion. She said Ms. Lancaster has been a very valuable liaison to the Board. She added that
the opioid crisis is not just a local problem but a national and world problem, and she hopes it will be addressed in the next presidential administration with the border and what is
coming in. She stated that until then, there is an opioid crisis, and Union County has been identified as an area with a very high concentration of opioid deaths and near deaths.
She stated that she believes the County is fortunate to have a resource in local and state government like Ms. Lancaster, who has spent her adult career building liaisons, contacts,
and relationships with people across North Carolina who have benefited Union County. She gave the example of opening a medical examiner's office after Mecklenburg dropped the County.
Chair Merrell said she agrees that consultants are not meant to be carried over like a full-time employee. However, she noted that the County has a legislative agenda and Ms. Lancaster
has the relationships. She spoke about the medical examiner initiative that is about to launch just for Union County, with hopes of adding a handful of other counties in the coming year.
She said the County will needMs. Lancaster’s expertise for that project, and for those reasons, she will not be able to support the motion to terminate her contract.
Commissioner Sides said that if he understands correctly and asked Mr. Matthews to correct him if he is wrong, this proposes would narrow Ms. Lancaster’s focus justto the Regional Autopsy
Center.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that is correct, stating Ms. Lancaster has taken on a number of projects over the past couple of years. He explained she will be stepping away from the opioid
project and the legislative project where she served as a liaison, and her focus will be only on the medical examiner’s office.
Commissioner Sides said his concern is that it will be at least three years before the Autopsy Center is fully operational and implemented. He likened the project to the BARN project,
where there will be an executive director who will not really market the autopsy center but will maintain relationships with counties and coordinate with various interests. He said it
is essential that, as the project gets off the ground, there is a staff employee responsible not just for the next year but on an ongoing basis to ensure its success.
Mr. Matthews said he completely agrees and noted that, as part of Ms. Lancaster’s presentation tonight, she indicated that within the next few months the Board will receive a request
to add a position to manage and oversee how the project operates. He explained that a medical examiner’s office or autopsy center cannot be run with just a pathologist; additional staff
is needed. He said staff will have to be hired, and Ms. Lancaster’s role will decrease. He said Ms. Lancaster anticipates it will probably take less than a full year before she is
no longer involved. He added that Ms. Lancaster has expertise and contacts with the state, which is why staff recommended continuing her role, though they understand the Board may choose
to not do so.
Clayton Voignier, Assistant Manager, said staff anticipated this and, as part of the FY25 budget, a business manager position was already approved to take on the duties Ms. Lancaster
had been doing. He explained that the position is funded through the medical examiner’s office budget. He added that Ms. Lancaster’s contract, if approved, would be funded by a state
grant, because that is the anticipated transition. He noted that while the position is already budgeted, they have not yet recruited for it because, as Ms. Lancaster mentioned, progress
has been slow and they havenot had to expend those funds yet.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she has multiple questions but would ask them one at a time. She asked to whom Ms. Lancaster reports.
Mr. Voignier responded that technically she reports to the County Manager, and her contract is with the County Manager’s office.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how often Ms. Lancaster reports to the Manager.
Mr. Matthews said it depends on the circumstances but typically she reports at least once a month and sometimes more often.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how the Board is being informed about what Ms. Lancaster is doing for the County, noting her understanding that she has multiple contracts.
Mr. Matthews clarified that Ms. Lancaster has one contract covering multiple items.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she was under the impression that Michelle had contracts with other entities.
Mr. Matthews responded that he did not know.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how that information is reported to the Board so the Board understands what the County is getting for what it is paying.
Mr. Matthews said that essentially Ms. Lancasterprovides these updates periodically to the Board and that is the only way that she has been communicating other than to him or in his
absence to Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager.
Commissioner Christina Helms said her understanding is that Ms. Lancasteralso contracts with Wingate University and asked if that is correct.
Mr. Matthews responded that Ms. Lancaster is actually a full-time employee with Wingate University.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked since Ms. Lancaster is a full-time employee with Wingate University and also contracts with Union County, how many hours per week or per month does
she works for the County.
Mr. Matthews said it varies, but on a monthly basis, Ms. Lancaster probably works somewhere in the 30-hour range for the County.
Commissioner Helms asked if Ms. Lancaster is working 70 hours a week between Wingate and Union County.
Mr. Matthews responded that it depends.
Commissioner Helms asked who Ms. Lancasteris representingin regards to the BARN position, is she representing Wingate’s vision for the BARN, or is she looking out for Union County.
Mr. Matthews responded that Ms. Lancaster is not currently working on the BARN project for the County. He said she may be working on that project on behalf of Wingate University, but
she is not working for Union County on it. He clarified that her current role for the County is on the opioid liaison work and the medical examiner’s office.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that the County has a lobbyist who works for Union County, and Ms. Lancaster also performs similar lobbyist duties, so they are basically double funding
one position.
Mr. Matthews said the lobbyist is actually in Raleigh and is the one hearing the bills being introduced. He said Ms. Lancaster is not in Raleigh and is not hearing the bills or dealing
with those people directly. He said he understood the point but explained Ms. Lancaster’s role is a little different, in that she manages the lobbyist and that position.
Mr. Niland said that as of January 1, this is one of the items that istransitioning from Ms. Lancaster to him. He said Ms. Lancaster would communicate with the lobbyist about what is
happening, then bring that back to the Management Team,who would bring it to the Board. He noted the last six months have been unique in Raleigh with the short session. He said that
going forward, he will communicate with the lobbyist in Raleigh and bring that information back to the Board, and it will not be Ms. Lancaster.
Chair Merrell said Ms. Lancaster was going to continuewith the County temporarily to see the medical examiner’s office through and help with the transition of opening the office and
bringing on the examiner. She noted that Ms. Lancaster was transitioning away from the legislative agenda and opioid funds, which will now be managed in-house.
Mr. Niland said that regarding the length of the contract, none of them anticipated how difficult it would be to get through the bureaucracy in Raleigh with these contracts and agreements.
He said it has taken a very long time and a lot of back and forth with state staff because this wasnot their idea—it was a legislative priority to come to Union County. He noted there
have been many meetings, and that he, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Voigner have all spoken with Ms. Lancaster probably on a weekly basis. He said there are formal updates she provides, but
they are in constant communication with her. He added that Ms. Lancaster often has to have the same meeting three times before making progress. He acknowledged it is possible they havenot
communicated that information back to the Board as well as they should but said she does communicate with them pretty consistently.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said, to touch on what Commissioner Christina Helms was getting at, that there is a question of accountability and maybe they are not getting that from staff.
He said consulting is very different from a full-time employee, so there is no clock punching. He noted the only information they have is what Ms. Lancaster tells them and what staff
communicates. He questioned why the Manager’s office could not communicate directly with the lobbyist. He said maybe he is looking at it simply, but he believes long-term consulting
contracts are problematic for the County and stated he stands by his motion.
Chair Merrell asked if the motion were to pass, who would be able to step in and oversee the medical examiner’s office and the new medical examiner beginning autopsies this week.
Mr. Matthews responded that one of the management team members and they would have to get up to speed and learn how an autopsy center operates. He said that one of the three of them
would take on that role.
Commissioner Christina Helms sought clarification if Ms. Lancasterhas never opened a medical examiner’s office before.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that, explaining Michelle oversaw the process in Mecklenburg County, but the office was already in place in Mecklenburg County.
Commissioner Christina Helms noted that Ms. Lancaster oversaw that office’s functionality.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Christina Helms said Ms. Lancaster was involved at the tail end with daily operations, and that this is a new situation for her as well. She acknowledged Ms. Lancaster had
background information that helped, but noted they are now beyond that initial point.
Mr. Matthews respondedthat was correct.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how the Health Department could assist if the motion passes and whether it can help.
Mr. Matthews responded that he doesnot know that it is a role the Health Department would play, noting it is not a Health Department function.
Chair Merrell said that if the County does not procure Ms. Lancaster’s expertise and experience, the position will have to be posted sooner rather than later. She referenced Mr. Voignier’s
point that if Ms. Lancaster is not retained, the County will need to hire someone with salary and benefits to independently do the work that Ms. Lancaster has been doing.
Mr. Voignier said they would seek to post the position immediately.
Mr. Matthews stated that regardless of the Board’s decision, the plan is to use the funding set aside by the state for the autopsy center for this position. He added that they also intend
to use it for Ms. Lancaster’s contract if the Board approves it, but either way, the funding will come from those state funds.
Commissioner Sides said that if the plan is to have an executive director though he is not sure if that is the correct term then if the motion passes, he thinks they could expedite the
process and start posting the position.
Mr. Niland said they would have to, and with two weeks left in the year, the concern is what gets lost in that transition. He understands the concern with long-term consulting contracts
and how involved Ms. Lancaster has been daily. He asked from a staff standpoint that if the Board is not comfortable with a full year, at least allow a period of time for transition.
He noted the contract ends at the end of the calendar year, and while staff is capable and would figure it out, they are on the doorstep of starting autopsies and would not want something
to go wrong initially. He personally would ask for a little bit of transition time if the Board is open to not supporting a full year.
Commissioner Sides asked what timeframe Mr. Niland had in mind.
Mr. Niland responded that he would ask for six months, noting they might not need the full time but would post the position immediately. He explained that hiring typically takes about
three months, it is the holiday season now, so the position probably would not be posted until the beginning of the year. He said six months would at least give them comfort that they
could get someone hired, up to speed, and allow Ms. Lancaster to transition her knowledge to that person.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he is not willing to amend the motion to six months but is willing to amend it to continue the contract until the last day of February 2025 for two months.
The Vice Chair amended his motion to 1) approve the amendment with MRL Consulting, LLC, until the final day of February 2025, at which point the contract would end; and 2) authorize
the County Manager to terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she believes everyone appreciates what Ms. Lancaster has done, but her biggest concern is the length of the contract. She acknowledged that Ms. Lancaster
has great resources and is not taking that away from her. She shared herconcern is that the Board only hears from Ms. Lancaster at the legislative breakfast and contract renewals,
and she doesnot know what Ms. Lancaster is doing or what the taxpayer money is being spent on. She stated the Board hasto be good stewards of taxpayer money and said she doesnot see
the value, though she is sure Ms. Lancaster is doing a great job. She said she has asked other Board members and staff to whomMs. Lancaster reports and when does she show up. She emphasized
that nobody is diminishing what Ms. Lancaster has done in the past or what she is currently doing, but her concern remains the length of the contract and Ms. Lancaster’s reporting to
staff who then reports to the Board.
Chair Merrell said there may have been a breakdown in communication because Ms. Lancasteris working with staff often monthly, if not weekly or bi-weekly. She added that it is honestly
the chair and vice chair who set the agenda and askedMs. Lancaster to come provide presentations and updates. Chair Merrell suggested that perhaps the fault lies with the chair and vice
chair for not putting Ms. Lancaster on the agenda more often.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she would personally be okay with extending the contract three to six months, but not for another full year. She emphasized wanting a shorter-term,
because she understands they are in government business, and they need to move away from that mindset and start being financially responsible to taxpayers.
Chair Merrell said she absolutely agrees with what Commissioner Christina Helms is saying but noted that for the last two years that Ms. Lancaster has been working with state legislators,
staff, and the Board to open a medical examiner’s office in Union County, has been a monumental effort.
Commissioner Christina Helms responded that no one was taking that away from Ms. Lancaster.
Chair Merrell said that, yes, they are taking that away from her, because they did not ask for quarterly updates or more frequent updates. She noted it took a lot of work to be able
to do the first autopsy in 2024, which is happening this week. She said that family will not be on a backlog in Raleigh waiting to get their family member laid to rest. She said that
is the only disagreement she has and while the Board must be fiscally responsible, it also must be responsible to Union County taxpayers who have lost loved ones without knowing why.
She emphasized that Union County would not have a medical examiner’s office or a licensed medical examiner if Ms. Lancaster had not worked tirelessly every week to make that autopsy
centerhappen. She added that other counties dropped by Mecklenburg Countylike Anson and Cabarruswill be able to use Union County’s services once it is up and running. She said she works
with eight other sheriff’s offices in the Eighth Congressional District, and they cannot believe Union County succeeded in this project.
She said “Bravo, Bravo” Union County and Ms. Lancaster for getting it done and said she doesnot know how they will proceed without Ms. Lancaster after the contract ends. She expressed
concern for the families needing autopsies and said if Ms. Lancaster is not here to see it through the next three, six, or twelve months, the County will be in trouble.
Commissioner Sides asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms if he would accept a friendly amendment to extend the contract for six months to allow a smooth transition to an executive director
as a full-time employee, and if he would accept that amendment to his motion.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms responded to Commissioner Sides, noting that discussions began over a year ago to set a pathway to move on from the contract. He was anxious for the County
to take on the responsibility and acknowledged the thought process about needing some time. He then asked the Deputy County Manager if he was informed about the projects, assuming that
since Ms. Lancaster has been communicating with county staff, they are somewhat up to speed.
Mr. Niland said it is accurate that they are up to speed, explaining Ms. Lancaster has been in all the meetings, knows the doctor, and has the Atrium contacts. He said it would take
some time to transition those relationships and contracts. He stated they will do whatever the Board wants but emphasized they do not want the department to suffer during the transition.
He said his concern is not rushing this transition from what Ms. Lancaster has been doing to what staff will be doing, so hedoes not miss something in the meantime.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms acknowledged the concern as valid but noted that both the County Manager and Deputy County Manager have assured the County will proceed and make it work. He
stated that giving a six-month extension would be a luxury and that he still prefers the contract to end at the end of February. He emphasized the need for a firm decision and expressed
his preference to stay with his original motion.
Commissioner Sides confirmed his understanding that autopsies for Union County would begin, effective tomorrow.He then acknowledged that services will be available as needed and that
all is in place to assume responsibility, noting Anson County is next in line.
Chair Merrell then called for a vote on Vice Chair Brian W. Helms’ motion, as amended.
The motion failed with the following vote:
Chair MerrellNay
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsNay
Commissioner Gary SidesNay
Chair Merrell stated that the previous motion failed and then made a motion to approve an 11-month extension of the agreement. She specified that the County would be MRL Consulting’s
primary client, any additional clients must be disclosed and approved by the County, and that any future contract renewals, extensions, or term options require Board approval. She further
authorized the County Manager to terminate the agreement if deemed in the county’s best interest.
The motion failed by a vote of one to four as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsNay
Commissioner SidesNay
Commissioner HelmsNay
Commissioner BaucomNay
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to approve a six-month extension of the contract with MRL Consulting with Union County being the primary client with any additional clients being disclosed
and approved by the County, and any future contract renewals or extensions would require board approval. The motion also included that the County Manager would be authorized to terminate
the agreement if deemed to be in the best interest of the County.
The motion passed by a three to two vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsNay
Commissioner BaucomNay
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
24-883:Dissolution of the Monroe-Union County Economic Development Committee (This item was added to the agenda during the meeting at the request of Commissioner Sides.)
Chair Merrell noted there were two amendments to the agenda. She recognized Commissioner Gary Sides for his comments on the item for the dissolution of the Monroe-Union County Economic
Development Commission.
Commissioner Sides moved to authorize the County Attorney to send a letter to the City of Monroe regarding the following actions: 1) the Board agrees with the City of Monroe to move
forward with the dissolution of the Monroe-Union County Economic Development Commission as soon as reasonably possible; 2) the Board agrees with the City that the County and City should
jointly work on a plan for dissolution of the EDC; 3) the Board agrees that the following should be included in the plan of dissolution of the EDC that the county and City of Monroe
have mutual access to EDC records pursuant to applicable law, and that the County and City work together to itemize a list of assets for distribution to the parties as county-owned,
city-owned, or EDC-owned in accordance with the interlocal agreement; and 4) the Board calls for a meeting of the EDC Board of Directors to be held in the near future for the limited
purpose of authorizing a person to pay necessary current and valid invoices and obligations of the EDC, authorizing a person to oversee dissemination of EDC records to Union County and
the City of Monroe pursuant to applicable law, and authorizing an inventory of assets and property to be ultimately distributed to Union County and the City of Monroe pursuant to the
interlocal agreement.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Charistina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
24-884:Resolution in Support of Repeal or Amendment of Section 3K.1 of Session Law 2024-57 (This item was added to the agenda during the meeting.)
Chair Merrell recognized Vice Chair Brian W. Helms regarding this item.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained the resolution noting familiarity with Senate Bill 382. He stated the resolution expresses the County’s support for repealing Section 3K.1 of Session
Law 2024-57, which prohibited counties from down zoning without they receive certain express written permission from property owners. He said in his opinion this is governmental overreach
and moved adoption of the Resolution Supporting Repeal or Amendment of Section 3K.1 of Session Law 2024-57.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
24-851Appointment of Commissioners to Board and Committees
Chair Merrell introduced agenda item 24-851, Appointment of Commissioners to Boards and Committees. She stated the Board would review the boards and committees one by one, voting on
appointments. For boards or committees with a current Commissioner appointed, the appointment can remain the same or the Board may select a different Commissioner.
Agricultural Advisory Board:
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to appoint Commissioner Clancy Baucom to serve on the Agricultural Advisory Board.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Catawba River Water Supply Project Governing Board
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he currently serves on the Catawba River Water Supply Project Governing Board, as did former Commissioner David Williams. He noted that there are
two openings on that board and expressed his preference to remain on it, if the Board sees fit. She stated that one additional appointment was needed.
Chair Merrell asked if any other Commissioner was interested in serving with Vice Chair Brian W. Helms on the Catawba River Water Supply Project.
Commissioner Baucom stated that he was interested in serving on the Catawba River Water Supply Project Governing Board.
Chair Merrell called for a vote of those in favor of Vice Chair Brian W. Helms and Commissioner Baucom serving on the Catawba River Water Supply Project Governing Board.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Centralina Council of Governments
Chair Merrell noted that Vice Chair Brian W. Helms currently holds the position on the Centralina Council of Governments and confirmed there is just one seat available.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms confirmed that there was just one seat.
Chair Merrell asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms if he would like to continue serving in that capacity.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he would be open to another commissioner taking on that role. He noted some difficulty with CRTPO and Centralina and expressed that the County might be
better served if another Board member volunteered for the position.
Chair Merrell stated she was willing to serve on the Centralina Council of Governments.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:(NOTE TO BARBARA – IS IT MOTION)
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Centralina Economic Development Commission
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms questioned whether the Board was required to appoint someone to this committee.
Chair Merrell expressed the same concern.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted he believed the Centralina Economic Development Commission might be included under the Centralina Council of Governments but said he would defer to staff
for clarification.
Mr. Matthews said he was unsure about this appointment and asked if the Board could revisit this appointment at a later date.
Chair Merrell stated that the Board would table the Centralina Economic Development Commission appointment, especially considering the current economic development situation.
Monroe-Union County Economic Development Commission
Chair Merrell stated that the Economic Development Board of Advisors is currently on hold and confirmed that the Board would table that item for now.
Fire Commission
Brian Matthews, County Manager, stated that the Fire Commission has not met in quite some time and recommended not appointing anyone to serve on it. He suggested working on dissolving
the commission.
Human Services Board
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve on the Human Services Board.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Sides serving on the Human Services Board.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Job Ready Partnership
Chair Merrell asked the County Manager if he had any input on an appointment to the Partnership.
Chair Merrell asked the Commissioners if anyone was interested in serving on the Job Ready Partnership Council.
County Clerk Lynn West added that the Job Ready Partnership Council typically meets around lunchtime.
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve on the Partnership.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Gary Sides serving on the Job Ready Partnership Council.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked the Clerk Lynn West, how often the council meets, and she confirmed it is monthly.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed interest in serving on the Juvenle Crime Prevention Council but said he might not be able to attend every meeting.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if it is possible to have an alternate.
Mr. Niland responded that alternates are not typical but noted the Council struggles with a quorum, so even occasional attendance is better than none.
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve as the Commissioner-appointee to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Gary Sides serving on the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
10. Library Board of Trustees
Commissioner Christina Helms volunteered to serve on the Library Board of Trustees.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Christina Helms’ serving on the Library Board of Trustees.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeLocal Emergency Planning Committee
Brian Matthews, County Manager, noted that this committee meets during lunch hours.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed interest in serving on the committee if no other commissioner wished to take the position.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Vice Chair Brian W. Helms serving on the Local Emergency Planning Committee.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeCharlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization
Chair Merrell stated that Vice Chair Brian W. Helms serves on the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization and noted the need for an alternate.
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve as the alternate.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed a preference to remain on the committee.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Vice Chair Brian W. Helms continuing his service on the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization, with Commissioner Gary Sides serving
as the alternate.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
Chair Merrell stated that she currently serves on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Christina Helms volunteered to serve on the Committee.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on Commissioner Christina Helms serving on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee
Chair Merrell stated that she currently serves on this advisory committee. She asked if any Commissioner was interested in serving as the alternate.
She added that the committee usually meets in Stanly County and often has dinner during meetings.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked how often the Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee meets.
Chair Merrell asked Clerk Lynn West how often the Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee is supposed to meets.
Ms. West replied that it will be meeting at the Government Center in Union County in September.
Commissioner Baucom volunteered to serve as the alternate.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on the Chair continuing to serve on the Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee with Commissioner Baucom as the alternate.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeSouth Piedmont Community College
Chair Merrell reported that Jerry Simpson was reappointed to South Piedmont Community College on June 3, 2024, with his term expiring in 2028, so no new appointment is needed.
School Liaison
Chair Merrell stated that the school liaison positions will be held by the Chair and Vice Chairand asked if a vote was necessary since these appointments are automatic.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, noted that there have been questions about this in the past and suggested it would be wise to proceed with a vote.
Chair Merrell explained that until about four years ago, the chair and vice chair did not automatically serve as the school liaisons. She then called for a vote on the Chair and Vice
Chair serving as the school liaisons.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeTransportation Advisory Board (Transit System)
Chair Merrell noted that no appointment was made to the Transportation Advisory Board for the Local Transit System in 2023 and asked if anyone was interested in serving.
Lynn West, Clerk to the Board, clarified that this board is for the Local Transit System and mentioned that meetings include lunch.
Chair Merrell inquired about the frequency of the meetings.
Ms. West responded that the board meets quarterly.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification on the board’s specific responsibilities.
Brian Matthews, County Manager, clarified that the Transportation Advisory Board is associated with the County’s own Transportation Department.
Chair Merrell expressed interest in serving and stated she would put her name in for the position.
She then called for a vote on her serving on the Transportation Advisory Board.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Yadkin River Water Supply Project Advisory Board
Chair Merrell stated that two Commissioners were needed to serve on this board. She stated previously served on that board and asked if there were two Commissioners currently interested
in serving on it.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked for clarification on the board needing two appointments to the Yadkin River Water Supply Project Advisory Board and remarked that it was essentially the
same type of advisory board as the one for Catawba.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the Yadkin River Water Supply Project Advisory Board meets in the evening.
Brian Matthews, County Manager, responded that he believed it meets during the day.
Commissioner Sides volunteered to serve in one of the positions and asked the Chair if she intended to continue serving.
Chair Merrell said she would continue to serve along with Commissioner Sides. She asked for a vote on the Chair continuing to serve on this board along with Commissioner Gary Sides.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyePartners Board of Directors
Chair Merrell stated that the last board was the Partners Board of Directors, and no appointment was needed.
She asked the Clerk, when invitations are received, to add them to the Commissioners' calendars and to help keep them aware of when and where they need to be, and what will be served
that day.
County Manager’s Comments
Brian Matthews, County Manager, had no comments.
Commissioners’ Comments
Commissioner Gary Sides wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms remarked that it had been a long night and added no additional comments other than echoing “Merry Christmas” and wishing everyone a Happy New Year as well.
Chair Merrell expressed holiday wishes to everyone, offering a very Merry Christmas and a healthy, happy, and prosperous New Year. She encouraged everyone to make safe decisions while
traveling and celebrating during the holiday season.
Commissioner Christina Helms commented that they had been there long enough and added her own “Merry Christmas” and “Happy New Year,” also reminding everyone to be safe.
Commissioner Clancy Baucom shared that he had enjoyed spending the evening with everyone and wished everyonea Merry Christmas.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 10:40 p.m.,Chair Merrell moved to adjourn the regular meeting.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye