2-18-25 - Minutes (AutoRecovered) (AutoRecovered) FINAL FINAL
Union County, NC Board of Commissioners
Meeting Minutes
Union County Government Center
500 North Main Street Monroe, North Carolina
www.unioncountync.gov
February 18, 20256:00 PMBoard Room, First Floor
____________________________________________________________
25-390Closed Session – 5:15 P.M.
PRESENT: Chair Melissa M. Merrell, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, Commissioner Clancy C. Baucom, Commissioner Christina B. Helms, and Commissioner Gary Sides
ABSENT:None
In open session, at approximately 5:15 p.m, in the First Floor Conference Room, Union County Government Center, Chair Merrell opened the regular meeting of Tuesday, February 18, 2025,
and moved that the Board enter intoconvene in closed session pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11:
1) (a)(1), to prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to G.S. section [132-1.1(a)]; and
2) (a)(3), for attorney-client privilege.
3) (a)(4) to discuss matters relating to thelocation of expansion of industries or other businesses; and
4) (a)(5) for property acquisition negotiations;as such purpose is fully stated in the agenda for this meeting, which has been made publicly available.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa M. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAyeAt approximately 5:32 p.m., Chairman Rowell moved that the Board take a recess and reconvene its meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Board’s Meeting Chamber, first
floor, Union County Government Center. The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:Chair J. R. RowellAyeVice Chair Brian W. HelmsAyeCommissioner BaucomAyeCommissioner MerrellAyeCommissioner
WilliamsAye
Opening of Meeting – Chair Merrell opened the meeting at approximately 6:07 p.m.
Invocation – Vice Chair Brian W. Helms 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 Melissa M. Merrell. She recognized Colette Roland as the first speaker.
Ms. Roland stated that she resides in Waxhaw in Union County. She spoke about The Connect Center, a nonprofit organizationthat operatesbased in Monroe, North Carolina. She explained
that the Pass Through Store is operated through the Connect Center, which provides free clothing and shoes to anyone who meets 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. She noted
that over the past two years, they have served nearly 1,100 residents in Union County, throughout North Carolina, and some from South Carolina.
Ms. Roland said they started a program called The Connect Scholars. She explained that to break the cycle of poverty, they wanted to make sure students know they cango intocouldpursue
higher education from high school. She said they are currently working with 13 students andto make sure the students have the tools they need for higher education, including free tutoring.
She said the purpose of her attendance tonight was to inform the Board that this is the first year that The Connect Center has applied for the Union County Partnership Grant. She said
they wanted to make the Board aware of the organization and its purpose.
Amy Niccolai stated that Jeff Mangum was also present and that they would be “tag teaming” their presentation.
Chair Merrell stated that Mr. Mangum was next on the list and asked if he wanted to make his comments first.
Mr. Mangum introduced himself as Vice Chair of Food for Families NC, headquartered in Indian Trail. He stated that the organization has been feeding families for the past 13 years. He
said he has always been a member of First Baptist Indian Trail and explained that about 13 years ago, a teacher approached them regarding students who were not eating from the time they
received free lunch on Friday until free breakfast on Monday.
He said they began by supplying food for about 18 to 20 children through a backpack program and noted that 13 years later, they are now supplying thousands of families with food each
week. He said Ms.Niccolai could provide numbers and that they are participating in this year’s grant cycle and petitioned for $25,000 to help purchase food. He said they supply all the
schools and also conduct mobile distributions throughout the county.
Mr. Mangum said he wanted to make the Board aware that the need is astronomical. He noted that, as a lifelong resident of Union County, he never imagined there would be kids living nearby
who are hungry, both below and above the poverty level. He said their goal is thatfor no child to go goes hungry and that with the Board’s help, they can meet that need.
Ms. Niccolai stated that she is theExecutive Director of Food for Families. She said that, as Mr. Mangum had stated, they started in 2012, but in 2014, they became their own 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization andalsobecame a partnering agency with Second Harvest Food Bank.
She explained that at thatthe time they had five core programs, and over the years they have expanded. She said that as a result of COVID in 2020, its programs expanded beyond the backpack
weekend food program. She said that at that time, they were averaging about 700 bags a week to students in Union and Anson Counties, and today they are averaging about 1,500 bags a week
to students in Union, Anson, and parts of Mecklenburg Counties for the backpack program.
She said the second program, which started in 2020, is the home-delivery program. She stated they partner with social workers and counselors in the school systems, who help identify
families thatwho need more than just the weekend food. She said this program allows themthe program to provide families with more highly nutritious food, including frozen meat, fresh
fruits and vegetables, and non-perishable items.
She shared that inJanuary, they had a record number of home deliveries, with 501 families receiving weekly deliveries. She said the packets Mr. Mangum provided included the2024 impact
numbers for all programs and noted that they went from zero in 2020.
Consent Agenda
Commissioner Gary Sides requested to add an item to the business agenda entitled District Court Judge for Union County (Item #25-112).
Chair Merrell said that this item would be added just above the Item on the Business Agenda to discuss the jail.
With there being no further changes or revisions, Chair Merrell moved to adopt the agenda as amended withto include the addition requested by Commissioner Sides and to approve the items
listed on the Consent Agenda, as submitted and recommended. The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa M. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-004Interlocal Agreement - Town of Indian Trail and Union County 74XExpress Bus Service
ACTION:Authorized County Manager to execute interlocal agreement.
In FY2004, Union County began contracting with the City of Charlotte toprovide regional transit express bus service (74X) between Union Countyand Charlotte through the Charlotte Area
Transit Authority (CATS) toreduce vehicular traffic on the roadways in Mecklenburg County. TheCharlotte Area Transit System (CATS) provides peak-hour weekdayexpress bus service from
Indian Trail to uptown Charlotte based onsubject to termsset forth in a Regional Transit Services Agreement between the City ofCharlotte and Union County.
This interlocal agreement reflects direction fromthe Board ofCommissioners direction to create stability with the service, which is reflected inthe five-year interlocal agreement that
runs through fiscal year 2030.
The Financial impact will be $108,228 paid to Union County through FY 2030.
25-072Task Order - US 74 & Indian Trail-Fairview Road Sewer Project
ACTION:
1) Accept the scope of services for survey services for the US 74 & IndianTrail-Fairview Road Sewer project as shown in CES GroupEngineers, LLP Task Order 9120-01 in the amount of $80,740.00
and 2)authorized the County Manager to negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item.
County Commissioners (BOCC) includes an annual allocation in theWastewater Rehabilitation & Replacement Program to assess, prioritize,and rehabilitate sanitary sewer collection system
infrastructure tomaintain the collection system. The US 74 & Indian Trail-Fairview SewerExtension project consists of installing approximately 2,200 linear feet of8-inch sanitary sewer
main along Indian Trail-Fairview Road and GaryDrive between US 74 and Paula Lane to replace ana failing aging sanitary sewermain.that is failing.
Union County Water (UCW) engineering staff will perform the design,permitting, bidding, and construction administration services for theproject. To complete the design, the project corridor
must be surveyed bya professional licensed professional surveyor to establish existing conditions for thedesign of the project. CES Group Engineers Task Order 9120-01provides for the
surveying services for the project, including survey ofexisting conditions, subsurface utility engineering (SUE), preparation ofeasement exhibits, and as-built survey when construction
is complete.
The scope of services for the work in Task Order 9120-01has been reviewed by UCW engineering staff and is appropriate for theproject. These services are to be provided on a lump sum,
per diem, andnot-to-exceed basis in the amount of $80,740.00.
Funding is available within the adopted Wastewater Rehabilitation andReplacement Program for the US 74 & Indian Trail-Fairview Road Sewerproject to support the survey services as shown
in CES Group EngineersTask Order 9120-01 in the amount of $80,740.00.
25-073Contract - Crooked Creek Water Reclamation Facility Office &
Storage Building Design-Build Phase 1 Services
ACTION:
Authorized the County Manager to negotiate and execute a contract fordesign-build Phase 1 services with Miles-McClellan ConstructionCompany, Inc. in the amount of $195,258.00 that is
substantiallyconsistent with the attached agreement.
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP), as adopted by the Board ofCounty Commissioners (BOCC), includes an allocation for the design andconstruction of office, storage, and maintenance
facilities at Union CountyWater Reclamation Facilities (WRFs). These improvements are integralto the long-term maintenance and operation of the WRFs. The CrookedCreek WRF no longer accommodates
the space and storage needs ofthe operations at the facility. The proposed project includes theconstruction of a 1,500 square-foot building with office space and spare
equipment storage space.
Union County was unable to complete the project using utilizing the traditionallowest-bidder design-bid-build delivery method for theproject due tolimited contractor participation in
the bidding process from contractors, resulting inthe project bid not being within the project budget. As allowed by G.S.143-128.1A, the BOCC approved the design-build delivery method
for theproject on May 20, 2024.
Staff developed and advertised RFQ 2025-004 to solicit qualificationsfrom design-build teams for the project, and three (3) responses werereceived. Staff evaluated each qualification
submittal and interviewed allthree teams. Based on the rankings of the shortlisted teams and resultsof the subsequent interviews, Miles-McClellan Construction Company,Inc., was selected,
and the development of the design-build Phase 1 servicesagreement commenced.
The Phase 1 services will include design development to approximately60 percent completion, and the submission and negotiation of aguaranteed maximum (GMP) proposal for the construction
of the project.The attached agreement for design-build Phase 1 services has beenreviewed by staff and is appropriate for the project. Phase 1 services willbe provided on an hourly,not-to-exceed
basis in the amount of$195,258.00.
A future request will be made to accept the GMP and Phase 2
construction services.
Funding is available within the adopted CIP for the Crooked Creek WRFOffice and Storage Building project to support the design-build Phase 1services contract amount of $195,258.00 with
Miles-McClellanConstruction Company, Inc.
25-074City of Monroe Request to Provide Water Service
ACTION:Approved the request from the City of Monroe to provide water service toParcel 09-372-005 90 located at 1371 N. Rocky River Rd.
The City of Monroe recently received a request for outside city service locatedat 1371 N. Rocky River (attached exhibit). Parcel 09-274-034 isrequesting water service to serve the concrete
plant on this property. TheCity of Monroe already provides water and sewer to the business officeon the adjacent parcel, 09-372-005 80.
Union County does not have a water distribution main accessible to theproperty.
The City of Monroe has indicated that it is prepared to serve theproperty with water, as outside City customers, if approval is granted fromby Union County. Union County’s water and
sewer service agreement with the City ofMonroe prohibits the City from providing service outside the City limitswithout the expressed, written approval of the Board of CountyCommissioners.
Union County Water has no objection to the City providing water serviceto this property.
25-075Resolution - Per- & Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pilot TestingNCDEQ-DWI Grant Funding
ACTION:1) Adopted Resolution to apply for North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Division of Water Infrastructure (NCDEQ-DWI)grant funding for pilot testing of treatment technologies
for the removal ofthe Per- & Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from drinking water, and 2)authorize the County Manager to execute all documentation necessaryfor the grant funding application.
The Capital Improvement Program, as adopted by the Board of CountyCommissioners, includes the Water & Wastewater Master PlanningProgram for the purpose of incorporating system modifications,
makingchanges in theapproach to providing water and wastewater service, andupdating capital projects. Evaluation of the water treatment processes forthe Catawba River WTP and Yadkin
River WTP to meet current andproposed drinking water regulations is included in this program.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) releasedPFAS maximum contaminant limits for drinking water on April 10, 2024.These new PFAS drinking water standards require public
water systemsto complete initial monitoring of PFAS levels in their drinking water by2027, and the public water systems must be in compliance with the PFASlimits by 2029. Preliminary
sampling of the source raw water for both theCatawba River WTP and Yadkin River WTP indicated that the PFASconcentrations in the raw water from these sources (Catawba River andLake Tillery)
have minor exceedances for some of the PFAS compounds.
A PFAS conceptual treatment analysis was completed to evaluate
potential treatment options for removing PFAS from the drinking water tomeet the new EPA requirements. Pilot testing of the treatment optionsevaluated in the study is the next step in
determining the best treatmentoption for PFAS removal.
NCDEQ-DWI has emerging contaminantsgrant funding for emerging contaminants available for pilottesting of PFAS treatment technologies. This resolution authorizes theCounty Manager to
execute and file an application with NCDEQ-DWI torequest grant funding for completing the PFAS treatment pilot testing.
Once implementation of the pilot testing commences, the County
will submit requests for reimbursement to the State on a recurring basisuntil the grant funding is exhausted.
25-061Bylaw Amendment - Local Emergency Planning Committee
ACTION:Adopted the Union County Local Emergency Planning Committee AmendedBylaws.
Any amendments to the Union County Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) bylaws must be votedon and approved by the committeebefore the Board of County Commissioners adopts the amendment. TheLEPC approved an amendment to the bylaws in its
February 5, 2025,meeting. The amendment was to meet Emergency Planning CommitteeRight-to-Know (EPCRA) Section 324, which requires local LEPCs toinclude a section in their bylaws that
addresses public informationrequests. The requirement and process isare specific and must follow theregulations as indicated in Section 324. The amendment has beenreviewed and approved
by County legal staff. The public informationrequest section is identified as Article IX in the bylaws.
For a copy of the Amended Bylaws of the Union County Local Emergency Planning Committee, please See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
25-077Purchase - Radio Equipment
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 purchase is expansion radios for the fire departments.
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 Radios will be made using North Carolina StatewideTerm Contract STC 725G as quoted by Motorola Solutions, LLC.
The anticipated cost for the Radios is $310,915.98 and is budgeted
Accordingly, for FY2025.
25-078Contract Renewal - 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 Departmentprovides various clinical laboratory services for patients that must beprocessed by an “outside” laboratory facility.
Laboratory Corporation ofAmerica Holdings (Labcorp, Inc.) processes specimens for the HumanServices Public Health Department through contract #3518. We payLabcorp directly for services,
then the patient’s insurance is billedresulting in reimbursement to Union County. This ninth amendment for
$70,000 will cover a one-year term from 1/22/2025 - 1/21/2026 and willresult in a cumulative spend on the original contract (#3518), whichexceeds the County Manager’s $50,000 allowable
signing authority,therefore, BOCC approval of Contract Amendment #9 is required.
The Public Health Department has utilized the contractual servicesofLabcorp, Inc., for contractual services since January 2014. The contractor has beeneffective and efficient in meeting
our service & patient care needs, andthe request is to continue this service for an additional one-year term.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $70,000.00 and is budgetedaccordingly for FY2025, with future expenditures subject to annual BOCCbudget appropriation.
25-060Budget Amendment - Union County Sheriff’s Office
ACTION:Approved Special Revenue Ordinance #94F and Budget Amendment #23This is a request for a budget transfer from ARPA Investment Funds tothe Union County Sheriff’s Office for compensation
adjustments.
Transfer $200,000 in available ARPA Investment Funds to the UnionCounty Sheriff’s Office.
25-080Minutes for Approval
ACTION: Approved minutes of the special meeting of January 30, 2025, on theConsent Agenda.
Information Only
25-062Human Resources Reports for December 2024ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for Information Only.
These reports include all new hires, separations from service, and
retirements for Union County Local Government for the month of
December 2024.
Business
25-037Presentation - Law Enforcement Data
Chair Merrell recognized Chief Deputy Tony Underwood of the Union County Sheriff’s Office to present law enforcement data relativerelated to the Union County Sheriff’s Office.
Due to technical difficulties, there was no audio recording of the first portion of the presentation; therefore, a copy of the printed presentation has been included with these minutes,
marked as Exhibit “A”, and made a part of these minutes.
Chief Deputy Tony Underwood said that in 2024, the number of death cases were down somewhat. He noted that their administration was fortunate to be in the new building that opened on
October 13, 2022, which houses the Criminal Laboratory, all administration, and the seven different divisions of the Union County Sheriff’s Office.is located.
Chief Deputy Underwood shared a photograph of their mobile office, which includes a pickup truck, a Tahoe, and a Dodge Durango. He said the old police sedans, including the Dodge Charger
and Ford Crown Victoria, are no longer available as police-package vehicles, and that they have moved shiftedtoward pickup trucks and SUVs because of the need to carry all of their equipment.
He said that for response times, they want deputies to be in their zones rather than sitting at the office and driving to calls. He said essentially their vehicles serve as their mobile
office.Chief Deputy Underwood said most deputies rarely have to come to the office unless they have made an arrest, need to appear before the magistrate, or have an administrative reason.
He said they remain primarily in the field, which is where they want them to be.
He showed a snapshot of the interior, showingincluding some of the equipment deputies are issued, including the cage for transporting prisoners and the rifles they carry. He said they
are very fortunate to have the equipment tothat keeps deputies prepared to do their job.
He said the Sheriff’s Office positions generally track with the County’s population. He said they have about 373 total funded positions, some of which are part-time, and noted that they
are currently at 373.
He shared the Sheriff’s Office’s organizational chart, showing the breakdown of the seven divisions, two Chief Deputies, the Sheriff, and the various bureaus and units within each division.
He said the Towns’ contracts fall under the Special Operations Bureau and briefly described how thatthe bureau is broken downstructured.
He said Weddington has added two more deputies to its contract, bringing its total them to five deputies. He said Wesley Chapel remains at one deputy, noting that some small towns might
need more, but Wesley Chapel remains comfortable with just one, despite continued growth, and itsretail footprintexpanding. continues to grow. He said Marvin has two deputies, and Lake
Park is also satisfied with two.
Chief Deputy Underwood said they have a SAFE Unit, primarily responsible for addressing drug-or alcohol-impaired drivers. He said the unit has been in place since the end of 2015, and
that theunit’s main job is to identify identifying dangerous and impaired drivers. He said the unit is led by one sergeant and five deputies and noted that they do a wonderful job.
He said the SHIELD Unit, formally the Warrant Squad, has been repurposed. He said it consists of one sergeant and five deputies, with one deputy assigned full-time as a Task Force officer
to the United States Marshals Service. He said they benefit from the investigative resources the Marshals bring. He said if a dangerous wanted person leaves Union County, they dedicate
resources to locating that individual, and vice versa, noting that they are very fortunate to have that relationship.
He showed a snapshot of the overall Town contracts, noting that the largest is Indian Trail. He said Indian Trail has grown to 36 totallaw enforcement employeesin total, led by a captain,
two lieutenants, four sergeants, 26 deputies, and three civilians. He said the town also pays for one full-time administrative assistant, one part-time administrative assistant, one
full-time crime scene investigator, and two detectives, and 33 deputies. He said the contract continues togrows as Indian Trail continues to grow.
Chief Deputy Underwood showed a breakdown of all municipalities, including their police budgets and total number of employees, noting that the information reflects 2024. He said the
right side shows the five Town contracts that the Sheriff’s Office serves and the cost of that service to each town.
Towns with Full Time Police Departments
Municipality
2024
Population
Budget
Employees
Monroe
37,797
$16,821,034
111
Stallings
17,549
$3,868,500
29
Waxhaw
23,837
$4,517,000
42 FT, 7 RES
Wingate
4,425
$799,200
9 FT, 1 RES
Marshville
2,700
$1,289,908
8 FT, 5 RES
Towns with Sheriff's Office Contracts
Municipality
2024
Population
Budget
Deputies
Indian Trail
43,705
$4,765,412
33
Weddington
14,354
$654,068
5
Marvin
6,949
$261,627
2
Wesley Chapel
9,464
$130,814
1
Lake Park
3,573
$261,627
2
Commissioner Sides thanked Chief Deputy Underwood for his presentation. He said he had a question regarding the new administration’s push on illegal immigration and criminal elements.
He asked the Sheriff to explain his relationship with the Marshals Service, ICE, and how apprehensions and the handling of illegal criminal elements are managed.
Chief Deputy Underwood then asked Commissioner Sides if he was referring to anyone who is undocumented in the country.
Commissioner Sides asked how the Sheriff’s Office works with ICE regarding undocumented individuals, gang members, and criminal elements, and how the office coordinates with ICE or other
federal authorities in handling those cases.
Chief Deputy Underwood said the office has partnerships with virtually every federal agency and has maintained these relationships for many years, particularly with the Marshals Service.
He noted that, as mentioned earlier, they currently have one full-time Task Force officer assigned there.
He said that regarding ICE, the Sheriff’s Office has not changed its identification procedures. He said the agency does not go out looking for individuals who may not be in the country
legally and does not work with ICE to locate them. .look for those individuals.
He said that when any person comes into the jail, they are fingerprinted and positively identified. He said part of that process includes determining the individual’s country of origin
or place of birth. He said that once fingerprinted, the information is sent to the SBI, the FBI, and ICE for identification.
He said that if an individual has any type of Border Nexus, ICE responds to the inquiry, and if they request a detainer, they will hold the individual.
He said that once an individual meets the conditions of release for the underlying charge for which they are being held in custody, ICE has 48 hours to take custody. He said the office
is only allowed to hold the individual for up to, but no more than, 48 hours after they have met those conditions of release.
He said that the process has not changed and has not impacted the Sheriff’s Office. He said they work with all federal agencies and have frequently partnered with Homeland Security and
the ATF. He said they have a Task Force officer on the ATF Violent Crimes Task Force and have also partnered with the FBI in the past. He said they work with and partner with all law
enforcement agencies.
Commissioner Sides thanked Chief Deputy Underwood for his response.
Sheriff Cathey said that ICE is not entering going intochurches or schools to conduct searches and emphasized that the Sheriff’s office will not do that either. He said if someone needs
assistance, they can contact their SRO (School Resource Officer), and the office will handle it, noting that ICE will not take those actions.
Commissioner Sides said he found the information very helpful. He said he would also like to ask staff, acknowledging the ongoing budget process, to welcome the Sheriff’s Department
back to review the law enforcement portion of the budget.
He said that would be very helpful, particularly for him, since this is his first budget process, and he would like to have the Sheriff’s Office return.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Chief Deputy Underwood and the Sheriff for being present. He said he wanted to circle back to one point and noted, as a parent with two small children
in UCPS, that the SROs are fantastic. He said it is great to see the students bond with the deputies, who become a part of the school culture.
He said he wanted to go back to the slide on instances by school type and asked for clarification to ensure the message is being communicated correctly to the public. He said these are
not prosecuted crimes but reportable incidents, and asked if his understanding was correct.
Chief Deputy Underwood said that if a crime is alleged, it does not mean it actually happened. He said that if a student alleges a crime, such as an assault or a threat, the office records
it. He noted that they receive a significant number of threats and assaults.
He said that the weekly report from the School Safety Division lists all incidents reported in a week, and noted that it can take 30 minutes to read. He said the vast majority of those
reports are not actual crimes. He said that when cases are prosecuted, most involve individuals under the age of18 and are reported to the Department of Juvenile Justice to determine
whether a petition should be issued against the student, if justified.
He said the numbers should not be alarming, noting that there are not many actual crimes in the schools and that the schools are very safe. He said that with social media and the “Say
Something” app, they receive several reports each day of students allegedly threatening violence. He said investigations begin immediately, if necessary, including going to a student’s
home, if necessary, but these are still recorded as incident reports.
Sheriff Cathey said it is similar to a 911 call; the incident is documented and included in the numbers, but it does not necessarily mean it is a crime or results in a charge.
Chair Merrell asked whether the data presented is only for Union County Public Schools or if it also includes charter schools, private schools, homeschool education, and South Piedmont.
Chief Deputy Underwood responded that the data covers K–12 Union County Public Schools.
Chair Merrell confirmed that the data is only for Union County Public Schools.
Chief Deputy Underwood said the reports are those reports available through the Sheriff’s Office’s records management system and do not capture charter schools because there are no School
Resource Officers in those schools.
Chair Merrell asked if an incident occurred at a charter school, would they not call 911.
Chief Deputy Underwood said they would, but for example, at Union Academy, Monroe Police would respond.
Sheriff Cathey said that once a 911 call is made, it comes to the Sheriff’s office or the appropriate jurisdiction, such as Monroe.
25-053Wastewater Pump Station Approval Request - Sanctuary at Southgate Phase II Development
Chair Merrell announced that the next agenda item is 25-053, Wastewater Pump Station approval request for the Sanctuary at Southgate Phase 2 development, and recognized County Manager
Brian Matthews.
County Manager Brian Matthews thanked the Chair and said the presentation was not available at the time. He asked if the Board could move to the next item.
25-090Senior Nutrition Program Update
The audio recording for the beginning portion of Agenda Item 25-090 (Senior Nutrition Program Update) is unavailable due to technical difficulties. Therefore, the written presentation
is included and marked as Exhibit “B” and made a part of these minutes.
At this point in the presentation, the audio resumed.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the funding would cover the remainder of the fiscal year and whether the proposal is to work out an interlocal agreement for additional funding in
future years.
Mr. Niland statedagreed that was correct, noting that the cost will change each year and will require more funding to maintain the same level of service provided for the eightresidents
this year. He said if it is included in the budget, that is ideal; if not, the base level would have to be reduced, which could potentially affect the waitlist. He said Wesley Chapel
would then need to decide whether to fund the entirety of theentire waitlist at that time.
He said those are discussions and points that will need to be worked out in an interlocal agreement. He noted it has the potential to become complicated as people come on and off the
list, and said they are trying to develop an agreement that is easy to understand for both the County and the other parties.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he would echo Chair Merrell’s comments and thanked Wesley Chapel, noting that partnerships with municipalities make it much easier for the Board and the
County.
He said that when the County has those partnerships, theyDepartment is are able to accomplish great things, and he noted that this is a good example. He thanked them for bringing this
forward.
25-053Wastewater Pump Station Approval Request - Sanctuary at Southgate Phase II Development
Chair Merrell introduced the next item and recognized County Manager Brian Matthews to present the request.
County Manager Brian Matthews thanked the Board for its patience, noting a brief technical difficulty. He said the request before the Commissioners is to consider consideration fora
pump station.
He reminded that several years ago, the Board approved a policy requiring that new pump stations and improvements to existing pump stations come before the Board for decisionson construction.
He said that often, development cannot flow by gravity or has difficulty flowing by gravity to a wastewater treatment plant, making pump stations necessary, depending on circumstances.
He explained the request before the Board is for a pump station for the Sanctuary at Southgate Phase 2 development. He referred to the policy adopted by the Board as part of the requirements
and displayed a map of the property. He said Phase 1 of the property, located in the blue area on the map, has already been approved and is under construction without a pump station.
He said the properties in Phase 1, mostly single-family residential, flow by gravity to the system, so a pump station was not required.
He said Phase 2 requires a pump station. He provided a breakdown of the development, noting 75 single-family homes, 240 multi-family units, a future fire station, and commercial or retail
properties totaling approximately 149,000 square feet.
He said there are a couple of ways to serve this property if a pump station is approved. He described Alternative 1 – On Site Pump Station would be to construct a pump station on the
property, which would pump flow to an existing gravity line that goes to the Poplin Pump Station, one of the County’s largest regional pump stations, which ultimately flows to the 12-Mile
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant where the sewer is treated. He said it could also connect at an alternative location and flow by gravity to that pump station.
He said the lifecycle cost for this pump station is about $2.1 million and noted that this option requires less sewer line installation compared to other options.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked County Manager Brian Matthews to clarify what is meant by “life cycle cost.”
Mr. Matthews said they use 20 years as the gauge for the life cycle of the pump station, including the forcemain and other components. He explained that different components of a pump
station have varying lifespans: the pumps may last 10 years, the electronics five years, and the wet well 30 years. He said using 20 years is a total estimate and does not mean they
willwait 20 years to perform maintenance or replacement.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said thattheexplanation clarifies that there is a maintenance cost over time and, if approved, the pump stationwill need to be maintained or completely replaced.
Mr. Matthews confirmed and noted that the $2.1 million includes the upfront cost of building the pump station and all associated infrastructure. He said the developer pays for construction,
and once approved by the Board, the County accepts it and maintains the pump station.
Commissioner Sides asked how much of the $2.1 million is the initial construction cost.
Mr. Matthews said he did not know that off the top of his head.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if it becomes the County’s responsibility once installed.
Mr. Matthews said that is correct; the County owns and maintains it, and if anything breaks, it is repaired by the County.
He discussed Alternative 2 – Gravity Connection and Existing Pump Station Upgrades –statingnoting that it isdiffers ent because it flows by gravity to an existing pump station.
Mr. Matthews said the alternative would require a gravity line installed by the developer, connecting to an existing pump station, which thenthat pumps to another gravity line, flows
to another pump station, and ultimately pumps to the Poplin Pump Station and 12-Mile Creek. He said this is not a true gravity solution, as some form of pumping is still required.
He said this flow would require improvements to the Porter Ridge and Field Stone Pump Stations to accept the additional flow, and those upgrades are included in a 20-year lifecycle cost
of $3.6 million. He explained that while gravity is usually cheaper to build than a pump station and force main, the long run of gravity lines and the necessary pump station improvements
which make that lifecycle cost higher.
He said there really is not a true gravity solution for this property; some form of a pump is needed.
He said that whether to approve or deny the pump station is a utility-based decision, noting that the Board has a couple of options. He said this particular pump station only serves
that development.
He said that keeping in mind the utility’s focuslooks for customers, a single pump station serving only this development does not expand the customer base, which is a negative.
He said on the positive side, it is adding customers to the system, whether residential or commercial, and theywho ultimately pay into it. the system. He noted, however, that costs cannot
be spread over more users because it only serves this development.
He said the development is ultimately served by the Poplin Pump Station. He explained that this is an existing regional station, and the proposal would pump from the new station to the
Poplin station, which is already designed to handle significant flow, because it is a regional pump station, and this is a positive aspect.
Mr. Matthews noted that the developer’s attorney, Mr. Stephen Bennett, is present and may have comments for the Board. He said Mr. Bennett had requested that the Board consider delaying
action on this matter.
He said his goal was to present the information so the Board could decide whether to delay action. He noted that the item had already been included in the agenda, and the Board could
make that decision.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification regarding Phase 2. He said when multi-family was described, he wanted to know if that refers to apartments or could potentially include townhomes
or condominiums.
Mr. Matthews said it was a good question, but that he was not sure if it was apartments or townhomes. He said it would be better for Mr. Bennett to answer that question.
Mr. Bennett introduced himself, stating that he is a resident of Waxhaw and the attorney for the property owner. of the property.
He said the property in question is Sanctuary at Southgate and noted he would make a few brief comments and address some of the questions that had come up.
He said this is a 2013 project, and it is shocking that it is still going, but it is.still going.He said it was approved by the Town of Indian Trail 12 years ago; it wanted the project
then, and it still wants the project.now.
He said they have had numerous talks with the Town, and noted that, as Mr. Matthews mentioned, most of the residential construction is already underway.
He said the main point is that at this time it is essentially a commercial project, with 150,000 square feet of commercial space that cannot functionoperate without the pump station.
He said there is supposed to be a grocery store tenant and an additional 95,000 square feet of retail and shops planned.
He said a representative of the owner and it’s the project engineer are present to help answer any questions.
He said he remembered a question about lifecycle cost and noted that the upfront costof thepump station’s upfront cost is $1 million, which the developer is covering.
Mr. Bennett asked Commissioner Sides if his question was regarding apartments.
Commissioner Sides clarified that he was asking about the multi-family units, specifically whether they are apartments, townhomes, or condos.
Mr. Bennett said the original approval in 2013 was for a conditional district, and at that time, the approval was for apartments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted that Mr. Bennett had said the project is primarily commercial, but asked if the majority of the sewer capacity to the pump station would serve residential
units.
Mr. Bennett asked whether the question referred to Phase 1 or Phase 2.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms clarified that the discussion is regarding Phase 2.
Mr. Bennett said there are residential components flowing into the system, but he is not an engineer and cannot provide numbers. He offered that the engineer was present to answer those
questions.
Matthew J. Sinkovitz, P.E., Senior Project Manager, said that the majority of the allocated flow would be residential compared to the commercial component.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked for confirmation that the commercial space is for future development.
Mr. Sinkovitz said that is correct.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the residential units would be built first.
Mr. Sinkovitz said that is the current plan.
Chair Merrell asked if there is a timeline in the contract, specifically whether the commercial portion must be completed within five or ten years.
Mr. Sinkovitz said he could not speak to the timeline for the actual development.
MichaelSlovotinek, representative of Walton, the owner of the property, said they are actively working on a contract with a commercial developer to build out the commercial portion.
He said ideally, the developer would like to build the entire frontage on Rocky River at one time, in conjunction with the single-family homes and townhomes being developed by a separate
builder.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked about the timeline.
Mr. Slovotineksaid the timeline would be approximately 12 months, as it will take that long to complete construction drawings and obtain approval through the Town of Indian Trail before
breaking ground.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the timeline applies to commercial or residential development.
Michael Slovatick said it would be for both at the same time.
Commissioner Sides questioned about the townhomes.
Michael Slovatick said that the existing Phase 1 project has 52 townhomes. He stated as approved in the conditional district, the 240 multi-family units in Phase 2 cannot be converted
to townhomes without approval from the Town of Indian Trail, and they intend to proceed with the original approval.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to (i) Deny the application request concerning the Sanctuary at Southgate Phase II development for a new wastewater pump station, as such pump station
solution is set forth in the application associated with the request, in accordance with Section 34-336(b)(1) of the Union County Code; and (ii) adopt the utility-based rationale statement
for denial.
Utility-Based Rationale Statement
In managing Union County’s water and wastewater utility, it is the responsibility of the Union County Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) to determine the particular needs of the utility
at the current time in making decisions concerning the utility. The Board should take into account and weigh numerous operational, financial, and other utility-based reasons to make
decisions whichthat the Board determines are reasonable, in the public interest, and rationally based on the best interest in the operation of the utility. Pursuant to Section 34-336(b)(1)
of the Union County Code, the Board does hereby find and determines that denial of the new pump station application request is reasonable, in the public interest, and is rationally based
on the best interest of the operation of the utility, based upon thefollowing utility-based rationale:
The new pump station solution will require significant investment over time in a pump station whichthat primarily serves one development, without the opportunity for significant revenue
from other customer connections whichthat would assist in offsetting such costs.
2. Compared to a solution with improvements to two additional pump stations, the new pump station solution does not allow for as many improvements that would benefit the entire utility
system.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
25-112Union County District Court Judge (This item was added to the agenda during the meeting at the request of Commissioner Gary Sides.)
Chair Merrell introduced the next agenda item to discuss a request for a District Court Judge for Union County. She stated that this item was added to the agenda during the meeting
at the request of Commissioner Gary Sides.
Commissioner Sides said that during discussions onabout the jail, the Board talked about potential bottlenecks in the judicial system. He said Judge Erin Hucks, the lead district court
judge, reached out to him and provided an opportunity to learn more about the legal community in Union County, as he is not an attorney and has not been involved in the legal process.
From that discussion, he said it is clear that Union County there is aneedsfor an additional district court judge in Union County.
Commissioner Sides said Judge Hucks explained that the number of judges in a district is determined by the District Court Workload Formula, but the most recent data she was able to obtain
is from 2020.He stated that she was unable to determine the actual formula used to makefor that calculation, as it is not readily available.
Commissioner Sides stated that they essentially used population as the basis for comparison. He explained that this was the reasonwhy he was asking the Board to consider a resolution
for to appointadditional district court judges. He noted that Union County currently has five district court judges serving a population of approximately 260,000, which works out to
about one judge for every 51,290 residents. He then compared that number to Cabarrus County, which has a slightly smaller population of around 240,000 but has six district court judges,
or roughly one judge for every 40,000 residents.
Commissioner Sides stated that Gaston County has seven district court judges with a population slightly less than Union County, at approximately 237,000, which is about one judge per
33,891 residents. He noted that Iredell County is a little different because the district includes two counties, Iredell and Alexander, which together have six district court judges
for an approximate total population of 236,000, or one judge per 39,363 residents. He said that many people, including himself, may have been under the misconception that district court
judges do not handle major criminal cases, divorces, child custody matters, or tickets, but clarified that they do. He stated that district court judges are responsible for Class H and
I felonies, which couldmay result in involve potential time in the County jail for those accused of such crimes.
Commissioner Sides stated that this, in turn, could impact the length of stay in the County jail. He said that, without any dissent from his colleagues, he would like to ask the County
Attorney, Mr. Jason Kay, to prepare a resolution requesting that the General Assembly allocate and fund an additional district court judge for Union County.
Chair Merrell asked if Commissioner Sides was only requesting only one judge.
Commissioner Sides replied yes.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Commissioner Sides for looking intoreviewing the discussions regarding bottlenecks. He asked Commissioner Sides if Judge Hucks had expressed any optimism
that adding another district court judge could expedite the process and possibly reduce the length of stay in the County jail.
Commissioner Sides stated it would definitely have an impact on the judicial system by moving those involved through the systemitfaster. He noted that, as discussed during the new Commissioners’
orientation, not only does an increase in cases result in more individuals waiting for trial in the jail, but also more severe crimes also result in longer lengths of stay. He said the
goal would be to impact both, providing more time, more space, or at least have an impact on the increase.
Commissioner Sides stated that he had initially mentioned a Superior Court judge, but learned that adding a Superior Court judge would effect affects the entire district and may not
have a direct impact on Union County, as they would also be responsible for other counties. He explained that a district court judge would serve just the Union County district, which
he believes is District 30. He added that he learned that adding a Superior Court judge may not have as much impact as adding a district court judge.potentiallycould.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked staff whether there is room in the courthouse for an additional judge and if a courtroom is available to accommodate a full-time position.
Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, stated that the courtrooms would need to be scheduled around the additional judge, but the system could accommodate it. He added that there isan
office is available for another district court judge.
Commissioner Sides stated that Judge Hucks confirmed they could manage schedules to accommodate an additional judge.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms addressed staff stating he believed it was mentioned during the retreat that the County could get more utilization out of the courtrooms currently available.
He added that he did not believe the courtrooms are being used to their full capacity and that there is some availability with the courtrooms that the County currently has.
Patrick Niland responded that he believed the question was whether all courtrooms are being used. He stated that they are not all being used all the time, but they are all in use. He
added that there is some available capacity within the courtrooms to accommodate another judge in the schedule.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the position would be an elected.one.
Patrick Niland confirmed that the position would be elected.
Commissioner Helms asked, if the General Assembly approves a position in the next session, how quickly could that turnaround occur, and whether it would be an off-election cycle.
Patrick Niland stated that Jason Kay may know this better than he does, as he is probably more familiar with the process, and added that he did not know the answer to that question.
Mr. Kay stated that itwould largely depend on how the legislation is framed, including whether someone could be placed in the position sooner than the next general election. He said
that it is conceivable the General Assembly could appoint someone or bring in someone from another area of the court structure, noting that there are several options available and that
such decisions are within the discretion ofthe General Assembly’s discretion.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how quickly the General Assembly could turn that around.
Mr. Kay stated that the legislature moves in mysterious ways, but he would think six months to a year would be a reasonable timeframe to get some change, noting there are a lot of moving
parts over which they have no control.
Commissioner Sides asked whether adding a judge is considered local legislationand, if so, is that action is something that can sometimes move faster.
Mr. Kay stated that adding it would be a public bill to add a number of judges to the district, not just local legislation.
Commissioner Baucom asked Commissioner Sides if the current ratio would be one judge per 51,000 citizens.
Commissioner Sides responded that there is one judge per 51,290 people, which is the highest ratio of any surrounding counties.
Commissioner Baucom asked what the ratio would be if one more judge was added.
Commissioner Sides stated that he had not done the math, but adding one judge would bring the county in line with most other counties in the area. He noted that Gaston has seven judges
with less population, Iredell has six judges, and everyone else has at least six. He added that adding one judge would get the County on par, and offered to revise a resolution to request
two judges if desired, though he was unsure of the space requirements. He expressed the sense that one judge is of dire need.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked staff to confirm, noting that not long ago the Board approved an expansion of the Judicial Center. He also recalled that two additional District Attorneys
werehad been approved and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Niland stated that it was not recent, but the County funds two assistant district attorney positions.
Mr. Matthews clarified that the positions were not added recently, but the County does fund them.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether the possibility of an additional district court judge had been considered in the judicial study at all.
Mr. Matthews stated that, to his understanding, the need for additional courtroom space was gauged onby the fact that additional judges would be needed. He added that he would not say
that was the primary driving factor, but they were aware additional courtroom space would be needed in the future.
Commissioner Sides stated that maybe this will helpanswer some of the Board’s questions as well if the Board moves forward with an actual resolution. Heasked Judge Hucks if she could
be present when the Board is entertaining that resolution to answer specific questions which that he is not equipped to answer. He added that maybe that would help everyone, especially
with the space issue and everything else, and how district courts could potentially impact the lengths of stay at the jail.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked, through the Chair, whether Commissioner Sides would be willing to share with the numbers with other Board members.that he has the numbers.
Commissioner Sides responded that he would certainly share it with the other Board members, stating that he has it in note form and will be glad to share an email. He added that Judge
Hucks provided some documentation, and he apologized for receiving the materials this morning butand did not have time to distribute the information, but said he would make sure all
the information is sent to everyone.
Mr. Niland reminded the Board that one of its legislative priorities is to request a superior court judge, and noted that if there is any change or addition to that legislative priorities
list, this item should probably be added along with the resolution.
Chair Merrell stated that she wanted to go backreturn to Vice Chair Brian Helms’ point, noting that last year the request to renovate, upgrade, and expand the Judicial Center was brought
to the Board. She stated that she does not recall staff bringing this request to the Board.
Mr. Matthews stated that at the time, a no request was not received.
Chair Merrell confirmed with Mr. Matthews that this is the first time they have heard of the request.
Mr. Niland stated that generally, at the local level, they do not get involved in requesting judge positions, and that during his tenure this is the first time there has been any discussion
on the matter. He added that, as part of the space needs analysis, staff met with judicial officials, and they were aware that increasing population growth and increasing caseloads meant
another judge would be needed at some point, along with additional courtroom space.
Chair Merrell asked if it was a Superior Court Judge.
Mr. Niland clarified that it was a district court judge and noted that it was part of a space needs analysis conducted about four or five years ago. He added that the County has never
proactively pursued adding a judge with the legislature and that generally the approach has been reactive. He explained that, for example, when the Public Defender’s Office was added
in the last budget year, they had not requested it. He further noted that accommodating a single judge is much easier for space than an office of 18 public defenders.
Chair Merrell stated that she wanted to make a recommendation, noting that this has been a healthy discussion and that the information is new for at least four members of the Board.
Chair Merrell stated that she wanted to know more and that some additional homework is needed. She asked for staff to speak with Judge Hucks and get more information. She also requested
that staff return come backto the Board at a later date and provide what the ratio would be for Union County if it is currently one judge per 51,000 residents.
She added that she wanted to know more about what the ratio would be if a second district court judge were added. Chair Merrell noted that, since they have heard what other counties
have, it would be helpful to know the real ratio if the Board were able to petition the General Assembly withfor a possible resolution to request a second judge position.
Mr. Matthews stated that he thinks they will ask Judge Hucks to answer some of the questions, as those are beyond the staff’s scope.
Chair Merrell stated that she would like some clarification on who would make the appointment until an election process was held.
Commissioner Baucom stated that based on their estimates,that adding one judge would bring the ratio down to about 42,500 per judge, and adding two judges would bring it to around 36,428
per judge.
Mr. Niland stated that if the Board finds it helpful, staff could also research when other counties were given additional judges and bring that information back to the Board.
Commissioner Sides said that what he found most interesting in his discussion with Judge Hucks is that, as she explained it, whenever a county or a judge requests additional judges through
the legislature, they referencecitethe District Court workload formula.
Commissioner Sides stated that the most recent data that Judge Hucks can access is about five years old, and the formula the legislature uses is not shared. He added that they essentially
developed their own formula based on population and the number of judges in other counties.
Commissioner Sides shared his concern that the lead District Court Judge cannot obtain from the state authority the exact formula used, nor why she cannot get an updated one, noting
that this is the formula the legislature uses to determine how many judges the county receives, which he said makes no sense.
Commissioner Sides stated that he would encourage the staff to explore this issue further and noted that Judge Hucks can provide additional information.
25-095Jail Discussion
Chair Merrell stated that the next item on the agenda is Item 25-095, Jail Discussion. She recognized County Manager Brian Matthews for the staff’s comments.
Mr. Matthews stated that during the Board’s retreat, there was a very good discussion with the Boardabout upcoming capital projects, with the jail being a significant part of that discussion.
He noted that the Board requested additional information, which staff is now bringing back, and added that if the Board wishes to have additional discussion, staff is available to do
sothat evening.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Sheriff’s Office had provideda comparison of the County’s population and how it comparesits comparison to other counties of somewhat similar size, including
the jail bed capacity and core.
He stated that the information provided at that time was mostly on counties around the same size as Union County. He noted that Buncombe County had a slightly larger population, while
Cabarrus, Johnston, and Gaston Counties all had smaller populations, with jail bed sizes ranging from the 500s to 600s in inmate size. He added that the Board then asked fora comparison
with counties with larger populations, more closely reflecting Union County’s projected population in 2030, 2040, and 2050.
Mr. Matthews stated that the information includes a chart that breaks down the data.
Mr. Matthews stated that the chart shows the population used in the County’s comprehensive plan, which is developed from the regional CRTPO (Charlotte’s Regional Transportation Planning
Organization), a regional transportation agency. He noted that CRTPO develops population projections, which and those projectionsare used in the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Matthews stated that the chart shows the population projections from the state demographer. He noted that these differ because the projections are for 2025, 2035, and 2045, while
the state demographer’s projections are for 2030, 2040, and 2050. He added that, although they are offset by five years, the chart provides an idea of what each source has as far asin
terms of population.
He stated that when viewing the CRTPO data, which is what the county used in its comprehensive plan to compare itself, then the closest counties to what Union County is expected to grow
to in 2035 would be Durham and Cumberland.
Mr. Matthews stated that, while those counties will also grow over the same timeframe, currently they are the closest to Union County’s projected population, having a 736-bed jail capacity
and 568-bed capacity.
Mr. Matthews stated that Forsyth and Guilford Counties are much larger, with jail bed counts over 1,000 and 1,300, and noted that those comparisons are not really fair for Union County
because they are so large. He stated that another factor to keep in mind is that Durham has a larger city, which creates a different dynamic that would need to be considered.
Mr. Matthews stated that the best comparisons for Union County are likely Buncombe, Cabarrus, Johnston, and Gaston Counties, as they are more similar as far as growth and populationand
likely inmate numbers over time.He stated that this is not suggesting that the County needs to build a 600-bed jail, but the comparison provides a range for populations somewhat similar
to Union County.
He stated that the information provided is good data for the Board to review. He added that ultimately, staff will be seeking direction from the Board on how the second phase of the
jail study should be completed. He explained that the consultant needs some parameters, including the size of the facility to evaluate, in order to determine what it takes to build and
operate it, including staffing.
Mr. Matthews stated that he was not suggesting the Board make that decision tonight, but noted that direction from the Board will be needed in the very near future to allow staff to
move forward with completing the study.
Chair Merrell expressed appreciation for receiving the information that was requested at the retreat.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated thatthese are great observations. He noted that when looking at some of the other counties, they provide a comparison, but they are very different from
Union County. He added that some of those counties have much larger urban populations, which Union County does not have.
He said that when reviewing the numbers, he liked the comparison with Johnston County and believes that it falls in line with what the Board heard from the Sheriff at the retreat. He
clarified that what they were discussing at that moment was for the second part of the study and that it was not a final approval.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that what they were essentially looking at what it wasnow, if they decided to press forward, what the parameters would beat that time. He said that,
if he understood correctly, at that point the consultant would come back to the Board with more concrete numbers for final consideration. He added that then the Board would deliberate
on how to pay for the facility.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that this was correct and said stated thatthey would receive some estimates along with staffing data. He noted that staffing and operating the project would obviously
have a significant cost.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Board would also get estimates on construction costs, and those numbers would then be factored into the Board’s decision on whether to move forward with
construction a jail. He added that if the project moved forward, the Board would later decide how to fund it, whether through a general obligation bond requiring a referendum or a limited
obligation bond that does not require a public vote.
Mr. Matthews stated that they had provided a number of recommendations for the Board to consider at the retreat and offered to provide that information again for the Board to review
while deciding whether the Boardas it decides whether the Board is comfortable moving forward. He said this item would likely be scheduled for one of the March meetings to receive direction
from the Board, unless the Board was ready to provide directionat tonight’s meeting.
Chair Merrell asked whether the Board would be hearinghear from Christopher Boyd, Facilities Director, and if he would provide a facilities perspective. She noted that while the Board
had already received some of this information, she wanted to know if he would be returning to present again.
Mr. Matthews asked if the question was regarding all facilities or specifically the jail.
Chair Merrell clarified that she was referring to the jail.
Mr. Matthews said that Mr. Boyd could always come back if the Board wanted additional information. He said they were happy to have him return to speak and asked the Board to indicatespecify
what specific information was needed so arrangements could be made.
Chair Merrell said she wanted to revisit the information the Board had received, noting that Mr. Boyd had donegivena presentation on a 400-bed with a 500 core, a 500-bed with a 500 core,
and a 600-bed with a 500 core. She asked ifthose numbers were still accurate or if they had changed, explaining that this was the reason she brought it up.
Mr. Matthews stated that he was happy to provide that information and had anticipated that when the Board was making a decision, those options would be presented. He noted that he did
not expect the Board to make a decision that evening but had planned to show the options when the item was brought back for consideration.
Mr. Matthews explained that staff would have some revised general estimates for those costs and could show the Board different scenariossuch as a 400-bed and a 600 core, a 400-bed and
an 800 core, or a 600-bed and an 800core,providing estimated costs for each. He added that this would allow for a more detailed discussion on the options.
Mr. Matthews stated that it was his intention to provide that information, whether it came from Christopher Boyd, himself, or anyone else.
Chair Merrell said that was the reason she brought it up, noting that she had not heard the information. She asked whether they would be circling back to it or if it was no longer being
considered.
Mr. Matthews explained that he had not thought the Board was ready to make a decision, which was why he had not provided the information.
Chair Merrell explained that this was why she was asking if he would be coming back.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that the information would be provided to the Board.
Mr. Boyd came forward and stated that he was happy to come back at any time to discuss the numbers. He noted that the report the Board had seen, which he believed was from last March,
started with very low numbers, ranging from around 250 up to 600, with 800 being the highest. He asked if the Board wanted him to review those lower numbers again.
Chair Merrell clarified that she was specifically referring to a chart with three lines showing 400-beds with a 600 core, a 500-bed with a 600 core, and a 600-bed with a 600 core, which
were the options Mr. Boyd had presented. She noted that they were later asked for an 800-core option, which was significantly higher than the original three. She added that she was not
interested in reviewing the lower numbers, such as 250, since that clearly was not the range they needed.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he remembered the study or chart being referred to and confirmed that it did include those three options.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he was of the opinion that800 to 1,200 beds are not needed. He noted that he liked the comparison with Johnston County and, while the Board could
deliberate further, he believed the chart Commissioner Merrell had referenced provided closer options for the relative comparisons being considered. He added that he agreed it would
be very helpful for the Board.
Commissioner Sides stated that one question he was considering in determining this issue was how long they wanted the next jail to last before needing to expand the core and enlarge
the facility.
Commissioner Sides stated that, to him, that question is what determines the capacity numbers. He noted that however the project is financed, it would take 20 years to pay off, and some
of the consultant’s projections looked 25 years out.
Commissioner Sides stated that, personally, he would like to build a facility with initial capacities sufficient to meet the 25-year projections, so future Boards would not have to expand
it before it is paid off. He referenced the Judicial Center as an example, noting that he did not believe it was fully paid off and that arrangements were already being made for additional
space.
Commissioner Sides stated that while building to meet the 25-year projections might not be the cheapest route, he believed it was the best value. He explained that any future expansions
whether to the core or the cells would be more expensive than doing it today, with costs increasing each month and year. He added that this was the rationale he was considering.
Commissioner Sides stated that he was trying to project out 25 years to determine what would be sufficient to meet the needs at that time. He added that he did not believe anything
less than an 800-core, 600-bed jail would be adequate.
Chair Merrell stated that she understood his point but noted that the current average daily incarceration is under 300. She said she struggled with asking taxpayers to fund an 800-bed
jail if it would take 20 years or more to reach that number, but she appreciated his perspective.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that, to that point, she believed the consultant had indicated the jail would last 25 to maybe 30 years. She noted that there would be a period of
five plus years where it is not being paid for.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that through the study, they had learned a couple of takeaways. He noted that one key takeaway was that the jail core could be designed and built in
a way that allowsto allow for future expansion.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he thought this was key because, if he understood correctly, they could consider building on a smaller scale initially butand design it so that
the core could be expanded at a later time.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that it was something thatstaff needed to clarify with theconsultant. He said regarding Commissioner Sides’ concern, he would argue that it should
be taken to the consultant as a point of concern. He added that the onus would then fall on the project designers to start with a 500 or 600 core size, or whatever is chosen, but design
it in a way that allows for future expansion 30 years out to 600, 800, or whatever is needed, essentially building it with options.
Chair Merrell agreed.
Chair Merrell stated that they were projecting an average daily population of approximately 400 inmates,average daily population,by the year 2030. She noted that the fact that the core
is expandable was one reason she did not want to build out to 800 or 1,200 beds immediately. She emphasized that the County needs to build what it could afford and avoid overburdening
taxpayers with a facility sized for 2050 or beyond.
Chair Merrell stated that they needed to determine the starting number that would get them to the desired completion identifying how many beds were needed at full build-out and nothing
less. She added that they should provide parameters so the facility could be expandable, whether in terms of beds or the core.
Commissioner Sides stated that he understood the perspective being shared. He explained that his personal philosophy was that the next jail should have sufficient capacity so that future
Boards would not need to expand it until the facility was paid off.
He acknowledged that the Board might decide that was not feasible, which he understood, but emphasized that his approach was to plan backwards, looking 20 years out to determine what
would be needed for the jail to last at least that long before requiring expansion.
Commissioner Sides stated that the facility should most definitely be designed for extensive expansion, and with proper maintenance, itcould last 50 years or more. He added that, for
the next jail they build, he hoped it would have sufficient capacity so that it would not need to be expanded until the original facility was paid off, around 20 years.
Commissioner Sides stated that his approach was to consider how big a jail would be needed 20 years from now. He acknowledged that others might feel differently and might be comfortable
with having to come back in 10 or 15 years, which is certainly their prerogative. He emphasized that he was simply offering this as food for thought to help guide the decision on the
optimum size.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he wanted to point out and perhaps request of staff that they had discussed at the Retreat whether any part of the current jail facility could be
salvaged or repurposed for other uses.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, obviously, the County has other needs, and he would like more information when the discussion resumes aboutregarding potential uses for the old
facility. He suggested it could serve as an annex or for some other purpose. He emphasized that there should be other uses for the old facility, even if it is not a prison or jail, and
he appreciated having options.
Mr. Matthews stated that once the Board decides on the study parameters, they would approach the consultant and ask them to include in the scope an evaluation of the existing facility,
providing options for what it could be used for, and identifying a suitable purpose for the building.
Mr. Matthews stated that adding an evaluation of the existing facility would take additional time, as it was not part of the original scope. He explained that, since the Board had raised
the issue at the Retreat, they would want to discuss it with the consultant.
Chair Merrell stated that they needed to keep in mind that the existing jail is failing. She said they would want to hear from the consultant or facilities staff about if whether they
wanted to keep it as functional space, andwhat it would it take to retrofit and make it usable,noting that its current problems are what have brought them to the present discussion.
Commissioner Baucom stated that he was concerned his comments might be taking the discussion backward. He added that he believed the Board could work together to make their best educated
guess, move the project forward, and then determine how to fund it, whether through a referendum or another method.
Commissioner Baucom stated that his main concern was oversight during the construction process, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the jail is not built on a non-solid unstable foundation.
footing.He said he would argue that the current jail might not be failing now, were it on a solid footing, and that was his primary concern.
Commissioner Sides asked the Chair if the Board was prepared to place this item on the agenda for the first March meeting.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that they would bring it to the first March meeting for the Board to provide direction.He stated that his estimate was that the Board would likely have the information
in about two or more months. He explained that once received, it would be placed on a meeting agenda for discussion, allowing the Board to make a final decision on how to proceed. He
noted that this would likely occur roughly 60 plus days after the March meeting.
County Manager’s Comments
Mr. Matthews stated that he thought the February 12th Board Retreat had been very productive. He noted that, althoughthey did not finish all the agenda items. He said that it may not
be a bad thing, as it allowed for a lot of discussion and a lot of interest in the information presented.
Mr. Matthews expressed appreciation to the Commissioners for their time that day. He stated that they would revisit the topics they were not able to cover and would send a calendar for
upcoming budget meetings
Commissioners’ Comments
Commissioner Baucom stated that he appreciated the attitudes and the way the Commissioners work together as a Board. He noted that, while they do not always agree, they are very respectful
of one another. He also expressed gratitude to the staff for their efforts and work, and encouraged everyone to be safe on the way home.
Commissioner Christina Helms thanked the Village of Wesley Chapel for being the first to assist with senior nutrition and commended the staff for reaching out to all the municipalities.
She expressed hope that the municipalities would soon provide numbers on how they can assist their seniors. She also urged the municipalities to consider House Bill 382 and statedsais
that she would be calling on Representatives Mark Brody, Dean Arp, Todd Johnson, and David Willis to introduce a single-item bill in place of the current legislation.
Commissioner Christina Helms explained that House Bill 382 was originally designed to provide relief for flood damage in Western North Carolina, but it now raises concerns due to density
issues. She reiterated that she was calling on the Representatives to pass a single-item bill for the state.
Chair Merrell stated that she agreed with Commissioner Helms and emphasized that the focus should remain on Western North Carolina rather than extending broadly across all 100 counties.
She stressed the importance of focusing on Western North Carolina.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms echoed Commissioner Christina Helms’ comments, thanking Wesley Chapel for its support with senior meals.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to the Town of Mineral Springs, noting that its council had adopted a resolution very similar to Union County’s position against HB 382.
He acknowledged that there may be other municipalities as well, but he was specifically aware of Mineral Springs.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to staff for their attendance. He stated that he thought the Retreat had been very productive and gave kudos to the staff for the effort
they put in to make it successful.
He noted that there wasa threat of severe winter weather is approaching, possibly tomorrow or Thursday. He emphasized that he hoped everyone would stay.
Commissioner Sides thanked staff for the Retreat, stating that he found the information invaluable. He acknowledged that the jail issue had been before the Board long before his tenure,
but he hoped everyone would be encouraged knowing that the Board does not take decisions that involve potentially ninefiguresof commitment from taxpayers lightly and the Commissioners
are looking at it from all angles.
Commissioner Sides stated that he felt very confident that, when it comes time to make a decision, the Board would be able to find a balance between meeting future needs and remaining
cost-effective for today’s taxpayers. He added that he hoped everyone would stay safe in whatever weather the County encounters.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 8:03 p.m., Vice Chair Brian W. Helms (not sure who made the motion)moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion
passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Union County, NC Board of Commissioners
Meeting Minutes
Union County Government Center
500 North Main Street Monroe, North Carolina
www.unioncountync.gov
February 18, 20256:00 PMBoard Room, First Floor
____________________________________________________________
25-390Closed Session – 5:15 P.M.
PRESENT: Chair Melissa M. Merrell, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, Commissioner Clancy C. Baucom, Commissioner Christina B. Helms, and Commissioner Gary Sides
ABSENT:None
In open session, at approximately 5:15 p.m., in the First Floor Conference Room, Union County Government Center, Chair Merrell opened the regular meeting of Tuesday, February 18, 2025,
and moved that the Board enter into closed session pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11:
1) (a)(1), to prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to G.S. section [132-1.1(a)]; and
2) (a)(3), for attorney-client privilege.
3) (a)(4) to discuss matters relating to location of expansion of industries or other businesses; and
4) (a)(5) for property acquisition negotiations;
as such purpose is fully stated in the agenda for this meeting, which has been made publicly available.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa M. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAyeAt approximately 5:32 p.m., Chairman Rowell moved that the Board take a recess and reconvene its meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Board’s Meeting Chamber, first
floor, Union County Government Center. The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:Chair J. R. RowellAyeVice Chair Brian W. HelmsAyeCommissioner BaucomAyeCommissioner MerrellAyeCommissioner
WilliamsAye
Opening of Meeting – Chair Merrell opened the meeting at approximately 6:07 p.m.
Invocation – Vice Chair Brian W. Helms 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 Melissa M. Merrell. She recognized Colette Roland as the first speaker.
Ms. Roland stated that she resides in Waxhaw in Union County. She spoke about The Connect Center, a non-profit organization, that operates in Monroe, North Carolina. She explained that
the Pass Through Store is operated through the Connect Center, which provides free clothing and shoes to anyone who meets 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. She noted that
over the past two years, they have served nearly 1,100 residents in Union County, throughout North Carolina, and some from South Carolina.
Ms. Roland said they started a program called The Connect Scholars. She explained that to break the cycle of poverty, they wanted to make sure students know they can go into higher education
from high school. She said they are currently working with 13 students and make sure the students have the tools they need for higher education, including free tutoring.
She said the purpose of her attendance tonight was to inform the Board that this is the first year that The Connect Center has applied for the Union County Partnership Grant. She said
they wanted to make the Board aware of the organization and its purpose.
Amy Niccolai stated that Jeff Mangum was also present and that they would be “tag teaming” their presentation.
Chair Merrell stated that Mr. Mangum was next on the list, and asked if he wanted to make his comments first.
Mr. Mangum introduced himself as Vice Chair of Food for Families NC, headquartered in Indian Trail. He stated that the organization has been feeding families for the past 13 years. He
said he has always been a member of First Baptist Indian Trail and explained that about 13 years ago, a teacher approached them regarding students who were not eating from the time they
received free lunch on Friday until free breakfast on Monday.
He said they began by supplying food for about 18 to 20 children through a backpack program and noted that 13 years later, they are now supplying thousands of families with food each
week. He said Ms.Niccolai could provide numbers and that they are participating in this year’s grant cycle and petitioned for $25,000 to help purchase food. He said they supply all the
schools and also conduct mobile distributions throughout the county.
Mr. Mangum said he wanted to make the Board aware that the need is astronomical. He noted that, as a lifelong resident of Union County, he never imagined there would be kids living nearby
who are hungry, both below and above the poverty level. He said their goal is that no child goes hungry and that with the Board’s help, they can meet that need.
Ms. Niccolai stated that she is Executive Director of Food for Families. She said that, as Mr. Mangum had stated, they started in 2012, but in 2014 they became their own 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization and also became a partnering agency with Second Harvest Food Bank.
She explained that at that time they had five core programs, and over the years they have expanded. She said that as a result of COVID in 2020, its programs expanded beyond the backpack
weekend food program. She said that at that time they were averaging about 700 bags a week to students in Union and Anson Counties, and today they are averaging about 1,500 bags a week
to students in Union, Anson, and parts of Mecklenburg Counties for the backpack program.
She said the second program, which started in 2020, is the home-delivery program. She stated they partner with social workers and counselors in the school systems, who help identify
families that need more than just the weekend food. She said this program allows them to provide families with more highly nutritious food, including frozen meat, fresh fruits and vegetables,
and non-perishable items.
She shared that in January they had a record number of home deliveries, with 501 families receiving weekly deliveries. She said the packets Mr. Mangum provided included the2024 impact
numbers for all programs, and noted that they went from zero in 2020.
Consent Agenda
Commissioner Gary Sides requested to add an item to the business agenda entitled District Court Judge for Union County (Item #25-112).
Chair Merrell said that this item would be added just above the Item on the Business Agenda to discuss the jail.
With there being no further changes or revisions, Chair Merrell moved to adopt the agenda as amended with the addition requested by Commissioner Sides and to approve the items listed
on the Consent Agenda, as submitted and recommended. The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa M. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-004Interlocal Agreement - Town of Indian Trail and Union County 74XExpress Bus Service
ACTION:Authorized County Manager to execute interlocal agreement.
In FY2004, Union County began contracting with the City of Charlotte toprovide regional transit express bus service (74X) between Union Countyand Charlotte through the Charlotte Area
Transit Authority (CATS) toreduce vehicular traffic on the roadways in Mecklenburg County. TheCharlotte Area Transit System (CATS) provides peak hour weekdayexpress bus service from
Indian Trail to uptown Charlotte based on termsset forth in a Regional Transit Services Agreement between the City ofCharlotte and Union County.
This interlocal agreement reflects direction from the Board ofCommissioners to create stability with the service, which is reflected inthe five-year interlocal agreement that runs through
fiscal year 2030.
Financial impact will be $108,228 paid to Union County through FY 2030.
25-072Task Order - US 74 & Indian Trail-Fairview Road Sewer Project
ACTION:
1) Accept the scope of services for survey services for the US 74 & IndianTrail-Fairview Road Sewer project as shown in CES GroupEngineers, LLP Task Order 9120-01 in the amount of $80,740.00
and 2)authorized the County Manager to negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item.
County Commissioners (BOCC), includes an annual allocation in theWastewater Rehabilitation & Replacement Program to assess, prioritize,and rehabilitate sanitary sewer collection system
infrastructure tomaintain the collection system. The US 74 & Indian Trail-Fairview SewerExtension project consists of installing approximately 2,200 linear feet of8-inch sanitary sewer
main along Indian Trail-Fairview Road and GaryDrive between US 74 and Paula Lane to replace an aging sanitary sewermain that is failing.
Union County Water (UCW) engineering staff will perform the design,permitting, bidding, and construction administration services for theproject. To complete the design, the project corridor
must be surveyed bya professional licensed surveyor to establish existing conditions for thedesign of the project. CES Group Engineers Task Order 9120-01provides for the surveying services
for the project, including survey ofexisting conditions, subsurface utility engineering (SUE), preparation ofeasement exhibits, and as-built survey when construction is complete.
The scope of services for the work in Task Order 9120-01has been reviewed by UCW engineering staff and is appropriate for theproject. These services are to be provided on a lump sum,
per diem, andnot-to-exceed basis in the amount of $80,740.00.
Funding is available within the adopted Wastewater Rehabilitation andReplacement Program for the US 74 & Indian Trail-Fairview Road Sewerproject to support the survey services as shown
in CES Group EngineersTask Order 9120-01 in the amount of $80,740.00.
25-073Contract - Crooked Creek Water Reclamation Facility Office &
Storage Building Design-Build Phase 1 Services
ACTION:
Authorized the County Manager to negotiate and execute a contract fordesign-build Phase 1 services with Miles-McClellan ConstructionCompany, Inc. in the amount of $195,258.00 that is
substantiallyconsistent with the attached agreement.
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP), as adopted by the Board ofCounty Commissioners (BOCC), includes an allocation for the design andconstruction of office, storage, and maintenance
facilities at Union CountyWater Reclamation Facilities (WRFs). These improvements are integralto the long-term maintenance and operation of the WRFs. The CrookedCreek WRF no longer accommodates
the space and storage needs ofthe operations at the facility. The proposed project includes theconstruction of a 1,500 square-foot building with office space and spare
equipment storage space.
Union County was unable to complete the project utilizing the traditionallowest bidder design-bid-build delivery method for the project due tolimited participation in the bidding process
from contractors, resulting inthe project bid not being within the project budget. As allowed by G.S.143-128.1A, the BOCC approved the design-build delivery method for theproject on
May 20, 2024.
Staff developed and advertised RFQ 2025-004 to solicit qualificationsfrom design-build teams for the project, and three (3) responses werereceived. Staff evaluated each qualification
submittal and interviewed allthree teams. Based on the rankings of the shortlisted teams and resultsof the subsequent interviews, Miles-McClellan Construction Company,Inc. was selected
and development of the design-build Phase 1 servicesagreement commenced.
The Phase 1 services will include design development to approximately60 percent completion, and the submission and negotiation of aguaranteed maximum (GMP) proposal for the construction
of the project.The attached agreement for design-build Phase 1 services has beenreviewed by staff and is appropriate for the project. Phase 1 services willbe provided on an hourly not
to exceed basis in the amount of$195,258.00.
A future request will be made to accept the GMP and Phase 2
construction services.
Funding is available within the adopted CIP for the Crooked Creek WRFOffice and Storage Building project to support the design-build Phase 1services contract amount of $195,258.00 with
Miles-McClellanConstruction Company, Inc.
25-074City of Monroe Request to Provide Water Service
ACTION:Approved the request from the City of Monroe to provide water service toParcel 09-372-005 90 located at 1371 N. Rocky River Rd.
The City of Monroe recently received a request for outside city service locatedat 1371 N. Rocky River (attached exhibit). Parcel 09-274-034 isrequesting water service to serve the concrete
plant on this property. TheCity of Monroe already provides water and sewer to the business officeon the adjacent parcel, 09-372-005 80.
Union County does not have a water distribution main accessible to theproperty.
The City of Monroe has indicated that it is prepared to serve theproperty with water, as outside City customers, if approval is granted fromUnion County. Union County’s water and sewer
service agreement with the City ofMonroe prohibits the City from providing service outside the City limitswithout the expressed, written approval of the Board of CountyCommissioners.
Union County Water has no objection to the City providing water serviceto this property.
25-075Resolution - Per- & Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pilot TestingNCDEQ-DWI Grant Funding
ACTION:1) Adopted Resolution to apply for North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Division of Water Infrastructure (NCDEQ-DWI)grant funding for pilot testing of treatment technologies
for the removal ofthe Per- & Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from drinking water and 2)authorize the County Manager to execute all documentation necessaryfor the grant funding application.
The Capital Improvement Program, as adopted by the Board of CountyCommissioners, includes the Water & Wastewater Master PlanningProgram for the purpose of incorporating system modifications,
makingchanges in approach to providing water and wastewater service, andupdating capital projects. Evaluation of the water treatment processes forthe Catawba River WTP and Yadkin River
WTP to meet current andproposed drinking water regulations is included in this program.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) releasedPFAS maximum contaminant limits for drinking water on April 10, 2024.These new PFAS drinking water standards require public
water systemsto complete initial monitoring of PFAS levels in their drinking water by2027, and the public water systems must be in compliance with the PFASlimits by 2029. Preliminary
sampling of the source raw water for both theCatawba River WTP and Yadkin River WTP indicated that the PFASconcentrations in the raw water from these sources (Catawba River andLake Tillery)
have minor exceedances for some of the PFAS compounds.
A PFAS conceptual treatment analysis was completed to evaluate
potential treatment options for removing PFAS from the drinking water tomeet the new EPA requirements. Pilot testing of the treatment optionsevaluated in the study is the next step in
determining the best treatmentoption for PFAS removal.
NCDEQ-DWI has emerging contaminants grant funding available for pilottesting of PFAS treatment technologies. This resolution authorizes theCounty Manager to execute and file an application
with NCDEQ-DWI torequest grant funding for completing the PFAS treatment pilot testing.
Once implementation of the pilot testing commences, the County
will submit requests for reimbursement to the State on a recurring basisuntil the grant funding is exhausted.
25-061Bylaw Amendment - Local Emergency Planning Committee
ACTION:Adopted the Union County Local Emergency Planning Committee AmendedBylaws.
Any amendments to the Union County Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) bylaws must be voted and approved by the committeebefore the Board of County Commissioners adopts the amendment. TheLEPC approved an amendment to the bylaws in its February
5, 2025meeting. The amendment was to meet Emergency Planning CommitteeRight-to-Know (EPCRA) Section 324 which requires local LEPCs toinclude a section in their bylaws that addresses
public informationrequests. The requirement and process is specific and must follow theregulations as indicated in Section 324. The amendment has beenreviewed and approved by County
legal staff. The public informationrequest section is identified as Article IX in the bylaws.
For a copy of the Amended Bylaws of the Union County Local Emergency Planning Committee, please See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
25-077Purchase - Radio Equipment
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 purchase is expansion radios for the fire departments.
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 Radios will be made using North Carolina StatewideTerm Contract STC 725G as quoted by Motorola Solutions, LLC.
The anticipated cost for the Radios is $310,915.98 and is budgeted
accordingly for FY2025.
25-078Contract Renewal - 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 Departmentprovides various clinical laboratory services for patients that must beprocessed by an “outside” laboratory facility.
Laboratory Corporation ofAmerica Holdings (Labcorp, Inc.) processes specimens for the HumanServices Public Health Department through contract #3518. We payLabcorp directly for services,
then the patient’s insurance is billedresulting in reimbursement to Union County. This ninth amendment for
$70,000 will cover a one-year term from 1/22/2025 - 1/21/2026 and willresult in a cumulative spend on the original contract (#3518) whichexceeds the County Manager’s $50,000 allowable
signing authority,therefore BOCC approval of Contract Amendment #9 is required.
The Public Health Department has utilized the contractual services ofLabcorp, Inc. for services since January 2014. The contractor has beeneffective and efficient in meeting our service
& patient care needs, andthe request is to continue this service for an additional one-year term.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $70,000.00 and is budgetedaccordingly for FY2025, with future expenditures subject to annual BOCCbudget appropriation.
25-060Budget Amendment - Union County Sheriff’s Office
ACTION:Approved Special Revenue Ordinance #94F and Budget Amendment #23This is a request for a budget transfer from ARPA Investment Funds tothe Union County Sheriff’s Office for compensation
adjustments.
Transfer $200,000 in available ARPA Investment Funds to the UnionCounty Sheriff’s Office.
25-080Minutes for Approval
ACTION: Approved minutes of special meeting of January 30, 2025 on Consent Agenda.
Information Only
25-062Human Resources Reports for December 2024ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for Information Only.
These reports include all new hires, separations from service, and
retirements for Union County Local Government for the month of
December 2024.
Business
25-037Presentation - Law Enforcement Data
Chair Merrell recognized Chief Deputy Tony Underwood of the Union County Sheriff’s Office to present law enforcement data relative to the Union County Sheriff’s Office.
Due to technical difficulties, there was no audio recording of the first portion of the presentation; therefore, a copy of the printed presentation has been included with these minutes,
marked as Exhibit “A”, and made a part of these minutes.
Chief Deputy Tony Underwood said that in 2024, the number of death cases were down somewhat. He noted that their administration was fortunate to be in the new building that opened on
October 13, 2022, which the Criminal Laboratory, all administration, and the seven different divisions of the Union County Sheriff’s Office are located.
Chief Deputy Underwood shared a photograph of their mobile office, which includes a pickup truck, a Tahoe, and a Dodge Durango. He said the old police sedans, including the Dodge Charger
and Ford Crown Victoria, are no longer available as police package vehicles, and that they have moved toward pickup trucks and SUVs because of the need to carry all of their equipment.
He said that for response times, they want deputies to be in their zones rather than sitting at the office and driving to calls. He said essentially their vehicles serve as their mobile
office.Chief Deputy Underwood said most deputies rarely have to come to the office unless they have made an arrest, need to appear before the magistrate, or have an administrative reason.
He said they remain primarily in the field, which is where they want them to be.
He showed a snapshot of the interior, showing some of the equipment deputies are issued, including the cage for transporting prisoners and the rifles they carry. He said they are very
fortunate to have the equipment to keep deputies prepared to do their job.
He said the Sheriff’s Office positions generally track with the County’s population. He said they have about 373 total funded positions, some of which are part-time, and noted that they
are currently at 373.
He shared the Sheriff’s Office’s organizational chart, showing the breakdown of the seven divisions, two Chief Deputies, the Sheriff, and the various bureaus and units within each division.
He said the Town contracts fall under the Special Operations Bureau and briefly described how that bureau is broken down.
He said Weddington has added two more deputies to its contract, bringing them to five deputies. He said Wesley Chapel remains at one deputy, noting that some small towns might need more,
but Wesley Chapel remains comfortable with just one despite continued growth and itsretail footprintcontinues to grow. He said Marvin has two deputies and Lake Park is satisfied with
two.
Chief Deputy Underwood said they have a SAFE Unit, primarily responsible for addressing drug- or alcohol-impaired drivers. He said the unit has been in place since the end of 2015, and
that unit’s main job is identifying dangerous and impaired drivers. He said the unit is led by one sergeant and five deputies and noted that they do a wonderful job.
He said the SHIELD Unit, formally the Warrant Squad, has been repurposed. He said it consists of one sergeant and five deputies, with one deputy assigned full-time as a Task Force officer
to the United States Marshals Service. He said they benefit from the investigative resources the Marshals bring. He said if a dangerous wanted person leaves Union County, they dedicate
resources to locating that individual, and vice versa, noting that they are very fortunate to have that relationship.
He showed a snapshot of the overall Town contracts, noting that the largest is Indian Trail. He said Indian Trail has grown to 36 total employees, led by a captain, two lieutenants,
four sergeants, 26 deputies, and three civilians. He said the town also pays for one full-time administrative assistant, one part-time administrative assistant, one full-time crime scene
investigator, and two detectives and 33 deputies. He said the contract continues to grow as Indian Trail continues to grow.
Chief Deputy Underwood showed a breakdown of all municipalities, including their police budgets and total number of employees, noting that the information reflects 2024. He said the
right side shows the five Town contracts that the Sheriff’s Office serves and the cost of that service to each town.
Towns with Full Time Police Departments
Municipality
2024
Population
Budget
Employees
Monroe
37,797
$16,821,034
111
Stallings
17,549
$3,868,500
29
Waxhaw
23,837
$4.517,000
42 FT, 7 RES
Wingate
4,425
$799,200
9 FT, 1 RES
Marshville
2,700
$1,289,908
8 FT, 5 RES
Towns with Sheriff's Office Contracts
Municipality
2024
Population
Budget
Deputies
Indian Trail
43,705
$4,765,412
33
Weddington
14,354
$654,068
5
Marvin
6,949
$261,627
2
Wesley Chapel
9,464
$130,814
1
Lake Park
3,573
$261,627
2
Commissioner Sides thanked Chief Deputy Underwood for his presentation. He said he had a question regarding the new administration’s push on illegal immigration and criminal elements.
He asked the Sheriff to explain his relationship with the Marshals Service, ICE, and how apprehensions and the handling of illegal criminal elements are managed.
Chief Deputy Underwood then asked Commissioner Sides if he was referring to anyone who is undocumented in the country.
Commissioner Sides asked how the Sheriff’s Office works with ICE regarding undocumented individuals, gang members, and criminal elements, and how the office coordinates with ICE or other
federal authorities in handling those cases.
Chief Deputy Underwood said the office has partnerships with virtually every federal agency and has maintained these relationships for many years, particularly with the Marshals Service.
He noted that, as mentioned earlier, they currently have one full-time Task Force officer assigned there.
He said that regarding ICE, the Sheriff’s Office has not changed its identification procedures. He said the agency does not go out looking for individuals who may not be in the country
legally and does not work with ICE to look for those individuals.
He said that when any person comes into the jail, they are fingerprinted and positively identified. He said part of that process includes determining the individual’s country of origin
or place of birth. He said that once fingerprinted, the information is sent to the SBI, the FBI, and ICE for identification.
He said that if an individual has any type of Border Nexus, ICE responds to the inquiry, and if they request a detainer, they will hold the individual.
He said that once an individual meets the conditions of release for the underlying charge for which they are being held in custody, ICE has 48 hours to take custody. He said the office
is only allowed to hold the individual for up to, but no more than, 48 hours after they have met those conditions of release.
He said that process has not changed and has not impacted the Sheriff’s Office. He said they work with all federal agencies and have frequently partnered with Homeland Security and the
ATF. He said they have a Task Force officer on the ATF Violent Crimes Task Force and have also partnered with the FBI in the past. He said they work with and partner with all law enforcement
agencies.
Commissioner Sides thanked Chief Deputy Underwood for his response.
Sheriff Cathey said that ICE is not going into churches or schools to conduct searches and emphasized that the Sheriff’s office will not do that either. He said if someone needs assistance,
they can contact their SRO (School Resource Officer), and the office will handle it, noting that ICE will not take those actions.
Commissioner Sides said he found the information very helpful. He said he would also like to ask staff, acknowledging the ongoing budget process, to welcome the Sheriff’s Department
back to review the law enforcement portion of the budget.
He said that would be very helpful, particularly for him since this is his first budget process, and he would like to have the Sheriff’s Office return.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Chief Deputy Underwood and the Sheriff for being present. He said he wanted to circle back to one point and noted, as a parent with two small children
in UCPS, that the SROs are fantastic. He said it is great to see the students bond with the deputies, who become a part of the school culture.
He said he wanted to go back to the slide on instances by school type and asked for clarification to ensure the message is being communicated correctly to the public. He said these are
not prosecuted crimes but reportable incidents, and asked if his understanding was correct.
Chief Deputy Underwood said that if a crime is alleged, it does not mean it actually happened. He said that if a student alleges a crime, such as an assault or a threat, the office records
it. He noted that they receive a significant number of threats and assaults.
He said that the weekly report from the School Safety Division lists all incidents reported in a week, and noted that it can take 30 minutes to read. He said the vast majority of those
reports are not actual crimes. He said that when cases are prosecuted, most involve individuals under the age of 18 and are reported to the Department of Juvenile Justice to determine
whether a petition should be issued against the student, if justified.
He said the numbers should not be alarming, noting that there are not many actual crimes in the schools and that the schools are very safe. He said that with social media and the “Say
Something” app, they receive several reports each day of students allegedly threatening violence. He said investigations begin immediately, including going to a student’s home if necessary,
but these are still recorded as incident reports.
Sheriff Cathey said it is similar to a 911 call; the incident is documented and included in the numbers, but it does not necessarily mean it is a crime or results in a charge.
Chair Merrell asked whether the data presented is only for Union County Public Schools or if it also includes charter schools, private schools, homeschool education, and South Piedmont.
Chief Deputy Underwood responded that the data covers K–12 Union County Public Schools.
Chair Merrell confirmed that the data is only for Union County Public Schools.
Chief Deputy Underwood said the reports are those reports available through the Sheriff’s Office’s records management system and do not capture charter schools because there are no School
Resource Officers in those schools.
Chair Merrell asked if an incident occurred at a charter school, would they not call 911.
Chief Deputy Underwood said they would, but for example, at Union Academy, Monroe Police would respond.
Sheriff Cathey said that once a 911 call is made, it comes to the Sheriff’s office or the appropriate jurisdiction, such as Monroe.
25-053Wastewater Pump Station Approval Request - Sanctuary at Southgate Phase II Development
Chair Merrell announced that the next agenda item is 25-053, Wastewater Pump Station approval request for the Sanctuary at Southgate Phase 2 development, and recognized County Manager
Brian Matthews.
County Manager Brian Matthews thanked the Chair and said the presentation was not available at the time. He asked if the Board could move to the next item.
25-090Senior Nutrition Program Update
The audio recording for the beginning portion of Agenda Item 25-090 (Senior Nutrition Program Update) is unavailable due to technical difficulties. Therefore, the written presentation
is included and marked as Exhibit “B” and made a part of these minutes.
At this point in the presentation, the audio resumed.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the funding would cover the remainder of the fiscal year and whether the proposal is to work out an interlocal agreement for additional funding in
future years.
Mr. Niland stated thatwas correct, noting that the cost will change each year and will require more funding to maintain the same level of service provided for the eight residents this
year. He said if it is included in the budget, that is ideal; if not, the base level would have to be reduced, which could potentially affect the waitlist. He said Wesley Chapel would
then need to decide whether to fund the entirety of the waitlist at that time.
He said those are discussions and points that will need to be worked out in an interlocal agreement. He noted it has the potential to become complicated as people come on and off the
list, and said they are trying to develop an agreement that is easy to understand for both the County and the other parties.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he would echo Chair Merrell’s comments and thanked Wesley Chapel, noting that partnerships with municipalities make it much easier for the Board and the
County.
He said that when the County has those partnerships, they are able to accomplish great things, and he noted that this is a good example. He thanked them for bringing this forward.
25-053Wastewater Pump Station Approval Request - Sanctuary at Southgate Phase II Development
Chair Merrell introduced the next item and recognized County Manager Brian Matthews to present the request.
County Manager Brian Matthews thanked the Board for its patience, noting a brief technical difficulty. He said the request before the Commissioners is consideration for a pump station.
He remindedthat several years ago, the Board approved a policy requiring that new pump stations and improvements to existing pump stations come before the Board for decisions on construction.
He said that often, development cannot flow by gravity or has difficulty flowing by gravity to a wastewater treatment plant, making pump stations necessary depending on circumstances.
He explained the request before the Board is for a pump station for the Sanctuary at Southgate Phase 2 development. He referred to the policy adopted by the Board as part of the requirements
and displayed a map of the property. He said Phase 1 of the property, located in the blue area on the map, has already been approved and is under construction without a pump station.
He said the properties in Phase 1, mostly single-family residential, flow by gravity to the system, so a pump station was not required.
He said Phase 2 requires a pump station. He provided a breakdown of the development, noting 75 single-family homes, 240 multi-family units, a future fire station, and commercial or retail
properties totaling approximately 149,000 square feet.
He said there are a couple of ways to serve this property if a pump station is approved. He described Alternative 1 – On Site Pump Station would be to construct a pump station on the
property, which would pump flow to an existing gravity line that goes to the Poplin Pump Station, one of the County’s largest regional pump stations, which ultimately flows to the 12-Mile
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant where the sewer is treated. He said it could also connect at an alternative location and flow by gravity to that pump station.
He said the lifecycle cost for this pump station is about $2.1 million and noted that this option requires less sewer line installation compared to other options.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked County Manager Brian Matthews to clarify what is meant by “life cycle cost.”
Mr. Matthews said they use 20 years as the gauge for the life cycle of the pump station, including the forcemain and other components. He explained that different components of a pump
station have varying lifespans: the pumps may last 10 years, the electronics five years, and the wet well 30 years. He said using 20 years is a total estimate and does not mean they
wait 20 years to perform maintenance or replacement.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that explanation clarifies that there is a maintenance cost over time, and if approved, the pump stationwill need to be maintained or completely replaced.
Mr. Matthews confirmed and noted that the $2.1 million includes the upfront cost of building the pump station and all associated infrastructure. He said the developer pays for construction,
and once approved by the Board, the County accepts it and maintains the pump station.
Commissioner Sides asked how much of the $2.1 million is the initial construction cost.
Mr. Matthews said he did not know that off the top of his head.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if it becomes the County’s responsibility once installed.
Mr. Matthews said that is correct; the County owns and maintains it, and if anything breaks, it is repaired by the County.
He discussed Alternative 2 – Gravity Connection and Existing Pump Station Upgrades –stating that it is different because it flows by gravity to an existing pump station.
Mr. Matthews said the alternative would require a gravity line installed by the developer, connecting to an existing pump station, which then pumps to another gravity line, flows to
another pump station, and ultimately pumps to the Poplin Pump Station and 12-Mile Creek. He said this is not a true gravity solution, as some form of pumping is still required.
He said this flow would require improvements to the Porter Ridge and Field Stone Pump Stations to accept the additional flow, and those upgrades are included in a 20-year lifecycle cost
of $3.6 million. He explained that while gravity is usually cheaper to build than a pump station and force main, the long run of gravity lines and the necessary pump station improvements
which make that lifecycle cost higher.
He said there really is not a true gravity solution for this property; some form of a pump is needed.
He said that whether to approve or deny the pump station is a utility-based decision, noting that the Board has a couple of options. He said this particular pump station only serves
that development.
He said that keeping in mind the utility looks for customers, a single pump station serving only this development does not expand the customer base, which is a negative.
He said on the positive side, it is adding customers to the system, whether residential or commercial, and they ultimately pay into the system. He noted, however, that costs cannot be
spread over more users because it only serves this development.
He said the development is ultimately served by the Poplin Pump Station. He explained that this is an existing regional station, and the proposal would pump from the new station to the
Poplin station, which is already designed to handle significant flow, because it is a regional pump station and this is a positive aspect.
Mr. Matthews noted that the developer’s attorney, Mr. Stephen Bennett, is present and may have comments for the Board. He said Mr. Bennett had requested that the Board consider delaying
action on this matter.
He said his goal was to present the information so the Board could decide whether to delay action. He noted that the item had already been included in the agenda and the Board could
make that decision.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification regarding Phase 2. He said when multi-family was described, he wanted to know if that refers to apartments or could potentially include townhomes
or condominiums.
Mr. Matthews said it was a good question but that he was not sure if it was apartments or townhomes. He said it would be better for Mr. Bennett to answer that question.
Mr. Bennett introduced himself, stating that he is a resident of Waxhaw and the attorney for the owner of the property.
He said the property in question is Sanctuary at Southgate and noted he would make a few brief comments and address some of the questions that had come up.
He said this is a 2013 project and it is shocking that it is still going, but it is still going. He said it was approved by the Town of Indian Trail 12 years ago; it wanted the project
then, and it still want the project now.
He said they have had numerous talks with the Town, and noted that, as Mr. Matthews mentioned, most of the residential construction is already underway.
He said the main point is that at this time it is essentially a commercial project, with 150,000 square feet of commercial space that cannot function without the pump station. He said
there is supposed to be a grocery store tenant and an additional 95,000 square feet of retail and shops planned.
He said a representative of the owner and its engineer are present to help answer any questions.
He said he remembered a question about lifecycle cost and noted that the upfront cost of the pump station is $1 million, which the developer is covering.
Mr. Bennett asked Commissioner Sides if his question was regarding apartments.
Commissioner Sides clarified that he was asking about the multi-family units, specifically whether they are apartments, townhomes, or condos.
Mr. Bennett said the original approval in 2013 was for a conditional district, and at that time the approval was for apartments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted that Mr. Bennett had said the project is primarily commercial, but asked if the majority of the sewer capacity to the pump station would serve residential
units.
Mr. Bennett asked whether the question referred to Phase 1 or Phase 2.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms clarified that the discussion is regarding Phase 2.
Mr. Bennett said there are residential components flowing into the system, but he is not an engineer and cannot provide numbers. He offered that the engineer was present to answer those
questions.
Matthew J. Sinkovitz, P.E., Senior Project Manager, said that the majority of the allocated flow would be residential compared to the commercial component.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked for confirmation that the commercial space is for future development.
Mr. Sinkovitz said that is correct.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the residential units would be built first.
Mr. Sinkovitz said that is the current plan.
Chair Merrell asked if there is a timeline in the contract, specifically whether the commercial portion must be completed within five or ten years.
Mr. Sinkovitz said he could not speak to the timeline for the actual development.
MichaelSlovotinek, representative of Walton, the owner of the property, said they are actively working on a contract with a commercial developer to build out the commercial portion.
He said ideally, the developer would like to build the entire frontage on Rocky River at one time, in conjunction with the single-family homes and townhomes being developed by a separate
builder.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked about the timeline.
Mr. Slovotineksaid the timeline would be approximately 12 months, as it will take that long to complete construction drawings and obtain approval through the Town of Indian Trail before
breaking ground.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the timeline applies to commercial or residential development.
Michael Slovatick said it would be for both at the same time.
Commissioner Sides questioned about the townhomes.
Michael Slovatick said that the existing Phase 1 project has 52 townhomes. He stated as approved in the conditional district, the 240 multi-family units in Phase 2 cannot be converted
to townhomes without approval from the Town of Indian Trail, and they intend to proceed with the original approval.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to (i) Deny the application request concerning the Sanctuary at Southgate Phase II development for a new wastewater pump station, as such pump station
solution is set forth in the application associated with the request, in accordance with Section 34-336(b)(1) of the Union County Code; and (ii) adopt the utility-based rationale statement
for denial.
Utility-Based Rationale Statement
In managing Union County’s water and wastewater utility, it is the responsibility of the Union County Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) to determine the particular needs of the utility
at the current time in making decisions concerning the utility. The Board should take into account and weigh numerous operational, financial, and other utility-based reasons to make
decisions which the Board determines are reasonable, in the public interest, and rationally based on the best interest in the operation of the utility. Pursuant to Section 34-336(b)(1)
of the Union County Code, the Board does hereby find and determines that denial of the new pump station application request is reasonable, in the public interest, and is rationally based
on the best interest of the operation of the utility, based upon following utility-based rationale:
The new pump station solution will require significant investment over time in a pump station which primarily serves one development, without the opportunity for significant revenue
from other customer connections which would assist in offsetting such costs.
2. Compared to a solution with improvements to two additional pump stations, the new pump station solution does not allow for as many improvements that would benefit the entire utility
system.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
25-112Union County District Court Judge (This item was added to the agenda during the meeting at the request of Commissioner Gary Sides.)
Chair Merrell introduced the next agenda item to discuss a request for a District Court Judge for Union County. She stated that this item was added to the agenda during the meeting
at the request of Commissioner Gary Sides.
Commissioner Sides said that during discussions on the jail, the Board talked about potential bottlenecks in the judicial system. He said Judge Erin Hucks, the lead district court judge,
reached out to him and provided an opportunity to learn more about the legal community in Union County, as he is not an attorney and has not been involved in the legal process. From
that discussion, he said it is clear that there is a need for an additional district court judge in Union County.
Commissioner Sides said Judge Hucks explained that the number of judges in a district is determined by the District Court Workload Formula, but the most recent data she was able to obtain
is from 2020.He stated that she was unable to determine the actual formula used to make that calculation, as it is not readily available.
Commissioner Sides stated that they essentially used population as the basis for comparison. He explained that this was the reason he was asking the Board to consider a resolution for
additional district court judges. He noted that Union County currently has five district court judges serving a population of approximately 260,000, which works out to about one judge
for every 51,290 residents. He then compared that number to Cabarrus County, which has a slightly smaller population of around 240,000 but has six district court judges, or roughly one
judge for every 40,000 residents.
Commissioner Sides stated that Gaston County has seven district court judges with a population slightly less than Union County, at approximately 237,000, which is about one judge per
33,891 residents. He noted that Iredell County is a little different because the district includes two counties, Iredell and Alexander, which together have six district court judges
for an approximate total population of 236,000, or one judge per 39,363 residents. He said that many people, including himself, may have been under the misconception that district court
judges do not handle major criminal cases, divorces, child custody matters, or tickets, but clarified that they do. He stated that district court judges are responsible for Class H and
I felonies, which could involve potential time in the County jail for those accused of such crimes.
Commissioner Sides stated that this, in turn, could impact the length of stay in the County jail. He said that, without any dissent from his colleagues, he would like to ask the County
Attorney, Mr. Jason Kay, to prepare a resolution requesting that the General Assembly allocate and fund an additional district court judge for Union County.
Chair Merrell asked if Commissioner Sides was only requesting one judge.
Commissioner Sides replied yes.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Commissioner Sides for looking into the discussions regarding bottlenecks. He asked Commissioner Sides if Judge Hucks had expressed any optimism that
adding another district court judge could expedite the process and possibly reduce the length of stay in the County jail.
Commissioner Sides stated it would definitely have an impact on the judicial system by moving those involved through the system faster. He noted that, as discussed during the new Commissioners’
orientation, not only does an increase in cases result in more individuals waiting for trial in the jail, but more severe crimes also result in longer lengths of stay. He said the goal
would be to impact both, providing more time, more space, or at least have an impact on the increase.
Commissioner Sides stated that he had initially mentioned a Superior Court judge but learned that adding a Superior Court judge affects the entire district and may not have a direct
impact on Union County, as they would also be responsible for other counties. He explained that a district court judge would serve just the Union County district, which he believes is
District 30. He added that he learned that adding a Superior Court judge may not have as much impact as adding a district court judge potentially could.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked staff whether there is room in the courthouse for an additional judge and if a courtroom is available to accommodate a full-time position.
Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, stated that the courtrooms would need to be scheduled around the additional judge, but the system could accommodate it. He added that there is
an office available for another district court judge.
Commissioner Sides stated that Judge Hucks confirmed they could manage schedules to accommodate an additional judge.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms addressed staff stating he believed it was mentioned during the retreat that the County could get more utilization out of the courtrooms currently available.
He added that he did not believe the courtrooms are being used to their full capacity and that there is some availability with the courtrooms that the County currently has.
Patrick Niland responded that he believed the question was whether all courtrooms are being used. He stated that they are not all being used all the time, but they are all in use. He
added that there is some available capacity within the courtrooms to accommodate another judge in the schedule.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the position would be an elected one.
Patrick Niland confirmed that the position would be elected.
Commissioner Helms asked, if the General Assembly approves a position in the next session, how quickly could that turnaround occur and whether it would be an off-election cycle.
Patrick Niland stated that Jason Kay may know this better than he does, as he is probably more familiar with the process, and added that he did not know the answer to that question.
Mr. Kay stated that itwould largely depend on how the legislation is framed, including whether someone could be placed in the position sooner than the next general election. He said
that it is conceivable the General Assembly could appoint someone or bring in someone from another area of the court structure, noting that there are several options available and that
such decisions are within the discretion of the General Assembly.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how quickly the General Assembly could turn that around.
Mr. Kay stated that the legislature moves in mysterious ways, but he would think six months to a year would be a reasonable timeframe to get some change, noting there are a lot of moving
parts over which they have no control.
Commissioner Sides asked whether adding a judge is considered local legislation and if that is something that can sometimes move faster.
Mr. Kay stated that adding it would be a public bill to add a number of judges to the district, not just local legislation.
Commissioner Baucom asked Commissioner Sides if the current ratio would be one judge per 51,000 citizens.
Commissioner Sides responded that there is one judge per 51,290 people, which is the highest ratio of any surrounding counties.
Commissioner Baucom asked what the ratio would be if one more judge was added.
Commissioner Sides stated that he had not done the math, but adding one judge would bring the county in line with most other counties in the area. He noted that Gaston has seven judges
with less population, Iredell has six judges, and everyone else has at least six. He added that adding one judge would get the County on par, and offered to revise a resolution to request
two judges if desired, though he was unsure of the space requirements. He expressed the sense that one judge is of dire need.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked staff to confirm, noting that not long ago the Board approved an expansion of the Judicial Center. He also recalled that two additional District Attorneys
were approved and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Niland stated that it was not recent, but the County funds two assistant district attorney positions.
Mr. Matthews clarified that the positions were not added recently, but the County does fund them.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether the possibility of an additional district court judge had been considered in the judicial study at all.
Mr. Matthews stated that, to his understanding, the need for additional courtroom space was gauged on the fact that additional judges would be needed. He added that he would not say
that was the primary driving factor, but they were aware additional courtroom space would be needed in the future.
Commissioner Sides stated that maybe this will help some of the Board’s questions as well if the Board moves forward with an actual resolution, he asked Judge Hucks if she could be present
when the Board is entertaining that resolution to answer specific questions which he is not equipped to answer. He added that maybe that would help everyone, especially with the space
issue and everything else, and how district courts could potentially impact the lengths of stay at the jail.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked, through the Chair, whether Commissioner Sides would be willing to share with the other Board members that he has the numbers.
Commissioner Sides responded that he would certainly share it with the other Board members, stating that he has it in note form and will be glad to share an email. He added that Judge
Hucks provided some documentation, and he apologized for receiving the materials this morning butdid not have time to distribute the information, but said he would make sure all the
information is sent to everyone.
Mr. Niland reminded the Board that one of its legislative priorities is to request a superior court judge, and noted that if there is any change or addition to that legislative priorities
list, this should probably be added along with the resolution.
Chair Merrell stated that she wanted to go back to Vice Chair Brian Helms’ point, noting that last year the request to renovate, upgrade, and expand the Judicial Center was brought to
the Board. She stated that she does not recall staff bringing this request to the Board.
Mr. Matthews stated that at the time, a request was not received.
Chair Merrell confirmed with Mr. Matthews that this is the first time they have heard of the request.
Mr. Niland stated that generally, at the local level, they do not get involved in requesting judge positions, and that during his tenure this is the first time there has been any discussion
on the matter. He added that, as part of the space needs analysis, staff met with judicial officials, and they were aware that population growth and increasing caseloads meant another
judge would be needed at some point, along with additional courtroom space.
Chair Merrell asked if it was a Superior Court Judge.
Mr. Niland clarified that it was a district court judge and noted that it was part of a space needs analysis conducted about four or five years ago. He added that the County has never
proactively pursued adding a judge with the legislature and that generally the approach has been reactive. He explained that, for example, when the Public Defender’s Office was added
in the last budget year, they had not requested it. He further noted that accommodating a single judge is much easier for space than an office of 18 public defenders.
Chair Merrell stated that she wanted to make a recommendation, noting that this has been a healthy discussion and that the information is new for at least four members of the Board.
Chair Merrell stated that she wanted to know more and that some additional homework is needed. She asked for staff to speak with Judge Hucks and get more information. She also requested
that staff come back to the Board at a later date and provide what the ratio would be for Union County if it is currently one judge per 51,000 residents.
She added that she wanted to know more what the ratio would be if a second district court judge were added. Chair Merrell noted that, since they have heard what other counties have,
it would be helpful to know the real ratio if the Board were able to petition the General Assembly with a possible resolution to request a second judge position.
Mr. Matthews stated that he thinks they will ask Judge Hucks to answer some of the questions, as those are beyond the staff’s scope.
Chair Merrell stated that she would like some clarification on who would make the appointment until an election process was held.
Commissioner Baucom stated that based on their estimates that adding one judge would bring the ratio down to about 42,500 per judge, and adding two judges would bring it to around 36,428
per judge.
Mr. Niland stated that if the Board finds it helpful, staff could also research when other counties were given additional judges and bring that information back to the Board.
Commissioner Sides said that what he found most interesting in his discussion with Judge Hucks is that, as she explained it, whenever a county or a judge requests additional judges through
the legislature, they reference the District Court workload formula.
Commissioner Sides stated that the most recent data that Judge Hucks can access is about five years old, and the formula the legislature uses is not shared. He added that they essentially
developed their own formula based on population and the number of judges in other counties.
Commissioner Sides shared his concern that the lead District Court Judge cannot obtain from the state authority the exact formula used, nor why she cannot get an updated one, noting
that this is the formula the legislature uses to determine how many judges the county receives, which he said makes no sense.
Commissioner Sides stated that he would encourage the staff to explore this issue further and noted that Judge Hucks can provide additional information.
25-095Jail Discussion
Chair Merrell stated that the next item on the agenda is Item 25-095, Jail Discussion. She recognized County Manager Brian Matthews for staff’s comments.
Mr. Matthews stated that during the Board’s retreat, there was a very good discussion with the Board about upcoming capital projects, with the jail being a significant part of that discussion.
He noted that the Board requested additional information, which staff is now bringing back, and added that if the Board wishes to have additional discussion, staff is available to do
so that evening.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Sheriff’s Office had provideda comparison of the County’s population and how it compares to other counties of somewhat similar size, including the jail bed
capacity and core.
He stated that the information provided at that time was mostly on counties around the same size as Union County. He noted that Buncombe County had a slightly larger population, while
Cabarrus, Johnston, and Gaston Counties all had smaller populations, with jail bed sizes ranging from the 500s to 600s in inmate size. He added that the Board then asked fora comparison
with counties with larger populations, more closely reflecting Union County’s projected population in 2030, 2040, and 2050.
Mr. Matthews stated that the information includes a chart that breaks down the data.
Mr. Matthews stated that the chart shows the population used in the County’s comprehensive plan, which is developed from the regional CRTPO (Charlotte’s Regional Transportation Planning
Organization), a regional transportation agency. He noted that CRTPO develops population projections, and those projections are used in the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Matthews stated that the chart shows the population projections from the state demographer. He noted that these differ because the projections are for 2025, 2035, and 2045, while
the state demographer’s projections are for 2030, 2040, and 2050. He added that, although they are offset by five years, the chart provides an idea of what each source has as far as
population.
He stated that when viewing the CRTPO data, which is what the county used in its comprehensive plan to compare itself, then the closest counties to what Union County is expected to grow
to in 2035 would be Durham and Cumberland.
Mr. Matthews stated that, while those counties will also grow over the same timeframe, currently they are the closest to Union County’s projected population, having a 736-bed jail capacity
and 568-bed capacity.
Mr. Matthews stated that Forsyth and Guilford Counties are much larger, with jail bed counts over 1,000 and 1,300, and noted that those comparisons are not really fair for Union County
because they are so large. He stated that another factor to keep in mind is that Durham has a larger city, which creates a different dynamic that would need to be considered.
Mr. Matthews stated that the best comparisons for Union County are likely Buncombe, Cabarrus, Johnston, and Gaston Counties, as they are more similar as far as growth and populationand
likely inmate numbers over time.He stated that this is not suggesting the County needs to build a 600-bed jail, but the comparison provides a range for populations somewhat similar to
Union County.
He stated that the information provided is good data for the Board to review. He added that ultimately, staff will be seeking direction from the Board on how the second phase of the
jail study should be completed. He explained that the consultant needs some parameters, including the size of the facility to evaluate, in order to determine what it takes to build and
operate it, including staffing.
Mr. Matthews stated that he was not suggesting the Board make that decision tonight, but noted that direction from the Board will be needed in the very near future to allow staff to
move forward with completing the study.
Chair Merrell expressed appreciation for receiving the information that was requested at the retreat.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated thatthese are great observations. He noted that when looking at some of the other counties, they provide a comparison, but they are very different from
Union County. He added that some of those counties have much larger urban populations, which Union County does not have.
He said that when reviewing the numbers, he liked the comparison with Johnston County and believes that it falls in line with what the Board heard from the Sheriff at the retreat. He
clarified that what they were discussing at that moment was for the second part of the study and that it was not a final approval.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that what they were essentially looking at was, if they decided to press forward, what the parameters would be. He said that, if he understood correctly,
at that point the consultant would come back to the Board with more concrete numbers for final consideration. He added that then the Board would deliberate on how to pay for the facility.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that this was correct and stated that they would receive some estimates along with staffing data. He noted that staffing and operating the project would obviously
have a significant cost.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Board would also get estimates on construction costs, and those numbers would then be factored into the Board’s decision on whether to move forward with
construction a jail. He added that if the project moved forward, the Board would later decide how to fund it whether through a general obligation bond requiring a referendum or a limited
obligation bond that does not require a public vote.
Mr. Matthews stated that they had provided a number of recommendations for the Board to consider at the retreat and offered to provide that information again for the Board to review
while deciding whether the Board is comfortable moving forward. He said this item would likely be scheduled for one of the March meetings to receive direction from the Board, unless
the Board was ready to provide directionat tonight’s meeting.
Chair Merrell asked whether the Board would be hearing from Christopher Boyd, Facilities Director, and if he would provide a facilities perspective. She noted that while the Board had
already received some of this information, she wanted to know if he would be returning to present again.
Mr. Matthews asked if the question was regarding all facilities or specifically the jail.
Chair Merrell clarified that she was referring to the jail.
Mr. Matthews said that Mr. Boyd could always come back if the Board wanted additional information. He said they were happy to have him return to speak and asked the Board to indicate
what specific information was needed so arrangements could be made.
Chair Merrell said she wanted to revisit the information the Board had received, noting that Mr. Boyd had done a presentation on a 400-bed with a 500 core, a 500-bed with a 500 core,
and a 600-bed with a 500 core. She asked ifthose numbers were still accurate or if they had changed, explaining that this was the reason she brought it up.
Mr. Matthews stated that he was happy to provide that information and had anticipated that when the Board was making a decision, those options would be presented. He noted that he did
not expect the Board to make a decision that evening but had planned to show the options when the item was brought back for consideration.
Mr. Matthews explained that staff would have some revised general estimates for those costs and could show the Board different scenariossuch as a 400-bed and a 600 core, a 400-bed and
an 800 core, or a 600-bed and an 800core providing estimated costs for each. He added that this would allow for a more detailed discussion on the options.
Mr. Matthews stated that it was his intention to provide that information, whether it came from Christopher Boyd, himself, or anyone else.
Chair Merrell said that was the reason she brought it up, noting that she had not heard the information. She asked whether they would be circling back to it or if it was no longer being
considered.
Mr. Matthews explained that he had not thought the Board was ready to make a decision, which was why he had not provided the information.
Chair Merrell explained that this was why she was asking if he would be coming back.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that the information would be provided to the Board.
Mr. Boyd came forward and stated that he was happy to come back at any time to discuss the numbers. He noted that the report the Board had seen, which he believed was from last March,
started with very low numbers, ranging from around 250 up to 600, with 800 being the highest. He asked if the Board wanted him to review those lower numbers again.
Chair Merrell clarified that she was specifically referring to a chart with three lines showing 400-beds with a 600 core, a 500-bed with a 600 core, and a 600-bed with a 600 core, which
were the options Mr. Boyd had presented. She noted that they were later asked for an 800-core option, which was significantly higher than the original three. She added that she was not
interested in reviewing the lower numbers, such as 250, since that clearly was not the range they needed.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he remembered the study or chart being referred to and confirmed that it did include those three options.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he was of the opinion 800 to 1,200 beds are not needed. He noted that he liked the comparison with Johnston County and, while the Board could deliberate
further, he believed the chart Commissioner Merrell had referenced provided closer options for the relative comparisons being considered. He added that he agreed it would be very helpful
for the Board.
Commissioner Sides stated that one question he was considering in determining this issue was how long they wanted the next jail to last before needing to expand the core and enlarge
the facility.
Commissioner Sides stated that, to him, that question is what determines the capacity numbers. He noted that however the project is financed, it would take 20 years to pay off, and some
of the consultant’s projections looked 25 years out.
Commissioner Sides stated that, personally, he would like to build a facility with initial capacities sufficient to meet the 25-year projections, so future Boards would not have to expand
it before it is paid off. He referenced the Judicial Center as an example, noting that he did not believe it was fully paid off and that arrangements were already being made for additional
space.
Commissioner Sides stated that while building to meet the 25-year projections might not be the cheapest route, he believed it was the best value. He explained that any future expansions
whether to the core or the cells would be more expensive than doing it today, with costs increasing each month and year. He added that this was the rationale he was considering.
Commissioner Sides stated that he was trying to project out 25 years to determine what would be sufficient to meet the needs at that time. He added that he did not believe anything
less than an 800-core, 600-bed jail would be adequate.
Chair Merrell stated that she understood his point but noted that the current average daily incarceration is under 300. She said she struggled with asking taxpayers to fund an 800-bed
jail if it would take 20 years or more to reach that number, but she appreciated his perspective.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that, to that point, she believed the consultant had indicated the jail would last 25 to maybe 30 years. She noted that there would be a period of
five plus years where it is not being paid for.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that through the study they had learned a couple of takeaways. He noted that one key takeaway was that the jail core could be designed and built in
a way that allows for future expansion.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he thought this was key because, if he understood correctly, they could consider building on a smaller scale initially but design it so that the
core could be expanded at a later time.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that it was something that staff needed to clarify with theconsultant. He said regarding Commissioner Sides’ concern, he would argue that it should
be taken to the consultant as a point of concern. He added that the onus would then fall on the project designers to start with a 500 or 600 core size, or whatever is chosen, but design
it in a way that allows for future expansion 30 years out to 600, 800, or whatever is needed essentially building it with options.
Chair Merrell agreed.
Chair Merrell stated that they were projecting an average daily population of approximately 400 inmatesaverage daily population by the year 2030. She noted that the fact the core is
expandable was one reason she did not want to build out to 800 or 1,200 beds immediately. She emphasized that the County needs to build what it could afford and avoid overburdening taxpayers
with a facility sized for 2050 or beyond.
Chair Merrell stated that they needed to determine the starting number that would get them to the desired completion identifying how many beds were needed at full build-out and nothing
less. She added that they should provide parameters so the facility could be expandable, whether in terms of beds or the core.
Commissioner Sides stated that he understood the perspective being shared. He explained that his personal philosophy was that the next jail should have sufficient capacity so that future
Boards would not need to expand it until the facility was paid off.
He acknowledged that the Board might decide that was not feasible, which he understood, but emphasized that his approach was to plan backwards looking 20 years out to determine what
would be needed for the jail to last at least that long before requiring expansion.
Commissioner Sides stated that the facility should most definitely be designed for extensive expansion, and with proper maintenance, it could last 50 years or more. He added that, for
the next jail they build, he hoped it would have sufficient capacity so that it would not need to be expanded until the original facility was paid off, around 20 years.
Commissioner Sides stated that his approach was to consider how big a jail would be needed 20 years from now. He acknowledged that others might feel differently and might be comfortable
with having to come back in 10 or 15 years, which is certainly their prerogative. He emphasized that he was simply offering this as food for thought to help guide the decision on the
optimum size.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he wanted to point out and perhaps request of staff that they had discussed at the Retreat whether any part of the current jail facility could be
salvaged or repurposed for other uses.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, obviously, the County has other needs, and he would like more information when the discussion resumes about potential uses for the old facility.
He suggested it could serve as an annex or for some other purpose. He emphasized that there should be other uses for the old facility, even if it is not a prison or jail, and he appreciated
having options.
Mr. Matthews stated that once the Board decides on the study parameters, they would approach the consultant and ask them to include in the scope an evaluation of the existing facility,
providing options for what it could be used for and identifying a suitable purpose for the building.
Mr. Matthews stated that adding an evaluation of the existing facility would take additional time, as it was not part of the original scope. He explained that, since the Board had raised
the issue at the Retreat, they would want to discuss it with the consultant.
Chair Merrell stated that they needed to keep in mind that the existing jail is failing. She said they would want to hear from the consultant or facilities staff about if they wanted
to keep it as functional space, what would it take to retrofit and make it usable noting that its current problems are what have brought them to the present discussion.
Commissioner Baucom stated that he was concerned his comments might be taking the discussion backward. He added that he believed the Board could work together to make their best educated
guess, move the project forward, and then determine how to fund it, whether through a referendum or another method.
Commissioner Baucom stated that his main concern was oversight during the construction process, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the jail is not built on a non-solid footing. He
said he would argue that the current jail might not be failing now, were it on a solid footing and that was his primary concern.
Commissioner Sides asked the Chair if the Board was prepared to place this item on the agenda for the first March meeting.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that they would bring it to the first March meeting for the Board to provide direction.He stated that his estimate was the Board would likely have the information
in about two or more months. He explained that once received, it would be placed on a meeting agenda for discussion, allowing the Board to make a final decision on how to proceed. He
noted that this would likely occur roughly 60 plus days after the March meeting.
County Manager’s Comments
Mr. Matthews stated that he thought the February 12th Board Retreat had been very productive. He noted that, although they did not finish all the agenda items. He said that may not
be a bad thing, as it allowed for a lot of discussion and a lot of interest in the information presented.
Mr. Matthews expressed appreciation to the Commissioners for their time that day. He stated that they would revisit the topics they were not able to cover and would send a calendar for
upcoming budget meetings
Commissioners’ Comments
Commissioner Baucom stated that he appreciated the attitudes and the way the Commissioners work together as a Board. He noted that, while they do not always agree, they are very respectful
of one another. He also expressed gratitude to the staff for their efforts and work, and encouraged everyone to be safe on the way home.
Commissioner Christina Helms thanked the Village of Wesley Chapel for being the first to assist with senior nutrition and commended the staff for reaching out to all the municipalities.
She expressed hope that the municipalities would soon provide numbers on how they can assist their seniors. She also urged the municipalities to consider House Bill 382 and stated that
she would be calling on Representatives Mark Brody, Dean Arp, Todd Johnson, and David Willis to introduce a single-item bill in place of the current legislation.
Commissioner Christina Helms explained that House Bill 382 was originally designed to provide relief for flood damage in Western North Carolina, but it now raises concerns due to density
issues. She reiterated that she was calling on the Representatives to pass a single-item bill for the state.
Chair Merrell stated that she agreed with Commissioner Helms and emphasized that the focus should remain on Western North Carolina rather than extending broadly across all 100 counties.
She stressed the importance of focusing on Western North Carolina.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms echoed Commissioner Christina Helms’ comments, thanking Wesley Chapel for its support with senior meals.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to the Town of Mineral Springs, noting that its council had adopted a resolution very similar to Union County’s position against HB 382.
He acknowledged that there may be other municipalities as well, but he was specifically aware of Mineral Springs.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to staff for their attendance. He stated that he thought the Retreat had been very productive and gave kudos to the staff for the effort
they put in to make it successful.
He noted that there was a threat of severe winter weather approaching, possibly tomorrow or Thursday. He emphasized that he hoped everyone would stay.
Commissioner Sides thanked staff for the Retreat, stating that he found the information invaluable. He acknowledged that the jail issue had been before the Board long before his tenure,
but he hoped everyone would be encouraged knowing that the Board does not take decisions that involve potentially ninefiguresof commitment from taxpayers lightly and are looking at it
from all angles.
Commissioner Sides stated that he felt very confident that, when it comes time to make a decision, the Board would be able to find a balance between meeting future needs and remaining
cost-effective for today’s taxpayers. He added that he hoped everyone would stay safe in whatever weather the County encounters.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 8:03 p.m., Vice Chair Brian W. Helms (not sure who made the motion)moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion
passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye