Minutes March 12, 2026 final review bm
UnionCounty,NCBoardofCommissionersMeetingMinutes
UnionCountyGovernment Center
500NorthMainStreet
Monroe,NorthCarolina
www.unioncountync.gov
_____________________________________________________________________
Thursday, March 12, 20268:30 a.m.Lakeside Lodge,
5301 Cane Creek Road, Waxhaw, NC 28173
____________________________________________________________________
PRESENT:Chair Brian W. Helms; Vice Chair Christina B. Helms; Commissioner Clancy C. Baucom; and Commissioner Melissa M. Merrell
ABSENT:Commissioner Gary Sides
ALSO PRESENT:Brian W. Matthews, County Manager; Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager; Clayton Voignier, Assistant County Manager; and Jason Kay, County Attorney
At approximately 8:30 a.m., Chair Brian W. Helms called to order the special meeting of the Union County Board of Commissioners on Thursday, March 12, 2026. special meeting of the Union
County Board of Commissioners to order. The purpose of the special meeting was to hold a work session to discuss subjects to include but not be limited to: operating and capital budget
outlook, tax software update, FY2027 budget discussion, jail size scenarios and cost estimates, and other strategic and budgetary matters. He recognized County Manager Brian Matthews
for his comments.
Mr. Matthews expressed his appreciation to everyone for taking time out of their day to attend the special meeting and participate in discussions regarding the upcoming budget.
He announced that storms are forecasted to move through the area sometime between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. He stated that if power was lost during the storm, staff would pivot as needed
to continue the meeting, but he hoped the weather would not interrupt what staff was trying to accomplish.during the meeting.
Mr. Matthews stated that the goal was to conclude the meeting by approximately 2:00 p.m. He noted that breaks were scheduled throughout the day but encouraged the Board to let staff
know if additional breakswere needed. He recognized Jason May, Director of Budget and Grants Management, for the first presentation.
BUDGET OUTLOOK UPDATES
FY 2026 Mid-year Update
Mr. May provided a mid-year budget update and discussed with a discussion ofad valorem taxes. He explained that, over the past five years, the County has averaged bringing inslightly
more ad valorem tax revenue than the amount that wasbudgeted. He noted that this was due to the County’s conservative approach to budgeting for ad valorem taxes.
Mr. May statedthat over the past five years there was a sharp increase inmotor vehicle pricesincreased sharply. He also stated that those values had risen significantly and were now
starting to come back down. He explained that this was one of the major themes that occurredduring COVID and that, as the County looked at the past years, he believed they would be
closer to budget moving intoin future years.
Mr. May stated that this year the County was not in any concernwith regard tohad no concerns regarding ad valorem taxes and that staff was very confident in meeting the budget number.
He discussed sales tax and reminded the Board that sales tax comes in arrears. He explained that this is a tax collected locally, sent to the State, and then redistributed back to the
County, which is a process thattakes time.
Mr. May stated that the County is currently projecting to be approximately 2.1 percent over budget for sales tax in FY26 based on the current numbers and the four months of collections.
He addressed federal and state revenues. Heexplained that these are often reimbursable programs where the County must spend the money and then request reimbursement. Mr. May explained
that there is a lag or an arrears period before the funding comes back into the County’s coffers.
Mr. May stated that, again, at this point in time, there was not much concern about it. He noted that the County had been under and over budget in previous years. He explained that much
of this depends on grants and how the County works with DSS and Public Health, which can also have an impact as well.
He stated that overarchinglylooking atreviewingthe General Fund through the midyear, the revenues are on pace to be at or exceed budget in the major revenue areas. He noted that federal
and state revenues were laggingslightly.at least a little bit.
Mr. May stated that expenses were on budget or slightly below. He explained that personnel expenses were trending a little bitslightlybelow where the budget numbers were, and operational
expenses were also trending below budget.
He noted that the third phase of the compensation study had been completed, the midyear adjustment for the COLA adjustment had been completed, and the Union County Sheriff’s Office pay
plan increase had been completed. Mr. May stated that all ofthe planned increases, both on personnel and operating, had been completed at this point.in time.Mr. May stated thatthere
were no concerns at this point intime on either the revenue side or the expenditure side. He explained that staff believes there is a fairly good runway to be able tofinish out the year.
Hestated saidthatthere were a number of uncertainties in the economy at the moment, and they would continue to watch this through the remainder of the fiscal year to make sure there
were no changes. He noted that the country was in the middle of an armed conflict at the moment; there were tariff discussions regarding rebates, and inflation had comecame in the previous
day at 2.4 percent, which seems to be moderating a little bit.
He added there is an awfula lot of uncertainty and things on which that staffisnot prepared to make really good projections off ofat this point and time,butandthey want to watch through
the remainder of the year.
Mr. May asked if there were any questions regarding the end of the fiscal year for the current year.
Commissioner Merrell asked aboutthethird phase of the compensation study and what that phase includes.
Mr. May stated that the third phase was the last phase of going to market value. He explained that he was not as familiar with the rationale for where that third phase was, as he came
in right at the end of that process. Mr. May suggested that members of management may be able to speak more specifically to that question.
Deputy County Manager Patrick Niland explained that the County completed a market rate study about three years ago. He statedsaid that it was too expensive to afford all at once, one
time, so the implementation was done over three phases, with two phases completed in one year and the last phase completed the following year.
Mr. Niland noted that the process looked a little bit different foreach department, and the Sheriff’s Office specifically wanted to do something a little bit different differehnt.He
explained that the purpose of the study was to getbring employee compensation up to that market level across the County departments.
Mr. Matthews stated that the compensation study was broken into three parts because the County could not implement it all in one year.
Commissioner Merrell asked if the third phase included certain departments.
Mr. Matthews stated that it included all departments. He explained that they did not break the study out to just one department. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office was handled differently,
but it was still included.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked what kind offeedback had been received from the Sheriff's Office and whether they were reporting thatreported it was helpful for retention purposes. He inquired
if there had beenasked if any feedback had been received.any feedback either way.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Sheriff’s Office had been very grateful and appreciative. He explained that the adjustments had made a difference in recruitment and with retention. He noted
that, for some of the more tenured positions, the County may need to consider something a little different in the next fiscal year. He stated that they were having those discussions
with the Sheriff's Office and looking at what other jurisdictions do that Union County does not. He said that those items would be brought to the Board as part of the budget discussions.
He added that the feedback had been positive, and he believed the employees were very appreciative.
FY 2027 Budget Preview
Mr. May stated that his team had been working for the last six months pulling together information to begin the FY27 budget process. He stated thatsaid he wanted to discuss the organic
ad valorem increases, the General Fund sales tax projections, the impacts of HR-1 on Medicaid and food nutritional services, education,and other funds, and then, at the conclusion,he
would talk aboutdiscussthe healthcare fund.
Mr. May addressed the ad valorem taxes. He explained that the FY26 budget was formulated with a penny value of a little over $6.1 million. He noted that they were currently projecting
a 3.75 percent growth factor, which was a bit higher thanof an increase over whatthe budgeted number is becauseof the assessment process. He stated that for FY27, the projected penny
value was just over $6.5 million.
He explained that sales tax inUnion County distributes sales tax is distributedbased upon ad valorem values. He said that the FY26 budget was developed using a 4 percent growth rate,
which provided a little over $2 million in new revenue for FY26.
Mr. May noted that the actuals,at this point intime, as he mentioned earlier, were pacing a little bit ahead of the projections. He stated that the County was looking at 6.1 percent,
which was approximately a 2.1 percent growth over the budgeted number.
He explained that FY27 would be the first year thatsales tax distributions would be based on upon the new revaluation for ad valorem. He stated that Union County distributes sales tax
based upon ad valorem values between the towns and the County.
Mr. May noted that several Union County towns did not stay at revenue neutral in their tax rates and increased their share of the ad valorem in the County. Therefore, the County would
not realize this additional growth of2.1 percentgrowth, as that correlates to what the County will lose to the towns.
Mr. May stated that going into FY27, it is anticipated that there will be a 4 percent growth rate overon top of what is believed the County will lose to the towns. He said, in essence,
the County will grow by approximately $2.1 million, but it will lose some of its organic growth to the towns because they did not remain revenue neutral. He explained that this means
the towns will receive a larger share of the sales tax distribution next year because they increased based onupon them going up ontheir ad valorem tax rate.
Mr. Matthews pointed out that in North Carolina there are two ways to do this:in NorthCarolina: ad valorem and per capita. He explained that towns often want the County to use per capita,
but that is actually worse for the County because it the Countywould have less money and receive less sales tax money if it used per capita.
Mr. Matthews stated that it was the County’s choice and that the County had always gone with ad valorem because it was more in the County’s favor. He added that, as Mr. May pointed out,
this was the first year that the tax rates from the municipalities affected the County’s distribution. He explained that those municipalities that did not go revenue neutral or went
above revenue neutral would affect how much money the County actually receives in sales tax distribution.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked how many towns did not goadopt a revenue neutralbudget.
Mr. Matthews stated that he believed there werefour towns thatdid not go revenue neutral buthe would confirm that number and that the Tax Administrator, VannHarrell, would shortly provide
the exact number shortly.
Commissioner Merrell stated that four towns went above revenue neutral.
Mr. Matthews stated that was his recollection, but Mr. Harrell would soon provide the exact number.shortly.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the percentage above revenue neutral would have an impact.
Mr. Matthews stated that it had an impact as well. He added that, all of this was factored in, and noted that the fire departments also receive a portion of sales tax. He explained that
this was all factored into all of it.
Commissioner Merrell stated that a lot of the talk around the County, especially over the past month, had been about the increase in property values and the perception that the County
raised taxes. She noted that the County had been saying that it stayed revenue neutral except to pay for the voter-approved school bonds. She stated that what was being presented showed
that the County remained neutral because the towns were getting more money, and not the County.
Mr. Matthews agreed, stating that the County was going towould grow with some sales tax, but not as much as it would have if all of the jurisdictions had gone revenue neutral.
Commissioner Merrell stated that, to her understanding, the County Tax Administrator met with each municipality before they approved their budget to inform them ofwhattheir revenue-neutral
tax rate would be. She noted that four municipalities chose to go much higher than revenue neutral.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Tax Administrator met with the towns and discussed their reappraisal as well as theirand their revenue-neutral rates.
Commissioner Merrell stated that she thought this basically showed that the County stuck did stickas close to revenue neutral as it could while still paying for the new school bonds.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Board had been very clear that the rate increase was only because of the voter-approved debt for schools. He emphasized that thiswas the only reason the
Board changed the tax rate.
Mr. Matthews added that he always liked to point out that the rate came down because of the revaluation. He explained that it just did not come down all the way to revenue neutral because
of the voter-approved debt. He noted that some people do not realize that the rate went from approximately 58 cents per $100 valuation to approximately 43 cents and some change per $100
valuation.
Chair Brian W. Helms added that the revaluation the County had just gone through was not just a Union County issue, but something that had impacts far and wide across the State. He noted
that Union County was not the only county affected.by it.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he thought it was also important to understand the concept of rate neutral and asked Mr. Matthews if he wanted to make any comments.
Mr. Matthews stated thatsaid he would make a comment. He explained that there was nothing neutral about rate neutral. He stated that itessentially all that meant was thatthe County was
not changing the rate, but they werepackaging it differently. n a different way.
He cited an example:of a tax rate of 20 cents on the $100 valuation and a revaluation occurred, leaving the rate at 20 cents on the $100 was a tax increase. He stated that there was
no way around it. He said the rate may not have changed, but how much people pay would go up. Mr. Matthews stated that rate neutral was just a way of branding a tax rate increase.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, obviously, if the assessed values go upincrease, he would argue that the responsible thing to do would be to lower the tax rate in response he face
of thatto the increased assessed value. He noted that, as Mr. Matthews pointed out, if the tax rate stays the same, the County is effectively charging its citizens more money because
of the assessed values.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Matthews to remind the Board whether the County's reduction in the tax rate represented the largest reduction of any municipal government within the borders.
Mr. Matthews stated that he believed it was within the borders.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he believed it was around 15 cents.
Mr. Matthews stated that within the borders, Chair Brian W. Helms was correct. He noted that Chair Brian W. Helms made a point he wanted to stress, which was that this was a statewide
issue and not on that wasunique to Union County. He explained that statewide,there werea number ofcountieswere going through a reappraisal reassessment where their values were significantly
high. He stated it was the nature of the market. He said that statutorily,counties were required to revalue property o a revaluation at a minimum every eight years, but Union County
chose to do it every four years to try and soften the impact.
Mr. Matthews stated that if the County went for eight years, the increase would have been significantly greater. He explained that the County tried to level it out as much as possible.
He stated that the staff had concerns about what the State was discussing regarding possible tax reform. He noted that there were some mattersthatthe staff had concernsaboutparticularly
onethat was being discussed because property taxes wereareby far the largest income stream for the County. He explained that if that was were taken away or how much that could be collected
was minimized, it would affect what the County does and how it does it.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, regarding to the point aboutstatute, a reassessment can also be triggered. He explained that, although the Board’s policy is to conduct a revaluation
every four years to avoid wide swings and wide increases, beyond that, the General Statutesrequires that if certain triggers are in effect, a reassessment can be required.He stated that
he believed the mark was 115 percent above or downbelow, meaning that at115 percent, it triggers a reassessment. He added that if the values drop to 85 percent, he believed that would
trigger an assessment as well.
Mr. Matthews stated that in the past, the County had actually been triggered,.before in the past.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the County was triggered this past time.
Mr. Matthews stated that the County was on the four-year cycle. He explained that the County was on its own timeframe, buthadif the County not been planning to do a revaluation, it would
have been forced to actually do a reappraisal anyway.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he thought this was important information for the public to know because, although Union County was on its four-year cycle and that was its policy, even
if the Board had said they were going to put this off to next year, the Board could not have done so because of State law.
HR-1: Impacts to Medicaid & FNS
Mr. May stated that with the passage of HR-1 at the beginning of this fiscal year in July, there were some changes to the administrative cost structure and to the way that local governments,
state governments, and federal governments work together to provide Medicaid and food nutritional substances.
He explained that in the past, the administrative costhad beenweresplit 50/50 between the federal government and the counties in North Carolina. He stated that North Carolina is one
of 10 states that manages FNS (Food Nutritional Substances) and Medicaid at the county level rather than at the state level.
Mr. May stated that when the passage occurred, there was a lot of push of administrative costs from the federal government down to the state government. He explained that, unfortunately,
in North Carolina, those costs do not go to the state government; they come to the counties.
He explained that, in essence, what they have done historically is split that 50/50 with the federal government picking up 100 percent of the actual food money or the money that is loaded
onto EBT cards.
Mr. May stated that in October of this calendar year,the federal government will is going toreduce its part of this administrative cost share from 50 percent to 25 percent, effectively
cutting in half what it is going to be providing to cover the administrative cost of running these two programs.
He stated that the state does not participate in this administrative cost share at this point intime,and there is not anynoknowledge that the State'sState is going to step in to beable
to pick up this cost.
Mr. May stated that the second piece ofis thatthey are looking at an error rate penalty. He again highlighted that this is statewide and that the error rate is based upon the statewide
error rate.
He explained that, in essence, Union County could have an error rate of 3 percent, but if the State has an error rate over 10 percent, there could be a 15 percent penalty for the cost
of the program.
Mr. May stated that the County could do itsvery best and haveachieve excellent error rates, but if the State’s and the other counties’ error rates are not as good as Union County, the
County could still suffer the consequences of those error rates.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. May what the historical State error rate has been and whetherif that information wasis known.
Mr. May stated that he did not know that number off the top of his head. He believed it had been under 10 percent, but he would find that information and get it back tothe Chair Brian
W. Helms.
Chair Brian W. Helms requested that the information be circulated to the Board.
Mr. May agreed and stated that he would make a note to provide that information.
Mr. May stated that the last piece is the higher cost associated with the workload. He explained that there have been changes in the way the program is done, both for some of the work
requirements and the recertification process, which has been shortened from a year to six months, effectively doubling the number of times required for certifying that folks are working
or seeking work and going through that process.
He stated that DSS is working very hard right now to utilizeuse technology to be able to meet these additional requirements. He noted that there is a concern that at some point in the
future there may need to be additional staff hired to be able tocover these caseloads that will are going togrow as a resultbecause of the certification process.
Mr. May provided a summary of the changes from pre-HR-1 to post-HR-1. He stated that the federal administrative cost share is going to gofrom 50 percent to 25 percent, while the County’s
cost share is going to gofrom 50 percent to 75 percent unless the State intervenes.
He noted that the current benefit cost share is zero, but based on the error rates, it could be as much as 15 percent for the County.
Mr. May stated that the caseload had been standard. He explained that what the County is facing is a higher caseload in the future. He said the County will is goingto need to invest
in technology or additional staff to be able to meet those needs.
Hefurther stated that, based on both the Budget Conference and the Managers Conference, this has been a point of contention. He explained that this is not an issuesomethingthat islocal
to Union County, because every county across the State was having to work through these changes. He added that many smaller counties are facing larger percentage drops than Union County.
Mr. Matthews explained thatwhen the federal government made the changes, theychanges were based on the fact thatthe majority of states perform this service do iton a statewide basis.
He noted that North Carolina is one of only 10 states that administers the programs on a countywide basis.He explained stated that everything inthe legislation was written and drafted
around how states operate, not how it operates for North Carolina. He added that there are a lot ofmany complications because of the way the State chooses to have these programs operate.
He statedsaidthat this is just one example of how the State has decided to push the burden and the cost down to counties and step away from it. He noted that this is not uncommon and
that the County deals with this on a number of its programs. He stated that these are mandatory programs, and the County does not have a choice, and is requiredbut to provide these programs.
Mr. Matthews stated that what happens it is really going towilldepend on is whether the State is going to step in and be a partner or whether it is going to step back and let the counties
assume all of this burden.
He said stated that they do not know the answer at this point intime. He noted that there are plenty of discussions ongoing at the local and State levels, but he does not have a good
feeling about it.
Mr. Matthews stated that the County Association has discussed had a discussion aboutthese impacts. He explained that the impacts are statewide and his understanding is the average across
the State is around a $700,000 impact to each county.
He stated that Union County is probably more like $1.2 million, although he will not know for sure until they get into it. He explained that a lotmuchof the impact is related to staffing
because the requirements for testing eligibility have increased and will require more people or technology to meet those requirements.
Mr. Matthews stated that he understood why the federal government wanted to put this in place, but that when the legislation was being drafted,it did not consider take into considerationthe
impact it would have for counties like Union County.when thelegislation was being drafted.He stated he wanted the Board to be aware that it is going to have a major budget impact andassured
it is working on how to address this program. it is still being worked on.
Vice Chair Christina Helms stated that, since this has been a nationwide topic,nationwide,she had been asked what Union County is doing to make sure that everyone applying is truly eligible
and is not someone who is in the country illegally or does not want to work.
Mr. Matthews stated that the program has standards in place for testing eligibility and that they followthose standards are followed to the “T.”
He acknowledged that errors happen. He noted that, fortunately, the County’s error rate has been below 6 percent, which is good.for the County.Mr. Matthews stated that, as Mr. May pointed
out, this is a statewide error rate. He explained that they can be beat 2 percent, but if the statewide error rate is 12 percent, Union County will still be required to pay money based
on how it is structured now.
He stated that Union County’s error rate is low and they work very hard to keep it low, but in the end1, it may not matter because it is a statewide function.
Vice Chair Christina Helms stated that people want to hear that the County is going above and beyond what is required to make sure that everyone applying is truly in need and not trying
to take advantage of the program.
Mr. Matthews stated that some of theeligibility requirements are changing, and it will make is going to makeit even more challenging for individuals to meet those requirements. He stated
that he understands it and applauds the federal government for trying to be more transparent, but it is unfortunate that the County will be required to carry the burden as to how it
will work within the changes.going to have a burden with which to work.
Commissioner Merrell asked how Union County staff and the Board work with federal legislators, members of Congress and the Senate. She asked whether they are communicating with them
to let them know that North Carolina is one of 10 states that will be negatively impacted by the legislation.
She noted that she hears of many county commissioners and county governments going to Washington, D.C., but since she has been on the Board, she does not know that any Board members
have gone to Washington, D.C., or reached out by letter or email to explain how their votes will hurt the County.Commissioner Merrell asked what the County is doing to advocate for itself
with the federal government.
Mr. Matthews stated that, at this point intime, they have not necessarily reached out to its federal delegates on this. He explained that many of the rules were still very much up in
the air and that everyone was trying to understand what the impactswould beand how it would affect them.
He stated that it is a little clearer now. He noted that his guess is thatthe federal officials will look at this and say that it seems like a state problem and advise that they (the
counties) should probably go talk to their state officials. Mr. Matthews stated that this does not mean theycounties will not reach out to their Congressmen and Senators to let them
know this is a problem. He noted that he suspects the response may be that the legislation was built for 40 other states and it works for them and that North Carolina may need to work
with its state legislators to get it resolved.
Mr. Niland stated that staff has been in communication with the StateAssociation of County Commissionersand the county delegation. association. He noted that some counties are facing
a $700,000 hit and do not have $700,000.
He stated that he believes the State understands this is a statewide issue and is communicating the dire straits this Legislation puts counties in;and hopefully, the State will do something
to alleviate some of the burden. He noted that the State budget is in flux right now, and this is preparing for the worst while hoping something materializes over the next several months.
Mr. Matthews stated that what the County faces, whether it is this or any other fiscal year, is that the State does not adopt its budget at the same time asthe County adopts its budget.
He explained that the State usually adopts its budget around October, after the County has already adopted its budget and had to assume what they will or will not receive.
He noted that schools face this quite regularly, where they do not know what they are going to get, and then a curveball is thrown at them, and they have tomust figure out how to pay
for it.
Mr. Matthews statedreiterated that, whether it is this or any yearother fiscal year, the state does not adopt its budget at the same time as the County.does. He explained that the State
usually adopts its budget around October, after the County has already adopted it is budget and had to assume what they will or will not get.
He noted that schools face this quite regularly;where they do not know whatthe amount of fundingthey are going to receive, and then a curveball is thrown at them and they have todetermine
how to pay for it.
He said to address Mr. Niland’s point, staffis working with the County Association and talking to the statedelegation. He noted that staff isdoing what it can, but they just do not know
what the outcome will be.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he sees this as an unfunded mandate. He noted that since he and Commissioner Merrell have been on the Board, they have always had legislative goals of
opposing unfunded mandates.
He thanked staff for communicating these concerns to the State level. He asked if, in the coming months, a meeting could be scheduled with the State delegation to discusstalk about some
of the concerns, hear whatabout some of the thingsthey may be discussing or not discussing, and get a better picture ahead of the new budget.
Mr. Matthews assured that staff will work on it. He sharedsaid that staff invited the State delegation to this meeting, but they were not able to attend.
He statedreported that they will work on putting something together and that they may need to make a trip to Raleigh if the members of the legislative delegation cannot come here because
of their schedules.
Commissioner Merrell stated that this issue was discussed a lot the previous evening with Centralina Regional Council. She noted that Geraldine Gardner, Executive Director, wanted to
be invited if a meeting is scheduled. Commissioner Merrell said she did not believe it would hurt to have a representative of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
to participate to bringin bringing everyone into the same meeting.
Mr. May stated that, as they begin the FY27 budget process, there are a couple of itemsthat need to be closedup from the FY26 budget to make sure they are set up to start the budget
year off right:
Sheriff’s Office pay plan began in January and was funded at 50 percent – the remaining 50 percent needs to be funded.
Mid-year COLA – started in January and was funded at 50 percent - the remaining 50 percent needs to be funded.
Mr. May stated that they are looking at reinstituting the pay-for-performance program now that the compensation study adjustments have been completed. He also noted that they expectit
is expected there will be an increase in retirement costs.
He explained that the increase is not caused inby the number of employees retiring,but inby the cost of retirement. He stated that, historically, over the past five years, retirement
costs have averaged about one percent growth. He noted that Ms. Beverly Liles, Finance Director, has indicated there might be some expectedreductions in the future, decreases not increases.
He noted that time will tell based on the market and other factors that impact the retirement and the trust fund.
Mr. May addressed thatthe education funding formula is the State-mandated expense funding formula.
He stated that they look at what the provisions were for Union County Public Schools and the charter schools, as well as the average daily membership (ADM). He noted thatthere isa projected
decrease in ADM for Union County Public Schools.
Mr. May stated that they add the percentage change for the Education Cost Index (ECI), which is similar to the cost price index but is based on the education field. He noted that it
is currently at 3.5 percent, which is a little high, and that it may come down by the time they actually put it into use.
Mr. May stated that Step 3 shows thefunding requirement for FY27. He noted that it reflects an additional allocation of about $5.6 million going into next year's budget and asked if
there were any questions or concerns.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked for clarification that the additional allocation required is based on the State formula.
Mr. May confirmed that was correct.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that this is what is being mandated to the County.
Education Debt Fund:
Mr. May addressed the education debt fund, noting that an increase of about $1.7 million is being projected. He explained that this amount is split between Union County Public Schools,
charter schools, and South Piedmont Community College.
He stated that bond referendum requests are expected from both Union County Public Schools and South Piedmont Community College in the fall election. He addressed the Economic Development
and the general fund debt funds, noting that the EDC Fund is projected to increase by about $166,000 and the General Fund debt by just under $400,000.
Vice Chair Christina Helms recognized Matt Helms and Reverend Jimmy Bention from the Union County Board of Education. She thanked them for attending and asked if they wanted to add any
comments to the discussion while they wereat that point in the meeting.
Mr. Matthews clarified that he spoke with Dr. Houlihan, who told him thatthe Board of Commissioners will receive be receivinga request for a bond referendum from UCPS. He stated that
the schools are working on the number and that it may be modified and the amount decreased. Mr. Matthews noted that once he knows the number, he will share it with the Board.
He stated that there aresteps that must have tobe followed to place items on the referendum. He noted that Beverly Liles, Finance Director, will review that information with the Board
and that the same process will apply to Union County Public Schools and the jail. He said stated that there will bea later slide that discusses the process. He stated that there will
be a request fromUCPSwill request a bond referendum. He noted that he does not want to go into the number yet because he does not believe it is 100 percent finalized at this point.
Reverend Jimmy Bentionthanked expressed appreciation tothe Chair for the meeting they had a few weeks prior and thanked Vice Chair Christina Helms for attending the meeting with the
vice chairs a few weeks later. He stated that theyare committed have their commitment to collaboration and communication and stand ready to work together.
Chair Brian W. Helms welcomed Reverend Bention and Vice Chair Matt Helms from the Board of Education. He stated that the Board of Commissioners looks forward to collaborating with them
and the entire Board of Education in the upcoming budget cycle.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked, regarding the bond request, if this would be the other element of Parkwood.
Mr. Matthews stated that it is his understanding. He noted that there may be some other items included, but that would be the majority of the request.
Health Fund:
Clayton Voignier, Assistant County Manager,discussed the Union County Government’s health funds, and provided some brief history on the fundand what is expected for next year.
He stated thatthere have been a number ofseveral changes to the health plan and plan design. He noted that the County switched to a new pharmacy benefit manager, Liviniti, which actuallya
change that occurred a few months before the start of the fiscal year.
Mr. Voignier stated the County switched to a new third-party administrator and a new medical network. He explained that Union County is self-insured and has a third-party administrator
that adjudicatesto adjudicate claims based on the plan. He noted that Brighton is the approved TPA with Blue Cross and that claims processing is there is nowamore seamless processing
of claimsthrough the new medical network.
Mr. Voignier stated that the County also added a new dental network through Sun Life. He noted that this benefits employees as well asandthe County through the network discounts now
received.
He stated that the County also consolidated its voluntary insurance products under Sun Life, including critical illness, cancer, hospital indemnity, and other voluntary plans.Mr. Voignier
shared that the County opened a new employee health and wellness center in partnership with Atrium. He also noted that they have moved to a new electronic enrollment, Employee Navigator,
and are moving to Benefit First, which is a more robust application that holds more information and will be more user-friendly for employees.
Mr. Voignier stated that they made a number of changesand the purpose of those changes was severalfold. He noted that they were striving for higher prescription drug manufacturer rebates,
as well as higher guaranteed network discount savings as a result of moving to Blue Cross and Sun Life.
He noted that they were also able to lower deductibles and make no changes to employee premiums. He noted that they anticipated getting better customer support, a better member experience,
and overall, better in-network coverage.He stated that Blue Cross has greater in-network provider coverage than they previously had and greater choice for medical care.
Mr. Voignier stated that previously employees on the direct primary care plan could only go to the Marathon Clinic and had no choice. did not have a choice. He noted that under the new
arrangement, employees have a new employee wellness center they can choose to use, but they can also choose their own primary care physician through the Blue Cross network, providing
greater choice.
Mr. Voignier stated that, looking ahead to into next year and beyond, the County is facing some local and national trends in healthcare. He noted that the first one isveryunique to the
County and relates to issues with its previous TPA, which was one of the primary reasons for switching TPAs. He stated that the previous TPAwas underreporting the number of paid and
pending claims.
Mr. Voignier stated that they base future projections for plan costs and the budget on the number of claims. He explained that when claims are underreported and they are not receiving
all the data needed, projections can fall short of what costs are expected to be. He statedthat this is somethingthe County facedthis.
He stated that they do not base their projections on denied claims and assume those claims were accurately denied based on member eligibility or the service. He explained that after
ending the agreement with the prior TPA, and entering a six-month runout period, many of those denied claims switched to paid claims due to processing errors on the former TPAs side
when denying the claims.
Mr. Voignier clarified that the County would have paid those claims anyway because the employee, member, or dependent was eligible and the service was eligible. He explained that the
issue was that the claims came in over a very shortperiodamount of time, which required them to deplete the health fund balance to cover them.
He stated that, due tobecause of these factors, the County had about $5 million in chargeback claims, meaning the service dates for those claims occurred prior to July 1. He noted that,
in the previous two fiscal years, chargebacks were around $1.5 million to $1.8 million, making this a significant discrepancy.
Mr. Voignier stated that, on a national level,nationally there are a lot of trends affecting the overall health of people living in thise country. He noted increasing cancer diagnoses
among younger adults, increasing rates of cancer overall, and an aging population, which he stated they are also experiencing in Union County. He stated that these trends require greater
and more costly medical care, as well as anincreasing pediatric-onset chronic conditions.He noted that this leads to greater utilization of healthcare services overall and more catastrophic
events to the plan, including more high-cost surgeries, high-cost treatments due to those diagnoses, and unfortunately, even death.
He stated that pharmacy costs are rising faster than medical costs across the nation, and the County is seeing the same trend in its health plan. He noted that specialty drugs and GLP-1
medications, which areweight-loss medications, are covered.
He explained that GLP-1 medications are also used for treating diabetes, which they are required to covered because it is a medical condition, but they also cover them for weight loss.
He noted that these medications are now accounting for a disproportionate share of the County’s prescription drug spending.
Mr. Voignier stated that, while Mr. May mentioned the inflation rate has shown a slight decreased a little, inflation is still up overall over the last year. He noted that this impacts
the cost of drugs, costs of treatments, medical equipment and supplies, and services provided by medical providers. He explained that all of those costs are built into the claim costs
when they pay claims.
Mr. Voignier stated that, going into the next fiscal year, the health fund balance needs to be replenished. He explained that the plan is to use some unassigned fund balance to replenish
the fundand will betargetingwhat the amount should be, based on claims coming in for February and March to better determine how much is needed to replenish the fund balance.
He noted that changes to the overall health plan design for FY27 also need to be considered, including deductibles, employee premiums, and prescription drug coverage due to increasing
pharmacy costs.
Mr. Voignier stated that, more importantly, staffwants to take a long-term strategic approach to managing the health plan. He noted that they have been working with a benefits consultant
theyhave been working withonthese changes.
He stated that, now it is in the plan year and changes have been made, staff can better project. He noted that staff isreceiving good data from Blue Cross and can better project what
some of these long-term changes need to be so the County is not in this situation going forward. Mr. Voignier stated that staffisplanning for catastrophic events, trends in pharmacy,
and the general utilization of healthcare services.
Mr. Voignier stated that staff would be coming back to the Board at a later date regarding these changes. He noted that in the coming weeks they would becommunicating to employees, as
well as to the Board, regardingabout the plan design changes. in the coming weeks.
Mr. Matthews clarified that the increased costs are not a symptom of changing the insurance plan. He stated that these cost impacts would have occurred regardless of whether or not the
insurance was changed.
He stated that staffuncovereddiscoveredthat the past TPA was underreporting, which was something thatwas not anticipated. He noted that the costs for pharmacy, medical care, and treatments
would have dealt with those regardless of what carrier the County was with because it is self-insured and is responsible for funding those costs.
Mr. Matthews explained that the health care fund balance is what isused to pay for those claims, while the overarching fund balance is countywide. He noted that the claims that werepaid
came from the health care fund balance.He stated that the health care fund balance has now been reduced and some of the County’s overarching fund balance needs to be used to replenish
the health care fund balance to make it whole and ensure funds are available for the future.
Mr. Matthews stated that he wanted to revertreturnto a question about taxes and clarified that he was incorrect in his previous estimate. He noted that 13 municipalities went above revenue
neutral, and two of those actually went above their past tax rate and didnot stay rate neutral.
He noted that Hemby Bridge does not have taxes and was not included, but the other 13 municipalities with a tax rate went above revenue neutral.
Commissioner Baucom asked for clarification on whether going above revenue neutral meant they kept their current rate.
Mr. Matthews stated that, as an example, if their rate for FY26 was 15 cents and revenue neutral was 10 cents, they may have gone somewhere between 10 and 15 cents. He noted that they
did not necessarily stay at 15 cents.
He stated that two municipalities actually wentabove what their current rates.Mr. Matthews cited the example that if their rate was 15 cents, they went to 17 cents. He clarified that
he could not say for a fact that they remained at their rate; they went somewhere in between what revenue neutral and what their former rate. He stated that the essence is that there
was an increase in taxes.
Commissioner Merrell stated town councils or mayors have said their municipalities did not have a tax increase, and the constituents believe their taxes went up because of the County
and not because of the town they live in.
Commissioner Merrell asked, when the tax office meets with the municipalities, do the elected officials hear this number or justonly staff? She stated that she was beginning to wonder
if the information shared by the tax administrator shared with staff about what revenue neutral would be did that message get carried overwas conveyed to the mayor and town council.
Vann Harrell, Tax Administrator, stated they do not get into the rate calculation. Mr. Harrell stated that they talk to them about their assessed values, and the municipalities are responsible
for their own revenue-neutral calculation and adopted tax rate. He noted that this is not something the Tax Administrator’s Office provides to the municipalities.
He said that the Tax Office shows the percentage increase that is increasingcompared to their assessed value for the prior year. He explained that the Tax Office is using general numbers,
if the overall County value increases 58 percentage, which was about what it was, that percentage is used for discussion purposes. He noted that it might have been different by a couple
of decimal points different.He explained that, typically speaking if the value goes up less than the median at 58 percent, and the jurisdiction goes to revenue neutral, there should
not be a tax increase.
He stated that if the value went above the median number at revenue neutral,the taxes willwould be a little more. He noted that each jurisdiction has its own rate.
Commissioner Merrell stated that there has been much misinformation since the revaluation, with citizens believing that the County raised their taxes when the County remained revenue
neutral. She stated that the County is not bringing in much extra money this year, while the municipalities are bringing in significantly more money.
Commissioner Merrell stated that her questionswere“who the Tax Office staff is meeting with” and “if they are having the percentage conversation with staff or with both staff and elected
officials”. She noted that she knows firsthand that there are some mayors and town councils that are adamant they stayed revenue neutral, but according to the County’s calculations,
it is like a 103 percent increase.
Mr. Harrell stated that every oneall ofthe Tax Office’s meetings with the municipalities are public presentations. He noted that they didheld 33 public presentations and at their public
meeting with every town there were council members there.He stated that there werein some towns where the mayor was not there, and somewherein some cases certain council members were
missing. He noted that it varied based on theby jurisdiction, but they went to every jurisdiction at least twice.
Commissioner Merrell asked if the meetings were held during their regular meeting.
Mr. Harrell confirmed that they were regular meetings.
Mr. Niland asked if there is a statutory way to calculate revenue neutral. He stated that it the General Statues lay in out is laid out in the general statutesand that towns should be
calculating it the same way.He noted that not all towns probably calculate it the same way, but the calculation is laid out in theGeneral Statuteslay in out. He also stated that, as
part of the budget process, the Tax Office is required to present the revenue-neutral rate to the Board. He noted that the Board does not have to adopt it, but it does have tomustbe
presented as part of the process.
Mr. Harrell stated that part of the calculation, and something that has been discussed over the years, is that some people say that is not true revenue neutral and others say it is true
revenue neutral.He explained that they may are allowed torealize their standard average growth rate is part of the revenue-neutral calculation. He stated that if the growth rate is 3.5
percent, they are allowed to capture that normal growth pattern within the revenue neutral rate calculation.
Jason Kay, County Attorney,statedexplained that he wanted to summarize what had been asked, particularly for some of the elected officials who are wondering why they have gone up but
nobody in their jurisdiction thinks they have increased. gone up.
Mr. Kay stated that, as Mr. Harrell mentioned, all of those presentations are made to the municipalities in public meetings. He noted that there is a legal requirement to publish the
revenue neutral rate. He explained that if the base goes up 58 percent, the tax rate should come down, and at some point,it hits revenue neutral. He stated that they are required legally
to publish that rate.
Mr. Kay stated that not only did the municipalities hear about it twice, but the jurisdictions themselves are legally required to publish the revenue-neutral rate. He noted that they
can then adopt whatever they want, anywhere from rate neutral, if the base went up 58 percentincrease, and they keep the tax rate the same, it is about 58 percent increase in revenue
collections, all the way to some people thatwho went over that rate.
Mr. Kay reported that he is not privy to those discussions among the municipalities and does not represent any of those jurisdictions, but they should be extremely well aware of what
their rates.
Mr. Harrell stated that some of themunicipalities had charged fees,they charged.and moved those fees from a fee structure to absorb theminto their general fund. He noted that they adjusted
their tax rate to accommodate for that expense.
He stated that was some of what occurred, but he does not know what every one of the municipalities did. He noted that he is not part of the budget process other than providing the revenue
projections.
Commissioner Merrell stated that the discussion was very informative. She noted that, taking outexcluding Hemby Bridge, which does not have a tax rate, that leaves 13 municipalities,and
asked for clarification thatif all 13 had an increase.
Mr. Harrell stated that, based on the chart to whichhe has accessto, which also came from Budget, every jurisdiction went above their revenue-neutral tax rate. He noted that two of themwent
above their prior-year rate. He stated that he believes those situations involved moving fees were where they moved feesfrom a fee structure into the general fund. He noted that some
were just minor percentage points above revenue neutral, while others were 4, 5, or 10 percent above revenue neutral.
Mr. Matthews stated that all every oneof them went above what the calculated revenue neutral rate would be.
Commissioner Merrell asked for an example of how a municipality published the revenue neutral rate and where it was published on their website.
Mr. Harrell stated that he believes there are a couple of places where they would publish the revenue neutral rate: one would be on the municipality’s website, and another would be like
the County’s budget document, where there is a statement in the adopted budget document showing what the revenue neutral tax rate would be.
Mr. Harrell stated that, based on the percentage of increase in value, even if they go with revenue neutral, taxpayers may still pay more in taxes. He explained that therevenue-neutral
piece is just the overall revenue bucket for the jurisdiction.
Mr. Matthews statedsaid that taxes are complicated and that the average resident does not deal with this on adaily basis. He explained that when someone hears they are at revenue neutral
and someone else is at revenue neutral, what Mr. Harrell is explaining is that even if you stay at revenue neutral, if your property value increases significantly, you will be paying
are still going to paymore in taxes because the value of the property increased.
He stated that there aresome people’swhose property value increased but did not increase significantly, and they actually pay less in property taxes. He noted, however, that this is
not a common situation, but it does happen.
Mr. Matthews stated that, unfortunately, every individual is unique based on the value of their property, what improvements they may have added to make the property more valuable, whether
they live in a jurisdiction that raised its tax rate, and whether the fire department’s rate changed. He noted that all of those can affect the ultimate tax bill.
He encouraged residents who have questions to reach out, and staff will be happy to tryand address those questions as much as possible. He noted that there is not oneno single answer
that applies to every person because their circumstances are individual.
Mr. Harrell added that, across property types, everyone pays vehicle taxes as well. He stated that when the tax rate goes down, taxpayers will are going topay less in taxes on motor
vehicles and on personal property because of depreciation and the reduction in the tax rate.
Mr. Harrell stated that there was an earlierquestion earlier about the tax rate. He noted that, looking at the last two reappraisal cycles in 2021 and 2025, the County's tax rate has
dropped by 30 cents. He stated that the rate was 73.08 cents prior to 2021, dropped to 58.8 cents in 2021, and dropped again to 43.42 cents.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Voignier whether the new electronic enrollment referenced in his presentation was something entirely new or a new version of the electronic enrollment
system.
Mr. Voignier stated that the electronic enrollment system was entirely new last year, as everything had been done on paper before then. He noted that they now have a better product,
explaining that Employee Navigator got them through the process.
He stated that the new product comes at no cost because of theuse of the County’s benefits consultant. He noted that, because of that relationship, the County is getting a better product
and will be using that productuse it for open enrollment this year.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked a question regarding prescription drugs, referencing the statement that the Countywas disproportionate, and asked if Mr. Voignier could expand a little more
on that in context.
Mr. Voignier stated that, in terms of prescription drug increases, when reviewing the cost increases compared to medical claims, medical services are also increasing due to increased
utilization. He noted that the cost ofprescription drug cost drugs is outpacing those increases, which is not something that is typically seen.
Mr. Voignier stated that the increases are related to specialty drugs that cost a lot of money, with GLP-1s in particular having a huge impact. He noted that the increase in new prescriptions
and new drugs that are frequently seen in television advertisements is astronomically increasing.
Community Partner Grants
Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager,discussed the Community Partners Program and then the opioid settlement funds.
Mr. Niland stated that the County works with many area non-profits in a variety of ways, including through the Community Partners Program. He explained that this is an annual application
period managed by the Budget Department where area nonprofits can submit an application for funding through the County program. He noted that Budget uses a ranked metric and recommends
projects brings a recommendationto the Board. He described it as a graded number that determines whether the project is a valid project that serves a public purpose and should be funded.
Mr. Niland stated that one challengeof the challengeswith the program is that it has grown significantly in recent years, increasing from a little over $300,000 in 2022 to approaching
$750,000. He noted that, in light of what the County is dealing with regarding HR-1 and the health fund, staff wanted to level-set funding this year by keeping it at the previous year’s
amount. He stated thatsaidthey wanted to return the next budget year with a program that ismore sustainableprogram and could spread the money around a little more.
Mr. Niland stated that some nonprofits have been receiving funding for a decade, which is not a bad thing, but it may prevent new non-profits with different projects from accessing those
funds. He noted that the County may wantto consider thefunding for more one-time expenses rather than ongoing operations, so there is a start and finish to the project.
He noted that the list of funded partners from the previous year was included in the Board’s packet. He pointed out that this is not the only way the County funds some of these nonprofits.
He explained that organizations such as Council on Aging has access to Home and Community Care Block Grant funding, some JCPC programs receive funding through other sources, and opioid
settlement funding is another source he would discuss.
Mr. Niland statedexplained that the Community Partners Program is not the only funding some nonprofits receive from the County. He noted that staff would like to pause the program for
a year, keep organizations level funded, and return with a more sustainable program next year.
Mr. Matthews stated that many of these organizations count on the funding for their work they doand may reach out with questions about what is happening and why their funding is not
increasing. He clarified that the County is not cutting anyone’s funding, but they will be evaluatingevaluatehow the funding is handled in the future.
He statedreported that there is only so much money available, and unless the Board decides to put more money into the program. He emphasizedthat there are many organizations requesting
funds. He noted that the County has to decide the best way to spend public dollars. He stated that the plan this year is to keep funding flat and level, then return with a strategy for
the future, including what organizations are a good fit for those public dollars.
Opioid Settlement Funds Update
Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, provided an update on opioid settlement funds. He stated that the County had recently completed its strategic planning process and recognized Maribel
Andon, who has served as the program coordinator for approximately seven months. He noted that the process involved meeting with community partners, local law enforcement, and the District
Attorney’s Office and was a countywide effort to get as much input as possible.
Mr. Niland stated that opioid deaths and overdoses affect the entire County, and there is not one specific area that is affected more than others.
He shared that the County held six meetings where community partners were invited to discuss what was happening in the community and explain their needs. He stated 11 strategic priorities
were established. He noted these are not specific funded groups or items, but this is how they plan to return to the Board with recommendations that funding go into one of these 11 strategic
areas.
Mr. Niland stated that the Request for Applications (RFA) has been sent out to the community for those seeking access to opioid funding. He noted that applications were due in approximately
one week, after which staff would develop a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners, which the Board would probably receive in April.
He stated that these are national settlement funds and that the County is three years into an 18-year program. He noted that established programs,that have been established, such as
the Veterans Treatment Court and the Opioid Treatment Court, need to be sustained throughout the full 18 years. He stated that the County is being careful not to overspend on the front
end because they do not have the money to support the program throughout.
Mr. Niland stated that there isa copy of the strategic plan isavailable and noted that Ms. Andon has a copy and encouraged the Board members to pick up a copyone on their way out.
At approximately 10:14 a.m., the Chair called for a recess in the special meeting.
The Chair reconvened the special meeting at approximately 10:34 a.m.
Tax Administration Update
Mr. Harrell stated thatsaishe wanted to talk aboutdiscuss what they have labeled a Smart Tax Administration Initiative. He explained that this is more about sustainability within the
Tax Administration Office from a software perspective and equipping staff with the tools needed necessary to do the job that is neededfrom now and into the future.
Mr. Harrell described the initiativeas a modernization effort the office wants and needs to undertake that will attemptto leverage technology, data analytics, and more automation into
theirin itsworkflows. He noted that it aligns with the County’s strategic plan and objectives related to sustainability and organizational strengthening, which he stated is the big underlying
factor.
Hestatedreportedthat the project goals and overview are to streamline workflows through automation and process standardization and enhance data collection capabilities with real-time
data access in the field. He compared it to inspectors having access to their workflow and work in the field.
Mr. Harrell introduced Brad Helms, Appraisal Manager, and Kristen Foxworth, one of the Deputy Tax Administrators. He statedsaidthat they were present today in the event thatthe Commissioners
had questions that he could not was unable toanswer.
Mr. Harrell stated that his office spent two days this week printing 25,000 property record cards on paperfor staff to take into the field. He stated that they need to change that process
and use a have somethingdigital format that staff can use on tablets, allowing the information to flow into the system and prevent redundant work.
Mr. Harrell stated that enhancing data analytics is becoming a key part of their processes, and their job is to manage the data, studies, and statistics to keep themalignedin linewith
international standards.
Mr. Harrell said that the initiative will strengthen quality control and audit functionality. He noted that, from a tax relief and personal property perspective, it will improve customer
service and data transparency.of their data.He stated that the office tells people they areit is an open book, and with very few exceptions, everything in the office is public record
and available online.
Mr. Harrell stated that they believe this change will help make more information available and that they want to leverage technology now rather than address projected needs for additional
staffing. He stated that if they can leverage technology and absorb some of the workload,and thenthey can look at staffing needs.
Mr. Harrell provided a brief history of the software used in the Tax Administration Office dating back to the 1990s. He stated that the office had a product called CLT, which was appraisal
software, and an in-house AS400 billing and collection software. He noted that Brad Helms was present through this history and had been with the County for a long time.
He stated that in 2000, the County brought in CPS for the appraisal side while maintaining the in-house billing and collections system on the AS400. He explained that when he began his
employment with the County in 2004, there was a software project underway that had failed. He said the Tax Administrator at that time gave him and another employee, who retired a couple
of years ago, the directive to get it working and make it happen. He stated that they did so in 2004 with a company called Manatron, and the County remained with that company until 2012
for the billing and collections..
He said they continued working on the accounting with Proval until 2018 or 2019. He explained that support for the system stopped and the recommended system for the County to move to
was cost-prohibitive at that time. He said that decision was in the middle of the recession and the County needed a more cost-effective option, which led them to ONETax. He stated that
this moved the County backward in technology to the AS400 platform, mainframe, and green screen system.
He said that in 2016 the County decided made the decisionto move away from the in-house AS400. He explained that the people who could support it were aging out and were retiring, and
the County did not have the IT support needed. He stated that the County went with DevNet, which is based in the Midwest, particularly Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa. He noted that the
County brought DevNet to North Carolina with Gaston County through a joint project between the two counties and that additional counties have since been added. He statedsaid that the
County has been with DevNet since that time.
He shared that some of the County’s challenges for the Countyinclude the lack of mobility, limited external access due to the structure of theprogramstructure and database, downtime
and stability issues with the software, and excessive manual duplicate data entry processes. He noted that a lotmuchof the reappraisal work had to be done outside of the system and then
moved into the systemfrom an evaluation perspective, because they could not get where they needed to be.
He stated that the office does leverages third-party solutions for consistency in reporting. He explained that sometimes they run two reports that should provide the same information,
but the results are slightly different, requiring staff to verify, cross-reference, and rectify those discrepancies. He noted that there is also an excessive reliance on their help desk.
He stated they average having approximately 80 to 100 open tickets just onfor the tax software with the help desk. He noted that this is significant, takes up a lot of the Tax Office’s
time, and prevents a lot of work from being done.
He explained stated that the final bullet point is staff turnover and that this is why they are consideringa change now. He stated that when the County went with DevNet, he knew that
contract would take him through the end of his time with Union County, and it also takes a number of other staff members and senior leadership through the end of their time with the
County.
He stated that once everything expires, they have to start over. He explained that the goal is to get ahead of that and start a project that can bring provide a long-term solution to
the County, with someone they can partner with for the next 15 to 20 years and leave everything in a good spot. He said that is why they are considering this change now at this time.
He stated that the next steps are to issue an RFP, hopefully in late March or early April, which theythese are in the final stages of drafting. He noted that they will review responses
and conduct vendor interviews in June, with final negotiations and possible contract execution in July.
He stated that the goal with whoever they select through this project is to go live by December 2027. He noted that it is an aggressive timeline and a big job.
He stated that the software is part of the Manager’s recommended capital budget for FY27. He noted that the initial cost estimate for the capital piece, including installation, training,
data conversion, and initial deployment, is expected to be between $1 million and $1.5 million for that first piece.
He stated that the County currently pays roughly $220,000 a year for software annual support, maintenance, training, and those aspects of the agreement. He noted that the current ranges
they are seeingsee from new vendors isanywhere from $150,000 to $350,000 annually.
He stated that at the higher end, they believe they will be able to decrease the leverage they currently have on some third-party software by shifting some of that funding from one contract
to another. He noted that they do not know how that will play out until they get to that point and review everything the vendors propose.
Mr. Voignier stated that what Mr. Harrell was discussing is included in the Information Technology portion of the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He noted that the Board
will see this when the recommended CIP is presented, likely at the first May meeting, and that it will be included as part of the recommendation.
He stated that Mr. Harrell was correct and that this was somethinghe was a little worried about because Mr. Harrell is scheduled to leave the County, and they want to keep him as long
as they can. He noted that a lot of his senior staff will likely be exiting around the same time.
He stated thatsaidthe County would not be in a great position if they were tryingtriedto implement new software after the next reappraisal without the necessary staff. He saidthis is
somethingthey really need to ramp up now to have a sustainable solution in the future.
He stated that this change will provide efficiencies across third-party solutions as well as efficiencies out in the field to help alleviate some of the workload for staff and absorb
some of the staffing increasesthey would typically see.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked to revisit the implementation timeline and stated that he agreed it was an aggressive timeline because in his professional career he had been through similar
implementations. He asked whether the implementation would depend on internal staff or whether that wouldbe negotiated with the vendor.
Mr. Harrell stated that it is a combination. He noted that one of the questions Mr. Voignier asked was whether this could be done after Mr. Harrell leaves, and he explained that it is
not about him leaving.He statedsaid that he was thinking about many of the key players who will be involved from a staff perspective and the changes that will occur between now and when
he leaves. He explained that it is almost a tiered effect.
He stated that he was appointed as Tax Administrator in 2017, and that office has already gone through one wave of retirements, and that theywill soon go be goingthrough a second wave
of retirements. He stated thatapproximately 15 people, or about one-third of their staff, will be retiring over a total of eight years, looking back three years and moving forward three
years. He noted that this is roughly 30 percent, give or take, and that those individuals will be key.
Mr. Harrell stated that the implementation will be a combination of certain IT staff from a network perspective, the vendor, and the current vendor providing access to the data needed.
He noted that the current vendor has changed its platform, and if the County wanted to stay with the current vendor, it would still need to go through the RFP process because there iswould
beadditional cost involved. He noted that there are several a number offactors, but it will be a team effort from an implementation standpoint.
He stated that the timeline takes the County through the end of the current agreement with the vendor, with the current extension or renewal option expiring in December 2027. He noted
that when the County converted personal property billing and collections in 2012, the process was completed in 90 days and was mostly flawless, with some data issues that were corrected
and moved forward.
He statedexplanined that this project will be more complicated than that one, but they believe that if they can hit the first two or three milestones on time, based on conversations
with prospective vendors, there should be enough time to potentially be active by mid-October or early November. He explained that this would allow both systems to run at the same time,
ensuring that everything matches on both sides, and once the current system expires, the County can move forward.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether the timeline would also include any necessary training for County staff.
Mr. Harrell confirmed that training would be included.
Mr. Niland stated that today’s meeting is ahead of schedule because the next presenter had not arrived yet. He suggested that, if everyoneagreedwas agreeable, lunch could be served
early and then begin the major capital presentation when the next presenter arrived.
Mr. Matthews stated that a theme of some of the initiatives the County is trying to do is to leverage technology to reduce the impacts of staff increases. He noted that there will be
times when staff increasesare necessary, but the County is trying to find ways to do the work more efficiently without necessarily adding staff. He stated that technology, as Mr. Harrell
discussed, will also help reduce some staffing issues.
Chair Brian W. Helms statedsaidthat he was glad Mr. Matthews brought that up because it is something the Board has questioned from time to time regarding where the County stands with
staffing efficiencies. He stated that, historically, he believes the Board supports more ofa smaller and limited government.
He said that, to staff’s credit, the County is one of the most lean and efficient county governments in the state. He expressed appreciation for staff keeping that in mind moving forward
and stated that the goal is to be as efficient as possible. He noted that software can only do so much, and that the County still needs people and good employees, but where efficiency
gains can be made, it is in the County’s best interest to do so.
Mr. Matthews stated that he wanted to take a moment tothank the Board for recognizing staff and to point out that the County has some very good staff. He stated that Union County has
a great team working for the Board and that they do good work.
At approximately 10:47 a.m., the special meeting was recessed for lunch.
Chair Brian W. Helms reconvened the special meeting at approximately 11:59 a.m. and recognized Chris Boyd, Facilities and Fleet Director, as the next presenter.
South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center (SPRAC)
Chris Boyd, Director of Facilities and Fleet,provided an update on several capital projects. He stated that the County has a number of projects taking place, but he wanted to focus on
four projects. He noted that the time for the presentation on the jail project would be adjusted to the schedule change and because one of the consultants was not yetavailable yet. He
stated the projects to be discussed included the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center, the Water Operations Center expansion, and the Solid Waste Operations’ new building.
Mr. Boyd stated that the current budget for the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center (SPRAC) is approximately $20,537,481. He explained that the County received a $20 million grant
from the State and has used some operational funds to help with design costs, which accounts for the additional $537,481.He said the current scope of the project includes a 15,100-square-foot
building.
He said, in general, the facility will include four main autopsy stations, one decomp or isolation autopsy station, and coolers capable of holding 93 decedents, including 77 spaces in
the main cooler and 16 spaces in the decomp cooler.He stated that the facility will also include an X-ray room, specimen and evidence storage areas, and offices. He noted that the office
area will support 13 staff members, including six regular offices and seven open workstation areas.
Mr. Boyd said that the facility will also include a conference room, lobby, break room, locker rooms, and changing rooms. He noted that they have enhanced mechanical systems to support
low temperatures and humidity concerns, which are expensive systems.
He stated that an important consideration is that the site plan allows for future expansion. He noted that there arefour common spaces for potential expansion that he would discuss when
reviewing the site plan.He shared that the designers areCPL Architects are the designers and the construction manager is Wharton Smith.
He reviewed the current budget estimate, which is based on design development numbers. He statedreportedthat the current estimate is approximately $20,980,000, which is a little over
budget. He noted that they have strategies to address this and that it is not unusual during design developmentto be slightly over budgetduring design development. He stated that the
project is approximately 2.2 percent over budget, which is actually very good.
He stated that there areoperating reserves of approximately $500,000 that could potentially be used toward the project, and they are currently working through value engineering items
in the range of $250,000 to $300,000. He stated that he does not anticipate much difficulty getting the project back within the budget.
He noted that the numbers presented are design development numbers, but the project is currently in construction documents because they are trying to move quickly and getopen the facility
open in orderto meet the State Statute funding requirements.
Mr. Boyd reviewed renderings of the building and stated that while the building itself will be impressive, the rendering was not very impressive. He reviewed variousviews of the building,
including a view looking north toward Highway 74 and a view looking east.
He reviewed the site plan and stated that the entrance road must align with Edgewater Street. He noted that deceleration lanes were required on both sides of Highway 74 and pointed those
out on the plan.
He explained the future expansion areas on the site plan. He pointed out the potential forensic laboratory expansion, the autopsy suite expansion, the cooler suite expansion, and the
office expansion.
He stated that visitor parking would be at the front entrance and that there is a large stormwater pond. He stated that the pond was sized based on the potential future building expansion
of the buildingso thatit would not be necessary to build another pond.
Mr. Boyd stated that there will be a securityfencewill extend from the public area and in front of coming off the public area and in front ofthe staff parking lot, which will be secured.
He said the site also includes a sallyport area and mechanical yards to the north and east of the sallyport.
He reviewed the floor planstatingexplaining there are three distinct areas, although it could probably be broken down into two. He explained that the primary part of the facility is
the north section and pointed out the separation between the autopsy side and the administrative side. He stated that the designers refer to this as the “stink wall”, with walls extending
from the floor to the roof to isolate odors from the autopsy side and prevent them from entering the administrative side. He noted that this is an important part of the design.
He stated that they have four autopsy stations, distinct HVAC systems to keep everything separate from an airflow perspective, the regular body cooler, the decomp cooler, the decomp
station, X-ray, specimen storage, and spaces for morgue technicians.He stated that the administrative side includes a break room, offices for the pathologists, office manager, and director,
an open office area, conference room, and lobby.
He noted that the mechanical yard will include two chillers for redundancy so that if one chiller is lost, the whole building can operate off the other chiller. He also stated that the
facility will have a full-building generator that will operatepower the entire facility rather than just a portion in case of an emergency.
He pointed out the mass disaster bay and explained that if there is a need for a short-term expansion of coolers, a refrigerated truck can be backed up to the loading dock to extend
storage room for a mass casualty event.
He stated that the building will be highly secure with card access controls. He pointed out that the publicfacing administrative side will have ballistic glass, currently planned as
Level 5 but likely changing to Level 3, which is normal for autopsy centers.He stated that a little over 55 percent of the building's square footage is dedicated to autopsy space and
that not a lot ofmuch spaceis dedicated to administrative use space.
Mr. Boyd reviewed the project schedule. He stated that some of the information presented was based on the design development phase, but the project is currently in the construction documentsphase.
He noted that they are working to finish the construction documents by the end of the month and have two more weeks to complete them. get that completed.
He stated that County government has approximately four months for bidding and contract execution. He noted that if everything goes well and design is completed in March, construction
will begin in August 2026.
He statedreported that this is a somewhat complicated construction project and that they are estimating approximately 15 months of construction. He noted that the current target is to
finish in November 2027, which is about a month later than they initially wanted, but they are tracking well on the project.
Commissioner Baucom asked about the different types of coolers and asked Mr. Boyd to explain the decomp cooler.
Mr. Boyd explained that the decomp cooler is for bodies that have decomposed more than someone with a normal death that goes directly from the hospital to the morgue. He noted that there
could also be cases where a body needs to be isolated, even if it is not decomposed. He stated that Dr. Privette could explain that process better.
Mr. Boyd stated thatsaidthis is the first autopsy center construction with which he has been involved.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Boyd to return to the slide discussing the project budget. He said he is not an expert on autopsy centers and that everyone is learning the process to
some degree. He asked how the size of this facility compares to other facilities in the state.
Mr. Boyd stated that the facility is very comparable to Mecklenburg’s facility. He noted that Dr. Privette could discuss the operations in more detail when he is present. He also stated
that he toured a facility in Florida, which was not a state facility, and that it was very comparable too. He stated that it is difficult to compare comparing sizes, because there is
a lot of data behind how many autopsy stations are needed. He explained that they initially determined three stations would be a safe bet, but three is an odd number, and making the
layout symmetric lined up to four stations.
Mr. Boyd stated that the body count is another scientific evaluation of how many spaces are needed for bodies. He noted that the facility is very comparable. He stated that they initially
started programming the project at approximately 17,000 square feet before adjustments were made to meet the budget. He stated that overall, the facility is comparable and that there
are other projects underway that, based on population, are in line with what the County is building.
Mr. Voignier stated that the facility is comparable to Mecklenburg County’s facility, although Mecklenburg handles significantly more autopsies. He said that they would discuss operations
and the number of autopsies handled in more detail.He stated that a pathologist typically handles approximately 250 to 300 autopsies per year. He said that when the County is fully staffed
with four pathologists, the facility would be at 1,000 or more autopsies. He stated that the County is currently at 500 autopsies, and when the County assumes Gaston County in June,
that number will also be around 500 autopsies.
He stated that the facility would be built out for approximately 20 years of expansion and that additional expansion areas have already been planned. He stated that the facility was
on target for the needs of the nine-county region, but in terms of the number of autopsy stations and pathologists, the County is somewhere in the middle.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked about construction and about the walls designed for odor control and the HVAC system. He questioned whether there wereconcernsabout odors outside ofthe building
and howthatthosewould be mitigated.
Mr. Boyd stated that he did not believe odor is a normal issue with autopsy centers. He noted that even if it were a small concern, the facility is located on a very isolated piece of
property.
Mr. Voignier asked Mr. Boyd whether the ventilation from the facility would be vented out from the top.
Mr. Boyd confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Voignier stated that the ventilation would be located at the top of the building.
Mr. Boyd stated that the next part of the discussion about the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center would focus on operations and recognized Clayton Voignier, Assistant County Manager,
to discuss operations.Mr. Voignier stated that, since they were discussing construction, he wanted to take the opportunity to discuss the next steps from an operational perspective.
He reviewed the projected timeline for this project,which began in October 2023 when the County received appropriations from the State to construct and operate the South Piedmont Regional
Autopsy Center facility. He noted that the County receives $2 million in recurring annual operating funds, which are currently written into statute and law and will continue unless changed
by the State.He stated that the County also received $20 million in non-recurring funds for the design and construction of the facility, which was the funding Mr. Boyd referenced.
He said that in February 2024, the County purchased land in anticipation of future jail construction. He explained that, after advanced site planning was completed, the County determined
that a portion of that land would be suitable for the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center facility. He noted that the County is seeking reimbursement from the State for a portion
of that land purchase.
He stated that in May 2024, the Board approved a contract with NCDHHS to receive funding through the State-directed grant. He explained that the agreement specified that the County would
serve as a regional autopsy center for a nine-county region, including Montgomery, Stanly, Rowan, Richmond, Anson, Cabarrus, Gaston, Union, and Moore Counties.He said that the agreement
also identified authorized uses of the funds and performance milestones. He explained that the milestones outlined when the County would assume responsibility for each county. He stated
that, as of today, the County has taken on eight counties, with Gaston County remaining.
Mr. Voignier said that, although the timeline began in December 2024, between that timeline the County was working with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to understand and plan
what the facility and performance requirements for the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center (SPRAC) were going to be. He explained that this included identifying a temporary facility
to begin operations, determining the level of need to respond to mass casualty eventsand identifying potential alternative facility options. He noted that, depending on the budget, the
County had considered purchasing and renovating an existing facility, but they are constructing a new facility and are within budget.
He statedexplained that therewere a lot of performance standards and monitoring that went into the contract. He explained one of therequirements is that all toxicology samples must be
submitted to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for testing. He explained that the contract specifies the reimbursement the County would receive on a per-autopsy basis in addition
to the State-directed grant funding.
He said that on December 16, 2024, the County opened the temporary SPRAC facility at Atrium Union using its morgue. He noted that, at about the same time, the County began contracting
with Dr. Privette and his team to provide forensic pathology services so they couldopen according to the State's timeline. He stated that Dr. Privette has been very influential and vital
to the design and construction of the facility.
He stated that the County hired Stephanie Dudley as the business manager. He noted that she came from the Mecklenburg County Office of the Chief Medical Examiner with more than 10 years
of experience managing business operations. He stated that she is responsible for ensuring the proper equipment and supplies are stocked at the temporary facility;and will continue those
responsibilities in the new facility, secures contracts for outside services such as transport and odontology, and building the organizational structure, policies and procedures that
will guide the facility.
He stated that in May 2025, the Board approved the contract for the design firm and pre-construction services. He noted that the County hired CPL, which is also designing the Food Innovation
Center, and that CPL has a subcontractor, MWL, that specializes in building autopsy centers and forensic laboratories. He stated that MWL designed more than 70 autopsy facilities and
more than 100 forensic laboratories across the United States and Canada.
Mr. Voignier introduced Stephanie Dudley to provide an overview of the numbers and discuss operations and funding.
Ms. Dudley provided an overview of the autopsy process, stating that a death is first reported to the local medical examiners serving each of the counties. She explained that those medical
examiners are trained to do external examinations and cases requiring an autopsy, they will contact the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center to report the case to the forensic pathologists.
She stated that forensic pathologists determine whether to accept the case for autopsy or advise that it can be handled within their county.
She stated that the forensic pathologist then schedules and performs the autopsy at Atrium Union. She explained that the decedent is typically released immediately as soon as the exam
is donecompleted to go back to the appropriate storage facility. She noted that, in Union County, the storage facility is Holland Funeral Service and that, once the new facility is complete,
the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center will handle that aspect of the process.
She stated that the pathologists submit toxicology samples to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for testing, which isa service provided at no cost to all North Carolina counties.
She explained that, once the autopsy reports are finalized and the cause and manner of death have been officially confirmed, the pathologist issues the autopsy report and updates the
death certificate if needed. Ms. Dudley saidthat the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner conducts the final review and is responsible for releasing reports tothose who have requested
the reports in accordance with the lawsongoverning who can receive the reports.
She reported that301 autopsies have beenwerecompleted as of February 28, and 232 cases have been finalized. She noted that national standards require that 90 percent of autopsies be
completed within 90 days, including total case sign-out. She stated that the Center is currently at 98 percent. She added that the average case is completed in a rangesof six to seven
weeks.
She stated that the Center is operating somewhat differently from some other regional autopsy centers by using a hybrid approach. She explained that each center conducts investigations
differently. She stated that they will use were going to utilizelocal medical examiners, which will allow lower costs, and provide it isa more efficient staffing structure because the
center does not need space or staffing for 10 to 12 investigators to provide 24-hour, seven-day per week, 365-day per year coverage.
She reviewed the current caseload by county and statedreported that Union County and Cabarrus County are currently the busiest counties. She noted that she does not expect this to reflect
the future case breakdown,but she anticipates that Gaston County will be the busiest county, followed by Rowan, Cabarrus, and Union Counties.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked why Gaston County was expected to be the busiest county served by the autopsy center.
Ms. Dudley statedreplied that itstatement is based on the size of Gaston County and historical case data. She explained that Gaston County was currently covered by Mecklenburg County
and that they were able to obtain numbers from Mecklenburg County.
She said that the Center receives revenue in several ways. She explained that the first way is the State-directed grant, which operates on a reimbursement process. Ms. Dudley stated
that Union County expends the funds, and the County is reimbursed up to $2 million for operations. She noted that there arevery few expensesare not reimbursedthat they do not reimburse,
and those are expenses Union County was already required to incur.
She stated that autopsy fees are the second source of revenue. She explained that the Center receives $2,175 monthly for every autopsy performed and an additional $3,625 when thecase
is completed by thepathologistcompletes the case. She said that the additional payment is made either by the county of the decedent's residence or by the State, depending on where the
individual was injured or where they died. She stated that this totals $5,800 for eachper case performed, except for deaths occurring in Union County.
She stated that, to date, the Center has billed $845,350, $569,850 for performing autopsies, and $275,500 for county examinationsdone forin the regional area.
Ms. Dudley reviewed the funding by fiscal year. She stated there was not much revenue to report for FY25 as it reflects the beginning of operations, with cases starting in December 2024.
She noted that FY26 shows significantly more billed revenue. She said that it may seem a littleslightly concerning that there is much more billed revenue versus what has beencollected,
but noted that is to be expected because the $3,625 payments from the counties are not paid until the exam is complete. She stated that thereiswill always going tobe a lag in those payments.
Ms. Dudley commented that they anticipate the revenue will far outweigh the expenses for the time being. She stated that she expects that gap to close as they open the facility and have
tostart paying staff, more materials, and those types of expenses.
Commissioner Baucom asked about the relationship between Union County and Holland Funeral Service, what services Holland Funeral Service provides, and why it was selected.
Ms. Dudley stated that she could not speak to why Holland Funeral Service was chosen because the arrangement was in place before she arrived. She explained that the service provided
is decedent storage. She noted that there are occasions when someone passes away unexpectedly,and the family has not selected a funeral home. She stated that the morgue at Atrium Union
does not have the space to store multiple decedents in those situations, so the County contracts with Holland Funeral Service to provide those services.
Mr. Niland stated that the primary reason is space. He explained that he did not believe the other funeral homes had availablespace and that Holland Funeral Service was really the County's
only option.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he wanted to return to his question regarding staffing. He directed the question primarily to Mr. Voignier, while inviting Ms. Dudley to add information
if needed. He asked how many full-time employees the facility is expected to have when it is fully staffed.
Mr. Voignier stated that, as mentioned earlier, the facility is designed as a 20-year facility. He explained that when it opens, the County anticipates having a couple of pathologists,
a chief investigator, two or three forensic autopsy technicians, an administrative position, and Ms. Dudley. He statedsaid that it will still be a very small staff because the facility
is expected to handle approximately 500 to 600 autopsies each year, and two pathologists are capable of handling that workload.
Mr. Voignier stated that they anticipate, based on projections, that the facilitycould reach 1,000 autopsies annually. He said at that point, which is about a 20-year-out period, they
would have four pathologists performing autopsies. He stated that they have the four autopsy stations and may want to consider adding some investigators at that point.
Mr. Voignier stated that they do not know how the State system is going to change. He explained that right now they rely on the local MEs to perform those investigations, which saves
them a lot of money.
He statedreported that they planned space for a few investigators, open spaces for that work to happen, a couple of additional administrative positions that may be needed, and perhaps
a couple of additional autopsy technicians. He said that overall, they are looking at a very small staff, with a 20-year buildout of approximately 20 to 25 staff, and when the facility
first opens, they anticipate are anticipatingapproximately 10 staff members.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked at what point it is it projected that the $2 million recurring funds from the State and the expenses that the County have to supply would reach the point where
those expenses exceed the $2two million dollars from the State.
Mr. Voignier stated that it is difficult to project because they are anticipating receiving those funds. He explained that under current law, the County would receive those funds annually,
and the legislature would have to take action to remove the funding; it does not automatically expire. He statedreiterated that it is difficult to project, but they are trying to build
and collect as much as possible on the autopsy fees so they can get a better sense once they are fully staffed. He stated that once they have more information about what is being billed
out and collected with the whole nine-county region, they will probably be in a better position to answer that question and determine what a shortfall would be, if there was one.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he thought it was important forthe Board toshouldunderstand that if the County receives $20 million for the brick and mortar and $2two milliondollars
per year from the State for operations, there could come a point where staffing costs and operational costs exceed $2 million. He stated that if they are fully staffed with approximately
20 associates or professionals, the County would have to fill that gap.
Mr. Matthews stated that the County would try to structure agreements with the other nine counties because the facility supports all counties, not just Union County. He explained stated
that the County would want to work with those jurisdictions to spread that cost among all nine counties. He stated that they do not know when that tipping point will happen, whether
it is five years or 15 years. He commented that a pathologist is not the easiest position to fill, although being in the Charlotte region may make it somewhat easier compared to somewhere
else. He stated that staff will continue to monitor this, and it does not want the County to incur costs if it does have to do so.
Mr. Voignier commented about toxicology. He explained that Dr. Privette could answer specific questions. He said that toxicology involves many types of samples and is not just blood
and urine, which are the typical samples. He explained that postmortem toxicology includes blood, vitreous, liver, urine, and other tissue. He stated that the process has tomust account
for decomposition, bacterial activity, and postmortem redistribution. He explained that interpretation depends heavily on the specimen type, the condition of the case, and the case history,
and that it requires expert-level forensic interpretation, not just instrumentation or raw results.He stated that, because of that there is an increased risk for misinterpretation if
cases are challenged in court. He saidthat the main takeaway is that the work is complex, requires a significant level of expertise to test and interpret samples, and, as a result, can
be very costly.
Mr. Voignier stated the County submitsits samples to the State for testing. He explained that this service is free to the County and that there is no cost to submit the samples for testing
and receive the results. He stated that, as he statedreported earlier, it is written into the contract that the County hasis required to submit the samples to the State to be analyzed.
He said there can sometimes be a trade-off with free services, explaining that historically the turnaround time for receiving results has been three-plus months and sometimes even double-digit
months when looking backover the past several years. He stated that this timeline can impactaffect court cases that rely on this type of forensic evidence.
Mr. Voignier said that the current turnaround time is approximately 37 days. He noted that it is not ideal, but it is much better than it has beenin the past, and this number specifically
comes from the County’s facility based on the turnaround time they have seen.
Mr. Voignier said that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner recently required all medical examiners and pathologists under the North Carolina Medical Examiner System to sign an attestation
agreeing to abide by the policies or face revocation of their appointments. He explained that, under those policies, toxicology specimens have tomust be submitted to OCME in Raleigh
only and that no portion of any sample can be submitted to an outside laboratory.
He stated that if the Countytried to do anything other than submit samples to the State, there could be complications. He said there has been a lot ofsignificant local interest in having
a toxicology laboratory at the SPRAC facility and that there is also some interest at the State level for a toxicology lab to be built on the site.
Mr. Voignier stated that the Countyis initiating a feasibility study with the consultant and the designer, MWL, to identify and compare options for operating and managing toxicology
analysis through the SPRAC facility. He stated that the options include expanding the facility to accommodate a toxicology lab, hiring staff to operate it, purchasing the equipment and
running it themselves, expanding the facility and contracting with a third party or another party to operate the toxicology lab and incur those expenses, or outsourcing all toxicology
analysis to a third party.
He stated that all of those are options are being reviewed. He said the County is not doing anything differently and is continuing to send the samples to the State because it is required
to do so. He stated that staff is looking into the options and looks forward to sharing the information once the study is complete, hopefully, toward the end of the month or early April.
Mr. Voignier reviewed the next steps which included that the facility will assume autopsies for Gaston County on June 30. He stated that the County anticipatesGaston County will add
approximately 130 autopsies annually, bringing the total number of annual autopsies performed at the County’s facility to approximately 525.
He stated that because the County knows the additional autopsies will be coming, the Countywants to go ahead and hire staff. He noted that this is all currently reimbursable through
the State-directed grant.currently.
He explained that the County will be hiringhirea forensic autopsy technician as well as a chief investigator to oversee the local MEs, allowing its pathologist, Dr. Privette, to focus
on just autopsies because that is the main thing they want him to focus on and be able to do.
Mr. Voignier added that the Board will see this request come through for the FY27 budget, but it is anticipated those positions will be reimbursable through the State.
Commissioner Merrell asked Mr. Voignier to clarify whether all of these positions and the current positions are considered State employees or local employees.
Mr. Voignier responded that they are County employees.
Commissioner Merrell asked whether the State reimburses their salaries or benefits, or how that process works.
Mr. Voignier explained that Ms. Dudley is a county employee and that her salary and benefits are reimbursed through the State.
Mr. Matthews added that they anticipate that is how it will continue. He explained that those funds are reimbursable, the County pays them, and unless the State changes the current statutes,
it is anticipatedthese will be reimbursed to the County.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether the autopsy fees are dictated by the State and whether they are capped.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that the State dictates what can be charged.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether the County has any discretion over how much it can charge for those services.
Mr. Voignier explained that the agreement requires the County to use the State formula, which is a fixed fee on an autopsy basis. He added that it is written in the statutes, and theCounty
agreed to abide by that through their contract with the State.
At approximately 12:44 p.m., Chair Brian W. Helms called for a short recess in the special meeting.
Chairman Brian W. Helms reconvened the special meeting of the Board at approximately 12:59 p.m. and recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, for his comments regarding the Adaptive
Jail Reuse Study.
Adaptive Jail Reuse Study
Mr. Niland, Deputy County Manager, stated that the jail discussion would be the afternoon meeting topic for the afternoon. He asked if the Board wanted to take a five-minute break before
that discussion, noting that the meeting would be approximately an hour long.
At approximately 12:44 p.m., Chair Brian W. Helms called for a short recess in the special meeting.
Chairman Brian W. Helms reconvened the special meeting of the Board
at approximately 12:59 p.m. and recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, for his comments regarding the Adaptive Jail Reuse Study
Mr. Niland stated that there were two small items remaining, and that will likely finish the topics for today. He said that information on solid waste and water center will be provided
at the regular capital update.
Chris Boyd, Facilities and Fleet Director, stated that the leadership team did a great job bringing Dr. Privette and Ms. Dudley on board with the Autopsy Center. He stated that the project
would not be close to being successful without them and that they have done a great job givingproviding direction. He added that, although MWL is a renowned autopsy center designer,
Dr. Privette and Stephanie have been instrumental in making the project successful.
He reviewed that the existing jail opened in 1994 and that discussions about the best approach for a jail expansion date back to 2004.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would skip to the end of the timeline. He noted that the last action taken was atthe August 11, 2025, Board meeting, where the Board approved moving forward with
the adaptive reuse study. He stated that the purpose of today’s presentation was for the consultant team to provide the results of that study.
Mr. Boyd introduced Thomas Carlson Redding with Little Diversified Architecture, the firm chosen tocomplete the design. He said that the firm has completed two studies for the jail.
He stated that after the study is presented, Beverly Liles, Finance Director, will provide updated bond calculations based on some of the options discussed throughout the study.
Mr. Redding stated that he knew the jail project had been on the Board’s mind for a long time. He noted that he had colleagues with him who he may call on if there were difficult questions,
including Kelly Gordon with Frank Randall with Hemphill Randall, and Alan Richardson, who assisted with the planning and programming.
He explained that they originally considered a variety of ideas for the existing jail and the old Sheriff’s building but narrowed those options based on the feedback from the Board.
He noted that the presentation would cover four options.
Option #1: Use the existing jail for 100 beds and build a new 400-bed facility. but within the new the core is still 600-bed (500 beds/total 600 core)..
Option #2: Build a new 500-bed jail with a 600-bed core while leaving the existing old Sheriff's building for overflow. He said it is uncertain when the overflow space would be needed,and
it could be immediately or sometime down the road.
Option #3: Build a new 500-bed jail with a 600-bed core, retain the old Sheriff’s building for existing or additional functions, and demolish the existing jail.
Option #4: All-new facility with the existing jail and the old Sheriff's building demolished.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked to pause the presentation and clarify option three. He asked whether ifhe were understandingcorrectly understoodthat option three would be demolition of the
jail portion while keeping some of the administrative functions.
Mr. Redding confirmed that was correct.Mr. Redding stated that all of the options haveeach option has different construction costs, and the operations and staffingis are slightly different
as well.
He explained that the site options are being referred to as one, two, three, and four and noted that he wanted to avoid confusion because the site options are not the same as the options
previously presented. He stated that there are different ways to build on the site and that the site options could apply to any of the scenarios. He pointed out that the colored area
represents the new jail, while the area to the left represents the existing jail and the old Sheriff's building.
He explained that this scenario can accommodate a new building and could connect to the existing jail. He noted that future growth would be somewhat limited because of a stream to the
east, existing buildings to the north and west, and there is antheimpact on parking. He added that there would be associated costs.with this option.
Mr. Redding explained that the next scenario would allow construction directly north of the old Sheriff's building. He further explained that this option would not take as much of the
existing parking area and would connect through the old Sheriff's building. He stated that there would be secure points that would allow it to operate effectively.
He stated that each scenario has a different cost. He stated that the estimated site cost for this option was $8 million. He said the next option had an estimated site cost of over $9
million.
Mr. Redding explained that the third scenario was similar to the one previously discussed but involved a skinner building that would not impact the existing parking area. He stated
that it would still connect to the existing facility and was the most cost-effective of the three site scenarios.
He said the site layouts are not designed yet,but any of the site layouts can work with any of the options.
He statedsaidthat those were the three site scenarios he wanted to review go through. Mr. Redding said that the Board would probably want to discuss more about the cost. He explained
that he would go through the construction costs for each option and then follow up with the operational costs.
He explained that the general construction costs for option one involves an adaptive reuse. He stated that there would be costs to renovate the existing jail and Sheriff's building,
and that there are some repairs and renovations that are required and have tomust be built into the cost. He noted that the structural issues with the Sheriff's building, retaining wall,
and other items of that nature, the loading dock including settlement, all have to be factored into the cost.
Mr. Redding explained that the site costs, as he pointed out earlier, range anywhere from $6.4 million to $9.2 million. He stated that when those costs are tallied upand escalation and
soft costs are built in, the total ranges from $178 million to $181 million. He said that option one is the most upfront and the most cost-effective of all the options that would bepresented,
but stated that they would also cover get intosome of the other factors that may help in making an informed decision.
He explained that this estimate assumes bidding in the third quarter of 2028, with design time typically taking about 14 months for this type of project and construction taking approximately
two and a half years.
Mr. Redding explained that option two involves building a 500-bed jail while keeping the existing jail and Sheriff’s building for potential overflow. He stated, as mentioned earlier,
the overflow could happen soon, or it might be later.
He explained that money would need to be putgo into renovating the existing buildings to a certain extent to make sure they are ready for potential occupation. He stated that because
the option involves building anew 500-bed new jail and renovating the existing buildings for potential overflow, the bottom-line number increases significantly. He stated that this option
is the most expensive of the four options.
Chair Brian W. Helms clarified that the values being shown were for the renovation only and did not include ongoing costs such as the power bill.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct, explaining that those costs have to be factored into the total costs. He noted that this was just what it takes to have it built and ready to
operate.
Chair Brian W. Helms clarified that he was referring tomeantthe brick-and-mortar costs.
Mr. Redding explained that the total project cost does account for escalation and soft costs. He explained that soft costs include items such as architects’ fees, geotechnical surveys,
furniture, technology, and other related items. He clarified that it does not include the annual operations costs paideach yearor staff costs.
He stated the next option considers building a new 500-bed jail with a 600-bed core while continuing to use the old Sheriff's building and demolishing the old jail. He stated that some
of the items from the previous study would still need to happen because many of the structural issues with the old Sheriff's building still need to be addressed.
Mr. Redding stated that the total number was approximately $203 million to $206 million. He noted that it was a little bit less and that he had a summary comparison at the end showing
all of the options. together.
Mr. Redding explained that option four was to build new. He noted that if they build new, there would not be all the repairs to the existing building or addressing structural issues,
which is why the adaptive reuse cost is shown at zero. He stated that there would be the cost of demolition of both buildings but noted that whether the demolition would have to happen
immediately is still uncertain.
He explained that this option is between $208 million and $211 million and that the number covers the construction costs, or what is known as the hard costs.
Mr. Redding explained that option one, as he stated, uses the old jail and the old Sheriff's building while also building a new building. He noted that the number of staff required for
this option is not the same as building all new. He stated that this is represented in the staff operations cost of $16.6 million.
He explained that this option also involves operating two buildings, the new building and the existing building, with operational costs of $18 million.
Mr. Redding explained that option two is a little trickier. He pointed out that the staff numbers are harder to determine because this is the option whereoverflow wasthey discussed overflow,
and it is uncertain how much overflow there will be or when it will happen.
He stated that, for the sake of discussion, they putused the same numbers in, assuming the facility would need to be staffed the same way and that the building would need to remain open
and be operational. He stated that the numbers for option one and option two are identical.
Mr. Redding explained that option three still uses the Sheriff's building, but they are not really hiring additional staff. He pointed out that the staff numberdrops significantly, and
the operational costs are down as well because they are not operating the old jail. He explained that they are still operating the Sheriff's building but not the old jail.
For the last option, he explainedthatitwould be operating one building and not operating or staffing another building.
Mr. Redding stated that, atin reviewing number one, he thought it was important to note that the delta per year is $2.6 million for staff and operations. He explained that this is important
to think aboutconsiderin andthatwhatever option is chosen, it needs to be taken into considerationaccount.
He said that the $2.6 million,with built-in escalation and increases over a period oftime, there is a point of diminishing return because the delta on the construction is about $30 million,
and after maybe 10 years, you no longer have the value.
Mr. Redding stated that theanotherfactor to consider is staffing two different locations and trying to work between two locations. He said that it can be done and is done, but it is
a littlemore complicated and has tomust be taken into consideration. He recommended talking with the people who will be operating the facility.
Mr. Matthews stated that ultimately the Board was not being asked to make any decisions with this information today. He noted that, in April, the Board would need to decide which option
to move forward with because the cost would have to be put on the ballot, and the Board would need to determine what the voters would be asked to vote on.
He stated that, as Mr. Redding pointed out, there is a long-term cost when operating two facilities. He explained that any savings generated in the beginning can be eroded, and it can
actually cost more because of the ongoing operation of two facilities.
He said it is not that two facilities could not be operated, but everyone needs to understand that operating two facilities will cost more in the long run because operational costs are
foreverongoing and do not go away.
Mr. Matthews said they do not have to fully staff the facility in the beginning. He explained that they will staff it over time and that the numbers shown are fully staffed numbers.He
noted said that staff will increase over time and that it may not grow to those numbers within the first five years. He explained that it would not be known until there is a better idea
of how many inmates would be in the facility and whatstaffing is needed for staffing. Mr. Matthews clarified that those numbers are built-out numbers and not necessarily what will happen
in year one or year five.
He advised that in April staff would be asking the Board to choose which option it wants to move forward. He noted that they met with the Sheriff’s Office and discussed the options.
He explained that the Sheriff’s Office can operate two facilities but would prefer not to operate two facilities long-term. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office prefers to have one facility
to operate and wants to continue using the administrative portion of the building butnot necessarily have two jail facilities that they haveto operate.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that itis wasa question he had and was glad Mr. Matthews mentioned it. He asked whether, under option three, the administrative building in front of the current
jail facility would be retained.
Mr. Redding confirmed that it would be retained.
Chair Brian W. Helms further asked, since he had mentioned that stakeholders were engaged, he wanted to know what that would look like as far as keeping the administrative portion of
the building, what kind of an idea they had about who would occupy those offices, and what type of functions would take place in that location.
Mr. Matthews stated that this has not yet been determined.at this point. He explained that there are two ways to view it and noted that the Board could build all the functions within
the new jail, including training and everything else that wouldnormally berequired. He stated that is whatnumber four is to build everything in the jail.
He stated that his guess is the Sheriff is using the administration building for purposes that are not related to the jail operations and may want to use some of those pieces in thattheadministration
building. He explained the question is whether to build the jail with all the necessary components inside the jail, while the administration building is used for other Sheriff activities.
He said this has not been determined.
Mr. Redding stated that the County has invested money into upfitting some of those spaces, and they have served the Sheriff’s Department well.
Mr. Matthews stated that they did not have an answer to that question at this time.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked how the staffing and operational costs compare to the current costs.
Mr. Redding stated that thethis information was not included in the slide deck.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he thought this had been discussed when westarted looking at the scope of theprojectscope.
Mr. Boyd explained that the total staffing and operational costs for the two existing 264-bed facilities are $13,000,120 annually.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked if that included both staffing and operational costs.
Mr. Boyd confirmed that the amount included staffing and operational costs. He stated that the increase is the delta between $13 million and this new number. He explained that is how
much the County will have to increase its investment in operations.
Mr. Niland asked if those numbers were projected at full capacity.
Mr. Boyd confirmed that it wasthey werefull-capacity numbers.
Mr. Niland stated that would happen over time, but the difference between the $33 million and the $13 million is what they would look at over time.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the Boardwas towhether movong forward with option two and leave the current facility in place, would it create any traffic flow issues with the new jail
or make operations more cumbersome in the new facility.
Mr. Redding stated that it was listed as one of the potential cons if they leave it because there is a drive there. Heshared that they have discussed how they could solve that through
new routes, drives, and other means to make it secure.
Frank Randall stated that a connector could be constructed, which would involve a walk for transferringto transfer people over to the facility and would have a cost.
Mr. Niland stated that when meeting with the Sheriff, he spoke aboutdiscussed jail code and explained that this would fall under two different jail codes, the old jail code and the new.
He asked if Mr. Redding could speak to this point and statedthat they could reach out to the Sheriff’s Office to getforthat information. He noted that he knew the Sheriff said operating
two facilities would have different criteria.
Mr. Redding stated that he believed the old facility would have to be brought up to the new standards.
Mr. Randall stated that the goal would be to try to keep the old jail under the older code. He explained that there has been an update tothe jail codewas updated fairly recently and
that the original code did not have criteria for exercise or the amount of area needed for exercise. He noted that the original code simply said to provide some area for exercise. He
explained that if an additional five square feet were added to the day room, an individual could do jumping jacks, and that would satisfy that part of the code.
He further stated that with the new code,itspecifies , it is15 square feet per inmate in both the day room area as well as an outdoor exercise area. He explained that another difference
between the two codes is that under the old code, they could decide to provide interior exercise or exterior exercise but did not have to provide bothindoor and outdoor exercise areas.
However, under the new code, they have to provide both areas.
Mr. Randall stated that the goal would be to keep the current jail under the old code. He said that the current jail does have some outdoor exercise area, which is the good news. He
explained that under the new code, the jail has to be fully equippedfully sprinklers, and there is no fire sprinkler system in the existing building. He stated that bringing it up to
the new code would be a complicated process, as it would involve running sprinkler piping through an existing facility while it is operating.
Mr. Matthews stated that he believes this is another reason why the Sheriff would take a position that operating two facilities permanently would be more of a challenge. He explained
that option two uses the existing facility as an overflow, and since they do not know when overflow will take place, they may be able to keep that component under the old jail code while
the new jail would fall under the new code. He noted that these are all matters that would have to be addressed during design and permitting, including how the State would apply those
requirements. He stated these are items to be aware of while going throughduring that process.
Mr. Kay stated that, for purposes of the common area spaces, he asked whether the 15 square feet per inmate applied to the two facilities or one facility.
Mr. Randall stated that the two facilities would be attached but would still be considered two facilities, because they are only constructing a connector over to the old facility. He
explained that in terms of staffing, they would realistically have two facilities, which would require some additional staff and command staff to function successfully.function.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether, in addition to the four options shown, there were other options that wereconsidered,and at some point,and this waswhat was presented today were the
remaining options. narrowed down.He asked if any of those options were considered outside of the scope of a jail facility or overflow, such as another County function.
Mr. Matthews stated that the cost of trying to renovaterenovating that facility was more excessive compared to how it would be used, so they basically scrapped those ideas. He stated
that it was just not cost-effective.
Mr. Randall stated that, from a designer’s perspective, about 100 or 150 lineal feet of sanitary sewer had been replaced in the existing facility because the sewer lines had been replaced
in the existing facility becausedue to the sewer lines having had rotted, out, and they replaced the lines that whatneeded to be replaced.and were able to down one of the corridors.
He stated that it kind of begsraises the question of what the remainder of the sanitary sewer line is like. He commented that the costs included some of the cost to replace the entire
sanitary sewersystem, but they would not know if the entire sanitary sewer would need replacing unless they ran a camera through it. He stated that this was another consideration.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the different options included 500 beds with a 600-bed core and whether that iscould be expanded expandable by another 100 beds when capacity reaches that
point.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Board should have received the full report and that thispresentation was just highlights of that report. He pointed out that if the Commissioners looked at some
of the layouts for these options, they would see the connector discussed regarding circulation, as well as some parking that was changed and moved around, and other items to limit the
impact toon circulation.
Commissioner Merrell shared that it was her understanding that the current jail, including the structure and everything, was okay and that it was the administration buildings that had
structural issues. She stated that she had been a little thrown off by three out of the four options keeping the administration space.
Mr. Matthews stated thathis understanding was that the Sheriff actually wants to continue to useusingthat space. He noted that under option four, it goes away.
Commissioner Merrell clarified that she was referring to the structural issues. She stated that they had been hearing about floodplains and structural damage and that the structural
damage was not at the jail portion but at the administration portion.
Mr. Boyd stated that, predominantly, that was right and that it was at the administration building.
Commissioner Merrell asked if they could see where her confusion was, stating that they would want to spend $2 million on the administration portion and demolish the jail.
Mr. Boyd stated that it is a decision that will have to be weighed. He explained that the good partbenefit of reusing the Sheriff’s administration building is that the repair cost will
be much less than the new construction of the space that can be removed from the new jail core. He noted that they are basically replacing some of the space in the new core, which is
why the construction number is less, with about an $11 million difference.
Commissioner Merrell stated that she was still trying to wrap her thoughts around keeping the portion they know has structural issues and demolishing the portion that does not have issues.
Mr. Niland stated Mr. Boyd looked atreviewedthe structural issues, and they had put a plan in place if repairs were needed. He asked Mr. Boyd if he couldtotalk a little bit about the
severity of the structural issues in the administrative space.
Mr. Boyd stated that a study withwas done by ARP Engineering on the administrative portion in 2019. He noted that the cost at that time was $750,000 and is now $2 million. He stated
that the jail structural issues are not as major as the ones in the administrationadministrative portion and said he could not remember the number for the jail structural issues.
Mr. Redding stated that there isthe loading dock, whichis $31,000, and the plumbing issue in the existing jail that Mr. Randall referenced.
Mr. Boyd clarified that it is not a structural issue, but an age of piping issue.
Mr. Niland stated that some of the challenges with reusing the jail include that it is built in such a way that itdoes not allow flexibility to have largeropen spaces or offices.He saidthat
the administration space has more structural issues, but it is cheaper to fix those structural issues in the part of the building that they can reuse more easilythan it is to try to
reuse the cell block. He stated that, long term, it is more expensive to try to rehab some of that.
Mr. Boyd stated that ultimately staff wasnot making a recommendation.
Commissioner Merrell stated that her question was towards a recommendation. She noted that it seemed ironic that they were trying to save a portion that has structural issues while talking
about demolishing the jail, which has little to no issues.
Mr. Matthews stated that it boils down to the use, noting that reuse of the jail is more expensive over time, while reuse of the administration portion is less expensive.
Mr. Niland stated that referring to Chairman Brian W. Helms’ point, staffexplored whetherthere wereother County departments that would make sense to move into the space. He explained
that it would cost too much money to make it usable, along with the ongoing cost of maintaining the building for space that may or may not be needed, and it did not really make sense
when looking at the numbers.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated thatthe taxpayers of Union County building was paid for the buildings by the taxpayers of Union County, whether that was 30 years ago or today. He statedstressed
that it is incumbent upon the Board to make the best use of the facility, or whatever can be salvaged, to get the most value out of the taxpayers’ dollars.
Commissioner Baucom acknowledged the tough decisions ahead and asked if anyone had a strong opinion on which option wasand the best way to proceed, particularly anyone with real estate
experience.
Mr. Matthews stated that he did not have a strong opinion but believedit was really between options two and four. He explained that it was not trying to fix something old and broken
and continueto usingeit, but rather function with a new facility. He said some use of the administration building was certainly reasonable, but if asked for his recommendation, he would
be betweenrecommendingoptions two and four.
Commissioner Merrell stated that she thought the jail code issue was a very good issue to address and thatitwas good for the Board to be aware of the sprinkler system.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the sprinkler system seems like itwould be easy to address, but if it were a regular office building, it would be a very simplistic task. He explained
that it is not simple inwhen it comes toa jail.He agreed with Commissioner Merrell that it was good informationto know.
Mr. Randall stated that there are challenges associated with trying to putinstalling a the sprinkler system into a currently operating jail, noting that the normal cost would be different
when trying to do it inside an operating jail.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked if it would be possible to get additional information for the Board regarding what it would take to retain the existing facility as available overflow space
under option two for the Board to consider. He asked whether the existing facility would have to be brought up to the current code requirements. He said there was some uncertainty about
whether it would fall under a different type of code regulation or whether it would have to meet the current standards.
Mr. Boyd stated that he thoughtrespondedthey could do so with some research and get that information for the Board.
Mr. Matthews stated that they would find the information, but it sounded to him like the answer might be that they always have to haveinmates in there for it to really be considered
overflow. He stated that they would certainly get clarification.
Mr. Boyd stated that Ms. Liles would be next to discuss the new bond numbers.
Bond Referendum
Beverly Liles, Finance Director, reminded the Board that at its August meeting, the Board asked for the reuse study; it also gave staff direction to move forward with a jail to go on
to a bond referendum. She stated that the process was comingmoving quickly.
Ms. Liles said that at the August 13th meeting, theeducation partners were asked to attend come tothe meeting and present their bond requests. She noted that the Board would likelywantsomeadditionalfollow-up
information on the jail reuse and the decisions it makes in orderto give staff directions on how to move forward with the bond referendum request.
She stated that, following that, the lateststaff could receive directions from the Board to meet all the deadlines, including the Board of Elections deadline of July 31, was May 4th.
Beverly Liles stated that following the May 4th meeting, staff would startbegin bringing the resolutions required for the bond referendum, starting beginning with the May 18th meeting.
She noted that in June, the Board would need to introduce the final bond orders, adopt additional resolutions, and set the required public hearing.
Ms. Liles stated that the public hearing would be held at the July 20th meeting, at the very latest, because the Clerk must deliver documents to the Board of Elections by July 31st.
thave to be delivered to the Board of Elections by the Clerk by July 31st.
Ms. Liles explained that the bond referendum would be held on the November3rd ballot.
She stated thatshe had worked with the County’s financial advisor to determine whatthe tax rate impact would befor the four options presented.
Ms. Liles saidthat thestate legislation changed a couple of years ago and requires the Countyto show voters the highest general obligation bond debt interest rate that hadbeen issued
in the past 20 years. She explained that this is why they show two different rates, the legislative-required rate, which goes on the bond ballot for voters to see, and the planning rate,
which is a little bit lower because they know that in today’s markets, they are not actually issuing debt at 5.3 percent and are around the 5 percent range or a little lower.
Ms. Liles stated that for the first option presented, the financing amount needed is rounded to the nearest million dollars because bonds are issued in whole dollars. She noted that
the total estimated debt service, including principal and interest for the all-in debt on a 20-year loan at 5.344 percent, is approximately $284 million.
She said from a tax rate perspective, the estimated tax rate increase for the first option would be 2.83 cents. She noted that staff shows an annual increase for each option based on
a $400,000 property value, which would equate to an additional $113 on the tax bill at the 5.344 percent rate. At the 5 percent planning rate, the impact would be slightly lower at 2.73
cents, or approximately $109 impact to the property owner.
Ms. Liles stated that for the second option, which was the 500-bed new jail with reuse of the existing facility for overflow only, the County would need to finance $217 million, with
total estimated debt service of approximately $339 million. She noted a 3.38-cent tax rate impact, or $135 annually for a $400,000 property, and, at the planning rate, the impact would
be 3.27 cents, or $131.impact.
She said that for option three, the 500-bed new jail with reuse of the Sheriff’s Office administration building for training and support, the County would need to finance $207 million,
with total estimated debt service of $323 million. She noted a 3.22-cent tax rate impact, or approximately $129, and at the planning rate, 3.11 cents, or $125.
Ms. Liles stated that for option four, the 500-bed new jail with no reuse of the existing facilities, the financing amount would be $212 million, with total debt service of approximately
$331 million. She noted a 3.30-cent tax increase, or $132, and at the planning rate, 3.19 cents, or $128 for the average property owner.Ms. Liles stated that staffwaswere not asking
the Board to make any decisions today but wanted the Board to have the impact information so that when staffcomes back to the Board, it can give staff direction.Mr. Matthews stated that
this informationdoes not show isoperational costs that will occur when the Countystarts to operate thestarts the operation of the facility, the budget is going to change significantly.
He noted that they do not know what the tax rate is going towouldbe, but it will not be what it is today to operate the facility. He stated that over time,the tax rate will be a change
inthe tax rate for operational purposes, but he could notsaypredictif it will be one penny, three pennies, or what at this point. Commissioner Baucom asked about the scenario of an estimated
property tax rate increase of 3.30 cents versus the 5 percent planning rate of 3.19 cents.Ms. Liles explained that the state legislature had put new laws into place a couple of years
ago requiring that, when requesting a bond referendum, voters be shown the worst-case scenario. She stated that this is the highest interest rate issued on a general obligation bond
in North Carolina in the past 20 years, and the Countyis required to show the worst-case scenario to tell voters it could be that high, although they know it is not expected to be that
high if the market stays as it is today. She noted that if there were a swing in the market and rates increased, the rate could be higher, but they do not anticipate that happening between
now and the following year.Vice Chair Christina Helms, asked for clarification that the debt being taken on was 20-year debt for brick and mortar.Ms. Liles confirmed that was correct.Chair
Brian W. Helms asked Ms. Liles to review the timeline and confirmed the Board would need to give directions by April 13th.Mr. Matthews stated that the latest date was May 4th, although
the sooner the better. He noted that the Board only had one meeting in April because of spring break, and the meeting had been moved to April 13th. He stated thatsaid staff would like
to have the Board’s feedback on April 13th but could wait until May 4th.Ms. Liles stated that staff would haveneed to work with the County’s external bond attorneys to get the resolutions
prepared as required for the Local Government Commission. She noted that this is why they need some lead time to finalize the documents and give the County Attorney time to review them.Chair
Brian W. Helms stated that he was surprised there was not an option five to sell the old jail, adding that he was sure buyers would be lined up.Ms. Liles stated that selling the old
jail was an option.Chair Brian W. Helms reiterated Ms. Liles’ comments that when this appears on the November ballot, the voters considering itwould have access to the financial information
and, hopefully, would be informed about what they are voting on. He emphasized that it is a lot of money and a big decision for the county.Commissioner Merrell stated that the County
had gone through two cycles of school bonds on the ballot, and Ms. Liles and her team had done a wonderful job of not having to raise taxes to the worst-case scenarioavoiding the need
to raise taxes after voters approved the two rounds of school bonds. She statedsaid that she hoped voters were startingto understand that when they vote onand approve these matters,
they should not be surprised that there has to be a tax increase. She noted that while she thought it was wonderful that the bond was put on the ballot, she was not sure people were
reading it, because they seemed surprised when it came time to pay. She stated that, because the most recent state-mandated revaluation had been shocking to almost everyone in Union
County, she was hopeful thathopedpeople would read the information more closely when they went to the ballot box.Mr. Matthews stated that staff had reached the end of their presentations.
He noted that there were two other items, but in the interest of time, they would send those to the Board, as they were more of an update. He statedreportedthat this was everything that
staff wanted to provide thattoday and asked the Board to reach out to him or the management team with any additional questions, including the reuse question about whether the jail standards
would have to change. He stated that they would provide that information and acknowledged Chair Brian W. Helms to adjourn the special meeting.Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Mr. Matthews
and asked if any commissioners had comments to wrap up the meeting.Chair BrainBrian W. Helms stated that he thought the meeting was very refreshing, even though the Board had some difficult
decisions ahead. He referenced a recent conversation with the County Manager in which they jokingly said that they did not have problems;they had opportunities, andhe said stated that
they certainly had some of those.Chair Brian W. Helms thanked staff for the effort they put into the retreat and compiling information for the Board to review. He stated that when he
said staff, he meant everyone, including Ms. Lynn, the County’s longest-tenured associate, noting that the County was very proud of her service. He also thanked all of the staff who
support the Board with meals, snacks, and other things that may go unnoticed and are not on camera.Chair Helms stated that he thought the meeting had been very productive and that they
would see how the Board proceeded with the decisions ahead. AdjournmentAt approximately 1:50 p.m., Chair Brian W. Helms moved to adjourn the special meeting. The motion passed by a unanimous
vote as follows: Chair Brian W. Helms AyeVice Chair Christina HelmsAyeCommissioner Clancy BaucomAyeCommissioner Melissa MerrellAyeCommissioner Gary Sides was not present.
s