Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

To flourishing sectors such as pharmaceutical manufacturing and emerging technologies, attracting young professionals and families alike.

Good evening. Welcome to the Pitt County Board of Commissioners meeting. I will call our meeting to order. Let's have roll call, please. OK, thank you. If you would rise with me, Commissioner Manning is going to do our invocation and then remain standing for our pledge.

Mr. Borough Heads. The Heavenly Father, we come before you with praise and thanksgiving for all your many blessings. We ask you dear Lord to guide us tonight as we take up the people's business. And Lord, please bless America and our military personnel around the world in your name we pray. Amen.

Thank you. I'll invite our J. H. Rose student up leaders in the pledge on up and introduce yourself, please.

Good evening. My name is Ahari Thomas, a junior at J.H. Rose High School, and I currently serve as the junior class SGA vice president, a health science ambassador, and a volunteer at ECU Health. Thank you for having me this evening. At this time, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. You may be seated. Thank you and have a good evening.

Thank you, Miss Thomas. OK, do we hear a motion to approve the agenda? Second. Motion and a second. Please vote. And Madam Manager, we have a number of items for report. I'll turn that over to you.

Yes, and before that, I'll just confirm there's no one signed up to speak for public addresses to the board.

Thank you.

The first report this evening is from Dr. Robert Portello. Is he? There he is. Fabulous. Dr. Portello serves as our EMS medical director, was recently reappointed to this role, and wanted to spend a few minutes this evening with you getting acquainted and giving you an update on where we've been.

Is it on? Okay. Sorry about that. I'm not a very good at this thing. So good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, county staff, and guests. Like the county manager so humbly told me, I'm Dr. Roberto Portela. I serve as the EMS medical director. I started this role again in April. This is not the first time around for me. I did it from 2014 to 2023. So I do have some experience with the EMS system. A little background on me, I'm an emergency medicine physician. I'm board certified on that and I have a specialty in EMS services. And I also train other physicians to be EMS physicians. So I do have some background on this. I do want to talk a little about the system, kind of my perspective of the system, the nine years that I was there and my perspective now. So I do indulge you with the time. I do apologize. I'll try to be brief, though, and not make anybody sleepy, okay? So as many of you know, Peak County EMS is the responsibility of the Peak County system and Peak County as a whole. Emergency medical services have to be overseen by counties, at the very least by statute in North Carolina. And North Carolina Office of EMS has certain rules that apply to EMS systems that have to be followed. A couple of them are on the slide that I have there. And one of them includes having one medical director for that EMS system. The Peak County EMS system currently consists of Peak County EMS personnel, seven paid nonprofit EMS agencies, and that together with our city partners, Greenville Fire Rescue, provides services to the system. I do have to highlight our partnership with GFR and Chief Anderson is incredible. We are completely aligned and he is very supportive of us trying to make our policies as unified as we can. I do thank him for that. I do have to give kudos to him. Okay? Because at the end of the day, our job is to give medical services to everybody in the county. It doesn't matter where they are. Visitors, residents. Like many EMS systems across the country, our system continues to experience pressure from population growth, increasing call volume, and the rising cost of medical equipment and supplies. That is a reality that we cannot change. Back in 2008, Peak County commissioned a study by Fish and Associates to make an assessment of the Peak County EMS system. And while the system has grown and evolved significantly over that time, some opportunities for improvement identified back then still relevant today. At the same time, I do want to say we have had substantial progress that have been made over the past decade. I do want to highlight that if you allow me. So, a couple of other things. Our 911 center, nationally accredited by the Academies of Emergency Dispatch, okay? That demonstrates commitment to national standards in emergency call processing. It's a high bar, actually. The EMS system implemented a new computer assisted dispatch system along with automatic vehicle location. That allowed us to dispatch ambulances based on where they are exactly on a map to try to decrease response time and to send the right resources to the right patient. We modernized our electronic patient care report that serves a couple of things. One, better data, better patient care, and better revenue. We implemented two EMS QRB vehicles, quick response vehicles, and that gives us a lot of flexibility because these vehicles, since they are not tied up on transport, they can move around and help other units as they need it. They provide oversight and an extra pair of hands, so that's incredible, and that's all because of the support of this board. The system added a training officer, and that training officer, his first job was to make Peak County EMS an educational institution under North Carolina Office of EMS. That means that we can give continued credits and give on-the-fly education to our EMS clinicians. That's extremely good, and that is one of the milestones of a mature EMS system. Volunteer fire departments are integrated into our cardiac arrest calls. That is immensely important for our survival. Peak County EMS actually has a very good track record or survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We have been as high as 17.9 percent. Last year it was 12.5, but I'll give you some baseline in the United States out of the people that actually put information into what is called the CARES database. Their average was 10.5. We have been above average for a number of years. And that is only for the people that put information in the CARES database. If you take the whole United States, it's usually like 8%. So we are well above average. Peak County has developed a highly respected community paramedic program that was actually recognized by the National Association of Counties in 2021. And finally, we added two big-time ambulance trucks that work 12 hours. And the idea was when there's high volume, we needed more help. We needed more transport units. One of them is in the Simpson area, but they moved about. And it was very important to catch some of the calls that were between the city and the county. And the other one's in Chicago. That area actually doesn't have a lot of resources back there in the southeast. Truck is currently 12 hours. I am going to tell you that truck has to be 24 hours. We need it down there. Finally, I want to talk about other accomplishments like They are done because the emergency management team that's behind me in the back row and the EMS professionals that staff the truck and the support of this county leadership. I have to say, and again to county manager, she is being extremely supportive of my job and she's being an advocate for the EMS system and I do thank her. There are important strengths in the current system that position us very well to continue growing the system. First, we have a highly dedicated emergency management staff. They're dedicated. They're continually trying to make everything better with what they have. Second, the county has made significant investment into infrastructure vehicles. We own the vehicles, stretchers, radios, laptops, software. That makes it incredibly easier to deploy and to make sure that every unit is more or less dressed like we say in the Army. However, I'll be honest, as we evaluate the system, we have to be honest too and recognize that there are several system challenges. Currently, the county only owns two stations. That's it. Both of them were constructed in 2003. One of them is in Bethel that's operated directly by the county. The other one is in Bell Archer and it's operated with one of the contracted non-profits. The system relies heavily on the location facilities of the rescue squads and volunteer fire departments to house the remaining ambulances in the system. which limits the ability to expand and relocate resources as population grows and they call demand changes. That's just a reality. Another challenge is fragmentation of the system, which can complicate system-wide management. Fragmentation can affect equipment control supply issues and an optimal replacement of stations and resources and moving them around. Additionally, personal management becomes a little harder when we have fragmentation. Since not all the agencies fall under a human resources department, things like personal matters are a little harder to handle, stuff like professionalism, accountability, tardiness, stuff like that. The medical part falls under me, but I don't do personnel issues. I'll show you a couple of graphs here, so an idea. 911 calls processed by year since 2017, and you can see it was an uptrend. 2020 is always a downgrade because of COVID. These were all calls. Now it's all the 911 calls that were dispatched, fire and EMS. Again, you can see the uptrend. And in these ones, all EMS calls, these are dispatched, transported, non-transported. Yes, there's a couple that are non-transporter, but remember those calls require an ambulance to go there, a clinical evaluation, and a lot of times actually care was given to the individual, but they just refused transport. Sorry, I missed my... So these challenges are not unique to a Peak County EMS system, OK? But they have to highlight areas where strategic planning and coordinated investment can strengthen the system. Looking ahead, there are several opportunities for improvement, in my opinion. One is the need to strengthen the county's role as governing agency throughout updated service agreements and franchise documents, improving transparency, accountability, and system oversight. Another important opportunity is improving on the capital replacement program of EMS vehicles. And this is a result of the COVID era. Before when we ordered an ambulance, we had it between six months and a year. Now we're up to two years to three years. They have to be ordered ahead of time. That changed a lot of how we procure. And we are not the biggest counties, right? So we compete with other counties that are also ordering. That happens to the police departments, fire departments, the same thing. So it's just a reality that we are dealing with it now. Sorry. Finally, I believe the county would benefit from a statewide investment in EMS infrastructure. We need EMS stations. That's just our reality. Developing a strategic plan for future EMS locations will allow the county to place resources where they're most needed, improve response times, and prepare for projected popular growth. We can leverage the tremendous amount of data that we have to plan for the future. And this type of long-term planning ensures the MS system can continue to meet the standards of our citizens today and the future. And when I talk about data, we can show how much of a The response time we have from the stations that we have right now, six minutes, four minutes, and that is really usually most relevant with time critical illnesses like cardiac arrest, stroke, myocardial infarctions. But we can see that in the map. We can see, I can plot you all the cardiac arrests that happen in Peak County. and see where we have units that are gonna be farther than that six minute, 10 minutes. I can show you where all the heart attacks were in Peak County or the strokes and sepsis. So when we all look at all this map, all this time critical calls, we can better plan where we need these resources for the future. And right now we have resources and we don't do what they call call stacking sometimes. But believe me, that happens to every EMS system if they don't prepare ahead of time. And Wake County and Charlotte is a very good example of that. So using data like that, we can develop long-term plans and keep giving the help that our citizens need. So in closing, I want to emphasize that Peak County already has a strong foundation. It definitely does. I believe in it and that's why I'm working with you guys. We have dedicated professionals, community leadership, and a community that values high-quality emergency care like they should. With social planning, we can continue to collaborate between county leadership and emergency management and our partners, and we have the opportunity to build even a stronger EMS system. And because at the end of the day, EMS is not just about ambulances or equipment. It's about making sure when somebody in Peak County calls 911 on the worst day of their life, help arrives quickly, prepared, and ready to save a life. I just want to say it's an honor being the medical director of the system, and I'll leave you with that. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer. Thank you.

Any commissioner questions?

What is the most pressing need for the county EMS to run more efficiently?

Unification and station building. Those two would be the most important things, in my opinion, sir. Obviously, emergency management staff can also say a little about that. But those will be the two things that I think are the most important ones, sir.

Commissioner Manning. Well, just when you talk about unification, you're talking about what process of bringing together the EMS units that work directly for the county and and and the contractor. Yes, this thing contracted squads. What process? do you envision bringing, how to unify that?

Counties around the state have done it differently, different ways. I mean, usually have to be a statewide fashion, right? Because it's not that we don't need the units. We still need the same amount of units. We just need to be able to deploy them better and control and be more proficient and economy of scale also when we're talking about buying supplies, equipment, and be more efficient on how we manage the system.

Any other commissioner questions? I have one. Mr. Chairman.

Are you talking about the county running some of the volunteer agencies or working in coordination? Or do you think we need to build more stations in correlation with the volunteers, something like that?

So the rescue staff are paid, are contracted by the county. And they're paid personnel in those ambulances. So it's more about how you structure the system. Right now, when we talk about managing the system, there's multiple people that you have to interact to do something. Because every agency has a subcontract. It's one contract. So every nonprofit agency that's being paid is one ambulance 24-7. So we have seven of them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions? All right. Dr. Patella, thank you for coming out.

Thank you.

Your next report, Mr. Chairman, is from Erin Erickson, and we welcome also Dr. Lassiter, who's present with us this evening to hear the Department of Public Instruction Facility Needs Survey.

Good evening. I want to just go over what is required by the state real quickly. So once every five years, the state puts out what's called the facility needs survey. And the requirement is that we go through every building in the district, assess where we are from co-compliance and long-term needs of the building, the shape it's in, and where we see growth, where we see challenges with growth, and kind of provide an assessment of that those findings and we enter all this into a massive online program first year it's online and then we normally would spit out some nice reports to share with you the program is new the print function does not function at this time so bear with me as we go through this but this the purpose of this is solely to make you aware of the needs you do not as a group You are not obligated to take any action in any way other than to acknowledge receipt of the report. So which has been shared, I believe, with the group. It is screenshots of the program since it doesn't print. So I did want to go ahead and share with you what we did in October as a group with the school board and the kind of commissioners in a joint meeting was reviewed our long range plan. And I went through the long range plan to help simplify the almost 500 pages here and just combed through what has changed from what was shared with you in October. And I just want to highlight a couple of those items now. And I do want to say that nothing I'm going to share with you tonight is set in stone. This is more of a formality to say that this may occur in the next five years and to create the pathway to evaluate some options. But again, nothing set in stone. Some of the options that are listed in here would require multiple other votes and processes by the school board and in some cases the county commissioners as well before a formal hard decision could be made. Just in reviewing those items that were changed from the long-range plan in October, we added some notes related to Ada Middle because we are doing with the public school building renovation repair fund replacement of that HVAC system this summer and fall. And then we formally added the note from our discussion about the west side of Aiden Elementary School because we saw feedback for east side versus the west side of the town and to where the new elementary school would need to go. So that in order to relieve pressure from Aiden Elementary, Creekside, Ridgewood and Suggs, it best be placed on the west side of town. A formal site has not been selected. That is just a general area note. The changes related to the Conley District, there was a note related to the survey just to highlight that the Wintergreen primary building, it is a prefab metal building. It is not a concrete steel and block like the rest of ours. So there's just a note added that the lifespan of that building will be more like 60 years as opposed to 100 or 120 like our other buildings. Wintergreen Intermediate, there was a note added to consider HVAC renovations to the campus. The campus was built in 1984. A lot of that equipment is original to the building. That is something that we could easily fund through that public school building renovation or repair fund going forward in future years as the state continues to provide that funding annually. Hope Middle just had a note added about the chillers when we look at the larger proposed multi school multi phase project there of moving Conley to a newer campus, renovating the current campus into the middle school and the middle school into a new elementary school. One of the things that's highlighted is the chiller have both an age concern, because they're already 21 years old, and a 30 year lifespan, and they are actually sized too small initially. They're sized for an outdoor air temperature of 88, Obviously, with the weather we're having, we really prefer to be either 93 or 95 on outdoor air design. So that's something that was added. Conley just had one note to their current campus added. If you remember... probably 15 to 20 years ago, driving by the front of the school, the original core area of the school, there are some high windows that were designed to provide natural light into the classrooms that do not border the perimeter of the building. So just to restore the functionality of those windows that are currently being covered over, we would look at opening them up as part of that renovation project overall. In the formal central district, a note was added just as a reminder that the placement of that school on the West side of Aiden would provide some relief to the growth projections related to HP sucks. Jade Rose's district for there is a note added that as central services or the. the central office group as well as some of the support departments relocate to the newest the newer building on First Street that that would free up some additional rooms on the current EPS campus which would allow for student growth to occur there as well. Those rooms would require just some minor renovation work and then we would be able to turn them into classroom space. EBACOC had a note added because we are moving forward with the gym floor replacement this summer. And then J.H. Rose had a note added with the funding from the commissioners to replace the electric switch gear on the 1975 side. North Pitt, North Pitt District. I just want to say again, this is preliminary, nothing set in stone, but some notes were added specifically while the original plan did call for one of the options to look at repurposing of Belvoir Elementary's campus. It does specifically go forward with the three options, the one that would demolish the 200 and 300 wing, which would reduce our square footage at that school by 16,000 square feet. Those are the two oldest wings that need the most work. Then it would repurpose that campus to the facility services campus Bethel it would convert Bethel from a k8 to a k5 as an option look at Relocating these six eight students to welcome the goal there is to increase our offerings in the middle school bracket nor in that general North Pitt attendance area and then to to kind of create some other options related to students that would make space for at Bethel. So Northwest, we would consider moving forward with a classroom addition plan in the original design, assuming that the mega site project move forward. So those would be kind of a, if the mega site moves forward, we would need the addition of Northwest. For Pactolus, it did have a comment about moving the 6-8 students to welcome as well. And that frees up space because we are landlocked, so to speak, at Pactolus from a floodplain standpoint. It gives us very little room to add on classrooms. So it does let us replace the gym with a multipurpose room and then add on to the cafeteria. And then that would allow for some growth into the current middle school wing for additional K-5 students as that area continues to grow. Stokes would be repurposed as an option into Pitt Academy. The 6-8 students would go to Wellcome Middle School, which would centralize that offering for academics and athletics to Wellcome. And then we would look at, depending on what the consulting firm and the process would show, some students to Bethel, some students to Pectolus. Wellcome, long-term. would need in the 10 to 15 year range would need to consider an addition similar to the Ewing at Farble Middle to that school. So Farble Middle has one more addition than Wellcome does and they both and then Ada Middle has the original campus footprint. And then we would look at that down the road as well as some improvements because as we increase our student capacity their student attendance capacity there we would need to look at our outdoor bleacher capacities things like that just to accommodate the additional student growth and their use of that campus and then North Pit would formalize the renovation of the 100 and 200 wing which is the original campus, same as Conley, and then add the 300 wing because 1985 was 41 years ago. So we'd look at some HVAC for those as well. There was actually no notes added related to South Central's district from the October plan. And then there is just a note overall that with Pitt Academy moving to Stokes campus, the Sadie Sautter Education Center would then have additional space for additional centralized pre-K classroom offerings. And then just a formal note added that the central services building, the new central services building would be funded after all their priorities are funded. So that's kind of a general overview of the changes from October. The facility needs survey does not include any estimates related to support structures. So it comes in and actually about $75 million under what I shared with you in October that is primarily related to those projects that are not included in the survey. Um, so it does show actually that the estimates that were provided in October still, according to the state averages are still holding fairly accurate, but that total number without those projects is still $636 million over 10 years. So that is a large number. Um, I realized that, but that is kind of what the, what the overall, uh, survey shows. And I'm here for any questions you may have any commissioner questions.

No? Okay. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure. Wintergreen Elementary, when was that built then, if it only has 60 years on it?

Wintergreen Intermediate was built in 1984. The primary was built in 1997. 97. And why the purpose of going there?

That route that doesn't last as long? I'm just curious. What was the thought process behind that?

I'm not 100% sure because I was in high school at the time. But I believe the reasoning would have been the cost. That is a lower cost up front. Yeah.

I didn't know if there was a reason that was floating out around there.

More than likely, that would have been the reason for the primary. From the outside, it looks the same. Just long term, its function is shortened. I didn't know that. OK.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I would like to know

That's what it was. It's not working, they say. It's working. It's working. I'll put it a little closer. So do you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay. Just speak louder. Be fine.

Oh, I can do that. I know you can. The question relates to the school's age and that sort of thing. to the schools, most of the time parents will send their children to charter schools for the school before senior year, and then they bring them back. When you look at the amount of money that's left at the schools, because I understand that the money doesn't follow the child, is that correct?

So the money will follow the child if they start the school year at the charter school or at one of the county schools.

Are you telling me that money will go to the county schools if they want?

So if they start the year with us or if they start the year with the charter, that is where the money will start. However, if they move mid-year, that money does not move mid-year.

So the money will stay there for the rest of the time?

Yes, ma'am. for that school year. Now, every August when they re-enroll at a different school, it would move with where they are located.

Is it possible to know how much money is left at the charter schools that the public schools should be having that doesn't go back?

That is something I can find out for you. I don't have that in front of me. Yes, ma'am. Mm hmm.

So I'm interested in knowing more about that. And I'm interested in knowing how much impact that weighed on the changes that you're doing to the facilities.

Certainly. Thank you. OK. Any other questions? All right. Thank you for coming out tonight. Dr. Lassiter, thank you for being with us. Thank you.

And Mr Chairman, I may ask the attorney or clerk. Do you need a motion to approve the certification that's in the packet?

Got a motion and a second. Please vote. Thank you.

Your next three items are with Russell Hill, your tax administrator.

Good evening, Chairman Smith, Commissioners, Manager Gallagher. For my first report is the June tax collection report. The fiscal year combined tax collection rate through June 30th for real and personal property was 99.35%. The combined rate one year ago for real and personal property was 99.43%. Peak County Tax Administration continues to pursue all outstanding taxes using the necessary remedies available through the North Carolina General Statutes. If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them. If not, it's my recommendation to approve the tax collection report as presented.

Second. Got a motion and a second. Please vote. Okay, thank you.

All right. For my second report tonight, after July 1 of 2026 and before being charged with tax collection for the fiscal year 2627, the tax collector is required to give a sworn statement to the Board of Commissioners as the annual settlement of taxes in accordance with the North Carolina General Statute 105 373 A. A list of unpaid accounts is available for public inspection at the tax collector office and with the clerk's office. If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them. If not, it's my recommendation to approve the annual settlement of taxes for fiscal year 2526 as presented.

Okay, we've got a motion. I hear a second. Okay, thank you. Please cast your vote. Okay, Russell, the last one.

Yes, sir. And for my last report tonight, per North Carolina General Statute 105.321, The Board of Commissioners shall issue an order of collection to the tax collector for the 2026 tax bills that cover fiscal year 26-27. For this year, we will be mailing 95,600 real and personal property tax bills. Those bills will be due September 1st and are considered past due on January 6th. This year's bills will have a couple of different new items in there. First, as just a reminder, for the town of Grifton, there will be combined tax bills for those residents on the Pitt County side. And then for the second part, the bill will actually contain payment coupons for citizens that do not escrow or their taxes are not escrowed, and they would like to take advantage of breaking their payment up installments so that their taxes will be paid before the date of delinquency. They become past due and subject to enforce collections. If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them. If not, it's my recommendation to approve the signing of the order of collection for the fiscal year 2627.

OK, here motion for that. Motion in a second, please vote. Thank you, Russell. Appreciate your reports. Thank you.

Mr Chairman, next you have your legislative report from County Attorney Matt Gibson.

Thank you, Madam Manager. This is your monthly legislative report. First, Senate Bill 257, the 2026 Appropriations Act, which is the state budget. The budget was finally approved on July 7th of 26. The bill approves a $34 billion budget and is over 1,300 pages. It covers a variety of monetary and policy decisions. One point of note is the elimination of the office of historical underutilized businesses or the hub office and all hub related statutes. So this, along with another bill, HB 1123, has made changes to the procurement process for local government. So county staff will navigate that as we move forward to make sure that we follow the current procurement processes. As for Pitt County specific, we did receive a non-recurring directed grant to Pitt County for water and sewer and that was in the amount of $250,000. Again, the bill is extremely long. That and the committee report together is 1,300 pages. It covers a variety of policy topics from SNAP cost sharing to land development regulations, tax changes, and non-tax changes. So please reach out if you have anything specific that you'd like to discuss or need to go into further detail about. Another bill is the House Bill 1040. That was our PGV Appropriations Amendment. It was approved on July 2nd, and again, that granted authority for county and city to further support PGV. Last time I mentioned House Bill 162, which is the parking lot reform and stormwater control that was approved on July six. Again, this will prohibit local governments from requiring minimum number of off street parking, and it limits regulating parking spaces the dimension of parking spaces. As for stormwater control, it's going to prohibit local governments from requiring new or increased stormwater controls on redevelopment. Planning Department is aware of this, and we will address this as we move forward. I mentioned House Bill 437 last time. That was the unauthorized public camping. Governor Stein vetoed that bill, so it is not in law at this point. And a quick reminder, again, the legislative goals, our deadline to submit is August 14th. So I'll most likely bring this back to the board the first meeting in August to present to you and see what the board would like to do with our legislative goal process moving forward. Again, that will be our two-year legislative goals. It'd be for the biennium of 27-28. The NCACC legislative goals conference, again, is in November. That's when they'll adopt their legislative goals. So that's all I have at this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Do we need to vote on that? Not at this point. I'll bring it back. Bring back the goals in August, and at that point, we can discuss and vote on them.

And the real question is, did you read the whole budget? Absolutely not.

If you did, I really want to applaud that. There's excellent resources out there, and then there's the Control-Find button that makes it a little bit easier.

Thank you, Matt. Madam manager, your reports.

Yes. I have a few items for you this evening, starting with your next meeting dates, August 3rd and August 17th in this room. Um, item B your service awards for anyone who would like to join us at 8 00 AM in the agricultural center. We will recognize employees who have milestones of five, 10, 15, 20. 25 and 30 years of service with Pitt County government. We're formatting that a little bit differently than we have in the past to keep it fresh for our employees and based on the feedback that we've received. So rather than doing it in this room, if you're used to coming here for service awards, we're moving over to the agricultural center this time and then probably a community center thereafter rather than sort of a a light snacky sort of breakfast. We're going to do a sit down breakfast catered for our employees to make them feel a little more honored and special, and we'll have a formal program. They're recognizing them beginning in the October quarterly award. We will also recognize our employees of the month for the prior quarter. You're used to seeing them come here in the evenings to keep that fresh and based on feedback from employees, they prefer that recognition during our working hours. And so we were going to combine so your July, August, and September employees of the month will be recognized at the Service Award Breakfast in October. And we'll make sure that our employees feel honored and appreciated for their service and for their recognition. Um, item C is your NACO annual conference, which will be in Orleans parish, July 17th to the 20th. For those who are attending, just a reminder that Saturday evening is your North Carolina association of County commissioner events. Um, that evening there'll be the caucus business meeting followed by a reception. Um, if you are a member and participating in the rural action. or medium-sized action caucuses. There are events Saturday evening for those as well, and Sunday evening will be our group dinner while we're there. Monday evening will be your final banquet, and then you can download the app for the full conference agenda, or you can pick up a paper copy when you arrive, which will have all of the educational sessions and steering committee meetings for Friday through Monday. Item D is an important reminder for your constituents who may be eligible for home repairs. Our planning department, Jonas Hill, will hold a community development information session on July 30th, two of them, one at 10 a.m. and one at 6 p.m. at the Agricultural Center Auditorium to provide information about eligibility and services that we can provide for home repairs for substandard homes. And then finally, at your last meeting, there was concern expressed about the removal of agendas and minutes from our website. And so we did some further research as a team with regard to accessibility and transparency while still being compliant with the WAG, the WCAG federal mandates. And so the agendas and minutes for the Board of Commissioners have now all been restored to the website and are available. They are not compliant. However, the WAG requirements, because so many counties were not compliant, have been extended out for another period of time. Before we reach that next deadline, there are now products available that were not available when we first made the decision to pull them to be able to remediate these documents electronically. So our Public Information Office will work to secure a contract. that I anticipate would be small enough to be within my dollar value authority. We'll execute that contract, get those documents remediated prior to the deadline, and then there won't be a need for anyone to have to request it be emailed to them or have a click button. So again, as a team, we express our appreciation for the board bringing this up again so that we could delve a little bit deeper into it, and I think we have a pretty good solution. And if you get on there now, you should be able to see the non-compliant agendas in minutes. And that is all that I have for my report.

Thank you, Madam Manager. Next up is items for consent. Do I hear a motion to approve those? I've got a motion and a second. Please vote. Thank you. And we're down to items for decision. Jonas, it's all yours.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, Madam Manager. No public hearing tonight, Mr. Chair. Here tonight to talk about the county's first unified development ordinance. Excited to get this process started and wanted to go through a brief history of how we got to tonight. In February of this year, Pitt County adopted its first ever strategic plan. And in May, this board approved its first year of implementation. This plan has established goals and objectives in four priority areas, one of which is balanced development. One objective under that balanced development is the creation of a unified development ordinance. Last month you guys approved the budget, which included funding for the development of this unified development ordinance. So just wanted to make sure everybody was on the same page and understood what a unified development ordinance is. It's a primary tool used by local governments to manage growth and development within the county. It consolidates development regulations. into a single document making the requirements easier to understand administer and enforce ensuring that the development aligns with the community's vision and goals looking across the state if you look at the map You'll see that 34 counties in North Carolina have already adopted a unified development ordinance with five counties currently in the process of developing a unified development ordinance, leaving 57 counties without a unified development ordinance. So currently Pitt County has seven different standalone ordinances that we enforce through the planning department. Those include the addressing ordinance, the flood damage prevention ordinance, manufactured home park ordinance and repairing buffer protection, soil erosion and sedimentation control, water supply, watershed, And then, of course, the zoning ordinance, which also has two separate standalone ordinances for outdoor advertising signs and shooting ranges. So why is a development ordinance important? It takes those multiple ordinance and combines them all into one unified document. It eliminates the inconsistent standards that may be present in different ordinances and coordinates all the regulations together. Sometimes it's difficult for citizens and developers to go through the different ordinances and understand the processes that they have to go through to develop sites. This makes it a more user-friendly format. And also there's potential for interpretation issues by staff. So if we're interpreting one ordinance, what it's saying versus another ordinance, this will allow clear standards and processes. Also, ordinances sometimes are reactive. State mandates come out. We have to adopt an ordinance. Forming a unified development ordinance will allow us to look strategically and long-term moving forward. Wanted to talk a little bit about the timeframe. Don't get consumed with how long. Up here it shows about 36 months on this timeline. I'm hopeful we can get it done in about 18 to 24 months. But we are in the process right now of developing our RFP, request for proposals. We will select a consultant following that and then establish steering committees and working groups to come up with the language to include in this ordinance. We'll have monthly steering committee meetings and working group meetings and of course we will reach out to the public and have them involved with this document as well. All the while we will include updates to this board as well as the planning board and also have public input sessions, present the document to our planning board which will make a recommendation to you guys for adoption. So as I mentioned, staff has already started preparing the request for qualifications. And tonight, we're seeking guidance from the board on any specific deliverables that may be incorporated into the RFQ to enhance this project and clarify the expectations and support the successful implementation of this ordinance so the question tonight to you guys for the discussion is are there any emerging large-scale land uses such as solar farms or data centers that the board wants to evaluate as part of this process to ensure that we're adequately addressing the impacts of these types of developments on neighboring properties and that sort of thing. So with that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman, for any discussion.

Okay, discussion among commissioners. Any direction?

So I've just answered your question. Yes. All right. Yeah. I think, I think what I'd like to see is that any emerging major land use, I think it's only prudent that we're that we're, you know, tackling it through this process. So that's something we discussed in our strategic plan. And so solar data, whatever else is out there, I think that, that we need to, I mean, we need to look at it.

All right. Any particular uses outside of solar or data centers that the board has concerns with currently?

I don't know if this idea or suggestion fall in what you're asking or not, but what about development? When developers are developing subdivisions, will that fall in it?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. And if we could look at recreation. Okay. In spaces being required. Okay.

Mining.

Did you say mining? Mining. Yeah. What? Mining. Mining. Anything that potentially affects the watershed.

Commissioner McGloin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What other counties in the state has this unified development ordinance?

So if you look at the map on your screen, that shows the blue areas are areas that have the unified development ordinances. And this is just for counties. There's a lot of municipalities that already have unified development ordinances. But if you look, it's mainly concentrated in the Triangle area as well as the Triad area around Greensboro. And then down towards Wilmington, you'll see New Hanover County, Brunswick County, and then also in the Tidewater area of the northeast part of the state, feeling pressure from Virginia Beach, Norfolk area.

And you might notice what, if anything, has been the results of having this advantage or disadvantage. I don't think there's a disadvantage, of course.

Right. Again, it's more consistency that we're trying to provide for our development community as well as our citizens who are trying to look at these policies and ordinances. rules, regulations. It makes it easier for them to understand. We hope to incorporate right now. A lot of our ordinances were developed in the 80s and 90s, so it's a lot of black and white language that you have to read through. We're hoping through this process to include more illustrations, make it more user friendly to understand what the regulations are and how to comply with them.

Right.

Thank you. Any other commissioners?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say two come to mind. Public safety-wise, and this has come up several times recently, but with new developments, can our EMS access the residents adequately? Gotcha. And all of our answers so far have been yes, but just that would be interesting. And then also agricultural, preserving our agricultural land as far as what can we do to be proactive on the conflict challenges that we've seen to preserve.

My concern is that, oh, it is working now. My concern is that when you look at development as a result of a cause with the development has a lot to do with schools, where they're placed and the impact. I think that should be considered if there are a lot of places that are developing for housing in one area and not in the other that make us one sided. The children would have to be bused more. It would impact. residential as it relates to travel and transportation, how we're going to handle that. And I think if we're not careful and in considering that, it would cause some future problems. as it relate to schools closing in certain areas. And those people who like spacious living will have the students would have to travel much farther that that would impact where the money goes. And this is what I'm hearing with the school system as it relates to that. And I think we need to be cognizant of that.

Okay.

Any other? I got one.

Thank you, Mr. Hill. I want to hit on what Commissioner Brown said about the subdivisions getting EMS, because I can remember in Floyd a long time ago and Matthew, that right after that, some of the subdivisions some regulations were put in where they had to have two entrances coming into them especially if they cross the waterway well i'm seeing a lot being built now or they're crossing the waterway and that's not the thing that's happening it's going back to one road in one road out and you may have a creek coming up under there is because that's something we could address to where i know you're probably gonna make some builders and some landowners mad but you know The number one goal is getting to those people and getting EMS or fire or law enforcement if they need it or help basically just in general if somebody needs help. And that would be something I know that's maybe not on this, but it might need to be.

Absolutely. We can definitely take a look into that.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That's serious. Any other directives for Jonas? OK, I think you got some good feedback.

I got a lot. Thank you.

All right. I just want to say it's a great idea.

It is great.

Well, we'll come back to you to get you involved once we get this process started. I look forward to working on it and working with you. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Jones. We look forward to that. Randy, come on up your next fire feasibility study and the recommendations.

Good evening, Chairman Smith, Commissioners, and Madam Manager. I was asked to do a quick update on our fire feasibility study, and so let's get started. Just a reminder of a timeline we were all a part of. NC Chiefs came and did the initial presentation of the feasibility study back in March, and then we held a workshop in May just for the Commissioners to dive deeper down into what was in the report. In June, as a part of the manager's report, she mentioned the feasibility study and kind of where we were. So there was some discussion that evening that was about a week prior to the Chiefs Association where there was more in-depth conversation after the workshop amongst the chiefs at an open meeting. And we had several commissioners that did attend. And there was a lot of good information shared at that meeting after the workshop. More of the same type messaging that what they would like to see and what they would not like to see. And then after the chiefs meeting, we had our internal committee meeting here at the EOC on June 30th. where the manager and some other county staff and a couple of commissioners and two volunteer fire chiefs met for quite some time discussing options, possibilities, and what they would like to see and what the committee felt like we needed to start working on. So these are some of the key takeaways from that committee meeting. Something that we heard at every session or every opportunity to discuss the fire survey was they wanted to continue to see the volunteer campaign that we initiated a couple of years ago with the help of our county PIO office. That was a partnership between the fire association, emergency management and the county PIO office. And a lot of that campaign is still ongoing today. all of the framework and the things that were built as a part of that are still in place and we are still gaining volunteer applications or applications of interest to become volunteers and that's almost a weekly thing that we get several emails inquiring about where they can volunteer, which department, and we make those connections for them. So that's something we're doing now that we have not stopped and we will continue in supporting, pushing out messaging on social media platforms and other places. And we'll come back at a later date and maybe talk about renewing some of that campaign. But that's something we're doing now and not having to wait or explore further. But another message we heard it every time that we've met in whatever form, whether it be this meeting or the workshop or the chiefs meeting was that we want to continue to support the fire service and for them to maintain their autonomy of their departments and let them run their departments, but they've asking for help on how we can help them fund their operations and help them in some of the capital purchases and those things. So we want to continue that relationship that we've always had, but continue to support and explore. One of the things that we're going to continue to work on is as we move forward and before you know it, it'll be time for budget season for next year. We want to, as a part of the budget process, to continue to explore and create a fund to help fund some of the capital projects, whether it be some of the larger ticket items or construction projects. We will identify how we support a fund and put dollars in a fund to support the fire service, as well as the current apparatus policy apparatus policy that we have in place. Currently, we set aside up to $125,000 a year, which is a $25,000 per department every five years. And the other discussion in our committee meeting and at some of the association meetings is how can we increase that $25,000 to a more meaningful dollar amount that when the departments are facing the increased cost of fire trucks and other pieces of large apparatus, what's a more meaningful number other than the $25,000? Now the committee the other week did not identify what that number is. But we want to continue to explore what that number could be and how will we fund that fund. And then last but not least, we'll always continue to try to identify other funding sources, whether it be fire tax or other type taxing situations or find other money that could be allocated to the fire service. But that's where we are after our committee meeting. But we're still listening to our fire chiefs and our fire community to take recommendations. And I'm looking for direction from the county board. Okay, commissioners?

I'm ready.

Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. I'm glad that we're talking about the fire feasibility study, but I'm not happy about the fact that we're kicking the can down the road another year. I mean, this is a subject that's been in front of this board in regards to Farmville for about four years. And it was one of the first things I heard about, as I've said before, when I started running for this seat from Farmville. And I've been in contact with some of their town council folks. Mayor John Moore is not the mayor now, but I still hear from him. But I've been talking to several town councilmen and they are still in need of some help from the county. And they're at a point with their construction that I think we need to step up now. We don't need to wait another year. We've already waited. It's been 15 months since I first brought this to the board last year. I understand that they're they're build part of the building, they're having to scale back, they're not building the full building portion of it is, is a skeleton structure, unfinished, and they need some help finishing part of that just so they can have meeting space. Farvel is looking to the future. They understand the fact that volunteerism is down, as much as the efforts to recruit more volunteers. And Farmville, the reason they're building this fire station is they see the need to hire full-time personnel to work 24-hour shifts. and they don't have dormitory space for firefighters in their present location. So we honestly, I just feel like this board has sat on its thumbs for four years without helping a partner municipality that has basically subsidized fire protection in the rural parts of the Western Party County and the formal fire district for many years without asking for anything other than the district fire tax, which every department has. And I just feel like we need to move forward. They are anxious for us to help them. And I think, personally, I think municipalities make good partners with the county for providing rural fire protection. They hire the fire chiefs and the fire captains and the personnel. And that's just one group of folks the county doesn't have to manage. But we can help them out financially to, you know, to provide that service. I'm just afraid that if we sit on our thumbs and continue to deny any help to Farmville in the building of their fire station, what's to say that some future town council over there is going to say, well, The county hasn't helped us with the service. We're just going to keep our paid firemen in town. And then the county is going to have to look some way to cover a lot of territory in the western part of the county. I just think we need to do something now. And I sat in on the meeting where we discussed these things that Mr. Gentry has done. I agree with that. But I think we need to move forward on two things, one, is to help farm. Now granted their their request four years ago was $3 million and I don't think we're anywhere in a position to do that right now. But I think there is a figure we could help them with. And secondly, we have one fire department that's going to buy a new fire truck this year. And I think we need to up that that's $25,000, which is really a joke that basically pays for the wheels. I think we should at least up that at least $100,000 to help with what is going to be over a half a million dollar fire truck for Beth. And a lot of these fire trucks now I've been told are costing up to a million dollars. And they're having to wait for them because they're taking a long time to get them built. So I would like to make a motion to move forward with the plan, as he said, with the caveat to add $850,000 to the Farmable Fire Department to assist with the construction of their fire station and an additional $100,000 to Bethel for their purchase of their new fire truck for this year. That's in the form of a motion.

Do I hear a second before we have a discussion? So we've got a motion and a second. I want to discuss. Hold one second. So discussion for me on my end and I disagree because I don't think the county should be responsible for funding the municipality. When we hired firefighters in Winterville, Winterville paid for it. When we bought a ladder truck in Winterville, Winterville paid for it. When we did repairs and upgrades to the fire station, we didn't come to the county. We tightened our belt. We looked at a lot of different avenues and we paid for it. And I don't think that it is Pitt County's responsibility to fund the fire station and farm board. That's my two cents worth. I know we disagree on that. Some of what you said makes sense, but I just don't think it's our responsibility to do that.

Well, and this is where I see a big difference. If you look at the valuation of the property in the rural fire districts, You've got four and one of the things that stuck out from this fire study with me was I think it was on page 13. But it said, the two busiest fire stations in the county are state and house and farm. The big difference is state and house is one of the best funded rural fire stations because of the valuation in their their fire taxes relatively low, they can generate all the funds they need. They don't need our help. Farm was generates very little because it's such a low valuation of property in the rural fire district. So they're providing coverage outside the municipality. I agree with you. I don't think we should pay for their service in their town, but they're providing fire coverage not only to the rural fire district around formal, which is I think last budget year they generated about $125,000 in for operational costs from the county tax fund. And they're also running mutual aid extensively to other departments in the area because every department not just farm will but every department in the county is suffering from the same problem. They don't have manpower Monday through Friday eight to five because people work don't live and work in the same town hardly anymore. It some do, but and it's very few. So far more ends up running a lot of mutual aid on stand to fountain during the daytime. So and that's where they see the need to to hire paid firemen. And and the more I talk, the more meetings we have, I find out more of the departments already paying people. You know, you know, the chief from Eastern Pines was talking about they're paying some folks to man the station out there. But they've got better resources because they're in the top tier. So I hear what you're saying. I want to pay our fair share. I'm not wanting to subsidize everything for a municipal department. That's their job to do that. But their citizens have been subsidizing fire protection in the rural areas for decades, and I've never heard anybody complain. from formal about doing that. But when they came to this county for some help to build that new fire station, which is a necessity, it's not something they wanted to do. It's a necessity. The county has turned their back on. And I'm just I think that's just wrong. We need to step up and help. Commissioner, we

You call my name. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I haven't, but we're going to get to you in just one second. Let her go ahead. Okay. No, you go ahead.

I've been waiting and waiting and waiting. Okay. And I did when he started talking and going on about this. And I see one of the board members for the town of Bethel in the house tonight. And I want you to know this. I don't think. It is a justice system, you know, justice got two thumbs, that we do more for one unit, you call them unit or station or whatever, but one part, more for one than we do to others. When I came on this board, I started on interest on fire rescue. That's because I discovered that the fireman in Bethel did not have proper personal degree of personal press. personal attire. You know what? Did I do it right? The person, you know, they didn't have what they need. That's it. Personal protection to fight fire with. That's a requirement. So we got together and we had a little fundraising. It wasn't enough to cover, but we did the best we could to help the firemen in Bethel raise money for personal gear. So I don't even recall us asking for that. But they can't fight fire without having a proper time to go in with. So I really think Bethel is way out in the north by itself. And we own that. I've learned tonight, he said it just in time for me to know that the county owns the Bethel fire station. That's what he said. is the EMS station. What's the difference? EMS is they got a fire truck to go pick up somebody, and the fire run in and grab somebody and bring them out. Different kind of pickup, but it's emergency. To me, it makes sense that one doesn't override the other. They both are important. And I do hope that this new person we have in reigning will have some training so we can have a pure multicultural group of personnel that can speak languages and everything else. But we've got a long way to go with this fire system. So I haven't just started looking at it. But Mr. Manning, I can appreciate Commissioner Manning, what you're saying. I can appreciate what he's saying. But I don't think we're in a position to overlook any unit that they all can't be helped. And that means that I care more for her household than I do for his household. And I'm just using them because they're sitting beside me. And that would look very biased. So if we're going to give these two some, then he ought to have some and he ought to have some and he ought to have some in their area to let the citizen know that we are having a fair decision-making board on fire and addressing the need of the community somewhat equally because we can't put money everywhere. Do we going to tax ourselves out of a job? And that is not what we want to do. We want to tax ourselves into serving our community with a fair amount of possibility for every county because there are some things a farmer can't fight if he doesn't have the gear. And the fire truck can't pick anybody up if they don't have a truck to roll on. So and I know we got to have all of this. But I can't see doing that. And that's how I want to see it because that's how I'm going to do my vote when I have to vote for this bill or this whatever we do. I think we need to be a bit more equitable.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Commissioner Weaver.

You want to go ahead. You go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You can turn your mic on, too.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I agree with what Sheriff Manning is saying, certain aspects of it, but I also agree with other commissioners that have spoke. The thing I look about it is I know Farmville, one of the things that they do is they run more calls than fire department to back ems up i believe then they actually did fire calls if i'm not correct if you got that number and i don't expect you to chief but i think out of the 400 and something calls they responded to i think the chief said over 200 of them was assist ems with lift and i think that is becoming an issue that we need to address for a lot of fire departments that 60 percent of their calls or help ems with lift assistance But one thing I will say, 64% of Farmville's cause was in the side of the city limits of Farmville. I do believe that was the study that was put out. I don't know what percentage Farmville gives them for tax money compared to what we do. And I think the county, if I'm not mistaken, the rural fire tax for Farmville was $175,000, wasn't it? I believe that's right, yes, sir. They asked to go from $0.06 per hundred to $0.10 per hundred. They asked for a fire tax increase.

Increase this year, yes, sir.

That's what I would love to see, how much that would help them. About the thing that we spoke about, and I was one of the commissioners along with Commissioner Brown that were in those meetings. I would love to see, like we said, a fund set up, and if we have to do a tax overlay throughout the whole county of a cent or two cents to do a tax overlay, and we give it and we take that extra money and distribute it out to the departments in need. Now, I will agree with Sheriff Manning about $25,000. We bought a set of tires for a fire truck, didn't even pay for it. I mean, that's just it. You're talking to get a fire truck with the tire ratings that they have to have. New tires put on, rotated balance. You're talking some of them, you know, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000 a pump. I was talking to Grifton. They had a pump that went out $75,000 for the pump to make the truck work. And it's a big, pretty paperweight sitting there because it can't pump no water if the pump don't work. That is my that would be my recommendation is we address that and we do it. I agree they may need money for a fire department, but I also agree with the commissioner that other entities, if we give them that money, how are we going to look grifting? How are we going to look Grindlin? How are we going to look Gardnerville? How are we going to look Bethel? How are we going to look somebody else in the face when they say, give us $2 or $3 million?

All I've got my point here is those are the two departments that have asked us and have been asking farmers been asking for several years. And yes, this year, those are the two departments that have asked specifically for some help. One with buying a fire truck, ones with helping with the fire station. No other department has asked specifically for anything from us above and beyond what our and the regular fire tech.

And my last question, Randy on that is, Is Farmville a city fire department?

They have a municipal fire department, and they contract with the county.

But it is a municipal fire department. Yes, sir. Is Bethel a municipal fire department? Yes, sir. Okay.

And we contract with them to provide the service.

Grimesland is a rural fire department that contracts with the municipality of or town of. Grifton is a rural fire department that contracts with Grifton. They're not Grifton Fire Department. They're not municipal fire department. They are technically. But Bethel is one, and so is Farm. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I empathize and recognize everything that Commissioner Manning has said. I don't disagree with the need that Farm Bill has. I actually would like to say that because how loud Farm Bill was with their request, started what I believe I'm now going to disagree with Commissioner Manning. I don't believe the county has turned their back on this subject at all. I would actually like to publicly commend the county for going so in depth the last however many months that we have dove into this. We have taken the time to be thoughtful, good stewards of the financial dollar for our taxpayers, yet putting the need that that really disaster doesn't discriminate to any anyone sitting up here or any of our constituents so i would like to say that honestly this was started not with just one district in mind i would also like to disagree that farmville and bethel are the only ones that have placed requests because i have also heard requests i think a good addition also to add to this conversation that after our last committee meeting we we asked the question how much should we start this fund with And at least I personally said I didn't feel confident and comfortable giving that number until our financial staff made that recommendation based on what we could actually afford. So my question goes back to Commissioner Manning. Are you because the directive from Mr. Gentry was What is the directive regarding the process that we have just went through to come to today? Is your question to just give Farmville the money or is your question to start the fund today to actually support the process that we have been working through the last 10 months?

My notion here is that Farmville has been asking for four years. It's time we stepped up as a partner with them because they've been a good partner to the county for many years. And also with Bethel, The $25,000 I don't know how many years the county has been given that toward a fire truck purchase. But that's so outdated, it needs to be updated. And, and I've had conversations with town officials in Bethel, and they would love to have some more help. Because they're not buying the most expensive, I think their fire trucks going to be a little over half a million dollars. So they must be buying a stock model off the line. But most of the departments, they have enough equipment and stuff. Those fire trucks, I understand, are right at a million dollars.

And I think correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've already agreed on that. It hasn't come to an actual vote, but the 25,000 is a joke. We all know that we've all agreed in the committee meetings that it's time to do something now.

We we've sat on it. We've talked about it. And that's the reason I didn't vote for the budget on June the second, because we still had 30 days. We could have done something in this year's budget and we rushed to pass a budget when we had until June 30th that we could have done something for these two fire departments.

Sure.

So I'm trying to catch up. and make sure this gets done.

And I, again, I empathize with farm bill and I appreciate it. I do believe that that is why we've been so thoughtful in this process. So again, my question before, cause I know you put a motion out there, there was a second, is that a separate directive from what has been requested or is that eight 50 to go into a fund? to start this process? That's my question.

That's to help Farmville with completing the building so they can actually utilize it. Part of the shell building is, from what I understand, they need to be able to outfit part of it, the part that's going to be for the meeting room so the firemen can meet and train and have their meetings and things like that. So they're looking for help. They're still looking for more than that. I'm just offering that as a good start. Because I think the two things that we as a county can help fire departments with is just that buildings and and fire apparatus. As far as the I mean, I was shocked at the meeting last week when that that to outfit a fireman helmet, boots and cut $8,000. And then for the self maintained breathing apparatus, how much is that one unit of that?

I think it was 10.

So when you're working a house fire 10,000?

Yes. So it'd be a Yes, sir. Commissioner and be 18.

So you know, the average the average working house fire takes, you need 10 to 12 firemen. So $18,000 times 12. That's just for one fire. Uh, the cost of stuff has just gotten and we've got to step up and help and I'm just trying to get the ball rolling. Let's do something now. We know that farmer needs help. Bethel needs to buy a fire truck. We got till next year. We'll figure it out. But yes, I think we need to establish a fund and I'm not going to say exactly what that needs to be. But we've already set the precedent to use ad valerem tax to support fire departments because we've been doing it on the fire truck purchases for years. And I'm not for raising taxes. I'm for finding where we can cut back somewhere else in order to funnel. Because to me, I know schools are important. We've heard about the schools tonight. And yes, that's probably our biggest expenditure. But the truth of the matter is, you can't go to school if you don't have safe communities and public safety. And public safety is the backbone of what we're able to do to provide for our citizens. And I just think we need to step up and get busy. That's the whole purpose that I'm so adamant about helping these fire departments. Thank you.

Commissioner Weaver, you had something else? OK. Any further discussion before we vote? Commissioner Nunnall?

Thank you. So I think the process, um, and I'll echo commissioner Brown's statements, and I certainly share some of the sentiments of the other commissioners here, but I do appreciate the diligence, um, and the depth of this fire study. Um, I don't want to go on at length about it, but I do think that one of the things that's really critically important, if we do look to establish a fund, I do think it's important that. anytime we look at taking on additional responsibilities that we do so with an eye toward, um, toward our, toward our, how we raise the money. So I think it does need to be, um, looked at through the context of an overlay. Um, if we do that, um, I, I've had some discussions with some of you up here about, and I think Commissioner Brown sometime last year about a fund. I am not opposed to a fund, but what I don't want to do is to have a fund where we create inequities, where different departments have maybe stronger, more persuasive people that are able to get the funds. because of their personnel and to create inequities that are built in. You know, a lot of the low resource departments don't want to put them in a situation where they're chasing things that they chasing an application process. Right. Um, so what I would like to see if, if that is a route that we do go down that I would like to like finance to, um, come up with a formula that we're really where we can base it on statistics. Um, so we know exactly what departments, what the needs are, what the service area is. and just base whatever distribution we have, just base it on a percentage basis. So every department, if we're providing support, let's do it in an equitable way and not on a case-by-case basis where we're maybe allowing whoever's got the loudest voice or whoever's got the best staff member that can write the best application to our board. I think that's the only equitable way to do it. Those are just my two cents.

So one question.

Thank you very much. I just want to follow up on Commissioner Nunley's thought. I'm so glad you brought that up because in the committee meeting, we actually did discuss how we could potentially create a dashboard of need, if you will, that we can manage to ensure that it was very transparent and we were looking at the county as a whole. And I think that we could maybe go into that more detail later. But I just want to address the fact that we did touch on that. That's very important. Madam Manager, if I could put you on the spot one second to just do a recap of what we did talk about in the committee meeting. I think it's really important for everybody here. We talked about Johnson County and that option. We talked about an overlay. Is it just maybe even a little bit more of a quick synopsis on that? So I just I think would be helpful for the board to hear all of the thoughts that we went through, but only on bullet points. I know you took really good notes on some of those things.

So before we do that, his motion is really completely separate.

Okay.

I think we got a motion and a second. Let's go ahead and vote on that. OK. Because this is more lean towards direction for Randy and what we want him to bring back to us. Mr. Chairman, .

I hear what you're saying, but I think if the manager is going to give some input from the meeting, I think I would want to hear that too. I do want to say I hear Commissioner Manning. I support the overlay and all that. I hear what you're saying about Farmville and Bethel. But I don't know that I could support as much as you are asking. And I hear that that's not even enough because of the cost of equipment and everything, you know. So that's just kind of where I am with it. But if she has something else to add that would enlighten as to What happened? All that was discussed in the meeting. I would like to hear that before.

I'm fine with that. It's just really two separate items, but that's fine. We'll let Madam manager go ahead and then we'll vote on it.

Okay. Sure. So in a nutshell, um, on our June 30th committee meeting, we had commissioners, uh, Brown Weaver and Manning, along with fire chiefs, Gary Arnold and Brian Dixon and County staff. We had Randy Gentry, me, we had Matt Gibson. Um, we had Mike Taylor, um, and we had James Rhodes and we started with, um, uh, everybody had been familiar with the recommendations in the consultants report, the NC fire chiefs report. We did a very brief recap of what those recommendations were. We did a very brief recap of, um, the feedback at the fire chiefs meeting that. Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Weaver attended at the Simpson Fire Department Fire Chiefs meeting the week prior. We reviewed those and we really found the common themes there having to do with autonomy. There was a need loud and clear from that meeting that the fire departments wanted to maintain their individual nature and control over their departments and but at the same time needed assistance with funding. And so the discussion at the committee meeting I think narrowed it even further to say that the funding support should center on capital needs, buildings and equipment. We talked about buildings and trucks. We talked about streamlining purchasing for supplies and things like that. And I believe the consensus of the committee at that time was no, we need a funding stream that will support buildings and trucks and that the fire tax can cover the day-to-day needs the cost of personnel if they decide that they needed to pay for personnel, and the apparatus and the masks and the gear equipment that's necessary. So acknowledging the autonomy, acknowledge the need, and then we talked about where is the source of funds for these needs. And there was conversation about whether or not that should come from the ad valorem tax and a precedent that the $25,000 comes from ad valorem tax. We talked about the option of service districts. We talked about the option of tax overlay districts. And we talked about whether or not if we were going to do ad valorem tax, whether or not it was just an increased amount on your ad valorem tax. There were mixed conversation about whether or not there was an appetite for an increased tax burden on anyone within any of those forms. We also talked a lot about living within our means and what available revenues we had currently. There was some degree of consensus about deferring until budget time to know what available revenues there would be, taking into consideration growth in the tax base. and if that growth in the tax base were a sufficient number to put into that fund. To start a fund that would be equitably administered among all departments for building and truck needs. We also talked about whether or not available revenues from the existing budget, which is fairly lean already, What's significant enough to make a dent in the capital needs of fire? And then we talked about, well, would the community have an appetite or would the Board of Commissioners have an appetite to make some more courageous or tough decisions next budget time to dedicate some amount of tax revenue to make a substantial impact On the needs within the fire service and the consensus I think was that that discussion was more properly had during budget time and we thought that. Either way, there was no expectation at the Fire Chiefs meeting that the funds be provided immediately. I think even at the Fire Chiefs meeting, other than the recognition from Commissioner Manning that Farmville has been asking for a long time and needs money now, I think the Chiefs overall had an expectation that it would start within the 27-28 fiscal year. And given that feedback, that's sort of where we landed on the four bullet points. If you'll put them on your screen again, um, Randy on those four bullet points. Um, we also talked in that meeting about transparency. We talked about a dashboard, um, and making sure that the needs were, um, transparently, um, provided and that all public funds utilized to support those departments were tracked on a dashboard going forward. from an IT perspective. And then the last thing we talked about, it wasn't last, it was actually early in the conversation, was that volunteer recruitment and retention piece, that we had tremendous success partnering between the fire chiefs and our public information office and actually brought in new volunteer firefighters as a result of that campaign. And since it was so successful that we wanted to do that again. Um, and we don't have to wait on that one, that templates already out there. We've done it once and we can do it again. Um, did I miss anything?

Mr. Chairman and Madam Manager, you said the chiefs. What about Farmville's chief and Buffer's chief in that meeting? How did they accept the suggestion that we go with the next budget?

versus they were both present. Both were present at the meeting and they have the same concerns as other chiefs talking about the retention campaign and the need for some dollars to be injected into the fire service. I don't recall a specific request at that meeting for their own department, but most of the messaging from all the chiefs were the fire service needs to identify funds to continue to operate their departments.

Yeah, I'll say they're really in that chief's meeting. They were really thinking system wide. Right. And you may recall from our consultant, he said, although there are 20 or 21 separate entities providing fire service, they operate and function like a harmonized unit in how they respond. And that's actually how they discussed. One of the reasons, though, probably the only thing that I took away that was personal to the department was that that's why they wanted to keep their autonomy in operation. because some departments like their 50-year-old truck and don't want a new truck, and other departments like to have certain types of apparatus or equipment that they want to choose. And so the only real raising that I recall, and I'll defer to the others who were there, about individual needs had to do with let me keep my own autonomy because I want to have my own preferences within my department, but help the system with building and truck needs.

Let me ask you another question. How can we help Bethel, I mean, Falmer and Bethel outside of what if we move forward with this? Is there, can we help them? you know, are you saying rhetorically?

How can you do this? Or are you saying mechanically?

How can we pull money from the budget? No, I mean outside of the budget outside of of the county giving them money now. Can we help them find some money somewhere else to to help with the building and and and the factor up with in Bethel? Is that right?

Yes. So we um If I'm understanding your question.

If we can find a way to help them outside of the county putting money forth right now and then move forward with this plan with the capital project and all that.

I have a question. Do you want me to answer that one first?

Sure.

So I think the answer is we've been doing that and they've been doing that in the absence of additional funds from the county. So they've sought federal funds. They've sought other grant funds. Randy, um, consistently provides any grant opportunities that they can do. And actually for Farmville fire, they received a federal grant to assist with the portion of the cost. It doesn't meet the entire need though. Um, we also will provide letters of, um, support and contract verification. When a department goes to borrow money for a truck, there's a letter we have to sign off that says. They have a valid contract in place, and they are recognized by our department, by our county. So we do provide that level of support and have. I'm not aware of any other source of funds that we haven't already made them aware of other than our own to fill the gap on an immediate need.

Because I want to kind of speak to something that Commissioner Nunley said, because Some of the other, not all fire, I mean, they don't have staff, you know, able to access or have the knowledge and whatever to seek grants and all that. So, you know, the county mural office doesn't.

you know, could help to assist in any way that they and happy to assist. Um, and they do call on us quite a bit.

Um, if they have any that came up at the chief's meeting, it's particularly about, uh, grant assistance and, uh, the manager as well as, um, I think one of the commissioners mentioned that the county can't even though we don't have specific grant writers, we can help if if we're asked to to at least connect them with the right resources or provide the assistance needed to make sure that they can meet those timelines and have the information they need to turn in whatever grant opportunity that they may be applying for.

Well, I guess I'm asking, can you be more forthcoming with doing it?

We can. If they ask us, we're glad to help.

Yeah. OK, that's mine.

OK, Commissioner Manning. I just wanted to point out, we were talking about chiefs. The people that are giving me input are city officials, the board members, town managers. Those are the people that are talking to me, the people that actually have to come up with the money to fund these operations. So I'm not been talking directly with the fire chiefs. I'm talking to the people who really are in a bind trying to get these things funded. So that's the reason I'm trying to help them. They're basically our peers on these other boards are the ones that are talking to me.

Sure. Commissioner McLaughlin, did you have something?

Yeah, I do, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't going to say anything, but Commissioner Manny said it well. This is a unique opportunity for Farmville, and I've researched it, and I agree with Commissioner Manny. It's a different approach to Farmville, and I think the need is critical that we try to support that by any means necessary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay.

Did a commissioner down here have any further discussion?

Janice asked my question because I want to know, you get a size of amount of money from Tom Taylor's and that was over and beyond whatever it was we were given. And it seems as if everybody tend to have forgotten that small amount of money that was more than I think it was more than two or $3 million. But I think if they're all trying to find money wherever they can find it, that's a good thing. But I like to see consistency and I like to see fairness among the units. And we can't help it if some people are located in one place where there are a lot of houses and another place without. So I like to see, I need to know that we are fairly treating everybody the same.

Mr. Chairman. Okay. Yes, sir. One last question. You said $850,000 sheriff to Farmville for a building and $100,000 to Bethel.

Right. Keeping it under a million dollars because that's the figure I had in my mind that might be a fund we established.

Yeah, and I agree with you. I think we were a million, a million and a half fund we should establish. My next question to be was is Farmville, and I don't think anybody knows it, going to ask for more money on top of that after this 850? Are they going to come back and say, we need another 1.25 million, another 1 and 1 half million to finish our building?

They certainly probably will need it, because I'm sorry. From my understanding, the original project was like $11 million. And yes, those funds from the senator and the congressman are helping. But what's happening is because of the delay and getting started, and they're having to build in phases, the cost is going up. So I think there'll be more need. But that's something that the board can decide on later. I mean, I'm not pushing, you know, this is a little bit to help help them right now. Because they do need some help just to get this the station operational once they finish what they're doing, so that they can start using utilizing the building. Thank you.

OK, we have a motion and a second on the floor. But Commissioner Manning, I want you to restate your motion.

Basically I was to do what Randy wants us to do, which is to do all these four points into the coming year, in the budget process next year. $850,000 to Farmville and an additional 100,000 making it 125,000 to Bethel for their fire truck. That was my motion.

I think we should split that motion and we have the recommendations from Randy. in front of us. Let's separate that. I'll be glad to restate it if you want me to. Yes, sir, if you will.

Okay.

You've been seconded.

Well.

Well, just rescind your motion and second and restate a motion and exclude this.

Can I make a substitute motion in my motion?

Well, that's fine. I'm good with that.

I'll just move that.

Matt, he'll stop us if we're doing something wrong.

Move to allocate $850,000 to Farmville for their fire station construction with an MOU that they'll continue to provide fire coverage in the rural parts of their district and also the same thing for Bethel to add an additional hundred thousand with the MOU that they will continue to provide fire coverage around outside of the town okay everybody got that we have a motion and a second second everybody good 800,000 is that what you said 850 for phone and an additional 100,000 to Bethel owner for Bethel, because we've already allocated 25,000 to them for their fire trucks. That would be a total of 125. Okay.

Just to be clear, does this go in the fund or directly to because in the fund, we I haven't heard anything about this going into a fund. This this is for a motion he's making for those two entities to receive that money.

It can be a good start.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes. I'm sorry. Does that go straight to the fire department, or does that go to the town of Farmville and the town of Bethel?

The funding sources are the town, the municipality. There you go. OK. Yes, to them. Everybody clear. They're the ones asking, not the fire chief.

Beat this thing all over. Let's go. Let's go. Commissioner Perkins-Williams, we're waiting on your vote.

100 for Bethel. It was 850 for Farmville, 100 for Bethel.

on top of the 25 they already have in the budget.

So it's specific for what they're going to use it for.

Or their fire department. OK. That failed. Is that correct, Matt? OK. All right. Thank you for the robust discussion.

Do you want a motion on the recommendation?

Do we have a motion for Randy's recommendations that he presented for us to move forward with those?

I'll make a motion that we move forward with those.

And I'll second it.

We have a motion and a second. Let's vote on that, please. Okay. Thank you, Randy. Appreciate it. OK, items for decision. I'll invite Florida up for personnel ordinance update.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening to all of you. What we have in front of you is a request to update our personal ordinance, specifically the grievance process, which be the grievance definition, as well as the process employees will use if they decide they want to file agreements for certain circumstances, employment decisions that are made. Currently, the ordinance allows for an employee to file agreements. I'll use an example. If they've been dismissed from employment, they filed agreements to the department head that terminated them in the first place. The department head responds, and if they're not satisfied with that response, a grievance committee is formed. They review it, and then it goes back to the department head. The county manager is typically involved, but the decision at the final is up to the department head. What we're asking to change is that the grievance goes back to the department head as it originally does, the department head responds, and if the employee is still not satisfied with that response, they file a grievance directly to the county manager, who will review all the information involved in the process, And when are the final decision and that decision will be final with the internal process of the county. So that's the major change that we're asking for in this particular policy. So if you would, we'd like your permission to make that change effective today and we will make those changes. Update the ordinance.

We've got a motion and a second. Let's vote on that please. Thank you. Great.

Thank you, Florida.

I would invite Ken Brand up for the Lake Glenwood Dam repair information.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, county manager. I'm bringing to you tonight the contract for the repair of the Lake Glenwood Dam. Designed for the repair of the Lake Glenwood Dam was completed by LJB Engineering earlier this year and was approved by the state on June 3rd. Pitt County published an RFP on May 13th and a pre-bid meeting was held on May 26th. We had four contractors attend the pre-bid meeting. Bids for the dam repair were received on June 18th. Although four contractors attended the pre-bid conference, Trader Construction Company was the only company to submit a bid for the RFP. According to state law, we could not open the bid at that time. The RFP was re-released again on June 22nd with a due date of June 30th. Trader Construction Company, again, was the only contractor to submit a bid. The bid submitted by Trader Construction Company was for the amount of $2,585,250. So tonight we're asking for a motion to select Trader Construction to perform the repair work at Lake Glenwood Dam, authorize the county manager to sign a contract with Trader Construction in the amount of $2,585,250 with a contingency and approve the associated budget amendment that would go along with this. Okay.

Commissioner Manning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am opposed to this project. Um, I don't think, you know, we were talking about establishing a recreational park out there. We've just opened several recreational centers, one on each side of town. We're paying people now upkeep on those buildings. Um, that's one thing we've expanded the recreational offerings that the county is making just in recent years. The second thing is I've had a lot of complaints from folks out there around the Lake Glenwood neighborhood, the LT Hardy Road about traffic. And and especially the city is approving the apartment buildings be built out there on dumping out on LT Hardy Road and all this kind of stuff. And I think this is just going to add if it's successful, it would add more congestion to what is already a traffic problem out there. if it's not successful it's going to be a problem with you know people trespassing that hours of all day and night and disturbing neighbors and folks out there that's just one point the second point is i feel like this is a tremendous liability for the county this dam has been giving problems since i've lived in pitt county And I looked at the elevation maps from the lake down to the creek right there where the entrance is to Willow Run. It's like a 50-foot drop. And that's a lot of water that when that dam gives away, or if you've got a hurricane, you're getting two or three inches an hour. You know, that's a lot of water going downstream. And because when you go over, I rode this whole area back here some weeks ago. You go to the backside of Glenwood Apartments, and you're looking up at the lake, and you're looking down at the houses in Willow Run. And that creek bed is completely overgrown trees brush. If all that water was to turn loose, and I realized we're having to fix the dam. It's been a problem for years. And I feel like with 30 some properties backing up to this lake, All it's gonna take is one young and to get in that lake and drown and the county is going to get sued. We're exposing the county to to a lot of liability here. If the dam doesn't hold because I you know, I know the these engineers that it's been engineered and repaired two or three times since I've lived in picking and I used to live on Eastern Pines. We are so as I said to me another day, when you think you've conquered Mother Nature, uh, the man upstairs will make a fool out of you. And, uh, I just think we, we, we're, we're taking on a lot of liability here for something that we really don't need recreational wise because we, we're already doing stuff and I just, and this is two and a half million dollars we could use to help fire departments. And that's a whole lot more important to me than fixing this day. That's all I got to say.

Mr. Nunley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, So I'm glad that it was raised in 1999, Hurricane Floyd. And I'm glad that Hurricane Matthews was raised. And I'm glad that Commissioner Manning brings up the amount of water that pours into the Hardy Creek watershed in the event of a major water event. Since the 1960s, when Hardy Pond was constructed, it has served as a de facto detention pond. for any of the water runoff in that watershed, controlling the downward flow of water down in through Hardy Creek, which has allowed development downstream. There are significant developments Brook Valley will run just to name a few downstream of the of the dam. Since the time of its construction, as we all are aware, there's been a tremendous amount of growth out on highway 33. Um, and the introduction of pervious surfaces and impervious services to increase the runoff. Um, and so what was farmland that emptied into a reservoir, um, has turned into an, uh, suburban, um, suburban landscape that, that captures a tremendous amount of water in a major water event. And that all empties into the Hardy Creek watershed, which is headed by what is Hardy Pond, I guess known as Lake Glenwood. So while we talk about this as a recreational pond, as a recreational item, I think that the fact that we call it that is out of ingenuity and thinking outside of the box, looking at something that need that our community needs, which is water resiliency, um, redundancy when it comes to flood water management. Um, what do we do as a community? Do we look at it? Do we do cordon and off or do we, um, treat it as a community asset? And I think that the fact that our County and our staff has come up with and developed a plan, um, to, to have, uh, another resource for our community where, where people can legally and safely access a water feature, um, without cost, by the way, um, um, and, and fish and, and have family time on a park. That is a benefit, but make no mistake. Um, this pond retains sediment runoff does a huge job at stopping that downward flow and that capture basin. The plan that has been developed would provide for the appropriate flow in that capture of water so that the roadway, which is Eastern Pines Road, which washed out in Hurricane Floyd, cutting off emergency services and washed out in Hurricane Matthew, cutting off emergency services. This fix in coordination with the OT would ensure that that roadway remains open in a major watershed event. So this is not just acute sea fishing pond. This is about ensuring that development in eastern Pitt County and the development that's happened post 1960, which we can't do anything about remain safe. And we do it in a creative way so that folks can enjoy their community. So yeah, I'm not happy that the price is higher. But as we've said before, as things are delayed, the price goes up and up and up. The longer we push it down the road, the higher the price gets. This is not just a cute pond. This is about resiliency. This is about Eastern Pines Roadway remaining open in our next major hurricane. And this fix will make sure that happens. So my motion is that we award the contract and the budget amendment and look forward to 30 years when people look back. and say, hey, that was a pretty smart move because we didn't get flooded out.

Let's go back to Commissioner Manning.

Just one comment. One option is you lower the level of the lake, drain it, and use that land for something else. And then you don't have to spend $2.5 million to dam it up.

Respectfully, when the water comes, it comes.

Commissioner Weaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Commissioner Manning and Commissioner Nunley on some of the issues. I do not know that we can engineer that dam to withhold if we have a Matthew. um i agree with commissioner manning on that um i also remember i wasn't there about that old some may be that they said the titanic was unsinkable and i think it's at the bottom of the ocean right now i don't think we can build anything to stop mother nature and my question um being would be is the 2.2 2,585,250 in addition to the 1.2 million we've already set aside. So it would be a total of 3.6 million.

The 2.5 would be moving forward with the completion of the dam.

There also would be some extra charges for LJB.

The engineering company by the state is required to oversee the project, verify everything is done appropriately. At the end of the job, they have to verify the dam was built correctly. They will stamp and seal the paperwork that goes to the state. So you were looking at the 2.6 for the construction of the dam. That is not taking into effect what we've already spent. or any other issues that we run into.

So and and we if I may just supplement that because I talked with Michael Hardy again earlier today, the 1.2 was the projected cost for the dam. But the budget only includes closer to the 750,000 that we carried forward from the initial $1 million allocation. And so when the bids came in, you would have had to do a budget amendment to get to that 1.2. anyway and so this carries it from the existing money to the 2.5 plus contingency and architect fees so the total is really more like 2.2 plus seven 50. Is that correct?

Mr. Mr. Chairman, may I second that? So you can continue this discussion.

Sure.

So the total cost of that budget amendment is right at 2.2 million. Um, the budget that's carrying over from 25, 26 to 26, 27 is right at 700,000. So plus the 10% contingency is at 258,000. that puts you right at 2.9 million so 2.2 plus the 700 puts you at 2.9

So 2.9. Oh, man, we knocked it down from 3.6 million to 2.9. Yes. Okay, thanks. One of the things on this is I could see giving a lot of this money to EMS and fire where they need it. I will say that. My next question would be when we took this, I was not on the board, so I don't know. I've read up on some of it. When we took it in, we were supposed to get grants and mess to be able to do that. That didn't work out. So my next question would be, what would we need to do if we were going to return it back to the homeowners or if we were going to try to make it into a natural area to where we just keep it, but we turn it into a greenway or a green area like that?

I honestly have no idea what that process would involve because we haven't looked at it.

But we could certainly utilize in-house resources through our soil and water office and emergency management and other subject matter experts that if that's the path the board wanted to go down, we could certainly bring back a process and cost estimates. To this point, we have not done that because that's not been the directive we've been provided by the board. The board's directed us. And really, the time delay had to do with the approval of the engineering plans by the state and by the engineering firm. So that's the reason why we haven't explored that.

And yes. And Mr. Chairman, my only concern about this is, is if we pay that for the dam, we're putting a lot of money raising our budget, putting a lot of money in. Is that engineering group trader construction going to say, hey, it's never going to be breached? No, they're not. So if it does get breached and if it does wash the road out, go down lo and behold it caused somebody a life pitt county is responsible for that that's a law i'm telling you one of the most liability areas you can do is have a pond especially if it can breach a road and cause loss of life that's why i mean i that's why i'm against it i'm not for saying do away with it i think if we could turn it into a natural area a greenway That would be great. We keep it. We bring it back. We do it. And we can keep a park out there if you want to. It just don't have the water that's the liability for us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Can we reach out to NCDOT? They've replaced that road twice for breaches. Would they be willing to contribute some money so they don't have to do that again?

They are.

Yeah.

So they are, um, if I'm not mistaken, they have agreed to upgrade the underflow when we complete the dam remediation. So they will be going under, um, at least that was the early that, I mean, this is back in 2022 23 when we're talking about it, but it's my understanding that DOT will upgrade the underflow to meet our design. So that was something that was discussed.

I would need to confirm that with the current plan, but I recall that prior discussion, and they have not offered any money toward it other than that earlier.

How about recreation grants? Could help fund some of that.

So we did apply for a recreation grant for Lake Glenwood Park. We did receive, help me Jennifer with the amount of money. um, of that, uh, grant for Lake Glenwood park, but none of it was allowed to be utilized for the dam repair only for the development of an all abilities park.

Is that correct? Yes, we have, um, 479,000 and accessible grants, um, with a local match from the board. So it was 575,000 for park development.

Thank you. Thank you for the discussion. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of thoughts regarding this. First and foremost, I want to say that I lived in Arbor Hills across the street for many years, so I genuinely would love to see the vision come to life. However, I have a lot of concern. I think that this is two separate conversations. I think that we have a public safety risk and then I think that we have a park. and I think that they should be handled as such. Let that just be known on the record. I think that we're blending the two, and as much as I would like to see both come to fruition, I do think that they're two separate conversations. I have a couple questions. First and foremost, 750 was the initial projection. We're now over $3 million. Can you give us a simple overview as to how we got there and what that equates to?

One of the biggest issues is this is a highly specialized project. Trader Construction Company is probably the only one east of Raleigh that would even touch this project. We had other contractors come out for the pre-bid who do work like this, site work and everything. And like I said, nobody wants to touch it but Trader. And that's going to drive the price up. We've been a specialized area that very few contractors want to mess with.

OK, so Due diligence-wise, it looks like when this was voted upon, we've done our risk assessment due diligence. I was not a part of the board either, so I can't speak on the history of the last couple of years. However, I would say that it doesn't look as though we've done our financial due diligence. And I personally don't believe that this board has all the financials in front of them to make a good decision. And the reason why I say that is because if you look at the attorney and his suggestions when you all voted on this previously, One of his suggestions was to present to the board the decommissioning cost. And I'm not suggesting that we do that. I'm not suggesting anything in my comments right now. I'm just simply saying since this was presented to me on Thursday, I have dove into this and trying to figure out how we got to all this conversation later to hurry up and go. Now it's such a drastic increase. So I don't believe we have that decommissioned cost. Is that correct?

No, we do not.

OK, and I understand that with the state regulations on transporting fish and getting their disease state and all of that, there's a lot of costs that go into that. I don't know those details. However, I'm just saying I think that the board deserves to have that information. And that's that's my opinion. This is a liability. I agree on that front, too. So looking my question would be from a liability perspective, since we received this donation, how quickly do we have to move? um seeing that hurricane season is coming and you know it's a risk c hazard you know what does that mean and i think the board should know maybe how quickly since it's been sitting like this for quite some time i believe we have some permitting process that we have to go through with the city of greenville and i think there is one more state permit that we have to acquire and i believe that is in process but the city of greenville one

So have we got any permitting? Will the city be doing anything, have anything with this?

They'll do everything. So the city will be doing permitting for everything. So the permit would have to run through the city also. So it's not something we're going to start next week.

Okay. So I've heard DOT potential partnership, potentially a grant strategy of some opportunity there. We've heard, I don't know about a maintenance projection into perpetuity. Do we know that, what that looks like as far as any type of projections on what the taxpayers are going to be liable for forever?

Honestly, we would not.

I just and I could keep going. My list of questions is very, very long. Again, I'm trying to take my bias out of the fact that I would love to see this. But at the same time, I know I'm going to have a lot of people asking. They already did ask me, why did we start originally with the million dollars of which I said that we got that as a grant? So now having to learn that we actually don't have those funds does change this dynamic for me a little bit as well. We also have five dams in the area that are also high risk. Is that correct? Outside of this dam?

I believe there's two more. I know there's two more close by.

I think there are several. I think this may be the only one under a notice of violation, though. Yes. And I don't know what that specifically means, meaning that this dam is we the the state had notified the Property Owners Association and the state has notified the county that this dam is in need of immediate repair.

OK, OK, I'll stop asking questions. I again would love to see it. I don't believe inactivity is the is the answer here. I'm not saying that. um but i would like to make a motion that we do an urgent push of 45 60 day max of getting more due diligence done from a financial perspective so we can vouch for for being good stewards of the dollar seeing as how it went from an original projection of 750 to now 3 million plus so that's a motion i would like to carry forward um because again i don't want to see it completely just, you know, taken away. If we can make this happen. However, we can't just throw money.

It doesn't need to be a substitute. I'll second.

I'll second that again.

So we're going to be a substitute motion. We already have a motion. I apologize.

Okay. But he seconded.

Okay. So we got a substitute motion stated again for us, please.

Uh, to make an urgent 45 to 60 day push on coming up with further due diligence as far as strategy on grants, um, um, consulting with the HOA. Is it a possibility to give it back? I'm not saying that that is, but making sure that we have checked that off, um, and just doing our proper due diligence to the taxpayers.

One second. Commissioner Manning.

I just from the agenda review meeting, there was a mention about muskrats. So it's not just whether you got to worry about you got to worry about burrow and animals that destroy the burns. So is there any status on that?

Yes, so we have, while we are monitoring the pond now, we have a contract with a pond monitoring company, and they provide monthly reports. And in this most recent monthly report, we will need to address an issue with muskrats that may be burrowing around the dam, creating additional issues. We currently have a contract with APHIS to manage the geese, and they are willing to expand their geese management contract to include muskrats and manage those around the dam at the same time. So we're on top of that. In terms of other maintenance,

What's the cost?

Um, so we have a $12,000 contract with APHIS right now, and they're willing to include the muskrats within the existing contract. Um, no per year per year, right? 12,000 per year. Yes. Um, the other maintenance call, it's not a cost, but the other maintenance aspects. So not only do we have foster pond management is the pond manager. We also work very closely with Eastern Pines Fire Department at no cost to us and their personnel will lower the dam if there's a storm and watch it and provide reports to us to mitigate any immediate safety risks by lowering the water.

Commissioner Weaver's next. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does your motion, Commissioner Brown, also ask the county, ask us to look at decommissioning it, like tearing down the current dam and carrying it back to a green state or natural state of Greenway?

That was in the original notes that, um, before you and I were on this board. So I would like to see that information brought as an option to this board. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair commission. And then, uh, commissioner forward. I've been forgotten to raise.

You mentioned that, um, Easter pines, um, has someone that's on call to, to lower. the level of the dam. Um, that was something that was handled previously by a homeowner that may or may not have been available. And that was one of the considerations again, um, to, to make sure that we do have someone that is, um, on call to be able to lower, but the, but the design of this dam, the we're style design would not need to be lowered. would not to be, you would not need to have someone called out to the lower the level. Um, that's the entire idea is that this is a lower maintenance. Um, it's a longterm, um, robust fix. No, no damage, right? Perfect. But, um, the idea is with this type, um, is that you would not have that need, uh, moving forward.

Okay.

Well, I'm just going to ask, um, We have to do something. Is that the question?

To me, yes, we have to do something. Inaction is not an option given that we are under a notice of violation from the state due to the non-proper functioning of the dam. And they are working with us because we are moving toward a solution.

OK.

So you have to do something.

You have to do something.

Okay. So we have a substitute motion that's been seconded, and that is to bring a number of items of information back to this board within a 45 to 60-day period so that we can move forward. Does everybody understand that?

You stated, did you just state the motion?

I did not. The motion that Commissioner Brown made had a number of items that she would like to be brought back, information, so that we can make a better decision or move forward. You want to restate your position, Commissioner Brown? Yes. Just for clarification.

I would like to make a motion for the directive for staff to further investigate and do our financial due diligence regarding this project. and to include any maintenance and repair projections into perpetuity. And I would also like to separate this from a public safety and a park perspective.

And that also includes decommissioning.

Decommissioning partnerships, grant strategy, any and all that we could potentially pull together to help assist with the financial aspect.

Okay. Let's vote. We've got a motion and a second. Okay. Thank you. We'll look forward to staff bringing us back that information and 45 to 60 days. OK, Madam Manager, you have three, four, five, and six.

Yes, number three, you need to select a voting delegate for your NACO annual conference. All of you are attending except for Commissioner Manning. So of the group of eight, you'll just need a motion and a second to appoint that voting delegate.

OK, what's the pleasure of the board?

Madam Chair, I nominate Gary Weaver.

I second. We've got a motion and a second for Commissioner Weaver. That sounds great.

That's for number three.

Wonderful opportunity for Commissioner Weaver. I'm going to do you any good, but you can vote now.

Ain't nobody else voted.

I know he didn't do that.

You know I did. Yes, ma'am. OK.

Your next item is you need to select a voting delegate for the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Annual Conference in Durham. Those. Those attending, are you attending that conference in Durham? Yeah, the three attending that conference are Commissioner Perkins-Williams, Commissioner Floyd-Huggins, and Commissioner McElhorn.

So we got to go. Am I right? Sounds right.

All right. I'm going to get you to make this. What's the pleasure of the board? You're not?

Commissioner.

I'll nominate Mary Perkins Williams.

I second that.

That was kind of low. Can you restate that again?

I'll second.

All right, let's vote.

The next item on your agenda is a reappointment to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council. It is recommended that Marlo Blake, Anaya Lane, and Patrick Lenz be reappointed to terms expiring June 30th, 2029. Pleasure to board.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay, we have a second down here. Let's vote on that, please.

Okay, and then your last decision item is a reappointment to the Rivers East Workforce Development Board. It's being recommended that Christopher Woods be reappointed to that board with a term expiring June 30th, 2028.

We got a motion and a second. Please vote. Okay, thank you. Is that all, Madam Manager?

That is all that I have.

Okay, we'll move on to Commissioner comments. I'll start from my right, Commissioner Brown.

I would just like to thank staff for being patient with me, um, and doing, um, some helping me do some research with Lake Glenwood the last couple of days. So everyone's been wonderful. I just want to say thank you. Other than that, that's all I have.

Oh, excuse me. I forget to do that. Ditto to what Brown said, but I'd like to offer my condolences to the committees, commissions, executive director, family, and the whole regional coordinating that Our condolences be expressed to the board, the committee's commission board, as well as the family on the loss of the executive director, Brian Nicholas Brian Book.

Commissioner Manning. Commissioner Manning.

Um, briefly, uh, when I coming up soon and want to welcome our, um, little league world series folks that are going to be coming into towns here soon. So hopefully everyone get out and support them. And, um, and our CBB, um, uh, who pick counties a part of is, is, uh, helping the volunteers. So hopefully we'll see all y'all out there.

Thank you. Commissioner Floyd Huggins, commissioner McGowan. I think we've got a closed session. All right. I want to hear a motion to go into closed session. Mr.

Chair, if I could read the motion. Yes, please. Thank you. It has been suggested that this body go into closed session under the following grounds. One, to discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries under North Carolina General Statute 143-318-11A4. And two, to prevent the disclosure of information that is not considered a public record under North Carolina General Statute 143-318-10.

Thank you, Matt. I hear a motion to go into closed session.

So moved.

Got one.

Got a second. Please vote.

Okay.

We're ready.

Okay, welcome back.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the closed session minutes for June 15th. Second.

We've got a motion and a second. Please vote. OK, we have a motion to adjourn. And a second. Please vote. Thank you all for being here this evening. We need that for anything.

If you get to the hotel, although you'll be coming with me, and there's an issue with the county credit card that has paid for your room, you'd need to show that. Okay, I didn't know what his name was. Chris is the first one, and it applies to everybody here, so you're highlighted. Awesome. Yes. Mark, you got a bug?

Oh, sorry. All right.