Mecklenburg County weighs three options to reshape Community Resource Center buildout as customer demand surges

Mecklenburg County staff presented the Board of Commissioners with three alternatives to the county's original Community Resource Center (CRC) buildout, laying out trade-offs between lowering capital costs and preserving geographic access to health and human services.

Robert Nesbitt, CRC division director, said CRCs are designed as "one-stop" hubs that consolidate multiple human-services programs and noted the two existing CRCs had recorded about 164,000 customer visits from June 2020 to May 2026. He described a recent increase in demand: "CRC customer volume increased significantly beginning in January 2026," and staff reported combined single-day peaks at the two operating sites that approached or exceeded 1,100 customers, with a June 15 day nearing 1,200 total across both locations.

Steve Swett of Asset & Facility Management outlined the three options and cost comparisons:

- Baseline (original) buildout: five CRCs, extensive clinic and back-office space, total baseline cost about $772 million (roughly $511 million of that previously approved in the CIP).

- Option One: construct no additional CRCs beyond the two completed sites (Valerie C. Woodard and Libby Scarborough). Staff said this reduces the baseline to roughly $332 million (a savings of about $440 million) but would leave more than 500 HHS staff long term in leased space and would require roughly $242.6 million in subsequent renovation building costs plus lease-related costs projected to 2040. Staff warned that Option One preserves immediate savings but increases future lease exposure and the county's reliance on leased swing space for clinical services.

- Option Two: complete the already-under-design East CRC as the third CRC and include a small public-health clinic there, while deferring the Southwest and Northwest CRCs. Staff estimated a total cost of around $436.9 million for Option Two, which reduces lease exposure versus Option One but still requires some temporary clinic lease space during renovations.

- Option Three: build the East CRC plus a smaller "micro CRC" and a full public-health clinic at the Southwest site. Staff estimated Option Three would cost just over $496 million, reduce some lease costs by removing the need to lease temporary clinic swing space, and better distribute public-health and HHS access across the county, while delivering significant savings (about $276M) relative to the original baseline.

Staff highlighted service mix and distribution: roughly 60% of CRC customers access core safety-net services (food, Medicaid, SNAP, work supports), while other interactions link residents to workforce, education and housing-stability services. Staff also noted that population growth and federal policy changes (including recent federal eligibility changes) are expected to increase in-person demand in coming years.

Commissioners questioned the options and raised several themes: equity and geographic access (several commissioners said residents in East and Southwest Charlotte face transportation burdens and need nearby access); financing and trade-offs (who pays and what CIP priorities would be delayed to fund construction); the sunk costs already expended (staff said about $10.1 million has been spent on East site land/design and about $4.2 million on Southwest pre-work); and temporary clinic logistics (staff warned that moving specialized services such as the tuberculosis clinic requires appropriate temporary clinical space with specialized airflow and separate entrances).

Commissioner Yvette Townsend Ingram emphasized equity and said she could not support Option One: "I don't see how with our group we could even consider choosing Option One," she said, urging the board to choose between Options Two and Three and to weigh proximity and service consistency. Other commissioners voiced a range of preferences: some favored preserving the baseline buildout if feasible, while others favored Option Three as offering a compromise between cost savings and equitable access.

The board did not vote. Staff said they heard the feedback and will return with more detailed financing scenarios, additional analysis about how CRC placement would change travel times for customers, and recommendations informed by the board's direction.