Mecklenburg County manager will assess taxpayers' ROI as he starts new job
Why it matters: The county manager oversees all the agencies and departments that serve you and your more than 1.2 million neighbors.
One of Bryant's biggest tasks each year is recommending a $2.5 billion budget, approved by commissioners, that is packed with ripple-making decisions for the area's schools, parks, public health services and other needs.
What he's saying: This is Bryant's "dream job."
"I'm a public service junkie," he tells me. "I just firmly believe that there is no more notable field than public service."
Context: He has been with Mecklenburg County for over 22 years, starting in 2003 in the budget department, a role traditionally regarded as the pathway to becoming a manager in local government.
Bryant moved up to director of the Office of Management and Budget in 2014 and then deputy county manager in 2020.
The big picture: Mecklenburg County already has a set list of priorities — health equity and wellness, education, services for seniors, workforce development, environmental stewardship, economic development and reducing racial disparities.
Bryant says he'll step in to continue focusing on programming and investments for all seven.
Yes, but: His tenure begins after a tough budget cycle.
This year, the county budget included a 0.96-cent tax rate increase — an additional $36 a year for the median homeowner. The county had to implement a deferred half-cent tax rate increase from the prior year while addressing a revenue slowdown.
What he's doing: Bryant says he wants to recommit Mecklenburg County to performance management, a framework for assessing the return on its investments.
He's considering implementing a scorecard to track where money is going and the results. The card would better inform decisions, he says, related to adjusting the tax rate, launching new programs or continuing funding of existing programs.
What he's watching: Uncertainty at the federal and state level. As the federal government works to reduce the national deficit, Bryant says cuts may impact services like Medicaid.
"If they do that, and the state decides to push it down to counties as well, we're not in a position to supplant the large dollar amount associated with some of these decisions," he says. "You can't tax your way out of it."
Mecklenburg County receives more than $170 million in federal revenue.
Here's how he responded to other topics.
Transportation: On the afternoon I sat down with Bryant, Gov. Josh Stein had just signed the P.A.V.E. Act, which authorizes the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners to put a 1-cent sales tax referendum on the November election ballot.
Bryant spoke to commissioners about the measure Tuesday night, his second day on the job. The board scheduled a public hearing and a vote for Aug. 6 to place the item on the ballot.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools: Bryant has seen past fractures between school leaders and the county, but says those relationships have been strengthened.
"In terms of what level of say counties should have in schools, I think that's debatable," he says. "However, since we're a funding partner, there certainly should be some level of collaboration between the two."
The City of Charlotte: Bryant envisions more opportunities for the city and county to team up on shared priorities, such as economic development and affordable housing.
City manager "Marcus Jones and I have made a firm commitment that the city and county will work well together, and we've already gotten off to a good start," he shares.
Brooklyn Village: Bryant says he understands concerns over the stalled, public-private development. While he says he can't share much now, the county recently met with the developers, and county staff are reviewing some of the presented options.
"Everyone involved has an interest in adding more affordable housing and bringing back that identity associated with Brooklyn," Bryant says. "Where it gets debatable is, how do we go about it in light of the history of this project and where it stands today?"
I asked him if his fresh leadership could have an impact on sticking with that project: "It can make a difference," he says.
Public-private partnerships: He wants to do more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
35 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump voters wanted relief from Medical bills. For millions, the bills are about to get bigger
President Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills. Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident. At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in. Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients' bills, as well. New federal guidelines for COVID -19 vaccines, for example, will allow health insurers to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket. The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees. And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports. That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates. 'For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,' said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. 'The Trump administration is just throwing them off.' White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration's health care policies will affect Americans' medical bills. The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. 'You won't even notice it,' Trump said at the White House after the bill signing July 4. 'Just waste, fraud, and abuse.' But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans' financial security. 'These changes will hit our communities hard,' said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. 'When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,' she said. 'Medical debt wrecks people's lives.' For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network. 'People will not seek out the treatment they need,' she said. Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to 'make America affordable again' and 'expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.' Polls suggest voters were looking for relief. About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey, outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt. Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block. Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Caswell and other researchers found, for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers' credit scores in states that implemented the expansion. 'We've seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people's financial well-being,' Caswell said. Trump's tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated. The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don't renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces. This aid — enacted under former President Joe Biden — lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills. Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn't pay their medical bills. The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people. But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped. Levey writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction
An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print. The order Trump signed Thursday would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy 'encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.' It ordered those agencies to 'ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.' Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass' Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city's most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order Friday, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration's cuts to Medicaid have affected funding 'streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.' 'Of course I'm concerned about any punitive measures,' Bass said. 'But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.' Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. 'I couldn't tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don't do it his way,' Murray said. Others took their cue from the order's provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 'are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.' The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. 'Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.' A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said their drug use had decreased after they became homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were seeking treatment but couldn't get it. 'As with most executive orders, it doesn't have much effect on its own,' said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'It tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how the federal agencies do those things, that's what will have the impact.' In concrete terms, the order seeks to divert funding from two pillars of mainstream homelessness practice, 'housing first,' the prioritization of permanent housing over temporary shelter, and 'harm reduction,' the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing. According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should 'not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' And the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for 'housing first' policies that 'deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.' To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass' Inside Safe program and the county's counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately. Trump's order goes farther, though, wading into the controversial issue of how much coercion is justified in eliminating encampments. The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, it said, should take steps to ensure that grants go to states and cities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering and squatting. Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. 'We'll be back to the days of 'One Flew Over the Cuckcoo's Nest,' 'Berg said, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways. 'What we want to do is reduce homelessness,' he said. 'I'm not sure that is the goal of the Trump administration.' The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement saying, 'This Executive Order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse.... Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.' Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of Housing First, noted that key policies pressed in the order—civil commitment, encampment removal and substance use treatment—are already gaining prominence in the state and local response to homelessness. 'We all think if it came from Trump it is horrible,' Murray said. 'It is certainly overbearing. It certainly misses some nuances of what real people with mental illness and substance use are like. But we've started down the path of most of this stuff.' His main concern was that the order might be interpreted to apply to Section 8, the primary federal financial tool for getting homeless people into housing. What would happen, he asked, if someone with a voucher refused treatment? 'It might encourage more people to stay on the streets,' he said. 'Getting people into treatment isn't easy.'
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
After Lara Trump opts out, president endorses RNC Chair Whatley for NC Senate race
North Carolina is a pivotal battleground state and the Senate race is one of the premier contests of the upcoming midterm elections. There won't be a Trump on the ballot in North Carolina's Senate race, but the president is still putting his imprint on the marquee 2026 matchup. Lara Trump, President Donald Trump's daughter-in-law and his first choice for the U.S. Senate seat in the state where she was born, announced July 24 she won't be running. So the president went to his second choice, endorsing Republican National Committee chair and former North Carolina GOP Chair Michael Whatley in a July 24 social media post. Whatley was Trump's handpicked candidate to lead the RNC during the 2024 election cycle, helping him win the popular vote and secure victories in every swing state, including North Carolina. Whatley co-chaired the RNC with Lara Trump, who resigned after the election. Lara Trump is married to the president's second child, Eric Trump. More: Where did Trump's children go to college? See which schools they attended North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis opted not to seek re-election in 2026 after he announced his opposition to Trump's signature tax legislation, criticizing the bill's cuts to Medicaid. Whatley would give Trump a staunch supporter in the Senate if he wins, with the president declaring, "I need him in Washington." Whatley hasn't announced his plans, but is expected to run for the seat, according to media reports. Trump also endorsed a replacement for Whatley to chair the RNC, Florida state senator and former Florida GOP chair Joe Gruters. More: Melania Trump may get name on the Kennedy opera house. What has she done as first lady? Gruters is a longtime Trump supporter who co-chaired the president's 2016 campaign in Florida with current White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. "I'm looking forward to advancing President Trump's America First agenda as the next chair of the RNC," Gruters said in a statement. More: How Trump and 'terrific guy' Jeffrey Epstein's party boy friendship ended badly North Carolina is a pivotal battleground state and the Senate race is one of the premier contests of the upcoming midterm elections, which will decide if Republicans maintain control of Congress and the ability to enact Trump's agenda. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. Democrats are expected to closely contest the North Carolina race. Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper is considered a top potential Democratic candidate.
