April 14, 2025 FINAL MINUTSE
UnionCounty,NCBoardofCommissionersMeetingMinutes
UnionCountyGovernmentCenter
500NorthMainStreet
Monroe,NorthCarolina
www.unioncountync.gov
_____________________________________________________________________
Monday, April 14, 20255:15 PM Board Room, First Floor
Closed Session – There was no closed session.
Opening of Meeting - 5:15 PM
Invocation- Chair Melissa Merrell offered the invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance – Chair Merrell led the body and the audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Informal Comments
Chair Merrell read the guidelines for speakers commenting during the Informal Comments and recognized David Counter as the first speaker.
Mr. Counter stated that he is a resident of IndianTrail. , Union County.He explained that in December 2021, his wife of 11 years, Lee, was killed by a motorist driving 30 mph over the
posted speed limit. He noted that in an instant her life was snuffed out, as has happened to many others on North Carolina’s roads, and that the incident had forever changed his life.
Mr. Counter stated that the seven-car wreck in which his wife died occurred on the I-485 overpass, straddling Mecklenburg and Union Counties. He described the monthsfollowing his wife’s
death as among the hardest of his life, made even more difficult by the lack of support and advice available to survivors and families thatof victims of road traffic violence.
He noted that he was diagnosed with chronic depression and eventually referred to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s victim services group, which provides a monthly forum
to connect with fellow victims. Beyond this, he said he was left to fend for himself, which is common for many in the same position.
Mr. Counter shared that in orderto create something positive from the tragedy, he formulated a proposal for a network of support groups throughout North Carolina, beginning with thecreating
on ofone in Union County. He stated that a copy of the draft proposal had been provided to each Commissioner and expressed hope that they would read through it.
He expressed his trust that the Board would agree that showing carecaring for residents means supporting them in their greatest time of need, and he asked for the Board’s assistance
in creating a support group. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to voice his concern and asked the Board move forward with his proposal.
Chair Merrell responded to Mr. Counter stating that although the Board usually does not exchange comments with speakers, she wanted to say on behalf of the entire Board how sorry theyCommissioners
are for his loss. She acknowledged that he had provided each Commissioner with a copy of his proposal,and stated that she is committed to reading it.
Carolyn Burroughs stated that she is from the Alton community and has been coming and speaking at Board meetings for about two years requesting that the Short Line Water Project application
process be reopened. She asked again that the application process be reopened.
Loretta Melancon, a resident of Monroe, stated that her home is up for sale asand she is moving to a senior community in Mecklenburg County. She described the evening as a big, important
one and the culmination of her work since founding Litter Busters in 2017. She noted that she has worked tirelessly over the years and expressed thanks to a number of people, noting
many of them are no longer here but the most important one was Bjorn Hansen, who has been with the environmental committee since its beginning and the 2050 visioning, and Caleb Sinclair,
who joined later but has already made a big difference with solid waste in general and has been an encouragement to the litter committee.
Chair Merrell thanked Ms. Melancon for all that she has done for the County and expressed regret at her move from Union County.
She stated that public comments for the evening had concluded.
Public Hearing(s)
25-206Lifesaver Award
Chair Merrell recognized Assistant County Manager Clayton Voignier to present this award.
Assistant County Manager Clayton Voignier recognized Wendell Roberts to receive his second Lifesaver Award with Union County. Mr. Voignier said that Mr. Roberts works in the Facilities
and Fleet Management Department. He shared that Mr. Roberts was having lunch with his co-workersand encountered another individual in the restaurant who was choking and unable to breathe,
and was signaling for help. As a certified EMT and volunteer firefighter, Mr. Roberts immediately jumped into action, used the Heimlich maneuver, and successfully enabled the individual’s
ability to breathe.
Assistant County Manager Clayton Voignier noted that Wendell Roberts consistently seems to be in the right place at the right time and commended his selfless actions in saving livesa
life. He stated that Wendell truly deserves is truly deserving ofhis second Lifesaver Award.
Wendell Roberts accepted the award and was photographed with the Commissioners. Mr. Roberts thanked all first responders, including law enforcement, fire, EMS, and telecommunicators,
emphasizing that helping others is part of their work, on and off duty. what they do. He also expressed appreciation for being recognized.
Chair Merrell asked for consideration of the agenda and the consent agenda and inquired if there were any motions, requests, revisions, or amendments to either the consent agenda or
the business agenda.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the items listed on the consent agenda as published.
The Motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Consent Agenda
25-207Purchase - Software Subscription
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
This is a 12-month renewal for the Slack Enterprise Grid software. Slack
is a critical knowledge base and communication/collaboration tool,which is currently deployed by Union County Water. It is a one-stop shop for fast
and efficient communication, workflow-based communication,
information, documents, policies, forms, and other additional internal
integrations. The primary purposes for this software are: 1) Ease and
speed of communications, including threads and instant messaging,to
specific user groups and individuals, including help desk support and
immediate visibility to all employees of issues with critical systems, 2)
Ability for work groups to customize dedicated spaces called channels
and create updates relating to specific projects, systems, or programs with
instant visibility to all channel members, 3) Ease of access to documents
and information regardless of location or device used (desktop, tablet,
phone) which is important given the variety of workspaces for UCW, 4)
Integrations with other systems, including application management
support features with Water’s business systems help desk, and 5)
Customizable notifications and statuses that are not available with other
communications platforms to ensure all employees see important
messages relevant to them in a timely manner.N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(3) and N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(9) allow localgovernments to make purchases through a competitively bid NorthCarolina Statewide
Term Contract or a Group Purchasing Program. Thepurchase of the technology tool will be made using North Carolina NDIT-400419 as quoted by Carahsoft Technology Corporation.
The anticipated cost for the technology tool is $75,158.00 and is
budgeted accordingly for FY2025.
25-213Contract Renewal - Firing Range Cleaning Services
INFORMATION CONTACT:
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
The Union County Sheriff’s Office (UCSO) is requesting to enter into a
contractual service agreement with ACL Carolina Inc. The cleaning
service is essential to the safety of officers thatwho will be using the range fortraining. Clean up includes the removal of debris, such as lead, using heavy-duty equipment.
The Union County Sheriff's Office has utilized the contractual services of
ACL Carolina Inc., for Lead Clean-Up Services since 04/01/2024. The
contractor has been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs,
and we are requesting to continue this service for an additional one-year.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $81,000.00 and is budgeted
Accordingly, for FY2025, with future expenditures dependent upon BOCC
budget appropriation.
25-212Contract - Modular Building Rental
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
Modular Office rental for Solid Waste staff for twenty-four months during
the construction of a permanent operations building located at the Union
County Landfill. This contract will include a temporary modular office,
waste holding tank, freshwater system, delivery, setup, and teardown.
The anticipated two-year cost for this service is $114,912.48 and is
budgeted accordingly for FY2025, with future expenditures dependent
upon BOCC budget appropriation.
25-204Resolution - Conveyance of Surplus Vehicle
ACTION:Adopted Resolution Authorizing Conveyance of Certain Union CountySurplus Property to Lanes Creek Volunteer Fire Department.
Lanes Creek Volunteer Fire Department has requested vehicle 18-15, a
2015 Chevrolet Silverado that was assigned to the Fire Marshal’s Office.
The Fire Marshal’s Office has replaced the vehicle, and it is no longer in
service. Lanes Creek Volunteer Fire Department will use the vehicle to
transport command staff for administrative tasks, training, and emergency
response.
25-201Resolution - Surplus Vehicle Sale
ACTION:Adopted Resolution Authorizing Surplus Property Sale by Internet Auctionwhich 1) declares the property itemized on Attachment A as “Surplus” tothe needs of Union County, 2) authorizes
sale at electronic auction of thesurplus property described in Attachment A as per the terms andconditions as specified in the online auction service provider contract, and3) authorizes
the Procurement Director or her designee to execute anyand all documents necessary to transfer title to said property on behalf ofUnion County.
North Carolina General Statutes allow the disposition of personal property
by local governments through a variety of means, including private
negotiations and sale; advertisement for sealed bids; negotiated offer,
advertisement, and upset bid; public auction; or exchange. In 2001, the
legislature amended the Statutes to provide for the disposition of property
through anelectronic auction.
The sale will begin April 15, 2025, at 9:00 AM and end April 25, 2025,
with incremental closings as indicated on Attachment A.
The vehicles are to be picked up at 610 Patton Avenue, Monroe, NC, with
the following terms of sale:
1. Sale to the highest bidder, with all sales final.
2. All items sold “as is” with no warranty, expressed or implied, which
extends beyond the description of the item.
3. Purchasers must remove vehicles(s) within ten (10) business days
from the time and date of issuance of the Buyer’s Certificate.
4. Payment must be made online through the online auction website.
Payment in full is due not later than five (5) business days from the time
and date of the Buyer's Certificate. Payment will not be accepted onsite.
Estimated revenue is $45,000. The revenue will be returned to the fund
from which the asset came.
25-210Resolution - Surplus Equipment Sale
ACTION:Adopted Resolution Authorizing Surplus Property Sale by Internet Auctionwhich 1) declares the property itemized on Attachment A as “Surplus” tothe needs of Union County, 2) authorizes
sale at electronic auction of thesurplus property described in Attachment A as per the terms andconditions as specified in the online auction service provider contract, and3) authorizes
the Procurement Director or her designee to execute anyand all documents necessary to transfer title to said property on behalf ofUnion County.
North Carolina General Statutes allow the disposition of personal property
by local governments through a variety of means, including private
negotiations and sale; advertisement for sealed bids; negotiated offer,
advertisement, and upset bid; public auction; or exchange. In 2001, the
legislature amended the Statutes to provide for thedisposition of property
through anelectronic auction.
The sale will beginonApril 15, 2025, at 10:00 AM and end onApril 25, 2025, at10:00 AM as indicated on Attachment A. The equipment is to be pickedup at 4600 Goldmine Road, Monroe, NC
28110 & 8299 Kensington Dr.,Waxhaw, NC 28173, with the following terms of sale:
1. Sale to the highest bidder, with all sales final.
2. All items sold “as is” with no warranty, expressed or implied, which
extends beyond the description of the item.
3. Purchasers must remove item(s) within ten (10) business days
from the time and date of issuance of the Buyer’s Certificate.
4. Payment must be made online through the online auction website.
Payment in full is due not later than five (5) business days from the
time and date of the Buyer’s Certificate. Payment will not be
accepted onsite.
Estimated revenue is $44,000. The revenue will be returned to the fund
from which the asset came.
25-211Contract Renewal - Agenda Software
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
The Information Technology Department has utilized the contractual
services of Granicus LLC / D.B.A. GovDelivery for Agenda Management
Software since July 2020. The company has been effective and efficient
in meeting our service needs, and we are requesting to continue this
service for an additional twelve months.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $57,862.19 and is budgeted
accordingly for FY2025, with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC
budget appropriation.
Information Only
25-209Monthly Communications Report for March 2025
ACTION: No action was requested. This item was for information only.
This report provides valuable metrics and insights into communication
platforms and our efforts to collaborate with all County departments to
inform and engage residents, promote programs, and services, and
strengthen internal and external communications.
25-229Human Resources Reports for March 2025
ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for information only.
BACKGROUND:
These reports include all new hires, separations from service, and
retirements for Union County Local Government for the month of March
2025.
Business
25-223Union County 2050 – Litter Committee Recommendations
Chair Merrell recognized Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner, to present this item.
Mr. Hansen provided an update regarding work assigned to the Litter Committee last spring. He noted that the issue of litter was identified in the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. The implementation
committee was appointed by the Board of Commissioners in late 2021, and the committeemet for six months and developeddeveloping eight strategies, which were recommended by the Planning
Board.
Mr. Hansen explained that these recommendations were presented to the Board last spring along with other implementation strategies. At that time, the Board requested additional evaluation
of these strategies, including cost and resource implications.
He stated that the committee was given 12 months to complete its work, but it completed the work in eight months.
Mr. Hansen recognized committee chair, Scott Abramsonto present the results.
Mr. Abramson said he resides in Waxhaw. He shared that it was his honor to serve as chair of the Litter Task Force. He shared that the task force reviewed the recommendations in the
2050 Comprehensive Plan, which includedincluding eight recommendations from 2022. He explained that the task ofthe committee’s task was to evaluate the eight recommendations and determine
whether they were appropriate to move forward.
He said the Board asked for a 12-month review. He shared that there were four committee members on the committee, and they looked atreviewed each recommendation in detail. He expressed
that he could not say enough about Mr. Hansen and Caleb Sinclair, Solid Waste Director, who brought in people in to educate the committee.
Mr. Abramson referred to a table displaying the 2022 recommendations that the committee reviewed, and said the committee had prioritized them. the recommendations.He briefly reviewed
the recommendations as follows:Apply for Keep America Beautiful (abbreviated KAB)Establish a formal Litter Task Force CommitteeFund a new position within the county to coordinate litter
reduction initiativesEnhance multidisciplinary action and dumping enforcement effortsShift hours of convenience center sitesExpand hazardous materials disposal programs to make them
available year-roundImplement a fixed cost fee for use of county facilitiesAdvocate for a statewide bottle deposit bill as part of the county's legislative agenda
He pointed out that the committee added a ninth recommendation. He stated that the three not recommended were shifting hours of convenience centers, expanding hazardous materials disposal
programs to make them available year-round, and adding a fixed cost fee for use of county solid waste facilities.
Mr. Abramson explained that these were the recommendations the committee proposed after being educated on all the programs and resources available in Union County.
He stated that in orderto make the best use of time, the committee combined certain initiatives togetherin the slide deck, including Keep America Beautiful, establishing a formal litter
committee, and funding new positions.
He stated that Keep America Beautiful is an effective affiliation in other communities and described how representatives from Adkin, South Carolina, came in and explained the program.
He noted the presentation showed the real value of KAB, including how it was implemented and recognized, and the committee stronglybelievesstronglythat Union County should adopt the
program.
Mr. Abramson explained that the KAB affiliation requires a board to oversee its work, which would be the formal litter committee, and that any program requires staff coordination.
Mr. Abramson said the committee recommended two additional staff positions, acknowledging the funds required, but noting that if the county wanted to address litter and the programs
suggested, these resources were added. He stated that the staff would report to the Solid Waste Director, who knows how to manage people well.
For the Keep America Beautiful program, the committee recommended naming it Keep Union County Beautiful to maintain clarity and recognition. Mr. Abramson concluded by noting the annual
cost would be $200,000 to $250,000 per year, including salaries, benefits, and equipment, with a one-time cost for a truck.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted there is a startup fee of $1,650 for the Keep America Beautiful Program and a $1,000 annual membership. He asked what is included in the annual membership.
Mr. Abramson explained that they would be getting the backing of all the Keep America Beautiful experts and their resources. He stated that anytime there is a resource or someone who
will mentor the committee, that is what the fee covers, as understood from the South Carolina representatives. He added that there are other benefits with the membership, which Mr. Sinclair
and Mr. Hansen could mention to the Board at another time.
Mr. Abramson provided more detail on costs, stating that the coordinator position would be $60,000 to $70,000 per year plus benefits, and the field worker as part of the litter pickup
crew would be $50,000 per year plus benefits. He further noted that materials, marketing, cleanup equipment, and office equipment would cost $30,000 to $50,000 per year, and these costs
are reasonable compared to today’s wages, and added that the cost for a pickup truck is $55,000.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how long staff projected the pickup truck would last, noting that it is not truly a one-time fee but would recur over several years.
Mr. Abramson agreed that this is true and stated that a pickup truck typically lasts four to six years.
Chair Merrell added that there would also be ongoing costs for insurance, oil changes, tires, and fuel.
Mr. Abramson confirmed that those costs could be part of the $30,000 to $50,000 allocated for materials and equipment.
Commissioner Sides stated that he does not see as many of the green signs as he once saw. He recalled a prior program, possibly through NCDOT, where an organization would be responsible
for keeping a street or area clean and would have the right to post a green sign acknowledging the group. He asked whether that program is still active.
Mr. Abramson stated that the program exists because it was discussed during the task force meetings. He noted that Mr. Sinclair provided information and mentioned groups similar to Adopt-a-Highway,
and that bags of collected trash can be seen along the roads.
Commissioner Sides commented that he did not see that as one of the action plans but suggested that the committee reach out to various organizations to encourage other groups to enroll
in the program and be active.
Mr. Abramson said that he is the commander of District 17 of the American Legion, which has 16 posts. He explained that in the Marine Corps, he conducted what were called police calls,
organizing members around their posts to pick up litter because of the unsightly trash. He noted that he tried to do his part and that the program is being expanded. He added that the
coordinator position would help coordinate these types of activities.
Commissioner Sides clarified that the coordinator would act as both coordinator and recruiter.
Mr. Abramson agreed and noted that the committee combined the multidisciplinary anti-dumping efforts grant and the statewide bottle bill. He highlighted that the grant was an additional
item that wasbeyond the original eight from 2022.and added the addition of the grant.
Mr. Abramson stated that people need to be motivated not to litter, and that this whichinvolves enforcement. He explained that there must be something to incentivize people not to litter.
Mr. Abramson explained that the new litter coordinator position would monitor the status ofenforcement and grant execution. He said this emphasized how valuable the coordinator role
could be in Union County. He said the coordinator would also coordinate and follow up with the sheriff’s department, environmental health, code enforcement, and planning on reported
issues. He shared that Mr. Hansen and Mr. Sinclair had brought in representatives from the sheriff’s office to speak with the committee, and the committee asked whether tickets were
everissuedwritten, whether anyone was ever fined, and whether laws existed to support the fines. He stated the response was that the laws were in place, but no one could recall the
last time someone had been fined. He said this was an area that really needed to be stepped up.
Mr. Abramson stated that everyone living in Union County sees the litter when driving around and also sees areas where people dump items. He said they had observed couches, black garbage
bags, refrigerators, and various other items.
Mr. Abramson stated that the cost of thegrant cost was suggested because the dumping takes place on private property. He said that if someone talks to the landowners, they are going
towill be upset. He stated the committee suggested instituting a grant program to assist them in the cleanup, and that would resolve most of the issue with the landowner. He explained
that this was why the committee was really pushing to get that grant in the program and add it as the ninth item.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that recently,his family had something like this occur, where family members had property where there had been dumping, and they reached out to the sheriff’s
office. He said he wanted to give the deputies a pat on the back,because, as he understood it, therewas at least one deputy who handled the majority of investigations withinvolving
dumping practices.
He said he knew the deputies were busy whenever these incidents were reported. He stated that they were putting upinstalling cameras and checking for any kind of evidence to trace the
dumping, but it remained an issue, and he was glad it had been brought up.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, in his experience, the sheriff’s office does a great job. He recognized Sergeant Presson, noting that the staff is following through whenon these
incidents when they are reported. He added that the $5,000 pilot program should be considered because much of the dumping occurs on private property, which imposes a cost on residents
who have done nothing wrong. He stated that, as he understood it, the program would provide at least some relief to those residents if that is what is being proposed.
Commissioner Baucom noted that he may have missed it earlier, referring to a slide two slides back under cost details. He asked Mr. Ambramson to touch on that topic again.
Mr. Ambramson said he would do his best to explain. Based on his understanding, when the Keep America Beautiful representatives from Aiken County and the other towns met with them, there
was an initial initiation fee of $1,650 to get set up in the system and acclimated to how they conduct business.
He added that the $1,000 fee is the annual fee, which provides access to resources. He noted that using these resources onat a state or even national level comes with a cost, but emphasized
that $1,000 is a minimal expense.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked about what resources are availablewhat resources would be available,and what would be provided for the $1,000 fee. She requested that Mr. Ambramson
go into some detail on the topic.
Mr. Ambramson explained that what the Keep America Beautiful representatives were saying is that there are different programs for recycling and litter pickup, and how to organize those
programs. He noted that if a program needs to be established, it is goingto will take some time.He added that they have experts in each of those categoriescategory whether it is recycling,
pickup, or a community event, who will actually send someone out to help organize the event. He mentioned that they have a “can program,” which reminded him of a franchise. He said that
nowadays a franchise fee nowadays is like $700,000, but they are only charging $1,000 annually to use that franchise knowledge.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Commissioners Baucom and Christina Helms for raising the issue, explaining that his concern was about whether paying $1,650 plus a $1,000 annual membership
for a sign located somewhere provides value.
Mr. Ambramson agreed and reiterated that when a franchise-style approach is used, the experts support are supportingmultiple communities, which is why a fee is charged for their time.
25-220FY2025 3rd Quarter Revenue and Expense Projections
Chair Merrell introduced the next agenda item, 25-220, regarding the Fiscal Year 2025 third-quarter revenue and expense projections, and recognized Jason May, Budget and Grants Management
Director, to address this item.
Mr. May explained that much of what he would cover was a recap. He noted that the third quarter for FY25 closed in the financial software on April 10th, and his team was working diligently
to prepare the third-quarter report for both revenues and expenses. He said thatalthough he did not have the completed report, he planned to present it on May 1st and apologized for
not having it ready.
Mr. May reviewed the current bifurcated tax rate to provide more detail than what was discussed at Thursday’s meeting with the Board of Education. He emphasized that even in a revaluation
year,which is the current focus,his team continues work to ensure organic growth forin ad valorem through new development and rehabilitation of both commercial and residential properties.
Mr. May explained that what they reviewed the previous four years of ad valorem tax growth, which has been about 4.19 percent. He stated that applying that onto the current tax base
provides about $13,887,506 for all funds, noting that they are reviewing five different funds. He said this breaks out with the general fund getting about $3.8 million; the debt fund
will get a little over $400,000; and the economic development fund will get about $92,111.
Mr. May explained that his department is working with thetax administration. He noted that they are currently using a growth rate of 47.27 percent, which may change as Mr. Harrell goes
through his appeals process. He said the current revenue tax rate is $0.4159 per thousand dollar mil, and the revaluation number is $6,081,022.
Mr. May then spoke about sales tax dollars, saying that since Thursday, the market rebounded on Friday but continued to decline on Monday, and they are closely watching the situation.
He explained that with so much economic uncertainty being pumped into the economy, it gives everyone pause in trying to figure out what will be received about 16 months from now. He
shared that using the 4 percent growth discussed on Thursday, the general fund would see a little over $2 million increase, and the education debt fund would see just over $904,000.
Mr. May said that key dates include receiving the Union County Public Schools budget request in detail on May 15th, aiming to get the manager’s recommended budget to the clerk by the
end of the month, presenting and holding a public hearing on June 1st, and passing the budget on June 16th.
Mr. Matthews noted that they are still running through the budget process and that the number may change somewhat, but he wanted to point out to the Board and the public that they are
required to report a revenue-neutral tax rate. He explained that the revenue-neutral tax rate includes organic growth, and the General Assembly’s calculation incorporates that growth.
He pointed out that the number in the middle of the screen is 41.59cents on the 100, while the current rate is 58.85 cents on the100,a significant decline from the current rate to the
revenue-neutral rate.
Mr. Matthews said the Board will need to consider other challenges, including debt and voter-approved items, which must be built into the budget. He noted that they are working at the
staff level to ensure the budget addresses future needs and will bring something close to the revenue-neutral rate. He reassuredemphasized that the Board and taxpayers should understand
that staff will not be recommending keeping the same tax rate;it will be lower.
Mr. Matthews also highlighted the penny value, noting that it has gone up from a little over $4 million to a little over $6 million. He explained that while this may change slightly
as more and better data come in, a penny generates a significant amount of additional revenue, which is why the revenue-neutral rate is significantly lower.
Mr. Matthews said he is confident that when the Manager’s recommended budget is presented to the Board, they will see that staff have done their best to stay as close to the revenue-neutral
rate as possible.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he appreciates the explanation, noting that the community has voiced concerns, especially in the face of reassessment,and probably every member of the
Board has been contacted about it. He expressed that he is glad to hearthestaff is keeping as close to revenue neutralor as closeas possiblein developing the Manager’s budget.
He asked Mr. Matthews or Mr. May to provide more detail about how the value of a penny is calculated, for the benefit of both the Board and the public.
Mr. May explained that when they run through the process they discussed earlier: taking the tax base at the end of 2025, adding the accelerator based on the average growth over the past
four years, which gives a new numberofapproximately $13.8–13.9 million.
He stated that then reverse out of thatthey take the $13.9 million, add it to the entirety of ad valorem taxes from the prior year, and reverse back to determine what the tax rate would
be with the new tax base that has been revalued at an increase of nearly 50 percent. He said thisyieldsproduces the revenue-neutral tax rate, which is then multiplied by the collection
rate of 99.5 percent.
Mr. May emphasized that it involves a lot of algebra and careful calculation, but thatresults in the growth of nearly 50 percent, the penny value increasing from about $4 million to
$6 million, and the tax rate decreasing from nearly 60 cents to nearly 40 cents, speaking in larger, rounder terms.
25-208Capital Improvement Plan Budget and Debt Planning
Chair Merrell introduced the next item of business, 25-208, regarding the Capital Improvement Plan budget and debt planning, and recognized Beverly Liles, Finance Director, to address
the item.
Beverly said that today they have presentations on the County’s general Capital Improvement Program Budget and Debt Planning, noting that this does not include anything for solid waste
or water and sewer, as solid waste was presented last week and water and sewer capital projects were presented during the prior year’s rate changes.
She explained that a notebook had been provided containing detailed information on capital funding requests from departments and outside agencies, as well as debt models for all debt
funds for fiscal year 2026 and the impact of the tax rate needed for each.
Ms. Liles said there is a lot of information to share during the presentations and emphasized that they are looking for feedback. She noted that no action is requested tonight and that
they would hit the major highlights, asking the Board to communicate its priorities and goals for future capital planning and purchases, especially for the major capital projects that
facilities would present.
Ms. Liles said they are going to take a look overat the next six years for the major capital projects. She explained that the feedback received from the Board tonight helps the management
team, herself, and the budget team, and then they work with financial advisors to determine, based on the Board’s goals and priorities, what is affordable and how to finance items that
may not have an ongoing revenue source today.Ms. Liles stated she would be doingperforming a very high-level overview of the Government Finance Officers Association capital planning
best practices that are used nationwide by local governments to put together their capital budgets. She added that she would also provide a five-year summary of all capital requests
from the departments.She said the Board would hear from Facilities Director Chris Boyd, who would go over major capital projects in detail. She notedstated that thenotebook provided
re wasa detailed list of all CIP projects,in thenotebook provided, including repair and renovation requests as well as ongoing capital requests, whereso members could see what those
funds supported down to a very detailed project level.Ms. Liles stated that following her portion, Deputy Manager Patrick Niland would discuss the CIP needs for public safety, emergency
911 communications, and parks and recreation. She noted that in the notebook for those departments, there was a detailed list of the requests received from Union EMS, along with the
replacement schedule for the volunteer fire department’s Airpack replacements, as well asand a detailed schedule from parks and recreation for its repair and renovation requests.She
said the Board would hear from Clayton Voignier, Assistant County Manager, who would present the needs for information technology, security, and risk management. Ms. Liles said she would
then finalize the CIP presentation by a high-leveldiscussionof the Department of Transportation critical intersection program funding, the requests received from South Piedmont Community
College, and the draft request of the Union County Public Schools capital budget, which was presented at the Board’s meeting on Thursday night.Ms. Liles stated that in the notebooks,
there was also a detailed list for projects specific to SPCC and Union County Public Schools, showing the individual project details that make up the funding categories for them. She
said she would also present information on the County’s outstanding debt, upcoming debt issuances, and the impact on the tax rate impact for the new voter-approved bonds under discussion.
She noted that the focus would be mainly on the education debt fund, since that is the fund that will have a new tax rate impact going into FY26.She explained that all of the debt models
were included in the notebooks. She said that while the debt models were not included in the presentation, she would provide a high-level overview of the tax rate impacts. Ms. Liles
emphasized that everything being reviewed this evening was forward-looking, not looking back, and any current projects that were already funded would not be discussed.She added that
the notebooks contained a quarterly capital project report. She also said that for each major capital project, there was an individual detail sheet showing the phase of theprojectphase,
expenditures to date, and remaining balances through the end of March. She noted that this report included water, sewer, solid waste, and Union County Public Schools projects.Ms. Liles
stated that for the Government Finance Officers Association'sBest Planning Practices for a Capital Improvement Plan, the things that staff and the Board have to worry about internally
begin with whether a capital planning policy is in place. She noted that for Union County, there is aCIP policy that was adopted by the Board, which states that staff will present annually
a six-year CIP plan to the Boardannually.She added that the association also recommends having master planning and comprehensive plans in place. She reminded the Board that the County
had just completed the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, which is used as a tool to guide the CIP process. She noted that water and sewer have regularly updated master plans, and the facilities
team also uses master planning tools to identifyhelp put togethermajor capital project needs. She referenced a space study conducted a couple of years ago and noted that Parks and Recreation
has completed its own master planning to determine future park needs.Ms. Liles said that multi-year capital planning is also recommended. She further explained that capital asset management
is another recommendation, which involves having procedures and tools in place to review currents assets and manage them effectively. She said the facilities team provides management
for the County by scoring current assets using a scoring matrix, which helps determine repair needs. She emphasized that these needs are reflected in the renovation and repair budget
and the individual projects listed in the detail sheets.Ms. Liles stated that they recommend communicating out towith citizens and being very transparent on major capital projects—what
taxpayers’ dollars are actually being spent on, or, in the case of water and sewer projects, what those rates are really going toward.She noted that the County did a really good job
with communicating this information during the Yadkin project, creating a separate website for citizens to see everything that was going on with the projects, including their status,
phase, and estimated completion dates.Ms. Liles then presented a very high-level five-year County capital summary, explaining that it shows theprogram requests by programfor each of
thedepartments that submitted requests. She said the summary shows the available revenue sources that are available, pointing out that it is balanced for FY26, but that looking ahead
into the future,there are some shortages. She stated that this is really where theystaff are looking for the Board’s feedback on priorities. She said that future revenue sources for
the identified shortages have not yet been identified, and they want to make sure the Board has a goal and a priority in place for what additional funding might be requested, whether
through financing or a tax rate increase.She noted that for FY26, the total capital request was $6.8 million. Of that, she pointed out that there is a contract in place with Union EMS
stating it should not carry over $500,000 of unassigned fund balance, and that it currently has excess funds. She explained that the recommendation is for Union EMS to spend down $1.5
million of its unassigned fund balance to meet its total capital request needed for FY26.In addition, Ms. Liles said there is PAYGO capital funding built into the education budgetary
fund for South Piedmont’s request at $375,000. She also noted that if the Federal Transit Grant for transportation is fully awarded, there is a project within the CIP totaling for a
total of$4.4 million for transportation renovation needs at the Union County Progress Building. She added that if those federal funds are not awarded, over time, the renovation needs
might not be funded or would instead need to be funded with County dollars.instead.Ms. Liles stated that this year it is recommendedto fund ing all of the capital requests with unassigned
fund balance. She reminded the Board that during the audit presentation, a schedule of unassigned fund balance available in the general fund was shown. She noted that the adopted Board
policy states that unassigned fund balance can be spent on one-time items, such as capital, or to paydown debt service. She explained that the recommendation for this year is to use
that fund balance for these one-time capital needs.Ms. Liles recognized Chris Boyd, Facilities Director, for the next portion of the presentation.Mr. Boyd stated he would be addressing
the Facilities Capital Improvement Plan. He noted that he had a few items to coverfirst: an overview of the funding groups, then an overview of the proposed CIP, and finally, some detail
on major capital projects.Mr. Boyd explained that the funding groups include four categories that make up the CIP. He said that major capitalareprojects are those that are over $500,000.
He explained that the second funding group is critical infrastructure, which can be any cost, and statedthatthey are at critical facilities that address critical systems and/or critical
functions.He explained that the next category is facility repair and renovation, which includes projects ranging between $200,000 and $500,000. Finally, he said that operating capital
projects are less than $200,000.Mr. Boyd presented a summary of a proposed CIP for the six-year plan from FY26 to FY31. He noted that the first two categoriesrepair/renovations and operating
capital,are detailed in the workbook for those who want more information. He explained that since 2019, the goal had been to keep these two lines fairly consistent in funding levels.He
pointed out that following those two lines across the plan shows a moderate increase every two yearsof about 5 percentevery two years, or roughly 2.5 percent annually. He stated that
for the current year, they are recommending $1,350,000 for repair and renovation and $800,000 for operating capital.He referred to the jail project, which is currently listed as TBD.
He said he would share more information about the process and status later.Mr. Boyd also noted thatthe transportation project is included in the plan, but clarified that it is planned
to be funded through a federal grant program and not with general County dollars at this point.Mr. Boyd noted Ms.LilesLiles’pointed out that if the project is not approved, the County
will have to make some decisions about whether the project moves forward or if the County wants to fund it. He added that he did not have a project-specific or detail sheet for that
project that evening.He shared that the project is intended to build offices to support the Transportation Services Department in the Progress Building, in Warehouse B, which isthe original
warehouse. He explained that it would include spaces for driver touchdown areas, where employees can sit, work on a computer, and complete time sheets. He said the project would also
include a large training room, a dispatch center, and typical spaces such as restrooms and other necessary facilities.Mr. Boyd stated that the total project budget for the projectis
currently $4.4 million. He explained that the $275,000 grant funding really gets the project started in design, but they wanted to include it because the department wants to get started
in the next fiscal year. He added that they wanted to present it to the Board early, noting that some grant requests had already been brought to the Board by Teresa Torres.Vice Chair
Brian W. Helms asked whether there was any idea aboutof the timeline for knowing if the grant would be approved.Ms. Liles responded that the County applies for that grant annually and
that notification had been received for the first grant award for the first year they applied. She explained that the federal fiscal year lags has atwo-year lagtwo years from the County’s
fiscal year, and that notification had just been received. She noted that at the Board’s last meeting, a budget amendment had been doneapproved for the first phase to add additional
funds to the CIP budget, but as far as all of it in whole,that action will not be known until next fiscal year.Mr. Boyd stated that in FY26, the only funds being recommended for major
capital are those previously discussed.He then moved to critical infrastructure projects, noting that there are two. He explained that one is a judicial project to domake provisions
for a temporary generator connection, similar to what was done at the Government Center when its generator was replaced. He added that if there were a generator failure, a temporary
generator could be rolled in to keep the building operational.He described the second project as fueling stations at three locations. He noted that the Board recently approved one at
the new Sheriff’s Office and that there are plans to add one at the Progress Building and one at the Union County Water Operations Center to complete fueling the infrastructure for fueling.
He said that $225,000 is budgeted for each of those stations, which is much less than what the Sheriff’s Office costs, explaining that it is a different scenario, not as a secure area.
Mr. Boyd stated that for FY26, the facilities capital needs total $2,745,000. He added that the total over the six-year span is $27,960,000. He noted that this does not include the jail,
and that whatever decision and direction the Board provides regarding the jail will impact the CIP moving forward.Chair Merrell asked for clarification regarding the fueling stations,
specifically whether the $225,000 was for all three or for each station.Mr. Boyd stated that the $225,000 is for each fueling station. He explained that the projects are spread outspan
over two years. He said one station has already been funded, and two remain, which are planned overfor the next two years.Mr. Boyd stated that the jail project is still pending. to
be determined. He pointed out that the capital project sheet in the notebook shows the 500/600-bed scenario in 2027. He emphasized that the placement will be adjusted based on the Board’s
direction, and it does not indicate a decision, but the staff wanted to place it somewhere. He explained that the next phase of the jail study is expected to be completed very soon and
will include new refined estimates for a 500-bed/600-core facility and the 400-bed/600-core facility options as directed by the Board. He added that operational cost models for both
sizing options will also be provided, targeting the first week of May,and staff will work to determine whatthedate to present them to the Board.Mr. Boyd then discussed another jail project
for the roof replacement. He noted that if a new jail is approved, this project could be removed, with only temporary repairs made until the new jail is completed. He emphasized that
the roof is in horrible condition, covering approximately 24,000 square feet. Mr. Boyd next discussed Cane Creek Park, an outdoor recreation center and storage facility programmed for
FY27 with a total budget of $865,000.He explained that the project’s scope of the projectis to build a roughly 2,000-square-foot pre-engineered facility. The facility will include dedicated
storage space for park supplies, materials, and equipment, as well as some office space and a meeting space for public on-site events and programs available to the public.He noted that
over the years, staff in the outdoor recreation department has increased from a one-man shop to an eight-manshop, some of whom are seasonal employees. Mr. Boyd said the demand for services,
as well as the types of services offered, has changed the need for storage and operational space. He added that the project’s budget breakdown for the projectis also included.Commissioner
Sides asked whether the space would include any stalls for horses or animals participating in events, clarifying that it would not be intended as any kind ofbarn.Mr. Boyd responded,no,
and explained that it willwould be used mostly for lake activities. He added that the storage will accommodate arts and crafts supplies, small hand tools, ATVs, kayaks, paddleboards,
archery equipment, and outdoor movie equipment.Mr. Boyd then discussed the Progress Building and site improvements, programmed for FY27 with a budget of $2,900,000.He explained that
the scope of work mainly involves exterior improvements to roads and parking. He stated there is a plan for a single-bay vehicle wash station, noting that the Transportation Department
regularly washes vehicles; the Sheriff’s Office stores most of theirits specialty equipment; and Emergency Services has similar needs. He added that discussions about a vehicle-wash
station have been ongoing since he began. He noted that the project will include a single-bay wash station and that a vehicle fueling station may also be included,depending on whether
this capital plan is approved. He explained that it would be rolled into the CRI project and donethem at the same time, and stated this is how the budgets broke down for the project,
and noted that he included a comment regarding the CRI project on the fueling station.Mr. Boyd discussed the Agriculture Center office and support expansion, programmed for FY28 with
a $7.5 million-dollar project.He explained that the scope of work includes two additions. Mr. Boyd described the first addition as a 3,200-square-foot office addition on the west face
of the facility at the front. He said the second addition is approximately 2,200 square feet at the south elevation near the entrance to the banquet halls. He stated this addition is
intended for event support and coordination.of events.He noted that this project was identified in the 2022 master plan. Commissioner Sides said he had been told that whenthe Ag Center
was originally designed withthe plans included a full commercial kitchen. He asked what kitchen capability exists and whether the expansion includes any increase in kitchen space.Mr.
Boyd responded that the expansion does not include the kitchen, but that the facility does have a commercial kitchen. He explained that it is mostly used for learning about cooking.Mr.
Boyd addressed the Progress Building Warehouse B roof replacement, programmed for 2030. He explained that it covers gets themthe period of time through the roof’s life cycle,of the roof,
which was installed in 1986 and is approximately 45 years old. He noted the project budget is $600,000. He added that there isare the original warehouse and an additional warehouse,
with the additional warehouse scheduled around 2035. He stated that the project will replace 34,000 square feet of roofing using the same type of roof.Commissioner Sides asked whether
there are any expansion or improvement plans for the event center.Mr. Boyd responded that there are no plans for expansion in the current five to six-year CIP.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
asked for clarification about the Progress Building roof, specifically the age of the roof.Mr. Boyd confirmed it was from 1986 and noted that there are active leaks.Mr. Boyd stated the
last major capital project in the CIP, the Patton Avenue parking and stormwater improvements, programmed for FY2031 with a budget of $850,000.He explained that Patton Avenue is home
to the Fleet Maintenance Group and the Emergency Vehicle Installation Shop, also known as the radio shop. He noted that parking has been a longstanding problem, and it has become worse
with the addition of the emergency vehicle equipment installation shop. He added that the area serves not only customers coming for service work but surplus vehicles, wrecked vehicles,
newly delivered vehicles awaiting processing, trailers, and other large equipment are stored at this site. He explained that moving equipment is particularly difficult when the ground
is wet, which drives the need for this project.Mr. Boyd stated that adding impervious areas requires stormwater management, including the construction of a pond as part of the project.
He asked if there were any questions about the project.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms commented regarding the Progress Building roof, suggesting that if that roof can achieve such a long
lifespan, then that same type of roof should be considered on the jail.Mr. Boyd responded that it is a metal roof, noting that metal roofs usually have a longer lifespan than asphalt
shingles, TPO, or built-up roofs.Commissioner Sides then asked a more general question, looking beyond the next five years to ten years. He referenced the approved a project to move
the Water Department out to Gold Mine Road and make other improvements, and asked whether, projecting five to ten years out, there will be a need for additional accommodations, office
space, or non-warehouse, non-heavy-duty space that the County will require.Mr. Boyd responded that the County addressed this in the 2022 master plan, anticipating growth through 2045
and putting together some projects. He noted, however, that the costs associated with all of that were too high. He added that staff is working through ideas on how to manage growth
moving forward, but there are no concrete plans beyond the five years. He suggested that in 2027, it will be necessary to revisit master planning, as five years is typical for updating
the master plan.Brian Matthews, County Manager, responded to Commissioner Sides’ question, confirming that some space needs are anticipated. He noted that, as Mr. Boydindicated, the
County is currently looking for ways to accommodate space for other users, such as Judicial and the Public Defender’s Office. He explained that the County currently leases several of
these spaces and is exploring options to move out of the rental business and instead own more spaces. He added that staff is working on the strategies which are not yet reflected in
the CIP, and that they will be brought back to the Board for feedback. He concluded that it is anticipated there will be space needs across all areas that will need to be addressed in
the next five years or so.Commissioner Sidesstated that when he first came on the Board, during the new Commissioners’ orientation, there had been a FY26 project for design fees for
a UCPS administration building. He said it had not been requested by UCPS and was, therefore, considered moot and had been dropped.He said he wanted to look at it from a different angle,
from a space needs standpoint. He recalled when UCPS was actually in this building and then moved out to its current location because of space needs. He noted that the UCPS administration
may not have requested a new building, but for County needs, it makes sense to provide them a combined space that would free up not only their central office location but also the old
post office. He added that this approach would allow the County to consolidate their offices and free up considerable space for county’s needs. Commissioner Sides suggested that at least
the design work be returned go backinto the capital budget for next year. He noted that this is going to be longer than just planning because they will have to look at site selection.
He added that the County may not actually complete the planning process for a new facility in the next fiscal year, let alone start construction in 2027. Chair Merrell asked about Union
County Public Schools, noting that they have a facilities department similar to the County’s. She observed that the County had not recommended this project and UCPS had not requested
it. With Commissioner Sides urging consideration of a new central office, she asked for clarification on where the county stands on this, whether this is something being asked for or
not.Mr. Matthews explained that what Commissioner Sides was referring to had been included in previous CIPs as the possibility of a central administration building. He noted that conversations
had happened with staff at Union County Public Schools, but the initiative was driven by the County, not UCPS. He added that the County has space needs to address for Judicial, the Public
Defender’s Office, Juvenile Justice, and many other facilities for which the County provides space.He explained that the County looked at the situation and considered options. He said
one option was to build another building to regain backspace already owned, including the central administration building and the old post office, and have that new building occupied
by Union County Public Schools. He noted that it was really an exercise in how to accommodate space. He added that the Board would need to understand that this strategy would involve
building from scratch, likely a 30,000–35,000 square foot or larger facility, based on UCPS’s assessed needs, and that would not be inexpensive.He emphasized that the new building would
have to be funded in some way. He said another option being explored by the County staff is exploring ispurchasing an existing building that could be occupied either by County offices
or by the schools. He noted that the school administration building was removed from the CIP after hearing concerns from Board members that it was not requested by the schools and was
not a priority for them. He clarified that the project was more about the County’s space priorities, and while it is currently off the table, it remains an option, though expensive,
but there may be other ways to accomplish some of the goals at a lower cost.Commissioner Sides asked how the County would go about determining the best avenue to proceed.Mr. Boyd explained
that much of it is cost-driven. He noted that when the project was previously presented to the Board, there were concerns about how much it would cost. He added that, as Mr. Matthews
mentioned, staff is looking at alternatives and has been looking at options that are not included in the CIP because the analysis is not far enough along, which could result in lower
costs.Commissioner Sides stated that the County knows it will need additional space five years out or more. He emphasized that it is a matter of what is the most cost-effective whether
to move part of the County out or move UCPS out and utilize that space. He noted that five years is not a long time in terms of capital projects, considering site selection, funding
design, and actual construction. He said even if a decision were made immediately, it would likely take four to five years before a project could be completed. He added that if a building
is purchased and upfitted, the timeline might be slightly shorter, but there would still be some time required.Commissioner Sides said he wanted to know how the County goes about determining
where to go and what is a better alternative than putting back in the capital plan a building specifically for UCPS administration like was done for Human Services, and refitting that
space for County needs.Mr. Boyd responded that the County needs to finish the process of identifying alternate options versus building a new facility and conducting an analysis to determine
what makes the most sense from both a schedule and cost standpoint. He added that until all alternate options are fully evaluated, the County would not be able to analyze which is the
better option.Mr. Matthews explained that the process is similar to decisions made regarding the jail. He noted that while a facility can be built as large as desired, there is a cost
associated with its size. He said ultimately, it comes down to showing the Board all the options and determining the Board’s appetite for those capital costs. He said staff can present
how each option accommodates growth over the next years, the associated costs, and then the Board must decide on which option.Commissioner Sides asked whether it would be realistic to
expect those options in time to include in this fiscal year, or if it would be more appropriate as a project for the next fiscal year.Mr. Matthews responded that it is probably more
appropriate for next fiscal year.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation for Mr. Boyd bringing up alternate options, noting that it is important to keep an eye on possibilities
other than building a new facility. He acknowledged that the County likely has some space needs, which have been discussed, and he appreciated the County Manager’s willingness to recognize
that it is more fiscally responsible to buy rather than lease or rent office space, and stated he agreed. He noted that the figures presented, including what Ms. Liles showed regarding
future needs and current debt service, emphasize the necessity of getting creative in finding solutions. He observed that there is a significant need for resources and revenues in future
years.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms added that taking on additional debt service would also mean additional tax increases, which everyone must recognize. He stressed that while the County
has needs and necessary projects, it is important to be selective and prioritize those needs.He reminded the Board that there is a voter-approved school bond that the Board must determine
a strategy to fund it. He said he personally would rather see the County pay down debt than take on more. He concluded by urging his colleagues to be careful in selecting which projects
to pursue moving forward.Chair Merrell agreed and noted that Union County Public Schools has its own five-year CIP and is always looking five years out. She observed that many of their
schools are aging, and over the past few years they have brought to the Board of Commissioners for school replacement because repairing older schools can be more expensive compared to
replacement. She stated that the question comes down to whether the County wants a new central office or to focus on replacing aging facilities.She reflected on her eight years on the
Board of Education, noting that the focus has always been on maintaining aging facilities and determining when they should address replacements with the county. She referenced past bonds,
including the most recent design work for Parkwood, and mentioned that schools like Piedmont, built in the 1960s, are facing increasingly costly replacements of HVAC systems, kitchen
equipment, and roofs.Chair Merrell concluded that, given the current workload, there is already a lot to address, but she appreciated staff continuing to look at alternatives to accommodate
the need for extra space.Commissioner Sides echoed the point, stating that it is progress to recognize the issue and the timeframe in which it needs to be addressed before it becomes
more critical. He noted that the County needs the space fairly quickly and emphasized that exploring alternatives allows the County to act without scrambling at the last minute. He expressed
support for Mr. Boyd’s approach and agreed that adding any building to the CIP at this time would be premature until all options have been explored.Deputy County Manager Patrick Niland
explained the SCBA (Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus) Airpack fund, consists of an air bottle, a breathing regulator, the face mask, and in some cases can be outfitted with thermal
imaging cameras.He said the County started this fund a few years ago because departments were reaching the end of the useful life of these packs. Mr. Niland said most of the packs were
first-generation, and this technology did not exist 20 to 30 years ago. He stated that replacing them all at once makes sense because standards change over about a15-year useful life,
and old packs may not be compatible with new ones. He added that firefighters on a scene could run into problems if they needed to swap out regulators between packs.He noted that each
pack costs between $10,000 to $12,000, and small departments might need 20 to 30 packs, totaling $200,000 to $300,000 sometimes more than an entire annual budget for that department.He
explained that the County wanted to avoid these costs impacting one department in a specific year, which could cause tax rates to spike temporarily. He said that by prefunding the needs
in breathing apparatus, the County has been able to replace each department’s air packs in whole as they come up. He shared that over the past six years, every department in the County
has had its air packs replaced.He said there is now about a four-year window where a wholesale replacement will not be necessary. Mr. Niland stated that in fiscal year 2029, the cycle
will start over, and the $300,000 shown is level-funded in anticipation, with the hope that when needed,they will have enough money in the fund to start that cycle again. He said that
currently, there is very little fund balance because all packs have been replaced, but over time the fund will build up when the need arises.He concluded that the program has been fairly
successful, and the County is now in a period of maintaining level funding for a considerable period.Mr. Niland said that Ms. Liles had worked hard with EMS over the past couple of years
to develop a similar level-funded capital plan.He explained that the biggest cost for EMS is replacing ambulances. He said when a new ambulance is needed, theydonot buy a new ambulance,
but instead, the chassis which includes the frame, engine, transmission, and cab can be replaced, and the existing box can be transferred to the new chassis, extending the life of the
vehicle by four to five years. Mr. Niland said EMS is still dealing with the lingering effects of COVID, with chassis still having very long lead times. He explained that EMS has broken
up the process by purchasing chassis a year ahead of the build. He said they have been able to save a considerable amount of money and already have the inventory on hand when it is time
to build.He noted that occasionally every once in a whilethey do have tomust buy a completelynew ambulance with both a new chassis and a new box, but if they can reuse a box, they put
it on a new chassis and save a couple of hundred thousand dollars.He commented that looking at the five-year plan, thefunding for EMS capital staysremains fairly consistent, with just
a few dips for support vehicles such as Durangos, Expeditions, and supervisor vehicles.Mr. Niland then explained that the $166,000 under technology is for the Zoel stretchers. He stated
these are not the old, simple metal stretchers but highly mechanical ones with electronics, which makes them very expensive. He said moving forward,the plan is that as they buy a new
ambulance, whether just a chassis or a full box, a stretcher will be part of that process. He added that they had to replace many of them at one time, and this is the last in a series
of five payments. Mr. Niland addressed the Radio Tower South West Union project stating that they are currently in the process of working with the state to use an old highway patrol
tower to place some of the county’s equipment on its tower, which brought some cost savings.He explained that funds are being moved out of the Radio Tower South West Union project and
mostly into the bi-directional antenna work at the schools.He said the schools have been on a 400-megahertz legacy radio system that is a very good system, but nobody makes replacement
equipment for it anymore. He shared that they have had to buy parts offon eBay to try andin an attempt to maintain the system. He shared that the plan now is to move schools to the
800 megahertz system, the same system used by first responders and the state Viper network, which will give much better interoperability and parts availability.He stated that a few schools
will need an extra antenna because of the wavelength difference. Mr. Niland said the 400 system’s smaller wavelength could get into tighter areas, while the 800 system can struggle
in low-lying areas. He commented that the additional antennas will help resolve that problem.Mr. Niland commented on radio replacement and maintenance, explaining that the County maintains
approximately one thousand handheld radios for various departments, including volunteer fire departments, the sheriff’s office, parks and recreation, and utilities. He said from time
to time these radios break or they will have expansions that will need to be replaced, and the $150,000 allocation covers those needs.Mr. Niland explained that Mr. Boyd had reviewed
some of the major capital initems in the parks and recreation budget, which is maintained by parks and recreation staff. He said this budget covers bathhouses, cabin replacements, parking
lot repairs, and similar needs. He noted that the four main bathhouses at Cane Creek have not been updated in about 25 years. He said thebathhouses get heavy use, and the old tile structures
are inneed of repair, with most requiring complete gutting. having to be completely gutted.Mr. Niland explained that he and Ms. Liles have worked with Jim Chaffin, Parks and Recreation
Director, to get a level-funded capital plan. He said if they can get to a level-funded platform, it is easier to predict without those big jumps from year to year. Commissioner Sides
mentioned meeting with Mr. Chaffin early on and noted that part of the infrastructure needs included ground piping and systems in the groundthat need replacement, asking if that was
part of the CIP.Mr. Niland responded that there are always stormwater issues that are always part of the plan. He explained that most of Cane Creek is on a septic system, so there are
always repairs to underground water lines and septic fields.repairs. Assistant County Manager Clayton Voigner explained that he would be very brief regarding information technology and
security needs. He began with uninterruptible power supply infrastructure upgrades(UPS), infrastructure upgrades.He emphasized ing that these devices provide emergency battery backup
power to protect servers, phone systems, and connectivity equipment against any power outages or fluctuations. He noted that these have been funded ing at a level-funding ed for a few
years. He said this fiscal year, they plan to purchase two UPS devices, with current budget funds covering that purchase. Mr. Voignier stated that funds in future years are to cover
maintenance of those devices and a planned refresh that will be needed in seven to nine years, which is the typical life cycle for those devices.Mr.Voigner explained that Pictometry
imagery is the County’s aerial photography, providing high-level views of land, buildings, and other geographic features. He stated the County has used this service every two years since
2019 through Pictometry International Corporation. He shared that recently, staff negotiated with a company to provide annual flyovers with greater resolution at roughly the same cost,
which he considered a good deal. He shared thatfunding for FY26 is already included in the current CIP budget, and future numbers represent the annual costs needed to continue these
flyovers. He noted that several departments use this data, as well as members of the public, through the online GIS system.He stated that the request for AV equipment is simply for level
funding to continue upgrading and refreshing conference rooms at county facilities on a five-year cycle.Mr. Voignier said the request for security system upgrades is trying to obtainseeking
a somewhat level-funded approach ing for the cost of equipment and installation for security system upgrades at county facilities. He explained that the upgrades will be phased in over
a few years.Ms. Liles concluded the CIP presentation by noting that the only other county general fund project funded annually at a flat rate is the critical intersection projects, which
is done in partnership with DOT and CRTPO. She said the list shows current and previously funded projects. She added that Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner, and the Planning and Zoning Department
are working on new proposed projects, which are not included in the packet but can be found on the County’s website for those who want to explore the details. Ms. Liles explained that
South Piedmont Community College submitted a significant request this year for $7.7 million. She noted that the County typically funds SPCC’s ongoing annual operating and R & R-type
costs at $375,000. She pointed out that this year, the recommendation is to maintain that level of funding until a new president is in place, then they can revisit their entire CIP needs
and their long-term bond request. Ms. Liles explained that Union County Public Schools shared their draft budget at the joint meeting between the school board and the Board of Commissioners
the prior Thursday. She said the schoolssystemplans to request around $29 million if nothing changes in their recommended budget. She noted that this is an increase from their request
from the prior year,and the county currently funds about $19 million a year, plus some lottery R & R funds. She stated that the final request will be updated throughout the budget process,
and at this time, no recommended request is being shown until theschools’Board of Education’s final recommendation is received.Ms. Liles explained a slide showing current tax-supported
debt service costs by year, emphasizing that this does not include water and sewer debt, only debt supported by taxes. She pointed out that for general county debt in FY26, the debt
service payments are $7.3 million, and the education debt service fund is around $46 million, for a total of approximately $43 million in outstanding debt service payments that must
be paid in FY26. She reminded the Board that these bills have to be paidfirstbefore any other expenses are paid through the adopted tax rate.Ms. Liles explained that the current outstanding
principal amount, which Mr. Matthews had mentioned earlier, remains significant, with around $416 million in outstanding debt for both the County and education partners. She shared a
graph showing how the existing debt pays down over time, distinguishing the County’s portion and education’s portion, with the majority of the outstanding debt still related to Union
County Public Schools and South Piedmont Community College.She addressed future bond issuance plans. She reminded the Board that in FY25,it adopted a CIP project for the judicial center
and government center expansion and renovations, and, at that time, debt models were presented to issue a two-thirds general obligation bond to fund these projects. She clarified that
when a bond order is adopted for such projects, it is adopted for general county administration buildings, so if other alternatives arise over the next year, or if not all $13 million
is needed for the judicial center or other renovations, the funds can still be utilized for any general county administration building.She emphasized that issuing this $13 million in
debt does not require a tax rate increase, and the County can afford it without impacting the general county fund. Ms. Liles explained that the other two bonds planned for issuance in
July are both voter-approved. She said the first bond is for the schools, approved by voters this past November for $39.4 million. She said this bond will fund renovations at the existing
Forest Hills High School and East Union Middle School, and, as Chair Merrell alluded earlier, it also covers the design and pre-construction services for Parkwood High School.Ms. Liles
noted that the second bond issuance that was voter-approved bond is for South Piedmont Community College which were approved in the November 2022 referendum for a Center for Entrepreneurship.
She said the college is just now ready to start construction on the project, which is why the bonds had not been issued previously, as they were not ready to move forward with construction
following the bond election in 2022.Ms. Liles stated that for these three bonds, the County will move forward in the market in July to issue about $85 million in general obligation bond
debt.Ms. Liles explained that when looking at the existing and proposed debt service, the previous slide showed just the existing debt service, but this now adds in the new bonds that
will be issued. She stated of the $85 million total issuance, the debt service for the new bonds will be about $133 million with interest added in over the life of the bonds. She noted
these will be 20-year term bonds, and General Obligation (GO) Bonds are always issued at level principal with a five (5) percent interest rate. She said that in the first year, the
full debt service cost is not fully recognized, and the full payment is realized in the second year of issuance.Ms. Liles explained that,looking atcomparing the tax rates and debt models
in frontbefore the Board, everything shown reflects voter-approved debt for the tax rate impact. She reminded the Board that Union County Public Schools had a bond approved in 2022,
which was issued in spring 2023. She said, at the time, the County took every step it could to mitigate the tax rate impact, putting roughly $10 million into the education debt fund.
She noted that, in addition, premiums generated at the time of the bond issuance were applied to that fund to help pay the debt service costs down.She said that in FY24 and FY25, all
of that money has been spent down, and it is gone. Ms. Liles stated the bill is now coming duein full for those bonds in full, in addition to the school bonds that were justapproved
in November 2024. She said that during the bond referendum process, when the presentation was made to the Board, the tax rate impact for Union County Public Schools was expected to be
1.77¢. She stated that for South Piedmont back in 2022, the models showed 0.85¢, for a total of 2.62¢. Ms. Liles emphasized that this did not include the 2022 school referendum request,
and she had gone back and looked at what they had said then,and the tax rate impact would have been 3.5¢, even though it is not on the schedule.She explained that staff did the best
they could to mitigate any tax rate impact from that point forward, even up to today, for that particular bond. Ms. Liles said that during FY25, at the Board retreat, staff presented
debt models based on the current year’s penny value, not based on revaluation. She said at that time, based on market conditions, it was thought they might be able to generate some
bond premium with the upcoming bond, but with the current economic uncertainty, they are not counting on generating bond premium to pay any future debt service costs. She said at that
point, the schools’ estimated increase was 1.8¢.Ms. Lilesaddressed South Piedmont stating the estimated tax rate impact had dropped significantly from the time of the bond referendum
process to 0.28¢, for a total impact of 2.08¢. She stated that, looking at today’s models with the new revaluation, the new penny value being used is $6,081,022. She emphasized that
no bond premiums are being factored in, since those funds were fully spent on the 2023 bonds. She noted that they cannot predict the market to determine what a future bond sale might
generate,in premium thatwhich could be applied toward debt service costs.She said they have also factored in conservative estimates for sales tax. Ms. Liles said they are trying to be
very conservative with the growth factor for sales tax that is being factored into the education debt fund. She emphasized that this needs to be considered to help build a buffer against
any potential losses in sales tax revenue. She reminded the Board that, as covered in her audit presentation, there is a three-month lag, and sales tax does not come in until the end
of the year so even though debt service payments are already made, the cash is not in the bank yet. Ms. Liles explained that the new bonds included in the models are added in using a
five (5) percent interest rate, which is a conservative estimate based on today’s market. She said the models also factor in the total debt service cost for the voter-approved Union
County Public Schools bond and the South Piedmont bond. She stated that with all of that included and the new penny value, the estimated actual increase for FY26 for both schools and
South Piedmont comes out to 1.82¢, compared to what was estimated during the bond referendum process and prior to revaluation. She provided an example of the annual tax rate increase
impact for a property valued at $100,000, with the estimated 1.82¢ tax rate increase, the additional tax would be approximately $18.20. She said for an average Union County home valued
at $450,000, the estimated increase would be approximately $82 above revenue neutral for the education debt fund. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Ms. Liles if this page was included
in their packet, and if not, to please send the information to all the Commissioners. She explainedthe overall total tax rate needed for FY25 for the education debt fund. She said the
current tax rate for all current debt is 2.92 cents, and the revenue-neutral tax rate brings that down to 2.07¢. With the 1.82¢ increase that was just discussed for the new voter-approved
debt, the total tax rate needed in FY26 is 3.89¢. She said that as they continue through the budget process, if these estimates change, they will come back andreturn to update the Board.Ms.
Liles explained that to cover for the overall debt funds for the County, no increase is needed for the County’s general debt fund or the economic development fund. She said the current
tax rate for all debt funds is 5.06 cents, and the revenue-neutral tax rate drops that down to a new penny value to 3.59cents. She said adding the 1.82cents increase needed for the education
debt fund brings the total tax rate needed to 5.41 cents on the tax assessed value. She then asked if there were any questions.She said she would conclude her presentation by outlining
the next steps for capital planning and debt. She said staff will be coming backreturningthrough May and June, to finalize the steps that are needed for the upcoming bond issuances in
July. Ms. Liles stated that the first resolution and bond order will be scheduled for on the May meeting, followed by adoption of the budget ordinance in June. She said after that,
in July, staff will return with capital project ordinances to adopt the actual projects, and at that point, issue the voter-approved debt and the two-thirds bonds.Ms. Liles said that
over the next year, they will focus on revisiting all the long-term CIP plans with the County’s education partners, noting that it is time to update those plans. She emphasized that
staffwould work closely with the County’s education partners to update the long-term bond request needs and CIP needs. She also said they will continue to work on the general capital
project needs with new assessments and alternatives, and bring those back over the next year.Mr. Matthews commented thatthe County was very fortunate that the general fund was able to
adjust and avoid a tax rate impact on the 2022 school bonds. He saidemphasized it was indicated to the Board that any future debt would have an impact on the tax rate, and while the
tax rate impact has been conservative, the impact has actually decreased because the revaluation has assisted with the penny value and other factors.He also said that when he mentioned
earlier a revenue tax rate of 41.59 cents on the $100, that did not take into consideration what is needed for the school bonds and for the debt that is still outstanding. needs to be
paid. He added that the good news is it is less than what wasoriginally projected, but the bad news is there is still debtthat the County still has debt to be paid. s y.He concluded
by saying that staff has done a good job being conservative and finding ways to fund thingsitems without a rate impact, but the County is getting to the point where tough decisions will
have to be made.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Ms. Liles to clarify whether the bond referendum that voters saw was the 1.77 cents estimate?Ms. Liles explained that what had to be shown
to voters was the highest interest rate on a similar bond issuance in the last 20 years, which was a little higher. She said for this new bond, it was actually 0.8cents, not .77cents,
but the .77cents shown to the Board reflected the current market at 5 percent: it was the .77cents.Chair Merrell asked to clarify for herself and viewers that the increase needed column
was 1.82cents, but the total rate needed for 2026 went from 5.06cents to 5.41cents.Ms. Liles explained that the current tax rate is based on today’s penny value before revaluation is
added. She said today the rate is 5.06cents, but the revenue-neutral tax rate is required to be shown for budget adoption.Ms. Liles explained that the revenue-neutral tax rate, if nothing
else waswere changing and no new bonds were being issued, would only need a tax rate of 3.59cents. She said what has to be shown is based on the new penny value, what increase is required
after revaluation above what would normally be adopted for the revenue-neutral tax rate. She added that, looking at the current tax rate with all factors added in, after revaluation,
it is now 5.41 cents, and it is not much of a change from 5.06 cents, but they are required to show the revenue-neutral tax rate to the Board and to the citizens.Mr. Matthews noted that
essentially the 1.82cents would be added to the 41.59cents to cover everything, including debt and the revenue-neutral tax rate.Commissioner Sides asked if the 2022 bond had been oversubscribed,
and, if so, whether that was where part of the additional funding came from,thatwhich could be applied toward debt service.Ms. Liles confirmed that was correct.Commissioner Sides asked
if the premium would not be known until July.Ms. Liles explained that the premium is only known when the bonds actually go to market.Ms. Liles explained that the premium would not be
known until after the budget is adopted, and factoring a premium that is not guaranteed in the budget adoption is not something she would recommend.Commissioner Sides said that there
are no guarantees thatanything will happen even after the bonds are issued.Ms. Liles responded that was correct.Mr. Matthews acknowledged that it is a lot to digest and explained that
staff will continue refining the information and will bring back any additional impacts as they become known and seen.He added that the good news is that staff hashavedone a good job
trying to reduce the impact as much as possible.He also addressed questions about the tax rate and penny value, assuring the public that he, his team, and the Board are very concerned
with keeping the rate as low as possible to ensure everyone’s tax bill remains as low as possible.Commissioner CommentsCommissioner Baucom thanked staff for giving the Commissioners
plenty to digest and think about, noting it was just a lot to take in, but expressing confidence they would get on top of it. He said he also appreciated County Manager Matthews’ comments
about staff trying itsthere best to keep the tax rate as low as possible. He wished everyone a safe and meaningful Passover season and hoped everyone would be careful on the way home.Commissioner
Christina Helms had no comments.Chair Merrell said she would pass on comments for tonight, but wanted to thank staff for all the heavy lifting involved in preparing and delivering the
presentation, expressing appreciation for everything brought to the Board and the work it took to get it ready.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to Mr. Counter for being
present and sharing his story, and also acknowledged Loretta Melancon for all of her efforts over the years in keeping Union County clean and litter-free.He also thanked Ms. Liles, Mr.
May, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Niland, and Mr. Voignier, and Mr. Boyd for their work. He said this has been a tremendous amount of work for the staff and expressed that at least the Board sees
it, and he hopes the public sees the effort that was made to get them in a position where they can talk through and look at the effects these things have on the budget and ultimately
on the tax rate.He noted that there are obviously some voter-approved items that need to be funded and considered, and that the staff has given the Board plenty to review and consider.
look at and think about.He acknowledged the great effort that staff hasdonehave made and said he is convinced they have great folks working on these budgets.He echoed Commissioner Baucom’s
comments, mentioned Easter is coming up, wished everyone a happy Easter, and said his prayer for everyone is to remember the meaning of Easter.Commissioner Sides thanked staff for providing
the excellent information and wished everyone a happy Easter.AdjournmentAt approximately 7:22 p.m., Chair Merrell moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion passed unanimously
as follows: Chair Melissa M. MerrellAyeVice Chair Brian W. HelmsAyeCommissioner Clancy BaucomAyeCommissioner Christina B. HelmsAyeCommissioner Gary SidesAye
UnionCounty,NCBoardofCommissionersMeetingMinutes
UnionCountyGovernmentCenter
500NorthMainStreet
Monroe,NorthCarolina
www.unioncountync.gov
_____________________________________________________________________
Monday, April 14, 20255:15 PM Board Room, First Floor
Closed Session – There was no closed session.
Opening of Meeting - 5:15 PM
Invocation- Chair Melissa Merrell offered the invocation.
Pledge of allegiance – Chair Merrell led the body and the audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Informal Comments
Chair Merrell read the guidelines for speakers commenting during the Informal Comments and recognized David Counter as the first speaker
Mr. Counter stated that he is a resident of Indian Trail, Union County. He explained that in December 2021, his wife of 11 years, Lee, was killed by a motorist driving 30 mph over the
posted speed limit. He noted that in an instant her life was snuffed out, as has happened to many others on North Carolina’s roads, and that the incident had forever changed his life.
Mr. Counter stated that the seven-car wreck in which his wife died occurred on the I-485 overpass, straddling Mecklenburg and Union Counties. He described the monthshis wife’s death
as among the hardest of his life, made even more difficult by the lack of support and advice available to survivors and families that victims of road traffic violence.
He noted that he was diagnosed with chronic depression and eventually referred to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s victim services group, which provides a monthly forum
to connect with fellow victims. Beyond this, he said he was left to fend for himself, which is common for many in the same position.
Mr. Counter shared that in order to create something positive from the tragedy, he formulated a proposal for a network of support groups throughout North Carolina, beginning with the
creation of one in Union County. He stated that a copy of the draft proposal had been provided to each Commissioner and expressed hope that they would read through it.
He expressed his trust that the Board would agree that showing care for residents means supporting them in their greatest time of need, and he asked for the Board’s assistance in creating
a support group. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to voice his concern and move forward with his proposal.
Chair Merrell responded to Mr. Counter stating that although the Board usually does not exchange comments with speakers, she wanted to say on behalf of the entire Board how sorry they
are for his loss. She acknowledged that he had provided each Commissioner with a copy of his proposal, and stated that she is committed to reading it.
Carolyn Burroughs stated that she is from the Alton community and has been coming and speaking at Board meetings for about two years requesting that the Short Line Water Project application
process be reopened. She asked again that the application process be reopened.
Loretta Melancon, a resident of Monroe, stated that her home is up for sale as she is moving to a senior community in Mecklenburg County. She described the evening as a big, important
one and the culmination of her work since founding Litter Busters in 2017. She noted that she has worked tirelessly over the years and expressed thanks to a number of people, noting
many of them are no longer here but the most important one was Bjorn Hansen, who has been with the environmental committee since its beginning and the 2050 visioning, and Caleb Sinclair,
who joined later but has already made a big difference with solid waste in general and has been an encouragement to the litter committee.
Chair Merrell thanked Ms. Melancon for all that she has done for the County and expressed regret at her move from Union County.
She stated that public comments for the evening had concluded.
Public Hearing(s)
25-206Lifesaver Award
Chair Merrell recognized Assistant County Manager Clayton Voignier to present this award.
Assistant County Manager Clayton Voignier recognized Wendell Roberts to receive his second Lifesaver Award with Union County. Mr. Voignier said that Mr. Roberts works in the Facilities
and Fleet Management Department. He shared that Mr. Roberts was having lunch with his co-workersand encountered another individual in the restaurantwas choking and unable to breath
and was signaling for help. As a certified EMT and volunteer firefighter, Mr. Roberts immediately jumped into action, used the Heimlich maneuver, and successfully enabled the individual’s
ability to breathe.
Assistant County Manager Clayton Voignier noted that Wendell Roberts consistently seems to be in the right place at the right time and commended his selfless actions in saving a life.
He stated that Wendell is truly deserving of his second Lifesaver Award.
Wendell Roberts accepted the award and was photographed with the Commissioners. Mr. Roberts thanked all first responders, including law enforcement, fire, EMS, and telecommunicators,
emphasizing that helping others is part of what they do. He also expressed appreciation for being recognized.
Chair Merrell asked for consideration of the agenda and the consent agenda and inquired if there were any motions, requests, revisions, or amendments to either the consent agenda or
the business agenda.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the items listed on the consent agenda as published.
The Motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Consent Agenda
25-207Purchase - Software Subscription
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
This is a 12-month renewal for the Slack Enterprise Grid software. Slack
is a critical knowledge base and communication/collaboration tool
currently deployed by Union County Water. It is a one-stop shop for fast
and efficient communication, workflow-based communication,
information, documents, policies, forms, and other additional internal
integrations. The primary purposes for this software are: 1) Ease and
speed of communications including threads and instant messaging to
specific user groups and individuals, including help desk support and
immediate visibility to all employees of issues with critical systems, 2)
Ability for work groups to customize dedicated spaces called channels
and create updates relating to specific projects, systems or programs with
instant visibility to all channel members, 3) Ease of access to documents
and information regardless of location or device used (desktop, tablet,
phone) which is important given the variety of workspaces for UCW, 4)
Integrations with other systems including application management
support features with Water’s business systems help desk, and 5)
Customizable notifications and statuses not available with other
communications platform to ensure all employees see important
messages relevant to them in a timely manner.N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(3) and N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(9) allow localgovernments to make purchases through a competitively bid NorthCarolina Statewide
Term Contract or a Group Purchasing Program. Thepurchase of the technology tool will be made using North Carolina NDIT-400419 as quoted by Carahsoft Technology Corporation.
The anticipated cost for the technology tool is $75,158.00 and is
budgeted accordingly for FY2025.
25-213Contract Renewal - Firing Range Cleaning Services
INFORMATION CONTACT:
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
The Union County Sheriff’s Office (UCSO) is requesting to enter into a
contractual service agreement with ACL Carolina Inc. The cleaning
service is essential to the safety of officers that will be using the range for
training. Clean up includes removal of debris such as lead, using heavy
duty equipment.
The Union County Sheriff's Office has utilized the contractual services of
ACL Carolina Inc. for Lead Clean-Up Services since 04/01/2024. The
contractor has been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs,
and we are requesting to continue this service for an additional one-year.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $81,000.00 and is budgeted
accordingly for FY2025, with future expenditures dependent upon BOCC
budget appropriation.
25-212Contract - Modular Building Rental
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
Modular Office rental for Solid Waste staff for twenty-four months during
the construction of a permanent operations building located at the Union
County Landfill. This contract will include a temporary modular office,
waste holding tank, freshwater system, delivery, set up and tear down.
The anticipated two-year cost for this service is $114,912.48 and is
budgeted accordingly for FY2025, with future expenditures dependent
upon BOCC budget appropriation.
25-204Resolution - Conveyance of Surplus Vehicle
ACTION:Adopted Resolution Authorizing Conveyance of Certain Union CountySurplus Property to Lanes Creek Volunteer Fire Department.
Lanes Creek Volunteer Fire Department has requested vehicle 18-15, a
2015 Chevrolet Silverado that was assigned to the Fire Marshal’s Office.
The Fire Marshal’s Office has replaced the vehicle, and it is no longer in
service. Lanes Creek Volunteer Fire Department will use the vehicle to
transport command staff for administrative tasks, training and emergency
response.
25-201Resolution - Surplus Vehicle Sale
ACTION:Adopted Resolution Authorizing Surplus Property Sale by Internet Auctionwhich 1) declares the property itemized on Attachment A as “Surplus” tothe needs of Union County, 2) authorizes
sale at electronic auction of thesurplus property described in Attachment A as per the terms andconditions as specified in the online auction service provider contract, and3) authorizes
the Procurement Director or her designee to execute anyand all documents necessary to transfer title to said property on behalf ofUnion County.
North Carolina General Statutes allow the disposition of personal property
by local governments through a variety of means including private
negotiations and sale; advertisement for sealed bids; negotiated offer,
advertisement, and upset bid; public auction; or exchange. In 2001, the
legislature amended the Statues to provide for disposition of property
through electronic auction.
The sale will begin April 15, 2025, at 9:00 AM and end April 25, 2025,
with incremental closings as indicated on Attachment A.
The vehicles are to be picked up at 610 Patton Avenue, Monroe, NC with
the following terms of sale:
1. Sale to the highest bidder with all sales final.
2. All items sold “as is” with no warranty, expressed or implied, which
extends beyond the description of the item.
3. Purchasers must remove vehicles(s) within ten (10) business days
from the time and date of issuance of the Buyer’s Certificate.
4. Payment must be made online though the online auction website.
Payment in full is due not later than five (5) business days from the time
and date of the Buyers Certificate. Payment will not be accepted onsite.
Estimated revenue is $45,000. The revenue will be returned to the fund
from which the asset came.
25-210Resolution - Surplus Equipment Sale
ACTION:Adopted Resolution Authorizing Surplus Property Sale by Internet Auctionwhich 1) declares the property itemized on Attachment A as “Surplus” tothe needs of Union County, 2) authorizes
sale at electronic auction of thesurplus property described in Attachment A as per the terms andconditions as specified in the online auction service provider contract, and3) authorizes
the Procurement Director or her designee to execute anyand all documents necessary to transfer title to said property on behalf ofUnion County.
North Carolina General Statutes allow the disposition of personal property
by local governments through a variety of means including private
negotiations and sale; advertisement for sealed bids; negotiated offer,
advertisement, and upset bid; public auction; or exchange. In 2001, the
legislature amended the Statues to provide for disposition of property
through electronic auction.
The sale will begin April 15, 2025, at 10:00 AM and end April 25, 2025, at
10:00 AM as indicated on Attachment A. The equipment is to be picked
up at 4600 Goldmine Road, Monroe, NC 28110 & 8299 Kensington Dr,
Waxhaw, NC 28173 with the following terms of sale:
1. Sale to the highest bidder with all sales final.
2. All items sold “as is” with no warranty, expressed or implied, which
extends beyond the description of the item.
3. Purchasers must remove item(s) within ten (10) business days
from the time and date of issuance of the Buyer’s Certificate.
4. Payment must be made online through the online auction website.
Payment in full is due not later than five (5) business days from the
time and date of the Buyers Certificate. Payment will not be
accepted onsite.
Estimated revenue is $44,000. The revenue will be returned to the fund
from which the asset came.
25-211Contract Renewal - Agenda Software
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
The Information Technology Department has utilized the contractual
services of Granicus LLC / D.B.A. GovDelivery for Agenda Management
Software since July 2020. The company has been effective and efficient
in meeting our service needs, and we are requesting to continue this
service for an additional twelve months.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $57,862.19 and is budgeted
accordingly for FY2025, with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC
budget appropriation.
Information Only
25-209Monthly Communications Report for March 2025
ACTION: No action was requested. This item was for information only.
This report provides valuable metrics and insights into communication
platforms and our efforts to collaborate with all County departments to
inform and engage residents, promote programs, and services, and
strengthen internal and external communications.
25-229Human Resources Reports for March 2025
ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for information only.
BACKGROUND:
These reports include all new hires, separations from service, and
retirements for Union County Local Government for the month of March
2025.
Business
25-223Union County 2050 – Litter Committee Recommendations
Chair Merrell recognized Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner, to present this item.
Mr. Hansen provided an update regarding work assigned to the Litter Committee last spring. He noted that the issue of litter was identified in the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. The implementation
committee was appointed by the Board of Commissioners in late 2021, and the committee met for six months and developed eight strategies, which were recommended by the Planning Board.
Mr. Hansen explained that these recommendations were presented to the Board last spring along with other implementation strategies. At that time, the Board requested additional evaluation
of these strategies, including cost and resource implications.
He stated that the committee was given 12 months to complete its work but it completed the work in eight months.
Mr. Hansen recognized committee chair, Scott Abramsonto present the results.
Mr. Abramson said he resides in Waxhaw. He shared that it was his honor to serve as chair of the Litter Task Force. He shared that the task force reviewed the recommendations in the
2050 Comprehensive Plan, which included eight recommendations from 2022. He explained that the task of the committee was to evaluate the eight recommendations and determine whether
they were appropriate to move forward.
He said the Board asked for a 12-month review. He shared that there were four members on the committee, and they looked at each recommendation in detail. He expressed that he could not
say enough about Mr. Hansen and Caleb Sinclair, Solid Waste Director, who brought people in to educate the committee.
Mr. Abramson referred to a table displaying the 2022 recommendations that the committee reviewed and said the committee had prioritized the recommendations. He briefly reviewed the recommendations
as follows:Apply for Keep America Beautiful (abbreviated KAB)Establish a formal Litter Task Force CommitteeFund a new position within the county to coordinate litter reduction initiativesEnhance
multidisciplinary action and dumping enforcement effortsShift hours of convenience center sitesExpand hazardous materials disposal programs to make them available year-roundImplement
a fixed cost fee for use of county facilitiesAdvocate for a statewide bottle deposit bill as part of the county's legislative agenda
He pointed out that the committee added a ninth recommendation. He stated that the three not recommended were shifting hours of convenience centers, expanding hazardous materials disposal
programs to make them available year-round, and adding a fixed cost fee for use of county solid waste facilities.
Mr. Abramson explained that these were the recommendations the committee proposed after being educated on all the programs and resources available in Union County.
He stated that in order to make the best use of time, the committee combined certain initiatives together in the slide deck, including Keep America Beautiful, establishing a formal litter
committee, and funding new positions.
He stated that Keep America Beautiful is an effective affiliation in other communities and described how representatives from Adkin, South Carolina, came in and explained the program.
He noted the presentation showed the real value of KAB, including how it was implemented and recognized, and the committee believed strongly that Union County should adopt the program.
Mr. Abramson explained that the KAB affiliation requires a board to oversee its work, which would be the formal litter committee, and that any program requires staff coordination.
Mr. Abramson said the committee recommended two additional staff positions, acknowledging the funds required, but noting that if the county wanted to address litter and the programs
suggested, these resources were added. He stated that the staff would report to the Solid Waste Director, who knows how to manage people well.
For the Keep America Beautiful program, the committee recommended naming it Keep Union County Beautiful to maintain clarity and recognition. Mr. Abramson concluded by noting the annual
cost would be $200,000 to $250,000 per year, including salaries, benefits, and equipment, with a one-time cost for a truck.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted there is a startup fee of $1,650 for the Keep America Beautiful Program and a $1,000 annual membership. He asked what is included in the annual membership.
Mr. Abramson explained that they would be getting the backing of all the Keep America Beautiful experts and their resources. He stated that anytime there is a resource or someone who
will mentor the committee, that is what the fee covers, as understood from the South Carolina representatives. He added that there are other benefits with the membership, which Mr. Sinclair
and Mr. Hansen could mention to the Board at another time.
Mr. Abramson provided more detail on costs, stating that the coordinator position would be $60,000 to $70,000 per year plus benefits, and the field worker as part of the litter pickup
crew would be $50,000 per year plus benefits. He further noted that materials, marketing, cleanup equipment, and office equipment would cost $30,000 to $50,000 per year, and these costs
are reasonable compared to today’s wages, and added that the cost for a pickup truck is $55,000.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how long staff projected the pickup truck would last, noting that it is not truly a one-time fee but would recur over several years.
Mr. Abramson agreed that this is true and stated that a pickup truck typically lasts four to six years.
Chair Merrell added that there would also be ongoing costs for insurance, oil changes, tires, and fuel.
Mr. Abramson confirmed that those costs could be part of the $30,000 to $50,000 allocated for materials and equipment.
Commissioner Sides stated that he does not see as many of the green signs as he once saw. He recalled a prior program, possibly through NCDOT, where an organization would be responsible
for keeping a street or area clean and would have the right to post a green sign acknowledging the group. He asked whether that program is still active.
Mr. Abramson stated that the program exists because it was discussed during the task force meetings. He noted that Mr. Sinclair provided information and mentioned groups similar to Adopt-a-Highway,
and that bags of collected trash can be seen along the roads.
Commissioner Sides commented that he did not see that as one of the action plans but suggested that the committee reach out to various organizations to encourage other groups to enroll
in the program and be active.
Mr. Abramson he is the commander of District 17 of the American Legion, which has 16 posts. He explained that in the Marine Corps, he conducted what were called police calls, organizing
members around their posts to pick up litter because of the unsightly trash. He noted that he tried to do his part and that the program is being expanded. He added that the coordinator
position would help coordinate these types of activities.
Commissioner Sides clarified that the coordinator would act as both coordinator and recruiter.
Mr. Abramson agreed and noted that the committee combined the multidisciplinary anti-dumping efforts grant and the statewide bottle bill. He highlighted that the grant was an additional
item that was beyond the original eight from 2022 and added the addition of the grant.
Mr. Abramson stated that people need to be motivated not to litter, which involves enforcement. He explained that there must be something to incentivize people not to litter.
Mr. Abramson explained that the new litter coordinator position would monitor the status of enforcement and grant execution. He said this emphasized how valuable the coordinator role
could be in Union County. He said the coordinator would also coordinate and follow up with the sheriff’s department, environmental health, code enforcement, and planning on reported
issues. He shared that Mr. Hansen and Mr. Sinclair had brought in representatives from the sheriff’s office to speak with the committee, and the committee asked whether tickets were
ever written, whether anyone was ever fined, and whether laws existed to support the fines. He stated the response was that the laws were in place, but no one could recall the last
time someone had been fined. He said this was an area that really needed to be stepped up.
Mr. Abramson stated that everyone living in Union County sees the litter when driving around and also sees areas where people dump items. He said they had observed couches, black garbage
bags, refrigerators, and various other items.
Mr. Abramson stated that the cost of the grant was suggested because the dumping takes place on private property. He said that if someone talks to the landowners, they are going to be
upset. He stated the committee suggested instituting a grant program to assist them in the cleanup and that would resolve most of the issue with the landowner. He explained that this
was why the committee was really pushing to get that grant in the program and add it as the ninth item.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that recently his family had something like this occur where family members had property where there had been dumping, and they reached out to the sheriff’s
office. He said he wanted to give the deputies a pat on the back, because, as he understood it, there was at least one deputy who handled the majority of investigations with dumping
practices.
He said he knew the deputies were busy whenever these incidents were reported. He stated that they were putting up cameras and checking for any kind of evidence to trace the dumping,
but it remained an issue, and he was glad it had been brought up.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, in his experience, the sheriff’s office does a great job. He recognized Sergeant Presson, noting that the staff is following through when these
incidents are reported. He added that the $5,000 pilot program should be considered because much of the dumping occurs on private property, which imposes a cost on residents who have
done nothing wrong. He stated that, as he understood it, the program would provide at least some relief to those residents if that is what is being proposed.
Commissioner Baucom noted that he may have missed it earlier, referring to a slide two slides back under cost details. He asked Mr. Ambramson to touch on that topic again.
Mr. Ambramson said he would do his best to explain. Based on his understanding, when the Keep America Beautiful representatives from Aiken County and the other town met with them, there
was an initial initiation fee of $1,650 to get set up in the system and acclimated to how they conduct business.
He added that the $1,000 fee is the annual fee, which provides access to resources. He noted that using these resources on a state or even national level comes with a cost, but emphasized
that $1,000 is a minimal expense.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked what resources would be available and what would be provided for the $1,000 fee. She requested that Mr. Ambramson go into some detail on the topic.
Mr. Ambramson explained that what the Keep America Beautiful representatives were saying is that there are different programs for recycling and litter pickup and how to organize those
programs. He noted that if a program needs to be established, it is going to take some time.He added that they have experts in each of those categories whether it is recycling, pickup,
or a community event who will actually send someone out to help organize the event. He mentioned that they have a “can program,” which reminded him of a franchise. He said that a franchise
fee nowadays is like $700,000, but they are only charging $1,000 annually to use that franchise knowledge.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Commissioners Baucom and Christina Helms for raising the issue, explaining that his concern was about whether paying $1,650 plus a $1,000 annual membership
for a sign located somewhere provides value.
Mr. Ambramson agreed and reiterated that when a franchise-style approach is used, the experts are supporting multiple communities, which is why a fee is charged for their time.
25-220FY2025 3rd Quarter Revenue and Expense Projections
Chair Merrell introduced the next agenda item, 25-220, regarding the Fiscal Year 2025 third-quarter revenue and expense projections, and recognized Jason May, Budget and Grants Management
Director, to address this item.
Mr. May explained that much of what he would cover was a recap. He noted that the third quarter for FY25 closed in the financial software on April 10th, and his team was working diligently
to prepare the third-quarter report for both revenues and expenses. He said although he did not have the completed report, he planned to present it on May 1st and apologized for not
having it ready.
Mr. May reviewed the current bifurcated tax rate to provide more detail than what was discussed at Thursday’s meeting with the Board of Education. He emphasized that even in a revaluation
year,which is the current focus,his team continues work to ensure organic growth forad valorem through new development and rehabilitation of both commercial and residential properties.
Mr. May explained that what they review the previous four years of ad valorem tax growth, which has been about 4.19 percent. He stated that applying that on the current tax base provides
about $13,887,506 for all funds, noting that they are reviewing five different funds. He said this breaks out with the general fund getting about $3.8 million; the debt fund will get
a little over $400,000; and the economic development fund will get about $92,111.
Mr. May that his department is working with tax administration. He noted that they are currently using a growth rate of 47.27 percent, which may change as Mr. Harrell goes through his
appeals process. He said the current revenue tax rate is $0.4159 per thousand dollar mil, and the revaluation number is $6,081,022.
Mr. May then spoke about sales tax dollars, saying that since Thursday, the market rebounded on Friday but continued to decline on Monday, and they are closely watching the situation.
He explained that with so much economic uncertainty being pumped into the economy, it gives everyone pause in trying to figure out what will be received about 16 months from now. He
shared that using the 4 percent growth discussed on Thursday, the general fund would see a little over $2 million increase, and the education debt fund would see just over $904,000.
Mr. May said that key dates include receiving the Union County Public Schools budget request in detail on May 15th, aiming to get the manager’s recommended budget to the clerk by the
end of the month, presenting and holding a public hearing on June 1st, and passing the budget on June 16th.
Mr. Matthews noted that they are still running through the budget process and that the number may change some, but he wanted to point out to the Board and the public that they are required
to report a revenue neutral tax rate. He explained that the revenue neutral tax rate includes organic growth, and the General Assembly’s calculation incorporates that growth. He pointed
out that the number in the middle of the screen is 41.59cents on the 100, while the current rate is 58.85 cents on the100a significant decline from the current rate to the revenue neutral
rate.
Mr. Matthews said the Board will need to consider other challenges, including debt and voter-approved items, which must be built into the budget. He noted that they are working at the
staff level to ensure the budget addresses future needs and will bring something close to the revenue neutral rate. He reassured that the Board and taxpayers should understand that staff
will not be recommending keeping the same tax rate;it will be lower.
Mr. Matthews also highlighted the penny value, noting that it has gone up from a little over $4 million to a little over $6 million. He explained that while this may change slightly
as more and better data comes in, a penny generates a significant amount of additional revenue, which is why the revenue neutral rate is significantly lower.
Mr. Matthews said he is confident that when the manager’s recommended budget is presented to the Board, they will see that staff has done their best to stay as close to the revenue neutral
rate as possible..
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he appreciates the explanation, noting that the community has voiced concerns, especially in the face of reassessment and probably every member of the
Board has been contacted about it. He expressed that he is glad to hear staff is keeping as close to revenue neutralor as close as possiblein developing the manager’s budget.
He asked Mr. Matthews or Mr. May to provide more detail about how the value of a penny is calculated, for the benefit of both the Board and the public.
Mr. May explained that when they run through the process they discussed earlier: taking the tax base at the end of 2025, adding the accelerator based on the average growth over the past
four years, which gives a new numberapproximately $13.8–13.9 million.
He stated then reverse out of that they take the $13.9 million, add it to the entirety of ad valorem taxes from the prior year, and reverse back to determine what the tax rate would
be with the new tax base that has been revalued at an increase of nearly 50 percent. He said this produces the revenue neutral tax rate, which is then multiplied by the collection rate
99.5 percent.
Mr. May emphasized that it involves a lot of algebra and careful calculation, but thatresults in the growth of nearly 50 percent, the penny value increasing from about $4 million to
$6 million, and the tax rate decreasing from nearly 60 cents to nearly 40 cents, speaking in larger, rounder terms.
25-208Capital Improvement Plan Budget and Debt Planning
Chair Merrell introduced the next item of business, 25-208, regarding the Capital Improvement Plan budget and debt planning, and recognized Beverly Liles, Finance Director, to address
the item.
Beverly said that today they have presentations on the County’s general Capital Improvement Program Budget and Debt Planning, noting that this does not include anything for solid waste
or water and sewer, as solid waste was presented last week and water and sewer capital projects were presented during the prior year’s rate changes.
She explained that a notebook had been provided containing detailed information on capital funding requests from departments and outside agencies, as well as debt models for all debt
funds for fiscal year 2026 and the impact of the tax rate needed for each.
Ms. Liles said there is a lot of information to share during the presentations and emphasized that they are looking for feedback. She noted that no action is requested tonight and that
they would hit the major highlights, asking the Board to communicate its priorities and goals for future capital planning and purchases, especially for the major capital projects that
facilities would present.
Ms. Liles said they are going to take a look over the next six years for the major capital projects. She explained that the feedback received from the Board tonight helps the management
team, herself, and the budget team, and then they work with financial advisors to determine, based on the Board’s goals and priorities, what is affordable and how to finance items that
may not have an ongoing revenue source today.Ms. Liles stated she would be doing a very high-level overview of the Government Finance Officers Association capital planning best practices
that are used nationwide by local governments to put together their capital budgets. She added that she would also provide a five-year summary of all capital requests from the departments.She
said the Board would hear from Facilities Director Chris Boyd, who would go over major capital projects in detail. She noted that there was a detailed list of all CIP projects in the
notebook provided, including repair and renovation requests as well as ongoing capital requests, where members could see what those funds supported down to a very detailed project level.Ms.
Liles stated that following her portion, Deputy Manager Patrick Niland would discuss the CIP needs for public safety, emergency 911 communications, and parks and recreation. She noted
that in the notebook for those departments there was a detailed list of the requests received from Union EMS, along with the replacement schedule for the volunteer fire department’s
Airpack replacements, as well as a detailed schedule from parks and recreation for its repair and renovation requests.She said the Board would hear from Clayton Voignier, Assistant County
Manager, who would present the needs for information technology, security, and risk management. Ms. Liles said she would then finalize the CIP presentation by a high level discussionof
the Department of Transportation critical intersection program funding, the requests received from South Piedmont Community College, and the draft request of the Union County Public
Schools capital budget, which was presented at the Board’s meeting on Thursday night.Ms. Liles stated that in the notebooks there was also a detailed list for projects specific to SPCC
and Union County Public Schools, showing the individual project details that make up the funding categories for them. She said she would also present information on the County’s outstanding
debt, upcoming debt issuances, and the tax rate impact for the new voter-approved bonds under discussion. She noted that the focus would be mainly on the education debt fund, since that
is the fund that will have a new tax rate impact going into FY26.She explained that all of the debt models were included in the notebooks. She said that while the debt models were not
included in the presentation, she would provide a high-level overview of the tax rate impacts. Ms. Liles emphasized that everything being reviewed this evening was forward-looking, not
looking back, and any current projects that were already funded would not be discussed.She added that the notebooks contained a quarterly capital project report. She also said that for
each major capital project, there was an individual detail sheet showing the phase of the project, expenditures to date, and remaining balances through the end of March. She noted that
this report included water, sewer, solid waste, and Union County Public Schools projects.Ms. Liles stated that for the Government Finance Officers Association Best Planning Practices
for a Capital Improvement Plan, the things that staff and the Board have to worry about internally begin with whether a capital planning policy is in place. She noted that for Union
County, there is aCIP policy that was adopted by the Board, which states that staff will present annually a six-year CIP plan to the Board.She added that the association also recommends
having master planning and comprehensive plans in place. She reminded the Board that the County had just completed the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, which is used as a tool to guide the CIP
process. She noted that water and sewer has regularly updated master plans, and the facilities team also uses master planning tools to help put together major capital project needs.
She referenced a space study conducted a couple of years ago and noted that Parks and Recreation has completed its own master planning to determine future park needs.Ms. Liles said that
multi-year capital planning is also recommended. She further explained that capital asset management is another recommendation, which involves having procedures and tools in place to
review currents assets and manage them effectively. She said the facilities team provide management for the County by scoring current assets using a scoring matrix, which helps determine
repair needs. She emphasized that these needs are reflected in the renovation and repair budget and the individual projects listed in the detail sheets.Ms. Liles stated that they recommend
communicating out to citizens and being very transparent on major capital projects—what taxpayers’ dollars are actually being spent on, or, in the case of water and sewer projects, what
those rates are really going toward.She noted that the County did a really good job with communicating this information during the Yadkin project, creating a separate website for citizens
to see everything that was going on with the projects, including their status, phase, and estimated completion dates.Ms. Liles then presented a very high-level five-year County capital
summary, explaining that it shows the requests by program for each of the departments that submitted requests. She said the summary shows the revenue sources that are available, pointing
out that it is balanced for FY26, but that looking into the future, there are some shortages. She stated that this is really where they are looking for the Board’s feedback on priorities.
She said that future revenue sources for the identified shortages have not yet been identified, and they want to make sure the Board has a goal and a priority in place for what additional
funding might be requested, whether through financing or a tax rate increase.She noted that for FY26, the total capital request was $6.8 million. Of that, she pointed out that there
is a contract in place with Union EMS stating it should not carry over $500,000 of unassigned fund balance, and that it currently has excess funds. She explained that the recommendation
is for Union EMS to spend down $1.5 million ofits unassigned fund balance to meet its total capital request needed for FY26.In addition, Ms. Liles said there is PAYGO capital funding
built into the education budgetary fund for South Piedmont’s request at $375,000. She also noted that if the Federal Transit Grant for transportation is fully awarded, there is a project
within the CIP for a total of $4.4 million for transportation renovation needs at the Union County Progress Building. She added that if those federal funds are not awarded, over time
the renovation needs might not be funded or would need to be funded with County dollars instead.Ms. Liles stated that this year it is recommendedfunding all of the capital requests with
unassigned fund balance. She reminded the Board that during the audit presentation, a schedule of unassigned fund balance available in the general fund was shown. She noted that the
adopted Board policy states that unassigned fund balance can be spent on one-time items, such as capital or to pay down debt service. She explained that the recommendation for this year
is to use that fund balance for these one-time capital needs.Ms. Liles recognized Chris Boyd, Facilities Director, for the next portion of the presentation.Mr. Boyd stated he would be
addressing the Facilities Capital Improvement Plan. He noted that he had a few items to coverfirst, an overview of the funding groups, then an overview of the proposed CIP, and finally,
some detail on major capital projects.Mr. Boyd explained that the funding groups include four categories that make up the CIP. He said that major capitalareprojects that are over $500,000.
He explained that the second funding group is critical infrastructure which can be any cost and stated they are at critical facilities that address critical systems and/or critical
functions.He explained that the next category is facility repair and renovation, which includes projects between $200,000 and $500,000. Finally, he said that operating capital projects
are less than $200,000.Mr. Boyd presented a summary of a proposed CIP for the six-year plan from FY26 to FY31. He noted that the first two categoriesrepair/renovations and operating
capitalare detailed in the workbook for those who want more information. He explained that since 2019, the goal had been to keep these two lines fairly consistent in funding levels.He
pointed out that following those two lines across the plan shows a moderate increase every two years of about 5 percent, or roughly 2.5 percent annually. He stated that for the current
year, they are recommending $1,350,000 for repair and renovation and $800,000 for operating capital.He referred to the jail project, which is currently listed as TBD. He said he would
share more information about the process and status later.Mr. Boyd also noted thatthe transportation project is included in the plan, but clarified that it is planned to be funded through
a federal grant program and not with general County dollars at this point.Mr. Boyd noted Ms. Liles’ pointed out that if the project is not approved, the County will have to make some
decisions about whether the project moves forward or if the County wants to fund it. He added that he did not have a projectspecific or detailsheet for that project that evening.He shared
that the project is intended to build offices to support the Transportation Services Department in the Progress Building, in Warehouse B, which is the original warehouse. He explained
that it would include spaces for driver touchdown areas, where employees can sit, work on a computer, and complete time sheets. He said the project would also include a large training
room, a dispatch center, and typical spaces such as restrooms and other necessary facilities.Mr. Boyd stated that the total budget for the project is currently $4.4 million. He explained
that the $275,000 grant funding really gets the project started in design, but they wanted to include it because the department wants to get started in the next fiscal year. He added
that they wanted to present it to the Board early, noting that some grant requests had already been brought to the Board by Teresa Torres.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether there
was any idea about the timeline for knowing if the grant would be approved.Ms. Liles responded that the County applies for that grant annually and that notification had been received
for the first award for the first year they applied. She explained that the federal fiscal year has a two-year lag from the County’s fiscal year, and that notification had just been
received. She noted that at the Board’s last meeting, a budget amendment had been done for the first phase to add additional funds to the CIP budget, but as far as all of it in whole
will not be known until next fiscal year.Mr. Boyd stated that in FY26, the only funds being recommended for major capital are those previously discussed.He then moved to critical infrastructure
projects, noting that there are two. He explained that one is a judicial project to do provisions for a temporary generator connection, similar to what was done at the Government Center
when its generator was replaced. He added that if there were a generator failure, a temporary generator could be rolled in to keep the building operational.He described the second project
as fueling stations at three locations. He noted that the Board recently approved one at the new Sheriff’s Office and that there are plans to add one at the Progress Building and one
at the Union County Water Operations Center to complete the infrastructure for fueling. He said that $225,000 is budgeted for each of those stations, which is much less than what the
Sheriff’s Office cost, explaining that it is a different scenario not as a secure area. Mr. Boyd stated that for FY26, the facilities capital needs total $2,745,000. He added that the
total over the six-year span is $27,960,000. He noted that this does not include the jail, and that whatever decision and direction the Board provides regarding the jail will impact
the CIP moving forward.Chair Merrell asked for clarification regarding the fueling stations, specifically whether the $225,000 was for all three or for each station.Mr. Boyd stated that
the $225,000 is for each fueling station. He explained that the projects are spread out over two years. He said one station has already been funded, and two remain, which are planned
over the next two years.Mr. Boyd stated that the jail project is still to be determined. He pointed out that the capital project sheet in the notebook shows the 500/600 bed scenario
in 2027. He emphasized that the placement will be adjusted based on the Board’s direction, and it does not indicate a decision, but staff wanted to place it somewhere. He explained that
the next phase of the jail study is expected to be completed very soon and will include new refined estimates for s 500-bed/600-core facility and the 400-bed/600-core facility options
as directed by the Board. He added that operational cost models for both sizing options will also be provided, targeting the first week of May and staff will work to determine what date
to present them to the Board.Mr. Boyd then discussed another jail project for the roof replacement. He noted that if a new jail is approved, this project could be removed, with only
temporary repairs made until the new jail is completed. He emphasized that the roof is in horrible condition, covering approximately 24,000 square feet. Mr. Boyd next discussed Cane
Creek Park, an outdoor recreation center and storage facility programmed for FY27 with a total budget of $865,000.He explained that the scope of the project is to build a roughly 2,000-square-foot
pre-engineered facility. The facility will include dedicated storage space for park supplies, materials, and equipment, as well as some office space and a meeting space for on-site events
and programs available to the public.He noted that over the years, staff in the outdoor recreation department has increased from a one-man shop to an eight-manshop, some of whom are
seasonal employees. Mr. Boyd said the demand for services, as well as the types of services offered, has changed the need for storage and operational space. He added that the budget
breakdown for the project is also included.Commissioner Sides asked whether the space would include any stalls for horses or animals participating in events, clarifying that it would
not be intended as any kind of barn.Mr. Boyd responded no, and explained that it will be used mostly for lake activities. He added that the storage will accommodate arts and crafts supplies,
small hand tools, ATVs, kayaks, paddleboards, archery equipment, and outdoor movie equipment.Mr. Boyd then discussed the Progress Building and site improvements, programmed for FY27
with a budget of $2,900,000.He explained that the scope of work mainly involves exterior improvements to roads and parking. He stated there is a plan for a single-bay vehicle wash station,
noting that the Transportation Department regularly washes vehicles; the Sheriff’s Office stores most of their specialty equipment; and Emergency Services has similar needs. He added
that discussions about a vehicle-wash station have been ongoing since he began. He noted that the project will include a single-bay wash station, and that a vehicle fueling station may
also be included depending on whether this capital plan is approved. He explained that would be rolled into the CRI project and do them at the same time and stated this is how the budgets
broke down for the project and noted that he included a comment regarding the CRI project on the fueling station.Mr. Boyd discussed the Agriculture Center office and support expansion,
programmed for FY28 with a $7.5 million dollar project.He explained that the scope of work includes two additions. Mr. Boyd described the first addition as a 3,200-square-foot office
addition on the west face of the facility at the front. He said the second addition is approximately 2,200 square feet at the south elevation near the entrance to the banquet halls.
He stated this addition is intended for event support and coordination of events.He noted that this project was identified in the 2022 master plan. Commissioner Sides said he had been
told when the Ag Center was originally designed with a full commercial kitchen. He asked what kitchen capability exists and whether the expansion includes any increase in kitchen space.Mr.
Boyd responded that the expansion does not include the kitchen, but that the facility does have a commercial kitchen. He explained that it is mostly used for learning about cooking.Mr.
Boyd addressed the Progress Building Warehouse B roof replacement, programmed for 2030. He explained that gets them through the life cycle of the roof, which was installed in 1986 and
is approximately 45 years old. He noted the project budget is $600,000. He added that there is the original warehouse and an additional warehouse, with the additional warehouse scheduled
around 2035. He stated that the project will replace 34,000 square feet of roofing using the same type of roof.Commissioner Sides asked whether there are any expansion or improvement
plans for the event center.Mr. Boyd responded that there are no plans for expansion in the current five to six-year CIP.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked for clarification about the Progress
Building roof, specifically the age of the roof.Mr. Boyd confirmed it was from 1986 and noted that there are active leaks.Mr. Boyd stated the last major capital project in the CIP, the
Patton Avenue parking and stormwater improvements, programmed for FY2031 with a budget of $850,000.He explained that Patton Avenue is home to the Fleet Maintenance Group and the Emergency
Vehicle Installation Shop, also known as the radio shop. He noted that parking has been a longstanding problem, and it has become worse with the addition of the emergency vehicle equipment
installation shop. He added that the area serves not only customers coming for service work but surplus vehicles, wrecked vehicles, newly delivered vehicles awaiting processing, trailers,
and other large equipment are stored at this site. He explained that moving equipment is particularly difficult when the ground is wet, which drives the need for this project.Mr. Boyd
stated that adding impervious areas requires stormwater management, including the construction of a pond as part of the project. He asked if there were any questions about the project.Vice
Chair Brian W. Helms commentedregarding the Progress Building roof, suggesting that if that roof can achieve such a long lifespan, then that same type of roof should be considered on
the jail.Mr. Boyd responded that it is a metal roof, noting that metal roofs usually have a longer lifespan than asphalt shingles, TPO, or built-up roofs.Commissioner Sides then asked
a more general question, looking beyond the next five years to ten years. He referenced the approved a project to move the Water Department out to Gold Mine Road and make other improvements,
and asked whether, projecting five to ten years out, there will be a need for additional accommodations, office space, or non-warehouse, non-heavy-duty space that the County will require.Mr.
Boyd responded that the County addressed this in the 2022 master plan, anticipating growth through 2045 and putting together some projects. He noted, however, that the costs associated
with all of that were too high. He added that staff is working through ideas on how to manage growth moving forward, but there are no concrete plans beyond the five years. He suggested
that in 2027, it will be necessary to revisit master planning, as five years is typical for updating the master plan.Brian Matthews, County Manager, responded to Commissioner Sides’
question, confirming that some space needs are anticipated. He noted that, as Mr. Boydindicated, the County is currently looking for ways to accommodate space for other users, such as
Judicial and the Public Defender’s Office. He explained that the County currently leases several of these spaces and is exploring options to move out of the rental business and instead
own more spaces. He added that staff isworking on the strategies which are not yet reflected in the CIP, and that they will be brought back to the Board for feedback. He concluded that
it is anticipated there will be space needs across all areas that will need to be addressed in the next five years or so.Commissioner Sides that when he first came on the Board, during
the new Commissioners’ orientation, there had been a FY26 project for design fees for a UCPS administration building. He said it had not been requested by UCPS and was, therefore, considered
moot and had been dropped.He said he wanted to look at it from a different angle, from a space needs standpoint. He recalled when UCPS was actually in this building and then moved out
to its current location because of space needs. He noted that the UCPS administration may not have requested a new building, but for County needs, it makes sense to provide them a combined
space that would free up not only their central office location but also the old post office. He added that this approach would allow the County to consolidate their offices and free
up considerable space for county needs. Commissioner Sides suggested that at least the design work go back into the capital budget for next year. He noted that this is going to be longer
than just planning because they will have to look at site selection. He added that the County may not actually complete the planning process for a new facility in the next fiscal year,
let alone start construction in 2027. Chair Merrell asked about Union County Public Schools, noting that they have a facilities department similar to the County’s. She observed that
the County had not recommended this project and UCPS had not requested it. With Commissioner Sides urging consideration of a new central office, she asked for clarification on where
the county stands on this, whether this is something being asked for or not.Mr. Matthews explained that what Commissioner Sides was referring to had been included in previous CIPs as
the possibility of a central administration building. He noted that conversations had happened with staff at Union County Public Schools, but the initiative was driven by the County,
not UCPS. He added that the County has space needs to address for Judicial, the Public Defender’s Office, Juvenile Justice, and many other facilities for which the County provides space.He
explained that the County looked at the situation and considered options. He said one option was to build another building to gain back space already owned, including the central administration
building and the old post office, and have that new building occupied by Union County Public Schools. He noted that it was really an exercise in how to accommodate space. He added that
the Board would need to understand that this strategy would involve building from scratch, likely a 30,000–35,000 square foot or larger facility, based on UCPS’s assessed needs, and
that would not be inexpensive.He emphasized that the new building would have to be funded in some way. He said another option the County is exploring is purchasing an existing building
that could be occupied either by County offices or by the schools. He noted that the school administration building was removed from the CIP after hearing concerns from Board members
that it was not requested by the schools and was not a priority for them. He clarified that the project was more about the County’s space priorities, and while it is currently off the
table, it remains an option, though expensive, but there may be other ways to accomplish some of the goals at a lower cost.Commissioner Sides asked how the County would go about determining
the best avenue to proceed.Mr. Boyd explained that much of it is cost-driven. He noted that when the project was previously presented to the Board, there were concerns about how much
it would cost. He added that, as Mr. Matthews mentioned, staff is looking at alternatives and has been looking at options that are not included in the CIP because the analysis is not
far enough along, which could result in lower costs.Commissioner Sides stated that the County knows it will need additional space five years out or more. He emphasized that it is a matter
of what is the most cost-effective whether to move part of the County out or move UCPS out and utilize that space. He noted that five years is not a long time in terms of capital projects,
considering site selection, funding design, and actual construction. He said even if a decision were made immediately, it would likely take four to five years before a project could
be completed. He added that if a building is purchased and upfitted, the timeline might be slightly shorter, but there would still be some time required.Commissioner Sides said he wanted
to know how the County goes about determining where to go and what is a better alternative than putting back in the capital plan a building specifically for UCPS administration like
was done for Human Services, and refitting that space for County needs.Mr. Boyd responded that the County needs to finish the process of identifying alternate options versus building
a new facility and conducting an analysis to determine what makes the most sense from both a schedule and cost standpoint. He added that until all alternate options are fully evaluated,
the County would not be able to analyze which is the better option.Mr. Matthews explained that the process is similar to decisions made regarding the jail. He noted that while a facility
can be built as large as desired, there is a cost associated with its size. He said ultimately, it comes down to showing the Board all the options and determining the Board’s appetite
for those capital costs. He said staff can present how each option accommodates growth over the next years, the associated costs, and then the Board must decide on which option.Commissioner
Sides asked whether it would be realistic to expect those options in time to include in this fiscal year, or if it would be more appropriate as a project for the next fiscal year.Mr.
Matthews responded that it is probably more appropriate for next fiscal year.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation for Mr. Boyd bringing up alternate options, noting that
it is important to keep an eye on possibilities other than building a new facility. He acknowledged that the County likely has some space needs, which have been discussed, and he appreciated
the County Manager’s willingness to recognize that it is more fiscally responsible to buy rather than lease or rent office space, and stated he agreed. He noted that the figures presented,
including what Ms. Liles showed regarding future needs and current debt service, emphasize the necessity of getting creative in finding solutions. He observed that there is a significant
need for resources and revenues in future years.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms added that taking on additional debt service would also mean additional tax increases, which everyone must recognize.
He stressed that while the County has needs and necessary projects, it is important to be selective and prioritize those needs.He reminded the Board that there is a voter-approved school
bond that the Board must determine a strategy to fund it. He said he personally would rather see the County pay down debt than take on more. He concluded by urging his colleagues to
be careful in selecting which projects to pursue moving forward.Chair Merrell agreed and noted that Union County Public Schools has its own five-year CIP and is always looking five years
out. She observed that many of their schools are aging, and over the past few years they have brought to the Board of Commissioners for school replacement because repairing older schools
can be more expensive compared to replacement. She stated that the question comes down to whether the County wants a new central office or to focus on replacing aging facilities.She
reflected on her eight years on the Board of Education, noting that the focus has always been on maintaining aging facilities and determining when they should address replacements with
the county. She referenced past bonds, including the most recent design work for Parkwood, and mentioned that schools like Piedmont, built in the 1960s, are facing increasingly costly
replacements of HVAC systems, kitchen equipment, and roofs.Chair Merrell concluded that, given the current workload, there is already a lot to address, but she appreciated staff continuing
to look at alternatives to accommodate the need for extra space.Commissioner Sides echoed the point, stating that it is progress to recognize the issue and the timeframe in which it
needs to be addressed before it becomes more critical. He noted that the County needs the space fairly quickly and emphasized that exploring alternatives allows the County to act without
scrambling at the last minute. He expressed support for Mr. Boyd’s approach and agreed that adding any building to the CIP at this time would be premature until all options have beenexplored.Deputy
County Manager Patrick Niland explained the SCBA (Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus) Airpack fund, consists of an air bottle, a breathing regulator, the face mask, and in some cases
can be outfitted with thermal imaging cameras.He said the County started this fund a few years ago because departments were reaching the end of the useful life of these packs. Mr. Niland
said most of the packs were first-generation, and this technology did not exist 20 to 30 years ago. He stated that replacing them all at once makes sense because standards change over
about a15-yearuseful life, and old packs may not be compatible with new ones. He added that firefighters on a scene could run into problems if they needed to swap out regulators between
packs.He noted that each pack costs between $10,000 to $12,000, and small departments might need 20 to 30 packs, totaling $200,000 to $300,000 sometimes more than an entire annual budget
for that department.He explained that the County wanted to avoid these costs impacting one department in a specific year, which could cause tax rates to spike temporarily. He said that
by prefunding the needs in breathing apparatus, the County has been able to replace each department’s air packs in whole as they come up. He shared that over the past six years, every
department in the County has had its air packs replaced.He said there is now about a four-year window where a wholesale replacement will not be necessary. Mr. Niland stated that in
fiscal year 2029, the cycle will start over, and the $300,000 shown is level-funded in anticipation, with the hope that when needed,they will have enough money in the fund to start that
cycle again. He said that currently, there is very little fund balance because all packs have been replaced, but over time the fund will build up when the need arises.He concluded that
the program has been fairly successful, and the County is now in a period of maintaining level funding for a considerable period.Mr. Niland said that Ms. Liles had worked hard with EMS
over the past couple of years to develop a similar level-funded capital plan.He explained that the biggest cost for EMS is replacing ambulances. He said when a new ambulance is needed,
theydonot buy a new ambulance, but instead, the chassis which includes the frame, engine, transmission, and cab can be replaced, and the existing box can be transferred to the new chassis,
extending the life of the vehicle by four to five years. Mr. Niland said EMS is still dealing with the lingering effects of COVID, with chassis still having very long lead times. He
explained that EMS has broken up the process by purchasing chassis a year ahead of the build. He said they have been able to save a considerable amount of money and already have the
inventory on hand when it is time to build.He noted that every once in a while they do have to buy a completenew ambulance with both a new chassis and a new box, but if they can reuse
a box, they put it on a new chassis and save a couple hundred thousand dollars.He commented that looking at the five-year plan, the funding for EMS capital stays fairly consistent, with
just a few dips for support vehicles such asDurangos, Expeditions, and supervisor vehicles.Mr. Niland then explained that the $166,000 under technology is for the Zoel stretchers. He
stated these are not the old simple metal stretchers but highly mechanical ones with electronics, which makes them very expensive. He said moving forward the plan is that as they buy
a new ambulance, whether just a chassis or a full box, a stretcher will be part of that process. He added that they had to replace many of them at one time and this is the last in a
series of five payments. Mr. Niland addressed the Radio Tower South West Union project stating they are currently in the process of working with the state to use an old highway patrol
tower to place some of the county’s equipment on its tower, which brought some cost savings.He explained that funds are being moved out of the Radio Tower South West Union project and
mostly into the bi-directional antenna work at the schools.He said the schools have been on a 400 megahertz legacy radio system that is a very good system, but nobody makes equipment
for it anymore. He shared they have had to buy parts off eBay to try and maintain the system. He shared that the plan now is to move schools to the 800 megahertz system, the same system
used by first responders and the state Viper network, which will give much better interoperability and parts availability.He stated that a few schools will need an extra antenna because
of the wavelength difference. Mr. Niland said the 400 system’s smaller wavelength could get into tighter areas, while the 800 can struggle in low-lying areas. He commented that the
additional antennas will help resolve that problem.Mr. Niland commented on radio replacement and maintenance, explaining that the County maintains approximately one thousand handheld
radios for various departments, including volunteer fire departments, the sheriff’s office, parks and recreation, and utilities. He said from time to time these radios break or they
will have expansions that will need to be replaced, and the $150,000 allocation covers those needs.Mr. Niland explained that Mr. Boyd had reviewed some of the major capital in the parks
and recreation budget, which is maintained by parks and recreation staff. He said this budget covers bathhouses, cabin replacements, parking lot repairs, and similar needs. He noted
that the four main bathhouses at Cane Creek have not been updated in about 25 years. He said the bath houses get heavy use, and the old tile structures are in need of repair with most
having to be completely gutted.Mr. Niland explained that he and Ms. Liles have worked with Jim Chaffin, Parks and Recreation Director, to get a level-funded capital plan. He said if
they can get to a level-funded platform, it is easier to predict without those big jumps from year to year. Commissioner Sides mentioned meeting with Mr. Chaffin early on and noted that
part of the infrastructure needs included piping and systems in the ground that need replacement, asking if that was part of the CIP.Mr. Niland responded that there are stormwater issues
that are always part of the plan. He explained that most of Cane Creek is on a septic system, so there are always underground water lines and septic field repairs. Assistant County Manager
Clayton Voigner explained that he would be very brief regarding information technology and security needs. He began with uninterruptible power supply infrastructure upgrades (UPS), emphasizing
that these devices provide emergency battery backup power to protect servers, phone systems, and connectivity equipment against any power outages or fluctuations. He noted that these
have been funding at a level-funded for a few years. He said this fiscal year, they plan to purchase two UPS devices, with current budget funds covering that purchase. Mr. Voignier
stated that funds in future years are to cover maintenance of those devices and a planned refresh that will be needed in seven to nine years, which is the typical life cycle for those
devices.Mr.Voigner explained that Pictometry imagery is the County’s aerial photography, providing high-level views of land, buildings, and other geographic features. He stated the County
has used this service every two years since 2019 through Pictometry International Corporation. He shared that recently, staff negotiated with a company to provide annual flyovers with
greater resolution at roughly the same cost, which he considered a good deal. He shared thatfunding for FY26 is already included in the current CIP budget, and future numbers represent
the annual costs needed to continue these flyovers. He noted that several departments use this data, as well as members of the public through the online GIS system.He stated that the
request for AV equipment is simply for level funding to continue upgrading and refreshing conference rooms at county facilities on a five-year cycle.Mr. Voignier said the request for
security system upgrades is trying to obtain a somewhat level funding for the cost of equipment and installation for security system upgrades at county facilities. He explained that
the upgrades will be phased in over a few years.Ms. Liles concluded the CIP presentation by noting that the only other county general fund project funded annually at a flat rate is the
critical intersection projects, which is done in partnership with DOT and CRTPO. She said the list shows current and previously funded projects. She added that Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner,
and the Planning and Zoning Department are working on new proposed projects, which are not included in the packet but can be found on the County’s website for those who want to explore
the details. Ms. Liles explained that South Piedmont Community College submitted a significant request this year for $7.7 million. She noted that the County typically funds SPCC’s ongoing
annual operating and R & R-type costs at $375,000. She pointed out that this year, the recommendation is to maintain that level of funding until a new president is in place, then they
can revisit their entire CIP needs and their long-term bond request. Ms. Liles explained that Union County Public Schools shared their draft budget at the joint meeting between the school
board and the Board of Commissioners the prior Thursday. She said the schools plan to request around $29 million if nothing changes in their recommended budget. She noted that this
is an increase from their request from the prior year and the county currently funds about $19 million a year plus some lottery R & R funds. She stated that the final request will be
updated throughout the budget process, and at this time, no recommended request is being shown until theschools’ final recommendation is received.Ms. Liles explained a slide showing
current tax-supported debt service costs by year, emphasizing that this does not include water and sewer debt, only debt supported by taxes. She pointed out that for general county debt
in FY26, the debt service payments are $7.3 million, and the education debt service fund is around $46 million, for a total of approximately $43 million in outstanding debt service payments
that must be paid in FY26. She reminded the Board that these bills have to be paid first before any other expenses through the adopted tax rate.Ms. Liles explained that the current
outstanding principal amount, which Mr. Matthews had mentioned earlier, remains significant, with around $416 million in outstanding debt for both the County and education partners.
She shared a graph showing how the existing debt pays down over time, distinguishing the County’s portion and education’s portion, with the majority of the outstanding debt still related
to Union County Public Schools and South Piedmont Community College.She addressed future bond issuance plans. She reminded the Board that in FY25,it adopted a CIP project for the judicial
center and government center expansion and renovations, and at that time debt models were presented to issue a two-thirds general obligation bond to fund these projects. She clarified
that when a bond order is adopted for such projects, it is adopted for general county administration buildings, so if other alternatives arise over the next year, or if not all $13 million
is needed for the judicial center or other renovations, the funds can still be utilized for any general county administration building.She emphasized that issuing this $13 million in
debt does not require a tax rate increase, and the County can afford it without impacting the general county fund. Ms. Liles explained that the other two bonds planned for issuance in
July are both voter-approved. She said the first bond is for the schools, approved by voters this past November for $39.4 million. She said this bond will fund renovations at the existing
Forest Hills High School and East Union Middle School, and, as Chair Merrell alluded earlier, it also covers the design and pre-construction services for Parkwood High School.Ms. Liles
noted that the second bond issuance that was voter-approved bond is for South Piedmont Community College whichwere approved in the November 2022 referendum for a Center for Entrepreneurship.
She said the college is just now ready to start construction on the project, which is why the bonds had not been issued previously, as they were not ready to move forward with construction
following the bond election in 2022.Ms. Liles stated that for these three bonds, the County will move forward in the market in July to issue about $85 million in general obligation bond
debt.Ms. Liles explained that when looking at the existing and proposed debt service, the previous slide showed just the existing debt service, but this now adds in the new bonds that
will be issued. She stated of the $85 million total issuance, the debt service for the new bonds will be about $133 million with interest added in over the life of the bonds. She noted
these will be 20-year term bonds, and General Obligation (GO) Bonds are always issued at level principal with a 5 percent interest rate. She said hat in the first year, the full debt
service cost is not fully recognized and the full payment is realized in the second year of issuance.Ms. Liles explained that looking at the tax rates and debt models in front of the
Board, everything shown reflects voter-approved debt for the tax rate impact. She reminded the Board that Union County Public Schools had a bond approved in 2022, which was issued in
spring 2023. She said at the time, the County took every step it could to mitigate the tax rate impact, putting roughly $10 million into the education debt fund. She noted that in addition,
premiums generated at the time of the bond issuance were applied to that fund to help pay the debt service cost down.She said that in FY24 and FY25, all of that money has been spent
down and it is gone. Ms. Liles stated the bill is now coming due for those bonds in full, in addition to the school bonds that were just approved in November 2024. She said that during
the bond referendum process, when the presentation was made to the Board, the tax rate impact for Union County Public Schools was expected to be 1.77¢. She stated that for South Piedmont
back in 2022, the models showed 0.85¢, for a total of 2.62¢. Ms. Liles emphasized that this did not include the 2022 school referendum request, and she had gone back and looked at what
they had said then and the tax rate impact would have been 3.5¢, even though it is not on the schedule.She explained that staff did the best they could to mitigate any tax rate impact
from that point forward, even up to today, for that particular bond. Ms. Liles said that during FY25, at the Board retreat, staff presented debt models based on the current year’s penny
value, not revaluation. She said at that time, based on market conditions, it was thought they might be able to generate some bond premium with the upcoming bond, but with the current
economic uncertainty, they are not counting on generating bond premium to pay any future debt service costs. She said at that point, the schools’ estimated increase was 1.8¢.Ms. Lilesaddressed
South Piedmont stating the estimated tax rate impact had dropped significantly from the time of the bond referendum process to 0.28¢, for a total impact of 2.08¢. She stated that looking
at today’s models with the new revaluation, the new penny value being used is $6,081,022. She emphasized that no bond premiums are being factored in, since those funds were fully spent
on the 2023 bonds. She noted that they cannot predict the market to determine what a future bond sale might generate in premium that could be applied toward debt service costs.She said
they have also factored in conservative estimates for sales tax. Ms. Liles said they are trying to be very conservative with the growth factor for sales tax that is being factored in
the education debt fund. She emphasized that this needs to be considered to help build a buffer against any potential losses in sales tax revenue. She reminded the Board that, as covered
in her audit presentation, there is a three-month lag, and sales tax does not come in until the end of the year so even though debt service payments are already made, the cash is not
in the bank yet. Ms. Liles explained that the new bonds included in the models are added in using a five (5) percent interest rate, which is a conservative estimate based on today’s
market. She said the models also factor in the total debt service cost for the voter-approved Union County Public Schools bond and the South Piedmont bond. She stated that with all
of that included and the new penny value, the estimated actual increase for FY26 for both schools and South Piedmont comes out to 1.82¢, compared to what was estimated during the bond
referendum process and prior to revaluation. She provided an example of the annual tax rate increase impactfor a property valued at $100,000, with the estimated 1.82¢ tax rate increase,
the additional tax would be approximately $18.20. She said for an average Union County home valued at $450,000, the estimated increase would be approximately $82 above revenue neutral
for the education debt fund. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Ms. Liles if this page was included in their packet, and if not, to please send the information to all the Commissioners.
She explainedthe overall total tax rate needed for FY25 for the education debt fund. She said the current tax rate for all current debt is 2.92¢, and the revenue neutral tax rate brings
that down to 2.07¢. With the 1.82¢ increase that was just discussed for the new voter-approved debt, the total tax rate needed in FY26 is 3.89¢. She said as they continue through the
budget process, if these estimates change, they will come back and update the Board.Ms. Liles explained that for the overall debt funds for the County, no increase is needed for the
County’s general debt fund or the economic development fund. She said the current tax rate for all debt funds is 5.06¢, and the revenue neutral tax rate drops that down to a new penny
value to 3.59¢. She said adding the 1.82¢ increase needed for the education debt fund brings the total tax rate needed to 5.41¢ on the tax assessed value. She then asked if there were
any questions.She said she would conclude her presentation by outlining the next steps for capital planning and debt. She said staff will be coming back through May and June to finalize
the steps that are needed for the upcoming bond issuances in July. Ms. Liles stated that the first resolution and bond order will be on the May meeting, followed by adoption of the budget
ordinance in June. She said after that, in July, staff will return with capital project ordinances to adopt the actual projects, and at that point issue the voter-approved debt and
the two-thirds bonds.Ms. Liles said that over the next year, they will focus on revisiting all the long-term CIP plans with the County’s education partners, noting that it is time to
update those plans. She emphasized that staffwould work closely with the County’s education partners to update the long-term bond request needs and CIP needs. She also said they will
continue to work on general capital project needs with new assessments and alternatives and bring those back over the next year.Mr. Matthews commented thatthe County was very fortunate
that the general fund was able to adjust and avoid a tax rate impact on the 2022 school bonds. He said it was indicated to the Board that any future debt would have an impact on the
tax rate, and while the tax rate impact has been conservative, the impact has actually decreased because the revaluation has assisted with the penny value and other factors.He also said
that when he mentioned earlier a revenue tax rate of 41.59¢ on the $100, that did not take into consideration what is needed for the school bonds and for the debt that still needs to
be paid. He added that the good news is it is less than what was originally projected, but the bad news is there is still debt that the County has to pay.He concluded by saying that
staff has done a good job being conservative and finding ways to fund things without a rate impact, but the County is getting to the point where tough decisions will have to be made.Vice
Chair Brian W. Helms asked Ms. Liles to clarify whether the bond referendum that voters saw was the 1.77¢ estimate?Ms. Liles explained that what had to be shown to voters was the highest
interest rate on a similar bond issuance in the last 20 years, which was a little higher. She said for this new bond, it was actually 0.8¢, not .77¢, but the .77¢ shown to the Board
reflected current market at 5percent it was the .77¢.Chair Merrell asked to clarify for herself and viewers that the increase needed column was 1.82¢, but the total rate needed for 2026
went from 5.06¢ to 5.41¢.Ms. Liles explained that the current tax rate is based on today’s penny value before revaluation is added. She said today the rate is 5.06¢, but the revenue
neutral tax rate is required to be shown for budget adoption.Ms. Liles explained that the revenue neutral tax rate, if nothing else was changing and no new bonds were being issued, would
only need a tax rate of 3.59¢. She said what has to be shown is based on the new penny value, what increase is required after revaluation above what would normally be adopted for the
revenue neutral tax rate. She added that looking at the current tax rate with all factors added in, after revaluation it is now 5.41¢, and it is not much of a change from 5.06¢, but
they are required to show the revenue neutral tax rate to the Board and to the citizens.Mr. Matthews noted that essentially the 1.82¢ would be added to the 41.59¢ to cover everything,
including debt and the revenue neutral tax rate.Commissioner Sides asked if the 2022 bond had been oversubscribed and if that was where part of the additional funding came from that
could be applied toward debt service.Ms. Liles confirmed that was correct.Commissioner Sides asked if the premium would not be known until July.Ms. Liles explained that the premium is
only known when the bonds actually go to market.Ms. Liles explained that the premium would not be known until after the budget is adopted and factoring a premium that is not guaranteed
in the budget adoption is not something she would recommend.Commissioner Sides said that there are no guarantees anything will happen even after the bonds are issued.Ms. Liles responded
that was correct.Mr. Matthews acknowledged that it is a lot to digest and explained that staff will continue refining the information and will bring back any additional impacts as they
become known and see.He added that the good news is that staff hasdone a good job trying to reduce the impact as much as possible.He also addressed questions about the tax rate and penny
value, assuring the public that he, his team, and the Board are very concerned with keeping the rate as low as possible to ensure everyone’s tax bill remains as low as possible.Commissioner
CommentsCommissioner Baucom thanked staff for giving the Commissioners plenty to digest and think about, noting it was just a lot to take in but expressing confidence they would get
on top of it. He said he also appreciated County Manager Matthews’ comments about staff trying its best to keep the tax rate as low as possible. He wished everyone a safe and meaningful
Passover season and hoped everyone would be careful on the way home.Commissioner Christina Helms had no comments.Chair Merrell said she would pass on comments for tonight but wanted
to thank staff for all the heavy lifting involved in preparing and delivering the presentation, expressing appreciation for everything brought to the Board and the work it took to get
it ready.Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to Mr. Counter for being present and sharing his story, and also acknowledging Loretta Melancon for all of her efforts over
the years in keeping Union County clean and litter-free.He also thanked Ms. Liles, Mr. May, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Niland, and Mr. Voignier, and Mr. Boyd for their work. He said this has
been a tremendous amount of work for the staff and expressed that at least the Board sees it, and he hopes the public sees the effort that was made to get them in a position where they
can talk through and look at the effects these things have on the budget and ultimately on the tax rate.He noted that there are obviously some voter-approved items that need to be funded
and considered, and that the staff has given the Board plenty to look at and think about. He acknowledged the great effort that staff hasdone and said he is convinced they have great
folks working on these budgets.He echoed Commissioner Baucom’s comments, mentioned Easter is coming up, wished everyone a happy Easter, and said his prayer for everyone is to remember
the meaning of Easter.Commissioner Sides thanked staff for providing the excellent information and wished everyone a happy Easter.AdjournmentAt approximately 7:22 p.m., Chair Merrell
moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion passed unanimously as follows: Chair Melissa M. MerrellAyeVice Chair Brian W. HelmsAyeCommissioner Clancy BaucomAyeCommissioner Christina
B. HelmsAyeCommissioner Gary SidesAye