06-16-2025 - MinutesUnion County, NC Board of Commissioners
Meeting Minutes
Union County Government Center
500 North Main Street Monroe, North Carolina
www.unioncountync.gov
Monday, June 16, 20256:00 PMBoard Room, First Floor
____________________________________________________________
25-390Closed Session – 5:15 P.M.
Present:Chair Melissa M. Merrell; Vice Chair Brian W. Helms; Commissioner Clancy C. Baucom; Commissioner Christina B. Helms and Commissioner Gary Sides
Absent: None
At approximately 5:25 p.m., in the open session, in the Stony D. Rushing Conference Meeting Room, Chair Merrell called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order.
Chair Merrell moved that the Board enter closed session pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11:
(a)(3), for attorney-client privilege: and
(a)(6), to consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or
employee or prospective public officer or employee;
as such purposes are fully stated in the agenda for this meeting, which has been made publicly available.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa B. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary Sides Aye
At approximately 6:00 p.m., Chair Merrell moved that the Board take a recess and reconvene at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible in the Board’s meeting chamber. The motion
passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair Melissa B. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary Sides Aye
Opening of Meeting - 6:00 PM
At approximately 6:10 P.M., Chair Merrell opened the regular meeting and welcomed everyone present. She recognized Commissioner Gary Sides to offer the invocation.
Invocation –Commissioner Gary Sides offered the invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance–Chair Merrell led the body and 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 Informal Comments and recognized Jessica Leigh as the first speaker.
The following speakers registered online to comment during Informal Comments but were not present when called by the Chair: Jessica Leigh, Kelly O’Neill, and Tina Sykes-Mosley.
Chair Merrell recognized the speakers who registered in person and called Regan Shaw.
Ms. Shaw introduced herself as a Union County Public Schools’ (UCPS) parent. She noted that although she and Commissioner Sides had differences in the past,they agreed that public school
teachers and certified staff deserve to be paid properly.
She said it was time to decide whether teachers would be paid at the local level. She stated that if the Board approved the budget, UCPS had not been given enough money to provide even
a tiny pay rise for teachers.
Ms. Shaw referenced the additional funding package Mrs. McLamb had explained, including funding for two extra nurses, a modest EC reorganization to meet urgent needs, and an extra month
of admin support for the change from PowerSchool to the new system. She said these items did not seem like ones that could be cut.
Ms. Shaw noted that Fort Mill’s starting salary for teachers is $50,000, and questioned why Union County teachers could not at least earn that amount.
She said Union County had lost too many youth to gun violence and urged the Board to speak out against concealed carry for 18-year-olds, warning that more kids would be lost if it became
law.
Randy Down explained that he and his family live in the Wesley Chapel area of Union County, and he serves in law enforcement as a sworn police officer. He stated that he works in Union
County at a smaller department that is not the Sheriff’s Office. He said he was speaking in response to Commissioner Sides’ comment from May 19 regarding the need to work with the Sheriff’s
Office to address the attrition rate and the concern about losing good employees. He stated that he agreed completely with that concern. He added that he would personally welcome the
opportunity to work for the Union County Sheriff’s Office, and the deputies he has spoken with speak very highly of working with that office. He expressed strong respect for the Sheriff’s
Office and said it is an honor for his family to have them serving the County.
Mr. Down stated that if he ever had the chance to work for the Sheriff’s Office, he would prefer to serve as a School Resource Officer rather than as a patrol deputy, mainly because
of the rotating shifts. He explained that many deputies rotate between day shift and night shift every thirty days and that rotating shifts would prevent him personally from being a
deputy with them. He noted the challenges that shift work creates both personally and for long-term health, mentioning concerns he has heard from deputies as well. He referenced documentation
about increase in cancer, heart disease, gastrointestinal disorders, mental health concerns, obesity, and diabetes. He emphasized that he was not criticizing the Sheriff or the office,
as every agency operates differently.
Mr. Down said he had heard that the rotating shift schedule is related to the court system, because scheduling court appearances is easier when deputies are on day shift. He mentioned
that during his past work in Mecklenburg County, officers were scheduled for afternoon court instead. He suggested that moving from rotating shifts to permanent shifts in Union County
could be something worth discussing.
He then addressed Commissioner Sides and said that this shift issue is one factor that could make the Sheriff’s Office more appealing to deputies and to individuals seeking employment
with that office. He acknowledged that pay and other issues have been part of the discussion but explained that the rotating shift schedule is a big factor for him personally.
Public Hearing(s)
25-365Public Hearing -Conditional Rezoning 2025-CZ-002 Gordon
Chair Merrell announced that the first public hearing was Item 25-365, Conditional Rezoning 2025-CZ-002 Gordon. She opened the public hearing at approximately 6:20 p.m. and recognized
Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner, Long Range Planning, to provide comments from the staff.
Mr. Hansen explained that this is Conditional Rezoning 2025-CZ-002 Gordon requesting to rezone a portion of a parcel in Jackson Township on Mary Elizabeth Church Road from RA-40 to Light
Industrial to allow an existing legal non-conforming automobile repair and maintenance facility to expand beyond the legal non-conforming portion.
The written staff report included in the agenda package stated that the rezoning would include the following conditions:
Limited to site plan dated April 11, 2025.
Uses limited to personal and commercial vehicle repair and maintenance.
2.65 acre portion will be subdivided with LI with conditions zoning applied.
Five-year vesting of development rights.
Development will meet all requirements of the Union County Unified Development Ordinance on the date of approval.
He noted that the site plan on Mary Elizabeth Church Road shows the front portion, proposed lot two, being rezoned and subdivided out. He stated the area to be rezoned is for storage
with gravel and a potential future building for material storage and service work.
Mr. Hansen said existing conditions show vehicle storage for a legal non-conforming portion that has been in existence for approximately a decade. He displayed a photograph showing north
and south of Mary Elizabeth Church Road andnoted large lot residential area with a church across the street, and on the opposite side is the existing facility where the maintenance work
is done which is also legal non-conforming.
Mr. Hansen stated in terms of development status there are large undeveloped areas but a fair number of homes along Mary Elizabeth Church Road.
He addressed the environmental features of the site and noted there are a couple of man-made ponds in the back. He said one of the ponds would be used for storm water, and the cleared
area drains back. He explained the cleared area from a couple of years ago shows the disturbance that resulted in the code violation motivating the rezoning. He said that area is allowed
to exist regardless of the rezoning decision, because it has been in existence longer than the State requires for allowing a legal non-conforming use to occur, but the area to the south
was cleared in the last couple of years and is the area being considered for the rezoning.
Mr. Hansen said the zoning in the area is all RA-40 and transportation is relatively low volume, with approximately 1,200–1,300 vehicles per day on Potter and Tom Starnes. He stated
there is no traffic count for Mary Elizabeth Church Road. He noted there are no funded projects in the area. He said the land use plan calls for rural residential, approximately one-acre
lots and agricultural uses. He stated that because it is commercial in nature,Union County Public Schools was not consulted, and the site would utilize well and septic.
Mr. Hansen reported that a community meeting was held in April, and there was one attendee with questions about the proposed use and additional uses. He explained that conditional rezoning
is limited to the site plan and the conditions. He said one resident submitted written opposition over appearance concerns if the resident were to sell his home in the future, and two
residents spoke at the land use board meeting last month. He stated that one resident was in favor of the rezoning and one resident was opposed to the rezoning request.
He added that the Town of Waxhaw was too far away to be considered for outreach.
Mr. Hansen said the negatives are:the area is rural residential; the proposed light Industrial designation is not consistent with the land use map, and it could motivate future rezonings
for other industrial uses inconsistent with the plan; and the rezoning is in response to a zoning violation. He stated the proposed use is several times larger than what is allowed with
the legal non-conforming portion to accommodate the recently cleared area.
He said the positives are: there is a legal non-conforming portion of the business across the street, which is part of an existing business, which would not create a significant traffic
impact, because the operations are already in existence; and it would increase business opportunities for Union County residents. He noted the site plan went through review and can meet
standards. However, he said that the Planning Staff’s recommendation was to deny the request.
Mr. Hansen stated the Planning Board had a robust discussion and voted denial on a split vote of four to three. He said the applicant is present with additional information.
Commissioner Baucom asked the applicant to step forward.
Adam Gordon expressed appreciation to the Board for its time and stated he is a Union County resident from Jackson Township.
Commissioner Baucom asked Mr. Gordon who is his primary customer base.
Mr. Gordon stated that his primary customer base is the general public and the community. He said he primarily works fordaily drivers used forcommuting, and his shop is at his parents’
house, a 40 by 40 building with a two 10-foot-tall door, which limits what he can do. He noted that he occasionally works on some medium and heavy-duty vehicles belonging to local community
members, owner-operators who live in the community, and farmers. He explained that because of the small facility, he can only perform minor repairs to keep vehicles running and save
towing costs, and provide emissions and equipment repairs to help local farmers and owner-operators. He added that his primary business is smaller, everyday vehicles.
Chair Merrell asked if there were any other questions.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how many vehicles are at the site taking up space which have been unclaimed by their owners and taking up space.
Mr. Gordon responded that originally all the land on that side of the road belonged to his great uncle. He explained that when his great uncle passed away, the land was split into thirds.
He noted that the area on which he operates his business is the legal non-conforming portion that was grandfathered in, and previously all the land was planted in pines for harvest before
the land was sold and half of the land was developed, they cut everything to the right-hand side of the property for development and thinned the center section, which he owns. He explained
that the lot he has been using for years was where equipment was set up during logging operations, and it was stumped but not cleared. He added that when he purchased the land, he took
advantage of that clearing.
Mr. Gordon stated that he purchased the land in 2013 and the land was planted in pines. He explained that he built a small house on the property where he and his wife lived, and she
is pregnant with their fifth child. He noted that a couple of years ago they sold that house and built a house next door, which is why the property is subdivided as it is. He added that
during that process he had to contact the U.S. Forestry Service.
Mr. Gordon stated that the pines started to die rapidly. He said he had an agent come out who identified pine beetles and instructed that the trees had to be cut. He explained that the
agent helped him find someone to harvest what little remained. He added that while grading the house site, he had the contractor stump everything to clean up the area.
Mr. Gordon stated that prior to COVID, they were able to get vehicles in and out quickly. He explained that when COVID came, the parts industry experienced long delays, sometimes months,
which require them to use that area for vehicles.
Mr. Gordon stated that currently vehicles occasionally sit for a week due to parts delays, but everything is claimed. He explained that they do not operate as a junkyard or for restorations,
and that when a vehicle breaks down, he fixes it and returns it as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked Mr. Gordon if there are currently any vehicles on the property and the number of vehicles located on the property that he is not currently working
on.
Mr. Gordon stated that all vehicles currently on the property are being worked on. He noted that two vehicles were dropped off while the owners were on vacation, but no vehicles are
being stored long-term. He added that most of the vehicles they work on are fixable.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Gordon how many employees he has working at his shop.
Mr. Gordon stated that pre-COVID he had two employees, and he now has three full-time employees and on the weekends two to three part-time employees.
Commissioner Sides asked if the property is fenced, noting that it was not clear from the pictures.
Mr. Gordon stated that the property is not fenced. He noted there is a fairly extensive row of hedges. Heshared some images from Google Maps, thatwere taken in November 2024. He noted
that some leaves are still visible, but the majority have fallen. He explained that the video scrolls through the property and shows the thinnest part of the hedge that was left when
it was cut.
Mr. Gordon Stated that when he created the site plan, he did not realize a plan was required, but he opted to put in a natural hedge around the property because it felt less invasive
than a fence. He noted that he does not want neighbors to see the site and acknowledged their complaint but added that fortunately his business has increased, and they could use and
take advantage of it.
Mr. Gordon stated that some parts arrive on freight trucks, but the driveway is too small for them to access the shop. He explained that recently trucks have had to unload at the road.
He added that the expansion would allow freight trucks to pull in and unload safely, freeing up the road and making it safer.
Mr. Gordon noted that on the site plan he proposed a building in this area in case his parents sell, so he would not lose access to the shop or have to navigate issues with the driveway.
He stated that even the proposed building on the site plan is not big enough for tractor-trailer repair. He noted that while he would not agree to limit work on medium heavy-duty equipment,
he does not work on tractors. He added that he does not want to be limited in helping neighbors.
Mr. Gordon stated that during harvest season, he does a lot of work for farmers, mostly in the field, but occasionally they bring vehicles into the parking lot for part changes or diagnostics.
He noted that he does not want to be limited in providing that service.
Chair Merrell asked if there were any other questions and thanked Mr. Gordon for answering them.
Chair Merrell stated that one person hadregistered to speak during the public hearing. She recognized Michelle Brunette who stated that she is a 35-year resident of Union County, and
she had purchased 13 acres on the Potter Road side of Mr. Gordon’s property 23 years ago. She said she has been concerned about his property use for the last five years but did not report
or complain, because she did not want to cause trouble for her neighbor. She added that she respects his right to operate a business and noted that his father had been there long before
she moved in.
Ms. Brunette stated that she is speaking because rezoning is permanent. She noted that Mr. Gordon currently has a variance allowing him to use half an acre for business, but he regularly
exceeds that amount. She added that his storage frequently violates the agreement he is supposed to be operating under.
Ms. Brunette stated that at the May Land Use Board meeting, it was obvious the board wanted to approve Mr. Gordon’s rezoning request with the condition that he not service or park the
trailer portion of tractor-trailer units due to potential damage to nearby roads. She noted that Mr. Gordon argued he would not do that anyway because his soil and parking area would
not support the weight.
Ms. Brunette stated that last week a full-size tanker truck was parked on the property for about 10 days. She noted that the vehicles on the property are not family daily drivers but
rather larger vehicles such as cherry pickers, big 350 trucks, large panel trucks like Duke Power uses, and large box trucks. She added that she observes this frequently as she lives
next door and drives by the property.
Ms. Brunette stated that she sent a letter regarding property values and is very concerned about her property value. She noted that the property is an eyesore and that when her property
was listed, the first question from potential buyers and her realtor was about the neighboring property because it is so visible from aerials.
Ms. Brunette questioned whether there is anything to stop Mr. Gordon from filling in the current pond areas and using the full 2.6 acres for tractor-trailer storage. She noted that since
he argued against the one condition at the Land Use Board meeting, that seems to be the direction he is headed.
Ms. Brunette asked if the Board would have granted the rezoning five years ago, before the parcel was cleared, graded, graveled, and used the parcel for light industrial purposes, when
it was still heavily wooded and planted in pines.
Mr. Gordan asked if he could address the Board again. Chair Merrell did not allow further comments from Mr. Gordon.
Chair Merrell closed the public hearing at approximately 6:41 p.m.
25-366Public Hearing Conditional Rezoning 2024-CZ-011 Union Landscaping
Chair Merrell introduced the next item on the agenda, item 25-366 for Conditional Rezoning 2024-CZ-011, Union Landscaping. She opened the public hearing at approximately 6:42 p.m. and
recognized Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner – Long Range Planning, for comments from county staff.
Mr. Hansen stated that this was a second conditional rezoning request to address a code violation. He said the site was located in the Monroe Township near the airport and was a single
parcel of approximately 2.4 acres proposed to be rezoned from RA-20 to RA-40.
The written staff report included in the agenda package stated that the rezoning would include the following conditions:
Limited to site plan dated April 21, 2025.
Uses limited to nursery, greenhouse, and landscaping business.
Five-year vesting of development rights.
Development will meet all requirements of the Union County Unified Development Ordinance on the date of approval.
Mr. Hansen explained that it included a special use permit for the list of uses because it was a greenhouse plus a landscaping business. He said there was a site plan for the proposal
and the property was on Sanford Lane. He reported that the aerials showed these uses already in existence, with two gated driveways, a pond used for storm water, a nursery area on the
east and south, and a graveled middle area with parking for vehicles.
Mr. Hansen stated that the photos show the business is in operation, with mainly single-family residential surrounding the site, although there are large areas of industrial nearby.
He said Monroe is immediately to the north and did not have comments or concerns about the proposed rezoning. He noted Gold Mine Road is immediately to the north and the airport is nearby.
He reported that to the south is a subdivision with single-family residential, a church down the street, and to the north is largely vacant and undeveloped.
Mr. Hansen stated that in terms of environmental features, there is a stream with a floodplain to the west and a natural gas pipeline on the western edge of the property. He noted that
none of these features are on the site itself.
Mr. Hansen stated that in terms of zoning, there is light industrial zoning immediately to the west and north, which was approved in the last 20 years, and RA-20 zoning for the remainder
of the property and surrounding area.
Mr. Hansen stated that in terms of transportation, Sanford Lane carries approximately 1,400 vehicles per day and Gold Mine Road has nearly 6,000 vehicles per day. He noted that there
are no funded road improvements in the area, and no improvements are required as part of this site.
Mr. Hansen stated that in terms of the land use plan, there is an employment center indicated on the map focused aroundthe airport, but the location is not precise. He said single-family
residential is located to the south with utilities approximately two units per acre, similar to the existing zoning. He noted that the gray area on the map is Monroe, for which Union
County does not do land use planning.
Mr. Hansen stated that because this was a commercial proposal, the school system was not consulted and the site would use well and septic.
He said a community meeting was held in early May with two attendees who were supportive and had no concerns. He noted that no changes were made, and no one spoke against the proposal
at the Land Use Board meeting in May, and Monroe did not have any comments. He added that the applicants are present to answer questions, and he is also available for questions.
Mr. Hansen stated that staff and the Planning Board recommended approval. He noted the negatives are that the area is single-family residential and the uses are commercial, which could
facilitate additional rezonings of a similar nature. He added that the greenhouse has been in existence for many years and the landscaping business caused the issue. He said the proposal
would not create a significant traffic impact, is on the edge of an employment center, is influenced by a commercial center designation from two rezonings approved in the last 20 years,
would increase business opportunities, and the site plan can meet Union County development standards.
Chair Merrell asked if the applicant was present and would like to speak. She welcomed the applicant and noted they could speak for up to 15 minutes.
Angel Riquelme Javana, representing Union Landscaping, introduced herself and asked if it might be possible to wrap up the approval process, noting they have a lot of plans coming up.
Mr. Matthews explained that typically the Board waits until the next meeting to take action, but the next Board of Commissioners’ meeting is not until July 14 due to the summer break.
He noted that in the past, the Board has waived that rule when there was no opposition and added that it would be a Board call in this case.
Chair Merrell asked if the Board chooses to waive the waiting period, would a motion need to be made tonight after everyone had a chance to ask questions.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, stated that the Board would need to make that motion this evening to consider it at the end of the meeting, noting that there may be other business to consider
prior to that time.
Chair Merrell suggested amending the agenda to add the item to business.
Mr. Kay responded yes.
Chair Merrell asked if there were any further comments from the applicant.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked how many employees are employed by Union Landscaping.
The applicant stated that Union Landscaping that the company has 14 full-time employees and one (1) part-time employee.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if the addition of the hardscape to the business would it potentially add any employees or create any growth opportunities.
The applicant responded that she hopes to add growth, potentially adding about six more employees.
Commissioner Baucom stated that he would need to recuse himself from the vote because he does business with the applicant and would need to step back.
Mr. Kay stated that if Commissioner Baucom was requesting to be recused, it would be appropriate for the Board to make a motion and consider whether to recuse him from the vote.
Commissioner Sides moved to allow Commissioner Baucom to recuse himself from the decision.
Chair Merrell called for a vote of the motion to recuse Commissioner Baucom.
The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeCommissioner Baucom did not vote.
Mr. Matthews stated that Commissioner Baucom did not need to leave at this point because the agenda had not yet been adopted and the Board had not reached the item.
Chair Merrell stated that no one had registered to comment on this rezoning and asked if anyone present wished to speak.
With there being no one wishing to comment during the public hearing, Chair Merrell closed the public hearing at approximately 6:51 p.m.
Commissioner Sides asked if it would be an appropriate time to make a motion to expedite the decision on the rezoning item and add it to the agenda so a decision could be made tonight.
Chair Merrell stated that it was a great question and that when the Board gets to the approval of the agenda and consent, the item could be added at that time.
Staff Recognition
25-338Present the Lifesaver Award to Five Sheriff’s Office Employees
Chair Merrell stated that the next item on the agenda was item 25-338, the presentation of the Lifesaver Award to five Sheriff’s Office employees. She recognized Deputy County Manager
Patrick Niland to present the item.
Mr. Niland shared that on Sunday, May 4, 2025, members of the Baker Squad Patrol Division were at StacksRestaurant in Waxhaw when they were alerted that a 78-year-old man was choking.
He noted that the man was visibly struggling to breathe, and the deputies immediately acted. He said one deputy performed the Heimlich Maneuver while the others coordinated the response,
calling for EMS and fire assistance.
Mr. Niland stated that from their fast and effective teamwork, the food was dislodged, and the man was able to breathe again on his own and did not require hospitalization. He said
those five deputies are receiving the Lifesaver award tonight.
He stated that it is amazing how often the County is able to recognize employees and how often employeesare in the right place at the right time. He invited Sheriff Eddie Cathey to share
some comments.
Sheriff Cathey said this kind of effort is really routine for their agency. He shared thatthe deputies are out there every day on long 12-hour shifts with no meal breaks constantly
working. He said he is proud of these officersbut also wanted everyone to understand that this is what they do every day.
The following officers were recognized and photographed with the Commissioners and Sheriff Cathey: Sergeant Corey Williams, Deputy Sarah Tucker, Deputy Luke McWhorter, Deputy Nicholas
La Sala, and Deputy Ian Barclay.
25-351GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
Chair Merrell stated that the next staff recognition item was 25-351, the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting, and recognized Beverly Liles, Finance
Director, for staff’s comments.
Ms. Liles said it was her pleasure to recognize the finance staff for receiving the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2024.
She explained that in order to receive the award, the financial report is judged by an impartial panel to determinethat it meets the highest standards of the program, including full
disclosure and clear communication of the County’s financial story. She pointed out that this is the highest recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting and represents
a significant accomplishment by Union County’s management and staff.
Ms. Liles invited the following staff members from the Finance Department to join in receiving the award and to be photographed with the Commissioners: Ebru Cukro, Accounting Services
Supervisor and CPA, Brady Chaffin, Payroll Accountant, and John Buchanan, Assistant Finance Director. She noted that several members of her staff were unable to attend tonight’s meeting
but indicated that a total of 11 staff members contributed to the work.
Consent Agenda
Chair Merrell asked if there were any motions regarding requested revisions or amendments to either the consent or business agenda.
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to add consideration of the item regarding opposition to Senate Bill 205 to the business portion of the agenda.
Chair Merrell asked if there were any other motions.
Commissioner Sides asked if it would be appropriate to add consideration of the rezoning request for the landscaping business, item 25-366, to the business portion of the agenda to expedite
the decision.
Chair Merrell asked if there were any other requested changes to the agenda.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to remove item 25-389 – Joint Resolution and Interlocal Agreement Amendment – Execution and Implementation of Final Documentation Related to Previously
Approved Dissolution and Liquidation of the Monroe-Union County Economic Development Commission from the consent agenda for further consideration.
Chair Merrell called for a vote on the changes as stated. [NOTE TO BARBARA: no motion]
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the items listed on the consent agenda as amended.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
25-370Special Revenue Ordinance Amendment & Purchases - Union
County Sheriff’s Office
ACTION:1) Adopted Special Revenue Ordinance Amendment #074A, and 2)authorized the County Manager to i) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item,
ii) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth in the Agreement, and iii) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's
discretion.
The Union County Sheriff’s Office requests the recognition of
$159,644.00 in revenue received as part of the Federal Equitable Sharing
Program. Additionally, the Agency requests the recognition of $29,803.00
in earned interest, for a total of $189,447.00. These funds, also referred
to as Federal Forfeiture funds, are the result of investigative partnerships
between federal and local law enforcement agencies. These partnerships
allow for any proceeds deemed forfeitable at the end of a criminal
proceeding to be distributed to applicable agencies, based on their
involvement in the investigation. Federal law requires the funds, and any
interest earned, be used at the sole discretion of the recipient agencies
for law enforcement purposes only. The law also states these funds
cannot supplant an agency’s operating budget. The ability to make
one-time equipment purchases and pay for specialized training, that have
not been identified within or planned for in the Agency’s operating budget,
provides opportunities to further enhance services to the residents and
visitors of Union County. A portion of this revenue will be used for
purchase of RapidDNA technology, as well as purchase specialized
equipment for patrol operations.
The Union County Sheriff’s Office Crime Laboratory seeks to add
RapidDNA to its growing list of forensic disciplines available to County
residents and law enforcement partners within the region. The
implementation of RapidDNA across the world has drastically reduced
backlogs and turnaround times of DNA cases being processed in crime
laboratories. The addition of RapidDNA technology provides the Union
County Sheriff’s Office with the ability to quickly compare DNA samples
gathered from crime scenes against a database of known offenders. With
RapidDNA, it is possible to make a match in as little as 90 minutes.
Union County currently relies on the NC State Crime Lab to perform DNA
testing, a process that takes between 18 and 36 months. Because
RapidDNA can be deployed in the field for a variety of events, such as
break-ins, homicides, and mass casualty situations, the opportunity to
quickly identify individuals will be at the fingertips of investigators,
producing nearly instant leads. The training required would be available to
any employee of the Sheriff’s Office and is not restricted by division or
expertise. No additional personnel are required to implement the
RapidDNA system.
RapidDNA is less costly than traditional DNA testing methods and does
not require personnel to have high-level scientific training. The method
has been approved by the FBI for inmate use in those cases requiring
DNA collection. As mentioned, it brings the capability to quickly identify
unknown victims. RapidDNA was used successfully in the June 2021
condominium collapse in South Florida. In an effort to quickly gain the
identity of victims, the DNA of known family members was collected and
compared to the DNA of those who could not otherwise be identified.
Accreditation is available through ANAB, the Crime Lab’s current
accreditation body. The Union County Sheriff’s Office will use available
equitable sharing (asset forfeiture) funds to purchase the RapidDNA
system. These funds are available for one-time expenditures, usually
equipment centered, that support the law enforcement functions of the
Sheriff’s Office.
N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(3) and N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(9) allow local
governments to make purchases through a competitively bid North
Carolina Statewide Term Contract or a Group Purchasing Program.
The purchase of the RapidDNA will be made using Group Purchasing
Program, OMINA Contract # 2021002889 quoted by Fisher Scientific in
the amount of $106,750.
Additional revenue in the amount of $189,447.00 is being recognized to
cover these purchases.
25-371Contract Renewal - Internet Services
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 has utilized the contractual services of
Windstream Communications for Internet Services since 2016.
Windstream Communications has been effective and efficient in meeting the Sheriff’s Office’s service needs, and the request is to continue this service for anadditional three years.
The Sheriff’s Office will work with Procurement toexplore solicitation options near the end of the term.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $34,719. Since this contract
contains a three-year term, a total of $104,157 is estimated to be spent.
Funding is subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.
25-369Contract - Miscellaneous Hydraulic Modeling Services
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 Water Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes
allocations for water transmission and elevated storage facilities.
Validation of projects and/or alternatives may be required from time to
time using the County’s hydraulic model. In addition to validation of
planned capital projects, evaluation of service area boundaries, approach
to system shut-downs, and planned maintenance activities may also be
required on an as needed basis.
To support these needs, HDR Engineering has been selected to provide
hydraulic modeling services to support validation of planned capital
projects and system evaluations. HDR Engineering was chosen from a
list of vendors previously selected from RFQ 2024-021 - Engineering
Services for Water and Wastewater System Improvements to provide
these services for Union County Projects.
Task order 8683-02 was originally developed and executed in the amount
of $47,300 under the County Manager’s signature authority. The
amendment to the task order in the amount of $48,400 is required to
continue provision of the necessary services. Board approval is required
for the amendment as the total expenditure limit exceeds $50,000.
The total cost of the Task Order 8686-02 with HDR Engineering is
$95,700. Sufficient funds are available in Capital Account Program
60184521 - Hydraulic Modeling Services.
25-374Purchase - Sewer Line Cleaning Machine
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 current Sewer Line Cleaning Machine has reached the end of its
useful life. This machine allows sewer lines that are off-road to be
cleaned in an effective and efficient manner.
N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(3) and N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(9) allow local
governments to make purchases through a competitively bid North
Carolina Statewide Term Contract or a Group Purchasing Program.
The purchase of the Sewer Line Cleaning Machine will be made using NC
Sheriff’s Association Heavy Equipment Contract #24-08-0421R as quoted
by Rodders & Jets Supply Co.
The anticipated cost for the Sewer Line Cleaning Machine is $75,588.10
and is budgeted accordingly for FY2025.
25-376Write Off - FY25 Water & Sewer Delinquent Balances
ACTION:Approved the write-off of uncollectible water and sewer accounts asneeded.
N.C.G.S 25-2-725(1) and 1-52(1) place a statute of limitations on how far
back delinquent water, sewer, and solid waste account balances can be
collected. Water accounts can be collected up to 4 years past their final
bill date while sewer accounts can only be collected up to 3 years past
their final bill date. Any outstanding account balances past those dates
are considered to be write-offs defined as the elimination of uncollectible
accounts receivable recorded on the general ledger.
The included attachment, showing 885 water and sewer accounts totaling
$109,056.20, denotes the information for FY2025.
There will be a reduction in the accounts receivable balances for Union
County Water of $109,056.20. This will also be shown as a corresponding
expense to the enterprise fund uncollectable accounts.
25-362Contract Renewal - Medical Director Services
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 Public Health Department utilizes the contractual
services of a physician to oversee clinical and medical aspects of public
health programs. This physician serves as medical director, working
part-time, to provide expert guidance on health conditions and medical
treatment. Utilizing a contracted medical director offers several strategic
benefits, such as flexibility in staffing, access to specialized expertise,
operational efficiency, and cost effectiveness. Employing the part-time
contractual medical director's services of Dr. Stephen Keener, MD, MPH
has been effective and efficient in meeting the department’s service and patient careneeds, and the request is to continue this service for an additionalone-year term, with an optional
one-year renewal term.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $84,400. Since this contract
contains a one-year term with an optional one-year renewal term, a total
of $168,800 is estimated to be spent. Funding is dependent upon annual
BOCC budget appropriation.
25-372Funding Approval & Purchase - NC 911 Board Cybersecurity
Remediation Initiative Data Server Project
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) accept funding offered by theCybersecurity Remediation Initiative (CRI) through the North Carolina 911Board, 2) negotiate and execute agreements
substantially consistent withthis agenda item, 3) exercise any renewal or extension term options setforth in the Agreements, and 4) terminate the Agreements if deemed in
the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
Emergency Communications submitted a proposal to the 911 Board in
December 2024, under the CRI, for funds to purchase and integrate two
new servers. The proposal was approved by the 911 Board on February
28, 2025, and funding for the proposal was awarded. Funding for the
project will be shared between the Emergency Telephone System Fund
(ETSF) and the CRI.
N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(3) and N.C.G.S 143-129(e)(9) allow local
governments to make purchases through a competitively bid North
Carolina Statewide Term Contract or a Group Purchasing Program.
The purchase of the servers will be made using the Buyboard Group
Purchasing Program, Contract #661-22 as quoted by Newcom.
The anticipated cost for the project is $479,818.82, of which $438,520.38
is for the purchase of two servers. All project costs are to be paid for by
the ETSF and the CRI. There is no anticipated financial impact to Union
County for FY25 or FY26.
25-348Fireworks Display - The Club at Longview, 8801 Longview Club Drive
ACTION:Approved the Union County Fire Marshal’s Office to issue the requiredoperational permit for Fire Works Display occurring on July 4, 2025, atThe Club at Longview, 8801 Longview
Club Drive, as defined by the NCFire Code.
Bill Brown DBA Parties by Design has submitted an application for
fireworks display to be conducted on private property for a display at an
event venue, The Club at Longview, 8801 Longview Club Drive on Friday,
July 4, 2025. As prescribed in the North Carolina State Fire Code, 2018
Edition, Section 5608 and North Carolina General Statues 14-410, the
Board of County Commissioners must be asked to grant permission to
conduct the fireworks display. Parties by Design has submitted with their
application all of the required documentation which includes a site map of
the show area that indicates audience areas, safety fall out area, a
description of the show including the size of shells being used, a
certificate of liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 and a copy of the
certified operator’s license. The Union County Fire Marshal's Office has
reviewed the documentation and has determined that pending a site
inspection on July 4, 2025, and pending approval by the Union County
Board of Commissioners as required under NCGS 14-410 that Parties by
Design will be eligible for permitting for the public fireworks display.
Should inclement weather delay the display, the Union County Board of
County Commissioners also authorizes the display at a later date and
time determined by the applicant and the Union County Fire Marshal.
Any change of the original date will be approved by the Union County
Manager.
25-331Budget Amendment - Health Benefits Internal Service Fund
ACTION:Adopted Budget Amendment 36.
End of year medical expenses can be difficult to project. This budget
amendment is a precautionary measure to appropriate available fund
balance in the Health Benefits fund and ensure sufficient budget to cover
all end of year expenditures. Any unused funds will return to fund
balance.
Appropriate Health Fund Benefits Fund,fund balance, in the amount of
$4,300,000, to cover increased medical claims.
25-347Authorization to Write Off Returned or Uncollectible Revenues
ACTION:Approved the write-off of returned or uncollectible revenues totaling$19,409.47.
The Finance Department has conducted a review of outstanding returned
revenues, including non-sufficient funds (NSF) checks, closed accounts,
and other uncollectible payments. After reasonable and diligent efforts to
collect these funds, the department has determined that these amounts
are not recoverable. It is requested that the Board approve to formally writeoff these amounts from the County’s financial records.
The total amount to be written off is $19,409.47. These funds have
previously been recorded but are now deemed uncollectible. No
additional budget appropriation is required.
25-349Contracts - FY 2026 Community Partners
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to approve FY 2026 Community Partnercontracts that exceed $50,000.
Union County has existing agreements with thirteen (13) Community
Partners. Five of these contracts exceed $50,000 for FY 2026 and,
therefore, fall outside of the Manager’s contracting authority for approval.
These are:
· Safer Communities Ministry: $90,000 ($10,000 increase over
FY2025)
· Union County Community Action: $75,000 ($5,737 increase over
FY2025)
· Union County Community Arts Council: $52,018 (no increase over
FY2025)
· Community Health Services of Union County: $150,000 (no
increase over FY2025)
· Turning Point: $60,000 ($10,000 increase over FY 2025)
Funding for these contracts is included in the FY2026 Proposed
Operating & Capital Budget and is pending adoption by the Board of
County Commissioners.
25-363Contract Renewal - Text Archiving Services
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 Smarsh for Text Archiving since June 2020. The vendor 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 $62,793.16 and is
dependent upon FY26 budget appropriation.
25-382NC Department of Public Safety - Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Funding FY 2025
ACTION:1) Approved revised County Funding Allocation Plan FY 2024-2025 and 2)authorized the Finance Director to approve the funding plan, grantagreements and documents related to such
grant agreements during theirterms.
The Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) is a Board appointed by
Commissioners, as defined by State Statutes. The JCPC provides
funding and monitors Community Based alternatives to juvenile
incarceration and provides funding for substance abuse prevention
strategies and programs.
Funding for JCPC programs is generally adopted in the State Budget and
assigned to County programs by a formula grant. Normally, a county
JCPC approves a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, which is then
submitted to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (the DJJ). The attached funding plan
was developed and approved by the JCPC Board and represents the
Board's plan for how the funds will be spent for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.
This request will be included in the State's DJJ budget which is being
planned for 2024-2025.
The Revised Funding Plan approved on May 5, 2025 allocated a total of
$497,782 by adding $23,488 in discretionary funding from the State for
the Aspire Youth and Family Kids at Work Program. Discretionary funds
are required by the State to be spent on one-time purchases such as
capital outlay. The discretionary funds will be used for this program to
purchase a Van. This revised funding plan only updates the local cash
match requirements for this program. The local cash match is not funded
through County dollars.
The JCPC budget is normally approved as a "pass-through" line-item in
the County budget, meaning that the amount approved by the State is
received by the County and then used for the JCPC program.
Union County has not approved JCPC programs in line-item detail in the
past; rather, the JCPC Board normally negotiates, approves, and
monitors line-item detail within the amount of funds allocated to the
program, and provides a recommended budget to Commissioners.
.
25-383NC Department of Public Safety Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
Funding Plan FY 2025-2026
ACTION:1) Approved County Funding Allocation Plan and Certification for FY2025-2026, 2) authorized the Finance Director to approve the grant
agreements and documents related to such grant agreements during their
term, and 3) authorized the County Manager to appropriate JCPC Funding
as approved in the funding plan by a County Manager’s Budget
Amendment in FY 2026.
The Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) is a Board appointed by
Commissioners, as defined by State Statutes. The JCPC provides
funding and monitors Community Based alternatives to juvenile
incarceration and provides funding for substance abuse prevention
strategies and programs.
Funding for JCPC programs is generally adopted in the State Budget and
assigned to County programs by a formula grant. Normally, a county
JCPC approves a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, which is then
submitted to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (the DJJ). The attached funding plan
was developed and approved by the JCPC Board and represents the
Board's plan for how the funds will be spent for the 2025-2026 fiscal year.
This request will be included in the State’s DJJ budget which is being
planned for 2025-2026.
The JCPC Board approved $476,439 for County programs for the
2025-2026 fiscal year. The Funding Plan allocates funding from the State
to the following programs: Life Connections D-A-S-H Counseling Services
$146,593, Transforming Youth Movement-Transforming Futures
$129,273, Transforming Youth Movement SHIFT Restitution/CS $47,790,
Aspire Youth and Family Kids at Work $70,312, JCPC Administration
$10,229, Arts Related Innovative Student Empowerment (ARISE)
Union-KRE8IVU $60,000, Union County Community Service’s and
Outreach Parenting Support $12,242.
The JCPC budget is normally approved as a "pass through" line item in
the County budget, meaning that the amount approved by the State is
received by the County and then used for the JCPC program.
Union County has not approved JCPC programs in line-item detail in the
past; rather, the JCPC Board normally negotiates, approves, and
monitors line-item detail within the amount of funds allocated to the
program, and provides a recommended budget to Commissioners.
The County will provide $3,797 in local in-kind match for the Union
County Parenting Support Program. No other County funding is required
for local funding or the local in-kind match for all other JCPC Programs.
25-389Joint Resolution and Interlocal Agreement Amendment – Executionand Implementation of Final Documentation Related to Previously
Approved Dissolution and Liquidation of the Monroe-Union County
Economic Development Commission (This item was removed from the Agenda during the meeting at the request of Vice Chair Brian W. Helms.)
ACTION:1) Adopt the Joint Resolution of the Union County Board of
Commissioners and the Monroe City Council Dissolving the
Monroe-Union County Economic Development Commission; and 2)
Authorize the County Manager to negotiate and execute the Amendment
to Interlocal Organization and Operating Agreement, substantially
consistent with this agenda item.
Effective January 1, 2022, Union County and the City of Monroe
established the Monroe-Union County Economic Development
Commission (the “Commission”) through adoption of a joint resolution
establishing the Commission (the “Establishment Resolution”) and entering into an interlocal agreement concerning the Commission (the
“Interlocal Agreement”), as a joint county-wide economic development
program. On November 4, 2024, the Board adopted a resolution
withdrawing from the Commission, terminating the Interlocal Agreement,
and dissolving the Commission, effective November 4, 2026 (giving two
years’ notice as required by statute, the Establishment Resolution, and
the Interlocal Agreement).
The Board and the City of Monroe have determined it is now in their
respective best interests to promote economic development activity
through each entity’s own internal economic development efforts
independent of the other, engaging in economic development project
collaboration with each other on a case-by-case basis. The action
requested gives effect to the dissolution of the Commission sooner than
November 4, 2026, through adoption of the attached joint resolution
adopted by the County and City. This resolution will allow for distribution
of all Commission property prior to July 1, 2025. Effective July 1, 2025,
the Commission will have no assets, but will remain in legal existence,
under the control of the City of Monroe, until its ultimate dissolution on
November 1, 2025, in order to allow for completion and approval of the
Commission’s required FY 2025 audit, as well as any other outstanding
obligations of the Commission.
The Establishing Resolution will be repealed and the Commission
officially dissolved effective November 1, 2025.
County to receive certain Commission assets as set forth in the
distribution attachment.
Information Only
25-350Communications Monthly Report - May 2025
ACTION:None - 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.
25-387Monthly Update - Wastewater Treatment Capacity
ACTION: None - Information Only.
Union County Water is closely monitoring the wastewater treatment
capacities at our Water Reclamation Facilities. Permitting Capacity is
evaluated using the Actual Plant Flows plus the Permitted/Obligated
Flows (unconnected). Union County Water was asked to provide regular
updates. Plant flow information through May 2025 is summarized in the
attached table.
Twelve Mile Creek
· Percent of Actual Flows = 69.9%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 89.8%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 5.245
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 6.733
Crooked Creek
· Percent of Actual Flows = 59.1%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 89.4%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 1.123
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 1.698
Olde Sycamore
· Percent of Actual Flows = 27.3%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 27.3%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.041
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.041
Tallwood
· Percent of Actual Flows = 40.0%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 40.0%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.020
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.020
Grassy Branch
· Percent of Actual Flows = 82.0%
· Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 84.0%
· Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.041
· Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.042
In addition to the wastewater treatment capacities, flow volumes
associated with development projects that are in the planning and review
process within the Twelve Mile Creek and Crooked Creek WRF service
areas are provided for information as well. Development flow volumes
through May 2025 are summarized in the tables below:
Business
25-367FY 2026 Budget Adoption
Chair Merrell recognized County Manager Brian Matthews for this item.
Mr. Matthews noted that the public hearing regarding the FY2026 budget was held at the previous June meeting.
Mr. Matthews explained that the recommended overall tax rate is 43.42 cents per $100, which was broken down as follows: 0.1124 for Section Three, 0.0016 for county debt service, 0.2678
for education taxes for all education partners, 0.0389 for education debt service, and 0.0045 for economic development debt service tax.
Mr. Matthews stated that all the components add together to the tax rate of 43.42 cents. He noted that the overall budget of all funds is $620,330,001, which includes every fund of the
County, encompassing enterprise funds, education, and general government.
Commissioner Sides stated that he understood there had been discussions with the Sheriff’s Department. Heshared one of his concerns was the current vacant positions in law enforcement
in the county, which he understood to be around 19. He noted that some of these are due to legitimate retirements but also a number are losses to other service units, including some
municipalities within the county.
Commissioner Sides said he has concerns and hopes the Board can allay those concerns regarding whether sufficient resources are being devoted to remuneration and pay for law enforcement
to address not only these current vacancies but also opportunities moving forward to entice others to join Union County law enforcement. He asked if Mr. Matthews or other staff could
address what is included in the budget to respond to those concerns.
Mr. Matthews explained that the budget includes a compensation adjustment for all employees, and specifically for the Sheriff’s Office, providing $1.50 per hour for all sworn officers
and deputies, as well as a 2.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment scheduled for January 2026.
Mr. Matthews said that for employees in other County departments, the adjustment was handled differently, but the hourly rate for deputies equates approximately to the same as other
employee adjustments. He added that staff has worked closely with the Sheriff’s Office to meetits requests within available revenues and expenses.
He stated that the budget does not fully meet everything the Sheriff’s Office requested, and without additional revenues, the County cannot fully meet those requests. He noted that the
Sheriff’s Office has made another way to request how to address this concern, but he is not prepared to make any recommendations on how to accommodate it at this time and is still evaluating
the request.
Mr. Matthews stated that staff will bring options to the Board to adjust the current budget to reach or come close to what the Sheriff’s Office requested. He said that he anticipates
presenting these options in the July–August timeframe for feedback and noted that the County has done its best to accommodate all departments with the available revenue.
Chair Merrell said she assumes that staff worked within the parameters of the desire of the constituents and the Board’s direction to be revenue neutral and to work within those parameters
for all employees.
Mr. Matthews agreed and clarified that the budget only increases revenue neutral based on the voterapproved debt, which is the only recommended increase. He stated that all other departments
and expenses were based on the revenue neutral rate. He added that they had to work within that rate structure to accommodate the needs of all departments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helmscommented that since revenue neutral had been brought up, he wanted everyone to understand that this had been the Board’s goal the whole time.
He noted that during the public hearing held at the Board’s last meeting, it was stated that the revenue-neutral rate was 41.6 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. He explained that
the 43.4 centsrepresents a 1.82 penny increase over revenue neutral.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that general obligation bonds are used by local governments to finance capital projects such as schools or infrastructure, even parks, and these bonds
are essentially backed by the full faith and credit of the local government. He said they are typically funded through tax increases. He stated that, in short, when a voter goes to
the ballot box and votes for a bond, whether it is for education or something else, they are essentially telling local government that they approve of the project and that they also
approve of the anticipated tax increase that comes along with it.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that since 2022, the voters of Union County have had three of those bonds. He explained that in 2022 the County saw its first UCPS (Union County Public
Schools) bond for Forest Hills High School, which had a total project cost, not including interest, of $134,405,000. He added that also in 2022, there was a SPCC (South Piedmont Community
College) bond for $32.7 million. He noted that for these two bonds, the voters were overwhelmingly in favor, with 53,164 voting for the Forest Hills High School bond and approximately
32,000 voting against it. He said for the SPCC bond, there were 47,000 voters in favor and 37,000 voters against.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms further stated that in 2024, there was a UCPS bond for East Union Middle School and the design for Parkwood High School, which had a total of $39,425,000. He
added that there were 69,000 voters in favor and approximately 56,000 voters against. He noted that, in total, this brought the County to over $200 million in bonds, not including interest.
He said that previously it had been anticipated there would be a 5.15 penny increase per $100 with all of the bonds. He said that this is what the voters had indicated they were okay
with. He added that the staff worked diligently to get as close to revenue neutral as possible, and they have reduced that tax implication to 1.82 cents per $100, which is more than
half of the anticipated increase. He noted that, although it would be ideal to state that the tax rate is 41.6 cents, the truth of the matter is that education is a cornerstone of the
County, and the voters have told the County that these projects are important.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that this Board has a due diligence to fund what the voters have approved. He said that the County has done its best to achieve a minimal tax increase
over revenue neutral, but at the end of the day, this is a voter-approved increase.
He said that in his observation of the Manager’s proposed budget, it is an extremely tight budget, and there is not a whole lot of wiggle room. He said that he fully believes that staff
have done the best job that they could with the direction that was given to them.
Commissioner Sides stated that he wanted to reiterate his comments regarding law enforcement and the needs in the County. He said that recently certain areas of the country have witnessed
destruction, defiance, and absolute disdain for law enforcement, and emphasized that this does not happen in the County.
He stated that his basic responsibility is public safety, and to him, that is law enforcement.Commissioner Sides stated that he has seenthe men and women of law enforcement doing their
job, going into harm’s way, not knowing what one day from the next will unfold. He said there are nine open positions, either those working in the jail or those working on patrol. He
added that some of those vacancies have occurred because other agencies and other municipalities within the County are willing to provide the resources to hire County staff, which is
unacceptable to him.
He stated that Union County sets the standard. He said that the County sets the standard not only in performance, but also in what the County will remunerate its law enforcement. He
added that he will hold the manager to his assurances that this will be addressed by the next meeting in July. He said it is not too late to do whatever adjustments are necessary.
Commissioner Sides stated that regarding his resolve, he wants to be very clear. He said that he is one of five and his colleagues may not agree. He added that he is prepared and determined
to offer whatever is necessary, and if that is additional resources, he will be glad to make that motion so that law enforcement is fully funded and leads the area in compensation and
other benefits that can be provided in order to fully staff positions in law enforcement from detention officers to those out on patrol to School Resource Officers.
Commissioner Sides stated that, to him, it is not negotiable to do whatever is necessary in order to provide the resources for these positions for these brave men and women that keep
the County safe. He said that they are the only thing that stands between the County, its families, and the people out there that wish to do harm. He added that, at the very least, he
sees his duty as a County Commissioner to back them up.
He stated that he will wait to see what alternatives and options the County Manager will provide at the next meeting to address those concerns. He said that if he does not believe they
are adequate or if the Manager says that they will require additional resources in order to implement, he will be in support of that effort.
Commissioner Sides stated that his commitment to law enforcement is unwavering in doing whatever is necessary in order to have a full complement of all positions filled. He said that
they should have the supplies, the equipment, and the training they need so that they can do their job. He added that he looks forward to the results of the work with which he is sure
the Sheriff will be more than happy to cooperate. He stated that he has every confidence that no stone will be left unturned to do what can be done.He stated that if the hard decision
has to be made in order to fund those alternatives, he will be in complete support.
Chair Merrell asked if there are currently nine openings or nineteen in the Sheriff’s Office? She said she thought there were nineteen.
Sheriff Cathey responded that there werenineteen and then one today makes twenty.
Chair Merrell stated her second question is, when the County Manager was discussing the Sheriff’s budget and reviewing that department,was it ever discussed what the tax increase would
need to be to meet the Sheriff’s budget request?
Mr. Matthews stated that he does not believe that the County formally gave the Sheriff an answer. He added that the original budget request from the Sheriff’s Office was significantly
higher than what was funded and that it would have yielded at least an additional penny increase in order to meet the request. He said that he does not believe he actually communicated
that to the Sheriff directly, but it would have yielded at least one additional penny.
Chair Merrell stated that after the revaluation and going to revenue neutral from where the County was a year ago, a penny is approximately $6 million.
Mr. Matthews stated that it is a little over $6 million.
Chair Merrell asked if the County Manager recalled in his plan what the County will be able to meet in the Sheriff’s request or how much of the request is not being met.
Mr. Matthews stated that he believed the Sheriff’s Office was interested in getting entry-level positions, whether that is a detention officer or an entry-level deputy, up to at least
a $60,000 starting salary. He said that this is not what is currently paid which is approximately $57,000. Hesaid that, once that amount is raised, there is also a need to consider
compression and where everyone else is in relation to it. He added that this has its own impact, as well as the non-sworn staff.
Mr. Matthews stated that the County really has to evaluate how it can possibly accommodate it in some way. He said that he is not going to sit here andsay that it can be done within
the revenue sources that are available.
Mr. Matthews stated that is why the County is not prepared to make any recommendations today. He said that staff will have to review it and talk to the Sheriff’s Office about some changes,
and then bring to the Board ways that the County might accommodate some or all of the Sheriff’s Office’s request. He added that the Board will have to decide what it wants to do at
that point.
Chair Merrell asked if Mr. Matthewsiscomfortable if the Board chooses to approve his recommendation tonight, there will be any room for him to make a recommendation after the Board’s
decision tonight.
Mr. Matthews stated that there will be room. He said that it may not result in the Sheriff’s Office receiving everything they want, but it may get them a partial request.
Chair Merrell stated that the other alternative is a tax increase.
Mr. Matthews stated that other revenue sources are limited, and the only main revenue source is a tax increase. He said that he does not believe there is any cushion to find several
million dollars, and it would likely be a tax rate increase.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the revenue neutral rate is 41.6 centsand the proposed budget is 43.42 cents. He said that the overage over revenue neutral currently represents
essentially the bonds.
The Vice Chair said the overage above revenue neutral is what the voters have approved. He said the modeling they had seen previously showed a typical annual increase for a $450,000
home to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 to $82. He then asked if there was any idea what another penny on top of the 1.82 cents would require, noting he was looking for approximate
numbers.
Mr. Matthews stated that, in his estimation, an average home would likely see an increase close to $100 in total. He noted that the proposed rate was expected to add approximately $80
to $90 for a home valued around $450,000, and he believed the overall impact would probably fall in the range of one hundred dollars or slightly above.
Commissioner Sides asked Mr. Matthews if he could include that information in a spreadsheet.
Mr. Matthews stated that staff would give the correct number once the math is actually done.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, from his perspective, he has no problem looking at the matter and seeing what can be done. He added that he has no appetite for any additional
increase beyond what the voters have approved.
Commissioner Sides stated that he understands everyone’s concern and that he looked forward to the information that will be provided.
Commissioner Sides asked Sheriff Cathey about Union County losing law enforcement to other jurisdictions because those jurisdictions offer more money. He added that this also handicaps
the County in not being a competitive player to entice experienced, trained professionals from other jurisdictions to come to Union County.
Sheriff Cathey stated that Commissioner Sides’ assessment is correct. He explained that the County no longer has the ability to hire lateral transfers from other agencies, such as Waxhaw,
Stallings, or other surrounding agencies.
Sheriff Cathey stated that when the County loses officers, it is losing well-trained officers. He added that some of these officers are highly paid, and they are lost regularly to jurisdictions
such as Waxhaw, Stallings, and Cabarrus County, despite the County having already invested in their training.
Chair Merrell asked if any of the attrition is due to retirement.
Sheriff Cathey responded thatsome of the attrition is due to retirements.
He stated that the attrition is not just from losing officers to other agencies, but also includes retirements, as several have retired and moved on with their lives. He added that regarding
hiring trained officers, the County cannot find them anymore and is not receiving applicants from other places.
Commissioner Sides asked if that is due to compensation not being competitive.
Sheriff Cathey stated that it is all due to money.
Chair Merrell moved that the Board adopt the FY2026 budget.
Jason Kay stated that, following some offline discussions about the nature of the requested action, he would like to propose additional language for the motion. He noted that it is not
necessary for the Chair to repeat it, but that it is intended to affirm what he is about to state.
Jason Kay stated that the motion would be to adopt the Fiscal Year 2026 County Manager proposed budget, and adopt the budget ordinance and the recommended tax rate.
Chair Merrell moved to adopt the FY2026 County Manager’s proposed budget, along with the budget ordinance and tax rate as recommended.
Commissioner Sides apologized for monopolizing the conversation and asked the County Manager to confirm that, due to the budget discussions, the presentation by the Strategic Planning
and Innovation team has been postponed until July.
Mr. Matthews confirmed thatthat was correct.
Commissioner Sides stated that he had some concerns about the return on investment in that initiative, but he would withhold those concerns and any possible motion until the July meeting
when the team is present to address them in person.
Chair Merrell stated that a motion was on the floor
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Chair Merrell stated that the Board has an adopted budget and noted that the other conversations will be revisited in July and August.
For a copy of the FY2026 adopted Operating Budget Ordinance, please see Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
25-392Presentation by UCPS on High Dosage Tutoring Program
Chair Merrell stated that the next item on the agenda is 25-392, Union County Public Schools presentation on the High Dosage Tutoring program. She recognized Dr. Andrew Houlihan, Superintendent
of the Union County Public Schools. She stated that Dr. Houlihan is Superintendent of the Year for the Southwest Region and noted that they are happy to have him present on the program.
She then turned the presentation over to him.
Dr. Houlihan stated that it was great to be in front of the Board of Commissioners for tonight’s meeting. He expressed gratitude to the Union County Board of Education for its leadership
and support. He recognized Dr. Jonathan Tyson, Chief of School Performance, and Dr. Susan Rogers, Assistant Superintendent of Academics.
He shared that they were bringing good news about some critical work happening in Union County Public Schools. He reminded the Board that UCPS is the highest performing large school
district in North Carolina and emphasized that the district takes pride in ensuring that students receive a high-quality education every day in a safe environment. Dr. Houlihan stated
that UCPS recently received a two-year evaluation summary from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He explained that the evaluation was commissioned by the North Carolina
General Assembly to measure post-pandemic recovery strategies and serve as a best practice model for school systems across the state.
Dr. Houlihan explained that the summary provides an evaluation of the district’s High Dosage Tutoring model. He provided background on the initiative, stating that it began in 2017
to support persistently low-performing schools. He said when the pandemic hit, the district knew it had to expand the model as a post-pandemic recovery strategy. He noted that the model
originated from his work in Houston following Hurricane Katrina, helping post-Katrina refugees and recent newcomers recover from learning loss.
He stated that from 2020 to 2024, UCPS implemented two different models. He described the model which was the original model started in 2017 and known as the Whole Grade model. He
said the second model was called the Targeted Tutoring. He explained that both models were implemented simultaneously, and the evaluation and research focused on determining which model
provided a better return on investment.
Dr. Houlihan explained that the targeted approach was implemented because of concerns about staffing. He stated that coming out of the pandemic the district was worried it would not
have enough tutors to fully implement the Whole Grade approach.
He noted that the current implementation from the past year uses only the Whole Grade model. Dr. Houlihan provided additional background information stating that the work takes place
in fourth and seventh grades and focuses only on math. He explained that it occurs during the school day, unlike many school systems that conduct high dosage tutoring after school. He
emphasized that the district believes it is important to capture students while they are physically in the building, so tutoring occurs every day for all students in grades fourth and
seventh.
Dr. Houlihan explained that this is a pullout model, meaning that during the math block, students leave the classroom to work with a dedicated tutor assigned in a three-to-one ratio.
He clarified that this is not considered an intervention or a replacement for other instruction; students are not missing Physical Education or art, and it is considered part of core
math instruction.
He said if one were to walk into the schools while it is in session, they would see students divided among different cubbies and classrooms where space is available. He noted that media
centers are sometimes used, equipped with whiteboards and small group tables, creating a small, inclusive environment with no more than a three-to-one student-to-tutor ratio.
Dr. Houlihan explained that an important part of the program is that it was not purchased or obtained off the shelf. He further explained that the district’s own staff, including teachers
and the curriculum team, built it from the ground up in 2017. He noted that the curriculum is developed by UCPS; lessons are provided to tutors; the program is very data driven, and
implementation is consistent across all schools using this approach.
He stated that the tutors are non-certified personnel, meaning they are not always licensed teachers. He explained that they must pass a math assessment created by the district in 2017
to ensure they can teach and tutor math. He noted that the program includes robust onboarding and mandatory monthly training for all tutors.
Dr. Houlihan outlined several non-negotiables for the program. He stated that all tutors use a curriculum binder on a daily basis. He explained that each school identifies a “champion,”
who is support personnel for the tutoring initiative responsible for evaluating implementationand progress monitoring. He added that a dedicated space is required for the tutoring to
take place.
He statedstated that the tutoring sessions are 30 minutes per day and emphasized that core instruction is not impacted. He added that all tutors are provided with the necessary materials
and resources.
Dr. Houlihan presented results from the pre-pandemic period. He stated that in the schools implementing the program, there was approximately a 12 percent increase in students achieving
proficiency from 2016–2017 to 2018–2019. He noted they sustained that performance over the two-year period, and that four of the six schools implementing the program exited low-performing
status during that time of which they are very proud.
He stated that when the pandemic hit, the district had to take a step back and regroup. He explained that in seventh grade, there was a more significant jump, with 36 percent proficiency
to 62 percent in identified schools. He noted that even before the evaluation was commissioned, it was clear that the program was yielding a high return on investment in preparing more
students academically for the next grade level.
Dr. Houlihan discussed the post-pandemic period, covering 2021–2022 through 2023–2024, and noted that accountability data for the most recent year has not yet been released. He stated
that there was a sharp increase in the first two years under a different educational environment, a significant rebound in 2022–2023 when students returned to face-to-face instruction,
followed by a slight dip.
He explained the reason for the dip was the implementation of two models simultaneously. He stated that the targeted model identified students based on EOG scores, so not all students
in fourth and seventh grades participated, while some schools were implementing the Whole Grade model. He added that the district firmly expects from the past school year, during which
only the Whole Grade model was used, to see improved results.
Dr. Houlihan highlighted seventh grade as providing a better picture. He noted that sustained improvements have been observed over time, and based on the past year’s accountability scores,
the district projects that these gains will be sustained or further improved.
He stated that all Board members received a copy of the report he sent. He summarized the evaluator’s findings, noting that there were five in total, and highlighted that the first finding
was that the impact of the Whole Grade model was robust.
Dr. Houlihan said that a year ago he sent the Board the interim qualitative report, which explained that while the work was good, they were not getting as much return on investment as
they were with the targeted approach. He said that is why they stopped using that model this past school year, because they knew the whole grade model was working much more successfully
and they were not getting the return on investment they needed. He said that this past year they used only the whole grade model, similar to what was done before the pandemic.
He stated that number three, the effects of the tutoring program were concentrated in the students who were at or below grade level. He explained that while all students were making
progress, those who were at or above grade level were making even more significant progress.
He stated that the fourth finding was that students with exceptionalities,those receiving EC servicesdid not benefit. He explained that this was expected to a degree because students
with exceptionalities are also served by an Individual Education Plan. He stated there are other interventions taking place for those students in addition to the tutoring.
He stated that this was really important and was cost-effective. He said it proved to be, compared to other interventions, an extremely cost-effective model. He added that this was essentially
the researchers’ findings.
He asked what that means in layman’s terms and explained that, according to the first bullet, on average, students in the tutoring program at the identified schools and grade levels
gained a 12 percentile point increase in math proficiency from one year to the next.
He stated that this effect is similar to national studies, such as the Tennessee class size experiment. He emphasized that the impact is not limited to fourth grade, noting that students
carry this achievement into fifth grade without regressing or declining in performance.
Dr. Houlihan noted that the cost-effectiveness ratios are comparable or superior to many other, more costly interventions, such as extending the school day, increasing salaries, or reducing
class sizes. He said that the program provides a high return on investment.
He concluded by asking where the program goes from this point. He stated that this is a national model that he believes is replicable in any school system in North Carolina, but it requires
leadership, decision-making, and alignment with priorities.
He stated that the district is preparing to continue the Whole Grade approach in the schools currently participating and hopes to sustain it. He noted that funding from the past year
has helped bridge that sustainability, allowing resources to go to schools that are expected to exit low-performing status.
He noted that the district has been advocating for years at the state level for the local delegation to allocate recurring funds in the state budget to support these efforts. He added
that the district is willing to share the curriculum and train teachers from other school systems who wish to implement the program but funding is needed to do so.
He requested that the Board partner with the district and the school board in advocating for the House and Senate budgets during negotiations, that the allocation is placed and remain.
He expressed appreciation to the Board for its support and expressed pride in the work of the teachers, school leaders, and tutors, emphasizing that it is a total team effort. He stated
that the district has always believed the strategy was making a difference and now has research confirming its working and impactingstudents across all schools.
Chair Merrell thanked Dr. Houlihan and asked if anyone had any questions.
Commissioner Sides asked when the Board would receive a tour of Forest Hills and East Elementary.
Dr. Houlihan responded that the district is working on a ribbon-cutting ceremony, which they hope will take place in August, and confirmed that the schools are on schedule to open on
the first day in August.
Chair Merrell offered kudos to Dr. Houlihan and everyone who has supported him since 2017, noting that the tutoring model targeted certain grades to better prepare elementary students
for middle school and middle school students for high school, and stated that she believes Union County’s graduation rate is the best in North Carolina.
Dr. Houlihan responded that Union County’s graduation rate was number one last year.
Chair Merrell stated that the models are clearly working and expressed appreciation to the tutors, teachers, and parents who ensure that students do what is needed to improve at school,
noting that it takes everyone working together.
Chair Merrell commented that while Dr. Houlihan was doing this work in Union County, it clearly caught attention, noting that he had been asked to speak in the General Assembly a couple
of years ago where they asked him a lot of questions.
Chair Merrell asked whether the state helped incentivize Union County to conduct the testing to determine which model worked best and whether the state offered the school system to help
continue the program in order to collect the data.
Dr. Houlihan explained that the funding from the state went directly to the evaluation team from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He stated that he was not sure if the
school system received any of the funds. He said that Dr. Tyson might be able to answer that question.
Dr. Tyson stated that the school system did not receive any funds.
Dr. Houlihan explained that the funding went straight to the university, and that from the very beginning until now, the model has utilized only local funding, except in some schools
designated as restart schools, which provide funding flexibility.
He stated that those schools have the ability to use the funds as they choose, similar to a charter, but noted that there has not been another appropriation to the school system.
Chair Merrell asked whether a grant had been given to the school system to conduct this study.
Dr. Houlihan responded no.
Chair Merrell stated that, basically, Union County taxpayers can be thanked for helping improve the education outcomes for students.
Dr. Houlihan explained that the funding for this study has always come from local sources and/or state funding through other avenues, but there has not been a direct appropriation of
state funds to the school system for this program.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Dr. Houlihan for being present and acknowledged that many on the Board have long supported the program. He commended Dr. Houlihan and his staff for
their efforts, stating his personal opinion that the tutoring program delivers results and should be an example to state lawmakers that even a small investment in programs such as this
can offer significant returns, as demonstrated by the study.
He added that the effects of the tutoring program extend beyond the numbers shown, noting that he has seen the personal relationships formed firsthand in UCPS schools. He described seeing
children hug and thank their tutors when they improved their EOG scores, emphasizing that the program has made a difference in more than one way.He stated that he is more than happy
to support the program in any way he can, including urging state legislators to assist, and expressed his gratitude.
Commissioner Christina Helms thanked Dr. Houlihan for being present and asked that he share this year’s results with the Board when he receives them.
Dr. Houlihan responded that they would be glad to update the PowerPoint deck with the additional information and share it with the Board.
Chair Merrell stated that if it has not already been done, she would love for the presentation to be sent to the Board. She noted that there was a dollar figure per pupil, the annual
cost, and said that, if she remembered correctly, in the presentation at those chosen schools this applied to every student in fourth and seventh grades. She emphasized that no one student
was left out or pulled out andeveryone was receiving it.
Dr. Houlihan explained that, in follow-up conversations with students now in fifth or eighth grade, they often ask, Where is my tutor? When is my time for tutoring? He equated it to
golf, noting that even the best PGA Tour players have a coach, emphasizing that this tutoring is about coaching and helping students improve, not about limiting what they can or cannot
do.
Chair Merrell stated that she liked that comparison and asked if, when Union County Public Schools releases their per-pupil expenditure, is this tutoring program included. She noted
that the district has 53 schools and asked how many of those schools are receiving the Whole Grade tutoring.
Dr. Houlihan stated that he might get the numbers wrong, but pre-pandemic the program was in six to eight schools, and post-pandemic it was15 plus schools. He noted that the model had
early success, school leaders saw this was working, and that they were not yet in ninth grade after the pandemic, but they are now.
He explained that the district has developed the same approach for high school Math 1 and has allowed students to peer tutor if they pass the 9th grade Math 1 assessment, adding another
layer to the program. He stated that, as of this past year, approximately 10 to 12 schools are participating, a reduction from the previous 15 schools.
Dr. Houlihan added that these schools were identified as either low performing or on the bubble, and the program was used as a proactive approach before they became low performing. He
noted that the costs would be included in the annual per-pupil expenditure publication because they are all local dollars.
Chair Merrell stated that the cost would simply be distributed among the three and then asked if anyone else had comments or questions. She emphasized that the Board should be kept updated
when this year’s test scores are available and requested that the information be shared, noting that they are extremely proud of Union County Public Schools.
Dr. Houlihan expressed appreciation for the support.
Business
25-384Senior Nutrition Municipality Participation
Chair Merrell recognized Deputy County Manager Patrick Niland for his comments.
Mr. Niland stated that he had a short presentation. He noted that the Board still needed to discuss Senate Bill 205. He asked if the Board wanted to consider moving the item up on
the agenda to consider the rezoning requests.
Chair Merrell said that the Board would consider the rezoning petition at this time.
25-400Public Hearing Conditional Rezoning 2024-CZ-011 Union Landscaping
Commissioner Baucom had been recused from the vote on this item, and he left the meeting room at approximately 7:50 p.m.
Chair Merrell noted that the Union County Land Use Board recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve the rezoning petition from Angel Javana to rezone a 2.4-acre identified as
tax parcel 09-372-050 in the Monroe Township from RA20 to RA40 with conditions.
Commissioner Sides moved to approve the petitioner’s request.
Brian Matthews, County Manager, stated that he wanted to make sure the Board recognized that the motion should include the adoption of the consistency and reasonable statement, since
those are part of the motion.
Mr. Kay asked Commissioner Sides if he would like to amend his motion to the language on the page, which included adopting the ordinance approving the revision to the official zoning
map of Union County, North Carolina, and adopting the consistency and reasonable statement for approval.
Commissioner Sides amended his motion to include adopting the ordinance approving the revision to the official zoning map of Union County, North Carolina, and adopting the consistency
and reasonable statement, as suggested by Mr. Kay.
The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
Chair Merrell – Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms – Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms – Aye
Commissioner Sides – Aye
Commissioner Baucom did not vote, as he was recused from the vote.
Statements of Consistency and Reasonableness for Proposed Amendment to the Union
County Zoning Map
The Union County Land Use Board recommended that the Union County Board of Commissioners approve the rezoning petition (CZ-2024-011) submitted by Angel Riquelme Javana requesting a revision
of the Union County Zoning Map by rezoning a parcel totaling 2.4 acres appearing on the tax map as tax parcel 09-372-050 in the Monroe Township from RA-20 to RA-40 with Conditions.
CONSISTENCY AND REASONABLENESS STATEMENT FOR APPROVAL OF THEPROPOSED AMENDMENT (THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THECURRENT PLAN) (CZ-2024-011)
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160D-605, theUnion County Board ofCommissioners (the“Board”) does hereby find and determinethat adoption oftheproposed map amendment is inconsistent with thecurrently
adopted Union County ComprehensivePlan (the“Plan”).TheBoard declaresthat adoption oftheproposed map amendment is deemed an amendment to thePlan, including any futureland-usemap in thePlan.Theadoption
oftheproposed map amendment (i)takes into account theneed to amend thezoning map to meet theneeds ofthe community, and (ii) is reasonableand in thepublicinterest because:Thesiteis on
theedgeof (less than 50 feet)from an Employment Centeras designated on theland usemap in thePlan. Employment Centers areidentified in the Planas areaswhich facilitate employment growth
in key areas that haveaccess to transportation and adequateutility infrastructureand existing viableemployment and availableland suitable foremployment. Uses encouraged nearthesecenters
include, but arenot limited to, light industrial, warehouse,office, research, tech-flex and technology.Theuseset forth for this rezoning would beconsistent with ausein an employment
center.Given the extremely closeproximity ofan employment centerto thesubject parcel, it is reasonable to approvethis rezoning and amend thePlan’s land usemap to includethe employment
centeron this parcel.The proposed use would not create a significant traffic impact.The proposed use is similar to other nearby uses in that it is of a commercial or industrial nature
rather than residential in nature.There are light industrial zoned properties 500 feet north and 500 feet west of the site, as well as numerous industrial or commercial uses within less
than a mail from the site.The benefits to the community at large, the neighbors, and the property owners of the proposed rezoning outweigh any detriments to the neighbors and others
caused by the rezoning.The benefits of this rezoning include increasing business opportunities in the county, allowing an existing business to continue to operate, and allowing a property
with many nearby properties which have non-residential to also be allowed to conduct similar
non-residential uses on its property.
*Commissioner Baucom rejoined the regular meeting at approximately 7:54 p.m.
25-384Senior Nutrition Municipality Participation
Chair Merrell recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, for staff’s comments regarding this item..
Mr. Niland stated that Commissioner Christina Helms had requested an update at the last meeting on senior nutrition and the status of municipal participation.
He shared that he had good news to share. He explained that staff reached out to all the municipalities for the third or fourth time regarding senior nutrition and asked them to confirm
whether they wanted to participate in serving individuals on their waitlists.
Mr. Niland reported that six municipalities had confirmed they would serve the individuals on their waitlists. He noted that one municipality, the Town of Wingate, would also serve its
ETJ (Extra Territorial Jurisdiction) members, who are technically county residents but live close enough to the town. He said the total participation cost for these municipalities is
$41,722.
Mr. Niland stated that two municipalities, Waxhaw and Unionville, had shown interest but had not yet made their decision on participation. He noted that if both decide to participate,
an additional $32,000 would be contributed to the senior nutrition program.
Mr. Niland noted that the initial waitlist in December 2024 was 572 residents. He explained that staff had worked extremely hard to verify the current waitlist to provide the most accurate
numbers possible but emphasized that the waitlist is constantly evolving and changing daily, so the figures presented are the closest current estimate.
He stated that 32 people will come off the waitlist because of the municipal participation. He added that if Unionville and Waxhaw decide to participate, that would be another 22, bringing
the total to 54 potential waitlist individuals coming off due to the support of the municipalities.
Mr. Niland stated that Fairview and Indian Trail indicated they would not be able to participate at the current time. He noted that for the other municipalities listed, they had not
received responses despite sending emails to the mayors and managers. He added that there is nothing special about July 1, and if a municipality wants to join in the middle of the year,
they can do so, emphasizing that this remains an open invitation for any municipality that may wish to participate in the future.
Chair Merrell asked Mr. Niland about Fairview and Indian Trail, recalling that several months ago the largest wait lists were Monroe and Indian Trail, which made sense given their populations,
with Indian Trail being the largest municipality. She noted that Fairview only had six seniors on the waitlist and asked whether Fairview provided any feedbackspecifically, whether it
could not help a few seniors or simply indicated it was not interested or unable to participate.
Mr. Niland responded that Fairview indicated its inability to participate was due to budgetary constraints. He noted that staff will continue reaching out to municipalities and, as Chair
Merrell suggested, even partial supporthelping one or two seniorswould still allow some individuals to be removed from the waitlist.
Chair Merrell asked Mr. Niland about Unionville and Waxhaw, noting that they had been in conversations about joining the other seven municipalities. She asked if they had upcoming meetings
to consider participation and even helping a portion of their seniorssuch as five or ten rather than the full number.She inquired about those conversations and whether the municipalities
had meetings coming up where they would consider it.
Mr. Niland responded that he believed both Unionville and Waxhaw have upcoming meetings to discuss participation. He noted that it had not yet been directly communicated to them that
they could help some seniors even if they could not support everyone. He added that staff would follow up with emails to both municipalities to let them know that partial participation
is an option.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked Mr. Niland to continue reaching out to the municipalities that have not responded, especially Monroe with the highest waitlist of 77 individuals. She
emphasized that every senior they can help is one removed from the list and encouraged staff to continue with the outreach to municipalities that have declined to see if they could still
offer some level of assistance.
Chair Merrell suggested matching municipal contributions, so that if a municipality can assist one senior, the County could take one individual as well, in an effort to take some of
the seniors off the waitlist.
Mr. Niland confirmed that the County can conduct additional outreach.
He provided a program update, explaining that the recently adopted budget included $127,000 to maintain the existing level, reflecting increased food costs from the previous year. He
said additionally, $244,000 was allocated to address waitlist clients. He explained that of that amount, approximately $50,000 is being reserved to assist in any future waitlist participants
from municipalities that wanted to participate. He emphasized that this reserve is intended to prevent situations where municipalities, such as Lake Park, pay to serve a few seniors
and then face additional clients shortly afterward. Mr. Niland said that the goal is to maintain a buffer to help municipalities keep seniors off the waitlist for the entire year.
He stated that the remaining funds will go toward filling the hot meal routes first because they can deliver hot meals cheaper than frozen meals. He commented that by focusing on those
routes, they can serve more clients and do the most good, rather than just looking at the proximity to a town or in an unincorporated area.
Mr. Niland said that with current staff they can add up to 110 seniors. He noted that figure includes the seniors coming from the municipalities, and if Waxhaw and Unionville decide
to join, those municipalities would account for 54 of the 110.
Mr. Niland explained that would leave approximately 56 people they could add on their own. He said that brings them to the maximum capacity they have from a staffing standpoint to verify
eligibility, since staff have to do the initial eligibility check and then every six months for as long as someone stays on the program.
He stated the next step would be to look at the part-time employee who helps with this program and reclass that role to a full-time position. Mr. Niland said if they were able to reclass
that position, it would allow another 100 people to be taken off the wait list.
He noted they do not have the funding to add those hundred people on their own, but if a municipality like Monroe or Indian Trail chose to come into the program later and was willing
to pay the cost, then reclassing that staff position would give capacity to take care of those individuals. He said they are not at that point right now, but it at least gives an option
that if they do have additional municipalities participating throughout the year they could do that.
Mr. Niland noted that there is an action requested that the Board has interlocal agreements, which are essentially contracts with participating municipalities as listedWingate, Waxhaw,
Mineral Springs, Marvin, Unionville, Lake Park, Wesley Chapel, and Weddington.
Mr. Niland explained that he added Waxhaw and Unionville because the Board is in a summer session with only one meeting per month. He stated that if those municipalities decide at their
next meeting to participate, he did not want to wait until July to come back to the Board. He said this action would authorize agreements with the six municipalities that have agreed
to participate and the two that have actively talked about joining.
Chair Merrell said she was surprised that Stallings had not responded.
Mr. Niland said staff is not done and would continue to engage them and talk about some of the options he had presented, to see if,was not possible to help everybody, they could help
at least some.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed his thanks to Lake Park, Marvin, Mineral Springs, Weddington, Wesley Chapel, and the Wingate ETJ, acknowledging their decision to partner. He emphasized
appreciation for the collaboration from these municipalities on the program.
Mr. Niland noted that he wanted to single out Wesley Chapel, as it was the first to begin discussions and the first to vote on the matter. He said he appreciated Wesley Chapel taking
the lead, acting as the vanguard, and getting the process started, adding that without their initiative, the other municipalities might not have acted.
Commissioner Sides asked regarding the budget that had just been adopted, whether there was a sense of how much impact it had on the waiting list for in-home services, noting he could
follow up with Ms. Payne if needed.
Mr. Niland said he did not have the information on in-home services at the moment but that it could be provided.
Chair Merrell said she had asked about that in the last meeting and noted it would be an ongoing conversation with staff. She added that there were some ideas they might be able to work
on in the coming months. She said that during the agenda review,there was discussion about in-home services and that there might be some opportunities to tweak some things here and there
and work on it. She stated the topic would remain part of ongoing conversations and continue to be addressed.
Mr. Matthews noted that an action item had been requested.
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to authorize the county manager to negotiate and execute agreements with Wingate, Waxhaw, Mineral Springs, Marvin, Unionville, Lake Park, Wesley Chapel,
and Weddington within Union County for the purpose of receiving funds from the municipalities for the county senior nutrition program and exercise any renewal or extension term options
set forth in the agreement and terminate its agreements if deemed in the best interest of the county each in the county's manager's discretion
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
25-323Appointments to Boards and Committees
Chair Merrell stated that there were eight boards with vacancies to consider and these vacancies had been advertised in accordance with the Board’s rules of procedures.
Agricultural Advisory Board (Three Members)
Chair Merrell stated that the Agricultural Advisory Board had three openings. She stated those three members had applied for reappointment, and a fourth application had also been received.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to appoint William Bradley Hargett, Tony Lane Helms, and Logan Watson to the Agriculture Advisory Board.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Centralina Workforce Development Board (Three Members)
Chair Merrell stated that the Centralina Workforce Development Board, which had three specific openings: an apprenticeship representative, an adult education and literacy representative,
and a higher education representative. She noted that reappointment applications had been received for each position, along with one additional application.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to appoint Scott Panagrosso as the apprenticeship representative, Kelly Stegall as the adult education and literacy representative, and Heather C. Miller
as the higher education representative to the Centralina Workforce Development Board.The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Jury Commission
Chair Merrell stated there is one vacancy on the Jury Commission. She said that an application was received from Gary Salek for reappointment.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to reappoint Gary Salek to the Jury Commission.The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Land Use Board (Two Regular Members and One Alternate Member)
Chair Merrell stated that the Land Use Board had vacancies for two regular members and one vacancy for an alternate member. She said that two applications have been received.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to appoint Douglas E. McClew and Charles Walup Jr. as regular members to the Land Use Board.The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Nursing Home Advisory Committee
Chair Merrell stated that the Nursing Home Advisory Committee had two vacancies.She said that two applications were received for reappointment.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to reappoint Marise C. Robertson and Sandra Guion Adcock to the Nursing Home Advisory Committee.The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
Region F Area Aging Advisory Committee (Two Regular Members and One Alternate Member)
Chair Merrell stated that the Region F Area Aging Advisory Committee had vacancies for two regular members and a vacancy for one alternate. She noted that two reappointment applications
and one additional application had been received, with only two applicants eligible for regular member appointments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to appoint Kathleen Domanski and Hannah Seyoum as regular members and Alleta Galusha as the alternate member to the Region F Area Aging Advisory Committee.The
motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
South Piedmont Community College Board of Trustees
Chair Merrell stated that the South Piedmont Community College Board of Trustees had one vacancy and noted that a reappointment application and two additional applications had been received.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to reappoint Christopher Duggan to the South Piedmont Community College Board of Trustees. The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAyeChair Merrell stated that there were two vacancies on the Marshville Planning Board and Board of Adjustment for extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) representatives.
She noted that one reappointment application and one additional application had been received.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to appoint Tracy Stancill and Brandon M. Love as ETJ members to the Marshville Planning Board and Board of Adjustments. The motion passed unanimously
as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
25-401Resolution – Senate Bill 205
Chair Merrell noted that there were a couple of other items moved to Business.
She explained that there had been a lot of discussion throughout Union County, in both the municipalities and unincorporated Union County, with many expressing concern about SB 765.
She noted that the North Carolina Association of County Managers had been actively sharing information across the state, emphasizing that this was not just a Union County concern, as
other counties were also discouraged and concerned about SB 765.
She said that early last week, while attending a Centralina meeting, conversations revealed that a lot of the items from SB 765 that they had been hearing about were thought to have
died and faded away. However, she explained, those items had been included in a pool bill, moving items from the SB 765 provisions into the pool bill. She added that once other counties
realized this, the Board became very concerned again, having previously been assured that SB 765 had died and was no longer a worry. She noted that those same provisions were now appearing
under the disguise of Senate Bill 205.
Chair Merrell said that they were once again preparing to discuss a resolution opposing Senate Bill 205, similar to what they had done several weeks earlier for SB 765. She recognized
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms for comments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that Chair Merrell was correct. He explained that SB 205 started as a two-page swimming pool bill and was quickly passed in the North Carolina Senate.
He stated the bill then moved to the House, where many of the same sponsors from HB 765 had some input on the different additions, increasing the bill from its original two pages to
approximately sixteen to eighteen pages in the final revision.
He explained that people might question how that happens. He said it occurs because different committees review the bill and make different additions or subtractions. He noted that SB
205 currently includes many things related to land use. He cited as an example, on page five, it eliminates the requirement for a certain number of parking spaces, meaning a 42-story
building could be constructed without providing parking. He said it also places the financial burden for roads on municipalities and counties and removes local control over driveway
traffic direction.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained that the real impact on Union County and similar-sized municipalities is that it eliminates open space requirements. He reminded the Board that open
space had been a major topic of discussion back in December of the previous year. He said open space is a density issue, and while the bill doesnot directly change density requirements,
it reduces the tools that local municipalities and counties have to control density. He emphasized that density is a major concern for Union County residents, noting that the County’s
low-density development is what gives the county its character.
He said the bill includes other provisions, making subtle changes from zoning regulation to development regulation. He emphasized that even small changes to general statutes can have
huge effects. He explained that instead of directly addressing zoning, the bill broadens the scope, applies different rules, limits local government authority, and ultimately moves that
authority away from the people.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained that SB 205 includes provisions about split jurisdictions, similar to HB 765. He stated that basically, it gives a municipality that provides utilities
zoning and planning rights over a parcel. He noted this is particularly relevant to the Board’s work. He also pointed out that on page 15 of the bill, it eliminates the current 12-month
waiting period after a withdrawal or denied rezoning application. He said under this bill, an applicant could potentially resubmit a rezoning request the following day.
He said the bill also removes subdivision authority from the governing board, making it purely administrative. He further said it eliminates all conditions and the appeals process for
subdivisions. He added that page 16 allows civil action for land use decisions, meaning an applicant, developer, or homebuilder could sue the County or municipal government if they disagreed
with a result.
He stated that ultimately the people need to understand that our state representativeshave been calling SB 205 a compromise.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he agreed with them that it is a compromise but added that it compromises government that should be for the people and instead serves special interests.
He emphasized that this is not good for Union County or for the state.He said that he personally cannot support SB 205 and that he is certainly in favor of the resolution.
Chair Merrell asked if there were any other comments or questions.
Commissioner Sides asked for information on who sponsors SB 205, the current status of the bill, and whether any local delegation members are on that committee.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that SB 205 originated with Senator Jarvis as the original sponsor, but suggested that Mr. Kay could provide more details on what has occurred with the
bill in the House.
Mr. Kay explained that, based on the limited records available, the primary sponsor of the original bill is listed. He noted that the original bill to deal with local boards of health
and regulation of private swimming pools. He added that the bill was amended in a House committee, which included several members. He said he did not have a complete record readily
available indicating how each member voted, though he believes that information exists on the legislative website.
Commissioner Sides asked what committee the bill sits in right now.
Mr. Kay said he believed the bill was last in the Rules, Calendar, and Operations Committee of the House as of June 11, 2025. He stated that is the most recent information that he has
available. He added that it appears the changes to the bill were made in House Rules.
Chair Merrell said the Commissioners had received an email and she was trying to see if she could answer that for Commissioner Sides. She asked for a moment because it looked like she
did receive some information last week with names that had joined. She added that they may need to send that information to Commissioner Sides.
Commissioner Sides asked Mr. Kay to find out the status of the bill and who the players are behind it and to email that information to the Commissioners tomorrow or the following day.
Mr. Kay said there might be additional information available, but according to what is recorded on the General Assembly’s website, the bill went to the Rules Committee and was substituted.
He noted that no roll call vote was taken; it is just recorded as reported favorably, meaning a majority of the House Rules Committee voted for the committee substitute.
Commissioner Sides noted that the bill is fairly far along in the process; it is not lingering but moving.
Commissioner Baucom said that not long ago the Commissioners were told HB 765 was dead. However, he noted that the principles have now resurrected it as SB 205. He expressed his frustration
and concern with the state representatives, saying he doesnot believe they are fighting for the people and it gives the appearance of working for special interests.
He emphasized that Union County ranks 13th nationwidenot just in the statefor loss of farmland. He said this is a real concern and expressed that he believes the representatives should
be fightingfor the people, calling it truly disappointing.He said that decisions on zoning and other matters affecting the county need to be made as close to the people affected as possible.
Chair Merrell added that, along with those comments, she had received a couple of phone calls over the weekend and today from Representative Dean Arp. She said she spoke with Representative
Arp twice and wanted to convey that he requested a return call and asked that the Board work with staff to review SB 205 so he could have information to advocate for Union County in
Raleigh.She said that she had spoken Representative Arp a couple of times and expressed her appreciation for the effort he made.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she wanted to reiterate some points Commissioner Baucom had made. She noted that Union County is among the fastest counties in the nation losing farmland
and emphasized that without farmland, there is no food. She added that it is concerning that some local state representatives seem willing to sell out Union County, despite campaign
statements promising to slow development and preserve the county as it is.
She asked why, for the counties that were in favor of HB 765, they could just write local bills for those counties that want development. She said that seems like an easy fix, pointing
out that the majority of the state doesn’t want this. She added that most counties have said no, and she doesnot understand why the state cannotunderstand what their people want. She
suggested that if some counties want development, they should write a local bill.
She said he is very disappointed, especially in her representative here in Union County, feeling that he is not listening to the people and is acting more in his own best interest. She
added that it is sad to say that and referenced an old joke at the federal level that elected officials should wear NASCAR jackets with all their sponsors. She said she thinks some state
representatives need similar NASCAR-style jackets.
Chair Merrell thanked Commissioner Christina Helms and asked if there were any other comments. She noted that she had hoped to find the list of names for Commissioner Sides, but they
would need to follow up on that, as some names had been attributed with the new and improved swimming pool bill.
She remarked that apparently swimming pools have a lot of influence over roads, land use, parking, open spaces, buffer zones, who can take legal action, and even changing a 12-month
waiting period to reintroducing it the next day.
She said they had a resolution before them opposing Senate Bill 205 and reminded everyone that when they discussed this previously, they were encouraged to reach out to their North Carolina
House representatives and senators. She noted that in their area, they have Dave Craven and Todd Johnson, as well as Representatives Dean Arp, Mark Brody, and David Willis, and asked
if she was missing anyone.
She encouraged everyone to return calls and have those conversations, so that representatives like Dean Arp wantshear from each of them about what they would like to see removed from
the bill. She emphasized that it is important that they hear from each one of them not just the one who initially called.
She said they have a resolution and made a motion that the Board adopt it in opposition to provisions of Senate Bill 205 that reduce local governments’ ability to shape and respond to
it is communities. She then asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Commissioner Sides said that in the past, when he discussed opposing previous legislation, the responses often included promises to carve out Union County or set population thresholds
so the county would not be affected. He said he views that as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” because those protections can change quicklythe next census or a tweak in a House or Senate
committee could remove them.
Commissioner Sides said it isvery simple it is either yes or no. He stressed that the board should not offer conditional support or trade-offs and emphasized the need for a clear voice
opposing the legislation and any accommodations that would put Union County in a temporary safe zone.
He urged a vote against the bill, saying to kill it and let the people closest to the decision-makingthe municipalities and countiesmake these decisions, rather than special interests
in Raleigh.
Chair Merrell said she completely agreed. She noted that over the past several weeks, it has become very clear that the bill was to address housing needs in six of the largest counties,
but that clearly is not the case since it now involves swimming pools. She added that if it were truly about those six counties, the other 94 would not be affected. She then noted that
Commissioner Christina Helms wanted to make a comment.
Vice Chair Commissioner Christina Helms said he agreed and encouraged everyone to reach out to the local delegation. He also suggested contacting the Rules Committee, where the bill
may still reside, and reaching out to all state representatives. He emphasized that this is a statewide issue affecting everyone and something the people do not want.
He said that on the topic of affordable housing, HB 765 was a huge topic and the argument was that massive residential development was needed because of an affordable housing crisis.
He pointed out that the study was commissioned by the Home Builders Association and the North Carolina Real Estate Association, so it is important to consider the source and look beyond
face value.
He said that, based on what he sees professionally, there is currently a surplus of houses nationally and likely within North Carolina, so the argument for massive development doesn’t
hold water. He added that he wanted to thank everyone who reached out to their state representatives regarding HB 765, noting that their voices are extremely powerful. He encouraged
them to do it again for SB 205 and thanked them again.
Commissioner Christina Helms said she wanted to piggyback on what Vice Chair Brian W. Helms had said, noting that last time there was talk of a housing crisis, she saw over 1,500 houses
on Zillow and now the discussion has shifted to a pricing crisis.
She said that we cannot control the prices and she is 99.9 percent sure that building more homes will not make housing prices go down. She explained that builders are not going to take
a hitthey are used to making a set amount of money and will let the houses sit on the market until they sell for the price they want.
She said this bill does not address that at all. She noted that it has still not rebounded from 2020 when prices went through the roof, and they are coming down slowly, but not much.
She said the bill is not going to help those wanting a house, especially the younger generation fresh out of college, and it does nothing but add money to the pockets of developers and
realtors. She repeated that there is no housing crisis in Union County.
Mr. Kay said that he was able to locate the email Chair Merrell had referred to earlier. He added that, according to the legislative history, the bill currently sits in House Rules but
appears to have been amended in the House Regulatory Reform Committee. He noted key legislators listed on the legislative alert from the state association: Representative Jeff Zenger
from Forsyth, who was an original sponsor of HB 765, as well as Mark Brody of Union County and Matthew Winslow of Franklin County, who were also primary members of HB 765.
He noted that Representative Brody is the only member from Union County who was on the Regulatory Reform Committee that passed out the amended substitute. He added that none of the members
of the House Rules Committee include anyone from Union County.
Chair Merrell asked what the date of that email was so they could locate it quickly.
Mr. Kay said the email was sent on June 10th at around noon.
Chair Merrell asked who had sent the email.
Mr. Kay said the email was from Kevin Leonard at the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he had one last point and asked Mr. Kay to correct him if he was wrong, noting that the North Carolina General Assembly publishes their occupations.
Mr. Kay confirmed that the General Assembly publishes the occupations as listed by the members themselves.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that, as he mentioned when discussing HB 765, the three members Mr. Kay just referenced have direct ties to home building in North Carolina. He noted that
this is public information, listed on the General Assembly’s website.
Chair Merrell noted that donors had been addressed in a previous meeting and then moved to the motion on the floor.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye
25-389Joint Resolution Interlocal Agreement Amendment Execution and Implementation
Chair Merrell said that the last item moved to business was item 25389, the joint resolution regarding the interlocal agreement amendment, execution, and implementation related to the
dissolution and liquidation of the MonroeUnion County Economic Development Commission.
Mr. Matthews said that this item had been removed from the agenda.
Chair Merrell apologized, saying she had it noted to address tonight and asked how soon they might be able to bring this item back to the Board.
Mr. Matthews said the Board’s next meeting is on July 14th, and the Board could discuss this item then unless the Board believes there is a need to hold a special meeting.
County Manager’s Comments
Mr. Matthews expressed appreciation to the Board for adopting the budget and for the
confidence
that it has shown in him and the staff. He acknowledged the significant effort the Board puts into the budget, noting the short amount of time the Commissioners have to review everything,
and expressed appreciation for their time and attention.
He also thanked the staff for their hard work in preparing the budgetand keeping the tax rate as close to revenue neutral as possible.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Baucom remembered and honored Mr. Tim Blair, a former AG teacher at Piedmont High School. He noted that he was likely a student in the first class to go through Mr. Blair’s
teaching and described him as a remarkable example of dedication and patience. He said Mr. Blair influenced many young students, including former Commissioner Stony Rushing and expressed
that Mr. Blair was a great influence on all of them.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that anyone who knew Tim Blair would recognize what a spectacular man he was, describing him as one of the kindest souls. She shared that he would occasionally
come to their farm to get straw and they would talk, and he was friends with her husband and had also taught her son.
She wished a belated Father’s Day to all the fathers who were listening to tonight’s Board meeting. She encouraged anyone who still has their dad to hug and kiss him, sharing that she
missed her own father.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he also knew Tim Blair and noted that his recollection might be slightly different from Commissioner Baucom and Commissioner Christina Helms, since Tim
Blair was heavily involved with wrestling and he had to run a lot in high school. He extended his condolences to the family.
He said it was good to see Commissioner Sides at tonight’s meeting, expressing that he had missed him. He added that with Independence Day approaching, there will not be another meeting
between now and the holiday.
He wished everyone a very happy and safe Independence Day. He encouraged everyone to spend time with their families and reflect on what makes the United States great.
Commissioner Sides requested an agenda item be included on the August 11thagenda entitled “Replacement Union County Jail.”
He said he would need Mr. Kay’s assistance to prepare the appropriate motion for the August 11th meeting. He said he intends to offer the motion, encourage discussion and participation
from his colleagues, and then provide a summation before calling the question on constructing a replacement Union County jail facility of no less than 500 beds, with a 600-bed core on
the current site. He requested that this item be included for the August 11th meeting so his colleagues can share their thoughts and vote their conscience on the issue.
He expressed appreciation to his colleagues and the staff for their hard work on the budget, acknowledging that while not everyone gets everything they want or need, he appreciated the
hard work that went into developing a budget that meets the needs of the county. He expressed gratitude to everyone involved for their hard work.
He said it was good to be back after a short absence for some “repair work,” and wished everyone a good evening.
Chair Merrell congratulated the Class of 2025 on their high school graduations. She wished them the best of luck moving forward, whether they enter the military, the workforce, or pursue
higher education. She expressed her belief that students who grew up in Union County are well prepared for life and hoped they would stay in touch to share what they are doing.
She also recognized all Army service members and the Army in general on the Army’s 250th birthday. She shared that her youngest child is now an active-duty Army soldier and reflected
on the past three years of working closely with military veterans, assisting them with casework daily. She said the military is very close to her heart and expressed appreciation for
their service in representing and protecting the country.
She thanked the staff, County Manager, and everyone in Union County government, expressing her continued appreciation for the work they do daily and sometimes on weekends answering questions.
She specifically recognized Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, for being a great person to work with and highlighted the special services the county provides, including the Council
on Aging. She assured the community that staff, whether in-home services or working with municipalitiesare committed to helping, and she expressed gratitude to the municipalities that
reviewed their budgets and stepped in to assist in reducing the senior services waitlist, calling it truly remarkable.
She thanked Commissioner Sides for pushingto get creative, look beyond simple yes-or-no answers, and find alternatives that led to positive outcomes. She wished everyone a good night
and thanked them again for their hard work on next year’s budget. She noted they look forward to continuing discussions on the jail and on recruiting and filling vacancies in the Sheriff’s
Department, emphasizing the need to have all information back from the consultant to hold that conversation on August 11th. She asked Commissioner Sides to bear with staff as they follow
the timeline, assuring him they will do their best to honor his request if the information is ready.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 8:54 p.m., Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner SidesAye