The URL can be used to link to this page

7-14-25 MinutesUnion County, NC Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes Union County Government Center 500 North Main Street Monroe, North Carolina www.unioncountync.gov July 14, 20256:00 PMBoard Room, First Floor ____________________________________________________________ 25-390Closed Session – 5:15 P.M. Present:Vice Chair Brian W. Helms; Commissioner Clancy C. Baucom; Commissioner Christina B. Helms and Commissioner Gary Sides Absent: Chair Melissa M. Merrell Also Present:Brian W. Matthews, County Manager; Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager; Clayton Viognier, Assistant County Manager; Lynn G. West, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners; and Jason Kay, County Attorney At approximately 5:15 p.m., in the open session, in the Stony D. Rushing Conference Meeting Room, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order. Vice Chair Helms 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 by a vote of four to zero as follows: Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye Commissioner Gary Sides Aye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. At approximately 5:54 p.m., Vice Chair Brian W. Helms 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 vote of four to zero as follows: Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye Commissioner Gary Sides Aye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. Opening of Meeting - 6:00 PM Invocation - Vice Chairman Brian Helmsoffered the invocation. Pledge of Allegiance – Vice Chair Brian Helms led the body and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Informal Comments Vice Chair Brian Helms stated the rules for speakers making comments during the Informal Comments portion of the meeting. He recognized Ashika Allen as the first speaker. Ms. Allen stated that she is a resident of Union County and that she has resided in the county for approximately four years. Sheaddressed water issues on Stack Road. She explained that she moved to her home about four years ago and that the homes use wells, but her well produces very little water, and because of that, she is unable to run the filtration system in her home since there is not enough water to supply the house and operate the system. She shared that when her well was first tested in 2021, the arsenic level was significantly above the allowable limit. She said that she and her children are now bathing in chlorinated water after having to replace the well pump and wiring over the weekend, which she stated cost her well over $7,000. Ms. Allen stated the water is chlorinated and she does not have the water supply to resolve the issue. She added that her neighbor was also present and has placed drums in his garage to supply water in order to try to take daily showers and flush toilets. She noted that other neighbors are experiencing the same issue. She stated that there is a water line on Stack Road, but that line stops at the two houses at the end of the street, and the five homes beyond that point rely on wells that do not produce enough water for them to adequately use their homes. Ms. Allen said she was pleading with the County to extend the water line so that they would be able to live in their homes and have water service. She also said that she had a letter from another neighbor who was unable to attend, and explained that the affected residents have signed the letter and are in agreement with connecting to county water if that is an option. Vice Chair Brian Helms stated that the next speaker for the evening was Kelly O’Neal. Ms. O’Neal introduced herself as a former resident of Stallings and stated that she was speaking not only as a concerned citizen but also as a grieving mother. She spoke about a personal experience involving her daughter and the Department of Social Services. Ms. O’Neal stated that she was demanding accountability and an investigation into her case. Vice Chair Brian Helms recognizedTeresa Clawson as the next speaker. Ms. Clawson said she was a resident of Unionville, North Carolina. She explained that she applied for the short water line extension program in December 2021 and is still waiting for County water. She stated that she has been trying to get county water for the 42 years she has lived in the county and paid county taxes. Ms. Clawson described the challenges of living without sufficient water. She stated that she has been told not to drink, bathe, or cook with her water. She explained that if she makes anything for someone else, she has to use purified or distilled water. She noted that many of her neighbors are in the same situation and it seems since the neighborhood has developed, it has gotten worse over the years. She added that she cannot wash two loads of laundry a day without running out of water. Ms. Clawson stated that ongoing well problems have required frequent filter cleaning and the purchase of additional filters. She explained that they have replaced multiple well pumps, hot water heaters, and damaged pipes at significant cost due to the condition of the water. She asked that the Board not forget the residents on Sikes Mill Rd. who have been waiting patiently for 42 years for promised water service. She stated that she has been coming before the Board about this issue since 1985. Ms. Clawson said she was also asking the Board to consider that her sister’s house burned down two years ago. She explained that if county water had been available on their road as promised, some of the loss might have been prevented. She added that the fire trucks ran out of water and had to travel about one and a half to two miles to refill, and the house was destroyed in less than 30 minutes. She stated that she was speaking on behalf of everyone involved, noting that there were about 26 applicants. She said that most of them, estimating around 90 percent, have paid the fees they were told to pay in order to connect to county water. She noted that the applications were turned in on December 13, 2021, and stated that as of July 15, 2025, they are still waiting for water service. Ms. Clawson urged the Board not to overlook Sikes Mill Road in the next budget, stating that the residents are in desperate need of county water. She explained that her home sits on family land given to her by her father and that, because of the water problems, selling is not a realistic option. Vice Chair Brian Helms thanked Ms. Clawson and noted that there is a business agenda item on the short waterline extension program that may be of interest to her. He encouraged her to stay and participate. Vice Chair Brian Helms asked if there were any other speakers who had not signed up but wished to speak during the informal comments. A gentleman from the audience asked whether he was supposed to speak at that time or wait until the rezoning discussion. Vice Chair Brian Helms explained that if he had comments regarding a conditional rezoning on the agenda, he would need to reserve those remarks for that agenda item. The gentleman from the audience asked if he would have an opportunity to speak, and Vice Chair Brian Helms confirmed that he would. Fred Hurl asked if he could speak at this time, which the Vice Chair said he would allow his comments. Fred Hurl introduced himself as Ashika Allen’s neighbor, stating that he lives three houses down from her on Stack Road, just south of Lansford Road. Mr. Hurl stated that during the first two years after moving to Stack Road, they had no water problems and could bathe and do laundry when needed. However, over the past year, they have experienced three water outages when their wells ran dry. He said after the first outage, he installed extra tanks to store 150 gallons of water, but they still ran out on Thanksgiving and again on Easter. He added that today he and his wife had to go to the laundromat to do five loads of laundry because they do not dare do their wash at home. He explained that three adults live in their four-bedroom home, which should be able to support normal water usage for that many people. He added that, like the previous speaker, they want access to the short water line extension if possible, acknowledging that it may not be in this year’s budget, but noting that they are not the only residents experiencing water problems. Mr. Hurl stated that he has spent $7,500 out of pocket on a new well pump and water testing after being told there might be a leak causing the outages, but testing showed there was no leak. He explained that he and his wife have considered selling the house, but realistically, with a water problem disclosed online, it would be very difficult to sell. He noted that he only learned about arsenic in their well water seven days after moving in, during which time he and his family had been drinking it. He acknowledged that short-term exposure is likely not harmful, but emphasized that they were never informed there was a problem with the water. Mr. Hurl stated that he currently has four filters in his home,two for arsenic, one for soft water, and one for the horrific odor. He explained that, on average, he loses 93 gallons of water a day to cleaning or regenerating the filters. He added that last night, one of the arsenic filters regenerated and used an additional 80 gallons, leaving them unable to do dishes or take a shower after working outside all day. Vice Chair Brian Helms asked if there were any additional attendees who wished to speak that evening. Karen Green introduced herself as a resident of Unionville and stated that she was also speaking about water. She explained that her house had burned but noted that she was unsure whether nearby water would have made a difference, as the fire started in the attic and spread downward. Ms. Green stated that she and her neighbors paid for water service over three years ago, yet it has not been extended to their homes, even though water lines exist about a mile away on either side. She noted that her sister has spent over $50,000 on her system, and while Ms. Green has been able to salvage her second system and maintain daily life, many neighbors are not. She added that a surveyor had previously told her husband they should start to see some action by June and that was over a year ago. She added that she does not want her community to be forgotten and is trying to rebuild her life. Public Hearings 25-409 Conduct Public Hearing for Rezoning Petition 2025-RZ-006Needham Vice Chair Brian Helms stated that the next four agenda items were public hearings, including three proposed rezonings and one proposed economic development incentive. Before opening the first public hearing, he read the rules for commenting during public hearings and said these would apply for all of the public hearings. The Vice Chair announced that the first public hearing was Item 25-409 for Rezoning Petition 2025-RZ-006 (Needham). He opened the public hearing at approximately 6:30 p.m. and recognized Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner, Long-Range Planning, to provide staff comments. Mr. Hansen explained that the rezoning request is a straight rezoning with no conditions and involves overall a 42-acre parcel in the New Salem Township, with only approximately one acre proposed for rezoning. He stated that the property is currently zoned a combination of RA-40 and Light Industrial (LI) and noted that the property is located in the northeastern part of the county. Mr. Hansen provided photographs of the property and pointed out the area on the left that was originally a grain facility for selling crops and was zoned Light Industrial when zoning was initiated. He pointed out agricultural land located to the north of the site, a gas station along Highway 218 opposite the site, and additional agricultural land to the west. He explained that the one-acre parcel was discovered by the owners a few months ago when they attempted to subdivide the one-acre parcel and sell it, and found that the property was split-zoned, which did not allow the subdividing of the property. He stated that the rezoning process is being pursued to allow them to split off the portion with the house and keep the remainder of the property. Mr. Hansen described the parcel’s location with a lake onsite, and, otherwise, it is mostly large-lot residential and agricultural, with visible farmland, a stream paralleling Highway 218, with a pond. He explained that if the rezoning were approved, the Light Industrial portion would be removed, and the entire parcel would be zoned RA-40, and the owners could subdivide the area containing the house. He stated that traffic volumes in the area are very low, with approximately 2,100 vehicles per day on Highway 218 and fewer than 200 on Jerusalem Church Road. He added that there are no funded projects planned in the vicinity. Mr. Hansen noted that the County’sLand Use Map recommends the area for rural residential use, and the rezoning would be consistent with that recommendation. He noted that, because the rezoning involves only one acre, the school system was not consulted, and water and sewer are not available, so any future development would rely on well and septic service. He explained that a community meeting was not required for this rezoning, and no comments have been received from the public. He added that, due to the property’s distance from the nearest municipality, Fairview was not consulted. Mr. Hansen noted that there is a lack of Industrial zonedproperty in the county eliminating that is a negative, and it does give flexibility for the property to have industrial zoning. However, he stated that the rezoning has several positives: it is consistent with the land use plan, will not create significant traffic impacts, supports the property owners’ immediate plans, and helps the complexity for future development by eliminating split zoning which isa practice the county has moved away from. He added that staff recommends approval, and the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval. He stated that the applicant is available to answer any questions. Vice Chair Brian Helms thanked Mr. Hansen for his presentation and asked if the applicant was present and wished to provide any comments. Carl Needham stated that he has lived in Union County for over 30 years, including 21 years in Unionville, andhas resided at his current address on for nine and a half years. Mr. Needham said that he and his family purchased the 42.5-acre farm nine and a half years ago, including a house on approximately 2.5 acres. He explained that when they attempted to sell the house on May 28th, they discovered they could not do so, because the house was built on a third of the light industrial lot. Mr. Needham stated that when they purchased the property nine and a half years ago. He said he asked he surveyor why it was not a problem when they purchased the property. He said ecause they paid cash for the property and no lender was involved. He explained that he is seeking to rezone approximately one acre of the property to residential so that they can sell the house and move to the beach. Mr. Needham noted that the prospective buyerremains interested in the house. He added that she has been able to continue living in her current location for two months and is still willing to purchase the property. Vice Chair Brian Helms thanked Mr. Needham and asked if anyone had registered to speak at the public hearing regarding this matter. Amanda Nelson stated that she is currently a resident of Mecklenburg County and is seeking to become a resident of Union County. She explained that she is the buyer of the home, has a 10-year-old son, and they are excited to join the community. She added that over the past few months, they have developed a close friendship with the sellers, and her son has become friends with the sellers’ grandson, who would be their next-door neighbor. Ms. Nelson stated that their original closing was scheduled for May 29th, but they discovered the zoning issue on May 19th, which significantly delayed their ability to move in. She explained that, with the next Board meeting not until August 11th, she is concerned about having enough time to move, get settled, and enroll her son in school. She stated that she is trying to be sensitive to the fact that this is a big change for her son, wanting to give him time to acclimate to the new environment before starting at a new school with new people. She added that she also needs time to establish other essentials for him, such as doctors, dentists, etc. Ms. Nelson stated that if the rezoning is not approved, she would have very little time to find a place to live before the school year begins. She explained that they cannot continue renting their current home and have no family nearby, as their relatives live about four and a half hours away. She said that, as a single parent, the responsibility to provide stability for her son falls squarely on her shoulders, and she is uncertain whether their dreams are about to come true or if she will fail him in a way she never imagined. Ms. Nelson asked the Board to consider making a decisionat today’s meeting, so she would have at least some time to make alternate plans if the rezoning is not approved. She thanked the Board for its time and for allowing her to speak. Vice Chair Brian Helms thanked the speakers and asked if anyone else wished to comment during the public hearing. Carl Needham clarified that they are not leaving Union County and are only selling the house on the 2.75-acre portion. He explained that they need the one-acre rezoning to complete the sale, but they will retain ownership of the remaining 40 acres. He added that his wife’s son lives nearby with the grandchildren and that they plan to build a house on the retained property, emphasizing that they will remain part of the Union County community. Commissioner Christina Helms stated that, pursuant to Rule 29, she moved to take action on this item tonight. Vice Chair Brian Helms acknowledged Commissioner Helms’ motion. Commissioner Sides asked if a vote was needed to move the item to the business agenda, and Jason Kay confirmed that they did. Commissioner Christina Helms moved to transfer Item 25-409, the public hearing for Rezoning Petition 2025-RZ-006 (Needham), to the business section of the agenda for action that evening. The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows: Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye Commissioner BaucomAye Commissioner HelmsAye Commissioner SidesAye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. Vice Chair Brian Helms stated that the item would be moved to the first item under the business agenda. He closed the public hearing at approximately 6:40 p.m. 25-410 Conduct Public Hearing for Rezoning Petition 2024-CZ-010 4 Rivers Vice Chair Brian Helms announced that the next public hearing on the agenda was Item 25-410 for Rezoning Petition 2024-CZ-010 4 Rivers. He opened the public hearing at approximately 6:41 p.m. and recognized Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner, Long-Range Planning, to provide comments from county staff. Bjorn Hansen provided an overview of the 4 Rivers rezoning, noting that it is a conditional rezoning with an associated site plan and list of uses. He explained that it involves two parcels totaling approximately 4.5 acres near the I-485 and Lawyers Road interchange. He stated the rezoning request is to change the zoning from R-20 to B-4 with conditions to allow an interior storage facility of approximately 80,000 square feet. He noted that a small sliver of land on the west side of Allen Black Road is not included in the rezoning, providing future flexibility for consolidation with other properties. He said the proposal meets all Unified Development Ordinance requirements. Mr. Hansen described the site plan, noting that the property has frontage on three roads, including Lawyers Road, I-485, and Allen Black Road, with access planned from Allen Black Road. He pointed out that the corner parcel is a residence and is not part of the rezoning and access would be from Allen Black Road. He noted a funded widening project on Lawyers Road but explained that no additional right-of-way is needed, and the building is set back far enough that the rezoning will not affect the viability of that project. He described the existing conditions of the site. He said the site is wooded with a house on the property. He pointed out Allen Black Road as a two-lane road, a recently built neighborhood nearby, and Lawyers Road with heavy traffic, with I-485 visible in the distance. In terms of development status, Mr. Hansen said there is a lot of single-family residential development nearby, a gcommercial node with a shopping center, with the county line in close proximity. Mr. Hansen noted the environmental features of the site, highlighting a man-made pond that will be incorporated into the stormwater facility. He stated that there are no floodplains or streams on the site. He also mentioned a half-acre area that is not included in the rezoning, providing future flexibility for potential additional development. He pointed out areas on the map that are inside the Town of Stallings and currently zoned R-20. He stated that to the north, there is a conditional zoning from several years ago as part of the development and the property remains in unincorporated Union County. He stated that the area is undergoing a lot of changes with regards to transportation, including the widening of Lawyers Road down to Stevens Mill, which is considered one of the county’s critical intersections. Mr. Hansen said the project is funded to widen the road to four lanes by 2030. He added that Allen Black Road carries approximately 1,300 vehicles per day, andthe Lawyers Road segment has approximately 17,000 vehicles per day and is in need of widening. He stated that the neighborhood center commercial node shown on the land use map is somewhat arbitrary. Mr. Hansen said that in a county of over 600 square miles, 100 or 200 yards might not mean much, but at the precision of this intersection, whether the circle technically encompasses these parcels requires some judgment. He stated that part of the recommendation for approval is that, because of the proximity to I-485, this commercial center should apply to this intersection and these He said, otherwise, the area is identified as rural residential, which is a recognition ofnot having utilities, but these parcels have access through Mecklenburg County, making development more viable. He noted that, because the rezoning is for commercial use, the school system was not consulted. He added that public water and sewer are available to the site. He explained that a community meeting was required and held in May, and attended by seven members of the public. He explained that attendees asked questions about cleaning up adjacent properties which could not be addressed as well as about lighting the stormwater pond, the possibility of a fountain, and signage. He noted that no changes were made to the site plan as a result of these questions. He added that no one spoke for or against the rezoning at the Land Use Board meeting. Mr. Hansen said that the Town of Stallings was consulted, and the town council did not support the rezoning, preferring the property remain residential or undeveloped and opposing commercial development adjacent to existing residential areas. He explained that Stallings’ land use plan does not make a recommendation for this area, because it is outside the town limits, so the council did not have an official recommendation. He discussed the positives and negatives from staff’s perspective. He noted that strictly interpreting the land use map, the area is recommended as rural residential, with a neighborhood center located about 1,000 feet away. He said the commercial technically does not encompass these two parcels, so they should not be rezoned to commercial. He added that the Allen Black Road corridor transitions to rural residential fairly quickly away from Lawyers Road, and rezoning could potentially incentivize additional commercial development. Hepointed out several positives for the rezoning. He stated that the neighborhood center should be interpreted as including these parcels due to their proximitywithin about 1,000 feetof the I-485 interchange. He explained that rural residential zoning may not be appropriate, as the parcels front on three roads, making large-lot residential less viable long-term. He added that the proposal meets development standards, is similar in use to nearby commercial developments, and provides a use that is supportive for residential development. He stated that staff recommends approval; the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval. Said the applicant issvvvv available to answer questions. Vice Chair Brian Helms asked if the applicant would like to offer comments. Brittnay Lins, with the law firm of Alexander Ricks and a resident of Mecklenburg County, introduced herself. She stated that she had a slide presentation but would be brief and focus on some of the pictures. She noted that Mr. Hansen had done a good job orienting the Board to the site and explaining the land use plan. She also introduced Brick Bryant from 4 Rivers Property Groupto help answer questions. Ms. Lins explained that the property is located outside of Stallings, so annexation or access to Stallings’ utilities is not needed. She added that they are confident this can remain a Union County project. She noted that the site consists of two parcels. She stated that they are pleased to have staff support and that the land use plan map provides justification for the commercial use. Ms. Lins presented the site plan. She noted that the only access point will be from Allen Black Road, while maintaining a strong streetscape along Lawyers Road. She explained that the building is set back from the roads, with significant landscaping and buffering along Lawyers Road and Pleasant Run, keeping the building contained in the middle of the site. Ms. Lins displayed an aerial view of the site, noting the neighborhood behind it, including a newer age-restricted community. She stated that they have met with that community multiple times and have maintained a positive working relationship. She highlighted that there was no opposition to the project at the Land Use Board meeting and emphasized that they have engaged with the community beyond just the required community meeting. She said that the site is over 600 feet from the nearest home and that the building is being kept condensed. She emphasized the dense landscape buffer, explaining that much of the building will not be visible. She added that newer self-storage facilities can be designed in a variety of ways and can look very attractive, such as a brick building. Ms. Lins addressed the projected traffic impacts, noting that very few people visit storage units daily. She explained that morning and midday peak trips are minimalaround 7 o’clock in the morning and 12 o’clock middayand likely even lower. She said In comparison, a retail use on the site could generate over 50 trips in the morning and 160 trips in the evening, highlighting that the storage facility would bring far less traffic. She stated that the project can include an attractive building and enhance the site, raising the streetscape to a higher aesthetic standard. She explained that the facility would not operate 24 hours a day and would not resemble older industrial-style storage units with roll-up doors. She stated that it would be a professionally managed, attractive building with Class A glass at the front and strict standards prohibiting hazardous materials. Ms. Lins presented concept elevations, highlighting the variation in building materials, including brick at the base and articulated design. She noted that the east elevation faces Lawyers Road, featuring a glass front that resembles a retail building but does not generate the traffic typical of retail uses. Commissioner Sides asked for clarification, noting that with the newer concept of climate-controlled storage, the site would not have large RVs or semi-trucks parked out front. Ms. Lins presented a picture of the building, clarifying that it shows only the structure and not the landscaping. She pointed out that that the view from Lawyers Road, shows the glass front which is visible while most of the building is hidden from the back. She added that it would be a climate-controlled facility, like the newer storage buildings, where people sometimes even store wine. She shared an example of a nearby 4 Rivers facility, noting that it is a national tenant with the security and management capacity to operate the site. Ms. Lins noted that Brick Bryant from 4 Rivers was present and available to discuss their track record with these types of developments. She concluded by saying they have a lot of community outreach and are excited about the project. Commissioner Sides asked whether some of the units, which can include small business or office-type rentals, are envisioned as part of this project. She explained that small business or office-type rentals are not part of this project. She said this is partly due to access, as they want to maintain entry from Allen Black Road instead of adding curb cuts on Lawyers Road, and also to address traffic concerns. Commissioner Sides acknowledged that explanation and said it made sense. Vice Chair Brian Helms asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Commissioner Sides asked how many actual storage units would be available in the facility. Ms. Lins responded that she was not certain of the exact number of units in the 80,000-square-foot building, but estimated there would be roughly 700 to 800 smaller-scale units, noting that they are designed for personal storage rather than very large items. Vice Chair Brian Helms asked if there were any additional questions. He said that no one had registered to speak during the public hearing. He asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. With there being no one wishing to comment, closed the public hearing at approximately 6:53 p.m. 25-411 Conduct Public Hearing for Rezoning Petition 2025-CZ-003 TKCLand Vice Chair Brian Helms announced that the third public hearing on the agenda was Item 25-411 for Rezoning Petition 2025-CZ-003 TKC Land. He opened the public hearing at approximately 6:54 p.m. and recognized Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner,Long-Range Planning, to provide brief comments from county staff. Mr. Bjorn Hansen provided an overview of the TKC Land rezoning request, noting that it is a conditional rezoning for one parcel on Highway 601 south of Monroe. He explained the request is to rezone the property from RA-40 to B-4 with conditions to allow construction of an approximately 12,000square-foot discount retail store. He added that the applicant would make required improvements to Highway 601 as required by NCDOT. He stated that the project includes a five-year vesting period, and it meets all Unified Development Ordinance requirements. Mr. Hansen presented the site plan, noting that Highway 601 runs several miles north to Monroe, with Hargett Road located immediately to the north and a truck stop kitty-corner to the intersection. He explained that access would be directly from Highway 601, with modifications for the leftturn that is allowed on U.S. Highway 601. He said it would be too difficult to cross over to that lane, so NC Department of Transportation has asked for that to be extended. He explained the site layout, noting areas for parking, a septic field since there is no sewer access, and a detention pond. He stated that this represents the overall site plan. He described the existing conditions of the site, noting that the driveway would be located just north of the barrier. He stated that while ideally, it would be located farther south, the topography made that challenging, so the driveway was requested to be located slightly farther north. He pointed out the truck stop on the opposite side of Highway 601. He said the closest residence to the site on Hargett Road and additional large-lot residential properties opposite the site. He noted that the site is forested and that the surrounding area includes a mix of agricultural land and largelot-residential properties. He stated that there are no environmental features on the site itself, which is forested. He noted that the nearest stream is immediately to the south and pointed out the U-turn to the north that would be used for traveling south. He explained that the site is zoned RA-40, except for the truck stop located across the road. He said in terms of transportation, there are no funded projects in the area, and traffic volumes are approximately 14,000 vehicles per day on Highway 601 and under 1,000 vehicles per day on Hargett Road with the only access on Highway 601. Mr. Hansen pointed out on the Land Use Map the area to the eastthat represents rural residential and the area showing an employment corridor overlay. He noted that properties with access to Highway 601 are well-positioned for commercial or industrial uses, but moving away from Highway 601, that access is lost, and the area transitions back to rural residential. He noted that because this is a commercial request, the school system was not consulted. He stated that public water is available, but the site would use septic service. He shared that a community meeting was held in May and was attended by one resident who was supportive. He said no other comments for or against the rezoning have been received, and no one spoke at last month’s Land Use Board meeting regarding the request. He added that, due to the site’s distance from Monroe, the City of Monroe was not consulted. Mr. Hansen noted, in terms of negative to the rezoning request, this area is an employment corridor. He explained that if the corridor were to become all retail, it would undermine the intent. He emphasized that US 601 does not exist to be a retail strip mall but is intended for employment uses, though residential as a limited use along the corridor would be appropriate. He acknowledged that residential development would add traffic and cautioned that too much could reduce the usefulness of US 601, but he also pointed out several positives. He stated that limited retail as part of the employment corridor is appropriate. He added that because the site fronts two roads, residential uses aren’t appropriate as commercial uses, considering buffering and traffic. He further noted that existing commercial development at the adjacent intersection makes commercial uses more appropriate, and the proposal can meet development standards. Mr. Hansen stated that staff’s recommendation is for approval and noted that the Planning Board also recommended approval by a unanimous vote. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Mr. Hansen and invited the applicant to come forward to provide comments. Beth Godfrey, a resident of Union County, stated that she is with the Keith Corporation, based in Charlotte, and noted that the company has developed quite a bit in Union County over the years. She provided a few points regarding the application, noting that the project went through the controlled access process with the NC Department of Transportation, and was approved contingent on the property being purchased. Ms. Godfrey explained that the driveway, which currently is closer to Hargett Road, is being shifted slightly further south at DOT’s request, and DOT has approved the change. She also noted that the proposed Dollar General represents a new market concept, providing fresh vegetables and meats closer to local residents, reducing the need to travel into Monroe and contribute to traffic congestion. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Ms. Godfrey and asked if there were any questions for the applicant or Mr. Hansen. Commissioner Sides asked whether this location has a larger footprint than a standard Dollar General due to the additional products Ms. Godfrey responded that it is one of three larger prototypes, technically 12,480 square feet, with slightly more space extending beyond the walls. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that no one was registered to speak during the public hearing. He then asked if anyone in the audience wished to provide comments. Tim Keziah, a member of the audience, stated that he resides in Unionville and, together with his brother Zayne, owns property adjoining the site. He expressed full support for the applicant’s effort to bring a Dollar General Fresh Market to southern Union County and encouraged the Board to approve the project. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if anyone else in the audience wished to provide comments on the public hearing. After noting that there were none, he closed the public hearing at approximately 7:01 p.m. 25-424 Public Hearing - Step 4 Economic Development Incentive Grant Request to Confidential Company (Project Seven) Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the final public hearing on the agenda was item 25-424 for a Step Four Economic Development Incentive Grant request for a confidential company (Project Seven). He opened the public hearing at approximately 7:01 p.m. and recognized Ron Mahle, Economic Development Director, for brief comments from county staff. Mr. Mahle stated that this was an Economic Development Incentive Grant request for a confidential company referred to as Project Seven. He noted that, while the company name is typically disclosed at this stage, confidentiality remains necessary because the project is still under review for state-level incentives. He explained that if the state award is granted, the Governor’s office will make the initial public announcement, which is expected to occur soon. Mr. Mahle stated that discussions with Project Seven began this past spring, and staff has spent the last few months working closely with the company to understand the scope and potential impact of the opportunity. He noted that Project Seven is an existing Union County employer, with a corporate parent headquartered in another state. He explained that the company produces advanced high-tech products that are shipped globally, and noted that rising global demand has outpaced its current production capacity. He added that the parent company is considering locations in two other states in addition to Union County for this expansion. He said the proposed project involves constructing a new 100,000-square-foot facility on land already owned by the company in unincorporated Union County, which would house highly sophisticated processing equipment, the most advanced of its kind. He noted that the total capital investment is projected at $200 million, marking the largest single manufacturing investment in Union County’s history. He explained that the expansion would create 70 new full-time jobs, with an average annual wage of $75,000 plus full benefits, adding over $5 million in new payroll. He noted that 44 percent of the company’s current workforce resides in Union County, which ensures that the new wages would have a direct and meaningful impact on the local community. He stated that, to support Union County’s competitiveness for the project, a Step Four Economic Development Incentive Grant of up to $4,860,000 is requested, to be paid over seven years beginning in fiscal year 2028. He explained that the extended term, rather than the typical five years, reflects the scale and quality of the proposed investment. He added that the project is expected to generate $6,080,000 in ad valorem taxes during the grant period, noting that actual tax revenue will depend on the current tax rate applied to the assessed value of the investment each year, with consideration to annual depreciation. Mr. Mahle stated that, given the historic nature of the investment and its strong economic impact, the Union County Economic Development Department recommends approval of the grant to help secure Project 7’s $200 million expansion in Union County. Commissioner Sides asked Mr. Mahle if he could provide any information about the decision timeframe and how quickly the project might come to fruition. Mr. Mahle responded that the anticipated decision is expected within the next four to six weeks. Commissioner Christina Helms asked Mr. Mahle, once the grant is approved and the state announces it, how soon Project Seven could begin construction, and whether there is an estimated timeline from the company on how quickly the project could start. Mr. Mahle stated that the company has indicated construction could begin no later than the fourth quarter of this year, if not sooner. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated this is a huge opportunity for Union County and expressing appreciation to Mr. Mahle for his efforts and those of his team. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that no one had registered to speak during the public hearing. He asked if anyone present wished to provide comments. Commissioner Sides asked Mr. Mahle whether, if this project is approved and moves forward, the applicant would be landlocked at the site, or if there would be potential for future expansion at this location. Mr. Mahle stated that the site would still have approximately 70 to 80 acres available for future expansion, and that the applicant would not be landlocked. With there being no one wishing to comment during the public hearing, the Vice Chair closed the public hearing at approximately 7:07 p.m. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the next item on the agenda was staff recognition, but noted that staff requested that item 25-449, related to Public Communications Department awards, be moved to a future meeting for recognition at that time if there were no objections from the Board. Staff Recognition 25-449Public Communications Department Earns State, National, and International Awards (This item was removed from the agenda during the meeting at the request of staff.) Consent Agenda Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that it was time for consideration of the agenda and the consent agenda. He asked if there were any motions regarding requested revisions or amendments to either the consent agenda or the business agenda, and reminded the Board that the Needham rezoning had been moved to the first business item. Commissioner Helms moved to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. The motion passed with the following vote: Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye Commissioner BaucomAye Commissioner HelmsAye Commissioner SidesAye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. Jason Kay, County Attorney, asked Commissioner Helms to confirm that her motion was intended to approve the items on the consent agenda. Commissioner Helms confirmed that was correct. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if a revote was necessary. Jason Kay responded that a revote was not needed and that the vote was valid as recorded. 25-458 Contract Renewal - Records Management Software ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion. Logan Systems, Inc. provides land and vital records data management services to the Union County Register of Deeds. The professional services that Logan Systems, Inc. provides include all necessary hardware, software, training, and support and provides security back-up for all the land record data. Logan Systems, Inc. writes its own application software with input from users and allows for system customization at no additional charge. The Register of Deeds Office has utilized the contractual services of Logan Systems, Inc. for Records Management Software since 1993. The contractor has been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs, and we are requesting to continue this service for an additional five years. The Department will collaborate with Procurement to explore solicitation options near the end of the term. The anticipated annual cost for this service is $237,600. Since this contract contains a five-year term, a total of $1,188,000 is estimated to be spent. Funding is available in the adopted FY2026 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation. 25-388 Charlotte Water Request to Provide Water and Sewer Service to the Quintbridge Development ACTION:Approved the request from Charlotte Water to provide water and sewerservice to the Quintbridge Development (4 single family lots - tax parcels07147138A, 07147138H, 07147138J, 07147138K) located on SimfieldChurch Road at the Union/Mecklenburg County border. Charlotte Water has received a request for 4 water and sewer services inside Union County for 4 lots inside the Quintbridge development site located adjacent to Mecklenburg County. Parcels naturally drain into sanitary sewer service basin in Mecklenburg County currently served by Charlotte Water. Charlotte Water has indicated to UCW that they are prepared to serve the properties with water and sewer, if approval is granted from Union County. Our water and sewer service agreement with Charlotte Water prohibits Charlotte Water from providing service outside the County limits without the expressed, written approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Union County water and sewer are not accessible to the properties. Union County Water has no objection to Charlotte Water providing water and sewer service to the properties. 25-436 Contract - Forest Park Pump Station Expansion - Force Main and Pump Station Evaluation 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 an allocation for the design and construction of upgrades to the Forest Park Pump Station and Force Main as identified in the 2025 Master Plan. This alternatives analysis will confirm sizing requirements for the pump station and force main to increase the system peak capacity to 2.4 million gallons per day as recommended in the 2025 Master Plan, outline the schedule for completing the project, identify permitting requirements, and update the opinion of cost for the project. CDM Smith has been selected to provide engineering services for Task Order 8686-05 Forest Park Pump Station Expansion - Force Main and Pump Station Evaluation. CDM Smith 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. The total cost of the Task Order 8686-05 with CDM Smith is $99,995.00. Sufficient funds are available in Capital Account Program 60185082 - Forest Park Pump Station, Force Main & Interceptor Improvements. 25-438 Contract - Pump and Motor Repair 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. Union County Water is in need of a licensed and qualified Service Provider to meet its needs for repairs to water and wastewater pumps and motors on an as needed basis. The Procurement Department partnered with Water and Wastewater Operations to issue a Request for Proposal RFP 2025-039 Pump and Motor Repair Services . On April 2, 2025, three proposals were received and reviewed by an evaluation team in accordance with applicable evaluation criteria for this project. As a result, the team requests approval to enter into a contract with the top scoring/ranked preferred offeror, Randall Supply, Inc., to provide Pump and Motor Repair services. The anticipated annual cost for this service is $100,000. Since this contract contains a three (3)-year initial term with two (2) one (1)-year renewal options,a total of $500,000 is estimated to be spent. Funding is available in theadopted FY2026 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCCbudget appropriation. 25-442 Bid Award & Contract - FY2022 Pump Station Rehabilitation ACTION:1) Awarded contract to Step Construction, Inc. in the amount of $3,201,000.00; 2) authorized the County Manager to a) negotiate and execute agreements with Step Construction, Inc. and WK Dickson & Co., LLC d/b/a Ardurra Group North Carolina substantially consistent with this agenda item, b) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth in the agreements, and c) terminate the agreements if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion; and 3) adopted Resolution Providing Notice of Construction of the FY2022 Pump Station Rehabilitation. The Wastewater Pump Station Improvements Program, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, includes an annual allocation for rehab and renewal of wastewater pump stations. This project will include the rehabilitation of seven pump stations: Olde Sycamore No. 1, Olde Sycamore No. 2, Green Meadows, Suburban Estates No. 1, Suburban Estates No. 3, Magnolia Ridge, and Old Hickory. On March 7, 2022, the BOCC approved WK Dickson & Co., Inc. Task Order 2021-05 for engineering design services for the project in the amount of $141,750.00. Task Order 2021-05 was initially increased by $18,700.00, with the County Manager’s approval to a total amount of $160,450.00 through Amendment 1 to cover additional engineering services. On August 12, 2024, the BOCC approved an additional Task Order 2021-05 increase of $91,300.00 to a total amount of $251,750.00 through Amendment 2 to cover additional engineering services. On March 24, 2025, the Procurement Department partnered with the Union County Water to issue an Invitation for Bid 2025-043 - FY22 Pump Station Rehabilitation. On April 29, 2025, one (1) bid for the title project was received. Since fewer than three responses were received, the bid was returned to the bidder unopened. On May 12, 2025, the Procurement Department partnered with Union County Water to re-issue an Invitation for Bid 2025-043 (Rebid) - FY22 Pump Station Rehabilitation. On June 3, 2025, two (2) bids for the title projectwere received and processed. All bids were tabulated, reviewed, and certified by WK Dickson & Co., LLC d/b/a Ardurra Group North Carolina. The bids ranged from $3,201,000.00 to $5,372,400.00; staff recommends that the project be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Step Construction, Inc., in the amount of $3,201,000.00. To support the construction of the project, construction administration services are required to ensure the project is constructed to meet the requirements set forth in the project plans and specifications. WK Dickson & Co., LLC. d/b/a Ardurra Group North Carolina has been selected to provide construction administration and observation services for Task Order 8678-04 - FY22 Pump Station Rehabilitation. WK Dickson & Co., LLC d/b/a Ardurra Group North Carolina was chosen from a list of vendors previously selected from RFQ 2024-021 - Engineering Services for Water/Wastewater System Improvements to provide these services for Union County projects. Funding is available within the adopted capital account 60185079 FY22 Pump Station Rehab to support the construction contract amount of $3,201,000.00 with Step Construction, Inc. and WK Dickson & Co., LLC. d/b/a Ardurra Group North Carolina Task Order 8678-04 in the amount of $221,400.00. RESOLUTION OF THE UNION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING NOTICE OF FY22 PUMP STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, pursuant to G.S § 153A-457, a county shall notify property owners and adjacent property owners prior to commencement of any construction project by the county; and WHEREAS, G.S. § 153A-457 provides that notice of a county construction project is deemed sufficient if notice of the construction project is given in any open meeting of the county prior to the commencement of the construction project; and WHEREAS, the Union County Board of Commissioners desires to give notice of construction of the FY22 Pump Station Rehabilitation project prior to commencement of project construction as required by G.S. § 153A-457. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Union County Board of Commissioners that: Union County may commence construction of the FY22 Pump Station Rehabilitation project on property as shown on the attached map after the award date of the construction contract for the project. This resolution and notice is adopted in accordance with the construction notice requirements of G.S. § 153A-457. Adopted thisthe 14th day of July, 2025. Attest: s/Lynn G. Wests/Melissa M. Merrell, Chair Clerk to the Board of CommissionersUnion County Board of Commissioners Bids received are recorded below: 25-445 Bid Award - Downtown Waxhaw Cast-Iron Watermain Replacement ACTION:1) Rejected the non-responsible bid of GE Construction Co.; 2) awardedcontract to Dawn Development Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,882,295.00; 3) authorized the County Manager to a) negotiate and execute an agreement with Dawn Development Company, Inc. substantially consistent with this agenda item, b) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth in the agreement, and c) terminate the agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion; and 4) adopted Resolution Providing Notice ofConstruction of the Waxhaw Cast-Iron Watermain Replacement Construction. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), includes the Water Rehabilitation and Renewal Program’s annual allocation to assess, prioritize, and rehabilitate/replace water distribution system infrastructure. Water lines within the Town of Waxhaw are aged, cast-iron water lines in need of replacement to improve fire flow and reduce emergency repairs. This project consists of approximately 8,000 linear feet of 2-inch, 6-inch, 8-inch, and 12-inch water lines that will address the deficiencies of this aged infrastructure. On March 31, 2025, the Procurement Department partnered with Union County Water (UCW) to issue an Invitation for Bid 2025-045 Downtown Waxhaw Cast-Iron Watermain Replacement. On April 29, 2025, two (2) bids for the title project were received. Since fewer than three (3) bids were received, the submitted bids were returned to the bidders unopened. On May 8, 2025, the Procurement Department partnered with Union County Water to re-issue an Invitation for Bid 2025-045 (Rebid) Downtown Waxhaw Cast-Iron Watermain Replacement. On May 20, 2025, three (3) bids for the title project were received and processed. All bids were tabulated, reviewed and certified by UCW engineering staff. The bids were reviewed to confirm the lowest responsive, responsible (qualified) bidder in accordance with N.C.G.S 143-129(b) and Article 19.04 of the Instruction to Bidders. N.C.G.S 143-129(b) gives the governing body the authority to reject any proposals when in the best interest of the governing body and requires that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, taking into consideration quality, performance, and the time specified for the work. Article 19.04 of the Instruction to Bidders, which was part of the bid documents, states “In evaluating whether a Bidder is responsible, Owner will consider the qualifications of the Bidder and may consider the qualifications and experience of Subcontractors and Suppliers proposed for those portions of the Work for which the identity of Subcontractors and Suppliers must be submitted as provided in the Bidding Documents.”. UCW engineering staff’s review determined that the apparent low bidder at the time of the bid opening, GE Construction Co., with a bid amount of $2,218,341.00, did not have the requisite experience and qualifications to perform the project as they provided no experience constructing public utility system water lines; therefore, GE Construction was determined to not meet the responsibility standard for this particular project as required by N.C.G.S. § 143-129 and Article 19 of the Instructions to Bidders. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board officially reject the bid. The remaining two (2) bids ranged from $2,882,295.00 to $4,027,471.00; staff recommends that the project be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Dawn Development Company, Inc., in the amount of $2,882,295.00. Funding is available within the adopted account 60184130 Waxhaw Water Rehabilitation and Replacement to support the construction contract amount of $2,882,295.00. RESOLUTION OF THE UNION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING NOTICE OF DOWNTOWN WAXHAW CAST-IRON WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, pursuant to G.S § 153A-457, a county shall notify property owners and adjacent property owners prior to commencement of any construction project by the county; and WHEREAS, G.S. § 153A-457 provides that notice of a county construction project is deemed sufficient if notice of the construction project is given in any open meeting of the county prior to the commencement of the construction project; and WHEREAS, the Union County Board of Commissioners desires to give notice of construction of the Downtown Waxhaw Cast-Iron Watermain Replacement project prior to commencement of project construction as required by G.S. § 153A-457. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Union County Board of Commissioners that: Union County may commence construction of the Downtown Waxhaw Cast-Iron Watermain Replacement project on property as shown on the attached map after the award date of the construction contract for the project. This resolution and notice is adopted in accordance with the construction notice requirements of G.S. § 153A-457. Adopted thisthe 14th day of July, 2025. Attest: s/Lynn G. West, ClerkMelissa M. Merrell, Chair Board of County CommissionersUnion County Board of Commissioners 25-454 FY 2026 Capital Project Ordinances - Union County Water Capital Projects ACTION:Adopted the following Capital Project Ordinances (CPOs): 246C Storge Tank Rehab, WWTP R&R, OC Expansion & Reno, 12ML Adm Building 312F Water R&R FY20-FY2033 313D Wastewater R&R, SCADA Master Plan Update - Sewer, Septic Tank Assessment, STEG Assessment Waxhaw 325C Collection System SSES & Rehab 326E Crooked Ck Interceptor Improvements Phase 2 327A 12 Mile Creek I&I Abatement 328C Wastewater Pump Station Upgrades/Improvements 332B 853 West Zone Transmission Main - Phase 3 335E 12 Mile Creek Exp 7.5-9 MGD 372A Forest Park PS Improvements 375A Catawba River WTP Expansion 377B East Fork Interceptor Improvements 381 Crooked Creek Improvements All CPOs appropriate funding as approved by the adopted water and sewer rate ordinance for FY2026 and/or appropriates System Development Fees received during FY2025. Funding is included in the FY2026 Adopted Water and Sewer Rate Ordinance and Adopted Budget. See Exhibits “A-1 – A-13” for copies of the CPOs attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. 25-455 Sole Source Standardization Approval and Purchase - Poplin Road Pump 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. Poplin Road Pump Station uses two Flygt pumps to transfer sewage from the Poplin Sewer Basin to the 12-Mile WRF. One of these pumps has failed and needs to be replaced as soon as possible. Xylem Water Solutions USA is the sole provider of Flygt pumps in our region. Using a different manufacturer’s pump would increase costs for the County due to the need to replace several other components and requiring modifications to meet the specific requirements of the Poplin Sewer Pump Station. We are requesting the Board to approve Sole Source Standardization for Flygt pumps manufactured by Xylem Water Solutions USA, for the Poplin Road Pump Station. This is in accordance with the Union County Procurement Policy, Section 3.8, Item iii, standardization or compatibility is the overriding consideration. The request is for approval to purchase a Flygt pump in the amount of $169,722.00. Funding is available within the adopted FY25 UCW Budget to support the purchase amount of $169,722.00. 25-457 System Development Fee Capital Reserve Fund ACTION:1) Adopted Union County Water Budget Amendment #1 and 2) adoptedResolution of the Union County Board of County Commissioners amending the System Development Fee Capital Reserve Fund. On June 17, 2019, the System Development Fee Capital Reserve Fund was created in accordance with the General Statues of the State of North Carolina 162A-211(d) and Chapter 159, Article 3, Part 2 for the purpose of allocating system development fees to the cost of constructing capital improvements, professional fees and debt service for the construction or acquisition of capital improvements. The System Development Fee Capital Reserve Fund may be amended from time to time by adopting an amended resolution. The resolution establishes system development fees as a funding source and accounts for SDFs collected for current projects and/or debt service associated with current projects as defined in the attached resolution.Any projects that are allocated in the resolution that are not currently inprogress will remain as restricted fund balance in the capital reserve funduntil the funding is needed. System Development Fees in the amount of $11,535,872 will be used as a funding source for capital projects and/or debt service cost related to capacity expansion of the water and sewer infrastructure system. 25-463 Memorandum of Understanding between The Town of Waxhaw and Union County ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding substantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding, and 3) terminate the Memorandum of Understanding if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager's discretion. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish a cooperative agreement between the Town and County to collaboratively prepare and submit an application for the Federal Emergency Management Agenda Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (FEMA HMGP) funding program. The objective of this application is to secure federal funding for the proposed HMGP project to mitigate flooding along 12-mile creek and to fortify, repair, or replace existing water and sewer infrastructure that has been damaged or compromised by recent storms and is threatened to be compromised by future historic storm events. The scope of this MOU specifically pertains to pre-award activities required to develop and submit the HMGP application. This proposed MOU provides no responsibilities for the County but to allow for improvements to the existing infrastructure where deficiencies are identified. Improvements proposed must prove to provide a benefit to the system and the residents of Union County. Grant funding would pay for any improvements identified and Waxhaw, with the assistance of our consultant, will manage construction activities. There is no financial impact to the County. 25-429 Contract Renewal - Adult Day Care 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 Human Services Agency’s Division of Social Services operates the Adult Day Care (ADC) program, which provides eligible Union County Residents an alternative to long-term care placement thus allowing them to remain self-sufficient in their own home as long as possible and it is used as respite for many family caregivers. Adult Day Care provides an organized program of services during the day in a community group setting to support the personal independence of older adults. This promotes social, physical, and emotional well-being to individuals. The Union County Division of Social Services' Social Workers provide monitoring and compliance for its clients served by the ADC program. The Human Services Agency's Division of Social Services has utilized the contractual services of New Testament Adult Day Care Center for Adult Day Care Services since August 2020. New Testament Adult Day Care Center has been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs, and we are requesting to continue this service for an additional six months beginning July 1, 2025, and ending December 31, 2025. The department is currently working with Procurement on a new solicitation for Adult Day Care Services and expects the new contract to go into effect by the end of this six-month term. The anticipated spend with this vendor during the 6 month period is $132,824, however the total annual cost for this service is $265,649.00 and is budgeted accordingly for FY2026. 25-431 Contract Amendment - FY2026 74X CATS Express Bus Service ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to approve the second Amendment to theInterlocal Transit Services Agreement between the City of Charlotte andUnion County. The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) provides peak hour weekday express bus service from Indian Trail to uptown Charlotte based on terms set forth in an Interlocal Transit Services Agreement between the City of Charlotte and Union County. Prior to October 2023, the express bus included stops in both Monroe and Indian Trail. The service changed to include only stops in Indian Trail starting October 1, 2023. This contract amendment is the second of the four potential one-year renewal extensions and will cover the period from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026. Union County is obligated under this contract to pay a portion of the operating costs, including administrative expenses, which represent 50% of the net cost of service after deducting fare revenue. Union County’s second amendment FY26 ($112,132), which will be paid $20,183 by Indian Trail, leaves $35,883 to be covered by budgeted County general funds, and the remaining 50% to be covered by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 urban transit grant funding. A maximum of $112,132 in payments to CATS will be made. $20,183 will be paid by Indian Trail, leaving $35,883 to be covered by FY26 budgeted general funds, and $56,066 will be reimbursed through Section 5307 grant funds. 25-437 Purchase - Library Support 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 Library Corporation provides support services for their software that is used by the Library to maintain our patron database and catalog. It is the primary software we use for everything pertaining to our library patrons and collections. It is important that we maintain these services in order to provide uninterrupted services to our patrons. The anticipated cost for the library support services is $61,499.26 and is budgeted accordingly for FY2026. 25-441 Contract Renewal - Computer Aided Dispatch Software ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion. The Emergency Communications Department has utilized the contractual services of CentralSquareTechnologies, LLC, for Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management Software services since 2008. In 2020, the Department received sole-source Board approval in accordance with standardization for a three-year agreement with three one-year renewal options. The contractor has been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs, and the request is to exercise the second of the three one-year renewal options to the contract. The anticipated annual cost for this service is $419,316.72 and is budgeted accordingly for FY2026. 25-452 Contract - Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal 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 Procurement Department partnered with Solid Waste to issue Request for Proposal 2025-044 Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal. On June 3rd, 2025, three proposals were received and reviewed by an evaluation team in accordance with applicable evaluation criteria for this project. As a result, the team requests approval to enter into a contract with the top scoring/ranked preferred offeror, MXI Environmental Services LLC , to provide Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal services. This contract has an initial term of two years with three one-year renewal options at the sole discretion of the County and is subject to annual budget appropriation. The anticipated annual cost for this service is $50,000. Since this contract contains 2 year initial term and 3-one year renewal options, a total of $250,000 is estimated to be spent. Funding is available in the adopted FY2026 budget appropriation with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation. 25-432 Amendment to the Union County Pay and Classification Plan and County Manager’s Contracting Authority ACTION: 1) Approved a revision of the Union County Pay and Classification Plan toinclude the following: A) Added the following classification title and associated pay grade: i) Water Conservation Coordinator - pay grade J B) Adjusted the following pay grade for this job classification: i) IT Support Supervisor - move from pay grade M to pay grade N; 2) Extended the County Manager’s contracting authority to contracts inamounts not to exceed $150,000, whether such contracts entail theexpenditure or receipt of funds, except that this extended authority shallnot apply to agreements for lobbying services or management consultingservices; and 3) Extended the County Manager’s authority to approve leases of County-owned property of one year or less to leases of one year or lesswhich do not exceed $150,000. Updates to the Union County Pay Plan are necessary to add, update, and remove job classification titles to align with current and future organizational needs. Extending the County Manager’s contracting authority for most contracts will improve the County’s ability to both efficiently and responsibly execute agreements and conduct County business. No additional funds are required. 25-453 Contract Renewal - Human Resources Management Software ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager’s discretion. The Human Resources Department utilizes the contractual services of NEOGOV, Inc. for multiple human resource information systems (HRIS) platforms. The services were consolidated into one agreement in 2022. The company has been effective and efficient in meeting the HRIS needs for applicant tracking, onboarding, performance evaluations and pre-employment screening checks. The department is requesting to continue this service for an additional three years. The anticipated first year cost for this service is $83,371.75. The costs for years two and three are $90,089.50 and $96,306.79, respectively. Since this contract contains a three-year term, a total of $269,768.04 is estimated to be spent. Funding is available in the adopted FY2026 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation. 25-418 Contract - NC Administrative Office of the Courts ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager’s discretion. This agreement provides for two Assistant District Attorney (ADA) positions. These positions serve in the Prosecutorial District 20B Court and the NC Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC) and prosecute Union County Jail cases. The goal of these positions is to reduce the pre-trial population at the County’s jail, thereby reducing costs. The anticipated annual cost for this service is $238,352 and is budgeted accordingly in FY 2026. 25-451 Union County CDBG 2025 Annual Action Plan ACTION:1) Adopted the CDBG 2025 Annual Action Plan, 2) authorized the CountyManager to execute the 2025 submittal documents to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 3) authorized the County Manager to negotiate and execute agreements substantially consistent with this agenda item. Union County became an Entitlement Grantee in 2016 and began receiving an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on July 1, 2016. CDBG funds are intended to provide low- and moderate-income households with viable communities, including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities. Eligible activities include community facilities and improvements, housing rehabilitation and preservation, development activities, public services, economic development, planning, and administration. To receive its annual allocation of CDBG entitlement funding, the County is required to submit an Annual Action Plan to HUD. The 2025 Annual Action Plan is the funding application for CDBG funds and describes the funding levels and activities to be undertaken during the fourth program year of the 5 - year Consolidated Plan. This Annual Action Plan covers the period beginning July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026. One in-person public hearing was held on June 18, 2025. The 2025 Annual Action Plan includes funding for the following activities: Public Service ($120,241) · Common Heart Economic Empowerment & Development Program - $20,000 · Common Heart Pantry Network for Food Pantry - $12,000 · Community Shelter of Union County Emergency Shelter - $20,000 · Council on Aging - Home Assistance for Seniors to Remain Independent - $33,241 · Turning Point - Domestic Violence Prevention - $35,000 Home Activities and Repair ($260,522) Public Facilities and Infrastructure ($260,523) Administration and Planning ($160,321) The requested amount for the 2025 Annual Action Plan is $801,607. This amount is the total allocation that Union County is eligible to receive from HUD for the 2025 program year (FY2025-2026). There is additional money from 2024 Public Service as Classroom Central ($13,000.00) was not able to satisfy HUD requirements for reimbursement. These funds are recommended to be used for the Council on Aging bring their allocation to ($46,241.00) to equate the percentage on requests of distribution of funds between subrecipients. 25-416May 2025 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Report ACTION:Approvedthe May 2025 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Refund Report. The refunds included in this report in the amount of $1,663.40 represent adjustments made to taxbills that resulted in refunds of motor vehicle taxes paid under the Taxand Tag Together program operated jointly between the counties and thestate. 25-428 Contract - Cybersecurity Identity Threat Protection Software ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion. CrowdStrike, offered through the vendor, Tech Data Corporation dba DLT Solutions LLC, is a leading cybersecurity platform recognized for its cloud-native architecture and real-time threat detection capabilities. CrowdStrike is designed to protect endpoints, identities, and workloads across the enterprise and behavioral analytics to prevent breaches proactively. Implementing CrowdStrike will significantly enhance our cybersecurity posture by consolidating multiple security functions like antivirus, endpoint detection and response, and threat intelligence into a single, streamlined solution. This consolidation will reduce our reliance on various ancillary tools, simplify management, and improve incident response times. The platform’s scalability and centralized visibility make it an efficient and future-proof investment in our cyber defense strategy. 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 software will be made using North Carolina Statewide Term Contract STC 208M quoted by Tech Data Corporation dba DLT Solutions. The anticipated annual cost for this service is $58,246.36. Since this contract contains a three-year term, a total of $174,739.08 is estimated to be spent. Funding is available in the adopted FY2026 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation. 25-415 Capital Project Ordinances FY2026 - General County, Union County Public Schools, and Solid Waste ACTION: Adopted the following Capital Project Ordinances for FY2026: General Capital Project Ordinances CPO 239A - Radio Towers CPO 306E - DOT Projects CPO 368B - 2025 Critical Infrastructure Amendment CPO 382- UPS Infrastructure CPO 383 - AV Equipment CPO 385 - Security and Risk CPO 386 - Annual R&R Funding CPO 387- Critical Infrastructure CPO 388 - Public Safety Union County Public Schools (UCPS) Capital Project Ordinance CPO 384 Solid Waste Capital Project Ordinance CPO 353B The General County Capital Projects, UCPS Capital Projects, and Solid Waste Capital Projects groups for FY2026 were presented to the board April 14, 2025, and the pay go capital (cash) transfers from operating fund(s) are included in the adopted budget ordinance for FY2026. The projects are funded as follows: General Capital Projects UPS Infrastructure Upgrades $50,000 UC Fueling Stations $225,000 Judicial Center Temporary Generator Connections/Gear $95,000 Planning - NC DOT Projects $300,000 Bidirectional Antennas for UCPS $252,000 Audio Visual Equipment $120,000 Radio Towers SW Union -$300,000 Radio Replacements $150,000 VFD Air Packs $312,000 Union EMS Capital $532,918 SPCC $375,900 Facilities Operating Capital $800,000 Facilities R&R $1,250,000 Parks and Recreation R&R $375,000 UCSO R&R $100,000 Security System Upgrades - $415,000 Total Funding $5,052,818 Union County Public Schools (UCPS) Capital Projects UCPS 5YR Laptop Lease Payments $4,490,753 FY26 UCPS Band Uniforms and Equipment $50,000 FY26 UCPS Building Systems $7,390,375 FY26 UCPS Cafeteria Equipment $250,000 FY26 UCPS Expansion/Renovations $1,577,000 FY26 UCPS Painting $1,298,838 FY26 UCPS Roofing $3,500,000 FY26 UCPS Safety and Security $294,063 FY26 UCPS Transportation/Vehicles/Related Equipment $1,343,000 FY 26 New Town - Chiller Replacements $462,000 FY 26 New Salem - Auditorium Upgrades $145,000 Total Funding $20,801,029 Solid Waste Capital Projects Landfill Operations Center $1,850,000 Funding is included in the FY2026 Adopted Budget for all pay go capital funding (cash funded) projects. Pay go Capital for the County’s General CIP and SPCC CIP is $5,052,818 and $1,850,000 for Solid Waste. Funding for UCPS capital includes $607,000 of State Lottery R&R Funds, $563,043 from sales tax reimbursements, $3,310 from unallocated funds from project closures and $19,627,676 from pay go funding. 25-393 Petition for Annexation and Rezoning ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) sign the petition of annexation intothe Town of Wingate and 2) sign and submit the application for rezoning. Union County purchased approximately 27 acres of land in Wingate for the purposes of economic development. Parcels 09015013E and 09015013 are located in the Town of Wingate’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and are currently zoned RA-40. To make the highest and best use of this property, we are seeking to annex and rezone these parcels to a Light Industrial designation. 25-413 Authorize FY2026 Expenditures for Autopsy Services ACTION:Authorized FY2026 expenditures for 500 autopsies. The County currently contracts with Medical Investigation Services, PLLC, to perform medical examiner autopsies for and operate the daily functions of the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center (SPRAC). This authorization provides funding to continue these services for FY2026. The County anticipates that Medical Investigation Services, PLLC, will conduct 500 autopsies for a total of $1,500,000 ($3,000 per autopsy) in FY2026. Medical Investigation Services, PLLC, provides access to a team of three board-certified forensic pathologists and two forensic autopsy technicians. The contracted fee of $3,000 per autopsy is disbursed in two parts: $1,500 upon completion of the autopsy, and $1,500 when the final report is completed and ready for release. Funding for these services is included in the FY2026 budget, and the full cost of this expenditure is eligible for reimbursement under a directed grant awarded by the State. 25-419 Capital Project Ordinances - Jackson Volunteer Fire Department Water Tank ACTION:Adopted Capital Project Ordinances 259C, 288G, and 300B. The Jackson Fire Department is the only fire district in Union County that does not have access to a municipal water source. This provides challenges for both firefighting and training purposes. Typar has reached out to the Jackson Fire Department about donating a large 200,000-gallon ground tank. This tank was used for fire flow as part of a development in Indian Trail; this development has since upsized a waterline and no longer has the need for this storage tank. This tank would allow Jackson to have a source of water to fill their apparatus in the Jackson District. Currently, they need to leave their district to refill their trucks. While the tank is no cost, there is some expense in moving the tank from its current location to the Jackson Fire Department. The department does not currently have the resources to fund this expense. Being that this will be a benefit to Union County residents, staff is proposing to allocate funding in the amount of $275,000 to the Jackson Fire Department to allow them to relocate the tank. The funding will come from three existing capital projects. Two of these projects are no longer needed and will be closed out after the transfer is made. The third project is a fire training tower. The long-term plan is to have three regional training towers throughout the county; the first tower is currently in the final stages of design. This capital project has enough funding to fund that tower and will be able to shift some funding to the Jackson Water Tank. The 2nd and 3rd fire training towers will require additional capital in future years’ budgets. Funding is available in the General County CIP fund from the following projects that will be reduced: UC Jail Domestic Water Line ($65,000), UC Jail Replace Washer and Dryer ($35,037), and Short-term Fire Training Needs ($174,963). 25-466 Contract - Internet Based Legal Research 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 Attorney’s Office has utilized West Publishing Corporation for its internet based legal research services since 2015. The current contract expires in October 2025. To evaluate current offerings, the County Attorney’s Office participated in trials with three different providers of internet based legal research services. Following the trials, the County Attorney’s Office decided that Westlaw Precision was its preferred internet based legal research product. The Union County Attorney’s Office seeks to enter into a three-year contract with West Publishing Corporation (Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH). The contract amount for the entire term is $127,876.10 with anticipated first-year costs of $25,509.05. Funding is available in the adopted FY2026 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation. 25-380 Minutes for Approval Approve minutes of the regular meeting of May 5, 2025. Information Only 25-399 May 2025 Union County Public Schools - Monthly Report ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for Information Only This is the monthly report from UCPS as required by the Budget Ordinance. 25-394 Tax Refunds, Releases and Prorations Approved by Finance Officer ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for Information Only On September 8, 2020, the Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution Delegating Authority for Tax Releases and Refunds of less than $100 to Union County's Finance Officer. The resolution and NC GS 105-381(b) require such refunds to be reported to the Board regarding actions taken on requests for releases or refunds. All such actions shall be recorded in the Board's minutes. NC GS 105-330.6 authorizes the tax collector to direct an order for a tax refund of prorated taxes to the county finance officer related to surrendering of registered motor vehicle plates. The finance officer shall issue a refund to the vehicle owner. The attached report is for May 2025 NCVTS releases and refunds less than $100 and prorations approved by the finance officer. See Exhibit “B” attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. 25-417 Tax Collector’s Departmental Report for May 2025 ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for Information Only This report reflects the totals of all tax transactions within the Tax Collector’s Office for the month of May 2025 as required by NCGS 105-350(7). 25-427 Human Resources Reports for May 2025 ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for Information Only These reports include all new hires, separations from service, and retirements for Union County Local Government for the month of May 2025. 25-448 Communications Monthly Report - June 2025 ACTION: No action was requested. This item was for Information Only This report provides valuable metrics and insights into communication platforms and our efforts to collaborate with all County departments to inform and engage residents, promote programs and services, and strengthen internal and external communications. 25-459 FY23 CDBG Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for Information Only. Union County is required to make available for public comment and submit a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) per 24 CFR Part 91. This report is a summary of accomplishments and actions taken for activities stated in the prior year (July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024) Action Plan. The CAPER was made available for public review and comment for a period of fifteen (15) days beginning September 11, 2024, and ending September 26, 2024. Notice of the public comment period was advertised in local newspapers and on the County’s website. There were no comments. 25-464 South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center - July 2025 Quarterly Report ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for Information Only This is the quarterly progress report on the operations of the South Piedmont Regional Autopsy Center (SPRAC). 25-467 Monthly Update - Wastewater Treatment Capacity ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for 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 June 2025 is summarized below. Twelve Mile Creek · Percent of Actual Flows = 70.5% · Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 89.9% · Actual Flows (MGD) = 5.291 · Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 6.742 Crooked Creek · Percent of Actual Flows = 60.1% · Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 90.4% · Actual Flows (MGD) = 1.142 · Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 1.717 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 = 42.0% · Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 42.0% · Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.021 · Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.021 Grassy Branch · Percent of Actual Flows = 84.0% · Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows = 86.0% · Actual Flows (MGD) = 0.042 · Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD) = 0.043 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 June 2025 are summarized in the attached tables. Business 25-409 Consideration of Rezoning Petition 2025-RZ-006 Needham (This item was added to the agenda during the meeting.) Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the Board was now at the business portion of the agenda and identified the first item of business as Item 25-409, Needham rezoning which had been added to the agenda. Commissioner Christina Helms moved to (i) Adopt the Ordinance Approving Revision to the Official Zoning Map of Union County, North Carolina, and (ii) adopt the consistency and reasonableness statement for approval. The motion passedby a vote of four to zero as follows: Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye Commissioner BaucomAye Commissioner HelmsAye Commissioner SidesAye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. 25-402 Conditional Rezoning 2025-CZ-002 Gordon Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the next item on the agenda was Item 25-402, Conditional Rezoning 2025-CZ-002 Gordon. He recognized Bjorn Hansen, Senior Planner, for brief comments regarding the item. Mr. Hansen stated that this item had been presented the previous month. He provided a brief recap of the request. He explained that this request involves rezoning approximately a three-acre portion of a parcel located off Mary Elizabeth Church Road south of Waxhaw to Light Industrial zoning to support an automotive repair operation. He said the remainder of the parcel would remain with the residence located to the north. He noted that part of the property is legal nonconforming and is currently being used for vehicle and equipment storage. Mr. Hansen said the surrounding area is characterized by large-lot residential and forested area. He provided an aerial view of the site’s appearance in the past noting that this request for rezoning was to address a zoning compliance issue that had been identified when a larger disturbed area had been used for vehicle and equipment storage. He stated that staff recommended denial of the request, and the Planning Board also recommended denial on a 4–3 vote. He added that he was happy to answer any questions and noted that the applicant was present. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Mr. Hansen and asked if there were any questions for Mr. Hansen or the applicant regarding the item. Commissioner Baucom stated that he had no questions and moved to Adopt the Ordinance Approving Revision to the Official Zoning Map of Union County, North Carolina, and (ii) adopt the consistency and reasonableness statement for approval. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he had visited the site over the weekend and had the opportunity to see it firsthand. He expressed the opinion that the rezoning would actually better the property and provide improvements. He indicated that he would be in support of the motion. The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows: Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye Commissioner BaucomAye Commissioner HelmsAye Commissioner SidesAye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. 25-425 Consider a Step 4 Economic Development Incentive Grant Request to Confidential Company (Project Seven) Vice Chair Brian W. Helms recognized Ron Mahle, Economic Development Director, for comments on the item. Mr. Mahle offered to answer any questions that the Board might have regarding this item. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that this is a great opportunity for Union County, referencing that it is the largest opportunity the County has had. He commended Mr. Mahle and his team for their efforts and expressed appreciation for their work on the project. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms requested that, at a future meeting, the Economic Development team come before the Board to provide an update on its progress. Mr. Mahle stated that he and his team would welcome that opportunity. Chair Brian W. Helms asked if there was a motion on the request. Jason Kay, County Attorney, suggested that a motion could be made to approve the action requested in the item. Commissioner Christina Helms moved to 1) Award a Step 4 Economic Development Incentive Grant to Confidential Company (Project Seven) in an amount not-to-exceed $4,860,000 over a seven-year period; and 2) authorize the County Manager to i) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, ii) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth in the Agreement, and iii) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion. The motion was passed by a vote of four to zero as follows: Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye Commissioner BaucomAye Commissioner HelmsAye Commissioner SidesAye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. 25-381 Presentation – Short Water Line Extension Program FY22 and FY23 Projects Vice Chair Brian W. Helms recognized Thomas Mann, CIP Program Manager, to provide comments on the item. Mr. Mann stated that he would be providing an update on the FY22 and FY23 Short Waterline Extension Program. He noted that he would be seeking future direction on a couple of items from the Board, though not necessarily at this meeting, and acknowledged that the Board would likely need time to discuss and consider the items. He explained that some Board members might not be as familiar with the projects since the projects were approved by a previous Board. He said he would discuss easement acquisition for the FY22 projects, review funding details for FY22 and FY23, provide an overall summary of entire program funding, and highlight items for which the Board would need to provide future direction. Mr. Mann provided an overview of the FY22 program, describing the map showing existing water lines, the applicants, and the selected projects for each phase. He explained that the projects were divided by geography and overall project footage, with each phase comprised of approximately three miles of water line, which guided how the projects were dived up. He noted that 85 applicants confirmed participation by paying the pertinent fees. He explained that the projects were divided into four phases and highlighted that a few locations still required easement acquisitions, including Sikes Mill Road in Phase A, and Morgan Mill Road, Zebulon Williams Road, and Haigler Road in Phase B. He indicated that additional details on easements would be provided later in the presentation. He reviewed the project timeline, noting that applications were received in the fall of 2021. He explained that over 100 applications were submitted and that staff spent significant time evaluating and scoring each application before bringing recommendations to the Board for approval. He explained that, as part of the approval process, applicants were required to pay fees to confirm participation in the program. He said this was completed in the summer of 2022, though not all applicants chose to pay the fees for the project to move forward. He noted that the updated and revised projects, reflecting those who did not participate, were presented to the Board for approval in the fall of 2022. He noted that the next step was to move forward with the design of the projects. He stated that this work was paused temporarily while the Board conducted overall discussions on capital program funding, which were addressed as part of the FY24 capital program budget approval in the summer of 2023. He stated that the Board approved engineering task orders in late summer 2023, and the design process for the projects began. He provided a current status update on the projects. He noted that for Phases A and B, staff are working to finalize easements. He said for Phases C and D, bids have been awarded, and they are moving into construction. Mr. Mann presented an overview of the FY23 program, noting that the maps were similar to what had been previously shown. He explained that the program received fewer applications, likely because well testing was required as part of the FY23 application period, though the County paid for the testing for applicants. He added that the projects are divided into two phases, A and B, split fairly equally in terms of overall footage and organized geographically in a way that made sense. He explained that the FY23 program was smaller than the FY22 program, with a total of 34 applicants. He explained that the projects are organized into two phases. He added that staff is still in the final stages of design for these projects and indicated that the timeline would be discussed next. Mr. Mann explained that applications for the FY23 projects were received in the fall of 2022. He noted that evaluations did not move forward until the Board completed discussions regarding the capital program and funding was committed in the summer of 2023 to move the projects forward. He stated that the FY23 projects were brought to the Board in the fall of 2023 for approval and to begin the payment period for applicants to confirm participation. He said payments were received in the spring of 2024, though not all applicants chose to move forward. He noted that the projects were revised accordingly. He added that the revised FY23 projects were presented to the Board in the summer of 2024 for approval with design task orders being approved in late summer 2024. He noted that, a little over 12 months later, staff are finishingthe design phase and preparing to move forward with permitting and any easement needs for the projects. Mr. Mann explained that for the FY22 program, easement acquisitions are still in progress. He said for Phase A, the Sikes Mill Road project. the nearby Morgan Mill Road project which needs several easements still needed before those projects can proceed to the bidding the projects. He explained that the County follows a property acquisition policy for acquiring easements. Mr. Mann explained that the first step in the easement process is to mail an initial notice to affected property owners to notify them the County is moving forward with the project and will need an easement. He noted that the notice provides a brief introduction to the project and its purpose. He added that this step was completed in October 2024, after the design was finalized and the required easements were identified. Mr. Mann explained that the second mailing, sent in November 2024, informed property owners of an upcoming public meeting to give them an opportunity to ask questions and receive details about the easement acquisition process and next steps. He noted that the public meeting was held virtually in November 2024, which has become typical for conducting these meetings in order to make it more convenient for property owners to attend without having to come to the Government Center in person. Mr. Mann stated that the appraisals had been completed and acquisition packages were sent to each property owner. He explained that the packages included the appraised value of the easement along with instructions on the next steps if the property owner agreed to grant the easement. He noted that once the easements are executed, the County can move forward with recording them. He pointed out that in instances where a property owner did not respond to the initial acquisition package, a third mailing was sent containing the same information, in case the previous package was lost or the owner had not had time to review it. He explained that if property owners do not respond to mailings, staff follows up with a courtesy call, though reaching owners can be challenging in today’s mobile-phone environment where few have landlines. Mr. Mann explained that for easements not acquired through the normal process, the next step is referral to the county attorney. He noted that those easements were ready for attorney referral in April 2025. He explained that the information was being presented to the Board to seek future direction, noting that once the county attorney is involved, the next step could be a condemnation approval request if a settlement cannot be negotiated. Mr. Mann reviewed the Sikes Mill Road project, noting that one parcel has not granted an easement, which primarily impacts a single applicant at the intersection of Sikes Mill and Clontz Long Roads. He explained that the easement issue persists because the property owner has not responded. He noted there may have been attempts to communicate or miscommunications with the County’s easement agent, but the information provided at the time the packet was handed over did not reflect any confirmed contact. Commissioner Baucom stated that he spoke with the property owner earlier that day. He noted that the owner had some questions and had not received feedback on the issues he was raising. Commissioner Baucom added that the owner expressed a desire to do what is best for the community and indicated he may tap onto the waterline himself. Mr. Mann responded that it would be great if the property owner is willing to discuss. He noted that sometimes breaks in communication occur when trying to track down property owners. He added that staff would welcome the opportunity to meet with the owner, answer any questions, and hopefully acquire the easement. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Mann how many properties are included in Phase A at the Sikes Mill project. Mr. Mann stated that there were 16 applicants in Phase A. He noted that 15 of the 16 would not be impacted by the easement. He explained that typically the County waits to have all easements in place to complete the project, and once the remaining easement is acquired, all 16 applicants would be able to be served. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if a verbal commitment is received from the one property owner, could all 16 properties be served. Mr. Mann confirmed that all 16 properties could be served if the remaining easement is acquired. Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the house beyond Ms. Greene’s property, parcel 24, could also be serviced. Mr. Mann clarified that the house further along Clontz Long Road, away from Sikes Mill, would not be served by the FY22 short waterline program. He explained that the program stops at the last parcel along a project segment for which an application was received. He said that extending the line to that parcel in the future would be easier,either through the new development or a future waterline extension program,but it would not be included in the current project. He added that project boundaries must be established at a certain point. Commissioner Sides noted that in past short waterline programs, some applicants agreed to easements and paid fees, but approximately 25 percent of the applicants did not tap on to the water line. He asked whether the County now has a more robust process to confirm that applicants will fully participate in the program. Mr. Mann explained that historically, prior to the FY22 and FY23 programs, the fees were fairly nominal,typically a small tap fee of a couple hundred dollarsand not a significant amount compared to the fees required now. Commissioner Sides noted that, under those circumstances, applicants could walk away from the program. Mr. Mann agreed. He said he could not speak to why past applicants walked away, but he explained that the new process requires applicants to do substantial work upfront and make a significant financial commitment to confirm participation. He said he would not anticipate the same issues going forward, although he did not know until the water lines are constructed and connections are made. He explained that all fees are now paid upfront, and meters are installed once the water lines are completed, at which point the property owner becomes a customer. Commissioner Sides noted that the new process effectively doubles the applicant’s commitment by requiring upfront payment and immediate meter installation. Mr. Mann agreed. Commissioner Baucom asked if it was appropriate to make a motion at that time. County Manager Brian Matthews recommended waiting until the presentation was complete. Mr. Mann moved on to the Morgan Mill Road section of the project. He explained that 12 applicants ultimately paid their fees and chose to remain in the program, while a few opted not to participate when it came time to pay. He noted four parcels along Haigler Road, including one very small parcel, where easements are still outstanding. He explained that these are temporary bore pit easements needed to bore the water main underneath the road. He explained that the reasons easements have not been acquired vary. He shared that the owner of one of the parcels has been non-responsive to all communications. He also stated that two parcels, owned by the same family, had concerns about language in the easement document, which staff cannot change without council approval. He stated that another parcel had overall concerns about the project and was not willing to move forward at this time. Mr. Mann clarified that once the meters are installed, the County’s responsibility stops at the meter. He noted that individual property owners are responsible for installing their service line from the meter to their home. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Mann how many properties are affected by the outstanding easements. Mr. Mann explained that all 12 applicants would be impacted because the parcel at the intersection of Watson Church and Morgan Mill Road is critical; if that easement cannot be acquired, it stops the rest of the project, affecting all applicants beyond that point. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted that none of the properties in this section can be served until the outstanding easement issues are resolved. Mr. Mann confirmed that Vice Chair Helms’ understanding was correct. He added that even if one easement is obtained, only a portion of the project could proceed, but if easements further north along Morgan Mill Road are not acquired, some applicants would still be impacted. He noted that the typical approach is to acquire all easements before moving forward with construction. Mr. Mann stated that on the Sikes Mill project, one applicant is impacted. He explained that the project is not being proposedto be cut from the project, but if the easement were not acquired which appears unlikely it would reduce the overall project cost by a little over $100,000. Hesaid that if the easements for the Morgan Mill project are not acquired, the project could not move forward, potentially reducing the overall program cost by about $3,369,320. Hereviewed the costs and stated that the costs have increased significantly, with Phases A and B being estimates based on recent numbers, and Phases C and D reflecting actual bid costs. Mr. Mann summarized that for FY22, nine projects were selected with 85 applicants, covering just under 11.5 miles of pipeline. He said the estimated cost is just under $13 million, with an updated cost per applicant of a little over $150,000 and an average cost per foot of $213which is significantly higher than originally anticipated and higher than the market at the time of project selection. Mr. Mann noted that for FY23, the 90 percent design is complete and the project footage has not changed. However, he said the updated costs based on recent FY22 bid prices show that both the cost per applicant and the cost per foot have roughly doubled. He noted that for FY23, the cost per foot is slightly less than FY22 because the projects are generally shorter and do not include any 12-inch diameter piping. He explained that the projects use six (6) and eight (8)-inch diameter piping, which accounts for the difference in cost compared with FY22. Commissioner Sides asked whether the increasing costs are due more to the price of the pipe or the cost of installation. Mr. Mann responded that some material costs have risen slightly, but the primary driver of increased costs is labor. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted that by the time work begins on FY23, the numbers are most likely to increase more. Mr. Mann provided an overall funding wrap-up for the FY22 and FY23 short waterline programs. He noted that just under $11 million in funding is currently available. He explained that original combined estimates were about $8.4 million, and the current estimates are approximately $17.7 million. He added that this results in a funding deficit of about $7 million to complete all projects. He explained the potential reduction in costs if the previously discussed easements are not acquired. He noted that if those projects do not move forward, the funding deficit would increase to approximately $3.3 million. He added that general cost escalations, particularly in labor, and high demand for contractors are contributing to the overall increase in construction costs. He stated that on the FY22 projects, some lines initially estimated as six (6) or eight (8)-inch water mains had to put inas 12-inch mains to achieve the necessary pressure and fire flow, due to the length and dead-end nature of the lines. He explained that if the lines had been looped, smaller pipe sizes could have been used. He added that this change significantly impacted costs, as it was not fully factored in during the evaluation of the program. Mr. Mann explained that historically, applicants were required to work with neighborsin obtaining the necessary easements. He said when the program was revamped, the County took on more ownership for this process. He noted that the County must follow its policy, which requires using an easement agent, appraisals, and compensating non-applicants for the easements being acquired. He said that the uncertainty around tariffs has influenced the market and driven up prices, as contractors must factor that risk into their bids. He stated these are reasons for the increase in cost over the two/three year period. Mr. Mann noted that there are two main items where the Board will need to provide direction, though not necessarily at this meeting. He said the first is the FY22 easement acquisition process, specifically whether to move forward with involving attorneys, which could potentially lead to a future request for condemnation if agreements cannot be worked out with outside counsel. He explained the second item is the budget deficit for completing these projects and what direction the Board wants to take at this point. Mr. Matthews emphasized that the short line water program is not a taxpayer funded program. He stressed that he wanted to be very clear, because there has been some misunderstanding, and explained that the program is paid for by the customers themselves through their rates. Mr. Matthews explained that current Union County customers are paying more so that water lines can be extended to applicants who are not yet customers. He noted that the program is extremely expensive, with an estimated cost of $151,000 per customer, and clarified that the applicants themselves are not paying that full amountbecause other customers are covering the cost. Mr. Matthews stated that the short line water program is a great program, but the Board recognizes that funding is a struggle. He explained that funding was only set aside for FY22 and FY23, because the program is very expensive and requires ratepayers to cover the difference. Mr. Matthews explained that the current program and budget do not havesufficient funding to complete both FY22 and FY23. He noted that total available funding is just under $11 million and recommended that the Board focus those FY22 and FY23 funds on completing as much of the FY22 program as possible. He noted that it will likely not be able to finish the entire FY22 program due to funding and easement issues. He stated that most of FY22 could be completed with the available funds but that would require putting FY23 on hold and notifying those applicants and property owners. He added that a future strategy would need to be developed, acknowledging that there is no easy strategy. He asked Mr. Mann to discuss Phase A further. Mr. Matthews recommended that the Board consider allowing Phase A to move forward, including Old Dutch Road, Jack Connell, Deepwood Place, Sherin Lane, and Sikes Mill Road. He explained that this would allow the project to proceed to construction bidding and eventual completion. He stated that they would wait on Phase Bwhich includes Morgan Mill Road, Zebulon, Williams Roads, Haigler Road, and East Lawyersto gather additional information and explore the easement issues. He added that FY23 applicants would need to be notified of a delay until they could develop a strategy. He noted that this is his current recommendation for the Board to consider and that no action is required tonight, while acknowledging there is enough funding to proceed with Phase A as shown. Commissioner Baucom stated that he was prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Sides asked for clarification, noting that if the Board approves proceeding with Phase A, would staff go out for bids and then return to the Board for final approval. Mr. Matthews explained that the contracts must be approved by the Board because they will exceed the manager’s level of authority, so they will be brought back to the board for final approval. Commissioner Sides asked how long it would take to finish Phase A, assuming approval tonight and bids coming back within expectations. Mr. Mann stated that Phase A would be in service around this time next year. Commissioner Helms asked to start the project. Mr. Mann clarified that he was referring to when it would be fully in service. He explained that after completing the bid process, awarding and executing the contracts, and ordering materials, the project would be operational by next summer. Mr. Matthews noted that while staff wants to move as quickly as possible, there are laws that must be followed which can make government inefficient. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms added that the program has been in existence for quite some time and, as he understood, has been a very good program for the county. He noted that over the years, costs have increased because much of the initial work has already been completed. He said the county is now facing harder decisions, as installing larger pipes requires bigger equipment, larger trenches, and higher costs. He was not surprised by the increase in installation costs and noted that material costs are also escalating. He added that he was reluctant to completely phase out FY23, emphasizing that the County must live within its means and stated that the County is also on a budget. He agreed that the focus should be on what can be accomplished with the funds currently budgeted, but said that as additional funds become available, he would like to revisit the other phases and not completely scrap FY23. He asked staff how soon additional discussion could take place on Phase B and requested confirmation that, as he understood it, Phases C and D are already underway. Mr. Mann confirmed contracts are being executed for Phases C and D and that the Board has already approved those contract awards. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if no action is taken on Phase B tonight, can discussion on that item resume within a couple of months. Mr. Matthews stated that discussion on Phase B could likely resume at the August meeting, noting that there are just a few minor items that need to be addressed before it is brought back to the board. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he would like, if at all possible, for the board to discuss Phase B at the August meeting. Mr. Matthews agreed that this would be acceptable. Commissioner Baucom clarified his understanding that the Board was not discarding Phases B, C, or D but simply postponing discussion to address them further at a later time. Vice Chair Brian Helms confirmed that Commissioner Baucom’s understanding was correct. Commissioner Baucom moved to approve for construction all of the 2022 short line projects listed in Phase A, noting that he was not addressing the projects listed in Phase B. s Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted that a motion had been made and asked if there was any discussion. He then stated that he was supporting the motion, referencing the properties included in Phase A and the residents who have been waiting a long time for water. He acknowledged Commissioner Baucom’s enthusiasm and expressed that he was pleased a significant portion of the list was being addressed. He added that he would like to revisit and discuss Phase B at the August meeting. He then asked again if there was any further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows: Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye Commissioner BaucomAye Commissioner HelmsAye Commissioner SidesAye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. 25-440 Sheriff’s Office Request for Pay Increases Vice Chair Brian W. Helms introduced the next agenda item, Item 25-440, regarding the Sheriff’s Office request for pay increases, and recognized County Manager Brian Matthews for his comments. Mr. Matthews stated that while the budget had been adopted at the previous meeting, the Board had questions about compensation, particularly for entry-level deputies and detention officers. He explained that the County has provided compensation adjustments over time and has been working on a strategy to bring employees closer to market levels, a process that has taken significant amount of time and expense. Mr. Matthews provided some history specifically for the Sheriff’s Office, noting that the first phase of salary adjustments for them was completed in January 2024. He explained that staff received an initial $3.50 per hour increase, which helped raise deputy sheriff and detention officer salaries from just over $44,092 to $51,736. He explained that Phase Two of salary adjustments in July 2024 and March 2025 increased deputy and detention officer starting salaries to $57,612. He noted that, although this was intended to be competitive, the market has changed, making it a struggle to hire at that rate, and emphasized the need to continue adjusting salaries to remain competitive. He stated that the Sheriff requested a review of the original compensation plan, which was based on employees’ time in their positions. He noted that the goal was to move employees toward the midpoint for their roleroughly the level for someone with five or more years of experience. He added that many employees were below the midpoint and some were above. He emphasized that the plan was intended to fairly compensate everybody, not just entry-level employees, while preventing salary compression and allowing room for salaries to spread appropriately. Mr. Matthews said that Phase Three had been planned to start on July 1 of the current year. He stated that the Sheriff expressed concern that the County was not competitive and asked what could be done within the current budget to make entry-level positions more competitive while still providing some adjustment for the rest of the staff. He said that, after discussions with the Sheriff and his staff, a reasonable approach was that Phase Three would take effect in December 2025, and the Sheriff’s Office would not receive a pay adjustment in July. He explained that the change was necessary because the cost of implementing the adjustment earlier exceeded the budget. He noted that the cadet program was originally intended to hire young individuals, put them straight into Basic Law Enforcement Training (BLET), and have them ready as road deputies, but that program funding would instead be used for the pay adjustments. He reviewed the following slide showing the proposed Phase 3: He stated that the County can fit all of the adjustments for the Sheriff’s Office by taking the steps outlined. He said that he recognized that employees would have to wait until December to receive those adjustments and acknowledged that, while other staff have already received their increases, these employees will be behind. He emphasized that the goal is to make up for that as best they can and noted that the Sheriff and his staff recognize this will put the office in a better position to be competitive. He added that, if he was not mistaken, Cabarrus County has recently offered an amount that may be close to or higher than what is suggested, and commented that the County will always be chasing market rates, but this plan is an attempt to stay at least not too far behind. Commissioner Sides asked if keeping these adjustments on the current timeframe would require additional resources and adjustments to the already agreedupon tax rate. Mr. Matthews confirmed that this was correct, noting that a revenue source would need to be found elsewhere. Commissioner Sides asked if there was an estimation of the additional resources required or the impact to implement the adjustments now without delaying them. Mr. Matthews responded that he did not have the number off the top of his head but could provide it. Commissioner Sides agreed that the market is a buyer’s market, noting the County is losing positions to other municipalities and is not competitive in hiring already trained and certified employees, which would put the County ahead versus starting from scratch with training and backfilling. He said he would be interested in that number and acknowledged that the agenda had already been approved. He expressed that he previously stated reservations and had a lot of questions regarding strategy and innovation. He requested an opportunity to revisit the potential availability of additional funding to expedite the proposed increases and noted that, while it is too late to change the agenda order, he would like additional consideration after the item that could impact the timeframe. Mr. Matthews said he wanted confirmation that the Board supported the newplan, explaining that otherwise the County would follow the original plan to start Phase Three in July, and offered to answer any further questions. Commissioner Sides asked if Mr. Matthews would be able to provide the answer regarding the necessary enhanced funding at the next meeting, noting that this would not be too late to make any adjustments since tax bills have not yet gone out. Mr. Matthews explained that taxes cannot be changed, as the tax rate can only be adopted once. He noted that if the Board wants to move resources that are available, that is a different story. Commissioner Sides said he supports moving forward and would like it to happen as soon as possible, but acknowledged that is not going to happen. He added that it would still be possible to make an adjustment if the Board agrees once the information on what is needed to expedite becomes available. Mr. Matthews said he understands that the Sheriff and his staff would like to be able to communicate to employees the path the County will be following to move forward. Commissioner Sides noted that he wants to ensure the Board is not locked and that, with full Board agreement, options remain to expedite the timeframe. He added that, as a fallback or the best option currently available, he supports the plan. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Sheriff Cathey the number of vacancies that currently exist. Sheriff Cathey stated that there are 19 vacancies. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms added that this confirms the County is still working within the same overall resources, likely moving some items around and doing without other items in the budget. He asked whether, with Phase Three and the restructuring of compensation, the County is confident that it will make the Sheriff’s Office more competitive. Sheriff Cathey said Phase Three will, but the County is still losing employees to nearby municipalities and often serves as a training ground.He explained that recently a trained and certified employee left for higher pay, not because he wanted to, but because he needed to provide for his family. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he has watched some of Waxhaw’s meetings and noted that its chief reported losing employees to the County, adding that he understands the situation. Sheriff Cathey stated that Waxhaw recently gave a 21 percent pay increase. Commissioner Helms asked Sheriff Cathey if, when the County trains and pays for the education of trainees or cadets, the trainees or cadets arerequired to sign a contract to stay with the County for a certain number of years. Sheriff Cathey said the County has never required trainees or cadets to sign a contract, though it has been discussed and might be considered in the future. Commissioner Christina Helms asked whether most of the staff is aware of this and if anyone has indicated they would stay rather than leave if the pay increase is implemented. Sheriff Cathey said he does not believe staff is aware of the pay increase beyond rumors, but noted that if it is approved, it will be communicated immediately. He added that the staff is generally loyal and happy, but emphasized the need to remain competitive, noting that the increase was surveyed two years ago and is only now being put into place. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if there were any other questions for the Sheriff or his staff. Commissioner Sides said that, in response to Commissioner Christina Helms’ question, it would be hard to project the impact of the pay increase in December because another county or municipality could offer an immediate bonus or higher pay, making it hard to predict the impact of an agreed-upon future gain versus what someone could earn immediately. Mr. Matthews said the County faces this issue with all of itspositions, referencing a recently lost engineer who had worked for several years but left because the County could not compete with the salary offered. He noted that this issue will affect multiple departments and stated that the goal is to ensure the Sheriff’s Office is competitive and as close to the top of the market as possible. Mr. Matthews said the Board has been very supportive not just of compensation but of benefits that make the County a great place to work, including longevity pay, with employees receiving a bonus in November based on years of service. He added that the County recently reinstated health insurance for employees with 20 years of service and is taking steps to be more attractive, but emphasized that retention is a long-term effort, which can be difficult for younger staff who focus on short-term gains. Commissioner Christina Helms said having a really good boss matters. She explained that she has worked in places where she was paid well but had atrocious bosses, and in other places where she was not paid as much but had a really good boss, emphasizing that it makes all the difference in the world. Mr. Matthews agreed with the Sheriff, saying there is a lot of loyalty among staff and emphasizing that having a good boss matters. He added that it is about making sure the County can bring in employees who want to stay and be part of the organization. Commissioner Christina Helms moved to The motion passed by a vote of four to zero with the following vote Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye Commissioner BaucomAye Commissioner HelmsAye Commissioner SidesAye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. 25-426Presentation - Strategy & Innovation Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said the next agenda item is 25-426, the presentation on Strategy and Innovation, and recognized County Manager Brian Matthews to present the item. Mr. Matthews explained that this item was brought forward at Commissioner Sides’ request to provide an update. He said Strategy and Innovation is not new and did not just start recently. He explained that the department started in 2021 and initially consisted of only one person. He explained that the individual initially focused on special projects, including starting the County’s Legistaragenda system and managing ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funding. He noted that this work involved ensuring compliance with ongoing requirements, as well as assisting with grants, management system security and risk management, and CDBG (Community Development Block Grant). Mr. Matthews said these are all matters the County is attempting to do by taking funds from other sources and utilizing them for projects and programs within the county. He noted that for a long time, CDBG was managed by the COG (Centralina Council of Governments), but the County resumed management of the program, believing it could be managed better, which it is. He noted that security and risk management was handled by one person for a long time, but operations required more, and that individual wasquite busy running what had been a one-person operation. He said that when he became County Manager, he worked with staff to develop the Manager’s goals, and one of his goals was how to help the organization be more efficient and effective. He noted that thisBoard, as well as past Boards, has been clear that government should not grow for the sake of growing and explained that processes, people, and performance must be aligned to give that efficiency. He added that while the County is very lean, it cannot be lean and still be efficient. He said these have to be worked on together and not have just a few people doing the work. He said he and his team developed management priorities, including employee pay and benefits, general fund operation capital, and countywide economic development as short-term goals, most of which have been accomplished. He added that efficient and effective government, leadership and succession planning are long-term goals, describing them as a marathon that requires a strategy. Mr. Matthews discussed staffing and operations of the County, with one of the lowest numbers of employees per capita in the state. He explained that the County accomplishes a lot with a small staff, and the only way to continue doing so is to find ways to be more efficient and effective. Mr. Matthews noted that departments are often busy with day-to-day operations, which can make it hard for staff to focus on efficiency and effectiveness. He said his goal was to help them by asking why processes and procedures are done a certain way, which prompts staff to think about it. He added that the answer is not “that’s the way we have always done it,” but rather “let us look at why we do it that way.” Heexplained that he created the Strategy and Innovation department by bringing together existing employees from across the county, rather than hiring new staff. He explained that these employees were performing similar functions in different ways, and combining them allowed for a unified vision. He added that training remains important, as well as identifying efficiencies, updating processes and procedures, and reviewing performance evaluations. He said that no new positions were added, andthe department was created by combining existing staff. He stated that the department now reports to the County Manager’s office, emphasizing that this reflects his strategy and demonstrates that making this a priority comes from his office. He explained that when the Strategy and Innovation team goes into departments, it carries the full weight of the County Manager’s office to emphasize the importance of rethinking processes and operations. He clarified that the department is not a hatchetdepartment focused on firing but instead works to use resources best as it can, including redirecting staff to other functions when needed. Mr. Matthews said the focus areas are people, process, and performanceensuring staff are in the right roles, processes are efficient andperformanceis good. He explained that when the department recommends new staff, it will be based on demonstrating the need to maintain service levels. He added that the recommendation must show what is driving the need, rather than simply asking for more people, and performance is a key part of that assessment. He provided examples of the work thegroup has done and continues to do. He noted that on the people side, the group has identified about $47,000 in annual cost savings. He explained that not every project will yield directcost savings, but over time, improving efficiency and using staff more effectively will generate results. He added that these examples demonstrate progress on the people’s side of their work. He stated that the Strategy and Innovation group has identified a little over $36,000 in savings through process changes. He noted they are reviewing policies such as take-home vehicles to ensure clarity and consistency for staff across the county, evaluating how bonuses are offered depending on department and employee level, and assessing overtime utilization to find ways to improve efficiency across the organization. He explained that the Strategy and Innovation team reviewed the County’s onboarding and hiring process by bringing together stakeholders, including Human Resources and department staff. He stated that hiring previously took an average of nearly 75 days, causing the loss of candidates, and through the team’s efforts, the process was reduced to under 50 days. He noted that the team examined why processes were done a certain way and found more efficiencies and described this as a case study. He stated that the Strategy and Innovation team is focusing on performance and evaluating measures for all departments. He explained that people are used to lead and lag measures, but they typically focus on lag measures,the end resultrather than lead measures, which track what actions need to be done to get to that result. He added that the goal is to get staff and directors thinking about what they need to do and how to measure those actions, which builds performance measurement and confidence when explaining why new positions are needed. He said that the department he established is focused on helping the County stay lean and efficient, noting it has identified over $80,000 in cost savings and completed a number of projects, with many more still in progress. He explained that the Board has directed him to remain efficient and not grow government for growth’s sake, and said this department represents how the county finds efficiencies and maintains a lean organization while still providing the desired level of service to residents. He explained that the presentation was a high-level overview and that more detailed information could be provided either individually or in a more in-depth presentation. Commissioner Sides said he has been asking questions to learn more about the department since day one. He added that if his approach has seemed challenging of individuals or their performance, he apologizes, saying that this is not his intention and not his role. He explained that he supports staff continuing to look for better ways to do their jobs. He added that if that effort comes in the form of a department and may involve additional employees, he supports that. He said his challenge is making sure the County gets a return on the investment of time and funds. He shared that coming from the business world, it is often easier to measure results in dollars, but in government, the challenge is also determining how to increase service, to which it is often difficult to assign a dollar value. Commissioner Sides explained that part of the challenge he faces is justifying the investment in staffing and other resources dedicated to this initiative. He added that he needs help seeing beyond the dollars to understand how the work benefits taxpayers, other employees, and the people of the county, which he agreed should be the end goal. He said that there is a cost involved in staffing and other resources, and with putting measurables to the output that justify the activity. He added that he has challenged, and will continue to challenge, why certain actions are taken or not, and how much hard cost is involved, noting that even improvements like better use of vehicles carry a cost. He asked whether bringing staff from other departments into the initiative would require those departments to backfill positions, stating that doing so would add to the cost of another employee. He said his questions were intended to challenge how the initiative operates not the individuals doing the work and added that if that had not been communicated clearly, he welcomed clarification, emphasizing that he was not personally questioning anyone’s job performance. Commissioner Sides stated that he did not believe it was an appropriate role for Board members to evaluate individual staff’sperformance but said it was appropriate to hold leadership accountable for explaining why the initiative is being done and demonstrating both tangible and intangible returns. He said based on previously discussed salary costs, the numbers did not appear to compute, and he asked whether it was fair to say that the hard savings identified did not align with the hard dollar investment when viewed solely from that perspective. Mr. Matthews said he did not disagree but wanted it understood that producing greater savings would have meant eliminating six positions, essentially firing six people. He explained that he did not hire six new employees but instead found those positions within the organization to create the division, noting there were no additional hires to backfill the six FTEs (full-time equivalents). He stated that if the discussion looks strictly at savings, the only way to achieve that would be to fire those employees, which would generate money but would ultimately amount to firing six people. Commissioner Sides asked if the employees had come from a different position or a different department into this one. Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Sides noted that the positions where the employees previously worked would have needed to be covered. Mr. Matthews responded that they were not backfilled. Mr. Matthews explained that they managed to cover the employees’ previous duties within the existing infrastructure while identifying efficiencies. He noted the Board’s interest in the value of the program and said if certain programs were not delivering results, the Board would need to decide whether to continue them. Commissioner Sides asked how to measure intangibles that are not associatedto a hard cost, such as an initiative that prevents firing someone, and said that determining the value of those things is where he struggles. Mr. Matthews said measuring intangibles is something everyone struggles with and that he does not have a good answer. He explained it takes a cultural change in how things are viewed, focusing on the end outcome and whether the right steps are being taken, rather than just how to reach the outcome. He noted that while efficiencies like reducing hiring from 75 days to 46 days could eventually lead to cost savings, he cannot say exactly how much it saves. He added that delays in hiring cause the loss of really good candidates, and he does not know how to measure that value. Commissioner Sides said that for John Q. citizen, it would be very easy to look at the salary for six positions and suggest making cuts to save money.He said that someone focusing only on the hard dollar cost, without looking at what is lost by taking a “meat-axe” to the program, misses the bigger picturewhile the budget might drop and the payroll be reduced, the real question is what is lost in the process. He said that he needed help to sell the program and make it compute for him, explaining that showing the endgame of the investment might not be immediate, but it could be a year from now or five years from now. He emphasized that to him, this is an investment in the staff. Mr. Matthews agreed, stating that Commissioner Sides was absolutely right. Commissioner Sides said he goes back to measuring and defending this investment in more than just dollars and justifying the payroll on the County payroll, focusing instead on the end result and the tangible and intangible results achieved. He added that he would love to see a program that saves the hard cost, potentially three-quarters of the outgoing salary, though that may never happen. He said, as he previously noted, the challenge is determining the intangible cost of losing a good candidate in a department that provides a vital service. He said he does not know the answer, acknowledging that this is where he struggles. Commissioner Sides said he wanted to encourage staff to personally consider initiatives like this and for the department to stretch, not being afraid to question why things are done a certain way and to explore how other counties or municipalities handle them, noting that if they have good ideas they can adopt them too. He said he hoped his comments are not taken as a personal challengebut rather as a challenge that everyone needs to show the value in what they are trying to accomplish, noting that it is very easy to focus on hard dollars without looking at the long game. Commissioner Sides apologized if any of his previous comments meant as a justification for the overall initiative were taken as a personal challenge, explaining that his focus on costs like hiring and savings was from a very narrow construct. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said when a department or team is called strategy and innovation,it naturally raises some questions, but he believes they are good questions. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms commended the team for taking on the challenge, noting that, as highlighted on page five, Union County has one of the lowest ratios of full-time employees per 1,000 residents. He said that when people question government efficiency, that employee ratio is often one of the first points they reference. He said it is also easy to overlook the number of residents in the county. Mr. Matthews stated that the county has approximately 265,000 residents and is continuing to grow. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms noted that the population is continuing to grow, especially with all the approvals outside of Union County’s jurisdiction, highlighting 159 approvals since January 1, 2023. He said this is a credit to the team that has been built and commended the team and said his challenge is simple: to keep moving forward, continuing to find efficiencies wherever possible. Mr. Matthews acknowledged that this approach is different for many of the departments, noting that staff are not used to someone asking why they do things a certain way and how they do them, which can be a little unnerving. He said it is not meant to be negative, but to find ways to do things better. He commended his staff and directors for embracing the need to be more efficient and expressed his appreciation for their efforts. He said he appreciates the Board’s confidence in allowing them to do things differently and commented that Commissioner Sides made a good point that this is a long game. He explained that it will not happen overnight, as it takes time to implement changes and identify ways to do things differently and better. He said it is necessary to change the culture and mindset of people who are used to doing things a certain way. He noted that while there may be some wins right up front, it will take time to show bigger improvements. Commissioner Sides suggested developing a way to share updates beyond the usual six-month presentations and said he would give the innovation team a challenge. He asked how the team could better communicate their successes, both in hard dollars and processes, and noted an opportunity to educate the Board on both hard and soft successes as well as early work and roadblocks. He said this might be something the Board needs to address, including any additional staff, processes, or policies required at the Board level, and asked how the team could better communicate and educate the Board to support its work. Mr. Matthews responded positively, agreeing with the suggestions. 25-470Government Center Entrance Improvements Vice Chair Brian W. Helms announced the next item of business, was item 25-470, the Government Center entrance improvements, and recognized Assistant Manager Clayton Voignier to present the item. Mr. Voignier stated that last week the County Manager had provided the Board with information via email regarding upcoming Government Center lobby improvements. He said he would review the information briefly and noted that it was an opportunity for both the Board to ask questions and the public to hear the details. He explained that operations would continue normally throughout the project, with only slight modifications to building entry and exit, and all public-facing operations would continue as planned. He summarized the project’s goal as enhancing customer service, improving visitor access, better organizing visitor flow through the lobby, and updating finishes. He noted that the last improvements to the Government Center lobby were made in 2006. Mr. Voignier outlined some of the planned improvements, including a new visitor desk and turnstiles for entry and exit through the lobby, which will be used by both staff and visitors. He stated that automated double sliding doors would be added to the main entrance to improve accessibility for individuals using wheelchairs and strollers, addressing current struggles with entering through the main entrance. He said a single-exit door with a push plate would also be added, providing improved accessibility for wheelchairs and strollers when leaving the building. Mr. Voignier stated that carpet and tile would be replaced in the lobby, first-floor corridor, board meeting room, and the Stony Rushing Conference Room, and some repainting work. He noted that, aside from the lobby, work in the other areas would likely be limited to oneor two-day jobs during the project. He explained these tasks would be scheduled for times with minimal foot traffic so those areas would not be significantly impacted. He stated that the project timeframe is approximately six months, with construction scheduled to begin next Monday. Mr. Voignier presented a visual representation of the improvements, showing the automated double doors at the main entrance, the new visitor desk, and the turnstiles for entry. He explained that upon exiting, visitors would leave through the exit turnstile and the single-exit door. He stated that during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the main entrance from the Main Street plaza would be closed.He explained that all visitors and staff would enter and exit through the ground-floor entrance off Church Street, across from the public parking lot. He said the visitor desk would be temporarily relocated to the ground-floor entrance near the main elevators to assist visitors. He said that visitors could use the main elevators to reach floors two and up, and access the first-floor tax office by using the alternate elevator near Building Code Enforcement. He noted that wayfinding signage would be added on the ground floor to help direct visitors and ensure the public could navigate the building during construction. He stated that an additional ADA-accessible parking space would be added to the rear parking lot adjacent to the Government Center by shifting one Commissioner parking spot. He explained that during Board meetings, visitors could access the Board’s meeting chambers using the alternate ground-floor elevator near Building Code Enforcement, with wayfinding signage provided. He noted a second secure check-in would be added just outside the Board meeting room, currently an employee-only entry and exit, to help minimize impacts on visitors during Board meetings. He further said that Board members would continue to use their county ID badges to access the employee-only entrance. He provided a visual of the temporary main entry on the ground floor off Church Street. Mr. Voignier noted the entrance on the visual and where the visitors will check in at the security desk. He noted that one entrance would remain employee-only, while staff and Board members would have designated entrances for Board meetings. He explained that the contractor’s laydown area would be roped or fenced off in front, with signage directing the public to the ground-floor entrance. Mr. Voignier showed an example of signage that would be installed, explaining that the public could visit the website or use a QR code to learn more about the project. He noted that similar signage would be placed both on the exterior and interior of the building. 25-446 Appointments to Boards & Committees Vice Chair Brian W. Helms introduced the final item on the agenda, item 25-466, concerning appointments to boards and committees. He noted that there was one appointment for consideration that evening fora vacancy on the Consolidated Human Services Board for a consumer of human services position. He explained that the vacancy had been advertised in accordance with the Board’s rules of procedure and pursuant to GS 153A-77. He added that the Consolidated Human Services Board reviewed applications at its May 12, 2025, meeting and nominated Mr. Earl Ford for reappointment. He then opened the floor for a motion to vote on the recommended nomination. Commissioner Christina Helms moved to reappoint Mr. Earl Ford Jr. to serve on the Consolidated Human Services Boardto serve as a consumer of human services representative. The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows: Vice Chair Brian W HelmsAye Commissioner BaucomAye Commissioner HelmsAye Commissioner SidesAye Chair Melissa Merrell was not present. County Manager’s Comments County Manager Brian Matthews stated that he had no comments. Commissioner’s Comments Commissioner Sides said his comments were more of a Q&A and asked for an update on the design of the Regional Autopsy Center and the Food Innovation Center. He inquired about the current status of both projects, the latest timeframe for finalizing the designs, and when the projects would be ready to move forward to permitting, bidding, and construction. Assistant County Manager Clayton Voignier provided an update on the Regional Autopsy Center, stating that the first programming session was held last week and it went very well. He said programming is progressing quickly, with the next meeting scheduled in a couple of weeks, and that a full design is anticipated to be completed by the end of the current fiscal year. Commissioner Sides confirmed that the full design for the Regional Autopsy Center is expected by the end of June 2026. Mr. Voignier confirmed that timeline. Commissioner Sides asked if an update could also be provided on the Food Innovation Center. Mr. Matthews replied that Patrick Niland, Deputy County Manager, who handles that project, was not present, but they could provide the information later. Commissioner Baucom said it had been a good night. He highlighted helping a mechanic remain in business on a property wellsuited for his work, remarking on the value of skilled tradespeople in the community. He also mentioned assisting a young single mother to move into her “forever home,” expressing happiness for her and her excitement. Additionally, he commented about his long-standing acquaintance with Ms. Clawson and her family, who have dealt with water issues for many years, and said he was happy for them. He added that extra support was provided to the sheriff’s department and concluded that, although it had been a long night, it had been a good one. Commissioner Christina Helms stated that she had no comments. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said he would keep his comments brief and expressed appreciation to the speakers who spoke during public comments and the public hearings. He noted there were a lot of agenda items and expressed appreciation for the public’s engagement, saying it means a lot to those sitting on the Board. He acknowledged that Commissioner Merrell could not be present and thanked his colleagues for bearing with him and supporting him as he attempted to chair the meeting. He agreed with Commissioner Baucom that some good things were accomplished, noting he was glad to support a growing small business in the county. He said he looks forward to seeing what the economic development team can bring back and highlighted the tremendous opportunity discussed that evening, especially for a county that is currently 90 percent residential and 10 percent everything else. He emphasized the significance of a company already in the county making an investment not only for itself but also for the county and its residents. He concluded by commending the economic development team and all staff for a job well done. Adjournment With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 8:59 p.m., Commissioner Christina B. Helms moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows: Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye Commissioner Baucom Aye Commissioner Christina B. Helms Aye Commissioner Sides Aye Chair Merrell was not present