Minutes of January 12, 2026 LAST VERSION FINAL FINAL APPROVED000Union County, NC Board of Commissioners
Meeting Minutes
Union County Government Center
500 North Main Street Monroe, North Carolina
www.unioncountync.gov
January 12, 20266:00 PMBoard Room, First Floor
____________________________________________________________
25-390Closed Session – 5:15 P.M.
Present:Chair Brian W. Helms; Vice Chair Christina B. Helms; Commissioner Clancy C. Baucom; and Commissioner Melissa M. Merrell
Absent: Commissioner Gary Sides
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 5:20 p.m., in the open session, in the Stony D. Rushing Conference Meeting Room, Chair Brian W. Helms called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order.
Chair Helms moved that the Board enter closed session pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11:
(a)(1), to prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to G.S. section 132-1.1 and 132-6;
(a)(3), to consult with an attorney in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege and to consider and give instructions concerning the handling of the judicial action of Keith Richards
v. Union County;
(a)(4), to discuss matters relating to location or expansion of industries or other businesses; and
(a)(5), for property negotiations;
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:
Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Vice Chair Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Melissa M. MerrellAye
Commissioner Gary Sides was not present.
Opening of Meeting – 6:00 p.m.
Invocation – Vice Chair Christina B. Helms introduced Dr. Landon Keziah from Lee Park Baptist Church in Monroe, North Carolina, to offer the invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance – Chair Brian W. Hlelms led the body and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States, of America.
Informal Comments
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that no one had registered to comment during the informal comments. He asked if there was anyone from the audience who had not registered to comment but
wanted to comment at this time.
Tom Caldwell, a member of the audience, introduced himself and commented that Lynn West, Clerk to the Board, had been employed with his law firm after graduating from Wingate College.
Mr. Caldwell complimented Ms. West on her employment with his law firm and with Union County.
Public Hearing(s)
26-022Public Hearing - Rezoning Petition CZ-2025-005 Garcia
Chair Brian W. Helms opened the public hearing at approximately 6:04 p.m. and recognized Bjorn Hansen, Planning Department, Senior Planner – Long Range Planning, for staff comments.
Mr. Hansen stated that this is a conditional rezoning and shared a slide of the site plan associated with the rezoning request. He described its location as being at the corner of Faith
Church Road and Secrest Shortcut and is located inside the Town of Hemby Bridge. He noted that this is the first rezoning that has been taken through a public hearing from the Town
of Hemby Bridge. He said the Town’s plans will be referenced as part of the staff’s report.
He explained that the request is to rezone from R-20 to Light Industrial (LI) with conditions to allow a tow truck impound yard associated with the site plan that is presented. Mr.
Hansen noted that there were trees cut down on the property in the last 18 months, so one of the conditions is to coordinate with staff if this request, if the request is approved, to
mitigate for all trees 12 inches in diameter that were removed in the required setbacks. He reviewed the conditions:
Limited to the approved site plan dated August 18, 2025
Uses limited to tow truck impound yard.
Mitigation for unauthorized tree removal in required setbacks, specifically replanting 125 percent of all removed trees 12 inches in diameter or greater, including trees previously located
in the proposed stormwater pond.
Five-year vesting of development rights.
Development will meet all requirements of the Union County Unified Development Ordinance on the date of approval.
Mr. Hansen addressed the existing conditions: two-lane roads in both directions on the corner and noted the cleared conditions on the site. He stated that there are turn lanes at the
intersection on Secrest Short Cut, and access would be from the side road.He commented about development in the area which is large lot residential in the immediate vicinity of this
intersection. He stated there are subdivisions nearby, and the Monroe Expressway is just to the east of this site.In terms of environmental features, Mr. Hansen said there are no floodplains,
streams, or wetlands on the site. He shared an aerial photograph from a couple of years ago which showed the site as being previously forested. He also showed a picture showing cleared
trees. Mr. Hansen stated it is not known where the exact property line is located in relation to the picture, and that is where they would coordinate with the Urban Forester to determine
the specific trees that would have to be mitigated if this rezoning request were approved. He said that the existing zoning in the area is R-20, and RA-40 in Union County is immediately
to the east of the site. He further said that Indian Trail and Lake Park are located to the southeast and southwest. Mr. Hansen stated that the entire area within Hemby Bridge is zoned
R-20.He said in terms of transportation, Secrest Shortcut in this area carries nearly 10,000 vehicles per day according to a traffic count that is several years old. Mr. Hansen said
there is not a traffic count on this section of Faith Short Cut Road. He stated that both roads are identified as future boulevards, but neither is funded for widening in the coming
decades in the Metropolitan Transportation Plans through the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization. He stated that in terms of Land Use Maps, two maps are referenced.
He said the first one is the Land Use Map developed by Union County staff for Hemby Bridge approximately nine years ago which identified the site as a rural center which is commercial
and could be considered both industrial and retail, and office; however, because industrial is called out as a use in their land use map, it is referenced as commercial only meaning
not industrial. He referenced a smaller land use map developed approximately eight years ago with the Town of Indian Trail. He noted the Secrest Shortcut Small Area Plan. He said
portions of Hemby Bridge in the northern portion were also identified in the Plan, but recommendations were kept consistent with what Hemby Bridge had adopted, so it has a commercial
and retail designation at that intersection as well which is not industrial. In terms of schools and utilities, Mr. Hansen stated that because this rezoning request was commercial in
nature, Union County Public Schools was not consulted for comments. He said that Union County water is available to the site, but utilities are not required for the proposed uses and
will be an unmanned facility. He shared that in terms of public feedback, there were two community meetings held. He explained that the first meeting was in November 2025, the night
before Thanksgiving, and was attended by one member of the public. He stated that the applicant scheduled another public meeting shortly thereafter on December 8, 2025, and 13 residents
attended. Mr. Hansen said that the residents expressed concern over the trees that had been cut down, access onto the road, and the incompatible uses with the nearby uses which were
mainly large lot residential. He shared that since that time, the County has received over 30 email comments from residents in the immediate area. He stated that the Board has received
several emails from Lynn West, Clerk to the Board, with comments since this packet was prepared, many of them reiterating previous comments.He shared in terms of municipal feedback,
County staff always reaches out to nearby municipalities, which included Hemby Bridge because this site is within its jurisdiction, and also Indian and Lake Park. He stated that each
municipality provided comments which were included in the agenda package, and each municipality opposed the proposed development. He said that Indian Trail’s comments were the most
detailed. He stated the town cited traffic, consistency with the adopted plan, and the fact that trees had been removed from the site before there was a building permit. He provided
the following slide that showed the Staff Report and Recommendation:Slide #1 states the negatives of the proposal: Slide #2 shows the positives of the proposal”Chair Brian W. Helms
invited the applicant to share any comments that he might have. The applicant did not have any comments.Brian Matthews, County Manager stated that no one had registered to speak during
the public hearing.The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who had not registered to speak but who wanted to comment at this time. The Chair closed the public hearing at
approximately 6:12 p.m.Staff Recognition
26-015 Service Award Recognition
Char Brian W. Helms recognized Julie Broom, Human Resources Director, for staff’s comments.
Ms. Broome stated that staff has a short video this evening that will highlight the final service award ceremony for 2025 that was held in December. She said approximately 17 employeeswere
recognized during the ceremony that included seven (7) five (5)-year recipients; five (5) ten (10) year recipients; three (3) twenty (20) year recipients; and two (2) twenty-five (25)
year recipients.
Ms. Broome expressed her appreciation to the Commissioners for their continued support of the service award program and extended her gratitude to those employees who were recognized
during the service award program for their contributions, dedication, and their service to Union County.
A short video was shared with the Board and audience showing highlights from the awards ceremony.
Chair Brian W. Helms complimented Ms. Broome and the staff on the Employee Recognition Program. He said it was a reminder that the County has a family atmosphere and a good culture.
He added that it is a credent to the managers, associates, and all of the staff.Consent Agenda Chair Brian W. Helms stated if there was no opposition, he would like to 1) suspend Rule
29 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure related to rezoning Petition CZ-2025-005, Garcia, and 2) add consideration of Rezoning Petition CZ-2025-005, Garcia to the Business Agenda, for consideration
of a decision concerning the rezoning petition.The Chair stated that consideration of a decision concerning Rezoning Petition CZ-2025-005 could be added as the first item of business.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked Jason Kay, County Attorney, if the Board needed to vote on his request to adding the item for consideration on the Business Agenda.Mr. Kay responded that
if there was no objection by the Board, it was within the Chair’s discretion to add the item.Vice Chair Christina B. Helms moved to approve the items listed on the Consent Agenda as
recommended and submitted. The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:Chair Brian W. HelmsAyeVice Chair Christina B. HelmsAyeCommissioner Clancy C. BaucomAyeCommissioner
Melissa M. MerrellAyeCommissioner Gary Sides was not present.
26-018 City of Monroe Request to Provide Water Service Award Recognition
ACTION: Approved the request from the City of Monroe to provide water service to Parcel 08-303-016D located at 1806 Willis Long Rd.
The City of Monroe recently received a request for outside city service located at 1806 Willis Long, Parcel 08-303-016D is requesting water service to serve property.
The City of Monroe has indicated that they are prepared to serve the property with water, as outside City customer, if approval is granted from Union County. Our water and sewer service
agreement with the City of Monroe prohibits the City from providing service outside the City limits without the express, written approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
Union County does not have any water infrastructure in the area to serve the property. Union County Water has no objection to the City providing water service to this property.
26-028 Task Order – Sewer Repair & Rehabilitation Excavation Repairs ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this
agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County
Manager's discretion.The purpose of the Task Order is to make needed repairs on the sewer lines located in the Tallwood and Eastside sections of the County’s system. The County’s contract
with G.S. Construction, Inc. will be used to make these repairs to the sewer system which are allowing substantial rainwater and ground water (inflow and infiltration) to enter the sewer
system, as well as to repair significant structural issues that are causing re-occurring maintenance issues.G.S. Construction, Inc. has been selected to provide Repairs Services for
Contract #9916. G.S. Construction, Inc. was chosen from a list of venders previously selected from IFB No. 2025-019 Sewer Repair & Rehabilitation Excavation Repairs to provide these
services for Union County Water.The total cost of the contract with G.S. Construction, Inc. is $186,200.00. Sufficient funds are available in Capital Account Sewer Repairs Operations
Budget - 6512-5381.
26-035 Contract – Waxhaw North Sanitary Sewer Replacement & RehabilitationACTION: 1) Awarded contract to North American Pipeline Management, LLC in the amount of $3,295,540.50, and
2) authorized 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 project.The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
includes an annual allocation in the Wastewater Rehabilitation & Replacement Program to assess, prioritize, and rehabilitate/replace sanitary sewer collection system infrastructure.
This project is Year 1 of a two-year rehabilitation project to replace the aged Septic Tank Effluent Gravity (STEG) wastewater collection system in Waxhaw. This Year 1 project consists
of the replacement of approximately 4,500 linear feet of 4-inch and 6-inch sewer lines with 8-inch and 10-inch sewer mains in the Waxhaw downtown area on the north side of Highway 75.On
November 17, 2025, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution for the tentative award of the construction contract to North American Pipeline Management, LLC in the amount
of $3,138,610.00 pending NCDEQ’s issuance of the Authority to Award. NCDEQ’s Authority to Award was required for final award of the construction contract because NCDEQ is providing funding
for the project. NCDEQ issued the Authority to Award on December 22, 2025. The Authority to Award included a five percent construction contingency in the amount of $156,930.50 to be
added to the tentative bid award amount of $3,138,610.00; therefore, the final construction contract amount for award increased to $3,295,540.50.Funding is available within the adopted
capital account 60185522 - STEG Assessment Waxhaw to support the construction contract amount of $3,295,540.50.
26-039Bid Award – FY2022 Short Water Line Extension Program Phase B – East Lawyers Road ACTION: 1) Awarded contract to Dawn Development Company, Inc. in the amount of $636,643.93, 2)
authorized the County Manager to i) negotiate and execute an agreement with Dawn Development Company, Inc. 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, and 3) adopted
Resolution Providing Notice of Construction of the FY2022 Short Water Line Extension Program Phase B – East Lawyers Road.The Short Water Line Extension Program, as adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC), provides for the extension of water lines to serve and provide an environmental benefit to qualifying applicants in Union County. The FY2022 Short Water
Line Extension Program projects have been divided into four Phases (A – D). Phase B originally consisted of two projects with approximately 3.6 miles of water lines serving 26 applicants
on Haigler Road, Zebulon Williams Road, Morgan Mill Road, and East Lawyers Road. There are outstanding easements for the Haigler Road, Zebulon Williams Road, and Morgan Mill Road project
that were delaying Phase B from being bid. There are no outstanding easements for the East Lawyers Road project; therefore, it was separated from the remainder of Phase B for bidding
and construction.On November 17, 2025, the Procurement Department partnered with Union County Water – Engineering department to issue an Invitation for Bid IFB 2026-039 – FY2022 Short
Water Line Extension Program Phase B –Project 1 East Lawyers Road. On December 17, 2025, seven (7) bids for the title project were received and processed. All bids were tabulated, reviewed,
and certified by STV Engineers, Inc. The bids ranged from $636,643.93 to $1,356,064.00; staff recommend that the project be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Dawn
Development Company, Inc., in the amount of $636,643.93. Funding is available within the adopted capital account 60184128 - FY2022 Short Water Line Extensions Program to support the
construction contract amount of $636,643.93.The following is a summary of the bids received:
A total of seven (7) bids were received from the following:
Contractor
Total Base Bid
State Utility Contractors, Inc.
$ 902,060.50*
Classic City Mechanical, Inc.
$ 706,970.55
Dawn Development Company, Inc.
$ 636,643.93
Mainlining America LLC
$ 1,356,064.00**
Dallas 1 Construction LLC
$696,577.94
*Total bid read as $1,022,185.50 but actually totaled $902,060.50.
**Total bid read as $1,352,064.00 but actually totaled $1,356,064.00.
26-043 Contract – Handwheel Expansion Connectors ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item 2) exercise
any renewal or extension term options set forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager’s discretion.
UC Water brought a contract to the Board in March of 2024 for the purchase of handwheel expansion connectors necessary for water meter installations and repairs. In May of 2025 we learned
that the vendor could not continue to honor its pricing due to tariffs, therefore we rebid the project. On October 7, 2025, the Procurement Department partnered with UC Water to issue
Invitation for Bid #2026-013 Handwheel Expansion Connectors. On October 21, 2025, Two bids for the title project were received and processed. The bids were tabulated, reviewed, and
certified by UC Water. The bids ranged from $430,050 to $463,740. Staff recommends that the project be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Ferguson Enterprises, LLC.The
anticipated annual cost for this service is $107,512.50. Since this contract contains an initial two-year term with two one-year renewal options, a total of $430,050 is estimated to
be spent. Funding is available in the adopted FY26 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.
26-045 Contract – Temporary Staffing Services
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set
forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager's discretion.
Union County’s Water Department is seeking temporary staffing services to fill Field Technician positions on an as-needed basis. These temporary employees will support field crews responsible
for maintaining water and sewer infrastructure throughout the County. This Contract will be used to temporary fill positions while recruitment of vacancies is being conducted.
The Procurement Department partnered with the UC Water to issue Request for Proposals #2025-050 Field Tech Temporary Staffing. On August 21,2025, twenty-two proposals were received
and reviewed by an evaluation team in accordance with applicable evaluation criteria for this project. The top ranked three firms were invited to shortlist interview/presentations.
As a result, the team requests approval to enter into a contract with the top 2 scoring/ranked preferred offerors, SAGH Staffing, Inc. dba AtWork Franchise, LLC, and Blue Arbor, Inc.,
to provide Temporary Staffing Services.
The estimated annual cost for this service is $150,000. Since the contracts contain an initial term of two years with three one-year renewal options, a total of $750,000 is estimated
to be spent. Funding is available in the adopted FY2026 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.
26-017 Allocate Additional FTE to Register of Deeds’ Office
ACTION: Authorized the allocation of 0.52 FTE to convert position 418507 from non-benefited part-time to benefited full-time.
The Register of Deeds’ office has three non-benefited part-time positions currently that are filled. The Register of Deeds’ office would like to convert one of the non-benefited part-time
positions to a benefited full-time position. This position is needed to provide assisting in the day-to-day operations of the Register of Deeds’ office as well as passport services.
This individual is a passport agent as well and could serve in numerous areas in the office when there is a demand in service. This individual also can help assist in preservation projects
that require a “hands on” application process. This individual has over 30 years of experience and would be a great asset, especially in a full-time scenario.
No additional funding is required. Funding exists in the current FY2026 Register of Deeds budget.
26-023 2025-2026 Union County Detention Center Medical Plan
ACTION: Adopt the 2025-2026 Union County Detention Center Medical Plan.
North Carolina General Statute 153A-225(a) provides for the medical care of prisoners. That statute provides that:
Each unit that operates a local confinement facility shall develop a plan for providing medical care for prisoners in the facility. The plan:
(1) Shall be designed to protect the health and welfare of the prisoners and to avoid the spread of contagious disease.
(2) Shall provide for medical supervision of prisoners and emergency medical care for prisoners to the extent necessary for their health and welfare.
(3) Shall provide for the detection, examination and treatment of prisonerswho are infected with tuberculosis or venereal diseases.
The unit shall develop the plan in consultation with appropriate local officials and organizations, including the sheriff, the county physician, the local or district health director,
and the local medical society. The plan must be approved by the local or district health director after consultation with the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance
abuse authority, if it is adequate to protect the health and welfare of the prisoners. Upon a determination that the plan is adequate to protect the health and welfare of the prisoners,
the plan must be adopted by the governing body.
This plan is developed and signed on an annual basis by the Health Department and the Union County Sheriff's Office.
26-032 Union County Transportation Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
ACTION: Adopted the Union County Transportation Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) as presented.
Since July 20, 2020, the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) has required certain operators of public transportation systems, that are recipients or sub-recipients of FTA grant funds, to develop
safety plans that include the processes and procedures necessary for implementing Safety Management Systems (SMS). The PTASP plan requires that transit agencies 1) designate an Accountable
Executive and a Chief Safety Officer, 2) document the agency's SMS processes, 3) implement an employee reporting program, 4) create performance targets based on safety performance measures
established in FTA's National Public Transportation Safety Plan (NSP), 5) create criteria to address all applicable requirements and standards set forth in FTA's Public Transportation
Safety Program and the NSP, and 6) create a process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the safety plan. NCDOT and the FTA require the PTASP to be reviewed by
staff and brought to the Board of County Commissioners for approval annually regardless of whether revisions are made.
In 2024, the FTA released major updates to the PTASP which have been incorporated in the attached document.
26-033 Grant Application – Streamflow Rehabilitation Assistance Program (StRAP)
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to submit the associated grant application and make necessary assurances and certifications associated with the grant application as substantially
consistent with this agenda item, which includes the authorization to execute documents related to award of the grant and budget funds as appropriate.
The StRAP program through the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation offers local Soil and Water Conservation Districts reimbursement for stream debris removal work to
remove stream debris out of the 100-year floodplain.
Up to $310,909 of funding will be reimbursed to the County following successful completion of the debris removal work.
26-037 Easement Acceptance – Land Preservation and Easement Program
ACTION: Accepted Easement 90-2026-005 into the Union County Land Preservation & Easement Program.
Union County is currently ranked 13th in the United States for open space land loss on a per year basis according to the latest research published by the American Farmland Trust. Over
the last four fiscal years, Union County has lost 3,191 acres (FY2020), 2,892 acres (FY2021), 3,625 acres (FY2022), and 2,419 acres (FY2023) from parcels enrolled in present use value
(PUV) alone. According to the 2022 NCDA Census ofAgriculture, Union County has 186,626 acres of farmland. In the Business-as-Usual scenario published by NC FarmLink, Union County is
slated to lose 51,500 acres of current farmland by 2040. This scenario would represent approximately a 28% reduction in total farmland acreage in Union County by 2040.
The Union County Land Preservation & Easement program allows landowners to sell and/or donate the development rights to their property while still obtaining ownership of the land. By
selling and/or donating the development rights, open space and agricultural land will be preserved through conservation easements held by the Union County Soil & Water Conservation District.
The District will be responsible for monitoring and inspections of easements to maintain compliance within the program. The use of present use value (PUV) rollback funds will provide
financial resources to the Union County Soil & Water Conservation District for the easement purchases and all associated transaction costs. These funds are held in a Union County budget
line and all non-encumbered funds will rollover at the end of each fiscal year.
26-038 Budget Amendment – Union County Land Preservation and Easement Program ACTION: Adopted Budget Amendment # 14 appropriating the County’s General Fund unassigned fund balance
in the amount of $703,677 to be used for the purchase of conservation easements and associated transaction costs.Union County is currently ranked 13th in the United States for open space
land loss on a per year basis according to the latest research published by the American Farmland Trust. Over the last four fiscal years, Union County has lost 3,191 acres (FY2020),
2,892 acres (FY2021), 3,625 acres (FY2022), and 2,419 acres (FY2023) from parcels enrolled in present use value (PUV) alone. According to the 2022 NCDA Census ofAgriculture, Union County
has 186,626 acres of farmland. In the Business-as-Usual scenario published by NC FarmLink, Union County is slated to lose 51,500 acres of current farmland by 2040. This scenario would
represent approximately a 28% reduction in total farmland acreage in Union County by 2040. The Union County Land Preservation & Easement program allows landowners to sell and/or donate
the development rights to their property while still obtaining ownership of the land. By selling and/or donating the development rights, open space and agricultural land will be preserved
through conservation easements held by the Union County Soil & Water Conservation District. The District will be responsible for monitoring and inspections of easements to maintain compliance
within the program. The use of present use value (PUV) rollback funds will provide financial resources to the Union County Soil & Water Conservation District for the easement purchases
and all associated transaction costs. These funds are held in a Union County budget line and all non-encumbered funds will rollover at the end of each fiscal year.General Fund fund balance
will be reduced by $703,677.
26-014 Budget Amendment – Additional Funding for Tuition Reimbursement
ACTION:Adopted Budget Amendment #12 to appropriate $25,000 from Fund Balance account to Tuition Reimbursement account to cover eligible employee tuition expenses beyond the budgeted
amount for FY2026.
:
The Tuition Reimbursement program supports county employees aspiring to achieve higher education or advanced degree goals. A recent change regarding budget rollover amounts impacted
anticipated funds for the tuition reimbursement account. The fund balance transfer will provide funding to adequately cover expected tuition reimbursement applications through the remainder
of the fiscal year.
Adequate funding is available in Fund Balance to cover this transfer of funds.
26-034 Resolution – Union County Emergency Services Complex Stormwater Agreement
ACTION: 1) Adopted the Resolution for Grant of Easement to the City of Monroe and, 2) authorized the County Manager to approve and execute any and all documents as may be required to
grant the Property Interest, including but not limited to the Stormwater Operation Maintenance and Escrow Agreement.
:
As a condition of development of the Emergency Services Complex, the City of Monroe requires Union County to enter into a Stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Escrow Agreement to provide
for the operation, long-term maintenance, inspection, repair, and replacement / reconstruction of the Stormwater Control Facility. This is a standard and typical agreement which grants
the City of Monroe a permanent easement for right of access through the Property to the Stormwater Control Facility, as well as dedicating public right-of-way and grant of permanent
public sidewalk easement as illustrated on the attached plat for the Emergency Services Complex.
26-042 Contract Amendment – Lease Extension 601 Lancaster Avenue
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set
forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager's discretion.
The Facilities & Fleet Management Department has utilized the contractual services of Raymond G. Smith for the lease of space at 604 Lancaster Avenue, which is used as Juvenile Justice
offices, since August 1, 2018. Raymond G. Smith has been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs, and the request is to extend the lease for an additional two years.
The anticipated first year monthly cost for the lease is $7,600.62, with a 3 percentincrease in year two. Therefore, a total amount of $185,151 is estimated to be spent. Funding is
available in the adopted FY26 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.
26-044 Contract Amendment – Purchase of Bulk Fuel
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set
forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager's discretion.
This request to execute a one-year contract extension for Bulk Fuel purchases for all County departments. The original contract, approved by the Board on March 20, 2023, included contract
terms of three years with two additional one-year extensions. This request is the first of the one-year extensions. The Bulk Fuel contract supports bulk purchases of gasoline, highway
diesel and off-road diesel at various locations throughout the County. The various bulk tanks include building and equipment generator tanks and general fuel tanks. Departments served
by the contract include Parks and Recreation, Emergency Communications, Facilities and Fleet Management, UC Water and UC Solid Waste.
The Facilities & Fleet Management department has utilized the contractual services of James River Solutions LLC for bulk fuel purchases since March 21, 2023. James River Solutions, LLC
has been effective and efficient in meeting our service needs, and the request is to continue this service for an additional twelve months.
:
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $200,000.00. Funding is available in the FY26 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.
26-049 Conditional District Rezoning Application
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to apply for Conditional District Rezoning.
Union County’s Group Home Facility at 600 Honeysuckle Lane, Monroe NC (Tax ID 09180027) has operated since the mid-1980s. The home temporarily ceased operating resulting in the use lapsing.
Union County needs to apply for a Conditional District Rezoning with the City of Monroe.
$1,000 application fee will be paid using existing FY2026 operating budget.
26-036 Tax Bill Correction Report for November 2025
ACTION: ApprovedTax Bill Correction Reports for November 2025 (Refund Amount = $560.36)
In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes 102-312 and 105-325, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to make and approve certain changes to property tax records. Approval
of such changes may result in either a release, refund, or discovery of ad valorem taxes. The report provides detailed information on all tax bills that were modified. Included in the
report for each correction is the parcel number or property key, owner name, reason for the change, original value, original tax, corrected value, corrected tax, and refund, if applicable.
26-040 Contract – Insurance Broken Services
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set
forth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager's discretion.
The Procurement Department partnered with the Security Risk Management Department to issue Request for Proposals #2026-019 Insurance Broker Service. On September 30, 2025, two 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, USI Insurance Services, LLC, to provide insurance brokerage 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 $62,500 in years one and two. Costs for years three through five are $67,500, $70,000 and $72,500, respectively. Since this contract contains
a two-year initial term and three one-year renewal options, a total of $335,000 is estimated to be spent. Funding is available in the adopted FY2026 budget with future expenditures subject
to annual BOCC budget appropriation.
26-063Contract Renewal – Website Hosting and Maintenance
ACTION: Authorize the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the County Manager's discretion.
In accordance with the Union County Procurement Policy, Section 3.5.3, the Assistant County Manager approved an exemption from the RFP process for good cause and when in the best interests
of Union County. Public Communications requested the exemption to the RFP process for website hosting, maintenance and support for several County websites. Our current agreement with
Granicus, LLC ends in February 2026. The County Attorney’s Office advised any renewal term longer than one year should be considered for a Request for Proposals (RFP). Due to the monumental
task of a RFP, which could result in a new website vendor, and in turn, the redesign and content migration of six County websites, it is not feasible to accomplish within less than a
year and a half and during a large, ongoing digital accessibility project. Redesigning and migrating content for six County websites would require a significant investment of time and
effort from both staff and vendors. The process involves extensive planning, content review, design development, testing, and coordination across multiple departments to ensure continuity
of service and accessibility compliance. Given the scope of work and the potential impact on daily operations, extending the current agreement will allow the County adequate time to
conduct a thorough and competitive RFP process while maintaining stable website operations. This extension would also ensure sufficient time for a smooth transition, including redesign
and content migration, should a new vendor be selected through that process. Renewing our contract with Granicus, LLC for a three-year term with a total estimated expense over that term
totaling $213,556.21 for website hosting, maintenance and support for six Union County websites. to support Union County’s website needs is in the best interest of the County. Within
that timeframe, Public Communications will initiate a RFP for website redesign in partnership with the Procurement department.
The Public Communications department has utilized the contractual services of Granicus, LLC for website design, hosting and maintenance since 2021. Granicus has been effective and efficient
in meeting our service needs, and the department requests to continue this service for an additional three years.
:
The anticipated first year cost for this service is $65,782.47. Costs for years two and three are $71,045.06 and $76,728.68, respectively. Since the contract contains a three-year term,
a total of $213,556.21 is estimated to be spent. Funding is available in the FY2026 budget with future expenditures subject to annual BOCC budget appropriation.
26-055 Resolution – Amendment to the Union County Property Acquisition Policy and Procedures
ACTION: Adopted the Resolution to Adopt an Amendment to the Union County Property Acquisition Policy and Procedures.
The Board previously adopted the Union County Property Acquisition Policy and Procedures. Staff recommends updating this document to set forth certain additional authority for the express
acceptance of dedicated easements. The revised language is shown on the attachment to the proposed resolution.
26-020 Minutes for Approval ACTION: Approved minutes of regular meeting of February 18, 2025, and April 14, 2025
Information Only
26-753Wastewater Treatment Capacity – Monthly Update ACTION: There was no action 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 November 2025 is summarized in the attached table.Twelve Mile Creek•Percent of Actual Flows= 70.1%•Percent
of Actual + Permitted Flows= 89.1%•Actual Flows (MGD)= 5.254•Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD)= 6.686Crooked Creek•Percent of Actual Flows= 61.3%•Percent of Actual + Permitted
Flows= 87.9%•Actual Flows (MGD)= 1.164•Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD)= 1.671Olde Sycamore•Percent of Actual Flows= 26.0%•Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows= 26.0%•Actual Flows
(MGD)= 0.039•Actual + Permitted Obligated Flows (MGD)= 0.039Tallwood•Percent of Actual Flows= 44.0%•Percent of Actual + Permitted Flows= 44.0%•Actual Flows (MGD)= 0.022•Actual + Permitted
Obligated Flows (MGD)= 0.022
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 November 2025 are summarized in the tables below.
26-002 November 2025 Union County Public Schools – Monthly Report ACTION: There was no action requested. This item was for information only. This is the monthly report from Union
County Public Schools as required by the Budget Ordinance.
26-006 Communications Monthly Report – November 2025ACTION: There was no action requested. This item was for information only. This report provides valuable metrics and insights into
communication platforms and Public Communications’ efforts to collaborate with all County departments to inform and engage residents, promote programs and services, and strengthen internal
and external communications.
26-029 Human Resources Reports for November 2025 ACTION: There was no action 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 November 2025.Business
Chair Brian W. Helms stated the next item on the agenda was under Business, Item 26-0031 – Minor Subdivision Discussion.
Jason Kay, County Attorney, interjected that pursuant to the placement on the Business Agenda, the first item would be Item 26-022 – Consideration of Rezoning Petition CZ-2025-005 Garcia.
26-065Consideration of Rezoning Petition CZ-2025-005 Garcia (original Agenda Number 26-022 renumbered to 26-065)
Vice Chair Christina Helms moved to (i) Deny rezoning petition CZ-2025-005 from Ireneo Correa Garcia; and (ii) adopt the consistency and reasonableness statement for denial.
CONSISTENCY AND REASONABLENESS STATEMENT FOR DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT PLANS) (CZ-2025-005)
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160D-605, the Union County Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) does hereby find and determine that this rezoning petition is inconsistent with the Hemby Bridge
Small Area Plan (the “Hemby Bridge Plan”), the Secrest Shortcut Small Area Plan (the “Secrest Short Cut Plan”), and the Union County Comprehensive Plan (the “Comprehensive Plan”) (collectively
the “Plans”),and that denial of the proposed map amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because:
1. The proposed use is inconsistent with the land use map uses identified for this area as set forth in the Hemby Bridge Plan and the Secrest Shortcut Plan. The Hemby Bridge Plan’s Future
Land Use Map identifies this area as a Rural Center. Rural Centers are areas located at various locations throughout the Hemby Bridge Plan’s area. These are mainly areas where some commercial
uses currently exist and where it is appropriate to expand. New developments should be relatively small scale and should be handled through the Conditional Rezoning Process. A rezoning
to light industrial with conditions, to include a tow truck business with vehicular storage, is inconsistent with such uses contemplated in a Rural Center because of its industrial nature
(rather than a smaller commercial use).
The Secrest Shortcut Plan’s Recommended Land Use Plan Map identifies this area as commercial/retail. Such areas are identified in the Secrest Shortcut Plan as commercial and retail uses
recommended to balance the land use plan, but are also identified to take advantage of the opportunity the newly created regional access provides. A towing operation with vehicular storage
is a light industrial use and is not consistent with the retail or commercial uses contemplated for this area under the Secrest Shortcut Plan.
2. The proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as continued and future allowed industrial use on the property could result in increased congestion on the roads and streets
adjacent and nearby to the property, with traffic congestion being an area of concern identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed rezoning will facilitate ongoing and potential future industrial uses in close proximity to existing residential uses, including residential uses in areas identified
by the Plan as Agricultural. Supporting agriculture is one of the goals identified by the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Vice Chair Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy C. BaucomAye
Commissioner Melissa M. MerrellAye
26-031 Minor Subdivision Discussion
Chair Brian W. Helms recognized Lee Jenson, Planning Director, for staff comments regarding this item.
Mr. Jenson stated that in November during the public hearing on the Rural Land Use Plan, there was some discussion and questions regarding minor subdivisions. He said he hoped to answer
some of the questions and receive any direction that the Board might want to give.
He commented that he would be addressing the definitions of minor and major subdivision and to discuss some exemptions, the implications of minor versus major subdivisions, minor subdivision
data, and potential changes for the Board’s consideration.
Mr. Jenson discussed the definition of a Subdivision in the County’s Unified Development Ordinance. He explained that any time land is divided into two or more lots generally that
is a subdivision.
He provided the definition of a minor subdivision to be any subdivision that does not create more than eight lots out of a single tract. He pointed out that some of the subdivision
rules were adopted for the County on February 14, 1978. He shared that Planning has maps in its office showing the parent parcels and if it more than eight lots are divided out of the
parent tracts, it is a major subdivision.
Mr. Jenson discussed a caveat in the review and approval procedures. He read from Section 80.070 of the Union County Unified Development Ordinance:
“The minor subdivision review and approval procedures of this section may be used only for land divisions that result in the creation of no more than eight (8) lots out of a single tract
since February 14, 1978 that do not, under the terms of this ordinance, require the construction of new streets, public water or sewer facilities, sidewalks, or similar infrastructure
and public facilities.”
Mr. Jenson discussed exempt subdivisions:
Mr. Jenson stated that most of these are from the North Carolina General Statutes.
Mr. Jenson stated that this does not necessarily mean a house could be constructed on these properties, because there are still development rules that have to be met.
He explained the implications of minor subdivisions versus major subdivisions:
Mr. Jenson stated that when the preliminary plan is approved, that allows the construction of infrastructure to begin. He said that at the time of the final plat is when the developer
wants to start selling lots, and large developments usually have more than one final plat.
He explained that major subdivisions must meet the following standards when applicable:
He noted that open space requirements should have been included in cluster subdivisions.
Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Jenson to explain who would require the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Mr. Jenson stated that it would be reviewed in the Planning Department, and the North Carolina Department of Transportion would also review it. He said that the County’s standards are
higher than the N.C. Department of Transportion’s standards. Mr. Jenson further said there may be times when the County requires a Traffic Impact Analysis and the Department of Transportation
might not require it. He stated that depending upon the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis, it could be the County enforcing it or it could be NCDOT enforcing it.
He provided data since 2014, which is the date of effect of the Ordinance used by the County currently, regarding Minor Subdivisions. Mr. Jenson stated that since 2014, the County has
had approximately 1,200 minor subdivisions that have been processed which has created approximately 3,200 lots. He noted that about 934 of those subdivisions created two or less lots,
but there were subdivisions that created three lots or more.
Mr. Jenson provided potential changes to Minor and/or Major Subdivisions:
Mr. Jenson reviewed the potential changes. He said that standards could be added to minor subdivisions.
He discussed consideration of a tiered approach to major subdivisions.
He explained that exempt subdivisions generally cannot be changed, because they are statutory. He said any changes to those would require assistance from Raleigh.
Commissioner Baucom asked if a parcel of land with a road dividing it, there could be eight minor subdivisions on one side of the road and eight minor subdivisions on the other side
of the road.
Mr. Jenson confirmed that was correct and said when talking about the February 14, 1978, date, if a public road split a piece of property, based on the definition of a lot in the Ordinance,
then each piece of property on either side of the road would be a separate parent parcel.
Commissioner Baucom said that having served on the Agriculture Advisory Board, it is the general consensus that the number eight which qualifies as a major subdivision is high especially
considering if there is a road splitting the parcel and that would be 16 lots. He stated that being I a county that is already 90 percent residential, and as farmland loss goes, Union
County is number 13 in the nation. He said he would like that number to be looked into.
Brian Matthews, County Manager, explained that if the Board has a number in mind that it would like to consider, there is no right or wrong number. He added from a staff’s perspective,
he really did not have a recommendation, but it would be whatever the Board is comfortable with defining it as a minor subdivision. He stated that once the Board gives direction that
it wanted to see a change in the definition, then staff would draft that wording and present it to the Land Use Board for a recommendation. He explained that a public hearing would
be scheduled and held, and the Board would then make a decision on that text change.
Chair Brian Helms stated that he thought the big concern of this Board was twofold. He said as the Board has been reviewing the County’s Rural Land Use Plan that was developed and discussed
recently, there were a couple of matters that stood out to te Board and to him personally. He addressed Commissioner Baucom’s point regarding the loss of farmland and open space is
certainly at the top of the list, also the number of minor subdivisions, and there seems to be a lot of wiggle room with a road dividing a parcel where it creates two parent parcels.
The Chair said the other concern is he did not believe any member of the Board who would want long-time residents to not be able to subdivide to their family members. He stated that
if he is reading correctly, if the Board considered a number such as three or four, it would not have a huge negative impact on the folks that the Board wants to make sure they have
that option.
Mr. Jenson responded by saying there will always be a family member who wants to cut out three, four, or five lots, but those are probably rare. He said he would say that the vast majority
of people who want to give a child a lot would probably fall in the three to four or lesscategory.
The Chair asked about the process if the Board wanted to give direction to staff to bring a text amendment for the Board to consider.
Mr. Matthews stated that if the Board would give that direction tonight, staff would look at the notice requirements. He said that he and Mr. Jenson had discussed it and believe that
they can still get this on the agenda for the Land Use Board meeting in January.
Mr. Jenson confirmed that was correct and explained that in the fall when the Land Use Board adopted its meeting schedule for the new year, it anticipated the Board of Commissioners
meeting on the regular schedule in January, and it would have met on the Tuesday following the Martin Luther King holiday, which would have been the Land Use Board’s meeting date. He
said the Land Use Board moved its meeting to the next Tuesday, January 27.
Mr. Matthews commented that it could go on the Land Use Board’s meeting in January and then have a public hearing by the Board of Commissioners at its first meeting in February. He
said he believed that staff could get this accomplished if the Board were to give staff direction tonight.
Commissioner Baucom commented that he liked the number that four would qualify as a major subdivision. He said he would like to see it studied from that perspective.
Chair Brian W. Helms suggested that if there was going to be a motion, it should include to: 1) direct staff to bring a draft text amendment to the Board, if Commissioner Baucom was
comfortable with it, that would define a major subdivision as a subdivision consisting of four or more lots; and 2) direct staff to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Board
of Commissioners hold a public hearing regarding the proposed text amendment changes sometime in February. He asked Jason Kay, County Attorney, if the motion was correct.
Mr. Kay confirmed that was correct.
Brian W. Helms, Chair, asked Commissioner Baucom if he had interpretated his motion correctly and if that was his motion.
Commissioner Baucom confirmed that his motion was as restated by the Chair.
Chair Brian W. Helms commented that he thought Commissioner Baucom is correct, and agrees with him. He commented about the traffic mitigation and said there are a number of situations
where there are minor subdivisions are being built on secondary roads, but there is a lot of traffic. He said as the Board of Commissioners study the Rural Land Use Plan there will
be opportunities to implement certain strategies, so he believes it makes a lot of sense to make the change tonight if the Board is going to make a change.
Commissioner Baucom stressed that it only applies to unincorporated areas of the county, as the municipalities have their own land use plans.
Following the discussion, the motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Vice Chair Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy C. BaucomAye
Commissioner Melissa MerrellAye
Commissioner Gary Sides was not present.
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that if there was no objection, he wanted to take the next two items, Item #26-059 and Item #26-054, together since they both relate to school discussions.
26-059 Affirmation of Appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chair as School Liaisons
26-054 FY2027 Budget Discussions with Union County Public Schools
Chair Brian Helms recognized Jason Kay, County Attorney, for his comments. Mr. Kay explained that both of these items pertain to the School Board. He suggested that if the Board wished
to take these matters up together, any appropriate discussion or motion would be to take the action requested in those two items.
Brian Matthews, County Manager, offered comments that his recollection in the past was that the Chair and Vice Chair served as the liaisons to the Board of Education in the past but
stated that it is really a function of who is the Board’s preference on serving on these two boards. He said that he thought it stemmed from the
fact that the Board of Education would also have its Chair and Vice Chair serve as the liaisons, and that is how it morphed into how would serve in that role.
He stated that there is no mandatory reason it has to be one person or another.
Mr. Kay followed up on the Manager’s comments stating that his understanding is historically there was a period of time when there were no liaisons at all and then there were some rough
seas in terms of relationships with the Board of Education a number of years ago, and for many years in a row, the appointments had always been the Chair and Vice Chair, and that is
what was done the last year as well. Mr. Kay stated that it is a discretionary appointment, and there is nothing that binds the Board to do it any one particular way. He said it is
historically the way it has been done in the past and was done this past year. He stated that with the change of Chair and Vice Chair, this is to reaffirm that this is what the Board
wishes to do or if not, the Board can do something else.
The Chair stated that he thought traditionally it has been listed on the Board’s documents as the Chair and Vice Chai, so, therefore, whoever occupies one of those positions on the Board
of Commissioners would automatically assume the liaison.
Mr. Kay stated that was correct but noted that it is not technically phrased as an ex officio position, but it is how it has been treated.
Commissioner Merrell commented that historically is probably not a good word to use to describe Chair and Vice Chair, because she recalls back in 2014 Commissioner Rushing was a liaison
to the Board of Education, and he was not the Chair or Vice Chair. She added that she thought it was in 2018 when former Commissioner Jerry Simpson spoke with a school board member,
and they decided to change course and go with Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioner Merrell stated the Chair and Vice Chair is relatively new that has been used over recent years, but
saying that this is historically how it has been done, she would say is not accurate.
Mr. Kay said he thought that the label historically could be used, and he thought there were circumstances around all of those, but noted the larger point that he thought both he and
the Manager were making is that there is nothing that binds the Board to do it any certain way.
The Chair stated that it is the pleasure of the Board and asked if the Board wants to make sure going forward that the Chair and Vice Chair are the liaisons,was a motion required.
Mr. Kay responded that given that the Board has combined those two motions together into one, the Board can address them together in one motion.
Commissioner Merrell commented that the Board has never voted on it before.
Mr. Kay responded that staff has looked back at the minutes from last December, and traditionally the Board has done what it is doing now in December, but it was not done in 2025, but
in December 2024, the Board took formal action to approve the Chair and Vice Chair, who at that time was Chair Merrell and Vice Chair Brian Helms. He added that staff did not look back
further than the minutes of 2024 and 2025.
The Chair shared that he would prefer to do as a standing practice have the chair and vice chair as school liaisons. He explained that he had asked for this item to be on the agenda
was to essentially get somewhat of an agreement or direction from the Board. He stated that, obviously, the Board has a new fiscal year ahead of it, and there have been some challenges
with the Board of Education as of late. He shared that his preference would be for whoever is selected as the school liaisons go ahead and begin those budget discussions as soon as
possible with the Board of Education’s liaisons. He stated that he was asking the Board to consider taking action as a standing practice to have the Chair and Vice Chair as the School
Board liaisons and then simple head nods of the Board members of agreement that the sooner that communication begins, the better off it will be.
The Chair asked Mr. Kay if a motion were in order to affirm the appointments of the Chair and Vice Chair as school liaisons.
Mr. Kay suggested that if the Board is ready the motion would be to approve the action requested in the items as follows: 1) Item 26-059 – Affirmation of appointment of the Chair and
Vice-Chair as School Liaisons; and 2) Item 26-054 – Authorize the School Liaisons to meet with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Union County Board of Education and executive staff from
Union County and Union County Public Schools to discuss UCPS operating and capital budget priorities for FY 2027.
Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the actions requested for Items 26-059 and 26-054 as set out above.
The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Vice Chair Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy C. BaucomAye
Commissioner Melissa MerrellAye
Commissioner Gary Sides was not present.
26-019 Appointment of an ETJ Member to the City of Monroe’s Planning Board
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the term of Pamela Duda, who currently serves as the ETJ member to the City of Monroe’s Planning Board, is expiring. He said the vacancy has been advertised
in accordance with the Board of Commissioners’ Rules of Procedure. He stated that Ms. Duda’s has reapplied for this position, and no applications were received.
Vice Chair Christina B. Helms moved to reappoint Pamela Duda to serve as the ETJ Representative on the City of Monroe’s Planning Board.
The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Vice Chair Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy C. BaucomAye
Commissioner Melissa MerrellAye
Commissioner Gary Sides was not present.
26-046 Appointments to Land Use Board
Chair Brian W. Helms stated that there are two vacancies on the Land Use Board: an unexpired term of one Regular Member (term expires June 30, 2026, and one Alternate Member (term ending
June 30, 2028).
Commissioner Baucom moved to appoint Andrew Medlin to fill the unexpired term of a Regular Member with the term to expire June 30, 2026.
The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Vice Chair Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy C. BaucomAye
Commissioner Melissa MerrellAye
Commissioner Gary Sides was not present.
Commissioner Baucom moved to appoint Richard Marshfield to fill the term of an alternate member with the term expiring June 30, 2028.
The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Vice Chair Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy C. BaucomAye
Commissioner Melissa MerrellAye
Commissioner Gary Sides was not present.
26-007 FY 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Chair Brian W. Helms recognized Beverly Liles, Finance Director, to introduce this item.
Ms. Liles introduced Daniel Gougherty with the audit firm of Cherry Bekaert to present the FY 2025 audit results. She said that following Mr. Gougherty’s presentation, she will present
brief highlight of the County’s financials.
Mr. Gougherty said that the audit is a 250 plus pages. He stated he would present highlights regarding the audit process and the audit findings. He recognized the members of the Client
Service Team: Stephanie Rosensky, Manager; Chris Minneci, Senior; and Robert Levesque, Key Staff.
He explained that as part of their audit, they are to perform the audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and in accordance with Government Auditing Standards
in which to form an opinion with reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the County are free from any material misstatement. He said they also perform an audit for the
County as it relates to its federal and state dollars. Mr. Gougherty said they review grants of a certain dollar threshold on a rotational basis.
He stated that their firm issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements on November 6, 2025. Mr. Gougherty said they are still working to complete the federal and state single-audit
compliance.
He further said that while they look at internal controls as it relates to the financial reporting and the single audit, they do not provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the internal
controls.
Mr. Gougherty stated at times they may have control findings. He explained that control findings could be when control is lacking, non-existent, or not working properly. He said if
they find any of those, they may deem them to be a material weakness or a significant deficiency. He said that a material weakness can be where a material weakness can go undetected
or has gone undetected as a part of the audit. Mr. Gougherty said a significant deficiency being less than a material weakness but still important enough for them to make the County
aware of. He stated that they did not identify any material weaknesses as it relates to the County’s financial statement audit, and there were no reported significant deficiencies.
He referred to the grants that he spoke about earlier in the presentation and said that Medicaid has to be looked at each year based on the high risk designation. He said they also
looked at the Coronavirus State and local Fiscal Recovery Funds, the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), federal transit cluster, Public School Building Capital Fund – Lottery
Fund, DSS Crosscutting, and Special Appropriations for the BARN project for the State level.
Mr. Gougherty explained that if they find any misstatements as a result of their audit procedures, they need to make the Board aware of those misstatements and what adjustments were
made or required to be made by management. He noted the corrected misstatements that related to the Opioid Settlement Agreement. He explained that when the State negotiated the settlement
agreement on behalf of all counties across North Carolina and the funding was provided, the County reported it as the funding was received. Mr. Gougherty said that the State said this
was an exchange transaction between the County and the litigants, so the County should have reported the entire amount upon its receipt. He stated the $13,891,765 has now been recorded
as a receivable on the County’s books, but it will not be received until 2039 in full.
He explained that while this was a large amount, they did not see it as a weakness in the controls, because the information provided by the State of the transaction led the County to
record it originally as a non-exchange transaction, and Cherry Bekaert believed that was appropriate based on the information that was received. He stated that based on the future
information received, they believe the County has now adjusted that appropriately.
Mr. Gougherty said there was one uncorrected misstatement that was related to accounts payable in the General Special Revenue Fund in the amount of $57,222 and was not considered material
overall but was considered a past adjustment that they proposed to not record it as a payable but was recorded as a payable.
Mr. Goughertynoted that the Board adopted a new policy related to compensated absences which created a new threshold for how to record sick leave accrual with compensated absences.
He stated that based on how the standard was adopted, there was no significant adjustment to net position.
He said they noted no related parties as part of their testing that were not already made aware to Cherry Bekaert by management, and no issues with any related parties or arms length
transactions throughout the year.
Mr. Dougherty said there were no significant and unusual transactions noted as part of the audit.
He said accounting estimates are critical to any of the financial statements that are presented, the biggest of which are related to the allowance for doubtful accounts, fair value of
investments, pensions, OPEB (other post-employment benefits) liabilities and how actuarial assumptions are used to calculate those liabilities.
Mr. Gougherty stated there were no issues noted with management’s key assumptions and factors used in determining those estimates. He said it was noted overall no management bias as
it relates to those estimates. He stated that the financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent and clear.
He stated that there were no difficulties encountered in dealing with management in performing and completing the audit, no disagreements with management, no auditor consultations, and
the management representations letter was dated November 6, the date the financial statements were issued.
Mr. Gougherty shared there are two new GASB applicable to the County next year – GASB Statement 103, Financial Reporting Model improvements – 2026 and GASB Statement 104, Disclosure
of Certain Capital Assets – 2026.
He said there were no Local Government Commission Performance Indicators.
Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to Mr. Gougherty for his presentation.
Ms. Liles expressed appreciation to her staff and the entire County staff involved in the audit process.
She reviewed the 2025 audited financials – government wide. She explained that everything that is included in the governmental activities lines is everything except for water and sewer
enterprise fund and the solid waste fund. She stated that business-type activities records the assets and liabilities only. She said the County’s assets and deferred outflows exceeded
liabilities and deferred inflows by $413, 516,257. She noted that this was a decrease from the prior year of approximately $22 million. She also noted that governmental activities,
there is always a negative ending net position balance due to the County carrying the long-term debt liability for he schools and South Piedmont Community College related assets that
the County does not own.
Ms. Liles stated that the County has $1.8 billion in total assets, and its total liabilities are approximately $1.1 million which does not include deferred inflows of resources which
are attributable to the long-term liabilities that have to be accounted for such as OPEB, separation allowance, and retirement and some deferred inflows for debt service as well.
She shared the following slide summarizing the asset major changes and liabilities major changes for 2025:
Ms. Liles stated that state statutes says there can only be one general fund that is reported to the State and is reported in the financial statement. She said that this is all the
funds combined, and for actual revenues collected for the general funds together approximately $406 million. She stated that the revenues have exceeded the budget estimates by $13.1
million. She noted that the majority of the categories where the County excelled in were investment earnings and also in the tax collections, the County saw an increase in the motor
vehicle tax values and collections compared to what was thought when the budget estimates were done in May of 2024 for 2025.
She said that the expenditures were $3.8 million which was under budget by approximately $13.9 million. She said that much of this was attributable to attrition, vacancies and some
of the programs in Human Services not spending 100 percent of their expenses for the year.
She said for the other financing sources/expenses category for expenses, the County spent $27.3 million, and this includes all of the transfers out of the general funds.
Ms. Liles stated that overall from the prior year, the County experienced a decrease in the fund balance of $1.9 million.
She stated that the majority of the County’s revenues are from property taxes and sales taxes followed by intergovernmental receipts, which arefederal and state grants or any funds received
from other municipalities or governmental jurisdictions.
Ms. Liles addressed expenditures and said the majority of expenditures are going toward education at 35 percent followed by public safety at 20 percent and then debt, leases, subscription
based Information Technology service arrangements at 15 percent and then Human Services at 16 percent. She said that this indicates that the County operates on a lean budget for general
overall county government at approximately 9 percent of the expenditures.
She shared the following slide showing the individual funds that are discussed at budget and the total general funds combined.
Ms. Liles reviewed the different categories of fund balance. She stated that the non-spendable category is the most restrictive meaning that it cannot be spent at all and is related
to inventory that is in stock, or any prepaid expenses that have been paid in advance of the fiscal year. She noted that the only prepaid expenses that the County has is postage for
the postage machines.
She explained the category for restrictive fund balance meaning that it is restricted by an outside entity or a state statute. She said that the state statute requires that any accounts
receivable balances be recorded as restricted as well as any federal or state grants that may have been received in advance of actual expenditures.
Ms. Liles explained the committed fund balance is the Board’s policy for the 20 percent of expenditures that are held back in case of a rainy day or emergency.
She addressed the assigned fund balance category explaining that this is funding that the Board has taken action on either through the budget process or a budget amendment done after
the fiscal year end that becomes assigned fund balance and is not available to use as the next budget cycle is entered into.
Ms. Liles shared that the question she gets most from the Management Team and Commissioners is “What is the County’s unassigned balance?” or “What do we have available that can be used
for one-time items or to pay down debt service”? She stated that for all the general funds combined, there are approximately $22.5 million of unassigned fund balance that includes the
education debt fund and education budgetary funds added together. Ms. Liles pointed out that in the consent agenda for tonight, the Board adopted two budget amendments: one for the
land easement program and one for the tuition reimbursement program, as these are done it decreases its value based on the date the financial statements were done. She said those numbers
will be updated during the budget process.
Ms. Liles stated that the Water and Sewer Fund had operating revenues of approximately $85 million and operating expenditures of approximately $87 million. She pointed out that this
includes the depreciation expenses for assets of approximately $35 million. She said the nonoperating revenues collected for this year were approximately $25 million, and the nonoperating
revenue include their state grant funding for those projects that are ongoing that the County is being reimbursed with state grant funds. She stated that they saw an increase in their
net position of approximately $64 million. Ms. Liles said that this is attributable to their increasing their assets and those donated assets they received from developers.
Ms. Liles shared that a question that they normally receive is “How much was received in system development fees?” She estimated that approximately $11.5 million in 2025 and the donated
assets were approximately $22 million.
The Chair expressed appreciation to Ms. Liles and her staff for their work in compiling the figures.
County Manager’s Comments
Brian Matthews, County Manager, had no closing comments.
Commissioners’ Comments
Commissioner Baucom expressed appreciation for everyone who attended tonight’s meeting and to staff for all its work.
Commissioner Merrell wished everyone a Happy New Year.
Vice Chair Christina B. Helms expressed appreciation to Dr. Landon Keziah from Lee Park Baptist Church for offering tonight’s opening prayer.
She offered her congratulations to the employees who recognized during the recent Service Award Ceremony for Q4 for their time with Union County.
She thanked Ms. Liles and her team and also Lee Jenson for providing information regarding subdivisions to the Board.
Vice Chair Christina Helms thanked Jason Kay for wearing his red jacket tonight celebrating the win by the Indiana Hoosiers in the Rose Bowl.
Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to staff for all the efforts they put into the meetings. He also expressed appreciation to the attendees at tonight’s meeting.
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the meeting, at approximately 7:34 p.m., Chair Brian W. Helms moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Vice Chair Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy C. BaucomAye
Commissioner Melissa MerrellAye
Commissioner Gary Sides was not present.