Minutes of August 11, 2025, FINAL BWM APPROVEDUnion County, NC Board of Commissioners’
Meeting Minutes
Union County Government Center
500 North Main Street Monroe, North Carolina
www.unioncountync.govAugust 11, 20256:00 PM Board Room, First Floor
____________________________________________________________ 25-511
Closed Session
Present:
Chair Melissa Merrell; Vice Chair Brian W. Helms,
Commissioner Clancy Baucom; Commissioner Christina
Helms; and Commissioner Gary Sides Absent:
None
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, Chair Melissa Merrell called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order.
Chair Merrell moved that the Board enter closed session pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11: •(a)(3), for attorney-client privilege
as such, purposes are fully stated in the agenda for this meeting, which has been made publicly available.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows: Chair Melissa M. Merrell
Aye Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina B. Helms
Aye Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye
At approximately 5:42 p.m., Chair Merrell moved that the Board end theadjourn its closed session and return to open session. The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows: Chair Melissa M. Merrell Aye Vice Chair Brian W. Helms Aye Commissioner Clancy Baucom Aye Commissioner Christina B. Helms Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides Aye
Opening of Meeting - 6:00 PM
Chair Melissa Merrell called the regular meeting of August 11, 2025, to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone present.
Invocation – Chair Melissa Merrell offered the invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance– Chair Melissa Merrell led the body and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Informal Comments
Chair Merrell reviewed the guidelines for speakers who will comment during the Informal Comments. She recognized Katie Ryan as the first speaker.
Ms. Ryan stated she is the organizer of Change for Union County and a resident of Indian Trail in Union County.
She spoke regarding concerns about animal welfare. She noted that more than 2,000 residents across the county have signed a petition asking for improvements in animal welfare, and that
many residents have shared concerns that current Code fails to protect families and animals.
Ms. Ryan referenced incidents shared by residents, including a parent whose children witnessed a neighbor’s dog kill their cat after repeated reports had been made, a livestock owner
whose horses were injured by trespassing dogs, and another resident whose pregnant donkey was killed by dogs that had already been reported. She also stated that many residents have
reported the loss of chickens, pigs, goats, and other animals.
Ms. Ryan described these incidents as heartbreaking. She said that livestock owners are frustrated and are united in seeking changes and solutions.
She said residents are clearly calling for updates to animal ordinances, renovations to the animal shelter, and additional animal control staff.
Ms. Ryan acknowledged that budget concerns are always valid but suggested that grants and public-private partnerships might be a solution to offset costs.
She stated that the County’s animal ordinances have not been updated since 1997 while the county’s population and needs have grown significantly. She said the laws remain vague and
ineffective and do not adequately protect against cruelty.
Ms. Ryan thanked Lieutenant Greg and Captain Green for their recent positive dialogue regarding ordinance changes.
She stated the county shelter was built 20 years ago when the county population was about half its current size, and current data shows the facility is too small.
Ms. Ryan reported that over the past four years, shelter impounds have increased by 52 percent and owner surrenders have increased by 114 percent. She also noted euthanasia rates, including
54 percent of cats and 32 percent of dogs, and stated there has been an 82 percent increase in animal euthanasia over the four-year period.
She said these figures represent real families and animals in distress, not just statistics. She added that despite significant increases in population and impounds, animal control staffing
levels have remained unchanged.
Ms. Ryan stated that over the weekend alone, staff impounded 47 new animals and noted that the shelter only has 47 kennels. She questioned where animals already in the shelter go when
capacity is exceeded and said that difficult decisions are made daily.
Ms. Ryan stated that more space is needed and asked the Board of Commissioners to begin a conversation with residents. She encouraged exploring what is possible and urged officials to
listen to residents, stating that the current status quo does not work.
She urged the formation offorming a Commissioner-led group to begin discussions, including animal control staff, civilian shelter staff, nonprofit leaders, and livestock owners, to discuss
these issues.
Ms. Ryan expressed appreciation to the animal advocates in attendance for their support and asked for a visible show of support from those present. She thanked the Commissioners for
listening, expressed appreciation for their commitment to community well-being, and said she had provided additional informationhad been provided,stating she hoped to hear from them
soon.
Chair Merrell called the next speaker, Asheka Allen, who had registered online but was not present.
April McErianestated she no longer resides in Union County. She spoke in support of the House of Pearls, a nonprofit located just outside Wingate in Union County. She said that Union
County’s outdated animal ordinances have had a direct and serious impact on the House of Pearls’ property.
Ms. McEriane referenced a previous situation involving three female dogs that were abandoned on the House of Pearls’ property and took up residence under the buildings located on the
property. She stated that someone from the House of Pearls contacted animal control for assistance with the abandoned dogs. She saidexplained because the dogs were not considered dangerous,
animal control could not assist.
Ms. McEriane stated that the female dogs later gave birth, and before the organization realized it, there were17 dogswere on their property;the dogs that were not theirs. She said the
owners were not fined for abandoning the animals, even though the individuals responsible were known, and noted that the owners still had chained dogs chained on their property.
She added that the owners had since moved away, leaving the dogs behind. Ms.
McEriane questioned why this situation was allowed to happen, stating it was because Union County does not have a containment law and that current ordinances do not hold people accountable
for allowing animals to roam.
She stated that dog owners should be required to keep their animals contained on their property. She said roaming dogs are attacking livestock and companion animals and may also be exposed
come into contactwithto rabies.
Ms. McEriane stated that stronger ordinances and additional support for animal control are needed. She emphasized that owners must be held accountable for abandonment and cruelty, including
fines and consequences.
She said ordinances need common-sense updates that reflect the reality of Union County today rather than how it was in 1997.
Ms. McEriane urged the Board to form a task force to explore what needs to be done. She stated the goal should be to create clear, enforceable policies that protect both residents and
animals.
Ms. McEriane shared that pregnant cats have come onto the House of Pearls’ property and given birth, and they have been unable to find placement options because the animals are considered
feral. She said this has created additional challenges for their organization, which already focuses on helping women in addiction recovery, and they are now also having to manage these
animal issues.
Robert Torsiello stated that he is a resident of Union County and lives in the Town of Wingate. Mr. Torsiello said he did not have all of the statistics that had already been presented
and expected more would be shared later in the meeting.
Mr. Torsiello stated that he volunteers with an animal rescue organization and fosters dogs,and is familiar with animal welfare issues. He also said statedthat he volunteers daily at
the animal shelter where he observes conditions and operations firsthand.
He stated that when he is at the shelter, he sees situations where two dogs are adopted and then 10 to 15 more are surrendered shortly thereafter, which he described as a serious problem.
He said there is not enough space for the animals and noted that there are no consequences for owners who surrendering animals.
He invited the Commissioners to visit the shelter, bring their families, and spend time there on a Saturday to visit the dogs and understand their conditions. He encouraged the Commissioners
to speak with staff at the animal shelter, stating that employees are frustrated and believe improvements could be made with better laws and policies.
Melissa Evert stated that she is a resident of Union County and supports the requested changes.being requested. She said she sees the animals daily and is aware of what the animals,
staff, volunteers, and rescues are experiencing.
She shared a personal experience of taking in a dog after its owner passed away whichand she had to have the dog euthanized two weeks ago. Ms. Everette stated that the shelter needs
to be expanded, more staff andare needed, andchanges are needed.
Deborah Zappa stated that she is a resident of the Town of Stallings in Union County.
Ms. Zappa shared that she served on the Board of Directors for the Humane Society of Union County for nine years, including several years as vice chair and then chair of the board.
Ms. Zappa stated that during that time she met on aperiodicallybasis with Sheriff Cathey, as well as lieutenants and staff responsible for the shelter. She said that both the Humane
Society and animal services personnel have worked to learn about and implement best practices in animal welfare, and this work has been important to them.
Ms. Zappa stated that since the time the shelter was constructed, the county population has grown by 40 percent, and many residents now have companion animals. She noted that animal
impoundment has increased 52 percent compared to 2020 and that owner surrenders have increased 113 percent in the last five years.
She said the current shelter facility cannot accommodate the increased influx, which leads to overcrowding and can result in euthanasia for no other reason than lack of physical space.
She continued by saying an overcrowded environment can cause increased anxiety, behavioral decline, and a higher risk of illness and injury among animals.
Ms. Zappa stated that the staff at animal services are competent and caring individuals who want to provide a high level of service but lack adequate physical space.
Ms. Zappa stated that animal services staff deserve support and that all citizens of Union County, whether animal advocates or not, deserve services that are commensurate with the County’s
needs.
She described Union County as a safe, vibrant, and growing place to live and raise families, and said the County could and should lead be the leaderin animal care and concern in North
Carolina.
Chair Merrell called Robin Salzman, who had registered online to speak, but she was not present.
Elizabeth Mullis stated that she goes by Beth and is a resident of Unionville, North Carolina, in Union County. She noted her family has longstanding ties to the area.
Ms. Mullis commented on about the East Lawyers Road Water Project. She shared that the project was approved in 2022 and that tap fees were paid in June of that year. She stated thatresidents
were told water service would be available within 24 months, which would have been June 2024, but indicated that water has not yet been provided.
Ms. Mullis stated that the water quality in her area is horrific, describing it as containing arsenic, sodium chloride, and chlorine. She said she and her family have had to bring in
bottled water for cooking and drinking, a practice they have followed for a long time. She also stated thatsaidtheir clothes become discolored and affected by the water.
She requested that the East Lawyers Road Water Project be separated from the
Morgan Mill Road project. She said there was strong participationand support on her road, with over 90 percent of residents involved whohave paid their tap fees. She stated that the
project had already been designed. She added that she did not know of any easement issues.
Ms. Mullis requested that the County move forward with bidding and secure funding so construction can begin and residents can have water service. She said the goal is to “put shovels
in the ground” and bring water into homes.
Helena Ryan Via said she is eight (8) years old, andlives in Union County, and attends school in the county.
She explained that at her school theystudents participate in something called the “Let It Grow Challenge,” where studentsthey try to do something challenging or that they have never
done before.She said her challenge for the day was speaking in front of the Commissioners and other adults who make decisions and rules.
Ms. Ryan Via stated that speaking was scary for her, but she chose to do it anyway because the animals need her and cannot speak for themselves.
She shared that her family fosters dogs and cats from the animal shelter, including animals that aresick or injuredanimals. She said it makes her cry to see animals that have been treated
badly by people who were supposed to love them, and noted that some animals have nowhere else to go because the shelter is too full.
Ms. Ryan Via asked if the Commissioners had ever visited the shelter and shared that it is very small, noting that the cat room is tiny. She said she enjoys playing with kittens at the
shelter, but said she wishes they had more space to run, play, and feel safe.
She requested that the shelter be made larger so more animals can be saved and can find families,such ashers,who will provide homes.
She said the Commissioners have the power to change things and help animals, and stated that even though she is only eight years old, she believes they can do better.
Ms. Ryan Via referenced a school saying she recites at Union Academy, that they “do the right thing even when no one is looking,” and added that in this situation, “everyone is looking.”
Chair Merrell expressed appreciation to Helena for being present and commended her for a great job on hercomments.
Marcia Stonestreet stated that she moved to Union County and resides in the City of Monroe after relocating from the State of Maryland in December 2014.
Ms. Stonestreet said the County’s Animal ordinances have not been reviewed in 28 years. She stated that sincethe timewhenshe moved until now, the County’s population has grown from approximately
221,000 residents to about 271,000, adding that these figures are approximate and vary by source.
Ms. Stonestreet stated that the County’s growth has directlyimpacts impactedon the animal shelter, which she notedreminded is 20 years old, along with a reported 52 percent increase
in animal impounds.
She said that as an adoption coordinator for a nonprofit cat rescue, she has seen firsthand how cat space becomes critically limited during kitten season, which she said typically lasts
about half the year.
Ms. Stonestreet stated that the current situation is unsustainable for both shelter staff and animals and highlighted the urgent need for an updated shelter building and policies.
Ms. Stonestreet stated that the City of Monroe recently completed a year-long community dialogue on improving animal welfare and described it as a significant step. She questioned why
Union County could not host a similar conversation with residents and shared suggestions for various topics for discussion, including reviewing and updating outdated animal code ordinances,
exploring options to expand or renovate the animal shelter, expanding spay and neuter programs to reduce pet overpopulation and shelter intake, and considering policies to prevent unsafe
backyard breeding of dogs and cats. She also recommended launching public education campaigns through the health department on the importance of spay and neuter programs and suggested
beginning outreach efforts in schools.
Ms. Stonestreet stated that similar efforts had been effective in her home state of Maryland, where they began with the health department. She said they worked with the shelter to learn
about the issues and then addressed the issues were able to speakin schools.
She suggested improving oversight to ensure that no animal leaves the shelter unaltered, given the County has a veterinarian and a veterinary technician on staff, she sees no reason
for animals to leave the shelter still able to reproduce.
Ms. Stonestreet stated thatsaidupdating the ordinances is a big undertaking but is achievable through collaboration betweenamongthe Board of Commissioners, county departments, law enforcement,
nonprofit leaders, and the community. She urged commissioners to openstart the conversation now and work together to find practical and effective solutions for animals and the community.
Maria Garcia stated that she is a resident of Monroe in Union County and expressed her support for the proposal presented by Change for Union County, including updated animal laws, additional
animal control officers, and a renovated shelter.
She said that others had addressed the details and that she would speak to the urgency of the issue. Ms. Garcia stated that she has spent countless hours volunteering in shelters, fostering
nearly a dozen dogs, and donating thousands of dollars to rescues and shelters. She described the situation as overwhelming despite these efforts.
She stated that she and others present were speaking as advocates, volunteers, fosters, and staff workers, asking for systemic change. She said the crisis cannot be solved by individual
effort alone,and described the system as overwhelming and, said leadership is needed.
Ms. Garcia stated thatexplained the problems being discussed are preventable and said it would cost less to address them now rather than to continue cleaning up the damage later.
She challenged the commissioners to raise the standards forUnion County’s animal standards laws beyond the minimum.
Ms. Garcia said the County’s laws and facilities should reflect the compassion of its residents and protectingthe most vulnerable.
Gretchen McCullum stated that she is a resident of Marshville in Union County and that she was speaking about the lack of animal cruelty laws. She said the level of animal cruelty in
the county is astounding to herand described the conditions in which some animals are kept in as being heartbreaking.
Ms. McCullum statedreported that what makes the situation worse is that, in many cases, no action can be taken because the laws are vague. She said there is nothing clear-cut to protect
animals, which leaveslimits law enforcement and animal control limited in what they can do.
She shared examples of current shelter conditions for dogs: wire indoor training crates covered with a rug, flimsy transport crates that could be moved by wind or storm conditions, and
a wooden box with wire flooring that prevents a dog’s feet from touching grass. She stated that animals are left in these types ofconditions every day and night, exposed to the elements
without adequate protection from heat, cold, or rain.
She emphasized that none of the examples she referenced represent proper shelter and described them as inhumane. Ms. McCullum stated that no living creature deserves that life.
Ms. McCullum described conditions she said shehad observed or documented, including dogs with collars so tight they were embedded in their skin, dogs restrained with heavy tractor chains
in areas surrounded by trash, and animals confined to very small spaces for their entire lives. IfShe stated that she has seen cases of female dogs giving birth outdoors in mud during
freezing rain, snow, and summer heat, and said that in some instances puppies have died.
Ms. McCullum said none of these conditions are acceptable. She acknowledged that the level of change needed may feel overwhelming and would not happen overnight, but said it has tomust
start somewhere. She emphasized that it starts with a willingness to listen and to ask if they can do better.
Ms. McCullum shared a personal story about her grandparents living on a 40-acre property where she now resides. She said her grandfather once planted an acorn in a spot her grandmother
questioned, and when asked why, he said he hoped to one day park his truck under the tree it would become. She said it took years, but eventually that tree grew large enough to provide
shade and shelter, and it continued to do so for many years.
Ms. McCullum used this story as a comparison forto illustrate the need for change, stating that change takes time and begins with planting a “seed” and starting a conversation. She expressed
hope that today thatis the day of change.
Laura Sur stated that she is the executive director of the Humane Society of Union County and resides in Wingate. She said she has been in Union County since 2001 and has been an animal
advocate for over 15 years.
She said she was present to support the same proposals discussed by other speakers and would not repeat the statistics already presented.
Ms. Sur stated that her organization believes it is working as hard as possible to make an impact in the county and reported they areit ison track to alter over 6,000 animals this year.
She said the Humane Society of Union County previously believed its efforts were making a dent in shelter intake but now believes the community is outgrowing and outpacing the Humane
Society’s capacity. Ms. Sur noted it is scheduling appointments six to eight weeks in the future and emphasized that induring that time,period,litters of puppies and kittens can happen.
Ms. Sur stated that the Humane Society appreciates the support received through the community grant.
She expressed support for updating the animal ordinances and said the organization would be willing to collaborate with county officials, other rescues, and nonprofits to discuss ways
to address begin addressingthe issue of overcrowding in the shelter. She said she is unsure whether funding is available to build a new shelter or renovate the existing facility. She
suggested that grants or other funding sources may exist.
She said the current shelter may be reconfigured or adjusted to hold more animals, including possibly repurposing unused space.
Ms. Sur stated that the Humane Society frequently receives people bringing animals to it, because they do not want the animals to go to a shelter where they may be euthanized due to
lack of space. She said they are not always able to take in those animals because they do not have enough foster homes to take in that many animals.
She said staff and volunteers are overstressed,and overworked, and uncertain about how to resolve the situation. Ms. Sur stated that the only solution is for the community to come together
to improve the system.
Claire Smith stated that she lives on East Lawyers Road in unincorporated Union County, on the one-mile stretch between Bickett Ridge and New Salem Road. She commented about the approved
short line water project and noted that residents in her section of East Lawyers Road have been applying for approval for a short line water extension since 2012, under the previous
system for waterline extensions.
Ms. Smith stated that under the new system in 2021, the project was approved and residents paid their deposits. She said that in June 2022, the County informed them the project would
be completed within 24 months.
She referenced a letter from Union County Water dated September 16, 2022, stating that their application was selected based on ranking and program funding availability and confirming
that they had paid the required cost share fees and were participating in the project. Ms. Smith stated that the Board of Commissioners gave final approval on September 6, 2022, to
move forward with the project.
Ms. Smith stated that in May 2023, residents attended a board meeting where Matt Smith spoke on behalf of the FY22 Short Line project.
She said that in June 2023, the new budget was passed and included funding to complete the East Lawyers Road project. Ms. Smith said the county that residents were then notified by the
County that the project had been reinstated and would be completed within 24 months.
Ms. Smith shared that the county’s last official update from the County was in February 2025. She said that by the end of 2024, surveying, engineering design, and all easement acquisitions
for the road were reported as 100 percent complete, and permitting was 90 percent complete.at that time.She shared that residents reached out to the County again on June 10 of the current
year and were surprised to learn thatthe County indicatedthere were easement issues.
Ms. Smith stated that, to her knowledge, there are no easement issues on East Lawyers Road. She said any easement issues referencedrelateby the County are relatedto Morgan Mill Road
and are unrelated to the approved section of East Lawyers Road.
She emphasized that the East Lawyers Road project is not dependent on Morgan Mill Road or its easements. Ms. Smith stated that residents have already replaced water lines, household
water fixtures, and appliances such as washing machines and well pumps due to corrosion from the water quality.
Ms. Smith stated that her daughter attends Piedmont High School and participates in color guard. She said her daughter cannot wash her uniform using thewithhome water and that it must
be taken elsewhere to be cleaned before competitions.
She reiterated the request is for the East Lawyers Road section to be separated from the Morgan Mill Road project.andShe stressed stated that residents want the project completed as
previously promised.
Ms. Smith stated that she has supporting documents that were submitted with the project application, including materials from the North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health and
the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services regarding water quality
Jacqueline Clark stated that she is a resident of Fairview, North Carolina, living near Highway 218. Ms. Clark spoke in support of Change for Union County.
She said she has observed numerous dogs and cats running along the roadway, which she described as dangerous. She said that, so far this year, she has personally seen at least seven
dogs and nine cats that were hit and killed.
Ms. Clark stated that she has called animal control many times but nobody answers. She said that, as a result, she often removes animals from the roadway herself and tries to contact
owners using information found on the animals’ tags or collars. She stated that she has also transported injured animals to emergency veterinary care on several occasions.
Ms. Clark said animals are frequently dumped in her area and that she has taken some in some herself, providing food, veterinary care, and shelter costs out of pocket. She added that
some rescues have helped her by taking in several severely ill animals.
Ms. Clark stated that she has not received help or received returned calls from animal control and said the animal services system is overwhelmed, putting both animals and people at
risk.
She commented on the need for a leash law in the County and added that basic provisions such as shelter care, food, and water are not sufficient, especially for animals that aretethered
in extreme heat.conditions.
Ms. Clark stated that she believes animal abusers should facemoreharsher punishments, including being banned from owning pets and being monitored to ensure they do not acquire additional
animals.
She said some pet owners love their animals but struggle to provide food, shelter, and veterinary care, and she suggested programs to help prevent additional animal abandonment.
She said the County should continue trap-neuter-return programs for cats and consider additional programs similar to Charlotte’s “staycation” where residents temporarily host shelter
dogs. Ms. Clark stated that she thought this could help reduce in the reduction ofovercrowding, allow dogs to decompress, and improve adoption rates.
Ms. Clark stated thatthe stray hold period should be longer, noting that the current timeframe does not provide owners with enough time for ownersto locate missing pets before they could
potentially be euthanized.
She said that with high impound rates,and even higher owner surrender rates, and with ordinances not having been updated, these issues will worsen as the county population continues
to grow if action is not taken.
Ms. Clark requested that the animal shelter be renovated and expanded withtoinclude additional staff and veterinarians. She added that more animal control officers are needed,with
extended hours and at least have someone on call after 5:00 pm and on the weekends.
Cameron Helms stated that he resides at 3712 East Lawyers Road in Unionville, and he was attendingis attending tonight’s meeting to gain more information about the waterline extension
project. He said residents paid for the project about two years ago and that he is not fully familiar with the current status or what is happening with it.
Mr. Helms stated that he wanted to reach out to ask about the project’s status,of the projectand said he believes it is unreasonable for it to be tied to a different project. He requested
that the Board vote to separate the two projects.
Gene Alexander stated that he is a lifelong resident of Union County and lives in the New Salem/Fairview community. Mr. Alexander commented regarding the proposed roundabout at the
intersection of Highway 218 and Love Mill Road and noted that the intersection was converted to a four-way stop about two years ago, which he said has been workingworked well and allows
equal access for traffic from all directions.
Mr. Alexander stated that the current four-way stop is a cost-effective solution that was greatly needed due tobecause the intersection previously was previously being dangerous, especially
for drivers on Love Mill Road crossing Highway 218 during morning traffic. He said the current setup works well and allows school buses, trucks, and large equipment to navigate the
intersection without hitting concrete curbs, damaging tires, shifting loads, or creating other issues.
He shared his concerns with the proposed roundabout, including the high cost, which he said is over three million dollars, and questioned the need for that level of spending given that
the current four-way stop is working.
He also expressed concern about long-term maintenance issues, particularly due to truck traffic, and noted that in other locations where roundabouts have been in place for more than
12 months, he has observed concrete cracking that would require ongoing repairs.
Mr. Alexander stated that he believes traffic flow on Highway 218 would become unequal again with the proposed roundabout, noting that drivers on Highway 218 would have priority while
drivers on Love Mill Road would have to wait for safe entry due to higher traffic volume.
He also expressed concern about the construction timeline, estimating it would take approximately four months depending on weather and other governmental factors.
Mr. Alexander stated that during construction, Love Mill Road does not have nearby alternative roads to bypass the intersection. He said drivers would need to travel into Stanly County
to return to Highway 218 if they cannot pass through the area, estimating this detour at approximately 12 miles on a safe route.
He stated that this added distance would affect school buses, Emergency Medical
Services, and residents traveling from Love Mill Road, and it would add significant amount of time to travel, including an additional estimated 29 minutes. Mr. Alexander stated that
this delay could place emergency response times in a 45-minute range for residents, which he said could be detrimental in situations such as heart attacks, strokes, or an accident involving
bleeding.
Mr. Alexander stated that school buses would also have to travel the longer alternate route, which he estimated would add 30 minutes for children.
He said that Tite Road and Rock Hole Road are not safe alternative routes and are not suitable for school buses or large trucks, describing their use as a serious safety concern.
Mr. Alexander statedsaid that the proposed changes would have a significant impact on local agricultural operations. He said his family farms on Alexander Farm Road off Love Mill Road
and has both a row crop operation and a produce operation, including a Upick operation for strawberries and other vegetables during the April through July season. He stated that if
the intersection were closed, it would severely impact their business for the year because 99 percent of traffic crosses through that intersection to reach the farm.
Anthony Deitrio stated that he lives in Unionville.
He spoke in support of the Change for Union County petition.
Mr. Deitrio shared a personal experience, stating that on Saturday, November 23, 2024, his family cat was killed on his property by a known nuisance dog in the community.
Mr. Deitrio stated that he wanted to thank Lieutenant Grigg and Sergeant McCarron for doing everything they could to respond to the incident and attempting to address the situation.
He said that when he initially called the sheriff’s office regarding the incident over the weekend, he was given the same advice that he understood others have received that because
there is no leash law, there is limited action that can be done.
Mr. Deitrio stated that he has also been told that, due to vague animal laws, if a dog enters his property, he can take matters into his own hands, and he said he does not consider that
an appropriate solution.
He said that many people in the community volunteer their time and resources to help animals. Mr. Deitrio stated that he is willing to contribute both time and money when possible and
added that when he is not working, he is often on the road transporting rescue animals.
Mr. Deitrio stated that he would not want to live anywhere else but shared his frustration that neighboring, less populated rural counties have stronger animal control laws and more
resources available for animal control.
Mr. Deitriostatedemphasized that the residents are asking the Board for help in addressing these issues and said they want to help the county.
Ryan McGee stated that he resides in unincorporated Union County near the intersection discussed byMr. Alexander discussed earlier in the meeting.
He stated thatsaidhe is not opposed to roundabouts and saidhe agreed that, in many cases, they work well and are safer.
Mr. McGee stated that, in this situation, the existing four-way stop has been in place for a couple of years and, in his opinion, has worked well. He noted that he travels through the
intersection at least twice a day. He stated that he agreed with many of the concerns already expressed and added that, if the state determines the project should move forward, it would
be beneficial to gather input from residents who use the intersection and would be directly affected before a final decision is made.
Mr. McGee stated that if the project moves forward to address and alleviate some of the issues mentioned, there should be consideration forthe project should include a detour or alternate
access near the intersection. He said this would help residents on the north side of Highway 218, between that location and Rocky River off Love Mill Road, avoid having to traveltraveling
into Stanly County to reach the other side.
Glenn Dileo expressed strong support for the rural land use plan that is being developed. He stated that a committee was started approximately 12 to 18 months ago and that there has
been a lot of brainstorming. He said the effort now appears to be taking hold.
Mr. Dileo stated that his mailing address is Waxhaw, but he lives in an unincorporated area of the county. He clarified his location as beingthat he lives off Lancaster Highway 200 near
the furniture outlet and Frontier Meats. Mr. Dileo stated that he and his wife spent about six months searching for a home. He noted that his daughter lives in Waxhaw and expressed
concerns about zoning issues in Waxhaw.
Mr. Dileo stated that he has observed multiple new developments and saidnoted that many homes are priced around $700,000 to $800,000 on small, similar “cookie cutter” lots built on slab
foundations.
He shared that he and his wife chose to live in the rural part of the county because they wanted property and did not want to live in a HOA. He said he sees many large farms in the area
and believes in capitalism, noting that farmers may choose to sell land to developers. He urged the Board to maintain low-density development and said he is willing to pay higher taxes
to preserve rural character, expressing concern that higher density could ultimately increase taxes and create more problems.
Mr. Dileo stated that he supports continuing the rural land use program and believes it is important to maintain that direction. He said many people in his neighborhood share the same
views and that he was speaking on their behalf.
Jill Nichols stated that she is with Mission Lost Pet Recovery and is a resident of Cabarrus County. She said that over the past several years she hasvolunteereddone volunteer work in
Union County, securing or trapping stray dogs.
Ms. Nichols stated that she was speaking about the need for increased support in Union County for stray animals. She said the county needs more animal control officers, a containment
ordinance, and a larger facility to house stray animals.
Ms. Nichols stated that as Union County’s population continues to grow, so will the intake numbers, including stray dogs and owned dogs that are allowed to roam unaltered or already
havewith litters. She said that without addressing the issue, the dog population will continue to rise and further burden animal control officers and shelter staff.
She stated that stray dogs create safety hazards in the community, noting they can travel roads and may become aggressive toward livestock or people. She shared various incidents involving
stray dogs.
Ms. Nichols stated that she previously trapped a dog for House of Pearls, which then took the animal into its care. She also mentioned conducting a stray run in the neighborhood behind
House of Pearls and said the conditions for animals in that area were very bad.
Ms. Nichols stated that they frequently hear that the shelter is overwhelmed and animals are being euthanized for space but said that she does not believe there are not enough steps
being taken to reduce intake.
She said that whileremoving stray dogs from the streets is only a small part of the action,nowit would be a step toward improvement.
Taylor Erickson statedsaid that she is a Union County resident and resideslivesin Monroe. She said she works as the practice manager at the Spay Neuter Clinic. She shared that her organization
has a partnership with the county and works with the Humane Society.
She stated that the clinic began operations in 2011, performing just over 1,000 spays and neuters that year, and by 2024 that number had increased to over 5,600.
Ms. Erickson stated that the clinic has quadrupled its spay and neuter numbers over time. She said there is still an eight-to-ten-week wait for services, particularly for large female
dogs, female cats, and feral cats.
Ms. Erickson stated that, in the last quarter of the year, the Humane Society has taken in approximately 30 puppies, along with a number of adult dogs and cats. She said there are alsothatlong-term
foster animals are currently in care.
She stated that both the rescue andthe clinicssides are struggling to keep up with demand,and they are unable to physically meet the current needs. Ms. Erickson added that clinic and
rescue staff are present and all work at full capacity, but despite giving their best efforts, they are still overwhelmed.
Ms. Erickson stated that they need government support and financial backing to make progress. She said that everyone present advocating for change is giving 110 percent, and it is not
fair that individuals who find stray animals take on the financial, moral, and emotional obligation for their care. She stated that these individuals are doing it out of
the goodness of their hearts. V
Ms. Erickson stated that financially it is a financial burden and said that when someone tries to do the right thing and is told there is nothing that can be done, it makes them not
want to do it again. She said that is where the abandonment and neglect start to happen.
She stated that it really starts at the government level and said that they are doing more than their part, but need help.
Public Hearing(s)
25-482 Public Hearing - Conditional Rezoning Petition CZ-2025-004 Shenandoah
Chair Melissa Merrell introduced the next item on the agenda, a Public Hearing for conditional rezoning petition CZ-2025-004 Shenandoah. She opened the public hearing at approximately
7:03 p.m. and recognized Lee Jensen, Planning Director, for comments.
Mr. Jensen explained that the item is a conditional rezoning request, CZ-2025-004, referred to as the Shenandoah rezoning. He stated that the request is to rezone approximately 48.5
acres located on Waxhaw Monroe Road from RA-40 to R-10 with conditions.
Mr. Jensen noted that the conditions includeare limited to the site plan dated July 8, 2025, and that the proposed use would be restricted to 91 single-family homes.
Mr. Jensen stated that if the rezoning request is approved, it would include a five-year vesting, and the development would meet all requirements of the Union County Development Ordinance
as of the date of approval, if approved.
He shared the site plan and said that it is intended to provide context for the location of the proposed development. He explained that if traveling south on Highway 75 from Monroe,
passing through the traffic circle at Rocky River Road, the site would be located on the left, just before reaching the large industrial plant in Mineral Springs.
He noted that the site plan shows a few roads with a couple of different lot size variations and includes 91 lots, with open space mixed throughout the development.
Mr. Jensen noted that just to the south of the site, on the opposite side of Old Waxhaw
Monroe Road, the road would align and connect with an existing road leading into the Stonebridge Development. He noted that current conditions on the siteshow it is a vacant tract.
He stated that Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road has a mix of vacant land, and the other side is the Stonebridge community. He noted that areas to the east along Highway 75 toward Monroe remain
largely rural.
He also mentioned, in terms of development status, the large industrial complex along Highway 75 and the Rocky River Road roundabout located in the directiontoward Monroe.
Mr. Jensen stated that, toward Monroe, the existing Stonebridge development is located to the south of the site, and that surrounding areas are primarily low-density residential and
agricultural uses.
He noted that the property itself does not contain major environmental features, but to the east-northeast there are some wetlands and streams in the general direction toward Monroe.
Mr. Jensen pointed out that the surrounding area is generally zoned RA-40, with the exception ofexcept forthe Town of Mineral Springs.
He said that traffic counts in the area show approximately 7,500 vehicle trips per day along Waxhaw Highway. He noted that Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road has approximately 550 vehicle trips
per day based on the 2025 traffic count. He further said that within the Stonebridge Development, there are approximately 900 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Jensen stated that the land use map identifies the area as rural residential, with an employment corridor overlay. He said that while the underlying designation is rural residential,
the overlay allows for employment-type uses if conditions are appropriate, similar to the use on the parcel to the south.
Mr. Jensen said that staff reached out to Union County Public Schools and received feedback indicating that most schools in the area are not currently operating at full capacity, noting
the Parkwood cluster with Western Union Elementary serving the area. He also said that public water and sewer are available to the site.
Mr. Jensen stated that a community meeting was held on July 8 with seven residents in attendance. He said most of the questions focused on buffering, road connections, and home prices.
He said no changes were made to the site plan.
He said one individual spoke in opposition to the rezoning request at the Land Use Board meeting, citing concerns with smaller lot sizes, density, and the potential loss of environmental
features.
Mr. Jensen explained that the Town of Mineral Springs was contacted for comments due to its adjacency to the project and it expressed opposition to R-10 zoning along its border. He noted
that the Town’s comments were not included in the agenda packet in time, but an email washad been provided to the Board. He added that the Town passed a resolution opposing the rezoning,
which was issued late in the week.
Mr. Jensen stated that the Land Use Board considered the request at its last meeting and unanimously recommended denial, citing concerns related to density, loss of farmland, and loss
of open space.
Mr. Jensen stated that the applicant was present and had a presentation they wanted to provide.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Jenson to refer to the plan, and asked if either Mr. Jensen or the applicant could explain how much total open space is included withinthe plan.
Mr. Jensen stated that he understood the plan toincludes about 36 percent open space, noting it was over 30 percent and that it met the new 30 percent open space requirement.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms requested for clarification on whether the proposal is actually part of the existing Stonebridge neighborhood.
Mr. Jensen stated that the parcel was part of the original Stonebridge approval under a master plan from the late 1990s or early 2000s, which included an approved number of homes as
part of that development.
He explained that this specific tract is no longer owned by the original Stonebridge developer, or any subsequent Stonebridge developers, and that a new owner or potential purchaser
has come forward requesting to rezone the property to a different zoning.
Jeff Palmer stated that he is with Shenandoah Homes and introduced Pam Porter, the project planner and owner of TMTLA Associates, a planning and landscape architecture firm based in
the Triangle area.
He stated they are requesting approval for a 91-home luxury community. He said he would provide a brief presentation and overview, followed by Ms. Porter explaining additional project
details.
Mr. Palmer noted that the property was originally zoned and approved for 67 single-family detached homes in 2003 as part of the Stonebridge master plan under the designation of smart
growth. He said that zoning remains in place today, and the applicant is requesting approval to increase the number of permitted homes from 67 to 91, a total increase of 25 homes.
He said he was unsure how smart growth was defined in 2003, but from a common-sense perspective, he believes the property still fits that designation today.
He noted that the property is adjacent to existing water and sewer infrastructure that has not been fully utilized and stated that the land is slated for development. Mr. Palmer stated
that because the property is already zoned and planned for development, he does not believe the proposal would deplete farmland.
He said that, without getting into the technical details of density calculations under the Unified Development Ordinance, simply dividing the number of units by the total acreage results
in a density of 1.87 units per acre.
Mr. Palmer stated that this level of density does not suggest overcrowding or congestion. He explained that the proposed lots consist of lot types and sizes, consisting ofincluding front-load
and side-load garage lots, which would create an aesthetically pleasing streetscape,appearance.
He stated that as job growth continues in the Charlotte metropolitan area, so does the demand for housing. Mr. Palmer said that by allowing Shenandoah to build 91 homes instead of the
previously approved 67, the projectwould add 24 additional homes for the community without resulting inthe loss or depletion of additional farm acreage.
He stated that the resulting lot sizes do not reduce quality of life for future residents. He noted that the two lot types include widths of 75 feet and 96 feet with depths of 140 feet,
and said the home sites are balanced with the size of the homes to be built and are proportionally appropriate.
Mr. Palmer said that by approving the project, the County would be able to recapture facility development costs for existing infrastructure with water and sewer infrastructure connection
fees totaling $15,469 per lot.
Mr. Palmer stated that the additional 24 lots would provide an estimated total benefit to the county of approximately $371,266. He recognized Ms. Porter for a detailed review of concerns
raised by the Land Use Board and noted that they would also present two questions to the board regarding access to Highway 75 and preferred amenities.
Ms. Porter provided a brief overview of the site, stating that it is located between
Waxhaw Highway, Highway 75, and Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road. She noted that Parkdale Mills is to the west and the Stonebridge community and golf course are to the south.
Ms. Porter stated that the site is just under 49 acres and is located within the East Fork Twelve-Mile Creek watershed. She said the current zoning is RA-40 and the request is to rezone
the property to R-10.
She noted that, as previously mentioned, the property is already zoned for development and could be developed by right with 67 lots, and that the request is to increase the number of
lots by 24 additional lots. Ms. Porter stated that, as shown in the land use plan provided by staff, the circled area identifies the project parcel and proposed development.
She stated that the project includes approximately 14.5 acres of open space, representing about 36 percent of the site. Ms. Porter added that proposed amenities under consideration include
a pool, clubhouse, and playground.
Ms. Porter said that the lots will have a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. She stated that the proposal includes two lot types, with widths of 96 feet and 75 feet, and that all lots
would be 140 feet in depth.
She also stated that, for comparison, the smallest lot in the Stonebridge development identified through GIS is just over 7,500 square feet. Ms. Porter stated that the proposed lots
would be larger than some of the lots across the street and would accommodate a variety of home styles.
She noted that they are preliminarily proposing three stormwater ponds, noting that this number may increase once the project is fully engineered. She said they will treat and capture
stormwater that is aresultingoffromthis project. She also said that the wetlands located on the property are being preserved. She explained that these areas are included within the
open space, as preserving them it is important.to keep them preserved.
Ms. Porter noted that the plan includes 30-foot street buffers, including one along Highway 75 and another along the south side adjacent to Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road. She also explained
that there is a 15-foot reforestation buffer along the non-road frontage property line. She added that the reforestation buffer is not included within the individual lots and is located
outside of them. She explained that future homeowners would not be able to remove those trees because they are off the lot.
Ms. Porter shared examples of the types of homes proposed for the neighborhood, noting that they are not limited to one specific style.
She also noted that, as part of the proposal, they are considering neighborhood amenities and would like feedback from the Board, specifically mentioning a pool and a clubhouse as potential
options for a community of this size.
Ms. Porter shared a rendering of the amenity area. She described it as a 2,000-square- foot minimum pool with a fountain, a 4,000-square-foot minimum pool deck, and a 1,400-square-foot
clubhouse, a playground/tot lot, picnic shelter, open playfield, and a mail kiosk with parking, stating these would be concentrated together in one area.
Ms. Porter addressed some of the concerns from the Land Use Board. She commented about the removal of farmland and stated they understand there is a farmland item on the agenda tonight,
but the decision to not farm the land had already been made. She explained that the property is for sale and already entitled for 67 lots. Ms. Porter stated that they are not removing
actively farmed land as part of the proposal, noting thata planthere is already a plan inplace. She said the request is to increase density while providing additional open space and
amenities as a trade-off.
Ms. Porter stated that by increasing the project by 24 lots, they are helping place additional density in this area rather than elsewhere in the county where farmland could potentially
be removed.
She explained that the connection to Highway 75 was requested by staff because it helps to claim the increase in density, while also helping disperse traffic and providing an additional
egress point for first responders.
Ms. Porter said that concerns were raised bythe Land Use Boardraised concerns regardingaboutthe proposed connection. She noted that the Board could choose not to require the connection,
although they recognize it would provide an additional egress point for the development and help address traffic concerns.
Ms. Porter stated that they had discussed having the developer contribute money into the HOA fund for future traffic-calming devices within the neighborhood. She explained that they
could not pre-emptively commit to specific measures because DOT would likely say no, but after the roads are built, items such as speed bumps potentially could potentially be added for
traffic-calming purposes inside the neighborhood.
Ms. Porter stated that approving the added density would allow the neighborhood to include the amenities previously discussedamenities. She noted that if the property were developed
under the already approved 67-lot plan, there would be no added amenities or the 36 percent open space.
Ms. Porter stated that the entitled 67 lots are simply lots and rights-of-way, with no open space or planned amenities. She explained that by approving thedensity increase indensity,
the project is able to provide amenities that would otherwise not be provided.
Ms. Porter said the proposal includes a pool, clubhouse, and tot lot, but the applicant is also open to suggestions on other or alternative amenities if those options are not considered
appropriate.
Chair Merrell asked whether Board members had any questions. She announced that several individuals had signed up to speak, beginning with Rita Tigley. Ms. Tigley was not present when
the Chair called her name.
Vance Harvey introduced himself as a Union County resident and noted that this was his first time attending one of the Board’s meetings. He explained that his property borders the site
to the east, northeast, and north.
Mr. Harvey stated that he believes development in the area and bringing in more people can be a positive and said he favors the idea of the neighborhood being built next to his property.
However, he expressed uncertainty about increasing the project to 91 homes, noting that they had not anticipated added density when they originally purchased their property.
Mr. Harvey said that aside from concerns about the increased density, he believed connecting the development to Highway 75 is a good idea and said it would likely help reduce traffic
congestion along Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road.
He shared that his main concerns with the project are drainage during the construction phase, because of the way the land slopes, noting worries that additional concrete and asphalt
could cause water to flow downhill toward his property to the east. Mr. Harvey stated that there is a small stream within the tree line and expressed concern that it could become overwhelmed
if additional stormwater is directed that way.
He also shared his concerns about pollution during the construction phase and possibly afterward, noting that he and nearby neighbors rely on well water and do not have access to the
sewer lines being proposed for the development.
Mr. Harvey stated that, since his property directly borders the site to the east, he would urge the developer to install a fence. He referenced concerns raised by others about roaming
dogs and said that this is something he and neighbors have also experienced. He added that he would strongly prefer fencing along both the eastern and northeastern edges of the property.
Chair Merrell recognized Kinda Harvey as the next speaker.
Mrs. Harvey stated that Mr. Harvey had spoken on her behalf.
Chair Merrell asked whether there were any additional speakers who had not signed up but wished to speak at the public hearing.
Ms. Porter asked if she could have an opportunity to respond to some of the concerns that were mentioned by Mr. Harvey.
Chair Merrell stated that they do not normally allow responses during the public hearing, noting it is not a question-and-answer session.
She again asked if there wereany additional speakers who didhadnot gotten g. a chance to speak on the Shenandoah project and noted that two speakers were present and invited them to
come forward, stating they would each be given three minutes after providing their name and address.
Glenn Dileo stated that he resides in a portion of unincorporated Union County.
Mr. Dileo stated he lives in Union County and regularly attends Waxhaw meetings to speak. He said he does so because his daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren live in the area and
he is trying to protect them.
Mr. Dileo explained that he is from New Jersey and has seen similar situations occur in New Jersey. He stated that increased density can lead to higher property taxes as demand for
services increases. He said this typically results in the need for more police, fire equipment, schools, and administrators, and described it as an ongoing problem in Union County, noting
there are still many undeveloped farms in the area.
Mr. Dileo noted that he understands farmers want to sell their land and maximize profits.
He said he has seen developers and their marketing firms come before the Waxhaw Board of Commissioners repeatedly. Mr. Dileo stated that developers present their projects with claims
about buffers, improvements, and amenities, but he views that as part of the marketing used to sell the development.
He said residents are relying on the Board to act as their voice, and that is why everything is zoning, and that you have to increase the zoning
Mr. Jackson stated that in New Jersey there was one-acrezone, ing,and when Interstate 78 was built, he saw it change from dairy farms into bedroom communities;saying the growth became
overwhelming.
Mr. Jackson said that property taxes tripled in 10 years, and the people in those towns responded by increasing zoning from one acre to five and seven acres, noting that builders cannot
complain once zoning is on the books.
He added that he does not believe that will happen here, but said they cannot upzone and should keep what they have, or even downzone, to preserve keep the integrity of the county before
property taxes go out of sight.
Mr. Jackson stated that he takes Providence Road every day and described it as a standstill. He said the only reprieve is two months during the summer when school is out, and described
the traffic as a nightmare.
Elizabeth Green stated that she and her family own the property that backs up to the Harvey property. She said they are insupport of the request, provided thatfencing is included.
She noted that there is a deep incline or decline in the area that could be dangerous and said she would like it to beconsidered, unless future development changes the condition. She
added that her property has been in the family for over a century and is their home place.
With there being no one else wishing to address the Board during the public hearing, Chair Merrell closed the public hearing at approximately 7:34 p.m.
Staff Recognition
25-449 Public Communications Department Earns State, National, and International Awards
Chair Merrell recognized Liz Cooper, Public Communications Director, to address the Public Communications Department earning state, national, and international awards.
Ms. Cooper expressed appreciation to the Board for recognizing the Public
Communications team and introduced staff members in attendance: Megan Hinkle,
Assistant Director, Public Communications; Nicole Hincik, Senior Communications
Specialist; Erika Bowden, Senior Communications Specialist; Jordan Westenberg, Multimedia Productions Specialist; and Aileen White, Administrative Professional. She explained that the
department develops and manages communication and marketing efforts on behalf offorUnion County Government as a whole and supports all county departments by providing strategic and timely
communication.
She shared that the team recently received seven awards at the state, national, and international levels, recognizing a range ofprojects including public health outreach, the county
water website, a commemorative video, and an informational county overview. She noted the awards reflect cross-department collaboration across departmentsand the importance of effective
communication.
Chair Merrell thanked Ms. Cooper and said she does a very good job. She expressed pride in the team for receiving these recognitions and commended their work.
Members of the Public Communications staff were photographed with the Commissioners.
25-494 Information Technology Earns National Top 10 Ranking and Achievement Award
Chair Merrell recognized Jon Amelio, Information Technology Director, to explain the item.
Mr. Amelio introduced members of the Information Technology Staff present: Brent
Hartis, Project Manager; Elizabeth Risher-Trevino, Information Technology Business
Manager; Chance Kelly, Information Systems Security Analyst; Christopher Liersaph, Knowledge Solutions Program Manager; and Salifou Mamar, GIS Analyst. He stated that at the recent
National Association of Counties annual conference, Union County IT was recognized for being ranked seventh nationally in the 250,000 to 500,000 population category. He explained that
the award was developed in partnership with NACO and the Center for Digital Government and recognizes top technology practices among U.S. counties, including efforts to streamline service
delivery, encourage collaboration, enhance cybersecurity, and apply innovative and emerging technology.
He shared that this is the seventh consecutive year the department has ranked in the top 10 and said that due to county growth,they have moved into the next category and are now competing
against larger counties, but still is ranked number seven. He also emphasized that Union County is the lowest-populated IT team in their category.
He added that the Union County team also received a 2025 Achievement Award in the technology category for implementation of implementing Office 365 and migrating migration to the Cloud.
He thanked the team members of his teamand said it is a great honor to be ranked nationally.
The team members were invited to the front to receive the award and to be photographed with the Commissioners.
Consent Agenda
Chair Merrell asked if there were any motions regarding requested revisions or amendments to either the consent or business agenda.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated he had two revisions to the business agenda and noted they could be voted on separately. He moved to table item 25-501, appointments to boards and committees,
until the next regular meeting.
Chair Merrell called for a vote, asking those in favor of tabling item 25-501 The vote passed unanimously with the following vote: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that his second motion was to move item Business Agenda Item 25-523 - FY22 Short Water Line Extension Program Phase B Project Completion, item, to the
first item on the business agenda.
Chair Merrell called for a vote to move Item 25-523 – FY22 Short Water Line Extension Program Phase B Project Completion to the first item on the business agenda.
The vote passed unanimously with the following vote: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the items listed on the consent agenda as as recommended and submitted.
Chair Merrell stated that the Consent Agenda was as amended.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms confirmed the consent agenda would remain as published, while the business agenda had already been amended through prior votes. He asked whether a separate
motion was needed for the business agenda.
Mr. Kay responded that the Board had voted on the items for the business agenda and could vote on approving the items on the Consent Agenda at this time.
Chair Merrell then called for a vote on the consent agenda
The motion passed unanimously as follows: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye 25-521 Contract - Town of Indian Trail Law Enforcement Services
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to: a) negotiate and execute an agreement 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.
This contract revision acknowledges and adds three (3) FTEs to the Town of Indian Trail’s Law Enforcement Services contract, as approved in the both the FY2026 Union County Budget and
the FY2026 Town of Indian Trail Budget. Two (2) new deputy sheriffspositions and one (1) deputy sheriff-sergeant position were approved as part of both FY2026 Budgets to further enhance
the law enforcement services provided by the Union County Sheriff’s Office to the Town of Indian Trail. Trial.
The original contract for two (2) deputies was entered into on July 13, 1999, and has been revised and amended as the Town has grown. With the addition of the positions mentioned above,
the UC Sheriff’s Office now has thirty-eight (38) positions assigned to the Town. These positions vary in rank and responsibility. Attached to this agenda item is the letter provided
to the Town by Union County Budget & Grants Management staff detailing the most current staffing model and associated costs. This contract allows the Union County Sheriff’s Office to
continue providing law enforcement services to the Town of Indian Trail.
The total cost of the FY2026 Law Enforcement Services contract for the Town of Indian Trail is $5,805,343. The Town of Indian Trail is responsible for 90% of that cost, in the amount
ofor $5,244,809. Union County, through the Sheriff’s Office budget, covers the remaining 10% of associated costs in the amount of $580,534. This funding and FTEs for this contract enhancement
were approved FY2026 adopted budget. 25-465 Resolution to Approve 2024 Local Water Supply Plan
ACTION: Adopted the resolution to approve the 2024 Local Water Supply Plan as required by NCGS 143-355(l).
The Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Water Resources requires that all public water supplies complete a Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) every year. The LWSP requires
a variety of water and wastewater information, including statistics for the current water distribution infrastructure, general information on programs including meter replacement and
water conservation public education, monthly water usage and wastewater flows, water usage by customer type, water demand and wastewater flow projections, and current and future planned
water and wastewater plant capacity. The 2024 LWSP reflects the water usage and wastewater flow projections consistent with the Water and Wastewater Master Plan completed in 2025.
DWR requires that every five (5) years the governing body of a public water supply adopts a resolution approving the most recently completed LWSP. DWR marks a LWSP as "complete" once
all of the information is submitted and checked for quality by DWR staff.
25-480 City of Monroe Request to Provide Water Service
ACTION: Approved the request from the City of Monroe to provide water service to three lots located on White Store Rd. (parcels 09125039, 09125040, 09125041).
Better Path Homes has made a request to the City of Monroe Water
Resources Department for water services at properties (09125039,
09125040, 09125041) located along White Store Rd., Monroe, NC. The City of Monroe has a water main located along White Store Rd. to serve the property. The closest County water main
is located approximately 1.5 miles away along Summerlin Dairy Rd.
The City of Monroe has indicated that they areit isprepared to provide Better Path Homes water service connections, as an 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 expressed, written approval of the Board of
County Commissioners.
Union County Water has no objection to the City providing water service to this customer.
25-491 Contract - 853 W Pressure Zone Tank Preliminary Engineering Report
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas 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 Union County Water Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes an allocation for the design and construction of a new elevated storage tank (EST) to serve the 853 west pressure zone
(WPZ) as identified in the
2025 Master Plan. The preliminary engineering report (PER) will verify the
EST volume, identify necessary upgrades to the Watkins Road Booster Pump Station, and prepare the Town of Indian Trail Condition Zoning application for the parcel of land owned by Union
County where the tank is to be constructed.
HDR has been selected to provide engineering services for Task Order 8683-03 853 W Pressure Zone Tank Preliminary Engineering Report.
HDR was chosen from a list of vendors previously selected from RFQ
2024-021 – Engineer111111111ing Services for Water and Wastewater System Improvements to provide these services for Union County Projects.
The total cost of the Task Order 8683-03 with HDR is $275,650.00. Sufficient funds are available within the adopted capital account 60184085 - 853 West EST (New Indian Trail Tank).
25-495 Contract - Union County Advanced Meter Infrastructure Meter System
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 at the County Manager’s discretion.
The approved Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes a funding allocation for the Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) project within the Water Rehabilitation and Replacement Program.
The project improves meter-reading efficiency by converting from a manual, drive-by meter reading program to an integrated system of water meters, communication networks, and data management
systems that enable nearly real-time, two-way communication between water meters and utilities.
The project is approximately 80 percent complete, and the purpose of this Change Order #3 is to adjust the installation quantities for the project and add a sales tax allowance to cover
the sales tax onthe materials purchased onfor the project.
Funding is available within the adopted capital account 60184108 - Advanced Metering Infrastructure to support the contract change order amount of $427,222.99. 25-513 Budget Amendment
- Town of Wingate Land Use Administration
ACTION: Adopted Budget Amendment #4 to recognize, receive, and appropriate revenue from Town of Wingate for Land Use Administration services.
The Union County Planning Department began acting as staff for the Town of Wingate with regards to the Town’s Land Use Administrator duties in January 2025. The County agreed to provide
these services for a fee of $25,000 per year. This budget amendment reflects the FY2026 payment by the Town. 25-434 Purchase - E-Books, E-Audiobooks, and E-Magazines
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.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Library issues a purchase order to Overdrive, Inc. The Library then orders materials against this purchase order throughout the year. We have
a contract (4089) with Overdrive for the digital platform, and all materials for this platform must come from Overdrive. The approval of this purchase will enable the Library to commence
its E-books, E-audiobooks, and E-magazine purchasing for the year so that be ensuringthere is no significant lapse in new materials for the public, as well as the digital platform fee.
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 library materials will be made usingthe Group Purchasing Program Hoopla, Contract #8123,as quoted by OverDrive, Inc. Procurement has vetted this contract.
The anticipated cost for the library materials is $134,000.00 and is budgeted accordingly for FY2026. 25-435 Purchase - Library DVDs and Digital Platform
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.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Library issues a purchase order to one of its primary materials vendors, Midwest Tapes. The Library then orders materials against this purchase
order throughout the year. The Library’s discounts have been negotiated by MaLia, a library consortium of which Union County is a member. The approval of this purchase will enable the
Library to commence its DVD purchasing for the year so that there is no significant lapse in new materials for the public, as well as Hoopla digital platform.
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 library materials will be made using Group Purchasing Program MaLia contract LVA-MAT-22-007 as quoted by Midwest Tape, LLC. The Procurement Department has vetted
this contract and purchase amount.
The anticipated cost for the library materials is $92,000.00 and is budgeted accordingly for FY2026. 25-503 Purchase – Vehicles
ACTION: Authorized the County Manager to 1) 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 Human Services Agency Transportation Division seeks approval to purchase five (5) replacement vehicles. Transportation vehicles 1821,
1921, 2021, 8420, and 9019 (5) 20' light transit vehicles w/wheelchair lift, have met their useful life and have been approved by IMD/NCDOT to be replaced. The FY26 Combined Capital
Grant will fund the vehicle replacements with 80% Federal ($550,564), 10% ($68,820) State, and 10% ($68,821) Local match.
· (5) 20' light transit vehicles w/ wheelchair lifts $125,000 ea.
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 vehicles will be made using North Carolina Statewide Term Contract 54-SG-05062022 as quoted by Palmetto Bus Sales, LLC.
The anticipated cost for the five (5) vehicles is $625,000 and is budgeted accordingly for FY26.
25-514 FY2026 Home and Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) for Older Adults
ACTION: 1) Approved the FY2026 Home and Community Block Grant
(HCCBG) Funding Plan for Union County and 2) authorize the County Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Centralina Council of Governments substantially consistent with this
agenda item.
Centralina is the lead agency for Union County HCCBG. Centralina works closely with the Union County Human Services Agency Divisions of Transportation, Community Support and Outreach,
and Social Services, as well as the Council on Aging and City of Monroe Bazemore Active Adult Center (Senior Center) to help enable delivery of comprehensive aging services to Union
County's older adults and their families who support them. Services and Programs supported by HCCBG funding include Transportation, In-Home Aide Levels I, II, and III, Adult Day Care,
Senior Nutrition, Group Respite, Volunteer Program Development and Senior Center programming.
Union County's proposed FY26 HCCBG-related budget total is
$1,275,735, which includes $1,148,163 in block grant funding, a required local match of $127,572, and $21,674 NSIP (USDA) subsidy based on reimbursement of $0.80 per eligible Senior
Nutrition meal. The distribution of funding and associated exceptions for units of service to be provided by each agency are shown on the attached funding plan.$1,169,873 is funded with
federal dollars (HCCBG and NSIP). The required local match of $127,572 is included in the County's FY2026 budget for the Human Services Agency and Council on Aging portion, and, in the
City of Monroe’s FY2026 budget for the Bazemore Center portion.
25-510 Resolution Approving an Invoice From, And Payment To, Creech And Associates, PLLC For Design Services at The Union County Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab Renovation
ACTION: Adopted resolution approving an invoice from, and payment to,
Creech and Associates, PLLC in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) for design services at the Union County Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab Renovation.
As part of the administrative close-out process for the UCSO
Administration Office Expansion project, an unpaid invoice from Creech and Associates, PLLC was discovered that was not financially authorized by Union County through a typical contract
agreement. The invoice is for design services to upfit the UCSO Crime Lab which was built as a shell space at the time the original design services were provided for the project. After
review of the invoice, Facilities Management has verified that staff gave verbal authorization to proceed with the design work, but no contract or contract amendment was executed. Creech
and Associates acted in good faith and performed the services requested. The project was later bid by the Facilities and Fleet Management department and completed around August 2024.
Staff recommends the approval of the invoice from Creech and Associates, PLLC, in the amount of $20,000.00.
The invoice total is $20,000.00. There are sufficient funds capital account 40080080, Sheriff’s Office Expansion and Renovation, to cover the expense.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INVOICE FROM, AND PAYMENT TO,
CREECH AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC IN THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000.00) FOR DESIGN SERVICES AT THE UNION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CRIME LAB RENOVATION
WHEREAS, Union County Facilities Department authorized CREECH AND
ASSOCIATES, PLLC on January 5th, 2024 to provide design services at the Union
County Sheriffs Office Crime Lab; and
WHEREAS, CREECH AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC performed such services between January 5th, 2024 and May 31st, 2024 ;and
WHEREAS, although there were sufficient funds in the Union County Sheriffs Office Expansion project ordinance to cover the work performed by CREECH AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, there was no
purchase order or agreement entered into to authorize the work and an associated payment obligation; and
WHEREAS, CREECH AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC submitted an invoice for the
work completed for design services at the Union County Sheriffs Office Crime Lab in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) on May 31, 2024; and
WHEREAS, although the work was satisfactorily completed, the Union County finance officer appropriately disapproved payment under the invoice because there was no properly authorized
contract or purchase order which allowed payment for this work under the encumbrance for design services at the Union County Sheriffs Office CSI Lab; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 159-28(c), the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") may approve an invoice that has been disapproved by the finance officer so long as there is an appropriation
in the associated budget or project ordinance and there is an unencumbered balance that is more than the amount to be paid under the disapproved invoice; and
WHEREAS, there is a greater amount unencumbered left in the appropriation for the design services at the Union County Sheriffs Office Crime Lab than the amount of the invoice for work
performed by CREECH AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to approve the invoice to allow CREECH AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC to be paid for work that was satisfactorily performed pursuant to direction from Union County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Union County, North Carolina as follows:
The invoice from, and associated payment to, CREECH AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) for work performed in the design services at the Union County
Sheriffs Office Crime Lab for the Facilities and Fleet Management Department is approved.
The Board is approving payment of this invoice for the following reasons:
(i) CREECH AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC satisfactorily performed the work associated with this invoice under the belief it was properly authorized to perform the work through authorization from
the Facilities and Fleet Management
Department; (ii) staff acted in good faith in authorizing CREECH AND
ASSOCIATES, PLLC to perform the work; and (iii) there were sufficient funds in the Union County Sheriff's Office Expansion project ordinance to pay for the work performed.
The Chairman shall sign the certificate on the check or draft given in payment of the invoice.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
Attest:
Union County Board of Commission
2
CREECH
(9 ASSOCIATES
I 000 W. Morehead St. Suite 120 Charlotte, NC 28208
P 704.376.6000
F 704.376.5550
W WWW.CREECH-DESIGN.COM
INVOICE
Gordon Vincent
Union County Government 1407 Airport Road Monroe, NC 28110 gordon.vincent@unioncountync.gov 704.296.4252
Invoice No: 37063 Rev Invoice Date: May 31, 2024
Professional fee for services rendered through 05/31/2023
2023-015 Union County Sheriff's Lab Renovation Description Contract % Previously Amount Amount Comp. Billed Due $20,000.00 100% $20,000.00
Total Amount Due$_2_0_,o_o_o_.o_o
Page 1 of 1 25-391 Tax Bill Correction Report for May 2025
ACTION: Approved Tax Bill Correction Reports for May 2025 (Refunds in the amount of $5,113.79).
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 attached report provides detailed information on all modified 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. 25-496 Tax Bill Correction Report for June 2025
ACTION: Tax Bill Correction Reports for June 2025 (Refunds in the amount of $621.01).
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 attached report provides detailed information on all modified 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. 25-486 June 2025 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Report
ACTION: Approved the June 2025 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Refund Report.
The refunds included in this report represent adjustments made to tax bills that resulted in refunds of motor vehicle taxes paid under the Tax and Tag Together program operated jointlybetweenamongthe
counties and the state.
25-497 Annual Tax Settlement FY 2024-2025
ACTION: Approved the reports of 2024 delinquent taxpayers and annual settlement as requested.
North Carolina General Statutes require Tax Collectors to make several reports to the governing body after the close of the fiscal year.
The first report is a list oflistsreal property taxpayers whose taxes are unpaid and for which the unpaid taxes are secured by a lien against their real property. The reports related
to real property taxes isare the advertising list often seen in the newspaper,modified by the deletion of property owners who have paid their taxes between the advertising date and the
date of the settlement report.
The second report is a list of those outstanding taxes that are not secured by liens against real property. These taxes are assessed against personal property owed by persons who owned
no real property at the time the personal property was listed and are on file in the County Clerk’s office.
The third report is the annual settlement. North Carolina General Statutes require the Tax Collector to make such a report after July 1st, but before the collector is charged with the
collections of taxes for the current year. The form of the settlement reflects various charges (initial billing, discoveries, late listing, interest, etc.) and credits (sums deposited,
releases, etc.) The charges and credits are required to balance. The
Union County Finance Division independently confirms the accuracy of the report.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, the unaudited overall collection rate on all county property taxes was 99.84%. 25-498 Write-Off of 2015 Uncollected Fire Fees
ACTION: Approved the write-off for the 2015 uncollected fire fees as requested
Under NCGS 105-378. Property taxes and certain fees associated with those taxes are no longer eligible for enforced collection remedies after 10 years. In deference to this statute,
the Tax Collector requests on an annual basis that all taxes and fees older than 10 years be approved for write-off by the Board of Commissioners. 25-506 Order of Collection Tax Charge
for Fiscal Year 2025-2026
ACTION: Approved the Order of Collection Tax Charge for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
NCGS 105-321 requires the governing board of each taxing unit to issue an order of collection to Tax Collectors at the time the receipts are delivered to them. This order constitutes
the collector's authority to collect taxes and to exercise the various powers incident to the collection process. The order gives rise to a specific lien on the real estate listed on
the books, plus the power to levy upon or attach any of the taxpayer's personal property. Failure to issue the order of collection may invalidate the tax collector's remedies for enforced
collection. The order of collection does not include public service companies or motor vehicles. Those property classifications are either billed monthly or based on information provided
separately by the North Carolina Department of Revenue.
Revenues = $270,673,475 25-508 Amendment to Resolution Appointing Plat Review Officers
ACTION: Adopted Resolution to Appoint New Designate Review Officers.
In accordance with N.C.G.S. § 47-30.2, the board of commissioners of saeacheach county shall, by resolution, designate by name one or more persons experienced in mapping or land records
management as a Review Officer to review each map or plat required to be submitted for review before the map or plat is presented to the register of deeds for recording, with each person
designated as a Review Officer, if reasonably feasible, being certified as a property mapper pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 147-
54.4
25-499 Resolution - Approve Invoice From and Payment to SHI International Corporation (Zendesk Suite Software)
ACTION: Adopted resolution approving invoicing from and payment to SHI International Corporation, in the amount of twenty-nine thousand, four hundred and sixty-three dollars ($29,463.00)
for a customer service platform to enhance help desk operations.
Information Technology Department implemented a new customer service platform to help manage support interactions and centralize support communications across County departments. Zendesk
provides tools for ticket management, customer self-service, knowledge base creation, workflow automation, and analytics. This action item requests the Board to approve invoice payments
in the amounts of $29,463.00.
$29,463.00 is budgeted accordingly for FY26. 25-517 Contract Renewal - EA Software Subscription Service
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.
As part of the County’s ongoing commitment to enhancing productivity and ensuring access to the latest digital tools, we propose renewing our annual Microsoft 365 subscription. This
platform delivers essential services-such as email, cloud storage, and collaboration tools-that are foundational to daily County operations. In addition to the renewal, we recommend
the purchase of 100 Microsoft 365 G5 upgrade licenses. These licenses will support the Strategy and Innovation Department's initiative to develop and distribute digital dashboards for
County leadership. These dashboards will feature countywide key performance indicators, operational metrics, and other data visualization tools. The G5 licenses provide advanced analytics
capabilities, enabling deeper insights, more efficient reporting workflows, and stronger data-driven decision-making across departments.
The Information Technology Department has utilized the contractual services of SHI International for its Microsoft EA since July 2017. SHI International has been effective and efficient
in meeting our service needs, and we are requesting to continue this service for an additional 12 months.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $760,292 and is budgeted accordingly for FY2026.25-507 Amendment to the Union County Pay and Classification Plan
ACTION: 1) Approved a revision of the Union County Pay and Classification Plan to include the following:
A) Adjust the following pay grades for these job classifications:
i) AMI Superintendent - move from pay grade M to pay grade Q ii) Assistant Director, Utility Business Services - move from pay grade P to pay grade Q
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.
25-518 Amendment to the Union County Procurement Policy INFORMATION CONTACT:
ACTION: Adopted the Amendment to the Union County Procurement Policy.
On June 5, 2023, the Board of Commissioners approved adopting a new Procurement Policy to assist with providing a balance between facilitating the current business of the County in an
efficient and timely manner and ensuring that the procurement process is fair and accessible to vendors. The proposed amendment modifies Section 3.5, Procurement of Other Services, of
the Procurement Policy to modify dollar thresholds consistent with the County Manager’s contracting authority. 25-500 Minutes for Approval
ACTION: Approved minutes of regular meetings of October 21, 2024, and
November 4, 2024
Information Only 25-478 Tax Collector’s Departmental Report for June 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 June 2025 as required by NCGS 105-350(7). 25-488 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 regardingonactions 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 June 2025 NCVTS releases and refunds less than $100 and prorations approved
by the finance officer. See Exhibit “A” attached here and made a part of these minutes. 25-490 Human Resources Reports for June 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 June
2025. 25-502 Communications Monthly Report - July 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.
25-509 Facilities Major Capital Projects Update - Quarterly Report ACTION: No action was requested. This item was for information only.
This is the quarterly major projects update for projects managed by the Facilities and Fleet Management Department.
Business
25-523 FY22 Short Water Line Extension Program - Phase B Project Completion
Brian Matthews, County Manager, explained that this was a carryover item previously discussed and related to the short waterline program. He noted that there had been concerns raised
about the amount offunding available to finish the FY22 and FY23 short water line programs, as well as some easement issues associated with some ofthe projects.
He explained that what was before the Board was to request consideration ofmoving the East Lawyers project, which had been part of Phase B, into a separate project. He said that this
would disconnect it from the Mullis Road project.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Mullis project has some challenges, including funding and easement concerns. He added that for this project, based on current estimates, there is sufficient
funding available to complete the East Lawyers project.
He said that he recognizes there are many residentsare eager to receive public water service and that the County would likewantsto provide it as quickly as possible. He noted that the
project will still take time to complete, because they must go through the bidding process before construction can start.
Mr. Matthews explained that it may still take another 18 to 24 months to actually get the project in the ground, and he did not want anyone to think that approving it within a few months
would mean they would have water. He emphasized that it will still take a good deal of time for the project to be installed and become active.
He added that they would like to move forward withby requesting the board’s permission to segregate the project, allow it to be by itself, then go out to bid and begin construction.
Mr. Matthews stated that he would be available to answer any questions the board may have.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked for clarification, stating that what they would be doing is removing the item from any connection to other Phase B projects, and making the East Lawyersportion
a completely separate project.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that it would be a separate bid project.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms apologized for changing things up at the last minute. He asked what direction would be needed from the Board tonight in orderto move forward with the East
Lawyers project.
Mr. Matthews stated that he only needs ed direction from the Board to approve the East Lawyers project as a separate project and include it in the FY22 program.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the East Lawyers short Waterline extension project as a separate project and include it in the FY22 program.
Chair Merrell asked for clarification that the East Lawyers project would be completely separated from the Morgan Mill project and that the Morgan Mill project would, noting that Morgan
Mill was being completely removed.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct.
The motion passed unanimously with the following vote: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye 25-484 Rezoning Petition 2024-CZ-010 4 Rivers
Chair Merrell called the next item on the agenda 25-484, rezoning petition 2024 CZ-010 4 Rivers, and recognized Lee Jensen, Planning Director, for comments.
Mr. Jensen explained that the rezoning request 2024 CZ-0104 4 Rivers was heard at the previous meeting in July during the public hearing. He said it was to rezone two parcels it was
for the rezoning of two parcels, consisting of approximately 4.5 acres, from R-20 to B4 with conditions.
Mr. Jensen provided abriefly recappedof the conditions, noting they are limited to the site plan dated April 16, 2025. He stated the allowed use would be limited to a Type One indoor
climate-controlled storage facilityof up to 80,375 square feet.
He clarified that the land on the west side of Allen Black is not included in the rezoning and said that within the conditiond that were made clear. was being made clear within the
conditions.
Mr. Jensen stated that the two parcels subject to the rezoning would be combined, and the development would have a five-year vesting period. He added that it would be required to meet
all provisions of the Union County Development Ordinance.
He noted the site is located at the corner of Lawyers Road and Allen Black Road and said it is not far from the interchange at I-485.
Mr. Jensen stated that the Land Use Board and staff recommended approval of the rezoning.and staff also recommended approval.He noted that no one spoke at the public hearing for or against
the rezoning.
Mr. Jensen stated that staff received comments through the Town of Stallings’ staff, which opposedopposing the rezoning. He noted the town did not feel the request was the right fit
for the area and wanted any future land use decision to be directed to the Town for annexation.
Chair Merrell said that she agreed with the Town of Stallings. She stated that there are a number of residential homes in the area and she did not personally see the storage unit use
as a good fit for the land. She noted concerns about the visibility of it from nearby 55-and-older neighborhood and long-established residential neighborhoods around the intersection,
adding that it would be one of the first sights seen when coming off I-485.
She added that she was a little shocked the Land Use Board approved it. She asked if other Board members had comments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he also has concerns about the proximity to I-485, saying it be could be problematic with access to I-485 and traffic. He added that he agrees with
Chair Merrell’s comments.
Mr. Jensen stated that he forgot to mention, and noted, that while tonight was not a public hearing, the applicant was present if the Commissioners had any questions.
Chair Merrell asked if anyone had questions for the applicant, and after receiving no response, moved to deny rezoning petition CZ-2024-010 from 4 Rivers Property Group, LLC; 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 PLAN) (CZ-2024-010)
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 Union County
Comprehensive Plan (the “Plan”) and that denial of the proposed map amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because:
The Plan’s Land Use Map identifies this area as Rural Residential, with a Neighborhood Center located less than 1,000 feet away at the intersection of Stevens Mill and Lawyers Road.
The proposed business/commercial designation is not consistent with residential or agricultural uses for which rural residential areas are intended.
Allen Black Road, adjacent to one of the subject parcels, transitions to residential uses immediately beyond Lawyers Road. The proposed rezoning will facilitate potential future business
uses in close proximity toexisting residential uses in manners inconsistent with the Plan.
The vote passed unanimously as follows: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye 25-485 Rezoning Petition 2025-CZ-003 TKC Land
Chair Merrell stated that the next agenda item was 25-485, rezoning petition 2025 CZ003 for TKC Land, and recognized Lee Jensen, Planning Director, for comments.
Mr. Jensen stated that the rezoning request 2025 CZ-003 for TKC Land involves approximately 4.204 acres, and is a request to rezone the property from RA-40 to B4 with conditions. Mr.
Jensen stated that the conditions includedare limited to the site plan dated April 25, 2025. He said uses would be limited to retail sales up to 12,668 square feet.
He added that the owner would construct improvements to US Highway 601 as required by NCDOT through the review process. He noted the request includes five-year development rights vesting,
and the project would be required to meet all requirements of the Union County Unified Development Ordinance.
Mr. Jensen stated that the Land Use Board gave a positive recommendation at its last meeting in July, and staff also recommended approval. He stated the applicant was present if the
board had questions.for them as well.
Commissioner Christina Helms clarified that this was the Dollar General located on US 601 South.
Mr. Jensen confirmed that it was the one located on US 601 South and added that one person spoke at the public hearing and, as he recalled, spoke in favor of the request.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked about the DOT improvements and whether there is any indication of what those improvements might be at this point.
Taryn Stetson with TKC Land Development explained that they will are going toinclude or expand the median that is in the middle of road and has shifted the driveway to the location where
it has been requested. She said they do not have additional details at this point, but they have been working with NCDOT.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether there is any requirement for a deceleration lane.
Ms. Stetson stated that because the driveway has been moved, the deceleration lane does not have to be extended, but they cannot have access onto Hargette Road.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained that his concern is that US 601 South is a very busy highway. He said the last thing they want is to create a dangerous situation for anyone traveling
there trying to entergain entrance intowhat may be a retail business. He added that this is his concern, and he wants to make sure that both the applicant and NCDOT are taking that into
considerationconsider this when making their decision.
Ms. Stetson said that the site requires drivers to travel further to make a U-turn and that access would be right-in/right-out only. She said this is to ensure safety foreveryone’s safety
and confirmed they will comply.
Vice Chair Brian W. 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 passed unanimously with the following vote: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye
25-373 Request for Feedback - NCDOT Project at NC 75 and Fletcher Broome and New Town Roads Intersections
Chair Merrell recognized Planning Director Lee Jenson to present the item.
Mr. Jenson stated that this was a request fromNCDOT requests for feedback from the Board on a couple of projects related to each other along Highway 75.
He said that one of the projects involved the closure ofthe crossing at Fletcher-Broome and the railroad in order toutilizeto useavailable funds to help improve the intersection of New
Town Road and Highway 75. He noted that much of that occurred because of a development in Monroe and certain conditions. He added that NCDOT’s there arerepresentatives from NCDOTare
present. whoTheyhave a short presentation to provide and could likely answer most questions better than he could. He introduced the representatives from NCDOT.
Felix Obregon stated that he is the Division 10 Engineer. He noted that some members may have previously met Brett Canipe and addedannounced that Mr. Canipe was promoted to Western Chief
Engineer. He also stated that Brian Gackstetter with NCDOT’s Rail Division was present.
Mr. Obregon explained that the project came about frombecause staff found an existing issue that was found, and with the development that has come into the area, staff believed it was
a good opportunity to take advantage of it and get ahead of the development that is happening in the area.
He also said that a public meeting was held to discuss this project, and during the hearing they received some concerns from residents. He stated that they wanted to present the proposal
to the Board, answer any questions and receive feedback offrom the Commissioners. and receive feedback from the Board.
Mr. Obregon provided project background and stated that, as previously mentioned, they identified an opportunity to improve safety at the intersection of Fletcher Broome Road and NC
Highway 75. He stated that safety issues were found at that intersection, and they recognized that the development was going towould provide some improvements at that particular intersection.
He said that based on what was being proposed, along with the history of the intersection and New Town Road having a skewed angle at NC Highway 75, they thought it was a good opportunity
to look at it more holistically and determine what would make the best sense to provide better improvements for that part of the county.
Mr. Obregon described the proposal to close Fletcher Broome Road at NC Highway 75 and to realign New Town Road at NC Highway 75. He said that the intersection of NC Highway 75 and Fletcher
Broome Road was converted from a two-way stop to an allway stop in 2024.
Mr. Obregon said that a right-turn lane on NC Highway 75 onto Fletcher Broome Road was installed in 2017. He provided additional background, noting that the development finalized its
traffic impact analysis in 2021. He stated that it was then that coordination began to determine the best solution and address concerns in the area. He reiterated thatpurpose ofthe
project aimsto improve safety at NC Highway 75 and Fletcher Broome Road, as well as NC 75 and New Town Road. He provided a timeline of what has taken place withthe development since
it started in2020.
Mr. Obregon stated that Phase One of the project development was approved in 2020, followed by approval of Phase Two in 2021 and Phase Three in 2022. He further stated that in 2024,
the NC Highway 75 intersection at Fletcher Broome Road was converted into an all-way stop due to crash history, and they were trying to improve safety.
He said there were subsequent modifications to the project.development itself.He further stated that earlier in the year, a public meeting was held regarding the project involving the
closure of Fletcher Broome Road at NC Highway 75 and the realignment at New Town Road. He stated that traffic is increasing and that several developments are occurring along that particular
corridor. Mr. Obregon stated that they want to take advantage of the opportunity to get ahead of that growth and provide some relief for the corridor.
Mr. Obregon stated that there were a lot ofmany numbers presented, but the key takeaway was that the NC Highway 75 and Fletcher Broome Road intersection had been converted from a two-way
stop to a four-way stop to help address a crash situation. He noted that even after that change, crashes have continued to occur at that particular intersection. He stated that crash
data for NC Highway 75 and New Town Road was included for reference and that, while there have been some crashes in the past, not to a greater extent, that this is why they thought that
would be a better option for a signal and realignment.
Mr. Obregon stated that Mr. Gackstetter would provide information regarding the public meeting that was held.
Mr. Gackstetter displayed a pie graph that showed a breakdown of the public meeting comments received, both in person and through their public input site for this project. He said
that 39 percent of the comments were in opposition, 42 percent were neutral, and 19 percent were in direct support.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that multiple alignment options were evaluated and presented to the public, including an option to take New Town Road out to NC Highway 200, which was not feasible
due to conflicts with a Duke transmission line and existing geometrics of NC 200 at that location, including the bridge over CSX and NC Highway 75. He said they considered realigning
New Town Road to be perpendicular withto the railroad and tying it perpendicular to with NC Highway 75 and the adjacent development on the south side. He stated that would take it off
that intersection and makes it a four-way intersection, which is safer than the existing offset configuration with the different left turn lanes.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that New Town Road had a design speed of 55 miles per hour, which has been decreased to 45 miles per hour. He said thatthe current proposal has a design speed
of 30 miles per hour entering coming intothe railroad crossing and ties in perpendicular with a stop condition at NC Highway 75. He further stated that there would not be a traffic signal
at this location, as it does not meet the warrants for a light, and that it would be a four-way stop sign.at that location.
He stated that the existing at-grade railroad crossing is currently skewed, which createscreating a sight distance issues at the railroad crossing. He noted that with all the development
happening in the area, they believed it was an opportunity to resolve that situation. He said that perpendicular crossings are much better when it comes to interacting with the railroad,
asbecausethey provide better line of sight looking down the railroad crossing in either direction, including in the event of a malfunction or power outage.
Mr. Gackstetter that even though the crossing has protective features such as gates, there still can be instances where something could happen. He stated that they tried to stay away
from the mobile homes on the north side of the railroad crossing, as that would have been a significant impact to those properties.
He said they chose to go through the Helms’ property at that location, which would not impacting the home butwouldimpacting a portion of the property. He stated that this was one of
the impacts they tried to minimize as much as possible.
He stated that as the project moves further along, they could minimize the impact further depending on what design speeds are acceptable coming into NC Highway 75. He clarified that
he earlier he had mentioned the Helms property, but he meant the Nash property, not the Helms property.
Mr. Gackstetter shared a slide that showed the proposed right-of-way on the property, and indicated that the 35 miles per hour is shown isabout where the home is located currently.
He said he believed they would be impacting her well and would need to provide a new location for it. He added that septic had not been lookedstudied at this time, and that would be
addressed further into plan development if the project were to move forward.
He noted that another aspect of the project is that there would still be driveway access to the towing company currently located on New Town Road at NC Highway 75, which would basically
be cut off with a driveway access.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that they have nothad a conversationdiscussed this with the property owner, but they can consider different alternatives for how they tie into the access. He said
that this is the proposal they came up with when they took it to the public meeting and solicited feedback. He noted that turn lanes are being added to make theimprove intersection
function better going forward.
He commented on the project schedulestatingexplainingthat the public meeting was held in April and feedback was collected at the meeting. He stated that they have received feedback from
the City of Monroe and are now looking for feedback from the Board of Commissioners, and based on that feedback, they would then proceed with the project.
He stated that project funding is available for the project and that it is not subject to STI prioritization. He noted that safety funds can be used to move the project forward,and,
while the project would still appear in the STIP, it would not pull from other funding sources related to STI.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that if the project were to move forward right away, work would begin sometime in spring 2026, with construction starting sometime in summer 2028.
Referring to the preliminary costs, he stated that right-of-way costs are estimated at $400,000 and construction costs at $4.5 million.
Commissioner Sides asked when staff would estimate the project would be completed if construction began in the summer of 2028.
Mr. Gackstetter stated thatsaid construction would take approximately a year to complete. He noted that the railroad closure would not occur until New Town Road was completed, and they
would not close the crossing until that work was finished.
Mr. Obregon added that the project does not require is not requestingany county funds. He noted that all funding for this project would come from DOT funds.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he attended the community meeting a few months ago, and said there were about 50 angry county residents present regarding the project.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated requested to hear from Lee Jenson, Planning Director, on whether the County was contacted by the City of Monroe requesting input on the developments
and any associated traffic mitigation plan.
Mr. Jenson stated that, to his knowledge, that was the Waxhaw Landing project across the street and that the County was not contacted or looped in on the traffic impact analysis for
that development.
Vice Chair Brian Helms asked whether it is standard practice for the County to contact adjacent municipalities when a project such as this comes up.
Mr. Jenson replied, yes, they do make those contacts.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated there was strong reaction at that meeting and then asked if they knew who owned thistheproperty.
Mr. Gackstetter responded that it was their understanding that the property belongs to a farmer.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the property belongs to Mr. Frank Howey. He asked for confirmation that if the railroad crossing is effectively closed, the road would still remainstate-maintained.
Mr. Gackstetter responded it could be reverted to the property owner if he chooses to.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms referenced the option of the road potentially being reverted to the property owner, with Mr. Gackstetter indicating they would likely solicit that option and
Mr. Obregon confirming. The Vice Chair noted that the property owner would not be required to agree.
Mr. Obregon stated that if the property owner inquired about the County abandoning the road, they would go tothroughthat process.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that they will are going toshut down the existing railroad crossing in favor of a better crossing to facilitate Waxhaw Landing.
Mr. Obregon stated that, as noted in the stats, the intersection had been converted to an all-way stop, which has helped reduce crashes.with the crash history. He added that there are
still some crashes occurring happening and that this project presents an opportunity to create a more perpendicular intersection while also providing additional improvements at the New
Town location.
Vice Chair Brian Helms stated that this issue was discussed at the community meeting as well as the number of crashes at the intersection. He said he asked how many crashes had occurred
since the all-way stop was installed and that the answer he received was zero.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that he did not recall it being said that way and clarified that they had indicated they would look intoinvestigateit and come back with that information, since
it was not available at the time.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that on slide six of the presentation, there wasincluded a bullet noting a fatal crash as an error in coding. He asked questioned how something like
that occurs in a presentation that includes crash data and asked whether there was actually nonot a fatal crash at the location.
Mr. Obregon stated that one of the fatal crashes did not actually happen and was the result of a coding error. He added that, as they were presenting all of the information they wanted
to point that out.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated thatsaidhe could not support the project, noting that he travels through the intersection frequently and has observed the community and their concerns
as they were being raised.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that if the railroad crossing closed, the result would be that they are going to give a private, state-maintained driveway to one of the largest farmers
in the county. He stressed that he has no problem with farmers or any operation by Mr. Howey, but he does have a problem with having a state-maintained driveway where the only purpose
would be for access to that property.
Mr. Obregon stated there may be some confusion and clarified that the crossing itself would no longer not be there.anymore. He explained there would not be a crossing at that location
and no access from Fletcher Broome Road down to NC Highway 75, noting it would not be a driveway.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that from New Town Road, the area would still be used because the only purpose that traffic would have if the change is made would be to facilitate entrance
and exit to the farms and that property. He noted that if the crossing is shut down, traffic would only have one direction coming in from New Town Road and to the Howey Farms area, which
he said would be state maintained with state tax dollars, and asked for confirmation.
Mr. Obregon confirmed that this portion would be state maintained. He said they would still need to provide access to both sides of the property.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he also had concerns about the property acquisition. He stated thatsaid he met with Mary Nash at the community meeting, and she expressed concerns
regarding prior condemnation that occurred on her property. Mr. Obregon stated that she was referring to the 200 grade separation that is constructed in that area.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, from memory, she had indicated she had already been through this process twice before.
Mr. Obregon stated that he believed it had been twice and confirmed that he had also spoken with her.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that there is a fundamental disagreement about how the project should be done. He said he is not willing to trade Mary Nash’s property for future development
in the area that Monroe wants to annex and develop, and stated he would not vote to do so. He reiterated that he is not going to vote in support of having a state-maintained driveway
for a farming business. He said he did not believe that is fair to the rest of the residents and taxpayers of Union County or the state. He said he is fundamentally opposed to the project.
He moved to adopt a Resolution of Opposition to Proposed NCDOT Project RC-2010B
for Closure of the Railroad Crossing at Fletcher Broome Road at NC 75 and Improvement of the Intersection of New Town Road and NC 75.
Commissioner Sides asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms whether there wereany revisions to the project as currently proposed that would persuade him to support it or would any changes he
would considerwould be sufficient to justify his support.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms responded, through the chair, that no,there are no revisions to the project that would change his position or persuade him to support it.
The motion passed unanimously with the following vote: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye 25-519 NC 218 and Love Mill Roundabout Project
Chair Merrell recognized Lee Jenson, Planning Director, to present this item.
Mr. Jenson acknowledged that DOT representatives from DOTwere present and could provide additional background. He said that he did not have a presentation for the item and did not believe
DOT had a presentation, but pointed out there was some information that was included in the agenda packet.
He stated that DOT provided information that the total project cost of the projectwould be approximately $2.8 million. He noted that the right-of-way process began has begunrecently
withand construction is scheduled for summer 2027 and is expected to take about eight to ten weeks to complete. He also stated that approximately $108,000 to $110,000 had been spent
to date on design and right-of-way-related expenses.
Mr. Jenson stated that the project was submitted to DOT as a safety project and received additional funding from CRTPO (Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization). He said
that no Union County funds have been requested or are associated with the project, and it is not a critical intersection project. He explained that the all-way stop was installed as
an interim measure since the roundabout was in the works.
He stated that theDOT’s traffic volumes from DOT’s standpointshow the intersection is approaching the operational limits for an all-way stop and will not function in the future with
projected traffic growth. He noted that DOT has recommended a roundabout for the intersection and added that if there are questions Mr. Obregon could answerthem.questions if there were
any for DOT.
Commissioner Baucom asked if any crash history data was available since the intersection was turned into a four-way stop.
Mr. Obregon stated that he did not bring that information with him but could provide it as a follow-up. Commissioner Baucom asked whether there are currently rumble strips at the intersection.
Mr. Obregon stated that he did not believe there are any rumble strips at the intersection currently.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that, as someone who lives in the area, she does not support thearoundabout at this location. She explained that many farmers use a processor just
over the county line and that it already takes a considerable amount of time to travel around the area, noting that during construction periods many farmers tend to use that route.
She stated that Mr. Alexander was present in opposition toand opposesthe project and noted that he travels through the intersection multiple times a day. She added that he expressed
concerns that the project would negatively impact his family business, which she also found very concerning.
She stated that as a farmer’s wife and someone who lives near the Highway 200 and Highway 218 roundabout, she felt strongly that the roundabout is “atrocious”. She explained that with
a 53 to 55 feet needed for tractor-trailer movements, it is virtually impossible to navigate without hitting the concrete. She added that she believes the four-way stop works for the
community.
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to oppose the NC 218 and Love Mill roundabout project.
Chair Merrell asked if there were anyone had anyother questions or comments.
Commissioner Sides asked whether there is currently a flashing red light at the four-way stop intersection.
Commissioner Christina Helms statedsaidthat she did not recall if there was onebeing at this intersection.
Commissioner Sides asked whether that is an alternative, suggesting adding another layer of safety by installing a flashing red light approaching the four-way stop.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that there is a road sign indicating there is a stop sign ahead.
Mr. Obregon stated that they could potentially install red lights at that location. He noted that they had to install an all-way stop to help out. He explained that the long-term goal
for the intersection is to provide additional capacity, as it is getting to the level where service is inadequate, with queuing in the morning and afternoon. He added that the allway
stop was installed as an interim measure toward the future roundabout.
Commissioner Sides agreed with Commissioner Christina Helms’ concern about big trucks traveling through that intersection, and a roundabout would likely not be durable and willwould
need repair every year. He noted that trucks would probably drive straight through instead of using it properly, therebycausing damage.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that it is already there, and she described how difficult it is for tractor-trailerstravelling that travelthrough that area. She added that at the
intersection of Highway 218 and Highway 200, where the outer portions form a figure eight, it is virtually impossible for a tractor-trailer to go through that area.
She noted that there are many roundabouts in the area, including one on Lawyers Road at Emerald Lake that she described as very small. She said that these roundabouts are invading onpeople’s
property. She added that residents have commented that Union County is the “roundabout capital of North Carolina” and said it seems like roundabouts seem to beare being placed at every
intersection and may not be needed.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that NC Highway 218 is a very highly traveled area, especially by tractor-trailers, and noted that residents in the community have reached out to
her multiple times with concerns about the project. She added that the concerns come not only from local farmers but from the community in general.
She stated that when school starts again, there are no cut-through areas for EMS, fire or anything in that nature. She said that although there is not a fire department on that side
of the area, and it would be detrimental, even if it only lasts for a couple of months.
Mr. Obregon stated that in terms of the design and how it functions, there are ways they can explore to address certain design functions. He noted he was not aware of the other concerns
mentioned regarding the other roundabouts but said that information was good feedback. He added that they can take that feedback and use it to design that particular roundaboutit can
be taken back and used to design that particular roundabout in a way that does not prohibit truck traffic. He added that roundabouts are used nationally and explained that they can
be designed in a way thatto allows large trucks and trailers to maneuver through them in an efficient and safe manner.
Chair Merrell shared that she lives in Emerald Lake and said residents had begged DOT not to put a roundabout in front of the neighborhood. She added that, as someone who sits on the
Board, she had also expressed the community’s plea to not place a roundabout in front of Emerald Lake and Country Woods East. She stated that a smaller-than-usual roundabout was put
in front of these neighborhoods near Stevens Mill. She added that at the very next committee meeting she attended, the DOT said theyitwould press forward with the roundabout.
Chair Merrell stated that she hearslistens to Commissioner Helms and thinks about the position she was in a year ago. She said the DOT did not give any consideration to what she and
the community shared, and the roundabout was installed, and itis too small. She stated that DOT was over budget and wanted to cut other projects. She stressed that the neighborhood
residents of the neighborhooddid not want the roundabout. She added that when the roundabout was too small, and the school buses were having problems with getting around the roundabout,and
tractor trailers were having problems, they said bigger vehicles can drive through the middle. She shared that her experience with DOT and the roundabout is that DOT does not care about
the residents and the people that sit on these committees.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked that DOT listen to the people who live and work in this community thatwho do want the roundabout. She shared that she is yet to hear from a soul who
lives in that area thatwho wants this project. She urged the DOT to respect what the people who liveliving in the community desire.
Commissioner Sides stated that they are using roundabouts, because there is not funding or determination to fully address the needs on NC Highway 218, such as widening it to four lanes
or providing at least a decent shoulder. He added that as a result they areDOT is resorting to other measures and alternatives which are not fully supported by residents.
He stated that while he understands the cost of widening the roads, they are trying to “nickel” a cure for a bigger problem. He said what is needed is decent road funding in the state
to address critical infrastructure rather than sticking roundabouts all over which often become damaged and hazardous. He added that in his view the “cure is worse than the disease”.
Commissioner Baucom stated that he is all about safety and ensuring people are safe on the roads, but he expressed concern about the route residents between NC Highway 218 and Rocky
River Road are havinghave to take. He speculated that the detour would add 20 minutes to their travel and notedraised concerns about how emergency services would respond in that area.
He stated that he does not know of any major crashes at the intersection since it was made into the four-waystop intersection. He added that if there wereare any other safety precautions
that cancould be used, but he concurs with his colleagues that it does not seem necessary.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he shares the concern too, especially the big trucks. He noted that it could be easy for a big truck to overturn while trying to navigate a roundabout
that is not adequately sized.
Commissioner Christinia Helms reminded that she had made the motion in opposition of the NC Highway 218 and Love Mill Roundabout Project.
The vote passed unanimously with the following vote: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye
25-483 Rural Land Use Plan Draft Strategy Update Chair Merrell recognized Lee Jenson for staff comments.
Mr. Jenson stated that he would present the first few slides of the item before turning it over to the chair of the Rural Land Use Plan Committee, Alan Baucom, to review the strategies
the committee had developed so far.
He defined strategies as essentially being policies or actions that are designed to achieve a goal typically within a plan or organization. He added that they are the “teeth of the plan”.
He stated that they need to think through those strategies to avoid any unintended consequences. He said that if strategies are developed too quickly or as a knee-jerk reaction, there
can be unintended consequences.
Mr. Jenson said the strategies should be effective on their own. He stated that they should not stack a bunch of strategies on top of each other to make them work and that each strategy
should be able to stand on itsis own and do what it is supposed to do.
He said they reached out to the public aboutthe Rural Land Use Plan and the development of the strategies. He said they rely heavenlyheavily on social media, noting that Liz Cooper
and the Public Communications team have helped tremendously with that effort. He said they use platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, and added that the Public Communications group
also produces a weekly newsletter, in which Planning has been allowed to included information about the Rural Land Use Plan.
Mr. Jenson stated that an email was sent to over 500 interested residents using lists that Planning and the County had available. He added that they also reached out to municipalities
and that when those municipalities received the emails and the Facebook posts, many of them shared the information with their own email groups on their social media pages.
He said they also posted on the County’s website, where they received a lot of interest. He said they did an interview a couple of weeks ago on Wixie radio and through those efforts,
they received almost 170 responses. He added that the responses were largely from what he described as rural areas of the county, noting that many of the respondents lived or worked
there and there were fewer responses from those who do not.
Mr. Jenson stated that, in his opinion, this indicates the plan represents the people who actually live and work in the rural parts of the county, which was the intent.
He said that tonight they would be presenting tonightsome draft strategies to the Board, and they did the same with the Land Use Board last month and received their feedback.from them.He
said they would appreciate feedback from the Board, but it does not have to be given tonight. He added that the Board can take time to digest the information and provide feedback later
by reaching out to him, Bjorn Hansen,or Mr. Baucom directly.
Mr. Jenson stated that on August 26th the committee will review and approve some of those strategies. He said that throughout September and October staff will take that information and
work on finalizing the draft plan, which will be presented to the Land Use Board on October 21st.
He said it is hoped the committee will endorse the plan on October 28th. He said that the plan would themthen come back before the Board on November 17th when a public hearing will be
held. He said the plan would then come before the Board of
Commissioners on November 17th when a public hearing would be held.He added that this isthe wayhow the plans have tomust be done in North Carolina, because they follow the same process
as rezoning. He stated that on November 17th a public hearing will take place before the Board of Commissioners with the finalized version of the plan, hopefully, with committee endorsement
and the Land Use Board’s recommendation.
Mr. Jenson stated that if the plan is approved, rather than letting it sit, they would immediately start including potential updates to the land use map and possibly Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) changes. He added that some strategies may require additional discussion beyond UDO amendments and potentially in June some items could involve future funding considerations.
Mr. Jenson then recognized Alan Baucom, Chairman of the Rural Land Use Steering Committee, for his presentation.
Mr. Baucom stated that the steering committee is staying on calendar and that everything has been completed on the timeline set out so far. He said the committee’s intentionwasisto
remain on that schedule and return in November with strategies that have received feedback from the Board, feedback from the Land Use Board, and have also been presented to the public.
He stated that he had three items to present today, including strongly supported strategies that weresupportedby both by the steering committee and by the polls taken. He noted there
were 166 responses from the poll but said he believed he had received more input personally, since not everyone who provides feedback does not dofile a poll, and there has also been
a lot of interpersonal interaction.
He stated that there will be strongly supported strategies, supported strategies, and not supported strategies.
Mr. Baucom addressed the strongly supported strategies,which includedincluding expanding the agricultural easement purchase program,fwhich remains the number one priority and involves
the purchase of development rights.
Mr. Baucom stated that these purchases mean the property cannot be developed in perpetuity. He explained that the land would still remain in the ownership of the current owner or whomeverwhoeverthey
sell it to and that it functions the same as a deed with the exception that it can never be developed.
Mr. Baucom stated that the program is already in place under the auspices of the Soil and Water Conservation District and that three parcels have already been approved. He reiterated
that the expanded agricultural easement purchase program or development rights purchase program is by far the number one priority.
He saidthat the second item was to require contiguous areas for open space in major development and not have them splintered out.but have it contiguous.
Mr. Baucom stated that the third item involves proposing the removal of one or more bypasses, such as proposed bypasses specifically referencing proposed bypasses around Waxhaw, Monroe’s
Southern Loop, and the Marshville Southern Loop. He clarified that these were not named or prioritized in any way but were presented as a question of whether one or more bypasses should
be removed.
He stated that the next item is to limit subdivisions in certain zoning districts. Mr. Baucom stated that the last strongly supported strategy is to protect intact forest within the
30 percent open space required area.
He explained that the next strategies included rare and protected species, wetlands, and streams. He said if you address one of these, you are essentially addressing all three.
Mr. Baucom stated that a supported strategy is to expand the rural area on the land use map. He said there is not much that can be done outside of municipalities and that the circle
shown represents the only remaining areas that could be expanded which isare located within the county.
He said that implementing this strategy would occur through an amendment to the Union County Land Use Map.
Mr. Baucom stated that the frequent comments are there are already enough high-density developments withexpressing concerns that housing is outpacing industry and that more rural is
better use. He said there were also comments supporting rezoning back to rural.
He stated that the supported strategy was to add six rural centers to the Land Use Map. He explained that that these are centers that already have a convenience store or gas station
but are not identified on the Land Use Map. He said the question was whether to add six rural centers to the Land Use Map and not allow strip malls or similar development, but to recognize
them as convenience-type facilities.
He stated that the not-supported strategy is to purchase parcels in priority areas in exchange for higher density in remaining areas.
He stated that another not supported strategy was allowing low-impact commercial and industrial uses on residentially zoned land. He noted that the poll’s wording may not have been clear
because the feedback was sometimes confusing or sometimes conflicting. He explained that the intent behind the question is to determinethis operation waswhether property owners with
10, 15, or larger areas who are were in the service type field, such as HVAC, electrical, or plumbing,and operate their oficesfromout of their homes. He added that the intent for a service
type business the strategy was not supported.
Mr. Baucom said that frequent comments suggested a minimum lot size of five to ten acres. He said the poll question suggested ten acres with about five acres of undeveloped for every
acre with a minimum ten-acre lot size.
He stated that there were some questions raised about whether opening that “Pandora’s box” would lead to a lack of enforcement. He explained that strategies that increase flexibility
for property owners and developers were not less supported than the as much as thestrategies that limit development. He said that it was universal across all responses.
Mr. Baucom stated that the committee studied how to restrict major subdivisions as a use. He added that subdivisions on their own are not really a standalone land use, so the committee
has to address work from that standpoint.
He stated that currently it would currently require a change by the North Carolina General Assembly to change the General Statutes, because they limit downzoning of property. He noted
that eligible strategies could include that they requirerequiringa special use permit for major subdivisions or that they add an additional requirement that a major subdivision in the
rural area would require access to at least one public utility such as water or sewer. He stated that an ideal strategy would be to downzone all land in rural areas and process subdivisions
as rezonings.
Mr. Baucom said that one of the ideas coming out of the committee was requiring at least one public utility. He pointed out that for most of the area that would be water, and the reality
is water is not available in most rural areas.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to Mr. Baucom, Lee Jenson and the Steering Committee members for attending tonight’s meeting and for the work and time they have invested.
He stated that there are several items for the Board to consider. He noted that he especially liked some of the strongly supported strategies referencing the point about 30 percent open
space requirement and making that contiguous. He said that this was something the Board should at least consider thesein the future.
He stated that the Board has been very supportive of the easement purchase program, and he believes there is a lot of support for this program, though he did not want to speak for the
Board. He said it may be for the Board to consider additional funding over time, noting he did not know if it could be done this year, but it could be considered in the future budgets
as a potential area to rededicatereallocate funds.
Commissioner Sides echoed earlier comments and expressed appreciation to everyone for their hard work. He referenced the strongly supported strategy regarding the removal of one or more
bypasses, noting the long timeline it took to complete the first bypass.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that she hoped that the Rural Land Use Committee was reaching out to the North Carolina General Assembly and letting them know what Union County wants.
She pointed out that recent proposals, including some local representatives, have wanted to move the rural areas into highly populated areas. She stated that, as someone who lives
in rural Union County, she really likes it rural. She said that she supports so much of what Mr. Baucom has presented. Commissioner Christina Helms said she hoped that municipalities
would review this information, and even though they are not in a rural area, what they do still affects the rest of the county.
Mr. Baucom said the Soil and Water Conservation District had an application period for six weeks for landowners to make an application to go into the program, and within that six weeks,
there were 28 applicants representing a little over $7 million in property. He compared it to the State of North Carolina where the application period was open for a year, and they had
five applicants.
Mr. Baucom stated that this indicates there is a strong appetite not only from the public who want to preserve the rural atmosphere but also from landowners who want to participate and
wantkeeptheir land to stayrural and not developed. He said they view it as being stewards rather than owners.
He stated that that the timing is wonderful from both aspects, noting that the general public appreciates open space and what Union County offers as a place to live. He said that the
County is the third-largest agricultural county in the state. He also stated that he wanted to share the willingness of landowners to participate in the program.
Mr. Baucom stated that anything that is done is not going to stop growth. He said the right approach will change how the county looks 10, 50, or even 100 years from now, but growth will
still occur. He noted that landowners can still capitalize on their property and do not have to participate, and the builders can still build and develop but under different circumstances,
zoning, and different approaches.
Mr. Baucom stated that every four-way stop and every roundabout should have rumble strips, adding that he made that comment relative toregarding the other item.
Commissioner Clancy Baucom asked for clarification on the not-supported strategies in the second point regarding low-impact commercial and industrial uses on residentially zoned land
and the reference to a five- to ten-acre minimum lot size. He noted that many mom and pop businesses start out that way and then asked whether the people were against those startup businesses.
Mr. Baucom stated those results came from the poll.
Commissioner Clancy Baucom asked whether they were against startup businesses.
Mr. Baucom stated that the poll did not support it.
Mr. Baucom stated that the people who responded did not support allowing low-impact commercial and industrial uses on RA-40 and added that he believed they probably did a poor job of
wording that question.
Commissioner Clancy Baucom responded that the results surprised him.
Mr. Baucom stated that some of the comments were supportive even though they voted they did not support it. He noted that is the conflict he sees in the results.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that as someone who took the survey, she agreed wholeheartedly that the wording was skewed. She said she had to read it a couple of times, because
she was not sure what was being asked and added that the wording could have been better.
Mr. Jenson stated that what they took away from some of the comments was that people thought it was going to turn into an industrial park, and he clarified that was not the intent of
the question.
He continued to sayhis comments by sayingthat the County allows home occupations and rural occupations, and this was an expansion.of it.He said one might start out with five to ten acres,
own some landscaping equipment, and maybe start a small business, and that was what it was supposed to be.
Mr. Baucom stated responded to Vice Chair Brian Helms’ point, there is a demand for participation, but with that demand also comes funding concerns, and stated that he was hopeful everyone
could come up with strategies that will be beneficial. He noted that he heard one gentleman say he was more willing to pay but added that people often say that, but sometimes they do
not always mean it.
At approximately 9:00 p.m., Chair Merrell called for a short break. during the meeting.Chair Merrell reconvened the regular meeting at approximately 9:15 p.m. and called the next item
on the agenda.
25-493 Contract & Budget Amendment - Town of Wingate Law Enforcement Services
Chair Merrill recognized Sheriff Eddie Cathy for his comments regarding the item.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that the taking over of the Town of Wingate’s law enforcement started about six years ago when he met with the president of the university and the mayor.
He said that at that time they made the decision to try and save the Town’s police department, since then it has had three or possibly four police chiefs.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that they came back to him and indicated there were only
three officers working in the area. He said they asked if the Sheriff’s Office would
take over the Town’s law enforcement. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office was already, handling all the calls and related work in that area, and was not a big choice because they were
effectively providing the service anyway.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that the proposed contract is the one that is beingused with all the other towns.
He stated that the agreement states that the County will contribute funding, but he was not certain of the exact figures, but thought it was around $48,000, and the Town would provide
$500,000. He said in return the Town of Wingate will keep $300,000 of the $800,000 they had budgeted.
Sheriff Cathey stated that with the $500,000, they will hire four officers and equip them, train them, and put them on the road to work in the Town of Wingate.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that Brad Sellers, Wingate City Manager, was present and could address anyanswer anyquestions regarding the arrangement or explain why they made the decision.to
do this.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey added that it is a benefit to the citizens of Wingate, as they will have better service and full-time officers in the Town. He stated that there is not an hour in
the day that the Sheriff’s Office does not have a car in Wingate going back and forth through the Town.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that if there were any questions, he could answer them or would ask Mr. Sellers to add his comments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, stated that his question was what the County’s impact would be this year, specifying that he was not including any cost for vehicles, cars, or equipment.
Sheriff Cathey stated that was everything.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if that included new cars and equipment.
Sheriff Cathey responded that it did.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms statedsaid that he was under the impression that it did not.
County Manager Brian Matthews stated that there is typically a capital purchase included as part of the Sheriff’s Office. He noted that the Sheriff’s Office already had the ability in
its budget to purchase some vehicles, so the vehicles would not need to be purchased in the first year and that this would be built inover time. He added that Wingate would still be
responsible for the capital cost and the County would purchase new vehicles later. He added that because the Sheriff’s Office already had those vehicles, there was no need to include
a capital cost in the upfront cost.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if there would be negotiations with Wingate moving forward.
Mr. Matthews stated thatit is part of the cost and that Wingate University ultimately has to pay not only for salaries but also for the capital expenditures over time.
Sheriff Cathey stated that it is not negotiable with Wingate and that is whatthis is the amount. is.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Sheriff Cathey for the information he provided.
Chair Melissa Merrell asked for clarification noting that some numbers had been mentioned earlier including $500,000 and $300,000 leading up to the $800,000. She pointed out that the
agenda lists the Town of Wingate is responsible for $484,390 and asked for clear confirmation of what the Town of Wingate will contribute and what amount the County will be contributing.
Mr. Matthews stated that the $484,390 represents the total contract amount. He explained that Wingate is responsible for 90 percent of that amount which equals $435,952 and the County
is responsible for 10 percent which equals $48,438.
Chair Merrell asked if the amount was based on 10 months or 12 months.
Mr. Matthews, if he was not mistaken it is a 12-month contract.
Chair Merrell asked if it was an annual contract.
Mr. Matthews stated that it is a 12-month contract and an annual contract. He added that next year the Town will have to budget its portion as well, and that this is only one year of
those costs, noting that they have to pay those costs annually.
Chair Merrell asked for clarification whether the Sheriff’s Department would be taking over policing for the university and the town or just the town.
Sheriff Cathey stated that the university does not have a police department and that only the town has a police department.
Mr. Matthews stated that the university has safety officers but does not have an actual campus police department. He explained that to his understanding the Wingate Police Department
responded to those calls previously, and the Sheriff’s Office will still respond to calls at the university.
Chair Merrell askednoted that over the last several months the Sheriff’s Office had 17 to 19 vacancies and most recently around 21 vacancies and has had trouble filling those positions.
She questioned whether taking on a new municipality and university would add four more positions, and that would bebringing the total to 25 vacancies they cannot fill.
Sheriff Cathey stated that it would be 17 vacancies.
Chair Merrell asked if the 17 vacancies includes the four positions for the Town of Wingate.
Sheriff Cathey responded that once the item is approved, it would be four vacancies.
Chair Merrell stated that four vacancies should be added back to the vacancy count noting that salaries, sign on bonuses and whether Union County is not offering enough. She added that
they have talked about having to settle for B or C law enforcement candidates because top students coming out of training are going to municipalities and counties that are offering signing
bonuses.
Chair Merrell asked about the status of today filling vacancies in the Sheriff’s Office, and how Sheriff Cathey feels about the 17 vacancies and taking on a university and another municipality.
Sheriff Cathey stated that taking on the university would not affect them either way explaining that it is just adding what that they are already having to do. He said Wingate only has
one officer working in the Town. He added that the Sheriff’s Office is already answering all the calls in the Town. Chair Merrell asked if the officer was full-time or part-time.
Sheriff Cathey stated that the officer is full-time and has not applied with the Sheriff’s Office. He added that none of them have applied, noting there is one, but he has a broken ankle,
and they would have to wait until he is able to work before they can check his background.
Chair Merrell asked if her understanding was correct that the other officers had been terminated.
Sheriff Cathey stated that no, he did not think so. He added that Mr. Sellers could provide more details because he was not sure, and did not have anything to do with it.
Mr. Sellers explained that the council disbanded the department on July 15th. He noted that the timing had been terrible from a budgetary standpoint and he certainly understood that
point.
Chair Merrell stated that she thought the matter came to the County the night after the Commissioners voted on the budget.
Mr. Sellers stated that he apologized for the situation and noted that it involves people, and it has been a very fluid situation. He explained that the process began in June when he
started speaking with Sheriff Cathey and his staff and during that time dealing with officers thatwho quit and otherswho had medical issues describing the situation as a perfect storm.
Chair Merrell asked whether there were alsoofficers who were terminated.
Mr. Sellers replied, yes, and said they have continued to wrestle with this for years. He said that comments on Facebook that since the town was building new homes, it could afford it.
He noted that was not the case and the Town has had zero growth in 20 years.
He stated that recently a thousand new homes were approved.
.
He stated that Wingate University does not pay taxes and the town is already behind financially. He shared in the last 10 years, the Town has had 56 officers coming and going during
his tenure. He said that the Town cannot sustain that turnover.
Mr. Sellers said they are dealing with the same staffing issues Sheriff Cathey is dealing with, noting they are loosinglosing officers to Union County, Stallings, and the City of Monroe.
He said the decision was made to seek the Sheriff’s assistance and added the Town’s situation is unique because the Sheriff’s Office operates directly over them, which he described as
fortunate.
He stated that the gun range is on Mills Harris Road, and he cannot leave his home in College Park and go to the office without encountering a deputy sheriff. He added that the Town
is blessed to have the Sheriff’s Office in its town.
Mr. Sellers added that from a financial standpoint, the Town budgeted $826,000 for it isits police department this year. He said if growth continues in two years, the cost would exceed
$1 millionin two years. He added they knew it would be better service to go with the Sheriff’s Department.and receive better services.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked for clarification noting that it was included in the agenda packet, but he wanted to confirm that the existing building would be included and that they
would be entering into a lease agreement.
Mr. Sellers stated that, yes, for $1 they are going to allow the Sheriff to utilize the facility. He said that it would provide providing visibilityfor residents, particularly on that
end of the county with the Sheriff located on Highway 74. He also noted that the Town will be paying for signage to replace the existing signs.
He said it was important to the mayor and board that once the Sheriff takes over the police, thatthe sign be taken down and replaced immediately with the county sheriff’s sign.
Vice Chair Brain W. Helms asked if staff expects this to be a budgeted item moving forward of $48,438$484,000for the annual cost.
Mr. Matthews stated that if the Board approves the contract, there are provisions for the cost to increase over time as the County’s costs increase. He explained that this adjustment
is built into the contract but said it would be approximately that much annually.
Chair Melissa Merrell stated that she had a question along those lines as well. She said that the town of Wingate had budgeted $826,000 for its police force, while the contract is only
for $484,000.
Mr. Niland saidthat in a small-town department, based on his experience in Wingate, the Town still has to pay for some command staff. He noted that the Sheriff already has that staff
in place to handle those duties, so the Town would not need to have a chief, captains, or sergeant, because those duties would be covered through existing personnel at the Sheriff’s
Office. He said they would be able to have the same policing with less personnel.
Chair Merrell asked whether this contract is comparable to what the Sheriff’s Office is offering for Indian Trail.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that it is the same contract as the one with the Town of Indian
Trail.
Chair Merrell stated that she agreed that the timing is bad. She said it is unfortunate that calls were not made to let the Commissioners know they were about to go down that road, because
the Board had not even voted yet. She added that Sheriff Cathey said they are already doing the work and questioned whether a vote is still needed if the work is already underway.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked since the Sheriff’s Office would be leasing the building on Highway 74 across from the university for $1, what is in that facility that cannot already
be used at the Sheriff’s Office just a mile away. She asked what is the purpose of having a building located there and if there wasis thereanything special in the building, such as cells.
Mr. Sellers stated that there is nothing special about the building and that it is really the visibility of the location. He explained thatthat it was originally built as a drug store
and that they were able to move the police department into it about six years ago. He added that part of the deal with the Sheriff was that they would allow the Sheriff’s Office to use
that facility, the same as they do in Indian Trail.
Chair Merrell asked Sheriff Cathey if it gave him pause to hear that the Town has been through 56 officers.
Sherriff Cathey said that Wingate went through it, but the Sheriff’s Office has not lost gone throughthat number of officers. He referenced the statement about 56 officers in 10 years
out of seven officers. He said he does not know how many they go through in a year, but it is not anywhere near that number, not even in several years.
Chair Merrell asked whether supervisory positions would need to be increased for the new positions or for the ones already taking these calls or doing this patrol.
Sheriff Cathey responded, “No”
Chair Merrell said that was the case when they were doing SROs for the schools that they always had to factor in another supervisor.
Sheriff Cathy stated that is true, but they already have shift supervisors and do not have four officers assigned specifically to Wingate but are using patrol officers. He stated that
this will cut downonwill reduce response times to the citizens of Wingate once they getfour officers are assigned there. He said that they will work with the County Manager, and they
probably need a little supervision in that section but not just for Wingate. He added that they need a lieutenant and said they think they have it worked out.
Chair Merrell asked whether that would be in addition to the four patrol officers. Sheriff Cathey responded that it is not in addition. He explained that the four patrol officers have
nothing to do with the lieutenant.
Commissioner Sides said he hoped the Wingate officers would meet the standards expected of the Sheriff’s Department and that they would be good additionsto the department. who could
help address the current vacancies.
Sheriff Cathey said that despite all of the vacancies the Sheriff’s Office has, they have not lowered their hiring standards and are not going to lower the hiring standards they have
successfully used successfully all these years. He stated that applicants will still have to meet those standards. He said it is the same process as with the officers.They offered the
opportunity to apply and go through the hiring process, and they would try to hire them, but noted that they did not want to and have gone to other places.
Sheriff Cathey said his office worked with the university, and he believes they are excited and that he knows the town is excited. He said he went to all the public hearings, but he
did not participate, he just listened.
Sheriff Cathey said he never heard one complaint about the Union County Sheriff’s Office. He said that it was basically that people did not want to lose the heritage of the police department.
He said he understands that concern.
He said that the residents will receive better service,andquicker response times, and increased equipment with the Sheriff’s Office providing the services. He also said the university
would operate its programs using off-duty officers for events like football games and saidthat nothing will change as far as the university.
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to approve the action requested in agenda item 25-493 as follows: 1) Adopt Budget Amendment #3; 2) approve the addition of four (4) full-time equivalent
(FTE) positions, and 3) authorize the County Manager to a) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, b) exercise any renewal or extension term
options set forth in the Agreement, and c) terminate the Agreement it deemed in the best interest of the County; each in the County Manager’s discretion.
The motion passed unanimously as follows: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye
25-504 Jail Discussion
Chair Merrell recognized Brian Matthews, County Manager, for staff’s comments.
Mr. Matthews explained this item was a request from Commissioner Sides to bring the item back for discussion regarding the proposed jail’s ultimate size. He added that they also took
the opportunity to have candid discussions about how to pay for it and other things that they need to do, noting that those decisions are looming and the Board will need to decide what
to do.
Mr. Matthews referred to the timeline that was discussed previously. He said he was not going to repeat go throughthe entire timeline, since the Board had seen it before. He stated
that he believed the most important part was that discussions about a new jail began back in 2004 or 2005. He said that now, in 2025, the County still does not have a new jail, and that
multiple boards have pushed the issue out. He said the Board is now left to decide with the decision ofwhat to do.
He said the latest section in 2025 is that a study was conducted, and the needs were evaluated and options and cost estimates were provided.
Mr. Matthews said the most recent cost estimates they received were for a 400 bed/600 core jail and a 500 bed/600 core jail. He said the 400 bed/600 core option starts with a
400 core and could ultimately be built out to 600 beds at some point in time, and the 500 bed/600 core option follows the same concept. He said the construction cost estimates at that
time were about $144 million for the 400 bed/600 core option and about $168 million for the 500 bed/600 core option. Mr. Matthews said they also provided operational estimates for what
it would take to fully runoperate the jail when it is completely full.
Mr. Matthews said he wanted the Board to understand those numbers for the 400 bed/600 core option were almost $15 million, andestimatesfor the other option were about $19 to almost $20
million at full buildout. He said that includes all the deputies and all associated costs.
He said, obviously, if a jail is built today, it is not going to be built in a day, it will take time. He added they are not going to hire all the detention officers and staff at once
but instead will ramp up over time. He added that those costs are already included but will change, and he would provide more detail on thatlater on.
Mr. Matthews said one of the items the Board has discussed is how to fund the cost of a jail if it wasisdecided to build a new one. He said what has been discussed is a possible bond
referendum or voter referendum for a new jail. He added that there are steps that the Board would have to take if it chose that option for funding the project.
He shared a timeline outlining steps if the Board decides to proceed with a bond referendum, would beat the November election in 2026. He added the Board might decide something different,
but staff would use that as a starting point. He said that around April 2026 the Board would need to formally acttake actionas far as the referendum. Mr. Matthews said that in May
and June, there would beadditional actions would need to be taken whichthat would ultimately lead up to the actual referendum, which would be in November 2026.
He said Local Government Commission approval would still be needed to issue the bonds and added that it would likely be somewhere in 2027.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the referendum would haveis required to be in the general election or could it instead be in the primary election.
Mr. Matthews said the referendum could be held during the primary election, but he explained they are up against a lot of work to put it on the primary election. He said the Board could
choose to hold the referendum during the primary, but there is a lot that hasis required to be done between now and that primary. He said that is why they are using the November timeframe
as a starting point because it is easier to make that work.
He pointed out that it would be 2027 when they go out for the bond orders, and it would likely be 2029 before they are in the middle of construction and 2031 beforeit is projected the
project is finished. He said that is a long time to continue operating the jail as is and dealing with some of the challenges.they have with it.
Mr. Matthews said he would provide the Board with an idea of the costs and potential impacts to property taxes. He said that if a bond referendum is held, it would be a voter approved
bond referendum meaning the voters would be approving the tax pledge needed to pay for it.
He said the financing amounts shown for the 400 bed/600 core and 500 bed/600 core jail options are higher because they used the consultant’s numbers and escalated them to show the timeframe
when the bonds would actually be issued. He said that if the bonds are issued in 2027, they must have toescalate those costs to accommodate that time.
Mr. Matthews said that the cost increased to $152 million for the 400 bed/600 core option and $178 million for the 500 bed/600 core option. He said that the estimated property tax rate
increase for that amount using the top number of 5.34 percent,which is what is required to be included on the actual referendum for voters to see.
He stated that the 5.3 percent number is not usually used in budgeting, since that is the higher end. He said they budget the five percent number, which is more in line with what they
see. He said even then it is more than a two-penny impact on the tax rate to pay for it.
Mr. Matthews said the tax rate does not factor in any revaluations that may occur during this process. He saidthat revaluations happen every four years, and there could beanother revaluation
that could change all of it. He explained that it was much like the most recent revaluation, when the numbers shown for tax rate impacts for school bonds were actually lower.
He said that he cannot say the tax rate increase will be lower, but he can only go by the available information. He said it would be a two penny and above impact to the tax rate.
Mr. Matthews stated it is not about building a jail. He emphasized that if the County is going to spend approximately $152 to $178 million, whatever the final number is, the jail alsohas
to be operated.and run.
Mr. Matthews stated that the County currently spends roughly $13 million in total operational costs which includes staffing and other operating costs such as electricity and all the
other costs that go into it. He stated that a 400-bed facility would be $28 million to operate, and at full buildout the cost would be $32 million almost $33 million.
Mr. Matthews stated that those are significant costs are significant. He stated that more detention officers will have to be hired, more electricity will have to be paid,for and there
will be more costs to the County.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that part of her question was about the staffing cost. She noted that the detention center is currently understaffed and that a large portion of that
is because municipalities can pay higher salaries. She asked what pricethe salary is the County is paying its staff, and were the provided staffing costs provided based on the current
rate or an escalated rate.
Mr. Matthews stated that the estimates are based on the current rate with some escalation using an inflationary estimate increase but noted that amount is a guess and the best estimate
at this time. they can do. He stated that $28 million for a 400-bed facility and $32 to $33 million at ultimate buildout when all detention officers and the facility isarefully loaded.
He stated that if the Board was todecided to move forward with construction of the jail, it would be six years before the jail would be built. He stated that the County will need to
operate the current jail during that time, and there isa lot of work that needs to be done to continue operating to operateit safely and securely. He added that there are amany number
ofshort-term projects that need to be done. He stated that there are almost $1 million in projects that have funding set aside but there is another nearly $1 million in unfunded projects
that will need to be done over the next five or six years. He stated that totals up toalmost $2 million, and these are costs that the County will need to continue to operate and runthe
jail. He added that he wanted the Board to be aware there are some ongoing costs the County will have to incur.
Mr. Matthews said that the next steps arestep is for the Board to provide direction on the bed count for the facility, whether that is the 400 bed/600 core or the 500 bed/600 core. He
also said staff needs to know the Board’s funding strategy,whether the Board wants to place the jail on a referendum and if so, staff will begin that process, and, if not, staff will
do something different. He stated that they will probably start design ahead of time if the Board does not want to move forward with the bond referendum. He stated that if the Board
does not want to move forward with the bond referendum, staff will not start that process yet because the County cannot get reimbursed for those items and wants to make sure all funds
are available.
Mr. Matthews stated that that Board has brought up, and he believes should be explored in greater detail is the reuse of the existing jail facility. He stated that he believes it has
some future benefits. He said that staff has done as much as they can do and they need to hire experts like architects and engineers to give them a better idea of adaptive reuse. He
stated that the staff is asking the Board to authorize spending approximately $87,000 to hire architects and engineers to lay out what can be done for adaptive reuse of the facility.
He stated that he believes this is important because regardless of the size of the jail that is built, there will still be a demand 30 to 50 years from now, and the County will have
to determine how to accommodate that demand when it occurs. He stated that this is an opportunity to use the facility, if needed, for any future expansion. Mr. Matthews stated that
those are the next steps, and he is seeking direction from the Board on those items.
Commissioner Sides stated there is another option he would appreciate receiving input on. He said Cabarrus County faced a similar issue about 20 years ago when constructing a jail annex.
He stated that while it is not a long-term solution, it could add additional capacity more quickly and create a safer work environment by allowing space to move inmates during repairs.
He asked for thoughts on an annex as an option that could have a more immediate impact on than building a full-scale jail.
Mr. Matthews stated that his first response would be that the cost of building anything is not going to be less expensive. He stated that if the County decides to build an annex, the
Board should keep in mind that if it were to constructiona 100-bed annex,100 beds,the cost of building the remaining 400 or 500 beds is never going to decrease and will continue to increase.
He stated that, in his opinion, if the County is going to move ahead, it would be best to determine whatthe size of facility to build and obtain the funding to build it. He stated that
it would save money in the long run. He acknowledged that it would cost a lot but statedsaidthat if it is pieced together over time, the cost might be double because of waitingthelonger
wait to build the facility. He stated that it depends on the strategy.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked Manager Matthews asked what the funding source would be for the $86,500 for architectural studies for the jail.
Mr. Matthews stated that there are already projects set aside originallyfor the jail itself, and it will come out offromthat capital cost funding.for the capital cost of the jail.
Commissioner Christina Helms also asked about the repairs to the current jail.
Mr. Matthews stated that part of the nearly $1 million is already in the funding stream. He stated that over the course of the next couple of years, funding will have to be built into
the capital program to finish the remainder of those projects.
With reference to Commissioner Sides’ question about the annex, Chair Merrell asked whether, if the $86,500 is approved for the jail adaptive reuse study, the current jail could become
the annex in the future.
Mr. Matthews stated thataswhat he understood from Commissioner Sides’ comments was that in order to gain additional capacity, the annex would provide that additional capacity. He stated
that he believed that was the direction in which Commissioner Sides was going.
Mr. Matthews agreed that over time reuse of the jail would likely become the annex. He stated that it would not gain capacity quickly, because if the County builds the new jail first,
there would not be any new capacity gained immediately. He added that it would become the de facto annex.
Chair Merrell explained the reason she mentioned it was becausethat it would give the Board comfort in investing in it now, because the County could potentially have six more years before
a new jail would be ready, and it would not be a total loss to put money into it and take care of it if the study determines it could be used as an annex or for separation purposes for
populations.
Mr. Matthews explained that if the County were going to invest a significant amount of money into the facility, the County would want to recoup its use long term rather than use if for
only five or six years and then discard it. He added that there would be challenges with having two separate facilities, including how to manage. . staff two facilities.
Mr. Matthews stated that if block renovations were needed, individuals could be moved into the annex area while the renovations were completed. He noted there were many opportunities
for reuse but added that the architect may identify challenges and determine whether reuse would be worthwhile, which is not known at this point.
Chair Merrell said she remembered the conversation several months ago about weekenders and that the annex may be a good place for individuals who need to come in and serve their time
on weekends, separate from the full-time jail population. She also notedthere arethat other court cases require separation where separationof inmates is required.
Commissioner Baucom asked if it has been determined if the soils under the structure were still settling.
Mr. Matthews stated that it has not been evaluated. He added that an engineering study was completed several years ago that evaluated the facility. He stated that it was his understanding
that the area of concern was under the administrative side of the building and not necessarily under the jail side itself. He stated that they will obviously have to evaluate whether
anything has changed and whether there are any issues that need to be addressed with the jail and/or the administration building.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated,assuming that the Board chooses to press forward, he would like this concern to be communicated withto whomever the County is working with. He emphasized
that any new project, whether a jail or repurposing the old jail, needs to focus on functionality and not flash. He emphasized that whatever decision is made should be one to serve the
needs and not necessarily to serve the wants. He noted that the County is facing a lot ofsignifcantexpense and that this is a county-changing decision, not a small decision that the
Board has been tasked with, but a huge decision.
He noted that for the past 20 years, every Board that has discussed this matter has been scared to decide on a plan. make a decision. He noted that other Boards have moved forward with
other projects, including the Sheriff’s Office administrative building, Emergency Services building, Health and Human Services buildings, 911 Center, crime lab, and firearms range and
medical examiners.
He clarified that his comments were not a knock on law enforcement. He said he was trying to express that the County has invested in other projects, and he is not saying those things
were not needed, but emphasized that this jail is a true need and has been for a very long time. He stressed the need to use tax dollars responsibly. be responsible with taxpayer dollars.
He noted that he did not want to invest in fancy architecture, marble floors, etc., but wanted to invest in the costwhere it counts. He emphasized the need to build a structure that
can expand and not one that is going to win a beauty contest.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that at the end of the day the County is talking about a jail. He acknowledged that the Board members understand there is a minimum level of care required
for inmates but said it does not have to be fancy.
Mr. Matthews acknowledged Vice Chair Helms’ comments and noted that the focus will be on design and function.
Commissioner Sides said that he understood Vice Chair Brian W. Helms’ concerns. He acknowledged that there will be pushbacks from those who do not want any of their tax money going toward
the inmates, but emphasized that it is also a matter of ensuring law enforcement has a safe working environment.
Chair Merrell added that it is also about living in a safe environment.
Commissioner Sides said that, speaking only for himself, his primary overriding concern is the safety of the people of Union County. He stated that currently they do not have capacity,
and when someone is arrested, someone must has tobe released.
Chair Merrell asked for clarification and requested Sheriff Cathey’s input. She questionedasked whether criminals are being released into the community because the County does not have
a cell available and noted the importance of being careful with that information being communicated.
Sheriff Cathey clarified that the jail is at capacity, and inmates have tomust sleep on the floor. Chair Merrell asked for clarification that that criminals are not being released,
because there are not enough cells.
Sheriff Cathey explained that sometimes the County calls the towns to let them know that the jail is over capacity. He stated that if the towns can let someone go on a citation, they
ask them not to bring them into jail, but if they need to bring them intothe jail, they will take them.
He shared that the jail currently has approximately 290 inmates while its capacity is about 240. He explained that the jail has 264 beds, but not all inmates can be placed together.
He added that their jail population has been around 288, 290, close to 300, and has gone over 300 at times. He noted that the Jail inspectors are not pleased with those conditions.
Commissioner Sides clarified that he did not want his earlier comment to be misconstrued that theas the County is releasing people to the street who should be in jail. He said that the
County has a capacity issue, and the County funds an Assistant District Attorney to help make decisions regarding aboutreleases or citations based on the capacity. He added that he is
not comfortable with the risk of the wrong person being released on the street.
Commissioner Christina Helms added to Vice Chair Brian W. Helms’ comment that
taxpayers do not want fluff and want a bare-bones facility. She emphasized the
importance for law enforcement officers to be protected as much as possible in the jail while also making it an inconvenience. She asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms to correct her if she
was wrong, and that was what he was alluding to in his comments. Vice Chair Brian W. Helms agreed that the taxpayers do not want to build a five-star resort, and that was exactly the
point he was making. He emphasized that it is a jail.
Sheriff Cathey assured the Board that if they took time to visit the jail, they would see there is no fluff. He noted that the inmates are on cement floors with iron bars and iron beds.
He stated the State does not allow three people in a cell unless they are provided a canoe, which he explained thatgoes under the beds so they can sleep off the floor. He noted that
the jail beds are built in a wayso that the canoes will not fit underneath them, so inmates are on the floor. He explained that the County has placed inmates in Cabarrus County’s facility
and scattered them around the state wherever beds are available. He noted that the jail population is currently at 289.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that Commissioner Sides’ question may have resulted from some confusion or misunderstanding in the information received from the consultant. He clarified
that it was not intended as a knock on the Sheriff’s Office, but some information from the consultant suggested there may come a point where individuals could be released with lesser
offenses.
He noted that he wanted to mention that point as the Board considers the scope of the project. He added that he personally favors the lower end of the proposed scope.
Mr. Matthews asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms if he were referring to the 400 bed/600 core option.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms confirmed that was correct. He noted that he personally favors that option and believes that as the Board looks at potentially repurposing the old jail, it
gives the County additional capacity and flexibility. He added that if the Board is choosing between the two options, he would support the lower of the two.
Chair Merrell said she wanted to have a conversation about that issue. She said that, if the County is currently hovering under 300 inmates, turning the weekenders away, and sending
10 to 15 inmates to Cabarrus County, she is afraid that if the County waits six or seven more years to open a new jail, the number of inmates will be way over 400.
She expressed her concern about underbuilding the jail. She emphasized that she does not want the Board to mislead constituents with their votes or their money. She added she personally
does not want to be remembered for spending that amount of money and the facility not being big enough.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked the County Manager, if the jail would start with an initial bed count of 400 but could potentially be increased to 600.
Mr. Matthews clarified that the core would be built for 600 beds for both options. He explained that the core would be 600 beds, and the bed count would start at whatever number is selected,
whether 400 or 500.
He explained that if the County starts at 400 beds, there is still construction that has to be done to get the extra 200 beds, and the County is going to pay whatever that cost is when
it comes time to get those additional beds. He clarified that the core is built for the size that is chosen, and then it can be expanded to that number, but there is ultimately a cost.
Mr. Matthews explained that logic would hold true, although he noted that it does not always. He stated that to get the extra 100 beds, the County would spend another $26 million for
those 100 beds. He explained that if the County waits and then suddenly needs those 100 beds, the cost will not be $26 million when the beds are needed. He said the cost could be $30
to $35 million, or whatever the number is at that time. He said that the County will have to come up with those funds to have the additional 100 beds when needed, and it will not happen
overnight because it will take time to build.those additional beds.
Commissioner Sides referenced the consultant’s statement regarding the 80 percent rule. He noted that having a bed capacity of 400 does not mean the County could have 400 guests.
Mr. Matthews agreed, stating that was a very good point.
Commissioner Sides said that because gangs have to be separated and co-defendants have to be separated. He noted that when using the term 400 beds, that does not mean 400 guests.
Mr. Matthews agreed and referenced the Sheriff’s earlier point that the current bed count in the jail is 264. He explained that the jail is rated for 246 or 248 inmates, and when classifying
inmates and placing them in the proper classifications, the jail can only accommodate 246 inmates. He explained that this is where Commissioner Sides was getting the 80 percent rule
because the jail cannot really have 264 people in there and meet the classification requirements. He added that, ultimately, if the County builds a 400-bed facility, some of those beds
will not beavailableable to be usedfor classification.
He explained that if the County invests to improve the current facility and make it an annex that could help meet some of the classification separations if necessary. He stated that
would be an additional investment and that is not shown in the information they have because the cost is unknown. not known.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if there is any information on the length of time that it took from the initial buildout of the current jail to reach capacity.
Mr. Matthews explained that it is his understanding that dating back to 2004, the jail had already exceeded 240 inmates and was classified at 246 inmates. He said that it was approximately
10 years before the jail reached its rated capacity.
He explained that what helped during that timeframe was the additional assistant District Attorney. He said they made some changes on whether or not inmates were given plea bargains
or other actions to keep the jail population down.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms responded to Mr. Matthews’ point that the County has been above capacity for over 20 years.
Mr. Matthews acknowledged that it is not a great decision and the Board is faced with the need for a lot of money. He explained that if the voters are going tovote on the bond referendum,
they are going to understand that they will have to spend a lot of money to accommodate ameet the need.
Commissioner Baucom referenced the 80 percent rule and asked for confirmation that, with a 400-bed capacity, 80 percent would be 320.
Mr. Matthews agreed and clarified that he did not believe it is actually 80 percent, but somewhere between 80 and 90 percent. He stated that he did not have the study in front of him,
but agreed that the number will be less than 400.
Commissioner Baucom stated that he had heard the 80 percent number a couple of times and that, when it was mentioned, it sounded correct.
Mr. Matthews clarified that he did not know if 80 percent was the exact number.
Commissioner Baucom noted that he was getting a head nod from the Sheriff and calculated that 80 percent of a 400-bed capacity would be 320, which is currently 30 more inmates. Commissioner
Baucom stated that he does not know the daily workings of the jail and asked if the County renovated the current jail, could it possibly be used for female inmates. He acknowledged that
doing so would involve maintaining two facilities.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Sheriff's Office would ultimately have to get involved in programming how the facility is used. He said that it could certainly be used for female inmates
but acknowledged that Commissioner Baucom had hit the nail on the head, because the County would have to duplicate its efforts in that facility. He added that there is always a plus
and a minus, and using it that way would require spending the money to provide the staffing needed to duplicate those efforts.
Mr. Matthews explained that everyone should understand they are talking about a new facility and a renovated building to use when necessary. He said that, in his opinion, if the goal
is tomove the current jail permanently, that has a whole different flavor to it. He added that he believes the Sheriff would agree that it is a different ballgame to run two facilities.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification if the decision before the Board is whether to move forward with the architectural study.
Mr. Matthews explained that the three items that staff is asking the Board to provide direction on:are:
Facility size: Determine the size of the facility to focus on (400 beds/600 core or 500 beds/600 core).
Referendum: Determine whether the jail should go on the referendum.
Adaptive reuse study: Authorize staff to proceed with the adaptive reuse study.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to move forward with the adaptive reuse study.
Chari Merrel called for a vote on the motion.
The vote passed unanimously with the following vote: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye
Commissioner Sides moved to direct staff to move forward with a new jail facility with a 600-bed core and 500-bed capacity.
The motion passed by a vote of four to one with the following vote: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Nay
Chair Merrell moved that the to place the funding strategy be placedon the November 2026 ballot for a bond referendum.
Commissioner Sides expressed a concern, stating that he was going to be “a fly in the ointment,” and asked whether the County’s annual budget is $600 million.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that the county’s annual budget is $600 million.
Commissioner Sides asked if the County held a referendum on the budget and that there were a series of public hearings where the public was encouraged to come, gather information, and
provide input, including whether they supported or opposed items or wanted changes. He stated that, personally, he believes public safety is the utmost concern given the current deteriorating
condition of the existing facility. He stated that he would not support or vote for a referendum and believes the County needs to move forward.
Chair Merrell asked whether the 911 Center and the Administration Building were included in a bond referendum.
Brian Matthews confirmed that the 911 Center and Administration Building were included in the other option.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether some of those projects were also included in the initial scope and stated that he was going back at least 20 years.
Mr. Matthews explained that, originally, the plan was for a Sheriff’s administrative facility with a jail. He stated that was the original thought for the construction, but it was separated
at some point, and the Administration Building was built.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the planning process would look towardconsiderexpandability.
Mr. Matthews explained that, with the initial list, the Board, as a majority, said 500 bed/600 core. He stated that the facility would be designed for an ultimate buildout of 600 beds.
He explained that if the Board wants the facility built to a number higher than 600 beds, that is a different way to view the project. He stated that it was his understanding that there
are certain core functions where it would be necessary to know upfront the number of people to be able to have it under roof; otherwise, another roof would have to be built to put it
under. He explained that, with the idea of expansion, there may be ways to expand certain areas within that core, but the County needs to know what the ultimate number is whether it
is 600, 800, or another number so the facility can be programmed, and the space can be made to work.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the structure is built for 600 beds, is there a way to build another pod 20 years from now.
Mr. Matthews explained that the pods arealignmore in linewith the beds themselves. He stated that looking at the 400 beds/600 core, 500 beds/600 core that is where the pods come in the
bed facilities and how they connect to the rest of the facility. He stated that adding to addcore in a pod fashion, he was not going to say it cannot be done, but he does not know how
efficient it would be to try to do it that way. He stated that security would have to be built to handle the ultimate buildout. He said there has to be a medical bay, cafeteria, and
other areas that would need to fit. He noted that the challenge is determining the ultimate buildout.
Chair Merrell restated the motion on the floor to place the funding strategy on the November 2026 ballot as a bond referendum for the taxpayers of Union Countytaxpayers to decide on
the potential tax increase presented.
Commissioner Sides asked what would happen if the referendum does not pass.
Mr. Matthews explained that if the referendum were to fail, it would not change the need for a jail. He stated that the County would likely come back with a strategy to build it in parts,
which would cost more over time. He added that staff would have to work with the Local Government Commission to obtain approval to sell bonds to pay for the project. He explained that
that the County would have to use non-voter approved bonds and seek authorization from the Local Government Commission (LGC). He added that he was not saying that the LGC would turn
it down, but, obviously, it would have some questions.
Chair Merrell asked if the tax increase was higher than what she remembered from the discussion two years ago and asked whether the interest rate is lower with voter approved or the
non-voter approved.
Mr. Matthews stated that it is lower now, but he did not want the Board to think that it is significantly lower. He explained that if the rates are four (4) percent, it would not mean
they would drop to three (3) percent or lower; it might be 10 basis points. He stated that the County would save money, but it would not be a half percent or a whole percent savings,
but it would be lower.
Chair Merrell asked Commissioner Sides if he received an answer to the question about what would happen if the referendum were not approved.
Mr. Matthews explained that they would have to work with the Local Government Commission and obtain its approval. He stated that the LGC would have to approve a plan for the county to
build the facility in pieces, which he said would be his guess.
Commissioner Sides stated that building the facility in pieces could entail some delay.
Mr. Matthews agreed there would be a delay.
Chair Merrell asked if the price would increase.
Mr. Matthews confirmed it would.
Chair Merrel reminded the Board that a motion was on the floor to place the funding strategy on the November 2026 ballot for the voters of Union County to decide on their support for
public safety.
The motion passed by a vote of four to one with the following vote: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Nay
Chair Merrell stated that item 25-501 - Appointments to Boards and Committees was being tabled and recognized the County Manager for comments.
County Manager’s Comments
Mr. Matthews expressed appreciation to the Board for its patience when they have employee recognition and awards. He explained that it is a way for staff to show the Board all the hard
work they put in. He stated that the County has great staff in all departments.
He acknowledged that sometimes the recognitions can make meetings a little longer, but he appreciates that the Board is able to see the employees and understand what they are doing.
Commissioner’s Comments
Commissioner Baucom stated that, as far as recognizing the staff, he believes it is a great thing to do, and recognition is nice for a job well done.
Commissioner Christina Helms had no comments.
Chair Merrell thanked everyone for being present. She expressed regret that the Board did not get the opportunity to recognize two Boy Scouts who were present earlier and suggested inviting
them back to another meeting.
She recognized the Union County Sheriff’s office and Brad Sellers, Wingate Town Manager, and stated that she truly believes Wingate is going to be the County’s crowning jewel in the
next few years. She expressed her support for Dr. Rhett Brown, Wingate University, and the programs they are doing.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked all the speakers who attended the meeting and stated that their involvement is always appreciated. He noted the high level of participation and stated
that it is good to see the passion from the residents.
With regards to those who spoke about animal welfare, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stressed that the County is very different from municipalities and stated that the majority of the County’s
population resides within municipalities, approximately 68 percent. He stated that the Board is open to having conversations with the people they represent but encouraged those present
to also reach out to their municipal leaders and share their concerns with other municipalities in the county.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, regarding Miss Mullis, he hoped the discussion that evening would help expedite getting water in her sink. He stated that her comments stood out
to him and expressed appreciation for what she shared.
He thanked everyone for attending the meeting and recognized the staff for doing a great job. He also expressed appreciation to the Sheriff’s Office for their participation. He acknowledged
the meeting had been lengthy and wished everyone a good night. Commissioner Sides thanked everyone for attending and wished everyone a good evening.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 10:32 p.m.
Chair Merrell moved to adjourn the regular meeting. The motion passed unanimously as
follows: Chair Melissa Merrell
Aye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms
Aye
Commissioner Clancy Baucom
Aye
Commissioner Christina Helms
Aye
Commissioner Gary Sides
Nay
Union County, NC Board of Commissioners’
Meeting Minutes
Union County Government Center
500 North Main Street Monroe, North Carolina
www.unioncountync.gov
August 11, 20256:00 PMBoard Room, First Floor
____________________________________________________________
25-511 Closed Session
Present:Chair Melissa Merrell; Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, Commissioner Clancy Baucom; Commissioner Christina Helms; and Commissioner Gary Sides
Absent: None
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, Chair Melissa Merrell called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order.
Chair Merrell moved that the Board enter closed session pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11:
(a)(3), for attorney-client privilege
as such purposes are fully stated in the agenda for this meeting, which has been made publicly available.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair Melissa M. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary Sides Aye
At approximately 5:42 p.m., Chair Merrell moved that the Board end the closed session and return to open session. The motion passed by a vote of four to zero as follows:
The motion passed by a unanimous vote as follows:
Chair Melissa M. MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina B. HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary Sides Aye
Opening of Meeting - 6:00 PM
Chair Melissa Merrell called the regular meeting of August 11, 2025, to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone present.
Invocation – Chair Melissa Merrell offered the invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance – Chair Melissa Merrell led the body and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Informal Comments
Chair Merrell reviewed the guidelines for speakers commenting during the Informal Comments. She recognized Katie Ryan as the first speaker.
Ms. Ryan stated she is the organizer of Change for Union County and a resident of Indian Trail in Union County.
She spoke regarding concerns about animal welfare. She noted that more than 2,000 residents across the county have signed a petition asking for improvements in animal welfare, and that
many residents have shared concerns that current Code fails to protect families and animals.
Ms. Ryan referenced incidents shared by residents, including a parent whose children witnessed a neighbor’s dog kill their cat after repeated reports had been made, a livestock owner
whose horses were injured by trespassing dogs, and another resident whose pregnant donkey was killed by dogs that had already been reported. She also stated that many residents have
reported the loss of chickens, pigs, goats, and other animals.
Ms. Ryan described these incidents as heartbreaking. She said that livestock owners are frustrated and are united in seeking changes and solutions.
She said residents are clearly calling for updates to animal ordinances, renovations to the animal shelter, and additional animal control staff.
Ms. Ryan acknowledged that budget concerns are always valid but suggested that grants and public-private partnerships might be a solution to offset costs.
She stated that the County’s animal ordinances have not been updated since 1997 while the county’s population and needs have grown significantly. She said the laws remain vague and
ineffective and do not adequately protect against cruelty.
Ms. Ryan thanked Lieutenant Greg and Captain Green for their recent positive dialogue regarding ordinance changes.
She stated the county shelter was built 20 years ago when the county population was about half its current size, and current data shows the facility is too small.
Ms. Ryan reported that over the past four years, shelter impounds have increased by 52 percent and owner surrenders have increased by 114 percent. She also noted euthanasia rates, including
54 percent of cats and 32 percent of dogs, and stated there has been an 82 percent increase in animal euthanasia over the four-year period.
She said these figures represent real families and animals in distress, not just statistics. She added that despite significant increases in population and impounds, animal control staffing
levels have remained unchanged.
Ms. Ryan stated that over the weekend alone, staff impounded 47 new animals and noted that the shelter only has 47 kennels. She questioned where animals already in the shelter go when
capacity is exceeded and said that difficult decisions are made daily.
Ms. Ryan stated that more space is needed and asked the Board of Commissioners to begin a conversation with residents. She encouraged exploring what is possible and urged officials to
listen to residents, stating that the current status quo does not work.
She urged the formation of a Commissioner-led group to begin discussions, including animal control staff, civilian shelter staff, nonprofit leaders, and livestock owners, to discuss
hese issues.
Ms. Ryan expressed appreciation to the animal advocates in attendance for their support and asked for a visible show of support from those present. She thanked the Commissioners for
listening, expressed appreciation for their commitment to community well-being, and said additional information had been provided, stating she hoped to hear from them soon.
Chair Merrell called the next speaker,Asheka Allen, who had registered online but was not present.
April McEriane statedstated she no longer resides in Union County. She spoke in support of the House of Pearls, a nonprofit located just outside Wingate in Union County.She said that
Union County’s outdated animal ordinances have had a direct and serious impact on the House of Pearls’ property.
Ms. McEriane referenced a previous situation involving three female dogs that were abandoned on the House of Pearls’ property and took up residence under the buildings located on the
property. She stated that someone from the House of Pearls contacted animal control for assistancewith the abandoned dogs. She said because the dogs were not considered dangerous, animal
control could not assist.
Ms. McEriane stated that the female dogs later gave birth, and before the organization realized it, there were 17 dogs on their property that were not theirs. She said the owners were
not fined for abandoning the animals, even though the individuals responsible were known, and noted that the owners still had dogs chained on their property.
She added that the owners had since moved away, leaving the dogs behind. Ms. McEriane questioned why this situation was allowed to happen, stating it was because Union County does not
have a containment law and that current ordinances do not hold people accountable for allowing animals to roam.
She stated that dog owners should be required to keep their animals contained on their property. She said roaming dogs are attacking livestock and companion animals and may also come
into contact with rabies.
Ms. McEriane stated that stronger ordinances and additional support for animal control are needed. She emphasized that owners must be held accountable for abandonment and cruelty, including
fines and consequences.
She said ordinances need common-sense updates that reflect the reality of Union County today rather than how it was in 1997.
Ms. McEriane urged the Board to form a task force to explore what needs to be done. She stated the goal should be to create clear, enforceable policies that protect both residents and
animals.
Ms. McErianeshared that pregnant cats have come onto the House of Pearls’ property and given birth, and they have been unable to find placement options because the animals are considered
feral.She said this has created additional challenges for their organization, which already focuses on helping women in addiction recovery, and they are now also having to manage these
animal issues.
Robert Torsiello stated that he is a resident of Union County and lives in the Town of Wingate. Mr. Torsiello said he did not have all of the statistics that had already been presented
and expected more would be shared later in the meeting.
Mr. Torsiello stated that he volunteers with an animal rescue organization and fosters dogs, and is familiar with animal welfare issues. He also stated that he volunteers daily at the
animal shelter where he observes conditions and operations firsthand.
He stated that when he is at the shelter, he sees situations where two dogs are adopted and then 10 to 15 more are surrendered shortly thereafter, which he described as a serious problem.
He said there is not enough space for the animals and noted that there are no consequences for owners surrendering animals.
He invited the Commissioners to visit the shelter, bring their families, and spend time there on a Saturday to visit the dogs and understand their conditions. He encouraged the Commissioners
to speak with staff at the animal shelter, stating that employees are frustrated and believe improvements could be made with better laws and policies.
Melissa Evert stated that she is a resident of Union County and supports the changes being requested. She said she sees the animals daily and is aware of what the animals, staff, volunteers,
and rescues are experiencing.
She shared a personal experience of taking in a dog after its owner passed away which she had to have the dog euthanized two weeks ago.Ms. Everette stated that the shelter needs
to be expanded, more staff are needed, and changes are needed.
Deborah Zappa stated that she is a resident of the Town of Stallings in Union County. Ms. Zappa shared that she served on the Board of Directors for the Humane Society of Union County
for nine years, including several years as vice chair and then chair of the board.
Ms. Zappastated that during that time she met on a periodic basis with Sheriff Cathey, as well as lieutenants and staff responsible for the shelter. She said that both the Humane Society
and animal services personnel have worked to learn about and implement best practices in animal welfare, and this work has been important to them.
Ms. Zappa stated that since the time the shelter was constructed, the county population has grown by 40 percent. and many residents now have companion animals. She noted that animal
impoundment has increased 52 percent compared to 2020 and that owner surrenders have increased 113 percent in the last five years.
She said the current shelter facility cannot accommodate the increased influx, which leads to overcrowding and can result in euthanasia for no other reason than lack of physical space.
She continued by saying an overcrowded environment can cause increased anxiety, behavioral decline, and a higher risk of illness and injury among animals.
Ms. Zappa stated that the staff at animal services are competent and caring individuals who want to provide a high level of service but lack adequate physical space.
Ms. Zappa stated that animal services staff deserve support and that all citizens of Union County, whether animal advocates or not, deserve services that are commensurate with the County’s
needs.
She described Union County as a safe, vibrant, and growing place to live and raise families, and said the County could and should be the leader in animal care and concern in North Carolina.
Chair Merrell called Robin Salzman, who had registered online to speak, but she was not present.
Elizabeth Mullis stated that she goes by Beth and is a resident of Unionville, North Carolina, in Union County. She noted her family has longstanding ties to the area.
Ms. Mullis commented about the East Lawyers Road Water Project. She shared that the project was approved in 2022 and that tap fees were paid in June of that year. She stated residents
were told water service would be available within 24 months, which would have been June 2024, but indicated that water has not yet been provided.
Ms. Mullis stated that the water quality in her area is horrific, describing it as containing arsenic, sodium chloride, and chlorine. She said she and her family have had to bring in
bottled water for cooking and drinking, a practice they have followed for a long time. She also stated that their clothes become discolored and affected by the water.
She requested that the East Lawyers Road Water Project be separated from the Morgan Mill Road project. She said there was strong participation on her road, with over 90 percent of residents
involved who have paid their tap fees. She stated that the project had already been designed. She added that she did not know of any easement issues.
Ms. Mullis requested that the County move forward with bidding and secure funding so construction can begin and residents can have water service. She said the goal is to “put shovels
in the ground” and bring water into homes.
Helena Ryan Via stated that she is eight (8) years old and lives in Union County and attends school in the county.
She explained that at her school they participate in something called the “Let It Grow Challenge,” where students try to do something challenging or that they have never done before.
She said her challenge for the day was speaking in front of the Commissioners and other adults who make decisions and rules.
Ms. Ryan Via stated that speaking was scary for her, but she chose to do it anyway because the animals need her and cannot speak for themselves.
She shared that her family fosters dogs and cats from the animal shelter, including animals that are sick or injured. She said it makes her cry to see animals that have been treated
badly by people who were supposed to love them, and noted that some animals have nowhere else to go because the shelter is too full.
Ms. Ryan Via asked if the Commissioners had ever visited the shelter and shared that it is very small, noting that the cat room is tiny. She said she enjoys playing with kittens at the
shelter, but said she wishes they had more space to run, play, and feel safe.
She requested that the shelter be made larger so more animals can be saved and can find families such as hers.
She said the Commissioners have the power to change things and help animals, and stated that even though she is only eight years old, she believes they can do better.
Ms. Ryan Via referenced a school saying she recites at Union Academy, that they “do the right thing even when no one is looking,” and added that in this situation, “everyone is looking.”
Chair Merrell expressed appreciation to Helena for being present and commended her for a great job on her comments.
Marcia Stonestreet stated that she moved to Union County and resides in the City of Monroe after relocating from the State of Maryland in December 2014.
Ms. Stonestreet said the County’s Animal ordinances have not been reviewed in 28 years. She stated that since the time she moved until now, the County’s population has grown from approximately
221,000 residents to about 271,000, adding that these figures are approximate and vary by source.
Ms. Stonestreet stated that the County’s growth has directly impacted the animal shelter, which she noted is 20 years old, along with a reported 52 percent increase in animal impounds.
She said that as an adoption coordinator for a nonprofit cat rescue, she has seen firsthand how cat space becomes critically limited during kitten season, which she said typically lasts
about half the year.
Ms. Stonestreet stated that the current situation is unsustainable for both shelter staff and animals and highlights the urgent need for an updated shelter building and policies.
Ms. Stonestreet stated that the City of Monroe recently completed a year-long community dialogue on improving animal welfare and described it as a significant step. She questioned why
Union County could not host a similar conversation with residents and shared suggestions for various topics for discussion, including reviewing and updating outdated animal code ordinances,
exploring options to expand or renovate the animal shelter, expanding spay and neuter programs to reduce pet overpopulation and shelter intake, and considering policies to prevent unsafe
backyard breeding of dogs and cats. She also recommended launching public education campaigns through the health department on the importance of spay and neuter programs and suggested
beginning outreach efforts in schools.
Ms. Stonestreet stated that similar efforts had been effective in her home state of Maryland, where they began with the health department. She said they worked with the shelter to learn
about the issues and were able to speak in schools.
She suggested improving oversight to ensure that no animal leaves the shelter unaltered, given the County has a veterinarian and a veterinary technician on staff, she sees no reason
for animals to leave the shelter still able to reproduce.
Ms. Stonestreet stated that updating the ordinances is a big undertaking but is achievable through collaboration between the Board of Commissioners, county departments, law enforcement,
nonprofit leaders, and the community. She urged commissioners to open the conversation now and work together to find practical and effective solutions for animals and the community.
Maria Garcia stated that she is a resident of Monroe in Union County and expressed support for the proposal presented by Change for Union County, including updated animal laws, additional
animal control officers, and a renovated shelter.
She said that others had addressed the details and that she would speak to the urgency of the issue. Ms. Garcia stated that she has spent countless hours volunteering in shelters, fostering
nearly a dozen dogs, and donating thousand of dollars to rescues and shelters. She described the situation as overwhelming despite these efforts.
She stated that she and others present were speaking as advocates, volunteers, fosters, and staff workers, asking for systemic change. She said the crisis cannot be solved by individual
effort alone and described the system as overwhelming and said leadership is needed.
Ms. Garcia stated that the problems being discussed are preventable and said it would cost less to address them now than to continue cleaning up the damage later.
She challenged the commissioners to raise the standards for Union County’s animal laws beyond the minimum.
Ms. Garcia said the County’s laws and facilities should reflect the compassion of its residents and protecting the most vulnerable.
Gretchen McCullum stated that she is a resident of Marshville in Union County and that she was speaking aboutthe lack of animal cruelty laws.She said the level of animalcruelty in the
county is astounding to her and described the conditions some animals are kept in as heartbreaking.
Ms. McCullum stated that what makes the situation worse is that, in many cases, no action can be taken because the laws are vague. She said there is nothing clear-cut to protect animals,
which leaves law enforcement and animal control limited in what they can do.
She shared examples of current shelter conditions for dogs: wire indoor training crates covered with a rug, flimsy transport crates that could be moved by wind or storm conditions,
and a wooden box with wire flooring that prevent a dog’s feet from touching grass.She stated that animals are left in these types of conditions every day and night, exposed to the elements
without adequate protection from heat, cold, or rain.
She emphasized that none of the examples she referenced represent proper shelter and described them as inhumane. Ms. McCullum stated that no living creature deserves that life.
Ms. McCullum described conditions she said she had observed or documented, including dogs with collars so tight they were embedded in their skin, dogs restrained with heavy tractor chains
in areas surrounded by trash, and animals confined to very small spaces for their entire lives.If She stated that she has seen cases of female dogs giving birth outdoors in mud during
freezing rain, snow, and summer heat, and said that in some instances puppies have died.
Ms. McCullum said none of these conditions are acceptable. She acknowledged that the level of change needed may feel overwhelming and would not happen overnight, but said it has to start
somewhere. She emphasized that it starts with a willingness to listen and to ask if they can do better.
Ms. McCullum shared a personal story about her grandparents living on a 40-acre property where she now resides. She said her grandfather once planted an acorn in a spot her grandmother
questioned, and when asked why, he said he hoped to one day park his truck under the tree it would become.She said it took years, but eventually that tree grew large enough to provide
shade and shelter, and it continued to do so for many years.
Ms. McCullum used this story as a comparison for change, stating that change takes time and begins with planting a “seed” and starting a conversation. She expressed hope that today that
day of change.
Laura Sur stated that she is the executive director of the Humane Society of Union County and resides in Wingate. She said she has been in Union County since 2001 and has been an animal
advocate for over 15 years.
She stated she was present to support the same proposals being discussed by other speakers and said she would not repeat the statistics already presented.
Ms. Sur stated that her organization believes it is working as hard as possible to make an impact in the county and reported they are on track to alter over 6,000 animals this year.
She said the Humane Society of Union County previously believed its efforts were making a dent in shelter intake but now believes the community is outgrowing and outpacing the Humane
Society’s capacity. Ms. Sur noted it is scheduling appointments six to eight weeks in the future and emphasized that in that time period, litters of puppies and kittens can happen.
Ms. Sur stated that the Humane Society appreciates the support received through the community grant.
She expressed support for updating the animal ordinances and said the organization would be willing to collaborate with county officials, other rescues, and nonprofits to discuss ways
to begin addressing the issue of overcrowding in the shelter. She said she is unsure whether funding is available to build a new shelter or renovate the existing facility. She suggested
that grants or other funding sources may exist.
She said the current shelter may be reconfigured or adjusted to hold more animals, including possibly repurposing unused space.
Ms. Sur stated that the Humane Society frequently receives people bringing animals to it, because they do not want the animals to go to a shelter where they may be euthanized due to
lack of space. She said they are not always able to take in those animals because they do not have enough foster homes to take in that many animals.
She said staff and volunteers are overstressed and overworked and uncertain about how to resolve the situation. Ms. Sur stated that the only solution is for the community to come together
to improve the system.
Claire Smith stated that she lives on East Lawyers Roadin unincorporated Union County, on the one-mile stretch between Bickett Ridge and New Salem Road.She commented about the approved
short line water project and noted that residents in her section of East Lawyers Road have been applying for approval for a short line water extension since 2012, under the previous
system for waterline extensions.
Ms. Smith stated that under the new system in 2021, the project was approved and residents paid their deposits. She said that in June 2022, the County informed them the project would
be completed within 24 months.
She referenced a letter from Union County Water dated September 16, 2022, stating that their application was selected based on ranking and program funding availability and confirming
that they had paid the required cost share fees and were participating in the project.Ms. Smith stated that the Board of Commissioners gave final approval on September 6, 2022, to move
forward with the project.
Ms. Smith stated that in May 2023, residents attended a board meeting where Matt Smith spoke on behalf of the FY22 Short Line project.
She said that in June 2023, the new budget was passed and included funding to complete the East Lawyers Road project. Ms. Smith said that residents were then notified by the County that
the project had been reinstated and would be completed within 24 months.
Ms. Smith shared that the last official update from the County was in February 2025. She said that by the end of 2024, surveying, engineering design, and all easement acquisitions for
the road were reported as 100 percent complete, and permitting was 90 percent complete at that time. She shared that residents reached out to the County again on June 10 of the current
year and were surprised to learn that the County indicated there were easement issues.
Ms. Smith stated that, to her knowledge, there are no easement issues on East Lawyers Road. She said any easement issues referenced by the County are related to Morgan Mill Road and
are unrelated to the approved section of East Lawyers Road.
She emphasized that the East Lawyers Road project is not dependent on Morgan Mill Road or its easements.Ms. Smith stated that residents have already replaced water lines, household water
fixtures, and appliances such as washing machines and well pumps due to corrosion from the water quality.
Ms. Smith stated that her daughter attends Piedmont High School and participates in color guard. She said her daughter cannot wash her uniform using the home water and that it must be
taken elsewhere to be cleaned before competitions.
She reiterated the request isfor the East Lawyers Road section to be separated from the Morgan Mill Road project and stated that residents want the project completed as previously promised.
Ms. Smith stated that she has supporting documents that were submitted with the project application, including materials from the North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health and
the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services regarding water quality
Jacqueline Clark stated that she is a resident of Fairview, North Carolina, living near Highway 218. Ms. Clark spoke in support of Change for Union County.
She said she has observed numerous dogs and cats running along the roadway, which she described as dangerous. She said that, so far this year, she has personally seen at least seven
dogs and nine cats that were hit and killed.
Ms. Clark stated that she has called animal control many times but nobody answers. She said that as a result, she often removes animals from the roadway herself and tries to contact
owners using information found on the animals’ tags or collars.She stated that she has also transported injured animals to emergency veterinary care on several occasions.
Ms. Clark said animals are frequently dumped in her area and that she has taken in some herself, providing food, veterinary care, and shelter costs out of pocket. She added that some
rescues have helped her by taking in several severely ill animals.
Ms. Clark stated that she has not received help or received returned calls from animal control and said the animal services system is overwhelmed, putting both animals and people at
risk.
She commented on the need for a leash law in the County and added that basic provisions such as shelter care, food, and water are not sufficient, especially for animals that are tethered
in extreme heat conditions.
Ms. Clark stated thatshe believes animal abusers should face more harsh punishments, including being banned from owning pets and being monitored to ensure they do not acquire additional
animals.
Shesaid that there are pet owners who love their animals but are struggling to provide food, shelter, and veterinary care, and she suggested there should be programs to assist them to
prevent additional animal abandonment.
She said the County should continue trap-neuter-return programs for cats and consider additional programs similar to Charlotte’s “staycation” where residents temporarily host shelter
dogs. Ms. Clark stated this could help in the reduction of overcrowding, allow dogs to decompress, and improve adoption rates.
Ms. Clark stated that the stray hold period should be longer, noting that the current timeframe does not provide enough time for owners to locate missing pets before they could potentially
be euthanized.
She said that with high impound rates and even higher owner surrender rates, and with ordinances not having been updated, these issues will worsen as the county population continues
to grow if action is not taken.
Ms. Clark requested that the animal shelter be renovated and expanded with additional staff and veterinarians. She added that more animal control officers are needed with extended
hours and at least have someone on call after 5:00 pm and on the weekends
Cameron Helms stated that he resides at 3712 East Lawyers Road in Unionville and he was attending tonight’s meeting to gain more information about the waterline extension project.He
said residents paid for the project about two years ago and that he is not fully familiar with the current status or what is happening with it.
Mr. Helms stated that he wanted to reach out to ask about the status of the project and said he believes it is unreasonable for it to be tied to a different project.He requested that
Board vote to separate the two projects.
Gene Alexander stated that he is a lifelong resident of Union County and lives in the New Salem/Fairview community. Mr. Alexander commented regarding the proposed roundabout at the
intersection of Highway 218 and Love Mill Road and noted that the intersection was converted to a four-way stop about two years ago, which he said has been working well and allows equal
access for traffic from all directions.
Mr. Alexander stated that the current four-way stop is a cost-effective solution that was greatly needed due to the intersection previously being dangerous, especially for drivers on
Love Mill Road crossing Highway 218 during morning traffic.He said the current setup works well and allows school buses, trucks, and large equipment to navigate the intersection without
hitting concrete curbs, damaging tires, shifting loads, or creating other issues.
He shared his concerns with the proposed roundabout including the high cost, which he said is over three million dollars, and questioned the need for that level of spending given that
the current four-way stop is working.
He also expressed concern about long-term maintenance issues, particularly due to truck traffic, and noted that in other locations where roundabouts have been in place for more than
12 months, he has observed concrete cracking that would require ongoing repairs.
Mr. Alexander stated that he believes traffic flow on Highway 218 would become unequal again with the proposed roundabout, noting that drivers on Highway 218 would have priority while
drivers on Love Mill Road would have to wait for safe entry due to higher traffic volume.
He also expressed concern about the construction timeline, estimating it would take approximately four months depending on weather and other governmental factors.
Mr. Alexander stated that during construction, Love Mill Road does not have nearby alternative roads to bypass the intersection. He said drivers would need to travel into Stanly County
to return to Highway 218 if they cannot pass through the area, estimating this detour at approximately 12 miles on a safe route.
He stated that this added distance would affect school buses, Emergency Medical Services, and residents traveling from Love Mill Road, stating it could add significant travel time, including
an additional estimated 29 minutes.Mr. Alexander stated that this delay could place emergency response times in a 45-minute range for residents, which he said could be detrimental in
situations such as heart attacks, strokes, or an accident involving bleeding.
Mr. Alexander stated that school buses would also have to travel the longer alternate route, which he estimated would add 30 minutes for children.
He said that Tite Road and Rock Hole Road are not safe alternative routes and are not suitable for school buses or large trucks, describing their use as a serious safety concern.
Mr. Alexander stated that the proposed changes would have a significant impact on local agricultural operations. He said his family farms on Alexander Farm Road off Love Mill Road and
has both a row crop operation and a produce operation, including a U-pick operation for strawberries and other vegetables during the April through July season.He stated that if the intersection
were closed, it would severely impact their business for the year because 99 percent of traffic crosses through that intersection to reach the farm.
Anthony Deitrio stated that he lives in Unionville.
He spoke in support of the Change for Union County petition.
Mr. Deitrioshared a personal experience, stating that on Saturday, November 23, 2024, his family cat was killed on his property by a known nuisance dog in the community.
Mr. Deitrio stated that he wanted to thank Lieutenant Grigg and Sergeant McCarron for doing everything they could to respond to the incident and attempting to address the situation.
He said that when he initially called the sheriff’s office regarding the incident over the weekend, he was given the same advicethat he understood others have receivedthat because there
is no leash law, there is limited action that can be done.
Mr. Deitrio stated that he has also been told that, due to vague animal laws, if a dog enters his property he can take matters into his own hands, and he said he does not consider that
an appropriate solution.
He said that many people in the community volunteer their time and resources to help animals. Mr. Deitrio stated that he is willing to contribute both time and money when possible and
added that when he is not working, he is often on the road transporting rescue animals.
Mr. Deitrio stated that he would not want to live anywhere else but shared his frustration that neighboring, less populated rural counties have stronger animal control laws and more
resources available for animal control.
Mr. Deitrio stated that the residents are asking the Board for help in addressing these issues and said they want to help the county.
Ryan McGee stated that he resides in unincorporated Union County near the intersection discussed by Mr. Alexander earlier in the meeting.
He stated that he is not opposed to roundabouts and said that in many cases they work well and are safer.
Mr. McGee stated that, in this situation, the existing four-way stop has been in place for a couple of years and, in his opinion, has worked well. He noted that he travels through the
intersection at least twice a day.He stated that he agreed with many of the concerns already expressed and added that, if the state determines the project should move forward, it would
be beneficial to gather input from residents who use the intersection and would be directly affected before a final decision is made.
Mr. McGee stated that if the project moves forward to address and alleviate some of the issues mentioned, there should be consideration for a detour or alternate access near the intersection.
He said this would help residents on the north side of Highway 218, between that location and Rocky River off Love Mill Road, avoid having to travel into Stanly County to reach the other
side.
Glenn Dileo expressed strong support for the rural land use plan that is being developed.He stated that a committee was started approximately 12 to 18 months ago and that there has been
a lot of brainstorming. He said the effort now appears to be taking hold.
Mr. Dileo stated that his mailing address is Waxhaw, but he lives in an unincorporated area of the county. He clarified his location as being off Lancaster Highway 200 near the furniture
outlet and Frontier Meats.Mr. Dileo stated that he and his wife spent about six months searching for a home. He noted that his daughter lives in Waxhaw and expressed concerns about
zoning issues in Waxhaw.
Mr. Dileo stated that he has observed multiple new developments and said many homes are priced around $700,000 to $800,000 on small, similar “cookie cutter” lots built on slab foundations.
He shared that he and his wife chose to live in the rural part of the county because they wanted property and did not want to live in a HOA. He said he sees many large farms in the area
and believes in capitalism, noting that farmers may choose to sell land to developers.He urged the Board to maintain low-density development and said he is willing to pay higher taxes
to preserve rural character, expressing concern that higher density could ultimately increase taxes and create more problems.
Mr. Dileo stated that he supports continuing the rural land use program and believes it is important to maintain that direction. He said many people in his neighborhood share the same
views and that he was speaking on their behalf.
Jill Nichols stated that she is with Mission Lost Pet Recovery and is a resident of Cabarrus County. She said that over the past several years she has done volunteer work in Union County,
securing or trapping stray dogs.
Ms. Nichols stated that she was speaking about the need for increased support in Union County for stray animals. She said the county needs more animal control officers, a containment
ordinance, and a larger facility to house stray animals.
Ms. Nichols stated that as Union County’s population continues to grow, so will the intake numbers, including stray dogs and owned dogs that are allowed to roam unaltered or already
have litters. She said that without addressing the issue, the dog population will continue to rise and further burden animal control officers and shelter staff.
She stated that stray dogs create safety hazards in the community, noting they can travel roads and may become aggressive toward livestock or people. She shared various incidents involving
stray dogs.
Ms. Nichols stated that she previously trapped a dog for House of Pearls, which then took the animal into its care. She also mentioned conducting a stray run in the neighborhood behind
House of Pearls and said the conditions for animals in that area were very bad.
Ms. Nichols stated that they frequently hear that the shelter is overwhelmed and animals are being euthanized for space but said that she does not believe there are not enough steps
being taken to reduce intake.
She said that while removing stray dogs from the streets is only a small part of the action now would be a step toward improvement.
Taylor Erickson stated that she is a Union County resident and resides in Monroe. She said she works as the practice manager at the Spay Neuter Clinic. She sharedthat her organization
has a partnership with the county and works with the Humane Society.
She stated that the clinic began operations in 2011, performing just over 1,000 spays and neuters that year, and by 2024 that number had increased to over 5,600.
Ms. Erickson stated that the clinic has quadrupled its spay and neuter numbers over time. She said there is still an eight to ten week wait for services, particularly for large female
dogs, female cats, and feral cats.
Ms. Erickson stated that, in the last quarter of the year, the Humane Society has taken in approximately 30 puppies, along with a number of adult dogs and cats. She said there are also
long-term foster animals currently in care.
She stated that both the rescue and clinic sides are struggling to keep up with demand, and they are unable to physically meet the current needs. Ms. Erickson added that clinic and rescue
staff are present and all work at full capacity, but despite giving their best effort, they are still overwhelmed.
Ms. Erickson stated that they need government support and financial backing to make progress. She said that everyone present advocating for change is giving 110 percent, and it is not
fair that individuals who find stray animals take on the financial, moral, and emotional obligation for their care. She stated that these individuals are doing it out of the goodness
of their hearts. V
Ms. Erickson stated that financially it is a burden, and said that when someone tries to do the right thing and is told there is nothing that can be done, it makes them not want to do
it again. She said that is where the abandonment and neglect start to happen.
She stated that it really starts at the government level and said that they are doing more than their part, but need help.
Public Hearing(s)
25-482Public Hearing - Conditional Rezoning Petition CZ-2025-004 Shenandoah
Chair Melissa Merrell introduced the next item on the agenda, a Public Hearing for conditional rezoning petition CZ-2025-004 Shenandoah. She opened the public hearing at approximately
7:03 p.m. and recognized Lee Jensen, Planning Director for comments.
Mr. Jensen explained that the item is a conditional rezoning request, CZ-2025-004, referred to as the Shenandoah rezoning.He stated that the request is to rezone approximately 48.5 acres
located on Waxhaw Monroe Road from RA-40 to R-10 with conditions.
Mr. Jensen noted that the conditions include limited to the site plan dated July 8, 2025, and that the proposed use would be restricted to 91 single-family homes.
Mr. Jensen stated that if the rezoning request is approved, it would include a five-year vesting, and the development would meet all requirements of the Union County Development Ordinance
as of the date of approval, if approved.
He shared the site plan and said that it is intended to provide context for the location of the proposed development. He explained that if traveling south on Highway 75 from Monroe,
passing through the traffic circle at Rocky River Road, the site would be located on the left, just before reaching the large industrial plant in Mineral Springs.
He noted that the site plan shows a few roads with a couple different lot size variations and includes 91 lots, with open space mixed throughout the development.
Mr. Jensen noted that just to the south of the site, on the opposite side of Old Waxhaw Monroe Road, the road would align and connect with an existing road leading into the StonebridgeDevelopment.
He noted that current conditions on the site show it is a vacant tract.
He stated that Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road has a mix of vacant land and the other side is the Stonebridge community. He noted that areas to the east along Highway 75 toward Monroe remain
largely rural.
He also mentioned in terms of development status, the large industrial complex along Highway 75 and the Rocky River Road roundabout located in the direction toward Monroe.
Mr. Jensen stated that, toward Monroe, the existing Stonebridge development is located to the south of the site, and that surrounding areas are primarily low-density residential and
agricultural uses.
He noted that the property itself does not contain major environmental features, but to the east-northeast there are some wetlands and streams in the general direction toward Monroe.
Mr. Jensen pointed out that the surrounding area is generally zoned RA-40, with the exception of the Town of Mineral Springs.
He said that traffic counts in the area show approximately 7,500 vehicle trips per day along Waxhaw Highway. He noted that Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road has approximately 550 vehicle trips
per day based on the 2025 traffic count. He further said that within the Stonebridge Development, there are approximately 900 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Jensen stated that the land use map identifies the area as rural residential, with an employment corridor overlay. He said that while the underlying designation is rural residential,
the overlay allows for employment-type uses if conditions are appropriate, similar to the use on the parcel to the south.
Mr. Jensen said that staff reached out to Union County Public Schools and received feedback indicating that most schools in the area are not currently operating at full capacity, noting
the Parkwood cluster with Western Union Elementary serving the area. He also said that public water and sewer are available to the site.
Mr. Jensen stated that a community meeting was held on July 8 with seven residents in attendance. He said most of the questions focused on buffering, road connections, and home prices.
He said no changes were made to the site plan.
He said one individual spoke in opposition to the rezoning request at the Land Use Board meeting, citing concerns with smaller lot sizes, density, and the potential loss of environmental
features.
Mr. Jensen explained that the Town of Mineral Springs was contacted for comments due to its adjacency to the project and expressed opposition to R-10 zoning along its border. He noted
that the Town’s comments were not included in the agenda packet in time, but an email was provided to the Board. He added that the Town passed a resolution opposing the rezoning, which
was issued late in the week.
Mr. Jensen stated that the Land Use Board considered the request at its last meeting and unanimously recommended denial, citing concerns related to density, loss of farmland, and loss
of open space.
Mr. Jensen stated that the applicant was present and had a presentation they wanted to provide.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked Mr. Jenson to refer to the plan, and asked if either Mr. Jensen or the applicant could explain how much total open space is included with the plan.
Mr. Jensen stated that he understood the plan to include about 36 percent open space, noting it was over 30 percent and that it met the new 30 percent open space requirement.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms requested for clarification on whether the proposal is actually part of the existing Stonebridge neighborhood.
Mr. Jensen stated that the parcel was part of the original Stonebridge approval under a master plan from the late 1990s or early 2000s, which included an approved number of homes as
part of that development.
He explained that this specific tract is no longer owned by the original Stonebridge developer, or any subsequent Stonebridge developers, and that a new owner or potential purchaser
has come forward requesting to rezone the property to a different zoning.
Jeff Palmer stated that he is with Shenandoah Homes and introduced Pam Porter, the project planner and owner of TMTLA Associates, a planning and landscape architecture firm based in
the Triangle area.
He stated they are requesting approval for a 91home luxury community. He said he would provide a brief presentation and overview, followed by Ms. Porter explaining additional project
details.
Mr. Palmer noted that the property was originally zoned and approved for 67 single-family detached homes in 2003 as part of the Stonebridge master plan under designation of smart growth.
He said that zoning remains in place today, and the applicant is requesting approval to increase the number of permitted homes from 67 to 91, a total increase of 25 homes.
He said he was unsure how smart growth was defined in 2003, but from a common-sense perspective, he believes the property still fits that designation today.
He noted that the property is adjacent to existing water and sewer infrastructure that has not been fully utilized and stated that the land is slated for development.Mr. Palmer stated
that because the property is already zoned and planned for development, he does not believe the proposal would deplete farmland.
He said that, without getting into the technical details of density calculations under the Unified Development Ordinance, simply dividing the number of units by the total acreage results
in a density of 1.87 units per acre.
Mr. Palmer stated that this level of density does not suggest overcrowding or congestion. He explained that the proposed lots consist of lot types and sizes, consisting of front-load
and side-load garage lots, which would create an aesthetically pleasing streetscape appearance.
He stated that as job growth continues in the Charlotte metropolitan area, so does the demand for housing. Mr. Palmer said that by allowing Shenandoah to build 91 homes instead of the
previously approved 67, the project would add 24 additional homes for the community without resulting in the loss or depletion of additional farm acreage.
He stated that the resulting lot sizes do not represent a reduction in quality of life for future residents. He noted that the two lot types include widths of 75 feet and 96 feet with
depths of 140 feet, and said the home sites are balanced with the size of the homes to be built and are proportionally appropriate.
Mr. Palmer said that by approving the project, the County would be able to recapture facility development costs for existing infrastructure with water and sewer infrastructure connection
fees totaling $15,469 per lot.
Mr. Palmer stated that the additional 24 lots would provide an estimated total benefit to the county of approximately $371,266. He recognized Ms. Porter for a detailed review of concerns
raised by the Land Use Board and noted that they would also present two questions to the board regarding access to Highway 75 and preferred amenities.
Ms. Porter provided a brief overview of the site, stating that it is located between Waxhaw Highway, Highway 75, and Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road. She noted that Parkdale Mills is to the west
and the Stonebridge community and golf course are to the south.
Ms. Porter stated that the site is just under 49 acres and is located within the East Fork Twelve-Mile Creek watershed. She said the current zoning is RA-40 and the request is to rezone
the property to R-10.
She noted that, as previously mentioned, the property is already zoned for development and could be developed by right with 67 lots, and that the request is to increase the number of
lots by 24 additional lots.Ms. Porter stated that, as shown in the land use plan provided by staff, the circled area identifies the project parcel and proposed development.
She stated that the project includes approximately 14.5 acres of open space, representing about 36 percent of the site. Ms. Porter added that proposed amenities under consideration include
a pool, clubhouse, and playground.
Ms. Porter said that the lots will have a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. She stated that the proposal includes two lot types, with widths of 96 feet and 75 feet, and that all lots
would be 140 feet in depth.
She also stated that, for comparison, the smallest lot in the Stonebridge development identified through GIS is just over 7,500 square feet.Ms. Porter stated that the proposed lots would
be larger than some of the lots across the street and would accommodate a variety of home styles.
She noted that they are preliminarily proposing three stormwater ponds, noting that this number may increase once the project is fully engineered. She said they will treat and capture
stormwater that is a result of this project. She also said that the wetlands located on the property are being preserved. She explained that these areas are included within the open
space, as it is important to keep them preserved.
Ms. Porter noted that the plan includes 30-foot street buffers, including one along Highway 75 and another along the south side adjacent to Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road. She also explained
that there is a 15-foot reforestation buffer along the non-road frontage property line. She added that the reforestation buffer is not included within the individual lots and is located
outside of them. She explained that future homeowners would not be able to remove those trees because they are off the lot.
Ms. Porter shared examples of the types of homes proposed for the neighborhood, noting that they are not limited to one specific style.
She also noted that, as part of the proposal, they are considering neighborhood amenities and would like feedback from the Board, specifically mentioning a pool and a clubhouse as potential
options for a community of this size.
Ms. Porter shared a rendering of the amenity area. She described it as a 2,000 square foot minimum pool with a fountain, a 4,000 square foot minimum pool deck, and a 1,400 square foot
clubhouse, a playground/tot lot, picnic shelter, open playfield, and a mail kiosk with parking, stating these would be concentrated together in one area.
Ms. Porter addressed some of the concerns from the Land Use Board. She commented about the removal of farmland and stated they understand there is a farmland item on the agenda tonight,
but the decision to not farm the land had already been made. She explained that the property is for sale and already entitled for 67 lots. Ms. Porter stated that they are not removing
actively farmed land as part of the proposal, noting that there is already a plan in place. She said the request is to increase density while providing additional open space and amenities
as a trade-off.
Ms. Porter stated that by increasing the project by 24 lots, they are helping place additional density in this area rather than elsewhere in the county where farmland could potentially
be removed.
She explained that the connection to Highway 75 was requested by staff because it helps to claim the increase in density, while also helping disperse traffic and providing an additional
egress point for first responders.
Ms. Porter said that concerns were raised by the Land Use Board regarding the proposed connection. She noted that the Board could choose not to require the connection, although they
recognize it would provide an additional egress point for the development and help address traffic concerns.
Ms. Porter stated that they had discussed having the developer contribute money into the HOA fund for future traffic calming devices within the neighborhood. She explained that they
could not pre-emptively commit to specific measures because DOT would likely say no, but after the roads are built, items such as speed bumps could potentially be added for traffic calming
purposes inside the neighborhood.
Ms. Porter stated that approving the added density would allow the neighborhood to include the amenities previously discussed. She noted that if the property were developed under the
already approved 67-lot plan, there would be no added amenities or the 36 percent open space.
Ms. Porter stated that the entitled 67 lots are simply lots and rights-of-way, with no open space or planned amenities. She explained that by approving the increase in density, the project
is able to provide amenities that would otherwise not be provided.
Ms. Porter said the proposal includes a pool, clubhouse, and tot lot, but the applicant is also open to suggestions on other or alternative amenities if those options are not considered
appropriate.
Chair Merrell asked whether Board members had any questions. She announced that several individuals had signed up to speak, beginning with Rita Tigley. Ms. Tigley was not present when
the Chair called her name.
Vance Harvey introduced himself as a Union County resident and noted that this was his first time attending one of the Board’s meetings. He explained that his property borders the site
to the east, northeast, and north.
Mr. Harvey stated that he believes development in the area and bringing in more people can be a positive and said he favors the idea of the neighborhood being built next to his property.
However, he expressed uncertainty about increasing the project to 91 homes, noting that they had not anticipated added density when they originally purchased their property.
Mr. Harvey said that aside from concerns about the increased density, he believed connecting the development to Highway 75 is a good idea and said it would likely help reduce traffic
congestion along Old Waxhaw-Monroe Road.
He shared that his main concerns with the project are drainage during the construction phase, becauseof the way the land slopes, noting worries that additional concrete and asphalt could
cause water to flow downhill toward his property to the east.Mr. Harvey stated that there is a small stream within the tree line and expressed concern that it could become overwhelmed
if additional stormwater is directed that way.
He also shared his concerns about pollution during the construction phase and possibly afterward, noting that he and nearby neighbors rely on well water and do not have access to the
sewer lines being proposed for the development.
Mr. Harvey stated that, since his property directly borders the site to the east, he would urge the developer to install a fence. He referenced concerns raised by others about roaming
dogs and said that this is something he and neighbors have also experienced.He added that he would strongly prefer fencing along both the eastern and northeastern edges of the property.
Chair Merrell recognized Kinda Harvey as the next speaker.
Mrs. Harvey stated that Mr. Harvey had spoken on her behalf.
Chair Merrellasked whether there were any additional speakers who had not signed up but wished to speak at the public hearing.
Ms. Porter asked if she could have an opportunity to respond to some of the concerns that were mentioned by Mr. Harvey.
Chair Merrell stated that they do not normally allow responses during the public hearing, noting it is not a question-and-answer session.
She again asked if there were any additional speakers who did not get a chance to speak on the Shenandoah project, and noted that two speakers were present and invited them to come forward,
stating they would each be given three minutes after providing their name and address.
Glenn Dileo stated that he resides in a portion of unincorporated Union County.
Mr. Dileo stated he lives in Union Countyand regularly attends Waxhaw meetings to speak. He said he does so because his daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren live in the area and he
is trying to protect them.
Mr. Dileoexplained that he is from New Jersey and has seen similar situations occur in New Jersey. He stated that increased density can lead to higher property taxes as demand for services
increases. He said this typically results in the need for more police, fire equipment, schools, and administrators, and described it as an ongoing problem in Union County, noting there
are still many undeveloped farms in the area.
Mr. Dileo noted that he understands farmers want to sell their land and maximize profits. He said he has seen developers and their marketing firms come before the Waxhaw Board of Commissioners
repeatedly.Mr. Dileo stated that developers present their projects with claims about buffers, improvements, and amenities, but he views that as part of the marketing used to sell the
development.
He said residents are relying on the Board to act as their voice and that is why everything is zoning, and that you have to increase the zoning
Mr. Jackson stated that in New Jersey there was one-acre zoning, and when Interstate 78 was built, he saw it change from dairy farms into bedroom communities, saying the growth became
overwhelming.
Mr. Jackson said that property taxes tripled in 10 years, and the people in those towns responded by increasing zoning from one acre to five and seven acres, noting that builders cannot
complain once zoning is on the books.
He added that he does not believe that will happen here, but said they cannot upzone and should keep what they have, or even downzone, to keep the integrity of the county before property
taxes go out of sight.
Mr. Jackson stated that he takes Providence Road every day and described it as a standstill. He said the only reprieve is two months during the summer when school is out, and described
the traffic as a nightmare.
Elizabeth Green stated that she and her family own the property that backs upto the Harvey property. She said they are in support of the request, provided that fencing is included.
She noted there is a deep incline or decline in the area that could be dangerous and said she would like it to be considered, unless future development changes the condition. She added
that her property has been in the family for over a century and is their home place.
With there being no one else wishing to address the Board during the public hearing, Chair Merrell closed the public hearing at approximately 7:34 p.m.
Staff Recognition
25-449Public Communications Department Earns State, National, and
International Awards
Chair Merrell recognized Liz Cooper, Public Communications Director, to address the Public Communications Department earning state, national and international awards.
Ms. Cooper expressed appreciation to the Board for recognizing the Public Communications team and introduced staff members in attendance: Megan Hinkle, Assistant Director, Public Communications;
Nicole Hincik, Senior Communications Specialist; Erika Bowden, Senior Communications Specialist; Jordan Westenberg, Multimedia Productions Specialist; and Aileen White, Administrative
Professional. She explained that the department develops and manages communication and marketing efforts on behalf of Union County Government as a whole and supports all county departments
by providing strategic and timely communication.
She shared that the team recently received seven awards at the state, national, and international levels, recognizing a range of projects including public health outreach, the county
water website, a commemorative video, and an informational county overview. She noted the awards reflect collaboration across departments and the importance of effective communication.
Chair Merrell thanked Ms. Cooper and said she does a very good job. She expressed pride in the team for receiving these recognitions and commended their work.
Members of the Public Communications staff were photographed with the Commissioners.
25-494Information Technology Earns National Top 10 Ranking and
Achievement Award
Chair Merrell recognized Jon Amelio, Information Technology Director, to explain the item.
Mr. Amelio introduced members of the Information Technology Staff present: Brent Hartis, Project Manager; Elizabeth Risher-Trevino, Information Technology Business Manager; Chance Kelly,
Information Systems Security Analyst; Christopher Liersaph, Knowledge Solutions Program Manager; and Salifou Mamar, GIS Analyst. He stated that at the recent National Association of
Counties annual conference, Union County IT was recognized for being ranked seventh nationally in the 250,000 to 500,000 population category. He explained that the award was developed
in partnership with NACO and the Center for Digital Government and recognizes top technology practices among U.S. counties, including efforts to streamline service delivery, encourage
collaboration, enhance cybersecurity, and apply innovative and emerging technology.
He shared that this is the seventh consecutive year the department has ranked in the top 10 and said that due to county growth they have moved into the next category and are now competing
against larger counties, but still is ranked number seven. He also emphasized that Union County is the lowest populated IT team in their category.
He added that the Union County team also received a 2025 Achievement Award in the technology category for implementation of Office 365 and migration to the Cloud. He thanked the members
of his team and said it is a great honor to be ranked nationally.
The team members were invited to the front to receive the award and to be photographed with the Commissioners.
Consent Agenda
Chair Merrell asked if there were any motions regardingrequested revisions or amendments to either the consent or business agenda.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated he had two revisions to the business agenda and noted they could be voted on separately. He moved to table item 25-501, appointments to boards and committees,
until the next regular meeting.
Chair Merrell called for a vote, asking those in favor of tabling item 25-501
The vote passed unanimously with the following vote:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that his second motion was to move item Business Agenda Item 25-523 -FY22 Short Water Line Extension Program Phase B Project Completion item, to the
first item on the business agenda.
Chair Merrell called for a vote to move Item 25-523 – FY22 Short Water Line Extension Program Phase B Project Completion to the first item on the business agenda.
The vote passed unanimously with the following vote:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the items listed on the consent agendaas as recommended and submitted.
Chair Merrell stated that the Consent Agenda was as amended.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms confirmed the consent agenda would remain as published, while the business agenda had already been amended through prior votes. He asked whether a separate
motion was needed for the business agenda.
Mr. Kay responded that the Board had voted on the items for the business agenda and could vote on approving the items on the Consent Agenda at this time.
Chair Merrell then called for a vote on the consent agenda
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-521 Contract - Town of Indian Trail Law Enforcement Services
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to: a) negotiate and execute an agreementsubstantially consistent with this agenda item, b) exercise any renewal orextension term options set forth
in the Agreement, and c) terminate theAgreement if deemed in the best interest of the County, each in theCounty Manager's discretion.
This contract revision acknowledges and adds three (3) FTEs to the Town
of Indian Trail’s Law Enforcement Services contract, as approved in the
both the FY2026 Union County Budget and the FY2026 Town of Indian
Trail Budget. Two (2) new deputy sheriffs and one (1) deputy
sheriff-sergeant positionwere approved as part of both FY2026 Budgets
to further enhance the law enforcement services provided by the Union
County Sheriff’s Office to the Town of Indian Trial.
The original contract for two (2) deputies was entered into on July 13,
1999, and has been revised and amended as the Town has grown. With
the addition of the positions mentioned above, the UC Sheriff’s Office
now has thirty-eight (38) positions assigned to the Town. These positions
vary in rank and responsibility. Attached to this agenda item is the letter
provided to the Town by Union County Budget & Grants Management
staff detailing the most current staffing model and associated costs. This
contract allows the Union County Sheriff’s Office to continue providing law
enforcement services to the Town of Indian Trail.
The total cost of the FY2026 Law Enforcement Services contract for the
Town of Indian Trail is $5,805,343. The Town of Indian Trail is
responsible for 90% of that cost, in the amount of $5,244,809. Union
County, through the Sheriff’s Office budget, covers the remaining 10% of
associated costs in the amount of $580,534. This funding and FTEs for
this contract enhancement were approved FY2026 adopted budget.
25-465 Resolution to Approve 2024 Local Water Supply Plan
ACTION:Adopted the resolution to approve the 2024 Local Water Supply Plan asrequired by NCGS 143-355(l).
The Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Water Resources
requires that all public water supplies complete a Local Water Supply
Plan (LWSP) every year. The LWSP requires a variety of water and
wastewater information including statistics for the current water
distribution infrastructure, general information on programs including
meter replacement and water conservation public education, monthly
water usage and wastewater flows, water usage by customer type, water
demand and wastewater flow projections, and current and future planned
water and wastewater plant capacity. The 2024 LWSP reflects the water
usage and wastewater flow projections consistent with the Water and
Wastewater Master Plan completed in 2025.
DWR requires that every five (5) years the governing body of a public
water supply adopts a resolution approving the most recently completed LWSP. DWR marks a LWSP as "complete" once all of the information is
submitted and checked for quality by DWR staff.
25-480 City of Monroe Request to Provide Water Service
ACTION:Approved the request from the City of Monroe to provide water service tothree lots located on White Store Rd. (parcels 09125039, 09125040,09125041).
Better Path Homes has made a request to the City of Monroe Water
Resources Department for water services at properties (09125039,
09125040, 09125041) located along White Store Rd., Monroe, NC. The
City of Monroe has a water main located along White Store Rd. to serve
the property. The closest County water main is located approximately 1.5
miles away along Summerlin Dairy Rd.
The City of Monroe has indicated that they are prepared to provide Better
Path Homes water service connections, as an 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 expressed, written approval of
the Board of County Commissioners.
Union County Water has no objection to the City providing water service
to this customer.
25-491Contract - 853 W Pressure Zone Tank Preliminary Engineering
Report
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) negotiate and execute an agreementwith HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas substantially consistent withthis agenda item, 2) exercise any
renewal or extension term options setforth in the Agreement, and 3) terminate the Agreement if deemed in thebest interest of the County, each in the County Manager's discretion.
The Union County Water Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes an
allocation for the design and construction of a new elevated storage tank
(EST) to serve the 853 west pressure zone (WPZ) as identified in the
2025 Master Plan. The preliminary engineering report (PER) will verify the
EST volume, identify necessary upgrades to the Watkins Road Booster
Pump Station, and prepare the Town of Indian Trail Condition Zoning
application for the parcel of land owned by Union County where the tank
is to be constructed.
HDR has been selected to provide engineering services for Task Order
8683-03 853 W Pressure Zone Tank Preliminary Engineering Report.
HDR was chosen from a list of vendors previously selected from RFQ
2024-021 – Engineer111111111ing Services for Water and Wastewater SystemImprovements to provide these services for Union County Projects.
The total cost of the Task Order 8683-03 with HDR is $275,650.00.
Sufficient funds are available within the adopted capital account
60184085 - 853 West EST (New Indian Trail Tank).
25-495Contract - Union County Advanced Meter Infrastructure Meter
System
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 at theounty Manager’s discretion.
The approved Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes a funding
allocation for the Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) project within the
Water Rehabilitation and Replacement Program. The project improves
meter reading efficiencies by converting from a manual, drive-by meter
reading program to an integrated system of water meters, communication
networks, and data management systems that enable nearly real-time,
two-way communication between water meters and utilities.
The project is approximately 80 percent complete, and the purpose of this
Change Order #3 is to adjust the installation quantities for the project and
add a sales tax allowance to cover the sales tax of the materials
purchased on the project.
Funding is available within the adopted capital account 60184108 -
Advanced Metering Infrastructure to support the contract change order
amount of $427,222.99.
25-513 Budget Amendment - Town of Wingate Land Use Administration
ACTION:Adopted Budget Amendment #4 to recognize, receive, and appropriaterevenue from Town of Wingate for Land Use Administration services.
The Union County Planning Department began acting as staff for the
Town of Wingate with regards to the Town’s Land Use Administrator
duties in January 2025. The County agreed to provide these services for
a fee of $25,000 per year. This budget amendment reflects the FY2026
payment by the Town.
25-434 Purchase - E-Books, E-Audiobooks, and E-Magazines
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.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Library issues a purchase order
to Overdrive, Inc. The Library then orders materials against this purchase
order throughout the year. We have a contract (4089) with Overdrive for
the digital platform, and all materials for this platform must come from
Overdrive. The approval of this purchase will enable the Library to
commence its E-books, E-audiobooks, and E-magazine purchasing for
the year so that there is no significant lapse in new materials for the
public, as well as the digital platform fee.
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 library materials will be made using Group Purchasing
Program Hoopla, Contract #8123 as quoted by OverDrive, Inc.
Procurement has vetted this contract.
The anticipated cost for the library materials is $134,000.00 and is
budgeted accordingly for FY2026.
25-435 Purchase - Library DVDs and Digital Platform
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.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Library issues a purchase order
to one of its primary materials vendors, Midwest Tapes. The Library then
orders materials against this purchase order throughout the year. The
Library’s discounts have been negotiated by MaLia, a library consortium
of which Union County is a member. The approval of this purchase will
enable the Library to commence its DVD purchasing for the year so that
there is no significant lapse in new materials for the public, as well as
Hoopla digital platform.
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 library materials will be made using Group Purchasing
Program MaLia contract LVA-MAT-22-007 as quoted by Midwest Tape,
LLC. The Procurement Department has vetted this contract and purchase
amount.
The anticipated cost for the library materials is $92,000.00 and is
budgeted accordingly for FY2026.
25-503 Purchase – Vehicles
ACTION:Authorized the County Manager to 1) execute an agreement substantiallyconsistent with this agenda item, 2) exercise any renewal or extensionterm options set forth in the Agreement,
and 3) terminate the Agreementif deemed in the best interest of the County, each in the CountyManager's discretion.
The Human Services Agency Transportation Division seeks approval to
purchase five (5) replacement vehicles. Transportation vehicles 1821,
1921, 2021, 8420, and 9019 (5) 20' light transit vehicles w/wheelchair lift,
have met useful life and have been approved by IMD/NCDOT to be
replaced. The FY26 Combined Capital Grant will fund the vehicle
replacements with 80% Federal ($550,564), 10% ($68,820) State, and
10% ($68,821) Local match.
· (5) 20' light transit vehicles w/ wheelchair lifts $125,000 ea.
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 vehicles will be made using North Carolina Statewide
Term Contract 54-SG-05062022 as quoted by Palmetto Bus Sales, LLC.
The anticipated cost for the five (5) vehicles is $625,000 and is budgeted
accordingly for FY26.
25-514FY2026 Home and Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) for Older
Adults
ACTION:1) Approved the FY2026 Home and Community Block Grant (HCCBG)Funding Plan for Union County and 2) authorize the County Manager tonegotiate and execute an agreement with Centralina
Council ofGovernments substantially consistent with this agenda item.
Centralina is the lead agency for Union County HCCBG. Centralina works
closely with the Union County Human Services Agency Divisions of
Transportation, Community Support and Outreach, and Social Services,
as well as the Council on Aging and City of Monroe Bazemore Active
Adult Center (Senior Center) to help enable delivery of comprehensive
aging services to Union County's older adults and their families who
support them. Services and Programs supported by HCCBG funding
include Transportation, In-Home Aide Levels I, II, and III, Adult Day Care,
Senior Nutrition, Group Respite, Volunteer Program Development and
Senior Center programming.
Union County's proposed FY26 HCCBG-related budget total is
$1,275,735, which includes $1,148,163 in block grant funding, a required
local match of $127,572, and $21,674 NSIP (USDA) subsidy based on
reimbursement of $0.80 per eligible Senior Nutrition meal. The
distribution of funding and associated exceptions for units of service to be
provided by each agency are shown on the attached funding plan.
$1,169,873 is funded with federal dollars (HCCBG and NSIP). The
required local match of $127,572 is included in the County's FY2026
budget for the Human Services Agency and Council on Aging portion,
and, in the City of Monroe’s FY2026 budget for the Bazemore Center
portion.
25-510Resolution Approving an Invoice From, And Payment To, Creech
And Associates, PLLC For Design Services at The Union County
Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab Renovation
ACTION:Adopted resolution approving an invoice from, and payment to, Creech andAssociates, PLLC in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00)for design services at the Union
County Sheriff’s Office Crime LabRenovation.
As part of the administrative close-out process for the UCSO
Administration Office Expansion project, an unpaid invoice from Creech
and Associates, PLLC was discovered that was not financially authorized
by Union County through a typical contract agreement. The invoice is for
design services to upfit the UCSO Crime Lab which was built as a shell
space at the time the original design services were provided for the
project. After review of the invoice, Facilities Management has verified
that staff gave verbal authorization to proceed with the design work, but
no contract or contract amendment was executed. Creech and
Associates acted in good faith and performed the services requested.
The project was later bid by the Facilities and Fleet Management
department and completed around August 2024. Staff recommends the
approval of the invoice from Creech and Associates, PLLC in the amount
of $20,000.00.
The invoice total is $20,000.00. There are sufficient funds capital account
40080080, Sheriff’s Office Expansion and Renovation, to cover theexpense.
RESOLUTIONAPPROVINGANINVOICEFROM,ANDPAYMENTTO,CREECHANDASSOCIATES,PLLCINTHEAMOUNTOFTWENTYTHOUSANDDOLLARS($20,000.00)FORDESIGNSERVICESATTHEUNIONCOUNTYSHERIFF'SOFFICECRIMELABRENOVATION
WHEREAS, UnionCountyFacilitiesDepartmentauthorizedCREECHANDASSOCIATES,PLLConJanuary 5th,2024toprovidedesignservicesattheUnionCountySheriffsOfficeCrimeLab;and
WHEREAS,CREECHANDASSOCIATES,PLLCperformedsuch servicesbetween January5th,2024andMay31st,2024;and
WHEREAS,althoughthereweresufficientfundsintheUnionCountySheriffsOfficeExpansionprojectordinancetocovertheworkperformedbyCREECHANDASSOCIATES,PLLC,therewasnopurchaseorderoragreemententeredintotoauthorizetheworkandanassociatedpaymentobligation;and
WHEREAS, CREECH ANDASSOCIATES, PLLCsubmitted aninvoice fortheworkcompleted fordesignservicesattheUnionCounty SheriffsOfficeCrimeLabintheamount ofTwenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00)
onMay 31,2024;and
WHEREAS, althoughtheworkwassatisfactorilycompleted, theUnionCounty financeofficerappropriately disapproved paymentunder theinvoicebecausetherewasnoproperlyauthorized contractorpurchaseorderwhichallowedpaymentforthisworkundertheencumbrance
fordesignservicesattheUnionCounty SheriffsOfficeCSILab;and
WHEREAS,pursuanttoN.C.G.S.159-28(c),theBoardofCommissioners(the "Board")mayapproveaninvoicethathasbeendisapprovedbythefinanceofficersolongasthereisanappropriationintheassociatedbudgetorprojectordinanceandthereisanunencumberedbalancethatismorethantheamounttobepaidunderthedisapprovedinvoice;and
WHEREAS, thereisagreater amount unencumbered leftintheappropriationforthedesignservices attheUnionCounty SheriffsOfficeCrime Labthantheamount oftheinvoiceforworkperformedby CREECH AND
ASSOCIATES,PLLC;and
WHEREAS, theBoard desirestoapprove theinvoicetoallowCREECH ANDASSOCIATES, PLLCtobepaidforworkthatwassatisfactorily performed pursuant todirectionfrom Union County.
NOW,THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVED by the BoardofCommissioners ofUnionCounty, NorthCarolina asfollows:
(1)Theinvoicefrom,andassociatedpaymentto,CREECHANDASSOCIATES,PLLCintheamountofTwentyThousandDollars($20,000)forworkperformedinthedesignservicesattheUnionCountySheriffsOfficeCrimeLabfortheFacilitiesandFleetManagementDepartmentisapproved.The
Board isapproving payment of this invoice forthefollowing reasons:
(i)CREECHANDASSOCIATES,PLLCsatisfactorilyperformedtheworkassociatedwiththisinvoiceunderthebeliefitwasproperlyauthorizedtoperformtheworkthroughauthorizationfromtheFacilitiesandFleetManagementDepartment;(ii)staffactedingoodfaithinauthorizingCREECHANDASSOCIATES,PLLCtoperformthework;and(iii)thereweresufficientfundsintheUnionCountySheriff'sOfficeExpansionprojectordinancetopayfortheworkperformed.TheChairmanshallsignthe
certificateonthecheckordraftgivenin paymentof the invoice.This resolutionshall take effect immediatelyupon its passage.
Adopted the 11th day of August, 2025. Attest:
Union County Board of Commission
2
CREECH
(9ASSOCIATES
I000W.MoreheadSt. Suite120 Charlotte, NC 28208
P704.376.6000
F704.376.5550
WWWW.CREECH-DESIGN.COM
INVOICE
Gordon Vincent
Union County Government 1407 Airport Road
Monroe, NC 28110
gordon.vincent@unioncountync.gov 704.296.4252
Invoice No:37063 Rev
Invoice Date:May 31, 2024
Professional feefor services rendered through05/31/2023
2023-015Union CountySheriff's Lab Renovation
DescriptionContract
Amount
%
Comp.
Previously
Billed
Amount
Due
ArchitecturalServices$20,000.00
100%
$0.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
100%
$0.00
$20,000.00
TotalAmountDue$_2_0_,o_o_o_.o_o
Page 1 of 1
1
25-391 Tax Bill Correction Report for May 2025
ACTION:Approved Tax Bill Correction Reports for May 2025 (Refunds in the amount of $5,113.79).
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 attached 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.
25-496 Tax Bill Correction Report for June 2025
ACTION:Tax Bill Correction Reports for June 2025 (Refunds in the amount of $621.01).
In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes 102-312 and
105-325, the Board of County Commissioners 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 attached 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.
25-486 June 2025 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Report
ACTION:Approved the June 2025 NCVTS Motor Vehicle Tax Refund Report.
The refunds included in this report represent adjustments made to tax
bills that resulted in refunds of motor vehicle taxes paid under the Tax
and Tag Together program operated jointly between the counties and the
state.
25-497 Annual Tax Settlement FY 2024-2025
ACTION:Approved the reports of 2024 delinquent taxpayers and annual settlementas requested,.
North Carolina General Statutes require Tax Collectors to make several
reports to the governing body after the close of the fiscal year.
The first report is a list of real property taxpayers whose taxes are unpaid
and for which the unpaid taxes are secured by a lien against their real
property. The reports related to real property taxes is the advertising list
often seen in the newspaper modified by the deletion of property owners
who have paid their taxes between the advertising date and the date of
the settlement report.
The second report is a list of those outstanding taxes that are not secured
by liens against real property. These taxes are assessed against personal
property owed by persons who owned no real property at the time the
personal property was listed and are on file in the County Clerk’s office.
The third report is the annual settlement. North Carolina General Statutes
require the Tax Collector to make such a report after July 1st, but before
the collector is charged with the collections of taxes for the current year.
The form of the settlement reflects various charges (initial billing, discoveries, late listing, interest, etc.) and credits (sums deposited,
releases, etc.) The charges and credits are required to balance. The
Union County Finance Division independently confirms the accuracy of
the report.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, the unaudited overall collection
rate on all county property taxes was 99.84%.
25-498 Write Off of 2015 Uncollected Fire Fees
ACTION:Approved the write off for the 2015 uncollected fire fees as requested
Under NCGS 105-378. Property taxes and certain fees associated with
those taxes are no longer eligible for enforced collection remedies after
10 years. In deference to this statute, the Tax Collector requests on an
annual basis that all taxes and fees older than 10 years be approved for
write off by the Board of Commissioners.
25-506 Order of Collection Tax Charge for Fiscal Year 2025-2026
ACTION:Approved the Order of Collection Tax Charge for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
NCGS 105-321 requires the governing board of each taxing unit to issue an order of collection to Tax Collectors at the time the receipts are
delivered to them. This order constitutes the collector's authority to
collect taxes and to exercise the various powers incident to the collection
process. The order gives rise to a specific lien on the real estate listed on
the books, plus the power to levy upon or attach any of the taxpayer's
personal property. Failure to issue the order of collection may invalidate
the tax collector's remedies for enforced collection. The order of
collection does not include public service companies or motor vehicles.
Those property classifications are either billed monthly or based on
information provided separately by the North Carolina Department of
Revenue.
Revenues = $270,673,475
25-508 Amendment to Resolution Appointing Plat Review Officers
ACTION:Adopted Resolution to Appoint New Designate Review Officers.
In accordance with N.C.G.S. § 47-30.2, the board of commissioners of
saeach county shall, by resolution, designate by name one or more personsexperienced in mapping or land records management as a ReviewOfficer to review each map or plat required to be
submitted for reviewbefore the map or plat is presented to the register of deeds for recording,with each person designated as a Review Officer, if reasonably feasible,being certified
as a property mapper pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 147-54.4
25-499Resolution - Approve Invoice From and Payment to SHI International
Corporation (Zendesk Suite Software)
ACTION:Adopted resolution approving invoicing from and payment to SHI International Corporation, in the amount of twenty-nine thousand, four
hundred and sixty-three dollars ($29,463.00) for a customer service
platform to enhance help desk operations.
Information Technology department implemented a new customer service
platform to help manage support interactions and centralize support
communications across County departments. Zendesk provides tools for
ticket management, customer self-service, knowledge base creation,
workflow automation, and analytics. This action item requests the Board
to approve invoice payments in the amounts of $29,463.00.
$29,463.00 is budgeted accordingly for FY26.
25-517 Contract Renewal - EA Software Subscription Service
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.
As part of the County’s ongoing commitment to enhancing productivity
and ensuring access to the latest digital tools, we propose renewing our
annual Microsoft 365 subscription. This platform delivers essential
services-such as email, cloud storage, and collaboration tools-that are
foundational to daily County operations. In addition to the renewal, we
recommend the purchase of 100 Microsoft 365 G5 upgrade licenses.
These licenses will support the Strategy and Innovation Department's
initiative to develop and distribute digital dashboards for County
leadership. These dashboards will feature countywide key performance indicators, operational metrics, and other data visualization tools. The G5
licenses provide advanced analytics capabilities, enabling deeper
insights, more efficient reporting workflows, and stronger data-driven
decision-making across departments.
The Information Technology Department has utilized the contractual
services of SHI International for its Microsoft EA since July 2017. SHI
International has been effective and efficient in meeting our service
needs, and we are requesting to continue this service for an additional 12
months.
The anticipated annual cost for this service is $760,292 and is budgeted
accordingly for FY2026.
25-507 Amendment to the Union County Pay and Classification Plan
ACTION:1) Approved a revision of the Union County Pay and Classification Plan toinclude the following:
A) Adjust the following pay grades for these job classifications:
i) AMI Superintendent - move from pay grade M to pay grade Q
ii) Assistant Director, Utility Business Services - move from pay
grade P to pay grade Q
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.
25-518 Amendment to the Union County Procurement Policy
INFORMATION CONTACT:
ACTION:Adopted the Amendment to the Union County Procurement Policy.
On June 5, 2023, the Board of Commissioners approved adopting a new
Procurement Policy to assist with providing a balance between facilitating
the current business of the County in an efficient and timely manner and ensuring that the procurement process is fair and accessible to vendors.
The proposed amendment modifies Section 3.5, Procurement of Other
Services, of the Procurement Policy to modify dollar thresholds consistent
with the County Manager’s contracting authority.
25-500 Minutes for Approval
ACTION:Approved minutes of regular meetings of October 21, 2024, and November 4, 2024
Information Only
25-478 Tax Collector’s Departmental Report for June 2025ACTION: 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 June 2025 as required by NCGS
105-350(7).
25-488 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 June 2025 NCVTS releases and refunds less than
$100 and prorations approved by the finance officer.See Exhibit “A” attached here and made a part of these minutes.
25-490 Human Resources Reports for June 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 June
2025.
25-502 Communications Monthly Report - July 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.
25-509 Facilities Major Capital Projects Update - Quarterly Report
ACTION:No action was requested. This item was for information only.
This is the quarterly major projects update for projects managed by the
Facilities and Fleet Management Department.
Business
25-523FY22 Short Water Line Extension Program - Phase B Project
Completion
Brian Matthews, County Manager, explained that this was a carryover item previously discussed and related to the short waterline program. He noted that there had been concerns raised
about the amount of funding available to finish the FY22 and FY23 short water line programs, as well as some easement issues associated with some of the projects.
He explained that what was before the Board was consideration of moving the East Lawyers project, which had been part of Phase B, into a separate project. He said that this would disconnect
it from the Mullis Road project.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Mullis project has some challenges, including funding and easement concerns. He added that for this project, based on current estimates, there is sufficient
funding available to complete the East Lawyers project.
He said that he recognizes there are many residents eager to receive public water service and that the County would like to provide it as quickly as possible. He noted that the project
will still take time to complete, because they must go through the bidding process before construction can start.
Mr. Matthews explained that it may still take another 18 to 24 months to actually get the project in the ground, and he did not want anyone to think that approving it within a few months
would mean they would have water. He emphasized that it will still take a good deal of time for the project to be installed and become active.
He added that they would like to move forward with requesting the board’s permission to segregate the project, allow it to be by itself, then go out to bid and begin construction.
Mr. Matthews stated that he would be available to answer any questions the board may have.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked for clarification, stating that what they would be doing is removing the item from any connection to other Phase B projects, and making the East Lawyers
portion a completely separate project.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that it would be a separate bid project.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms apologized for changing things up at the last minute. He asked what direction would be needed from the Board tonight in order to move forward with the East
Lawyers project.
Mr. Matthews stated that he only needed direction from the Board to approve the East Lawyers project as a separate project and include it in the FY22 program.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms moved to approve the East Lawyers short Waterline extension project as a separate project and include it in the FY22 program.
Chair Merrell asked for clarification thatthe East Lawyers project would be completely separated from the Morgan Mill project and that the Morgan Mill project would, noting that Morgan
Mill was being completely removed.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that was correct.
The motion passed unanimously with the following vote:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-484 Rezoning Petition 2024-CZ-010 4 Rivers
Chair Merrell called the next item on the agenda 25-484, rezoning petition 2024 CZ-010 4 Rivers and recognized Lee Jensen, Planning Director, for comments.
Mr. Jensen explained that the rezoning request 2024 CZ-0104 4 Rivers was heard at the previous meeting in July during the public hearing. He said it was for the rezoning of two parcels,
consisting of approximately 4.5 acres, from R-20 to B4 with conditions.
Mr. Jensen provided a brief recap of the conditions, noting they are limited to the site plan dated April 16, 2025. He stated the allowed use would be limited to a Type One indoor climate-controlled
storage facility, up to 80,375 square feet.
He clarified that the land on the west side of Allen Black is not included in the rezoning and said that was being made clear within the conditions.
Mr. Jensen stated that the two parcels subject to the rezoning would be combined, and the development would have a five-year vesting period. He added that it would be required to meet
all provisions of the Union County Development Ordinance.
He noted the site is located at the corner of Lawyers Road and Allen Black Road and said it is not far from the interchange at I-485.
Mr. Jensen stated that the Land Use Board recommended approval of the rezoning and staff also recommended approval. He noted that no one spoke at the public hearing for or against the
rezoning.
Mr. Jensen stated that staff received comments through the Town of Stallings’ staff, which opposed the rezoning. He noted the town did not feel the request was the right fit for the
area and wanted any future land use decision to be directed to the Town for annexation.
Chair Merrell said that she agreed with the Town of Stallings. She stated that there are a number of residential homes in the area and she did not personally see the storage unit use
as a good fit for the land. She noted concerns about the visibility of it from nearby 55-and-older neighborhoodand long-established residential neighborhoods around the intersection,
adding that it would be one of the first sights seen when coming off I-485.
She added that she was a little shocked the Land Use Board approved it. She asked if other Board members had comments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he also has concerns about the proximity to I-485, saying it be could be problematic with access to I-485 and traffic. He added that he agrees with
Chair Merrell’s comments.
Mr. Jensen stated that he forgot to mention, and noted that while tonight was not a public hearing, the applicant was present if the Commissioners had any questions.
Chair Merrell asked if anyone had questions for the applicant, and after receiving no response, moved to deny rezoning petition CZ-2024-010 from 4 Rivers Property Group, LLC; 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 PLAN) (CZ-2024-010)
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 Union County
Comprehensive Plan (the “Plan”) and that denial of the proposed map amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because:
The Plan’s Land Use Map identifies this area as Rural Residential, with a Neighborhood Center located less than 1,000 feet away at the intersection of Stevens Mill and Lawyers Road.
The proposed business/commercial designation is not consistent with residential or agricultural uses for which rural residential areas are intended.
Allen Black Road, adjacent to one of the subject parcels, transitions to residential
uses immediately beyond Lawyers Road. The proposed rezoning will facilitate potential future business uses in close proximity to existing residential uses in manners inconsistent with
the Plan.
The vote passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-485 Rezoning Petition 2025-CZ-003 TKC Land
Chair Merrell stated that the next agenda item was 25-485, rezoning petition 2025 CZ-003 for TKC Land, and recognized Lee Jensen, Planning Director, for comments.
Mr. Jensen stated that the rezoning request 2025 CZ-003 for TKC Land involves approximately 4.204 acres, and is a request to rezone the property from RA-40 to B4 with conditions.Mr.
Jensen stated that the conditions include limited to the site plan dated April 25, 2025. He said uses would be limited to retail sales up to 12,668 square feet.
He added that the owner would construct improvements to US Highway 601 as required by NCDOT through the review process. He noted the request includes five-year development right vesting,
and the project would be required to meet all requirements of the Union County Unified Development Ordinance.
Mr. Jensen stated that the Land Use Board gave a positive recommendation at its last meeting in July, and staff also recommended approval. He stated the applicant was present if the
board had questions for them as well.
Commissioner Christina Helms clarified that this was the Dollar General located on US 601 South.
Mr. Jensen confirmed that it was the one located on US 601 South and added that one person spoke at the public hearing and, as he recalled, spoke in favor of the request.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked about the DOT improvements and whether there is any indication of what those improvements might be at this point.
Taryn Stetson with TKC Land Development explained that they are going to include or expand the median that is in the middle and has shifted the driveway to the location where it has
been requested. She said they do not have additional details at this point, but they have been working with NCDOT.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether there is any requirement for a deceleration lane.
Ms. Stetson stated that because the driveway has been moved, the deceleration lane does not have to be extended, but they cannot have access on to Hargette Road.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms explained that his concern is that US 601 South is a very busy highway. He said the last thing they want is to create a dangerous situation for anyone traveling
there trying to gain entrance into what may be a retail business. He added that is his concern, and he wants to make sure that both the applicant and NCDOT are taking that into consideration.
Ms. Stetson said that the site requires drivers to travel further to make a U-turn and that access would be right-in/right-out only. She said this to ensure safety for everyone and confirmed
they will comply.
Vice Chair Brian W. 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 passed unanimously with the following vote:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-373Request for Feedback - NCDOT Project at NC 75 and Fletcher
Broome and New Town Roads Intersections
Chair Merrellrecognized Planning Director Lee Jenson to present the item.
Mr. Jenson stated that this was a request from NCDOT for feedback from the Board on a couple of projects related to each other along Highway 75.
He said that one of the projects involved the closure of the crossing at Fletcher-Broome and the railroad in order to utilize available funds to help improve the intersection of New
Town Road and Highway 75. He noted that much of that occurred because of a development in Monroe and certain conditions. He added that there are representatives from NCDOT present who
have a short presentation to provide and could likely answer most questions better than he could. He introduced the representatives from NCDOT.
Felix Obregon stated that he is the Division 10 Engineer. He noted that some members may have previously met Brett Canipe and added that Mr. Canipewas promoted to Western Chief Engineer.
He also stated that Brian Gackstetter with NCDOT’s Rail Division was present.
Mr. Obregon explained that the project came about from an existing issue that was found, and with the development that has come into the area, staff believed it was a good opportunity
to take advantage of it and get ahead of development that is happening in the area.
He also said that a public meeting was held to discuss this project and they received some concerns from residents. He stated that they wanted to present the proposal to the Board, answer
any questions of the Commissioners, and receive feedback from the Board.
Mr. Obregon provided project background and stated that, as previously mentioned, they identified an opportunity to improve safety at the intersection of Fletcher Broome Road and NC
Highway 75. He stated that safety issues were found at that intersection, and they recognized that the development was going to provide some improvements at that particular intersection.
He said that based on what was being proposed, along with the history of the intersection and New Town Road having a skewed angle at NC Highway 75, they thought it was a good opportunity
to look at it more holistically, and determine what would make the best sense to provide better improvements for that part of the county.
Mr. Obregon described the proposal to close Fletcher Broome Road at NC Highway 75 and to realign New Town Road at NC Highway 75. He said that the intersection of NC Highway 75 and Fletcher
Broome Road was converted from a two-way stop to an all-way stop in 2024.
Mr. Obregon said that a right-turn lane on NC Highway 75 onto Fletcher Broome Road was installed in 2017. He provided additional background, noting that the development finalized its
traffic impact analysis in 2021.He stated that was when coordination beganto determine the best solution and address concerns in the area. He reiterated that the purpose of the project
is to improve safety at NC Highway 75 and Fletcher Broome Road, as well as NC 75 and New Town Road. He provided a timeline of what has taken place with the development since it started
in 2020.
Mr. Obregon stated that Phase One of the development was approved in 2020, followed by approval of Phase Two in 2021 and Phase Three in 2022. He further stated that in 2024, the NC Highway
75 intersection at Fletcher Broome Road was converted into an all-way stop due to crash history andthey were trying to improve safety.
He said there were subsequent modifications to the development itself. He further stated that earlier in the year, a public meeting was held regarding the project involving the closure
of Fletcher Broome Road at NC Highway 75 and the realignment at New Town Road.He stated that traffic is increasing and that several developments are occurring along that particular corridor.
Mr. Obregon stated that they want to take advantage of the opportunity to get ahead of that growth and provide some relief for the corridor.
Mr. Obregon stated that there were a lot of numbers presented, but the key takeaway was that the NC Highway 75 and Fletcher Broome Road intersection had been converted from a two-way
stop to a four-way stop to help address a crash situation. He noted that even after that change, crashes have continued to occur at that particular intersection. He stated that crash
data for NC Highway 75 and New Town Road was included for reference and that, while there have been some crashes in the past, not to a greater extent,that this is why they thought that
would be a better option for a signal and realignment.
Mr. Obregon stated that Mr. Gackstetter would provide information regarding the public meeting that was held.
Mr. Gackstetter displayed a pie graph that showed a breakdown of the public meeting comments received, both in person and through their public input site for this project. He said
that 39 percent of the comments were in opposition, 42 percent were neutral, and 19 percent were in direct support.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that multiple alignment options were evaluated and presented to the public, including an option to take New Town Road out to NC Highway 200, which was not feasible
due to conflicts with a Duke transmission line and existing geometrics of NC 200 at that location, including the bridge over CSX and NC Highway 75. He said they considered realigning
New Town Road to be perpendicular with the railroad and tying it perpendicular with NC Highway 75 and the adjacent development on the south side. He stated that would take itoff that
intersection and makes it a four-way intersection, which is safer than the existing offset configuration with the different left turn lanes.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that New Town Road had a design speed of 55 miles per hour, which has been decreased to 45 miles per hour. He said that the current proposal has a design speed
of 30 miles per hour coming into the railroad crossing and ties in perpendicular with a stop condition at NC Highway 75. He further stated that there would not be a traffic signal at
this location, as it does not meet the warrants for a light, and that it would be a four-way stop sign at that location.
He stated that the existing at-grade railroad crossing is currently skewed, which creates sight distance issues at the railroad crossing. He noted that with all the development happening
in the area, they believed it was an opportunity to resolve that situation.He said that perpendicular crossings are much better when it comes to interacting with the railroad, as they
provide better line of sight looking down the railroad crossing in either direction, including in the event of a malfunction or power outage.
Mr. Gackstetter that even though the crossing has protective features such as gates, there still can be instances where something could happen.He stated that they tried to stay away
from the mobile homes on the north side of the railroad crossing, as that would have been a significant impact to those properties.
He said they chose to go through the Helms’ property at that location, not impacting the home but impacting a portion of the property. He stated that this was one of the impacts they
tried to minimize as much as possible.
He stated that as the project moves further along, they could minimize the impact further depending on what design speeds are acceptable coming into NC Highway 75. He clarified that
he earlier he had mentioned the Helms property, but he meant the Nash property, not the Helms property.
Mr. Gackstetter shared a slide that showed the proposed right-of-way on the property, and indicated that the 35 miles per hour is shown is about where the home is located currently.
He said he believed they would be impacting her well and would need to provide a new location for it. He added that septic had not been looked at this time, and that would be addressed
further into plan development if the project were to moveforward.
He noted that another aspect of the project is that there would still be driveway access to the towing company currently located on New Town Road at NC Highway 75, which would basically
be cut off with a driveway access.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that they have not had a conversation with the property owner, but they can consider different alternatives for how they tie into the access. He said that this
is the proposal they came up withwhen they took it to the public meeting and solicited feedback.He noted that turn lanes are being added to make the intersection function better going
forward.
He commented on the project schedulestating that the public meeting was held in April and feedback was collected at the meeting. He stated that they have received feedback from the City
of Monroe and are now looking for feedback from the Board of Commissioners, and based on that feedback, they would then proceed with the project.
He stated that funding is available for the project and that it is not subject to STI prioritization. He noted that safety funds can be used to move the project forward and,while the
project would still appear in the STIP, it would not pull from other funding sources related to STI.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that if the project were to move forward right away, work would begin sometime in spring 2026, with construction starting sometime in summer 2028.
Referring to the preliminary costs, he stated that right-of-way costs are estimated at $400,000 and construction costs at $4.5 million.
Commissioner Sides asked when staff would estimate the project would be completed if construction began in summer of 2028.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that construction would take approximately a year to complete. He noted that the railroad closure would not occur until New Town Road was completed, and they would
not close the crossing until that work was finished.
Mr. Obregon added that the project is not requesting any county funds. He noted that all funding for this project would come from DOT funds.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he attended the community meeting a few months ago, and said there were about 50 angry county residents present regarding the project.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated requested to hear from Lee Jenson, Planning Director, on whether the County was contacted by the City of Monroe requesting input on the developments
and any associated traffic mitigation plan.
Mr. Jenson stated that, to his knowledge, that was the Waxhaw Landing project across the street and that the County was not contacted or looped in on the traffic impact analysis for
that development.
Vice Chair Brian Helms asked whether it is standard practice for the County to contact adjacent municipalities when a project such as this comes up.
Mr. Jensonreplied,yes they do make those contacts.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated there was strong reaction at that meeting and then asked if they knew who owned this property.
Mr. Gackstetter responded that it was their understanding that the property belongs to a farmer.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that the property belongs to Mr. Frank Howey. He asked for confirmation that if the railroad crossing is effectively closed, the road would still remain
state maintained.
Mr. Gackstetter responded it could be reverted to the property owner if he chooses to.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms referenced the option of the road potentially being reverted to the property owner, with Mr. Gackstetter indicating they would likely solicit that option and
Mr. Obregon confirming. The Vice Chair noted that the property owner would not be required to agree.
Mr. Obregon stated that if the property owner inquires about the County abandoning the road, they would go to that process.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that they are going to shut down the existing railroad crossing in favor of a better crossing to facilitate Waxhaw Landing.
Mr. Obregon stated that, as noted in the stats, the intersection had been converted to an all-way stop, which has helped with the crash history. He added that there are still some crashes
happening and that this project presents an opportunity to create a more perpendicular intersection while also providing additional improvements at the New Town location.
Vice Chair Brian Helms stated that this issue was discussed at the community meeting as well the number of crashes at the intersection. He said he asked how many crashes had occurred
since the all-way stop was installed and that the answer he received was zero.
Mr. Gackstetter stated that he did not recall it being said that way and clarified that they had indicated they would look into it and come back with that information, since it was not
available at the time.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that on slide six of the presentation, there was a bullet noting a fatal crash as an error in coding. He questioned how something like that occurs in
a presentation that includes crash data and asked whether there was actually no fatal crash at the location.
Mr. Obregon stated that one of the fatal crashes did not actually happen and was the result of a coding error. He added that, as they were presenting all of the information they wanted
to point that out.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he could not support the project, noting that he travels through the intersection frequently and has observed the community and their concerns as
they were being raised.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that if the railroad crossing closed, the result would be that they are going to give a private state maintained driveway to one of the largest farmers
in the county. He stressed that he has no problem with farmers or any operation byMr. Howey, but he does have a problem with having a state maintained driveway where the only purpose
would be for access to that property.
Mr. Obregon stated there may be some confusion and clarified that the crossing itself would not be there anymore. He explained there would not be a crossing at that location and no access
from Fletcher Broome Road down to NC Highway 75 noting it would not be a driveway.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that from New Town Road, the area would still be used because the only purpose that traffic would have if the change is made would be to facilitate entrance
and exit to the farms and that property. He noted that if the crossing is shut down, traffic would only have one direction coming in from New Town Road and to the Howey Farms area which
he said would be state maintained with state tax dollars, and asked for confirmation.
Mr. Obregon confirmed that this portion would be state maintained. He said they would still need to provide access to both sides of the property.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he also had concerns about the property acquisition. He stated that he met with Mary Nash at the community meeting, and she expressed concerns regarding
prior condemnation that occurred on her property.
Mr. Obregon stated that she was referring to the 200 grade separation that is constructed in that area.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that from memory she had indicated she has already been through this process twice before.
Mr. Obregon stated that he believed it had been twice and confirmed that he had also spoken with her.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that there is a fundamental disagreement about how the project should be done. He said he is not willing to trade Mary Nash’s property for future development
in the area that Monroe wants to annex and develop, and stated he would not vote to do so. He reiterated that he is not going to vote in support of having a state maintained driveway
for a farming business. He said he did not believe that is fair to the rest of the residents and taxpayers of Union County or the state. He said he is fundamentally opposed to the
project.
He moved to adopt a Resolution of Opposition to Proposed NCDOT Project RC-2010B for Closure of the Railroad Crossing at Fletcher Broome Road at NC 75 and Improvement of the Intersection
of New Town Road and NC 75.
Commissioner Sides asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms whether there were any revisions to the project as currently proposed that would persuade him to support it or any changes he would
consider sufficient to justify his support.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms responded, through the chair, that no, there are no revisions to the project that would change his position or persuade him to support it.
The motion passed unanimously with the following vote:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-519 NC 218 and Love Mill Roundabout Project
Chair Merrell recognized Lee Jenson, Planning Director, to present this item.
Mr. Jenson acknowledged that representatives from DOT were present and could provide additional background. He said that he did not have a presentation for the item and did not believe
DOT had a presentation, but there was some information that was included in the agenda packet.
He stated that DOT provided that the total cost of the project would beapproximately $2.8 million. He noted that the right-of-way has begun recently with construction scheduled for summer
2027 and expected to take about eight to ten weeks to complete. He also stated that approximately $108,000 to $110,000 had been spent to date on design and right-of-way related expenses.
Mr. Jenson stated that the project was submitted to DOT as a safety project and received additional funding from CRTPO (Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization). He said
that no Union County funds have been requested or are associated with the project, and it is not a critical intersection project. He explained that the all-way stop was installed as
an interim measure since the roundabout was in the works.
He stated that the traffic volumes from DOT’s standpoint show the intersection is approaching the operational limits for an all-way stop and will not function in the future with projected
traffic growth. He noted that DOT has recommended a roundabout for the intersection and added that Mr. Obregon could answer questions if there were any for DOT.
Commissioner Baucom askedif any crash history data was available since the intersection was turned into a four-way stop.
Mr. Obregon stated that he did not bring that information with him but could provide it as a follow-up.
Commissioner Baucom asked whether there are currently rumble strips at the intersection.
Mr. Obregon stated that he did not believe there are any rumble strips at the intersection currently.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that, as someone who lives in the area, she does not support the roundabout at this location. She explained that many farmers use a processor just
over the county line and that it already takes a considerable amount of time to travel around the area, noting that during construction periods many farmers tend to use that route.
She stated that Mr. Alexander was present in opposition to the project and noted that he travels through the intersection multiple times a day. She added that he expressed concerns that
the project would negatively impact his family business, which she also found very concerning.
She stated that as a farmer’s wife and someone who lives near the Highway 200 and Highway 218 roundabout, she felt strongly that the roundabout is “atrocious”. She explained that with
a 53 to 55 feet needed for tractor-trailer movements, it is virtually impossible to navigate without hitting the concrete. She added that she believes the four-way stop works for the
community.
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to oppose the NC 218 and Love Mill roundabout project.
Chair Merrell asked if there were any other questions or comments.
Commissioner Sides asked whether there is currently a flashing red light at the four-way stop intersection.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that she did not recall if there was one.
Commissioner Sides asked whether that is an alternative, suggesting adding another layer of safety by installing a flashing red light approaching the four-way stop.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that there is a road sign indicating there is a stop sign ahead.
Mr. Obregon stated that they could potentially install red lights at that location. He noted that they had to install an all-way stop to help out. He explained that the long-term goal
for the intersection is to provide additional capacity, as it is getting to the level where service is inadequate, with queuing in the morning and afternoon. He added that the all-way
stop was installed as an interim measure toward the future roundabout.
Commissioner Sides agreed with Commissioner Christina Helms’ concern about big trucks traveling through that intersection, and a roundabout would likely not be durable and will need
repair every year. He noted that trucks would probably drive straight through instead of using it properly causing damage.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that it is already there, and she described how difficult it is for tractor trailers that travel through that area. She added that at the intersection
of Highway 218 and Highway 200, where the outer portions form a figure eight, it is virtually impossible for a tractor trailer to go through that area.
She noted that there are many roundabouts in the area including one on Lawyers Road at Emerald Lake that she described as very small. She said that these roundabouts are invading people’s
property. She added that residents have commented that Union County is the “roundabout capital of North Carolina” and said it seems like roundabouts seem to be placed at every intersection
and may not be needed.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that NC Highway 218 is a very highly traveled area, especially by tractor trailers, and noted that residents in the community have reached out to
her multiple times with concerns about the project. She added that the concerns come not only from local farmers but from the community in general.
She stated that when school starts again, there are no cut-through areas for EMS, fire or anything in that nature. She said that there is not a fire department on that side of the area,
and it would be detrimental, even if it only lasts for a couple of months.
Mr. Obregon stated that in terms of the design and how it functions, there are ways they can explore to address certain design functions. He noted he was not aware of the other concerns
mentioned regarding the other roundabouts but said that information was good feedback. He added that it can be taken back and used to design that particular roundabout in a way that
does not prohibit truck traffic. He added that roundabouts are used nationally and explained that they can be designed in a way that allows large trucks and trailers to maneuver through
them in an efficient and safe manner.
Chair Merrell shared that she lives in Emerald Lake and said residents had begged DOT not to put a roundabout in front of the neighborhood. She added that, as someone who sits on the
Board, she had also expressed the community’s plea to not place a roundabout in front of Emerald Lake and Country Woods East.She stated that a smaller than usual roundabout was put in
front of these neighborhoods near Stevens Mill. She added that at the very next committee meeting she attended, the DOT said they would press forward with the roundabout.
Chair Merrell stated that she hears Commissioner Helms and thinks about the position she was in a year ago. She said the DOT did not give any consideration to what she and the community
shared and the roundabout was installed and it is too small. She stated that DOT was over budget and wanted to cut other projects. She stressed that the residents of the neighborhood
did not want the roundabout. She added that when the roundabout was too small, and the school buses were having problems with getting around the roundabout and tractor trailers were
having problems, they said bigger vehicles can drive through the middle. She shared that her experience with DOT and the roundabout is that DOT does not care about the residents and
the people that sit on these committees.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked that DOT listen to the people who live and work in this community that do want the roundabout. She shared that she is yet to hear from a soul who
lives in that area that wants this project. She urged the DOT to respect what the people who live in the community desire.
Commissioner Sides stated that they are using roundabouts, because there is not funding or determination to fully address the needs on NC Highway 218, such as widening it to four lanes
or providing at least a decent shoulder. He added that as a result they are resorting to other measures and alternatives which are not fully supported by residents.
He stated that while he understands the cost of widening the roads, they are trying to “nickel” a cure for a bigger problem. He said what is needed is decent road funding in the state
to address critical infrastructure rather than sticking roundabouts all over which often become damaged and hazardous. He added that in his view the “cure is worse than the disease”.
Commissioner Baucom stated that he is all about safety and ensuring people are safe on the roads, but he expressed concern about the route residents between NC Highway 218 and Rocky
River Road are having to take. He speculated that the detour would add 20 minutes to their travel and noted concerns about how emergency services would respond in that area.
He stated that he does not know of any major crashes at the intersection since it was made into the four-way. He added that if there were any other safety precautions that can be used,
but he concurs with his colleagues that it does not seem necessary.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he shares the concern too, especially the big trucks. He noted that it could be easy for a big truck to overturn while trying to navigate a roundabout
that is not adequately sized.
Commissioner Christinia Helms remindedthat she had made the motion in opposition of the NC Highway 218 and Love Mill Roundabout Project.
The vote passed unanimously with the following vote:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-483 Rural Land Use Plan Draft Strategy Update
Chair Merrell recognized Lee Jenson for staff comments.
Mr. Jenson stated that he would present the first few slides of the item before turning it over to the chair of the Rural Land Use Plan Committee, Alan Baucom, to review the strategies
the committee had developed so far.
He defined strategies as essentially being policies or actions that are designed to achieve a goal typically within a plan or organization. He added that they are the “teeth of the plan”.
He stated that they need to think through those strategies to avoid any unintended consequences. He said that if strategies are developed too quickly or as a knee-jerk reaction,there
can be unintended consequences.
Mr. Jenson said the strategies should be effective on their own. He stated that they should not stack a bunch of strategies on top of each other to make them work and that each strategy
should be able to stand on it is own and do what it is supposed to do.
He stated that they reached out to the public regarding the Rural Land Use Plan and the development of the strategies. He said they rely heavenly on social media, noting that Liz Cooper
and the Public Communications team have helped tremendously with that effort. He said they use platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, and added that the Public Communications group
also produce a weekly newsletter, in which Planning has been allowed to included information about the Rural Land Use Plan.
Mr. Jenson stated that an email was sent to over 500 interested residents using lists that Planning and the County had available. He added that they also reached out to municipalities
and that when those municipalities received the emails and the Facebook posts, many of them shared the information with their own email groups on their social media pages.
He said they also posted on the County’s website, where they received a lot of interest. He said they did an interview a couple of weeks ago on Wixieradio and through those efforts,
they received almost 170 responses. He added that the responses were largely from what he described as rural areas of the county, noting that many of the respondents lived or worked
there and there were fewer responses from those who do not.
Mr. Jenson stated that in his opinion, this indicates the plan represents the people who actually live and work in the rural parts of the county, whichwas the intent.
He said that tonight they would be presenting some draft strategies to the Board, and they did the same with the Land Use Board last month and received feedback from them. He said they
would appreciate feedback from the Board, but it does not have to be given tonight. He added that the Board can take time to digest the information and provide feedback later by reaching
out to him, Bjorn Hansen,or Mr. Baucom directly.
Mr. Jenson stated that on August 26th the committee will review and approve some of those strategies. He said that throughout September and October staff will take that information and
work on finalizing the draft plan which will be presented to the Land Use Board on October 21st.
He said it is hoped the committee will endorse the plan on October 28th. He said that the plan would them come back before the Board on November 17th when a public hearing will be held.
He said the plan would then come before the Board of Commissioners on November 17th when a public hearing would be held. He added that this is the way plans have to be done in North
Carolina, because they follow the same process as rezoning. He stated that on November 17th a public hearing will take place before the Board of Commissioners with the finalized version
of the planhopefully with committee endorsement and the land use board recommendation.
Mr. Jenson stated that if the plan is approved, rather than letting it sit they would immediately start including potential updates to the land use map and possibly Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) changes. He added that some strategies may require additional discussion beyond UDO amendments and potentially in June some items could involve future funding considerations.
Mr. Jenson then recognized Alan Baucom, Chairman of the Rural Land Use Steering Committee, for his presentation.
Mr. Baucom stated that the steering committee is staying on calendar and that everything has been completed on the timeline set out so far. He said the committee’s intention was to remain
on that schedule and return in November with strategies that have received feedback from the Board, feedback from the Land Use Board, and have also been presented to the public.
He stated that he had three items to present today, including strongly supported strategies that were supported both by the steering committee and by the polls taken. He noted there
were 166 responses from the poll but said he believed he had received more input personally, since not everyone who provides feedback does not do a poll, and there has also been a lot
of interpersonal interaction.
He stated that there will be strongly supported strategies, supported strategies, and not supported strategies.
Mr. Baucom addressed the strongly supported strategies which included expanding the agricultural easement purchase program f remains the number one priority and involves the purchase
of development rights.
Mr. Baucom stated that these purchases mean the property cannot be developed in perpetuity. He explained that the land would still remain in the ownership of the current owner or whomever
they sell it to and that it functions the same as a deed with the exception that it can never be developed.
Mr. Baucom stated that the program is already in place under the auspices of the Soil and Water Conservation District and that three parcels have already been approved. He reiterated
that the expanded agricultural easement purchase program or development rights purchase program is by far the number one priority.
He said that the second item was to require contiguous areas for open space in major development and not have them splintered out but have it contiguous.
Mr. Baucom stated that the third item involves proposing the removal of one or more bypasses such as proposed bypasses specifically referencing proposed bypasses around Waxhaw,Monroe’s
Southern Loop and the Marshville Southern Loop. He clarified that these were not named or prioritized in any way but were presented as a question of whether one or more bypasses should
be removed.
He stated that the next item is to limit subdivisions in certain zoning districts.
Mr. Baucom stated that the last strongly supported strategy is to protect intact forest within the 30 percent open space required area.
He explained that the next strategies included rare and protected species, wetlands, and streams. He said if you address one you are essentially addressing all three.
Mr. Baucom stated that a supported strategy is to expand the rural area on the land use map. He said there is not much that can be done outside of municipalities and that the circle
shown represents the only remaining areas that could be expanded which is located within the county.
He said that implementing this strategy would occur through an amendment to the Union County Land Use Map.
Mr. Baucom stated that the frequent comments are there are already enough high density developments with concerns that housing is outpacing industry and that more rural is better use.
He said there were also comments supporting rezoning back to rural.
He stated that the supported strategy was to add six rural centers to the Land Use Map. He explained that that these are centers that already have a convenience store or gas station
but are not identified on the Land Use Map. He said the question was whether to add six rural centers to the Land Use Map and not allow strip malls or similar development but to recognize
them as convenience type facilities.
He stated that the not supported strategy is to purchase parcels in priority areas in exchange for higher density in remaining areas.
He stated that another not supported strategy was allowing low impact commercial and industrial uses on residentially zoned land. He noted that the poll wording may not have been clear
because the feedback was sometimes confusing or sometimes conflicting. He explained that the intent behind the question was whether property owners with 10, 15 or larger areas and were
in the service type field such as HVAC , electrical, or plumbing out of their homes. He added that the intent for a service type business the strategy was not supported.
Mr. Baucom said that frequent comments suggested a minimum lot size of five to ten acres. He said the poll question suggested ten acres with about five acres of undeveloped for every
acre with a minimum ten-acre lot size.
He stated that there were questions raised about whether opening that “Pandora’s box” would lead to lack of enforcement. He explained that strategies that increase flexibility for property
owners and developers were not supported as much as the strategies that limit development. He said that it was universal across all responses.
Mr. Baucom stated that the committee studied how to restrict major subdivisions as a use. He added that subdivisions on their own are not really a standalone land use, so the committee
has to address work from that standpoint.
He stated that currently it would require a change by the North Carolina General Assembly to change the General Statutes, because they limit downzoning of property. He noted that eligible
strategies could include that they require a special use permit for major subdivisions or that they add an additional requirement that a major subdivision in the rural area would require
access to at least one public utility such as water or sewer.
He stated that an ideal strategy would be to downzone all land in rural areas and process subdivisions as rezonings.
Mr. Baucom said that one of the ideas coming out of the committee was requiring at least one public utility. He pointed out that for most of the area that would be water and the reality
is water is not available in most rural areas.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms expressed appreciation to Mr. Baucom , Lee Jenson and the Steering Committee members for attending tonight’s meeting and for the work and time they have invested.
He stated that there are several items for the Board to consider. He noted that he especially liked some of the strongly supported strategies referencing the point about 30 percent open
space requirement and making that contiguous. He said that this was something the Board should at least consider in the future.
He stated that the Board has been very supportive of the easement purchase program, and he believes there is a lot of support for this program, though he did not want to speak for the
Board. He said it may be for the Board to consider additional funding over time noting he did not know if it could be done this year, but it could be considered in the future budgets
as a potential area to rededicate funds.
Commissioner Sides echoed earlier comments and expressed appreciation to everyone for their hard work. He referenced the strongly supported strategy regarding the removal of one or more
bypasses, noting the long timeline it took to complete the first bypass.
Commissioner Christina Helms said that she hoped that the Rural Land Use Committee was reaching out to the North Carolina General Assembly and let them know what Union County wants.
She pointed out that recent proposals including some local representatives have wanted to move the rural areas into highly populated areas. She stated as someone who lives in rural
Union County, she really likes it rural. She said that she supports so much of what Mr. Baucom has presented. Commissioner Christina Helms said she hoped that municipalities would
review this information, and even though they are not in a rural area, what they do still affects the rest of the county.
Mr. Baucom said the Soil and Water Conservation District had an application period for six weeks for landowners to make application to go into the program, and within that six weeks,
there were 28 applicants representing a little over $7 million in property. He compared it to the State of North Carolina where the application period was open for a year and they had
five applicants.
Mr. Baucom stated that this indicates there is a strong appetite not only from the public who want to preserve the rural atmosphere but also from landowners who want to participate and
want their land to stay rural and not developed. He said they view it as being stewards rather than owners.
He stated that that the timing is wonderful from both aspects noting that the general public appreciates open space and what Union County offers as a place to live. He said that the
County is the third largest agricultural county in the state. He also stated that he wanted to share the willingness of landowners to participate in the program.
Mr. Baucom stated that anything that is done is not going to stop growth. He said the right approach will change how the county looks 10, 50, or even 100 years from now but growth will
still occur. He noted that landowners can still capitalize on their property and do not have to participate and the builders can still build and develop but under different circumstances,
zoning, and different approaches.
Mr. Baucom stated that every four-way stop and every roundabout should have rumble strips, adding that he made that comment relative to the other item.
Commissioner Clancy Baucom asked for clarification on the not supported strategies the second point regarding low impact commercial and industrial uses on residentially zoned land and
the reference to five to ten acre minimum lot size. He noted that many mom and pop businesses start out that way and then asked whether the peoplewere against those startup businesses.
Mr. Baucom stated those results came from the poll.
Commissioner Clancy Baucom asked whether they were against startup businesses.
Mr. Baucom stated that the poll did not support it.
Mr. Baucom stated that the people did not support allowing low-impact commercial and industrial uses on RA-40 and added that he believed they probably did a poor job of wording that
question.
Commissioner Clancy Baucom responded that the results surprised him.
Mr. Baucom stated that some of the comments were supportive even though they voted they did not support it. He noted that is the conflict he sees in the results.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that as someone who took the survey, she agreed wholeheartedly that the wording was skewed. She said she had to read it a couple of times, because
she was not sure what was being asked and added that the wording could have been better.
Mr. Jenson stated that what they took away from some of the comments was that people thought it was going to turn into an industrial park, and he clarified that was not the intent of
the question.
He continued to say that the County allows home occupations and rural occupations, and this was an expansion of it. He said one might start out with five to ten acres, own some landscaping
equipment, and maybe start a small business and that was what it was supposed to be.
Mr. Baucom stated to Vice Chair Brian Helms’ point, there is a demand for participation but with that demand also comes funding concerns and stated that he was hopeful everyone could
come up with strategies that will be beneficial. He noted that he heard one gentleman say he was more willing to pay but added that people often say that, but sometimes they do not always
mean it.
At approximately 9:00 p.m., Chair Merrell called for a short break during the meeting.
Chair Merrell reconvened the regular meeting at approximately 9:15 p.m. and called the next item on the agenda.
25-493 Contract & Budget Amendment - Town of Wingate Law Enforcement Services
Chair Merrill recognized Sheriff Eddie Cathy for his comments regarding the item.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that the taking over of Town of Wingate’s law enforcement started about six years ago when he met with the president of the university and the mayor. He said
that at that time they made the decision to try and save theTown’s police department, since then it has had three or possibly four police chiefs.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that they came back to him and indicated there were only three officers working in the area. He said theyasked the Sheriff’s Office would
take over the Town’s law enforcement. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office was already, handling all the calls and related work in that area, and was not a big choice because
they were effectively providing the service anyway.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that the proposed contract is one that is being used with all the other towns.
He stated that the agreement states that the County will contribute funding, but he was not certain of the exact figures but thought it was around $48,000 and the Town would provide
$500,000. He said in return the town of Wingate will keep $300,000 of the $800,000 they had budgeted.
Sheriff Cathey stated that with the $500,000, they will hire four officers and equip them, train them and put them on the road to work in the Town of Wingate.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that Brad Sellers, Wingate City Manager, was present and could address any questions regarding the arrangement or explain why they made the decision to do
this.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey added that it is a benefit to the citizens of Wingate, as they will have better service and full-time officers in the Town.He stated that there is not an hour in
the day that the Sheriff’s Office does not have a car in Wingate going back and forth through the Town.
Sheriff Eddie Cathey stated that if there were any questions, he could answer them or would ask Mr. Sellers to add his comments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms, stated that his question what the County’s impact would be this year, specifying that he was not including any cost for vehicles, cars, or equipment.
Sheriff Cathey stated that was everything.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if that included new cars and equipment.
Sheriff Cathey responded that it did.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that he was under the impression that it did not.
County Manager Brian Matthews stated that there is typically a capital purchase included as part of the Sheriff’s Office. He noted that the Sheriff’s Office already had the ability in
its budget to purchase some vehicles, so the vehicles would not need to be purchased in the first year and that this would be built in over time. He added that Wingate would still be
responsible for the capital cost and the County would purchase new vehicles later. He added that because the Sheriff’s Office already had those vehicles, there was no need to include
a capital cost in the upfront cost.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if there would negotiations with Wingate moving forward.
Mr. Matthews stated that is part of the cost and that Wingate University ultimately has to pay not only for salaries but also for the capital expenditures over time.
Sheriff Cathey stated that it is not negotiable with Wingate and that is what the amount is.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked Sheriff Cathey for the information he provided.
Chair Melissa Merrell asked for clarification noting that some numbers had been mentioned earlier including $500,000 and $300,000 leading up to the $800,000. She pointed out that the
agenda lists the Town of Wingate is responsible for $484,390 and asked for clear confirmation of what the Town of Wingate will contribute and what amount the County will be contributing.
Mr. Matthews stated that the $484,390 represents the total contract amount. He explained that Wingate is responsible for 90 percent of that amount which equals $435,952 and the County
is responsible for 10 percent which equals $48,438.
Chair Merrell asked if the amount was based on 10 months or 12 months.
Mr. Matthews, if he was not mistaken it is a 12-month contract.
Chair Merrell asked if it was an annual contract.
Mr. Matthews stated that it is a 12-month contract and an annual contract. He added that next year the Town will have to budget its portion as well, and that this is only one year of
those costs, noting that they have to pay those costs annually.
Chair Merrell asked for clarification whether the Sheriff’s Department would be taking over policing for the university and the town or just the town.
Sheriff Cathey stated that the university does not have a police department and that only the town has a police department.
Mr. Matthews stated that the university has safety officers but does not have an actual campus police department. He explained that to his understanding the Wingate Police Department
responded to those calls previously, and the Sheriff’s Office will still respond to calls at the university.
Chair Merrell asked that over the last several months the Sheriff’s Officehad 17 to 19 vacancies and most recently around 21 vacancies and has had trouble filling those positions. She
questioned whether taking on a new municipality and university would add four more positions and that would be 25 vacancies they cannot fill.
Sheriff Cathey stated that it would be 17 vacancies.
Chair Merrell asked if the 17 vacancies includes the four positions for the Town of Wingate.
Sheriff Cathey responded that once the item is approved, it would be four vacancies.
Chair Merrell stated that four vacancies should be added back to the vacancy count noting that salaries, sign on bonuses and whether Union County is not offering enough. She added that
they have talked about having to settle for B or C law enforcement candidates because top students coming out of training are going to municipalities and counties that are offering signing
bonuses.
Chair Merrell asked about the status today filling vacancies in the Sheriff’s Office, and how Sheriff Cathey feels about the 17 vacancies and taking on a university and another municipality.
Sheriff Cathey stated that taking on the university would not affect them either way explaining that it is just adding that they are already having to do. He said Wingate only has one
officer working in the Town. He added that the Sheriff’s Office is already answering all the callsin the Town. Chair Merrell asked if the officer was full-time or part-time.
Sheriff Cathey stated that the officer is full-time and has not applied withthe Sheriff’s Office. He added that none of them have applied, noting there is one, but he has a broken ankle,
and they would have to wait until he is able to work before they can check his background.
Chair Merrell asked if her understanding was correct that the other officers had been terminated.
Sheriff Cathey stated that no he did not think so. He added that Mr. Sellers could provide more details because he was not sure and did not have anything to do with it.
Mr. Sellers explained that the council disbanded the department on July 15th. He noted that the timing had been terrible from a budgetary standpoint and he certainly understood that
point.
Chair Merrell stated that she thought the matter came to the County the night after the Commissioners voted on the budget.
Mr. Sellers stated that he apologized for the situation and noted that it involves people and it has been a very fluid situation. He explained that the process began in June when he
started speaking with Sheriff Cathey and his staff and during that time dealing with officers that quit and others had medical issues describing the situation as a perfect storm.
Chair Merrell asked whether there were also officers who were terminated.
Mr. Sellers replied, yes, and said they have continued to wrestle with this for years.He said that comments on Facebook that since the town was building new homes, it could afford it.
He noted that was not the case and the Town has had zero growth in 20 years. He stated that recently a thousand new homes were approved. .
He stated that Wingate University does not pay taxes and the town is already behind financially. He shared in the last 10 years,the Town has had 56 officers coming and going during his
tenure. He said that the Town cannot sustain that turnover.
Mr. Sellers said they are dealing with the same staffing issues Sheriff Cathey is dealing with, noting they are loosing officers to Union County, Stallings and the City of Monroe. He
said the decision was made to seek the Sheriff’s assistanceand added theTown’s situation is unique because the Sheriff’s Office operates directly over them which he described as fortunate.
He stated that the gun range is on Mills Harris Road, and he cannot leave his home in College Park and go to the office without encountering a deputy sheriff. He added that the Town
is blessed to have the Sheriff’s Office in its town.
Mr. Sellers added from a financial standpoint, the Town budgeted $826,000 for it is police department this year. He said if growth continues in two years, the cost would exceed $1 million.
He added they knew it would be better service to go with the Sheriff’s Department and receive better services.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked for clarification noting that it was included in the agenda packet but he wanted to confirm that the existing building would be included and that they
would be entering into a lease agreement.
Mr. Sellers stated that, yes, for $1 they are going to allow the Sheriff to utilize the facility. He said that providing visibility for residents particularly on that end of the county
with the Sheriff located on Highway 74. He also noted that the Town will be paying for signage to replace the existing signs.
He said it was important to the mayor and board that once the Sheriff takes over the police, that the sign be taken down and replaced immediately with the county sheriff’s sign.
Vice Chair Brain W. Helms asked if staff expects this to be a budgeted item moving forward of $48,438 for the annual cost.
Mr. Matthews stated that if the Board approves the contract, there are provisions for the cost to increase over time as the County’s costs increase. He explained that this adjustment
is built into the contract but said it would be approximately that much annually.
Chair Melissa Merrell stated that she had a question along those lines as well. She said that the town of Wingate had budgeted $826,000 for its police force, while the contract is only
for $484,000.
Mr. Niland saidthat in a small town department, based on his experience in Wingate, the Town still has to pay for some command staff. He noted that the Sheriff already has that staff
in place to handle those duties, so the Town would not need to have a chief, captains, or sergeant, because those duties would be covered through existing personnel at the Sheriff’s
Office. He said they would be able to have the same policing with less personnel.
Chair Merrell asked whether this contract is comparable to what the Sheriff’s Office is offering for Indian Trail.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that it is the same contract as the one with the Town of Indian Trail.
Chair Merrell stated that she agreed that the timing is bad. She said it is unfortunate that calls were not made to let the Commissioners know they were about to go down that road, because
the Board hadnot even voted yet. She added that Sheriff Cathey said they are already doing the work and questioned whether a vote is still needed if the work is already underway.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked since the Sheriff’s Office would be leasing the building on Highway 74 across from the university for $1, what is in that facility that cannot already
be used at the Sheriff’s Office just a mile away. She asked what is the purpose of having a building located there and if there was anything special in the building, such as cells.
Mr. Sellers stated that there is nothing special about the building and that it is really the visibility of the location. He explained that that it was originally built as a drug store
and that they were able to move the police department into it about six years ago. He added that part of the deal with the Sheriff was that they would allow the Sheriff’s Office to use
that facility, the same as they do in Indian Trail.
Chair Merrell asked Sheriff Cathey if it gave him pause to hear that the Town has been through 56 officers.
Sherriff Cathey said that Wingate went through, but the Sheriff’s Office has not gone throughthat number of officers. He referenced the statement about 56 officers in 10 years out of
seven officers. He said he does not know how many they go through in a year, but it is not anywhere near that number, not even in several years.
Chair Merrell asked whether supervisory positions would need to be increased for the new positions or for the ones already taking these calls or doing this patrol.
Sheriff Cathey responded “No”
Chair Merrell said that was the case when they were doing SROs for the schools that they always had to factor in another supervisor.
Sheriff Cathy stated that is true, but they already have shift supervisors and do not have four officers assigned specifically to Wingate but are using patrol officers. He stated that
this will cut down on response times to the citizens of Wingate once they get four officers assigned there. He said that they will work with the County Manager, and they probably need
a little supervision in that section but not just for Wingate. He added that they need a lieutenant and said they think they have it worked out.
Chair Merrell asked whether that would be in addition to the four patrol officers.
Sheriff Cathey responded that it is not in addition. He explained that the four patrol officers have nothing to do with the lieutenant.
Commissioner Sides said he hoped the Wingate officers are up to the standards expected of the Sheriff’s Department and that they would be good additions who could help make an impact
on the current vacancies.
Sheriff Cathey said despite all of the vacancies the Sheriff’s Office has, they have not lowered their hiring standards and are not going to lower the hiring standards they have used
successfully all these years. He stated that applicants will still have to meet their standards. He said it is the same process as with the officers they offered the opportunity to apply
and go through the hiring process and they would try to hire them but noted that they did not want to and have gone to other places.
Sheriff Cathey said his office worked with the university, and he believes they are excited and that he knows the town is excited. He said he went to all the public hearingsbut he did
not participate he just listened.
Sheriff Cathey said he never heard one complaint about the Union County Sheriff’s Office. He said that it was basically that people did not want to lose the heritage of the police department.
He said he understands that concern.
He said that the residents will receive better service and quicker response times and increased equipment with the Sheriff’s Office providing the services. He also said the university
would operate its programs using off-duty officers for events like football games and said nothing will change as far as the university.
Commissioner Christina Helms moved to approve the action requested in agenda item 25-493 as follows: 1) Adopt Budget Amendment #3; 2) approve the addition of four (4) full-time equivalent
(FTE) positions, and 3) authorize the County Manager to a) negotiate and execute an agreement substantially consistent with this agenda item, b) exercise any renewal or extension term
options set forth in the Agreement, and c) terminate the Agreement it deemed in the best interest of the County; each in the County Manager’s discretion.
The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
25-504 Jail Discussion
Chair Merrell recognized Brian Matthews, County Manager,for staff’s comments.
Mr. Matthews explained this was a request from Commissioner Sides to bring the item back for discussion regarding the proposed jail’s ultimate size. He added that they also took the
opportunity to have candid discussions about how to pay for it and other things that they need to do, noting that those decisions are looming and the Board will need to decide what to
do.
Mr. Matthews referred to the timeline that was discussed previously. He said he was not going to go through the entire timeline, since the Board hadseen it before. He stated that he
believed the most important part was that discussions about a new jail began back in 2004 or 2005. He said that now, in 2025, the County still does not have a new jail, and that multiple
boards have pushed the issue out. He said the Board is now left with the decision of what to do.
He said the latest section in 2025 is that a study was conducted, and the needs were evaluated and options and cost estimates were provided.
Mr. Matthews said the most recent cost estimates they received were for a 400 bed/600 core jail and a 500 bed/600 core jail. He said the 400 bed/600 core option starts with a 400 core
and could ultimately be built out to 600 beds at some point in time, and the 500 bed/600 core option follows the same concept. He said the construction cost estimates at that time were
about $144 million for the 400 bed/600 core option and about $168 million for the 500 bed/600 core option. Mr. Matthews said they also provided operational estimates for what it would
take to fully run the jail when it was completely full.
Mr. Matthews said he wanted the Board to understand those numbers for the 400 bed/600 core option were almost $15 million, and for the other option were about $19 to almost $20 million
at full buildout. He said that includes all the deputies and all associated costs.
He said, obviously, if a jail is built today, it is not going to be built in a day, it will take time. He added they are not going to hire all the detention officers and staff at once
but instead will ramp up over time. He added that those costs are already included but will change, and he would provide more detail on that later on.
Mr. Matthews said one of the items the Board has discussed is how to fund the cost of a jail if it was decided to build a new one. He said what has been discussed is a possible bond
referendum or voter referendum for a new jail. He added that there are steps that the Board would have to take if it chose that option for funding the project.
He shared a timeline if the Board decides to proceed with a bond referendum, would be at the November election in 2026. He added the Board might decide something different but staff
would use that as a starting point. He said that around April 2026 the Board would need to formally take action as far as the referendum. Mr. Matthews said that in May and June,
there would be additional actions taken which would ultimately lead up to the actual referendum which would be in November 2026.
He said Local Government Commission approval would still be needed to issue the bonds and added that would likely be somewhere in 2027.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked if the referendum would have to be in the general election or could it instead be in the primary election.
Mr. Matthews said the referendum could be held during the primary election, but he explained they are up against a lot of work to put it on the primary election. He said the Board could
choose to hold the referendum during the primary, but there is a lot that has to be done between now and that primary. He said that is why they are using the November timeframe as a
starting point because it is easier to make that work.
He pointedout that it would be 2027 when they go out for the bond orders, and it would likely be 2029 before they are in the middle of construction and 2031 before the project is finished.
He said that is a long time to continue operating the jail as it and dealing with some of the challenges they have with it.
Mr. Matthews said he would provide the Boardwith an idea of the costs and potential impacts to property taxes. He said that if a bond referendum is held, it would be a voter approved
bond referendum meaning the voters would be approving the tax pledge needed to pay for it.
He said the financing amounts shown for the 400 bed/600 core and 500 bed/600 core jail options are higher because they used the consultant’s numbers and escalated them to show the timeframe
when the bonds would actually be issued. He said that if the bonds are issued in 2027, they have to escalate those costs to accommodate that time.
Mr. Matthews said that the cost increased to $152 million for the 400 bed/600 core option and $178 million for the 500 bed/600 core option. He said that the estimated property tax rate
increase for that amount using the top number of 5.34 percent which is what is required to be includedon the actual referendum for voters to see.
He stated that the 5.3 percent number is not usually used in budgeting, since that is the higher end. He said they budget the five percent number which is more in line with what they
see. He said even then it is more than a two-penny impact on the tax rate to pay for it.
Mr. Matthews said what is not factored into this tax rate is any revaluations that may occur during this process. He said that revaluations happen every four years and there could be
another revaluation that could change all of it. He said much like what they had in the most recent revaluation where the numbers shown for tax rate impacts for school bonds were actually
lower.
He said that hecannot say the tax rate increase will be lower, buthe can only go by the available information. He said it would be two pennies and above impact to the tax rate.
Mr. Matthews stated it is not about building a jail. He emphasized that if the County is going to spend approximately $152 to $178 million whatever the final number is, the jail also
has to be operated and run.
Mr. Matthews stated that the County currently spends roughly $13 million in total operational cost which includes staffing and other operating costs such as electricity and all the other
costs that go into it. He stated that a 400-bed facility would be $28 million to operate and at full buildout the cost would be $32 million almost $33 million.
Mr. Matthews stated that those costs are significant. He stated that more detention officers will have to be hired, more electricity will have to be paid for and there will be more costs
to the County.
Commissioner Christina Helms stated that part of her question was about the staffing cost. She noted that the detention center is currently understaffed and that a large portion of that
is because municipalities canhigher salaries. She asked what pricesalary is the County paying staff, and were the staffing costs provided based on the current rate or an escalated rate.
Mr. Matthews stated that the estimates are based on the current rate with some escalation using an inflationary estimate increase but noted that is a guess and the best they can do.
He stated that $28 million for a 400 bed facility and $32 to $33 million at ultimate buildout when all detention officers and the facility is fully loaded.
He stated that if the Board was to decide to move forward with construction of the jail, it cccccccccwould be six years before the jail would be built. He stated that the County will
need to operate the current jail during that time, and there is a lot of work that needs to be done to continue to operate it safely and securely. He added there are a number of short-term
projects that need to be done. He stated that there are almost $1 million in projects that have funding set aside but there is another nearly $1 million in unfunded projects that will
need to be done over the next five or six years. He stated that totals up to almost $2 million, and these are costs that the County will need to continue to operate and run the jail.
He added that he wanted the Board to be aware there are some ongoing costs the County will have to incur.
Mr. Matthews said that the next stepsare for the Board to provide directionon the bed count for the facility, whether that is the 400 bed/600 core or the 500 bed/600 core. He also said
staffneeds to know the Board’s funding strategy whether the Board wants to place the jail on a referendum and if so, staff will begin that process and if not,staff will do something
different. He stated that they will probably start design ahead of time if the Board does not want to move forward with the bond referendum. He stated that if the Board does not want
to move forward with the bond referendum, staff will not start that process yet because the County cannot get reimbursed for those items and want to make sure all funds are available.
Mr. Matthews stated that that Board has brought up and he believes should be explored in greater detail is the reuse of the existing jail facility. He stated that he believes it has
some future benefits. He said that staff has done as much as they can do and they need to hire experts like architects and engineers to give them a better idea of adaptive reuse.
He stated that the staff is asking the Board to authorize spending approximately $87,000 to hire architects and engineers to lay out what can be done for adaptive reuse of the facility.
He stated that he believesthis is important because regardless of the size of the jail that is built, there will still be a demand 30 to 50 years from now, and the County will have to
determine how to accommodate that demand when it occurs. He stated that this is an opportunity to use the facility, if needed, for any future expansion.Mr. Matthews stated that those
are the next steps, and he is seeking direction from the Board on those items.
Commissioner Sides stated there is another option he would appreciate receiving input on. He said that Cabarrus County was faced with a similar issue approximately 20 years ago of constructing
a jail annex. He stated that while it is not a long-term solution, it could add additional capacity more quickly and create a safer work environment by allowing space to move inmates
during repairs. He asked for thoughts on an annex as an option that could have a more immediate impact on than building a full scale jail.
Mr. Matthews stated that his first response would be that the cost of building anything is not going to be less expensive. He stated that if the County decides to build an annex, the
Board should keep in mind that if it were to construction100 beds, the cost of building the remaining 400 or 500 beds is never going to decrease and will continue to increase.
He stated that in his opinion if the County is going to move ahead, it would be best todetermine what size facility to build and obtain the funding to build it. He stated that it would
save money in the long run. He acknowledged that it would cost a lot but stated that if it is pieced together over time,the cost might be double because of waiting longer to build the
facility. He stated that it depends on the strategy.
Commissioner Christina Helms asked Manager Matthews asked what the funding source would be for the $86,500 for architectural studies for the jail.
Mr. Matthews stated that there are already projects set aside originally for the jail itself, and it will come out of that funding for the capital cost of the jail.
Commissioner Christina Helms also asked about the repairs to the current jail.
Mr. Matthews stated that part of the nearly $1 million is already in the funding stream. He stated that over the course of the next couple of years, funding will have to be built into
the capital program to finish theremainder of those projects.
With reference to Commissioner Sides’ question about the annex, Chair Merrell asked if it is possible that, if the $86,500 is approved for the jail adaptive reuse study, the current
jail could be the annex in the future.
Mr. Matthews stated that what he understood from Commissioner Sides’ comments was that in order to gain additional capacity, the annex would provide that additional capacity. He stated
that he believed that was the direction in which Commissioner Sides was going.
Mr. Matthews agreed that over time reuse of the jail would likely become the annex. He stated that it would not gain capacity quickly, because if the County builds the new jail first,
there would not be any new capacity gained immediately. He added that it would become the de facto annex.
Chair Merrell explained the reason she mentioned it was because it would give the Board comfort in investing in it now, because the County could potentially have six more years before
a new jail would be ready, and it would not be a total loss to put money into it and take care of it if the study determines it could be used as an annex or for separation purposes for
populations.
Mr. Matthews explained that if the County were going to invest a significant amount of money into the facility, the County would want to recoup its use long term rather than use if for
only five or six years and then discard it. He added that there would be challenges with having two separate facilities, including how to manage staff two facilities.
Mr. Matthews stated that if block renovations were needed, individuals could be moved into the annex area while the renovations were completed. He noted there were many opportunities
for reuse but added that the architect may identify challenges and determine whether reuse would be worthwhile, which is not known at this point.
Chair Merrell stated that she remembered the conversation several months ago regarding weekenders and that the annex may be a good place for individuals who need to come in and serve
their time on weekends separate from the full-time jail population. She also noted there are other court cases where separation of inmates is required.
Commissioner Baucom asked if it has been determined if the soils under the structure were still settling.
Mr. Matthews stated that it has not been evaluated. He added that an engineering study was completed several years ago that evaluated the facility. He stated that it was his understanding
that the area of concern was under the administrative side of the building and not necessarily under the jail side itself. He stated that they will obviously have to evaluate whether
anything has changed and whether there are any issues that need to be addressed with the jail and/or the administration building.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated assuming that the Board chooses to press forward, he would like this concern to be communicated with whoever the County is working with. He emphasized
that any new project, whether a jail or repurposing the old jail, needs to focus on functionality and not flash. He emphasized that whatever decision is made should be toserve the needs
and not necessarily to serve the wants. He noted that the County is facing a lot of expense and that this is a county-changing decision, not a small decision that the Board has been
tasked with, but a huge decision.
He noted that for the past 20 years, every Board that has discussed this matter has been scared to make a decision. He noted that other Boards have moved forward with other projects,
including the Sheriff’s Office administrative building, Emergency Services building, Health and Human Services buildings, 911 Center, crime lab, and firearms range and medical examiners.
He clarified that his comments were not a knockon law enforcement. He said he was trying to express that the County has invested in other projects, and he is not saying those things
were not needed but emphasized that this jail is a true need and has been for a very long time. He stressed the need to be responsible with taxpayer dollars. He noted that he did not
want to invest in fancy architecture, marble floors etc. but wanted to invest in the cost where it counts. He emphasized the need to build a structure that can expand and not one that
is going to win a beauty contest.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms said that at the end of the day the County is talking about a jail. He acknowledged that the Board members understand there is a minimum level of care required
for inmates but said it does not have to be fancy.
Mr. Matthews acknowledged Vice Chair Helms’ comments and noted that the focus will be on design and function.
Commissioner Sides said that he understood Vice Chair Brian W. Helms’ concerns. He acknowledged that there will be pushback from those who do not want any of their tax money going toward
the inmates, but emphasized that it is also a matter of ensuring law enforcement has a safe working environment.
Chair Merrell added that it is also about living in a safe environment.
Commissioner Sides said that speaking only for himself his primary overriding concern is the safety of the people of Union County. He stated that currently they do not have capacity
and when someone is arrested someone has to be released.
Chair Merrell asked for clarification and requested Sheriff Cathey’s input. She questioned whether criminals are being released into the community because the County does not have a
cell available and noted the importance of being careful with that information being communicated.
Sheriff Cathey clarified that the jail is at capacity, and inmates have to sleep on the floor.
Chair Merrell asked for clarification that that criminals are not being released, because there are not enough cells.
Sheriff Cathey explained that sometimes the County calls the towns knowthat the jail is over capacity. He stated that if the towns can let someone go on a citation, they ask them not
to bring them into jail, but if they need to bring them in the jail, they will take them.
He shared that the jail currently hasapproximately 290 inmates while its capacity is about 240. He explained that the jail has 264 bedsbut not all inmates can be placed together. He
added that their jail population has been around 288, 290, close to 300 and has gone over 300 at times. He noted that the Jail inspectors are not pleased with those conditions.
Commissioner Sides clarified that he did not want his earlier comment to be misconstrued that the County is releasing people to the street who should be in jail. He said that the County
has a capacity issue,and the County funds an Assistant District Attorney to help make decisions regarding releases or citations based on the capacity. He added that he is not comfortable
with the risk of the wrong person being released on the street.
Commissioner Christina Helms added to Vice Chair Brian W. Helms’ comment that taxpayers do not want fluff and want a bare bones facility. She emphasized the importance for law enforcement
officers to be protected as much as possible in the jail while also making it an inconvenience.She asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms to correct her if she was wrong and that was what he
was alluding to in his comments.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms agreed that the taxpayersdo not want to build a five-star resort and that was exactly the point he was making. He emphasized that it is a jail.
Sheriff Cathey assured the Board that if they took time to visit the jail, they would see there is no fluff. He noted that the inmates are on cement floors with iron bars and iron beds.
He stated the State does not allow three people in a cell unless they are provided a canoe which he explained that goes under the beds so they can sleep off the floor. He noted that
the jail beds are built in a way that the canoes will not fit underneath them, so inmates are on the floor. He explained that the County has placed inmates in Cabarrus County’s facility
and scattered them around the state wherever beds are available. He noted that the jail population is currently at 289.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that Commissioner Sides’ question may have resulted from some confusion or misunderstanding in the information received from the consultant. He clarified
that it was not intended as a knock on the Sheriff’s Office, but some information from the consultant suggested there may come a point where individuals could be released with lesser
offenses.
He noted that he wanted to mention that point as the Board considers the scope of the project. He added that he personally favors the lower end of the proposed scope.
Mr. Matthews asked Vice Chair Brian W. Helms if he were referring to the 400 bed/600 core option.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms confirmed that was correct. He noted that he personally favors that option and believes that as the Board looks at potentially repurposing the old jail, it
gives the County additional capacity and flexibility. He added thatif the Board is choosing between the two options, he would support the lower of the two.
Chair Merrell said she wanted to have a conversation about that issue. She said that, if the County is currently hovering under 300 inmates, turning the weekenders away, and sending
10 to 15 inmates to Cabarrus County, she is afraid that if the County waits six or seven more years to open a new jail, the number of inmates will be way over 400.
She expressed her concern about underbuilding the jail. She emphasized that she does not want the Board to mislead constituents with their votes or their money. She added she personally
does not want to be remembered for spending that amount of money and the facility not being big enough.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked the County Manager, if the jail would start with an initial bed count of 400 but could potentially be increased to 600.
Mr. Matthews clarified that the core would be built for 600 beds for both options. He explained that the core would be 600 beds, and the bed count would start at whatever number is selected,
whether 400 or 500.
He explained that if the County starts at 400 beds, there is still construction that has to be done to get the extra 200 beds, and the County is going to pay whatever that cost is when
it comes time to get those additional beds. He clarified that the core is built for the size that is chosen, and then it can be expanded to that number, but there is ultimately a cost.
Mr. Matthews explained that logic wouldhold true, although he noted that it does not always. He stated that to get the extra 100 beds, the County would spend another $26 million for
those 100 beds. He explained that if the County waits and then suddenly needs those 100 beds, the cost will not be $26 million when the beds are needed. He said the cost could be $30
to $35 million, or whatever the number is at that time. He said that the County will have to come up with those funds to havethe additional 100 beds when needed, and it will not happen
overnight because it will take time to build those additional beds.
Commissioner Sides referenced the consultant’s statement regarding the 80 percent rule. He noted that having a bed capacity of 400 does not mean the County could have 400 guests.
Mr. Matthews agreed, stating that was a very good point.
Commissioner Sides said that because gangs have to be separated and co-defendants have to be separated. He noted that when using the term 400 beds, that does not mean 400 guests.
Mr. Matthews agreed and referenced the Sheriff’s earlier point that the current bed count in the jail is 264. He explained that the jail is rated for 246 or 248 inmates, and when classifying
inmates and placing them in the proper classifications, the jail can only accommodate 246 inmates.He explained that this is where Commissioner Sides was getting the 80 percent rule
because the jail cannot really have 264 people in there and meet the classification requirements. He added that, ultimately if the County builds a 400-bed facility, some of those beds
will not be able to be used for classification.
He explained that if the County invests to improve the current facility and make it an annex that could help meet some of the classification separations if necessary. He stated that
would be an additional investment and that is not shown in the information they have because the cost is not known.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked if there is any information on the length of time that it took from the initial buildout of the current jail to reach capacity.
Mr. Matthews explained that it is his understanding that dating back to 2004, the jail had already exceeded 240 inmates and was classified at 246 inmates. He said that it was approximately
10 years before the jail reached its rated capacity.
He explained that what helped during that timeframe was the additional assistant District Attorney. He said they made some changes on whether or not inmates were given plea bargainsor
other actions to keep the jail population down.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms responded to Mr. Matthews’ pointthat the County has been above capacity for over 20 years.
Mr. Matthews acknowledged that it is not a great decision and the Board is faced with the need for a lot of money. He explained that if the voters are going to vote onthe bond referendum,
they are going to understand that they will have to spend a lot of money to accommodate a need.
Commissioner Baucom referenced the 80 percent rule and asked for confirmation that, with a 400-bed capacity, 80 percent would be 320.
Mr. Matthews agreed and clarified that he did not believe it is actually 80 percent, but somewhere between 80 and 90 percent. He stated that he did not have the study in front of him,
but agreed that the number will be less than 400.
Commissioner Baucom stated that he had heard the 80 percent number a couple of times and that, when it was mentioned, it sounded correct.
Mr. Matthews clarified that he did not know if 80 percent was the exact number.
Commissioner Baucom noted that he was getting a head nod from the Sheriff and calculated that 80 percent of a 400-bed capacity would be 320, which is currently 30 more inmates. Commissioner
Baucom stated that he does not know the daily workings of the jail and asked if the County renovated the current jail, could it possibly be used for female inmates. He acknowledged that
doing so would involve maintaining two facilities.
Mr. Matthews stated that the Sheriff's Office would ultimately have to get involved in programming how the facility is used. He said that it could certainly be used for female inmates
but acknowledged that Commissioner Baucom had hit the nail on the head, because the County would have to duplicate its efforts in that facility. He added that there is always a plus
and a minus, and using it that way would require spending the money to provide the staffing needed to duplicate those efforts.
Mr. Matthews explained that everyone should understand they are talking about a new facility and a renovated building to use when necessary. He said that in his opinion if the goal is
to the current jail permanently, that has a whole different flavor to it. He added that he believes the Sheriff would agree that it is a different ballgame to run two facilities.
Commissioner Sides asked for clarification if the decision before the Board is whether to move forward with the architectural study.
Mr. Matthews explained that the three items that staff is asking the Board to provide direction on are:
Facility size: Determine the size of the facility to focus on (400 beds/600core or 500 beds/600core).
Referendum: Determine whether the jail should go on the referendum.
Adaptive reuse study: Authorize staff to proceed with the adaptive reuse study.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to move forward with the adaptive reuse study.
Chari Merrel called for a vote on the motion.
The vote passed unanimously with the following vote:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Commissioner Sides moved to direct staff to move forward with a new jail facility with a 600-bed core and 500-bed capacity.
The motion passed by a vote of four to one with the following vote:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsNay
Chair Merrell moved that the funding strategy be placed on the November 2026 ballot for a bond referendum.
Commissioner Sides expressed a concern, stating that he was going to be “a fly in the ointment,” and asked whether the County’s annual budget is $600 million.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that the county’s annual budget is $600 million.
Commissioner Sides asked if the County held a referendum on the budget and that there were a series of public hearings where the public was encouraged to come, gather information, and
provide input, including whether they supported or opposed items or wanted changes. He stated that, personally he believes public safety is the utmost concern given the current deteriorating
condition of the existing facility. He stated that he would not support or vote for a referendum and believes the County needs to move forward.
Chair Merrell asked whether the 911 Center and the Administration Building were included in a bond referendum.
Brian Matthews confirmed that the 911 Center and Administration Building were included in the other option.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms asked whether some of those projects were also included in the initial scope and stated that he was going back at least 20 years.
Mr. Matthews explained that, originally, the plan was for a Sheriff’s administrative facility with a jail. He stated that was the original thought for the construction, but it was separated
at some point, and the Administration Building was built.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the planning process would look toward expandability.
Mr. Matthews explained that, with the initial list, the Board as a majority said 500 bed/600 core. He stated that the facility would be designed for an ultimate buildout of 600 beds.
He explained that if the Board wants the facility built to a number higher than 600 beds, that is a different way to view the project. He stated that it was his understanding that there
are certain core functions where it would be necessary to know upfrontthe number of people to be able to have it under roof; otherwise, another roof would have to be built to put it
under. He explained that, with the idea of expansion, there may be ways to expand certain areas within that core, but the County needs to know what the ultimate number is whether it
is 600, 800, or another number so the facility can be programmed, and the space can be made to work.
Commissioner Baucom asked if the structure is built for 600 beds, is there a way to build another pod 20 years from now.
Mr. Matthews explained that the pods are more in line with the beds themselves. He stated that looking at the 400 beds/600 core, 500 beds/600 core that is where the pods come in the
bed facilities and how they connect to the rest of the facility. He stated to addcore in a pod fashion, he was not going to say it cannot be done, but he does not know how efficient
it would be to try to do it that way. He stated that security would have to be built to handle the ultimate buildout. He said there has to be a medical bay, cafeteria and other areas
that would need to fit. He noted that the challenge is determining the ultimate buildout.
Chair Merrell restated the motion on the floor to place the funding strategy on the November 2026 ballot as a bond referendum for the taxpayers of Union County to decide on the potential
tax increase presented.
Commissioner Sides asked what would happen if the referendum does not pass.
Mr. Matthews explained that if the referendum were to fail, it would not change the need for a jail. He stated that the County would likely come back with a strategy to build it in parts,
which would cost more over time. He added that staff would have to work with the Local Government Commission to obtain approval to sell bonds to pay for the project. He explained that
that the County would have to use non-voter approved bonds and seek authorization from the Local Government Commission (LGC). He added that he was not saying that the LGC would turn
it down, but, obviously,it would have some questions.
Chair Merrell asked if the tax increase was higher than what she remembered from the discussion two years ago and asked whether the interest rate is voter approved than the non-voter
approved.
Mr. Matthews stated that it is lower now, but he did not want the Board to think that it is significantly lower. He explained that if the rates are four (4) percent, it would not mean
they would drop to three (3) percent or lower; it might be 10 basis points. He stated that the County would save money, but it would not be a half percent or a whole percent savings,
but it would be lower.
Chair Merrell asked Commissioner Sides if he received an answer to the question about what would happen if the referendum were not approved.
Mr. Matthews explained that they would have to work with the Local Government Commission and obtain its approval. He stated that the LGC would have to approve a plan for the county to
build the facility in pieces, which he said would be his guess.
Commissioner Sides stated that building the facility in pieces could entail some delay.
Mr. Matthews agreed there would be a delay.
Chair Merrell asked if the price would increase.
Mr. Matthews confirmed it would.
Chair Merrel reminded that a motion was on the floor to place the funding strategy on the November 2026 ballot for the voters of Union County to decide on their support for public safety.
The motion passed by a vote of four to one with the following vote:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesNay
Chair Merrell stated that item 25-501- Appointments to Boards and Committees was being tabled and recognized the County Manager for comments.
County Manager’s Comments
Mr. Matthews expressed appreciation to the Board for its patience when they have employee recognition and awards. He explained that it is a way for staff to show the Board all the hard
work they put in. He stated that the County has great staff in all departments.
He acknowledged that sometimes the recognitions can make meetings a little longer, but he appreciates that the Board is able to see the employees and understand what they are doing.
Commissioner’s Comments
Commissioner Baucom stated that, as far as recognizing the staff, he believes it is a great thing to do, and recognition is nice for a job well done.
Commissioner Christina Helms had no comments.
Chair Merrell thanked everyone for being present. She expressed regret that the Board did not get the opportunity to recognize two Boy Scouts who were present earlier and suggested inviting
them back to another meeting.
She recognized the Union County Sheriff’s office and Brad Sellers, Wingate Town Manager, and stated that she truly believes Wingate is going to be the County’s crowning jewel in the
next few years. She expressed her support for Dr. Rhett Brown, Wingate University, and the programs they are doing.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms thanked all the speakers who attended the meeting and stated that their involvement is always appreciated. He noted the high level of participation and stated
that it is good to see the passion from the residents.
With regards to those who spoke about animal welfare, Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stressed that the County is very different from municipalities and stated that the majority of the County’s
population resides within municipalities, approximately 68 percent. He stated that the Board is open to having conversations with the people they represent but encouraged those present
to also reach out to their municipal leaders and share their concerns with other municipalities in the county.
Vice Chair Brian W. Helms stated that, regarding Miss Mullis, he hoped the discussion that evening would help expedite getting water in her sink. He stated that her comments stood out
to him and expressed appreciation for what she shared.
He thanked everyone for attending the meeting and recognized the staff for doing a great job. He also expressed appreciation to the Sheriff’s Office for their participation. He acknowledged
the meeting had been lengthy and wished everyone a good night.
Commissioner Sides thanked everyone for attending and wished everyone a good evening.
Adjournment
With there being no further comments or discussion, at approximately 10:32 p.m.
Chair Merrell moved to adjournthe regular meeting. The motion passed unanimously as follows:
Chair Melissa MerrellAye
Vice Chair Brian W. HelmsAye
Commissioner Clancy BaucomAye
Commissioner Christina HelmsAye
Commissioner Gary SidesNay