[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6540635,"mediaKeyId","3393801-7f4e83a07b9f76df5b0d970b54d9008b","parentId",3393801,"title","Union County hears updated jail study showing lower-day capacity but large cost and timeline","audioSeconds",1985,"startMs",2495000,"endMs",4480000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3393801-7f4e83a07b9f76df5b0d970b54d9008b&start=2495&end=4480","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3393801-7f4e83a07b9f76df5b0d970b54d9008b/thumbnail_2495000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6540635/Union-County/North-Carolina/Union-County-hears-updated-jail-study-showing-lower-day-capacity-but-large-cost-and-timeline","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540635-91055f31e37ba8dee73073a80a540d25/orig.mp4?Expires=1773223976&Signature=Zt1h4m50bG7Rr6yQW4MjDRW~cEpP70R5AYEq0c2G6IE9c4PFWralMrqsKmrwaBT5HSy8AbFNSEvKo3zKN1HlT7EetgLFJ0FWih4L47tmRZdkUTbQ~3kvpRxCfxhC4f-1cRH9r3se4nhJld0KlxBiCPRMvnnv8tW~gt5AoQdE9ywZxORWN0SzkVH5zWwIP-5Fu5qtpi55-oaeBtW2pvBKMIYRpitIMboqZUDoElR0wnt5bS4pgUlHR~Fv7P9bREbCesCAyisTWTHOkOj2iJc6InFCn4JOKTaKIRr4rR2oQuRrQAhu0kPixfrXPHEBlcmjN5frycKHzKnW2PVnHk2wvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Union County, NC","date","2025-05-19T00:00:00Z","article","Union County commissioners heard an update May 19 on a long‑running jail study that presented two replacement options — a 400‑bed facility with a 600‑bed core and a 500‑bed facility with the same core — along with preliminary construction, staffing and operational cost estimates.

The county’s facilities director, Chris Boyd, and consultants from Justice Planners and Little Architecture presented a programmatic square‑footage study and high‑level cost models. Consultant Alan Richardson said the 400‑bed option would be about 180,000 square feet and the 500‑bed option about 211,000 square feet; Thomas Carlson Redick of Little estimated construction costs for the 400‑bed option near $115 million (with soft costs and escalation included) and a higher total for the 500‑bed option.

The study included operational projections that assume a fully occupied facility. Richardson and Little presented staffing plans and an estimated “relief factor” to cover vacations, sick leave and other absences; Justice Planners estimated direct personnel costs at roughly $12.9 million annually for the 400‑bed option and $15.2 million for the 500‑bed option, with total operating costs (staff plus facility operations such as food and medical) of about $28 million and $32 million, respectively.

Why it matters: commissioners said the county’s jail has repeatedly exceeded rated capacity and that any replacement must balance near‑term needs, long‑term projections and available financing. The consultants’ five‑year projection showed an average daily population of about 349 inmates and a 5‑year bed need of 435; their longer‑term projection includes higher need scenarios.

Commissioners questioned whether prior design work paid for in earlier studies could be reused. The consultants said portions of earlier documents exist but changed codes, updated standards and different design assumptions (including a shift to double‑occupancy cells) mean much of the old design would likely require substantial revision; they committed to review prior documents for salvageable elements but cautioned that code and program changes limit reuse.

Commissioners also asked about timelines: the consultants said a typical design period (schematic through construction documents, permitting and bidding) would be about one year and construction three years or more, making the overall delivery roughly four years from start of design. Commissioners pressed whether a 400‑bed facility would already be at operational capacity once opened; consultants noted that operationally a jail is effectively full at about 80–85% of bed count because of classification, gender separation and maintenance needs.

Several commissioners asked about shorter‑term capacity measures. Commissioner Sides described visiting Cabarrus County’s annex and proposed exploring a contract with Cabarrus County to house a block of detainees there, with Cabarrus providing trained detention staff under contract while Union County pays costs. Sheriff Campbell and county staff said such intercounty arrangements require negotiations with the other sheriff and the other county’s board and present staffing and timing constraints; commissioners instructed staff to pursue conversations to learn feasibility and terms.

The board did not take a formal action to advance design or issue bonds at the meeting. Commissioners requested additional detail on prior study costs, options for reusing existing facilities, demolition costs for the present jail and refined staffing and operational analyses if the board decides to proceed.

The county manager and consultants said the numbers in the update are programmatic and will be refined if the board directs a formal design phase. No ordinance or borrowing was approved at the May 19 meeting; the presentation was an informational update and direction to staff to continue evaluating options.

Sources: presentation and Q&A during the Union County Board of Commissioners regular meeting, May 19, 2025.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of County Commissioners | Regular Meeting | May 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Union County commissioners heard an update May 19 on a long‑running jail study that presented two replacement options — a 400‑bed facility with a 600‑bed core and a 500‑bed facility with the same core — along with preliminary construction, staffing and operational cost estimates.","taxTitle","Union County, North Carolina","taxId",14197,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6540620,"Residents urge enforcement on derelict properties and local leaders warn about HB 765",271,449000,720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3393801-7f4e83a07b9f76df5b0d970b54d9008b&start=449&end=720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3393801-7f4e83a07b9f76df5b0d970b54d9008b/thumbnail_449000.jpg","/articles/6540620/Union-County/North-Carolina/Residents-urge-enforcement-on-derelict-properties-and-local-leaders-warn-about-HB-765","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540620-f8a468e52daedbcef774d941ccc4e041/orig.mp4?Expires=1773223976&Signature=QKDTODDrNflimqKWh4CphZlxREmGLzg8qWDhb2r5gT7G6xt6fI3j2ea5-MqguBJ5ETQ2Rh5Dr4nL~8gy0N855jED4tqkzaoBAUGLpftbNeUw9QjQb4eabZ8SSAVpMsqLcv5vm9sdrsNAZRKU8X7DyRMWfwKyB4QYbljS2fEUlzim-wYWALnNNemato0vRKoY9BXKNvco-0xWj24Dw-9eX95AertHmD9oVS~dpZ7k9QEoXcE5MouRxPS0oeZXRgn9AeuXwYqTUgYb~fUEnOfD94VXmhr2MdC2fH4bw~YK8ytEsaIrmVMEae-S-XcLeYXVvvI2eiNIWEUrMP8BhN~SBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Speakers during the public comment period at the May 19 Union County Board of Commissioners meeting urged the board to enforce existing local ordinances on neglected properties and expressed opposition to pending state legislation they said would erode local zoning control and strain county services.

Resident Kimberly Morris Morrison Hansley told commissioners she has repeatedly reported uninhabited, dilapidated properties — citing pictures she has provided in earlier visits — and asked the county to enforce existing standards on property maintenance. Hansley said she would submit a public records list of properties and expected the county to use existing ordinances to address vehicles and other yard violations.

Deb Helms, who identified herself as an unincorporated Union County resident, thanked the board for prior actions to preserve farmland and said she opposed North Carolina bill HB 765, which she said would increase density and limit local control. Helms argued that higher density would increase demand on schools, roads and other public services and that state legislators proposing the bill would not bear the local costs. She urged the county commission to continue resisting the legislation.

A third speaker, Joel Down, offered a prayer for commissioners as they finalize the county budget and consider the jail project; the meeting transcript shows his comments as public comment rather than a county action.

These comments were part of the public comment segment; commissioners acknowledged the remarks but no formal policy action was taken at the May 19 meeting. The board discussed related agenda items (including the jail update and budget matters) in later business items.","Public commenters at the May 19 meeting raised two recurring concerns: enforcement against uninhabited, blighted properties and opposition to state legislation (HB 765) they said would reduce local control and increase development density.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6540625,"Commissioners approve budget amendments to cover sheriff’s office shortfall and capital project ordinances",0,7467000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3393801-7f4e83a07b9f76df5b0d970b54d9008b&start=7467&end=7467","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3393801-7f4e83a07b9f76df5b0d970b54d9008b/thumbnail_7467000.jpg","/articles/6540625/Union-County/North-Carolina/Commissioners-approve-budget-amendments-to-cover-sheriffs-office-shortfall-and-capital-project-ordinances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540625-65e38d0215d28b6fabac0f47726529d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1773223976&Signature=AFWL6lpgvnMDqk9LMHdEyAkS8nn2aMJf7fVL~6zNVPukPJeAmskKDBQPKspDJpz0MPxval7lkxqcj4nvNyF~aLVLawnUypxZNST2kDfmZ6pXmuVI-pfOW8r9wd95xE9qFptKVVKEVU6HvugGsZhUmZhJO0gQD1LLGXd0FAgiiO83xfMBxGFY0q~57wfOXQm~GrehFcgQGYeJEygmtCt4HaSynfz6-I-1DzFkwLSHw1rDth2owWtJlD5Qm5DDRRo-Z1GsgKoyRTCHnYw9fWnnVHFTdBGsMJq6XGhbp1aqOMewb5xZ2JKJ8nf1~nTtufcKzM3~pFB-Emme8UyuG0Ta2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Union County commissioners voted May 19 to approve capital project ordinances and a budget amendment intended to address funding shortfalls in the sheriff’s office budget that county staff said reflect rising payouts, incentive payments and overtime costs.

County Manager Brian Matthews and finance staff told the board the sheriff’s budget faced an unanticipated deficit driven by larger than expected payouts to separating employees, previously unbudgeted employee incentive payments and higher realized holiday and overtime costs. Manager Matthews said the county will include those previously unbudgeted items in next fiscal year’s baseline sheriff’s budget so they can be tracked and planned.

The board ratified a prior $150,000 allocation and approved an additional capital/budget amendment for a total supplemental action of $786,267, according to the staff presentation. The motion to approve capital project ordinances (3‑47‑D and 3‑67‑C) and budget amendment number 34 passed on voice vote; the transcript records the board saying “aye” in favor. The county manager and finance director said the transfers will come from existing capital repair/renovation pools assigned to the sheriff’s facility and related buckets; staff said they would provide the board with more detail on remaining balances.

Several commissioners used the discussion to underscore concerns about employee retention and the county’s competitiveness for law enforcement pay. Commissioners urged staff to incorporate retention strategies and accurate overtime and payout assumptions into next year’s budget so the sheriff’s office is not forced to operate under a hiring freeze.

The board approved the action on a voice vote without a roll‑call record in the transcript. Finance staff promised follow‑up information on remaining capital fund balances and ongoing options to address retention and market pay challenges in future budget planning.","The board approved a set of capital project ordinances and a budget amendment to address a near‑term shortfall in the sheriff’s budget covering payouts, incentives and overtime; commissioners discussed retention and long‑term pay competitiveness.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6540630,"Union County holds public hearing on $13 million two‑thirds general obligation bonds",179,965000,1144000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3393801-7f4e83a07b9f76df5b0d970b54d9008b&start=965&end=1144","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3393801-7f4e83a07b9f76df5b0d970b54d9008b/thumbnail_965000.jpg","/articles/6540630/Union-County/North-Carolina/Union-County-holds-public-hearing-on-13-million-twothirds-general-obligation-bonds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540630-b69dd4a5874fecc59ad66469eb6f1c4b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773223976&Signature=gx-o1~0fvD3~jWv0XcJXGUOcnK89L~0Kr9exY0uNhiwuJ8Pkhbj3fyRZZ5bI9UPkYzX29GDR9uRiP0t7lrJ6cPuEePsR-qe~lJ8b8~eimxDNo09Wadzs7VuSQpVGN1E2Mqt1idn0INUTwWGYNQ0NOMODHuhzkse6fL5~ApY1t70t31FWcxadqSwdd2yBAKOpKUCT2PrlAlY9xp1kolrn~JxzTw41exgmrNMIZtyDKsP4vWp0qCpzPIsmxturoTU9WgUEPGFyGpnL34YJOs5prWLGR9tGLPZr23tY9ZD6RYJpc9xCAw9RzaeDAZ0oJK2-d1aVu0nsxoRpN5mngF3nTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Union County held the required public hearing May 19 on a proposed issuance of $13 million in two‑thirds general obligation bonds to finance acquisition, renovation and expansion of county public facilities, including judicial and governmental center needs.

Finance Director Beverly Liles explained state law requires a public hearing before the county issues general obligation bonds and said the proposed $13 million issuance responds to population growth and the need for more courtroom and staff space. Liles told commissioners the county expects debt service to begin in fiscal 2026 and to continue through 2046, with an estimated maximum annual debt service amount of $1,283,000. She said current tax rates in the county’s general debt fund are sufficient to meet payments for the proposed issuance.

Commissioners asked Liles whether the bond would affect the county’s credit rating; Liles said she did not anticipate a rating impact and that county staff had met with rating agencies. Commissioners also asked about interest rate assumptions; Liles said recent comparable yields were about 4.25% and the county had used 5% as a conservative model assumption.

No members of the public who had signed up appeared to speak at the hearing, and the board closed the public hearing without taking action to approve issuance of the bonds at the meeting. Liles said the county plans to issue bonds in July and offered to answer follow‑up questions.

The hearing record in the meeting transcript indicates the item was informational and procedural; the board did not vote to issue bonds on May 19.","Finance staff opened a required public hearing on a proposed $13 million issuance of two‑thirds general obligation bonds to fund facility acquisition, renovation and expansion, including judicial and government center needs; no public speakers and no vote was taken at the hearing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Union County hears updated jail study showing lower-day capacity but large cost and timeline

Residents urge enforcement on derelict properties and local leaders warn about HB 765

Commissioners approve budget amendments to cover sheriff’s office shortfall and capital project ordinances

Union County holds public hearing on $13 million two‑thirds general obligation bonds