Forsyth County approves $1.735 million utility-funded infrastructure package for Front Street Capital’s Union Cross spec building after public objections

The Forsyth County Board of Commissioners on April 2025 approved a resolution authorizing the use of $1,735,000 in City-County Utility Commission funds — a $1,000,000 interest-free loan and a $735,000 grant — to pay for municipal infrastructure (a new public road and water/sewer extensions) to support a 300,000-square-foot speculative industrial building proposed by Front Street Capital LLC in the Union Cross Industrial Center. The motion passed unanimously.

Why it matters: county staff and economic-development leaders said the infrastructure will open approximately 72 acres of developable land in Union Cross and provide a spec industrial building in a market that staff said currently has no immediately available speculative inventory. Opponents in the public session argued that utility-derived funds should not subsidize a private developer with an already-proven track record of profitable projects without clearer public documentation of community benefit.

What the board approved and the terms

- Board action: approve City-County Utility Commission expenditure consisting of a $1,000,000 loan at 0% interest and a $735,000 grant to Front Street Capital LLC for municipal infrastructure at the Union Cross property. Motion: Commissioner Bessie; second: Commissioner Wilson. Vote: unanimous (Chair Martin; Commissioners Bessie, Wilson, McDaniel, Woodbury).

- Purpose and uses: county staff and the developer said the funds will pay for a new public road (estimated ~$520,000) and municipal water and sewer to the new road and site (estimated ~$1,200,000). The total infrastructure package cited was approximately $1,735,000.

- Project description: Front Street representatives described the project as a $32,000,000 speculative industrial building of roughly 300,000 square feet on land the developer acquired from the City of Winston-Salem in 2020. Staff and the developer said the project is intended to address a local shortage of immediately available large industrial space.

- Loan security and repayment: county staff said the loan must be repaid in full once the facility is leased and sold or refinanced, or no later than five years from the loan closing date. The developer’s representative stated the county’s position would be second to the developer’s primary bank financing and described the project as heavily collateralized by the physical asset; details of security language were not available at the meeting because the City of Winston-Salem was drafting the final agreement.

Public comment and concerns

Resident Linda Winokoff spoke in opposition during the public-session portion and at the agenda item, urging the board to reject item 14. She criticized the use of utility funds to subsidize private development and said earlier City Council action had placed related items on a consent agenda without public explanation. As she put it: “These are public utility funds generated by ratepayers, and they should not be used to subsidize private developers with interest free loans and grants, especially when there are no job guarantees and no clear understanding nor documentation of the real return for the people in our community.”

Other residents who spoke during public comment urged prioritizing investment in existing commercial corridors and community revitalization rather than subsidizing private developers; some urged more evening board meetings to increase public access to briefings and votes.

Developer and staff responses

- Developer history and tax base: county and developer presenters said Front Street has previously used similar loan arrangements with the City of Winston-Salem and repaid loans early. Staff noted past projects led to an increase in taxable property value the presenters summarized as roughly $215,000,000 in taxable value from prior Front Street investments; a county staff figure of approximately $2,000,000 in annual tax revenue attributable to that added value was mentioned during discussion.

- Fund source and restrictions: county staff and the developer emphasized the money used for this agreement comes from out-of-county customers of the City-County Utility Commission (sewer treatment customers outside Forsyth County) and that fund policy restricts those revenues to infrastructure and economic development uses. Staff said the fund currently holds about $4,000,000 and that the city previously used similar funds for development projects.

- Security and agreement drafting: the board approved the terms presented but did not have the final loan and grant agreement in hand. County staff said the City of Winston-Salem will draft the legal documents for the utility commission; county staff and the county attorney will review them when the city completes drafting. A developer representative told the board the county loan would be in second position behind bank financing and that the overall project would be collateralized by the physical asset; county staff said they would obtain and review the formal security language when the agreement is provided by the city.

Clarifying details captured from the meeting

- Loan and grant: $1,000,000 loan at 0% interest; $735,000 grant (total $1,735,000). (Source: county staff presentation.) - Estimated infrastructure costs: road ~ $520,000; water and sewer ~ $1,200,000. (Source: county staff.) - Project size and cost: 300,000-square-foot speculative industrial building; developer-cited cost ~$32,000,000. (Source: developer representative.) - Fund balance and restrictions: City-County Utility Commission out-of-county funds restricted to infrastructure/economic development; staff cited a fund balance of approximately $4,000,000. (Source: county staff.)

Remaining questions and next steps

- Final loan and grant agreement: the City of Winston-Salem was drafting the formal agreement at the time of the vote; the county said it will review and confirm the loan security, repayment triggers and other legal terms before funds are disbursed.

- Public transparency requests: citizens asked for more documentation on how prior Front Street projects returned public benefit (job counts, tax revenue realized, and whether loans were repaid), and some asked the board to avoid approving such measures without a public hearing that included detailed project-level financial documentation. Staff noted the city’s consent-agenda process at a recent council meeting had limited public discussion at that forum.

Meeting context: The item drew the most substantive public concern of the meeting and multiple commissioners asked follow-up questions about fund source, security and the scope of public benefit. The board approved the resolution but directed staff to bring the loan/grant agreement and any clarifying documentation to the board for review when the city completes drafting.