Union County commissioners and schools debate $2,000 teacher supplement as county funds $8.8M of $14.6M request

Union County commissioners on an unspecified meeting date heard public pleas for a $2,000 teacher stipend and a staff presentation showing the county provided $8.8 million toward a $14.6 million operating request from Union County Public Schools (UCPS).

Jen Sanders, a Waxhaw resident, told the board: "Fund the $2,000 stipend, stop the turf war battles, and bring the Union County Commission and the school board together with 1 shared focus, our children." Kelly Sinecola, another resident, added that "an estimated $15,600,000 in public taxes will leave Union County this year through the state vouchers program," urging the board to prioritize public-school funding and accountability.

County Manager Bridal Matthews presented the staff funding update and described how the county arrived at the $8.8 million figure. Matthews said the county's general fund is roughly $215 million and that about $139 million of that goes to UCPS operating expenses; the manager also noted roughly $9.4 million funds school-related services (school resource officers, behavioral-health collaborative, nurses) paid directly by the county. On the difference between the county offer and the schools' request, Matthews said the county's tax structure produced the $8.8 million and that "A penny generates about $6,100,000," adding that funding the full $14.6 million would require roughly a one‑cent increase on the UCPS tax rate.

Matthews and commissioners clarified who and what the requested supplements would cover. Staff said the county's latest count showed about 2,438 teachers could be eligible and that the current average local supplement is about $6,341. Matthews estimated a $1,000 universal supplement for the instructional group would cost roughly $3.8 million and that a $2,000 supplement for the wider set of instructional and support personnel would approach the $7.8 million–$8.0 million range, depending on which employee categories are included.

County legal counsel reminded the board that state law limits the county's authority to the function level of the school budget: the county can appropriate funds to broad functions (for example, regular instruction) but cannot dictate the school board's line‑item allocations or precisely who receives a particular supplement. That allocation authority rests with the Board of Education once county funds are provided.

Several commissioners expressed frustration at mixed messaging between the two governing bodies. One commissioner asked directly: "Who promised UCPS staff $2,000 supplement increase? That's what I wanna know," seeking to know whether county staff, school leaders, or others had given teachers a firm commitment. Commissioners described staff-to-staff conversations and said they believed UCPS would use the county-provided 8.8 million in ways that could include a supplement, but the school board has statutory control over the exact allocations.

On next steps, the county manager said staff would follow up with UCPS to obtain missing details the board requested (including counts and which employee groups would be eligible) and county counsel agreed to research whether a midyear tax-rate increase could legally be used to add operating funds. No midyear tax action was taken at the meeting; the board approved routine consent items and a separate appointment to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council.

The meeting adjourned after commissioner remarks praising staff and reiterating support for teachers. The county did not adopt a new tax rate or a separate county-level directive specifying which UCPS employees must receive supplements during this session.