Union County commissioners adopt ordinances updating administrative code and 2026 salaries; one ordinance moved for final reading

The Board of County Commissioners of Union County moved forward on three ordinance items at its regular meeting and recorded unanimous affirmative votes on two of them.

Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 862-2025, a broad set of edits to the Union County Administrative Code that updates language across several sections including county government structure, the office of county council, the Department of Economic Development, multiple fee schedules (surrogate fees; parks and recreation fees), and traffic- and safety-related provisions such as disorderly conduct, smoking policy, towing and transportation policies. County counsel told the board these edits are primarily wording and compliance updates—examples cited include retitling the Office of Information Technology as a Division of Information Technology and removing obsolete references after prior internal reassignments. Vice Chairman Joseph Bodek moved the ordinance for final reading and authorized advertisement; the clerk recorded eight affirmative votes for its adoption.

The board also adopted Ordinance No. 863-2025, which fixes 2026 salaries for members of the Board of County Commissioners, the county manager, county council and department heads. Commissioner Williams moved and Commissioner Al Mirabella seconded the motion; the clerk recorded eight votes in the affirmative. The ordinance was read aloud by title prior to the public comment period.

Earlier in the meeting the clerk read Ordinance No. 861-2025, amending the county safety code articles that address bicycles, scooters, recreational vehicles and snowmobiles. The chair opened the floor for public comment on that ordinance and, seeing no speakers, the board closed public comment. The policy committee vice chair moved Ordinance 861 for final reading and authorized advertisement; the motion was seconded and placed on the record for subsequent formal action and publication.

No substantive amendments to the ordinances were recorded on the floor during debate. The board’s votes were taken by roll call and the clerk’s announcements recorded eight affirmative votes for Ordinances 862 and 863. The meeting record shows routine parliamentary motions (approving communications and minutes) and later adoption of a slate of resolutions by roll call as part of the same agenda.

The measures will proceed according to the statutory notice and publication requirements; the clerk was authorized to advertise the ordinances in accordance with law.