[0:04] >> Regular meeting of the Union County Board of Commissioners

[0:07] to order.

[0:08] At this time I will provide the invocation.

[0:11] If you are so inclined, please join me in prayer.

[0:16] Dear Heavenly Father Lord we want

[0:18] to thank you for all of your blessings

[0:19] all of your blessings on our nation, our state, and also

[0:23] our county.

[0:24] Lord, as we look to make decisions tonight as a body,

[0:27] as a group here, we ask for your guidance

[0:30] and your wisdom concerning the items for discussion tonight.

[0:34] We want to thank you again for all of your blessings.

[0:37] We ask that you direct us as you see fit.

[0:40] In Jesus name we pray.

[0:42] Amen.

[0:43] Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:50] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

[0:50] and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,

[0:53] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[1:13] The next item on our agenda is informal comments

[1:15] from the community.

[1:16] And I have got two individuals that have signed up

[1:20] to provide informal comments.

[1:22] Each speaker must address the board from the lectern

[1:25] and begin their remarks by giving their name,

[1:28] stating whether they are a resident of Union County,

[1:31] and indicating the municipality within which they reside,

[1:35] if any.

[1:35] Each speaker will have three minutes to make remarks.

[1:38] A tone may sound at the conclusion of your remarks.

[1:41] A speaker may not yield any of his or her time

[1:43] to another speaker.

[1:43] The speakers may not discuss matters

[1:45] which are the subject of public hearings,

[1:48] and they must be courteous in their language and presentation.

[1:51] Restatements or repetitive comments by the same speaker,

[1:54] whether at the same or separate meetings,

[1:57] may be ruled out of order and terminated by the chair.

[2:00] Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

[2:02] Speakers may leave written comments

[2:06] and/or supporting documents, if any, with the clerk.

[2:09] Our first speaker tonight is John Earley.

[2:18] >> Good evening, commissioners.

[2:20] I have this shirt on that says, "do not Meck with my union."

[2:32] There's a company called Tiptoeing,

[2:37] and they are located in Charlotte North Carolina.

[2:40] Their address is 114 East 28th Street, Charlotte,

[2:45] North Carolina.

[2:47] They are coming over to Union County and finding people that

[2:51] they think are illegally parked and towing their vehicles up

[2:54] to their lot in Charlotte, which is in what they call --

[3:00] and citizens of Union County are having to go to Charlotte

[3:04] and pay well over $1,000 to get their vehicles back.

[3:08] This is unacceptable.

[3:11] Does Union County not have towing companies?

[3:15] Why is a Charlotte towing company coming to Union County

[3:18] and towing vehicles back to Charlotte?

[3:21] Have they got law enforcement privileges

[3:25] that we don't know about?

[3:27] Is this anything you all can address?

[3:31] I mean, don't meck with my Union.

[3:36] They are doing it.

[3:38] And nobody wants to do anything about it.

[3:39] Somebody needs to do something about it.

[3:41] I don't know.

[3:41] I don't know if you all can do anything about it

[3:43] or if the state legislator has to do anything about it.

[3:47] What's next?

[3:48] Is it Sheriff McFadden going to send his deputies

[3:52] across the county line to arrest Union County citizens?

[3:56] I don't think the Sheriff would appreciate that.

[3:58] The citizens of Union County don't appreciate towing

[4:01] companies --

[4:03] I have seen them at work.

[4:04] I have seen them.

[4:05] When I am working, I drive around and deliver auto parts

[4:09] part time.

[4:10] When I am working, I've seen them operate.

[4:11] They have scouts they send out.

[4:13] They tag cars.

[4:14] They call their buddies on the tow truck,

[4:16] and they come pick them up.

[4:17] They don't have the name of the company on the tow truck.

[4:20] I've seen this happen, in person.

[4:23] I slowed down and take a look at it.

[4:26] They looked at me like they wanted to hit me or something.

[4:28] Is there something you can do about this --

[4:30] if there is something you could do about this, please do.

[4:33] It has got to be addressed.

[4:35] It is unacceptable.

[4:36] Thank you.

[4:39] >> Thank you, John.

[4:41] Our next speaker tonight is Madeline Beal --

[4:47] Bile.

[4:49] Sorry about that.

[4:52] >> I get it.

[4:53] My name is Madeline.

[4:53] I'm a resident of Union County.

[4:55] I live in Monroe.

[4:56] I would actually like to discuss Monroe.

[4:57] Last week at Monroe City Council meeting,

[4:59] they discussed concerns around the homeless population

[5:02] that gathers around the community shelter.

[5:05] I do agree that there are legitimate concerns,

[5:07] but the majority of the discussion

[5:08] centered around how to make things better

[5:10] for the residents at the nearby luxury apartments that

[5:13] were built four years after the community shelter and less

[5:16] around what to do to help the Disenfranchized.

[5:18] They discussed it as a problem to get rid of and not

[5:21] a community to aid.

[5:22] These are members of our community

[5:24] that have nowhere to go when the shelter is at capacity.

[5:29] The average monthly rent in Union County is $1,800,

[5:31] but the average SSI check is only $900.

[5:34] While the community shelter is in Monroe,

[5:36] they serve Union County.

[5:38] Affordable housing or addiction treatment

[5:40] are not one community's challenge.

[5:42] I would like to implore the county commissioners to speak

[5:44] with Monroe City Council to see how we can work together to find

[5:47] a way to help these individuals in the long run

[5:49] and not to just brush the problem under the rug.

[5:52] Thank you.

[5:55] >> Thank you.

[6:03] So that concludes all of the speakers

[6:06] that had signed up to speak.

[6:08] Is there anyone from the audience

[6:09] that would like to provide informal comment?

[6:12] Seeing none, we will move on to our next agenda item.

[6:17] So the next two items on our agenda

[6:20] are public hearings, one for a text amendment to the Union

[6:24] Development Ordinance and one for the designation

[6:26] of county owned property as economic development property.

[6:30] Before opening the first public hearing,

[6:32] I will read the rules that will apply for each

[6:34] of these public hearings.

[6:36] Each speaker must address the board from the lectern

[6:39] and begin the remarks by giving their name,

[6:43] stating whether they are residents of Union County,

[6:45] and indicating which municipality within they reside,

[6:48] if any.

[6:49] Each speaker will have three minutes to make remarks.

[6:51] A tone may sound at the conclusion of your remarks.

[6:54] A speaker may not yield any of his or her time to another.

[6:57] Speakers shall limit their remarks

[6:58] to the subject of the public hearing.

[7:01] Speakers may leave written comments

[7:04] and/or supporting documents, if any, with the clerk

[7:07] to the board.

[7:08] The first public hearing tonight on our agenda is item 26-412,

[7:12] for text amendments to sections 25.010, table of allowed uses,

[7:20] 25.020, other use category, 30.210, data centers,

[7:26] and 30.220, crypto mining operations of the Union County

[7:31] Development Ordinance.

[7:32] I will now recognize Lee Jensen, planning director, for comments

[7:40] from staff.

[7:42] Welcome.

[7:43] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[7:47] Again, as you stated, this is a text amendment

[7:52] to the Unified Development Ordinance of the Union County.

[7:56] Really, it is about putting some guardrails in place

[7:59] for the emerging uses of -- we call them data centers.

[8:04] I will be brief.

[8:05] It's really just one slide here.

[8:09] This covers data centers and crypto mining operations.

[8:13] So this text amendment -- data centers will be allowed

[8:17] as a special use in heavy industrial with supplemental

[8:23] standards but also provides definitions of what data centers

[8:26] and crypto mining operations are.

[8:27] And I believe those text amendments were

[8:30] included in your agenda packet.

[8:32] You should have those.

[8:33] And then the supplemental standards for both data

[8:35] centers and crypto mining operations

[8:36] is kind of broken up into two separate sections here.

[8:39] There's some standards for both, then

[8:42] there's some separate standards for just crypto mining.

[8:44] So the supplemental standards for both

[8:47] would cover things like setbacks, landscaping, lighting,

[8:52] noise.

[8:53] There would be a pre-construction sound study

[8:56] required, and then any subsequent noise

[9:00] that would be above that would have to be mitigated.

[9:03] Backup power generation, such as generators,

[9:08] would be for temporary use only.

[9:10] Utility capacity would have to have something from water sewer,

[9:15] and electrical providers saying they

[9:17] could handle the increased capacity

[9:19] that's coming from the use of those data centers.

[9:21] And then they would have to have some decommissioning plans.

[9:25] So what's going to happen if this thing goes away?

[9:29] How are we going to return the site to pre-development type

[9:33] condition, or as close to pre-development condition

[9:36] as they can get?

[9:38] And then some supplemental standards for crypto mining

[9:41] operations -- have to be in a fully enclosed building,

[9:43] can't be in a containerized outdoor structure,

[9:47] unless that meets the building code.

[9:49] It containerized structure is like a -- oh, man,

[9:54] I just lost my train of thought there.

[9:55] It's like a container, like a shipping container.

[9:59] Thanks, Patrick.

[10:00] Again, backup power is for temporary use only,

[10:03] then electrical provider would have

[10:04] to provide something saying they can handle that demand.

[10:08] The general guardrails that kind of for the text amendment.

[10:16] Heavy industrial, in case you are curious --

[10:22] two primary areas where heavy industrial are --

[10:26] Patrick has a GIS map.

[10:28] I'm going to hijack it here.

[10:43] First primary area is around the airport.

[10:59] So this dark blue is heavy industrial.

[11:03] You can see some -- there's a few spots around along Airport

[11:07] Road.

[11:07] The primary area, though, is along gold mine.

[11:11] Some of this is --

[11:13] I think some of this is actually county-owned.

[11:15] It's part of the industrial park.

[11:16] There are some other parcels that

[11:18] are next to it that are privately owned.

[11:20] It's a pretty big chunk there.

[11:22] Again, some smaller pieces along Airport, a couple

[11:29] acres here and there.

[11:30] Then the other primary area is down --

[11:34] there is another area in an industrial park,

[11:38] over off of Gribble Road --

[11:42] Smith farm, sorry.

[11:44] It's pretty small.

[11:46] It's about 2.5 acres, I believe.

[11:48] That's kind of a leftover piece, when the county used

[11:52] to have that whole area, but it has slowly

[11:54] been annexed by Stallings and Indian Trail.

[11:57] That's sort of leftover strip.

[11:59] But the other primary area is down at Jaars.

[12:04] So you see, that's the runway right there.

[12:07] A lot of that area around the runway

[12:11] is zoned Heavy industrial.

[12:13] That is all owned by JAARS.

[12:17] So any existing heavy industrial piece,

[12:19] if this text amendment were to pass,

[12:22] would require a special use permit.

[12:25] Any piece that wasn't zoned heavy industrial, of course,

[12:29] would be a rezoning that would come to you for approval.

[12:32] Likely in the form of a conditional rezoning with all

[12:36] of the special use items in place

[12:40] so you could either approve it or deny it.

[12:42] I'll be happy to answer any questions.

[12:47] >> Thank you.

[12:48] Do you have the text amendment?

[12:54] >> Yes, sir.

[12:56] >> Because I think there was a couple of things that maybe we

[12:57] had some questions about or wanted to look at a little bit

[12:59] further.

[13:12] While you are pulling that up, I'm going to open the floor.

[13:16] I do not have anyone signed up to speak on this public hearing,

[13:19] but I do want to open the floor for the public.

[13:23] So if there is anyone in the audience that

[13:25] would like to speak regarding this item, please come forward.

[13:32] Okay.

[13:36] >> (Inaudible comment)

[13:41] >> I'm sorry.

[13:41] You need to approach the lectern.

[13:45] >> Do we have any open requests, or is this precautionary?

[13:53] >> Any other comments from the public?

[13:56] Okay, thank you.

[13:59] Board, any questions?

[14:05] >> You may or may not know the answers to the question

[14:08] I'm going to ask you, and I'm going to expose my ignorance

[14:11] on data centers.

[14:12] But the typical footprint of a data center --

[14:18] >> They can range from just really big to, now,

[14:22] some of the technology is -- can be relatively small.

[14:28] There is really no one size fits all data center.

[14:33] It used to be that they were pretty large

[14:35] and required a lot of water and a lot of electricity.

[14:39] But now some of the technology is switching over to some

[14:43] smaller sort of --

[14:45] I guess smaller but more of them data centers in certain spots

[14:53] and actually using some different technologies

[14:55] to help cool and power.

[15:00] There's not a one size fits all.

[15:05] >> Okay.

[15:05] So water usage -- that was going to be my next question.

[15:08] Do they use a large amount of water?

[15:14] >> They can.

[15:15] Again, some of the technology is changing,

[15:18] and there's different technologies out there.

[15:20] That is a way to cool those data centers.

[15:25] These are a bunch of big -- it's a room with a bunch of servers

[15:28] in it.

[15:28] So they get really hot.

[15:29] Use a lot of energy.

[15:30] And they have to have some way to cool those things down.

[15:34] Water is a really easy, cheap way to do it.

[15:38] But a lot of them --

[15:40] I'll be honest with you calm off the top of my head,

[15:42] I can't remember what the technologies are called.

[15:44] But there are kind -- kind of like coolant in your car.

[15:49] There's other ways to cool those data centers down

[15:51] that are coming out.

[15:52] But water is a big one, and the ones that use water can --

[15:58] some of them can use quite a bit.

[16:01] >> So is it a self-contained system that Rrecirculates, or --

[16:08] Recirculates, or is it released into the environment?

[16:12] >> That is what a lot of the ones that use water are

[16:14] switching to is that it is self-contained and keeps cycling

[16:16] through.

[16:16] Eventually has to be cycled out, though.

[16:18] It can't stay in there forever.

[16:19] But some of them do -- again, when it does dump,

[16:23] whether that is over a long period of time or a short period

[16:26] of time, it either gets put into a septic system,

[16:29] or it gets put into the municipal sewer system.

[16:36] >> Is it considered hazardous waste at that point?

[16:39] >> I don't know if it's considered fully hazardous

[16:42] or not, but there is some not so good stuff in there.

[16:47] >> The noise level around a data center --

[16:49] is it a noisy neighbor?

[16:53] >> That's one of those that has been out there for debate.

[16:56] I have listened to a lot of hearings and watched a lot of --

[17:01] or read a lot of comments that people have given.

[17:05] They are kind of divided.

[17:07] Some people say that it's kind of a background noise,

[17:10] that it is not loud, but it is just -- it is louder,

[17:15] and it is very aggravating.

[17:16] Some people say it is very loud.

[17:18] Some people say they can't hear it at all.

[17:19] I think it may depend on the individual.

[17:22] But that is why part of what we have in here

[17:26] is that sound study to essentially say,

[17:28] you have to do a pre-development sound

[17:31] study to establish a baseline.

[17:34] What is the baseline where you are today?

[17:37] And if that data center would increase the sound out there,

[17:42] then you have got to mitigate that.

[17:47] >> Do they use an enormous amount of power?

[17:51] >> They can, yes, sir.

[17:53] In fact, some of the new technology

[17:57] are sort of micro nuclear plants that they are talking

[17:59] about to power some of them.

[18:01] But the ones that hook into the grid, yeah,

[18:02] they can use a lot of power.

[18:06] >> Thank you.

[18:08] >> You're welcome.

[18:12] >> Lee, thanks for the work you put in.

[18:15] I appreciate it.

[18:16] Just a couple of areas I'd like to see address to, if possible.

[18:21] The commissioner just mentioned noise.

[18:25] Can we address low frequency noise,

[18:28] the noise that we just don't hear within the ear,

[18:31] and ensure that that low vibration that emanates from

[18:35] data centers -- that we measure that and make sure that

[18:39] the setbacks are appropriate?

[18:42] >> Yeah, we could research that.

[18:44] We did have some setbacks --

[18:47] I didn't point them out.

[18:48] There they are on your screens, some minimum site design

[18:53] standards.

[18:54] They would have to be 100ft away from property lines and 500ft

[18:57] away from any residential zoning districts or lots with existing

[19:02] dwellings and then 1000ft from schools, daycares,

[19:07] assisted living, or similar congregate care type facilities.

[19:10] I didn't say that before, so I just wanted you to see that.

[19:15] >> If you could research on --

[19:16] I found that there are three counties that have setbacks that

[19:18] are farther than 100ft or 1000ft, even.

[19:20] So MacOn County has a one mile setback

[19:24] from residences and public schools,

[19:26] and Cherokee County has a one mile separation

[19:29] also from residences, churches, and educational facilities.

[19:33] Henderson actually has a two mile buffer.

[19:38] Just one other item, the amendment clause --

[19:44] we have two years.

[19:46] Could we maybe make it one year?

[19:48] And I don't know if it's possible,

[19:52] but to have a decommissioning bond,

[19:56] get some money up front in case they do --

[19:58] it does need to be decommissioned.

[20:05] Just one other thing --

[20:07] I was asked recently --

[20:09] I know some other municipalities are implementing moratoriums

[20:12] on data centers.

[20:13] That's great for them.

[20:15] I mean, it gives them an opportunity

[20:17] to adopt an ordinance that is beneficial to their residents.

[20:22] I just want to mention that you have been working

[20:25] on this for a while, and really no need for us

[20:28] to have a moratorium.

[20:29] I appreciate the work you have put in.

[20:30] We are pretty much there.

[20:33] >> Appreciate that.

[20:34] You said MacOn, Henderson, and what was the third?

[20:44] >> Cherokee.

[20:46] >> Lee, I've got a couple things, too.

[20:48] I agree with the commissioner here that -- first of all,

[20:51] I was glad to see that the study was being required.

[20:53] As I was looking through the text amendment,

[20:55] I think that that's something that's obviously important.

[20:59] My question was -- because we start talking about sound

[21:04] mitigation and that it would have to be required,

[21:08] depending on the results of the sound study.

[21:10] And I'm paraphrasing here a little bit.

[21:13] My question is, how specific can we get with this?

[21:19] Is there a way to define what sound mitigation measures would

[21:24] be appropriate?

[21:25] Are we getting too far into the weeds for a text amendment?

[21:27] I guess what I'm trying to say is,

[21:30] and my professional work, more specificity is a good thing.

[21:35] And so I'm thinking maybe that perhaps we

[21:40] should spell out what would be the appropriate sound mitigation

[21:46] measures.

[21:47] >> You could either spell it out,

[21:49] or you could give examples within the ordinance to help

[21:55] maybe steer somebody in a certain direction.

[21:58] When I think of sound mitigation,

[22:01] the two primary ways you can do it is, one is -- well, three.

[22:08] One is through setbacks and.

[22:10] You just keep increasing those setbacks.

[22:12] Two is through vegetation.

[22:16] If you have increased setbacks and buffers,

[22:19] you can achieve some sound mitigation there.

[22:21] Three is some way within the building.

[22:23] You have acoustical walls that you put in the building

[22:27] to help buffer that sound.

[22:29] Those are the three primary ways that I have seen.

[22:31] I think if we are going to steer somebody in a certain direction,

[22:34] those are probably the three ways we would do it.

[22:38] >> It was just a thought.

[22:40] I don't know if there's a way that we could specify that

[22:44] or not.

[22:45] The other thing is the setbacks.

[22:48] I tend to agree.

[22:51] I'd like to see us maybe research more on that 500 foot

[22:55] minimum setback from residential zoning districts.

[22:58] I understand that we need to be cognizant of our county

[23:05] and what we are dealing with here in Union County.

[23:08] But at the same time, I would prefer

[23:10] to see a higher number there.

[23:13] Now, whether that number is 750ft, whether it's 1000ft --

[23:21] but if we could do some additional research there

[23:23] regarding minimum setbacks from residents.

[23:26] But I think this is a good first step.

[23:29] I'm glad that we are discussing this because, as of right now,

[23:34] we have nothing in our UDO that identifies data centers.

[23:39] So I think this is a good step for our board to take,

[23:42] and I certainly appreciate your reference in this.

[23:48] any other questions or comments for Lee, feedback?

[23:54] Thank you, Lee.

[23:55] I will now close the public hearing.

[23:56] The second public hearing is item 24-464,

[24:01] and that is for designation of county owned property

[24:03] as economic development property.

[24:05] I will open the public hearing and recognize --

[24:09] am I recognizing Patrick?

[24:13] >> I was trying to get him reset.

[24:17] >> I'm going to recognize Patrick calm at the deputy

[24:19] County manager, for comments from staff.

[24:22] >> Thank you.

[24:23] I've got to undo what Lee did to me here for a second.

[24:41] Okay.

[24:42] Thank you.

[24:43] Back in early 2025, at the board authorized

[24:48] us to purchase 27 acres through two pieces of property.

[24:51] This was just north of the bypass in the town of Winget.

[24:55] We have worked over the last year

[24:57] to annex that into the city limits of Winget.

[25:00] We have also got that rezoned from an R-40

[25:04] to a light industrial to allow us

[25:06] to try to attract both industrial and commercial

[25:08] develop around that interchange.

[25:11] We are asking the board to designate

[25:13] this land for economic development purposes.

[25:14] It was not done when we purchased it,

[25:16] so we are going back to try to get you to authorize that use.

[25:19] This is a chance to give the public a chance

[25:22] to comment on that request.

[25:30] >> Thank you, Patrick.

[25:32] Okay, once again, I have no speakers signed up

[25:34] for this public hearing.

[25:35] I will now open the floor, if there's

[25:38] anyone in the audience that would like to make comments.

[25:41] Seeing none comment any questions for Patrick

[25:44] from the board?

[25:46] All right.

[25:48] Thank you, Patrick.

[25:49] I will now close the public hearing.

[25:59] The next item on our agenda is item 26-440,

[26:06] recognize lifesaver Award recipients.

[26:10] I will now again recognize deputy County Manager Patrick

[26:15] Niland for brief comments concerning this item.

[26:20] >> We are here tonight to recognize two of our Union

[26:20] County Sheriff's deputies for some life saving actions.

[26:23] On Sunday April 5th, 2026 at approximately 3:00 AM,

[26:31] Union County Sheriff deputies responded to a --

[26:36] deputies Paul Garcia and Jason Frazier arrived nearly

[26:38] simultaneously before firefighters and a large portion

[26:41] of the home was engulfed in flames.

[26:43] As they ran toward the home, they

[26:45] heard a woman screaming for help from the window

[26:47] in the opposite side.

[26:48] Without hesitation, the deputies broke the window

[26:50] and created an opening large enough

[26:52] to safely remove the woman from the burning home.

[26:54] They placed her in a patrol vehicle

[26:56] and remained with her until emergency personnel arrived.

[26:59] Unfortunately, there was another individual

[27:01] in the house that did not make it out

[27:02] and succumbed to that fire.

[27:05] But there is no doubt this woman is alive because of these two

[27:08] deputies.

[27:09] Every day, our employees are put in positions

[27:12] and they deliver over and over again.

[27:14] We couldn't be more proud.

[27:15] I would like to ask, Sheriff Cathey,

[27:20] do you have any words you want to share?

[27:25] >> Come on up, Sheriff.

[27:34] >> Thank you, Patrick.

[27:36] I just want to say, I am proud to be

[27:39] the Sheriff of Union County and the place

[27:42] that is appropriate for us to live.

[27:46] And these officers -- they don't get that from training.

[27:49] That's because they know the difference

[27:51] between right and wrong and did not

[27:54] hesitate to move forward and do the job that we

[27:58] are out there every day to do.

[28:00] I just say how proud I am of them,

[28:03] and I am proud of the county and our commissioners

[28:05] and the support they have given us

[28:07] to be able to move forward in all the things

[28:12] that we do here in the county.

[28:13] This is just a big part of it.

[28:15] We are proud of you.

[28:17] We are proud of them.

[28:20] >> Thank you, Sheriff.

[28:25] >> If you all could join me in congratulating and thanking

[28:28] the two deputies for their actions.

[28:31] [Applause]

[28:41] >> You don't get out of getting up front.

[28:44] [Laughter]

[29:20] [Applause]

[29:42] >> Thank you again, folks.

[29:44] Congratulations.

[29:44] Thank you for what you did for us.

[29:47] Our next agenda item is item 26-458.

[29:50] That is information technology earns National top five ranking

[29:53] and Achievement award.

[29:55] I will recognize John Amelio, information Director --

[29:59] or Information Technology Director --

[30:01] for brief comments on this item.

[30:04] Welcome, John.

[30:06] >> Thank you.

[30:06] Congratulations, again.

[30:07] Good evening, chairman Helms, vice chair Holmes,

[30:12] commissioners, and County -- vice chair Helms,

[30:18] commissioners comment and County manager.

[30:20] It is my pleasure tonight to share innovative work happening

[30:22] across Union County.

[30:23] I'm proud to announce that Union County has been ranked fourth

[30:26] in the nation in the 2026 Digital County Survey among

[30:29] counties with populations between 250,000 and 500,000.

[30:33] There are two things that make this recognition especially

[30:38] meaningful.

[30:38] First off, this is the eighth year in a row

[30:42] that Union County has finished in the top ten nationally,

[30:45] and secondly, this is the highest ranking

[30:47] we have ever received since moving into a larger population

[30:51] category.

[30:51] In fact, Union County continues to be the smallest county

[30:54] in this category, not only in population, but in budget,

[30:59] as well, making this recognition even more significant.

[31:02] The Digital County survey conducted

[31:03] by the center for Digital Government

[31:05] and the Association of Counties, also known as NAACO,

[31:13] recognizes counties that are using technology

[31:16] and how they serve residents.

[31:17] This year, the judge's specifically

[31:20] recognized our focus on collaboration,

[31:21] including regular meetings with departments

[31:23] to discuss technology, governance, cybersecurity,

[31:26] and emerging technologies.

[31:27] They also highlighted our major approach to artificial

[31:31] intelligence, including sprout --

[31:33] that is our AI-powered website assistance.

[31:36] Thanks to Liz and her team -- our phase Microsoft Copilot

[31:41] Studio initiative, and our AI acceptable use guidelines.

[31:50] A GIS team was also identified for completing UC Atlas, which

[31:57] is our new online mapping and property platform, which

[31:59] is making it easier for residents and staff

[32:01] to access information about property, infrastructure,

[32:04] zoning utilities, and more.

[32:06] I want to emphasize, the technology

[32:08] doesn't create these accomplishments.

[32:09] It is the people that do.

[32:11] This recognition reflects the outstanding work

[32:13] of our cybersecurity team, our GIS team, infrastructure

[32:16] and tech supports teams, as well as the many departments

[32:19] throughout the county that embrace technology and work

[32:22] collaboratively with IT.

[32:26] I want to specifically thank our partners

[32:28] at PC, Strategy and Innovation, Human services, library,

[32:32] and the Fire Marshal's Office for contributing

[32:35] their accomplishments to the Digital County Survey

[32:37] submission.

[32:37] Most importantly, a big thanks to you all,

[32:40] the board, and county management, for your leadership,

[32:43] support, and willingness to invest

[32:45] in technology and innovation.

[32:47] Our goal isn't to win awards.

[32:48] Our goal is to use technology to make

[32:50] Union County more efficient, accessible, and better able

[32:53] to serve our residents.

[32:54] I'm very proud of our IT team and the work ethic

[32:58] and terribly proud to lead them.

[32:59] I would like to ask our team members in attendance

[33:01] to come on up.

[33:03] Van Dale is our operations manager.

[33:07] Elizabeth is our business manager.

[33:09] Sally is our GIS analyst.

[33:11] Brett is our project manager.

[33:13] I want to thank all of them.

[33:19] [Applause]

[34:25] >> It is now time for consideration of any changes

[34:27] to our agenda.

[34:28] We have at least two brief edits to the agenda this evening.

[34:33] We can take a vote on both of them together, I believe.

[34:37] Is that right?

[34:39] Thank you.

[34:41] Staff has requested we add the following action item 26-433 --

[34:47] that is bid Award and construction contract Union

[34:50] County Group home renovation -- to adopt capital project

[34:54] ordinance number 319A and Capital Project ordinance number

[35:01] 400.

[35:01] This is on our consent agenda, I believe, for tonight.

[35:05] And a copy of the revised action requested in the CPOs

[35:13] has been displayed on the screens here in the room.

[35:16] Each of the commissioners should have

[35:17] a copy of the CPOs requested for adoption at your seats.

[35:24] The second item is, at staff's request,

[35:26] we've been asked to remove item 26-492,

[35:29] and that is the EMS station discussion from

[35:33] tonight's business agenda, for discussion at a future meeting.

[35:37] Is there a motion to approve both revisions

[35:41] to the agenda, as proposed?

[35:46] >> I will make a motion that we approve as amended.

[35:49] >> Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

[35:51] We have a motion.

[35:51] All those in favor of the motion, say aye.

[35:57] >> Aye.

[35:59] >> Are there any additional motions regarding revisions

[36:01] or amendments to either the consent or the business agenda?

[36:05] Okay.

[36:05] Is there a motion to approve the items listed

[36:10] on consent, as amended?

[36:13] >> I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda

[36:15] as amended.

[36:19] >> Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

[36:20] All those in favor of the motion, say aye.

[36:23] So now we are at the business portion of our agenda.

[36:25] The first item for business is item 26-500,

[36:32] a discussion regarding a cost of Community Services study.

[36:34] I will again recognize Lee Jenson, planning director,

[36:39] for brief comments concerning this item.

[36:41] Welcome back.

[36:41] We missed you.

[36:45] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[36:50] So this will be a pretty brief presentation,

[36:55] but maybe some discussion regarding this item, too.

[36:59] I believe County Manager Matthews

[37:02] asked me to place this item on the agenda

[37:04] to have some discussion around cost of community services

[37:08] studies.

[37:08] So what is a cost of community services study?

[37:15] They are used to determine fiscal contribution of existing

[37:19] local land uses.

[37:20] Essentially what they do is they put agricultural land

[37:23] on equal ground with residential, commercial,

[37:27] and industrial.

[37:29] They are a snapshot in time, and it

[37:32] doesn't help you predict future costs or revenues or anything

[37:35] like that.

[37:35] It's just a snapshot.

[37:37] But they are really used to help local officials make

[37:42] informed land use decisions.

[37:45] How do you go about doing one of these studies?

[37:49] You collect your data on local revenues and expenditures.

[37:53] That essentially comes from your budget.

[37:54] Already got that information.

[37:57] Group that data together and allocate them

[38:00] to community's major land use categories.

[38:05] Most of these studies, they group these categories around

[38:07] residential, business or commercial --

[38:10] they call them different things -- and agriculture.

[38:13] And then they calculate revenue to expenditure ratios

[38:16] for each land use category.

[38:19] And that's pretty much it.

[38:21] It's a pretty straightforward study.

[38:24] The difficult part is grouping that data

[38:28] around those particular land use categories, because you have got

[38:32] to get in and dig in to the different departments

[38:34] and figure out, okay, well, how should we

[38:38] allocate those as revenues and those as expenditures?

[38:40] The slide -- I know you have got a couple in your agenda pack,

[38:45] maybe 1 or 2 that were sent to you by email.

[38:48] But the county actually did one back in 2004.

[38:52] And that was done by Jeffrey Dorfman.

[38:56] I think at the time, he was in the University of Georgia.

[39:01] Now he is at North Carolina State University.

[39:03] He is still doing these.

[39:05] What it found in 2004 was that, for every dollar

[39:10] in expenditures, residential returned $0.77.

[39:14] Commercial and industrial -- they were grouped together --

[39:19] that returned $2.44, and AG returned $4.13.

[39:25] The county's example --

[39:27] I think the two recent ones from North Carolina

[39:29] were the ones that you received.

[39:31] Those were Johnston and Wake Counties.

[39:36] Wake also did a breakdown such as this.

[39:38] I don't think Johnston did.

[39:41] But Union County, back in 2004, the average break even value

[39:46] for a home, what the home had to be valued at to essentially

[39:50] break even on that residential --

[39:52] on that expenditure versus revenue side was $204,000.

[39:58] I just threw these two bullets in here

[40:00] because I thought they were interesting.

[40:02] Then it went further and they started looking at, will,

[40:06] what if the -- well, what if the home has kids?

[40:11] Back in 2004, the average break even for a two child home was

[40:17] $667,000.

[40:18] I don't have these in the slide, but I

[40:24] looked at Johnston and Wake's, and their ratios

[40:31] for every dollar in revenue for residential,

[40:34] for every dollar in revenue, the county spends $1.43.

[40:38] For commercial, for every dollar, they spend $0.23.

[40:43] And then for every dollar in revenue for ag,

[40:48] they spend $0.81.

[40:53] >> Will you repeat the last line?

[40:56] >> So for every dollar that the county receives in revenue,

[40:58] they spend $0.81.

[41:01] Wake -- again, very similar.

[41:04] For residential, for every dollar of revenue

[41:06] the county spent $1.09.

[41:08] Then for ag, it was $0.24 was what they spent.

[41:15] For commercial, it was $0.08.

[41:19] It seems to be that, on some of these more recent studies,

[41:22] it is kind of flipped.

[41:24] The older ones like this, ag and commercial, they both --

[41:29] if you want to look at it that way, they both made money.

[41:34] The ag was a little bit more.

[41:36] It seems like it has flipped a little bit in favor

[41:38] of the commercial, but they are still the revenue generators,

[41:44] and the residential is not.

[41:45] These are relatively --

[41:47] I want to say cheap studies to do.

[41:50] They are not very expensive.

[41:51] There is a number of firms in North Carolina that do them.

[41:55] Again, I think that Dr. Dorfman still does a few.

[42:01] There's a couple of consulting firms

[42:02] that I know of that do them.

[42:04] There's another group out of Mount Olive University

[42:08] that does them, too.

[42:09] I will be happy to answer any questions about those

[42:13] or take any further direction from the board.

[42:19] >> So Lee, I have got some comments.

[42:20] I have been waiting for this one right

[42:22] here for a long time because it has been a long time coming.

[42:26] I'm glad that you brought up the --

[42:29] I think it was the '04 study?

[42:34] >> Yes, sir.

[42:36] >> Because that has been 22 years now.

[42:38] A lot of things have changed, I'm sure,

[42:41] since that study was done.

[42:42] I'm glad that you brought up the results of the Wake study

[42:47] in the Johnston County study, because I had notes

[42:51] on that, too.

[42:52] I don't want this point to get lost,

[42:53] because you mentioned this, and you said that the Johnston

[42:56] County -- understand, Johnston County is a much similar,

[43:00] much better comparison to Union County than what Wake County

[43:03] would be, as far as size, population,

[43:11] and a number of other socio economic factors.

[43:14] If you look, they broke it down, and they

[43:16] looked at residential, commercial, then agriculture.

[43:19] What they are doing is they are comparing,

[43:21] and they are saying, for every $1 of ad valorem

[43:25] tax revenue that comes into, in this case, Johnston County,

[43:30] for every $1 that you are paying out

[43:33] $1.43 in the cost of services.

[43:37] So that's not paying for itself.

[43:41] Obviously, we have known for quite some time

[43:44] that residential growth does not pay for itself in terms of cost

[43:48] to serve, because there's a number of things that have to be

[43:51] funded to serve that residence.

[43:53] So you have got schools, for example.

[43:58] Public schools is a big one.

[44:00] You have got sheriff's deputies.

[44:05] You've got fire.

[44:08] You've got EMS.

[44:08] We have to have those services in.

[44:10] You can make the case that residential

[44:11] is taking out of the bucket more than what they are putting in.

[44:13] If you compare that to, say, commercial,

[44:18] at least the Johnston studies showed

[44:20] that, for every $1 that that is bringing in in ad valorem

[44:24] tax revenue, they are spending out $0.23.

[44:28] Agriculture -- you mentioned this --

[44:34] $1 ad valorem tax revenue, $0.81,

[44:37] as far as the expenses or the costs to serve.

[44:41] Again, I don't want that to get lost because, right now,

[44:46] we are sitting --

[44:47] this board has made numerous comments about this,

[44:49] but we are sitting at at least 90% residential.

[44:53] I mean, we are teetering probably 90% residential

[44:56] and then 10% everything else.

[44:58] It's just my opinion, but I don't

[45:02] feel as though that trajectory is sustainable.

[45:04] It's not sustainable for the people that we serve.

[45:06] It's not sustainable for taxpayers,

[45:11] because essentially what we are saying

[45:13] is, 90% of all the taxes being paid are coming from the people.

[45:15] We need to diversify that.

[45:16] I look at this study as an opportunity, an opportunity

[45:24] for us to get concrete, up to date numbers regarding,

[45:27] well, Union County specifics.

[45:32] Where do we match up on residential?

[45:34] Where do we match up on commercial and agriculture?

[45:36] We know that commercial and agriculture are probably

[45:39] going to be in the black.

[45:40] But we also know that we are losing, as far as residential

[45:46] is concerned.

[45:46] So we have to diversify.

[45:49] And I think that it is important for the board to consider doing

[45:55] the study, and I think it is more important that we consider

[45:58] doing it -- or getting that study performed by a third

[46:01] party, instead of doing something in-house,

[46:05] because I think that if we have a third party come in and do

[46:07] an independent study, then that takes away any kind of question

[46:11] about any kind of improprieties that may have taken place here.

[46:17] I think that, number one, is very important.

[46:19] The fellow that did the study -- and I can't remember his name,

[46:23] but I think he probably made a wise decision moving from

[46:26] Georgia to NC State.

[46:28] What I will say is, doing this study has got at least three

[46:34] benefits -- at least three.

[46:36] Number one, to your point -- you mentioned this --

[46:40] the study can certainly help the county in making decisions

[46:45] regarding land use decisions and things of that nature.

[46:49] That's benefit number one.

[46:52] But I think, too, that this also provides us

[46:55] an opportunity to offer some benefit

[46:57] to our municipal partners.

[46:58] And the reason why I say that is because many municipalities --

[47:02] there are some exceptions, but many municipalities,

[47:05] they don't have things like utilities or --

[47:11] I mean, they are not paying for school systems.

[47:14] Some municipalities, I think, are

[47:17] more apt to look at a residential project

[47:19] and look at it and say, okay, we are

[47:22] going to press forward with this residential project,

[47:26] regardless of the cost, because that

[47:27] is putting bottom line into our coffers

[47:29] with ad valorem tax revenue.

[47:33] But I think there's a tendency to ignore the cost to serve.

[47:37] When folks make the decisions to do things like that,

[47:42] it is still the people that we all serve that pay the bill.

[47:45] In short, we are all subsidizing growth.

[47:47] We are all subsidizing residential growth.

[47:49] And that's what this study is showing

[47:51] is the amount that we are subsidizing.

[47:53] So you might get two separate bills

[47:58] if you live in a municipality.

[48:00] But bottom line is, you are still paying it.

[48:03] I think the second benefit is with municipal partners.

[48:07] We can show exactly what that cost to serve is.

[48:10] And maybe we can foster better collaboration

[48:12] with an overall vision for the county that would

[48:18] include those municipalities.

[48:19] The third thing is, I think that this provides us benefit when

[48:23] we discuss things with our state delegation, so our state

[48:29] legislature.

[48:30] I think this is going to give us those hard numbers,

[48:32] and I think we need those numbers, too --

[48:37] let me clarify -- because what we have seen in recent years,

[48:40] all of us on this board have seen these bills, growth bills,

[48:45] like House Bill 765, for example,

[48:47] and there has been many others where it has tried

[48:51] to incentivize residential construction throughout --

[48:55] all throughout the state.

[48:56] And so I think it's important that we have this information so

[49:00] that, in our discussions with our state legislators,

[49:05] we can provide them with the information and have,

[49:11] well, a lot more ammunition at our disposal to make our case.

[49:14] So one question I had is, is there a way --

[49:19] I'm sure that we can, because I just

[49:22] assumed that what we would be doing

[49:23] is going to be similar to Johnston, the Johnston study

[49:28] that was in our agenda packet.

[49:29] I'm good with that.

[49:30] But I also -- and this may be an additional cost,

[49:33] but I would like to explore defining that break-even point,

[49:38] as we did in '04.

[49:44] I would like to know what the current break even point

[49:48] is, so if we can inquire about something about that.

[49:53] Is there any other questions or comments for Lee?

[49:59] >> I have a question.

[50:00] How long would it take to complete the study?

[50:04] >> It really depends on the consultant.

[50:04] I know Wake County, and talking with them,

[50:06] it took their consultant about a year to complete their study.

[50:09] They had some issues.

[50:11] I don't think Johnston's took quite that long.

[50:16] I think that would be probably something

[50:17] we would put in place, if we put together a scope of work,

[50:21] we would want it done within a certain period of time.

[50:34] >> Any other questions or comments for Lee?

[50:38] >> Just out of curiosity, what all would be revealed in this

[50:40] study?

[50:41] Would we actually get, like I see in 2004,

[50:48] the price of the home with the family with two children,

[50:51] the break even is $667,000, which seems crazy to me

[50:59] for 2004.

[51:00] Would we get that figure, along with the figures

[51:04] like you just quoted us for Johnston County, the residential

[51:09] compared to the commercial compared to ag?

[51:13] >> I believe the Wake County study included some of those

[51:16] break even points in.

[51:17] So that is a possibility to get.

[51:22] >> Thank you.

[51:26] >> Just one quick question for you.

[51:27] So the chairman mentioned that we sit at roughly 90%

[51:30] residential to 10% everything else.

[51:32] I have heard experts say a healthy ratio is

[51:37] 70%, 30%, 60%, 40%.

[51:40] In your opinion, where do you think we should be sitting?

[51:46] >> That's a loaded question.

[51:48] A lot of it depends on philosophy and where

[51:51] you want to go as a county.

[51:52] There's probably places that would be fine at 90/10.

[52:00] It's really your sort of choice as to which way you want to go.

[52:06] I would say that 70/30, 60/40 ratio is probably in the sweet

[52:16] spot.

[52:17] >> The hardest thing is to move the needle when you are 90/10.

[52:20] You can add a significant amount of investment for commercial

[52:23] and you are only going to move that needle a little bit.

[52:25] To get to 70/30 is going to take a long time and a lot of land

[52:31] use decisions to get there.

[52:32] But I would agree with Lee.

[52:36] It is probably in that 70/30, 60/40 range.

[52:41] I think that is an aspiration, but something that's going

[52:44] to take a long , long time.

[52:50] >> Anything else for Lee?

[52:53] Lee, where do we stand right now?

[52:56] At this point, have we identified, then, aside from --

[52:59] do we have a list of folks that we can contact,

[53:03] maybe that did the Johnston study and the Wake study,

[53:06] or perhaps this individual that did our previous study?

[53:10] Well, probably the Wake study would

[53:13] be more appropriate since it has got a break-even point.

[53:22] >> I'm sure the folks who did the Johnston study can do that.

[53:22] Once you do the first part and group

[53:23] the revenues and expenditures by land use, the rest of it

[53:26] just kind of falls into place.

[53:27] I'm sure they can do it, too.

[53:32] >> So what would be our next steps, then,

[53:34] if the board wanted to proceed?

[53:35] Should we develop a scope of work?

[53:40] >> I think we develop a scope of work and get maybe 3 or 4

[53:42] different providers and get some costs.

[53:45] >> Okay.

[53:46] Well, I'm willing to make that motion.

[53:47] I will make the motion to direct staff

[53:48] to develop the costs or the scope of work

[53:51] for a third party or independent study

[53:54] to be performed for the cost of community services in Union

[53:59] County.

[54:00] That would include residential, commercial, and agriculture,

[54:04] as well as the residential break-even point,

[54:13] as we saw in the wake study, and also

[54:15] direct staff to bring us back costs and options for the study.

[54:20] Does that cover it?

[54:25] >> It does.

[54:25] You mentioned scope of work, in addition to costs,

[54:27] and I assume all the other terms and conditions

[54:29] that might be necessary in those agreements?

[54:34] >> Yes, sir.

[54:35] That would be correct.

[54:36] I would include other terms and conditions in that motion.

[54:40] >> I am here on behalf of the terms and conditions.

[54:44] >> Thank you, sir.

[54:45] There is a motion.

[54:46] Any discussion on the motion?

[54:47] All those in favor of the motion, say aye.

[54:53] Thank you, Lee.

[54:55] All right, it is your night to night, Lee.

[55:00] Our next item is 26-four seven, discussion regarding minor

[55:03] subdivision.

[55:04] Once again, welcome, Lee.

[55:12] >> This is an update.

[55:13] Back in -- I think it was November or December of last

[55:16] year, you asked me to work with the Land Use board to come back

[55:21] with some recommendations on the minor subdivision process.

[55:27] Kind of everything was on the table.

[55:29] So really, took a deep dive on three separate items.

[55:35] One was a discussion of the definition of lot in section

[55:45] 105.130, discussion of the minor versus major lot threshold

[55:49] and the parent parcel date, and the idea of a family subdivision

[55:52] exception.

[55:54] I'll get my notes here.

[55:58] So the first item that the Land Use Board undertook

[56:05] was this idea of definition of lot.

[56:08] The issue there is sort of this second, really long sentence

[56:16] that's highlighted.

[56:18] The first part is pretty straightforward.

[56:20] It's a parcel of land whose boundaries

[56:24] have been established by some legal instrument.

[56:26] However, that second kind of highlighted text there says,

[56:29] public body with the authority of eminent domain basically puts

[56:33] a road through a piece of property ,

[56:41] and it effectively can't be used as one piece, then,

[56:45] for the purposes of the development ordinance,

[56:47] it is two lots.

[56:51] The The reason that is important is,

[56:53] when we start getting into some other sections

[56:55] on talking about what that means and how you develop property,

[56:58] then, essentially, it becomes two sort of parent parcels,

[57:03] if you will.

[57:07] And the way that kind of carries over into minor subdivisions

[57:12] is, today, a minor subdivision is two eight lots out

[57:21] of a parent parcel.

[57:22] You take this definition into account,

[57:23] and you have an existing road that --

[57:25] or it could be a new road that dot --

[57:31] DOT built, but most of the it's an existing that splits a parent

[57:34] parcel, then you could essentially do 16 --

[57:36] it's one road.

[57:37] You could do 16 lots, eight on one side, eight on the other.

[57:41] That was the idea here it was to amend this to do away

[57:46] with that second sentence.

[57:49] It wouldn't say that somebody couldn't develop their property.

[57:53] They could just -- it would just be a major subdivision,

[57:56] at that point.

[57:57] If they want to do more lots, it would

[57:58] be a major instead of a minor.

[58:01] But we took this to the land use board.

[58:03] We had a lot of discussion over several different meetings,

[58:09] and ultimately, the land use board's consensus

[58:13] was to keep the definition as is, to not change it.

[58:16] I wanted to bring that back and give you their update.

[58:18] I am also here to take any direction you

[58:21] might give as far as any text amendments

[58:24] you might want to see.

[58:26] I will stop at the lot before I move on to the next one,

[58:32] if there's any discussion around that.

[58:38] >> Any questions or comments for Lee?

[58:41] >> One comment -- and full disclosure, Lee,

[58:46] I challenged Lee with this situation earlier today.

[58:52] I found a parcel of land that is divided by two roads.

[58:55] I said, so, in this situation -- we pulled up the parcel --

[59:01] how many lots could be put on this parcel before it is

[59:05] considered a major subdivision?

[59:08] And that number is 24.

[59:12] We are not perfectly locked in at 16

[59:15] under the current definition.

[59:21] >> That's correct.

[59:27] >> You know, we have had a lot of discussion about this

[59:29] definition, and Lee, I appreciate the explanation

[59:35] and you kind of pointing this out,

[59:37] about how important this definition is,

[59:40] because, to your point, this definition is going to affect

[59:44] things that we are fixing to talk about with other aspects

[59:48] of minors.

[59:50] But bottom line is, we define a minor currently as eight lots

[59:56] or less, correct?

[1:00:00] >> Correct.

[1:00:03] >> What this sentence does that is in bold right here,

[1:00:05] it essentially creates a loophole.

[1:00:07] It's a legal loophole, where you can

[1:00:09] have essentially, in the case that the commissioner just

[1:00:14] brought up, you could have 24 homes

[1:00:15] that are being built under the minor subdivision rules.

[1:00:22] Correct?

[1:00:24] >> That's right.

[1:00:26] >> I mean, I guess when we previously talked about it,

[1:00:27] I always had 16 in my head, because we have got a, and you

[1:00:31] think eight on one side and -- got a road,

[1:00:36] and you think eight on one side and eight on the other.

[1:00:38] But that's a lot.

[1:00:39] I think at some point, we have to sit here and say, okay, well,

[1:00:44] the definition of a minor subdivision,

[1:00:47] as it stands today, currently, is eight lots or less.

[1:00:51] Why are we allowing, in this case, 24,

[1:00:58] under the same rules as -- and the rules are different to.

[1:01:01] The requirements for minors are different to.

[1:01:07] There's going to be differences there with all kinds

[1:01:09] of different things.

[1:01:10] Lee, you can probably speak to it

[1:01:13] right off the top of your head, but I'm

[1:01:14] thinking buffers and setbacks and all kinds of requirements

[1:01:18] there.

[1:01:18] I think, at some point, we have to understand that eight lots

[1:01:30] or less is a minor, and anything above that,

[1:01:32] anything above that threshold -- we have got more to talk about

[1:01:35] here in a few minutes about threshold.

[1:01:37] But anything above that threshold is not a minor.

[1:01:41] It is, at that point, a major.

[1:01:44] And so I look at this, and my thought

[1:01:48] is that we have to clean up this language.

[1:01:54] I will open it up for discussion,

[1:01:57] but I would be in favor of changing this language

[1:02:01] so that it is much more straightforward,

[1:02:06] and we have a minor subdivision, and this loophole is closed.

[1:02:18] Any comments from the board regarding that?

[1:02:23] Thoughts about this particular definition?

[1:02:33] >> No.

[1:02:33] I'm going to be in agreement with you on,

[1:02:36] I do believe the language does need

[1:02:38] to be cleared up because there's too much fluctuation in it.

[1:02:41] What we would describe as a major subdivision and, case

[1:02:49] in point, the commissioner's research today showing 24,

[1:02:57] and their not having to abide by the same rules and regulations

[1:03:00] as other subdivisions.

[1:03:01] I think we need to narrow the scope and clean this up,

[1:03:07] definitely.

[1:03:08] >> It just doesn't seem fair to me that you are getting a major

[1:03:09] subdivision with the requirements of a minor

[1:03:11] subdivision.

[1:03:15] Lee, what do you want to do?

[1:03:21] Do you want to take these one at a time and come back to them?

[1:03:25] >> I think one at a time would be fine,

[1:03:25] or if you want to do it all as one, I'm open.

[1:03:27] It might be easier to do them one at a time.

[1:03:31] >> We will listen.

[1:03:32] I will make that motion that we direct staff to revise

[1:03:34] the current definition in our UDO of a lot,

[1:03:42] eliminating the language that would allow for a minor

[1:03:47] subdivision to exceed --

[1:03:53] I'm trying to think about how to word this --

[1:03:55] to exceed eight lots on one side of the road and then eight lots

[1:03:59] on the other -- how am I doing?

[1:04:06] Help me out, here.

[1:04:10] >> I think you are doing great.

[1:04:10] One thing I might suggest is that,

[1:04:11] rather than be tied into changing only the definition

[1:04:14] of a lot, that we might be freed to look at some other potential

[1:04:20] fixes to close that loophole, if they all arrive at the same

[1:04:25] point of eliminating the loophole that allows you to get

[1:04:28] more than eight lots per --

[1:04:35] >> Okay.

[1:04:36] I think that's a good idea.

[1:04:37] I think that's probably the wisest thing to do.

[1:04:39] I will amend the motion, then, to direct staff

[1:04:42] to bring us back strategies for mitigating that situation

[1:04:48] where you have lots on both sides of the road that

[1:04:52] still constitute a minor.

[1:04:54] Is that sufficient?

[1:04:59] >> That is sufficient.

[1:04:59] One thing that caught my attention, for example,

[1:05:01] is that it is a private street that is created.

[1:05:04] Anybody can create a private street.

[1:05:06] So perhaps there are some other definitions

[1:05:07] that we can look at, as well, that

[1:05:10] might help us get to the same conclusion

[1:05:12] that you are driving at.

[1:05:17] >> Thank you.

[1:05:17] So we have got a motion on the table.

[1:05:18] Any discussion on that motion ?

[1:05:22] All those in favor of the motion, say aye.

[1:05:27] All right, Mr. Jenson.

[1:05:32] >> Next discussion point was the major versus minor lot

[1:05:32] threshold.

[1:05:33] The question is, is eight lots the right number

[1:05:37] for a minor subdivision?

[1:05:41] So there's a lot of research that the Land Use

[1:05:43] board looked at.

[1:05:45] They looked at some data from some other counties

[1:05:47] that are sort of comparable to Union County.

[1:05:49] And although the Land Use Board did not reach any full consensus

[1:05:56] on this, they did have a lot of discussion regarding resetting

[1:06:01] the parent parcel date.

[1:06:04] I know three of you met --

[1:06:11] I don't think you have been part of these discussions.

[1:06:14] Parent parcels in Union County go back to February 14th 1978.

[1:06:17] That's when sort of the land use ordinance

[1:06:20] started regulating parcels of property.

[1:06:23] So you can create eight lots out of that lot

[1:06:27] that existed in 1978, and that is your minor subdivision.

[1:06:31] So the idea about resetting that date is --

[1:06:36] 1978, it was looked at as a generational thing.

[1:06:40] 1978 -- that was 48 years ago.

[1:06:44] It's been a while.

[1:06:46] The thought was to reset that date

[1:06:49] to maybe allow some more divisions of those properties

[1:06:54] for probably people who just want to do a couple of lots

[1:06:57] here and there, maybe for family members,

[1:06:59] or maybe just to sell off a couple of lots

[1:07:01] to help pay some bills, because a lot of those parcels

[1:07:07] have been divided.

[1:07:08] They have given lots to two kids.

[1:07:11] They gave their lots to two kids,

[1:07:13] and they gave their lots to two kids.

[1:07:15] You get to eight lots pretty fast.

[1:07:17] So the idea of resetting that date

[1:07:19] and then having sort of an automatic reset provision

[1:07:22] built into the ordinance.

[1:07:24] And then sort of the discussion about the number of lots.

[1:07:28] So the three -- these are sort of the three motions that were

[1:07:32] made in the land use board, all of which failed.

[1:07:35] The first one was that, leave it at eight lots,

[1:07:42] and reset the parent parcel date every ten years.

[1:07:46] The second motion was, minor subdivision with five lots

[1:07:50] or less, and the parent parcel reset date

[1:07:53] would be every ten years.

[1:07:55] I think this last one was sort of maybe a compromise

[1:07:59] to say, okay, well, what if we do five lots

[1:08:04] and have it reset every seven years?

[1:08:09] That failed.

[1:08:09] There was a little bit of consensus, maybe,

[1:08:11] around five lots, but there was really no agreement

[1:08:18] on that reset date.

[1:08:19] Again, even the consensus around the five lots --

[1:08:22] there were still enough folks that thought it should still be

[1:08:26] eight that that didn't make it out of the land use board.

[1:08:30] I wanted to provide you discussion around that item

[1:08:33] and have you guys weigh in on what you

[1:08:38] might want to direct us to do.

[1:08:48] >> Thank you, Lee.

[1:08:50] Can you speak to, why was the focus in on ten years and seven

[1:08:59] years?

[1:09:00] Do you recall what the logic from the Land Use Board

[1:09:02] was on that?

[1:09:04] >> I don't.

[1:09:05] I think it was really -- the two and three, going from 10 to 7,

[1:09:08] they dropped it to seven because you had enough folks who I think

[1:09:13] wanted it to stay at eight, but I think that shorter amount

[1:09:17] of time for the reset -- they thought maybe that would make

[1:09:21] them comfortable with going down to five.

[1:09:24] Obviously, it didn't work.

[1:09:27] Yeah, I think that the ten year date was --

[1:09:35] I think they were trying to look at it

[1:09:36] from a generational standpoint, but also maybe not

[1:09:41] going quite as far in.

[1:09:42] There was discussion around 15 to 20,

[1:09:44] but I think they sort of backed it down to ten.

[1:09:52] >> And, see, that's what -- when I first looked at this,

[1:09:55] that's what I had in my mind is, if we are talking about

[1:09:57] a generational-type reset, most people define a generation as 40

[1:10:02] years.

[1:10:03] But in something like this, I'm thinking somewhere

[1:10:07] in the neighborhood between 20 and 30,

[1:10:10] because what you are talking about, a lot of times,

[1:10:15] is family land.

[1:10:17] So my thought, my initial thought was,

[1:10:23] is that, if you have a grandparent who

[1:10:27] wants to deed over property to a grandchild,

[1:10:30] but eventually, grandma and grandpa are going to pass away,

[1:10:35] and then someone is going to inherit their property.

[1:10:37] Listen, I don't think there's anybody here

[1:10:40] that wants to prohibit families from subdividing

[1:10:42] their properties.

[1:10:44] That's not the intention here.

[1:10:46] But we also can't set up a scenario

[1:10:49] that's going to be abused.

[1:10:52] And so it's about trying to find the balance,

[1:10:54] and I am sure that the Land Use board was struggling with that.

[1:10:57] Let me ask you one other thing.

[1:11:03] This, I believe, came up the last time we discussed this

[1:11:06] on this board.

[1:11:07] We sit currently at eight lots, right?

[1:11:12] So eight lots and less is a minor subdivision.

[1:11:15] I believe, in our previous discussion,

[1:11:17] the question was asked, well, what

[1:11:19] is the rest of the state do?

[1:11:23] I think the answer you gave us was five.

[1:11:28] >> So we looked at a lot of comparable counties.

[1:11:30] I think I had about ten different counties, or maybe 14

[1:11:35] that I pulled.

[1:11:35] I don't think there was -- in any of the counties that I

[1:11:42] looked at, I don't think, if I added them all up,

[1:11:44] there was a majority rules kind of number.

[1:11:46] There was kind of a common theme of five.

[1:11:49] But I will say, there were some --

[1:11:51] I think there was one as low as three.

[1:11:53] That may have been Stanley County.

[1:11:55] Then there was one that was as high as 20 lots.

[1:11:59] That may have been --

[1:12:01] I think that was Lincoln County.

[1:12:03] But yeah, it was -- there were a number that were 10.

[1:12:13] The whole idea of a parent parcel --

[1:12:14] a couple of them did have a parent parcel kind of set up.

[1:12:18] I wouldn't call it a parent parcel.

[1:12:21] I actually called a few folks because I didn't quite

[1:12:23] understand exactly what their ordinance was saying.

[1:12:27] I wanted to know how they interpreted it.

[1:12:29] It was kind of like ours.

[1:12:31] They sort of recognized that that was --

[1:12:33] I think it's a good idea.

[1:12:34] I think they recognized it, too.

[1:12:38] Some of them didn't have a reset provision at all.

[1:12:40] It was kind of like ours.

[1:12:41] It was tied to a certain date.

[1:12:42] Some of them did have a reset provision.

[1:12:44] They sort of varied.

[1:12:46] But it was generational.

[1:12:47] The ones I saw were around 20 years.

[1:12:50] Some of them didn't have anything.

[1:12:52] Some of them didn't tie it to a parent parcel.

[1:12:54] So you, theoretically, could come in and do five lots today

[1:12:59] and then come in tomorrow and do five lots again.

[1:13:02] Those are the ones that I --

[1:13:04] I think Brian has probably worked in a community like that.

[1:13:08] Actually asked a couple of the planners

[1:13:10] if they had ever seen that scenario, and yeah.

[1:13:14] But they weren't really --

[1:13:16] I looked at a lot of folks that were like us in terms of,

[1:13:20] they are on the edge of a pretty large city,

[1:13:22] they have got a lot of growth, but I also

[1:13:24] looked at some that were relatively rural.

[1:13:26] Those were the ones that were relatively rural that

[1:13:30] weren't experiencing the growth that we are.

[1:13:33] But the common theme -- again, I don't think it was a majority,

[1:13:37] but a common theme was five.

[1:13:45] >> Mr. County administrator?

[1:13:53] ` I cannot recall, but did that number change previously?

[1:13:57] Was our number something different previously?

[1:14:01] >> It was.

[1:14:01] Prior to 2014 -- that is when this was adopted --

[1:14:04] prior to 2014, ours was -- it was five,

[1:14:07] but there was another loophole.

[1:14:09] It was five, but if you were essentially just not putting --

[1:14:18] let's say you had a really long piece of property along a road.

[1:14:22] It was unlimited.

[1:14:24] So you could -- and I remember, when we were going through,

[1:14:29] rewriting the code, I threw out, well,

[1:14:32] if you had one long enough, could you do 100 lots?

[1:14:39] You could.

[1:14:40] It's a minor subdivision.

[1:14:40] As long as there is no water, sewer, new roads,

[1:14:43] any infrastructure like that, you

[1:14:44] could theoretically have 100 lots,

[1:14:46] if you had the road frontage.

[1:14:49] I think when we were sort of going through that provision,

[1:14:54] we thought, that's not really a good idea.

[1:14:56] We thought, that needs to go away.

[1:14:59] So the eight was really -- it was an arbitrary number.

[1:15:03] It was sort of a compromise, like, we'll take this away,

[1:15:07] but we are going to give you three.

[1:15:13] That's really kind of where that came from.

[1:15:16] >> I have a question for Lee, as well.

[1:15:20] I don't often do this, but looking at the definition

[1:15:22] of parent parcels and the importance of that in our code

[1:15:26] and the way it has been constructed --

[1:15:29] it's kind of like the foundation of a lot of things.

[1:15:32] And so the idea of changing that --

[1:15:36] I guess, I kind of want to do an emotional check in with you,

[1:15:40] just to see how you feel about that.

[1:15:42] Does that cause you anxiety?

[1:15:44] It seems like we are changing the rules of gravity

[1:15:48] a little bit here.

[1:15:52] >> It did, at first.

[1:15:53] I think we have sort of internally talked about it

[1:15:57] enough -- we've run through a couple of scenarios just

[1:16:00] in discussions.

[1:16:02] There are a couple of different places --

[1:16:04] it will take some surgery on the ordinance to do it,

[1:16:08] because there's a couple of places that reference lot

[1:16:13] of record.

[1:16:14] I'm throwing out terms that aren't really in the ordinance,

[1:16:16] but I call it lot of record.

[1:16:18] It talks about that, but we wouldn't necessarily

[1:16:21] want to change that particular provision.

[1:16:23] So there would have to be some new definitions added

[1:16:25] to kind of cover those scenarios,

[1:16:28] but I think we have discussed it enough to,

[1:16:31] I know and my staff knows where those particular areas

[1:16:35] are that would give me some heartburn.

[1:16:37] I am fine with changing it.

[1:16:41] I think we will --

[1:16:45] I think it will probably need to, at some point,

[1:16:48] be updated, so now is as good a time as any.

[1:16:50] We would definitely take our time

[1:16:52] to make sure that we didn't miss something.

[1:16:59] >> This is what I look like when I'm doing a trust fall exercise.

[1:17:01] I am doing that with you.

[1:17:05] >> I mean, the other thing that I want to point out --

[1:17:06] Li didn't go down this rabbit hole,

[1:17:07] but when you do create a reset, there

[1:17:11] is still a lot of work that has to be

[1:17:13] done to be able to have that in perpetuity.

[1:17:18] We've got to have maps.

[1:17:20] We have got to have that information to refer back to.

[1:17:23] Right now, that '78 map is a paper map.

[1:17:28] We tried to digitize it and scan it and use it,

[1:17:30] but that is a lot more work.

[1:17:32] Now, with technology, things have

[1:17:34] gotten a lot easier, a lot easier to do that kind of work.

[1:17:37] But keep in mind, you are taking a map, and you are like, okay,

[1:17:43] it exists as it does today 20 years from now.

[1:17:46] We didn't have to go through the exercise

[1:17:48] of amending that and now identifying, what is parent?

[1:17:57] What is not parent?

[1:17:59] Not saying you can't do it.

[1:18:00] That's something else you have to take into mind, the work we

[1:18:02] have to do to be able to refer back to it

[1:18:04] and no, that is a parent parcel land.

[1:18:07] Before, it was not.

[1:18:08] Now it is.

[1:18:16] >> Lee, how many more years you got until retirement?

[1:18:20] [Laughter]

[1:18:23] >> Just for clarity, if we did do a parent parcel reset,

[1:18:28] it would be for every property in the county would reset

[1:18:35] on that same date, correct?

[1:18:41] >> Unincorporated.

[1:18:43] >> Yes, sir.

[1:18:46] Okay.

[1:18:50] >> Help me out here, Lee.

[1:18:51] So we talk about subdividing, subdividing again.

[1:18:54] Is there an acreage limit for how many times

[1:18:58] a lot can be subdivided, in this situation?

[1:19:06] >> It would just be based on the zoning and the area.

[1:19:09] As long as you can make that minimum zoning requirement,

[1:19:11] then we can subdivide it as many times as you want to.

[1:19:14] You just might trip over into a major, at some point.

[1:19:18] Yeah.

[1:19:19] There's no limit.

[1:19:24] >> Thank you.

[1:19:34] >> You look like you're deep in thought over there.

[1:19:38] >> I am deep in thought, but I don't really want to reveal

[1:19:41] these thoughts.

[1:19:44] [Laughter]

[1:19:47] I'll just keep them to myself.

[1:19:54] >> My personal opinion is, I don't know that eight lots is

[1:19:55] the correct number any longer, especially when --

[1:19:57] so when we were talking about five lots --

[1:20:03] you said that that's more like the common --

[1:20:05] more common around the state, I guess,

[1:20:07] is the best way to put it.

[1:20:09] My first question is, well, why the heck do we have eight?

[1:20:14] Why are we sitting at eight lots if the rest of the state

[1:20:17] has five?

[1:20:18] I appreciate the explanation.

[1:20:22] From what you are saying, this is kind of an arbitrary number.

[1:20:24] I don't think that --

[1:20:27] in my heart of hearts, I don't think the number is eight.

[1:20:30] Now, I am not set on a number, per se.

[1:20:34] I don't know that the number is seven.

[1:20:37] It might be six.

[1:20:38] It might be five.

[1:20:40] It might be something else.

[1:20:42] But I think that --

[1:20:50] I don't think it's eight, personally.

[1:20:55] I will welcome comments from the board, but I'm not --

[1:20:59] I'm kind of struggling here because, from what

[1:21:05] you are saying, I mean, this is kind of all over the map.

[1:21:08] You are seeing instances where you

[1:21:10] have got a wide range in the threshold number.

[1:21:13] I think that we have to be cognizant, as a board,

[1:21:20] about residential growth in our county.

[1:21:22] It's not something that we can ignore.

[1:21:24] But at the same time, there has to be a balance

[1:21:27] so that we can protect our long-term families here.

[1:21:33] None of us want to hurt the people that

[1:21:35] want to raise their kids and see their grandkids grow

[1:21:37] on family property.

[1:21:40] I think, too, that family element helps, in some ways,

[1:21:46] to preserve our agriculture.

[1:21:48] And so the last thing that I want to do

[1:21:52] is to hurt that family aspect.

[1:21:57] I do not agree with the recommendations

[1:22:00] that we see from the Land Use Board for every ten years.

[1:22:06] I do think it needs to be a higher term, if we explore that.

[1:22:09] But what I am sensing from the board now

[1:22:11] is that we may need to have some further discussion on this

[1:22:14] before we press forward, unless I'm getting the wrong perception

[1:22:21] here from the board members.

[1:22:29] >> No.

[1:22:29] I think you are reading me correctly.

[1:22:31] This is a big deal.

[1:22:33] This will really impact a lot of property owners in the county.

[1:22:37] I want to do it as fairly as possible.

[1:22:42] The parent parcel reset sounds great,

[1:22:46] but there is bound to be some negative effects, as well.

[1:22:50] I want to look at that very carefully.

[1:22:52] But I do know --

[1:22:56] I do know there are farms out there now that still have

[1:22:58] considerable acreage that, if a grandparent wants

[1:23:04] to give a grandchild a lot, all of a sudden,

[1:23:08] they are into major subdivision category.

[1:23:12] I just -- I want to be very responsible and diligent

[1:23:19] and continue to move this conversation,

[1:23:21] but I do think the conversation may need to go forward a little

[1:23:25] bit more before we -- just to be responsible.

[1:23:32] >> Yeah.

[1:23:33] I think our county manager brought up a great point.

[1:23:33] If we are transcribing paper maps,

[1:23:35] that could be a tall task for our staff.

[1:23:39] Is there a way to maybe get our arms wrapped

[1:23:43] around how much this would entail from staff so that we can

[1:23:47] kind of make a better decision?

[1:23:52] >> So we wouldn't use paper maps.

[1:23:54] We would just capture the GIS data the day that that amendment

[1:24:00] became effective, but knowing that that may not be --

[1:24:02] it's not going to be 100% correct because there could have

[1:24:05] been a plot or something filed that day, but that is true now.

[1:24:10] We do occasionally have people that come in that will say,

[1:24:15] well, this was the parent parcel, and this was 1978.

[1:24:19] It's amazing how -- because my memory is not that good.

[1:24:22] It's amazing how good people's memory is.

[1:24:23] They will say, no, on January 2nd of 1978,

[1:24:28] my grandmother split this property.

[1:24:31] And they will bring us the deed.

[1:24:34] We recognize that because it happened before February 14th.

[1:24:37] Those things do happen.

[1:24:38] But that's what we would do.

[1:24:41] We would capture the GIS data on the day

[1:24:42] that it became effective, which is not very difficult.

[1:24:45] We've already had this conversation with GIS.

[1:24:47] It's not difficult to do.

[1:24:49] We could have scenarios that we would

[1:24:53] have to work with people on, because maybe there

[1:24:55] was something that happened that wasn't mapped yet.

[1:24:58] But I don't think that would be a heavy lift.

[1:25:06] What you may want to see -- because again,

[1:25:11] when you reset this date, a lot that was subdivided five years

[1:25:17] ago all of a sudden becomes the parent parcel.

[1:25:19] So if you had eight lots that came out of a parent tract,

[1:25:26] then now all of those eight lots are now parent parcels

[1:25:30] and can be divided.

[1:25:31] So I think that's something that --

[1:25:35] some information you may want to see.

[1:25:37] We could probably provide you with a --

[1:25:41] I mean, it would be a snapshot in time

[1:25:44] of a number of lots that exist in the unincorporated portion

[1:25:49] of the county to give you an idea of what

[1:25:56] we are talking about.

[1:26:00] >> What's the pleasure of the board with that?

[1:26:02] Is that something you would want to see?

[1:26:04] We could potentially be talking about the creation

[1:26:06] of a lot of lots.

[1:26:09] Yeah, if -- I think that may be helpful for us,

[1:26:13] to kind of get an idea about, if we were to implement a parent

[1:26:18] parcel renewal date, what's the impact?

[1:26:21] So if staff can bring us back information regarding

[1:26:24] that at a later time, then I think

[1:26:26] that that would be appropriate.

[1:26:28] Do we need a motion on that?

[1:26:36] >> I don't think so.

[1:26:37] We could just do it.

[1:26:45] >> All right.

[1:26:45] So final item here is the idea of the family subdivision.

[1:26:50] Some communities have an exemption

[1:26:53] in their development regulations for family subdivisions.

[1:26:56] And they typically have some requirements

[1:26:59] that revolve around sort of these four kind of themes here.

[1:27:03] There's usually a lineal descendant requirement,

[1:27:05] usually a parent to a child or a grandparent to a grandchild.

[1:27:10] Some of them could be vice versa.

[1:27:12] It could be going the other direction.

[1:27:13] Usually there's a maximum number that you

[1:27:17] can do per year or a maximum per lot of record or maximum number

[1:27:23] over a certain number of years.

[1:27:25] That was kind of -- and honestly,

[1:27:27] there weren't that many.

[1:27:28] When I looked at comparable counties,

[1:27:31] everybody had rules around major and minor subdivisions.

[1:27:34] I didn't have any issues finding anything there.

[1:27:36] I think, of the ones I looked at, I found four that handled --

[1:27:41] that had something to do with family subdivisions.

[1:27:43] So that was kind of all over the place.

[1:27:47] Most of them have some kind of road frontage

[1:27:50] or an easement access requirement.

[1:27:52] Most of them were easement access.

[1:27:57] You didn't have to have road frontage.

[1:27:58] It could be back on a dirt road somewhere.

[1:28:00] And then there were some ownership requirements.

[1:28:04] It had to be owned by a family member.

[1:28:07] And there are some time limits on that ownership.

[1:28:12] So common themes seem to be three years.

[1:28:16] If I gave my son a piece of property, he had to be my son,

[1:28:21] and he had to own it for three years.

[1:28:24] I did get into a little bit of --

[1:28:27] I called a couple of them just to see, how do you handle these?

[1:28:31] How do you regulate that?

[1:28:34] And that's difficult. It is difficult to regulate this.

[1:28:37] That is a downside.

[1:28:40] Most of them, as part of the application process,

[1:28:45] had an affidavit.

[1:28:46] Somebody just filled out an affidavit

[1:28:47] and said, yeah, that's my kid, or that's my grandkid,

[1:28:51] and that was it.

[1:28:52] We are not going to do a blood test at the county planning

[1:28:56] department to prove that's your kid.

[1:28:59] And then the number of years you have to own it --

[1:29:06] that's just in there for show, to be honest with you.

[1:29:09] It's impossible to regulate.

[1:29:11] That would be a heavy lift.

[1:29:14] If you were proactive about it, that

[1:29:17] would mean looking at deeds that came in every day of property

[1:29:21] transfers.

[1:29:21] You can't do that.

[1:29:23] The other way to do it is to wait for the neighbor to call

[1:29:28] and say --

[1:29:29] and that's going to be a family member that's mad

[1:29:30] because somebody got a divorce.

[1:29:32] I've seen it happen.

[1:29:33] I worked in a community that had these rules.

[1:29:39] After that property is transferred --

[1:29:40] Jason could probably better answer this question.

[1:29:42] Once that property transfers, trying

[1:29:45] to undo that through a zoning action, I imagine,

[1:29:47] is really hard to do.

[1:29:50] Again, the regulatory side of this

[1:29:53] is pretty difficult to enforce.

[1:29:58] The other thing is --

[1:30:00] I think why a lot of communities don't really have this --

[1:30:04] it is not specifically mentioned in the North Carolina

[1:30:07] subdivision statutes.

[1:30:08] Kind of the last thing, sort of on the negative points,

[1:30:13] it still creates a lot.

[1:30:15] It is still creating a lot.

[1:30:18] It's a family, but it is still creating a lot.

[1:30:21] There's somebody that's going to build a house on that lot.

[1:30:23] There's going to be people living on that lot.

[1:30:25] It is still creating a need for services.

[1:30:27] You are not getting around that issue ,

[1:30:31] from the county standpoint.

[1:30:35] But I will get back to the presentation

[1:30:37] and what the Land Use Board recommended.

[1:30:44] They recommended lineal transfers up and down,

[1:30:47] two generations, that being --

[1:30:48] I think everybody kind of understands what that means.

[1:30:51] They didn't want a maximum number of family subdivision

[1:30:54] lots.

[1:30:55] They didn't want a cap.

[1:30:57] No public road frontage -- each lot would have to have at least

[1:31:01] a 20 foot access easement.

[1:31:06] Minimum lot size would be based on the underlying zoning

[1:31:08] district.

[1:31:08] The reason they put that in there --

[1:31:10] some of the counties that we saw had,

[1:31:14] regardless of zoning district, it had to be one acre.

[1:31:16] They said, that's silly.

[1:31:18] Whatever the underlying zoning is is fine.

[1:31:20] Have it be exempt from all of the requirements

[1:31:28] of the major subdivision regulations.

[1:31:30] I think if you did this, it would sort of automatically

[1:31:32] be exempt because you are treating it as an exemption,

[1:31:34] but they wanted that spelled out specifically.

[1:31:36] And then a three year ownership requirement.

[1:31:38] That was the land use board's recommendation.

[1:31:49] >> Questions or comments for Lee?

[1:31:53] Commissioner Baucom?

[1:32:00] >> Honestly, it just looks like it's going to be very muddy.

[1:32:03] It won't be clean.

[1:32:06] It'll be hard to enforce, hard to regulate -- first cousin ,

[1:32:12] three times removed.

[1:32:14] I don't know how you truly manage this.

[1:32:17] I'm afraid it may be a management nightmare.

[1:32:21] But that's just my thoughts.

[1:32:27] Some of the stuff in here sounds great.

[1:32:29] I just think the devil is definitely

[1:32:32] in the details on this one, is my opinion.

[1:32:38] >> I tend to agree with Commissioner Baucom.

[1:32:42] On that note, certain Baucoms in the county

[1:32:45] I've got a lot of cousins.

[1:32:46] Well, that's true, Helms, too.

[1:32:52] I look at this, and I think, the county is not

[1:32:58] going to have DNA testing, to your point earlier.

[1:33:03] It's going to be practically impossible to enforce.

[1:33:07] I think, to Commissioner Baucom's point,

[1:33:14] a lot of this sounds really good for families,

[1:33:16] but this is an enforcement nightmare.

[1:33:19] And it could result in a heavy lift for our staff and trying

[1:33:27] to enforce -- even though the enforcement is not that much,

[1:33:32] but I mean, how do you sit there and say --

[1:33:36] I mean, how do you determine that people are related?

[1:33:39] I think that this is too much of an ask, at this point.

[1:33:45] Any other comments?

[1:33:54] >> We will start moving the first one along through that

[1:33:56] text amendment process -- through that text amendment

[1:34:00] process.

[1:34:01] The second one, we will bring back some more research

[1:34:04] and information.

[1:34:04] I will probably share that with the Land Use Board,

[1:34:10] at their meeting.

[1:34:12] I believe I'm going to talk to the Agricultural Advisory Board,

[1:34:15] as well -- bring it to them and get some feedback from those

[1:34:19] boards, as well.

[1:34:20] We are still talking about subdivisions

[1:34:21] and minor subdivisions.

[1:34:22] These are just the first kind of three things

[1:34:24] that we came to some semblance of conclusions on.

[1:34:29] So there will be future updates that may have

[1:34:38] some different items in it.

[1:34:41] >> I have no doubt that we are going to be hearing from you

[1:34:41] again soon, Lee.

[1:34:42] Thank you so much.

[1:34:44] Appreciate it.

[1:34:46] Okay, so homestretch here.

[1:34:49] So Lee, I think, is done for the evening.

[1:34:53] But the next item on our agenda is item 26-463,

[1:35:00] and that is appointments to boards and committees.

[1:35:02] There are currently two boards with vacancies for consideration

[1:35:04] this evening.

[1:35:05] These vacancies have been advertised in accordance

[1:35:07] with the applicable law.

[1:35:09] The first, the Workforce Development Board,

[1:35:12] has one vacancy for an unexpired term as the higher Education

[1:35:17] Representative.

[1:35:17] I will now entertain a motion for a nomination

[1:35:20] for this position.

[1:35:25] >> Chairman Helms, I would like to make a motion that we appoint

[1:35:28] Dr. Mary Jordan to the Workforce Development Board.

[1:35:35] >> So we have a motion.

[1:35:36] Any discussion on the motion?

[1:35:39] Seeing none all those in favor of the motion, say aye.

[1:35:44] Okay.

[1:35:45] The second board is the home and Community Block Grant Advisory

[1:35:48] Committee, which has one vacancy for an unexpired term

[1:35:51] for a community representative position.

[1:35:52] I will now entertain a motion for a nomination

[1:35:55] for that position.

[1:36:00] >> I would like to make a motion that we appoint James Wilde

[1:36:02] as the home and communication Care Block Grant advisory

[1:36:06] Committee.

[1:36:08] >> Thank you Madam Vice Chair.

[1:36:08] We have a motion.

[1:36:09] Any discussion on that motion?

[1:36:14] Seeing none all those in favor, say aye.

[1:36:17] All right, at the end of the meeting here, so now -- no,

[1:36:24] that was on consent.

[1:36:27] Yep, that was on consent.

[1:36:29] No problem.

[1:36:29] All right so I will now recognize our county manager

[1:36:32] for his comments.

[1:36:36] >> I have no comments.

[1:36:37] Thank you very much.

[1:36:40] >> All right.

[1:36:44] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:36:46] I wanted to say a special thank you to Deputy Frazier and Deputy

[1:36:49] Garcia.

[1:36:50] The Union County deputies run towards danger every day

[1:36:53] without hesitation, and many times we never hear about it.

[1:36:59] I'm grateful for them, and I am grateful for the leadership that

[1:37:03] allowed them to do their jobs.

[1:37:09] >> Thank you.

[1:37:12] Commissioner Baucom?

[1:37:15] >> Yes.

[1:37:16] First of all, Lee being the star of the show,

[1:37:19] I want to thank him and his staff for all they have

[1:37:21] done for us, and all the staff.

[1:37:25] Also, congratulations to the two deputies --

[1:37:32] truly heroic action on their part.

[1:37:39] And I know --

[1:37:42] I'd like to extend a debt of gratitude, a spirit of gratitude

[1:37:45] to everybody involved in emergency services.

[1:37:48] I have been in situations before where me, not being trained,

[1:37:55] and I had to call that 911 number.

[1:37:59] There's no better sound in the world than

[1:38:01] to hear that siren coming your way.

[1:38:03] Just all those folks that help keep us safe --

[1:38:08] truly appreciate them.

[1:38:12] Mr. Chair, that's all I've got.

[1:38:18] >> Thank you.

[1:38:19] Vice Chair Helms?

[1:38:22] >> I'm going to echo the two commissioners already.

[1:38:26] Our two deputies that jumped into action

[1:38:29] to save one of our citizens is truly heroic,

[1:38:37] and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

[1:38:39] I would like to also recognize our IT department for becoming

[1:38:46] fourth in the nation.

[1:38:47] That's pretty impressive.

[1:38:49] Go, IT.

[1:38:53] To be a small, large community, to have that distinction,

[1:39:02] is quite impressive to do what they do on the budget

[1:39:04] that they have.

[1:39:05] Thanks to everyone that came out and spoke.

[1:39:07] We appreciate you all coming out.

[1:39:08] Thank you.

[1:39:12] >> Thank you, madam Vice chair.

[1:39:14] I, too, want to thank Lee for all of his extra hours

[1:39:19] this evening.

[1:39:19] Thank you for your efforts there,

[1:39:20] not only in dealing with us, with these minor subdivisions

[1:39:23] and other land use items that we have got,

[1:39:26] but also dealing with the Land Use Board.

[1:39:33] You are front and center there, and you

[1:39:35] are answering questions and bringing topics,

[1:39:37] so I really appreciate your efforts.

[1:39:38] I do want to thank our speakers tonight.

[1:39:41] It's always good -- well, it's always good for this board

[1:39:45] to hear from the public.

[1:39:46] I also want to thank everybody that was in attendance tonight,

[1:39:49] as well.

[1:39:50] I do want to take a few minutes here,

[1:39:52] and I want to respond to some of the comments

[1:39:57] and the characterizations surrounding the August 4th Board

[1:40:01] of Education meeting, specifically regarding

[1:40:05] the proposed interlocal agreement.

[1:40:08] The first thing I want to say is that I

[1:40:10] want to be clear that there has never

[1:40:14] been a question about whether teachers

[1:40:17] and teachers' assistants deserve a supplement increase,

[1:40:23] at least from this board.

[1:40:24] They absolutely do.

[1:40:25] If we want to hire and retain good teachers,

[1:40:28] we need to consistently look at teacher supplements.

[1:40:31] In fact, this board has demonstrated that commitment

[1:40:35] by putting additional local dollars on the table

[1:40:39] specifically for teachers and also teacher

[1:40:42] assistant supplement increases.

[1:40:44] We did that last year, too.

[1:40:49] The disagreement, I think, that we are dealing with

[1:40:51] is really about accountability for Union County taxpayer

[1:40:56] dollars.

[1:40:57] The county asked for something very simple

[1:41:00] in this interlocal agreement, and we asked that disagreement

[1:41:04] be put in writing.

[1:41:05] And the terms were simple.

[1:41:07] The terms were that the money needs

[1:41:09] to go to the teachers and the TAs,

[1:41:13] and it has to be distributed ASAP,

[1:41:18] and it can't be used for other items or unfunded mandates

[1:41:20] from the state.

[1:41:22] The total length of that interlocal agreement was less

[1:41:26] than five full pages -- less than five.

[1:41:33] Despite what some Board of Education members might say,

[1:41:35] the interlocal agreement was not an attack on the school board,

[1:41:40] and it wasn't an attempt to control the school system.

[1:41:44] It's also not an attempt to control the superintendent,

[1:41:48] and it is certainly not a dictatorship.

[1:41:52] Yet, during the August 4th meeting,

[1:41:55] Board of Education members described the agreement

[1:41:59] as manufactured mistrust and even characterized this board

[1:42:04] as a dictatorship.

[1:42:06] It was also alleged that this board was guilty of corruption.

[1:42:12] Think about that -- a dictatorship and corruption,

[1:42:20] all because the county asked for a written agreement concerning

[1:42:23] millions of taxpayer dollars.

[1:42:25] If that's the standard that we are going to use,

[1:42:30] then apparently accountability has become tyranny,

[1:42:34] and apparently transparency has become an insult.

[1:42:38] I don't think the taxpayers of Union County

[1:42:42] see it that way, though.

[1:42:44] We were asking for accountability

[1:42:46] for taxpayer money, and we asked for it in a line item budget,

[1:42:54] too.

[1:42:54] And that request has been ignored.

[1:42:55] How is that corrupt?

[1:42:59] I want to be clear about this -- that is our job,

[1:43:02] as commissioners.

[1:43:03] The county commissioners have a responsibility that cannot be

[1:43:06] ignored.

[1:43:07] We are stewards of the taxpayers' money,

[1:43:13] and when we allocate millions of dollars for a specific purpose,

[1:43:17] we have an obligation to the taxpayers who

[1:43:19] provided that money to make sure that there

[1:43:22] is clarity about where it goes.

[1:43:24] When you spend public money, there

[1:43:26] is no such thing as private finances.

[1:43:29] This board stands united on transparency and clarity

[1:43:33] because it matters.

[1:43:36] We have heard the term certified staff being thrown around a lot

[1:43:42] lately.

[1:43:42] We heard at last budget cycle, too.

[1:43:48] We also heard that paying our teachers

[1:43:52] and that teacher supplement was our number one priority.

[1:43:58] Yet the question is, who does certified staff include?

[1:44:01] We have asked that question.

[1:44:03] But more importantly, who does it exclude?

[1:44:05] Are all teachers certified staff?

[1:44:10] Are all TAs certified staff?

[1:44:13] I think we are going to find that the answer is no,

[1:44:15] they aren't.

[1:44:16] Unfortunately, we have a very recent example

[1:44:18] of why that clarity that I just mentioned matters.

[1:44:21] You see, last year the county and UCPS

[1:44:28] had a significant disagreement over what was meant by that term

[1:44:31] certified staff.

[1:44:32] The county, meaning this board, believed

[1:44:35] that it was providing an additional supplement

[1:44:37] for our classroom teachers.

[1:44:42] UCPS interpreted that differently

[1:44:43] to include other certified employees,

[1:44:45] and our TAs didn't get anything.

[1:44:49] And this isn't the only example.

[1:44:52] And you can call that or the proposed interlocal agreement

[1:44:57] manufactured mistrust all you want, and you can even yell,

[1:45:07] they have the money.

[1:45:08] But it doesn't change the fundamental question.

[1:45:10] Why is it unreasonable to have a written agreement,

[1:45:13] when millions of taxpayer dollars are involved?

[1:45:21] Is it trust, or is it pride?

[1:45:23] A written agreement isn't the opposite of trust.

[1:45:25] IT govern -- that is how governments create clarity.

[1:45:32] It's how we make sure that everyone understands

[1:45:34] what was agreed upon and that we are all on the same page.

[1:45:40] It's how we prevent disagreements

[1:45:43] later about the money and what it was intended to accomplish.

[1:45:49] And they are commonly done, by the way.

[1:45:52] Tonight we passed two of them on our consent agenda alone.

[1:45:55] The experience last year demonstrated something

[1:45:58] very important, and that is, when millions of dollars

[1:46:01] are involved, good intentions and verbal assurances

[1:46:03] are not enough.

[1:46:04] That is why the county asked for that interlocal agreement

[1:46:07] this year.

[1:46:08] And here's one of the most important parts.

[1:46:13] Supporting teachers and demanding accountability

[1:46:15] are not mutually exclusive.

[1:46:16] We can, and we should do better.

[1:46:20] The Board of Education ultimately rejected

[1:46:23] the interlocal agreement at their August 4th meeting

[1:46:25] and then approved an alternate plan that moved forward with

[1:46:30] compensation increases in the way of supplement increases

[1:46:34] for our teachers.

[1:46:34] And I am glad that our teachers are

[1:46:36] going to receive some supplement increases this year,

[1:46:39] but it still leaves the question, why couldn't we

[1:46:43] have both?

[1:46:45] Why?

[1:46:46] Why does UCPS look at cutting traffic directors to save,

[1:46:49] I don't know, $200,000, and leave millions on the table

[1:46:53] for teachers and TAs, if that is truly your number one goal?

[1:47:01] If paying teachers is your number one goal,

[1:47:03] why couldn't teachers and teacher assistants

[1:47:05] receive supplement increases and the County School board,

[1:47:09] and most importantly, the taxpayer have

[1:47:11] a clear, written agreement regarding taxpayer dollars being

[1:47:17] used to fund them?

[1:47:20] That's not unreasonable.

[1:47:21] That's responsible government.

[1:47:23] So if asking for accountability is called manufactured mistrust,

[1:47:28] I will respectfully disagree.

[1:47:31] If wanting to receive the receipts is called corruption,

[1:47:35] I will respectfully disagree.

[1:47:37] And if a written agreement is called a dictatorship,

[1:47:40] I will respectfully disagree with that, too,

[1:47:46] because accountability isn't tyranny.

[1:47:48] It is how government that is truly for the people

[1:47:51] is operated.

[1:47:53] And asking questions about taxpayer money

[1:47:56] doesn't mean that you don't support teachers

[1:47:58] or our public education system.

[1:48:02] We can support our teachers, and we can support our schools,

[1:48:05] and we can still be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars,

[1:48:08] and we don't have to choose between the two.

[1:48:10] Ultimately, this discussion, whether that

[1:48:15] is interlocal agreement or anything else,

[1:48:17] this isn't about Brian Helms or Chairman.

[1:48:29] It certainly isn't about the members

[1:48:30] of this board who previously served

[1:48:32] on the Board of Education.

[1:48:33] These members are assets to our board.

[1:48:35] I'm glad to serve with them.

[1:48:37] It's not about any individual commissioner or school board

[1:48:42] member.

[1:48:43] What this is about -- it is about doing the right thing

[1:48:46] for Union County as a whole.

[1:48:47] And sometimes, doing the right thing isn't easy.

[1:48:52] I will leave you with a statement.

[1:48:57] I will never apologize for asking government

[1:48:59] to be transparent and accountable to the people who

[1:49:02] pay the bill.

[1:49:05] That concludes my comments tonight.

[1:49:08] Again, thank you to all of our staff members.

[1:49:12] Thank you to our board.

[1:49:14] I appreciate all of your efforts.

[1:49:15] With that, I will make a motion to adjourn.

[1:49:18] All those in favor of the motion, say aye.

Board of Commissioners on 2026-08-17 6:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript