>> Regular meeting of the Union County Board of Commissioners
to order.
At this time I will provide the invocation.
If you are so inclined, please join me in prayer.
Dear Heavenly Father Lord we want
to thank you for all of your blessings
all of your blessings on our nation, our state, and also
our county.
Lord, as we look to make decisions tonight as a body,
as a group here, we ask for your guidance
and your wisdom concerning the items for discussion tonight.
We want to thank you again for all of your blessings.
We ask that you direct us as you see fit.
In Jesus name we pray.
Amen.
Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The next item on our agenda is informal comments
from the community.
And I have got two individuals that have signed up
to provide informal comments.
Each speaker must address the board from the lectern
and begin their remarks by giving their name,
stating whether they are a resident of Union County,
and indicating the municipality within which they reside,
if any.
Each speaker will have three minutes to make remarks.
A tone may sound at the conclusion of your remarks.
A speaker may not yield any of his or her time
to another speaker.
The speakers may not discuss matters
which are the subject of public hearings,
and they must be courteous in their language and presentation.
Restatements or repetitive comments by the same speaker,
whether at the same or separate meetings,
may be ruled out of order and terminated by the chair.
Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Speakers may leave written comments
and/or supporting documents, if any, with the clerk.
Our first speaker tonight is John Earley.
>> Good evening, commissioners.
I have this shirt on that says, "do not Meck with my union."
There's a company called Tiptoeing,
and they are located in Charlotte North Carolina.
Their address is 114 East 28th Street, Charlotte,
North Carolina.
They are coming over to Union County and finding people that
they think are illegally parked and towing their vehicles up
to their lot in Charlotte, which is in what they call --
and citizens of Union County are having to go to Charlotte
and pay well over $1,000 to get their vehicles back.
This is unacceptable.
Does Union County not have towing companies?
Why is a Charlotte towing company coming to Union County
and towing vehicles back to Charlotte?
Have they got law enforcement privileges
that we don't know about?
Is this anything you all can address?
I mean, don't meck with my Union.
They are doing it.
And nobody wants to do anything about it.
Somebody needs to do something about it.
I don't know.
I don't know if you all can do anything about it
or if the state legislator has to do anything about it.
What's next?
Is it Sheriff McFadden going to send his deputies
across the county line to arrest Union County citizens?
I don't think the Sheriff would appreciate that.
The citizens of Union County don't appreciate towing
companies --
I have seen them at work.
I have seen them.
When I am working, I drive around and deliver auto parts
part time.
When I am working, I've seen them operate.
They have scouts they send out.
They tag cars.
They call their buddies on the tow truck,
and they come pick them up.
They don't have the name of the company on the tow truck.
I've seen this happen, in person.
I slowed down and take a look at it.
They looked at me like they wanted to hit me or something.
Is there something you can do about this --
if there is something you could do about this, please do.
It has got to be addressed.
It is unacceptable.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, John.
Our next speaker tonight is Madeline Beal --
Bile.
Sorry about that.
>> I get it.
My name is Madeline.
I'm a resident of Union County.
I live in Monroe.
I would actually like to discuss Monroe.
Last week at Monroe City Council meeting,
they discussed concerns around the homeless population
that gathers around the community shelter.
I do agree that there are legitimate concerns,
but the majority of the discussion
centered around how to make things better
for the residents at the nearby luxury apartments that
were built four years after the community shelter and less
around what to do to help the Disenfranchized.
They discussed it as a problem to get rid of and not
a community to aid.
These are members of our community
that have nowhere to go when the shelter is at capacity.
The average monthly rent in Union County is $1,800,
but the average SSI check is only $900.
While the community shelter is in Monroe,
they serve Union County.
Affordable housing or addiction treatment
are not one community's challenge.
I would like to implore the county commissioners to speak
with Monroe City Council to see how we can work together to find
a way to help these individuals in the long run
and not to just brush the problem under the rug.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
So that concludes all of the speakers
that had signed up to speak.
Is there anyone from the audience
that would like to provide informal comment?
Seeing none, we will move on to our next agenda item.
So the next two items on our agenda
are public hearings, one for a text amendment to the Union
Development Ordinance and one for the designation
of county owned property as economic development property.
Before opening the first public hearing,
I will read the rules that will apply for each
of these public hearings.
Each speaker must address the board from the lectern
and begin the remarks by giving their name,
stating whether they are residents of Union County,
and indicating which municipality within they reside,
if any.
Each speaker will have three minutes to make remarks.
A tone may sound at the conclusion of your remarks.
A speaker may not yield any of his or her time to another.
Speakers shall limit their remarks
to the subject of the public hearing.
Speakers may leave written comments
and/or supporting documents, if any, with the clerk
to the board.
The first public hearing tonight on our agenda is item 26-412,
for text amendments to sections 25.010, table of allowed uses,
25.020, other use category, 30.210, data centers,
and 30.220, crypto mining operations of the Union County
Development Ordinance.
I will now recognize Lee Jensen, planning director, for comments
from staff.
Welcome.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, as you stated, this is a text amendment
to the Unified Development Ordinance of the Union County.
Really, it is about putting some guardrails in place
for the emerging uses of -- we call them data centers.
I will be brief.
It's really just one slide here.
This covers data centers and crypto mining operations.
So this text amendment -- data centers will be allowed
as a special use in heavy industrial with supplemental
standards but also provides definitions of what data centers
and crypto mining operations are.
And I believe those text amendments were
included in your agenda packet.
You should have those.
And then the supplemental standards for both data
centers and crypto mining operations
is kind of broken up into two separate sections here.
There's some standards for both, then
there's some separate standards for just crypto mining.
So the supplemental standards for both
would cover things like setbacks, landscaping, lighting,
noise.
There would be a pre-construction sound study
required, and then any subsequent noise
that would be above that would have to be mitigated.
Backup power generation, such as generators,
would be for temporary use only.
Utility capacity would have to have something from water sewer,
and electrical providers saying they
could handle the increased capacity
that's coming from the use of those data centers.
And then they would have to have some decommissioning plans.
So what's going to happen if this thing goes away?
How are we going to return the site to pre-development type
condition, or as close to pre-development condition
as they can get?
And then some supplemental standards for crypto mining
operations -- have to be in a fully enclosed building,
can't be in a containerized outdoor structure,
unless that meets the building code.
It containerized structure is like a -- oh, man,
I just lost my train of thought there.
It's like a container, like a shipping container.
Thanks, Patrick.
Again, backup power is for temporary use only,
then electrical provider would have
to provide something saying they can handle that demand.
The general guardrails that kind of for the text amendment.
Heavy industrial, in case you are curious --
two primary areas where heavy industrial are --
Patrick has a GIS map.
I'm going to hijack it here.
First primary area is around the airport.
So this dark blue is heavy industrial.
You can see some -- there's a few spots around along Airport
Road.
The primary area, though, is along gold mine.
Some of this is --
I think some of this is actually county-owned.
It's part of the industrial park.
There are some other parcels that
are next to it that are privately owned.
It's a pretty big chunk there.
Again, some smaller pieces along Airport, a couple
acres here and there.
Then the other primary area is down --
there is another area in an industrial park,
over off of Gribble Road --
Smith farm, sorry.
It's pretty small.
It's about 2.5 acres, I believe.
That's kind of a leftover piece, when the county used
to have that whole area, but it has slowly
been annexed by Stallings and Indian Trail.
That's sort of leftover strip.
But the other primary area is down at Jaars.
So you see, that's the runway right there.
A lot of that area around the runway
is zoned Heavy industrial.
That is all owned by JAARS.
So any existing heavy industrial piece,
if this text amendment were to pass,
would require a special use permit.
Any piece that wasn't zoned heavy industrial, of course,
would be a rezoning that would come to you for approval.
Likely in the form of a conditional rezoning with all
of the special use items in place
so you could either approve it or deny it.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you.
Do you have the text amendment?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Because I think there was a couple of things that maybe we
had some questions about or wanted to look at a little bit
further.
While you are pulling that up, I'm going to open the floor.
I do not have anyone signed up to speak on this public hearing,
but I do want to open the floor for the public.
So if there is anyone in the audience that
would like to speak regarding this item, please come forward.
Okay.
>> (Inaudible comment)
>> I'm sorry.
You need to approach the lectern.
>> Do we have any open requests, or is this precautionary?
>> Any other comments from the public?
Okay, thank you.
Board, any questions?
>> You may or may not know the answers to the question
I'm going to ask you, and I'm going to expose my ignorance
on data centers.
But the typical footprint of a data center --
>> They can range from just really big to, now,
some of the technology is -- can be relatively small.
There is really no one size fits all data center.
It used to be that they were pretty large
and required a lot of water and a lot of electricity.
But now some of the technology is switching over to some
smaller sort of --
I guess smaller but more of them data centers in certain spots
and actually using some different technologies
to help cool and power.
There's not a one size fits all.
>> Okay.
So water usage -- that was going to be my next question.
Do they use a large amount of water?
>> They can.
Again, some of the technology is changing,
and there's different technologies out there.
That is a way to cool those data centers.
These are a bunch of big -- it's a room with a bunch of servers
in it.
So they get really hot.
Use a lot of energy.
And they have to have some way to cool those things down.
Water is a really easy, cheap way to do it.
But a lot of them --
I'll be honest with you calm off the top of my head,
I can't remember what the technologies are called.
But there are kind -- kind of like coolant in your car.
There's other ways to cool those data centers down
that are coming out.
But water is a big one, and the ones that use water can --
some of them can use quite a bit.
>> So is it a self-contained system that Rrecirculates, or --
Recirculates, or is it released into the environment?
>> That is what a lot of the ones that use water are
switching to is that it is self-contained and keeps cycling
through.
Eventually has to be cycled out, though.
It can't stay in there forever.
But some of them do -- again, when it does dump,
whether that is over a long period of time or a short period
of time, it either gets put into a septic system,
or it gets put into the municipal sewer system.
>> Is it considered hazardous waste at that point?
>> I don't know if it's considered fully hazardous
or not, but there is some not so good stuff in there.
>> The noise level around a data center --
is it a noisy neighbor?
>> That's one of those that has been out there for debate.
I have listened to a lot of hearings and watched a lot of --
or read a lot of comments that people have given.
They are kind of divided.
Some people say that it's kind of a background noise,
that it is not loud, but it is just -- it is louder,
and it is very aggravating.
Some people say it is very loud.
Some people say they can't hear it at all.
I think it may depend on the individual.
But that is why part of what we have in here
is that sound study to essentially say,
you have to do a pre-development sound
study to establish a baseline.
What is the baseline where you are today?
And if that data center would increase the sound out there,
then you have got to mitigate that.
>> Do they use an enormous amount of power?
>> They can, yes, sir.
In fact, some of the new technology
are sort of micro nuclear plants that they are talking
about to power some of them.
But the ones that hook into the grid, yeah,
they can use a lot of power.
>> Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Lee, thanks for the work you put in.
I appreciate it.
Just a couple of areas I'd like to see address to, if possible.
The commissioner just mentioned noise.
Can we address low frequency noise,
the noise that we just don't hear within the ear,
and ensure that that low vibration that emanates from
data centers -- that we measure that and make sure that
the setbacks are appropriate?
>> Yeah, we could research that.
We did have some setbacks --
I didn't point them out.
There they are on your screens, some minimum site design
standards.
They would have to be 100ft away from property lines and 500ft
away from any residential zoning districts or lots with existing
dwellings and then 1000ft from schools, daycares,
assisted living, or similar congregate care type facilities.
I didn't say that before, so I just wanted you to see that.
>> If you could research on --
I found that there are three counties that have setbacks that
are farther than 100ft or 1000ft, even.
So MacOn County has a one mile setback
from residences and public schools,
and Cherokee County has a one mile separation
also from residences, churches, and educational facilities.
Henderson actually has a two mile buffer.
Just one other item, the amendment clause --
we have two years.
Could we maybe make it one year?
And I don't know if it's possible,
but to have a decommissioning bond,
get some money up front in case they do --
it does need to be decommissioned.
Just one other thing --
I was asked recently --
I know some other municipalities are implementing moratoriums
on data centers.
That's great for them.
I mean, it gives them an opportunity
to adopt an ordinance that is beneficial to their residents.
I just want to mention that you have been working
on this for a while, and really no need for us
to have a moratorium.
I appreciate the work you have put in.
We are pretty much there.
>> Appreciate that.
You said MacOn, Henderson, and what was the third?
>> Cherokee.
>> Lee, I've got a couple things, too.
I agree with the commissioner here that -- first of all,
I was glad to see that the study was being required.
As I was looking through the text amendment,
I think that that's something that's obviously important.
My question was -- because we start talking about sound
mitigation and that it would have to be required,
depending on the results of the sound study.
And I'm paraphrasing here a little bit.
My question is, how specific can we get with this?
Is there a way to define what sound mitigation measures would
be appropriate?
Are we getting too far into the weeds for a text amendment?
I guess what I'm trying to say is,
and my professional work, more specificity is a good thing.
And so I'm thinking maybe that perhaps we
should spell out what would be the appropriate sound mitigation
measures.
>> You could either spell it out,
or you could give examples within the ordinance to help
maybe steer somebody in a certain direction.
When I think of sound mitigation,
the two primary ways you can do it is, one is -- well, three.
One is through setbacks and.
You just keep increasing those setbacks.
Two is through vegetation.
If you have increased setbacks and buffers,
you can achieve some sound mitigation there.
Three is some way within the building.
You have acoustical walls that you put in the building
to help buffer that sound.
Those are the three primary ways that I have seen.
I think if we are going to steer somebody in a certain direction,
those are probably the three ways we would do it.
>> It was just a thought.
I don't know if there's a way that we could specify that
or not.
The other thing is the setbacks.
I tend to agree.
I'd like to see us maybe research more on that 500 foot
minimum setback from residential zoning districts.
I understand that we need to be cognizant of our county
and what we are dealing with here in Union County.
But at the same time, I would prefer
to see a higher number there.
Now, whether that number is 750ft, whether it's 1000ft --
but if we could do some additional research there
regarding minimum setbacks from residents.
But I think this is a good first step.
I'm glad that we are discussing this because, as of right now,
we have nothing in our UDO that identifies data centers.
So I think this is a good step for our board to take,
and I certainly appreciate your reference in this.
any other questions or comments for Lee, feedback?
Thank you, Lee.
I will now close the public hearing.
The second public hearing is item 24-464,
and that is for designation of county owned property
as economic development property.
I will open the public hearing and recognize --
am I recognizing Patrick?
>> I was trying to get him reset.
>> I'm going to recognize Patrick calm at the deputy
County manager, for comments from staff.
>> Thank you.
I've got to undo what Lee did to me here for a second.
Okay.
Thank you.
Back in early 2025, at the board authorized
us to purchase 27 acres through two pieces of property.
This was just north of the bypass in the town of Winget.
We have worked over the last year
to annex that into the city limits of Winget.
We have also got that rezoned from an R-40
to a light industrial to allow us
to try to attract both industrial and commercial
develop around that interchange.
We are asking the board to designate
this land for economic development purposes.
It was not done when we purchased it,
so we are going back to try to get you to authorize that use.
This is a chance to give the public a chance
to comment on that request.
>> Thank you, Patrick.
Okay, once again, I have no speakers signed up
for this public hearing.
I will now open the floor, if there's
anyone in the audience that would like to make comments.
Seeing none comment any questions for Patrick
from the board?
All right.
Thank you, Patrick.
I will now close the public hearing.
The next item on our agenda is item 26-440,
recognize lifesaver Award recipients.
I will now again recognize deputy County Manager Patrick
Niland for brief comments concerning this item.
>> We are here tonight to recognize two of our Union
County Sheriff's deputies for some life saving actions.
On Sunday April 5th, 2026 at approximately 3:00 AM,
Union County Sheriff deputies responded to a --
deputies Paul Garcia and Jason Frazier arrived nearly
simultaneously before firefighters and a large portion
of the home was engulfed in flames.
As they ran toward the home, they
heard a woman screaming for help from the window
in the opposite side.
Without hesitation, the deputies broke the window
and created an opening large enough
to safely remove the woman from the burning home.
They placed her in a patrol vehicle
and remained with her until emergency personnel arrived.
Unfortunately, there was another individual
in the house that did not make it out
and succumbed to that fire.
But there is no doubt this woman is alive because of these two
deputies.
Every day, our employees are put in positions
and they deliver over and over again.
We couldn't be more proud.
I would like to ask, Sheriff Cathey,
do you have any words you want to share?
>> Come on up, Sheriff.
>> Thank you, Patrick.
I just want to say, I am proud to be
the Sheriff of Union County and the place
that is appropriate for us to live.
And these officers -- they don't get that from training.
That's because they know the difference
between right and wrong and did not
hesitate to move forward and do the job that we
are out there every day to do.
I just say how proud I am of them,
and I am proud of the county and our commissioners
and the support they have given us
to be able to move forward in all the things
that we do here in the county.
This is just a big part of it.
We are proud of you.
We are proud of them.
>> Thank you, Sheriff.
>> If you all could join me in congratulating and thanking
the two deputies for their actions.
[Applause]
>> You don't get out of getting up front.
[Laughter]
[Applause]
>> Thank you again, folks.
Congratulations.
Thank you for what you did for us.
Our next agenda item is item 26-458.
That is information technology earns National top five ranking
and Achievement award.
I will recognize John Amelio, information Director --
or Information Technology Director --
for brief comments on this item.
Welcome, John.
>> Thank you.
Congratulations, again.
Good evening, chairman Helms, vice chair Holmes,
commissioners, and County -- vice chair Helms,
commissioners comment and County manager.
It is my pleasure tonight to share innovative work happening
across Union County.
I'm proud to announce that Union County has been ranked fourth
in the nation in the 2026 Digital County Survey among
counties with populations between 250,000 and 500,000.
There are two things that make this recognition especially
meaningful.
First off, this is the eighth year in a row
that Union County has finished in the top ten nationally,
and secondly, this is the highest ranking
we have ever received since moving into a larger population
category.
In fact, Union County continues to be the smallest county
in this category, not only in population, but in budget,
as well, making this recognition even more significant.
The Digital County survey conducted
by the center for Digital Government
and the Association of Counties, also known as NAACO,
recognizes counties that are using technology
and how they serve residents.
This year, the judge's specifically
recognized our focus on collaboration,
including regular meetings with departments
to discuss technology, governance, cybersecurity,
and emerging technologies.
They also highlighted our major approach to artificial
intelligence, including sprout --
that is our AI-powered website assistance.
Thanks to Liz and her team -- our phase Microsoft Copilot
Studio initiative, and our AI acceptable use guidelines.
A GIS team was also identified for completing UC Atlas, which
is our new online mapping and property platform, which
is making it easier for residents and staff
to access information about property, infrastructure,
zoning utilities, and more.
I want to emphasize, the technology
doesn't create these accomplishments.
It is the people that do.
This recognition reflects the outstanding work
of our cybersecurity team, our GIS team, infrastructure
and tech supports teams, as well as the many departments
throughout the county that embrace technology and work
collaboratively with IT.
I want to specifically thank our partners
at PC, Strategy and Innovation, Human services, library,
and the Fire Marshal's Office for contributing
their accomplishments to the Digital County Survey
submission.
Most importantly, a big thanks to you all,
the board, and county management, for your leadership,
support, and willingness to invest
in technology and innovation.
Our goal isn't to win awards.
Our goal is to use technology to make
Union County more efficient, accessible, and better able
to serve our residents.
I'm very proud of our IT team and the work ethic
and terribly proud to lead them.
I would like to ask our team members in attendance
to come on up.
Van Dale is our operations manager.
Elizabeth is our business manager.
Sally is our GIS analyst.
Brett is our project manager.
I want to thank all of them.
[Applause]
>> It is now time for consideration of any changes
to our agenda.
We have at least two brief edits to the agenda this evening.
We can take a vote on both of them together, I believe.
Is that right?
Thank you.
Staff has requested we add the following action item 26-433 --
that is bid Award and construction contract Union
County Group home renovation -- to adopt capital project
ordinance number 319A and Capital Project ordinance number
400.
This is on our consent agenda, I believe, for tonight.
And a copy of the revised action requested in the CPOs
has been displayed on the screens here in the room.
Each of the commissioners should have
a copy of the CPOs requested for adoption at your seats.
The second item is, at staff's request,
we've been asked to remove item 26-492,
and that is the EMS station discussion from
tonight's business agenda, for discussion at a future meeting.
Is there a motion to approve both revisions
to the agenda, as proposed?
>> I will make a motion that we approve as amended.
>> Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
We have a motion.
All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Are there any additional motions regarding revisions
or amendments to either the consent or the business agenda?
Okay.
Is there a motion to approve the items listed
on consent, as amended?
>> I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda
as amended.
>> Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
So now we are at the business portion of our agenda.
The first item for business is item 26-500,
a discussion regarding a cost of Community Services study.
I will again recognize Lee Jenson, planning director,
for brief comments concerning this item.
Welcome back.
We missed you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So this will be a pretty brief presentation,
but maybe some discussion regarding this item, too.
I believe County Manager Matthews
asked me to place this item on the agenda
to have some discussion around cost of community services
studies.
So what is a cost of community services study?
They are used to determine fiscal contribution of existing
local land uses.
Essentially what they do is they put agricultural land
on equal ground with residential, commercial,
and industrial.
They are a snapshot in time, and it
doesn't help you predict future costs or revenues or anything
like that.
It's just a snapshot.
But they are really used to help local officials make
informed land use decisions.
How do you go about doing one of these studies?
You collect your data on local revenues and expenditures.
That essentially comes from your budget.
Already got that information.
Group that data together and allocate them
to community's major land use categories.
Most of these studies, they group these categories around
residential, business or commercial --
they call them different things -- and agriculture.
And then they calculate revenue to expenditure ratios
for each land use category.
And that's pretty much it.
It's a pretty straightforward study.
The difficult part is grouping that data
around those particular land use categories, because you have got
to get in and dig in to the different departments
and figure out, okay, well, how should we
allocate those as revenues and those as expenditures?
The slide -- I know you have got a couple in your agenda pack,
maybe 1 or 2 that were sent to you by email.
But the county actually did one back in 2004.
And that was done by Jeffrey Dorfman.
I think at the time, he was in the University of Georgia.
Now he is at North Carolina State University.
He is still doing these.
What it found in 2004 was that, for every dollar
in expenditures, residential returned $0.77.
Commercial and industrial -- they were grouped together --
that returned $2.44, and AG returned $4.13.
The county's example --
I think the two recent ones from North Carolina
were the ones that you received.
Those were Johnston and Wake Counties.
Wake also did a breakdown such as this.
I don't think Johnston did.
But Union County, back in 2004, the average break even value
for a home, what the home had to be valued at to essentially
break even on that residential --
on that expenditure versus revenue side was $204,000.
I just threw these two bullets in here
because I thought they were interesting.
Then it went further and they started looking at, will,
what if the -- well, what if the home has kids?
Back in 2004, the average break even for a two child home was
$667,000.
I don't have these in the slide, but I
looked at Johnston and Wake's, and their ratios
for every dollar in revenue for residential,
for every dollar in revenue, the county spends $1.43.
For commercial, for every dollar, they spend $0.23.
And then for every dollar in revenue for ag,
they spend $0.81.
>> Will you repeat the last line?
>> So for every dollar that the county receives in revenue,
they spend $0.81.
Wake -- again, very similar.
For residential, for every dollar of revenue
the county spent $1.09.
Then for ag, it was $0.24 was what they spent.
For commercial, it was $0.08.
It seems to be that, on some of these more recent studies,
it is kind of flipped.
The older ones like this, ag and commercial, they both --
if you want to look at it that way, they both made money.
The ag was a little bit more.
It seems like it has flipped a little bit in favor
of the commercial, but they are still the revenue generators,
and the residential is not.
These are relatively --
I want to say cheap studies to do.
They are not very expensive.
There is a number of firms in North Carolina that do them.
Again, I think that Dr. Dorfman still does a few.
There's a couple of consulting firms
that I know of that do them.
There's another group out of Mount Olive University
that does them, too.
I will be happy to answer any questions about those
or take any further direction from the board.
>> So Lee, I have got some comments.
I have been waiting for this one right
here for a long time because it has been a long time coming.
I'm glad that you brought up the --
I think it was the '04 study?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Because that has been 22 years now.
A lot of things have changed, I'm sure,
since that study was done.
I'm glad that you brought up the results of the Wake study
in the Johnston County study, because I had notes
on that, too.
I don't want this point to get lost,
because you mentioned this, and you said that the Johnston
County -- understand, Johnston County is a much similar,
much better comparison to Union County than what Wake County
would be, as far as size, population,
and a number of other socio economic factors.
If you look, they broke it down, and they
looked at residential, commercial, then agriculture.
What they are doing is they are comparing,
and they are saying, for every $1 of ad valorem
tax revenue that comes into, in this case, Johnston County,
for every $1 that you are paying out
$1.43 in the cost of services.
So that's not paying for itself.
Obviously, we have known for quite some time
that residential growth does not pay for itself in terms of cost
to serve, because there's a number of things that have to be
funded to serve that residence.
So you have got schools, for example.
Public schools is a big one.
You have got sheriff's deputies.
You've got fire.
You've got EMS.
We have to have those services in.
You can make the case that residential
is taking out of the bucket more than what they are putting in.
If you compare that to, say, commercial,
at least the Johnston studies showed
that, for every $1 that that is bringing in in ad valorem
tax revenue, they are spending out $0.23.
Agriculture -- you mentioned this --
$1 ad valorem tax revenue, $0.81,
as far as the expenses or the costs to serve.
Again, I don't want that to get lost because, right now,
we are sitting --
this board has made numerous comments about this,
but we are sitting at at least 90% residential.
I mean, we are teetering probably 90% residential
and then 10% everything else.
It's just my opinion, but I don't
feel as though that trajectory is sustainable.
It's not sustainable for the people that we serve.
It's not sustainable for taxpayers,
because essentially what we are saying
is, 90% of all the taxes being paid are coming from the people.
We need to diversify that.
I look at this study as an opportunity, an opportunity
for us to get concrete, up to date numbers regarding,
well, Union County specifics.
Where do we match up on residential?
Where do we match up on commercial and agriculture?
We know that commercial and agriculture are probably
going to be in the black.
But we also know that we are losing, as far as residential
is concerned.
So we have to diversify.
And I think that it is important for the board to consider doing
the study, and I think it is more important that we consider
doing it -- or getting that study performed by a third
party, instead of doing something in-house,
because I think that if we have a third party come in and do
an independent study, then that takes away any kind of question
about any kind of improprieties that may have taken place here.
I think that, number one, is very important.
The fellow that did the study -- and I can't remember his name,
but I think he probably made a wise decision moving from
Georgia to NC State.
What I will say is, doing this study has got at least three
benefits -- at least three.
Number one, to your point -- you mentioned this --
the study can certainly help the county in making decisions
regarding land use decisions and things of that nature.
That's benefit number one.
But I think, too, that this also provides us
an opportunity to offer some benefit
to our municipal partners.
And the reason why I say that is because many municipalities --
there are some exceptions, but many municipalities,
they don't have things like utilities or --
I mean, they are not paying for school systems.
Some municipalities, I think, are
more apt to look at a residential project
and look at it and say, okay, we are
going to press forward with this residential project,
regardless of the cost, because that
is putting bottom line into our coffers
with ad valorem tax revenue.
But I think there's a tendency to ignore the cost to serve.
When folks make the decisions to do things like that,
it is still the people that we all serve that pay the bill.
In short, we are all subsidizing growth.
We are all subsidizing residential growth.
And that's what this study is showing
is the amount that we are subsidizing.
So you might get two separate bills
if you live in a municipality.
But bottom line is, you are still paying it.
I think the second benefit is with municipal partners.
We can show exactly what that cost to serve is.
And maybe we can foster better collaboration
with an overall vision for the county that would
include those municipalities.
The third thing is, I think that this provides us benefit when
we discuss things with our state delegation, so our state
legislature.
I think this is going to give us those hard numbers,
and I think we need those numbers, too --
let me clarify -- because what we have seen in recent years,
all of us on this board have seen these bills, growth bills,
like House Bill 765, for example,
and there has been many others where it has tried
to incentivize residential construction throughout --
all throughout the state.
And so I think it's important that we have this information so
that, in our discussions with our state legislators,
we can provide them with the information and have,
well, a lot more ammunition at our disposal to make our case.
So one question I had is, is there a way --
I'm sure that we can, because I just
assumed that what we would be doing
is going to be similar to Johnston, the Johnston study
that was in our agenda packet.
I'm good with that.
But I also -- and this may be an additional cost,
but I would like to explore defining that break-even point,
as we did in '04.
I would like to know what the current break even point
is, so if we can inquire about something about that.
Is there any other questions or comments for Lee?
>> I have a question.
How long would it take to complete the study?
>> It really depends on the consultant.
I know Wake County, and talking with them,
it took their consultant about a year to complete their study.
They had some issues.
I don't think Johnston's took quite that long.
I think that would be probably something
we would put in place, if we put together a scope of work,
we would want it done within a certain period of time.
>> Any other questions or comments for Lee?
>> Just out of curiosity, what all would be revealed in this
study?
Would we actually get, like I see in 2004,
the price of the home with the family with two children,
the break even is $667,000, which seems crazy to me
for 2004.
Would we get that figure, along with the figures
like you just quoted us for Johnston County, the residential
compared to the commercial compared to ag?
>> I believe the Wake County study included some of those
break even points in.
So that is a possibility to get.
>> Thank you.
>> Just one quick question for you.
So the chairman mentioned that we sit at roughly 90%
residential to 10% everything else.
I have heard experts say a healthy ratio is
70%, 30%, 60%, 40%.
In your opinion, where do you think we should be sitting?
>> That's a loaded question.
A lot of it depends on philosophy and where
you want to go as a county.
There's probably places that would be fine at 90/10.
It's really your sort of choice as to which way you want to go.
I would say that 70/30, 60/40 ratio is probably in the sweet
spot.
>> The hardest thing is to move the needle when you are 90/10.
You can add a significant amount of investment for commercial
and you are only going to move that needle a little bit.
To get to 70/30 is going to take a long time and a lot of land
use decisions to get there.
But I would agree with Lee.
It is probably in that 70/30, 60/40 range.
I think that is an aspiration, but something that's going
to take a long , long time.
>> Anything else for Lee?
Lee, where do we stand right now?
At this point, have we identified, then, aside from --
do we have a list of folks that we can contact,
maybe that did the Johnston study and the Wake study,
or perhaps this individual that did our previous study?
Well, probably the Wake study would
be more appropriate since it has got a break-even point.
>> I'm sure the folks who did the Johnston study can do that.
Once you do the first part and group
the revenues and expenditures by land use, the rest of it
just kind of falls into place.
I'm sure they can do it, too.
>> So what would be our next steps, then,
if the board wanted to proceed?
Should we develop a scope of work?
>> I think we develop a scope of work and get maybe 3 or 4
different providers and get some costs.
>> Okay.
Well, I'm willing to make that motion.
I will make the motion to direct staff
to develop the costs or the scope of work
for a third party or independent study
to be performed for the cost of community services in Union
County.
That would include residential, commercial, and agriculture,
as well as the residential break-even point,
as we saw in the wake study, and also
direct staff to bring us back costs and options for the study.
Does that cover it?
>> It does.
You mentioned scope of work, in addition to costs,
and I assume all the other terms and conditions
that might be necessary in those agreements?
>> Yes, sir.
That would be correct.
I would include other terms and conditions in that motion.
>> I am here on behalf of the terms and conditions.
>> Thank you, sir.
There is a motion.
Any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
Thank you, Lee.
All right, it is your night to night, Lee.
Our next item is 26-four seven, discussion regarding minor
subdivision.
Once again, welcome, Lee.
>> This is an update.
Back in -- I think it was November or December of last
year, you asked me to work with the Land Use board to come back
with some recommendations on the minor subdivision process.
Kind of everything was on the table.
So really, took a deep dive on three separate items.
One was a discussion of the definition of lot in section
105.130, discussion of the minor versus major lot threshold
and the parent parcel date, and the idea of a family subdivision
exception.
I'll get my notes here.
So the first item that the Land Use Board undertook
was this idea of definition of lot.
The issue there is sort of this second, really long sentence
that's highlighted.
The first part is pretty straightforward.
It's a parcel of land whose boundaries
have been established by some legal instrument.
However, that second kind of highlighted text there says,
public body with the authority of eminent domain basically puts
a road through a piece of property ,
and it effectively can't be used as one piece, then,
for the purposes of the development ordinance,
it is two lots.
The The reason that is important is,
when we start getting into some other sections
on talking about what that means and how you develop property,
then, essentially, it becomes two sort of parent parcels,
if you will.
And the way that kind of carries over into minor subdivisions
is, today, a minor subdivision is two eight lots out
of a parent parcel.
You take this definition into account,
and you have an existing road that --
or it could be a new road that dot --
DOT built, but most of the it's an existing that splits a parent
parcel, then you could essentially do 16 --
it's one road.
You could do 16 lots, eight on one side, eight on the other.
That was the idea here it was to amend this to do away
with that second sentence.
It wouldn't say that somebody couldn't develop their property.
They could just -- it would just be a major subdivision,
at that point.
If they want to do more lots, it would
be a major instead of a minor.
But we took this to the land use board.
We had a lot of discussion over several different meetings,
and ultimately, the land use board's consensus
was to keep the definition as is, to not change it.
I wanted to bring that back and give you their update.
I am also here to take any direction you
might give as far as any text amendments
you might want to see.
I will stop at the lot before I move on to the next one,
if there's any discussion around that.
>> Any questions or comments for Lee?
>> One comment -- and full disclosure, Lee,
I challenged Lee with this situation earlier today.
I found a parcel of land that is divided by two roads.
I said, so, in this situation -- we pulled up the parcel --
how many lots could be put on this parcel before it is
considered a major subdivision?
And that number is 24.
We are not perfectly locked in at 16
under the current definition.
>> That's correct.
>> You know, we have had a lot of discussion about this
definition, and Lee, I appreciate the explanation
and you kind of pointing this out,
about how important this definition is,
because, to your point, this definition is going to affect
things that we are fixing to talk about with other aspects
of minors.
But bottom line is, we define a minor currently as eight lots
or less, correct?
>> Correct.
>> What this sentence does that is in bold right here,
it essentially creates a loophole.
It's a legal loophole, where you can
have essentially, in the case that the commissioner just
brought up, you could have 24 homes
that are being built under the minor subdivision rules.
Correct?
>> That's right.
>> I mean, I guess when we previously talked about it,
I always had 16 in my head, because we have got a, and you
think eight on one side and -- got a road,
and you think eight on one side and eight on the other.
But that's a lot.
I think at some point, we have to sit here and say, okay, well,
the definition of a minor subdivision,
as it stands today, currently, is eight lots or less.
Why are we allowing, in this case, 24,
under the same rules as -- and the rules are different to.
The requirements for minors are different to.
There's going to be differences there with all kinds
of different things.
Lee, you can probably speak to it
right off the top of your head, but I'm
thinking buffers and setbacks and all kinds of requirements
there.
I think, at some point, we have to understand that eight lots
or less is a minor, and anything above that,
anything above that threshold -- we have got more to talk about
here in a few minutes about threshold.
But anything above that threshold is not a minor.
It is, at that point, a major.
And so I look at this, and my thought
is that we have to clean up this language.
I will open it up for discussion,
but I would be in favor of changing this language
so that it is much more straightforward,
and we have a minor subdivision, and this loophole is closed.
Any comments from the board regarding that?
Thoughts about this particular definition?
>> No.
I'm going to be in agreement with you on,
I do believe the language does need
to be cleared up because there's too much fluctuation in it.
What we would describe as a major subdivision and, case
in point, the commissioner's research today showing 24,
and their not having to abide by the same rules and regulations
as other subdivisions.
I think we need to narrow the scope and clean this up,
definitely.
>> It just doesn't seem fair to me that you are getting a major
subdivision with the requirements of a minor
subdivision.
Lee, what do you want to do?
Do you want to take these one at a time and come back to them?
>> I think one at a time would be fine,
or if you want to do it all as one, I'm open.
It might be easier to do them one at a time.
>> We will listen.
I will make that motion that we direct staff to revise
the current definition in our UDO of a lot,
eliminating the language that would allow for a minor
subdivision to exceed --
I'm trying to think about how to word this --
to exceed eight lots on one side of the road and then eight lots
on the other -- how am I doing?
Help me out, here.
>> I think you are doing great.
One thing I might suggest is that,
rather than be tied into changing only the definition
of a lot, that we might be freed to look at some other potential
fixes to close that loophole, if they all arrive at the same
point of eliminating the loophole that allows you to get
more than eight lots per --
>> Okay.
I think that's a good idea.
I think that's probably the wisest thing to do.
I will amend the motion, then, to direct staff
to bring us back strategies for mitigating that situation
where you have lots on both sides of the road that
still constitute a minor.
Is that sufficient?
>> That is sufficient.
One thing that caught my attention, for example,
is that it is a private street that is created.
Anybody can create a private street.
So perhaps there are some other definitions
that we can look at, as well, that
might help us get to the same conclusion
that you are driving at.
>> Thank you.
So we have got a motion on the table.
Any discussion on that motion ?
All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
All right, Mr. Jenson.
>> Next discussion point was the major versus minor lot
threshold.
The question is, is eight lots the right number
for a minor subdivision?
So there's a lot of research that the Land Use
board looked at.
They looked at some data from some other counties
that are sort of comparable to Union County.
And although the Land Use Board did not reach any full consensus
on this, they did have a lot of discussion regarding resetting
the parent parcel date.
I know three of you met --
I don't think you have been part of these discussions.
Parent parcels in Union County go back to February 14th 1978.
That's when sort of the land use ordinance
started regulating parcels of property.
So you can create eight lots out of that lot
that existed in 1978, and that is your minor subdivision.
So the idea about resetting that date is --
1978, it was looked at as a generational thing.
1978 -- that was 48 years ago.
It's been a while.
The thought was to reset that date
to maybe allow some more divisions of those properties
for probably people who just want to do a couple of lots
here and there, maybe for family members,
or maybe just to sell off a couple of lots
to help pay some bills, because a lot of those parcels
have been divided.
They have given lots to two kids.
They gave their lots to two kids,
and they gave their lots to two kids.
You get to eight lots pretty fast.
So the idea of resetting that date
and then having sort of an automatic reset provision
built into the ordinance.
And then sort of the discussion about the number of lots.
So the three -- these are sort of the three motions that were
made in the land use board, all of which failed.
The first one was that, leave it at eight lots,
and reset the parent parcel date every ten years.
The second motion was, minor subdivision with five lots
or less, and the parent parcel reset date
would be every ten years.
I think this last one was sort of maybe a compromise
to say, okay, well, what if we do five lots
and have it reset every seven years?
That failed.
There was a little bit of consensus, maybe,
around five lots, but there was really no agreement
on that reset date.
Again, even the consensus around the five lots --
there were still enough folks that thought it should still be
eight that that didn't make it out of the land use board.
I wanted to provide you discussion around that item
and have you guys weigh in on what you
might want to direct us to do.
>> Thank you, Lee.
Can you speak to, why was the focus in on ten years and seven
years?
Do you recall what the logic from the Land Use Board
was on that?
>> I don't.
I think it was really -- the two and three, going from 10 to 7,
they dropped it to seven because you had enough folks who I think
wanted it to stay at eight, but I think that shorter amount
of time for the reset -- they thought maybe that would make
them comfortable with going down to five.
Obviously, it didn't work.
Yeah, I think that the ten year date was --
I think they were trying to look at it
from a generational standpoint, but also maybe not
going quite as far in.
There was discussion around 15 to 20,
but I think they sort of backed it down to ten.
>> And, see, that's what -- when I first looked at this,
that's what I had in my mind is, if we are talking about
a generational-type reset, most people define a generation as 40
years.
But in something like this, I'm thinking somewhere
in the neighborhood between 20 and 30,
because what you are talking about, a lot of times,
is family land.
So my thought, my initial thought was,
is that, if you have a grandparent who
wants to deed over property to a grandchild,
but eventually, grandma and grandpa are going to pass away,
and then someone is going to inherit their property.
Listen, I don't think there's anybody here
that wants to prohibit families from subdividing
their properties.
That's not the intention here.
But we also can't set up a scenario
that's going to be abused.
And so it's about trying to find the balance,
and I am sure that the Land Use board was struggling with that.
Let me ask you one other thing.
This, I believe, came up the last time we discussed this
on this board.
We sit currently at eight lots, right?
So eight lots and less is a minor subdivision.
I believe, in our previous discussion,
the question was asked, well, what
is the rest of the state do?
I think the answer you gave us was five.
>> So we looked at a lot of comparable counties.
I think I had about ten different counties, or maybe 14
that I pulled.
I don't think there was -- in any of the counties that I
looked at, I don't think, if I added them all up,
there was a majority rules kind of number.
There was kind of a common theme of five.
But I will say, there were some --
I think there was one as low as three.
That may have been Stanley County.
Then there was one that was as high as 20 lots.
That may have been --
I think that was Lincoln County.
But yeah, it was -- there were a number that were 10.
The whole idea of a parent parcel --
a couple of them did have a parent parcel kind of set up.
I wouldn't call it a parent parcel.
I actually called a few folks because I didn't quite
understand exactly what their ordinance was saying.
I wanted to know how they interpreted it.
It was kind of like ours.
They sort of recognized that that was --
I think it's a good idea.
I think they recognized it, too.
Some of them didn't have a reset provision at all.
It was kind of like ours.
It was tied to a certain date.
Some of them did have a reset provision.
They sort of varied.
But it was generational.
The ones I saw were around 20 years.
Some of them didn't have anything.
Some of them didn't tie it to a parent parcel.
So you, theoretically, could come in and do five lots today
and then come in tomorrow and do five lots again.
Those are the ones that I --
I think Brian has probably worked in a community like that.
Actually asked a couple of the planners
if they had ever seen that scenario, and yeah.
But they weren't really --
I looked at a lot of folks that were like us in terms of,
they are on the edge of a pretty large city,
they have got a lot of growth, but I also
looked at some that were relatively rural.
Those were the ones that were relatively rural that
weren't experiencing the growth that we are.
But the common theme -- again, I don't think it was a majority,
but a common theme was five.
>> Mr. County administrator?
` I cannot recall, but did that number change previously?
Was our number something different previously?
>> It was.
Prior to 2014 -- that is when this was adopted --
prior to 2014, ours was -- it was five,
but there was another loophole.
It was five, but if you were essentially just not putting --
let's say you had a really long piece of property along a road.
It was unlimited.
So you could -- and I remember, when we were going through,
rewriting the code, I threw out, well,
if you had one long enough, could you do 100 lots?
You could.
It's a minor subdivision.
As long as there is no water, sewer, new roads,
any infrastructure like that, you
could theoretically have 100 lots,
if you had the road frontage.
I think when we were sort of going through that provision,
we thought, that's not really a good idea.
We thought, that needs to go away.
So the eight was really -- it was an arbitrary number.
It was sort of a compromise, like, we'll take this away,
but we are going to give you three.
That's really kind of where that came from.
>> I have a question for Lee, as well.
I don't often do this, but looking at the definition
of parent parcels and the importance of that in our code
and the way it has been constructed --
it's kind of like the foundation of a lot of things.
And so the idea of changing that --
I guess, I kind of want to do an emotional check in with you,
just to see how you feel about that.
Does that cause you anxiety?
It seems like we are changing the rules of gravity
a little bit here.
>> It did, at first.
I think we have sort of internally talked about it
enough -- we've run through a couple of scenarios just
in discussions.
There are a couple of different places --
it will take some surgery on the ordinance to do it,
because there's a couple of places that reference lot
of record.
I'm throwing out terms that aren't really in the ordinance,
but I call it lot of record.
It talks about that, but we wouldn't necessarily
want to change that particular provision.
So there would have to be some new definitions added
to kind of cover those scenarios,
but I think we have discussed it enough to,
I know and my staff knows where those particular areas
are that would give me some heartburn.
I am fine with changing it.
I think we will --
I think it will probably need to, at some point,
be updated, so now is as good a time as any.
We would definitely take our time
to make sure that we didn't miss something.
>> This is what I look like when I'm doing a trust fall exercise.
I am doing that with you.
>> I mean, the other thing that I want to point out --
Li didn't go down this rabbit hole,
but when you do create a reset, there
is still a lot of work that has to be
done to be able to have that in perpetuity.
We've got to have maps.
We have got to have that information to refer back to.
Right now, that '78 map is a paper map.
We tried to digitize it and scan it and use it,
but that is a lot more work.
Now, with technology, things have
gotten a lot easier, a lot easier to do that kind of work.
But keep in mind, you are taking a map, and you are like, okay,
it exists as it does today 20 years from now.
We didn't have to go through the exercise
of amending that and now identifying, what is parent?
What is not parent?
Not saying you can't do it.
That's something else you have to take into mind, the work we
have to do to be able to refer back to it
and no, that is a parent parcel land.
Before, it was not.
Now it is.
>> Lee, how many more years you got until retirement?
[Laughter]
>> Just for clarity, if we did do a parent parcel reset,
it would be for every property in the county would reset
on that same date, correct?
>> Unincorporated.
>> Yes, sir.
Okay.
>> Help me out here, Lee.
So we talk about subdividing, subdividing again.
Is there an acreage limit for how many times
a lot can be subdivided, in this situation?
>> It would just be based on the zoning and the area.
As long as you can make that minimum zoning requirement,
then we can subdivide it as many times as you want to.
You just might trip over into a major, at some point.
Yeah.
There's no limit.
>> Thank you.
>> You look like you're deep in thought over there.
>> I am deep in thought, but I don't really want to reveal
these thoughts.
[Laughter]
I'll just keep them to myself.
>> My personal opinion is, I don't know that eight lots is
the correct number any longer, especially when --
so when we were talking about five lots --
you said that that's more like the common --
more common around the state, I guess,
is the best way to put it.
My first question is, well, why the heck do we have eight?
Why are we sitting at eight lots if the rest of the state
has five?
I appreciate the explanation.
From what you are saying, this is kind of an arbitrary number.
I don't think that --
in my heart of hearts, I don't think the number is eight.
Now, I am not set on a number, per se.
I don't know that the number is seven.
It might be six.
It might be five.
It might be something else.
But I think that --
I don't think it's eight, personally.
I will welcome comments from the board, but I'm not --
I'm kind of struggling here because, from what
you are saying, I mean, this is kind of all over the map.
You are seeing instances where you
have got a wide range in the threshold number.
I think that we have to be cognizant, as a board,
about residential growth in our county.
It's not something that we can ignore.
But at the same time, there has to be a balance
so that we can protect our long-term families here.
None of us want to hurt the people that
want to raise their kids and see their grandkids grow
on family property.
I think, too, that family element helps, in some ways,
to preserve our agriculture.
And so the last thing that I want to do
is to hurt that family aspect.
I do not agree with the recommendations
that we see from the Land Use Board for every ten years.
I do think it needs to be a higher term, if we explore that.
But what I am sensing from the board now
is that we may need to have some further discussion on this
before we press forward, unless I'm getting the wrong perception
here from the board members.
>> No.
I think you are reading me correctly.
This is a big deal.
This will really impact a lot of property owners in the county.
I want to do it as fairly as possible.
The parent parcel reset sounds great,
but there is bound to be some negative effects, as well.
I want to look at that very carefully.
But I do know --
I do know there are farms out there now that still have
considerable acreage that, if a grandparent wants
to give a grandchild a lot, all of a sudden,
they are into major subdivision category.
I just -- I want to be very responsible and diligent
and continue to move this conversation,
but I do think the conversation may need to go forward a little
bit more before we -- just to be responsible.
>> Yeah.
I think our county manager brought up a great point.
If we are transcribing paper maps,
that could be a tall task for our staff.
Is there a way to maybe get our arms wrapped
around how much this would entail from staff so that we can
kind of make a better decision?
>> So we wouldn't use paper maps.
We would just capture the GIS data the day that that amendment
became effective, but knowing that that may not be --
it's not going to be 100% correct because there could have
been a plot or something filed that day, but that is true now.
We do occasionally have people that come in that will say,
well, this was the parent parcel, and this was 1978.
It's amazing how -- because my memory is not that good.
It's amazing how good people's memory is.
They will say, no, on January 2nd of 1978,
my grandmother split this property.
And they will bring us the deed.
We recognize that because it happened before February 14th.
Those things do happen.
But that's what we would do.
We would capture the GIS data on the day
that it became effective, which is not very difficult.
We've already had this conversation with GIS.
It's not difficult to do.
We could have scenarios that we would
have to work with people on, because maybe there
was something that happened that wasn't mapped yet.
But I don't think that would be a heavy lift.
What you may want to see -- because again,
when you reset this date, a lot that was subdivided five years
ago all of a sudden becomes the parent parcel.
So if you had eight lots that came out of a parent tract,
then now all of those eight lots are now parent parcels
and can be divided.
So I think that's something that --
some information you may want to see.
We could probably provide you with a --
I mean, it would be a snapshot in time
of a number of lots that exist in the unincorporated portion
of the county to give you an idea of what
we are talking about.
>> What's the pleasure of the board with that?
Is that something you would want to see?
We could potentially be talking about the creation
of a lot of lots.
Yeah, if -- I think that may be helpful for us,
to kind of get an idea about, if we were to implement a parent
parcel renewal date, what's the impact?
So if staff can bring us back information regarding
that at a later time, then I think
that that would be appropriate.
Do we need a motion on that?
>> I don't think so.
We could just do it.
>> All right.
So final item here is the idea of the family subdivision.
Some communities have an exemption
in their development regulations for family subdivisions.
And they typically have some requirements
that revolve around sort of these four kind of themes here.
There's usually a lineal descendant requirement,
usually a parent to a child or a grandparent to a grandchild.
Some of them could be vice versa.
It could be going the other direction.
Usually there's a maximum number that you
can do per year or a maximum per lot of record or maximum number
over a certain number of years.
That was kind of -- and honestly,
there weren't that many.
When I looked at comparable counties,
everybody had rules around major and minor subdivisions.
I didn't have any issues finding anything there.
I think, of the ones I looked at, I found four that handled --
that had something to do with family subdivisions.
So that was kind of all over the place.
Most of them have some kind of road frontage
or an easement access requirement.
Most of them were easement access.
You didn't have to have road frontage.
It could be back on a dirt road somewhere.
And then there were some ownership requirements.
It had to be owned by a family member.
And there are some time limits on that ownership.
So common themes seem to be three years.
If I gave my son a piece of property, he had to be my son,
and he had to own it for three years.
I did get into a little bit of --
I called a couple of them just to see, how do you handle these?
How do you regulate that?
And that's difficult. It is difficult to regulate this.
That is a downside.
Most of them, as part of the application process,
had an affidavit.
Somebody just filled out an affidavit
and said, yeah, that's my kid, or that's my grandkid,
and that was it.
We are not going to do a blood test at the county planning
department to prove that's your kid.
And then the number of years you have to own it --
that's just in there for show, to be honest with you.
It's impossible to regulate.
That would be a heavy lift.
If you were proactive about it, that
would mean looking at deeds that came in every day of property
transfers.
You can't do that.
The other way to do it is to wait for the neighbor to call
and say --
and that's going to be a family member that's mad
because somebody got a divorce.
I've seen it happen.
I worked in a community that had these rules.
After that property is transferred --
Jason could probably better answer this question.
Once that property transfers, trying
to undo that through a zoning action, I imagine,
is really hard to do.
Again, the regulatory side of this
is pretty difficult to enforce.
The other thing is --
I think why a lot of communities don't really have this --
it is not specifically mentioned in the North Carolina
subdivision statutes.
Kind of the last thing, sort of on the negative points,
it still creates a lot.
It is still creating a lot.
It's a family, but it is still creating a lot.
There's somebody that's going to build a house on that lot.
There's going to be people living on that lot.
It is still creating a need for services.
You are not getting around that issue ,
from the county standpoint.
But I will get back to the presentation
and what the Land Use Board recommended.
They recommended lineal transfers up and down,
two generations, that being --
I think everybody kind of understands what that means.
They didn't want a maximum number of family subdivision
lots.
They didn't want a cap.
No public road frontage -- each lot would have to have at least
a 20 foot access easement.
Minimum lot size would be based on the underlying zoning
district.
The reason they put that in there --
some of the counties that we saw had,
regardless of zoning district, it had to be one acre.
They said, that's silly.
Whatever the underlying zoning is is fine.
Have it be exempt from all of the requirements
of the major subdivision regulations.
I think if you did this, it would sort of automatically
be exempt because you are treating it as an exemption,
but they wanted that spelled out specifically.
And then a three year ownership requirement.
That was the land use board's recommendation.
>> Questions or comments for Lee?
Commissioner Baucom?
>> Honestly, it just looks like it's going to be very muddy.
It won't be clean.
It'll be hard to enforce, hard to regulate -- first cousin ,
three times removed.
I don't know how you truly manage this.
I'm afraid it may be a management nightmare.
But that's just my thoughts.
Some of the stuff in here sounds great.
I just think the devil is definitely
in the details on this one, is my opinion.
>> I tend to agree with Commissioner Baucom.
On that note, certain Baucoms in the county
I've got a lot of cousins.
Well, that's true, Helms, too.
I look at this, and I think, the county is not
going to have DNA testing, to your point earlier.
It's going to be practically impossible to enforce.
I think, to Commissioner Baucom's point,
a lot of this sounds really good for families,
but this is an enforcement nightmare.
And it could result in a heavy lift for our staff and trying
to enforce -- even though the enforcement is not that much,
but I mean, how do you sit there and say --
I mean, how do you determine that people are related?
I think that this is too much of an ask, at this point.
Any other comments?
>> We will start moving the first one along through that
text amendment process -- through that text amendment
process.
The second one, we will bring back some more research
and information.
I will probably share that with the Land Use Board,
at their meeting.
I believe I'm going to talk to the Agricultural Advisory Board,
as well -- bring it to them and get some feedback from those
boards, as well.
We are still talking about subdivisions
and minor subdivisions.
These are just the first kind of three things
that we came to some semblance of conclusions on.
So there will be future updates that may have
some different items in it.
>> I have no doubt that we are going to be hearing from you
again soon, Lee.
Thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
Okay, so homestretch here.
So Lee, I think, is done for the evening.
But the next item on our agenda is item 26-463,
and that is appointments to boards and committees.
There are currently two boards with vacancies for consideration
this evening.
These vacancies have been advertised in accordance
with the applicable law.
The first, the Workforce Development Board,
has one vacancy for an unexpired term as the higher Education
Representative.
I will now entertain a motion for a nomination
for this position.
>> Chairman Helms, I would like to make a motion that we appoint
Dr. Mary Jordan to the Workforce Development Board.
>> So we have a motion.
Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none all those in favor of the motion, say aye.
Okay.
The second board is the home and Community Block Grant Advisory
Committee, which has one vacancy for an unexpired term
for a community representative position.
I will now entertain a motion for a nomination
for that position.
>> I would like to make a motion that we appoint James Wilde
as the home and communication Care Block Grant advisory
Committee.
>> Thank you Madam Vice Chair.
We have a motion.
Any discussion on that motion?
Seeing none all those in favor, say aye.
All right, at the end of the meeting here, so now -- no,
that was on consent.
Yep, that was on consent.
No problem.
All right so I will now recognize our county manager
for his comments.
>> I have no comments.
Thank you very much.
>> All right.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to say a special thank you to Deputy Frazier and Deputy
Garcia.
The Union County deputies run towards danger every day
without hesitation, and many times we never hear about it.
I'm grateful for them, and I am grateful for the leadership that
allowed them to do their jobs.
>> Thank you.
Commissioner Baucom?
>> Yes.
First of all, Lee being the star of the show,
I want to thank him and his staff for all they have
done for us, and all the staff.
Also, congratulations to the two deputies --
truly heroic action on their part.
And I know --
I'd like to extend a debt of gratitude, a spirit of gratitude
to everybody involved in emergency services.
I have been in situations before where me, not being trained,
and I had to call that 911 number.
There's no better sound in the world than
to hear that siren coming your way.
Just all those folks that help keep us safe --
truly appreciate them.
Mr. Chair, that's all I've got.
>> Thank you.
Vice Chair Helms?
>> I'm going to echo the two commissioners already.
Our two deputies that jumped into action
to save one of our citizens is truly heroic,
and we owe them a debt of gratitude.
I would like to also recognize our IT department for becoming
fourth in the nation.
That's pretty impressive.
Go, IT.
To be a small, large community, to have that distinction,
is quite impressive to do what they do on the budget
that they have.
Thanks to everyone that came out and spoke.
We appreciate you all coming out.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, madam Vice chair.
I, too, want to thank Lee for all of his extra hours
this evening.
Thank you for your efforts there,
not only in dealing with us, with these minor subdivisions
and other land use items that we have got,
but also dealing with the Land Use Board.
You are front and center there, and you
are answering questions and bringing topics,
so I really appreciate your efforts.
I do want to thank our speakers tonight.
It's always good -- well, it's always good for this board
to hear from the public.
I also want to thank everybody that was in attendance tonight,
as well.
I do want to take a few minutes here,
and I want to respond to some of the comments
and the characterizations surrounding the August 4th Board
of Education meeting, specifically regarding
the proposed interlocal agreement.
The first thing I want to say is that I
want to be clear that there has never
been a question about whether teachers
and teachers' assistants deserve a supplement increase,
at least from this board.
They absolutely do.
If we want to hire and retain good teachers,
we need to consistently look at teacher supplements.
In fact, this board has demonstrated that commitment
by putting additional local dollars on the table
specifically for teachers and also teacher
assistant supplement increases.
We did that last year, too.
The disagreement, I think, that we are dealing with
is really about accountability for Union County taxpayer
dollars.
The county asked for something very simple
in this interlocal agreement, and we asked that disagreement
be put in writing.
And the terms were simple.
The terms were that the money needs
to go to the teachers and the TAs,
and it has to be distributed ASAP,
and it can't be used for other items or unfunded mandates
from the state.
The total length of that interlocal agreement was less
than five full pages -- less than five.
Despite what some Board of Education members might say,
the interlocal agreement was not an attack on the school board,
and it wasn't an attempt to control the school system.
It's also not an attempt to control the superintendent,
and it is certainly not a dictatorship.
Yet, during the August 4th meeting,
Board of Education members described the agreement
as manufactured mistrust and even characterized this board
as a dictatorship.
It was also alleged that this board was guilty of corruption.
Think about that -- a dictatorship and corruption,
all because the county asked for a written agreement concerning
millions of taxpayer dollars.
If that's the standard that we are going to use,
then apparently accountability has become tyranny,
and apparently transparency has become an insult.
I don't think the taxpayers of Union County
see it that way, though.
We were asking for accountability
for taxpayer money, and we asked for it in a line item budget,
too.
And that request has been ignored.
How is that corrupt?
I want to be clear about this -- that is our job,
as commissioners.
The county commissioners have a responsibility that cannot be
ignored.
We are stewards of the taxpayers' money,
and when we allocate millions of dollars for a specific purpose,
we have an obligation to the taxpayers who
provided that money to make sure that there
is clarity about where it goes.
When you spend public money, there
is no such thing as private finances.
This board stands united on transparency and clarity
because it matters.
We have heard the term certified staff being thrown around a lot
lately.
We heard at last budget cycle, too.
We also heard that paying our teachers
and that teacher supplement was our number one priority.
Yet the question is, who does certified staff include?
We have asked that question.
But more importantly, who does it exclude?
Are all teachers certified staff?
Are all TAs certified staff?
I think we are going to find that the answer is no,
they aren't.
Unfortunately, we have a very recent example
of why that clarity that I just mentioned matters.
You see, last year the county and UCPS
had a significant disagreement over what was meant by that term
certified staff.
The county, meaning this board, believed
that it was providing an additional supplement
for our classroom teachers.
UCPS interpreted that differently
to include other certified employees,
and our TAs didn't get anything.
And this isn't the only example.
And you can call that or the proposed interlocal agreement
manufactured mistrust all you want, and you can even yell,
they have the money.
But it doesn't change the fundamental question.
Why is it unreasonable to have a written agreement,
when millions of taxpayer dollars are involved?
Is it trust, or is it pride?
A written agreement isn't the opposite of trust.
IT govern -- that is how governments create clarity.
It's how we make sure that everyone understands
what was agreed upon and that we are all on the same page.
It's how we prevent disagreements
later about the money and what it was intended to accomplish.
And they are commonly done, by the way.
Tonight we passed two of them on our consent agenda alone.
The experience last year demonstrated something
very important, and that is, when millions of dollars
are involved, good intentions and verbal assurances
are not enough.
That is why the county asked for that interlocal agreement
this year.
And here's one of the most important parts.
Supporting teachers and demanding accountability
are not mutually exclusive.
We can, and we should do better.
The Board of Education ultimately rejected
the interlocal agreement at their August 4th meeting
and then approved an alternate plan that moved forward with
compensation increases in the way of supplement increases
for our teachers.
And I am glad that our teachers are
going to receive some supplement increases this year,
but it still leaves the question, why couldn't we
have both?
Why?
Why does UCPS look at cutting traffic directors to save,
I don't know, $200,000, and leave millions on the table
for teachers and TAs, if that is truly your number one goal?
If paying teachers is your number one goal,
why couldn't teachers and teacher assistants
receive supplement increases and the County School board,
and most importantly, the taxpayer have
a clear, written agreement regarding taxpayer dollars being
used to fund them?
That's not unreasonable.
That's responsible government.
So if asking for accountability is called manufactured mistrust,
I will respectfully disagree.
If wanting to receive the receipts is called corruption,
I will respectfully disagree.
And if a written agreement is called a dictatorship,
I will respectfully disagree with that, too,
because accountability isn't tyranny.
It is how government that is truly for the people
is operated.
And asking questions about taxpayer money
doesn't mean that you don't support teachers
or our public education system.
We can support our teachers, and we can support our schools,
and we can still be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars,
and we don't have to choose between the two.
Ultimately, this discussion, whether that
is interlocal agreement or anything else,
this isn't about Brian Helms or Chairman.
It certainly isn't about the members
of this board who previously served
on the Board of Education.
These members are assets to our board.
I'm glad to serve with them.
It's not about any individual commissioner or school board
member.
What this is about -- it is about doing the right thing
for Union County as a whole.
And sometimes, doing the right thing isn't easy.
I will leave you with a statement.
I will never apologize for asking government
to be transparent and accountable to the people who
pay the bill.
That concludes my comments tonight.
Again, thank you to all of our staff members.
Thank you to our board.
I appreciate all of your efforts.
With that, I will make a motion to adjourn.
All those in favor of the motion, say aye.