[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.